GOP Lawyer Ted Olson: “I Would Vote to Convict [Trump]”

> NOW, TURNING BACK TO THE UNITED STATES AND THE SECOND IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP, IT'S CAUSING SOME MAJOR SOUL SEARCHING AMONGST THE MORE TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVES, LIKE OUR NEXT GUEST, TED OLSON.

HE WAS THE U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE'S A REPUBLICAN AND HE SERVED UNDER BOTH THE REAGAN AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

HE WAS HORRIFIED BY THE CAPITAL RIOTS ON JANUARY 6th AND HERE HE IS TELLING OUR WALTER ISAACSON THAT SENATORS WHO DON'T VOTE TO IMPEACH THE FORMER PRESIDENT ARE COMPLICIT IN HIS WRONGDOING.

THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE.

TED OLSON, WELCOME TO THE SHOW AGAIN.

THANK YOU.

IT'S GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.

YOU WERE AN ADVISOR TO RONALD REAGAN, TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W.

BUSH, YOU WORKED IN HIS WHITE HOUSE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HAVING AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ON A FORMER PRESIDENT?

I THINK THAT IT'S CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL.

I THINK THE FRAMERS SET UP A MECHANISM TO DEAL WITH ABUSES OF POWER.

THIS CONDUCT TOOK PLACE WHILE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT.

HE WAS IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH IS GIVEN THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT.

I DON'T THINK HE CAN AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF A TRIAL IN THE SENATE.

THE SENATE IS GIVEN EXCLUSIVE POWER TO TRY CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.

HE'S ALREADY BEEN IMPEACHED, THIS IS WHETHER HE'LL BE CONVICTED OR NOT.

THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE REMEDIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE SENATE INCLUDE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

THAT'S NOT A QUESTION ANYMORE.

AND DISQUALIFICATION FROM FUTURE OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES.

THAT REMEDY, WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION, IS AVAILABLE TO THE SENATE WHEN THEY DECIDE WHETHER TO CONVICT OR NOT.

DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO IMPEACH AND THEN TRY A FORMER PRESIDENT LIKE BARACK OBAMA OR, YOU KNOW, SOME PRESIDENT IN THE PAST?

I DON'T THINK ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE HAVE SOMETHING SUCH AN UNUSUAL SITUATION HERE.

I THINK THE DISTINCTION HERE THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, THESE ACTS THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION TOOK PLACE WHILE TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE IMPEACHMENT TOOK PLACE WHILE TRUMP WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

NOW, THE TRIAL IS TAKING PLACE ON FEBRUARY 11th.

BUT WHAT IF THE TRIAL WAS TAKING PLACE ON JANUARY 11th?

THERE'S NO REASON WHY THE SENATE, WHO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DUTY TO CONDUCT A TRIAL CAN'T GO FORWARD WITH THE TRIAL SIMPLY BECAUSE SOMEONE ABSCOUNDS FROM OFFICE, LEAVES OFFICE, QUITS OFFICE, WHATEVER THE INDIVIDUAL MIGHT DO.

A BANK ROBBER WHO IS INDICTED FOR ROBBING A BANK WOULD LOVE NOT TO BE TRIED BECAUSE HE SAID I'VE GIVEN UP BANK ROBBING AND I'VE MOVED TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

YOU MAKE A REALLY GOOD CASE THAT YOU CAN TRY AND IMPEACH AND TRY A PRESIDENT AFTER HE OR SHE LEAVES OFFICE.

BUT DO YOU THINK IT'S WISE TO DO SO?

DO YOU THINK THIS MIGHT BE RATCHETING UP YET AGAIN THE POLITICIZATION AND POLARIZATION OF THE PROCESSES WE USE?

IT'S REALLY -- I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OR A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, BUT I'M JUST A PRIVATE CITIZEN.

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARILY UNWISE NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL GIVEN THE IMPEACHMENT, GIVEN THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN.

THIS WAS A VIOLENT ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE LAST TIME SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENED WAS 1812 WHEN THE BRITISH OVERTOOK THE CAPITOL OF THE UNITED STATES.

THERE WAS AN EFFORT SHORTLY BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR WITH RESPECT TO THIS, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED BEFORE.

THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THIS MOB WAS ENDEAVORING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TO INVADING THE CAPITOL, THE CENTER OF OUR GOVERNMENT, TO PREVENT THE CONGRESS FROM PERFORMING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO CAST VOTES FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO STOP, AND THEY WERE USING VIOLENCE.

PEOPLE WERE KILLED.

THERE WERE BATONS, THERE WERE FLAG POLES, THERE WERE WEAPONS OF VARIOUS SORTS, THERE WERE CANISTERS OF GAS OF SOME SUBSTANCE, THERE WERE BOMBS PLACED AT VARIOUS PLACES NEAR THE CAPITOL.

THIS WAS A VIOLENT ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IF WE TURN OUR BACK ON THIS, THAT IS VASTLY WORSE THAN GOING FORWARD.

SURE, IT IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIVISIVE, BUT THE DIVISIVENESS OCCURRED WHEN WE ALL SAW THAT MOB OF THUGS INVADE THE CAPITOL OF THE UNITED STATES AND THREATEN THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE NUMBER TWO AND NUMBER THREE PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

THEY THREATENED THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH DEATH.

SO I TAKE IT YOU WOULD, IF YOU WERE A SENATOR, AS A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN, VOTE FOR CONVICTION?

AND IF SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE PRECISE THING HE WOULD BE CONVICTED ON IN YOUR MIND?

IN THE FIRST PLACE, WALTER, THE PRESIDENT TAKES AN OATH TO PRESERVE, TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT WAS NOT DONE.

HE DID NOT ENDEAVOR TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE WILLINGLY AND REPEATEDLY AND CONTINUOUSLY DENIED THE ACTUAL ELECTION.

HE TOLD VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES THAT HE HAD ACTUALLY WON THE ELECTION, WHEN HE LOST IT BY 7 MILLION VOTES.

HE ENCOURAGED OFFICIALS IN GEORGIA TO FIND 11,000 VOTES SO THAT HE COULD OVERTURN THE ELECTION IN THAT STATE.

HE ENCOURAGED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS NOT TO VOTE TO CERTIFY THE ELECTION OF PRESIDENT BIDEN.

ALL OF THOSE WERE CONTRA CONSTITUTIONAL, AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

HE SAT THERE AND ENCOURAGED PEOPLE.

AND NO ONE CAN TELL ME, AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN TELL ANYONE ELSE THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE WAS INCITING A MOB.

NOW, HE MIGHT HAVE NOT KNOWN EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO, BUT WHEN YOU STIR UP A MOB, THE MOB COMMITS VIOLENCE.

WE'VE SEEN THAT OVER OUR HISTORY.

WHEN YOU ENCOURAGE LOTS OF PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS OF VARIOUS TYPES TO ATTACK PEOPLE OR AN INSTITUTION, THEY WILL COMMIT VIOLENCE.

THEY DID COMMIT VIOLENCE.

HE THEN FAILED TO STOP.

HE FAILED TO INTERVENE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHILE THIS WAS TAKING PLACE.

HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

HE COULD HAVE GONE ON TELEVISION OR TWITTER, WHATEVER HIS METHOD WAS GOING TO BE, AND SAID, PLEASE STOP, I DIDN'T MEAN THAT.

BUT HE DIDN'T.

AND THEY WERE DOING IT BECAUSE HE ENCOURAGED THEM TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY WERE -- THEY BELIEVED IN HIM WHEN HE TOLD THEM THAT THE ELECTION WAS BEING STOLEN, SO HE ENCOURAGED THE CONDUCT, HE ENCOURAGED THE ACTS, HE FAILED TO STOP IT.

THAT'S THE REASON WHY I WOULD VOTE TO CONVICT HIM.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S -- FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYERS' ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS JUST EXERCISING HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

WELL, IN THE FIRST PLACE, I THOUGHT THAT WAS SILLY.

I DON'T EVEN THINK ANYBODY REALLY BELIEVES THAT.

YOU CAN EXERCISE YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, BUT YOUR OATH OF OFFICE IS TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

YOU CAN SAY STUPID, SILLY, OUTRAGEOUS THINGS AND HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ABUSE THE POWERS THAT ARE GIVEN TO YOU.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABUSE AND VIOLATE YOUR OATH OF OFFICE.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSPIRE PEOPLE TO COMMIT VIOLENCE IN THE CAPITOL OF THE UNITED STATES.

YOU CAN'T SAY THOSE THINGS.

YOU MIGHT NOT BE PROSECUTED CRIMINALLY FOR THAT SORT OF THING, BUT IT IS AN ABUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

IT'S A VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF OFFICE.

AND IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY UNPERSUASIVE.

IF YOU WERE REPRESENTING TRUMP IN ANY WAY, IS THERE ANY ARGUMENTS YOU WOULD MAKE ON HIS BEHALF?

WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ABOUT THAT.

I'M NOT REPRESENTING HIM.

I WAS ASKED A COUPLE OF TIMES WHETHER I WAS INTERESTED IN DOING THAT DURING THE PRESIDENCY.

I WASN'T AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO ALL THE REASONS.

I DO THINK THAT HIS CONDUCT, WHETHER YOU COULD MAKE A LEGAL ARGUMENT OR NOT AND WHETHER IT WOULD BE PERSUASIVE OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT HIS CONDUCT WAS INDEFENSIBLE.

DO YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD CALL WITNESSES?

THAT'S UP TO THEM, I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THERE'S POLITICAL CONSIDERATION.

THIS IS A POLITICAL PROCESS.

IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS.

IT'S A LEGAL PROCESS, BUT IT'S ALSO A POLITICAL PROCESS.

THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, AND I KNOW, WALTER, YOU PROBABLY KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAN ANYBODY, BELIEVED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THERE TO BE VIRTUE IN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, THE PEOPLE THAT WE PUT IN OFFICE.

VIRTUE IS SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THEY ALSO KNEW THAT MEN WERE NOT ANGELS AND THAT THEY HAD TO BUILD PROTECTIONS INTO OUR CONSTITUTION AGAINST INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD ABUSE THEIR POWER AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR POSITION BECAUSE OF GREED OR THE DESIRE FOR POWER OR WHATEVER IT WAS, CORRUPT MOTIVES.

THAT'S WHY THEY PUT THESE MEASURES INTO THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE NOW.

I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY -- THIS IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY, THIS IS A RESPONSIBILITY TO FACE THE CONSTITUTION AND ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE TIMES WHEN SOMEONE COMES INTO OFFICE, AND WE'VE SEEN IT BEFORE, JOSEPH McCARTHY.

WE'VE SEEN OTHER EXAMPLES IN OUR HISTORY OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ABUSED POWER.

IF WE DON'T ACCEPT OUR RESPONSIBILITY NOW TO REDRESS THAT IN EVERY WAY WE POSSIBLY CAN, THEN WE ARE, AS I SAID, COMPLICIT.

YOU SAID THAT HE PUSHED THE SENATORS TO NOT ACCEPT A VALID ELECTION, ONE THAT THE COURTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN HAVE SAID WAS VALID AND YOU SAID THAT WAS CONTRA CONSTITUTIONAL, THAT IT WAS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD HAPPEN EITHER LEGALLY OR POLITICALLY TO PEOPLE LIKE TED CRUZ AND JOSH HAWLEY THAT LED THE EFFORT TO NOT CERTIFY A DULY CERTIFIED -- A DULY RUN ELECTION?

WELL, I'M NOT SURE.

I DON'T THINK THAT THEY CAN BE PUNISHED OR IMPEACHED FOR THAT, BUT I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THEM.

I WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR CAMPAIGNS.

I BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS LAWLESS.

IT VIOLATED THE ACTUAL FACT OF AN ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IT UNDERMINED OUR DEMOCRACY.

IT UNDERMINED OUR ABILITY TO TRANSFER POWER PEACEFULLY TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD SUCCESSFULLY WON IN A FAIR CONTEST AN ELECTION AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OVER AND OVER AGAIN COURTS THROUGHOUT CHALLENGES SAID THERE WASN'T MASSIVE FRAUD, THERE WASN'T FRAUD OF THE TYPE THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, AND YET THEY CONTINUED TO RAISE MONEY AND TO EXERCISE VOTES TO CHALLENGE THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION.

I WOULD NOT SUPPORT ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO DID THAT FOR RE-ELECTION AND THAT'S JUST PART OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DID.

YOU PROBABLY KNOW MORE REPUBLICAN SENATORS BETTER THAN ANYBODY I'VE EVER MET.

TELL ME, DO YOU THINK THERE ARE ANY OF THEM THAT RIGHT NOW ARE THINKING, ALL RIGHT, I'VE GOT TO VOTE FOR CONVICTION.

IS IT POSSIBLE HE GETS CONVICTED?

I HOPE SO.

I BELIEVE THIS TRIAL IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF DONALD TRUMP FOR HIS CONDUCT, IT IS NOW ABOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

THEY HAVE TO -- THEY HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO THAT EVIDENCE PRESUMABLY.

THEY WERE SITTING THERE IN THE CHAMBER.

THEY SAW WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

MANY OF THEM WERE PRESENT DURING THE INSURRECTION, DURING THE VIOLENCE.

THEY TRIED TO INVADE NANCY PELOSI'S OFFICE.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE BARELY ESCAPED.

HE WAS VERY CLOSE.

SENATORS ROMNEY AND SCHUMER WERE BARELY EVACUATED IN TIME BEFORE THE MOB GOT TO THEM.

WHAT CAN BE WORSE THAN THAT?

NOW, YOU ARE EITHER GOING TO CONDONE IT OR YOU'RE GOING TO CONDEMN IT.

IN THE FUTURE, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY THIS WAS AN ARMED INSURRECTION, AN EFFORT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TAKE AWAY OUR CONSTITUTION, SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL SINCE THE CIVIL WAR, TRYING TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BE ACCOUNTED?

SENATORS HAVE TO STAND UP AND LOOK THEMSELVES -- LOOK AT THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE AND SAY AM I GOING TO SAY THAT WAS OKAY?

THEY CAN'T SAY THAT IT'S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

THE SENATE ALREADY SAID -- VOTED THAT THE PROCEDURE IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

I MADE THE ARGUMENT AND I THINK IT'S CONVINCING THAT THE SENATE HAS THE POWER TO DO THIS.

IT HAS A DUTY TO CONDUCT THIS TRIAL AND TO REACH A DECISION.

THE REMEDY OF HOLDING SOMEONE NOT -- PREVENTING THEM FROM HOLDING OFFICE IN THE FUTURE IS SQUARELY IN THE CONSTITUTION.

SO YOU'RE EITHER TURNING YOUR EYES THE OTHER DIRECTION AND WASHING YOUR HANDS OF THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE NOT JUST ON JANUARY 6 BUT THE EVENTS THAT LED UP TO IT.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BE ACCOUNTABLE?

IF I WAS A SENATOR, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, I'D WANT TO KNOW HOW I WAS GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT TO MY GRANDCHILDREN AND TO MY CHILDREN, MY GRAND CHILDREN, MY GREAT GRANDGRANDCHILDREN.

HOW AM I GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

I SAID THAT IT WAS OKAY?

I SAID WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

I SAID THAT OUR CONSTITUTION DOESN'T ALLOW FOR A REMEDY AND WILL ALLOW A PERSON TO STAND FOR OFFICE AGAIN AFTER AN ENDEAVOR TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.

UNITED STATES?

I DON'T THINK THAT'S SUSTAINABLE.

YOU SAY THAT THERE'S NO LONGER ROOM FOR YOU IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IF INDEED THEY'RE GOING TO SUPPORT THE ACQUITTAL OF DONALD TRUMP AND NOT PUNISH ANYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED.

YOU ALSO SAY IT'S HARD TO FORM A THIRD PARTY.

BUT IF SOMEBODY TRIED SERIOUSLY TO FORM A THIRD PARTY, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO JOINING IT?

I DON'T KNOW, I'D HAVE TO CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN I CAME TO IT, WALTER.

I'M NOT SAYING DOGMATICALLY OR UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THERE'S NO ROOM FOR ME IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

WHAT I SAID WAS THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOES NOT CARE ANYMORE ABOUT REPUBLICANS LIKE ME.

AND I KNOW THERE ARE LOTS OF US.

AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN WRITING CHECKS FOR CANDIDATES TO HELP SUPPORT THEM, MAKE THEIR VIEWS KNOWN AND TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW, WHO HAVE RESPECTED REPUBLICANS' INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, ENTERPRISE, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND THINGS OF THOSE NATURE THAT FEEL VERY BADLY ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BEING SO CAPTIVATED BY A DEMAGOGUE THAT THEY WILL TAKE STEPS OR TAKE ACTION OR MAKE STATEMENTS THAT ARE UNACCEPTABLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

WE HAVE GOT TO SEPARATE THE DEMAGOGUE FROM THE ISSUES.

WE CANNOT BE CARRIED AWAY BY SOMEONE -- AND I KEEP HEARING PEOPLE SAYING 70 MILLION PEOPLE VOTED FOR HIM.

WELL, IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE VOTE FOR BOTH CANDIDATES.

THAT DOES NOT ACCEPT ABUSIVE, DISHONEST BEHAVIOR, OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR, LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT RESPECTING THE CONSTITUTION.

WE CAN'T ACCEPT THAT.

TED OLSON, AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

THANK YOU, WALTER.

I APPRECIATE IT.