Read Full Transcript EXPAND
> HELLO, EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO 'AMANPOUR & CO.'
HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.
EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, THE WITNESS EVERYONE HAS WAITED FOR, POINTS THE FINGER AT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS WHOLE TEAM.
WILL THIS BE A GAME-CHANGER?
WE ASK FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ROBERT BAUER AND FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE EVELYN FARKAS.
PLUS --
ACTUALLY STARTED BEFORE THE AMERICAN EVOLUTION.
THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT.
LEGAL AS SCHOLAR CASS SUNSTEIN ON HOW AND WHY AMERICA'S FOUNDING FATHERS SOUGHT TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE.
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF COMPANIES LIKE SHELL MINED IN RENEWABLES.
FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE FROM THE INSIDE, ACTIVIST INVESTOR MARK VAN VAL AT GETTING A SEAT AT ONE OF THE COUNTRY'S BIGGEST OIL COMPANIES.
> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.
I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON HAD.
IN BOMBSHELL TESTIMONY TODAY ON CAPITOL HILL KEY IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WITNESS GORDON SONDLAND MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WAS WORKING ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN HE CARRIED OUT RUDY GIULIANI'S REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.
TAKE A LISTEN.
I WORKED WITH MR. GIULIANI ON UKRAINE MATTERS AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SO WE FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS.
I FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED US TO DO SO.
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED US TO, QUOTE, TALK WITH RUDY.
Reporter: BUT IT WASN'T JUST THE PRESIDENT.
SONDLAND REPEATEDLY SAID THAT, QUOTE, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.
ALL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TEAM WAS FULLY AWARE INCLUDING SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO ANSWERED THE KEY QUESTION ABOUT A QUID PRO QUO.
I KNOW THAT MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE FREQUENTLY FRAMED THESE COMPLICATED ISSUES IN THE FORM OF A SIMPLE QUESTION.
WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?
AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY WITH REGARD TO THE REQUESTED WHITE HOUSE CALL AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING THE ANSWER IS YES.
SONDLAND WAS DISCUSSING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, BUT LATER IN HIS TESTIMONY HE CONFIRMED THAT HE BELIEVED THE U.S.
MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE WAS ALSO TIED TO INVESTIGATION.
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF CALLS IT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE TO DATE GOING TO THE HEART OF THE DEMOCRATS' CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
SO WAS TODAY A GAME-CHANGER?
ROBERT BAUER IS A FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL UNDER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND JOINING HIM IS EVELYN FARKAS, A FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA RESPONSIBLE FOR U.S. POLICY TOWARDS RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND OTHER EAST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
SAYS SHE WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO SOUND THE ALARM ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION HAND SHE'S NOW RUNNING FOR CONGRESS.
BOTH ARE JOINING ME NOW.
LET ME ASK YOU FIRST, BOB BAUER AND COUPLE TO THE PROGRAM, BOTH OF YOU.
YOU HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAS SAID.
YOU HEARD WHAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAS SAID THAT, THIS WAS CRUCIAL KEY TESTIMONY GOING TO THE HEART OF THE DEMOCRATS' CASE.
SO IN YOUR -- IN YOUR MIND AS A LOCAL SCHOLAR, BOB BAUER, DID WHAT WE HEARD TODAY ON CAPITOL HILL RISE TO THE LEVEL OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?
IS IT IN YOUR VIEW ENOUGH EVIDENCE OR GROUNDS TO BRING ANY ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT?
YES, I THINK IT CERTAINLY IS.
I MEAN, IT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE CONCERN BEHIND THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, CORE CONCERN OF THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE WHICH IS ABUSE OF POWER, EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF POWER THAT PUTS THE COUNTRY POTENTIALLY AT RISK AND REQUIRES A PRESIDENT TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, AND IT CAN BE FRAMED A VARIETY OF WAYS BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP HAS SPOKEN A GOD BIT ABOUT BRIBERY AND CERTAINLY THAT IS ONE OF THE COUNTS THAT COULD IN FACT APPEAR IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, BUT THE OVERALL THRUST OF THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IS TO ADDRESS EGREGIOUS ABUSES OF POWER AND IN PARTICULAR THE FOUNDERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT BEHAVIOR BY A PRESIDENT THAT WOULD EXPOSE THE UNITED STATES AND NATIONAL SECURITY OR FOREIGN POLICY RISK, INVITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN DOMESTIC AMERICAN AFFAIRS, AND THAT IS WHAT GORDON SONDLAND AND OTHER WITNESSES THIS WEEK HAVE BEEN TESTIFYING ABOUT.
LET ME ASK YOU, EVELYN FARKAS.
YOU WERE AT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA WHEN THE INITIAL SERIES OF INVESTIGATIONS INTO UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION WERE LED BY VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
YOU HAVE HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY THAT -- THAT -- THAT HE WAS QUOTED BY SOME OF THE WITNESSES SAYING THAT I THINK THAT THEY ARE ALL BAD.
THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT.
HE WAS REFERRING TO UKRAINIANS.
SOME OF THESE WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT THEY TRIED TO SHIFT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S VIEW ABOUT UKRAINE.
WHAT CAN YOU TELL US SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S ANTI-CORRUPTION DRIVE IN UKRAINE.
RIGHT.
I THINK THE THING WE NEED TO REMEMBER IS THE BAD ONE AFFILIATED WITH RUSSIA AND THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE ESSENTIALLY MOVED HIM OUT OF OFFICE AND THEN HE FLED THE COUNTRY.
THEN WAS THE INTERIM PRESIDENT, AND THAT WAS THE ONE THAT I WAS DEALING WITH, PRESIDENT POROSHENKO WHO WAS AN OLIGARCH, WHO WAS KIND OF TRYING TO REFORM BUT HE WASN'T THERE, AND SO PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS THE GUY ESSENTIALLY WHEN WAS CALLING HIM ON PHONE SAYING, HEY, YOU HAVE TO ROOT OUT THE CORRUPTION, THE PROSECUTORS BEING SLOW ON THE UPTAKE.
ALL OF THE THINGS WE ALREADY COVERED FOR WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS IN THE MEDIA, AND THEN THE LAST ONE, OF COURSE, IS THE CURRENT ONE, THE ONE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TRYING TO STRONG ARM AND GET A BRIBE FROM THEM AND THAT'S YOUNG REFORM-MINED NEW PRESIDENT WHO HAS A FULL OUT MAJORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT AND A MANDATE ESSENTIALLY TO CLEAR OUT CORRUPTION.
HE'S REALLY THE FIRST NEW MODERN ANTI-CORRUPTION PRESIDENT IN UKRAINE.
YOU WANT TO PUT UP SOME VIDEO OF VIDEO YOU'RE SEEING FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP AS HE'S LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE TO GET ON MARINE ONE TO LEAVE FOR AUSTIN, TEXAS.
HE HAD NOTES FROM THEM, CLEARLY READING FROM THEM AND TALKING TO REPORTERS OUTSIDE AND HE SAID I WANT NOTHING.
I WANT NOTHING.
I WANT NO QUIT QUO PRO.
HE'S RECALLING BASICALLY WHAT HE SAID HE SAID TO SONDLAND.
SO THAT'S AS IT MAY BE, BUT I WANT TO PLAY WHAT SONDLAND SAID ABOUT NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT, NOT JUST RUDY GIULIANI, BUT AS HE SAID ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN BEING IN THE LOOP.
EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.
IT WAS NO SECRET.
EVERYONE WAS INFORMED VIA EMAIL ON JULY 19th DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL CALL.
AS I COMMUNICATED TO THE TEAM I TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN ADVANCE THAT ASSURANCES TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND TURN OVER EVERY STONE WERE NECESSARY IN HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.
SO HE NAMED NAMES THERE.
I WANT TO KNOW FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, FIRST BOB BAUER, AND THEN SORT OF A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE ALSO EVELYN AND AN INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
HE'S FIRST ONE TO SAY, I THINK, THAT THEY ALL KNEW AND HE EVEN SAID WHAT IRREGULAR CHANNEL?
WE WERE TOP OFFICIALS OF AN ADMINISTRATION.
THIS WAS THE POLICY.
SO BOB BAUER, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT HE SAID ALL THESE PEOPLE KNEW AND YET MANY OF THEM ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH SUBPOENAS TO COOPERATE IN THIS MATTER SENATOR.
YES, WELL, LET ME BEGIN FIRST OF ALL BY POINTING OUT A FUNDAMENTAL INCOHERENCE IN THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.
HE TAKES TO THE LAWN AND SAID I DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING FROM UKRAINE.
HE'S OBVIOUSLY PULLING A COMMENT OUT OF THE TESTIMONY COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT.
IT WAS VERY CLEAR, AND WE HAVE MULTIPLE WITNESSES WHO SAY THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WANTED SOMETHING VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT UKRAINE AND THAT HE PUT THAT IN HIS OWN POLITICAL AND PERSONAL INTERESTS AS A CONDITION ON THE THE RELEASE OF MILITARY AID THAT CONGRESS HAD APPROVED FOR UKRAINE IN THE VITAL AMERICAN INTERESTS.
THE REPUBLICANS KEEP ON SAYING ON ONE AND HE WAS ENTITLED TO TO BUT ON THE OTHER HAND HE DIDN'T DO IT, AND -- AND THAT -- THAT IT SEEMS TO ME IS CREATING A GREAT DEAL CONFUSION.
AS FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY PARADE OF WITNESSES FROM WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION WHO HAVE COME FORWARD TO TESTIFY, EVEN IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYERS HAVE DIRECTED THEM NOT TO DO SO, I THINK THAT GOES AGAIN TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE.
EVEN YESTERDAY THE NATIONAL SECURITY AIDE TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WHO WAS CLEARLY UNDER AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PRESSURE NOT TO TESTIFY AND WHO IN FACT WAS ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT IN DOING SO CAME FORWARD AND SAID THAT SHE FOUND THE PHONE CALL ON JULY 25th TO WHICH SHE WAS A PARTICIPANT DEEPLY DISTURBING, AND SO LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS THERE'S JUST A WIDE CIRCLE OF PEOPLE WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION AT THE MOST SENIOR LEVEL WHO HAVE BROKEN THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO BLOCK THE TESTIMONY AND WHO HAVE SAID VERY CLEARLY EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS PUTTING POLITICAL AND PERSONALLY SELF-INTERESTED CONDITIONS ON AID THAT WAS INTENDED FOR A COUNTRY THAT IS VITAL TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
AND -- AND WHAT ABOUT SINCE EVERYBODY WAS ALLEGEDLY IN THE LOOP THE SENIOR PEOPLE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, RUDY GIULIANI, ALL THOSE PEOPLE, WHO BY THE WAY HAS TWEETED TODAY THAT HE HAD NEVER MET AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH HIM, SAYS RUDY GIULIANI, BUT HOW FAIR CAN A PROCESS BE IF KEY PEOPLE ARE BEING PREVENTED FROM TESTIFYING BY THE SUBJECT OF THIS INQUIRY?
HE'S HAVING ONLY SO MUCH SUCCESS, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, IF IT ISN'T FAIR, IT'S NOT FAIR, AND BY THE WAY I BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN FAIR, IF IT ISN'T FAIR IT HASN'T BEEN FAIR BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYERS ARE GETTING IN THE WAY OF FAIRNESS.
REMEMBER, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPPOLONE SENT A LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DENOUNCING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AS A SHAM AND DENYING THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD COOPERATE.
NORMALLY THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WOULD UTILIZE THE FIRST VOLLEY IN THAT SORT OF EXCHANGE WITH THE HOUSE AS A MEANS NEGOTIATING PROCEDURES WHICH IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT, NIXON AND CLINT OP'S IN PARTICULAR, IN THE LAST CENTURY.
THIS PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO DO IT AND YET AT THE SAME TIME IS CLAIMING LACK OF FAIRNESS AND YET NONETHELESS, WE HAVE WITNESSES, WITNESSES WHO IT BE TO WORK IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WITNESS WHOSE HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY HIM TO OFFER NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY ADVICE AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, SO AS A NON-COOPERATION STANCE IT HASN'T BEEN WILDLY SUCCESSFUL.
LET ME PUT TO YOU, EVELYN FARKAS, REALLY A POLITICAL MATTER BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SAY WHAT THE REASONS CANS ARE I SAG OBVIOUSLY AND DEVON NUNES HAS TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE THEATRICAL DRAMA, THE FACT THAT THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS THE RUSSIAN HOAX AND -- AND THEN HE CONTINUED TODAY BY SAYING THAT THE PROCESS IS UNFAIR.
LET ME PLAY WHAT HE SAID AND THEN I WANT TO ASK YOU, EVELYN ABOUT IT.
IN THEIR MANIA TO ATTACK PRESIDENT, NO CONSPIRACY THEORY IS TOO OUTLANDISH FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
TIME AND TIME AGAIN THEY FLOATED THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME MALFEASANCE BY TRUMP, DECLARED A DIRE NEED TO STREGT IT AND SUDDENLY DROPPED THE ISSUE AND MOVED ON TOP THEIR NEXT ASININI THEORY.
I GETS WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU IS HOW DO YOU REACTING TO THAT BASICALLY ON THE ISSUE OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND THE RUSSIAN HOAX BUT ALSO IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS CAN, YOU ARE YOU RUNNING FOR CONGRESS.
IF YOU WERE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND YOU'RE RUNNING AS A DEMOCRAT COULD YOU HAVE BROUGHT THIS -- WOULD YOU HAVE VOTED FOR THIS IMPOST.
PROCESS?
YOU REMEMBER ORIGINALLY NANCY PELOSI THE SPEAKER WAS QUITE RELUCTANT AND NUNES BROUGHT THIS UP WITHOUT THERE BEING A BIPARTISAN EFFORT, A CONSENSUS AND BIPARTISAN ACTION.
OF COURSE, IT'S NOT BIPARTISAN.
WELL, CHRISTIANE, US A KNOW, I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE TOLL RING THE ALARM ABOUT THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR DEMOCRACY.
WE DIDN'T AT THAT POINT IN 2016 AND '17 KNOW YET HOW BAD IT WAS, SO CERTAINLY IF I WERE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED MOVING FAST TO IMPEACHMENT.
I UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE OKAY THE SPEAKER WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE REPUBLICANS ALSO JOINING IN SUPPORT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS ARY LICK LOTS PART OF SITUATION THAT WE HAVE HERE.
WHAT HAVE DEVIN NUNES IS SAYING IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
NOBODY HAS DROPPED ANYTHING BECAUSE ALL OF THIS ALSO ABOUT UKRAINE HAS TO DO WITH RUSSIA.
I MEAN, HOW DO YOU THINK RUDY GIULIANI GOT THE IDEA TO PIN THE BLAME ON UKRAINE?
IT MUST HAVE COME FROM KREMLIN OR KREMLIN, YOU KNOW, KREMLIN ALLY FOLKS WHO ARE WHISPERING IN THE EAR OF GIULIANI AND OTHERS TO SAY PIN BLAME ON THE 2016 INTERVENTION AND U.S. DEMOCRACY ON UKRAINE, ON THE VICTIM, RIGHT ARE, AND FURTHER VICTIMIZE UKRAINE AND MAKE THEM GIVE THE PRESIDENT A BRIBE.
IT'S ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAME THING AND I WOULD JUST SAY IF I WAS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS I WOULD BE STANDING UP VERY CHEERILY AND EXPLAINING THIS TO MY COLLEAGUES AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD NOT GET AWAY WITH THIS SUBJECT FUGE AND HOPEFULLY THEY WON'T ULTIMATELY.
I WANT TO STAY WITH YOU FOR A SECOND ON ISSUE OF FOREIGN POLICY N.YESTERDAY EATS TESTIMONY FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AND I KNOW YOU ARE COLLEAGUES WITH MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TESTIFIED, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND ABSINVOLVE NOVSK AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND GEORGE TAYLOR AND GEORGE KENT.
YOU KNOW ALL THESE THE PEOPLE.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER ESSENTIALLY LAID OUT THE CASE IN HIS TESTIMONY BECAUSE HE'S ONE OF THE SO-CALLED THREE AMIGOS ALONG WITH SONDLAND AND -- AND WHO IS THE OTHER UP, GIULIANI, I THINK, AND HE LAID OUT THE TESTIMONY THAT IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO STEER FOREIGN POLICY INTO TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN, TRADITIONAL U.S. LANES, THAT HE SAYS HE TRIED HIS BEST AND THAT THIS WAS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THIS THIS WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTING IT AS IS THE PRESIDENT'S PREROGATIVE BUT LISTENING TO NO ONE BUT HIMSELF AND WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY UNDER THE TRUMP STATION, BECAUSE FOR A WHILE EVERYONE THOUGHT, WELL, THERE'S JIM MATHIS AND JOHN KELLY AND REX TILLERSON AND ALL THESE SO-CALLED ADULTS IN THE ROOM BUT CLEARLY IT IS TRUMP AND TRUMP ALONE.
THIS IS THE FRIGHTENING PART, BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ESTABLISHED FOREIGN POLICY THAT, OKAY, UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THEIR PROCESS IS NOT AS PRETTY OR I SHOULDN'T SAY THE PROCESS ISN'T AS PRETTY UNDER ANY PRESIDENT BUT IT'S BEEN DISORGANIZED AND IT'S BIPARTISAN AND CONGRESSING IS IN AGREEMENT THAT WE NEED TO STAND UP TO RUSSIA AND SUPPORT UKRAINE BECAUSE IF BORDERS CAN BE CHANGED BY MILITARIES AND ELSEWHERE WE'LL HAVE WORLD WARS SO THE PROBLEM IS NOW THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS STARTED THIS SHADOW FOR POLICY AND REALLY IT'S NOT A FOREIGNSY, IT'S A SHADOW EFFORT TO EXTORT FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT MORE INTERFERENCE IN U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS, SO HE'S USE -- YES, HE'S USING HIGH OFFICIALS FROM POMPEO, RIGHT, AND SO ONE WOULD SAY IT'S THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, BUT IT'S WHAT THEY ARE DOING THAT'S THE PROBLEM OF THE RUNNING COUNTER TO THE ESTABLISHED FOREIGN POLICY AND FRANKLY IT'S ILLEGAL.
I WANT TO PLAY THIS SOUND BITE FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
I MISSPOKE, IT'S SECRETARY PERRY, THE OTHER AMIGO IN THE TRIO, BUT I WANT TO PLAY THIS FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT WHAT HE FELT ABOUT THE MILITARY AID BEING SUSPENDED.
I WAS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO ANY SUSPENSION OF AID.
I WAS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO ANY SUSPENSION OF AID AS THE UKRAINIANS NEEDED THOSE PHONES TO FIGHT AGAINST RUSSIA AGGRESSION.
I TRIED DILIGENTLY TO ASK WHY THE AID WAS SUSPENDED BUT I NEVER RECEIVED A CLEAR ANSWER.
STILL HAVEN'T TO THIS DAY.
AGAIN, HOW DO YOU MAKE BOTH OF YOU, FIRST OF ALL, EVELYN BECAUSE I WANT TO MOVE OVER TO SOME MORE LEGAL STUFF WITH BOB BAUER.
I THINK IT'S NONSENSICAL, BUT HE'S ASKING.
HE KNOWS.
HE KNOWS, AND IF YOU TALK TO THE OTHER FOLKS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THIS SHADOW CAMPAIGN, IF IT WASN'T SPELLED OUT TO THEM, THEY KNEW, RIGHT, I THINK IT'S RIDICULOUS THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL COMPONENT OF THE QUID PRO QUO BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE AID WAS RELEASED OR THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT DIDN'T MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE THE REALITY IS THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO GET THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO TINT FEAR IN OUR ELECTIONS BY DIRTYING HIS CANDIDATE IT, AND, I MEAN, AMERICAN DEMOCRACY SHOULD BE FOR AMERICANS.
NOT FOR ANY OTHER FOREIGNERS TO GET INVOLVED IN.
BOB BAUER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STARTED OUT ALMOST BY LAMENTING HIS LACK OF ACCESS TO PAPERS AND NOTES AND -- AND DOCUMENTS THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN, EITHER MAKING OR -- OR DRAFTING THINGS DURING THIS WHOLE AFFAIR.
THIS IS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THAT.
I ALMOST MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN CHALLENGING, AND IN MANY RESPECTS LESS THAN FAIR.
I HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF MY PHONE RECORDS, STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS AND MANY, MANY OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS, AND I WAS TOLD I COULD NOT WORK WITH MY EU STAFF TO PULL TOGETHER THE RELEVANT FILES AND INFORMATION.
HE OBVIOUSLY HAD HIS TEXTS AND OTHER MESSAGES THAT HE REFERRED, TO BUT HE SAID IF HE HAD HAD THIS INFORMATION HE WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE A MUCH FULLER ACCOUNTING.
WHAT COMPANY THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS ENTIRE PROCESS DO, IF ANYTHING, TO COMPEL THIS KIND OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION TO BE PRESENTED OR AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, USED BY THE WITNESSES TO WHOM THEY PERTAIN?
A COUPLE OF POINTS THERE.
FIRST, I JUST WANT TO MENTION BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY HAD TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY ONCE, CLARIFIED BY CORRECTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS INTERVIEW WITH HOUSE INVESTIGATORS, I THINK HE'S LAYING THE FOUNDATION SAYING I MADE MISTAKES, I DIDN'T REMEMBER THINGS CLEARLY IS BECAUSE I WASN'T SUPPLIED WITH MATERIALS THAT COULD HAVE HELPED MOW REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION SO THERE'S A DEFENSIVE MANEUVER I WOULD EXPECT ON HIS PART COUNSELED BY LAWYERS.
SECONDLY, AS YOU KNOW, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PUT UP LEGAL BARRIERS HERE AND THEY ARE BEING LITIGATED.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON, FOR EXAMPLE, AND HIS DEPUTIES, MR. KUPPERMAN ARE WAITING ON A COURT RULING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE, AS THEY SEE IT, HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TESTIFY OR HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO HEED THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION TO NOT DO SO, SO IF THE ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO FORCE THIS TO A LEGAL TEST WITH THE HOUSE, THAT'S, OF COURSE, SOMETHING THAT THAT THEY IN THE MEANTIME CAN DO, AND THE HOUSE IS CONFRONTING THE DIFFICULTY AS YOU KNOW OF TRYING TO ON TAPE THESE MATERIALS THROUGH ARDUOUS LEGAL PROCESS WHEN THEY HAVE A DEADLINE AND ARE TRYING TO MOVE QUICKLY TO HAVE THIS RESOLVED BEFORE CHRISTMAS
DIDN'T THOUGH HAD THE SENATE WATERGATE HEARINGS THREATEN ANY OF THOSE WHO, YOU KNOW, TALKED ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR REFUSED TO COOPERATE, THREATENED THEM WITH JAIL?
I DON'T RECALL IN WATERGATE WHETHER THAT'S THE CASE AND I DO THINK IT'S NOTEWORTHY, SAW IT AGAIN OR REVIEWED IT AGAIN EARLIER TODAY.
IN NOVEMBER OF 1973 RICHARD NIXON, FOR ALL THAT ONE CAN SAY ABOUT WATERGATE AND HIS HORRIFIC ROLE IN IT, TOOK THE POSITION THAT HE WANTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS, THAT HE WAS GOING TO WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE WAS LITIGATION, ULTIMATELY OVER ACCESS TO THE FAMOUS WHITE HOUSE TAPES THIS.
PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO COOPERATE.
HE BELIEVES THE IMPEACHMENT PROSES IS A SHAM PROCESS.
HE DOES NOT WANT HIS SENIOR PEOPLE TO TESTIFY AND IN THE CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, HE ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED THAT -- EXCUSE ME.
IT WAS NOT POMPEO, I APOLOGIZE.
IN THE CASE OF AT LEAST UP SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL, HE WAS GOING TO JOIN -- HE WAS GOING TO JOIN WITH THE BOLTON SUIT AND THEN DECIDED NOT TO AND HAS SIMPLY ABANDONED ANY LEGAL DEFENSE AT ALL AND IS SIMPLY LOOKING, TO YOU KNOW, DENY THE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY UNLESS THE CONGRESS REQUIRES HIM TO DO SO.
VERY BRIEFLY.
SHOULD THE PROCESS WAIT FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE ON THESE CRITICAL ISSUES?
WELL, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CASE BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT INVOLVING THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN WILL RULE NO EARLIER THAN LATE END OF THE DAY ON MONDAY BUT IF YOU COUNT APPEAL, ULTIMATELY AT THE END.
DAY CONGRESS WILL GO HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RECORD THAT IT HAS IF IT WANTS TO STAY ON THIS PARTICULAR SCHEDULE AND LOOK AT ALL THE TESTIMONY WE'VE SEEN THIS WEEK.
AN ENORMOUS RECORD IS IN FACT BEING COMBINED.
I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU AN INTERVIEW WITH NEWS MAX AND HOW HE DREAM IT'S GOING AFFECT THE PRESIDENT.
I DO THINK IT'S A MORTAL THREAT TO HIS PRESIDENCY.
THINGS ARE STILL COMING UP.
LEARNING THINGS WE DIDN'T KNOW A WEEK AGO SO IT'S THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS TO QUOTE DONALD RUMSFELD ARE ARE THE MOST WORRISOME FACTOR HERE.
THIS IS FROM A FRIEND OF THE PRESIDENT WHO MEETS AND TALKS WITH HIM REGULARLY.
IS HE RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED, EVELYN?
YES, BECAUSE WE KNOW NOT ONLY DOES THE THIS PRESIDENT HAVE A HISTORY OF LYING ABOUT HIS ACTIONS, HE ALSO HAS AS PROBLEM WITH MISUSE, ABUSE OF OFFICE IN ORDER TO ENRICH HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY AND THOSE DETAILS MAY COME OUT IN THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATING HIS BASICALLY REQUEST OF A BRIBE OF THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.
I ALSO, AGAIN, THINK THAT ONCE WE SEE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY THAT FORMED BASIS OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, PERHAPS MAYBE WE'LL GET ASPECT TO SOME ASPECTS OF THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ASPECT THAT ALSO PROVIDE THEY ARE PUTTING INTO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, ALL THINGS CAN BE REVEALED THROUGH THE VARIOUS CASES GOING THROUGH THE COURTS AND NOT JUST FEDERAL COURTS BUT ALSO IN THE GREAT STATE OF NEW YORK.
ALL RIGHT.
EVELYN FARKAS AND BOB BAUER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US, AND LET'S JUST REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THE PRESIDENT AGAIN SAID TODAY I WANTED NOTHING.
I WANT NOTHING.
NO QUID QUO PRO.
TREASON, BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, FOUR THINGS WHICH ARE INTEGRAL TO AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND WHICH OUR NEXT GUEST WILL EXPLAIN.
CASS SUNSTEIN IS A HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR WHO ALSO SERVED AS A WHITE HOUSE'S ADMINISTRATION UNDER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA ALONGSIDE HIS WIFE AND FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.
SAMANTHA POUR.
OUR WALTER ISAACSON SAT DOWN WITH HIM TO FIND OUT HIS TAKE ON THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AND THEY EVEN DISCUSSED HOW 'STAR WARS' CAN PLAY A ROLE IN TODAY EATS POLITICS.
CASS, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
PLEASURE TO BE HERE.
SO TELL ME HOW DID IMPEACHMENT BECOME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION?
ACTUALLY IT STARTED BEFORE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
IT WAS AN INNOVATION IN THE COLONIES WHERE JOHN ADAMS AND OTHERS STARTED IMPEACHING AGENTS OF THE KING USING AN OLD BRITISH IDEA, THAT IS IMPEACHMENT, THAT'S BASICALLY FALLEN INTO DISUSE AS A WAY OF CALLING PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO ACCOUNT, SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS THIS OLD IDEA WAS GIVEN A DEMOCRATIC SMALL 'D' TWIST MEANING THAT THE AGENTS OF AUTHORITY WERE BASICALLY SERVING A PUBLIC TRUST AND IF THEY VIOLATED THAT PUBLIC TRUST THEY COULD BE IMPEACHED.
THAT WAS THE DISTINCT AMERICAN IDEAS IN THE COLONIES AND THEN WHEN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WAS WRITTEN IT WAS BASICALLY AGAINST THE BACKDROP SET AGAINST WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COLONIES AND READ LIKE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND THAT'S NO COINCIDENCE AND AFTER WE WON THE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE, THE STATES STARTED PUTTING IMPEACHMENT, BASICALLY THEY ALL DID, NO THEIR OWN LITTLE CONS TUGSDS AS A WAY OF RECALLING THE IDEA THAT PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE BASICALLY SERVING PUBLIC TRUST AND THEY CAN BE CALLED TO ACCOUNT INDEPENDENT OF THE ELECTION, AND THEN WHEN A BIG POWERFUL PRESIDENCY WAS CREED AFTER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, THAT WAS REALLY CONFRONTATIONAL AND ALMOST A DEAL-BREAK AND KIND OF THE QUID PRO QUO FOR THE POWERFUL PRESIDENT WAS TO PUT INTO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN AMERICANIZED, A TOOL BY WHICH WE THE PEOPLE WOULD ULTIMATELY BE SOVEREIGN AND BE ABLE TO SAY YOU'VE ABUSED YOUR AUTHORITY.
YOU HAVE TO GO.
AND IN YOUR BOOK ON IMPEACHMENT YOU DESCRIBE THE WORDS THAT THEY TRY TO USE.
YOU KNOW, BRIBERY, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, HOW DO THEY GET TO THOSE SET OF WORDS, AND WHAT DO THEY MEAN?
THERE'S A BIG DRAMA AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, AND IT COULD EASILY BE A MOVIE WHERE GIANTS WERE FIGHTING OVER THE DEEPEST QUESTIONS OF WHAT IT MEANT TO BE A SELF-GOVERNING REPUBLIC AND THE LOCATION WHERE DRAMA I THINK WAS MOST HEIGHTENED WAS ON IMPEACHMENT, SO SOME PEOPLE SAID IT SHOULDN'T BE IMPEACHMENT.
CAN YOU GET RID OF THE PERSON AFTER FOUR YEARS.
THERE'S NO REASON TO CONFOUND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND OTHERS SAID BASICALLY THE EQUIVALENT OF YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING.
WHAT IF THERE'S SOMETHING HORRIBLE THAT THIS PERSON DOES AND PEOPLE WHO SAID THINGS LIKE THAT WERE ALSO SAYING YOU'RE CREATING THE CREATING THE FETUS OF MONARCHY OR THE ELISKT KING AND IN THE CONTEXT THOSE REALLY WENT FOR JUGULAR AND THERE'S A NOTION THAT THERE HAD TO BE SOCK MECHANISM FOR IMPEACHMENT WAS CLEARLY NECESSARY.
LET'S GO OVER THE WORDS THAT ARE ARE IMPEACHABLE.
ONE IS BRIBERY.
WHY DID THEY PUT THAT IN?
SO THE PARTICULAR REASON FOR BRIBERY WAS IN THE KEY MOMENT IN THE CONVENTION WHEN IMPEACHMENT WAS MAYBE NOT GOING TO BE THERE.
IT WAS URGED WHAT IF THERE'S BRIBERY OF MEMBERS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?
WHAT IF THE PRESIDENT ATTAINS OFFICE BY BRIBERY.
THAT WAS SAID, TO YOU KNOW, EMT TEAMLY SELF-EVIDENT.
YOU'VE GOT TO GET RID RAST PERSON IF THERE'S BRIBERY THAT HAVE KIND.
DO YOU THINK THE NUMBER OF THAT WORD BRIBERY EXTENDS TO WHAT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF DOING WHICH IS TRYING TO PUSH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO SERVE OF HIS OWN POLITICAL PURPOSES WITH MONEY?
FOR PURPOSES OF THINKING ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION IS PROBABLY GOOD TO USE THE WORDS OF THE PRESIDENT RATHER THAN TRUMP THAT PRODUCES THE KIND OF NEUTRALITY, SO IF A PRESIDENT BASICALLY SAYS TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY LET'S CALL IT FRANCE OR ITALY, IF YOU ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF MY POLITICAL OPPONENT I'LL GIVE YOU MONEY, NOW WE'RE TALKING WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TECHNICALLY BRIBERY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT TERM ISN'T DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
BETWEENON IS, BRIBERY ISN'T.
IT IS A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR AND THE REASON TO THINK ABOUT A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR OR IN THE STAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION TREASON AND BRIBERY WERE THE ONLY WORDS.
DELEGATES ROSE UP TO SAY THAT THIS IS TOO NARROW.
WE'LL NEED SOMETHING TO REACH GREAT AND DANGEROUS OFFENSES SO THAT IS THE -- THE DECISIVE CONCERN THAT THAT SHOULD BE MAL ADMINISTRATION AND THAT THAT'S JAMES MADISON AND THAT'S TOO BROAD AND THE SOLUTION IS TO USE A TERM THAT'S WELL UNDERSTOOD WHICH IS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
IF YOU USE YOUR PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO TRY TO GET A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO SOMETHING SOMETHING THAT COMPROMISES HOUR ELECTORAL PROCESSES MEANING TAXPAYER MONEY OR WHETHER THE LAST NAME IS OBAMA OR ROOSEVELT OR LINCOLN OR TRUMP, NOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING VERY VERY GRAVE
YOU SAY HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS HAD A VERY SPECIFIC MEETING AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE MISTAKENLY THINK THAT'S A BROAD INFLEXIBLE PHRASE.
WHAT THE WAS THE SPECIFIC MEANING.
YES.
HAD A HISTORY BOTH IN ENGLAND AND MORE IMPORTANTLY IN OUR OWN COUNTRY BEFORE WE WERE A COUNTRY AND WHAT WAS UNDERSTOOD TO ENTAIL WAS THAT THINGS THAT WERE NOT NECESSARILY VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW, THE GROSS ABUSES OF THE AUTHORITY OF EVERYTHING BY VIRTUE OF BEING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL SO IF SOMEONE ENGAGED IN DISORDERLY CONDUCT WHO WAS LET'S SAY PRESIDENT, THAT'S NOT THE IMPEACHABLE.
THAT WOULD JUST BE AWFUL, AND EVERYONE BE HIGH AND IT WOULDN'T BE AN ABUSE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY SO HAMILTON AND THE FEDERALIST PAPERS SAID THESE ARE OF A DID I NOMINATION THAT WOULD WITH PROPRIETARY BE DEEMED POLITICAL.
THAT ARE THINGS DEEMED POLITICAL, BY VIRTUE OF THE OFFICE THAT YOU OCCUPY AND THAT WAS UNDERSTOOD TO ENTAIL SUCH THINGS AS CORRUPTION WHICH MIGHT NOT BE BRIBERY BUT CORRUPTION, ABUSE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.
THAT WAS CALLED OUT IN MASSACHUSETTS DURING THE RATIFICATION DEBATE SO IF YOU'RE BETWEENICALLY GOING AFTER PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS THAT WOULD BE A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, WHERE MISDEMEANOR MEANS BAD ACT RATHER THAN MISDEMEANOR AS WE MEAN IT AND A HIGH MEANS EITHER GRAVE ON ONE VIEW OR DONE BY SOMEONE WHO HAS A HIGH OFFICE ON ANOTHER VIEW, BUT THE CREE IDEA IS ABUSE OF THE AUTHORITY BY VIRTUE OF THE OFFICE THAT YOU OCCUPY.
ABUSE IS THE PARDON POWER.
JAMES MADISON SAID THAT WOULD BE A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR AND, THEREFORE, IMPEACHABLE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF ANY PRESIDENT WOULD SAY, OKAY, I'M GOING TO START PARDONING PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CRIMES OR WHATEVER THAT I'VE BEEN SUSPECT SUSPECTED OF, THAT BY MADISON'S DEFINITION FITS SQUARELY INTO A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.
YES.
AND THERE ARE TWO REASONS TO TRUST MADISON ON THIS.
FIRST, HE WAS MADISON AND PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYONE WITH RESPECT TO THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND SECOND HE SAID THAT AT THE CRITICAL VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION WHERE THE CONSTITUTION'S FATE WAS HANGING IN THE BALANCE.
MADISON SPECIFICALLY SAID ABUSE OF THE PARDON POWER TO SHELTER PEOPLE WHOSE CRIMES THE PRESIDENT HAD COUNSEL ASKED OR PARTICIPATED IN IN SOME WAY.
THAT WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE SO THAT'S AN EASY ONE.
SOME PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT VIOLATING THE OATH OF OFFICE AS BEING BE A REASON TO IMPEACH THEM.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
REGRETTABLY SOME PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WITHIN THE LAST 'X' YEARS HAVE SAID VIOLATING THE OATH OF OFFICE IS IMPEACHABLE.
THIS HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SAID ABOUT PRESIDENT CLINTON, ALSO BY REPUBLICANS WHO THOUGHT HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MAKE VIOLATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE SO THE OATH OF OFFICE CALLS FOR DID I FELT AMONG OTHER THINGS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE TAKEN DECISIONS THAT TURNED OUT ON REFLECTION TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
TRUMAN DID THAT.
HE SEIZED THE STEEL MILLS.
ALMOST EVERY PRESIDENT HAS BEEN HELD AT ONE POINT BY A COURT TO HAVE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION.
THAT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BY ITSELF.
IT'S NOT A GOOD THING.
IT MIGHT BE A HORRIBLE THING, BUT WHAT YOU NEED IS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR OR TREASON OR BRIBERY.
WHAT LED YOU DOWN THE PATH TOCK MORE OPEN TO THE FACT THAT THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY NOW?
I GOT THERE SLOWLY, PARTLY BECAUSE I WORK FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING FOR PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR ONE PRESIDENT TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT THE SUCCESSOR, A LITTLE QUIET.
LET OTHER PEOPLE EXPRESS CRITICISMS, BUT WE HAVE HAD IN SOME DOMAINS LET'S SAY THE POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND THE PHONE CALL AND ASSOCIATED EVENTS IN UKRAINE.
WE'VE SEEN THINGS THAT AT THE VERY LEAST LEGITIMATE A SERIOUS INQUIRY ARE.
LET'S FOCUS ON UKRAINE.
WHATEVER EXACTLY IS THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAVE HAPPENED, AND THIS IS VERY MUCH A FLUID PICTURE, THE PICTURE DOES SEEM TOLL HAVE IN IT THE HOPE THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WOULD INVESTIGATE CRIMINALLY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO WAS AND REMAINS A PROMINENT CONTENDER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR THE PRESIDENCY, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'VE SEEN BEFORE, AT LEAST NOT IN -- IT'S NEVER COME OUT.
I HOPE IT'S NEVER COME OUT BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED.
ONE PRESIDENT ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO ENGAGE IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF A POTENTIAL POLITICAL OPPONENT, AND THAT GOES RIGHT BACK TO THE CORE CONCERNS THAT GOT THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE STARTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.
SO I THINK ANYONE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A TREMENDOUS PRESIDENT OR NOT A TREMENDOUS PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO AGREE THAT THIS IS A LEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IF WE GET TO A POINT WHERE THERE'S AN IMPEACHMENT VOTE IN THE HOUSE AND THEN A CONVICTION VOTE IN THE SENATE AND BOTH OF THEM ARE ALMOST DIRECTLY ON PARTY LINES, HOW BAD IS THAT FOR THE REPUBLIC?
VERY, VERY BAD.
SO THE -- THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT IMPEOPLE IS THAT WE HAVE A STANDARD THERE WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BID PURELY POLITICAL IMPIECE.
AND IT'S GENERALLY SUCCEEDED IN ACHIEVING, THAT AND ALSO SUPPOSED TO FORBID PURELY POLITICAL LET'S SAY ABSENTION ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE FROM PROCEEDING, SO IF WE HAD A CASE OF TREASON AND THE DEMOCRATS JUST LET'S SUPPOSE SAY HE COMMITTED TROISON BUT HE'S A GUY WE REALLY LIKE, WE'LL LET IT PASS.
THAT THE WOULD BE A BETRAYAL FOR A SYSTEM FOR WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIRS LIVES, NOT JUST IN THE FOUNDING GENERATION AND GENERATIONS SINCE AND THAT WOULD BE MOST UNFORTUNATE FOR THE REPUBLIC.
DO YOU THINK OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE JUST LIKE USING THE PARDON POUR TO TRY I TO TOE PECT PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH YOU, IS THAT RIGHT AT CORE OF WHAT THEY MEANT IN THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE AND HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND BRIBERY?
I DO NOT THINK SO.
OKAY.
SO I CAN SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT'S IN THE PERIPHERY.
LET ME EXPLAIN THAT.
SO THE CORE IS BRIDGING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES.
LYING TO THE SENATE TO GET A TREATY.
THAT WAS CALLED OUT IN PARTICULAR.
PARDONING PEOPLE WHOSE CRIMES YOU COUNSELED, DOING THINGS THAT LOOK LIKE OF WHAT LED TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
IF YOU OBSTRUCTION JUSTICE NO YOUR OWN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES AS SOME PEOPLE WORRY THEY MIGHT BE, THEN WE ARE CLOSE TO THE CORE.
THE REASON WE'RE NOT IN THE CORE IT'S KIND OF SECOND ORDER, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
MEANING IT'S NOT THE THING.
I REALIZE I'M BEING TOO MUCH OF A LAW PROFESSOR HERE AND TRY EXPLAIN WHY.
PRESIDENT CLINTON PROBABLY OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WITH RESPECT TO THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT SUIT BROUGHT BY PAULA JONES.
THAT WAS NOT A GOD THING TO DO.
FUL IT HAPPENED IT'S A CRIME AND QUITE SERIOUS CRIME.
IT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OF THE KIND THAT LED TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OR THAT LED TO HAM TOP'S EXPLANATION IN THE FEDERALIST.
THAT'S AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITH RESPECT TO A SUIT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT WHO DID SOMETHING NO THE IN HIS COMPASS DID I AS PRESIDENT.
FACT.
HE WASN'T OWN PRESIDENT AT THE TIME.
SO THIS IS AS LONG WAY OF SAYING IF THE PRESIDENT BE A TRUKTS JUSTICE, THAT'S NOT GOOD.
WHERE WE'RE NOT IF THERE'S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WHETHER WE'RE IN THE UKRAINIAN CORE OR RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, BUT WE'RE IN THE CLOSE ENOUGH PROXIMITY WHERE IT'S SAD TO SAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AGE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
BESIDE BEING A EXPERT IN THE LAW YOU'RE A WORLD REFOUND AND PUBLISHED EXPERT ALONG WITH YOUR SON DECLAN ON 'STAR WARS.'
WHAT DOES 'STAR WARS' TELL US BOSTON OUR CURRENT SITUATION?
IF I AM AN EXPERT ON 'STAR WARS' IT'S BECAUSE, AS YOU SCALER SAY, MY LITTLE BOY HAD AN EIGHT MUNLT OBSESSION WITH 'STAR WARS.'
IT'S ALL ABOUT FATHERS AND SONS, 'STAR WARS.'
IT'S ALL BALANCE THE EMOTIONAL AND GIVING IT TO YOUR KID.
THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE, DARTH VADER, AND HE IS REDEEMED BECAUSE HE LOVES HIS KID AND HE CAN'T BEAR TO SEE HIS KID DIE AND HE IS REDEEMED.
LITERALLY IN -- IN THE MYTHIOS OF 'STAR WARS' AND ON THE SON SIDE, SON NEVER CEASES BELIEVING IN HIS FATHER, SUCH THAT AT EVERY MOMENT THE SUN BELIEVES, LUKE BELIEVES THAT HIS DAD DARTH VADER HAS GOOD IN HIM AGAINST ALL EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S GOOD IN YOU AS A FATHER BASICALLY SAYS WE'RE GOING DARK, AND THE SON SAYS THERE'S GOOD NEW, FATHER, AND HE'S RIGHT, AND I THINK IN A WAY EACH OF US CAN RELATE TO THAT, THAT NO SON AND NO DAUGHTER IS WITHOUT RAGE AT A PARENT EVEN IF THE PARENT IS FANTASTIC AND YET TO FEEL FORGIVENESS AND RECOGNITION IS A PEACE-INDUCING THING AND IT'S VEILED, AND IF YOU'RE A PARENT, WHATEVER CHALLENGES YOU MAY HAVE HAD AS A PARENT IN YOUR HEART OF HEARTS YOU PROBABLY KNOW IF IT'S YOUR LIFE OR YOUR KIDS.
YOU'RE GOING DOWN IN PROTECTING YOUR KIDS.
THAT'S WHAT 'STAR WARS' IS ABOUT.
AND 'STAR WARS' THOUGH IS ALSO, TOO, ABOUT POWER IN IT EMPIRE.
WHAT DOES IT TEACH US ABOUT POWER AND POLITICS TODAY?
OKAY.
SO THE -- THE KIND OF TERRIFIC LINE IN THE MUCH REVILED PREQUELS IS THIS IS HOW LIBERTY DIES TO THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE, AND THAT LINE CAPTURES BASICALLY WHAT THE GREAT GEORGE LUKE YAGS SAW IN HIS INVESTIGATION OF WORLD HISTORY.
WHEN, YOU KNOW, A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM COLLAPSES OR BASICALLY A FREEDOM-PRESERVING SYSTEM STOPS BEING THAT, PEOPLE ARE CHEERING RAPTUROUSLY, ALMOST ESTATICALLY WHEN IT'S HAPPENING, AND THAT PART OF THE HUMAN MIND IS CHARGED UP BY SOME KIND OF ENRAGED FEELING OF TRIUMPH WHICH ASHORE TEARIAN LEADERS ARE ABLE TO TAP INTO, ALMOST THEY CAN FET IT LIKE A DRUG.
THEY CAN PUT TAT PEOPLE'S HEADS.
'STAR WARS' IS REALLY ACUTE ON THAT.
THE APPEAL OF THE DARK SIDE, BOTH IN INDIVIDUAL LIFE AND IN POLITICS IS SOMETHING.
'STAR WARS' IS ALL OVER, THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S A FAIRY TALE AND WHATEVER YOU THINK OF ANY PARTICULAR COUNTRY, WE ARE IN AN ERA WHERE SOMETHING LIKE AN ANGRY, STRONG MAN, AND IT'S TYPICALLY A MAN, WHETHER IT'S IN, YOU KNOW, TURKEY OR RUSSIA OR -- OR YOUR LEAST FAVORITE CURRENT SYSTEM, THAT 'STAR WARS' TALE OF THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE, WE'RE SEEING IN REALTIME.
CHARACTERS THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
SO AS SUNSTEIN WARNS OF THE DARK SIDE, CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AND ACTIVISTS ARE STARING DOWN A LOOMING THREAT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE.
THE U.N. HAS WARNED THAT WE BARELY HAVE A DECADE TO AVOID THE WORST CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND EMERGENCY IN NO SMALL PART DUE TO MAJOR FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES.
DUTCH ACTIVIST MARK VAN VAL WANTED OIL COMPANIES TO CHANGE THEIR POLICIES SO HE CAME UP WITH AN OUT OF THE BOX IDEA.
HE BOUGHT SHARES IN ONE OF THE BIGGEST OIL COMPANIES IN THE WORLD, SHELL AND BECAME A SO-CALLED ACTIVIST INVESTOR PUSHING FOR CHANGE FROM THE INSIDE AND MARK JOINS ME NOW.
WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
THANK YOU.
I NEED TO GET MY DUTCH PRONUNCIATIONS IN CHECK.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, HE EAR DOING A LOT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT SOLUTIONS TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND HOW TO GET THE BIG STAKE HOLDERS, POLLUTERS, THOSE RESPONSIBLE, TO FIGURE IT OUT AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AS WELL YOU HAVE SOME 5,000 INVESTORS.
SHAREHOLDERS IN SHELL BACKING US UP BUT IT ALL STARTED AS A JOURNALIST.
I'M AN NGO TURNED JOURNALIST AFTER SEEING 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH' BY AL GORE SO I BECAME AN ENERGY AND CLIMATE JOURNALIST AND WROTE DOWN MANY TEAMS WOULDN'T IT IT BE GREAT IF SHELL OR BP OR OTHERS WOULD REALLY CHANGE COURSE AND LEAD US INTO THE ENERGY FUTURE AND STOP CLIMATE CHANGE.
IT DIDN'T WORK.
ANDING IN WE'VE DONNELL HAS WORKED EITHER.
WHEN IT COMES TO IT IS I'LL FUEL.
YOU'VE TAKEN A REAL INTERESTING ROUTE.
THESE COMPANIES ARE MUCH MORE POWERFUL.
AND ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE PENSION FUNDS AND THEY ALL TALK ABOUT A GREEN PENSION, MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE REKIER IN A DECENT WORLD AND I'M LIKE I NEED TO ORGANIZE SHARE HOLDERS.
TO SUPPORT.
SO BUY INTO THE COMPANY AND KIND OF INFLUENCE THEM FROM BEEN.
PEOPLE WERE ENCOURAGED ON WEBSITE AND I'M THE NEW SHAREHOLDER.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE WORLD.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE TO CHANGE WORLD.
THAT'S WHY I'M A SHAREHOLDER.
I JUST WANT TO PLAY SOME -- THAT SHOWS YOU AT ONE OF THESE SHAREHOLDER MEETING AND OBVIOUSLY DISCUSSING WITH BEN, THE CEO OF SHALL.
YOU REAL CHALLENGE HIM.
WHAT IS IT LIKE TO STAND UP TO SOMEBODY LIKE THIS, AND HOW HONSIVE INTEREST THEY BEEN?
SO THE BEGINNING I WAS JUST THERE.
RENEWABLES, PLEASE HAVE SOME PATIENCE AND WE'LL TELL YOU WHEN YOU ARE READY WITH YOU WE FILED A SHAREHOLDER RESOLUTION AND THAT'S WHY.
THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING ITSELF.
. THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL FOR ALL EMOTION NOT ONLY FOR YORE OPEN AT MISSIONS.
2017 AND SHELL SAID YOUR RESOLUTION IS UNRONABLE AND WE NEED TO VOTE AGAINST BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR CUSTOMERS DO WITH OUR PRODUCTS.
I SOMETIMES SAY I THINK I BURN IT.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
THEY SAID NO, WE CAN'T TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.
IT'S UP TO THE CUSTOMERS TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR AND I WOULD SAY APPARENTLY WE HAVE MORE TRUST THAN YOU THAN WE HAVE IN OUR OVALS.
CAN YOU CHANGE THE GOVERNOR'S REGULATION SO YOU REALLY HAVE TO DO IT.
YOU NEED THE SUPPORT.
NORMALLY 99% FELL WITH MANAGEMENT.
SIX OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WERE BRAVE ENOUGH BECAUSE YOU NEEDED GUTS IN THE NETHERLANDS WILLING TO VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION.
THIS IS WHAT EVERYBODY SHOULD DO AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.
THEY ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO SAYS WE'RE GOING -- WE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND WE'RE GOING TO HELP OUR CUSTOMERS DRIVING DOWN EMISSIONS.
OKAY.
SO FAST FORWARD.
YOU'RE FATHER LAND OP PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE RESPONDED IN AT LEAST SOME WAY.
YEAH.
AND YOU WERE INVOLVED IN A DEBATE OR A CONFERENCE TODAY WITH TOP SHELL MANAGE PRESIDENT.
YEAH, EXACTLY.
WE ORGANIZED A SYMPOSIUM FOR INVESTORS, MEDIA, THE QUESTION IS HOW CAN INVESTORS SUPPORT THE OIL INDUSTRY TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE ACTUALLY, AND SHELL THINKS THIS DEBATE IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DEBATE WITH US IN MAKE.
WE HAVE DILL A DISAGREEMENT ON WHAT BEARS ALIGNMENT.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ALIGNING WITH PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD AND THAT'S ONE OR TWO DEGREES AND TURNS INTO PREBOSTON POLICE OFFICERBLY 100%? I'M FULLY AWARE OF THAT.
SO THEY ARE NOT READY TO SET THAT TARGET.
LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.
IT ALL SOUNDS GREAT.
HOWEVER, YOU HAVE 5,8088 SHARE HOLDERS WHO OWN 737,113,000 SHARES.
SHELL HAS 8.3 BILLION SHARES SO HAVE YOU A TINE PERCENTAGE.
IT'S A DROP IN THE OCEAN FOR A COMPANY LIKE SHELL.
AND BIG OIL COMPANIES, INCLUDING SHELL, BP, ALL THOSE ARE STILL WORKING WITH AGAINST ACCORDING TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU.
IT'S A UK NONPROFIT THINK TANK, FIVE PUBLICLY LISTED MAJOR.
EXXON MOBILE, SHELL, BP, NOW SPEND ROUGHLY $111 MILLION PER YEAR ON BRANDING CAMPAIGNS CLAIMING THEY SUPPORT CLIMATE ACTION.
THEY SUPPORT THE PARIS CLIMATE.
THAT'S THE BIG DEBATE AND INVESTORS AT SHELL AND THE ENTIRE OIL INDUSTRY THEY SAY YOU CAN MAKE OR BREAK THIS PARIS DEAL AND YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE EMISSIONS.
THE ENTIRE OIL INDUSTRY WILL MAKE OR BREAK THE CLIMATE TARGETS.
WE NEED THEM TO CHANGE.
IF WE CONTINUE BUSINESS AS USUAL.
HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE SAM GRAPH, THAT THESE VERY SAME COMPANIES SPEND NEARLY $200 MILLION A YEAR LOBBYING TO DELAY CONTROL OR BLOCK POLICIES TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE AND IN 29, THIS YEAR THEY ARE SPENDING ON OIL AND GAS ITS EXTRACT WILL INCREASE TO $115 BILL CROP, 3% DIRECTED AT LOW-CARBON PROJECTS.
A LOT OF THEM FIND THERE'S A LOT OF INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND U.N.
AND OTHERS SAY THERE'S JUST A WHOLE LOAD OF GREEN WASHING GOING ON.
A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
MANY FULLY UNDERSTAND IF I PLACE MYSELF OF OVERS SEAS OIL, PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN OVERSEAS OIL AND GAS FOR YEARS.
OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE THE CEO AND NOW THE INVESTORS ARE TELLING THEM YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING.
IN THE BEGINNING I HOPED FOR AN EPIPHANY OF AN OIL MAJOR CEO, HAVING A SLEEPLESS NIGHT AND THE NEXT DAY HE WOULD ANNOUNCE A TOTAL TOWN.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
HE NEEDS INVESTORS TO SUPPORT HIM AND IF NEEDED TO FORCE HIM AND THE GOOD NEWSINVESTORS ARE DOING IT WITH MORAL REASONS AND ALSO FOR VERY FINANCIAL REASONS.
THE COMPLETE PORTFOLIO IS IN DAMAGE.
IF CLIMATE CHANGE GETS OUT OF HAND WE'LL STALL AND ALL THEIR ASSETS WILL LOSE -- WILL LOSE.
YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING IF YOU DON'T ASK THE WORLD ECONOMY IS GOING TO SCREW YOU AND NET YOU'VE EXPAND PEDESTRIAN YOUR REACH TO BP AND OTHER COMPANIES, RIGHT?
YEAH.
I SPOKE TO THE FORMER CEO SAYING BASICALLY THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE IN PUBLIC POLICY WHICH MEANS MAKING THESE COMPANIES PAY FOR THEIR EFFECT AND FOSSIL DISTRACTION.
NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE THE ENERGY TO SOLVE THIS PROBE.
NUMBER TWO WE -- IN ORDER TO GET THE TEMPERATURE NO A MUST HAVE A CARBON TAX AND THEN WE CAN DEPLOY THE TECHNOLOGIES AND WE'LL STILL USE HYDROCARBONS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOT THE MEANS WHEREBY TO REPLACE THEM YET AND THEY WILL BE CLEANER AND CLEANER AND CLEANER.
I MEAN, THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE TO THE RIGHT NOT TO SLOW DOWN.
NOT TO SPEED IT UP, SO THESE COMPANIES ARE SO POWERFUL AND I KEEP ON SAYING TO THEM IN THE SHAREHOLDER MEETING, THAT'S UP TO CUSTOMER.
AT THE CUSTOMERS HAVE MORE TRUST IN US THAN YOU.
YOU JUST HEARD HIM SAY AND SOME WILL SAY A PUBLIC POLICY IS THE WASN'T TIE TO GO BUT OUR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO REALIZE THAT THEY ARE FUTURE IS REALLY AT STICK THINK THAT THAT'S TOO MUCH OF A COMPROMISE, THAT YOU HAVEN'T BE INVESTING IN THESE COMPANIES DESPITE THE GOOD THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AND INFLUENCE THAT OUR TRYING TO GO HAVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE FOSSIL VIEWED PRODUCTION.
LOOK AT GET ANN THUNBERG WHO HAS MOTIVATED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND YET THEY ARE CONTINUING TO BUILD COAL PLANTS.
WE NEED TO KEEP THE FOSSIL FUELS IN THE GROUND AND WE NEED TO FOCUS ON EQUITY AND THE USES WITHIN THE SYSTEM TO FIND THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD CHANGE THE SYSTEM ITSELF.
SHE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
MAKE AS MUCH PROFIT WITH THE OIL AS GOES THE RESOLUTION SOUNDS VERY VAGUE, ALLOWING YOURSELF WITH THE FIRST CLIMATE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE CONSEQUENCES ARY MEN AND AS SOON AS A OIL COMPANY REAMBROSE HYNES WITH PARIS, THEY HAVE TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES VERY DIFFERENT AND IN THE CASE OF SHELL SOME HAS TO GO TO RENEWABLES, AND I WISH THAT WE COULD LEAVE WILL OIL INDUSTRY ASIDE AND SAY YOU ARE LIKE AN -- DISRUPT THE INNOVATION AND IT'S GETTING CHEAPER AND CHEERER, SO EVENTUALLY THESE DINOSAURS WILL GO BANKRUPT, LIKE KODAK WENT BANKRUPT BECAUSE -- NOT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DARE TO INVEST.
INNOVATE.
THE ONLY THING IS THIS TIME WE CANNOT AFFORD IT TO GO ON LIKE THIS.
THEY WILL GO BANKRUPT IN LIKE 20 YEARS.
I'LL BE SITTING HERE TALKING TO YOU AND SAYING I TOLD YOU SO.
I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE 5,000 ADD INVESTORS AND YOU NEED A WHOLE LOT MORE.
IT'S ABOUT 5,000.
WE MENTIONED WE HAVE 5,000 MEMBERS AND WE HAVE 6% OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND BEHIND THAT, THERE'S 12%.
A BOARD THAT USED TO GET TO 90%.
THAT'S A LOT.
THAT'S GOOD.
AND THEN SHELL.
6% WAS ENOUGH FOR SHELL TO MAKE THIS BIG STEP AND BP REACTED EXACTLY THE SAME AS SHELL.
THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.
8% SAYS IT IS YOUR PROBLEM AND YOU HAVE TO SOLVE.
REALLY INTERESTING.
MARK VAN VAL, THANKS VERY MUCH.
SHELL MAINTAINS GLOBALLY IT SET LONG-TERM TARGETS TO CONTINUE TO REDUCE THE NET CARBON FOOTPRINT OF THE ENERGY PRODUCT ITSELF.
THAT'S OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.
FIND OUT WHAT IS COMING CUP ON THE SHOW BY SIGNING UP FOR OUR DAILY PREVIEW.
THANKS FOR WATCHING 'AMANPOUR & CO.' AND DONE JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.