mark: judge star, a tough question really, how do we unravel all of this? what do you think? you can t unravel it s done or in the process of being done so to draw from the great writer from yesteryear, william faulkner, they endured. we have to endure this and then to take a lesson from history, a link of the chords of memory, we have to remember the things have been handled much differently and much better, there are lessons from peter rodino and nixon and henry hyde so we should take a lesson from churchill. study history. i hope that s what the american people will now do. this has been a sorry episode in american history. a very nasty.
by the way, your wanting additional witnesses, i m sorry you can t have it both ways. we call it intellectual incoherence or just your flat wrong. you re so inconsistent out of one s fattier mouth you re saying x and another side you re saying why. you can t be right both times. it s uncontroverted, it s overwhelming and we need more witnesses. mark: he really wants 44 witnesses if he can get him. he figures one will lead to the next but he left a few names out. why doesn t schumer want to hear from the whistleblower or hunter biden? and of course, will never call adam schiff but he would be the perfect witness so there certain witnesses they want and certainly don t want, but your point is, i want to make sure i m right, you had your shot at the investigation. the senate doesn t have to fill your gaps with additional
essentially usual not a juror in the criminal justice sense. you can consider anything and everything. he will preside. if there is a need for an evidentiary ruling he will rule on that. mark: there is not a lot the chief justice past his prologue is going to do about it. he won t be opining on the evidence. he will allow the impeachment managers and the president s defense lawyers to do what they are going tofe do. mark: that s how it should be, isn t it? it is. the senators are sitting in the ultimate democratic judgment. we get to vote. turn the president out. re-elect the president. they get an even more powerful vote. they can remove the president of the united states elected by the people. mark: they never have, and they won t.
inaccurate and i believe it s woefully inadequate to convict and remove the president from office in the senate. mark: as i stand back and look at this and hear what you are saying, nancy pelosi has burned through the house tradition when it comes to impeachment. not just the presence of judgejudges. we ve never seen anything like this before in american history. she burns through any notion of due process. i m not talking criminal due process, i m talking post- magna carta where people believe you need if fair hearing and confront your witness. she burns through that. they are in a race to get this done, we ve never seen anything like this, and now she s reaching into the senate and saying, now i have some control over what you re going to do over there and if you dismiss this or act quickly, i don t like that so i m holding back.
mark: why is that important. animously that in order for the president to carry on the article to function of serving as our chief magistrate, he has to be able to have the advice, and the confidence of those around him just as a judge has to be able to depend on his or her law clerks, and for that conversation between the judge in a law clerk or between nancy pelosi and her general counsel, that has to remain confidential in order for there to be a full advice to be able to say this is our best judgment, the president gets to protect those proof is present of late. mark: this isn t new, it s not a secret, separation of powers, executive privilege, conflict between the branches, it s gone on with democrats and republicans and so forth