House, Democrats wrap up their case against the president. The president's arguments will begin tomorrow, we all march for life on the forty seven anniversary of Roby Way. That sounds like it's two very different stories. Actually, there is a a key connection between the two we will get into all of that. This is v ACT with TED crews. Welcome back, Michael Knows- and I actually should have been more specific. What I meant to say was this is verdict with TED crews, the third biggest podcast on the starts right now, congratulation senator well back at we we're number three on the charts of all pod guests. Number one in news. We are a beating the New York Times. I'm sorry that you say that again, oh did you, maybe perhaps you couldn't. Couldn't hear me, I just wanted to say we're beating the New York Times well that that that is a

wonderful thing: testament all the good people are listening and it sounds like birds, chirping sort of him, we have a lot to get through today and we we of the Democrats. Wrapping up their arguments. We ve got the Trump team is to begin tomorrow and in the fifteen minutes that you got free today, you ended up marching, life out on their national, more all true and its ten, forty five so getting started tonight earlier than we have any day, this weaknesses of dreary early night. So let's not squander the time. How do you think the Democrats did in their closing arguments? Well, I think all hundred senators grateful that that that the twenty four hour marathon is is over, I think, is an interesting decision of of the house managers to to consume practically every minute of those twenty four hours. Listen, Adam ship gave the clothes, and- and there were moments of that were power- I mean he is an effective trial or to talented trial or.

He can be an effective orator. I think we saw throughout the opening arguments, house managers use multi media quite effectively, so there were moments that they drove in with different video clips that that that that worked and if it broke up the kind of long arguments and it did It- did manage to poor people Don't you were an that's something you're seeing by the intro courts. Much more often now, video I mean it's it's its effective. I'll always know how to do that, and we saw that on display. I also think shifted a good job it. A big chunk of his is closing that was trying to pre empt the president's arguments and its because this sure of it house. Managers have twenty four hours in the President s twenty four hours in there's, not a rebuttal. So he knew there get ready to start, and so he went through dozens of people.

Shall arguments and they will also surely make and what tried to give responses to what was he pre Empting? I mean what were the big arguments that he expects from having he went through whether their process arguments whether there have been he went through a whole host, but you actually put your finger on a Your failing, I think he had, which is. He didn't shine a lantern on his biggest problem. So so he keep briefly noted. Well, the house managers by might suggest Joe Biden Corrupt, but there is no evidence of an that's all. He said he setting himself up it's it's the biggest weakness of their entire cases. It is that they had built their case on the proposition. There is zero evidence, none whatsoever of any corruption concerned

Joe Biden concerning his son Hider Honour Biden concerning Borri smother ukrainian natural gas company was paying Hunter Biden, a million bucks a year. That's a strong it because yesterday that the House Democrats, in making their case they kept saying nothing wrong with breeze mothers, nothing wrong with the bite and there's nothing, nothing to see here, folks and because they kept talking about it. If it actually brings that to the forefront, and then today, in your closing arguments, they failed to address and they just dismissed it and it's it's. It's like leading with your jaw that that their setting up to just get get get it knocked knocked crazy, look I'll, say she had some very good moments, but he also tends to get self righteous. Let the monthly another statement of the year and an so he'll be he'll, be making an arguments, its effective, that's real, and then he suddenly starts lecturing you, and I think the moment where that was most acute

Is when he cited the CBS story and said Trump was threatening if any public and voted against and to have the head on a pike, and I have to tell you that pissed republican senators off, I heard probably a half dozen senators surround me like openly, like gas ban and in like Express anger and that's a great argument. If you're talkin to you know a bunch of in a left wing activists at a California rally in shifts basin, but it ain't it argument. If you're trying to get some republican but right, if you're actually trying to persuade the few Republicans who maybe you could persuade not a good way to do it, you bring up the reaction among the republican senators today, heavy you know, wandering around the halls of the Senate heard any gossip from

Emma Craddock side. I mean this is what is the the reaction, if anything at all, to how they're doing what was interesting? One of the democratic senators was talking to a reporter, walking out and and the Rapporteur s what you think of the closing and and the head on the pipeline, and then there are the comment from the democratic senator is look. Every argument has a discordant note or any it. It may not have come across on tv but was almost booed for saying that right I mean republican senators were offended by, but in many ways his audience, for that was not the hut people in the room. It was tv that have to render a verdict. Was tv and I'll? Tell you a very interesting observation, so why did they fill twenty four hours? Why did they repeat the same arguments over and over and over again, because for most of the argument they weren't talking to the senators that will vote on impeachment. They were talking to three

in thirty million americans- and you know one of the fascinating things that several senators noticed. If you look at their mortar of speaking, it follow prime time, depending on where the house manager was from. In other words, they started off with the EAST Coast House, on average they then move to the central. So you looked at the Congress. From Colorado they put em on in prime time in Colorado. It would always close with with the west coasts and they were that they were very deliberately more than a couple of people observed that this? This was at least more than a little bit about about Adam Shift, launching either his governor Canada see or a Senate candidacy, and look this stuff, I'm sure, plays very well in California democratic process. So that to me raises the question: have the House Democrats given up on Actually, persuading the senators I mean or they are they now tuning out the Senate

and just playing this the tv to launch their own political careers. So yes, and no ninety percent plus was launching their political careers was energizing. Their base was speaking to the angry mom. There was a ten percent in closing we're shift was trying to throw up a hail Mary lucky. He knows that that they don't have the votes. He knows if they haven't proven their case, but their hope now, as they want more witnesses because they want to go on a fishing expedition right. An end, so you know, for example, he had some. She pretty moving oratory about moral courage and standing up and how its harder to stand against your party, and he said you risk being called you risk people saying he's a democratic name only or she's republican in name only. I dont think the choice of pronoun was accidental know. You might be referring specifically to some senators well and any

was now. I will confess I was walking out. There is a group, a report and I said to him ass. A bow shifts, call to two to four moral courage to stand up against your party was powerful and I really wonder how many Democrats are going to do that and vote took with oppressor and, of course, the reporters look at your gun and the moral courage is all, ways, Republicans abandoning, of course, their party of core, never Democrats doing now before we we move, on from their arguments, I I do want to be clear. They spent most of the time talking about the first article of impeachment, which was abuse of power and end. We ve talked about that now in the last couple of episodes. The argument that trumped engaged in a quick pro quo, any three withheld the military aid from Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine investigating his political rival, Joe Biden, even though he didn't and

with withholding the aid and they didn't end up investigating Joe Biden. We talked about that on previous episodes. The second article of impeachment is called obstruction of Congress half the reason I voted for the poor is so that he would obstruct Congress and what? What does that even mean? How do you obstruct Congress at look that their basing it on a refusal to to allow witnesses to testify defying subpoenas and refusing to produce documents? And you don't look. I will say where the Democrats were effective in making this case is. Is the Trump administration didn't handover documents from any of the cabinet agencies? In response to subpoenas? I gotta say most of the Republicans it think that was pretty dumb, that that that the administration would have been better off, complying, produce

some documents in response and in preserving the fights for for the things that really mad and part of the obstruction charge that the Democrats wage against the president is that he will allow certain people who worked for him, such as John Bolton, the National security adviser to tee to find the are you saying should should they have testified well and that's where this argument class says in its. Why Democrats or not gonna prevail on because look frontline centre. John boldness is the most notable sample there like. We need John Boltons testimony what we talked about earlier this week and in one of these podcast how how John Bull did something something very clever. He went to a federal district court in DC, any file fatty went before the court. He said. Look. I've got two conflicting demands on me. The house is asking me to testify, and the president is instead

to me not to citing executive privilege any said which one do I comply with John Bolton said: judge I'll, do whatever you tell me right. The House Democrats response was fascinating. They just said never mind. They actually inform the court we're not going to subpoena John Bolton an end. We don't need his testimony. So the fact that John Bolton does not end up testifying in the house, impeachment investigation is on the House Democrats and in fact, boltons lawyer said: if they withdraw the subpoena waste for John Bolt not to testifies, not John Boltons. It's the House Democrat. What why is I mean. Why would the house withdraw their their pull to get him to testify, because I think they were in a hurry they'd. They this whole thing. They just want about forty some odd Riah days. They we're moving rocket fast. You no part of it.

I think there are a number of us. Every week we were speculating there, the other night. Why did they not drag this out and delay at more? I think part of it is that Nancy Pelosi, at least thanks this is a political issue which you know he's not gonna work is, is hurting the Democrats, chances and twenty twenty or so I think she wanted to get this over with now how managers have different interests? I think they are there. Joining the National Adam Adams should have has his eyes on other offices. I you know I will confess I did ask in the republican cloakroom. I said he we all think of us having emotion given rather twenty four hour. He talk just little. Everyone else's number has grown up, so are the arguments are over? I do want to move on to the March for life before we do that, though, if you had to give the democratic right,

they have made their arguments. You have argued many high profile cases. How did they do on presentation and style I'd say and a minus that they actually did that this was a talented group present. Ok on substance, a d, they sounded good and they have little snippets, but but they also we're very selective in terms of what they cited. I expect to see. I expect to see the president's lawyers come back hard. I expect to see the president's lawyers in particular to to make a. Our full case about the evidence of corruption that justified an investigation in debris, smile and whether vice president, Joe Biden, was part of that corruption and the house, man as of now built their whole case on the proposition their zero evidence. That proposition is gonna, be blown out of the wall. So

will you, I guess, we'll see tomorrow? Tomorrow's can be a really big day, because finally, the Trump team gets to make their arguments. I have to tell you, after for all these hours and hours of the Democrat case. I'm glad you me. This recommendation Jabba a nice issues glass of milk ways. It's really fortify. Well, there's nothing like a cool glass of milk There is a strange rule in this that goes around impeachment trials. You are now allowed as a senator, to bring in a cup of coffee or a bottle of whisky or soft drink you are only allowed to drink two things in the Senate during impeachment, while water and milk you, you have availed yourself of this, I notice I have and you look, the Senate is a strange, is it is in many in many respects it is governed by tradition, but the reason you can drink milk all stems back to January twenty. Fourth, nineteen sixty six

so before you and I were born senator senator it works, is on the Senate floor and he he raises a question with the presiding office. He asked he says, is it in violation of the Senate rules? If this Senator from Illinois asked one of the page boys to go to the rest, and bring him a glass of milk. It is in violation of the rules. I will forget it and the presiding officer answered there is nothing in the rules to prohibit the senator from requesting a glass of milk when that exchange happen, that formed a press This is actually a governing president. So when you're, a newly elected senator you get in your desk in the drawer of your desk, you get something called Riddick's precedents and it is printed that Riddick's president stating good going back to January 24th, one thousand nine hundred and sixty six

critics president's just just a clever that this is like the the rules of the it is, but it just rulings from the chair ok become binding precedent because every direction wanted a glass of milk regarding officer said said: yes, now, the tooth. You can drink our water and milk and so the first night of the impeachment tribe we went to two in the morning at midnight. I decided, you know what I'm gonna try this out. So I went to the cloak and I said: hey does anyone here actually had milk and there like? No, no one, no one abroad. Is that, unlike came, we tracked some down and one of the guys cloakroom I'll, find you salmon ran out so at midnight. I just sat there quietly slipping milk and and it was you can have coffee in it. You can't have that doctor peppery can have caffeine, but but you can enjoy glass now. What I want to know, Senator as a taxpayer myself who paid for that glass of milk that you had in the Senate? Well I'll tell you the club,

room actually called our office and said we need to charge the senator from the glad enough we paid for it and then I laughed and said: look glad to hear some fiscally conservative, while policies being implemented and and and now I can't necessarily promised Look if milk is allowed at the end of the day, all you see as to white like with set, so I can promise you that that there aren't senators having White Russia, the Ceta, especially the longer this drags on, and you know what that probably arrived. The conspiracy theorist crazy, particularly postmark beds, drew but you know we ve been coming here in the middle of the night now all week, so is really Nothing to say that we haven't had a couple white Russians on on the very thing drink now, speaking of your health and refreshing, yourself today when you had a little bit of a break, you decided to is that by going outside and actually marching in in the march for life. This is forty seven years after rovers

the march for life has gone on every single year since then, and it is the largest pro life gathering the world and you participated in it. It is something I've done a number of years today, going on right during the impeachment trial. So when the March started, I couldn't participate, but but around three o clock we had a break them that ended up being about a half hour, and so I just went outside and enjoying the martyrs. It's a wonderful chance. I spent a lot of the time they're just thinking people run in in thanking them for coming out usually occur all day when the March happens in it, and it's amazing too, to see people from all over the country coming together, Stana for life, I going to say it: is it it is always wonderful to participate, but it, but it was particularly affirming, in the middle of all the screen It was moving. I was there myself today with it was very moving in it. It actually got me thinking about the relation between roadie weighed and this impeachment trial, because road

Wade is decided in nineteen. Seventy three there that was when the Supreme Court discovered this previously undiscovered constitutional right to abortion, is that the framers of our constitution, secretly and in invisible ink wrote in a right to an abortion. You know a lot more about the constitution than I do. It's a bogus argument right. It was the court created it and ROE Wade, but the effect it had in our country is in one of the most deeply personal emotion

public policy issues and the Supreme Court said you idiot voters don't get to decide that we are deciding it for you, and you have no say look prior to that. Abortion has been a question for the states to consider and people could debated at state state issues Youtube you could get up and and make arguments as to. Why look you and I both believe that life should be protected rights, but as voters we ought to be able to to make those decisions and the Supreme Court said no? Where seizing this, and I think that decision has produced a lot of the bitterness the rank her the division people are. Frustrated on both sides that I'll that they don't have a natural outlet to debate the issues because it all becomes the idle for the court's, because its now nine elected judges, the riot, decide everything, because this was in twenty, sixteen, probably the top issue, especially and by the way I think I said

an elected judges. Let me be very clear: nine on Elect right, unelected does unelected is, is the whole problem. No accountability whatsoever in twenty. Sixteen. The big issue was the judges, who's gonna, replace Justice Scalia, who and you saw in the left and right in and especially for the left. So much of that comes down two Roby wait, I'm in your seat in their campaign materials. Let me make two observations from today, one when I went out to March and in the protest I encountered one and tightrope protest, or a woman who was angry and part of what she was screaming is why aren't you at the trial while we're on a break, just at my glass of milk and I've got a lot of energy it, but when it was a striking contrast, Wanna trump protesters and then then tens of thousands of hundreds of thousands of of approach

asters not protesters but Mark demonstrators standing for life and in the contract, was interesting and enact. She made me think so. A lot of us getting ready for the impeachment trial were anticipating bitter nasty confrontations like we had during Brett Cabin and Brett Cavanaugh. The left had paid protest yelled, whose stalk, who in one of them went to Susan Collins's home, and I mean I was nobody- needs to be reminded because with such a national story, but Right Cavanaugh. Was the second from pick for the Supreme Court's whenever the first one is the second one, but but it underscores just how bitter and divisive it is attained. The capital police were were anticipating that we may see some of the same vigorously on a third being almost violence, rhinos confrontations. On with Cavanaugh I mean you had people getting in your face and scream

meaning and bitter and angry, and it's interesting that even though Trump inspire strong emotions, the impeachment trial has seemed to be a snoozy from that total total eminent. Frankly, that's why I think I really think that's why this podcast is doing so well- is people are not going to watch ten hours a day of impeachment they want. I think they want to come here. You ve done an excellent job, giving us a behind the scenes view. Look that that there were times when it when it felt like like look like list to a reading of bogus poetry, with Furthermore, the handful of hitchhikers guy into the Galaxy geeks who are listening to this you'll get and everyone else is you're right. I rather they don't worry I'll bet it's like over here that I think you're right now. I just wonder if a decision like Rovers Wade had not stolen this very important question from them just like your from the citizens to decide for themselves and taken it into the

arms of nine, unelected lawyers wearing robes. If If maybe we wouldn't even see an impeachment like this. If, if the presidential elections were not sewing readily tents and important well and its much the same, you look at impeachment and the House Democrats argument. Their central argument is weak. Trust the voters to make this decision is that they believe the voters got it wrong and twenty sixteen and a lot of the Democrats were there be candid, their worried. If Trump is on the ballot and twenty twenty he'll, we again and so they're trying to undo a democratic election right and in that that is a persistent problem of politicians, pudding wanting to force an agenda against the wishes of of after their own constituency, people will. Fortunately, the Trump team is gonna, get the chance to Morrow to make their arguments. I very much look forward to that. We're gonna, be

bring it again? Please thank you to everybody who has made this podcast the number three is by in the world. It is really terrific, please, if you can subscribe, leave us a five DA review before we go lightning round on the mail bag from Tom. Will the whistle blower testifying impeachment raw, probably not I think it's more likely than not that next week will vote not to have additional witnesses. So not only will we not get the so called whistleblowers I who started this whole Ukraine. Business really started the whole impeachment, but then we wouldn't get Hunter Biden. We wouldn't go if to order likely outcomes next week. Will on whether or not additional witnesses are needed beyond those of already testified. The house, fifty one senators will decide. I think it

more likely than not fifty one senators of will say. We ve heard enough we're ready to decide. Let's move to judgment and the president gets acquitted. That may not happen all forty seven Democrats will vote for more witnesses were maybe four Republicans join them. If that happens, the second most likely outcome, I think, is fifty one senator say. Yes, we want more witnesses the Democrats call John Bolton where the President calls hundred Biden and I think, and then it's a blood bath, but but but I think that the second most likely outcome as those two additional witnesses, lemon riflemen by an only those two I would say that's the second most likely outcome. The third most likely outcome. Is you end up having several witnesses said that that that- and I do think in this issue thing I've been pitching other Republicans is, is the principle of reciprocity that that we need to be fair when you get both sides a week. We can't be like this

and haven't only on one side, and so I think I feel quite confident. That's where the republican conference is that Consensus right- and I got to say by the way yesterday in the press that we're bunch of stories that said Chuck humor has rejected the deal, a Bolton forbidden and I actually had today spent awhile like laughing with reporters goodwill. That's all fine and good. Of course, Chuck humor doesn't want Hunter by the testify to the Democrats, who try to cover that right, but he doesn't have the votes If they go down the road of John, both my guarantee in the other side right, we're gonna have the vote. Among Republicans, to ensure that both sides are treated fence. So that will come down to four Republicans last question before we head out of here from Marty with very specific punctuation. When is it our turn can't watch these clown?

tomorrow morning. Ten a dot m tomorrow morning, ten, a dot m and you will be right back here in the studio to break it down for sat tomorrow is likely to be relatively short. I think it'll probably go for about ten to one so we'll get about three. Hours of opening arguments from the president's teams will record this tomorrow afternoon and then we'll come back. On Monday, at one p m and we'll get another probably extended stretch of arguments from the president's team, I'm looking forward to the fore chance. The president I way has had to present his defence and end present. Look what I urge them to do is present the substantive evidence of innocence. Don't just just talk about process the whole time right, but a out the facts, because the facts, I think the president. Well, I hope they take some cement of messaging from this pod gas, because I think when you lay out the facts, the case is pretty clear and tomorrow we will see the president's strike back in action a lot of fun. While you know the breeze. My time line that that that we tweeted out yesterday and talked about

yesterday on the show I xerox that and put it in the box of every single Republicans and every one of them has that I sure hope they read it and hope they listen the show- and I hope you will listen to the show we will be back here to morrow- I Michael knows this is verdict with TED Group,