... WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY MIGHT FALL WITH IN THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, WE ARE SEEING A HUGE TREND RIGHT NOW OF PEOPLE MOVING FORWARD ON THIS NARROW UKRAINE CALL ALL THE WAY TO PEOPLE SAYING YOU SHOULD INCLUDE FAMILY SEPARATION EVERYTHING WE HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT DO. WHATEVER WE THINK ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE CODES OF IMPEACHMENT, THINK ABOUT TWO THINGS. YOU WANT UNAMBIGUOUSLY IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT AND YOU WANT UNAMBIGUOUSLY STRONG HABITS.
WE HAVE SOME AREAS IN WHICH THERE IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR IT'S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING. THE STORMY DANIELS PAYMENTS, PRE-PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT THAT IMPLICATES CAMPAIGN-FINANCE LAW. WE HAVE A CLEAR EVIDENTIARY RECORD BUT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PRE-PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT STARTS TO BECOME MORE DIFFICULT. THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE'S VIOLATION, VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS, SOME OPEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS IS NOT YET TAKEN STEPS TO MAKE THE LAWS. GENUINE POLICY DIFFERENCES, EVEN THINGS WE MIGHT FIND PERSONALLY ABHORRENT LIKE FAMILY SEPARATION WHICH IS A POLICY DISAGREEMENT, YOU DON'T GET TO IMPEACH FOR THAT. THERE IS A DIFFERENT CATEGORY WHICH IS UNSATISFYING TO LEAVE THAT ON THE TABLE.
THERE'S ANOTHER CATEGORY OF PLAINLY IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT IN WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS NOT QUITE STRONG ENOUGH. TO PRESIDENT REPORTEDLY HAS OFFERED PEOPLE PARDONS IN EXCHANGE FOR VIOLATING THE LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF BORDER SECURITY. UNAMBIGUOUSLY IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT, THE RECORD IS MURKY, MAYBE HE WAS KIDDING OR MAYBE HE DIDN'T SAY IT.
WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, PUTTING THAT STUFF ASIDE, WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH? WE THINK ABOUT ON THEM VIGOROUSLY IMPEACHABLE AND STRONG EVIDENCE. THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS A LOT. [LAUGHTER]
THE FIRST ONE IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THIS IS THE BIG QUESTION THAT REMAINS AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT. NOT EVERY EPISODE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS RESTRUNG BUT THERE ARE TWO OR THREE THAT ARE UNAMBIGUOUSLY -- THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS -- WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THE PRESIDENT POTENTIALLY IMPEACH FOR THAT.
ABUSE OF FOREIGN POLICY POWERS ARE USING FOREIGN POLICY POWERS FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THAT'S AN ABUSE. INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS IS AN ABUSE. THE VIOLATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE OR TARGETING POLITICAL OPPONENTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS, NOT JUST IN A FOREIGN CONTEXT BUT ALSO THINGS LIKE DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAILS. THAT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE OF U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, THE REFUSAL TO REPLY TO SUBPOENAS, THE FRIVOLOUS ASSERTIONS OF PRIVILEGE OVER PEOPLE LIKE COREY LEWANDOWSKI COMETH THAT IS OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS AND ITS FUNCTION. LAST CATEGORY IS LIES TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. THIS IS SOMETHING WE SAW IN THE DRAFT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR RICHARD NIXON AND AGAINST BILL CLINTON AS WELL, LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS NOT A CRIME. IT IS IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT AND IT DOES ERODE BASIC DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY. THERE IS A VERY LONG, VERY STRONG RECORD THAT SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT.
