>> Sandra: MIKE EMANUEL,

THANKS.

>> Bill: LET'S BRING IN

SENATOR TED CRUZ.

WELCOME BACK TO

"AMERICA'S NEWSROOM,"

GOOD MORNING TO YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING, BILL.

GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

>> Bill: WOULD YOU VOTE IN

FAVOR OF DISMISSAL?

>> I THINK THE SENATE HAS

DECIDED RATHER THAN STARTING

WITH DISMISSAL WILL BE ARE GOING

TO DO IS ALLOW BOTH SIDES TO

PRESENT THEIR CASE.

SO THE ORDER OF PROCEEDING IS

GOING TO BE THE EXACT SAME WAY

THE SENATE PROCEEDED WITH THIS

CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT WILL START

WITH OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM THE

HOUSE MANAGERS, THEY WILL GET A

FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO

PRESENT THEIR CASE, THEN IT'LL

MOVE TO OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM

THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE TEAM.

UNLIKE HOW HOUSE DEMOCRATS DID

IT, WE WILL GIVE THE PRESIDENT A

FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO

PRESENT HIS CASE TO DEFEND

HIMSELF.

WE WILL THEN MOVE TO THE

QUESTIONS FROM SENATORS.

THE WAY THAT WILL WORK, THEY

WON'T BE ORDERLY.

INSTEAD, SENATORS HAVE TO WRITE

DOWN OUR QUESTIONS.

WE SUBMIT OUR QUESTIONS IN

WRITING AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE

WILL ASK THE QUESTIONS FOR US.

AT THAT POINT THEN, THE DEBATES

WILL HAPPEN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT

TO DISMISS THE CASE OR TO VOTE A

FINAL VERDICT THEN OR TO TAKE UP

WITNESSES.

I EXPECT A CONTENTIOUS DEBATE

DECISION, PROBABLY ABOUT TWO

WEEKS FROM NOW.

>> Bill: YOU WAITED OUT VERY

WELL, THEN.

ONCE YOU GET TO THAT POINT,

WOULD YOU VOTE FOR DISMISSAL?

>> I THINK AT THE END OF THIS

PROCESS, THESE ARTICLES OF

IMPEACHMENT ARE GOING TO BE

THROWN OUT.

I THINK EVIL AND NOT WITH A

DISMISSAL BUT WITH A VERDICT OF

NOT

GUILTY.

THE WAY IT WORKS IN THE SENATE,

YOU VOTE ON EACH ARTICLE AND

EACH SENATOR WILL VOTE EITHER

GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY.

THE REASON WHY THIS ENDS WITH AN

ACQUITTAL IS VERY SIMPLE.

THEY HAVEN'T MET THE

CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD.

THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFIES, FOR

IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT, THAT

YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE BRIBERY,

TREASON, OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES

AND MISDEMEANORS.

THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT.

IN FACT, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME

IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY

THAT ANY PRESIDENT HAS BEEN

IMPEACHED WITHOUT EVEN SO MUCH

AS AN ALLEGATION OF CRIMINAL

CONDUCT.

THEY HAVE NOT ALLEGED IN THESE

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT THE

PRESIDENT VIOLATED ANY CRIMINAL

LAW.

THEY HAVEN'T ALLEGED HE VIOLATED

A CIVIL LAW.

THEY HAVEN'T EVEN ALLEGED THE

PRESIDENT HAS A SPEEDING TICKET.

FOR THAT REASON, THIS DOESN'T

MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD

OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

SO THE END OF THIS PROCESS WILL

BE AN ACQUITTAL AND I THINK

THAT'S PROBABLY IN ABOUT A

COUPLE OF WEEKS.

>> Bill: YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING

THE QUESTION YET ON DISMISSAL.

PERHAPS YOU DO

OVERTIME

WOULD YOU FIGURE WITNESSES IN A

SENATE TRIAL AFTER TODAY?

YES OR NO?

>> BILL, LET ME MAKE SURE OF

ANSWERING THE QUESTION ON

DISMISSAL.

I THINK THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE

WILL NOT BE DISMISSAL.

IT WILL BE AN ACQUITTAL.

THOSE ARE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES.

DISMISSAL THREE WAS THE CASE OUT

WITHOUT REACHING A VERDICT.

WE ARE GOING TO REACH A VERDICT,

AND THE VERDICT IS GOING TO BE

ACQUITTAL.

IT'S GOING TO BE NOT GUILTY

BECAUSE ON THE FACE OF IT THE

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DON'T

MEET THIS CONSTITUTIONAL

STANDARD.

THAT IS A MUCH BETTER OUTCOME

FOR THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE

ACQUITTED OF THESE CHARGES THAN

SIMPLY A DISMISSAL.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE ANSWER

THAT QUESTION.

>> Bill: ON WITNESSES, DO YOU

FAVOR CALLING THEM?

YES OR NO?

>> THAT'S GOING TO BE, AS I

SAID, A HOTLY DEBATED QUESTION

WITHIN THE SENATE.

WHETHER WITNESSES GET CALLED

PENS ON THE 51 SENATORS, WHETHER

THEY WANT WITNESSES TO BE

CALLED.

MY VIEW IS, IF WE CALL

WITNESSES, HE NEEDS TO BE FAIR,

IT NEEDS TO BE EVENHANDED

, IT NEEDS TO RESPECT DUE

PROCESS.

THAT MEANS IF THE PROSECUTION

GET SCULLY WITNESS, THE DEFENSE

SHOULD COME AS WELL.

IF THE PROSECUTION GETS TO CALL

JOHN BOLTON, THE PRESIDENT

SHOULD BE ABLE TO CALL

HUNTER BIDEN.

IT OUGHT TO BE FAIR AND EVEN AND

RESPECT DUE PROCESS.

THAT'S THE WAY ANY FAIR

PROCEEDING SHOULD BE CONDUCTED.

THE HOUSE DIDN'T DO THAT.

THEY DIDN'T LET THE MINORITY

CALL WITNESSES.

THEY DIDN'T LET THE WHITE HOUSE

CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.

AND SAID THEY HAD A PARTISAN

ONE-SIDED SHOW TRIAL.

THE SENATE WILL DO MUCH BETTER.

WHETHER THEY

WILL BE WITNESSES OR NOT I THINK

WILL BE A CLOSE

CALL IN THE SENATE AND WE HAVE

SOME OF THE VOTES ARE.

>> Bill: TWO MORE MINUTES, TWO

MORE QUESTIONS.

SOME OF HER COLLEAGUES --

LISA MURKOWSKI FROM ALASKA,

SUSAN COLLINS FROM MAINE, MET

ROMNEY OUT OF UTAH, ALL

REPUBLICANS -- CONVERSELY,

DOUG JONES OUT OF ALABAMA,

JOE MANCHIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE ON

THIS ISSUE TODAY?

>> YOU KNOW, I DON'T.

I THINK YOU'VE IDENTIFIED

SENATORS WHO COULD POSSIBLY VOTE

AGAINST THE PARTY.

THOSE ARE PROBABLY THE FIVE MOST

LIKELY TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WILL HAVE TO SEE HOW THINGS

PLAY OUT AND WHERE THEY DECIDE

TO VOTE.

>> Bill: OKAY.

YOU HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY AND

AGAIN A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU WILL

GIVE THIS PRESIDENT A CHANCE TO

DEFEND HIMSELF.

IN WHAT FORM OR SHAPE DOES THAT

OCCUR IN THE SENATE?

>> THE PRESIDENT HAS A LEGAL

TAME.

IT IS LED BY THE WHITE HOUSE

COUNSEL, PAT CIPOLLONE.

PAT AND HIS TEAM OF LAWYERS WILL

BE THERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE

SENATE.

THEY WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT

OPENING ARGUMENTS, THEY WILL BE

ABLE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, THEY

WILL BE ABLE TO CALL WITNESSES

IF THEY CHOOSE.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS --

THERE'S ALL THIS DISCUSSION

ABOUT WITNESSES.

ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS TO

REMEMBER, IT'S NOT THE SENATE

THAT CHOOSES TO CALL WITNESSES.

IT IS THE PROSECUTION OR THE

DEFENSE, TYPICALLY, THAT SAYS,

DEFENSE, TYPICALLY, THAT SAYS --

PAT CIPOLLONE STEPPED UP AND

SAYS, "WE CALL HUNTER BIDEN TO

THE WITNESS STAND."

AT THAT POINT THE SENATE

DECIDES, WILL WE ALLOW YOU TO DO

THAT?

BUT IT'S THE INITIAL DECISION OF

THE LAWYERS PROSECUTING AND

DEFENDING THE CASE.

IT'LL BE BE THE WHITE HOUSE

DEFENSE TEAM IN CONSULTATION

WITH THE PRESIDENT MAKING THOSE

DECISIONS.

>> Bill: I'M OUT OF TIME, JUST

THAT ONE MORE HERE.

BILL CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT

LASTED 37 DAYS.

DO YOU SEE THAT HAPPENING NOW,

57 DAYS?

MORE OR LESS?

>> I THINK IT CERTAINLY COULD.

IF WE GO DOWN THE ROPE

WITNESSES.

I THINK THIS CHILD COULD BE

BETWEEN TWO WEEKS AND SIX WEEKS.

THE BIG DETERMINATION ON THAT,

IF WE GO DOWN THE ROW OF

WITNESSES, HE COULD TAKE FIVE OR

SIX WEEKS.