On Episode 93 of War Room: Impeachment, Constitutional lawyer Ed Pozzuoli joined Stephen K. Bannon and Raheem Kassam to discuss a recent article in the New York Times and the next steps in the impeachment proceedings.

Bannon opened the discussion by asking Pozzuoli: “Is [Pelosi] playing for time here to get more actual, real evidence she can use to make her case? Because the hearsay she’s got right now is not going to cut it.”

“Right now her case is very, very weak,” the lawyer responded. “The first count is so nebulous you can’t make heads or tails out of it. The second count is even weaker than the first count, because there’s no such thing as obstruction of Congress when the Congress didn’t avail itself of a court to try and get enforcement of delivering documents or delivering testimony.”

Referencing the New York Times article by Maggie Haberman, a focal point of Episode 93, Pozzuoli stated: “This article lays out at least a timeline that it appears the House could reopen the investigation…”

“Hang on a second,” Bannon interjected. “That’s a bombshell. You’re saying that upon your reading of this New York Times article – and Raheem [Kassam] just said this – they’re going to start yelling for fifty more investigations. Why, as a litigator, do you say that?”

“I don’t say that she can do it,” Pozzuoli clarified. “I’m saying they’re going to call for that.”

“I read the article this way… I don’t think anything wrong was done here. This is simply bureaucratic back and forth between various departments inside the administration and President Trump in fact having the rightful power to try, at least, to review the United States’ relationship [with] and this aid to Ukraine.”

“We saw in the testimony the interagency consensus, the interagency process.” Bannon explained that “this article shows you is the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief elected on an America first national security policy – and we’ve said from the beginning this is a policy debate – questioning the mechanics of the interagency process on how they’re actually going to effectuate this money to Ukraine… At every part the assertion of him is to question why are we doing this and particularly why are we doing this with a corrupt administration.”

“Do you take it as any other way?” he asked Pozzuoli.

“No,” Pozzuoli replied. “But I do take it as Democrats parsing this article, and piecing it out, and asking for additional information – whether it’s Senate Democrats or whether it’s House Democrats.”

The War Room host inquired if Pozzuoli sees “in this article, and what this article implies, additional evidence that can bolster [Pelosi’s] case?”

“No,” the lawyer answered. “I see more questions, but I don’t see more evidence. And that’s a big difference.

“We’ve seen questions in the House being asked and very little evidence. This is kind of more of the same. This timeline only baits more questions, it doesn’t provide [evidence].”

Pozzuoli explained: “It doesn’t change the Constitutional authority of the Senate to dictate its own rules. And Nancy Pelosi has no business being involved in that. So her job right now should be simply to send over the articles as presented and at that point the Senate openly makes up its own rules by majority vote.”

“And by majority that vote,” Bannon asked, “what do you think it will do as far as the potential evidence? Will they call for additional inquiries? What do you think the logic of this story and what it says will drive them to [do]?

“What I see,” Pozzuoli responded, “is an additional argument for kind of an oral argument setting in from of the Senate between the House managers and the President’s lawyers. And then a determination being made from there. That’s where the key determination is going to be made as to whether or not they’re going to allow witnesses to try to open these windows up or answer some of these questions that are raised by this article.”

Finally, when asked about how he feels the Senate trial will proceed, Pozzuoli said he thinks they will “do the quick and dirty and get out of here.”