Return to Transcripts main page

Hala Gorani Tonight

Live Coverage of Senate Impeachment Trial; Countries Evacuate Citizens as Coronavirus Spreads; Palestine Reacts to Proposed Peace Deal. Aired 2-3p ET

Aired January 29, 2020 - 14:00   ET


REP. SYLVIA GARCIA (D-TX), IMPEACHMENT MANAGER: A, abuse of power; B, betrayal of the national interest through foreign entanglements; and, C,

corruption of office and elections.

When a president abuses his power to obtain illicit help in his election from a foreign power, it undermined our national security and election

integrity. It is a trifecta.


GARCIA: Thank you.

ROBERTS: The senator from Louisiana?


HALA GORANI, CNN HOST, HALA GORANI TONIGHT: I'm Hala Gorani. We'll return to CNN's special coverage of the impeachment trial in just a few minutes,

but I want to bring you up to date on some other big international stories we're following.

Health officials are trying to figure out how to best deal with the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. Right now, more than 6,000 cases are confirmed in

mainland China, 132 people have died and there are 91 confirmed cases elsewhere.

The World Health Organization says its emergency committee will meet again, tomorrow, Thursday, to decide whether the epidemic is an international

emergency. They say the human-to-human transmission outside China is, quote, "deeply concerning" although the numbers are still relatively small.

Foreign governments are already taking action, sending flights to evacuate their citizens from the epicenter, Wuhan.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is here with all the answers to your questions about the coronavirus. And since the incubation period is potentially up to two

weeks, I mean, are these precautions enough, if people are screened only when they arrive at their final destination for a few hours?

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: That is a crucial question, Hala. I mean, the screening test is just that, it's a screening test, it's

not a diagnostic test. And basically, it's to try and find people who are currently symptomatic, have fever, are showing some of these respiratory-

type symptoms.

But you're absolutely right. I mean, someone could be carrying the virus in their body -- I mean, in today's global travel, you could circumnavigate

the globe several times before developing symptoms.

So for example, in some of these countries, then, where these patients are coming back, they're suggesting to these patients that they self-quarantine

and that they be monitored. So they may get a call from health officials to see if they're developing any symptoms, at which point they may be tested.

But, look, you're absolutely right. It's not a perfect system by any means. And my guess is that, inadvertently, there will be people who may be

carrying the virus who then end up in these other countries.

Obviously, you have several countries around the world where you do have these patients; a few of them have been countries where the virus has then

spread a little bit: Germany, Japan and Vietnam, for example. But for the most part, the active spread of the virus still continues to be mainly in


GORANI: Right. And so that was going to be my next question, because the numbers are still relatively small. And I'm sure viewers, that's going to

be their main concern. Could they be at risk? What would you say to those people asking that question?

GUPTA: Well, it's very early still. And I'm going to show you some numbers that I think might contextualize this a bit, Hala. Going back to SARS and

comparing to now, the reason we talk about SARS so much, by the way, is that it's the same family of virus. SARS was also a coronavirus.

But look back. At the end -- sort of end of the outbreak in 2003, there were about 5,300 cases of SARS in China. There's already, as you mentioned,

over 6,000 cases but there are fewer deaths. So the -- what we call the fatality or mortality ratio is lower now, as compared to SARS.

These numbers are early, the numbers will certainly change a lot. But when you hear about significant spread, Hala, you see a lot more people who

contract the virus. If the number of people who have died does not go up sort of in an equivalent ratio, what that might mean is that there's a lot

of people out there who are getting this infection, but either have no symptoms or very minimal symptoms.


So it's a good news-bad news situation. You don't want this to spread, obviously, but if it's in tens of thousands of people and not that many

people have died from that, the fatality ratio will come down dramatically.

I always mention -- and I think you and I have talked about this in the past, but -- the flu in the United States for example, flu has killed over

8,000 people, 8,000 people have died of flu, obviously a much bigger number but it's something that we're more familiar with and have recognized for a

long time, obviously.

GORANI: All right. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thanks very much, our chief medical correspondent. We will talk again soon.

As the coronavirus appears in new places, airlines in North America, Europe and Asia are cancelling, suspending or reducing flights to China.

Wednesday, British Airways said it has suspended all direct flights between Britain and China. Germany's Lufthansa has cancelled all flights to and

from China until February 9th.

U.S. President Donald Trump's new Middle East peace plan is drawing mixed reaction around the world. Some countries are joining Palestinians in

rejecting it outright while others are saying, at least, that they're cautiously optimistic that it could lead to renewed negotiations.

The deal announced at the White House sides with Israel on nearly every major dispute, and paves the way for annexation of West Bank settlements.

Our Sam Kiley is in Ramallah.

SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Less than 24 hours after the publication of Donald Trump's peace plan for the Israelis and the

Palestinians, a pall (ph) -- a miserable, apathetic pall (ph), really, has been cast right across the West Bank.

I traveled from villages north of Ramallah down into the Jordan Valley, which Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has promised over the

next few days or weeks to annex into formal Israeli territory, alongside the Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

But for the Palestinian population -- and to a man and a woman, I think this was true -- there was a sense of anger, of betrayal, particularly of

the attitude struck by many in the Arab world, who seemed to indicate that they thought that this might provide some kind of way forward for

negotiations, that it absolutely does not do that. Here's a sample of what was said.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Unfortunately, Trump's plan is worthless for us. It's void of its content. It doesn't have any rights for


KILEY: Now, the problem for the Palestinians, at least the leadership of the Palestinians, is what to do next. They could conceivably elect to fold

up the Palestinian authority, to force, if you like, occupation back on the Israelis. But there's been no sign whatsoever that they're even considering


Indeed, they have been almost completely silent throughout the day, leaving their own population to try to figure out what next for individuals. And

for most individuals, here in the West Bank, the attitude is, well, it's pretty much the same as it's always been, and it all looks pretty

miserable. Sam Kiley, CNN in Ramallah.

GORANI: Well, sealing the deal official after three and a half years, the U.K. is a step closer to leaving the European Union after the European

Parliament formally approved the Brexit withdrawal agreement. And voices wavered as British members addressed their colleagues for the last time.

Also among the top stories we're following, the helicopter that was carrying Kobe Bryant and eight other people on Sunday was less than 10

meters from the top of the hill that it crashed into. But investigators say the chopper was falling at such a fast speed, it is not clear the pilot

would have been able to land if he had missed that hill.

Debris from the crash is spread out over more than a hundred meters of hillside. Investigators expect to have a preliminary report on what

happened late next week.

Stay with CNN's special coverage of the impeachment trial of President Trump continues, now, where House managers are answering a question about

whether any harm was done to Ukraine. This is Val Demings. Let's listen in.


REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL), HOUSE MANAGER: -- to make sure that the Ukrainians did not lose out on 35 million additional dollars. And contrary

to the president's tweet that all of the aid arrived and that it arrived ahead of schedule, that is not true. All of the aid has not arrived.

And let's talk about what kind of signal withholding the aid for no legitimate reason -- the president talked about burden-sharing, but nothing

had changed on the ground. Holding the aid for no legitimate reason sent a strong message that we would not want to send to Russia, that the

relationship between the United States It actually undercut Ukraine's ability to negotiate with Russian, with whom as everybody in this room

knows is in an active war - in a hot war.

So when we talk about the aid eventually got there no harm, no foul that is not true, Senators, and I know that you know that. There was harm and there

was foul and let us not forget that Ukraine is not an enemy. They're not an adversary. They are our friends.

J. ROBERTS: Thank you. Senator Cruz?

CRUZ: Mr. Chief Justice, I sent a question to the desk.

J. ROBERTS: Thank you. The question is address to counsel for the President. As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo?

Is it true that quid pro quo's are often used in foreign policy?

DERSHOWITZ: Chief Justice, thank you very much for your question. Yesterday I had the privilege of attending the rolling out of a peace plan by the

President of the United States regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict and I offered you a hypothetical the other day.

What if a Democratic President were to be elected and Congress were to authorize much money to either Israel or Palestinians and the Democratic

President were to say to Israel, no I'm going to withhold this money unless you stop all settlement growth or to the Palestinians, I will withhold the

money Congress authorized to you unless you stopped paying terrorist and the President said, quid pro quo. If you don't do it you don't get the

money. If you do it you get the money.

There's no one in this chamber that would regard that as in any way unlawful. The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the

quo were, in some way, illegal. Now we talked about motive. There are three possible motives that a political figure can have.

One, a motive in the public interest and the Israel argument would be in the public interest. The second is in his own politic interest and the

third, which hasn't been mentioned would be in his own financial interest - his own pure financial interest just putting money in the bank.

I want to focus on the second one for just one moment. Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest

and mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest and if a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the

public interest that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

I quoted President Lincoln. When President Lincoln told General Sherman to let the troops go to Indiana so that they can vote for the Republican

party. Let's assume the President was running at that point and it was his electoral interest to have these soldiers put at risk - the lives of many,

many other soldiers who would be left without their company.

Would that be an unlawful quid pro quo? No because the President, A, believed it was in the national interest but B, he believed that his own

election was essential to victory in the Civil War, every President believes that. That's why its so dangerous to try to cycle analyze a

President to get into the intricacies of the human mind. Everybody has mixed motives and for there to be a constitutional impeachment based on

mixed motives would permit almost any President to be impeached.

How many Presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their politic advisors and their pollsters. If you're just acting in the

national interest why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisors? Just do what's best for the country but if you want to balance

what's in the public interest with what's in your parties electoral interest and your own electoral interest it's impossible to discern how

much weight is given to one to the other.

Now we may argue that it's not in the national interest for a particular President to get reelected over a particular Senator or member of Congress

and maybe we're right. It's not in the national interest for everybody who's running to be elected but for it to be impeachable you would have to

discern that he or she made a decision solely on the basis of, as the House managers put it, corrupt motives. And it cannot be a corrupt motive if you

have a mixed motive that partially involves the national interest, partially involves electoral and does not involve personal, pecuniary


And the House managers do not allege that this decision, this quid pro quo, as they call it, and the question is based on the hypothesis there was a

quid pro quo, I'm not (inaudible) the facts, they never allege that it was based on pure financial reasons. It would be a much harder case if a

hypothetical President of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country "unless you build a hotel with my name on it and

unless you give me $1 million kickback, I will withhold the funds."

That's an easy case. That's purely corrupt and in the purely private interest. But a complex middle case is "I want to be elected, I think I'm a

great President, I think I'm the greatest president there ever was and if I'm not elected, the national interest will suffer greatly." That cannot be

an impeachable offense. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

ROBERTS: Recognize the Democratic Leader.

SCHUMER: Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

ROBERTS: The question is for the House managers. "Would you please respond to the answer that was just given by the President's counsel?"

SCHIFF: I would be delighted.


There are two arguments that Professor Dershowitz makes. One of - it is - I have to say a very odd argument for a criminal defense lawyer to make and

that is it is highly unusual to have a discussion in trial about the defendant's state of mind, intent or mens rea.

In every courtroom in America, in every criminal case or almost every criminal case except for a very small sliver that are strict liability, the

question of the defendant's intent and state of mind is always an issue. So this is nothing novel here, you don't require a mind reader. In every

criminal case and I would assume in every impeachment case, yes, you have to show that the President was operating from a corrupt motive, and we


But he also makes an argument that all quid pro quos are the same and all are perfectly copacetic. Now some of you said earlier "well if they could

prove a quid pro quo over the military aid, now that would be something." Well, we have.

So now the argument shifts to all quid pro quos are just fine, they're all the same. Well I'm going to apply Professor Dershowitz's own test - he

talked about the step test, John Rawls, the philosopher. Let's put the shoe on the other foot and see how that changes our perception of things.

But I want to merge that argument with one of the other presidential counsel's argument when they - when they resorted to the whataboutism about

Barack Obama's open mic. Now, that was a very poor analogy, I think you'll agree, but let's use that analogy and let's make it more comparable to

today and see how you feel about this scenario.

President Obama, on an open mic, says to Medvedev "Hey, Medvedev, I know you don't want me to send this military money to Ukraine cause they're

fighting and killing your people. I want you to do me a favor, though. I want you to do an investigation of Mitt Romney and I want you to announce

you found dirt on Mitt Romney. And if you're willing to do that, quid pro quo, I won't give Ukraine the money they need to fight you on the front


Do any of us have any question that Barack Obama would be impeached for that kind of misconduct? Are we really ready to say that that would be OK,

if Barack Obama asked Medvedev to investigate his opponents and would withhold money from an ally that it needed to defend itself to get an

investigation of Mitt Romney? That's - that's the parallel here.

And to say "well, yes, we condition aid all the time," for legitimate reasons, yes - for legitimate reasons, you might say to a governor of a

state "hey, governor of a state, you should chip in more towards your own disaster relief."

But if the President's real motive in depriving a state of disaster relief is because that governor won't get his Attorney General to investigate the

President's political rival? Are we ready to say that the President can sacrifice the interests of the people of that state, or in the case of

Medvedev, the people of our country, because all quid pro quos are fine, it's carte blanche?

Is that really what we're prepared to say with respect to this President's conduct or the next? Because if we are, then the next President of the

United States can ask for an - an investigation of you. They can ask for help in their next election from any foreign power. And the argument will

be made "nope, Donald Trump was acquitted for doing exactly the same thing. Therefore, it must not be impeachable."

Now, bear in mind that efforts to cheat an election are always going to be in proximity to an election and if you say you can't hold a President

accountable in an election year where they're trying to cheat in that election then you are giving them carte blanche.

So all quid pros are not the same. Some are legitimate and some are corrupt and you don't need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which. For

one thing, you can ask John Bolton.

ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Manager.

GRASSLEY: Mr. Chief Justice?

ROBERTS: Senator from Iowa?

GRASSLEY: I send a question to the desk.

ROBERTS: Senator Grassley asks counsel for the President - "does the House's failure to enforce its subpoenas render its quote 'obstruction of

Congress' end quote theory unprecedented?"

PHILBIN: Mr. Chief Justice, senators, the answer is yes, as far as I am aware, there has never been a prior instance in which there's been an

attempt, even in the House, as in the Nixon proceeding, never mind in the Clinton proceeding, which actually left the House and came to the Senate,

to suggest that there can be obstruction of Congress when there hasn't been anything beyond simply issuing a subpoena, getting resistance and then

throwing up your hands and giving up and saying "oh, well that's obstruction."

In the Clinton situation, most of the litigation was with the independent counsel and there were privileges asserted and litigation and litigation

again and again, but the point is that the issues about the privileges were all litigated and they were resolved before things came to this body.

Similarly, in the Nixon impeachment proceeding in - within the House, a lot of investigation had been done by the Special Counsel and there was

litigation over assertions of privileges there in order to get at the tapes and some tapes or transcripts had already been turned over.

But again, there was litigation about the assertion of the privilege in response to the Grand Jury subpoena that then fed into the House's

proceedings. So it would be completely unprecedented for the House to attempt to actually bring a charge of obstruction into the Senate where all

they can present is well, we issued a subpoena and there were legal grounds asserted for the invalidity of the subpoena and there were different

grounds as I've gone through.

I won't repeat them all in detail here. But some were because the subpoenas were just invalid when issued because there was no vote. Some is that the

subpoenas for witnesses were invalid because senior advisors to the president had absolute immunity from compulsion.

Some that they were forcing executive branch officials to testify without the benefit of agency council and the executive branch council with them.

So various reason asserted for the invalidity and the defects in various subpoenas and then no attempt to enforce them.

No attempt to litigate out what the validity or invalidity might be but just bring it here as an obstruction charge is unprecedented.

And I'll note the House managers have said and I'm sure that they will say again today that well, but if we had gone to court the Trump administration

would have said that the courts don't have jurisdiction over those claims.

Now that is -- that is true in some cases. There's one being litigated right now related to the former counsel to the president, Don McGahn. The

Trump administration position, just like the position of the Obama administration is that an effort by the House to enforce a subpoena in

Article 3 court is a non judiciable (ph) controversy.

That is our position and we would argue that in court. But that's part of what would have to be litigated. That doesn't change the fact that the

House Managers can't have it both ways. And want to make this clear.

The House Managers want to say that they have an avenue for going to court. They're using that avenue for going to court. They actually told the court

in McGahn that once they reached an impasse with the Executive Branch, the courts were the only way to resolve the impasse.

And -- and as I explained the other day, there are mechanisms for dealing with these disputes between the executive and Congress. The first is an

accommodations process. They didn't do that. We offered to do that in the White House Council's October 8th letter. They didn't do accommodations.

If they think they can sue, they have to take that step because the Constitution, the courts have made clear require incremental wisdom in

disputes between the Executive and the Legislative Branch.

So if they think that the courts can resolve that dispute that's the next step, they should do that and have they litigated. And then things can

proceed on to a high level of confrontation. But to jump straight to impeachment to the ultimate constitutional confrontation doesn't make

sense. It's not the system that the constitution requires. And it is unprecedented in this case. Thank you.

J. ROBERTS: Thank you, Counsel. The Senator from Michigan.

STABENOW: Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

J. ROBERTS: Senator Stabenow ask the House Managers, would the House Managers care to correct the record on any falsehoods or

mischaracterizations in the White House's opening arguments?

LOFGREN: Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, thank you for that question. We believe that the president's team has claimed basically there were six

facts that have not been met and will not change and all six of those so called facts are incorrect.

Let's be clear, on July 25th that's not the whole evidence before us even though it includes devastating evidence of the president's scheme.

President Trump's intent was made clear on the July 25th call but we had evidence of information before the meetings with Mr. Bolton, the text

message to Mr. Zelensky's people telling him he had to do the investigations to get what he wanted.

All of this evidence that makes us understand that phone call even more clearly. Now, the president's team claim that Mr. Zelensky and other

Ukrainians said they never felt pressure to open investigations.

Now, of course they didn't say that publicly, they were afraid of the Russians finding out. But Zelensky said privately that he didn't want to be

involved in U.S. domestic politics. He resisted announcing the investigations.

He only relented and scheduled the CNN meeting after it became clear that he was not going to receive the -- the support that he needed and that

Congress had provided in our appropriations.

That's the definition of pressure. Now Ukraine, the president's lawyers say didn't know that Trump was withholding the security assistance until it was

public. Many witnesses have contested that including the open statement by Olena Zerkal who was then the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine that they

knew about the president's hold on the security matters.

And in the end, everyone knew, it was public. And after it was, Ukraine did relent and schedule that testimony. For what they said no witnesses, said

security was conditioned on the investigations, not so.

Mulvaney and we had other witnesses talking about the shake down for the security assistance. But the important thing is you can get a witness who

talked to the president firsthand about what the president thought he was doing.

Ultimately of course the funds, or at least some of them were released. But the White House meeting that the president promised three different times,

still has not occurred. So -- and we still don't have the investigation of the Bidens.

Getting caught doesn't mitigate the wrong doing. The president's unrepentant and we fear he will do it again. Now, the Independent

Government Accountability Office concluded that the president violated federal law when he withheld that aid.

That misconduct is still going on. All the aid is not yet been released. And finally I'd just like to say there's been some confusion, I think, I'm

sure not intentional but the president surely does not need the permission of his staff about foreign policy.

That information is offered to you as evidence of what he thought he was doing. And he did not appear to be pursuing a policy agenda. He appeared

from all the evidence to be pursuing a corruption -- a corruption of our election that's upcoming.

I yield back.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The senator from Arkansas...

HALA GORANI, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: We're briefly cutting away here, and we'll return to our special coverage in just a few minutes. I want to bring

you up to date on our other big stories.

A World Health Organization expert says it is impossible to tend -- tell when the Wuhan coronavirus will peak. New cases are still popping up around

the world on a daily basis.

In Mainland China, at least 132 people have died and there are more than 6,000 confirmed cases. Ninety-one cases have been reported elsewhere.

Now, the WHO says human to human transmission outside of China is, quote, deeply concerning. Their emergency committee is set to meet Thursday to

decide whether it is now an international emergency.

In Seoul, South Korea, potential coronavirus cases are being examined in temporary facilities there. Paula Hancocks is on the ground.


PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (on-camera): This is the National Medical Center in the heart of Seoul. And this is where the South

Korean government has decided will be the main hospital for those who have coronavirus or those who are suspected with having the virus.

Now, we know there is one patient here already on the 7th floor in this building behind me. You can see many of the medical staff not taking any

chances. Just inside there, they have their hazmat suits on.

And this is the area where those who think they have symptoms of the virus will come. They want to make sure here that those who are worried that they

may have the virus are not going to be mixing in with the rest of the hospital population, because there are still plenty of regular patients

here. So this is the main reception area where they will come inside and this is where they will be processed.

Well, a little earlier on this Tuesday, President Moon Jae-in came to visit this facility. He wanted to make sure, he said, that everything was up to

scratch. He wanted to make sure that enough was being done and the priority was being put on coronavirus.

Now, just on Monday, the government raised the alert level to the second highest level that it could be. And what that does is it means that the

government takes over the control as opposed to the CDC, and it means there's an emergency task force being set up to deal with this as well.

HANCOCKS (voice-over): As we're filming, we're moved back by medical personnel in hazmat suits as potential patients arrive to be tested.

They're given a CT scan in the country's only mobile CT scanner trying to detect viral pneumonia so potential Wuhan patients can be segregated.

A 55-year-old South Korean man was brought in last Friday and has been confirmed with the virus after traveling from Wuhan. Dr. Kim Yeon-jae has

been treating the patient and says he's stable, but he believes the next week could be critical in stemming the spread of the virus.

DR. KIM YEON-JAE, NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (through translator): The virus can mutate easily, he says. And if we have a super spreader due to the

mutation whose infecting more people than usual virus carriers, this is very hard to combat. That is what I'm most concerned about.

HANCOCKS (on-camera): Now, this hospital is preparing for future patients through these two double doors. There are seven individual rooms. A bed in

each of those rooms. There's negative pressure, we're told, to try and make sure they can contain the virus, and they are already, they are waiting for

potential patients to come.


HANCOCKS (voice-over): The government is planning to send four charter flights to Wuhan later this week to evacuate up to 700 South Korean

citizens from ground zero at the outbreak. They have initially tested negative for the virus, but will stay at a separate facility for 14 days to

avoid spreading infection. Anyone with symptoms will be transported to this hospital where empty beds are waiting.

Paula Hancocks, CNN, Seoul.


GORANI: Well, several countries are trying to get their citizens out of Wuhan, including France which is sending a plane Thursday to take its

nationals out of the quarantined city. Only French nationals without symptoms though will be allowed on board.

The U.S. evacuated about 200 people from Wuhan. They're now getting screened at a base in California. And Japan says it has about 650 citizens

who want to leave and will make arrangements to send enough planes. Morocco says it's trying to get about 100 Moroccans, mostly students out of Wuhan.

And South Korea says it's sending several charter flights to Wuhan to get some of its citizens out.

A new era is getting closer for Europe with Brexit set to finally happen Friday. Today, the European Parliament formally signed off on the split

with the U.K. There were a variety of emotions on both sides after the vote members joined hands and sang Auld Lang Syne. Brexit party leader and MEP,

Nigel Farage, was less sentimental.


NIGEL FARAGE, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER, BREXIT PARTY: What do we want from Europe? If we want trade, friendship, cooperation, reciprocity, we

don't need a European Commission. We don't need a European court. We don't need these institutions. And all of this power. And can I promise you both

in U.K. and indeed in the Brexit Party, we love Europe. We just hate the European Union. It's as simple as that.


GORANI: The European Council votes on the deal tomorrow. Special coverage of the impeachment trial continues now where president Trump's legal team

is answering a question about whether the House bother to seek testimony or litigate executive privilege issues before sending the impeachment articles

to the Senate. And let's listen to the next question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you for the recognition, Mr. Chief justice. I send the question to the desk.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: The question is for the House managers. Please address the president's counsel's argument that

House managers seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and that the decision to remove the president should be left to the voters in