AROUND A NONWHISTLE-BLOWER

WHISTLE-BLOWER.

HERE WITH THE REACTION TO THIS

AND ALSO BIG NEWS FROM THE

SECOND CIRCUIT COURT TODAY, WE

HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COUNSEL,

JAY SEKULOW.

ALSO THE CHIEF COUNSEL FOR THAT

CENTER FOR AMERICAN LAW AND

JUSTICE.

SARAH, YOUR OPINION ON THE COURT

RULING?

>> THEY ARE NOW LOOKING AT A

SECOND WHISTLE-BLOWER AND MY

STATEMENT IS, SO WHAT EQUIPMENT

WE RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPT.

IS IT REALLY RELEVANT WHAT SOME

OTHER PERSON WHO MAY OR MAY NOT

HAVE HEARD THE CONVERSATION

THOUGHT ABOUT IT?

THE TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN

RELEASED.

IT IS OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC.

YOU KNOW WHAT?

THEY COULDN'T GET RUSSIA, THEY

COULDN'T GET OBSTRUCTION, THEN

IT WAS A QUID PRO QUO WITH

UKRAINE AND A TRANSCRIPT THAT

SHOWED NO QUID PRO QUO AND IT

WAS A COVER-UP BUT THERE WAS NO

COVER-UP BECAUSE THE TRANSCRIPT

WAS RELEASED AND IT WAS THE

WHISTLE-BLOWER, WHAT DID THE

WHISTLE-BLOWER DO?

NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE FOR MOST

OF IT AND DIDN'T BOTHER TO TELL

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT THE

INDIVIDUAL WAS IN CONVERSATIONS

WITH ADAM SCHIFF BECAUSE OF

COURSE ADAM SCHIFF SAID NOBODY,

NONE OF US HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS

WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WHICH

ENDED UP OF COURSE NOT BEING

TRUE.

NOW WHAT DO WE HAVE?

A SECOND WHISTLE-BLOWER?

THE TRANSCRIPT OUT, IT SPEAKS

FOR ITSELF.

IT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

PERIOD.

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SECOND COURT TODAY RECOGNIZED --

I WANT TO READ -- I LIKE READING

THE EXACT WORDS OF THE ORDER.

THE CASE IS, DONALD J. TRUMP

VERSUS CYRUS VANCE WHO IS THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY

OF NEW YORK.

WE FILED A MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

STAYING THE ENFORCEMENT OF

SUBPOENA THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE

PRESIDENT'S ACCOUNTANTS.

WHAT DO THEY WANT TO PLACE MY

TAX RETURNS.

WHAT THEY WANT IN CALIFORNIA

EQUIPMENT TAX RETURNS.

THAT'S NOT PART OF THE

QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE.

THE HOUSE EXTENDING THEIR

INVESTIGATION THROUGH A LOCAL

D.A.

THE WORDS OF THE SUBPOENA

VERBATIM, THE WORDS OF THE HOUSE

SUBPOENA.

VERBATIM.

THEN WHAT HAPPENS?

WE GO TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT

COURT OF APPEALS AND THE ISSUE

THIS ORDER.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED A TEMPORARY

ADMINISTRATIVE STATE IS GRANTED

PENDING EXPEDITED REVIEW BY A

PANEL OF THE COURT, A SCHEDULING

ORDER WHEEL ISSUE IN THE

ORDINARY COURSE FOR THE COURT

ALSO SAID BECAUSE THE UNIQUE

ISSUES RAISED BY THIS APPEAL,

THOSE UNIQUE ISSUES, SEAN,

REALLY, AT THE HEART OF IT, IS

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE

UNITED STATES.

AND WHETHER I'M WEARING MY HAT

AS A PRESIDENT'S LAWYER OR CHIEF

COUNSEL OF THE AMERICAN CENTER

FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, YOU HAVE TO

PROTECT THE COMPETITION.

THAT DOESN'T PROTECT A

PRESIDENT, THAT PROTECTS ALL OF

US.

>> Sean: JAY, IT'S A

POST-CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA.

THE GREAT ONE MARK LEVIN SAID

IT.

THEY WANT TO STACK THE COURTS,

GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL

COLLEGE, AND FOR THREE YEARS, NO

EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING AND SAME

LIARS, SAME CONSPIRACY

THEORISTS, THE SAME THING WE'VE

HAD FOR THREE YEARS IN THE

COUNTRY.

>> SHONE FROM WHAT THEY HAVE

DONE IS TRY TO WEAPONIZE THE

EXECUTION OF THE CONSTITUTION

FOR THE PRESIDENT IS EXERCISING

HIS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE TWO

MOTHER TRY TO MAKE THAT SOME OF

INAPPROPRIATE ACT.

I THINK THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

GOES NOWHERE.

>> Sean: CALLED THE VOTE.

CALL THE ROLL.

I WANT THEM ALL TO VOTE.

>> THEY AREN'T DOING IT NOW THIS

WEEK OR NEXT.

I DON'T THINK THEY ARE GOING TO

DO IT.

>> Sean: I HOPE THEY DO.

DO IT.

THERE THEM.

DO IT.