Full Marc Short: Pres.Trump Wants To ‘Prove His Innocence’ In Senate Impeachment Trial | MTP

Channel: NBC News
Published: 1 hours ago

Description
Marc Short, Chief of Staff to Vice President Mike Pence, joins Meet The Press to discuss what the White House expects from the Senate impeachment trial. » Subscribe to NBC News: http://nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC » Watch more NBC video: http://bit.ly/MoreNBCNews NBC News Digital is a collection ...



Transcript
Now is vice-president pence's, chief of staff and the president's former legislative director. Mark short, mr. short, welcome back to me, pres jeff, thanks having me back um. Let me just start with simple question: what what how does the west wing want to see a senate trial? What kind of trial does the west when you want to say? Oh chuck, i think that, right now, the west wing, the white house, is ...
understanding that the reason this president's being impeached is because he's winning in so many ways he won on taxes. The economy is booming, there's record low unemployment. The military is getting refunded, we're striking new trade deals. It goes back to what al congressman algreen said. He said we have to impeach this president, or else he could get reelected. So as we transition to the senate, i think that we understand that mitch, mcconnell and chuck schumer will strike a deal on this, but we do find you're confident going to strike a deal yeah. What was it? Do you have an idea of what that deals. Gon na be well sure i mean what is it gon na look like chuck schumer has said he wants a deal like the clinton impeachment, and yet that was a vote that was a hundred to zero, including chuck schumer himself voting for that deal that basically allowed A phase one to it, both sides lay outtheir arguments and then have decisions, whether or not they're witnesses, but it's a really untenable position. We think for speaker pelosi to say this president is such a clear and urgent danger to the world to the globe that we have to basically trample his constitutional rights to force a quick impeachment and then say: well we're gon na hold up impeachment papers and articles Impeachment to send to the senate, how can you possibly justify the contrast to say this is urgent to then say well, we'll have to wait and see.

Do you want to see a trial start as soon as possible? I think i'm r1. Well, i think the president wants to prove his innocence. Andso he's in he wants goodnesses. I think the president has articulated he's open to witnesses chuck. I think the same time legal team doesn't know, i don't say or know i think. At the same time, the american people were tired of the sham they're, tired of this whole thing and i think we're anxious to get back to the work for the american people. So you know to the extent that there's a prolonged trial, we're not anxious for that, we're anxious to say: let's get back to working for things. The american people said they wanted and democrats in 2018. They campaigned on promises. They said we'll work with this administration on immigration, we'll work with themon health care, we'll work with them to read our schools and our roads, and none of that has happened. They seem to work with the un trade they finally did chuck, but that trade deal was put on nancy pussy's desk over a year ago over a year ago, and we know she held that out. She held that out to make sure her moderates stayed in the aisle and impeachment.

Let me go back. We did learn a perhaps a new important piece of the timeline having to do with wendy aid may have been held with ukraine. There'S some foia requests that have surfaced some emails and i know you're aware of it this morning i knowyou guys have put out a statement i think about it, but i would try to understand. It leaves the appearance that the administration has said that the decision to freeze the aid was known publicly july 18th and within the white house at the budget office. This seems to indicate that a request was sent immediately to the pentagon after the phone call between president trump and president zalenski and july 25th. Can you explain the disparity between the july 18th proclamation and what appears to be a july 25th email from a budget official to the pentagon saying make sure this freeze happens and and by the way, keep this keep this on the down-low, let's step backfor, one second Chuck and remember that this administration's the one that has actually provided lethal aid to ukraine. The previous administration sent blankets to ukraine. Previous administration had russia invade ukraine, we're the ones that have actually stood up and defended ukraine. So, yes, there was a delay. There'S nothing new. In these emails about the timing truly chuck, there was a lot of emails and back-and-forth exchanges about time of this. The aid was released at best account.

There is maybe 55 days in delay, as we did our own review. If you think about it in our budget request, last year we asked for 250 million dollars of additional aid to ukraine. While democrats did this scamimpeachment, they delayed aid for over three months. If they've done their job on time, we'd have had that aid september 30th. Is it make sense, then, to have mick mulvaney and his deputies testify, though, and give some clarity to this? You know, i think it's kind of ironic to be able to say that we have an airtight case. Nancy pelosi said we have an airtight case, and yet she now says we demand more witnesses. How do you reconcile those two statements, and so it it reality? Is our administration is anxious to get back to working for the american people. We want to see a trial in the senate because we want to see that thepresident gets exonerated and then we're ready to go best way to generate the president is to get. If you get myth malini out, there did and then the other side of the story is it not. You'Ve had a lot of women, i'm just are skinny. Is it not? We'Ve had a lot of witnesses already chuck a lot of witnesses testified of what happened. The calls what happened and the vice president's meeting to ukraine a lot of witnesses have given a lot of different brought the vice president.

He there was some. He had shown openness to declassifying his calls and the and from his top russian aid, the the memos and her understanding of all ofthis. But you haven't done that yet why well there's there's two questions. One is declassifying a transcript and one is declassified: a supplemental submission that she submitted that supplemental submission, the house and tom's committee. Has they shared the judiciary committee. He was included in the report, there's nothing that's being withheld chuck and they had our own witnesses. Testify democrat witnesses testified about the vice president's call and about his meetings with solinsky, in which they all testified. The purisima the biden's investigations never came up. Okay, the whole conversation was about our commitment to ukraine. What about the vice president's phone call because he was open to this? Is it somebody else? That'S saying: don't do itno. I think i think we're still open to a chuck. I do think it sets a bad precedent for future leader calls when they know that hey.

If i have a call the president, a vice president, could get released. I think that's something since here we haven't really looked at, but i think we remain open to doing that if the senate makes a request, but what what's happened in the house and their investigations? They said you can't have counsel present. You can't provide your own witnesses. You can't see evidence, so why would we participate in such a kangaroo court when they had no concern about due process? Of course, now on the senate side, don'tyou trust the senate yeah i mean so. Why are you so what's wrong, having witnesses having your defenses to senate well, i said well consider that chuck okay, so we're open to considering that. But but there is again this notion this, like we're gon na absolutely deny the president. Ministration is constitutional rights, but now we want to dictate from that speaker pelosi what the trial looks like in the senate. I'M curious. You were in the administration as the legislative director working in the west wing, and there was a washington post story this week about that. That talked about the president was talking a lot about ukraine in those first year and 2017. A lot in 2018you put up one excerpt here from this washington post story from thursday, one former senior white house officials said trump even stated so explicitly at one point saying he knew ukraine was the real culprit, because putin told me, did you ever hear the president Talk about never and then you can never not. Once i heard the president what i heard the president say: no relation to putin, a ukraine.

I heard the president say again and again a frustration that european allies weren't doing more and it's the same guidance. He gave that you didn't hear the president blaming ukraine for these stolen emails of the dancing no, and what i heard the president say to thevice president was when you go to meet with solinsky on my behalf, keep in mind some of that's been not been reported Here that meet happened on september 1st, the democrat case has always been. There was a quid pro quo and the money wouldn't be released until a meeting. That was the president's meeting that was scheduled in september. First right, the abe released on the 11th, the vice pres to the whistleblower reported vice president, went on the president's behalf to that meeting. He said i want you to talk about why europe isn't doing more and generally what they're doing to fight corruption. The vice president came home, reported and said solinsky's doing a lot, tofight corruption. I think we should release the 810 days later. It was before i let you go. I want to get you to respond to something from that editorial in christianity today, and perhaps you have you've talked to the vice president about it. I don't know, but i this this excerpt in particular consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off mr. trump's, immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency.

If we don't reverse course now, will anyone take anything? We say referring to the evangelical community about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come chuck. I think it's no surprise to you that evangelicals are notmonolithic in their political viewpoints, but i think a lot of us who celebrate our saviors birth this week. We acknowledge that there's a president, this administration, who is also protecting thousands of other, unplanned pregnancies in defense of life, that trump his behavior its president who's, also standing for religious liberty, and you know this morning in churches, all across our country, we'll be singing a little Town of bethlehem and there's no president who has stood up for israel like this president, and that gives a lot of comfort to christians across our country, even if his behavior sometimes isn't very christian. As i said, christians are not be monolithic than their political viewpoints, but there's a lotof us who look at what this administration has done and take great gratitude that he's our president mark short chief staff to the vice president. Thanks for coming on share interviews - and i hope you and your family have a merry christmas chef, happy holidays, hello from washington, i'm chuck todd and thanks for checking out the meet the press channel on youtube click on the button down here to subscribe and click over. Here to watch the latest interviews highlights and other digital exclusives.


Watch Next

Loading...