>> Bret: BREAKING TONIGHT,

ANALYSIS FROM ONE OF THE

PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS.

ATTORNEY JAY SEKULOW IS ON THE

IMPEACHMENT TEAM AND HE JOINS US

FROM CAPITOL HILL.

IT FEELS GOOD TO STAND UP.

>> IT DOES.

>> Bret: TELL ME WHAT YOU

THOUGHT OF TODAY SO FAR.

>> IT'S BEEN AS IT WAS

YESTERDAY, THESE ARE LONG DAYS.

SO FAR THE CONCLUSION TODAY, YOU

HEARD THROUGH THEIR STATEMENTS

AND THEIR PRESENTATION, THIS IS

WHAT SEEMS SO ODD TO ME.

THEY'RE COMPLAINING -- WE HAD A

WHOLE SECTION WHERE THEY WERE

COMPLAINING ABOUT NO OVAL OFFICE

MEETING BECAUSE THE MEETING WAS

AT THE UNITED NATION'S ASSEMBLY.

THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS GOING

ON.

THEY COMPLAINED THAT THE

DELEGATION SENT TO

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURAL

WAS NOT HIGH ENOUGH.

THIS IS NOT IMPEACHABLE.

THESE POLICY DISPUTES ARE NOT

WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND

WHEN IT CAME TO THE SERIOUSNESS

OF AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OR

CONVICTION.

I THINK LOOK, WE BASICALLY ARE

ALREADY INTO WHAT I WOULD CALL

REPEAT CYCLES.

WE ARE HEARING THE SAME THING

EACH TIME.

WE HAVE THEM PUT OUR CASE OUT

YET.

I'M QUITE CONFIDENT OF WHERE

THIS GOES AT THE END OF THE DAY.

WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE

PROCESS.

>> Bret: I WANT TO TAKE YOU

BACKWARDS TOO EARLY THIS MORNING

AND THEN I WANT YOU TO LOOK FOR

IT.

BACKWARDS EARLY THIS MORNING

THERE WAS THIS DUST UP BETWEEN

JERRY NADLER ON THE FLOOR AND

THEN YOU CAME UP AND ADMONISHED

HIM FOR WHAT HE WAS SAYING.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE GOT IN THE

MIDDLE.

WHAT IS YOUR TAKE OF THAT

MOMENT?

>> LOOK, JERRY NADLER ACCUSED

THE UNITED STATES SENATE BEING

LIARS AND HAVE A COVER.

HE ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT THE

PRESIDENT'S LAWYER OF BASICALLY

TRYING TO MAKE IT AS IF HE HAD

DONE SOMETHING THAT WAS

UNETHICAL.

HE WAS REPRESENTING HIS CLIENT.

HE MAKES THE STATEMENT ON THE

FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES

SENATE WHEN HE SAYS, EXECUTIVE

PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE.

THESE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

PRIVILEGES RECOGNIZED BY THE SAM

GREEN COURT.

BY THE WAY, OVERWHELMINGLY

RECOGNIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN

APPLIED IN MULTIPLE

ADMINISTRATIONS.

TO BE THAT CAVALIER ON THE FLOOR

OF THE SENATE, ALBEIT IT WAS

LATE AT NIGHT AND -- EMOTIONS

WERE HIGH.

I APPEARED BEFORE JOHN ROBERTS

BEFORE OF COURSE AND HAVE KNOWN

HIM, HE IS DOING A GREAT JOB AS

THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE

SENATE.

HE BASICALLY SAID, LOWER THE

TEMPERATURE.

WHEN THEY KEY WAS MY CLIENT ON

THE FLOOR OR THE ACUTE SENATORS

OF NOT TO KEEP THEIR OATH AND

NOT BEING TRUTHFUL, WE ARE GOING

TO SAY SOMETHING.

WE WILL HAVE TO RESPOND.

>> Bret: THIS IS SOMETHING YOU

HAVEN'T DONE.

THE HOUSE, THESE COMMITTEE

HEARINGS, THE PRESIDENT'S

LAWYERS WERE NOT THERE.

THE COUNTERARGUMENT WAS NOT

ESSENTIALLY MADE.

THE REPUBLICANS WERE MAKING IT

WITHOUT WITNESSES THERE.

HOW DO YOU STRUCTURE YOUR

ARGUMENT GOING FORWARD IF YOU

CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT?

>> WE ARE RESPONDING TO WHAT

THEY ARE SAYING, BUT WE WILL PUT

ON THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.

NOT ONLY THE PRESIDENT LEGAL

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PERFECTLY

APPROPRIATE.

BUT THAT THE IDEA THAT THIS

REACHES THE LEVEL OF

IMPEACHMENT, LEGALLY SPEAKING IS

RARELY OBSERVED.

WE ARE GOING TO PUT ON A SERIES

OF LAWYERS THAT WILL BE DEALING

WITH THE ISSUES ON THE FACTS IN

GREAT DETAIL.

ON THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION, WE

HAVE TWO LAW PROFESSORS.

ONE FORMER GENERAL OF THE

UNITED STATES.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ OF COURSE,

PROFESSOR FROM HARVARD LAW

SCHOOL.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE

FOUNDATIONS OF WHAT IT MEANS TO

RISE TO THE LEVEL OF WHAT IS

IMPEACHABLE AND WHAT IS NOT.

WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS FACT

PRESENTATION AND WILL RESPOND

WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE NEXT FEW

DAYS.

>> Bret: ZERO TO TEN, WHAT IS

YOUR LEVEL OF CONCERN?

YOU LOOK AT THIS LIST OF G.O.P.

SENATORS POTENTIALLY WHO SUGGEST

THAT WITNESSES MAY FACTOR IN.

SUSAN COLLINS, MITT ROMNEY,

CORY GARDNER.

YOU LOOK AT THAT LIST, ZERO TO

TEN, WHAT IS YOUR LEVEL OF

CONCERN THAT YOU MAY HAVE TO

HAVE WITNESSES?

>> THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVE THE

NEED FOR WITNESSES THAT THEY ARE

PRESENTING ALL THIS INFORMATION.

WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR TWO

DAYS.

I'M NOT GOING TO PREDICT WHAT

THE SENATE DOES.

I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

I KNOW THE FACTS AND I KNOW THE

LAW AND WE HAVE A GREAT TEAM.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WILL GET

TO WITNESSES, BUT THAT WILL BE

THE SENATE'S DECISION.

HERE'S HOW I OPERATE, PREPARE

FOR EVERY CONTINGENCY.

WE ARE PREPARED FOR EVERY

CONTINGENCY.

WE WILL MAKE THE CASE ON WHY

IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE

WITNESSES.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT WHAT THE LAW

REQUIRES AND DEAL WITH WHAT THE

SENATE DECIDES.

OUR JOB AND WE'VE BEEN SAYING

THIS FOR 18 HOURS WAS TO GET

THIS PROCESS STARTED.

IT'S TAKEN 12 HOURS TO GET IT

EVEN STARTED.