IN.

>> YOU BET.

>> Martha: HERE TO RESPOND

REPUBLICAN JUDICIARY MEMBER

MATT GAETZ FROM FLORIDA WITH

THIS SIDE OF THE EQUATION.

YOUR RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU

JUST HEARD FROM CONGRESSMAN

SWALWELL FIRST OF ALL?

>> I THINK IT WAS A TOUGH

DAY FOR DEMOCRATS IN THE

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THEY THOUGHT BRINGS US INTO

THE FACULTY LOUNGE OF

AMERICA'S LAW SCHOOLS WOULD

SOMEHOW MOTIVATE AMERICANS

TO SUPPORT AN IMPEACHMENT

THAT THEY HAVEN'T TO LARGE

PART OVER THE LAST THREE

WEEKS DEMOCRATS HAVE SEEN

PUBLIC OPINION FOR THEIR

IMPEACHMENT EFFORT DIMINISH.

NOT ENHANCE.

AND I DON'T THINK YOU SAW

ANYTHING TODAY THAT IS GOING

TO HELP THEM IN THAT REGARD.

>> Martha: YOU KNOW, ONE OF

THE THINGS THAT I THINK WAS

KIND OF AN INTERESTING

MOMENT HERE AND IT MAY SEEM,

YOU KNOW, SORT OF, YOU

CALLED IT MEAN AND I'M GOING

TO PLAY YOUR RESPONSE IN A

SECOND, WAS WHEN WE HEARD

FROM PROFESSOR CARLIN

TALKING ABOUT HOW THE

PRESIDENT ISN'T A KING.

AND THEN SHE MADE SORT OF A

INSIDE REMARK ABOUT BARRON

TRUMP, THE PRESIDENT'S SON.

AND YOU CAME BACK AT HER

WITH THIS.

WATCH.

>> WHEN YOU INVOKE THE

PRESIDENT'S SON'S NAME HERE,

WHEN YOU TRY TO MAKE A

LITTLE JOKE OUT OF

REFERENCING BARRON TRUMP,

THAT DOES NOT LEND

CREDIBILITY TO YOUR

ARGUMENT.

IT MAKES YOU LOOK MEAN.

IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU

ARE ATTACKING SOMEONE'S

FAMILY.

THE MINOR CHILD OF THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES.

>> Martha: SHE LATER

APOLOGIZED FOR THAT BUT I

THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, BEYOND

THE OBVIOUS, YOU KNOW,

INSENSITIVITY OF WHAT SHE

SAID, IS THAT IT REVEALED

EMOTION.

AND I THINK IT STARTED TO

UNRAVEL AS WE WENT THROUGH

THE AFTERNOON IN TERMS OF

WHERE THESE PROCESS SOLAR

CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS WERE

COMING FROM.

>> THESE WERE NOT

DISPASSIONATE PEOPLE.

THEY ARE ADVOCATES.

AS I POINTED OUT THE

DEMOCRAT WITNESSES, THE

MAJORITY OF THEM ARE DONORS

TO DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGNS.

THEY HAVE WRITTEN

EXTENSIVELY ABOUT

IMPEACHMENT.

EVEN HAD THE GENTLEMAN FROM

HARVARD WRITING ARTICLES

THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE

IMPEACHED FOR CRITICIZING

CNN, FOR PARDONING SHERIFF

JOE ARPAIO AND FOR SEVERAL

OF HIS TWEETS ABOUT WIRETAP

TAPPING IT.

SEEMS AS THOUGH THERE WOULD

HAVE BEEN NO IMPEACHMENT

THEORY THAT THEY WOULDN'T

HAVE SUPPORTED.

>> Martha: LET'S PLAY THIS

FROM THE HARVARD LAW

PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN ON

THE ABUSE OF POWER, WHICH

WAS REALLY THE THRUST OF

THEIR ARGUMENT TODAY.

WATCH.

THIS HIGH CRIMES AND

MISDEMEANORS ARE ABUSES OF

POWER AND OF PUBLIC TRUST

CONNECTED TO THE OFFICE OF

THE PRESIDENCY.

ON THE BASIS OF THE

TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE

BEFORE THE HOUSE, PRESIDENT

TRUMP HAS COMMITTED

IMPEACHABLE HIGH CRIMES AND

MISDEMEANORS.

BY CORRUPTLY ABUSING THE

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

>> Martha: ALL RIGHT.

SO LOOKING AT IT FROM THE

DEMOCRATS' PERSPECTIVE

INTEREST FOR A MOMENT HERE,

THEY LOOK AT YOUR LINE OF

QUESTIONING AND SAY YEAH, SO

WHY DIDN'T YOU DEFEND THE

PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE OF

ABUSE OF POWER.

YOU SPENT MOST OF YOUR TIME

GOING AFTER THEM AS

PARTISANS AND TRYING TO

UNDERMINE THEIR ARGUMENT

THAT WAY.

BUT YOU DIDN'T TRY TO

DISMANTLE THEIR ARGUMENT

THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED

HIS POWER.

WHY NOT?

>> BECAUSE I ONLY HAD 5

MINUTES, MARTHA.

BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS

LOT OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT

THE PRESIDENT'S REASONABLE

AND WELL-FOUNDED SUSPICION

THAT THERE WAS CORRUPTION IN

THE UKRAINE.

I THINK THE BEST EVIDENCE

PROBABLY CAME FROM GEORGE

KENT WHO SAID THAT BURISMA

WAS SO CORRUPT THAT OUR

EMBASSY HAD TO PULL OUT OF A

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

TO AVOID ANY ASSOCIATION

WITH THEM.

IN FACT, THE OBAMA

ADMINISTRATION WAS SO

CONCERNED ABOUT HUNTER

BIDEN'S ASSOCIATION WITH

BURISMA THAT WHEN THEY WERE

PREPPING AMBASSADORS FOR

SENATE CONFIRMATION, THEY

HAD TO SPEND SPECIAL TIME ON

THEIR.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT

PROFESSOR FELDMAN'S ARGUMENT

WOULD BE MORE CREDIBLE IF HE

WASN'T SO WILLING TO

REFLECTIVELY SUPPORT

IMPEACHMENT IN EVERY CASE OF

LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF

PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

>> Martha: I JUST THOUGHT IT

WAS INTERESTING.

YOU KNOW, I WAS SITTING

THERE WATCHING MOST OF THE

COVERAGE TODAY.

AND I SAW VERY LITTLE IN

TERMS OF AN EFFORT ON THE

PART OF REPUBLICANS TO TRY

TO DISMANTLE THEIR ARGUMENTS

ON SUBSTANCE.

>> I MADE SUBSTANTIVE

ARGUMENTS.

I REFERENCED IN MY FIVE

MINUTES THE TESTIMONY OF

TAYLOR OF HALE OF VINDMAN OF

HILL AND I POINTED OUT WHERE

A LOT OF THE UNDERGIRDING OF

THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS HAD

BEEN AN ABUSE WAS NOT BASED

ON FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.

IT WAS BASED ON PEOPLE'S

PERCEPTION AND BELIEF WHAT

WAS GOING ON AROUND THEM.

NOT WHAT THEY HAD WITNESSED

AND OBSERVED.

>> Martha: AND THE SCHEDULE,

FROM WHAT WE ARE HEARING

FROM ERIC SWALWELL, WE WILL

NEVER HEAR FROM ANYBODY WHO