DIVIDE IN THIS COUNTRY. WITH THE VERY LATEST, HE’S BEEN

WITH THE VERY LATEST, HE’S BEEN A VERY COLORFUL VOICE THROUGHOUT

A VERY COLORFUL VOICE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS

THE ENTIRE PROCESS SENATOR TED CRUZ IS WITH US.

SENATOR TED CRUZ IS WITH US. IT SENATOR, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

IT SENATOR, GOOD TO SEE YOU. I APPLAUD YOUR COLLEAGUES, I’M A

I APPLAUD YOUR COLLEAGUES, I’M A LITTLE BEWILDERED WHILE WE HAVE

LITTLE BEWILDERED WHILE WE HAVE TO WAIT TILL WEDNESDAY AND TO BE

TO WAIT TILL WEDNESDAY AND TO BE HONEST, BUT I GUESS WE ALL KNOW

HONEST, BUT I GUESS WE ALL KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN BY THEN.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN BY THEN. >> WELL, THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT

>> WELL, THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT THE LAST 24 HOURS WERE PIVOTAL

THE LAST 24 HOURS WERE PIVOTAL FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE

FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE PROCESSES IS OVER.

PROCESSES IS OVER. THE VOTE WE HAD TODAY, NOT TO

THE VOTE WE HAD TODAY, NOT TO EXPEND THE TRIAL OR ADDITIONAL

EXPEND THE TRIAL OR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, WE ALREADY HAD 18

WITNESSES, WE ALREADY HAD 18 WITNESSES TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE

WITNESSES TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE AND WE’VE SEEN THOUSANDS OF

AND WE’VE SEEN THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE

PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE

HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE LAWYERS

WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE LAWYERS FOCUSED ON.

FOCUSED ON. AND THROUGHOUT ALL OF IT, THE

AND THROUGHOUT ALL OF IT, THE HOUSE MANAGERS NEVER PROVE THEIR

HOUSE MANAGERS NEVER PROVE THEIR CASE AND SO COME OUT THEIR

CASE AND SO COME OUT THEIR STRATEGY AS YOU KNOW WAS JUST

STRATEGY AS YOU KNOW WAS JUST THE HAIL MARY AND THEY HAVE NOT

THE HAIL MARY AND THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE, THEIR ONLY

PROVEN THEIR CASE, THEIR ONLY HOPE WAS TO BRING ADDITIONAL

HOPE WAS TO BRING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND DRAG IT OUT WEEKS

WITNESSES AND DRAG IT OUT WEEKS OR MONTHS AND GO ON A FISHING

OR MONTHS AND GO ON A FISHING EXPEDITION HOPING THAT SOMEBODY

EXPEDITION HOPING THAT SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE

SAID SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE THEM SOME BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT

THEM SOME BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN IT.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN IT. AND THIS IS A VOTE FOR THE

AND THIS IS A VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICANS RIGHT ON THE EDGE

REPUBLICANS RIGHT ON THE EDGE AND TODAY HOLDING 51 OF THE

AND TODAY HOLDING 51 OF THE MAJORITY TO SAY WE ARE DONE, WE

MAJORITY TO SAY WE ARE DONE, WE HAD ENOUGH AND THIS IS OVER AND

HAD ENOUGH AND THIS IS OVER AND THAT MEANS WERE HEADED STRAIGHT

THAT MEANS WERE HEADED STRAIGHT TO WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON THE VOTE

TO WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON THE VOTE ON THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND THE

ON THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE

PRESIDENT IS GOING TO BE ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES AND HE

ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES AND HE SHOULD BE.

SHOULD BE. >> Tucker:>> Sean: NOW I KNOW TH

>> Tucker:>> Sean: NOW I KNOW TH THE CONGENITAL LIAR,

THE CONGENITAL LIAR, JERRY NADLER, HE KEPT REPEATING,

JERRY NADLER, HE KEPT REPEATING, WE HAVE SO PROVEN OUR CASE

WE HAVE SO PROVEN OUR CASE BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. IF I WANT TO STICK TO THE

IF I WANT TO STICK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS AND

CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID THAT

PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID THAT YOU ARE ONE OF HIS BEST STUDENTS

YOU ARE ONE OF HIS BEST STUDENTS AND HE’S GOING TO JOIN US ON

AND HE’S GOING TO JOIN US ON SITE AND A LITTLE BIT.

SITE AND A LITTLE BIT. BUT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

BUT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN HERE.

CONCERN HERE. AT THE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH

AT THE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH THAT LIES WITH THE HOUSE, AND

THAT LIES WITH THE HOUSE, AND THE TRIAL LIES WITH THE SENATE.

THE TRIAL LIES WITH THE SENATE. I CAN’T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT

I CAN’T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT IF THEY TOTALLY COMPLETELY PROVE

IF THEY TOTALLY COMPLETELY PROVE THEIR CASE WENT BEYOND ANY

THEIR CASE WENT BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT AND IT’S A CASE

REASONABLE DOUBT AND IT’S A CASE THAT’S A SLAM-DUNK CASE AND WHY

THAT’S A SLAM-DUNK CASE AND WHY WERE THEY TRYING TO GET YOUR

WERE THEY TRYING TO GET YOUR BUDDIES, THE UNITED STATES

BUDDIES, THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO TAKE ON THE

SENATE TO TAKE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE HOUSE

CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE HOUSE WHEN THEY RUSHED IT THROUGH SO

WHEN THEY RUSHED IT THROUGH SO URGENTLY SO THAT THEY COULD GO

URGENTLY SO THAT THEY COULD GO ON VACATION AND THEN HOLD IT

ON VACATION AND THEN HOLD IT BACK FROM THE SENATE FOR SO LONG

BACK FROM THE SENATE FOR SO LONG LONG?

LONG? >> WELL, LOOK, I WILL RETURN THE

>> WELL, LOOK, I WILL RETURN THE COMPLIMENT FROM ALAN DERSHOWITZ,

COMPLIMENT FROM ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HE WAS MY PROFESSOR AND LAW

HE WAS MY PROFESSOR AND LAW SCHOOL AND DEFINABLE AND MY

SCHOOL AND DEFINABLE AND MY PROFESSOR IN CRIMINAL LAW 101,

PROFESSOR IN CRIMINAL LAW 101, THE FIRST WEEK OF LAW SCHOOL WAS

THE FIRST WEEK OF LAW SCHOOL WAS AN AMAZING TEACHER AND I THINK

AN AMAZING TEACHER AND I THINK HIS PRESENTATION OF THE SENATE

HIS PRESENTATION OF THE SENATE WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPACTFUL

WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPACTFUL PRESENTATIONS OF THE ENTIRE

PRESENTATIONS OF THE ENTIRE TRIAL.

TRIAL. IN PARTICULAR HE WALKED THROUGH

IN PARTICULAR HE WALKED THROUGH THE HISTORY OF WHAT THE

THE HISTORY OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND IT’S

CONSTITUTION REQUIRES AND IT’S NOT JUST A VOTE ON WHETHER YOU

NOT JUST A VOTE ON WHETHER YOU LIKE THE PRESIDENT OR NOT OR IF

LIKE THE PRESIDENT OR NOT OR IF YOU AGREE WITH THE PRESENT OR

YOU AGREE WITH THE PRESENT OR NOT AND YOUR POLITICS ARE THE

NOT AND YOUR POLITICS ARE THE SAME.

SAME. THIS IS A VOTE ON WHETHER THE

THIS IS A VOTE ON WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD IS MET

CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD IS MET IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS FOR

IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS FOR IMPEACHMENT THAT THE ONLY

IMPEACHMENT THAT THE ONLY GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT ARE

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT ARE TREASON, BRIBERY, OR OTHER HIGH

TREASON, BRIBERY, OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND WHAT

CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WALKED

PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WALKED THROUGH VERY EFFECTIVELY AND

THROUGH VERY EFFECTIVELY AND ACTUALLY BEFORE HIM WHAT KEN

ACTUALLY BEFORE HIM WHAT KEN STARR WALK-THROUGH VERY

STARR WALK-THROUGH VERY EFFECTIVELY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL

EFFECTIVELY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD REQUIRES A GRAVE

THRESHOLD REQUIRES A GRAVE SERIOUS CRIME OF THE LEVEL OF

SERIOUS CRIME OF THE LEVEL OF TREASON OR BRIBERY.

TREASON OR BRIBERY. HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TRY TO

HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT TRY TO ALLEGE A CRIME AND THEY

ALLEGE A CRIME AND THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT PROVE ONE AND

CERTAINLY DID NOT PROVE ONE AND THAT IS WHY AS A MATTER OF LAW.

THAT IS WHY AS A MATTER OF LAW. BY THE WAY, WE DID THIS WHOLE

BY THE WAY, WE DID THIS WHOLE DIGRESSION ON QUID PRO QUO AND

DIGRESSION ON QUID PRO QUO AND ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT

ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHETHER

ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHETHER THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, IF

THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, IF THERE WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO,

THERE WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO, AND THE MATTER OF LAW DID NOT

AND THE MATTER OF LAW DID NOT MATTER.

MATTER. IT WAS A SAD DIVERSION AND

IT WAS A SAD DIVERSION AND THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WE

THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WE CLARIFY DURING THE QUESTIONING

CLARIFY DURING THE QUESTIONING PERIOD.

PERIOD. I THINK IT WAS FAIRLY CRITICAL

I THINK IT WAS FAIRLY CRITICAL TO GETTING THE FOUR VOTES TO END

TO GETTING THE FOUR VOTES TO END AND NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL

AND NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND WE ASKED

WITNESSES AND WE ASKED LINDSEY GRAHAM TOGETHER AND I

LINDSEY GRAHAM TOGETHER AND I RODE THE QUESTION ASKING EVEN IF

RODE THE QUESTION ASKING EVEN IF YOU ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF

YOU ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, THAT THERE WAS A

ARGUMENT, THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, DOES NOT CHANGE

QUID PRO QUO, DOES NOT CHANGE THE LEGAL ANALYSIS IN THIS THIS

THE LEGAL ANALYSIS IN THIS THIS A HIGH CRIME OR DENSE DEMEANOR

A HIGH CRIME OR DENSE DEMEANOR AND THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS

AND THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS ANSWERED EXACTLY RIGHT AND IF IT

ANSWERED EXACTLY RIGHT AND IF IT WERE A QUID PRO QUO, IF THE DISP

WERE A QUID PRO QUO, IF THE DISP IT DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE THE

IT DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO

PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION AND THERE

INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION AND THERE WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT

WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL CORRUPTION

EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL CORRUPTION WITH MARIE’S MOM AND THEREBY

WITH MARIE’S MOM AND THEREBY THAT’S WHERE

PRESIDENT TO ASK.

PRESIDENT TO ASK. >> Sean: WE KNOW FROM THE

>> Sean: WE KNOW FROM THE UKRAINIAN COURT AND POLITICO, ON

UKRAINIAN COURT AND POLITICO, ON ELECTION AND INTERFERENCE AND

ELECTION AND INTERFERENCE AND LAST QUESTION, SENATOR, DID YOU

LAST QUESTION, SENATOR, DID YOU GET AN A AND PROFESSOR

GET AN A AND PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ’S CLASS?

DERSHOWITZ’S CLASS? >> YOU KNOW, IT’S AN INTERESTING

>> YOU KNOW, IT’S AN INTERESTING STORY, FIRST-CLASS, CRIMINAL

STORY, FIRST-CLASS, CRIMINAL LAW, I DID AND I GOT A B+ IN HIS

LAW, I DID AND I GOT A B+ IN HIS FIRST CLASS, I TOOK A SECOND

FIRST CLASS, I TOOK A SECOND CLASS CALLED "THINKING ABOUT

CLASS CALLED "THINKING ABOUT THINKING" THAT WAS WITH STEPHEN,

THINKING" THAT WAS WITH STEPHEN, WORLD FAMOUS PHILOSOPHER AND I

WORLD FAMOUS PHILOSOPHER AND I GOT AN A+ IN THAT ONE.

GOT AN A+ IN THAT ONE. YOU CAN AVERAGE OF THOSE TWO

YOU CAN AVERAGE OF THOSE TWO OUT.

OUT. >> Sean: WOW.

>> Sean: WOW. IT THEN AVERAGES TO A B+, A+,

IT THEN AVERAGES TO A B+, A+, SENATOR, YOU DID GREAT WORK AND

SENATOR, YOU DID