>>> WELCOME BACK TO "HARDBALL." AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR AND

AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT PAINTED A

STATE GEORGE KENT PAINTED A SOBERING PORTRAIT OF A PRESIDENT

SOBERING PORTRAIT OF A PRESIDENT USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO

USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL

ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA BY WITHHOLDING MILITARY

AGENDA BY WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID FROM A FOREIGN POWER.

AID FROM A FOREIGN POWER. FACED WITH THAT EVIDENCE,

FACED WITH THAT EVIDENCE, REPUBLICANS LOOKED THE OTHER

REPUBLICANS LOOKED THE OTHER WAY, OPTING INSIDE STOOPRESSINST

WAY, OPTING INSIDE STOOPRESSINST PRESS AN ALTERNATIVE REALITY.

PRESS AN ALTERNATIVE REALITY. >> THE WHOLE POINT YOU HAD A

>> THE WHOLE POINT YOU HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AID WILL NOT

CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AID WILL NOT GET RELEASED UNLESS THERE’S A

GET RELEASED UNLESS THERE’S A COMMITMENT, NOT MAYBE, NOT I

COMMITMENT, NOT MAYBE, NOT I THINK THE AID MIGHT HAPPEN AND

THINK THE AID MIGHT HAPPEN AND IT’S MY HUNCH IT WILL GET

IT’S MY HUNCH IT WILL GET RELEASED.

RELEASED. YOU USED CLEAR LANGUAGE, AND

YOU USED CLEAR LANGUAGE, AND THOSE TWO THINGS DIDN’T HAPPEN

THOSE TWO THINGS DIDN’T HAPPEN SO YOU HAD TO BE WRONG.

SO YOU HAD TO BE WRONG. >> NO PRESSURE, NO DEMANDS, NO

>> NO PRESSURE, NO DEMANDS, NO CONDITIONS, NOTHING CORRUPT.

CONDITIONS, NOTHING CORRUPT. >> SO NOT ONLY NO CONVERSATION

>> SO NOT ONLY NO CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ABOUT UKRAINE.

STATES ABOUT UKRAINE. YOU’VE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH

YOU’VE NOT HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

STATES. >> FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS

>> FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS VIEWING TODAY THE TWO MOST

VIEWING TODAY THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT FACTS ARE THE

IMPORTANT FACTS ARE THE FOLLOWING.

FOLLOWING. NUMBER ONE, UKRAINE RECEIVED THE

NUMBER ONE, UKRAINE RECEIVED THE AID.

AID. NUMBER TWO, THERE WAS IN FACT NO

NUMBER TWO, THERE WAS IN FACT NO INVESTIGATION INTO --

INVESTIGATION INTO -- >> WELL, TODAY SPEAKING TO

>> WELL, TODAY SPEAKING TO REPORTERS HOW SPEAKER NANCY

REPORTERS HOW SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI RESPONDED TO REPUBLICAN

PELOSI RESPONDED TO REPUBLICAN CRITICISM BY INVITING PRESIDENT

CRITICISM BY INVITING PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PARTICIPATE, HIM, GET

TRUMP TO PARTICIPATE, HIM, GET IN THE CONVERSATION ON THE

IN THE CONVERSATION ON THE INQUIRY.

INQUIRY. >> IF THE PRESIDENT HAS

>> IF THE PRESIDENT HAS SOMETHING THAT IS EXCULPATORY,

SOMETHING THAT IS EXCULPATORY, MR. PRESIDENT, IF YOU HAVE

MR. PRESIDENT, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS YOUR

ANYTHING THAT SHOWS YOUR INNOCENCE, THEN HE SHOULD MAKE

INNOCENCE, THEN HE SHOULD MAKE THAT KNOWN.

THAT KNOWN. AND THAT’S PART OF THE INQUIRY.

AND THAT’S PART OF THE INQUIRY. AND SO FAR WE HAVEN’T SEEN THAT,

AND SO FAR WE HAVEN’T SEEN THAT, BUT WE WELCOME IT.

BUT WE WELCOME IT. >> HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER KEVIN

>> HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER KEVIN McCARTHY TOLD REPORTERS HE

McCARTHY TOLD REPORTERS HE WOULDN’T SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT

WOULDN’T SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT EVEN IF NEW EVIDENCE CONFIRMS

EVEN IF NEW EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED

THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED INVESTIGATIONS INTO FORMER VICE

INVESTIGATIONS INTO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. FOR MORE I’M JOINED BY LAWRENCE

FOR MORE I’M JOINED BY LAWRENCE TRIBE.

TRIBE. PROFESSOR TRIBE, WHAT DO YOU

PROFESSOR TRIBE, WHAT DO YOU MAKE -- TO START WITH, WHAT DO

MAKE -- TO START WITH, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE REPUBLICAN -- I

YOU MAKE OF THE REPUBLICAN -- I WOULDN’T CALL IT A DEFENSE.

WOULDN’T CALL IT A DEFENSE. ALTERNATE NARRATIVE YESTERDAY?

ALTERNATE NARRATIVE YESTERDAY? >> I THINK IT’S RIDICULOUS.

>> I THINK IT’S RIDICULOUS. THE FACT IF YOU SOLICIT A BRIBE

THE FACT IF YOU SOLICIT A BRIBE AND ARE CAUGHT RED-HANDENED

AND ARE CAUGHT RED-HANDENED BEFORE YOU GET THE BRIBE, YOU’VE

BEFORE YOU GET THE BRIBE, YOU’VE STILL COMMITTED BRIBERY.

STILL COMMITTED BRIBERY. AND IN THIS CASE IT WAS

AND IN THIS CASE IT WAS EXTORTION AS WELL AS BRIBERY.

EXTORTION AS WELL AS BRIBERY. IT WAS A CLEAR ABUSE OF POWER.

IT WAS A CLEAR ABUSE OF POWER. AND IN ANY CASE THE HISTORY OF

AND IN ANY CASE THE HISTORY OF THE FRAMING OF THE IMPEACHMENT

THE FRAMING OF THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS THAT GEORGE MASON, ONE

POWER IS THAT GEORGE MASON, ONE OF THE FRAMERS, WANTED TO

OF THE FRAMERS, WANTED TO INCLUDE IN ADDITION TO TREASON

INCLUDE IN ADDITION TO TREASON AND BRIBERY, A TERM LIKE

AND BRIBERY, A TERM LIKE CORRUPTION.

CORRUPTION. AND IN THE END INSTEAD OF

AND IN THE END INSTEAD OF CORRUPTION, THEY USED OTHER HIGH

CORRUPTION, THEY USED OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND

CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND MASON SAID THAT WAS INTENDED TO

MASON SAID THAT WAS INTENDED TO CAPTURE AMONG OTHER THINGS

CAPTURE AMONG OTHER THINGS ATTEMPTED SUBVERSION OF THE

ATTEMPTED SUBVERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

CONSTITUTION. SO HERE WE HAVE ACTUAL AS WELL

SO HERE WE HAVE ACTUAL AS WELL AS ATTEMPTED SUBVERSION FOR OVER

AS ATTEMPTED SUBVERSION FOR OVER 70 DAYS THE AID WAS WITHHELD.

70 DAYS THE AID WAS WITHHELD. AND IF NOT FOR THE

AND IF NOT FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, IF NOT FOR

WHISTLE-BLOWER, IF NOT FOR HAVING BEEN CAUGHT RED-HANDED,

HAVING BEEN CAUGHT RED-HANDED, THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN

THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN WHAT HE WANTED.

WHAT HE WANTED. HE WOULD HAVE WANTED A PUBLIC

HE WOULD HAVE WANTED A PUBLIC TELEVISION APPEARANCE BY

TELEVISION APPEARANCE BY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SMEARING

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SMEARING BIDEN AND SAYING THAT WE’RE

BIDEN AND SAYING THAT WE’RE INVESTIGATING HIM.

INVESTIGATING HIM. THE ONLY REASON THEY DIDN’T GET

THE ONLY REASON THEY DIDN’T GET THAT IS THAT HE WAS CAUGHT.

THAT IS THAT HE WAS CAUGHT. AND FOR HIM TO SAY THAT I WAS

AND FOR HIM TO SAY THAT I WAS CAUGHT AND SO IT DOESN’T MATTER

CAUGHT AND SO IT DOESN’T MATTER IS REALLY A DESPERATE AND

IS REALLY A DESPERATE AND UNCONVINCING MOVE.

UNCONVINCING MOVE. THE QUESTION IS WILL THE PEOPLE

THE QUESTION IS WILL THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY ACCEPT IT?

OF THIS COUNTRY ACCEPT IT? WILL THEY ACCEPT THAT IT’S OKAY

WILL THEY ACCEPT THAT IT’S OKAY TO USE YOUR OFFICIAL POWER TO

TO USE YOUR OFFICIAL POWER TO HURT AN ALLY AND HELP AN

HURT AN ALLY AND HELP AN ADVERSARY JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE

ADVERSARY JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE CAUGHT BEFORE YOU HURT THE

CAUGHT BEFORE YOU HURT THE ADVERSARY ANY LONGER.

ADVERSARY ANY LONGER. AND I DON’T THINK THE AMERICAN

AND I DON’T THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BUY THAT.

PEOPLE WILL BUY THAT. BUT THEN MAYBE I’M JUST TOO

BUT THEN MAYBE I’M JUST TOO OPTIMISTIC.

OPTIMISTIC. >> WHILE TRUMP DOESN’T HAVE A

>> WHILE TRUMP DOESN’T HAVE A VERY GOOD HISTORIC SENSE ABOUT

VERY GOOD HISTORIC SENSE ABOUT OUR CULTURE OR ANYTHING, I WAS

OUR CULTURE OR ANYTHING, I WAS WONDERING I’M TRYING TO BE

WONDERING I’M TRYING TO BE REALLY FINE HERE IN

REALLY FINE HERE IN UNDERSTANDING THIS BECAUSE I

UNDERSTANDING THIS BECAUSE I GREW UP LBJ, AND HE USED THE

GREW UP LBJ, AND HE USED THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY, CLOSE

POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY, CLOSE CERTAIN NAVAL BASES AND KEEP

CERTAIN NAVAL BASES AND KEEP OTHERS OPEN DEPENDING ON WHO HE

OTHERS OPEN DEPENDING ON WHO HE LIKED THAT WEEK.

LIKED THAT WEEK. TELL US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

TELL US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND WHAT TRUMP IS DOING, OR

THAT AND WHAT TRUMP IS DOING, OR WHAT HE’S DONE HERE WITH

WHAT HE’S DONE HERE WITH UKRAINE?

UKRAINE? >> IT’S VERY DIFFERENT.

>> IT’S VERY DIFFERENT. FIRST OF ALL IT’S NATIONAL

FIRST OF ALL IT’S NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND SECONDLY THIS IS A CASE

AND SECONDLY THIS IS A CASE WHERE CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY SAID

WHERE CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THIS $400 MILLION AND THE

THAT THIS $400 MILLION AND THE JAVELIN MISSILES SHOULD GO TO

JAVELIN MISSILES SHOULD GO TO UKRAINE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THIS

UKRAINE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THIS ALLY AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS

ALLY AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF RUSSIA, THE ENCROACHMENTS OF

OF RUSSIA, THE ENCROACHMENTS OF VLADIMIR PUTIN.

VLADIMIR PUTIN. AND CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY SAID

AND CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT THE MONEY SHOULDN’T GO

THAT THE MONEY SHOULDN’T GO UNTIL THE PENTAGON CERTIFIES

UNTIL THE PENTAGON CERTIFIES THAT CORRUPTION WILL NOT GET IN

THAT CORRUPTION WILL NOT GET IN THE WAIL OF DELIVERING THE MONEY

THE WAIL OF DELIVERING THE MONEY THE WAY WE INTEND IT TO BE USED.

THE WAY WE INTEND IT TO BE USED. THAT CERTIFICATION WAS GIVEN.

THAT CERTIFICATION WAS GIVEN. SO THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED WHAT

SO THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED WHAT CONGRESS HAD SPECIFIED.

CONGRESS HAD SPECIFIED. HE VIOLATED THE POWER OF THE

HE VIOLATED THE POWER OF THE PURSE.

PURSE. HE USURPED THE POWER OF THE

HE USURPED THE POWER OF THE PURSE, AND HE DID IT IN A WAY

PURSE, AND HE DID IT IN A WAY THAT SOLICITED FOREIGN

THAT SOLICITED FOREIGN ASSISTANCE FOR HIS RE-ELECTION,

ASSISTANCE FOR HIS RE-ELECTION, WHICH WAS ITSELF A CRIMINAL

WHICH WAS ITSELF A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF THE LAWS PROTECTING

VIOLATION OF THE LAWS PROTECTING THE SANCTITY OF OUR ELECTORAL

THE SANCTITY OF OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS.

PROCESS. WE’VE HAD CORRUPT PRESIDENTS

WE’VE HAD CORRUPT PRESIDENTS BEFORE, PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE

BEFORE, PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE TRIMMED THE SALES THIS WAY OR

TRIMMED THE SALES THIS WAY OR THAT, BUT WE’VE NEVER HAD

THAT, BUT WE’VE NEVER HAD SOMEBODY WHOSE WHOLE PURPOSE IN

SOMEBODY WHOSE WHOLE PURPOSE IN HOLDING THAT OFFICE IS TO ENRICH

HOLDING THAT OFFICE IS TO ENRICH HIMSELF AND ENHANCE THE POWER OF

HIMSELF AND ENHANCE THE POWER OF HIS FAMILY AND THE WEALTH OF HIS

HIS FAMILY AND THE WEALTH OF HIS FAMILY.

FAMILY. THIS IS NOT JUST A MARGINAL

THIS IS NOT JUST A MARGINAL VIOLATION.

VIOLATION. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY AN

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY AN ANTI-PRESIDENT.

ANTI-PRESIDENT. AND I’M NOT TALKING ONLY ABOUT

AND I’M NOT TALKING ONLY ABOUT HIS POLICIES.

HIS POLICIES. HIS POLICIES ARE A DIFFERENT

HIS POLICIES ARE A DIFFERENT MATTER ALTOGETHER.

MATTER ALTOGETHER. IT WOULDN’T MATTER IF THIS WAS

IT WOULDN’T MATTER IF THIS WAS OBAMA OR CLINTON, ANY PRESIDENT.

OBAMA OR CLINTON, ANY PRESIDENT. JUST ASK THE REPUBLICANS IF A

JUST ASK THE REPUBLICANS IF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IN THE

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT IN THE FUTURE TAKES MONEY THAT YOU HAVE

FUTURE TAKES MONEY THAT YOU HAVE APPROPRIATED FOR A PARTICULAR

APPROPRIATED FOR A PARTICULAR FOREIGN PURPOSE AND THEN

FOREIGN PURPOSE AND THEN THREATENS TO WITHHOLD IT AND

THREATENS TO WITHHOLD IT AND WATCH PEOPLE DIE ON THE

WATCH PEOPLE DIE ON THE BATTLEFIELD UNTIL HE GETS WHAT

BATTLEFIELD UNTIL HE GETS WHAT HE WANTS FOR HIS RE-ELECTION,

HE WANTS FOR HIS RE-ELECTION, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LIVE WITH

WOULD YOU LIKE TO LIVE WITH THAT?

THAT? IS THAT THE KIND OF COUNTRY WE

IS THAT THE KIND OF COUNTRY WE WANT?

WANT? IT’S NOT THE KIND OF COUNTRY I

IT’S NOT THE KIND OF COUNTRY I BELIEVE THAT WE WANT OR THAT OUR

BELIEVE THAT WE WANT OR THAT OUR FRAMERS ENVISIONED.

FRAMERS ENVISIONED. AND I THINK IT’S ABOUT TIME THAT

AND I THINK IT’S ABOUT TIME THAT PEOPLE PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THE

PEOPLE PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THE CONSTITUTION AND TO THE PURPOSES

CONSTITUTION AND TO THE PURPOSES OF OUR DEMOCRACY THAN TO THE

OF OUR DEMOCRACY THAN TO THE TRIVIAL BUSINESS OF GETTING

TRIVIAL BUSINESS OF GETTING RE-ELECTED.

RE-ELECTED. IF YOUR OFFICE IS SO IMPORTANT

IF YOUR OFFICE IS SO IMPORTANT TO YOU THAT YOU’RE GOING TO

TO YOU THAT YOU’RE GOING TO VIOLATE YOUR OATH AND VOTE FOR

VIOLATE YOUR OATH AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO VIOLATES HIS OATH

SOMEONE WHO VIOLATES HIS OATH EVERY DAY AND WHO USES THE

EVERY DAY AND WHO USES THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY TO

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY TO ENRICH HIMSELF AND TO ENHANCE

ENRICH HIMSELF AND TO ENHANCE HIS POWER, THEN I REALLY THINK

HIS POWER, THEN I REALLY THINK YOU ARE A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A

YOU ARE A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING.

HUMAN BEING. >> WELL, AS A CITIZEN I LOVE THE

>> WELL, AS A CITIZEN I LOVE THE WAY YOU PUT TOGETHER THE

WAY YOU PUT TOGETHER THE ABSOLUTE IMORALITY OF THIS WITH

ABSOLUTE IMORALITY OF THIS WITH HIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEHAVIOR.