>> THIS PROGRAM WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE PROGRAM OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M AMNA NAWAZ THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP STARTS A NEW PHASE TODAY AS THE SENATE BEGINS DEBATE ON WHETHER ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SHOULD BE HEARD.
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNNELL FEELS CONFIDENT THAT THE TRIAL CAN PROCEED WITHOUT HEARING FROM WITNESSES ESPECIALLY AFTER TENNESSEE REPUBLICAN SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER ANNOUNCED THAT ALTHOUGH HE FINDS THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION WRONG, HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE IMPEACHABLE.
only AT THIS POINT ONLY TWO REPUBLICAN SENATORS MITT ROMNEY OF UTAH AND SUSAN COLLINS OF MAINE, ARE PREPARED TO VOTE FOR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.
THERE ARE REPORTS OF ADDITION ADDITIONAL EXPERTS OUT TODAY FROM JOHN BOLTON'S BOOK.
REPORT NOT THE BOOK.
THE NEW YORK TIMES IS NOW REPORTING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED BOLTON TO HELP WITH THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN TO GET DAMAGING INFORMATION ON DEMOCRATS IN AN EARLY MAY OVAL OFFICE MEETING INCLUDING NICK MULL VINNY AND RUDY GUILIANI AND WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL PAT CIAPALONI LEADING THE DEFENSE TEAM.
WITH ME FOR ANALYSIS ARE CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT LISA DESJARDINS AND WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT YAMICHE ALCINDOR.
THEY ARE BOTH ON CAPITAL HILL FOR TODAY'S COVERAGE.
IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU BOTH.
HOSE A I HAVE TO BEGIN WITH YOU.
OBVIOUSLY THE NAMES YOU HEARD.
ALEXANDER, COLLINS, ROMNEY, LISA MIRKOWSKI.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT HOW SHE MAY VOTE.
>> WE ARE TALKING TO SENATORS EXITING IMPORTANT LUNCHES.
THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CONFERENCES TALKING FORWARD HERE.
THE EXPECTATION IS THE WITNESS VOTE WILL FAIL AS WE HAVE REPORTED THE LAST DAY.
NOW WHAT?
DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DECIDE HOW LONG DO THEY WANT TO KEEP THE PROCESS GOING.
DO THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO RAISE OBJECTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS IN THE FORMS OF MOTIONS.
DO THEY WANT OPEN DELIBERATIONS.
WE ARE SEEING IF THERE ARE DECISIONS ON THAT NOW.
WE ARE WATCHING LISA MIRKOWSKI AND WAITING TO SEE WHERE SHE STANDS ON WITNESSES.
>> WHEN WE GET THAT INFORMATION.
WE EXPECTED ONE THIS MORNING, WE WILL BRING IT TO OUR AUDIENCE.
YAMICHE, I HAVE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE LATEST REPORTING.
THIS BROKE IN THE LAST HOUR.
ANOTHER REPORT ABOUT YET ANOTHER EXERT FROM BOLTON'S BOOK UNPUBLISHED.
HOW IS THE WHITE HOUSE REACTING?
>> THE WHITE HOUSE STILL SAYS THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL IS THE ONLY PLIES WHERE THE MANUSCRIPT OF JOHN BOLTON HAS BEEN.
THAT MEANS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON IT AND THERE IS A DRIP DRIP DRIP OF NEWS COMING OUT.
THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS HAVE FEARED.
THEY FEARED JOHN BOLTON HAVING REVELATIONS EVERY DAY OF NEW THINGS.
THIS CONVERSATION JUMBLED, TEN MINUTES LONG.
HE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED HIM TO CALL THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO CONVINCE HIM TO MEET WITH RUDY GUILIANI.
BOLTON SAYS HE NEVER MADE THE CALL.
GUILIANI DENIES THAT CONVERSATION HAPPENED.
THERE IS A NEW STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IT SAYS, I NEVER INSTRUCTED JOHN BOLTON TO SET UP A MEETING FOR RUDY GUILIANI, A GREAT CORRUPTION FIRE AND GREATEST MAYOR OF NYC TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
THE PRESS HAS DENIED THIS NEVER HAPPENED, IT'S A COMPLETE LIE.
WHAT WE DO HAVE IT THIS, THIS GETTING BACKED UP BY FIONA HILL WHO SAYS JOHN BOLTON SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO GET HIM INVOLVED IN THIS UKRAINE, SHE CALLED IT A SCHEME.
AS A RESULT JOHN BOLTON PUSHED BACK ON IT JOHN BOLTON IS NOT THE ONLY PERSON SAYING THIS.
IT'S JOHN BOLTON, FOE OWN A HILL, TOP AIDE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL VERSUS THE PRESIDENT AND RUDY GUILIANI.
>> HERE IN THE STUDIO WITH ME THOUGH.
OUR PANEL OF GUESTS WATCHING THE PROCEEDINGS.
FIRST IS VICTORIA NOURSE.
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN THE EARLY NINETIES.
SHE ALSO SERVED AS AN APPELLATE LAWYER IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W.
BUSH, AND AS VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S CHIEF UNSEL FROM 2015-2016.
MARTIN PAONE, A 30-YEAR SENATE VETERAN, WORKED FOR THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP ON THE SENATE FLOOR.
HE ALSO SERVED AS THE WHITE HOUSE SENATE LIAISON DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
MICHAEL ALLEN WAS STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
AND JOHN HART WORKED FOR REPRESENTATIVE TOM COBURN -- REPUBLICAN OF OKLAHOMA DURING THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.
HE THEN WORKED FOR SENATOR COBURN FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS.
WELCOME TO YOU ALL.
WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND WILL GO TO THE PROCEEDINGS WHEN THEY BEGIN.
VICTORIA NOURSE, WE WILL START TO YOU.
REACT TO THE LATEST HEADLINE.
ABOUT THIS SCHEME BEING DISCUSSED.
>> THIS HAS BEEN A QUIET THEME THAT HE IS A WITNESS AND HAS A CON NICK AND SHOULDN'T LEAD THE DEFENSE AT ALL.
THERE ARE SERIOUS PROBLEMS AS A LEGAL ESTHETICS.
HE'S GOING TO SAY HE'S SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE DRIP, DRIP, DRIP.
IT'S NOT CLEAR THIS WON'T END EVEN IF THERE ARE NO WITNESSES.
WE WILL GET MORE INFORMATION AS WE MOVE CLOSER TO THE VOTE THE FINAL VOTE.
>> MARTIN PAONE, TELL US WHAT YOU THINK IS HAPPENING HERE.
>> THE MOST IF PH-RBG URKOWSKI COMES OUT IN FAVOR OF WITNESSES YOU COULD SEE A 50/50 VOTE.
PUTTING THE BALL IN THE HANDS OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS.
IT'S NOT EXPECTED HE WILL VOTE TO BREAK THE TIE.
THE MOTION WILL THEN LOSE.
FIRST HE WILL HAVE FOURS OF DEBATE.
TWO HOURS FOR EACH SIDE.
THEN A PERIOD FOR DELIBERATIONS IF THEY WANT.
IF THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE WANT TO HAVE DELIBERATIONS.
THOSE ARE USUALLY CHOSED DELIBERATIONS.
IT COULD BE AWHILE BEFORE WE SEE THAT VOTE.
ERG MICHAEL ALLEN THE DRIP DRIP DRIP WAS MENTIONED FROM THE BOLTON EXERTS.
THE BOOK ISN'T EVEN OUT YET.
THERE ARE TWO PATHS UNFOLDING.
WHAT IS ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND THEN REPORTS AND THE POELT ON BOOK.
DO YOU SEE THE PATHS ON A COLLISION COURSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS OR OUTSIDE?
UFPBLGT I VERY MUCH SEE THE COORDINATION THAT MUST BE OBVIOUS HERE.
SOMEONE, I HATE TO SAY IT, IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS POSITION OF THE BOOK.
THEY'RE THE ONES THROUGH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL THAT HAS THE BOOK TO REVIEW OR HAS THE 12 PAGES FROM BOLTON'S BOOK DISCUSSING AOU CREAN.
THEY'RE PUTTING JUST ENOUGH OUT THIS TO ADD FUEL TO THE FIRE.
IT'S HARD TO GO HOME AND SAY THERE IS A TRIAL AND WE'RE NOT HAVING WITNESSES.
>> WHO VOTED WITH REPUBLICANS DURING THE THIS STRUCK AS THE WORST DAY OR THE BEST DAY FOR THE SENATE.
DO YOU A CROW WITH THAT IS IT.
>> I WOULDN'T KAURBGTIZE IS THAT WAY.
I TOEPT THEMING IT'S A GOOD DAY FOR EITHER PARTY.
REPUBLICANS WILL VIEW THIS AS A WIN THIS.
IS A LOSS FOR THE REPUBLIC.
GOING THROUGH THIS DIVISIVE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
THE WHITE HOUSE SAYS THERE ARE WITNESSES.
17 WITNESSES, A LOT OF INPUT AND DISVOICES.
A KEY BIT OF NEWS FROM LAST NIGHT.
SENATOR ALEXANDER SAID PUBLICLY THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
THE DISCUSSION GOING FORWARD WILL CENTER ON WHAT DOES THAT MEAN.
INAPPROPRIATE IN WHAT WAY?
I THINK AT A MEN MUM IT LOOKED BAD, IT LOOKED INAPPROPRIATE.
I THINK YOU WILL SEE MORE REPUBLICANS ECHOING THAT IN THE DAYS TO COME.
>> VICTORIA NOURSE, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT?
THERE HAS BEEN AN EVOLUTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ALEXANDER HAS LANDED AS A LOT SEE IT, INAPPROPRIATE BUT NOT IMPEACHABLE.
>> I THINK IT'S A STEP FORWARD FROM WHAT THE LAWYERS HAVE ARGUED.
I THINK THE LAW PROFESSORS DEFENSE THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DO IT, JUST DOESN'T WORK.
NOW YOU'RE DID THING TO WHAT HAPPENED IN SOME WAYS CLINTON.
YES, HE PERJURED HIMSELF BUT IT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE.
I BELIEVE THIS IS MORE SERIOUS.
I THINK INAPPROPRIATE IS TOO MILD OF A CRITIQUE.
I THINK YOU WILL SEE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO MAKE MOTIONS TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD THAT THE CONDUCT WAS WRONG.
SEUFRPBLGT LET'S LOOK QUICKLY AT THE SENATE FLOOR.
AS SOON AS THAT SESSION IS GAVELED IN FOR THE PROCEEDINGS WE WILL TAKE YOU THERE, LIVE.
MICHAEL ALLEN LET ASK YOU ABOUT THE LOWELL ARGUMENTS UNFOLDING.
WHERE YOU SAW SENATORS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON.
HOW TO VIEW THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND THE NUMBER OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS.
PUTTING THE HEEL PROCESS ASIDE, THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS WITH MIXED MOTIVES.
THE PR-Z CAN HAVE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS IN THE SAME ACTION.
WERE ONE OF THOSE LEGAL ARGUMENTS MORE PERSUASIVE FOR YOU?
>> WHEN YOU REFER TO THE MIXED MOTIVE AND THE DERSH HOWITZ THAT DIDN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE EVEN THOUGH A LAW PROFESSOR WOULD PROBABLY EXPLAIN IT IN A MUCH LONGER ARTICLE.
TO ME WHAT WAS STRIKING YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY WHEN ASKED, WHAT'S A GOOD REASON WE SHOULDN'T HAVE WITNESSES.
HE JUST SAID YOU WOULD SET A BAD PRECEDENCE.
I KIND OF HOPED HE HAD MORE IN THE WAY OF AN ARGUMENT THERE OTHER THAN YOU'RE JUST GOING TO SET A PRECEDENCE WHERE THE SENATE WILL HAVE TO CLEAN UP WHAT THE HOUSE DOES IN THE FUTURE.
>> THERE IS A QUESTION OF PRECEDENCE, JOHN, I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT IT.
IT CAME UP AGAIN AND AGAIN FROM BOTH SIDES.
BE CAREFUL OF THE PRECEDENCE YOU'RE SETTING WITH YOUR VOTES.
ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT THAT THE SENATE IS THE GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY ON EARTH.
UNLIKE THE HOUSE, SCRAPPY AND COMBATIVE THIS IS WHERE THIS IS HEAVILY CREDITED AND WEIGHED.
TELL ME HOW YOU WATCHED THE PROCEEDINGS UNFOLD.
YOU THINK THAT PRESSURE, DUTY, RESPONSIBILITY WAS GUIDING HOW THE SENATORS ASKED QUESTIONS AND WEIGHED VOTES.
>> I THINK IT WAS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT PRECEDENCE I THINK THAT WAS ARTICULATED WAS THE GOLDEN RULE OF IMPEACH HADN'T SAYING IT HAS TO BE BIPARTISAN.
THERE WERE DEMOCRAT THAT SAID CLEARLY WE DON'T WANT TO LOWER THE BAR SO LOW IT'S A ROUTINE POLITICAL TOOL.
A YEAR AGO NANCY POE LOSEE SAID HE LOWELLY PELOSI SAID WE SHOULDN'T DO IMPEACH MENT UNLESS IT'S BIPARTISAN.
I THINK THERE HAS TO BE MOMENTS WHERE BOTH PARTIES SAY THIS WENT TOO FAR.
THE BURDEN IS ON REPUBLICANS TO SAY WHAT WAS THE CONDUCT.
ALEXANDER SAYS IT'S INAPPROPRIATE BUT NOT IMPEACHABLE.
THAT'S A DISCUSSION TO DEVELOP.
DEMOCRATS ON THEIR PART HAVE TO SAY THIS DIDN'T MEET THE BAR.
WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN THIS ROAD AGAIN.
WHETHER WE GET TO THAT POINT I DON'T KNOW, BUT AS A COUNTY WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS.
>> THE DAYS, WEEKS, YEARS AHEAD WE WILL LOOK AT WHAT THIS MOMENT MEANT.
WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
WE'RE KEEPING TRACK OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND HOW THINGS UNFOLD.
USING THE CLINTON TRIAL THERE WAS WITNESSES.
IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL IS THIS THE NEW STANDARD?
>> I DON'T THINK .
SO IT'S SKWUFT ADDING ANOTHER LAYER TO THE HISTORY.
AS JOHN SAID YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT THAT IS PARTISAN DRIVEN.
THAT IS WHAT PELOSI TALKED ABOUT EARLY ON AS NOTED.
SOME THINGS HAPPEN TO THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES YOU TO ACT.
IN THIS CASE THAT'S WHAT PELOSI THOUGHT HAPPENED WHEN THE INFORMATION CAME OUT ABOUT THE PHONE CALL.
NOW YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE IT'S UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE A SENATE TIME, IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES, WITHOUT LIVE WITNESSES.
WE WILL SEE HOW THIS GOES IN THE FUTURE.
THE OTHER THING IS AS MICHAEL POINTED OUT YOU HAVE PEOPLE IN THE INTELLIGENCE, WHO KNOWS WHERE IT'S COMING FROM BUT BOLTON'S BOOK IS LEAKING OUT.
THERE IS MORE INFORMATION THAT WILL CONTINUE TO COME OUT BETWEEN BOLTON, PARNAS AND OTHER FOLKS INVOLVED IN THIS.
THERE WILL BE MORE INFORMATION COMING OUT LEADING UP TO NOVEMBER.
PEOPLE HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEIR VOTE.
>> IN THE PROCEEDINGS TODAY AND PACED ON THE INFORMATION AND THE REPORTS OUT, HOW WE EXPECT THE VOTE TO GO, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE PROCEDURALLY YOU THINK DEMOCRATS WILL DO TO MAKE THEIR POINT.
I KNOW THE ISSUE OF CENSURE HAS BEEN RAISED.
IS THAT A POTENTIAL PATH?
>> YES.
>> WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKING?
>> A MOTION WILL BE MADE GIVING AUTHORITY TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
YOU COULD HAVE A MOTION BY SCHUMER.
>> SPEAKING OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
HE IS GAVELING IN.
WE WILL GO LIVE TO THE SENATE FLOOR.
>> LET US PRAY.
ETERNAL LORD GOD, YOU HAVE SUMMARIZED ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN A SINGLE SENTENCE.
DO FOR OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO DO FOR YOU.
REMIND OUR SENATORS THAT THEY ALONE ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU FOR THEIR CONDUCT.
LORD, HELP THEM TO REMEMBER THEY CAN'T IGNORE YOU AND GET AWAY WITH IT.
FOR WE ALWAYS REAP WHAT WE SOW.
HAVE YOUR WAY MIGHTY GOD.
YOU ARE THE POTTER.
OUR SENATORS AND WE ARE THE CLAY.
MOLD AND MAKE US AFTER YOUR WILL STAND UP UNIPOTENT GOD AND STRETCH YOURSELF.
LET THIS NATION AND WORLD KNOW THAT YOU ALONE ARE SOVEREIGN.
I PRAY IN THE NAME OF JESUS.
AMEN.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RESIGHTING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
TO THE REPUBLISH FOR WITH IT STANDS UNNATION UNDER GOD IN DIVISIBLE UNDER LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> SENATORS, PLEASE BE SEATED.
IF THIS IS NO OBJECTION THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE.
THE DEPUTY SERGEANT OF ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.
>> HERE YEE, HERE YEE, HERE YEE, ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON PA +*EPBZ OF IMPRISONMENT AS THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ARE SITTING FOR THE TRIALS OF IMPEACHMENT AS EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD ALD JOHN TRUMP THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> OUR COLLEAGUES WILL TAKE A BROWNING IN ABOUT TWO HOURS FROM NOW.
>> PER -- THE SENATE HAS PROVIDED UP TO FOUR HOURS OF ARGUMENT BY THE PARTIES EQUALLY DIVIDED ON THE QUESTION IT SHOULD BE AN ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE I AM IMPEACHMENT RULES TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS.
MANAGER SCHIFF, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT.
>> MR. -- ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT.
>> MR. SCHIFF YOU MAY PROCEED.
>> IS BEFORE I BEGIN THE HOUSE MANAGERS -- I KNOW I SPEAK FOR MY FELLOW MANAGERS AS WELL AS COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE ARGUMENT WE HAVE MADE OVER THE COURSE OF MANY LONG DAYS.
TODAY WE WERE STREETED TO YET ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE CASE WHEN THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED WITH THE HEADLINE THAT SAYS TRUMP TOLD BOLTON TO HELP HIS UKRAINE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN, BOOK SAYS.
THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER LAST SPRING IN FRONT OF OTHER SENIOR ADVISORS TO PAEFB THE WAY FOR A MEETING BETWEEN RUDY GUILIANI AND UKRAINE'S NEW LEADER.
ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES MORE THAN TWO MONTHS BEFORE ASKING FOR THE INVESTIGATION HE DIRECTED JOHN BOLTON TO HELP WITH HIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN TO EXTRACT DAMAGING INFORMATION ON DEMOCRATS FROM AOU SCREENIAN OFFICIALS ACCORDING TO A UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT BY MR. BOLTON.
MR. BOLTON WROTE, DURING AN OVAL OFFICE IN EARLY MAY INCLUDING THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER RUDY GUILIANI, AND THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL PAT CIPOLLONE WHO IS NOW LEADING THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE.
NOW WILL YOU SEE IN A FEW MOMENTS.
YOU WILL RECALL MR. CIPOLLONE SAID ALL THE FACTS SHOULD COME OUT THERE.
IS A NEW FACT THAT INDICATES CIPOLLONE ARE AMONG THOSE IN THE LOOP.
YET ANOTHER REASON WE OUGHT TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES.
JUST AS WE PREDICTED AND IT DIDN'T REQUIRE ANY GREAT ACT OF CLAIRVOYANCE THE FACTS WILL COME OUT.
THEY WILL CONTINUE TO COME OUT.
THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS WILL THEY COME OUT FOR YOU TO MAKE A COMPLETE, INFORMED JUDGMENT AS TO THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE TIMES ARTICLE GOES ONTO SAY MR. TRUMP CALLED MR. POELT ONTO CALL BOLTON TOCALL MR. ZELENSKY TO MEET WITH MR. GUILIANI.
MR. BOLTON NEVER MADE THE CALL, HE WROTE.
NEVER MADE THE CALL.
MR. BOLTON UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS WRONG.
HE UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS NOT POLICY, UNDERSTAND THIS WAS A DOMESTIC POLITICALLER RAND AND REFUSED TO MAKE THE CALL.
THE ACCOUNT PORTRAYS THE MOST SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISORS AS EARLY WITNESSES IN THE EFFORT.
OVER SEVERAL PAGES MR. BOLTON LAID OUT MR. TRUMP'S FIXATION ON UKRAINE AND THE PRESIDENT'S BELIEVED THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO UNDER MINE HIS CHANCES OF WINNING THE PRESIDENCY IN 2016.
AS HE BEGAN TO REALIZE THE EXTENT AND PRESSURE OF THE CAMPAIGN MR. BOLTON BEGAN TO OBJECT.
A FIRMING THE TESTIMONY OF A AIDE FIONA HILL WHO SAID MR. BOLTON WARND THAT MR. GUILIANI WAS A HAND GRENADE WHO WILL BLOW BLOW EVERYBODY UP.
NOW AS YOU MAY IMAGINE THE PRESIDENT DENIES THIS.
THE PRESIDENT SAID TODAY I NEVER INSTRUCTED JOHN BOLTON TO SET UP A MEETING FOR RUDY GUILIANI.
ONE OF THE GREATEST CORRUPTION FIGHTERS IN AMERICA.
SO HERE YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT SAYING JOHN BOLTON IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
LET'S FIND OUT.
LET'S PUT JOHN BOLTON UNDER OATH.
LET'S SEE WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH.
THE TRIAL IS SUPPOSE TO BE A QUEST FOR THE TRUTH.
LET'S NOT FEAR WHAT WE WILL LEARN.
AS MR. CIPOLLONE SAID LET'S MAKE SURE ALL THE FACTS COME OUT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT LAST TUESDAY AT THE ONSET OF THIS TRIAL WE MOVED FOR LEADER MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION TO BE OTHER MENDED.
TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENT AND WITNESSES FROM THE OUTSET.
THIS BODY DECIDED TO HOED THE QUESTION.
YOU HAVE HEARD OPENING ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES.
YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP BLOCKED FROM THE HOUSES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
WE HAVE VIGOROUSLY QUESTIONED BOTH SIDES.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL HAS URGED YOU TO DECIDE THIS CASE AND RENDER YOUR VERDICT UPON THE RECORD ASSEMBLED BY THE HOUSE.
THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT.
IT'S SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE PRESIDENT ON BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.
BUT THAT'S SIMPLY NOT HOW TRIALS WORK.
AS ANY PROSECUTOR OR DEFENSE LAWYER WOULD TELL YOU WHEN A CASE GOES TO TRIAL BOTH SIDES CALL WITNESSES AND SUBPOENA DOCUMENT TO BRING BEFORE THE JURY.
THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY IN COURT ROOMS ALL ACROSS AMERICA.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL SHOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT.
THE COMMON SENSE PRACTICE IS BORN OUT OF PRECEDENCE.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN, NEVER BEFORE BEEN A FULL SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT A SINGLE WITNESS.
IN FACT YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDE, IN EVERY ONE OF THE 15 PRIOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THE SENATE HAS CALLED MULTIPLE WITNESSES.
TODAY WE ASK YOU TO FOLLOW THIS BODY'S UNIFORM PRECEDENCE AND YOUR COMMON SENSE.
WE URGE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF SUBPOENAING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE QUESTION AT THE OUTSET.
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHETHER IF THE HOUSE BELIEVES IT HAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT WHICH WE DO.
WHY DO WE NEED MORE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS?
SO I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR.
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED OVER THE PAST WEEK AND A HALF STRONGLY SUPPORTS A VOTE TO CONVICT THE PRESIDENT.
THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.
WE HAVE A MOUNTING OF EVIDENCE.
IT'S DIRECT.
IT'S CORROBORATED BY MULTIPLE SOURCES AND IT PROVES THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED GRAVE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
THE EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT IF LEFT IN OFFICE PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL CONTINUE TO HARM OUR, AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY.
HE WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK TO CORRUPT THE UPCOMING ELECTION.
HE WILL UNDER MIND.
HE WILL UNDER MIND OUR DEMOCRACY ALL TO FURTHER HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN.
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED.
IS THIS A FAIR TRIAL?
IS THIS A FAIR TRIAL?
IS THIS A FAIR TRIAL?
WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY AND UNY GIVE IUNEQUIVOCALLY NO.
IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO CONTEST THE FACTS.
THAT IS HIS RIGHT.
HE SHALL NOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN.
HE SHALL NOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN THAT THE HOUSE WISHES TO FURTHER PROVE HIS GUILT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS HE WOULD RAISE.
HE CHAINS THAT FEW WITNESSES VOTE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT HIS MISCONDUCT BEYOND HIS DAMNING CONVERSATIONS WITH SONDLAND AND MULVANEY.
OKAY LET'S HEAR FROM OTHERS THEN.
THE WITNESSES THE HOUSE WISHES TO CALL DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS.
HIS OWN ADMISSIONS OF GUILT.
HIS OWN CONFESSIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY.
IF THEY DID NOT, ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN WOULD BE ON THEIR WITNESS LIST.
NOT OURS.
THESE WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEIR AGENCIES PRODUCE TELL THE FULL STORY.
AND I BELIEVE WE ARE INTERESTED IN HEARING THE FULL STORY.
YOU SHOULD WANT TO HEAR IT.
MORE THAN THAT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WE KNOW THEY WANT TO HEAR IT.
THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS ON EXPERT WITNESS ON THE HOUSE, PROFESSOR TURLY SAID IF YOU COULD PROVE THE PRESIDENT USED OUR MILITARY AIDE TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL AND INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS IT WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER.
SENATOR GRAHAM TOO RECOGNIZED THAT IF SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTED IT COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE HIS MIND ON IMPEACHMENT.
WELL WE NOW HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS, A FACT WITNESS WHO WOULD REPORTEDLY SAY EXACTLY THAT.
AS BASS DORE BOLTON'S NEW MANUSCRIPT THAT WE WILL DISCUSS IN MORE DETAIL IN A MOMENT RECORDEDLY CONFIRMS THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.
THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SAYING THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, NO AIDE UNTIL INVESTIGATIONS.
INCLUDING THE BIDENS.
FOR A WEEK AND A HALF THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS.
THEY'RE WRONG.
IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE, THE EVIDENCE IS AT YOUR FINGER TIPS.
THE QUESTION IS WILL YOU LET ALL OF US INCLUDING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEAR SIMPLY HEAR THE EVIDENCE AND MAKE THEIR OWN MINDS, AND YOU CAN MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS.
WILL WE LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE?
YOU RECALL THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON, THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL FORMER SECURITY ADVISER IS A WITNESS WE ASKED FOR LAST TUESDAY.
WE DIDN'T KNOW AT THE TIME WHAT HE WOULD SAY.
WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF A WITNESS HE WOULD BE.
BUT AMBASSADOR MADE CLEAR THAT HE WAS WILLING TO TESTIFY.
THAT HE HAD RELEVANT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN HEARD.
WE ARGUE THAT WE ALL DESERVE TO HEAR THAT EVIDENCE.
BUT THE PRESIDENT OPPOSED HIM.
NOW WE KNOW WHY.
BECAUSE JOHN BOLTON COULD CORROBORATE THE REST OF OUR EVIDENCE AND CONFIRM THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT.
SO TODAY, TODAY SENATORS WE COME BEFORE YOU AND WE URGE, WE ARGUE AGAIN THAT YOU LET THIS WITNESS AND THE OTHER KEY WITNESSES WE HAVE IDENTIFIED COME FORWARD SO YOU HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO YOU WHEN YOU MAKE THIS CONSEQUENTIAL DECISION.
IF WITNESSES ARE NOT CALLED HERE THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE A TRIAL IN NAME ONLY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CLEARLY KNOW A FAIR TRIAL WHEN THEY SEE ONE.
LARGE MAJORITIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES, IN THIS TRIAL.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL.
LET'S HEAR FROM THEM.
LET'S LET THEM IN THE EYE.
GAUGE THEIR CREDIBILITY AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS.
FOR THE SAME REASONS THIS BODY SHOULD GRANT OUR REQUEST TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS.
THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT ALSO BROUGHT THE HOUSE FROM BLOCKED THE HOUSE FROM OBTAINING.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT, DOB, MOB.
THAT WILL COMPLETE THE STORY AND PROVIDE THE WHOLE TRUTH WHATEVER THEY MAYBE.
WE ASK THAT YOU SUB EVEN AT DOCUMENTS SO YOU CAN DECIDE FOR YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT AS TO WHAT OCCURRED LET'S LOOK AT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE CLEAR.
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO TRACK DOWN EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT OR CALL EVERY POSSIBLE WITNESS.
WE HAVE CAREFULLY IDENTIFIED ONLY FOUR KEY WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE WHO CAN SPEAK TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DISPUTED.
WE TARGETED KEY DOCUMENTS WHICH WE UNDERSTAND HAVE ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED FOR EXAMPLE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED.
THIS WILL NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY.
AS I MADE CLEAR LAST NIGHT THESE MATTERS CAN BE ADDRESSED IN A SINGLE WEEK.
AS WE MADE CLEAR LAST WEEK THESE MATTERS CAN BE ADDRESSED IN A SINGLE WEEK.
WE KNOW THAT FROM PRESIDENT CLEAN TON'S CASE.
THERE THE SENATE VOTED TO APPROVE A MOTION FOR WITNESSES ON JANUARY 27th.
THE NEXT DAY IT ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES FOR THE DEPOSITIONS AND ADJOURNED ASSET A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY 4th FEBRUARY 4th.
IN THAT BRIEF PERIOD THE PARTIES TOOK THREE DEPOSITIONS.
THE SENATE THEN RESUMED PROCEEDINGS VOTING TO ACCEPT THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD.
>> IN THIS TRIAL TOO LET'S DO THE SAME.
WE SHOULD TAKE A BRIEF ONE WEEK BREAK FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENT COLLECTION DURING WHICH TIME THE SENATE CAN RETURN TO IT'S NORMAL BUSINESS.
THE TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OR ANY OTHER KIND OF TRIAL SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENTS DOESN'T WANT US TO KNOW THE TRUTH.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE ALL REPRESENT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE ALL LOVE AND CARE ABOUT DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH.
A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES THAT.
THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT OF A DECISION TO BE MADE WITHOUT ALL OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE.
BEFORE TURNING TO THE SPECIFIC NEED FOR THESE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU AGAIN TO BREAK NEW GROUND.
WE'RE ASKING QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
WE'RE ASKING YOU TO SIMPLY FOLLOW THE SENATE'S UNBROKEN PRECEDENCE, AND TO DO SO IN A MANNER THAT ALLOWS YOU TO CONTINUE THE SENATE'S ORDINARY BUSINESS.
THE SENATE SITTING AS A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT HAS HEARD WITNESS TESTIMONY IN EVERY OTHERS AS WE SAID EARLIER IN EVERY OTHER 15 IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC.
IN FACT THE TRIALS HAVE AN AVERAGE OF 33 WITNESSES.
THE SENATE HAS REPEATEDLY SUB EVENED AND RECEIVED NEW DOCUMENTS WHILE ADJUDICATING CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THAT MAKES SENSE.
UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION.
THE SENATE DOESN'T JUST VOTE ON IMPEACHMENTS.
IT DOES NOT JUST DEBATE THEM.
INSTEAD THE SENATE IS COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO TRY ALL CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
WELL A TRIAL REQUIRES WITNESSES.
A TRIAL REQUIRES DOCUMENTS.
THIS IS THE AMERICAN WAY AND THIS IS THE AMERICAN STORY.
IF THE SENATE DENIES OUR MOTIONS IT WOULD BE THE ONLY TIME IN HISTORY IT HAS RENDERED A JUDGMENT ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT HEARING FROM A SINGLE WITNESS OR RECEIVING A SINGLE RELEVANT DOCUMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT WHOSE CONDUCT IS ON TRIAL.
WHY?
WHY CAN WE JUSTIFY, HOW CAN WE JUSTIFY THIS BREAK?
FROM PRECEDENCE.
FOR WHAT REASON WOULD WE BREAK PRECEDENCE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS?
THERE ARE MANY COMPELLING REASONS BEYOND PRECEDENCE THAT DEMAND SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES AND CASES, AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS CASE.
AT THIS TIME I YIELD TO MANAGER GARCIA.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL AND SENATORS.
LAST WEEK I SHARED WITH YOU I WAS REFLECTING ON MY FIRST DAYS AT A SCHOOL FOR BABY JUDGES.
Y'ALL MAY RECALL THAT.
I MENTIONED TO YOU THAT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY TOLD US WAS THAT WE HAD TO BE GOOD LISTENERS AND BE PATIENT.
YOU AS JUDGES IN THIS TRIAL HAVE CERTAINLY PASSED THE TEST.
THANK YOU FOR BEING GOOD LISTENERS AND FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US.
IT'S BEEN QUITE A LONG JOURNEY.
BUT WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY TOLD US IN BABY JUDGE SCHOOL.
THAT WAS THAT WE HAD TO GIVE ALL OF THE PARTIES IN FRONT OF US A FAIR HEARING.
A OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
A OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES.
A OPPORTUNITY TO BRING EVIDENCE.
THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT TODAY.
BECAUSE IN TERMS OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS SUBPOENAS BY THE SENATE IN THIS TRIAL WOULD MITIGATE THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCT OF THE HOUSE INQUIRY.
THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF HIS WRONGDOING, DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S TO TESTIFY TO MORE EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL.
LET'S NOT FORGET THE PRESIDENT IS ARGUING THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE WHILE BLOCKING ALL OF US FROM GETTING THAT DIRECT EVIDENCE.
IT'S A REMARKABLE POSITION THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN.
QUITE FRANKLY NEVER AS A LAWYER OR FORMER JUDGE HAVE I EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS.
AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR HISTORY PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED HITS ENTIRE ADMIN STRAOEUGS, HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION TO DEFY EVERY SINGLE IMPEACHMENT SUBPOENA.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.
NOT A SEUPBLG PAGE.
NOTHING.
THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
THERE IS NO LEGAL PRIVILEGE TO JUSTIFY THE BLANKET BLOCKING OF ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS.
WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE MORE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.
NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT.
IT IS UNCONTESTED.
WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED IN EXCEPTIONAL DETAIL ABOUT THE DOCUMENT THAT EXIST THAT THE PRESIDENT IS SIMPLY HIDING.
PR-Z TRUMP'S BLANKET ORDER BLOCKING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FROM PAR PARTICIPATING IN A IMPEACHMENT INCLUDES WITNESSES.
TWELVE IN THE ORDER REFUSING TO LET TESTIFY.
MANY CAREER OFFICIALS HAVE COME FORWARD DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION.
BUT THOSE CHOSEST TO THE PRESIDENTS, SOME MAY SAY LIKE IN THE MUSICAL HAMILTON, THOSE IN THE ROOM WHEN IT HAPPENED FOLLOWED HIS INSTRUCTION.
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT DISPUTE THESE WITNESSES HAVE INFORMATION THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE TRIAL.
THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE PERSONAL AND DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND MOTIVATIONS AND CAN PROVIDE THE VERY EVIDENCE HE SAYS NOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE.
NOW THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL ALLEGED THE HOUSE MANAGERS HIS EVIDENCE FROM YOU.
>> BECAUSE AS HOUSE MANAGERS REALLY THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO GIVE YOU ALL OF THE FACTS.
BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING VERY VERY CONSEQUENTIAL AND ASK YOURSELF.
ASK YOURSELF, GIVEN THE FACTS YOU HAVE HEARD TODAY THAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU, WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS?
WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS?
IMPEACHMENT SHOULDN'T BE A SHELL GAME.
THEY SHOULD GIVE YOU THE FACTS.
>> THIS IS NICE RHETORIC.
BUT IT'S SIMPLY INCORRECT.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL CHERRYPICKED MISLEADING BITS OF EVIDENCE, SITED DISPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF WITNESSES WHO CORRECTED THEIR TESTIMONY IN PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SAID THE OPPOSITE.
IN SOME CASES SIMPLY LEFT OUT THE SECOND HALF OF WITNESS STATEMENTS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS PRESENTED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO YOU.
WE SPENT ABOUT 20 HOURS PRESENTING THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL SPENT FOUR HOURS FOCUSING ON THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE.
THAT EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY.
BUT TO THE EXTENT CERTAIN FACTS WERE SHOWN TO YOU, LET'S BE VERY CLEAR: WE ARE NOT THE ONES HIDING THE FACTS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT HIDE THAT EVIDENCE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HID THE EVIDENCE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE THE ONES STANDING UP HERE, ASKING YOU TO NOT LET THE PRESIDENT SILENCE THESE WITNESSES AND HIDE THESE DOLTS.
WE DON'T KNOW PRECISELY WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL SAY OR WHAT THE DOCUMENTS WILL SHOW.
BUT WE ALL DESERVE TO HEAR THE TRUTH.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO HEAR THE TRUTH.
NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT BEEN -- PUT HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW AND HID THE FACTS OF HIS OFFENSES FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE THIS ONE.
WE CANNOT LET THIS PRESIDENT BE DIFFERENT.
QUITE SIMPLY, THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH.
SECOND: AS THIS BUILDS ON WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ARGUING, THE SENATE REQUIRES IT SHOULD WANT A COMPLETE EVIDENTIARY RECORD BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THE MOST SACRED TASK THAT THE CONSTITUTION ENTRUSTS IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU.
I CAN RESPECT THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE DEEP BELIEFS THAT THE REMOVAL OF THIS PRESIDENT WOULD BE DIVISIVE.
OTHERS, YOU MAY BELIEVE THAT ALLOWING THIS PRESIDENT TO REMAIN IN THE OVAL OFFICE WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC TO OUR REPUBLIC AND OUR DEMOCRACY.
BUT REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE, OR REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LAND ON THIS SPECTRUM, YOU SHOULD WANT A FULL AND COMPLETE RECORD BEFORE YOU MAKE A FINAL DECISION AND TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL STORY.
IT SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT PARTY AFFILIATION, IT SHOULD BE ABOUT SEEING ALL THE EVIDENCE, AND VOTING YOUR CONSCIENCE, BASED ON ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS.
IT SHOULD BE ABOUT DOING IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.
CONSIDER THE HARM DONE TO OUR INSTITUTIONS.
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER AND THE PUBLIC FACE IN OUR DEMOCRACY.
IF THE SENATE CHOOSES TO CLOSE ITS EYES TO LEARNING THE FULL TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.
HOW ACCOUNT AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE RESULT OF THE TRIAL, WITHOUT WITNESSES?
THIRD, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD WANT A FAIR TRIAL.
HE HAS WE PETE -- REPEATEDLY SAID THAT PUBLICLY THAT HE WANTS A TRIAL ON THE MERITS.
HE SPECIFICALLY SAID IT.
YOU SAW A CLIP THAT HE WANTED A FAIR TRIAL IN THE SENATE.
AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WITH WITNESSES THAT TESTIFY, INCLUDE JOHN BOLTON AND MICK MULVANEY.
HE SAYS HE WANTS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION.
WELL, WHATEVER YOU SAY ABOUT THIS TRIAL, THERE CANNOT BE A TOTAL -- AND EXONERATION WITHOUT HEARING FROM THOSE WITNESSES.
BECAUSE AN ACQUITTAL ON AN INCOMPLETE RECORD, AFTER A TRIAL LACKING WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE, WILL BE NO EXONERATION.
IT WILL BE NO VINDICATION.
NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT.
NOT FOR THIS CHAMBER.
AND NOT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND IF A PRESIDENT IS TELLING TRUTH, AND HE DID NOTHING WRONG, AND THE EVIDENCE WOULD PROVE THAT, THEN WE ALL KNOW THAT HE WOULD BE AN ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTER OF SUBPOENAS.
HE WOULD BE HERE PROBABLY HIMSELF IF HE COULD, URGING YOU TO DO SUBPOENAS, IF HE HAD INFORMATION THAT WOULD PROVE HE WAS TOTALLY NOT IN THE WRONG.
IF HE IS INNOCENT, HE SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE.
HIS COUNSEL SHOULD BE THE ONES HERE ASKING TO SUBPOENA BOLTON AND MULVANEY AND OTHERS FOR TESTIMONY.
THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE EAGER TO HAVE THE PEOPLE CLOSEST TO HIM TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS INNOCENCE.
HE WOULD BE EAGER TO PRESENT THE DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION AND BURDEN-SHARING.
BUT THE FACT THAT HE HAS SO STRENUOUSLYSTRENUOUSLY OPPOSED THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTS SPEAKS VOLUMES.
YOU SHOULD ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO THE PRESIDENT SO THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN GET THE FAIR TRIAL THAT HE WANTED.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN GET FAIR TRIAL THAT THEY DESERVE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL.
I SAID AT THE ONSET OF THIS TRIAL, THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS YOU WOULD MAKE AT THIS MOMENT IN HISTORY WILL NOT BE WHETHER YOU CONVICT OR ACQUIT, BUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL GET A FAIR TRIAL.
THE PROCESS IS MORE THAN JUST THE ULTIMATE DECISION.
BECAUSE THE FACE IN OUR INSTITUTION DEPENDS ON THE PERCEPTION OF A FAIR PROCESS.
A VOTE AGAINST WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS UNDERMINES THAT FAITH.
SENATORS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A FAIR TRIAL.
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, THREE IN FOUR VOTERS, THREE IN FOUR, AS OF THIS PAST TUESDAY, BELIEVE THAT THIS TRIAL SHOULD HAVE WITNESSES.
NOW, THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGREE ON THESE DAYS.
BUT THEY DO AGREE ON THAT.
AND THEY KNOW WHAT A FAIR TRIAL IS, THAT INVOLVES WITNESSES AND THAT INVOLVES EVIDENCE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW THE FACULTIES ABOUT -- FACTS ABOUT THEIR PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND THOSE AROUND HIM.
AND THEY DESERVE TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THIS PROCESS, CONFIDENCE THAT YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION.
IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT CONFIDENCE, THE SENATE MUST CALL RELEVANT WITNESSES AND OBTAIN RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, WITHHELD THUS FAR BY THIS PRESIDENT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL.
AND NOW YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE, MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, LAST WEEK THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARCED FOR THE TESTIMONY OF FOUR WITNESSES.
AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON, MICK MULVANEY, ROBERT BLAIR AND MICHAEL DUFFY.
DURING THE PRESENTATION BY BOTH PARTIES, IT'S BECOME ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WHY THOSE WITNESSES ARE SO CRITICAL AND UNDERSCORE THAT IMPORTANCE.
LET'S START WITH JOHN BOLTON.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS REPEATEDLY STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T TELL PERSONALLY ANY OF OUR WITNESSES THAT HE LINKED THE MILITARY AID TO THE VEHICLES -- INVESTIGATIONS.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE NIMR THAT THE MOUNTAIN LINKED SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS.
MOST OF THE WITNESSES HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT AT ALL, LET ALONE ABOUT UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
NOT A SINGLE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN ANY INVESTIGATIONS, AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE, A PRESIDENTIAL MEETING, OR ANYTHING ELSE.
SIMPLY NOT TRUE, AS THE TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MICK MULVANEY MADE FROOU.
WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE AID ON CREUB'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.
BUT IF YOU WANT MORE, A WITNESS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD THEM DIRECTLY THAT THE AID WAS LINKED, A WITNESS IN FRONT OF YOU, THEN YOU HAVE THE POWER TO ASK FOR IT.
I MENTIONED THIS PORTION, THERE IS A SLIDE, I MENTIONED THIS PORTION OF THE AMBASSADOR'S MANUSCRIPT IN THE BEGINNING AND THE MANAGER MENTIONED IT AS WELL, HE MENTIONED DIRECTLY THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM THIS.
THE PRESIDENT HAS REPEATEDLY LASHED OUT AT AMBASSADOR BOLTON, WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS SAYING IS NASTY AND UNTRUE.
BUT DENIALS IN 280 CHARACTERS IS NOT THE SAME AS TESTIMONY UNDER OATH, WE KNOW THAT.
LET'S PUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON UNDER OATH AND ASK HIM POINT BLANK, DID THE PRESIDENT USE 391 MILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY, MILITARY AID INTENDED FOR AN ALLY AT WAR, TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS 2020 OPPONENT?
THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH.
I'D I'D LIKE TO BE BRING YOU THROUGH WHY THE TESTIMONY IS SO CURRICULUM AT TRIAL.
TURNING BACK TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON MANUSCRIPT.
THE PRESIDENT ANSWER COUNSEL HAS CITED REPEATED DENIALS, PUBLIC DENIALS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INNER CIRCLE ABOUT BOLTON'S ALLEGATION.
NONE OF COURSE UNDER OATH.
AS WE KNOW FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON HOW IMPORTANT BEING SWORN IN REALLY IS.
BUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS THE TOP NATIONAL SECURITY AID HAS DIRECT INSIGHT INTO THE PRESIDENT'S INNER CIRCLE AND HE IS WILLING TO HE TESTIFIED UNDER OATH, WHETHER QUOTE, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP, AS HE TESTIFIED BEFORE.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON APPARENTLY KNOWS NEW DETAILS ABOUT THE SIDE STEP INVOLVEMENT, INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO AND MR. MULVANEY'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCHEME.
SECOND, AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY EVENTS OUTSIDE OF THE JULY 25th CALL, THAT CONFIRM THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.
REMEMBER, THIS IS EXACTLY THE TIME OF DIRECT EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAY DOESN'T EXIST.
THAT'S PARTLY BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THE JULY 25th CALL MAKES UP ALL OF THE EVIDENCE OF OUR CASE.
THE CALL OF COURSE IS JUST A PART OF THE LARGE BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE PAST WEEK BUT IT IS A KEY PART.
BUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS CRITICAL INSIGHT INTO THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT OUTSIDE OF THIS CALL AND SHOULD YOU HEAR IT.
TAKE FOR EXAMPLE THE JULY 10th MEETING WITH U.S. AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
DR. HILL TESTIFIED DURING THE MEETING THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE HAD A DEAL WITH MR. MULVANEY TO SCHEDULE A WAREHOUSE MEETING IF THE UKRAINIANS DID THE INVESTIGATIONS.
AFTER AMBASSADOR BOLTON LEARNED THEY TOLD HER TO GO BACK TO JOHN EISENBERG AND TELL HIM, I'M NOT PART OF THE DRUG DEAL THAT BE THEY ARE COOKING UP ON THIS END QUOTE.
TESTIMONY FROM OTHER WITNESSES LIKE LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND NEW CORROBORATION FROM UKRAINE TOO, FORMER SECURITY ADVISOR RECENTLY CONFIRMED THAT ROAD MAP SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE SUBSTANCE BUT THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE RAISED, END QUOTE.
DEMILUK ALSO EXPLAINED WHY THIS WAS SO PROBLEMATIC.
HE RAISED CONCERNS THAT, QUOTE BEING DRAGGED INTO THIS INTERNAL PROCESS WOULD BE REALLY BAD FOR THE COUNTRY AND ALSO IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES U.S. LAW THAT'S UP TO THE U.S. TO HANDLE, END QUOTE.
DENILUK, UKRAINE WAS BEING DRAGGED INTO INTERNAL POLITICS USING OUR PRESIDENT WHO WAS FRESH ON THE JOB INEXPERIENCED THAT COULD JUST DESTROY EVERYTHING, END QUOTE.
ANOTHER KEY DEFENSE RAISED BY THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN THAT UKRAINE FELT NO PRESSURE.
THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS ARE ENTIRELY PROPER.
WHILE HERE IS UKRAINE SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF THAT.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE HE SAID IN THE INTERVIEWER?
QUOTE, IT WATTS DEFINITELY JOHN HAD I TRUSTED, END QUOTE, TALKING ABOUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON.
SO IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHETHER UKRAINIANS FELT PRESSURE, CALL JOHN BOLTON AS A WITNESS.
HE WAS TRUSTED BY UKRAINE AND HE WAS THERE FOR THESE KEY MEETINGS.
AND HE WAS SO CONCERNED THAT HE CHARACTERIZED THE SCHEME AS A DRUG DEAL AND URGED DR. HILL AND OTHERS TO REPORT THEIR CONCERNS TO NSC LEGAL COUNSEL WHO REPORTS TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL CIPOLLONE.
SO LET'S ASK AMBASSADOR BOLTON THESE QUESTIONS DIRECTLY UNDER OATH.
THE PRESIDENT SAYS CRIEN FELT NO PRESSURE THAT SOLICITING THESE INVESTIGATIONS WASN'T IMPROPER.
IS THAT TRUE?
IF IT IS TRUE WHY IS UKRAINE PUBLICLY SAYING THAT THE TALK AND INVESTIGATIONS COULD DESTROY EVERYTHING?
AND IF THE PRESIDENT'S ADMINISTRATION THOUGHT THIS WAS OKAY, WHY DIDN'T YOU USE THE WORDS DRUG DEAL?
YOU SHOULD ASK HIM THAT?
WHY DID YOU URGE YOUR STAFF TO REPORT CONCERNS TO LAWYERS?
THESE ARE ALL QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN GET THE ANSWERS TO.
THIRD, THE PRESIDENT HAS SUGGESTED THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE ABOUT MR. GIULIANI'S ROLE IN THE SCHEME.
>> NRVELGT, IT APPEARS THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WASN'T PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN PRESENTING YOU WITH ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE OF WHAT MAYOR GIULIANI DID OR WHY HE DID IT.
INSTEAD, THEY ASK YOU TO RELY ON HEARSAY, SPECULATION AND ASSUMPTION.
EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE IN ANY COURT.
>> WELL, ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
BUT IF YOU WANT MORE EVIDENCE, WE KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS DIRECT EVIDENCE OF MR. GIULIANI'S ROLE REGARDING UKRAINE AND EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT IT.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SUGGESTED THAT MR. GIULIANI WASN'T DOING ANYTHING IMPROPER AND HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONDUCTING POLICY.
BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, THEY SAID HE WASN'T DOING POLICY.
SO LET'S ASK JOHN BOLTON WHAT GIULIANI WAS DOING.
AND WHETHER THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED OR PART OF OUR FOREIGN POLICY.
HE WOULD KNOW.
DR. HILL TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON SAID MR. GIULIANI WAS, QUOTE, A HAND GREND, WHICH SHE REFERRED TO ALL OF THE STATEMENTS THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS MAKE PUBLICLY THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WAS PROMOTING, THAT THE STORY LINE HE WAS PROMOTING, THE NARRATIVE HE WAS PROMOTING WAS GOING TO BACK FIRE.
END QUOTE.
THE NARRATIVE MR. GIULIANI WAS PROMOTING OF COURSE WAS ASKING UKRAINE TO DIG UP DIRT ON BIDEN.
DR. HILL ALSO TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS SO CONCERNED HE TOLD DR. HILL AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NSC STAFF, QUOTE, NOBODY SHOULD BE MEET MEETING WITH GIULIANI.
END QUOTE.
AND THAT WAS, QUOTE, CLOSELY MONITORRINGS WHAT MR. GIULIANI WAS DOING AND THE MESSAGING HE WAS SENDING OUT, END QUOTE.
SO LET'S ASK AMBASSADOR BOLTON.
IF MR. GIULIANI WASN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG?
WERE YOU SO CONCERNED ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR?
THAT YOU DIRECTED YOUR STAFF TO HAVE NO PART IN THIS?
IF MR. GIULIANI WASN'T TRYING TO DIG UP DIRT ON BIDEN, WHY DID YOU SEEM TO THINK HE WAS -- THAT HE COULD, QUOTE, BLOW EVERYTHING UP?
FOURTH, THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE JULY 25th CALL.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WOULD TESTIFY THAT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
ACCORDING TO WITNESS TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR BOLTON EXPRESSED CONCERNS EVEN BEFORE THE CALL THAT IT WOULD BE QUOTE A DISASTER.
BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE QUOTE TALK OF INVESTIGATIONS OR WORSE.
NOW, IF THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CALL WAS PERFECT, AS HE HAS REPEATEDLY STATED, WHY DON'T WE FIND OUT?
BECAUSE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU SUGGESTS OTHERWISE.
AND UKRAINE KNOWS THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
THE CALL WAS NOT PERFECT.
DENILUK WAS CLEAR ON THIS POINT.
HE SAYS ONE THING THAT WAS CLEAR FROM THIS JULY 25th CALL THE ISSUE OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS IS AN ISSUE FOR TRUMP.
UNQUOTE.
IT WAS CLEAR.
BUT IF THERE IS STILL ANY UNCERTAINTY WE MUST ASK AMBASSADOR BOLTON.
IF THERE WAS NO SCHEME HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD RAISE INVESTIGATIONS ON THE CALL?
WHAT MADE YOU SO CONCERNED THE CALL WOULD BE A DISASTER?
FIFTH, THE PRESIDENTIAL'S MAIN DEFENSE ONCE AGAIN IS THAT HE WITHHELD THE MILITARY AID FOR A LEGITIMATE REASON.
BUT THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT, THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T SUPPORT THAT.
WITNESS TESTIMONY, E-MAILS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS CONFIRM THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND HIS SUBORDINATES ON MANY OCCASIONS, INCLUDING IN PERSON MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, URGED THE PRESIDENT THAT THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO WITHHOLD THE AID.
BUT IF YOU'RE NOT SURE, IF YOU THINK THIS COULD IN ANY WAY HAVE BEEN ABOUT A LEGITIMATE POLICY REASON, LET'S ASK THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THAT.
IF THIS WAS SIMPLY A POLICY DISPUTE AS THE PRESIDENT ARGUES, LET'S ASK JOHN BOLTON WHETHER THAT'S TRUE.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO ARGUES THAT YOU CANNOT EVALUATE THE PRESIDENT'S SUBJECTIVE INTENT.
THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN USE HIS POWERSFULLY WAY HE FEELS IS APPROPRIATE.
THAT IS OF COURSE NOT THE CASE.
WHETHER HIS INTENT WAS CORRUPT IS A CENTRAL PART OF THIS CASE, AS IT IS IN NEARLY EVERY CRIMINAL CASE IN THE COUNTRY.
AS A BACKUP ARGUMENT HOWEVER, THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS THAT WE WANT YOU TO READ THE PRESIDENT'S MIND.
JURIES OF COURSE HAVE -- >> TIS ENTIRE PIECE FOR PROCESS IS ABOUT THE HOUSE MANAGER'S INSISTENCE THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO READ EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS, THEY CAN READ EVERYBODY'S INTENTION, THEY THINK YOU CAN READ MINDS.
THEY WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT.
>> OF COURSE I ROUTINELY ASKED TO DETERMINE THE DEFENDANT'S STATE OF MIND.
THAT'S CENTRAL TO ALMOST EVERY CRIMINAL CASE IN THE COUNTRY.
AND IT'S DISINGENUOUS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL TO ARGUE THAT THE DEFENDANT'S STATE OF MIND IS UNKNOWABLE.
THAT IT REQUIRES A MIND READER OR IS ANYTHING BUT THE MOST COMMON ELEMENT OF ANY CRIME CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHERWISE.
BUT IF YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION LET'S ASK THE PRESIDENT WHETHER JOHN BOLTON CAN HELP FILL IN ANY GAPS ABOUT HIS STATE OF MIND.
>> IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT JOHN HE KNOWS SOME OF MY THOUGHTS.
HE KNOWS WHAT I THINK ABOUT LEADERS.
>> CASE IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN UKRAINE.
JOHN BOLTON KNOWS A LOT ABOUT THAT.
LET'S HEAR FROM HIM.
A FAIR TRIAL DEMANDS IT.
AND IT'S MORE THAN JUST ENSURING A FAIR TRIAL.
IT'S ABOUT REMEMBERING THAT IN AMERICA, TRUTH MATTERS.
AS MR. BOLTON SAID ON JANUARY 30th, QUOTE, THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW TESTIFYING TO WHAT YOU THINK IS TRUE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE, I THINK IS VERY NEARLY THE REVERSE.
THE EXACT REVERSE OF THE TRUTH.
END QUOTE.
NOW AS MANAGER SCHIFF STARTED THIS OUT, THE TRUTH CONTINUES TO COME OUT.
AGAIN, IN AN ARTICLE TODAY, MORE INFORMATION.
THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT.
WHERE AND IT'S CONTINUING TO.
THE QUESTION HERE BEFORE THIS BODY IS WHAT DO YOU WANT YOUR PLACE IN HISTORY TO BE?
DO YOU WANT YOUR PLACE IN HISTORY TO BE LET'S HEAR THE TRUTH OR THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT?
>> GIVEN OUR TIME CONSTRAINTS WE WILL NOW SUMMARIZE THE REASONS WHY MR. MULVANEY, MR. DUFFY AND MR. BLARE ARE ALSO IMPORTANT.
LET'S TURN FIRST TO MR. MULVANEY.
TO BEGIN WITH, MR. MULVANEY PARTICIPATED IN MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AT EVERY SINGLE STAGE OF THIS SCHEME.
WE JUST TALKED ABOUT MOTIVE AND INTENT.
IF YOU WANT FURTHER CINCINNATI INTO THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVE AND INTENTS, FURTHER EVIDENCE WHY HE WITHHELD THE MILITARY AID AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING YOU SHOULD CALL HIS ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF WHO HAD MORE ACCESS THAN ANYONE.
IN MULVANEY IS IMPORTANT -- MR. MULVANEY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO ARGUE INCORRECTLY THAT OUR EVIDENCE IS JUST HEARSAY AND SPECULATION.
PACED WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MR. HOLMES SAYING THIS IS AS CLEAR AS TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR, THE PRESIDENT SAYS THEY ARE JUST GUESSING.
THAT IS SIMPLY THOUGHT TRUE.
THE EVIDENCE IS DIRECT.
THE EVIDENCE IS COMPELLING AND CONFIRMED BY MANY WITNESSES, CORROBORATED BY TEXT MESSAGES, E-MAILS, AND PHONE RECORDS, BUT IF YOU WANT MOREVIDENCE, IF YOU WANT ANOTHER FIRSTHAND ACCOUNT FOR CAN WHY THE AID WAS WITHHELD FOR THE UNDISPUTED QUID PRO QUO, FOR THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING, LET'S JUST HEAR FROM MICK MULVANEY.
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DESCRIBED TO MULTIPLE WITNESSES, HOW MR. MULVANEY WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.
HERE'S SOME OF THAT TESTIMONY.
>> AND SO WHEN I CAME IN, GORDON SONDLAND WAS BASICALLY SAYING WELL LOOK WE HAVE A DEAL HERE THAT THERE WILL BE A MEETING.
I HAVE A DEAL HERE WITH CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, THERE WILL BE A MEETING IF THE UKRAINIANS OPEN UP OR ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS, INTO 2016 AND BURISMA.
AND I CUT IT OFF IMMEDIATELY THERE.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD ME I'M NOOLT PART OF THIS NOT PART OF WHATEVER THIS DRUG DEAL THAT MULVANEY AND SONDLAND ARE COOKING UP.
>> WHAT DID YOU TAKE THAT TO MEAN?
>> I TOOK IT TO MEAN INVESTIGATIONS FOR AMEETING.
>> DID YOU GO SPEAK TO THE LAWYERS?
>> I CERTAINLY DID.
>> WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT HE MAKES REFERENCE IN THAT DRUG DEAL TO A DRUG DEAL COOKED UP BY YOU AND MULVANEY.
IT'S THE REFERENCE TO MULVANEY THAT I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT.
YOU'VE TESTIFIED THAT MULVANEY WAS AWARE OF THIS QUID PRO QUO, OF THIS CONDITION THAT THE UKRAINIANS HAD TO MEET, THAT IS, ANNOUNCING THIS PUBLIC INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YEAH, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF IT.
AND -- >> INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY?
>> CORRECT.
>> REMARKABLY, THE PRESIDENT IS STILT DENYING THE FACTS.
EVEN AS THEY ARC THAT IF IT'S TRUE, IT'S STILL NOT IMPEACHABLE.
BUT IF THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG, IF HE HELD UP THE AID BECAUSE OF SO-CALLED CORRUPTION OR BURDEN-SHARING REASONS HE SHOULD WANT HIS CHIEF OF STAFF TO COME TESTIFY UNDER OATH BEFORE THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY AND SAY, JUST THAT.
WHY DOESN'T HE WANT MULVANEY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE?
WELL, WE KNOW THE ANSWER.
BECAUSE MR. MULVANEY WILL CONFIRM THE CORRUPT SHAKEDOWN SCHEME.
BECAUSE MR. MULVANEY WAS IN THE LOOP.
EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.
AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SUMMARIZED IN HIS TESTIMONY ON JULY 19th HE E-MAILED SEVERAL TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PREPARED TO RECEIVE POTUS'S CALL AND WOULD ASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE INTENDS TO RUN A FULLY TRP TRANSPORT INVESTIGATION AND WILL TURN OVER EVERY STONE.
MR. MULVANEY REPLIED, I ASKED NSC TO SET IT UP FOR TOMORROW.
THE ABOVE E-MAIL SEEMS CLEAR, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS CLEAR.
THAT HE WAS CONFIRMING TO MR. MULVANEY THAT HE HAD TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE HAD TO TELL PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THAT JULY 25th CALL THAT HE WOULD ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION.
WHICH HE EXPLAINED WAS A REFERENCE TO ONE OF THE TWO PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.
AND MR. MULVANEY REPLIES THAT HE'LL SET UP THE MEETING.
CONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT SONDLAND EXPLAINED HE'D REACHED WITH MR. MULVANEY TO CONDITION A MEETING ON THE INVESTIGATIONS.
BUT IF THERE'S ANY UNCERTAINTY, IF THERE'S ANY LINGERING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS, LET'S JUST QUESTION MICK MULVANEY UNDER OATH.
MR. MULVANEY ALSO MATTERS BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD SEVERAL QUESTIONS FROM THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY OF SENATORS.
WANTINGSWANTING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN OR WHY OR HOW THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY AID.
AS THE HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, MR. MULVANEY HAS UNIQUE INSIGHTS INTO ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS.
YOUR QUESTIONS.
REMEMBER THAT E-MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN MR. MULVANEY AND HIS DEPUTY, ROB BLAIR, ON JUNE 27th, WHEN MULVANEY ASKED BLAIR ABOUT WHETHER THEY COULD IMPLEMENT THE HOLD?
AND BLAIR RESPONDED, THAT IT COULD BE DONE, BUT THAT CONGRESS WOULD BECOME UNHINGED?
IT WASN'T JUST CONGRESS.
IT WAS THE INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE THAT DETERMINED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD VIOLATED THE LAW.
IN THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS GOING TO ARGUE WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT HE WITHHELD THE AID AS PART OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE THAT THE SENATE SHOULD HEAR DIRECTLY FROM MONTH MULVANEY WHO HAS FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF EXACTLY THESE FACTS.
HE SAID SO HIMSELF.
>> I WAS INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE MONEY WAS HELD UP TEMPORARILY.
>> WHY DOESN'T PRESIDENT TRUMP WANT MICK MULVANEY TO TESTIFY, WHY?
PERHAPS HERE'S WHY.
>> DID HE ALSO MENTION TO ME IN PAST THAT THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER, ABSOLUTELY, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
BUT THAT'S IT.
THAT'S WHY WE HEMMED UP THE MONEY.
SO THERE WAS A REPORT -- >> SO THE DEMANDS FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATS WAS MART OF THE REASON HE WANTED TO WITHHOLD FUNDING TO UKRAINE?
>> THE LOOK BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, CERTAINLY WAS PART OF THE THING THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IN CORRUPTION WITH THAT NATION.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE.
>> LET'S BE CLEAR, YOU JUST DESCRIBED AS A QUID PRO QUO, IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION IS INTO THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER HAPPENED AS WELL.
>> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME, WITH FOREIGN POLICY.
WE WERE HOLDING UP MONEY AT THE SAME TIME FOR WHAT WAS IT, THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE KITCHENS, WE WERE HOLDING UP FOR NORTHERN TRIANGLE COUNTRIES SO THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR POLICIES ON IMMIGRATION.
BY THE WAY AND THIS SPEAKS TO -- I'M SORRY, THIS SPEAKS TO AN IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE I HEARD THIS YESTERDAY AND I CANNOT REMEMBER THE GENTLEMAN WHOSE TESTIMONY -- McKINNEY, I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME, IF YOU BELIEVE THE NEWS REPORTS, WE'VE NOT SEEN ANY TRANSCRIPTS OF THIS, THE ONLY TRANSCRIPT I'VE SEEN IS SONDLAND'S THIS MORNING.
WHAT DID McKINNEY SAY YESTERDAY, HE SAID HE WAS REALLY UPSET WITH THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICIES.
THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET OVER THIS, I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY.
GET OVER IT, THERE IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.
>> IS THAT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, GET OVER IT?
IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THIS BODY, THE WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY?
GET OVER IT?
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CAN TRY TO EMPHASIZE MR. MULVANEY AND HIS ATTORNEY'S EFFORTS TO WALK BACK THIS STATEMENT.
BUT AS YOU'VE SEEN WITH YOUR OWN EYES, THE STATEMENT WAS UNEQUIF UNEQUIVOCAL.
AND EVEN WHEN GIVEN THE CHANCE IN REALTIME, ON THAT DAY ON OCTOBER 17th, TO DENY A QUID PO QUO, HE DOUBLED DOWN.
GET OVER IT, HE SAID.
BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE REAL ANSWER IS, WHERE THE TRUTH LIES, THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO FIND OUT.
LET'S ALL JUST QUESTION MR. MULVANEY UNDEROATH DURING A SENATE TRIAL.
AFTER ALL, COUNSEL SAID THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS THE GREATEST VEHICLE IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE EVER INVENTED TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH.
YOUR TRUTH.
FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON, ENTIRELY WITHIN HIS RIGHT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
THAT THIS WAS A NORMAL ORDINARY DECISION, AND THAT THIS IS ALL JUST ONE BIG POLICY DISAGREEMENT.
WE HAVE PROVEN EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
THIS CAN'T BE A FOLLOW DISAGREEMENT.
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ACTUALLY WENT AGAINST U.S. POLICY.
THE HOLD WAS UNDERTAKEN OUTSIDE OF THE NORTH CHANNELS BY A PRESIDENT WHO THEY ADMIT WAS NOT CONDUCTING POLICY.
THE HOLD WAS CONCEALED NOT ONLY FROM CONGRESS, BUT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S OWN OFFICIALS.
RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE POLICY.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE HOLD VIOLATED THE LAW.
THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE POLICY BUT HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO GRAIK THE LAW.
AND COERCE AN ALLY.
INTO HELPINGS HIM CHEAT IN OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
AND HE DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO USE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXPAYER FUNDS AS LEVERAGE TO GET POLITICAL DIRT ON AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HAPPENS TO BE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.
BUT IF YOU REMAIN UNSURE ABOUT ALL OF THIS, WHO BETTER TO ASK THAN MR. BLAIR OR MR. DUFFY?
THEY OVERSAW AND EXECUTED THE PROCESS OF WITHHOLDING THE AID.
THEY CAN TELL US EXACTLY HOW UNRELATED TO BUSINESS AS USUAL THIS WHOLE SHAKEDOWN SCHEME WAS WHEN IT WAS UNDER WAY.
THEY CAN TESTIFY ABOUT WHY THE AID WAS WITHHELD.
AND WHETHER THERE WAS ANY LEGITIMATE EXPLANATION FOR WITHHOLDING IT.
SOME OF YOU HAVE ASKED THAT VERY QUESTION.
MULTIPLE OFFICIALS INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, DAVID HOLMES, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND MARK SANDY, ALL TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE NEVER GIVEN A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE HOLD.
SO LET'S ASK MR. BLAIR.
LET'S ASK MR. DUFF WRITE IF THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
AS MICK MULVANEY SUGGESTS.
WHY, AT THIS TIME, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SCHEME, OR ALL OF THOSE WFNSES LEFT -- ARE ALL OF THOSE WITNESSES LEFT IN THE DARK?
DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT, TO PRODUCE A SHRED OF INFORMATION IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY UNDERTAKEN IN THE HOUSE, HIS ADMINISTRATION DID PRODUCE 192 PAGES OF UKRAINE REMITTED E-MAIL RECORDS -- RELATED E-MAIL RECORDS IN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUITS.
ALBEIT IN HEAVILY REDACTED FORM.
THESE DOCUMENTS CONFIRM MR. DUFFY'S CENTRAL ROLE IN EXECUTING THE HOLD.
HE'S ON NEARLY EVERY SINGLE E-MAIL RELEASED.
NEARLY EVERY SINGLE E-MAIL.
HERE'S AN IMPORTANT E-MAIL FROM THAT PRODUCTION.
JUST 90 MINUTES AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL, MR. DUFFY E-MAILED OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT THEY SHOULD HOLD OFF ON ANY ADDITIONAL DOD OBLIGATION HE OF THESE FUNDS.
MR.-- OBLIGATIONS OF THESE FUNDS.
MR. DUFFY ADDED THAT THE REQUEST WAS SENSITIVE AND THAT THEY SHOULD KEEP THIS INFORMATION CLOSELY HELD.
THE TIMING IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF THE AID WASN'T LINKED TO THE JULY 25th CALL, IF IT WASN'T REMITTED, WHY THE SENSITIVE, CLOSELY-HELD REQUEST MADE WITHIN TWO HOURS OF THAT CALL?
LET'S JUST ASK MR. DUFFY.
IN DUFFY AND MR. BLAIR CAN TESTIFY ABOUT THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE DOD TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.
ABOUT THE ILLEGALITY OF THE HOLD, WHY IT REMAINS IN PLACE EVENLY AFTER THE DOD WARNLGD THE ADMINISTRATION THAT IT WOULD VIOLATE THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT.
NOW, THE PRESIDENTIAL OF COURSE HAS DISPUTED THIS FACT.
BUT WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT OMB WAS WARNED REPEATEDLY BY DOD OFFICIALS OF TWO THINGS.
FIRST, CONTINUING TO WITHHOLD THE AID WOULD PREVENT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FROM SPENDING THE MONEY BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, AND SECOND, THE HOLD WAS POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL.
AS TURNED OUT TO BE THE CASE.
BY AUGUST 9, DOD TOLD MR. DUFFY DIRECTLY THAT DOD, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COULD NO LONGER SUPPORT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETLAIMS THAT THE HOLD WOULD NOT PRECLUDE TIMELY EXECUTION OF THE AID FOR UKRAINE.
OUR VULNERABLE ALLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIAN BACKED SEPARATISTS.
YET, AS MR. DUFFY REPORTEDLY TOLD MS. McCUSKER ON SEPTEMBER 36th, THERE WAS A CLEAR DIRECTION FROM POTUS TO HOLD, CLEAR DIRECTION FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONTINUE THE HOLD.
SO HOW DID MR. DUFFY UNDERSTAND IFTHE CLEAR DIRECTION TO CONTINUE THE HOLD?
WHY IS THE PRESIDENT CLAIMING THE THIS WASN'T UNLAWFUL?
WHEN DOD, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, REPORTEDLY WARNED HIS ADMINISTRATION THAT IT WAS?
WOULDN'T WE ALL LIKE TO ASK MR. DUFERY THESE QUESTIONS?
-- DUFFY THESE QUESTIONS?
FINALLY HERE IS ANOTHER REASON WHY WE KNOW THIS WAS NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL.
ON JULY 29th, MR. DUFFY, A POLITICAL APPOINTEE WITH ZERO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE, ABRUPTLY SEIZERESPONSIBILITY FOR WITHHOLDING THE AID FROM MARK SANDY.
A CAREER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL.
SEIZED THE RESPONSIBILITY.
FROM A CAREER OFFICIAL.
IN DUFFY PROVIDED NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THAT DECISION.
MR. SANDY TESTIFIED THAT NOTHING LIKE THAT HAD EVER HAPPENED IN HIS ENTIRE GOVERNMENTAL CAREER.
LET'S THINK ABOUT THAT.
IF THIS IS AS ROUTINE AS THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS, WHY IS A CAREER OFFICIAL SAYING HE'S NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN BEFORE?
MR. DUFFY KNOWS WHY.
SHOULDN'T WE JUST TAKE THE TIME TO ASK HIM?
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL.
THE CONSTITUTION DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL.
THE PRESIDENT DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL.
A FAIR TRIAL MEANS WITNESSES.
A FAIR TRIAL MEANS DOCUMENTS.
A FAIR TRIAL MEANS EVIDENCE.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
AND I YIELD TO MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE, MANAGER LOFGREN.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT HEARING FROM WITNESSES.
YOU NEED DOCUMENTS.
THE DOCUMENTS DON'T LIE.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE WHITE HOUSE, OMB, DOD, AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND THE PRESIDENT HAS HIDDEN THEM IN US.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH CATEGORY AGAIN IN DETAIL.
BUT HERE ARE SOME OBSERVATIONS.
THIS IS OF COURSE AN IMPEACHMENT CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
NOTHING COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT.
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENTS THAT GO DIRECTLY TO WHO KNEW WHAT, WHEN, ARE BEING HELD BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
MANY OF THESE RECORDS ARE AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS RECORDS ABOUT THE PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ABOUT SCHEDULING, AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO HOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE, ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS AMONG HIS TOP AIDES, ABOUT CONCERNS BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS WITH LEGAL COUNSEL.
WE'VE HEARD ABOUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S HANDWRITTEN NOTES AND BOOK MANUSCRIPT AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S PRESIDENTIAL POLICY MEMORANDUM.
WE KNOW ABOUT REPORTS OF A NUMBER OF E-MAILS IN EARLY AUGUST TRYING TO CREATE AFTER THE FACT JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE HOLD.
BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THEM.
THEY'RE AT THE WHITE HOUSE BEING HIDDEN BY THE PRESIDENT.
I THINK IT'S A COVERUP.
DOCUMENTS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, RECORDS ABOUT THE RECALL OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, ABOUT MR. GIULIANI'S EFFORTS FOR PRESIDENT, ABOUT CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT THE HOLD.
ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN REACTION TO THE HOLD.
AND WHEN EXACTLY THEY LEARNED ABOUT IT.
ABOUT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UKRAINIANS FOR AN OAFL OFFICE MEETING.
WE KNOW OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S FIRST-PERSON CABLE AND NOTES AND MR. KENT'S MEMOS TO FILE.
WE KNOW ABOUT MR. SONDLAND'S E-MAILS WITH POMPEO AND BRECHTEL AND MULVANEY BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN THEM.
THEY'RE SITTING AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
DOD AND OMB ALSO HAVE RECORDS.
RECORDS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S HOLD ON MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.
ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR HOLD.
ABOUT HIDING THE HOLD FROML3 CONGRESS.
AND TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE HOLD AFTER THE FACT.
AND ABOUT WHY THE HOLD WAS LIFTED BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN THEM.
THEY'RE AT DOD AND OMB.
WHY HAVEN'T WE SEEN THEM?
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED ALL THOSE AGENCIES NOT TO PRODUCE THEM.
THIS TRIAL SHOULD NOT REWARD THE PRESIDENT'S REALLY UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION BY ALLOWING HIM TO CONTROL WHAT EVIDENCE YOU SEE AND WHAT WILL REMAIN HIDDEN.
YOU SHOULD ASK OR THE THESE DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND YOU SHOULD ASK FOR THESE DOCUMENTS TO GET THE TRUTH YOURSELF.
NOW, LET'S COME BACK TO THE ISSUE OF DELAY, SINCE THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT HAVING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WOULD MAKE THIS TRIAL TAKE TOO LONG.
THERE WILL BE LENGTHY COURT BATTLES, THEY SAY.
THE COURT MIGHT EVEN INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR VERY FIRST TIME IN THIS ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
IT WILL BE BETTER WE'RE TOLD TO SKIP STRAIGHT TO THE FINAL VERDICT, TO BREAK FROM CENTURIES OF PRECEDENT AND END THIS TRIAL WITHOUT HEARING FROM A SINGLE WITNESS.
WITHOUT REVIEWING A SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED HIDDEN.
RESPECTFULLY, THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
HOUSE MANAGERS AREN'T INTERESTED IN DELAYING THESE PROCEEDINGS.
WE'RE INTERESTED IN THE FULL TRUTH.
IN A TRIAL THAT IS FAIR TO THE PARTIES, AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IN THE FACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AGREES ARE SO CURRICULUM TO THIS TRIAL.
IT IS WHY WE SAID WE WON'T GO TO COURT, WE'LL FOLLOW ALL THE RULINGS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
WE CAN GET THE WITNESS DEPOSITIONS DONE IN A WEEK.
IN FACT I KNOW WE CAN BECAUSE IF YOU, THE SENATORS, ORDER IT, THAT'S THE LAW.
YOU HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY IMPEACHMENTS.
IF QUESTIONS OR OBJECTIONS COME UP, INCLUDING OBJECTIONS BASED ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THE SENATE ITSELF AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, CAN RESOLVE THEM.
WE AREN'T SUGGESTING THAT THE PRESIDENT WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
WE SIMPLY SUGGEST THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RESOLVE ISSUES RELATED TO ANY ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
AS THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED IN THE CASE OF JUDGE WALTER NIXON, JUDGES WILL STAY OUT OF DISPUTES OVER HOW THE SENATE EXERCISES ITS SOLE POWER TO TRY IMPEACHMENTS.
THAT ENSURES THERE WILL BE NO UNNECESSARY DELAY, AND IT'S WHY WE PROPOSE WE SUSPEND THE TRIAL FOR ONE WEEK, AND THAT DURING THAT TIME, YOU GO BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL.
WHILE THE TRIAL IS SUSPENDED WE'LL TAKE WITNESS DPOPTIONS, REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PROVIDED AT YOUR DIRECTION.
-- DENSES, BEFORE WITNESSES THAT YOU SHOULD HEAR FROM ARE READILY AVAILABLE, AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS SAID HE WOULD APPEAR, WE CAN AND WOULD DEPOSE THESE WITNESSES WITHIN A WEEK.
THE DOCUMENTS ARE READY TO BE PRODUCED.
WE'RE READY TO REVIEW THEM QUICKLY AND TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
MEANWHILE THE SENATE CAN CONTINUE GOING ABOUT ITS IMPORTANT LEGISLATIVE WORK AS IT DID DURING THE DEPOSITIONS IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
THE PRESIDENT'S OPPOSITION TO THIS SUGGESTION SAYS A LOT.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE ARCHITECT OF THE VERY DELAY HE WARNS AGAINST.
HE COULD EASILY AVOID IT, HE COULD MOVE THINGS ALONG.
HE COULD SYMPTOM SILENCING SILENCING WITNESSED AND MOVE THE EVIDENCE ALONG.
HE HOPES HIS THREATS OF CONTINUED DELAY HOWEVER UNJUSTIFIED WILL CAUSE YOU TO THROW UP YOUR HANDS AND GIVE UP ON AFFAIR TRIAL.
PLEASE DON'T GIVE UP.
THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR OUR DEMOCRACY.
A DECISION TO FORGO WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AT THIS TRIAL WOULD BE A BIG DEPARTURE FROM SENATE INVESTIGATION.
WHEN THE SENATE INVESTIGATED WATERGATE IT HEARD FROM THE HIGHEST WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS.
THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE A BIPARTISAN MAJORITY OF THE SENATE INSISTED.
WE GOT TO THE TRUTH THEN BECAUSE THE SENATE CAME TOGETHER?
AND PUT A FAIR PROCEEDING ABOVE FATHER LOYALTY.
WE SHOULD ALL WANT THE TRUTH.
AND SO WE ASK YOU, DO IT AGAIN.
THAT YOU PUT ASIDE ANY POLITICS, PARTY LOYALTY, BELIEF IN YOUR PRESIDENT, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND, AND SYMPATHIZE WITH, BUT SUBPOENA THE DOCUMENTS, AND THE WITNESSES NECESSARY, TO MAKE THIS A FAIR TRIAL.
TO HEAR AND SEE THE EVIDENCE YOU NEED TO IMFACIALLY ADMINISTER JUSTICE.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT 65 PRIVILEGE DURING THIS TRIAL.
EVENING IF THE PRESIDENT ASSERTS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE SOMETHING HE HASN'T YET DONE, IT WOULDN'T HARM THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL RIGHTS OR CAUSE UNDUE DELAY AND HERE'S WHY.
LET'S FOCUS ON JOHN BOLTON SINCE THIS WEEK'S REVELATIONS CONFIRM THE IMPORTANCE OF HIS TESTIMONY.
FIRST AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, JOHN BOLTON IS FULLY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT IF HE WANTS TO TESTIFY.
THERE IS NO BASIS FOR IMPOSING PRIOR RESTRAINT FOR CENSORING HIM JUST BECAUSE SOME OF HIS TESTIMONY COULD INCLUDE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.
THAT'S COMMONPLACE.
AS LONG AS HIS TESTIMONY ISN'T CLASSIFIED, IT IS SHIELDED BY THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE, BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS WRITTEN A BOOK.
IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT HE IS FORBIDDING FROM TELLING THE UNITED STATES SENATE IS ITING AS A HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT INFORMATION THAT SHORTLY WILL BE IN PRINT.
IF THE PRESIDENT DID ATTEMPT TO INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, HE WOULD SURVEIL.
IT'S TRUE FOR TWO SEPARATE REASONS.
FIRST, CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ALWAYS INVOLVE A BLANKS OF INTERESTS.
THE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMED, IN U.S. V. NIXON, THE NIX NIXON TAPES CASE, THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CAN BE OVERCOME BY THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL.
THAT IS EVEN MORE TRUE HERE.
AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT INTEREST UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
IT WOULD CERTAINLY OUTWEIGH ANY CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.
PRPBILITY CONFIRMS THE POINT.
TO NAME JUST A FEW, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORY FOR PRESIDENT CARTER, ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, CARTER, BUSH, CONDOLEEZZA RICE, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENTS THEY SERVED.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY ALL OF THESE OFFICIALS COULD NOT -- COULD TESTIFY IN THE ENROLL COURSE OF EVENTS AND HEARINGS, BUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON, A FORMER OFFICIAL, COULDN'T TESTIFY IN THE MOST IMPORTANT TRIAL THERE COULD POSSIBLY BE.
THE SECOND REASON IS THE PRESIDENT WAIVED ANY CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ABOUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S TESTIMONY.
ALL 17 WITNESSES TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE ABOUT THESE MATTERS WITHOUT ANY ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE BY THE PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS WELL AS HIS LAWYERS, AND SENIOR OFFICIALS, HAVE PUBLICLY DISCUSSED AND TWEETED ABOUT THESE ISSUES AT SOME LENGTH.
THE PRESIDENT HAS ALSO DIRECTLY DENIED REPORTS ABOUT WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WILL SAY IN HIS FORTHCOMING BOOK.
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TELL HIS VERSION OF THE STORY TO THE PUBLIC, WHILE USING EXECUTIVE FRIFLG TO SILENCE A KEY WITNESS WHO WOULD CONTRADICT HIM.
YOU SHOULDN'T LET THE PRESIDENT ESCAPE RESPONSIBILITY ONLY TO SEE LATER CLEARLY WHAT HAPPENED IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S BOOK.
THERE ARE NO NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS HERE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS DECLASSIFIED THE TWO PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ALL 17 WITNESSES TESTIFIED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT REGARDING UKRAINE, WE AREN'T INTERESTED IN ASKING YOU ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN UKRAINE, THAT'S SIMPLY A BOGUS ARGUMENT.
THE CONSTITUTION USES THE WORD SOLE POWER ONLY TWICE.
FIRST, WHEN IT GIVES THE HOUSE SOLE POWER TO IMPEACH.
AND SECOND, ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3 WHERE IT GIVES THE SENATE SOAM POWER TO TRY IMPEACHMENT.
AND HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS.
THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS TRIED, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHALL PRESIDE.
NOW, I THINK THAT PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION MEANS SOMETHING.
IT'S UP TO THE SENATE TO DECIDE HOW TO TRY THIS IMPEACHMENT, WITH FAIRNESS, WITH WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTATION.
PRIVILEGES ASSERTED CAN BE DECIDED USING THE PROCESS THAT YOU DEVISE.
THAT'S NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IT'S WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES.
YOU HAVE THE POWER, YOU DECIDE, PLEASE DECIDE FOR A FAIR TRIAL THAT WILL YIELD THE TRUTH AND SERVE OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I YIELD NOW TO MANAGER SHIF.
SCHIFF.
>> SNOORTS, BEFORE WE YIELD TO COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT BY TALKING ABOUT WHAT I THINK IS AT STAKE HERE.
A NO-VOTE ON THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU WILL HAVE LONG LAST BEING AND HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES LONG AFTER THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS OVER.
WE AGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ON THIS MUCH: THIS WILL SET A NEW PRECEDENT.
THIS WILL BE CITED IN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS FROM THIS POINT TO THE END OF HISTORY.
YOU CAN BET IN EVERY IMPEACHMENT THAT FOLLOWS, WHETHER IT'S PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE, IN THAT PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT IT IS TO HIS OR HER ADVANTAGE THAT THERE SHALL BE A TRIAL WITH NO WITNESSES, THEY WILL CITE THE CASE OF DONALD J. TRUMP.
THEY WILL MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT CAN YOU ADJUDICATE THE MATTER WITHOUT HEARING A SINGLE WITNESS, SEEING A SINGLE DOCUMENT.
I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THAT WILL BE A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT WE WILL ALL HAVE TO LIVE WITH.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WHOLESALE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS STRIKES AT THE HEART OF OUR COOKS AND DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION HE CONSTITUTE AN ATTACK ON CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT, ON THE CO-EQUAL NATURE OF THIS BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
NOT ONLY ON THE HOUSE BUT ON THE SENATE'S ABILITY AS WELL TO CONDUCT ITS OVERSIGHT TO SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON THIS PRESIDENT AND EVERY PRESIDENT THAT FOLLOWS.
IF THE SENATE ALLOWS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION TO STAND IT EFFECTIVELY NULLIFIES THE IMPEACHMENT POWER.
IT WILL ALLOW FUTURE PRESIDENTS TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT THEIR MISCONDUCT TO BE INVESTIGATED, OR NOT.
WHETHER THEY WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION OR NOT.
THAT IS THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS.
THAT IS NOT A POWER OF THE PRESIDENT.
BY PERMITTING A CATEGORICAL OBSTRUCTION, IT TURNS IMPEACHMENT POWER AGAINST ITSELF.
HOW DO WE RESPOND TO THIS UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTION WILL SHAPE FUTURE DEBATES BETWEEN OUR BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND THE EXECUTIVE OVER THE.
AND -- FOR EVER.
AND IT'S NOT JUST IMPEACHMENT, THE ABILITY FOR CONGRESS TO CONDUCT MEANINGFUL AND PROBING OVERSIGHT, INTENDED TO BE A CHECK AND BALANCE ON THE AWESOME POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HINGES ON OUR ABILITY TO CALL WITNESS HE AND WITNESSES AND ASK FOR DOCUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS HIDING WITH NO PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORT.
IF WE TELL THE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVELY, YOU CAN ACT CORRUPTLY, YOU CAN ABUSE THE POWERS OF YOUR OFFICE TO COERCE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELPING YOU CHEAT IN AN ELECTION BY WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID AND WHEN YOU'RE CAUGHT YOU CAN FURTHER ABUSE YOUR POWERS BY CONCEALING THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR WRONGDOING, THE PRESIDENT BECOMES UNACCOUNTABLE TO ANYONE.
OUR GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER A GOVERNMENT WITH THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES.
THE PRESIDENT EFFECTIVELY, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, BECOMES ABOVE THE LAW.
THIS IS OF COURSE THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED.
THEY PURPOSELY ENTRUSTED THE POWERS OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SO THAT IT MAY PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM A PRESIDENT WHO BELIEVES THAT HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.
SO WE MUST CONSIDER HOW OUR ACTIONS WILL REVERBERATE FOR DECADES TO COME AND THE IMPACT THEY WILL HAVE ON THE FUNCTIONING MUCH OUR DEMOCRACY.
AND AS WE CONSIDER THIS CRITICAL DECISION, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT NO MATTER WHAT YOU DECIDE TO DO HERE, WHETHER YOU DECIDE TO HEAR WITNESSES, AND RELEVANT TESTIMONY, THE FACTS WILL COME OUT IN THE END.
EVEN OVER THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL WE HAVE SEEN SO MANY ADDITIONAL FACTS COME THE RIGHT.
THE FACTS WILL COME OUT.
IN ALL OF THEIR HORROR THEY WILL COME OUT.AND THERE ARE MORE COURT DOCUMENTS AN DEADLINES OPPORTUNITY FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, WITNESSES WILL TELL THEIR STORIES IN FIVE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS IN BOOKS AND IN THE MEDIA, THIS WEEK HAS MADE THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.
THE DOCUMENTS THE PRESIDENT IS HIDING WILL COME OUT.
THE WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT IS CONCEALING WILL TELL THEIR STORIES.
AND WE WILL BE ASKED WHY WE DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR THAT INFORMATION WHETHER WE HAD THE -- WHEN WE HAD THE CHANCE, WHEN WE COULD CONSIDER ITS REIVES AND IMPORTANT WHEN MAKING THIS MOST IMPORTANT DECISION.
WHAT AFTERNOONS SHOULD WE GIF IF WE DO NOT PURSUE THE TRUTH NOW, IF WE ALLOW IT TO BE HIDDEN UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE TO CONSIDER TON PROFOUND ISSUE OF THE PRESIDENT'S INNOCENCE OR GUILT.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DO ON BATCH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS SIMPLE.
USE YOUR SOLE POWER TO TRY IMPEACHMENT BY HOLDING A FAIR TRIAL.
GET THE DOCUMENTS THEY REFUSE TO PROVIDE TO THE HOUSE.
HEAR THE WITNESSES THEY REFUSE TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE HOUSE.
JUST AS THIS BODY HAS DONE IN EVERY SINGLE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL UNTIL NOW.
LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THEY DESERVE THE TRUTH.
LET THEM KNOW YOU STILL CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.
THAT THE TRUTH STILL MATTERS.
THOUGH MUCH DIVIDES US ON THIS WE SHOULD AGREE.
A TRIAL STRIPPED OF ALL ITS TRAPPINGS SHOULD BE A SEARCH FOR TOO THE TRUTH AND THAT REQUIRES WITNESSES AND TESTIMONY.
NOW, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN JUST THIS AFTERNOON, THE IS FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, GENERAL KELLY, SAID A SENATE TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES IS A JOB ONLY HALF DONE.
TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES IS ONLY HALF A TRIAL.
WELL, I HAVE TO SAY, I CAN'T AGREE.
TRIAL WITH NO WITNESSES, NO TRIAL AT ALL.
YOU EITHER HAVE A TRIAL OR YOU DON'T.
AROUND IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A REAL TRIAL YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIRSTHAND INFORMATION.
NOW WE PRESENTED SOME OF THEM TO YOU.
BUT YOU KNOW AS WELL AS WE THERE ARE OTHERS THAT YOU SHOULD HEAR FROM.
BUT LET ME CLOSE THIS PORTION WITH WORDS I THINK MORE POWERFUL THAN GENERAL KELLY'S AND THEY COME FROM JOHN ADAMS WHO IN 1776 WROTE: TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE, THOSE WHO WROTE OUR CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY, THE HEART AND LUNGS, THE MAIN SPRING AND THE CENTER WHEEL OF OUR LIBERTIES, WITHOUT WHICH THE BODY MUST DIE, THE WATCH MUST RUN DOWN, THE GOVERNMENT MUST BECOME ARBITRARY.
NOW, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
WITHOUT A FAIR TRIAL, THE GOVERNMENT MUST BECOME ARBITRARY?
NOW, OF COURSE HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT OF AN AVERAGE CITIZEN TO A TRIAL BY JURY.
WELL, IT'S IN COURTROOMS ALL ACROSS AMERICA, WHEN SOMEONE IS TRIED, BUT THEY'RE A PERSON OF INFLUENCE AND POWER, THEY CAN DECLARE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL IF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE IS SO GOOD, LET THEM PROVE IT WITHOUT WITNESSES.
IF PEOPLE OF POWER AND INFLUENCE CAN INSIST TO THE JUDGE THAT THE HOUSE, THAT THE PROSECUTORS, THAT THE GOVERNMENT, THAT THE PEOPLE MUST PROVE THEIR CASE WITHOUT WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS, A RIGHT RESERVED ONLY FOR THE POWERFUL, BECAUSE YOU KNOW ONLY DONALD TRUMP, ONLY DONALD TRUMP OF ANY DEFENDANT OF AMERICA CAN INSIST ON A TRIAL WITH NO WITNESSES.
IF THAT SHOULD BE TRUE IN COURTS THROUGHOUT THE LAND, THEN AS ADAMS WROTE, THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES ARBITRARY.
BECAUSE WHETHER YOU HAVE A FAIR TRIAL OR NO TRIAL AT ALL, DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU ARE A PERSON OF POWER AND INFLUENCE LIKE DONALD J. TRUMP.
THE BODY WILL DIE.
THE CLOCK WILL RUN DOWN.
AND OUR GOVERNMENT BECOMES ARBITRARY.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A FAIR TRIAL HERE IS NOT LESS THAN IN EVERY COURTROOM IN AMERICA.
IT IS GREATER THANK ANY -- THAN ANY COURTROOM IN AMERICA.
BECAUSE WE SET THE EXAMPLE FOR AMERICA.
I SAID AT THE OUTSET, AND I'LL REPEAT AGAIN.
YOUR DECISION ON GILT OR INNOCENCE IS IMPORTANTLY.
BUT IT'S NOT MOST IMPORTANT DECISION.
IF WE HAVE A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER THAT TRIAL TURNS OUT, WHATEVER YOUR VERDICT MAY BE, AT LEAST WE CAN DISAGREE WE HAD A FAIR TRIAL.
AT LEAST WE CAN AGREE THE HOUSE HAD A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE.
AT LEAST WE CAN AGREE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OPRESENT THEIR CASE.
IF WE HAVE A FAIR TRIAL.
AND WE CAN DISAGREE ABOUT THE VERDICT.
BUT WE CAN ALL AGREE, THE SYSTEM WORKED AS IT WAS INTENDED.
WE HAD A FAIR TRIAL AND WE REACHED A DECISION.
ROB THIS COUNTRY OF A FAIR TRIAL, AND THERE CAN BE NO REPRESENTATION THAT THE VERDICT HAS ANY MEANING.
HOW COULD IT?
IF THE RESULT IS BAKED IN BY THE PROCESS?
ASSURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHATEVER THE RESULT MAY BE THAT AT LEAST THEY GOT A FAIR SHAKE.
THERE'S A REASON WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES.
AND IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT CURIOSITY.
IT IS ABOUT THEY RECOGNIZE THAT IN EVERY COURTROOM IN AMERICA THAT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS.
AND IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN HERE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME ARBITRARY.
THERE IS ONE PERSON WHO IS ENTITLED TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD AND THAT'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND THAT IS THE LAST THING THE FOUNDERS INTENDED.
WE RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, MR.
MANAGER.
>> IN CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> I REQUEST THE SENATE TAKE A 15 MINUTE RECESS.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, ORDERED.
>> AND WE ARE STILL WITH YOU HERE.
AND THE ONGOING COVERAGE IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.
LOOKS LIKE THE SENATE IS TAKING OR WILL ANNOUNCE ABOUT A 15 MINUTE BREAK OR SO.
WE'LL BRING THAT YOU LIVE COVERAGE AS SOON AS THEY RECONVENE THAT SESSION.
WE'LL TAKE A MINUTE ABOUT WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR, WHAT THAT TEMTION TO US EXPECT IN THE DAYS TO FOLLOW.
WITH ME FOR ANALYSIS ARE CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT LISA DESJARDINS AND CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT JALDZ, THEY ARE BOTH ON CAPITOL HILL FOR TODAY'S COVERAGE.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE THEM LIVE BUT IN THE STEWED YEAST, VICTORIA NOWRS, ALSO SERVED AS AFTERNOON APPELLATE WITH LAWYER IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S COUNSEL.
MANT PAONE, SERVED AS THE WHITE HOUSE 93rd LIAISON DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
MICHAEL ALLEN WAS STAFF DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL ASSISTANT TO GEORGE W. BUSH AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND JOHN HART, WORKS FOR TOM COBURN, DURING THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.
HE THEN WORKED FOR SENATOR COBURN FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS.
WELCOME TO YOU ALL.
LET'S UNPACK SOME OF THE THINGS WE LEARNED, WHILE THE HOUSE MANAGERS WERE MAKING THEIR CASE IN THE DEBATE.
JOHN HART, WE HAD AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI ABOUT HOW SHE WILL VOTE IN THE UPCOMING VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW FOR WITNESSES.
SHE SAID SHE'S A NO.
WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF HER REASONING?
>> IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE LISA MURKOWSKI WAS ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS THE DEMOCRATS HOPED TO GET.
IT WOULD HAVE PUT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IN A BOX WHERE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A 50-50 TIE AND SOME ARGUED, ELIZABETH WARREN ASKED A QUESTION YESTERDAY, ESSENTIALLY WOULD IT REFLECT BADLY ON THE COURT IF THE CHIEF JUSTICE DIDN'T WEIGH ON IT.
WE ALL AGREED, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DOESN'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE OR CREATE ANY PRECEDENT WHERE THE CHIEF JUSTICE INFLUENCING THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL.
IT IS A PURELY POLITICAL PROCESS.
SHE PUT OUT A VERY STRONGLY WORDED STATEMENT SAYING IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED, DIRECTED AT THE JUDICIARY, WE DON'T WANT TO DRAG DOWN TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, EFFECTIVELY.
AND I THINK THAT -- AND IT SPEAKS TO THE TONE AND TENOR OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE PAST TWO DAYS.
REPUBLICANS, THEIR PATIENCE IS WEARING THIN.
I THINK ADAM SCHIFF IS COMING ACROSS AS A GRAND INQUISITOR OF IMPEACHMENT AND THEY WANT TO MOVE ON AND GET TO THE VOTES.
>> WITH THAT STATEMENT, DRAGGED DOWN TWO INSTITUTIONS, MARTY PAONE, IN PART OF LISA MIR KERLIKOWSKE'S STATEMENT -- MURKOWSKI STATEMENT THERE, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF A FAIR TRIAL IN THIS SENATE.
WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO YOU?
>> IT'S A FEDERATE HAMP INDICTMENT OF HER COLLEAGUES AND OF THE SENATE.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A FULL AND COMPLETE TRIAL BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK IT'S A FAIR TRIAL?
WHAT'S NOT FAIR?
DID YOU THINK THAT MORE OF A -- YOU WANT MORE OF A CHANCE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO BE CONVICTED?
AND SAYING THAT THE HOUSE HAD A FLAWED PROCESS, THAT BUYS INTO THE WHITE HOUSE ARGUMENT THAT WELL THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH WITNESSES.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO WAIT FOR THE COURTS TO SEND THEIR -- ACT ON THEIR WITNESS HE WHILE THE WHITE HOUSE'S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS SAYING CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO GO TO COURT TO SUBPOENA THESE WITNESSES.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ALL.
>> WALK DOWN HYPOTHETICALLY FOR JUST A MOMENT, I DON'T LIKE TO WALK DOWN THAT WAY BUT OCCASIONALLY, TIME AND TIME AGAIN BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD CHANGE?
>> I DON'T QUITE FRANKLY I TOS DON'T KNOW IF MUCH WOULD CHANGE.
IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO SWAY 20 REPUBLICANS TO VOTE TO CONVICT.
WHICH IS WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SHE WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE WITNESSES.
>> LET ME TAKE A MOMENT NOW AND GO LIVE TO CAPITOL HILL WHERE SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR JOINS US NOW LIVE.
>> THANK YOU AMNA.
>> WE SHOULD MENTION YOU ARE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA ALSO RUNNING FOR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOME OF YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE ANNOUNCED BOTH SENATOR MURKOWSKI AND PORTMAN THAT THEY WILL VOTE AGAINST ALLOWING WITNESSES, SENATOR MURKOWSKI SAYING THERE CAN'T BE A FAIR TRIAL IN THE SENATE.
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT ABOUT THAT?
>> THAT MAKES ME SAD BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY IT IS WE THE RULING PARTY, IT SAYS WE THE PEOPLE.
AND I THINK MAYBE THEY SHOULD ALL LISTEN TO THE WORDS OF GENERAL KELLY, WHO OF COURSE HAD BEEN IN THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE AS THE CHIEF OF STAFF WHEN HE SAID THIS IS A JOB HALF DONE WITHOUT WITNESSES.
I THINK HE'S WORTH LISTENING TO.
YOU HAVE GOT PEOPLE LIKE SENATOR ROMNEY WHO HAS LONG BEEN SAYING EVEN BEFORE WE KNEW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THIS MANUSCRIPT THAT JOHN BOLTON SHOULD TESTIFY.
YOU HAVE JOHN BOLTON HIMSELF SAYING HE WANTS TO TESTIFY.
THE TRUTH ISN'T GOING TO COME OUT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW OR EVEN FIVE MONTHS FROM NOW.
IT'S GOING TO COME OUT FIVE DAYS FROM NOW OR FIVE WEEKS FROM NOW.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE IS STILL SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVEN'T ANNOUNCED YET, I KNOW THE CHANCES SOUND SLIM BUT AS EVIDENCE IS COMING OUT LITERALLY ON THE HOUR, ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR, AT THE BEGINNING HERE, WAS FOUR WITNESSES.
THAT WILL NOT BE UNFAIR TO HAVE 74 WITNESSES AND HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY BEEN IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED.
>> IF YOU ARE NAMELY TO HEAR FROM ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, IN THIS TRIAL, THERE'S A BIG QUESTION ABOUT WHAT NOW FOR DEMOCRATS?
THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT COULD BE CENSURED, RIGHT?
IN 1974 WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME.
IS THERE ANY AVENUE FOR DEMOCRATS TO TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION?
>> YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW YET.
I'M NOT READY TO CONCEDE UNTIL THIS IS OVER.
GIVEN THAT THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN HIGH RANKING PLACES IN THE WHITE HOUSE, LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, GENERAL KELLY AND LIKE THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, JOHN BOLTON, HOW MUCH STRONGER CAN THEIR LANGUAGE BE THAT THEY WANT TO SEE WITNESSES?
SO YOU JUST DON'T KNOW UNTIL THIS IS OVER.
YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND OBVIOUSLY ANYTHING IS ON THE TABLE BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
RIGHT NOW WE CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON THE IMPEACHMENT.
>> YOU KNOW ONE OF THE MOST CONSISTENT LINES OF THEY FEEL THEY DON'T NEED TO HEAR FROM WITNESS HE RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE HOUSE SENDS THEM AN INCOMPLETE CASE, THAT THEY DIDN'T FINISH DOING THEIR JOBS BY SEEING TO THE SUBPOENAS, TRYING TO FORCE THEM THROUGH COURT.
IN HINDSIGHT SHOULD THE HOUSE HAVE PURSUED THAT SUBPOENA FOR JOHN BOLTON?
>> THE ANSWER IS RIGHT BEFORE US, THOSE ISSUES ARE BEING LIGAMENTED, THE McGAHN CASE IS STILL OUT THERE ON APPEAL.
COME ON IF THEY WANT TO GET TO THE TRUTH THEY CAN SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES THEMSELVES.
I WAS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT TEAM, THE TRIAL TEAM FOR THE LAST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE U.S. SENATE.
WE HAD 26 WITNESSES FOR AFEDERAL JUDGE OUT OF LOUISIANA WHO WAS CORRUPT.
26 WITNESSES, 15 OF THEM WAS IN THE SENATE, THEY HADN'T TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE.
THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
>> I HAVE TO ASK YOU SENATOR, A LOT OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE ALSO SAID WE BELIEVE HE DID IT, IN OTHER WORDS, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION, FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, AND HELD UP AID IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT BUT WE DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IMPEACHABLE.
ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT WITH THAT STANDARD, WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE WITNESSES, THE PRESIDENT COULD CONTINUE TO DO THAT?
>> YES.
I'M EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE STATEMENTS.
IN FACT, THEY ARE JUST COMPLETELY INCONCEIVABLE TO ME WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHY THE FRAMERS PUT IN THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES.
ONE OF THE FRAMERS ACTUALLY SAID THAT HE FEARED THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD BETRAY THE TRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE A FOREIGN POWER.
AS THE REASON FOR HAVING IMPEACHMENT.
AND SO, AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WILL SHARE THAT BELIEF.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO FORGE AHEAD.
WE KNOW THAT WITH THESE ANNOUNCED DECISIONS ON WITNESSES, THAT THINGS SEEM MUCH LESS LIKELY TO PROCEED AT THE WAY I THINK THE LAW DEMANDS.
BUT WE WILL JUST CONTINUE WORKING AND SEE WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE TOPS OUT.
BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T HIDE FROM THE TRUTH.
>> YOU KNOW IT'S BEEN CITED AGAIN AND AGAIN, IN PARTICULAR BY THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM THAT THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR AS YOU ARE ACUTELY AWARE.
AND I WONDER IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, WITH THAT ELECTION, NINE, TEN MONTHS AWAY, IF IT WERE NOT AN ELECTION YEAR, DO YOU BELIEVE SOME OF THE DECISION ESPECIALLY AMONG YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES MIGHT BE DIFFERENT?
BECAUSE THAT'S THE REASON THEY ARE CITING, YOU DON'T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT.
>> YOU KNOW I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE CASE IS, I FIGURE TIMING IS NEVER CONVENIENT.
AND THAT'S JUST ALL WE CAN SAY.
TIMING'S NOT CONVENIENT.
AND THEY, YOU KNOW, MIGHT NOT BE CONVENIENT WHEN MORE FACTS COME OUT IN A WEEK OR A MONTH EITHER OR THE THEM.
SO I WOULD THINK NO MATTER HOW THEY VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT, THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO GET THE FACTS OUT HERE.
BECAUSE WHY DO WE RUN FOR THESE JOBS?
IS IT TO BUY OUR OWN CHAIRS, WHICH WE GET TO DO, BY THE WAY, AT THE END OF YOUR SOMETIME IN OFFICE TO PUT IN YOUR NEW OFFICE, IS IT TO HAVE A TITLE FOR LIFE, OR A TROPHY ON THE WALL THAT SAYS YOU WERE A SENATOR?
I THINK WE RUN FOR THESE OFFICES TO SERVE THE PEOPLE, NOT TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT WHICH EXACTLY WHAT SEEMS TO ME.
>> AMY KLOBUCHAR, LET'S GO TO MY COLLEAGUE WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT.
>> THEY SAY THERE IS A PROPOSAL THAT NO TRIAL WOULD HAPPEN OVER THE WEEKEND.
THEY WILL BE BACK ON MONDAY AND HEAR SIX HOURS OF CLOSING ARGUMENTS FROM HOUSE MANAGERS AND WHITE HOUSE SIDE.
THEY WILL HAVE 10 TO 15 MINUTES TO EITHER VOTE TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT OR NOT REMOVE THE PRESIDENT.
ON WEDNESDAY THERE WOULD BE A VOTE TO ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT.
THAT MEANS ON WEDNESDAY THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE ACQUITTED AND NOT REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
DEMOCRATS UNDERSTOOD IT WAS PRETTY CERTAIN THAT THEY WOULDN'T REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE.
THIS IS A TWEET FROM RUDOLPH GIULIANI WHO IS TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT BEING ACQUITTED.
HE WRITES.
IF THE SENATE THROWS OUT THE PHONY IMPEACHMENT.
IT WILL HAVE RENDERED JUSTICE.
IT WILL SAVE THE CONSTITUTION FROM SCHIFF.
AND THIS WILL NO LONGER BE A REGULAR POLITICAL THREAT.
THE WHITE HOUSE IS FEELING CONFIDENT THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ABLE TO BE DONE BY NEXT WEEK.
THERE WAS FEELING AT ONE POINT THIS WOULD BE OVER BY SATURDAY BUT IT'S UNLIKELY IT WILL BE INTO NEXT WEEK AND WEDNESDAY WILL BE THE DAY THE PRESIDENT IS ACQUITTED.
>> YAMICHE WE KNOW EVERYBODY WANTED THIS SO BE A SPEEDY PROCESS.
THE WEDNESDAY VOTE MEANS HE'S DELIVERING THE STATE OF THE UNION WHILE THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS GOING ON.
>> SENATORS WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THEIR VOTES.
REPUBLICANS WILL BE ABLE TO GET UP FOR TEN MINUTES AND SAY DEMOCRATS TARGETED THE PRESIDENT.
THEY WANT THAT ROOM TO BREATHE BECAUSE WE HAVE HEARD OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS THAT THOSE IN THE SENATE WERE QUIET.
I WAS IN THE SENATE CHAMBER.
THEY ARE TIRED, THEY ARE CHECKING THEIR NAILS AND READING.
THEY ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION LIKE THEY WERE BEFORE.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEIR SAY AND THAT MEANS PUSHING IT IN NEXT WEEK.
THEY WILL HAVE THEM COME AND SPEAK BEFORE THE PODIUM.
THE INTERESTING THING THEY WON'T ALL HAVE TO BE IN THE CHAMBER.
THAT MEANS 2020 CANDIDATES WILL BE ABLE TO GO TO IOWA AND CAMPAIGN AND TALK TO VOTERS AND ALSO DELIVER HER SPEECH.
THAT'S A DEAL FOR DEMOCRATS.
SOME OF THEM WOULD LIKE TO BE OUT-OF-THE CHAMBER AND IN IOWA.
THEY CAN SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS TARGETED AND ALSO GO AND ACQUIT HIM ON WEDNESDAY.
>> BEFORE WE LET YOU GO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT JOHN BOLTON.
THE DRIP, DRIP, DRIP OF INFORMATION WILL CONTINUE.
THE BOOK IS NOT OUT YET.
WHAT IS THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING ABOUT THE REVELATIONS WE ARE LEARNING ABOUT.
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DECISIONS HE WAS MAKING.
HOW WERE THEY VIEWING THIS INFORMATION.
HOW WERE THEY PLANNING TO HANDLE ADDITIONAL REVELATIONS.
>> FIRST, JOHN BOLTON WE KNOW NOW WILL LIKELY NOT BE CALLED TO TESTIFY BECAUSE THERE WOULDN'T BE WITNESSES.
THE VOTE HASN'T HAPPENED.
THIS IS THE SENATE AND VOTES CAN CHANGE.
IT'S 95 BANK 95% LIKELY WITNESSES WON'T BE CALLED.
BOLTON IS OUT IN THE PUBLIC AND MANUSCRIPT IS CONTINUOUSLY BEING LEAKED.
THE PRESIDENT SAID THIS CONVERSATION THAT THEY HAD ABOUT HIM TELLING HIM TO MEET WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT CONVERSATION NEVER HAPPENED.
OTHERS CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
INCLUDING VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE IN THE PRESIDENT'S CORONER AND SAID HE'S TELLING THE TRUTH.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON HASN'T SPOKEN PUBLICLY AND WE HAD NO COMMENT THAT THIS IS ALL TRUE.
HIS MANUSCRIPT IS WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY CUNCIL AND THE LEAKS HAVE TO BE COMING FROM THE AREA.
THERE HAVE BEEN BRIEFINGS ON THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT KNOW MORE ABOUT THE MAN PSYCHIATRIST.
WHAT THIS -- MANUSCRIPT.
THE TOP AID TESTIFIED AND SAID AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS VERY UPSET ABOUT THIS.
HE CALLED IT A DRUG DEAL.
HE SAID RUDOLPH GIULIANI WOULD BE A GRENADE AND BLOW EVERYBODY UP.
YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION IS HOW IS THE WHITE HOUSE HANDLING THIS?
THEY ARE DENYING EVERYTHING.
>> YAMICHE THANK YOU FOR REPORTING.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO ANALYSIS NOW.
ON THE TIMELINE WE BELIEVE WILL UNFOLD.
WE SAW THE HOUSE MANAGERS GIVING THEIR SIDE.
WALK US THERE WHAT WE WILL EXPECT TO SEE NEXT.
WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN THAT AND THE VOTE.
>> WELL, IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF DELIBERATIONS.
WE KNOW WE HAD THE HOUSE MANAGERS USE A BIG CHUCK OF THEIR TWO HOURS AND TURN TO THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS.
THEY WILL USE SO MANY HOURS TO SPEAK.
THERE IS A POSSIBILITY AFTER THEY USED TWO HOURS THEY WILL BE, BE THEY WILL DELIBERATE AND HAVE CLOSED DOOR DELIBERATIONS.
ALSO BY THE RESOLUTION THEY MIGHT CHOSE TO SHORTEN THE TIMEFRAME ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A DEAL BETWEEN SCHUMER ON HOW TO PROCEED.
THEY MAY NOT CHOSE FOR A LONG DELIBERATION.
THEY WILL GO OUT AND GET AN WONDER TO COME IN ON MONDAY POSSIBLY, MAYBE NOT.
IT COULD GO TO TUESDAY.
SOUNDS LIKE THEY WILL ALLOW FOR TUESDAY'S SPEECHES FOR PEOPLE TO GIVE IN BUSINESS.
IT WON'T BE TRIAL SETTING.
IT WILL BE COVERED BY C-SPAN.
THIS IS PRIOR TO THE STATE OF THE UNION.
WEDNESDAY THEY WILL POSSIBLY HAVE CLOSING REMARKS AND SOME CLOSING DELIBERATIONS BY THE SENATORS AND VOTE -- TWO VOTES ON THE TWO ARTICLES.
>> THERE IS ANOTHER POINT THEY SPOKE ABOUT.
THIS WILL CONTINUE TO COME UP THAT COULD RAISE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND WHAT WAS SAID IN THE MEETINGS.
WHAT IS REPORTED OR DESCRIBED IN JOHN BOLTON'S BOOK.
SOME ARE SAYING YEAH.
I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT DID IT BUT IT'S NOT ITCH PEACHBLE.
IF MORE INFORMATION COMES OUT AND QUESTIONS ARE RAISED HOW DOES THAT GET HANDLED?
>> WHEN YOU HEARD IT WAS COMING OUT IN FIVE DAYS OR FIVE WEEKS NOTHING IS EVER OVER IN THE PARTICULAR MATTER ESPECIALLY IN WASHINGTON.
BOLT ON MIGHT START SPEAKING OUT ABOUT HIS BOOK.
THEY MIGHT TRY TO HAVE HIM TESTIFY UNDER SUBPOENA.
THE SPEAKER MIGHT SAY WE HAD OUR SHOD AND THIS WILL LOOK LIKE IMPEACHMENT IS CONTINUING.
YOU NEVER KNOW.
WE COULD HAVE THEM BACK BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS IS A TREMENDOUS INTEREST.
YOU WILL HAVE THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT YOU HAD YOUR TIME TO CALL PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE, YOU DIDN'T.
YOU WAITED 33 DAYS VERSES WELL, THE SENATE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT AND THAT WILL BE GOING ON FOREVER MORE.
IT WILL BE DEFINED BY WHAT YOUR POLITICS ARE.
>> ONE OF THE ALL-TIME GREAT PASS TIMES THERE.
LISA DESJARDINS IS BACK WITH US.
WE SAW, REPORTING WHAT THE TIMELINES LOOK LIKE.
WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE HEARING ON CAPITOL HILL.
>>Reporter: JUST TO GIVE PEOPLE A SENSE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW THERE ARE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS AND NOTHING FIRM EARL RIGHT NOW.
THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ON THE FINAL VOTE.
AGAIN, WE SPOKE TO A THIRD.
THERE IS A PROPOSAL AND THAT'S WHAT YAMICHE IS TALKING ABOUT A FINAL VOTE ON WEDNESDAY.
THE IDEA IS FLOATED IN THE LAST FEW HOURS IS TAKEOFF SATURDAY AND SUNDAY.
NO TRIAL THIS WEEKEND.
RETURN ON MONDAY AND TUESDAY FOR THE TRIAL AND COMPLETE IT ON WEDNESDAY.
AGAIN, THIS IS AN ACTIVE SITUATION.
IT'S UNCLEAR THERE ARE VOTES ON EITHER SIDE.
I'LL SAY WHEN I WAS A MEMBER THERE WAS A LARGE MEETING OF KEY REPUBLICANS INCLUDING ROY BLUNT OF MISSOURI WHO IS THE WHIP.
JOHN TOMB, LINDSEY GRAHAM.
THEY HAD A HALF HOUR 40 MINUTE DISCUSSION.
DO THEY SUPPORT THIS DEAL OR NOT.
THEY MIGHT TELL US A LOT.
IT'S A LOT TO DISCUSS BOTH PARTIES.
>> WE WILL SEE IF THEY WILL STICK TO THE TIMELINE.
I HAVE TO ASK YOU WHAT SENATOR SAID EARLIER.
ARE THERE VOTES FOR WITNESSES WHERE WE DON'T EXPECT THEM?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY.
CY SENATOR CAN CHANGE THEIR MIND AND WE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC STATEMENTS FROM EVERY REPUBLICAN STATEMENT.
WE HAVE NO REASON TO EXPECT ANY CHANGE OF HEART.
OF COURSE IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE.
I WALKED UP THE STAIRS WITH SENATOR KLOBUCHAR.
YOU CAN TELL THIS HAS BEEN A TIRING PROCESS FOR EVERYONE.
EVEN THE FOUR MEMBERS FOR THOSE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
>> ALSO FOR YOU, YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK.
>> I HAVE TO ASK YOU THIS, LISA.
VERY FEW PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS INSTITUTION.
PEOPLE ARE PLAYING PLEAS TO LIVE UP TO THEIR REPUTATION.
THIS IS THE GREATEST BODY AND THEY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING THE WEIGHT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY.
ALSO THEY DON'T BELIEVE THERE COULD BE A FAIR TRIAL.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW THIS UNFOLDED SO FAR.
>> GENE, I THINK TAKING OVER THE MINDFULNESS ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING.
WHEN THEY STEP AWAY TONIGHT ABOUT HOW SENATORS VIEWED YOU IN THEIR MINDS.
WE HEAR THEM DEFENDING THE PROCESS AND HOUSE.
REPUBLICANS ARE SLAMMING THE HOUSE.
I THINK THE FACT THAT LISA WHO IS SOMEONE THAT CROSSES THE AISLE HAVE SUCH A REBUKE OF THE HOUSE PROCESS.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL HOOVER OVER THE SENATE FOR A LONG TIME TIME.
SHE'S ONE SENATOR.
THEY HAVE SEEN SEEN LESS PARTISAN.
IT'S A STRONG STATEMENT.
THERE AREN'T ANY GUIDELINES OR RULES.
THE STATEMENT IS DEFINING OF RIGHT AND WRONG IN A WAY A FEW OTHER SENATORS COULD HAVE DONE.
>> SO WELL PUT.
IT'S BETTER THAN ANYONE I HAVE MET.
IT'S GOOD TO TALK TO YOU.
BACK AT THE TABLE WE'LL LET HISTORY DO IT'S JOB.
THEY JOHN BOLTON'S NAME COMES UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
IN THE LAST FEW DAYS AS REPORTING CAME OUT HOW REPUBLICANS REACTED TO MR. BOLTON WHO HAS YET TO CONFIRM ANYTHING.
SENATORS SAY HE'S DISGRUNTLE AND WE WOULD EXPECT THAT FROM HIM.
THEY HAVE WENT AS FAR AS CALLING HIM DISLOYAL.
WHAT MASSAGE DOES THAT SEND TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE.
HE'S NOT AN UNKNOWN QUANTITY.
>> JOHN BOLTON HAS A LOT OF CREDIBILITY.
HE'S KNOWN AS A POLICY HAWK.
HE HAS GOOD STANDING.
A LOT OF THE CRITIQUES ARE POLITICAL REV REVERIE.
WEN WE PEEL AWAH-WAH THEY ARE SAYING WHAT DO THEY THINK.
THEY ARE SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE.
THERE IS NOTHING THAT JOHN BOLTON COULD SAY THAT WOULD CHANGE OR ALTER WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THE CASE FOR MONTHS.
THE PRESIDENT COMMUNICATE THE AWAY IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.
AND DIDN'T CREATE THE APPEARANCE.
IT WAS TRUMP ACTING IMPULSIVELY AND TRUMP BEING TRUMP.
THEY HAVE DECIDED MONTHS AGO THAT THE HOUSE WENT INTO IT ANYWAY.
I THINK, SPEAK TO TO THE SENATOR THAT WAS SO STARK IN HER MASSAGE.
>> IT WAS A VERY STRONG STATEMENT.
WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE SENATE FLOOR.
AS SUSAN THEY GET BACK INTO SESSION WE'LL TAKE YOU THERE LIVE.#'5" I WANTED TO ASK YOU A BIT OF A LEGAL QUESTION.
I DIDN'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF THE ROLE OF PAT THAT'S LEADING THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM.
THE REPORTS THAT ALLEGE HE'S IN AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING IN WHICH THIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN THE THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED JOHN BOLTON TO GET OFFICIALS AND START AN INVESTIGATION IF PAT IS IN THE ROOM WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR HIM?
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE ON TWITTERER AND REMOVAL FOR ETHICAL INVESTIGATIONS.
YOU CAN'T BE A LAWYER AND WITNESS IN THE SAME CASE.
THAT'S INETHICAL.
FROM MY PROSPECTIVE, FROM THE CONSENSUS OF THE SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY AND ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES TO IMPEACH THEY WERE PUSHING ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE INVALIDITY OF SUBPOENAS.
THEY ARE BLAMING THE HOUSE.
THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG ABOUT THIS AS NOW.
THE PRESIDENT HAS LOST AND EVERY ARGUMENT IS PUSHING IT UNDER THE ENVELOPE.
THEY HAVE AUTHORITY AND THAT'S OUTSIDE THE PAILS.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LOSS.
THEY DO HAVE OVERSIGHT POWER.
IT'S NOT IN ANY WAY OR SHAPE NEW.
EVERY PRESIDENT OCCASIONAL HAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
EVERYDAY IN WASHINGTON THERE ARE ALWAYS THESE BACK AND FORTH REQUESTS IN NEGOTIATED.
IN A LOT OF THE CASES THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PUSHING SO HARD IS LITIGATINGSELF LITIGATING SELF AND INJUNCTIONS.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN A JUDGE USE THIS WORD KNEECAPPING THE CONGRESS.
>> THAT'S THE DON CASE.
YES, SHE WAS RELYING ON A REPUBLICAN JUDGE IN THE MEYER'S CASE THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT ARE INSIDE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ONLY JUDGES RULED THESE TWO DISTRICT COURTS THEY DON'T COUNT THIS.
FOR LAWYERS IT'S BAD FORM.
YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO DO THAT.
THEY ARE PUSHING IT IN MANY DIRECTIONS.
THIS DOESN'T BODE WELL.
IS THIS PART OF THE COVER UP?
WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY.
THE TIMING ISSUE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS IT TAKING TOO LONG.
THEY WILL ATTEMPT TO ACT WIDE OPEN.
THEY HAVE TAKEN ALONG TIME.
TO A PELLET COURT THOSE CASES ARE IN THE SUPREME COURT.
THERE ARE 10 OR 12 CASES.
IT'S A WEALTH OF INFORMATION.
THEY NEVER HAD THIS BRANCH SITE.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE INSTITUTION AS MUCH AS POLITICS.
THE CONGRESS GAVE POWER TO THE COURT AND ENFORCED THE SUBPOENAS.
THEY DON'T ACCIDENT QUICKLY ENOUGH.
>> MICHAEL ALLEN -- SORRY, DID YOU HAVE A RESPONSE.
>> YOU ARE SAYING THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYERS WOULD HAVE LOST IN COURT.
ALSO WHERE HER VOTES WERE.
YOU WANT TO GET IT DONE BY THE END OF THE YEAR.
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IT WAS GOOD FOR MODERATE DEMOCRATS.
MOST OF THE MAKERS.
THAT WAS THEIR CONDITION FOR PLAYING BALL.
SHE HAD TO MOVE IT QUICKLY.
IT WAS AN INCOMPLETE RECORD.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE ARGUMENT SHOULD WE HAVE WAITED OR PUT ALL OF THIS ON THE SENATE.
IN THE WORDS OF THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER CLEANUP WHERE THE INVESTIGATION FAILED.
>> THEY SITED AMONG SEVERAL REPUBLICANS THAT DON'T BELIEVE WE WANT TO SEEK ADDITIONAL WITNESS TESTIMONY.
PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THE FACTS AS THEY UNCOVER THIS THUS FAR.
THAT'S A REASONABLE STANDARD.
WOULD THIS HAVE UNFOLDED DIFFERENTLY?
>> I DON'T THINK SHE WOULD HAVE GONE AS FAST AS SHE WANTED TO.
>> SHE BEING HOUSE SPEAKER PELOSI.
>> IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF PUNCH OF THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT.
MANY REPUBLICAN SENATORS ELECTIONS ARE AROUND THE CORONER.
THEY CAN'T KICK US OUT AND SO, YEAH, THIS WOULD HAVE UNFOLDED VERY DIFFERENTLY.
>> YOU HAD PEOPLE WHO WORKED WITHIN THE OFFICE.
YOU HAD HILL SAY THEY HAVE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY.
THERE WERE NO WITNESSES AND ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY BEING TAKEN HERE.
WHAT MASSAGE DO YOU EXTEND TO PEOPLE WHO FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE CONCERNS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION.
WHAT MASSAGE FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
>> THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CASE ARISING AT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
THIS LEAD TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
FIRST AND FOREMOST WE HAD TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
WE ALSO NEED TO SELF-REFLECT ON HOW THE COUNTRY GOT TO THIS PLACE OF EXTREME HYPERPOLARIZATION.
YOU CAN FIND QUOTES EACH MEMBER MADE WHEN YOU ARE ON WIN SIDE OR THE OTHER.
IT GOES TO THE OLD WASHINGTON SAYING, WHERE YOU STAND IS WHERE YOU SIT ON THE AISLE.
YOU ARE FINDING THE ARGUMENTS THAT WORK FOR YOU POLITICALLY, THAT'S USUALLY A VOTE.
>> IF WHERE YOU STAND IS WHERE YOU SIT, IS THIS THE WAY IT MOVES FORWARD NOW?
EVEN FOR SENATOR MURKOWSKI?
>> THE MORE CHALLENGING STATEMENT IS ALLOW ALEXANDER SAYING THE PRESIDENT ACTED APPROPRIATELY.
SOMEONE DURING THAT PERIODED A ONE LINE SENTENCE TO THE SENATE THAT HE ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY.
THEY DIVORCED A VOTE ON THAT.
WE ARE NOT IMPEACHING HIM BUT LET'S SEE HOW HE ACTED INAPPROPRIATELY.
OTHERS SWEETED THAT HE WAS SPEAKING FOR REPUBLICANS.
I WOULD THINK THAT VOTE MIGHT BE ONE OF THEM.
I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
THE 15 MINUTE RECESS HAS GONE 35 MINUTES.
>> THERE IS DELIBERATIONS.
WHAT IS THE DEAL?
THEY DON'T HAVE A DEAL YET.
>> ON THE TIMELINE MOVING FORWARD?
>> YES.
IF THEY GET THE DEAL HE HAD SOMETHING HE PUT-OUT YESTERDAY AND HE GAVE IT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
HE I COULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF CREATIVE MINDS ARE COMING UP WITH OTHER VOTES.
IS IT APPROPRIATE.
>> IF YOU ARE IN THE ROOM WITH THESE DELIBERATIONS RIGHT NOW.
SCHUMER IS IN A GOOD PLACE.
McCONNELL HAS PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE HARD CORE LIKE ALEXANDER AND OTHERS THEY WOULD LIKE TO PUT AN END TO THIS.
HE'S HAVING PROBLEMS IN GETTING A DEAL WHERE YOU REACH ACCOMMODATIONS AND DRIVE IT OVER TO WEDNESDAY.
YOU HAVE FOLKS THAT WOULD LIKE TO GET IT DONE.
THEY DO WORRY ABOUT THE IOWA CAUCUSES.
THEY STAY LATE TODAY AND VOTE ON MONDAY.
SO, WE WILL SEE HOW THIS GOES.
>> THE PRESIDENT WILL WANT THE VOTE BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT.
HIS PEOPLE ARE HARD LINERS.
THERE ARE THOSE THAT ARE PRIMARY PARTNERS.
THEY HAVE TO DO WHAT HE WANTS.
IF THE VOTES WILL BE HE WOULD LIKE TO SAY IT.
I WAS ACQUITTED.
>> BEFORE THE STATE OF THE UNION.
>> CLOCK MANAGEMENT IS A BIG DEAL.
HAVING WORKED FOR A BOSS THAT FORCED A LOT OF UNCOMFORTABLE AMENDMENTS.
IT'S A VERY POWERFUL BACKSTOP.
YOU WOULD SAY SEW THE SMELL OF JET FUEL.
THAT'S PART OF WHAT HE'S GETTING AT.
THERE ARE CONSERVATIVES THAT SAY SAY WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE ON THE CLOCK.
IF WE GIVE IT AWAY AND DRAG IT OUT LONGER DOES THAT HELP US.
I SUSPECT, THAT'S WHY I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM COME BACK IN SESSION.
THEY ARE WORKING THROUGH THE QUESTION.
>> IF CLOCK MANAGEMENT IS A THING THAT THE 15 MINUTE BREAK HAS EXTENDED TO 35 MINUTES.
I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
IF THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE LEVERAGED AID THE QUESTION IS THE QUESTION FROM KLOBUCHAR IS HE COULD DO THIS AGAIN.
>> THERE MIGHT BE A DOESN'T FOR SENATORS TO WEIGH-IN OFFICIALLY ON THAT.
>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THAT MEANS, MARTY AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS TOO.
WHY DIDN'T THE SENATE ARTICULATE THEIR POSITION.
THERE IS A SENSE OF IT.
WE WANT TO REINFORCEMENT.
THE HOUSE RUSHED WAY PAST THAT.
I'M NOT SURE WE CAN GET TO A POINT WHERE THEY CAN GET COMFORTABLE LEGITTIZING THAT.
>> I BELIEVE LISA DESJARDINS IS BACK WITH US.
I'M SURE YOU ARE REJOINING US AFTER TALKING TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE.
>> WE KNOW MORE ABOUT TONIGHT.
WE SEE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE TAKING A LONG BREAK TO DISCUSS MOVING FORWARD.
AFTER THEY CONCLUDED THERE WILL BE A VOTE.
IT'S ABOUT WITNESSES.
WE DO EXPECT THAT TO FAIL.
I CAN REPORT SENATOR JOHN THAT THEN THEY WILL PROPOSE AN ORGANIZED RESOLUTION YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
IT'S UP TOLEDOER SCHUMER TO DECIDE HOW MANY AMENDMENTS HE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE.
THE ORGANIZING RESOLUTION IS AMENDABLE.
ANY SENATOR CAN OPPOSE ANY AMENDMENT.
IT'S UP TO SCHUMER TO DECIDE HOW MANY AMINDMENTS THEY WILL AMINDMENTS -- AMENDMENTS GO FORWARD.
THIS WILL HELP THEM VENT AND REACT TO THE LOSS OF WITNESSES AND IN ADDITION THAT COULD SET UPTAKING THE REST OF THE WEEKEND OFF.
THIS WILL ALLOW MOST OF THEM TO GO HOME AND COME BACK ON MONDAY.
NONE OF THESE ARE NAILED DOWN.
THESE ARE POSSIBILITIES.
IT SEEMS WE WILL HAVE A GREAT DEAL, AT LEAST SEVERAL HOURS OF AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY SENATOR SCHUMER.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE.
I THINK IT DID.
JUST IN CASE ANYONE OUT THERE IS CATCHING UP.
ALL OF THOSE SERIES OF OF AMENDMENTS YOU USED THE WORD VENT.
ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND WHATEVER MOVES FORWARD THIS IS TO GET THINGS ON THE RECORD FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PROSPECTIVE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT'S THE PROCEDURAL PURPOSE.
IT COULD BE A PRACTICAL AMENDMENT ABOUT TIMING AND THE CALENDAR.
IF THEY DECIDE TO PASS IT BY 51 VOTES.
WE EXPECT ALL OF THEM TO BE ON A PARTISAN LINE MORE OR LESS AS WE SAW LAST WEEK.
>> LISA DESJARDINS ON CAPITOL HILL FOR US.
LET'S HEAD OVER TO YAMICHE.
SHE'S ALSO AT CAPITOL HILL.
WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN FOR A WHITE HOUSE PROSPECTIVE?
>> THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE NEXT FEW DAYS AS IT DEMOCRATS GETTING READY TO ACCEPT THE LOSS THAT THEY KNOW IS COMING.
THEY ARE BOTH SAYING THEY EXPECT DEMOCRATS IS A LONG NIGHT TONIGHT.
WE ARE TALKING 10 HOURS.
EXPECT THEM TO HAVE MASSAGING VOTES.
THESE ARE MOTIONS TO CHANGE TO SEVERAL RULES AND THEY CAN HAVE A LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT ALL SORTS OF THINGS.
THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED THEIR MASSAGING.
THIS ISN'T A REAL ACQUITTAL.
THEY ARE SAYING THERE WAS NO FAIR TRIAL SO THEY CAN'T SAY HE WAS EXONERATED.
MOVING TO THAT THEY EXPECT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS A LIKE.
THEY CLAIM THEIR CONSTITUENTS OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS AND DAYS.
PEOPLE THOUGHT THIS MIGHT HAPPEN ON SATURDAY.
THIS LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING INTO NEXT WEEK.
I WANT TO BRING YOU TO THE CONVERSATION WE HAD EARLIER.
REPUBLICAN SENATORS SAID WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND WRONG BUT NOT IMPEACHABLE.
THE PRESIDENT SAID THE CALL WAS PERFECT.
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG THERE.
HAS THE WHITE HOUSE CONCEDED MORE IN TERMS OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS.
HAVE THEY REACTED TO THE WAY REPUBLICANS ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THEY BELIEVE HAPPENED.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROACHED THIS AS HE APPROACHED MANY OTHER THINGS.
HE APPROACHED IT AS A STREET FIGHTER.
HE'S NOT AT ALL SAID I DID ANYTHING WRONG.
HE HAD A PERFECT CALL.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT SINCE THE BEGINNING.
MICK MULVANEY SPOKE ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD HANDLE THIS.
THAT STRATEGY WAS PULLED INTO THE SENATE TRIAL AND THAT WAS USING ALLEN.
THE PRESIDENT DID WHAT SHE WANTED TO DO.
IT MIGHT BE IN A THE POLITICAL INTEREST.
THERE WAS A MIX MOTIVE.
THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM.
THEY CONVINCED REPUBLICANS TO SAY WE DON'T NEED WITNESSES HERE.
INSTEAD, WE WILL SEE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD MOVE OFF OF IT.
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN BUSY WHILE THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WAS HAPPENING JUST TODAY.
YOU AND I BOTH SAID THE PRESIDENT ISSUED MORE TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS TO A NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTRIES.
EVEN AS ALL OF THIS HAPPENED THEY CONTINUE TO MOVE ON IMMIGRATION AND TRADE POLICY.
THIS IS THE NEW TRADE DEAL.
I HAVE GOTTEN ALL OF THIS DOES DONE.
>> WE ARE WORKING IN BREAKING NEWS FOR US REPORTING FROM CAPITOL HILL.
THANK YOU YAMICHE, GOOD TO TALK TO YOU.
WE ARE WAITING FOR THEM TO RECONVENE.
THEIR 15 MINUTE BREAK MOVED TO 45 MINUTE.
REACT TO WHAT WE LEARNED ABOUT THE TIMELINE AND THE WAY THE DEMOCRATS ARE APPROACHING THE EVENING TONIGHT.
>> THEY SHOWED THIS ON TUESDAY NIGHT WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED THIS THEY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT TIMING OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO LATE.
BY THE SAME TOKEN THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PUSH THAT BILL SO THEY ENDED UP STAYING TO ALMOST 2 A.M.
I'M SURE HE HAS THE VOTES HE WILL WANT TO DO TONIGHT IN ADDITION TO THE OBVIOUS, DO YOU HAVE WITNESS VOTES.
THAT WILL BE PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WOULD BE MY GUESS.
WHETHER YOU CAN GET A DEAL OR NOT IN THE.
FOLKS CAN GO OUT TO IOWA, WE WILL SEE.
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH AND ALSO THE IDEA MARTY RAISED EARLIER ABOUT THE QUESTION OF GETTING ANOTHER VOTE AND ASKING EVERYONE TO WHAT ON ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.
>> I THINK IT WILL BE A STRETCH TO GET THERE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.
OVERTIME, AGAIN, BECAUSE THE PROCESS WAS SO POLARIZING.
IT'S HARD TO IMAGE REPUBLICANS WILL AGREE TO SOME KIND OF FORMAL CRITIQUE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE SATEMENTS ARE AS MENTS -- I COULD SAY AS WELL.
DEMOCRATS KEEP WANTING TO FRAME THIS AS A FOREIGN INTERFERENCE ISSUE.
REPUBLICANS HERE THAT AND IT'S RESTARTING THE 2016 ELECTION.
LOOK AT WHAT THE FOUNDERS SAID, WHAT THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WITH US THE SAME PASSION.
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE WENT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
THE CONTEXT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
THAT LOOKS LIKE IT WASN'T INDICATIVE OF A FOREIGN POLICY.
IT ALSO, I'LL TAKE A RISK.
HE WAS REALLY GETTING AT IS THE JEST OF THE PRESIDENT IS HE MADE A PHONE CALL ARGUMENT.
SCHIFF MADE THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE ARGUMENT.
I YOU HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PERFECT MOTIVE YOU ARE CORRUPT.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO SAY.
THERE WAS A LUDICROUS ARGUMENT THAT SCHIFF WAS MAKING.
IF HE HAD ANY POLITICAL THINKING IT'S IMPEACHABLE AND THAT'S NO WHAT REPUBLICANS BELIEVE.
>> ANYTHING TO ADD?
THE IDEA THAT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE LOOKS DIFFERENT TODAY.
WHETHER IT'S A POLITICALLY PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT OR NATIONAL SECURE THE YOU CONCERN.
IF THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY ASKING PEOPLE TO GET INVOLVED SHOULD THAT BE MORE OF A CONCERN?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THEY RAMPED IT UP IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA.
IT'S MY IMPRESSION TALKING TO PEOPLE ACROSS THE GOVERNMENT THAT WE THE COUNTRY HAVE TAKEN THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN NEWS PAPER ARGUMENTS.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING CLASSIFIED.
THE SECURITY AGENCY CLEARLY TAKES WHAT WE CALL INFORMATION OPERATION AND TRIES TO WARM -- WARN THE RUSSIANS THAT WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
IF YOU COME AND MESS WITH OUR ELECTIONS YOU WILL PROVOKE A BIG REACTION.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND.
I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO QUICKLY RESPOND.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING BEFORE THAT.
I'LL TALK ABOUT MOTIVE IN A SECOND.
I THINK WHERE WE ARE AT A PLACE WE AGREE.
I AGREE TOTALLY.
I'M AFRAID OF THE RUSSIANS MESSING WITH ELECTIONS.
THAT'S WHERE MODERATES AGREE ON THIS AND THAT'S ONE THING IN A POST, YOU KNOW, AGE, WE CAN BEGIN TO AGREE.
I WISH THE PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE SO GOOD IF HE WOULD COME OUT AND SAY HE'S DOING SOMETHING THAT WOULD PROTECT THE ELECTION.
PEOPLE ARE TERRIFIED.
THEY ARE TERRIFIED BECAUSE THE LAST ELECTION ELECTION, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS INTERFERENCE IN A SMALL COMMUNITY.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND ALL OF THAT.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOES OUT THE DAY AFTER -- O OH, WE ARE COMING BACK.
>> WE ARE.
WE'LL MEET YOU BACK HERE.
THE SENATE ISGA IS GAVELING BACK INTO SENATE.
>>> READY TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION FROM COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID THROUGHOUT THEIR PRESENTATION AND THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE PROCEEDINGS HERE AGAIN AND AGAIN YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
IF YOU HAVE A TRIAL THERE HAS TO BE NEW WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE.
THAT THAT'S REALLY SOMETHING THAT THAT'S BEING USED HIDING THE REAL ISSUES YOU WILL BE MAKING ON THIS DECISION ABOUT WITNESSES.
THERE IS MORE AT STAKE.
LET ME UNPACK THAT AND EXPLAIN WHAT'S AT STAKE.
THE FIRST IS THE IDEA IF YOU COME TO TRIAL.
YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO GO TO WITNESSES, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
IN THE NEW LEGAL SYSTEM IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRIALS.
THE WAY, WAY TO DECIDE RIGHT UP-FRONT.
THEY ARE CALLING NEW WITNESSES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THE SECOND ARTICLE ON THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE.
THEY SAID IT'S REALLY TRYING TO SAY IT'S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE FOR THE SEPARATION OF POWER.
THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT.
NO WITNESSES WILL SAY ANYTHING THAT DIFFERENT.
THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE LONG-STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVINCE.
THEY SHOULD RESIST IT IN THE SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED.
NO FACT WITNESSES WILL GIVE WAY TO THAT.
WHEN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.
WE HEARD IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.
THE WAY THEY HAVE THE SUBJECT THE EMOTIONAL ABUSE OF POWER.
THEY SAID AGAIN, TODAY.
THE WAY YOU SHOW THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING WRONG WRONG AND THE FOREIGN POLICY.
WE TALKED ABOUT IT THAT YOU DEFIED THE AGENCY IN YOUR BRANCH AND WASN'T FOLLOWING THE POLICY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THE ABUSE OF POWER THEY FRAMED.
THIS IS ON THE CONSTITUTION.
IT CAN POUR INTO ANYTHING THEY WANT.
THE EXACT GROUND THAT THE FRAMEWORK REJECTED DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVICTION.
CONSTITUTION DEFINES SPECIFIC OFFENSES.
IT LIMITS AND CONSTRAINS THE IMPEACHMENT POWER WE HEARD FROM A LOT OF WITNESSES IN THE PROCEEDING SO FAR.
YOU HEARD 1 82 VIDEO CLIPS BY OUR COUNT FROM 13 DIFFERENT WITNESSES.
THERE WERE 17 DIFFERENT WITNESSES DEPOSED IN CLOSE HEARINGS.
YOU HAVE ALL OF THOSE TRANSCRIPTS.
YOU CAN SEE THE WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED.
WE PLAY VIDEOS ON THE SCREEN AND YOU HAVE OVER 2,800,000 PAGES OF DOCKS -- DOCUMENTS AND TRANSCRIPTS.
THERE IS ANOTHER PRINCIPAL THEY OVERLOOK AND SAY OH, YOU WILL HAVE A TRIAL.
THERE HAS TO BE WITNESSES.
AS IF IT MOST ORDINARY THING IS YOU GET TO TRIAL AND START SUBPOENAING NEW WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
THAT'S NOT TRUE EITHER.
WE POINTED THIS OUT.
IN THE REGULAR COURT THE WAY THINGS WORK YOU HAVE TO DO A LOT OF WORK PREPARING A TRIAL CALLED DISCOVERY TO FIND OUT ABOUT WITNESSES AND DEP POSE THEM AND FIND OUT ABOUT DOCUMENTS.
YOU CAN'T SHOW UP THE DAY OF TRIAL AND SAY YOU WE ARE ACTUALLY NOT READY.
WE DIDN'T SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON.
NOW WE WANT TO SUBPOENA THAT WITNESSES AND ADD IT TO DISCOVERY.
WHY DOES IT MATTER HERE?
TO SHOW UP NOT HAVING DONE THE WORK AND EXPECT IT TO BE DONE IN THE SENATE BY THIS BODY HAS GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL INTEREST OF THIS BODY AND SETS A PRECEDENT FOR THE SENATE AND FOR THE HOUSE.
WHAT THE SENATE EXCEPTS IS NOT JUST FOR THE HOUSE BUT SENATE AS WELL.
IF THEY DECIDE TO BRING THE PROCEEDING TO THIS STAGE.
IF THEY SAY, YES, WE WILL START CALLING NEW WITNESSES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GOOD GET THE JOB DONE.
THAT BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL.
ONE IS WE POINTED OUT THE TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED PROCESS USED IN THE HOUSE.
IT VIOLATED ALL NOTIONS OF DUE PROCESS.
THERE ARE PRECEDENCE GOING BACK 150 YEARS IN THE HOUSE.
SOMEONE IN CAPS PROGRAM INPEACHMENT HEARING HAS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL.
THEY WERE ABLE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.
THEY DID BE THE DIDN'T ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT HERE.
IF THEY SAY THAT'S OKAY THAT BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL.
YOU STAND STAND-UP HERE WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND SAY THIS BODY IS UNFAIR IF HE DOESN'T CALL THE WITNESS.
WHERE WAS THE FAIRNESS IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE AND MANAGERS SAY IT WOULD BE ARBITRARIRY ABOUT THE THEY DON'T TO DO WHAT THEY SAY.
THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW THE PRESIDENT AND REPRESENTATIVES BY COUNCIL AND ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO CALL WITNESSES.
THERE WAS NO PRESIDENT IN THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING WHERE THE PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL.
>> IT WOULD ALSO SET PRESS PRECEDENCE TO SAY WE NEED NEW WITNESSES.
THEY DIDN'T TRY TO GET THESE WITNESSESMENT THEY DIDN'T SEDONA PEEP IN SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON.
THEY WITHDREW THE SUBPOENAS.
NOW TO SAY THIS BODY HAS TO DO ALL OF THE WORK SETS A NEW PRECEDENCE AS WELL.
IT WILL CHANGE FOR ALL OF THE FUTURE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND IMPEACHMENT HISTORY.
IT WASN'T FAIR.
IT WAS ARBITRARY.
THEY DENIED IT.
THEY DID A PROCESS AND THEY CAME HERE ON THE FIRST NIGHT.
REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE ALL HERE AT 2:00.
IN IN TERMS SAID YOU ARE ON TRIAL.
IT WILL BE TREACHERY IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
WHEN IT WAS THEIR ERRORS AND THEY WERE ARBITRARIRY AND DIDN'T PROVIDE FAIRNESS THEY CAN'T APPROXIMATE UT THAT ON -- PUT THAT ON THIS BODY AND SAY YOU HAVE TO MAKEUP FOR THEIR ERRORS AND IT FALLS OUT HERE.
THEY ALSO SUGGEST IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME AND THEY WANT A FEW WITNESSES.
IT'S NOT JUST THE WITNESSES THEY WOULD WANT.
THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE WITNESSES.
WITH ALL RESPECT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE IDEA IS IF A SUBPOENA IS SENT TO THE ADVISER OF THE PRESIDENT AND THEY DETERMINE THAT HE WILL STANDBY IMMUNITY BY VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON, THAT WILL RESOLVE BY THE SENATE RIGHT HERE WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVILEGE EXISTS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE SITTING AS PRESIDING OFFICER.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.
THE SENATE, EVEN WHEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS PRESIDING OFFICER CAN'T DECIDE THE PRIVILEGES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THAT DISPUTE WOULD HAVE TO BE RESOLVED IN ANOTHER WAY.
IT COULD INVOLVE LITIGATION AND TAKE A LOT OF TIME.
THE IDEA IT WILL ALL BE DONE QUICKLY IF EVERYONE DOES WHAT THE HOUSE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY.
IT'S NOT THE PROCESS IT'S THE CONSTITUTION.
THERE IS ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCE.
AGAIN, IT'S EFFECTING THIS INSTITUTION AS A PRECEDENCE GOING FORWARD.
WHAT IT SUGGESTS, THE NEW NORMAL THAT'S BEING CREATED IS KIND OF AN A NEW PATH FOR THE SORT OF IMPEACHMENT THAT THE FRAMERS MOST FEARED.
THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED IMPEACHMENT COULD BE DONE FOR CERTAIN REASONS.
THIS IS THE THE MAIN THING.
IT'S IN THE HOUSE AND IT WAS RUSHED THROUGH WITH UNFAIR PROCEDURES.
78 DAYS TOTAL IN INQUIRIES.
NIXON THERE WAS INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES AND PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STARTED THE INVESTIGATION AND CLINTON WAS SPECIAL COUNCIL FOR A BETTER PART OF A YEAR BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STARTED HEARINGS.
EVERYTHING FROM START TO FINISH IN THIS CASE FROM SEPTEMBER 24th WHEN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WERE CONSIDERED AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WAS DONE IN 78 DAYS.
IN 78 DAYS AND FOR 71 OF THEM THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTIRELY LOCKED OUT.
THE NEW MORE NORMAL IS GET IT DONE QUICKLIMENT BRING IT TO THE SENATE AND ALL OF THE REAL WORK WILL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE WITH THAT ARRANGEMENT HANGING OVER THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD.
THAT'S THE THING THE FRAMERS ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT.
I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER DAY.
HAMILTON WARNED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT HE CALLED, I'M QUOTING THE INJURY TO THE INNOCENCE AND THE PROCRASTINATED DETERMINATION OF THE CHARGES THAT MIGHT BE BROUGHT AGAINST HIM.
THEY UNDERSTOOD IF AN IMPEACHMENT CHARGE WASN'T RESOLVED QUICKLY.
IF IT WAS HANGING OVER THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
THAT'S WHY THEY STRUCTURED THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS SO THAT THE SENATE COULD BE ABLE TO SWIFTLY TERM IMPEACHMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT.
THAT'S ALSO SUGGESTED AND THAT WHY THERE IS A SYSTEM FOR HAVING FULL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE HOUSE.
HAMILTON EXPLAINED THE DELAY AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT WOULD AFFORD AN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INTRIGUE.
THERE IS ALSO A PROBLEM FOR THE STATE FOR MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THAT'S WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE.
IF YOU CREATE A SYSTEM NOW THAT MAKES THE NEW NORMAL A HALF BAKED PROCESS IN THE HOUSE.
GET THE IMPEACHMENT DONE AND OVER TO THE SENATE AND THEN WHEN CAN THE PRESIDENT IMPEACHMENT YOU HAVE THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD HANGING OVER HIS HEAD AND THEN WE'LL START DOING THE INVESTIGATION AND DRAG IT OUT.
THAT'S ALL PART OF WHAT MAKES THIS MORE POLITICAL, ESPECIALLY DURING AN ELECTION YEAR.
IT'S NOT THE PROCESS THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD CONDONE IN THIS CASE.
THE SENATE IS NOT HEAR TO DO THE INVESTIGATING WORK THE HOUSE DIDN'T DO.
WHETHER IT'S THEN PROCESS THAT YOU CAN PRODUCE THE RECORD THAT CAN'T BE RELIED UPON.
YOU SHOULD REJECT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
NOT TO CONDONE ON THE WAY THE PROCEEDINGS WERE HANDLED IN THE HOUSE.
NO TO PROLONG MATTERS FARTHER TO REDO WORK THE HOUSE FAILED TO DO BY NOT SEEKING EVIDENCE AND NOT DOING A FAIR PROCESS WITH THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HERE, THANK YOU.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, OVER A SEVEN DAY PERIOD YOU DID HEAR EVIDENCE.
YOU HEARD 13 WITNESSES AND 192 VIDEO CLIPS AND THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS.
YOU HEARD TESTIMONY FROM GORDON SONDLAND WHO WAS THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.
HE TESTIFIED IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS.
I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAM.
THERE WAS TESTIMONY TO CROSS EXAM IT AND HE WOULD BE CALLED.
TIM MORRISON, THE FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
YOU SAW HIS TESTIMONY WE DIDN'T GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
YOU SAW HER TESTIMONIMENT THEY PUT IT UP.
I DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HER.
IF WE CALL WITNESSES WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
WE SAW TESTIMONY FROM THE POLICIES SIT CALL COUNCIL OF UKRAINEMENT WE SAW HIM, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
WE WILL HAVE WITNESSES WE WILL-CALL THE AMBASSADOR AND CROSS EXAMINE.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
IF WE CALL WITNESSES WE WILL HAVE THAT RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
FIONA HILL, THE FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL.
SHE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE.
IF WE HAVE WITNESSES, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HER THEN AND CROSS EXAMINE FIONA HILL.
VOLUNTARY VOLKER, THEY CALLED HIM.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
YOU HEARD FROM THEM AND WE WILL HAVE TO RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE VOLKER.
THE SECTARY OF UNION AFFAIRS.
THEY CALLED THEM.
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THAT PICTURE.
THE FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.
THEY CALLED HER HER AND YOU SAW THE TESTIMONY AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HER.
WE HAVE WITNESSES AND THEY CALLED HER.
THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECTARY OF DEFENSE.
YOU SAW HER WITNESSES TESTIMONY RIGHT HERE AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HER.
WE WOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN HER OPPORTUNITY.
DAVID HALE, THE SECTARY OF STATE HE WAS CALLED AND I ASKED.
YOU SAW HIS TESTIMONY AND WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HER.
IF WE HAVE WITNESSES WE WILL WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THATMENT THERE WERE OTHER WITNESSES THAT WERE CALLED OR YOU SAW THEIR TESTIMONY ON HEARD THEIR TESTIMONY OR REFERRED TO.
KATHERINE CROFT THE SPECIAL ADVISER FOR UKRAINE.
THE DEPUTY FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AND CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON THE SPECIAL ADVISER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
YOU HEARD THEIR TESTIMONY, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THEM.
THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IF WITNESSES ARE CALLED WITHIN A WEEK.
NOW, THESE ARE THE WITNESSES THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND YOU HAVE SEEN BY THE HOUSE HOUSE MANAGERS.
YOU ARE CALLED TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS.
CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS FOR OUR CONSTITUTION.
WE TALK ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF I SAID IT BEFORE AND WILL SAY IT 31 TIMES.
THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMED.
THE MANAGER NADLER, HE NOT ONLY SAID IT WAS OVERWHELMING.
ON PAGE 739 OF THE RECORD HE'S VERY CLEAR.
HE SAID NOT ONLY IS IT STRONG BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT.
THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS.
THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL SAID WHAT DO YOU MEAN, TALKING ABOUT MANAGER NADLER.
BEYOND ANY DOUBT, IT'S BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
OF COURSE THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE BY ANY STRETCH OF ANY PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.
IN THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION THEY SPOKE ABOUT WITNESSES BEING CALLED BUT THE THREE WITNESSES THAT WERE CALLED AND TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OR HOUSE COMMITTEES.
FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN SIGN.
YOU ARE TO DELIBERATE.
WHAT YOU ARE ASKING YOU TO DO IS BECOME THE INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY OR BODY.
WE NEEDED ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
BY THE WAY, THIS IS HOUSE MANAGER NADLER, QUOTE, HE WAS ON CNN BACK ON THE 15th OF THIS MONTH.
DESPITE THE FACT WE HEAR FROM MANY WITNESSES.
WE HEARD FROM ENOUGH WITNESSES TO PROVE THE CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
THE SAME CAN BE SAID FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE.
THIS IS THROUGH EXAMPLE OF THE MEETING.
WE HELD BACK WITNESSES AND VINDMAN WAS THERE.
THE IDEA THEY NEVER HAD WITNESSES.
THAT'S THE SMOKE SCREEN.
YOU HEARD FROM A LOT OF WITNESSES.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE CASE, EVEN WITH ALL OF THOSE WITNESSES IT DOSN'T -- DOESN'T PROVE UP ANYTHING.
IF THE HOUSE RUNS OFF WHICH THEY DID WITH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SO QUICKLY THEY ARE CLAIMERRING FOR EVIDENCE DESPITE THE FACT THEY PUT ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE FORWARD.
THEY GOT THE IMPEACHMENT BY CHRISTMAS AND THAT WAS THE GOAL.
NOW THAT THEY WANT YOU TO DO THE WORK THEY FAILED TO DO.
AS I SAID.
TIME AND TIME AGAIN WE HEARD FROM WITNESSES.
WE DIDN'T JUST HEAR FROM ANY WITNESS.
MR. SCHIFF MODIFIED IT A BID TODAYMENT YOU HEARD FROM A LOT OF WITNESSES.
IF WE GO DOWN THE ROAD OF WITNESSES THIS IS NOT A ONE WEEK PROCESS.
WE WILL TALK ABOUT WAVING THE WAND.
DUE PROCESS IS SUPPOSE TO BE FOR THE PERSON ACCUSED.
THEY ARE TURNING IT ON IT'S HEAD.
THEY BROUGHT THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU.
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT COULD ACTUALLY START.
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT PASSED THE ARTICLES BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
YOU KNOW, WE SPOKE ABOUT THE CORE SYSTEM.
AFTER HAVING THE COURT PROCEEDING.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THAT WITNESS WHEN THEY ACTUALLY WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA.
THEY PLACED A BURDEN ON YOU BUT THEY WON'T TAKE IT HERSELF.
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND STRUCTURE, ARE THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSE TO WORK.
NOW, OUR OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS I SAID.
WE CAME HERE READY TO TRY THE CASE ON THE RECORD THEY PRESENTED.
THE RECORD THE MANAGERS TOLD US WAS OVERWHELMING AND COMPLETE.
MR. SCHIFF WENT TRY EVERY SENTENCE OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND cPD PROVE, PROVE, PROVE.
THE PROBLEM IS WHAT IT PROVES, PROVES, PROVES IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
YOU CAN GET WITNESSES TO APPROVE A LOT OF THING BEES.
IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIRED PROCESS AND ISSUES OF DO THESE ALLEGATIONS RISE TO THE LEVEL OF SEDONA FISHANCE -- SUFFICIENTS.
I CAN STAND HERE FOR A LONG TIME.
I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
I'LL JUST SAY THIS.
THEY CREATED THE RECORD ERROR.
DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO PENALIZE THE COUNTRY.
AND THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IF THEY FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB YOB, WITH THAT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
END OUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 30 MINUTES REMAINING.
>> THANK YOU CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS.
I WOULD LIKE TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS YOU JUST HEARD.
THE FIRST WERE ARGUMENTS MADE BY MR.
IF I WOULDMAN.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES.
IT'S NOT THAT EASY.
IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.
EVERY COURTHOUSE IN EVERY TOWN IN THE COUNTRY THEY HAVE TRIALS AND WITNESSES.
YOU HEARD HIM TIE HIMSELF INTO KNOTS THAT THIS IS THE FIST TRIAL.
YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS ARE JUST AS SIMPLE AS THEY ARE UP HERE.
HE SAID THE HOUSE INVESTIGATES.
HE WOULD READ THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT ARGUMENT.
THIS IS BECAUSE THE LAST TIME I CHECKED ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT.
THIS IS IF ARE THE IMPEACHMENT.
NOT NEARLY DELIBERATE ABOUT IT.
NOT MERELY WONDER ABOUT IT AND THE GREATEST DELIBTIVE BODY IN THE WORLD.
THEY WOULD REWRITE THE CONTUSION.
YOUR JOB IS TO DELIBERATE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD.
NOT BE ALONG SHOT.
NOW, MR. FILEDMAN SAID NONE OF THEM WILL HAVE EVIDENCE WITH ARTICLE TWO.
THAT'S NOT TRUE EITHER.
WHAT YOU WILL SEE WHEN YOU HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES OF MANAGEMENT OR IMAGE WHAT YOU WILL SEE SEE WHEN YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS.
YOU WILL SEE IS WHAT THEY HAVE COVERED UP, WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS THE MOTIVE FOR THEIR COMPLETE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
IT'S NOT FRO FROM REDACTED E-MAILS THAT THEY GIVE IN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION.
WHEN YOU SEE WHAT'S UNDER THOSE REDACTIONS YOU WILL HAVE PROOF OF MOTIVE.
YOU WILL SEE HOW THESE NONASSERTIONS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARE.
YOU WILL SEE WHAT THEY COVERED UP.
IT CAN'T BE MORE RELEVANT TO THEIR PLEA OF LEGAL ARGUMENTATION IF WE SHOULD FIGHT SUBPOENAS.
IT'S A COVER UP IN WINDOW DRESSINGS.
THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ARE CRITICAL ON BOTH ARTICLES.
YOU ALSO HEARD MR.FIELDMAN ARGUE THAT ESSENTIALLY THEY PROVED THEIR CASE.
THEY PROVED THEIR CASE.
WE PRETTY MUCH ALL KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT ANYMORE.
SO WHAT, A VERSION OF THE DEFENSE TENSE, SO WHAT, THE PRESIDENT CAN DO NO WRONG.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE STATE IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES CORRUPT CONDUCT WOULD HELP HIM GET RE-ELECTED.
IF HE BELIEVED SHAKING DOWN AN ALLY AND HOLDING DOWN MILITARY AID.
IF IT'S FOR ANYONE ELSE, SO WHAT.
HE HAS A RIGHT TO ABUSE HIS POWER.
THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.
IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL LAWLESSNESS.
THAT'S THE END ALL ARGUMENT.
YOU DON'T NEED WITNESSES THAT WILL PROVE THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT BECAUSE HE HAS A RIGHT TO BE CORRUPT AS HE CHOSES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.
GOD HELP US IF THE ARGUMENT SUCCEEDS.
SNOW, THEY SAY THESE WITNESSES HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED SO, YOU DON'T NEED TO HEAR FROM ANYBODY.
THERE WERE WITNESSES THAT ALREADY TOUGHED SO, THE HOUSE DOESN'T GET TO CALL WITNESSES IN THE SENATE.
THAT WOULD BE LIKE A CRIMINAL TRIAL WHERE IF HE'S RICH AND POWERFUL ENOUGH THEY CAN SAY TO THE JUDGE, HEY, JUDGE.
THE PROSECUTION GOT TO HAVE WITNESSES IN THE GRAND JURY.
THEY DON'T GET TO CALL THEM HERE.
THEY HAD A CHANCE AND CALLED WITNESSES IN THE GRAND JURY.
THAT'S NOW HOW IT WORKS IN ANY COURTROOM IN AMERICA.
THAT'S NOW HOW IT WORKS IN THIS COURTROOM.
IT'S REPEATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND THEY SAY THEY ARE NOT READY FOR TRIAL WE CAME HERE VERY PREPARED FOR TRIAL.
AS WITH ALL ANTICIPATED A DAILY DRIP OF DISCLOSURES THAT WILL SEND THEM ON THEIR STUFF.
WE CAME TO TRY A CASE HOPE BUT NOT UNREASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT IN TRYING THAT CASE, LIKE IN EVERY COURTROOM IN AMERICA, WE COULD CALL WITNESSES.
THAT IS NOT A LACK EVER PREPARATION, THAT IS THE PRESENCE OF COMMON SENSE.
THEY DIDN'T TRY TO GET BOLTON, THEY ARGUED.
DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO GET BOLTON, OF COURSE WE DID TRY TO GET BOLTON.
AND WHAT HE SAID WHEN HE REFUSED TO SHOW UP VOLUNTARILY, IF YOU SUBPOENA ME, I WILL SUE YOU.
I WILL SUE YOU.
HE SAID BASICALLY WHAT DON McGAHN TOLD US NINE MONTHS AGO.
I WILL SUE YOU, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
NOW, THE PUBLIC ARGUMENT THAT WAS MADE BY HIS COUNSEL WAS THAT HE AND DR. KUPPERMAN, OUT OF JUST DUE DILIGENCE, THEY JUST WANT A COURT TO OPINE THAT IT'S OKAY FOR THEM TO COME FORWARD AND TESTIFY.
AS SOON AS THE COURT BLESSES THEIR TESTIMONY, THEY'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO COME IN.
THEY JUST ARE GOING TO COURT TO GET A COURT OPINION SAYING THEY COULD DO IT.
AND SO OF COURSE WE SAID TO THEM IF THAT IS YOUR REAL MOTIVATION, THERE'S A COURT ABOUT TO RULE ON THIS VERY ISSUE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
AND VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THAT COURT DID.
THAT WAS THE COURT JUDGE JACKSON IN THE McGAHN CASE AND THE JUDGE SAID THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, WHICH, YES, PRESIDENTS HAVE ALWAYS DREAMED ABOUT AND ASSERTED BUT WHICH HAS NEVER SUCCEEDED IN ANY COURT IN THE LAND, IT WAS RIDICULED IN THE CASE OF HARRIET MIERS, SHORT SHRIFT IN THE CASE OF DON McGAHN WHERE THE JUDGE SAID, NO, WE DON'T HAVE KINGS HERE.
IN THE 250 YEARS OF JURISPRUDENCE THERE'S NOT A SINGLE CASE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN SIMPLY SAY THAT MY ADVISORS ARE ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION.
IN EVERY OTHER NON-IMPEACHMENT CONTEXT WHERE THE COURTS HAVE LOOKED AT THE ISSUE OF A CONGRESS' POWER TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS AGAINST WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS, THE COURTS HAVE SAID THE POWER TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE TO THE SUBPOENA A CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE POWER TO LEGISLATE.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.
IF WE CAN'T FIND OUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS BREAKING THE LAW, VIOLATING THE CONTROL ACT, WHETHER HE IS WITHHOLDING AID WE APPROPRIATED FROM AN ALLY, HOW CAN WE LEGISLATE A FIX TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN, WE CAN'T F. WE CAN'T GET ANSWERS, WE CAN'T LEGISLATE.
THERE'S A PROPOSITION VINDICATED BY EVERY COURT IN THE LAND IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT, THE COURTS HAVE SAID, THAT HAS NEVER MORE IMPORTANT.
NEVER MORE IMPORTANT.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY AFTER SAYING HE WOULD SUE US, AND WE HAD TO EXPECT LIKE DON McGAHN WHERE WE'RE STILL IN COURT NINE MONTHS LATER, I DON'T KNOW WHY HE'S CHANGED HIS MIND.
BUT I SUSPECT IT'S FOR THE REASON THAT IF THIS TRIAL GOES FORWARD AND HE COACHES THIS TO HIMSELF, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN TO THE COUNTRY WHERE HE SAVED IT FOR THE BOOK.
WHEN HE KNEW INFORMATION OF DIRECT RELEVANCE AND CONSEQUENCE TO A DECISION THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE ABOUT WHETHER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN WHY THAT WAS SAVED FOR A BOOK.
WELL, I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU IT WILL BE EQUALLY DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN AS IT WOULD BE FOR HIM.
BUT YOU CAN ASK HIM THAT QUESTION.
WHY ARE YOU WILLING TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE BUT NOT THE HOUSE?
AND YOU SHOULD ASK HIM THAT QUESTION.
NOW IT WAS SAID AND IT HAS THE CHARACTER OF, YOU SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT HARDER TO OVERCOME OUR OBSTRUCTION.
THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT HARDER TO OVERCOME OUR STONEWALLING, SHAME ON THE HOUSE.
FOR NOT FIGHTING HARDER TO OVERCOME OUR STONEWALLING IF ONLY THEY HAD FOUGHT HARDER TO OVERCOME OUR STONEWALLING, MAYBE THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN THESE WITNESSES EARLIER.
THAT'S A REALLY HARD ARGUMENT TO MAKE.
WHILE THEY'RE STONEWALLING.
YOU SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER.
YOU SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE YEARS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO OVERCOME OUR STONEWALLING.
AND THE REASON THAT ARGUMENT IS SUCH BAD FAITH AS I POINTED OUT TO YOU YESTERDAY, THAT WHILE THEY'RE IN THIS BODY ARGUING THE HOUSE WAS DERELICT, SLAPDASHED THEY SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT HARDER AND HARDER AND ENDLESSLY TO OVERCOME OUR STONEWALLING WHILE THEY'RE MAKING THAT ARGUMENT, THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT AND BACK AGAIN, ARGUING THE OPPOSITE.
THEY'RE IN THE COURT HOUSE SAYING, JUDGE, THEY'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE A SUBPOENA ON DON McGAHN, YOU NEED TO THROW IT OUT.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION, THIS IS YOU CAN'T HEAR THIS CASE.
THAT IS A REALLY HARD ARGUMENT TO MAKE.
I CREDIT THEM FOR MAKING IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.
BUT THAT'S THE CHARACTER OF IT.
YOU SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT HARDER TO OVERCOME OUR STONEWALLING AND OBSTRUCTION.
NOW, THEY ALSO SAY THE CHIEF JUSTICE CANNOT DECIDE ISSUES OF PRIVILEGE.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN'T MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, YOU NEED TO LET US LITIGATE THIS UP AND DOWN THE COURT SYSTEM.
THAT'S PRETTY REMARKABLE ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE SENATE RULES ALLOW THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO MAKE JUDGMENTS, TO RULE ON ISSUES OF EVIDENCE, MATERIALITY AND PRIVILEGE.
THAT IS PERMITTED UNDER YOUR OWN RULES.
WE DON'T NEED TO GO UP AND DOWN THE COURTS, WE'VE GOT A PERFECTLY GOOD JUDGE RIGHT HERE.
NOW, YOU HEARD OUR PROPOSAL YESTERDAY THAT WE TAKE A WEEK, JUST A WEEK, TO DEPOSE THE WITNESSES THAT WE FEEL ARE RELEVANT, THAT THEY FEEL ARE RELEVANT AND THAT THE JUSTICE RULES ARE RELEVANT.
JUST ONE WEEK.
NOW THEY CAN SAY THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THEM TO GO TO COURT BUT OF COURSE IT DOESN'T.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEDIMENT FROM THESE FINE LAWYERS SAYING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S EMINENTLY REASONABLE.
WE WILL ALLOW A NEUTRAL PARTY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO RULE ON WHETHER A WITNESS SENSE MATERIAL OR IMMATERIAL, WHETHER THEY'RE BEING CALLED FOR PURPOSES OF PROBATIVE EVIDENCE OR HARASSMENT AND WHETHER YOU ARE MAKING A PROPER CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE OR MERELY TRYING TO HIDE CRIME OR FRAUD.
THE CONCERN THEY HAVE IS NOT THAT THIS CHIEF JUSTICE WILL BE UNFAIR, BUT RATHER THAT HE WILL BE FAIR.
BUT DO NOT MAKE ANY MISTAKE ABOUT IT, DO NOT LET THEM SUGGEST THAT THERE IS SOMETHING CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE OR IT WOULD VIOLATE THE PRESIDENT'S RIGHTS TO ALLOW THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS IN THIS COURT BECAUSE HE IS EMPOWERED TO DO SO BY YOUR RULES.
AND BY THE CONSTITUTION WHICH GIVES YOU THE SOLE POWER TO TRY IMPEACHMENT IN THE SOLE EXERCISE OF YOUR POWER TO TRY IMPEACHMENT, YOU CAN SAY, WE WILL ALLOW THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
NOW, MR. SEKULOW SAID THAT YOU'VE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF 13 WITNESSES.
AND I THINK THE IMPRESSION IS MEANT TO BE GIVEN IF NOT TO YOU WHO KNOW OTHERWISE, THEN MAYBE PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME, THAT THEY MUST HAVE BEEN IN BETWEEN ERRANDS WHILE WATCHING THE SENATE TRIAL AND MISSED WHERE THOSE 13 WITNESSES CAME BEFORE THE SENATE AND TESTIFIED.
BUT OF COURSE, YOU HEARD NO LIVE TESTIMONY IN THIS BODY.
THERE WASN'T ANY LIVE TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS BODY AND I DON'T RECALL ANY OF YOU IN THAT SUPER SECRET BASEMENT BUNKER THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
NOW, I'LL ADMIT THERE WERE 1/2 0 MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO BE THERE SO MAYBE I MISSED ONE OF YOU.
BUT I DON'T THINK YOU WERE THERE FOR THE LIVE TESTIMONY IN THE HOUSE.
NOW, MR. SEKULOW SAYS THE PRESIDENT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT OF CALLING THESE WITNESSES HIMSELF AND CROSS EXAMINING THESE WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE, BURT THAT'S NOT TRUE EITHER.
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS ELIGIBLE TO CALL WITNESSES IN HIS DEFENSE IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.
IF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL FELT THAT, YOU KNOW, BILL TAYLOR SAYS THAT HE SPOKE WITH SONDLAND RIGHT AFTER THIS PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT AND SONDLAND TALKED ABOUT HOW THE MILITARY AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS, THE PRESIDENT WANTED ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX, I'D LIKE TO CROSS EXAMINE THAT WEST POINT GRAD, VIETNAM VET BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE HIM.
YOU KNOW THEY COULD HAVE CALLED BILL TAYLOR IN THE JUDICIARY AND CROSS EXAMINED HIM.
OR CALL MICK MULVANEY AND PUT HIM UNDER OATH AND LET HIM CONTRADICT WHAT WE KNOW JOHN BOLTON WOULD SAY.
BUT OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.
NO, THEY SAID MERELY, JUST GET OVER -- GET IT OVER WITH, IN THE HOUSE, FOR ALL IT WAS TOO QUICK, TOO SLAP DASH, GET IT OVER WITH WHEN IT COMES TO THE SENATE WE'LL HAVE A REAL TRIAL WHERE HE GETS TO CALL WITNESSES.
BUT THEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR TUNE BECAUSE NOW THEY KNOW WHAT THEY REALLY HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG WHICH IS THOSE WITNESSES WOULD DEEPLY INCRIMINATE THIS PRESIDENT.
AND SO INSTEAD THEY HAVE FALLEN BACK ON THE ARGUMENT THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THE ROAD TO HAVING A REAL TRIAL, IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THE ROAD TO HAVE A REAL TRIAL, WE THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARE GOING TO MAKE YOU PAY.
AND THE FORM OF THIS ARGUMENT IS, WE ARE GOING TO CALL EVERY WITNESS UNDER THE SUN.
WE'RE GOING TO CALL EVERY WITNESS THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE, WE'RE GOING TO CALL EVERY WITNESS THAT WE CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD HELP SMEAR THE BIDENS, WE ARE GOING TO KEEP YOU HERE UNTIL SING TOMORROW COME.
THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY'RE MAKING WHEN MR. SEKULOW SAYS WE'RE GOING TO BRING IN FIONA HILL AND TIM MORRISON AND THIS WITNESS AND THAT WITNESS.
YOU HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY THIS CASE.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TO ABUSE YOUR TIME OR THIS PROCESS.
YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE, NO, WE GAVE EACH SIDE 24 HOURS TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EACH SIDE A SHARED WEEK TO CALL THEIR WITNESSES.
YOU HAVE THAT POWER.
IF YOU DIDN'T YOU COULDN'T HAVE CONSTRICTED THE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR OUR ARGUMENT.
YOU CAN LIKEWISE DETERMINE HOW MUCH TIME SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH WITNESS TESTIMONY.
NOW, MR. SEKULOW ENDED HIS ARGUMENT AGAINST WITNESSES WITH WHERE MR. PHILBIN ESSENTIALLY BEGAN.
IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE DERSHOWITZ PRINCIPLE.
WHAT'S THE POINT OF WITNESSES IF THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS UNDER ARTICLE 2.
WHAT'S THE POINT OF CALLING WITNESSES, WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING A TRIAL IF THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS UNDER ARTICLE 2.
THE ONLY CONSTRAINING PRINCIPLE, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE SENATORS ASKED YESTERDAY, WHAT'S THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE IN THE DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT.
IF A PRESIDENT CAN CORRUPTLY SEEK FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN HIS ELECTION BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT HIS ELECTION IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, THEN YOU CANNOT IMPEACH HIM FOR IT NO MATTER HOW DAMAGING IT CAN BE TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
WHAT IS THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE.
AND I SUPPOSE THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE IS ONLY THIS, IT ONLY REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT TO BELIEVE THAT HIS RE-ELECTION IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.
WELL, IT WOULD REQUIRE AN EXTRAORDINARY -- >> Nawaz: THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE CONTINUING TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENTS BUT MY COLLEAGUES AND I ARE GOING TO TAKE A STEP AWAY NOW FOCUS ON TONIGHT'S "NEWSHOUR" BROADCAST.
NOT TO WORRY OUR COVERAGE OF THE LIVE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL CONTINUE HERE AND ONLINE AT PBS.ORG/NEWSHOUR ON U NEW BRUNSWICK AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA.
THANKS TO CORRESPONDENT LISA DESJARDINS, ALONG WITH OUR EXPERTS HERE WITH ME AT THE TABLE, VICTORIA NOURSE, MARTY PAONE AND JOHN HART.
FOR NOW WE RETURN YOU TO THE LIVE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ON CAPITOL HILL.
>> FINALLY, COUNSEL EXPRESSED SOME INDIGNANT INDIGNANT THAT WE SHOULD SUGGEST THAT IT'S NOT JUST THE SENATE, IT'S NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT RATHER WHO IS ON TRIAL HERE, BUT IT IS ALSO THE SENATE.
HOW DARE THE HOUSE MANAGER SUGGEST THAT YOUR DECISIONS SHOULD REFLECT ON THIS BODY.
THAT'S JUST SUCH A CALUMNY LET ME READ YOU A STATEMENT MADE BY YOUR FORMER COLLEAGUES.
THIS IS WHAT FORMER U.S.
SENATOR JOHN WARNER, REPUBLICAN OF VIRGINIA, HAD TO SAY.
AS CONSCIENTIOUS CITIZENS FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE ARE TRYING THEIR BEST TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX IMPEACHMENT ISSUES NOW BEING DELIBERATED IN THE U.S. SENATE, THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE CENTRAL TO THE MATTER.
SHOULD THE SENATE ALLOW ADDITIONAL SWORN TESTIMONY FROM FACT WITNESSES, THE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE AND INCLUDE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, HE ASKS.
AS A LIFE LONG REPUBLICAN AND RETIRED MEMBER OF THE U.S. SENATE WHO ONCE SERVED AS A JUROR IN A TALL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL I AM MINDFUL OF THE DIFFICULT RESPONSIBILITIES THOSE CURRENTLY SERVING NOW SHOULDER.
I BELIEVE AS I'M SURE YOU DO THAT NOT ONLY IS THE PRESIDENT ON TRIAL, BUT IN MANY WAYS, SO IS THE SENATE ITSELF.
AS SUCH, I AM STRONGLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE EFFORTS OF MY FORMER REPUBLICAN SENATE COLLEAGUES WHO ARE CONSIDERING THAT THE SENATE ACCEPT THE INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THEY DEEM RELEVANT.
NOT LONG AGO, SENATORS OF BOTH MAJOR PARTIES ALWAYS WORKED TO ACCOMMODATE FELLOW COLLEAGUES WITH DIFFERING POINTS OF VIEW, TO ARRIVE AT OUTCOMES THAT WOULD BEST SERVE THE NATION'S INTERESTS.
IF WITNESSES ARE SUPPRESSED IN THIS TRIAL AND A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE LEFT BELIEVING THE TRIAL WAS A SHAM, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE LASTING DAMAGE DONE TO THE SENATE AND TO OUR FRAGILE NATION NATURAL CONSENSUS.
THE SENATE EMBRACES ITS LEGACY AND DELIVERS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY AVOIDING THE RISK.
THROUGHOUT THE LONG LIFE OF OUR NATION, FEDERAL AND STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS HAVE LARGELY SUPPORTED THE JUDICIAL NORMS OF EVIDENCE, WITNESSES AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE SENATE TO BE GUIDED BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND FOLLOW OUR NATION'S JUDICIAL NORMS, PRECEDENTS AND INSTITUTIONS.
TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW BY WELCOMING RELEVANT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
THAT IS YOUR COLLEAGUE, FORMER SENATOR JOHN WARNER.
SENATORS, THERE IS A STORM BLOWING THROUGH THIS CAPITOL.
IT'S WINDS ARE STRONG AND THEY MOVE US IN UNCERTAIN AND DANGEROUS DIRECTIONS.
JEFFERSON ONCE SAID, I CONSIDER TRIAL BY JURY AS THE ONLY ANCHOR YET IMAGINED BY MAN BY WHICH A GOVERNMENT CAN BE HELD TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ITS CONSTITUTION.
THE ONLY ANCHOR YET IMAGINED BY MAN BY WHICH A GOVERNMENT CAN BE HELD TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ITS CONSTITUTION.
I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU, REMOVE THAT ANCHOR AND WE ARE ADRIFT.
BUT IF WE HOLD TRUE, IF WE HAVE FAITH THAT THE SHIP OF STATE CAN SURVIVE THE TRUTH, THIS STORM SHALL PASS.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MANAGE MANAGER.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS -- >> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
>> MR. ALEXANDER.
THE QUESTION IS SHALL IT BE IN ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS.
THE YAYS AND NAYS ARE REQUIRED UNDER SENATE RESOLUTION 483.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
[ROLL CALLED].
>> ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBERS WISHING TO CHANGE HER OR HER VOTE?
IF NOT, THE YAYS ARE 49.
THE NAYS ARE 51.
THE MOTION IS NOT AGREED TO.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE SENATE STANDS IN RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR.
YET ANOTHER REASON WHY WE OUGHT TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES.
JUST AS WE PREDICTED AND DIDN'T REQUIRE ANY ACT OF CLAIRE .
THE TIMES ARTICLES GOES ON TO SAY THAT MR. TRUMP TOLD MR. BOLTON TO CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO WON THE ELECTION TO ENSURE MR. ZELENSKY WOULD MEET WITH MR. GULIANI WHO IS PLANNING A TRIP TO UKRAINE THE DISCUSSION THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT IN MR. BOLTON'S ACCOUNTS.
MR. BOLTON NEVER MADE THE CALL.
NEVER MADE THE CALL.
MR. BOLTON UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS WRONG.
HE UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS NOT POLICY.
HE UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND AND REFUSED TO MAKE THE CALL.
THE MOST SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISERS ARE CALLED AS EARLY WITNESSES IN THE EFFORT THAT THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO DISTANCE THE PRESIDENT FROM.
INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
SEVERAL PEOPLES MR. BOLTON LAID OUT THE PRESIDENT'S FIX ON UKRAINE.
HE SAID UKRAINE TRIED TO UNDERMINUTE HIS CHANCES OF WINS THE PRESIDENCY IN 2016.
MR. BOLTON BEGAN TO OBJECT.
HE WROTE IN THE BOOK.
A FIRMING THE TESTIMONY OF A FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SAID WHO SAID MR. GULIANI WAS A HAND GRENADE THAT WAS GOING TO BLOW EVERYBODY UP.
AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, THE PRESIDENT DENIES THIS.
THE PRESIDENT TODAY SAID I NEVER INSTRUCTED HIM TO SET UP A MEETING FOR RUDY GULIANI, ONE OF THE GREATEST CORRUPTION FIGHTERS IN AMERICA.
HEAR YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT SAYING JOHN BOLTON IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
LET'S FIND OUT.
LET'S PUT JOHN BOLTON UNDER OATH.
LET'S FIND OUT WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH.
THE TRIAL IS A QUEST FOR THE TRUTH.
LET'S NOT FEAR WHAT WE WILL LEARN.
AS MR. CIPOLLONE SAID, LET'S MAKE SURE ALL THE FACTS COME OUT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, LAST TUESDAY AT THE ONSET OF THIS TRIAL, WE MOVED FOR LEADER McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION TO BE AMENDED TO GET DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES FROM THE ON SET.
THIS BODY DECIDED TO HOLD THE QUESTION OVER M .
YOU HAVE SEEN THE EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE WAS ABLE TO COLLECT.
YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES PRESIDENT TRUMP BLOCKED FROM THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
WE HAVE VIGOROUSLY QUESTIONED BOTH SIDES.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS URGED YOU TO DECIDE THIS CASE AND RENDER YOUR VERDICT UPON THE RECORD ASSEMBLED BY THE HOUSE.
THE EVIDENCE IS IN THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT.
IT'S SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE PRESIDENT ON BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.
THAT'S NOT HOW TRIALS WORK.
AS ANY PROSECUTOR OR DEFENSE LAWYER WOULD TELL YOU, WHEN A CASE GOES TO TRIAL.
BOTH SIDES CALL WITNESSES AND SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS TO GO BEFORE THE JURY.
THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY IN COURTROOMS ACROSS AMERICA.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL SHOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT.
THE COMMON SENSE FACTOR IS BORN OUT OF PRECEDENT.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN -- NEVER BEFORE BEEN A FULL SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT A SINGLE WITNESS.
IN FACT, YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDE IN EVERY ONE OF THE 15 PRIOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THE SENATE HAS CALLED MULTIPLE WITNESSES.
TODAY WE ASK YOU TO FOLLOW THIS BODY'S PRECEDENT AND YOUR COMMON SENSE.
WE URGE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF SUBPOENAING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
NOW I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE QUESTION AT THE OFFSET.
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHETHER IF THE HOUSE BELIEVES IN ITS -- IT HAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT, WHICH WE DO, WHY DO WE NEED MORE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS?
SO I'D LIKE TO BE CLEAR.
THE EVIDENCE STRONGLY SUPPORTS A VOTE TO CONVICT THE PRESIDENT.
THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.
WE HAVE A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE.
IT'S DIRECT, CORROBORATED BY MULTIPLE SOURCES AND SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED GRAVE AND IMPEACHABLE EVIDENCE TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
THE EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT IF LEFT IN OFFICE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL CONTINUE TO HARM OUR, AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY.
HE WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK TO CORRUPT THE UPCOMING ELECTION.
HE WILL UNDER MINEMINE OUR DEMOCRACY ALL TO FURTHER HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN.
BUT THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED.
THIS IS A FAIR TRIAL?
IS THIS A FAIR TRIAL?
IS THIS A FAIR TRIAL?
WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY AN UNEQUIVOCALLY NO.
IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO CONTEST THE FACTS, AND THAT IS HIS RIGHT.
BUT BECAUSE HE HAS CHOSEN TO CONTEST THE FACT, HE SHALL NOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN THAT THE HOUSE WISHES TO FURTHER PROVE HIS GUILT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS HE WOULD RAISE.
HE COMPLAINS THAT FEW WITNESSES SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT HIS MISCONDUCT BEYOND HIS DAMNING CONVERSATIONS WITH SONDLAND AND MULVANEY.
OKAY.
LET'S HEAR FROM OTHERS THEN.
THE WITNESSES THE HOUSE WISHES TO CALL DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS, HIS OWN ADMISSIONS OF GUILT, HIS OWN CONFESSIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY.
IF THEY DID NOT, ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN WOULD BE ON THEIR WITNESS LIST, NOT OURS.
THESE WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTSES THEIR AGENCIES PRODUCE TELL THE FULL STORY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN HEARING THE FULL STORY.
YOU SHOULD WANT TO HEAR IT.
MORE THAN THAT, WE KNOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR IT.
THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS OWN EXPERT WITNESS IN THE HOUSE, PROFESSOR TURLEY SAID IF YOU COULD PROVE THE PRESIDENT USED OUR MILITARY AID TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL AND INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, IT WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER.
SENATOR GRAHAM, TO, RECOGNIZED THAT IF SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTED, IT COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE HIS MIND ON IMPEACHMENT.WE NOW HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS, A FACT WITNESS, WHO WOULD REPORTEDLY SAY EXACTLY THAT.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S MANUSCRIPT SAYING THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER NO AID UNTIL INVESTIGATIONS.
INCLUDING THE BIDENS.
FOR 1 1/2 WEEKS THE PRESIDENT SAYS NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS.
THEY'RE WRONG.
BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE, IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE, THE EVIDENCE IS AT YOUR FINGER TIPS.
THE QUESTION IS WILL YOU LET ALL OF US, INCLUDING THE PERSON PEOPLE HEAR, SIMPLY HEAR THE EVIDENCE AND MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.
YOU CAN MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS.
WE NEED TO LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
YOU'LL RECALL, AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS ONE OF THE WITNESSES WE ASKED FOR LAST TUESDAY.
WE DID NOT KNOW AT THE TIME WHAT HE WOULD SAY.
WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF WITNESS THAT HE WOULD BE.
AMBASSADOR BOLTON MADE CLEAR HE WAS WILLING TO TESTIFY AND HE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT HADN'T BEEN HEARD.
WE ARGUED THAT WE ALL DESERVED TO HEAR THAT EVIDENCE.
THE PRESIDENT OPPOSED HIM.
NOW WE KNOW WHY.
BECAUSE JOHN BOLTON COULD CORROBORATE THE REST OF OUR EVIDENCE AND CONFIRM THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT.
SO TODAY SENATORS, WE COME BEFORE YOU AND ARGUE AGAIN THAT YOU LET THIS WITNESS AND THE OTHER KEY WITNESSES WE HAVE IDENTIFIED COME FORWARD SO YOU HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO YOU WHEN YOU MAKE THIS CONSEQUENTIAL DECISION.
IF WITNESSES ARE NOT CALLED HERE, THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE A TRIAL IN NAME ONLY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CLEARLY KNOW A FAIR TRIAL WHEN THEY SEE ONE.
LARGE MAJORITIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL.
THEY HAVE A HEAR TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL.
LET'S HEAR FROM THEM.
LET'S LISTEN TO THEM AND GAUGE THEIR CREDIBILITY AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS.
FOR THE SAME REASONS, WE HAVE HAVE DOCUMENTS.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO BLOCKED THE HOUSE FROM OBTAINING, DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, DOD AND OMB.
THAT WILL COMPLETE THE STORY AND PROVIDE THE WHOLE TRUTH WHATEVER THEY MAY BE.
WE ASK THAT YOU SUBPOENA THESE DOCUMENTS SO YOU CAN DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.
IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT AS TO WHAT OCCURRED, LET'S LOOK AT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO TRACK DOWN EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT OR TO CALL EVERY POSSIBLE CONDITIONS.
WE HAVE CAREFULLY IDENTIFIED FOUR KEY WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE THAT CAN SPEAK TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN DISPUTED.
WE TARGETED KEY DOCUMENTS WHICH WE UNDERSTAND HAVE ALREADY BEEN SELECTED, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED.
THIS WILL NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY.
AS I MADE CLEAR LAST NIGHT, THESE MATTERS CAN BE ADDRESSED IN A SINGLE WEEK AS WE MADE CLEAR LAST NIGHT THESE MATTERS CAN BE ADDRESSED IN A SINGLE WEEK.
WE KNOW THAT FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE.
THERE THE SENATE VOTED TO APPROVE A MOTION FOR WITNESSES ON JANUARY 27, THE NEXT DAY IT ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES AND ADJOURNED UNTIL FEBRUARY 4.
IN THAT BRIEF PERIOD, THE PARTIES TOOK THREE DEPOSITIONS.
THE SENATE RESUMED BY VOTING TO ACCEPT THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD.
IN THIS TRIAL, TOO, LET'S DO THE SAME.
WE SHOULD TAKE A BRIEF ONE-WEEK BREAK FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENT COLLECTION DURING WHICH TIME THE SENATE CAN RETURN TO ITS NORMAL BUSINESS.
THE TRIAL SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OR ANY OTHER KIND OF TRIAL BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T WANT US TO KNOW THE TRUTH.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE ALL REPRESENT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WE ALL LOVE AND CARE ABOUT DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH.
A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES IT.
THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT OF A DECISION TO BE MADE WITHOUT ALL OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE.
BEFORE TURNING INTO THE SPECIFIC NEED FOR THESE WITNESSES, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU AGAIN TO PLOW NEW GROUND.
WE'RE ASKING QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
WE'RE ASKING YOU TO SIMPLY FOLLOW THE SENATE'S UNBROKEN PRECEDENT AND TO DO SO IN A MANNER THAT ALLOWS YOU TO CONTINUE THE SENATE'S ORDINARY BUSINESS.
THE SENATE HAS HEARD SYSTEM IN EVERY OTHER 15 IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC.
IN FACT, THESE TRIALS HAVE HAD AN AVERAGE OF 33 WITNESSES.
THE SENATE HAS REPEATEDLY SUBPOENAED AND RECEIVED NEW DOCUMENTS WHILE ADJUDICATING CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THAT MAKES SENSE.
UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE SENATE DOES NOT JUST VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT.
IT DOES NOT JUST DEBATE THEM.
INSTEAD, THE SENATE IS COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO TRY ALL CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
A TRIAL REQUIRES WITNESSES.
A TRIAL REQUIRES DOCUMENTS.
THIS IS THE AMERICAN WAY.
THIS IS THE AMERICAN STORY.
IF THE SENATE DENIES OUR MOTIONS, IT WOULD BE THE ONLY TIME IN HISTORY IT HAS RENDERED A JUDGMENT ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT HEARING FROM A SINGLE WITNESS OR RECEIVING A SINGLE RELEVANT DOCUMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT WHOSE CONDUCT IS ON TRIAL.
AND WHY?
WHY CAN'T WE JUSTIFY -- HOW CAN WE JUSTIFY THIS BREAK FROM PRECEDENT?
HOW CAN WE JUSTIFY?
FOR WHAT REASON WOULD WE BREAK PRECEDENT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS?
THERE'S MANY COMPELLING REASONS BEYOND PRECEDENT THAT DEMAND SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES AND CASES AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS CASE.
AT THIS TIME I YIELD TO MANAGER GARCIA.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, COUNSEL, SENATORS, LAST WEEK I SHARED WITH YOU THAT I WAS REFLECTING ON MY FIRST DAYS AT A SCHOOL FOR BABY JUDGES, YOU MAY RECALL THAT.
I MENTIONED TO YOU THAT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT THEY TOLD US IS THAT WE HAD TO BE GOOD LISTENERS AND BE PATIENT.
YOU AS JUDGES IN THIS TRIAL HAVE CERTAINLY PASSED THE TEST.
THANKS FOR BEING GOOD LISTENERS AND FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US.
IT'S BEEN QUITE A LONG JOURNEY, BUT WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY TOLD US IN BABY JUDGE SCHOOL.
THAT IS THAT WE HAD TO GIVE ALL THE PARTIES IN FRONT OF US A FAIR HEARING.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING EVIDENCE.
THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT TODAY.
BECAUSE IN TERMS OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, SUBPOENAS BY THE SENATE IN THIS TRIAL WOULD MET GAIT THE DAMAGE BY THE PRESIDENT'S HOLE STRAIT INSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE INQUIRY.
THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS THERE'S NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF HIS WRONGDOING DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFER TO TESTIFY TO EVEN MORE EVIDENCE IN A TRIAL.
BUT LET'S NOT FORGET THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ORDERING THERE'S NO DIRECT EVIDENCE WHILE BLOCKING US FROM GETTING IT.
IT'S A REMARKABLE POSITION THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN.
QUITE FRANKLY, NEVER IS A LAWYER OR A FORMER JUDGE HAVE I EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS.
AND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR HISTORY, PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION, HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION TO DEFY EVERY SINGLE IMPEACHMENT SUBPOENA.
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.
NOT A SINGLE PAGE.
NADA.
THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
THERE'S NO LEGAL PRIVILEGE TO JUSTIFY THE BLANKET BLOCKING OF ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS.
WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE MORE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.
THERE'S NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT.
IT IS UNCONTESTED.
WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED IN EXCEPTIONAL DETAIL ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS THAT EXIST THAT THE PRESIDENT IS SIMPLY HIDING.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER PROHIBITING THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FROM PARTICIPATING IN AN INVESTIGATION GOES TO ALL WITNESSES.
12 FOLLOWED THE ORDER AND RENEWED TO TESTIFY.
MUCH OF THE CRITICAL EVIDENCE IS A RESULT OF CAREER OFFICIALS, BRAVELY COMING FORWARD DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION.
THOSE CLOSEST TO THE PRESIDENT, SOME MAY SAY LIKE IN THE MUSICAL HAMILTON, THOSE IN THE ROOM WHEN IT HAPPENED FOLLOWED HIS INSTRUCTION.
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THESE WITNESSES HAVE INFORMATION THAT IS RELEVANT TO THIS TRIAL.
THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE PERSONAL AND DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENTS'S ACTIONS AND MOTIVATIONS AND CAN PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE THAT HE SAYS WE DON'T HAVE.
NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ALLEGED THE HOUSE MANAGERS HID EVIDENCE FROM YOU.
>> BECAUSE AS HOUSE MANAGERS REALLY THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO GIVE YOU ALL OF THE FACTS.
THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING VERY, VERY CONSEQUENTIAL AND ASK YOURSELF, ASK YOURSELF, GIVEN THE FACTS THAT YOU HEARD TODAY THAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU, WHAT DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS?
WHAT DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS?
IMPEACHMENT SHOULDN'T BE A SHELL GAME.
THEY SHOULD GIVE YOU THE FACTS.
>> THIS IS NICE RHETORIC.
BUT IT'S SIMPLY INCORRECT.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CHERRY-PICKED MISLEADING BITS OF EVIDENCE, CITED DISPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS OF WITNESSES WHO SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED THEIR TESTIMONY IN PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SAID THE OPPOSITE.
IN SOME CASES SIMPLY LEFT OUT THE SECOND HALF OF WITNESS STATEMENTS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS PRESENTED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO YOU.
WE SPENT ABOUT 20 HOURS PRESENTING THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SPENT FOUR HOURS FOCUSING ON THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE.
THAT EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY.
BUT TO THE EXTENT CERTAIN FACTS WERE SHOWN TO YOU, LET'S BE VERY CLEAR.
WE ARE NOT THE ONES HIDING THE FACTS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT HIDE THAT EVIDENCE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HID THE EVIDENCE.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE THE ONES STANDING UP HERE ASKING YOU TO NOT LET THE PRESIDENT SILENT THESE WITNESSES AND HIDE THESE DOCUMENTS.
WE DON'T KNOW PRECISELY WHAT THE WITNESSES WILL SAY OR WHAT THE DOCUMENTS WILL SHOW.
BUT WE ALL DESERVE TO HEAR THE TRUTH.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO HEAR THE TRUTH.
NEVER BEFORE HAS A PRESIDENT BEEN PUT ABOVE THE LAW AND HID THE FACTS OF HIS OFFENSES FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE THIS ONE.
WE CANNOT LET THIS PRESIDENT BE DIFFERENT.
QUITE SIMPLY, THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH.
SECOND, THE SENATE REQUIRES IT SHOULD WANT COMPLETE EVIDENTLY RECORD TO VOTE BEFORE THE SACRED TASK THE CONSTITUTIONS ENTRUSTS IN EVERY ONE OF YOU.
CAN RESPECT THAT SOME OF YOU HAVE DEEP BELIEFS, THAT THE REMOVAL OF THIS PRESIDENT WOULD BE DIVISIVE.
OTHERS, YOU MAY BELIEVE IN ALLOWING THIS PRESIDENT TO REMAIN IN THE OVAL OFFICE WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC TO OUR REPUBLIC AND OUR DEMOCRACY.
REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE, REGARDLESS WHERE YOU LAND ON THIS SPECTRUM, YOU SHOULD WANT A FULL AND COMPLETE RECORD BEFORE YOU MAKE A FINAL DECISION AND TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL STORY.
IT SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT PARTY AFFILIATION.
IT SHOULD BE ABOUT SEEING ALL THE EVIDENCE AND VOTING YOUR CONSCIOUS BASED ON ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS.
IT SHOULD BE ABOUT DOING IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.
CONSIDER THE HARM DONE TO OUR INSTITUTIONS.
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER AND THE PUBLIC FACE IN OUR DEMOCRACY.
IF THE SENATE CHOOSES TO CLOSE THEIR EYES TO LEARNING THE FULL TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT, HOW CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE RESULT OF A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES?
THIRD, THE PRESIDENT SHOULD WANT A FAIR TRIAL.
HE HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THAT PUBLICLY, THAT HE WANTS A TRIAL ON THE MERITS.
HE SPECIFICALLY SAID IT.
YOU SAW A CLIP THAT HE WANTED A FAIR TRIAL IN THE SENATE.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WITH WITNESSES THAT TESTIFY INCLUDING JOHN BOLTON AND MICK MULVANEY.
HE SAID THAT HE WANTS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION.
WELL, WHATEVER YOU SAY ABOUT THIS TRIAL, THERE CANNOT BE A TOTAL EXONERATION WITHOUT HEARING FROM THOSE WITNESSES.
BECAUSE AN ACQUITTAL ON AN INCOMPLETE REGARD AFTER A TRIAL LACKING WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE WILL BE NO EXONERATION.
IT WILL BE NO VINDICATION.
NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT, NOT FOR THIS CHAMBER AND NOT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
IF A PRESIDENT IS TELLING THE TRUTH AND HE DID NOTHING WRONG AND THE EVIDENCE WOULD PROVE THAT, THEN WE ALL KNOW THAT HE WOULD BE AN ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORTER OF SUBPOENAS.
HE WOULD BE HERE PROBABLY HIMSELF IF HE COULD URGING YOU TO DO SUBPOENAS IF HE HAD INFORMATION THAT WOULD PROVE HE WAS TOTALLY NOT IN THE WRONG.
IF HE IS INNOCENT, HE SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE.
HIS COUNSEL SHOULD BE THE ONES HERE ASKING TO SUBPOENA BOLTON AND MULVANEY AND OTHERS FOR TESTIMONY.
THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE EAGER TO HAVE THE PEOPLE CLOSEST TO HIM TO TEMPERATURE ABOUT HIS INNOCENCE.
HE WOULD BE EAGER TO PRESENT THE DOCUMENTS TO SHOW ABOUT CORRUPTION AND BURDEN SHARING.
THE FACT THAT HE'S STRENUOUSLY OPPOSED TO THE TESTIMONY OF HIS CLOSEST ADVISERS AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS SPEAKS VOLUMES.
YOU SHOULD ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO THE PRESIDENT SO THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN GET THE FAIR TRIAL THAT HE WANTED.
MORE IMPORTANTLY SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN GET THE TRIAL THAT THEY DESERVE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL.
I SAID AT THE ONSET THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS THAT YOU WOULD MAKE WILL NOT BE WHETHER YOU CONVICT OR A QUIT BUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL GET A FAIR TRIAL.
THE PROCESS IS MORE THAN JUST THE ULTIMATE DECISION.
BECAUSE THE FACE IN OUR INSTITUTION DEPENDS ON THE PERCEPTION OF A FAIR PROCESS.
A VOTE AGAINST WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS UNDERMINES THAT FAITH.
SENATORS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A FAIR TRIAL.
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, THREE IN FOUR VOTERS, THREE IN FOUR AS OF THIS PAST TUESDAY BELIEVE THAT THIS TRIAL SHOULD HAVE WITNESSES.
NOW, THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGREE ON THESE DAYS.
BUT THEY DO AGREE ON THAT.
AND THEY KNOW WHAT A FAIR TRIAL IS.
THAT INVOLVES WITNESSES AND IT INVOLVES EVIDENCE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW THE FACTS ABOUT THEIR PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.
AND THOSE AROUND HIM.
THEY DESERVE TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THIS PROCESS, CONFIDENCE THAT YOU MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT CONFIDENCE, THE SENATE MUST CALL RELEVANT WITNESSES AND OBTAIN RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WITHHELD THUS FAR BY THIS PRESIDENT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID THROUGHOUT THEIR PRESENTATION AND THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE PROCEEDINGS HERE AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL, THERE HAS TO BE NEW WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS A TROPE THAT IS BEING USED TO DISGUISE THE REAL ISSUES, THE REAL DECISIONS THAT YOU'D BE MAKING ON THIS DECISION ABOUT WITNESSES.
BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT MORE AT STAKE THERE.
LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE THERE.
THE FIRST OF THIS IDEA THAT IF YOU COME TO TRIAL, YOU'VE ALWAYS GOT TO GO TO WITNESSES, HAVE NEW WITNESSES COME IN.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
IN EVERY LEGAL SYSTEM AND IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AND BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SIDES, THERE'S A WAY TO DECIDE UP FRONT IN SOME QUICK WAY WHETHER THERE'S REALLY A TRIABLE ISSUE, WHETHER YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF CALLING IN NEW WITNESSES AND HAVING MORE EVIDENCE IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THERE'S NOT HERE.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR THAT.
BECAUSE THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ON THEIR FACE ARE DEFECTIVE.
WE'VE EXPLAINED THAT.
LET ME START WITH THE SECOND ARTICLE ON THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE.
WE'VE EXPLAINED THAT THAT CHARGE IS REALLY TRYING TO SAY IT'S AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO DEFEND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.
THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT.
IT'S ALSO THE CASE THAT NO WITNESSES ARE GOING TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE SECOND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE GROUNDS THE PRESIDENT ASSERTED, THE FACT THAT HE ASSERTED LONG-STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL PER REGULARIVES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN SPECIFIC WAYS TO RESIST SPECIFIC DEFICIENCIES IN THE SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED.
NO FACT WITNESS WILL COME IN AND SAY ANYTHING IN ANY WAY THAT RELATES TO THAT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT THAT TOO IS DEFECTIVE ON ITS FACE.
WE HEARD IT AGAIN TODAY HERE THAT THE WAY THEY HAVE THIS SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF IMPEACHMENT, THAT WE'LL SHOW ABUSE OF POWER BY FOCUSING JUST ON THE PRESIDENTS'S SUBJECTIVE MOTIVES.
AND THEY SAID AGAIN TODAY HERE THAT THE WAY THEY CAN SHOW THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING WRONG IS THAT HE DEFIED THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
WE TALKED -- I TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE, THIS THEORY THAT HE DEFIED THE AGENCIES WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
HE WASN'T FOLLOWING THE POLICY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY COHERENT STATEMENT.
THE THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT THEY FRAMED IN THE FIRST ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD DO GRAY DAMAGE TO THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION.
BECAUSE IT WOULD BECOME SO MALLEABLE THEY CAN POUR INTO IT ANYTHING THEY WANT TO FIND ILLICIT MOTIVES FOR SOME PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE ACTION.
IT'S SO MALLEABLE THAT IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN MALADMINISTRATION.
THE EXACT GROUND THAT THE FRAMERS REJECTED DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES SPECIFIC DEFENSES.
IT LIMITS AND RESTRAINS THE IMPEACHMENT POWER.
THERE'S ALSO THE FACT THAT WE ACTUALLY HEARD FROM A LOT OF WITNESSES.
WE HEARD FROM A LOT OF WITNESSES IN THE PROCEEDINGS SO FAR.
YOU HEARD 192 VIDEO CLIPS BY OUR COUNT FROM 13 DIFFERENT WITNESSES.
THERE WERE 17 WITNESSES DEPOSED IN CLOSE HEARINGS IN THE HOUSE AND 12 TESTIFIED AGAIN IN OPEN HEARINGS.
YOU HAVE ALL OF THOSE TRANSCRIPTS.
YOU CAN SEE THE WITNESSES' TESTIMONY THERE.
THE KEY PORTIONS HAVE BEEN PLAYED FOR YOU ON THE SCREENS.
YOU'VE GOT OVER 28,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS AND TRANSCRIPTS.
YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF EVIDENCE ALREADY.
THERE'S ANOTHER PRINCIPLE THAT THEY OVERLOOK.
IF YOU HAVE A TRIAL, THERE HAS TO BE WITNESSES AS IF THE MOST ORDINARY THING IS YOU GET TO TRIAL AND THEN START SUBPOENAING NEW WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
THAT'S NOT TRUE EITHER.
WE POINTED THIS OUT.
IN THE REGULAR COURTS, THE WAY THINGS WORK IS YOU HAVE TO DO A LOT OF WORK PREPARING A TRIAL CALLED DISCOVERY TO FIND OUT ABOUT WITNESSES AND DEPOSE THEM AND FIND OUT ABOUT DOCUMENTS BEFORE YOU GET TO TRIAL.
YOU CAN'T SHOW UP THE DAY OF TRIAL AND SAY OH, YOUR HONOR, WE'RE NOT READY, WE DIDN'T SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON OR WITNESS X OR WITNESS Y.
NOW WE WANT TO SUBPOENA THAT WITNESS.
NOW WE WANT TO DO DISCOVERY.
WHY DID THAT MATTER HERE?
HERE, TO SHOW UP NOT HAVING DONE THE WORK AND TO EXPECT THAT WORK TO BE DONE IN THE SENATE BY THIS BODY HAS GRAVE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS OF THIS BODY AND SET AS PRECEDENT FOR TWO BODIES, FOR THE SENATE AND THE FOR THE HOUSE.
BECAUSE WHAT THE SENATE ACCEPTS AS AN IMPEACHMENT COMING FROM THE HOUSE DETERMINES NOT JUST PRECEDENT FOR THE SENATE, BUT REALLY PRECEDENT FOR THE HOUSE IN THE FUTURE AS WELL.
IF THE PROCEDURES USED IN THE HOUSE TO BRING THIS PROCEEDING HERE TO THIS STAGE ARE ACCEPTED, IF THE SENATE SAYS YES, WE'LL START CALLING NEW WITNESSES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GET THE JOB DONE AND WHATEVER PROCESS YOU USED TO GET IT HERE, THAT BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL.
THAT IS IMPORTANT IN A COUPLE OF WAYS.
ONE AS WE POINTED OUT, THE TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED PROCESS THAT WAS USED IN THE HOUSE THAT VIOLATED ALL NOTIONS OF DUE PROCESS.
THERE ARE PRECEDENTS GOING BACK 150 YARDS IN THE HOUSE ENSURING THAT SOMEONE ACCUSED IN AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING IN THE HOUSE HAS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, PRESENT EVIDENCE.
THEY DIDN'T ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO DO THAT HERE.
IF THIS BODY SAYS THAT'S OKAY, THEN THAT BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL.
THEY STAND UP HERE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS, AND SAY, THIS BODY WOULD BE UNFAIR IF THIS BODY DOESN'T CALL THE WITNESSES.
THEY TALK ABOUT FAIRNESS.
WHERE WAS THE FAIRNESS IN THE HOUSE?
MANAGER SCHIFF SAYS THINGS WOULD BE ARBITRARY IF YOU DON'T WHAT THEY SAY AND CALL THE WITNESSES THEY WANT.
WASN'T IT ARBITRARY IN THE HOUSE WHEN THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL?
WOULDN'T ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO CALL WITNESSES?
THERE'S NO PRECEDENT IN A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO HAVE OPEN HEARINGS WHERE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNSEL WERE EXCLUDED.
IT ALSO WOULD SET A PRECEDENT TO ALLOW A PACKAGE, A PROCEEDING FROM THE HOUSE TO COME HERE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY WELL, NOW WE NEED NEW WITNESSES, WE HAVEN'T DONE ALL THE WORK.
IT'S WITNESSES THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO GET.
THEY DIDN'T SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON.
THEY DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WHEN OTHER WITNESSES WERE SUBPOENAED WHEN DR. CUPPERMAN WENT TO COURT.
THEY WITH DREW THE SUBPOENA.
NOW TO SAY, WELL, FAIRNESS DEMANDS THAT THIS BODY HAS TO DO THAT WORK.
THAT SET AS NEW PRECEDENT AS WELL.
IT CHANGES -- WOULD CHANGE FOR ALL THE FUTURE.
RELATIONSHIP QUEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES.
IT WOULD MEAN THE SENATE HAS TO BECOME THE INVESTIGATORY BODY.
THE PRINCIPLES THAT THEY ASSERT, THEY DID A PROCESS THAT WASN'T FAIR.
THEY DID A PROCESS THAT WAS ARBITRARILY THAT DENIES THE PRESIDENT RIGHTS.
THEY DID A PROCESS THAT WOULDN'T ALLOW WITNESSES.
THEN THEY CAME HERE ON THE FIRST NIGHT, REMEMBER, WHEN WE WERE ALL HERE UNTIL 2:00 A.M.
VERY BELLIGERENT TERMS SAID TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, YOU'RE ON TRIAL.
IT WILL BE TREACHERY IF YOU DON'T DO WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY.
THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
WHEN IT WAS THEIR ERRORS, WHEN THEY WERE ARBITRARY AND DIDN'T PROVIDE FAIRNESS, THEY CAN'T PROJECT THAT ON THIS BODY TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE UP FOR THEIR ERRORS AND IF YOU DON'T, THE FAULT LIES HERE.
NOW, THEY ALSO SUGGEST THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME, THAT THEY ONLY WANT A FEW WITNESSES.
OF COURSE, IF THINGS ARE OPENED UP TO WITNESSES AND IT'S GOING TO BE FAIR, IT'S NOT JUST ONE SIDES.
IT'S NOT JUST THE WITNESSES THAT THEY WOULD WANT.
THE PRESIDENT ULD HAVE TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE WITNESSES.
WITH ALL RESPECT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE IDEA THAT IF A SUBPOENA IS SENT TO A SENIOR ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT DETERMINES THAT HE WILL STAND BY THE PRINCIPLE OF IMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN ASSERTED BY VIRTUAL EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON, THAT THAT WILL BE RESOLVED BY THE SENATE RIGHT HERE.
WHETHER OR NOT THAT PRIVILEGE EXISTS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE SITTING AS PRESIDING OFFICER.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.
THE SENATE EVEN WHEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS THE PRESIDING OFFICER HERE, CAN'T UNILATERALLY DECIDE THE PRIVILEGES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THAT DISPUTE WOULD HAVE TO BE RESOLVED IN ANOTHER WAY.
IT COULD INVOLVE LITIGATION.
IT COULD TAKE A LOT OF TIME.
SO THE IDEA THAT THIS WILL ALL BE DONE QUICKLY IF EVERYBODY DOES WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY IS NOT REALISTIC.
IT'S NOT THE WAY THE PROCESS HAS TO PLAY OUT IN ACCORD WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
THAT HAS ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCE.
AGAIN, AFFECTING THIS INSTITUTION AS A PRECEDENT GOING FORWARD.
WHAT IT SUGGESTS, THE NEW NORMAL CREATED THEN IS AN EXPRESSED PATH FOR PRECISELY THIS SORT OF IMPEACHMENTS THAT THE FRAMERS MOST FEARED.
THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED THAT IMPEACHMENTS COULD BE DONE FOR ILLEGITIMATE REASONS.
THEY RECOGNIZED THERE COULD BE PARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS.
AND IF THIS IS THE NEW NORMAL, THIS IS THE VERY EPITOME OF A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.
THERE WAS BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO IT IN THE HOUSE.
IT WAS RUSHED THROUGH WITH UNFAIR PROCEDURES.
78 DAYS TOTAL OF INQUIRY.
THINK ABOUT THAT.
IN NIXON THERE WAS INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES AND A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR LONG BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STARTED ITS INVESTIGATION.
IN CLINTON, THERE WAS A SPECIAL COUNSEL, AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOR THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STARTED HEARINGS.
EVERYTHING FROM START TO FINISH IN THIS CASE FROM SEPTEMBER 24 TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WAS DONE IN 78 DAYS.
IN 78 DAYS.
FOR 71 OF THEM, THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTIRELY LOCKED OUT.
SO THE NEW NORMAL WOULD BE SLAP DASH GET IT DONE QUICKLY, UNFAIR PROCEDURES IN THE HOUSE TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND THEN BRING IT TO THE SENATE AND THEN ALL THE REAL WORK OF INVESTIGATION AND DISCOVERY IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE PLACE WITH THAT IMPEACHMENT HANGING OVER THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD.
THAT IS A PARTICULAR THING THAT THE FRAMERS ALSO WERE CONCERNED ANT.
I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER DAY.
FEDERALIST NUMBER 65, HAMILTON WARNED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT HE CALLED -- AND I'M QUOTING -- THE INJURY TO THE INNOCENT FROM THE PROCRASTINATED DETERMINATION OF THE CHARGES WHICH MIGHT BE BROUGHT AGAINST THEM.
BECAUSE HE UNDERSTOOD THAT IF AN IMPEACHMENT CHARGE FROM THE HOUSE WASN'T RESOLVED QUICKLY, IT WAS HANGING OVER THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD, THAT IN ITSELF WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
THAT IS WHY THEY STRUCTURED THE IMPROCESS SO THAT THE SENATE COULD SWIFTLY DETERMINE IMPEACHMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT.
THAT'S ALL TO SUGGEST, THAT'S WHY THERE'S A SYSTEM FOR HAVING THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, THOROUGH PROCESS DONE IN THE HOUSE.
HAMILTON EXPLAINED THAT DELAY AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT WOULD AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INTRIGUE AND CORRUPTION.
IT WOULD ALSO BE, AS HE PUT IT, A DETRIMENT TO THE STATE FROM THE PROLONGED INACTION OF MEN WHOSE FORM AND FAITHFUL EXCUSE OF THEIR DUTY MIGHT HAVE EXPOSED THEM TO THE PERSECUTION OF A DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
IF YOU CREATE A SYSTEM NOW THAT MAKES THE NEW NORMAL A HALF-BAKED PROCESS IN THE HOUSE TO GET THE IMPEACHMENT DONE AND GET IT TO THE SENATE AND THEN ONCE THE IMPEACHMENT IS IMPEACH AND YOU HAVE THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD HAVING SOMETHING LIKE THAT HANGING OVER HIS HEAD, THEN WE'LL SLOW EVERYTHING DONE AND THEN WE'LL START DOING THE INVESTIGATION AND DRAG IT OUT.
THAT'S ALL PART OF WHAT MAKES THIS EVEN MORE POLITICAL.
ESPECIALLY IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
IT'S NOT THE PROCESS THAT THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE SENATE SHOULD CONDONE IN THIS CASE.
THE SENATE IS NOT HERE TO DO THE INVESTIGATORY WORK THAT THE HOUSE DIDN'T DO.
WHERE THERE'S BEEN A PROCESS THAT DENIED ALL DUE PROCESS, THAT PRODUCED A RECORD THAT CAN'T BE RELIED UPON.
THE REACTION FROM THIS BODY SHOULD BE TO REJECT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, NOT TO CONDONE AND PUT ITS STAMP ON THE WAY THE PROCEEDINGS WERE HANDLED IN THE HOUSE AND NOT TO PROLONG MATTERS FURTHER BY TRYING TO REDO WORK THAT THE HOUSE FAILED TO DO BY NOT SEEKING EVIDENCE AND NOT DOING A FAIR AND LEGITIMATE PROCESS TO BRING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HERE.
THANK YOU.
>> MR. SEKULOW.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, OUR A SEVEN-DAY PERIOD, YOU DID HEAR EVIDENCE.
YOU HEARD EVIDENCE FROM 13 DIFFERENT WITNESSES, 192 VIDEO CLIPS AND AS MY COLLEAGUE THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SAID OVER 28,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS.
YOU HEARD TESTIMONY FROM GORDON SONDLAND.
HE'S THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.
YOU HEARD THAT TESTIMONY.
HE TESTIFIED IN THE MOUSE PROCEEDINGS.
I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
IF WE GET WITNESSES, I HAVE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
WILLIAM TAYLOR.
FORMER ACTING UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR OF THE UKRAINE TESTIFIED.
YOU HEARD HIS TESTIMONY.
WE DIDN'T GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
HE WOULD BE CALLED.
TIM MORRISON, THE FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
YOU SAW HIS TESTIMONY.
THEY PUT IT UP.
WE DIDN'T GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, SPECIAL ADVISER FOR VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE.
YOU SAW HER TESTIMONY.
THEY PUT IT UP.
I DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HER.
IF WE CALL WITNESSES, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
DAVID HOLMES, POLITICAL COUNSEL TO THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN THE UKRAINE.
SAW TESTIMONY FROM HIM.
WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE.
IF HE'S CALLED, IF WE GET WITNESSES, WE WILL CALL THE AMBASSADOR AND WE WILL CROSS EXAMINE.
LIEUTENANT KERNAL -- COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN, WE DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
IF WE CALL WITNESSES, WE WILL CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
FIONA HILL, SHE'S THE FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA ON NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
SHE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE.
IF WE HAVE WITNESSES, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HER THEN AND CROSS EXAMINE FIONA HILL.
CURT VOLCKER, THEY CALLED HIM.
WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE.
IF WE'RE CALLING WITNESSES, THESE ARE WITNESSES YOU'VE HEARD FROM, WE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES AND TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. VOLCKER.
GEORGE KENT, FROM THE BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, YOU SAW HIS TESTIMONY.
THEY CALLED HIM.
IF WE HAVE WITNESSES, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THAT WITNESS AND TO CROSS EXAMINE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT.
THE FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.
THEY CALLED HER.
YOU SAW THAT TESTIMONY.
WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HERE.
IF WE HAVE WITNESSES, WE WOULD HAVE TO CALLER.
LAURA COOPER, THEY CALLED HER, YOU SAW HER WITNESS TESTIMONY.
RGHT HERE.
WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HER.
WE WOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY.
THESE ARE THE WITNESSES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
LAURA COOPER, ASSISTANT OF DEFENSE.
SAME THING.
DAVID HALE, UNDERSECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS.
HE WAS CALLED BY THE HOUSE.
YOU SAW HIS TESTIMONY.
WE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE.
IF WE HAVE WITNESSES, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
THERE WERE OTHER WITNESSES THAT WERE CALLED OR YOU SAW THEIR TESTIMONY OR HEARD THEIR TESTIMONY WHERE IT WAS REFERRED TO CATHERINE CROFT, THE SPECIAL ADVISER FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE, THE DEPARTMENTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AND CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, SPECIAL ADVISER FOR UKRAINE.
YOU HEARD THEIR TESTIMONY REFERRED TO, WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THEM.
SO THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IF WITNESSES ARE CALLED IN A WEEK.
NOW, THAT'S JUST THE WITNESSES THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED THAT YOU HAVE SEEN BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
YOU ARE BEING CALLED UPON TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS.
CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS FOR OUR CONSTITUTION.
WE TALK ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE.
THE MANAGER SAID THEY PROVED THEIR CASE.
29 TIMES THEY SAID THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING.
MANAGER NADLER, HE DIDN'T ONLY SAY IT WAS OVERWHELMING IN HIS VIEW, ON PAGE 739 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, HE'S VERY CLEAR.
HE SAYS NOT ONLY IS IT STRONG, THERE IS NO DOUBT.
THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS.
THE ONE THING THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS THINK THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GOT RIGHT, QUOTING ME, AS SAYING BEYOND ANY DOUBT, IT'S INDEED BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
NOW, OF COURSE WE THINK THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE BY ANY STRETCH OF ANY PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.
IN THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION, THEY TALK ABOUT WITNESSES BEING CALLED BUT THE THREE WITNESSES THAT WERE CALLED HAD EITHER TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OR BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEES.
NEW WITNESSES.
MR. PHILBIN SAID IS CORRECT.
UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO INVESTIGATION.
YOU'RE TO DELIBERATE.
BUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IS NOW BECOME THE INVESTIGATIVE AGENCY, THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY.
IF THEY NEEDED ALL OF THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH THEY SAID THEY DON'T KNOW AND BY THE WAY, NOT ONLY DID THEY SAY IT IN THE RECORD, THIS IS HOUSE MANAGER NADLER WHEN HE WAS ON CNN BACK ON THE 15th OF THIS MONTHS, WE BROUGHT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM MANY WITNESSES, WE HEARD FROM ENOUGH WITNESSES TO PROVE THE CASE BEYOND ANY DOUBT AT ALL.
THE SAME COULD BE SAID OF REPRESENTATIVE LOFGREN.
WE HAVE EVIDENCE PROVING THE CASE THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE MEETING WHEN BOLTON SAID IT WAS A DRUG DEAL.
WE HAVE FACT WITNESSES.
HILL WAS THERE, VINDMAN WAS THERE.
SO THIS IDEA THAT THEY DON'T HAVE WITNESSES, THAT'S THE SMOKE SCREEN.
YOU HEARD FROM A LOT OF WITNESSES.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE CASE, THE PROBLEM WITH THEIR POSITION IS, EVEN WITH ALL OF THOSE WITNESSES, IT DOESN'T PROVE UP AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THE ARTICLES FAIL.
IT'S VERY DANGEROUS IF THE HOUSE RUNS UP -- WHICH THEY DID -- ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT QUICKLY, SO QUICKLY THAT THEY ARE CLAMORING FOR EVIDENCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY PUT ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE FORWARD.
THEY DOT THEIR WISH OF AN IMPEACHMENT BY CHRISTMAS.
THAT WAS THE GOAL.
NOW THEY WANT YOU TO DO THE WORK THAT THEY FAILED TO DO.
AS I SAID, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WE HEARD YOU DIDN'T HEAR FROM WITNESSES.
MR. SCHIFF MODIFIED THAT A LITTLE BIT TODAY.
A LITTLE BIT.
YOU HEARD FROM A LOT OF WITNESSES.
BUT IF WE GO DOWN THE ROAD OF WITNESSES, THIS IS NOT ONE-WEEK PROCESS.
REMEMBER I TALKED ABOUT WAVING THE WAND AND CORRUPTION WAS GONE?
YOU DON'T HAVE A WITNESS WAND SAYING OKAY, WE HAVE A WEEK TO DO THIS AND GET I DONE.
THERE'S NO WAY THAT WOULD BE PROPER FOR DUE PROCESS.
TO YOU PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR THE PERSON ACCUSED.
OTHER TURNING IT ON ITS HEAD.
THEY BROUGHT THE ARTICLES BEFORE YOU.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT RUSHED THE CASE UP AND HELD IT BEFORE YOU COULD START THE PROCEEDINGS AND PASSED THE ARTICLES BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
YOU KNOW, WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE COURT SYSTEM AND THE FACT THAT THEY WERE SEEKING WITNESSES.
WHEN THEY GOT CLOSE TO HAVING A COURT PROCEEDING, THEY DECIDED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THAT WITNESS GO THROUGH THAT PROCEEDING.
THEY WITH DREW THE SUBPOENA TO MOVE THE CASE OUT.
HOW MANY CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES WILL WE HAVE IN THIS BODY BECAUSE THEY PLACED A BURDEN ON YOU THAT THEY WOULDN'T TAKE THEMSELF IN PUTTING THEIR CASE FORWARD?
IF WE LOOK AT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME WORK AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE, THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK.
NOW, OUR OPPOSITION TO THIS MOTION IS RATHER STRAIGHTFORWARD AS I'VE SAID.
WE CAME HERE READY TO TRY THE CASE ON THE RECORD THAT THEY PRESENTED.
THE REGARD THAT THE MANAGERS TOLD US WAS OVERWHELMING AND COMPLETE.
MR. SCHIFF WENT THROUGH EVERY SENTENCE OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT JUST A FEW DAYS AGO AND SAID PROVED, PROVED, PROVED.
THE PROBLEM IS WHAT IT PROVED, PROVED, PROVED IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
YOU CAN HAVE WITNESSES THAT PROVE A LOT OF THINGS.
IF THERE'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW, IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRED PROCESS, A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRED SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, DO THESE ALLEGATIONS RISE TO THE LEVEL OF SUFFICIENT FOR REMOVE VALUE OF OFFICE FOR A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
IT DOESN'T.
ESPECIALLY SO, ESPECIALLY SO WHEN WE ARE IN AN ELECTION YEAR.
I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THE TIME, YOUR TIME, WHICH IS PRECIOUS, TO GO OVER EACH AND EVERY ALLEGATION ABOUT WITNESSES THAT I COULD.
I COULD DO IT.
I COULD STAND HERE FOR A LONG TIME.
I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THIS: THEY CREATED THE RECORD.
DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO PENALIZE THE COUNTRY AND THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB.
WITH THAT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WE YIELD OUR TIME.
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
I'M PROUD TO BE JOINED BY MY COLLEAGUES THIS MORNING.
NOW AS EVERYONE KNOWS FOR MONTHS NOW, WE DEMOCRATS HAVE RELENTLESSLY ASKED TO HEAR FROM RELEVANT WITNESSES AND REVIEW RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL FOR A VERY SIMPLE REASON.
THIS IS ABOUT TRUTH.
AND TODAY THE SENATE WILL VOTE OPEN WHETHER WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THIS TRIAL THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS VOTE IS SELF-EVIDENT.
TRIALS HAVE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
THE VOTE TODAY IS ABOUT WHETHER THE SENATE WILL HAVE A FAIR TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
SO IT'S DEEPLY DISTURBING THAT ON SOMETHING OF SUCH IMPORTANCE TO THE FUTURE OF OUR DEMOCRACY, A FEW OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ANNOUNCED LAST NIGHT THAT THEY WOULD VOTE AGAINST HEARING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
IT'S CLEAR WHERE THE AMERICAN PEEL STAND ON THE ISSUE.
REPUBLICAN SENATORS THAT DECIDE TO GO AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO RECKON WITH IT.
THE RESULT OF TODAY'S VOTE IS STILL AN OPEN QUESTION.
BUT I WOULD NOTE THAT EVEN IN SENATOR ALEXANDER'S STATEMENT I WOULD NOTE THAT EVEN IN SENATOR ALEXANDER'S STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO NEW EVIDENCE HE SAID IT WAS PROVEN THAT THE PRESIDENT DID WHAT HE WAS ACCUSED OF.
HE CAME TO THE WRONG CONCLUSION ABOUT HEARING EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL THAT'S CLEAR BUT SENATOR ALEXANDER SAID OUTLOUD, A RETIRING MEMBER WHAT I THINK MOST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE IN PRIVATE THAT, YES, THE PRESIDENT DID WITHHOLD MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO TRY TO GET UKRAINE TO HELP HIM IN HIS ELECTIONS.
AND, YES, THE PRESIDENT DID INTERFERE WITH CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THAT MISCONDUCT.
HE SAID YES THE PRESIDENT CONDITIONED FOREIGN AID WITH AN ALLY AT WAR ON THE PERFORMANCE OF BOGUS INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD HELP HIS RE-REELECTION.
ALEXANDER REJECTED 90% OF THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG.
HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING THAT THE FOUNDERS FEARED MOST, POTENTIAL CORRUPTION OF OUR NATIONAL ELECTIONS BY A FOREIGN POWER.
SOLICITED BY NONE OTHER THAN OUR OWN PRESIDENT AND TO HIDE THAT GROSS MISCONDUCT THE WHITE HOUSE EXHAUSTED EVERY LEGAL TRICK IN THE BOOK TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM INVESTIGATING.
IF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES REFUSES TO CONSIDER WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL THIS COUNTRY IS HEADED TOWARD THE GREATEST COVER-UP SINCE(v$> WATERGATE.
IF MY COLLEAGUES REFUSES TO CONSIDER WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THE TRIAL WHAT WILL THE PRESS CONCLUDE?
WE ALL KNOW HE WILL CONCLUDE HE CAN DO IT AGAIN AND CONGRESS CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT.
HE CAN TRY TO CHEAT IN HIS ELECTION AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT EATS AT THE ROOTS OF OUR DEMOCRACY.
ONE MORE POINT.
THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING FOR WEEKS, BUT IS MOST RELEVANT TODAY.
IF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES REFUSE TO CONSIDER WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL, THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL WILL BE MEANINGLESS BECAUSE IT WILL BE THE RESULT OF A SHAM TRIAL.
IF THERE ARE NO WITNESSES, NO DOCUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL THERE WILL BE A PERMANENT ASTERISK NEXT TO THE ACQUITTAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WRITTEN IN PERMANENT INK.
SO SENATE REPUBLICANS FACE A CHOSE BETWEEN SEEKING THE TRUTH AND COVERING IT UP, BETWEEN A FAIR TRIAL AND A FARCE, BETWEEN COUNTRY AND PARTY.
NO MATTER WHAT THE RESULTS OF TODAY'S VOTE, I BELIEVE THE TRUTH WILL EVENTUALLY COME OUT.
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE THEY VOTE TODAY.
THE TRUTH, THE TRUTH, WILL EVENTUALLY COME OUT.
WE COULD VOTE TO SEE THE TRUTH IN THIS TRIAL, OR IT COULD COME OUT IN A FEW WEEKS OR A FEW MONTHS, AND ON THAT DAY, EVERY REPUBLICAN WHO VOTED TO HIDE THE TRUTH IN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT WILL HAVE TO ANSWER FOR IT.
SENATOR MURRAY?
>> WELL, THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, SINCE THE NEWS FIRST BROKE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CALL TO PRESSURE THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE VERY CLEAR WE NEED TO APPROACH THIS FAIRLY, TRANSPARENTLY AND IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS ALL OF THE FACTS TO COME OUT.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE IN THIS POSITION, NO ONE DOES, BUT IT'S THE SEVERITY OF THE POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS AND THEY BECAME CLEARER WE INSISTED THE INVESTIGATION AND THE TRIAL UPHOLD AMERICAN VALUES THAT WE AND OUR CON AT THIS TIME WENT HOLD DEAR.
TRIALS SHOULD HAVE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND EVERY PUBLIC SERVANT'S FIRST LOYALTY SHOULD BE TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY NOT TO A POLITICAL PARTY OR FIGURE.
UNFORTUNATELY WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAS STRAYED DANGEROUSLY FAR FROM THOSE VERY BASIC PRINCIPLES.
THEY STUCK THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND WHEN PRESENTED WITH AN OVERWHELMING CASE WHEN PRESENTED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT, THEY TWISTED THEMSELVES INTO KNOTS CLAIMING THEY NEEDED MORE TIME BEFORE VOTING ON WHETHER TO HEAR EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, AND THEN SAID HEARING HA NEW INFORMATION WOULD TAKE TOO LONG AND NOW TONIGHT ALL SIGNS POINT TO A RUSHED ACQUITTAL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
NOT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE ALREADY, STATEMENTS SUGGEST MORE EXISTS.
THE REASON WE ARE EXPECTING A RUSH TO ACQUITTAL TONIGHT IS BECAUSE SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE ABOUT TO MAKE A TERRIBLE CHOICE.
THEY'RE ABOUT TO DISMISS THIS WITH A SLUG AND A WHO CARES, RATHER THAN WITH DELIBERATION AND SUBSTANCE THAT IT WARRANTS.
THEY'RE ABOUT TO CHOOSE A COVER-UP RATHER THAN A FAIR TRIAL AND TO PUT PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
BECAUSE THIS MORNING WE ARE ASKING SENATE REPUBLICANS ONE FINAL TIME DON'T MAKE THAT TERRIBLE CHOICE!
CHOOSE OUR COUNTRY!
CHOOSE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY!
CHOOSE OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND CHOOSE THE RULE OF LAW.
IF YOU STILL SOMEHOW HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THE HOUSE PRESENTED, VOTE FOR A FAIR TRIAL WITH WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.
IF YOU HAVE NO DOUBTS AND JUST WANT TO PROVE DEMOCRATS WRONG DO THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF SHOWING THE SENATE CAN FULFILL ITS RESPONSIBILITY IF NOR NO OTHER REASON BUT DON'T VOTE FOR A COVER-UP JUST TO AVOID THE TRUTH YOU WON'T LIKE, BECAUSE EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY WILL HEAR IT SOONER OR LATER.
THE FULL TRUTH WILL COME OUT AND EACH OF US WILL FOREVER OWN OUR DECISIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF IT.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TONIGHT FOR A FAIR TRIAL THAT ENSURES WE HAVE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE BEFORE MAKING THAT DECISION.
LET'S NOT WASTE IT.
>> THANK YOU, SENATOR MURRAY.
SENATOR BROWN?
>> THANK YOU, CHUCK, PATTI, KAMALA, THANK YOU.
I'M NOT A LAWYER BUT I, LIKE 75% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN YOU HAVE A TRIAL YOU HAVE THE PROSECUTION, THE HOUSE MANAGERS, THE DEFENSE, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS AND YOU HAVE WITNESSES AND TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE AND AS MY COLLEAGUES IS HAVE SAID THIS IS A SHAM TRIAL IF THERE ARE NOT WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY.
EVERY SINGLE TRIAL IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE I BELIEVE ABOUT A DOZEN AND A HALF OF THEM FOR JUDGES AND FOR PRESIDENTS, EVERY SINGLE TRIAL HAS HAD WITNESSES AND THIS WILL BE PRECEDENT SETTING AND IT WILL BE THE FIRST TIME THAT'S HAPPENED.
WE KNOW A NUMBER OF THINGS.
WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SOLICITED A BRIBE FROM A FOREIGN LEADER AND IN EXCHANGE FOR ASSISTANCE FOR HIS CAMPAIGN.
WE HAVE WATCHED, WE SEE FEWER CAMERAS IN THE CHAMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE SO THAT AMERICA CAN'T SEE WHAT THEIR SENATOR IS DOING AS THIS TRIAL GOES ON FOR THE LAST WEEK OR SO, COUPLE OF WEEKS.
WE SEE IT IN THE NUMBER OF HOW REPORTERS HOW ALL OF YOU ARE RESTRICTED FROM CERTAIN AREAS WHERE MY WHOLE CAREER IN THE SENATE YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ROOM FREE IN THE HALLS, MOST OF US BELIEVE IN A FREE PRESS AND ALL OF US KNOW, THE FOUR OF US KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE AND MOST OF US STOP AND TALK MOST OF THE TIME TO YOU.
MITCH McCONNELL WANTS THIS OVER WITH AS LITTLE ATTENTION AS POSSIBLE THAT'S WHY TODAY I'M GOING TO FIGHT TO MAKE SURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN HEAR OUR DELIBERATIONS AFTER THE AMENT TONIGHT ON DELIBERATIONS THAT THERE BE FULL DELIBERATIONS AND THE LIGHTS BE ON AND THE CAMERAS BE ON SO AMERICA CAN SEE, I FILED A MOTION TO MAKE SURE THESE ARE DONE NOT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE MADE IT CLEAR WHAT DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR WE CONDONE IF WE ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT.
I'VE SPOKEN TO LOTS OF REPUBLICANS TALKING ABOUT THIS.
WE KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT IN PRIVATE, WE KNOW THE FEAR IN THEIR EYES IN VOTING AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT WHEN I TALK TO MY COLLEAGUES THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE ASKED MOST OF THEM, REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IS IF WE ACQUIT THIS PRESIDENT WHAT'S TO STOP HIM FROM DOING SOMETHING WORSE?
HE WILL BE UNHINGED.
HE'S A VENGEFUL MAN.
HE'S ANGRY.
HE WILL ENGAGE AN EVEN MORE RECKLESS FOREIGN POLICY.
HE WILL BE MORE LIKELY TO TRY TO STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION.
I ASK MY COLLEAGUES AND ALL THEY DO ISSHRUG.
THEY KNOW BETTER.
WE WILL TRY TO KEEP GETTING WITNESSES BUT IF WE HAVE NO WITNESSES YOU CAN ABUSE YOUR OFFICE AND CONGRESS WILL LOOK THE OTHER WAY.
>> SENATOR HARRIS.
>> THANK YOU LEADER SCHUMER FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
LET'S TAKE THIS TO THE NOT END GAME AND WE CAN DO THAT FROM WHEN WE STARTED.
THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO RUSH THIS THING THROUGH.
AT FIRST THEY PROPOSED TWO DAYS AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS SAID THAT WAS RIDICULOUS SO THIS THEY EXTENDED IT TO THREE LIKE THEY WERE GRACIOUS.
THE END GAME FOR THEM IS ACQUITTAL BUT HERE IS THE DEAL: YOU CANNOT HAVE A TRUE ACQUITTAL IF YOU'VE NOT HAD A FAIR TRIAL.
SO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET.
IF THEY DO NOT ALLOW WITNESSES TO COME FORWARD.
THIS IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WANT THIS UNITED STATES SENATE TO PRODUCE THE NEW EVIDENCE.
THE ONLY PLACE THIS IS BEING DEBATED BETWEEN REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATS IS NOT AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IT'S HERE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATS, THE VAST MAJORITY BELIEVE THAT THE NEW EVIDENCE SHOULD COME FORWARD.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WHO HAVE EVERY WALKED INTO A COURTHOUSE AS A WITNESS, AS AN ACCUSED, AS A JUROR KNOW THAT THE ONLY ATTRIBUTES OF A FAIR TRIAL IN OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE ARE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE, NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW IS AVAILABLE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
SO WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO DO TODAY, WE BELIEVE, IS TO HAVE THE UNITED STATES SENATE BASED ON THE MAJORITY OF SENATORS MAKE A DECISION TO EXCLUDE FROM OUR PROCESS EVIDENCE THAT IS AVAILABLE, THAT IS PROBATIVE OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE THAT IS BEFORE US.
THERE HAVE BEEN THREE IMPEACHMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN OVER TWO CENTURIES OF OUR HISTORY.
THIS IS THE MOST SERIOUS IN TERMS OF THE CHARGES.
UNDERLYING THE CONCERNS OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION OF WHICH WE ALL TOOK AN OATH, MANY OF US MANY TIMES TOOK THAT OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THAT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE MOST SERIOUS CONCERN OUR FRAMERS AND FOUNDERS HULL IS THAT THERE WOULD BE SWORN ENTANGLEMENT -- FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENT IN OUR DEMOCRACY, IN OUR REPUBLICAN, IN OUR ELECTION.
THAT IS THE BASIS OF ARTICLE I OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD TRUMP.
IS IT NOT RIGHT IF WE WERE GOING TO HONOR OUR OATH MUCH LESS THESE FANCY LAPEL PINS EVERYBODY WALKS AROUND HERE WEARING THAT WE WOULD FIGHT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PROCESS AND WE WOULD RECEIVE EVIDENCE THAT WE KNOW IS AVAILABLE?
SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT AT THE END OF THIS, THEY WILL PROBABLY GET WHAT THEY WANT.
WHICH IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO END THIS TODAY OR MAYBE TOMORROW, BUT THE EVIDENCE, THE EVIDENCE THAT WE KNOW IS AVAILABLE WILL NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND WHAT THAT MEANS AT ITS BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THIS WILL NOT HAVE BEEN A FAIR TRIAL AND THEREFORE THEY CANNOT WALK OUT OF THIS BUILDING AND ALLEGE AND ASSERT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A TRUE ACQUITTAL, THERE WILL BE NO TRUE ACQUITTAL IF THERE IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL.
>> THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR THREE GREAT STATEMENTS.
>> (AWAY FROM MIC.)
DO YOU VIEW IT AS AT LISA A PARTIAL VICTORY WHEN YOU HAVE A REPUBLICAN LIKE ALEXANDER SAYING YOU PROVED IT?
>> LOOK, HE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING AND VOTED FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
BUT I BELIEVE THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE FEARFUL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT DID JUST WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALLEGE >> THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT SAYING THAT OUTLOUD, SAYING THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE RIGHT AND -- >> YES, LOOK, AS I MENTIONED IN MY STATEMENT, I THINK THAT IT SHOWS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WERE RIGHT AND EVEN LAMB MARCH ALEXANDER, WHO IS A VERY LOYAL -- LAMAR ALEXANDER WHO IS A LOYAL REPUBLICAN REJECTED WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAID IN THE CHAMBERS.
>> (AWAY FROM MIC.)
>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING SO EGREGIOUS AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID YOU DON'T LOOK THE OTHER WAY, DOES THAT MEAN YOU WOULD NOT DO THIS IN A SECOND TERM?
AND THERE IS ONE MORE POINT IF THIS PRESIDENT IS INTERFERING IN THE ELECTION, THE ELECTION MAY NOT HAVE A FAIR RESULT.
AND VERY FEW PEOPLE DOUBT HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN AND, AGAIN AND, AGAIN.
HE'S ALREADY TRIED SEVERAL TIMES.
>> WHAT SURPRISES YOU LOOKING BACK OVER THE LAST MONTH ARE YOU SURPRISED IN HOW THIS HAS TURNED OUT IN ANY WAY?
>> NO, I HAVE GREAT FAITH IN NANCY PELOSI AND THE JOB THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS DID IN THE HOUSE AND I HAVE GREAT FAITH IN THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE THING THEY DID.
WHEN WE LOOK BACK, THE THING WE ARE MOST GRATIFIED ABOUT IS WE KNEW THIS WAS AN UPHILL FIGHT.
WE KNEW YOU NEEDED TWO-THIRDS TO CONVICT, WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT IS VINDICTIVE AND NASTY WHO GOES AFTER ANYONE WHO MIGHT OPPOSE HIM AND EVEN REPUBLICANS WHO KNOWS BETTER STAY IN LINE WITH HIM, THE FACT THAT MITCH McCONNELL SAID WE HAD NO CHANCE FOR NEGOTIATION, I WROTE A LETTER TO MY COLLEAGUE AND MY PEOPLE UNTIL MY CAUCUS SAYING WE WANT THESE WITNESSES AND THESE DOCUMENTS.
BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE IN MY CAUCUS THAT IS LETTING AMERICA RING FROM ONE COAST TO THE OTHER, AMERICANS KNOW THAT DEMOCRATS ARE FOR A FAIR TRIAL AND WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ARE NEED AND THEY KNOW THAT REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSING EVEN THAT.
SO WE'RE GRATIFIED ABOUT HOW THIS HAS MOVED FORWARD.
WE'RE NOT IN THE MAJORITY.
WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO STRIKES FEAR IN THE HEARTS OF REPUBLICANS.
YET HERE WE ARE, AND WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB, VERY GOOD JOB.
YES, YES IN THE CORNER THERE?
>> WOULD YOU MOVE TO AMEND A MOTION TO ITCH IMPEACH -- >> OKAY, I'M GOING TO TALK WITH MY CAUCUS.
I DO BELIEVE THIS.
I BELIEVE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD HEAR WHAT EVERY SENATOR THINKS AND WHY THEY'RE VOTING THE WAY THEY'RE VOTING AND WE WILL DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO ANY DETAIL, I HAVE TO DISCUSS IT WITH MY CAUCUS.
>> SENATOR CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON THE FLOOR IF THERE IS A TIE AND CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS BREAKS THE TIE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE SENATE CAN OVERRULE HIM SO WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF HIM HAVING THAT AUTHORITY TO BREAK THE TIE?
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT, BUT IF IT'S A TIE IT WILL BE UP TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE KNOWS EVERY TRY HAS WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
OF >> YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE OPEN DELIBERATIONS AND FOR HOW LONG?
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE DETAILS.
WE WILL DECIDE THAT IN THE CAUCUS.
WE ALWAYS HAVE AN INCLINATION TO DO OPEN, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S HARD, IF YOU GO INTO CLOSED, IT TAKES TWO-THIRDS TO OPEN IT UP.
>> AL KWILGTS FOR THE PRESIDENT IS THAT A REFLECTION ON YOUR LEADERSHIP?
>> THE BOTTOM LINE IS BECAUSE OF THE GREAT STRENGTH AND UNIT OF OUR CAUCUS, ANY ACQUITTAL OF THE PRESIDENT HAS NO VALUE.
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS DONE OR SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY, WAS THERE ANY SITUATION THEY COULD HAVE CONVINCED ANYBODY -- >> I THINK THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DONE A VERY, VERY GOOD JOB.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
[MUSIC PLAYING] >> BEFORE I BEGIN CHIEF JUSTICE THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, SENATORS, I KNOW I SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES IN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE ARGUMENTS WE HAVE MADE OVER THE COURSE OF MANY LONG DAYS.
TODAY WE WERE GREETED TO HAVE YET ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE CASE, WHEN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED WITH A HEAD LINE THAT SAYS "TRUMP TOLD BOLTON TO HELP HIS UKRAINE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN, BOOK SAYS.
THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO PAVE THE WAY FOR A MEETING BETWEEN RUDY GIULIANI AND UKRAINE'S NEW LEADER.
ACCORDING TO THE "NEW YORK TIMES" MORE THAN TWO MONTHS BEFORE HE ASKED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS, HE DIRECTED JOHN BOLTON HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO HELP EXTRACT INFORMATION FROM UKRANIAN OFFICIALS ACCORDING TO AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT BY MR. BOLTON.
HE GAVE THIS INSTRUCTION TOURING AN OVAL OFFICE CONVERSATION IN EARLY MAY THAT INCLUDED THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDY GIULIANI, AND THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, PAT CIPOLLONE WHO IS NOW LEADING THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT DEFENSE.
YOU WILL SEE IN A FEW MOMENTS AND YOU WILL RECALL MR. MR. CIPOLLONE SUGGEST YOU GO THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WERE CONCEALING FACTS FROM THIS BODY.
HE SAID ALL THE FACTS SHOULD COME OUT.
WELL, THERE IS A NEW FACT WHICH INDICATES THAT MR. CIPOLLONE WAS ONE OF THOSE IN THE LOOP.
ONE MORE REASON WHY WE SHOULD HEAR FROM WITNESSES.
JUST AS WE PREDICTED ASK IT DIDN'T REQUIRE ANY ACT OF CLAIRVOYANCE, THE FACTS WILL COME OUT.
THEY WILL CONTINUE TO COME OUT AND THE QUESTION FOR YOU TODAY IS WHETHER THEY WILL COME OUT IN TIME FOR YOU TO MAKE A COMPLETE AND INFORMED JUDGMENT AS TO THE GUILT AND INNOCENCE OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE ARTICLE GOES ON TO SAY THAT MR. TRUMP ASKED MR. BOLTON TO CALL MR. ZELENSKY TO MAKE SURE HE WOULD MEET WITH MR. RUDY GIULIANI WHO WAS PLANNING A TRIP TO UKRAINE WHO WAS PLANNING TO DISCUSS THE INFORMATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT.
MR. BOLTON NEVER MADE THE CALL, HE WROTE.
NEVER MADE THE CALL.
MR. BOLTON UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS WRONG, THAT THIS WAS NOT POLICY, HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ER-RAND AND IT BEE TRAYS THE MOST SENIOR WHITE HOUSE ADVISORS AS EARLY WITNESSES IN THE EFFORT THAT THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO DISTANCE THE PRESIDENT FROM.
INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
OVER SEVERAL PAGES, ACCORDING TO THE "TIMES" MR. TRUMP'S FIXATION ON UKRAINE AND THE PRESIDENT'S BELIEF BASED ON A MIX OF SCATTER SHOT EVENTS AND OUTRIGHT CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO UNDERMINE HIS CHANCES OF WINNING THE PRESIDENCY IN 2016.
AS HE BEGAN TO UNDERSTAND THIS, MR. BOLTON CONTINUED TO OBJECT AND FIONA HILL WHO SAID MR. BOLTON WARNED THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS A HAND GRENADE WHO WAS GOING TO BLOW EVERYBODY UP.
AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, THE PRESIDENT DENIES THIS.
PRESIDENT SAID TODAY "I NEVER INSTRUCTED JOHN BOLTON TO SET UP A MEETING FOR RUDY GIULIANI."
ONE OF AMERICAS -- ONE OF THE GREATEST CORRUPTION FIGHTERS IN AMERICA.
SO HERE YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT SAYING JOHN BOLTON IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
LET'S FIND OUT.
LET'S PUT JOHN BOLTON UNDER OATH.
LET'S FIND OUT WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH.
TRIAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE A QUEST FOR THE TRUTH.
LET'S NOT FEAR WHAT WE WILL LEARN.
AS MR. CIPOLLONE SAID, LET'S MAKE SURE ALL THE FACTS COME OUT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
LAST TUESDAY AT THE ONSET OF THIS TRIAL, WE MOVED FOR LEADER McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION TO BE AMEND WOULD TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES FROM THE OUTSET.
THIS BODY DECIDED TO HOLD THE QUESTION OVER.
YOU HAVE NOW HEARD OPENING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES.
YOU HAVE SEEN THE EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE WAS ABLE TO COLLECT.
YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES PRESIDENT TRUMP BLOCKED FROM THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
WE HAVE VIGOROUSLY QUESTIONED BOTH SIDES.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL URGED YOU TO DECIDE THIS CASE AND RENDER YOUR VERDICT UPON THE RECORD ASSEMBLED BY THE HOUSE.
THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE PRESIDENT ON BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT MORE THAN SUFFICIENT.
BUT THAT IS SIMPLY NOT HOW TRIALS WORK.
AS ANY PROSECUTOR OR DEFENSE LAWYER WOULD TELL YOU, WHEN A CASE GOES TO TRIAL, BOTH SIDES CALL WITNESSES AND SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS TO BRING BEFORE THE JURY.
THAT HAPPENS EVERY DAY IN COURTROOMS ALL ACROSS AMERICA.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL SHOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT.
THE COMMON SENSE PRACTICE IS BORN OUT OF PRECEDENT.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN, NEVER BEFORE BEEN A FULL SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT A SINGLE WITNESS.
IN FACT, YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDES AND EVERY ONE OF THE 15 PRIOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THE SENATE HAS CALLED MULTIPLE WITNESSES.
TODAY WE ASK YOU TO FOLLOW THIS BODY'S UNIFORM PRECEDENT AND YOUR COMMON SENSE.
WE URGE YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF SUBPOENAING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ADRESS ONE QUESTION AT THE OUTSET.
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHETHER IF THE HOUSE BELIEVED THIS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT, WHICH WE DO, WHY DO WE NEED MORE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS?
SO I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR: THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED OVER THE PAST WEEK AND A HALF STRONGLY SUPPORTS A VOTE TO CONVICT THE PRESIDENT.
THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.
WE HAVE A MOUNTING OF EVIDENCE.
IT'S DIRECT, IT'S CORROBORATED BY MULTIPLE SOURCES, ASK IT PROVES THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED GRAVE, IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
THE EVIDENCE CONFIRMS THAT IF LEFT IN OFFICE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL CONTINUE TO HARM OUR AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY.
HE WILL CONTINUE TO SPEAK TO CORRUPT THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND HE WILL UNDERMINE -- HE WILL UNDERMINE OUR DEMOCRACY, ALL TO FURTHER HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN.
BUT THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED.
IS THIS A FAIR TRIAL?
IS THIS A FAIR TRIAL?
IS THIS A FAIR TRIAL?
WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY NO!
IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO CONTEST THE FACTS AND THAT IS HIS RIGHT.
BUT BECAUSE HE HAS CHOSEN TO CONTEST THE FACTS, HE SHALL NOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN THAT THE HOUSE WISHES TO FURTHER PROVE HIS GUILT, TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS HE WOULD RAISE.
HE COMPLAINS THAT FEW WITNESSES SPOKE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT HIS MISCONDUCT BEYOND HIS DAMMING CONVERSATIONS WITH SONDLAND AND MICK MULVANEY.
OKAY.
LET'S HEAR FROM OTHERS, THEN?
THE WITNESSES THE HOUSE WISHES TO CALL DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS, HIS OWN ADMISSIONS OF GUILT, HIS OWN CONFESSIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY.
IF THEY DID NOT, ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN WOULD BE ON THEIR WITNESS LIST.
NOT OURS.
THESE WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTS -- >> SENATOR McCONNELL: SEND A RESOLUTION TO THE DESK AND ASK THE CLERK TO REPORT.
>> PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RESOLVE THAT THE RECORD IN THIS CASE SHALL BE CLOSE AND HAD NO MOTION WITH RESPECT TO OPENING THE RECORD SHALL BE IN ORDER FOR THE DURATION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THE SENATE SHALL PROCEED TO FINAL ARGUMENTS AS PROVIDED IN THE IMPEACHMENT RULES WAVING THE TWO-PERSON RULE CONTAINED IN RULE 22 OF THE IMPEACHMENT IN THE SENATE.
SUCH ARGUMENTS SHALL BEGIN AT 11 A.M. ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3rd, 2020 AND NOT EXCEED FOUR HOURS AND THE TIME TO BE USED BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FINAL ARGUMENTS, THE SENATE SHALL STAND IN ADJOURNMENT UNTIL FEBRUARY FIFTH, 2020 AT WHICH TIME WITHOUT INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE SHALL VOTE ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
>> SENATOR McCONNELL: JUSTICE?
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: MR.
MAJORITY LEADER?
>> SENATOR McCONNELL: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE MINORITY LEADER BE ALLOWED TO OFFER UP TO FOUR RESOLUTIONS, FURTHER THAT I BE RECOGNIZED TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AFTER ITS BEEN REPORTED WITH NO INTERVENING ACTION OR DEBATE?
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: IS THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.
THE DEMOCRAT LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> SENATOR SCHUMER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I HAVE A PARLIAMENT TEAR INQUIRY.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER WILL STATE THE INQUIRY.
>> SENATOR SCHUMER: IS THE CHIEF JUSTICE AWARE THAT IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON THAT THE CLEAVE CAST VOTES.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I AM, MRM LEADER ONE CONCERNED A MOTION ADJOURN THE OTHER CONCERNED A MOTION FOR DELIBERATIONS, I DO NOT RECORD THOSE EPISODES 150 YEARS AGO AS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A GENERAL AUTHORITY TO BREAK TIES.
IF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AND ACCOUNTABLE TO THEM DIVIDE EQUALLY ON A MOTION THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE MOTION FAILS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME AN UNELECTED OFFICIAL FROM A DIFFERENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT TO ASSERT THE POWER TO CHANGE THAT RESULT SO THAT THE MOTION WOULD SUCCEED.
>> SENATOR SCHUMER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBPOENA MICK MULVANEY, BOLTON, DUFFY, BLAIR AND THE WHITE HOUSE O MD, DOD ASK STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS AND I ASK THAT IT BE READ.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, MR. SCHUMER PROPOSES AMENDMENT 1295 AT THE MATTER OF THE CLAUSE INSERT THE FOLLOWING, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION -- >> SENATOR SCHUMER: I ASK THAT THE AMENDMENT BE CONSIDERED AS READ.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED?
>> SENATOR McCONNELL: I MOVE TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AND ASK FOR CALL OF YEAs AND NAYS.
>> MR. ALEXANDER?
MR. ALEXANDER AI, PLAINTIFF BALDWIN?
NO, MR. BENNET?
NO, MS. BLACKBURN?
AI, MR. BLOOMLOOM THAT WILL NO.
MR. PLANT NO, MR. BOOKER?
NO, MR. P BOOS MAN NO MR. BRAUN?
A, MR. BROWN?
NO.
MR. BURR?
AI.
MS. CAN'T WELL?
MS. KANTWELL NO.
MS. MOORE CAPITO?
NO.
MR. CARD DIN NO, MR. CASEY?
NO, MR. CASSIDY?
AI, MS. COLLINS?
AI, MR. KAONS, NO.
MR. CORNYN?
NO, MR. CRAPO NO MR. CRUZ?
AI MR. DAINES?
AI, MR. DURBIN?
NO, MR. ENZI, AI, MS. ERNST, AI, MRS. FEINSTEIN?
NO, MS. FISCHER?
NO, MR. GARDNER?
MS. GILLIBRAND?
NO MR. GRAHAM?
AI, MR. GRASSLY?
AI, MS. HARRIS?
NO.
MS. HASSAN?
NO, MR. HAWLEY?
AI, MR. HEINRICH?
NO.
MS. HIRONO, NO.
MR. HOEVEN?
AI.
MS. HYDE-SMITH?
AI.
MR. INHOFE?
AI.
MR. JOHNSON?
AI.
MR. JONES?
NO.
MR. KAINE?
NO.
MR. KENNEDY?
AYE.
MR. KING?
NO.
MS. KLOBUCHAR?
NO.
MR. LANKFORD, AYE.
MR. LEAHY?
NO.
MR. LEE?
AYE.
MS. LOEFFLER?
AYE.
MR. MANCHIN?
NO.
MR. MARKEY?
NO.
MR. McCONNELL?
AYE.
MS. McSALLY?
AYE.
MR. MENENDEZ, NO.
MR. MERKLEY?
NO.
MR. MORAN, AYE.
MS. MURKOWSKI?
AYE.
MR. MURPHY?
AYE.
MS. MURRAY?
NO.
MR. PAUL?
AYE.
MR.
PER PERDUE?
AI.
MR. PORTMAN?
?
.
REED?
.
ROBERTS?
E. MR. ROMNEY, AYE.
MS. ROWSSEN?
NO.
MR. ROUNDS?
AYE.
MR. RUBIO, AYE.
MR. SANDERS?
NO.
MR. SASSE?
AYE.
MR. SCHATZ?
NO.
MR. SCHUMER?
NO.
MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA,LY AYE.
MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA?
AYE.
MS. SHAHEEN?
NO.
MR. SHELBY?
AYE.
MS. SINEMA?
NO.
MS. MS. SMITH?
NO.
MS. STABENOW?
NO.
MR. SULLIVAN?
AYE.
MR. TESTER?
NO.
MR. THUNE?
NO.
MR. TILLIS?
AYE.
MR. TOOMEY?
AYE.
MR. UDALL?
NO.
MR. VAN HOLLEN?
NO.
MR. WAR IN WARNER.
MS. WR WARREN?
NO.
MR. WHITEHOUSE NO.
MR. WICKER?
AYE.
MR. WYDEN?
NO.
MR. YOUNG, AYE.
CEP >> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: DOES ANY MEMBER IN THE CHAMBER WISH TO CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?
IF NOT THE YAYs ARE 53 THE NAYs ARE 47.
THE MOTION IS AGREED TO.
DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> SENATOR SCHUMER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBPOENA JOHN R. BOLTON AND I ASK THAT IT BE READ.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER PROPOSED TO NEITHER THE FOLLOWING SECTION NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULES 5 AND 6 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE, IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE JETS HAS ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE TAKING OF THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN ROBERT BOLTON AND THE SERGEANT AT ARMS IS AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE SERVICES THAT THE DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS THAT ANY ANOTHER EMPLOYEE IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED?
>> SENATOR McCONNELL: I MOVE TO TABLE AND ASK FOR A CALL OF THE YEAS AND ANYWAYS.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: IS THERE A SECOND?
THERE IS, THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
>> MS. ALEXANDER YEA.
MS. BALDWIN?
NO.
MR. BAR SOW?
AYE MR. BENNET?
NO.
MS. BLACKBURN?
AYE.
MR. BLUMENTHAL?
NO.
MR. BLUNT?
AYE MR.
COOKER?
NO.
MR. BOOZMAN?
AYE MR. BRAUN?
NO MR. BROWN, NO MR. BURR?
AYE MS. KANTWELL?
NO MR. MOORE CAPITO?
AYE MR. CARD DIN AYE MR. CARPAL PER?
AYE.
MR. CASEY MR. COTTON AYE.
MR. CRAMER?
AYE MR. CRUZ?
AYE, MR. DAINES?
AYE, MS. DUCKWORTH?
NO.
MR. DURBIN?
NO.
MR. ENZI?
AYE.
MS. ERNST?
AYE, MR. FEINSTEIN?
NO.
MS. FISCHER?
AYE MR. GARDNER?
AYE MS. GILLIBRAND?
NO.
MR. GRAHAM, NO MR. GRASSLY, NO MR. HARRIS, NO, MR. HOEVEN, AYE, MR. MS. HYDE-SMITH AYE, MR. KAINE?
NO.
MR. KENNEDY?
AYE.
MR. KING?
NO.
MS. KLOBUCHAR?
NO.
MR. LANKFORD?
AYE.
MR. LEAHY?
NO.
MR. LEE?
AYE.
MS. LEFFLER?
AYE.
MR. MANCHIN?
NO.
MR. MARKEY?
NO.
MR. McCONNELL?
AYE.
MS. McSALLY?
AYE.
MR. MENENDEZ?
NO.
MR. MERKLEY?
NO.
MR. MORAN?
AYE.
MS. MURKOWSKI?
AYE.
MR. MURPHY?
NO, MS. MURRAY?
NO.
MR. PAUL?
AYE.
MR. PERDUE?
AYE.
MR. PETERS?
NO.
MR. PORTMAN?
AYE.
MR. REED?
NO.
MR. RISCH?
AYE.
MR. ROBERTS?
AYE.
MR. ROMNEY?
NO.
MS. ROSEN?
NO.
MR. ROUNDS?
AYE.
MR. RUBIO?
AYE.
MR. SANDERS?
NO.
MR. SASSE?
AYE.
MR. SCHATZ?
NO.
MR. SCHUMER?
NO.
MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA?
AYE.
MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA?
AYE.
MRS. SHAHEEN?
NO.
MR. SHELBY?
AYE.
MS. SINEMA?
NO.
MRFR MS. SMITH?
NO.
MS. STABENOW?
NO.
MR. SULLIVAN?
AYE.
MR. TESTER?
NO.
MR. THUNE, AYE.
MR. TILLIS?
AYE.
MR. TOOMEY?
AYE.
MR. YOU'D CALL IT?
NO.
MR. VAN HOLLEN?
NO.
MR. WARNER?
NO.
MS. WARREN?
NO.
MR. WHITEHOUSE?
NO.
MR. WICKER?
AYE.
MR. WYDEN?
NO.
MR. YOUNG?
AYE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?
IF NOT, THE YEAS ARE 51, THE NAYS ARE 4 FLAN.
49.
THE MOTION IS AGREED TO.49.
THE MOTION IS AGREED TO.
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> SENATOR SCHUMER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I ACCEPTED AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBPOENA JOHN R. BOLTON PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE THERE WILL BE ONE DAY FOR A DEPOSITION, PRESIDED OVER BY THE CHIEF AND ONE DAY FOR LIVE TESTIMONY OF THE SENATE BOTH OF WHICH MUST OCCUR WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION AND I ASK THAT IT BE READ.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, MR. SCHUMER PROPOSES AMENDMENT TWITCHILY 97.
AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE OF THE MATTER FOLLOWING THE RESOLVING CLAUSE >> SENATOR SCHUMER: I ASK THAT THE AMENDMENT BE CONSIDERED AS READ.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: WITHOUT OBJECTION?
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> SENATOR McCONNELL: I MOVE TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AND ASK FOR YEAs AND NAYs.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: IS THERE A SECOND?
THERE IS, THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
>> MR. ALEXANDER, AYE, MS. BALDWIN NO, MR. BAR SOW?
AYE.
MR. BENNET?
NO.
MS. BLACKBURN?
AYE.
MR. BLUMENTHAL?
NO.
MR. BLUNT?
AYE.
MR. BOOKER?
NO.
MR. BOOZMAN?
AYE.
MR. BRAUN.
AYE.
MR. BROWN?
NO.
MR. BURR?
AYE.
MS. KANTWELL?
NO.
MRS. MOORE CAPITO?
AYE.
MR. CARD DIN?
NO.
MR. CARPER NO.
MR. CASEY?
NO.
MR. CASSIDY?
AYE.
MS. COLLINS?
NO.
MR. COONS?
NO.
MR. CORNYN?
AYE.
MS. MASTO?
NO.
MR. COTTON?
AYE.
MR. CRAMER?
AYE.
MR. CRAPO?
AYE.
MR. CRUZ?
AYE.
MR. DAINES AYE.
MS. DUCKWORTH.
NO.
MR. DURBIN?
NO.
MR. ENZI?
AYE.
MS. ERNST.
AYE.
MS. FEINSTEIN?
NO.
MRS. FISCHER.
AYE.
MR. GARDNER?
AYE.
MRS. GILLIBRAND?
NO.
MR. GRAHAM?
AYE.
MR. GRASSLEY?
AYE.
MS. HARRIS?
NO.
MS. HASSAN?
NO.
MR. HAWLEY?
AYE.
MR. HEINRICH?
NO.
MS. HIRONO?
NO.
MR. HOEVEN?
AYE.
MS. HYDE-SMITH?
AYE.
MR. INHOFE?
AYE.
MR. JOHNSON?
AYE.
MR. JONES?
NO.
MR. KAINE?
NO.
MR. KENNEDY?
AYE.
MR. KING?
NO.
MS. KLOBUCHAR?
NO.
MR. LANKFORD?
AYE.
MR. LEAHY?
NO.
MR. LEE?
AYE.
MRS. LOEFFLER?
AYE.
MR. MANCHIN?
NO.
MR. MARKEY?
NO.
MR. McCONNELL?
AYE.
MS. McSALLY?
AYE.
MR. MENENDEZ?
NO.
MR. MERKLEY?
NO.
MR. MORAN?
AYE.
MS. MURKOWSKI?
AYE.
MR. MURPHY?
NO.
MS. MURRAY?
NO.
MR. PAUL?
AYE.
MR. PERDUE?
AYE.
MR. PETERS?
NO.
MR. PORTMAN?
AYE.
MR. REED?
NO.
MR. RISCH?
AYE.
MR. ROBERTS?
AYE.
MR. ROMNEY?
NO.
MS. ROSEN?
NO.
MR. ROUNDS?
AYE.
MR. MR. RUBIO?
AYE.
MR. SANDERS?
NO.
MR. SASSE?
AYE.
MR. SCHATZ?
NO.
MR. SCHUMER?
NO.
MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA?
AYE.
MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA?
AYE.
MRS. SHAHEEN?
NO.
MR. SHELBY?
AYE.
MS. SINEMA?
NO.
MS. SMITH?
NO.
MS. STABENOW?
NO.
MR. SULLIVAN?
AYE.
MR. TESTER?
NO.
MR. THUNE?
AYE.
MR. TILLIS?
AYE.
MR. TOOMEY?
AYE.
MR. UDALL?
NO.
MR. VAN HOLLEN?
NO.
MR. WARNER?
NO.
MRS. WARREN?
NO.
MR. WHITEHOUSE?
NO.
MR. WICKER?
AYE.
MR. WYDEN?
NO.
MR. YOUNG?
AYE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: IS THERE ANY MEMBER IN THE CHAMBER WHO WISHES TO VOTE OR CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?
IF NO, THE YEAS ARE 51, THE NAYS ARE 49.
THE MOTION IS AGREED TO.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE OF.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A NOTE TO THE CLEAVE TO HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RULE ON ANY MOTION FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> SENATOR FROM MARYLAND, MR. VAN HOLLEN PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT 1298 AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE MATTER FOLLOWING THE RESOLVING CLAUSE INSERT THE FOLLOWING.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION THE PRESIDING OFFICER SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR ANY WITNESS OR ANY DOCUMENT THAT A SENATOR OR PARTY MOVES TOO SUBPOENA IF THE PRESIDING OFFICER DETERMINES THAT WITNESS OR DOCUMENTS IS LIKELY TO HAVE PROBATIVE EVIDENCE RELATIVE TO EARLY ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE THE SENATE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO RULE ON ALL QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCE SHALL RULE ON ANY ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> SENATOR McCONNELL: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I MOVE TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AND ASK FOR A CALL OF THE YEAS AND NAYS.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: IS THERE A SECOND?
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
>> MR. CAN ALEXANDER?
AYE.
MS. BALDWIN?
NO.
MR. BAR SOW?
NO.
MR. BENNET?
NO.
MS. BLACKBURN?
AYE.
MR. BLUMENTHAL?
NO.
MR. BLUNT?
AYE.
MR. BOOKER?
NO.
MR. BOOZMAN?
AYE.
MR. BRAUN?
AYE.
MR. BROWN?
NO.
MR. BURR?
AYE.
MS. CANTWELL?
NO.
P MRS. MOORE CAPITO?
AYE.
MRFR MR. CARDIN?
NO.
MR. CARPAL PER?
NO.
MR. CASEY?
NO.
MR. CASSIDY?
AYE.
MS. COLLINS?
AYE.
MR. COONS?
NO.
MR. CORNYN?
AYE.
MS. MASTO?
NO.
MR. COTTON?
AYE.
MR. CRAMER?
AYE.
MR. CRAPO?
AYE.
MRFR MR. CRUZ?
ANY.
MR. DAINES?
AYE.
MS. DUCKWORTH?
NO.
MR. DURBIN?
NO.
MR. ENZI?
AYE.
MS. ERNST?
AYE.
MRFR MS. FEINSTEIN?
NO.
MRS. FISCHER?
AYE.
MRFR MR. MR. GARDNER?
AYE.
MS. GILLIBRAND IN NO.
MR. GRAHAM IN AYE.
MR. GRASSLEY?
AYE.
MS. HARRIS?
NO.
MS. HAS SON?
NO.
MR. HAWLEY?
AYE.
MR. HEINRICH?
NO.
MS. HIRONO?
NO.
MR. HOEVEN?
AYE.
MS. HYDE-SMITH?
AYE.
MR. INHOFE?
AYE.
MR. JOHNSON?
AYE.
MR. JONES?
NO.
MR. KAINE?
NO.
MR. KENNEDY?
AYE.
MR. KING?
NO.
MS. KLOBUCHAR?
NO.
MRFR MR. LANKFORD?
AYE.
MR. LEAHY?
NO.
MR. LEE?
AYE.
MRS. LOEFFLER?
AYE.
MR. MANCHIN?
NO.
MR. MARKEY?
NO.
MR. McCONNELL?
AYE.
MRFR MS. McSALLY?
AYE.
MRFR MR. MENENDEZ?
NO.
MR. MERKLEY?
NO.
MR. MORAN?
AYE.
MS. MURKOWSKI?
AYE.
MR. MURPHY?
NO.
MRS. MURRAY?
NO.
MR. PAUL?
AYE.
MR. PERDUE?
AYE.
MR. PETERS?
NO.
MR. PORTMAN?
AYE.
MR. REED?
NO.
MR. RISCH?
AYE.
MR. ROBERTS?
AYE.
MR. ROMNEY?
AYE.
MANY MS. ROSEN?
NO.
MR. ROUNDS?
AYE.
MR. RUBIO?
AYE.
MR. SANDERS?
NO.
MR. SASSE?
AYE.
MR. SCHATZ?
NO.
MR. SCHUMER?
NO.
MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA?
AYE.
MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA?
AYE.
MRS. SHAHEEN?
NO.
MR. SHELBY?
AYE.
MS. SINEMA?
NO.
MS. SMITH?
NO.
MUCH MS. STABENOW?
NO.
MR. SULLIVAN?
AYE.
MR. TESTER?
NO.
MR. THUNE?
AYE.
MR. MILLIS?
AYE.
MR. TOOMEY?
AYE.
MR. UDALL?
NO.
MR. VAN HOLLEN?
NO.
MR. WARNER?
NO.
MS. WARREN?
NO.
MR. WHITEHOUSE?
NO.
MR. WICKER?
AYE.
MR. WYDEN?
NO.
MR. YOUNG?
AYE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: IS THERE ANY SENATOR IN THE CHAMBER WISH TO GO VOTE OR CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?
IF NO, THE YEAS ARE 53, THE NAYS ARE 47.
THE MOTION IS AGREED TO.
OF THE THE QUESTION OCCURS ON THE ADOPTION OF SENATE RESOLUTION 488.
IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE IS.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
>> MR. ALEXANDER?
>> AYE.
MS. BALDWIN?
NO.
MR. BAR SOW?
AYE.
MR. BENNET?
NO.
MRS. BLACKBURN?
AYE.
MR. BLUMENTHAL?
NO.
MR. BLUNT?
AYE.
MR. BOOKER?
NO.
MR. BOOZMAN?
AYE.
MR. BRAUN?
AYE.
MR. BROWN?
NO.
MR. BURR?
AYE.
MS. CANTWELL?
NO.
MRS. MOORE CAPITO?
AYE.
MR. CARDIN?
NO.
MR. CARPAL PER?
NO.
MR. CASEY?
NO.
MR. CASSIDY?
AYE.
MS. COLLINS?
AYE.
MRFR MR. COONS?
NO.
MR. CORNYN?
AYE.
MS. MASTO?
NO.
MR. COTTON?
AYE.
MR. CRAMER?
AYE.
MR. CRAPO?
AYE.
MR. CRUZ?
AYE.
MR. DAINES?
AYE.
MS. DUCKWORTH.
NO.
MR. DURBIN?
NO.
MR. ENZI?
AYE.
MR. ERNST.
AYE.
MS. FEINSTEIN?
NO.
MRS. FISCHER.
AYE.
MR. GARDNER?
AYE.
MRS. GILLIBRAND?
NO.
MR. GRAHAM?
AYE.
MR. GRASSLEY?
AYE.
MRS. HARRIS?
NO.
MS. HASSAN?
NO.
MR. HAWLEY?
AYE.
MR. HEINRICH?
NO.
MS. HIRONO?
NO.
MR. HOEVEN?
YEA.
MS. HYDE-SMITH?
AYE.
MR. INHOFE?
AYE.
MR. JOHNSON?
AYE.
MR. JONES?
NO.
MR. KAINE?
NO.
MR. KENNEDY?
AYE.
MR. KING?
NO.
MS. KLOBUCHAR?
NO.
MR. LANKFORD?
AYE.
MR. LEAHY?
NO.
MR. LEE?
AYE.
MS. LOEFFLER?
AYE.
MR. MANCHIN?
NO.
MR. MARKEY?
NO.
MR. McCONNELL?
AYE.
MS. McSALLY?
AYE.
MR. MENENDEZ?
NO.
MR. MERKLEY?
NO.
MR. MORAN?
A. MS. MURKOWSKI?
AYE.
MR. MURPHY?
NO.
MRS. MURRAY?
NO.
MR. PAUL?
AYE.
MR. PERDUE?
AYE.
MR. PETERS?
NO.
MR. PORTMAN?
AYE.
MR. REED?
NO.
MR. RISCH?
AYE.
MR. ROBERTS?
-- >> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: ORDER!
>> MR. ROBERTS?
AYE.
MR. ROMNEY?
AYE.
MISS ROSEN?
NO.
MR. ROUNDS?
AYE.
MR. RUBIO?
AYE.
MR. SANDERS?
NO.
MR. SASSE?
AYE.
MR. SCHATZ?
NO.
MR. SCHUMER?
NO.
MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA?
AYE.
MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA?
AYE.
MRS. SHAHEEN?
NO.
MR. SHELBY?
AYE.
MS. SINEMA?
NO.
MS. SMITH?
NO.
MS. STABENOW?
NO.
MR. SULLIVAN?
AYE.
MR. TESTER?
NO.
MR. THUNE?
AYE.
MR. TILLIS?
AYE.
MR. TOOMEY?
AYE.
MR. UDALL?
NO.
P MR. VAN HOLLEN?
NO.
MR. WARNER?
NO.
MS. WARREN?
NO.
MR. WHITEHOUSE?
NO.
MR. WICKER?
AYE.
MR. WYDEN?
NO.
MR. YOUNG?
AYE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: IS THERE ANY MEMBER IN THE CHAMBER WHO WISHES TO VOTE OR CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?
IF NO, THE YEAS ARE 53, THE NAYS ARE 47.
THE RESOLUTION IS AGREED TO.
MR.
MAJORITY LEADER?
>> SENATOR McCONNELL: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE SECRETARY BE AUTHORIZED TO INCLUDE STATEMENTS OF SENATORS EXPLAINING THEIR VOTES, EITHER GIVEN OR SUBMITTED DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3rd, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4th, AND WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5th, ALONG WITH THE FULL RECORD OF THE SENATE'S PROCEEDINGS AND THE FILINGS BY THE PARTIES IN A SENATE DOCUMENT PRINTED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE THAT WILL COMPLETE THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE SENATE'S HANDLING OF THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.
>> SENATOR McCONNELL: FURTHER I ASK THAT WHEN THE SENATE RESUMES LEGISLATIVE SESSION ON MONDAY, TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY THE SENATE BE IN A PERIOD OF MORNING BUSINESS AND SENATORS PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR UP TO 10 MINUTES EACH FOR DEBATE ONLY.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
>> SENATOR McCONNELL: FINALLY, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE TRIAL ADJOURN UNTIL 11 A.M. FEBRUARY 3rd AND THAT THIS ORDER CONSTITUTE THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.
WE ARE ADJOURNED.