>> Woodruff: GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

AFTER WEEKS OF ANTICIPATION, THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP BEGINS A NEW PHASE TODAY AS THE UNITED STATES SENATE FORMALLY TAKES UP THE CASE.

HOUSE MEMBERS WHO ARE NAMED AS MANAGERS DELIVERED THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE SENATE LAST WEEK, AFTER HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HAS HELD THEM BACK FOR NEARLY A MONTH.

THE MOVE WAS SEEN AS A NEGOTIATING TACTIC, IN HOPES THAT SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL WOULD GRANT DEMOCRATS' REQUEST TO CALL WITNESSES AND SEE NEW EVIDENCE DURING THIS SENATE TRIAL, THAT ISSUE AND OTHERS AS IT RELATES TO RULES GOVERNING THE TRIAL REMAIN UNRESOLVED AND WILL BE THE FOCUS OF FIRST PROCEEDINGS TODAY WHEN THE SENATE SESSION BEGINS.

WE ARE LOOKING AT LIVE PICTURES OF THE SENATE, RIGHT NOW, AS IT GETS UNDERWAY.

LET'S LISTEN.

>> -- REMAIN WITHIN THE CIRCLE OF YOUR PROTECTION AND BLESSINGS.

LORD, TURN THEIR EARS TO LISTEN TO YOUR ADMONITION, AS YOU INFUSE THEM WITH THE COURAGE TO TO OBEY YOUR COMMANDS.

WE HAVE TRUSTED YOU SINCE THE BIRTH OF THIS LAND WE LOVE.

THAT IS WHY WE WILL DECLARE YOUR GLORY AS LONG AS WE HAVE BREATH.

LORD, AS OUR SENATORS PREPARE TO GATHER FOR TODAY'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, WE DECLARE THAT YOU ALONE ARE OUR HOPE.

WE PRAY IN YOUR MIGHTY NAME, AMEN.

>> AMEN.

WILL YOU PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> Woodruff: AND WITH A PRAYER, THE SENATE GETS UNDERWAY.

NOW THE PLEDGE.

(RECITING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE) >> Woodruff: THAT IS SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEM, SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY OF IOWA, WHO IS IN THE PRESIDING CHAIR, WELCOMING THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES JOHN ROBERTS TO TAKE THE SEAT, TO TAKE THE CHAIR.

HE WILL BE OVERSEEING THIS TRIAL IN THE HOURS AND IN THE DAYS TO COME.

WELL, WE BELIEVE IT'S JOHN ROBERTS.

WE ARE WAITING TO SEE.

MY ERROR.

IT IS SENATOR TED CRUZ OF TEXAS.

WE WILL WAIT NOW FOR PROCEDURAL MOTIONS.

THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER SPEAKS NOW.

>> BEEBE AGAIN THE THIRD PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

THIS IS A UNIQUE RESPONSIBILITY, WHICH THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION KNEW THAT THE SENATE AND ONLY THE SENATE COULD HANDLE.

OUR FOUNDERS TRUSTED THE SENATE TO RISE ABOVE SHORT-TERM PASSIONS AND FACTIONALISM.

THEY TRUSTED THE SENATE TO SOBERLY CONSIDER WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PROVEN AND WHICH OUTCOME BEST SERVES THE NATION.

THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH BAR, MR. PRESIDENT, AND YOU MIGHT SAY THAT, LATER TODAY, THIS BODY WILL TAKE OUR ENTRANCE EXAM.

TODAY, WE WILL CONSIDER AND PASS AN ORGANIZING RESOLUTION THAT WILL STRUCTURE THE FIRST PHASE OF THE TRIAL.

THIS INITIAL STEP WILL OFFER AN EARLY SIGNAL TO OUR COUNTRY.

CAN THE SENATE STILL SERVE OUR FOUNDING PURPOSE?

CAN WE STILL PUT FAIRNESS, EVEN-HANDEDNESS AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENT AHEAD OF THE PARTISAN PASSIONS OF THE DAY?

TODAY'S VOTE WILL CONTAIN SOME ANSWERS.

THE ORGANIZING RESOLUTION WILL PUT FORWARD ALREADY HAS THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY OF THE SENATE.

THAT'S BECAUSE IT SETS UP A STRUCTURE THAT IS FAIR, EVEN-HANDED, AND TRACKS CLOSELY WITH PAST PRESIDENTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED UNANIMOUSLY.

AFTER PRE-TRIAL BUSINESS, THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHES THE FOUR THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN NEXT.

FIRST, THE SENATE WILL HEAR AN OPENING PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

SECOND, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

THIRD, SENATORS WILL BE ABLE TO SEEK FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT POSING WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO EITHER SIDE THROUGH THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

AND, FOURTH, WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION IN HAND, THE SENATE WILL CONSIDER WHETHER WE FEEL ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR WITNESS -- WITNESSES ARE NECESSARY TO EVALUATE WHETHER THE HOUSE CASE HAS CLEARED OR FAILED TO CLEAR THE HIGH BAR OF OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND UNDOING A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION.

THE SENATE'S FAIR PROCESS WILL DRAW A SHARP CONTRAST WITH THE UNFAIR AND PRECEDENT-BREAKING INQUIRY THAT WAS CARRIED ON BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE HOUSE BROKE WITH PRECEDENT BY DENYING MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY THE SAME RIGHTS THAT DEMOCRATS HAD RECEIVED WHEN THEY WERE IN THE MINORITY BACK IN 1998.

HERE IN THE SENATE, EVERY SINGLE SENATOR WILL HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS AND EXACTLY THE SAME ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.

THE HOUSE BROKE WITH FAIRNESS BY CUTTING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COUNSEL OUT OF THEIR INQUIRY TO AN UNPRECEDENTED DEGREE.

HERE IN THE SENATE, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WILL FINALLY RECEIVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS AND WILL FINALLY BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE PRESIDENT'S CASE.

FINALLY, SOME FAIRNESS.

ON EVERY POINT, OUR STRAIGHTFORWARD RESOLUTION WILL BRING THE CLARITY AND FAIRNESS THAT EVERYONE DESERVES -- THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THIS IS THE FAIR ROAD MAP FOR OUR TRIAL.

WE NEED IT IN PLACE BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, SO THE SENATE SHOULD PREPARE TO REMAIN IN SESSION TODAY UNTIL WE COMPLETE THIS RESOLUTION AND ADOPT IT.

THIS BASIC FOUR-PART STRUCTURE ALLIANCE WITH THE FIRST STEPS OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN 1999.

21 YEARS AGO, 100 SENATORS AGREED UNANIMOUSLY THAT THIS ROAD MAP WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO BEGIN THE TRIAL.

ALL 100 SENATORS AGREED THE PROPER TIME TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF POTENTIAL WITNESSES WAS AFTER -- AFTER OPENING ARGUMENTS AND SENATORS' QUESTIONS.

NOW, SOME OUTSIDE VOICES HAVE BEEN URGING THE SENATE TO BREAK WITH PRECEDENT ON THIS QUESTION, LOUD VOICES, INCLUDING THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE MAJORITY, COLLUDED WITH SENATE DEMOCRATS AND TRIED TO FORCE THE SENATE TO PRECOMMIT OURSELVES TO SEEK SPECIFIC WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE SENATORS HAD EVEN HEARD OPENING ARGUMENTS R EVEN ASKED QUESTIONS.

THESE ARE POTENTIAL WITNESSES, MR. PRESIDENT, WHOM THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEMSELVES -- THEMSELVES -- DECLINED TO HEAR FROM, WHOM THE HOUSE ITSELF DECLINED TO PURSUE THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM DURING ITS OWN INQUIRY.

THE HOUSE WAS NOT FACING ANY DEADLINE.

THEY WERE FREE TO RUN WHATEVER INVESTIGATION THEY WANTED TO RUN.

IF THEY WANTED WITNESSES WHO WOULD TRIGGER LEGAL BATTLES OVER PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE, THEY COULD HAVE HAD THOSE FIGHTS, BUT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DECIDED NOT TO.

THEY DECIDED THEIR INQUIRY WAS FINISHED AND MOVED RIGHT AHEAD.

THE HOUSE DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE THE SAME WITNESSES THEY APPARENTLY WOULD NOW LIKE THE SENATE TO PRE-COMMIT TO PURSUING OURSELVES.

AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR WEEKS, NOBODY -- NOBODY -- WILL DICTATE SENATE PROCEDURE TO UNITED STATES SENATORS.

A MAJORITY OF US ARE COMMITTED TO UPHOLDING THE UNANIMOUS BI-PARTISAN CLINTON PRECEDENT AGAINST OUTSIDE INFLUENCES WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPER TIMING OF THESE MID-TRIAL QUESTIONS.

AND, SO, IF ANY AMENDMENTS ARE BROUGHT FORWARD TO FORCE PRE-MATURE DECISIONS ON MID-TRIAL QUESTIONS, I WILL MOVE TO TABLE SUCH AMENDMENTS AND PROTECT OUR BIPARTISAN PRECEDENT.

IF A SENATOR MOVES TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION AND ORDER SUBPOENA SPECIFIC WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS, I WILL MOVE TO TABLE SUCH MOTIONINGS BECAUSE THE SENATE WILL DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS LATER IN THE TRIAL, JUST LIKE WE DID BACK IN 1999.

NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, TODAY MAY PRESENT A CURIOUS SITUATION.

WE MAY HEAR HOUSE MANAGERS THEMSELVES AGITATE FOR SUCH AMENDMENTS.

WE MAY HEAR A TEAM OF MANAGERS LED BY THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ARGUE THAT THE SENATE MUST PRE-COMMIT OURSELVES TO REOPEN THE VERY INVESTIGATION THEY THEMSELVES OVERSAW AND VOLUNTARILY SHUT DOWN.

IT WOULD BE CURIOUS TO HEAR THESE TWO HOUSE CHAIRMEN ARGUE THAT THE SENATE MUST PRE-COMMIT OURSELVES TO SUMMITING THEIR OWN EVIDENTIARY RECORD TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS THEY REFUSE TO ENFORCE TO SUM A CASE THEY THEMSELVES HAVE RECENTLY DESCRIBED AS OVERWHELMING -- OVERWHELMING -- AND BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THESE MID-TRIAL QUESTIONS COULD POTENTIALLY TAKING EVEN DEEPER INTO EVEN MORE COMPLEX CONSTITUTIONAL WATERS.

FOR EXAMPLE, MANY SENATORS INCLUDING ME HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT BLURRING -- BLURRING -- THE TRADITIONAL ROLE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WITHIN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

THE CONSTITUTION DIVIDES THE POWER TO IMPEACH FROM THE POWER TO TRY.

THE FIRST BELONG SOLELY TO THE HOUSE, AND WITH THE POWER TO IMPEACH COMES THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE.

THE SENATE AGREEING TO PICK UP AND CARRY ON THE HOUSE'S INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION WILL SET A NEW PRECEDENT THAT COULD INCENTIVIZE FREQUENT AND HASTY IMPEACHMENTS FROM FUTURE HOUSE MAJORITIES.

IT COULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IF THE SENATE AGREES WE WILL CONDUCT BOTH THE INVESTIGATION AND THE TRIAL OF AN IMPEACHMENT.

WHAT'S MORE, SOME OF THE PROPOSED NEW WITNESSES INCLUDE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS WHOSE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND WITH OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS LIE AT THE VERY CORE OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE.

PURSUING THOSE WITNESSES COULD INDEFINITELY DELAY THE SENATE TRIAL AND DRAW OUR BODY INTO A PROTRACTED AND COMPLEX LEGAL FIGHT OVER PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE.

SUCH LITIGATION COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE PERMANENT REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY THAT SENATORS WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER VERY, VERY CAREFULLY.

SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATE IS NOT ABOUT TO RUSH INTO THESE WEIGHTY QUESTIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND WITHOUT DELIBERATION, WITHOUT EVEN HEARING OPENING ARGUMENTS FIRST.

THERE WERE GOOD REASONS WHY, OUT OF 100 SENATORS AGREED TWO DECADES AGO TO CROSS THESE BRIDGES WHEN WE CAME TO THEM.

THAT IS WHAT WE WILL DO THIS TIME, AS WELL.

FAIR IS FAIR.

THE PROCESS WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON AND BASIC FAIRNESS DICTATES IT OUGHT TO BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THIS PRESIDENT AS WELL.

SO THE EYES ARE ON THE SENATE.

THE COUNTRY IS WATCHING TO SEE IF WE CAN RISE TO THE OCCASION.

21 YEARS AGO, 100 SENATORS INCLUDING A NUMBER OF US WHO SIT IN THE CHAMBER TODAY DID JUST THAT.

THE BODY APPROVED A FAIR, COMMON-SENSE PROCESS TO GUIDE THE BEGINNING OF A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

TODAY, TWO DECADES LATER, THIS SENATE WILL RETAKE THAT ENTRANCE EXAM, THE BASIC STRUCTURE WE'RE PROPOSING IS JUST AS IMMINENTLY FAIR AND EVEN-HANDED AS IT WAS BACK THEN.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SENATORS ARE THEMSELVES READY TO BE AS FAIR AND AS EVEN-HANDED.

THE SENATE MADE A STATEMENT 21 YEARS AGO.

WE SAID THAT PRESIDENTS OF EITHER PARTY DESERVE BASIC JUSTICE AND A FAIR PROCESS.

A CHALLENGING POLITICAL MOMENT LIKE TODAY DOES NOT MAKE SUCH STATEMENTS UNLESS NECESSARY, BUT ALL THE MORE NECESSARY, IN FACT.

SO I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE VOTE ON THIS RESOLUTION OUGHT TO BE REMOTELY PARTISAN.

THERE'S NO REASON, OTHER THAN BASE PARTISANSHIP, TO SAY THIS PARTICULAR PRESIDENT DESERVES A RADICALLY DIFFERENT RULE BOOK THAN WHAT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR A PAST PRESIDENT OF YOUR OWN PARTY.

SO I WOULD URGE EVERY SINGLE SENATOR SUPPORT OUR FAIR RESOLUTION, I URGE EVERYONE TO VOTE TO UPHOLD THE SENATE'S UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN PRECEDENT OF A FAIR PROCESS.

>> MR. PRESIDENT.

DEMOCRATIC LEADER.

NOW, BEFORE I BEGIN, THERE HAS BEEN WELL-FOUNDED CONCERN THAT THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY MEASURES REQUIRED FOR ACCESS TO THE GALLERIES DURING THE TRIAL COULD CAUSE REPORTERS TO MISS SOME OF THE EVENTS ON THE SENATE FLOOR.

I WANT TO ASSURE EVERYONE IN THE PRESS THAT I WILL VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO BEGIN THE TRIAL UNLESS THE REPORTERS TRYING TO ENTER THE GALLERY ARE SEATED.

THE PRESS IS HERE TO INFORM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT THESE PIVOTAL EVENTS IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY.

WE MUST MAKE SURE THEY ARE ABLE TO.

SOME MAY NOT WANT WHAT HAPPENS HERE TO BE PUBLIC.

WE DO.

NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF MY REMARKS, THE SENATE WILL PROCEED TO THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP FOR COMMITTING HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF KOASING A FOREIGN LEADER INTO INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTIONS TO BENEFIT HIMSELF AND THEN, DOING EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO COVER IT UP.

IF PROVED, THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE CRIMES AGAINST DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE A GREATER SUBVERSION OF OUR DEMOCRACY THAN FOR POWERS OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS TO DETERMINE THE ELECTIONS FROM WITHIN.

FOR A FOREIGN COUNTRY WHO ATTEMPTS SUCH A THING ON ITS OWN IS BAD ENOUGH.

FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO DELIBERATELY SOLICIT SUCH A THING, TO BLACK MAIL A FOREIGN COUNTRY WITH MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO HELP HIM WIN AN ELECTION IS UNIMAGINABLY WORSE.

I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY OTHER PRESIDENT DOING THIS.

BEYOND THAT, FOR THEN THE PRESIDENT TO DENY THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT, DENY THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE ANY OF HIS ACTIVITIES, TO SAY ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO "DO WHATEVER HE WANTS," WE ARE STARING DOWN AN EROSION OF THE SACRED DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH OUR FOUNDERS FOUGHT A BLOODY WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.

SUCH IS THE GRAVITY OF THIS HISTORIC MOMENT.

NOW, ONE SENATOR IN OFFICE SWORN IN AT 1:00 P.M., THE CEREMONIAL FUNCTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF A PRESIDENTIAL TRIAL WILL BE COMPLETE.

THE SENATE THEN MUST DETERMINE THE RULES OF THE TRIAL.

THE REPUBLICAN LEADER WILL OFFER AN ORGANIZING RESOLUTION THAT OUTLINES HIS PLAN -- HIS PLAN -- FOR THE RULES OF THE TRIAL.

IT IS COMPLETELY PARTISAN.

IT WAS KEPT SECRET UNTIL THE VERY EVE OF THE TRIAL, AND NOW THAT IT'S PUBLIC, IT'S VERY EASY TO SEE WHY.

THE MCCONNELL RULES SEEM TO BE DESIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IT ASKS THE SENATE TO RUSH THROUGH AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AND MAKES GETTING EVIDENCE AS HARD AS POSSIBLE.

IT COULD FORCE PRESENTATIONS TO TAKE PLACE AT 2:00 OR 3:00 IN THE MORNING, SO THE PERSON PEOPLE WON'T SEE THEM.

IN SHORT, THE MCCONNELL RESOLUTION WILL RESULT IN A RUSH TRIAL WITH LITTLE EVIDENCE IN THE DARK OF NIGHT -- LITERALLY THE DARK OF NIGHT.

IF THE PRESIDENT IS SO CONFIDENT IN HIS CASE, IF LEADER MCCONNELL IS SO CONFIDENT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG, WHY DON'T THEY WANT THE CASE TO BE PRESENTED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT?

ON SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS IMPEACHMENT, THE MCCONNELL RESOLUTION IS NOTHING SHORT OF A NATIONAL DISGRACE.

THIS WILL GO DOWN, THIS RESOLUTION, AS ONE OF THE DARKER MOMENTS IN THE SENATE HISTORY.

PERHAPS ONE OF EVEN THE DARKEST.

NOW, LEADER MCCONNELL HAS JUST SAID HE WANTS TO GO BY THE CLINTON RULES.

THEN WHY DID HE CHANGE THEM?

IN FOUR IMPORTANT WAYS AT MINIMUM, TO ALL MAKE THE TRIAL LESS TRANSPARENT, LESS CLEAR AND LESS EVIDENCE?

HE SAID HE WANTED TO GET STARTED IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

IT TURNS OUT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEADER SAID, AMAZED HE COULD SAY IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE, THAT THE RULES ARE THE SAME AS THE CLINTON RULES.

THE RULES ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE CLINTON RULES.

UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MCCONNELL RESOLUTION DOES NOT ADMIT THE RECORD OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS INTO EVIDENCE, SO LEADER MCCONNELL WANTS A TRIAL WITH NO EXISTING EVIDENCE AND NO NEW EVIDENCE, A TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS NOT A TRIAL, IT'S A COVERUP.

SECOND, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MCCONNELL RESOLUTION LIMITS PRESENTATION BY THE PARTIES TO 24 HOURS PER SIDE OVER ONLY TWO DAYS.

WE START AT 1:00, 12 HOURS A DAY, WE'RE AT 1:00 A.M., AND THAT'S WITHOUT BREAKS.

IT WILL BE LATER.

LEADER MCCONNELL WANTS TO FORCE THE MANAGERS TO MAKE IMPORTANT PARTS OF THEIR CASE IN THE DARK OF NIGHT.

NUMBER THREE, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MCCONNELL RESOLUTION PLACES AN ADDITIONAL HURDLE TO GET WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BY REQUIRING A VOTE ON WHETHER SUCH MOTIONS ARE EVEN IN ORDER.

IF THAT VOTE FAILS, THEN NO MOTIONS TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS -- THEY VOTE FOR MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION, THEY'RE MAKING IT FAR MORE DIFFICULT TO VOTE IN THE FIEWRT LATER ON IN THE TRIAL.

FINALLY, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MCCONNELL RESOLUTION ALLOWS A MOTION TO DISMISS AT ANYTIME -- ANYTIME -- IN THE TRIAL.

SO, IN SHORT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEADER HAS SAID, THE MCCONNELL RULES ARE NOT AT ALL LIKE THE CLINTON RULES.

THE REPUBLICAN LEADER'S RESOLUTION IS BASED NEITHER IN PRECEDENT NOR IN PRINCIPLE.

IT IS DRIVEN BY PARTISANSHIP AND THE POLITICS OF THE MOMENT.

TODAY, I'LL BE OFFERING AMENDMENTS TO FIX THE MANY FLAWS IN LEADER MCCONNELL'S DEEPLY UNFAIR RESOLUTION AND SEEK THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WE'VE REQUESTED, BEGINNING WITH AN AMENDMENT TO HAVE THE SENATE SUBPOENA WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS.

LET ME BE CLEAR, THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT DILATORY.

THEY ONLY SEEK ONE THING -- THE TRUTH.

THAT MEANS RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, THAT MEANS RELEVANT WITNESSES.

THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET A FAIR TRIAL, AND EVERYONE IN THIS BODY KNOWS IT.

EACH SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN OUR HISTORY, ALL 15 THAT WERE BROUGHT TO COMPLETION, FEATURE WITNESSES, EVERY SINGLE ONE.

THE WITNESSES WE REQUEST ARE NOT DEMOCRATS.

THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MEN.

THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC DOCUMENTS, THEY'RE DOCUMENTS, PERIOD.

WE DON'T KNOW IF THE EVIDENCE OF THE WITNESSES OR THE DOCUMENTS WILL BE EXCULPATORY TO THE PRESIDENT OR INCRIMINATING, BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION, A SOLEMN OBLIGATION, PARTICULARLY NOW DURING THIS MOST DEEP AND SOLEMN PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION, TO SEEK THE TRUTH, AND THEN LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.

MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE OFFERED SEVERAL EXPLANATIONS FOR OPPOSING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AT THE START OF THE TRIAL.

NONE OF THEM HAS MUCH MERIT.

REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID WE SHOULD DEAL WITH THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES LATER IN THE TRIAL.

OF COURSE, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HEAR BOTH SIDES PRESENT THEIR CASE FIRST AND THEN, AFTERWARD, DECIDE IF THE SENATE SHOULD HEAR EVIDENCE.

THE EVIDENCE IS SUPPOSED TO INFORM ARGUMENTS, NOT COME AFTER THEY ARE COMPLETED.

SOMEROOMS HAVE SAID THE SENATE SHOULD NOT GO BEYOND THE HOUSE RECORD BY CALLING ANY WITNESSES, BUT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE SENATE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY IMPEACHMENTS, NOT THE SOLE POWER TO REVIEW, NOT THE SOLE POWER TO REHASH, BUT TO TRY.

REPUBLICANS HAVE CALLED OUR REQUEST FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS POLITICAL.

IF SEEKING THE TRUTH IS POLITICAL, THEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE.

THE WHITE HOUSE HAS SAID THAT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE BRAZEN AND WRONG.

WELL, IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES HIS IMPEACHMENT IS SO BRAZEN AND WRONG, WHY WON'T HE SHOW US WHY?

WHY IS THE PRESIDENT SO INSISTENT THAT NO ONE COME FORWARD, THAT NO DOCUMENTS BE RELEASED.

IF THE PRESIDENT'S CASE IS SO WEAK THAT NONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MEN CAN DEFEND HIM UNDER OATH, SHAME ON HIM.

AND THOSE WHO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.

WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT HIDING?

WHAT ARE OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HIDING?

BECAUSE, IF THEY WEREN'T AFRAID OF THE TRUTH, THEY WOULD SAY GO RIGHT AHEAD, GET AT THE TRUTH, GET WITNESSES, GET DOCUMENTS.

IN FACT, AT NO POINT OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS HAVE I HEARD A SINGLE SOLITAIRE ARGUMENT ON THE MERIT OF WHY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE TRIAL.

NO REPUBLICANS EXPLAINED WHY LESS EVIDENCE IS BETTER THAN MORE EVIDENCE.

NEVERTHELESS, LEADER MCCONNELL IS POISED TO ASK THE SENATE TO BEGIN THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF A PRESIDENT IN HISTORY WITHOUT WITNESSES, THAT RUSHES THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, THAT IN WAYS BOTH SHAMELESS AND SUBTLE WILL CONCEAL THE TRUTH -- THE TRUTH -- FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

LEADER McCOME CLAIMED THAT THE HOUSE HAD RAN THE MOST RUSHED, LEAST THOROUGH AND MOST UNFAIR PENALTY HEARING IN MODERN HISTORY.

HE'S PLANNING THE SAME TYPE OF TRIAL IN HISTORY AND IT BEGINS TODAY.

THE SENATE HAS BEFORE IT A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION -- THE PRESIDENT IS ACCUSED OF COERCING A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS TO HELP HIMSELF.

IT'S THE JOB OF THE SENATE TO DETERMINE IF THESE VERY SERIOUS CHARGES ARE TRUE.

THE VERY LEAST WE CAN DO IS EXAMINE THE FACT, REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS, HEAR THE WITNESSES, TRY THE CASE, NOT RUN FROM IT, NOT HIDE IT, TRY IT, BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT COMMITS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND CONGRESS REFUSES TO ACT, REFUSES EVEN TO CONDUCT A FAIR TRIAL OF HIS CONDUCT, THEN THIS PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS CAN COMMIT IMPEACHABLE CRIMES WITH IMPUNITY, AND THE ORDER AND RIGOR OF OUR DEMOCRACY WILL DRAMATICALLY DECLINE.

THE FAIL-SAFE, THE FINAL FAIL-SAFE OF OUR DEMOCRACY WILL BE RENDERED MOOT.

THE MOST POWERFUL CHECK ON THE EXECUTIVE, THE ONE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANNY WILL BE ERASED.

IN SHORT TIME, MY COLLEAGUES, EACH OF US WILL FACE A CHOICE ABOUT WHETHER TO BEGIN THIS TRIAL IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH OR IN SERVICE OF THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO COVER IT UP.

WHETHER THE SENATE WILL CONDUCT A FAIR TRIAL AND A FULL AIRING OF THE FACTS, OR RUSH TO A PRE-DETERMINED POLITICAL OUTCOME.

MY COLLEAGUES, THE EYES OF THE NATION, THE EYES OF HISTORY, THE EYES OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE UPON US.

HISTORY WILL BE OUR FINAL JUDGE, WILL SENATORS RISE TO THE OCCASION?

I YIELD THE FLOOR.

>> UNDER PREVIOUS ORDER.

THE LEADERSHIP TIME IS RESERVED.

MORNING BUSINESS IS CLOSED.

UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE SENATE STANDS IN RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR.

>> Woodruff: AND WITH THAT, THE SENATE HAS CONCLUDED WHAT IT CALLS A REGULAR SESSION.

WE HEARD FROM THE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL WHO YOU SEE IN THE LOWER RIGHTHAND CORNER THERE WHO'S BACK AT THE LECTERN, THEN WE HEARD FROM THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER JUST A MOMENT AGO CHUCK SCHUMER.

WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT NOW TO OUR CORRESPONDENT WHO COVERS THE CAPITOL FOR US TO LAY OUT VERY QUICKLY WHAT TO EXPECT THIS MORNING.

LISA, THIS IS A DAY WHEN THE SENATE WILL DETERMINE HOW THIS TRIAL WILL PROCEED.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THIS IS THE MOST RARE OF OCCASIONS IN THE U.S. SENATE AND TODAY WILL BE ALL ABOUT PROCESS.

WE EXPECT A FEW THINGS TO HAPPEN.

THE SENATE WILL SWEAR IN FOR THE TRIAL SENATOR JIM INHOFE OF OKLAHOMA.

HE MISSED THE SWEARING IN DUE TO A FAMILY NEED.

AFTER THAT AFTER CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS READS FORMAL LANGUAGE, SENATOR MCCONNELL WILL OUTLINE HOW HE THINKS THE TRIAL SHOULD GO, THEN CHUCK SCHUMER WILL AMENDMENTS TO CHANGE THE RULES AND TRY TO CALL WITNESSES.

TO CALL WITNESSES, YOU NEED 51 VOTES IN THIS TRIAL.

HERE'S THE THING, JUDY.

EACH AMENDMENT CAN GET UP TO TWO HOURS OF DEBATE IN THE CHAMBER TODAY.

SO WE DO EXPECT A VERY LONG DAY OVER PROCEDURE.

IN FACT, ONE SENATOR TOLD A COLLEAGUE OF MINE PERHAPS UNTIL MIDNIGHT.

>> THE BATTLE LINES ARE DRAWN, LISA.

IT'S CLEAR FROM LEADER McCONNELL'S REMARKS THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO SEE ANY CHANGES TO THE RULES THAT HE'S LAID OUT.

CONVERSELY, SENATOR SCHUMER, THE MINORITY LEADER SAYING THOSE RULES MUST BE CHANGED IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE A FAIR PROCESS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

KNOWING SENATOR McCONNELL, I DON'T BELIEVE HE WOULD HAVE RELEASED THAT RESOLUTION IF HE DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD 51 VOTES FOR THIS EXACT RESOLUTION OR AT LEAST HOLD BACK FROM ANY OTHER IDEA GETTING 51 VOTES.

ONE THING TO WATCH FOR, JUDY, THIS SENATE CAN GO TO CLOSED SESSION AT ANY TIME TO DELIBERATE ANY IDEAS TO COME UP WITH A KIND OF BARGAIN.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

THEY WENT TO A DIFFERENT CHAMBER TO DO THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY NOTICE THAT THAT WILL HAPPEN.

BUT IT'S AN OPTION FOR SENATORS.

AT ANY TIME THEY CAN CLOSE THE CHAMBER AND GO INTO A PRIVATE DELIBERATION.

>> WE'LL WATCH FOR THAT.

ALL THAT GETTING UNDERWAY IN MOMENTS FROM NOW.

LET'S GO TO YAMICHE ALCINDOR WHO COVERS THE WHITE HOUSE.

YAMICHE, THEY'RE WATCHING CLOSELY.

THEY'VE BEEN IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH LEADER McCONNELL.

>> THEY HAVE BEEN IN VERY CLOSE CONTACT WITH LEADER McCONNELL.

AT ONE POINT, SENATOR SCHUMER SAID THE RULES, THAT THEY WERE DESIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND DESIGNED FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

LEADER McCONNELL MADE NO SECRET THAT HE'S IN LOCK STEP WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE EXPECTS TO SEE THE PRESIDENT ACQUITTED FULLY.

THE PRESIDENT IS IN DAVOS, SWITZERLAND AT THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM.

HE TOOK TIME TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.

HE WAS QUESTIONED ON WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTED A DISMISSAL OUTRIGHT, WHICH IS WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND LEGAL BRIEFS.

THE PRESIDENT SAID IT'S A HOAX.

IT'S GOING ON A LONG TIME.

I'M FOCUSED ON ECONOMICS AND BRINGING MILLIONS OF JOBS HERE.

WHAT WE'LL SEE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE IS A BEEFED UP LEGAL TEAM.

THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY.

THEY BROUGHT ON NEW PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT THIS TRIAL, TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT AND THEY'VE ALSO MADE SURE THAT THEY HAVE LAID OUT ANY LEGAL BRIEFS AND ANY LETTERS TO THE SENATE, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT.

THE WAY THEY'RE DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT IS THE WAY HE'S BEEN DEFENDING HIMSELF.

HE'S BEEN SAYING HE DID NOTHING WRONG, SAYING THIS IS ALL ABOUT 2016 AND DEMOCRATS ARE ANGRY AT THE FACT THAT HE WAS ELECTED.

EVEN AS WE SEE THE LEGAL TEAM LAYING OUT IN A METICULOUS WAY THEY WILL DEFEND THE PRESIDENT, IT GOES BACK TO THE WAY HE DEFENDS HIMSELF ON TWITTER AND INTERVIEWS.

>> AND THEY'RE SAYING THE PROCESS IS RIGGED, IT'S NOT LEGITIMATE AND A HOAX AND DISMISSING IT FROM THE BEGINNING AND SAYING THIS TRIAL SHOULDN'T EVEN BE TAKING PLACE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THEY'VE ALSO THOUGH NOT TAKEN UP THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT DO SOME OF THE THINGS HE WAS ACCUSED OF DOING.

SO WE DON'T SEE THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING THE PRESIDENT WASN'T TRYING TO GET INFORMATION ON JOE BIDEN AND HUNTER BUY DID.

HE SAID I DID MENTION JOE BIDEN.

THERE'S THAT DOCUMENT MEMO WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED THAT HEARING THE PRESIDENT, SEEING THE PRESIDENT SAYING THAT.

THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT DISPUTING THE FACTS.

WHAT THEY'RE DISPUTING IS THE PRESIDENT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.

THEY'RE SAYING IT'S ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT WAS FOCUSING ON WHAT IS BEST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHOA SEEN HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY SAYING THAT HE WAS FOCUSED ON THE PRESIDENT'S -- THE WELL-BEING AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN AND IN TEXTS WITH ME, RUDY GULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE THOUGHT HE WAS WORKING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT AS A PERSONAL PERSON.

A BIG DISTINCTION WHICH IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID, THAT HE'S FOCUSING ON WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA AND HIM POLITICALLY.

>> AND HEARING THE PRESIDENT ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS REFER TO IT AS A PERFECT PHONE CALL THAT HE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU, YAMICHE FOLLOWING THE WHITE HOUSE AND COMING BACK TO OUR LISA DESJARDINS FREQUENTLY THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON.

RIGHT NOW I WANT TO INTRODUCE SOME IMPORTANT PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE WITH ME IN THE STUDIO.

SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN THE CONGRESS AND THE HOUSE.

THEY'RE MARCHTIN PAONE.

HE SAD BESIDE TOM DASCHLE WHO WAS THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

MARTIN PAONE IS SENIOR ADVISER AT PRIME POLICY GROUP IN WASHINGTON.

WE HAVE ELIZABETH CHRYST.

SHE'S A 26-YEAR SENATE VETERAN.

SHE SAT BESIDE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TRENT LOTT DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S TRIAL.

SHE'S A PRELL AT CONGRESSIONAL GLOBAL STRATEGIES.

MARGARET TAYLOR WORK ON THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE AS DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL AND DEMOCRATIC CHIEF COUNSEL AND DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR.

MARGARET IS A GOVERNANCE STUDIES FELLOW AT THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION AND A SENIOR EDITOR AT LAW FAIR.

FINALLY JOHN HARD, REPUBLICAN FROM OKLAHOMA.

HE IS CURRENTLY A REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT FOR MARS HILL STRATEGIES WORKING ON CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS AND FOR CORPORATE AND FOR NONPROFIT CLIENTS.

WE COME ALL OF YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING OF YOUR TIME, FOR BEING HERE AS WE WATCH THIS SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL UNFOLD.

I WANT TO TURN FIRST TO YOU, MARTY AND ELIZABETH.

YOU SAT IN AT THE SIDE OF KEY FIGURES DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

WHAT ARE YOU SEEING RIGHT NOW, MARTIN, THAT IS EITHER SIMILAR OR DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU SAW PLAY OUT 21 YEARS AGO?

>> I THINK THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS THE LACK OF AGREEMENT ON BOTH SIDES.

BACK IN 99, THERE WAS A JOINT CAUCUS MEETING OF ALL 100 SENATORS IN THE OLD SENATE CHAMBER.

THEY AGREED TO ONLY GO SO FAR.

IT WAS KENNEDY AND PHIL GRAHAM, TWO DESPAIRATE MEMBERS -- >> THE LATE TED KENNEDY.

>> YES.

IF THEY CAN AGREE ON THIS, I'M FOR IT.

SO THEY WENT OUT AND WE DRAFTED A RESOLUTION.

THAT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS PASSED.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN THIS CASE.

SENATOR McCONNELL HAS REPLICATED SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE IN 24 HOURS, 16 HOURS.

THE DIFFERENCE ON WITNESSES AND SUBPOENAS IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

SENATOR SCHUMER AND MANY DEMOCRATS DON'T THINK THAT IT IS FAIR.

BUT THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

>> ELIZABETH, HOW DO YOU SEE IT SITTING AT THE SIDE AT THE TIME OF THEN SENATOR TRENT LOTT?

>> WELL, MARTY CAPITALIZED IT PRETTY MUCH ACCURATELY AS FAR AS THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE TWO LEADERS, AND THEY ULTIMATE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT HERE 100 SENATORS DID VOTE FOR IT.

I THINK BOTH OF THE RESOLUTIONS ARE SIMILAR IN THEY OUTLINE THE BEGINNING STAGES.

YOU'LL HEAR FROM COUNSELS AND THEN QUESTIONS, 16 HOURS OF QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATORS, WHICH WILL BE IN THE FORM OF HANDWRITTEN QUESTIONS AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE WILL READ THEM.

AT THAT POINT, YOU WOULD CONSIDER WHETHER TO HAVE WITNESSES, WHETHER TO HAVE MORE EVIDENCE.

I THINK THAT IS THE PLAN OF THIS RESOLUTION.

WHETHER SENATOR SCHUMER DECIDES TO SORT OF START THAT EARLY WITH AMENDMENT VOTES AND THAT IS SORT OF WHAT HE INDICATED.

IT WILL BE DIFFERENT IN THAT RESPECT.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, WE HEARD SENATOR SCHUMER.

I WANT TO BRING YOU BACK IN, MARTY AND ALSO MARGARET TAYLOR.

HIS POINT WAS CLEARLY IF WE THE SENATE VOTE TODAY TO APPROVE THE RULES THAT MITCH McCONNELL, LEADER McCONNELL HAS DRAWN UP, WE'LL BE MORE LIMITED IN OUR ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND TO CALL -- TO HEAR NEW EVIDENCE.

>> YES.

THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE ON WHETHER TO ALLOW SUCH A VOTE ON CALLING WITNESSES.

>> EVEN TO ALLOW THE VOTE?

>> YES.

YOU KNOW, THAT -- AND THE IDEA OF THEY HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE ON WHETHER TO ALLOW EVIDENCE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD.

ALL OF THAT WAS AUTOMATIC IN THE EARLIER TIME.

>> YES.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN 1999, THE EVIDENCE FROM THE HOUSE RECORD WAS PUT IN TO THE SENATE RECORD BEFORE THE HOUSE MANAGERS STARTED THEIR ARGUMENTS.

SO THERE WAS A COMMON FACTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WERE ARGUING FROM.

HERE THERE'S A QUESTION IN MY MIND OF WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS GET UP AND START SPEAKING LATER IN THE WEEK, WHAT IS THE BODY OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY WILL BE SPEAKING FROM?

THIS IS A REAL ISSUE, JUDY.

THERE HAS BEEN NEW EVIDENCE THAT HAS COME TO LIGHT SINCE THE HOUSE VOTED ON ITS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO THERE'S THIS QUESTION I THINK AT THIS POINT OF WILL THE HOUSE MANAGERS BE ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THAT -- THOSE FACTS AND THAT EVIDENCE THAT HAS COME TO LIGHT AFTER THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES WERE VOTED OUT OF THE HOUSE.

>> WE SHOULD SAY WE'RE WAITING FOR THE SENATE TO RESUME IN SESSION, IN TRIAL IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL THAT WAS DUE TO BEGIN AT 1:00.

WE'RE RUNNING A FEW MINUTES AFTER THAT.

WE'LL GO TO THE SENATE FLOOR AS SOON AS IT GETS UNDERWAY.

ELIZABETH ELIZABETH, LET'S DRILL DOWN ON THIS QUESTION, THE EVIDENCE, WHAT EVIDENCE THE SENATORS HAVE BEFORE THEM.

WE KNOW EACH SIDE HAS PRESENTED THEIR BRIEF, THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE.

HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE HAS IN ITS POSSESSION?

>> IN THE CLINTON TRIAL, THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY YEARS OF INVESTIGATIONS STARTING WITH THE STARR INVESTIGATION.

SO THEY HAD AUTOMATICALLY ALMOST CREATED A BODY OF EVIDENCE.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK MARGARET IS REFERENCING WHEN WE HAVE THESE VOLUMES OF EVIDENCE.

THERE ISN'T OR WASN'T THAT SCENARIO IN THIS CASE.

OBVIOUSLY THE REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS CREATED OR THE PROCESS THAT WAS CREATED ON THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SIDE WASN'T FAIR.

SO TO JUST AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCE THAT AS AN EVIDENCE -- EVIDENTIARY BODY OF WORK IS NOT FAIR.

THEY HAVE TO SORT THROUGH THAT THROUGH WITNESSES.

>> JOHN HART, HOW DO YOU SEE THIS AS SOMEBODY THAT WATCHED THIS?

WE MENTIONED YOU WORKED IN THE HOUSE, YOU WORKED IN THE SENATE.

CAN THEY WORK THIS THROUGH IN A WAY THAT FEELS, THAT COMES ACROSS AS FAIR?

>> JUDY, IT'S DIFFICULT.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TODAY AND DURING THE CLINTON YEARS, THE PROCEDURAL WELL HAS BEEN POISONED.

REPUBLICANS, SENATORS SITTING IN THAT SPEECH LISTENING TO SCHUMER TALKING ABOUT COVER-UP, DARK OF NIGHT, ALL OF THESE MELODRAMATIC TERMS, THEY WANT TO SAY BUT NANCY PELOSI PASSED THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES AND HELD ON TO THEM FOR A MONTH.

THAT UNDERMINED THE CASE THAT THIS IS AN URGENT MATTER.

THAT ITSELF I THINK HAS GIVEN McCONNELL LESS IMPETUS TO WORK WITH HIS COLLEAGUES.

THE SENATE HAS TO OVERCOME THAT.

SENATE DEMOCRATS HAVE ALREADY SIGNALS THAT THEY DID NOT APPRECIATE NANCY PELOSI'S DELAY.

>> SOME OF THEM HAVE.

>> SOME OF THEM.

YES.

>> I THINK LEADER SCHUMER HAS ENDORSED WHAT SHE WAS DOING PUBLICLY.

>> PUBLICLY.

>> I THINK REPUBLICANS ARE MORE UNITED ON THE PROCESS THAN DEMOCRATS ARE AT THIS POINT.

WE'LL SEE HOW THAT UNFOLDS DURING TODAY.

THAT WILL BE TELLING.

>> HOW DO THE TWO OF YOU SEE THAT IN TERMS OF WHETHER DEMOCRATS ARE UNITED IN CHALLENGING WHAT LEADER McCONNELL IS PRESENTING?

>> I THINK THEY'LL BE VERY UNITED.

TO THEM IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.

WE WANT TO ALLOW THE HOUSE TO PRESENT ALL OF ITS EVIDENCE AND NOT TO BE HAMSTRUNG.

WE WANT WITNESSES.

EVEN IF WE HAVE TO SUBPOENA -- DEPOSE THEM AND DO IT VIA VIDEO AS WE DID IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

WE DON'T -- THEY'RE NOT AFRAID OF HAVING SUCH WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.

WE'LL SEE IF THEY CAN GET FOUR REPUBLICANS TO VOTE WITH THEM.

>> TALKING TO MARTY WHO WORKED IN THE SENATE AS SENATE SECRETARY FOR WHAT -- A COUPLE DECADES.

SO HE HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THAT BODY.

MARGARET TAYLOR, I'M COMING BACK TO JOHN HART'S POINT THAT REPUBLICANS ARE LOOKING AT THE WAY SPEAKER PELOSI HANDLES THIS AND SAYING, WAIT A MINUTE.

YOU HELD ON TO THESE ARTICLES WHEN WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN THIS UNDERWAY.

WHO ARE YOU NOW TO COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING?

>> THAT'S A FAIR ARGUMENT I'D SAY.

BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION OUT THERE SPILLING ACROSS THE AIRWAVES AND ON TO PEOPLE'S TELEVISIONS.

THE QUESTION IS HOW IS THE SENATE GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT NEW EVIDENCE THAT CAME OUT OVER THAT LAST MONTH.

THAT QUESTION WILL REMAIN I THINK A STICKING POINT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.

I AGREE WITH MARTY.

I THINK THAT THIS WILL LIKELY REMAIN A PARTISAN RESOLUTION THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

I SUSPECT THAT WE PASS WITH ONLY REPUBLICAN VOTES.

WE'LL SEE.

IF THIS -- THIS MATTER WILL REMAIN A STICKING POINT.

THERE WILL BE A DISAGREEMENT ON PROCESS GOING FORWARD EVEN AS THIS RESOLUTION IS LIKELY PASSED WITH REPUBLICAN VOTES.

>> IF IT PASSES AND I REALIZE WE'RE GETTING AHEAD OF OURSELVES AND WE'RE WAITING FOR THE SENATE TO COME BACK TO SESSION AND CONDUCT THE BUSINESS THAT WE EXPECT TO TAKE PLACE IN THIS TRIAL TO THE EXTENT WE KNOW WHAT IT WILL BE, ELIZABETH.

BUT THE SENATE -- IF THE RESOLUTION IS PASSED AS THE MAJORITY LEADER WANTS IT, MITCH McCONNELL, THERE WILL BE ONE VOTE ON WITNESSES.

IS THAT RIGHT?

THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BREAK IT OUT TO WHETHER JOHN BOLTON, THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER IS CALLED AND OTHERS.

>> YOU'D HAVE AN INITIAL VOTE.

IT WOULD BE IN ORDER TO HAVE A VOTE TO CALL WITNESSES, PERIOD.

>> YES.

>> GENERALLY.

IF THAT VOTE WAS PASSED.

THEN YOU GET INTO THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES AND THE INDIVIDUAL EVIDENCE AND WHATNOT THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO CALL.

YOU HAVE TO FIRST GET PASSED THE FIRST VOTE.

>> WHY IS IT -- FOR THE PEOPLE WATCHING WHO HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THE MINUTE DETAILS, JOHN HART, WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO REPUBLICANS THAT WITNESSES ARE NOT CALLED?

THAT JOHN BOLTON, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER FOR TWO YEARS, ISN'T CALLED TO DESCRIBE WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT SOME OF THIS.

>> I THINK AS SENATOR McCONNELL SAID, HE SAID THE JOB OF THE SENATE IS NOT TO REPAIR OR REHABILITATE THE HOUSE'S CASE ON IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE.

THE SENATE IS SAYING THE HOUSE IS CHARGED WITH PUTTING IMPEACHMENT TOGETHER.

OUR JOB IS TO SERVE AS THE JURORS, NOT TO REDO THE INVESTIGATION.

LATER TO THE POINT MADE EARLIER, THEY WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON IS THERE NEW EVIDENCE, ARE THERE NEW WITNESSES THAT SHOULD BE CALLED.

McCONNELL SAYS LET'S GO THROUGH THE OPENING ARGUMENTS.

HE'S NOT SLAMMED THE DOOR SHUT BY ANY MEANS.

HE SAID WE SHOULDN'T AT THE OUTSET BEGIN WITH -- HE MADE A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.

HE DOESN'T WANT THE SENATE TO CREATE A PRECEDENT TO INCENTIVIZE THE HOUSE TO PURSUE FRIVOLOUS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE CHAMBERS CAN PLAY OFF OF EACH OTHER.

LET'S SAY BOTH PARTIES HAVE THE SAME -- THE SAME PARTY HAS THE HOUSE AND SENATE, THEY COULD HELP EACH OTHER, CONDUCT THE TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT.

>> YOU'RE SAYING HE'S CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT HERE.

>> CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT SET IN DOING THAT.

>> TO COME BACK TO YOUR POINT, ELIZABETH, THIS IS A DIFFERENT PROCESS FROM DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON WHERE THERE HAD BEEN A LONG DRAWN-OUT INDEPENDENT COUNSEL WHO HAD DONE INVESTIGATION AND CAME TO THE CONGRESS WITH A SET OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> CORRECT.

SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AT THIS POINT, SENATOR McCONNELL IS AFRAID THE BODY OF EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW WOULD BE ALL ONE-SIDED.

>> ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO GO.

WE'RE STILL WAITING.

AS I'M LOOKING AT THE CLOCK, IT'S ABOUT 16 MINUTES AFTER 1:00.

LISA DESJARDINS IS AT THE CAPITOL.

I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN TALKING TO FOLKS.

YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON.

>> I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT I KNOW, WHICH IS NOT A LOT.

I INITIALLY THOUGHT THE DELAY WAS BECAUSE JOURNALISTS FILING INTO THE CHAMBER MUST GO THROUGH A SEPARATE METAL DETECTOR ONE BY ONE.

AS WE HEARD DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER HAS ASKED THAT THE TRIAL NOT RESTART UNTIL THE JOURNALISTS ARE SEATED.

I'M TOLD THERE'S NO LINE FOR JOURNALISTS.

THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.

TALKING TO SOURCES NOW FROM BOTH PARTIES, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME SLIGHT CHANGES TO THE RESOLUTION POSSIBLY.

WE'LL SEE.

RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT EXACTLY CLEAR WHY THIS DELAY IS HAPPENING.

I'M WORKING ON MY SOURCES AND HOPING I CAN HAVE SOMETHING TO REPORT ON SOON.

A GAP THIS LONG DOES RAISE A QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE ARE POSSIBLE CHANGES, COULD BE MINOR, COULD BE LESS THAN MINOR, TO THE PROPOSEAL SENATOR MANY CONTINUE WILL MAKE.

THESE ARE THE LAST MINUTES HE'LL HAVE TO PRESENT THE PROPOSAL.

ANY CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE NOW.

I SUSPECT THERE COULD BE MODERATE REPUBLICANS INTERESTED IN CHANGES.

SOMETIMES THERE'S JUST TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, ESPECIALLY WHEN A RESOLUTION WAS RELEASED THE NIGHT BEFORE.

SO WE'LL SEE.

THIS LENGTH OF A DELAY MAKES ME THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON REGARDING SENATOR McCONNELL'S PROPOSAL.

>> IT'S BEEN NOTED THAT LEADER McCONNELL WAITED TILL LAST NIGHT IN ESSENCE BEFORE 6:00 EASTERN TIME TO PRESENT THIS RESOLUTION.

IT'S INTERESTING.

WHAT I HEAR -- NOW WE HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE CHAIR.

THE TRIAL IS BEGINNING.

>> I'M AWARE OF ONE SENATOR PRESENT THAT WAS UNABLE TO TAKE THE IMPEACHMENT EAST LAST THURSDAY.

WILL HE PLEASE RISE?

RAISE HIS RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN.

DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TRIAL FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, NOW PENDING, THAT YOU'LL DO JUSTICE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS SO HELP YOU GOD?

>> I DO.

>> THE SECRETARY WILL NOTE THE NAME OF THE SENATOR WHO HAS JUST TAKEN THE OATH AND WILL PRESENT THEEST BOOK TO HIM FOR SIGNATURE.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.

HEAR YE, HEAR YE.

ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT OF PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT WHILE THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS SITTING FOR THE TRIALS OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I'D LIKE TO STATE FOR THE INFORMATION OF ALL SENATORS, THE TRIAL BRIEFS FILED YESTERDAY BY THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN PRINTED AND ARE NOW AT EACH SENATOR'S DESK.

>> THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE FOR PRINTING IN THE SENATE JOURNAL.

THE PRECEPT ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2020, THE WRIT SUMMONS ISSUED JANUARY 162020 AND THE RECEIPT OF SOME MENS DATED JANUARY 16, 2020.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR PRINTING PURSUANT TO THE AND OF JANUARY 16, 2020.

THE ANSWER OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST HIM ON JANUARY 16, 2020, RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 18, 2020.

THE TRIAL BRIEF FILED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 18, 2020.

THE TRIAL BRIEF FILED BY THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 2020.

THE REPLICATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 2020.

AND THE REBUTTAL BRIEF FILED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 21, 2020.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE FOREGOING DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

I NOTE THE PRESENCE IN THE HOUSE OF THE SENATE IN THE SENATE CHAMBER OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> ASK A LIST OF FLOOR PRIVILEGES FOR CLOSED SESSIONS.

IT'S BEEN AGREED TO BY BOTH SIDES.

I ASK THAT IT BE INSERTED IN THE RECORD AND AGREED TO BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> FURTHER INFORMATION OF ALL SENATORS, I'M ABOUT TO SEND A RESOLUTION TO THE DESK PROVIDEING NOR THE NEXT STEPS.

IT WILL BE DEBATABLE BY PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED.

SENATOR SCHUMER WILL SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION TO THE DESK.

ONCE THAT AMENDMENT HAS BEEN OFFERED AND REPORTED, WE'LL HAVE A BRIEF RECESS.

WHEN WE RECONVENE, SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT WILL BE DEBATABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS UPON THE USE OR YIELDING BACK OF TIME, I INTEND TO MOVE TO TABLE SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT.

SO MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A RESOLUTION TO THE DESK AND ASK THAT IT BE READ.

>> THE CLERK WILL READ THE RESOLUTION.

>> SENATE RESOLUTION 483.

TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

RESOLVED THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL FILE ITS RECORD WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WHICH WILL CONSIST OF THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO OR PRODUCED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS OR MARKUPS AND ANY TERMS PRINTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

MATERIALS IN THIS RECORD WILL BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE SUBJECT TO ANY HEARSAY, EVIDENTIARY AFTER PRESENTATIONS ARE CONCLUDED.

ALL MATERIALS FILED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE PRINTED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL HAVE UNTIL 9:00 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020, TO FILE ANY MOTIONS, PERMITTED UNDER THE RULES OF IMPEACHMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MOTIONS TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS.

RESPONSES SHALL BE NOT FILED LATER ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020.

ALL -- >> WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS THE CLERK READ THE TEXT OF A 3 1/2 PAGE RESOLUTION THAT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL OUTLINING THE RULES FOR THIS TRIAL.

AFTER THIS IS READ, THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH SENATOR McCONNELL AND THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER, CHUCK SCHUMER TO DISCUSS THEIR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THIS AND THEN THERE WILL BE DEBATE.

LET'S LISTEN AS THE CLERK FINISHES READING OF THIS SHORT RESOLUTION.

>> FOLLOWING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PRESENTATION, THE PRESIDENT SHALL MAKE HIS PRESENTATION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 24 HOURS OVER UP TO THREE SESSION DAYS.

EACH SIDE MAY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO MAKE ITS PRESENTATIONS.

UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESIDENT'S PRESENTATIONS, SENATORS MAY QUESTION THE PARTIES FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED 16 HOURS.

UPON THE CONCLUSION OF QUESTIONING BY THE SENATE, THERE SHALL BE FOUR HOURS OF ARGUMENT BY THE PARTIES EQUALLY DIVIDED FOLLOWED BY DELIBERATION BY THE SENATE IF SO ORDERED UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT SHALL BE IN ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS.

THE SENATE WITHOUT ANY INTERVENING ACTION, MOTION OR AMENDMENT SHALL THEN DECIDE BY THE YAYS AND NAYS WHETHER IT SHOULD BE IN IN ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS.

FOLLOWING THE DISPOSITION OF THAT QUESTION, OTHER MOTIONS PROVIDED UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES SHALL BE IN ORDER.

IF THE SENATE AGREES TO ALLOW EITHER THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE PRESIDENT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, THE WITNESSES SHALL FIRST BE DEPOSED AND THE SENATE SHALL DECIDE AFTER DEPOSITION WHICH WITNESSES SHALL TESTIFY PURSUE WANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT RULES.

NO TESTIMONY SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE SENATE UNLESS THE PARTIES HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEPOSE SUCH WITNESSES.

AT THE CONCLUSION OF DELIBERATION, THE SENATE SHALL VOTE ON EACH ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> THE RESOLUTION IS ARGUABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED.

MR.

MANAGER SCHIFF, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT OF THIS MOTION?

>> MANAGERS ARE IN OPPOSITION.

>> THANK YOU.

MR. CIPOLLONE, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT OF THE MOTION?

>> WE ARE A PROPONENT OF THE MOTION.

>> MR. CIPOLLONE, YOUR SIDE MAY PROCEED FIRST AND WILL BE ABLE TO RESERVE REBUTTAL TIME IF YOU WISH.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, SENATORS, MY NAME IS PAT CIPOLLONE.

>> THIS IS PAT CIPOLLONE, WHO IS THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL.

HE IS THE LEAD LAWYER IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WE SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION.

IT IS A FAIR WAY TO PROCEED WITH THIS TRIAL.

IT IS MODELED ON THE CLINTON RESOLUTION WHICH HAD 100 SENATORS SUPPORTING IT THE LAST TIME THIS BODY CONSIDERED AN IMPEACHMENT.

IT REQUIRES THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO STAND UP AND MAKE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND MAKE THEIR CASE.

THEY HAVE DELAYED BRINGING THIS IMPEACHMENT TO THIS HOUSE FOR 33 DAYS, 33 DAYS TO THIS BODY.

ITS TIME TO START WITH THIS TRIAL.

IT'S A FAIR PROCESS.

THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAND UP AND MAKE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.

THEY WILL GET 24 HOURS TO DO THAT.

THEN THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

AFTER THAT, ALL OF YOU WILL HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF EITHER SIDE.

ONCE THAT IS FINISHED AND YOU HAVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, WE WILL PROCEED TO THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES AND SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS THAT WILL COME BEFORE THIS BODY.

WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

WE BELIEVE THAT ONCE YOU HEAR THOSE INITIAL PRESENTATIONS, THE ONLY CONCLUSION WILL BE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.

AND THAT THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DO NOT BEGIN TO APPROACH THE STANDARD REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND IN FACT THEY THEMSELVES WILL ESTABLISH NOTHING BEYOND THOSE ARTICLES.

YOU LOOK AT THOSE ARTICLES ALONE AND YOU WILL DETERMINE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE.

SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN WITH THIS PROCESS.

IT'S LONG PASSED TIME TO START THIS PROCEEDING AND WE'RE HERE TODAY TO DO IT.

WE HOPE THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL AGREE WITH US AND BEGIN THIS PROCEEDING TODAY.

WE RESERVE THE REMAINDER OF OUR TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS AND COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ON BEHALF -- >> CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THE LEAD MANAGER FOR THE HOUSE.

>> LET ME BEGIN BY SUMMARIZING WHY.

LAST WEEK WE CAME BEFORE YOU TO PRESENT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ONLY THE THIRD TIME IN OUR HISTORY.

THOSE ARTICLES CHARGED PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THE MISCONDUCT SET OUT IN THOSE ARTICLES IS THE MOST SERIOUS EVER CHARGED AGAINST A PRESIDENT.

THE FIRST ARTICLE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGES THE PRESIDENT WITH SOLICITING A FOREIGN POWER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

MOREOVER IT ALLEGES AND WE WILL PROVE HE SOUGHT TO COERCE UKRAINE TO HELPING HIM CHEAT BE WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS.

TWO OFFICIAL ACTS.

A MEETING THAT THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE DESPERATELY SOUGHT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE WHITE HOUSE TO SHOW THE WORLD AND THE RUSSIANS IN PARTICULAR THAT THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS MOST IMPORTANT PATRON, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND EVEN MORE PERNICIOUSLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP ILLEGALLY WITHHOLD ALMOST $400 MILLION IN TAXPAYER-FUNDED MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

A NATION AT WAR WITH OUR RUSSIAN ADVERSARY TO COMPEL UKRAINE TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE ELECTION.

A BRIEF FILED YESTERDAY CONTENDS EVEN IF THIS CONDUCT IS PROVED, THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT THE HOUSE OR THIS SENATE MAY DO ABOUT IT.

IT IS THE PRESIDENT'S APPARENT BELIEF THAT UNDER ARTICLE 2 HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS, NO MATTER HOW CORRUPT OUTFITTED IN GOD ILLEGAL CLOTHING.

WHEN THE FOUNDERS WROTE THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, THEY HAD PRECISELY THIS TYPE OF MISCONDUCT IN MIND.

CONDUCT THAT ABUSES THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT, THAT UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, THAT INVITES FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OF AN ELECTION.

IT IS THE TRIFECTA OF CONSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT JUSTIFYING IMPEACHMENT.

IN ARTICLES 2 THE PRESIDENT IS CHARGED WITH OTHER MISCONDUCT THAT WOULD LIKE-WISE HAVE ALARMED THE FOUNDERS.

THE FULL, COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE OBSTRUCTION OF A CO EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

THE CONGRESS.

DURING THE COURSE OF ITS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MISCONDUCT, THIS IS EVERY BIT AS DESTRUCTIVE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER AS CHARGED IN THE FIRST ARTICLE.

IF A PRESIDENT CAN OBSTRUCT HIS OWN INVESTIGATION, IF HE CAN EFFECTIVELY NULLIFY A POWER THE CONSTITUTION GIVES TO POWER, THE ULTIMATE POWER OF THE CONSTITUTION GIVES TO PREVENT PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, THEN THE PRESIDENT PLACES HIMSELF BEYOND ACCOUNTABILITY ABOVE THE LAW.

CANNOT BE INDICTED, CANNOT BE IMPEACH.

IT MAKES HIM A MONARCH.

THE VERY EVIL AGAINST WHICH OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE BALANCE OF POWERS IT CAREFULLY LAID OUT WAS DESIGNED TO GUARD AGAINST.

SHORTLY THE TRIAL WILL BEGIN.

WHEN IT'S CONCLUDED, YOU'D BE ASKED TO MAKE SEVERAL DETERMINATIONS.

DID THE HOUSE PROVE THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY SEEKING TO COERCE A FOREIGN NATION TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

DID HE OBJECT INSTRUCT THE CONGRESS IN ITS INVESTIGATION INTO ITS OWN MISCONDUCT BY ORDERING HIS AGENCIES AND OFFICERS TO COOPERATE -- REFUSE TO COOPERATE IN ANY WAY, TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY, REFUSE TO ANSWER SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS AND THROUGH EVERY OTHER MEANS.

IF THE HOUSE HAS PROVED ITS CASE AND WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL NOT BE SERIOUSLY CONTESTED, YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER AT LEAST ONE OTHER CRITICAL QUESTION.

DOES THE COMMISSION OF THESE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS REQUIRE THE CONVICTION AND REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT.

WE BELIEVE IT DOES AND THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT BE SO OR THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT MUST BE DEEMED A RELIC.

AND SO YOU WILL VOTE TO FIND THE PRESIDENT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY TO FIND HIS CONDUCT IMPEACHABLE OR NOT IMPEACHABLE.

I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THESE ARE NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS YOU'LL MAKE.

HOW CAN THAT BE?

HOW CAN ANY DECISION YOU WILL MAKE BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN GUILT OR INNOCENCE OR REMOVING THE PRESIDENT OR NOT REMOVING THE PRESIDENT?

I BELIEVE THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION IN THIS CASE IS THE ONE YOU WILL MAKE TODAY, THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IS THE QUESTION YOU MUST ANSWER TODAY.

WILL THE PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET THE FAIR TRIAL?

WILL THERE BE A FAIR TRIAL?

I SUBMIT THAT THIS IS AN EVEN MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION THAN HOW YOU VOTE OPEN GUILT OR INNOCENCE BECAUSE WHETHER WE HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WILL DETERMINE WHETHER YOU HAVE A BASIS TO RENTER A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT.

IT'S FOUNDATIONAL.

IF YOU ONLY GET TO SEE PART OF THE EVIDENCE, IF YOU ONLY ALLOW ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER A CHANCE TO PRESENT THEIR FULL CASE, YOUR VERDICT WILL BE PREDETERMINED BY THE BIAS IN THE PROCEEDING.

THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ALLOWED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF HIS INNOCENCE, IT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

SO TOO FOR THE PROSECUTION.

IF THE HOUSE CANNOT CALL WITNESSES AND INTRODUCE DOCUMENTS, IT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

IT'S NOT REALLY A TRIAL AT ALL.

AMERICANS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ARE WATCHING US RIGHT NOW.

IMAGINE THEY'RE ON JURY DUTY.

IMAGINE THAT THE JUDGE WALKS INTO THE COURTROOM AND SAYS THAT SHE'S BEEN TALKING TO THE DEFENDANT.

AT THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST, THE JUDGE HAS AGREED NOT TO LET THE PROSECUTION CALL ANY WITNESSES OR INTRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS.

THE JUDGE AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE AGREED THAT THE PROSECUTOR MAY ONLY READ TO THE JURY THE DRY TRANSCRIPTS OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.

THAT'S IT.

HAS ANYONE ON JURY DUTY IN THIS COUNTRY EVER HEARD A JUDGE DESCRIBE SUCH A PROCEEDING AND CALL IT A FAIR TRIAL?

OF COURSE NOT.

THAT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

IT'S A MOCKERY A TRIAL.

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THIS PROCEEDING, THE ONES WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, IS THE TRIAL.

THIS IS NOT THE APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL.

YOU'RE NOT APPELLATE COURT JUDGES.

ONE OF YOU IS.

UNLESS THIS TRIAL IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OR ANY OTHER KIND OF TRIAL FOR THAT MATTER, YOU MUST ALLOW THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE, THE HOUSE MANAGER AND THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TO CALL RELEVANT WITNESSES.

YOU MUST SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED.

THAT WHICH BEAR ON HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

YOU MUST IMPARTIALLY DO JUSTICE AS YOUR OATH REQUIRES.

SO WHAT DOES A FAIR TRIAL LOOK LIKE IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT?

THE SHORT ANSWER IS IT LOOKS LIKE EVERY OTHER TRIAL.

FIRST, THE RESOLUTION SHOULD ALLOW THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN WITHHELD.

FIRST, NOT LAST, BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS WILL INFORM THE DECISION ABOUT WHICH WITNESSES ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO CALL.

WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE CALLED, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WILL BE AVAILABLE AND MUST BE AVAILABLE TO QUESTION THEM WITH.

ANY OTHER ORDER MAKES NO SENSE.

NEXT, THE RESOLUTION SHOULD ALLOW THE HOUSE CALL THEIR WITNESSES AND THE PRESIDENT DO DO THE SAME AND ANY REBUTTAL WITNESSES.

WHEN THE EVIDENTIARY PORTION ENDS, THE PARTIES ARGUE THE CASE.

YOU DELIBERATE AND RENDER A VERDICT.

IF THERE'S A DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR WITNESS IS RELEVANT OR MATERIAL TO THE CHARGES BROUGHT UNDER THE SENATOR RULES, THE CHIEF JUSTICE WOULD RULE ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALITY.

WHY SHOULD THIS TRIAL BE DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER TRIAL?

THE SHORT ANSWER IS IT SHOULDN'T.

THE LEADER'S RESOLUTION WOULD TURN THE TRIAL PROCESS ON ITS HEAD.

IT REQUIRES THE HOUSE TO PROVE ITS CASE WITHOUT WITNESSES, WITHOUT DOCUMENTS AND ONLY AFTER ITS DONE WITH SUCH QUESTIONS BE ENTERTAINED WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT ANY WITNESSES OR ANY DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED EVEN THEN.

THAT PROCESS MAKES NO SENSE.

SO WHAT IS THE HARM OF WAITING UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL?

KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ON THE QUESTION OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES?

BESIDES THE FACT THAT IT'S COMPLETELY BACKWARDS, TRIAL FIRST AND THEN EVIDENCE, BESIDES THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WOULD INFORM THE DECISION ON WHICH WITNESSES AND HELPING THEIR QUESTIONING, THE HARM IS THIS.

YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY OF THE EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO CONCEAL THROUGHOUT MOST OR ALL OF THE TRIAL.

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS ALREADY OVERWHELMING, YOU MAY NEVER KNOW THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT OR THOSE AROUND HIM.

NEITHER WILL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE CHARGES HERE INVOLVE THE SACRIFICE OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AT HOME AND ABROAD AND A THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION.

IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S CONVICTION, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST KNOW ABOUT IT.

BUT IF AS A PUBLIC ALREADY JADED BY EXPERIENCES COME TO SUSPECT, THIS RESOLUTION IS MERELY THE FIRST STEP OF AN EFFORT ORCHESTRATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO RUSH THE TRIAL, HIDE THE EVIDENCE AND RENDER A FAST VERDICT OR A MAST DISMISSAL, TO MAKE IT GO AWAY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO COVER UP HIS MISDEEDS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL AND MAY NEVER LEARN HOW DEEP THE CORRUPTION OF THIS ADMINISTRATION GOES AND ELECTIONS REMAIN HIDDEN.

THE HARM WILL ALSO ENDURE FOR THIS BODY.

IF THE SENATE ALLOWS THE PRESIDENT TO GET AWAY WITH EXTENSIVE OBSTRUCTION, IT WILL AFFECT THE SENATOR'S POWER OF SUBPOENA AND OVERSIGHT JUST AS MUCH AS THE HOUSE.

THE SENATE'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT WILL BE BEHOLDEN TO THE DESIRES OF THIS PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS WHETHER HE OR SHE DECIDES THEY WANT TO COOPERATE WITH A SENATE INVESTIGATION OR ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND TRIAL.

OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES WILL BE BROKEN, PRESIDENTS WILL BECOME ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE.

NOW, IT'S BEEN REPORTED THAT LEADER McCONNELL HAS ALREADY GOT THE VOTES TO PASS THE RESOLUTION.

THE TEXT OF WHICH WE DID NOT SEE UNTIL LAST NIGHT AND WHICH HAS BEEN CHANGED EVEN MOMENTS AGO.

THEY SAID THAT LEADER McCONNELL IS A VERY GOOD VOTE COUNTER.

NONETHELESS, I HOPE HE'S WRONG.

NOT JUST BECAUSE I THINK THIS PROCESS, THE PROCESS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION IS BACKWARDS AND DESIGNED WITH A RESULT IN MIND AND THE RESULT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL, I HOPE THAT HE'S WRONG BECAUSE WHATEVER SENATORS MAY HAVE SAID OR PLEDGED OR COMMITTED HAAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY AN EVENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION.

YOU HAVE ALL NOW SWORN AN OATH.

NOT TO EACH OTHER.

NOT TO YOUR LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP.

NOT TO THE MANAGERS OR EVEN TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

YOU HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

THAT OATH BINDS YOU.

THAT OATH SUPERSEDES ALL ELSE.

MANY OF YOU IN THE SENATE AND MANY OF US IN THE HOUSE HAVE MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

OR THIS TRIAL OR THIS MOTION OR EXPECTATIONS.

NONE OF THAT MATTERS NOW.

THAT IS ALL IN THE PAST.

NOTHING MATTERS NOW BUT THE OATH TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

AND THAT OATH REQUIRES A FAIR TRIAL.

FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT AND FAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IS THAT REALLY POSSIBLE?

OR AS THE FOUNDERS FEARED AS FACTIONALISM OR EXCEPTIONAL PARTISANSHIP MADE THAT NOW POSSIBLE?

ONE WAY TO FIND OUT WHAT A FAIR TRIAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE IS TO ASK YOURSELVES, HOW WOULD YOU STRUCTURE THE TRIAL IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY WAS AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE PARTY OR THE PRESIDENT WAS?

WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THE TRIAL FIRST AND DECIDE ON WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE LATER?

WOULD THAT BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES?

I HAVE TO THINK THAT YOUR ANSWER WOULD BE NO.

LET ME BE BLUNT.

LET ME BE VERY BLUNT.

RIGHT NOW A GREAT MANY PERHAPS EVEN MOST AMERICANS DO NOT BELIEVE THERE THERE BE A FAIR TRIAL.

THEY DON'T BELIEVE THE SENATE WILL BE IMPARTIAL.

THEY BELIEVE THAT THE RESULT IS PRECOOKED.

THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ACQUITTED.

NOT BECAUSE HE'S INNOCENT, HE'S NOT.

BUT BECAUSE THE SENATORS WILL VOTE BY PARTY AND HE HAS THE VOTES.

THE VOTES TO PREVENT THE EVIDENCE FROM COMING OUT, THE VOTES TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC NEVER SEES IT.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A FAIR TRIAL.

THEY WANT TO BELIEVE THEIR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS STILL CAPABLE OF RISING TO THE OCCASION.

THEY WANT TO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN RISE ABOVE PARTY AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY, BUT A GREAT MANY AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE THAT WILL HAPPEN.

LET'S PROVE THEM WRONG.

LET'S PROVE THEM WRONG.

HOW?

BY CONVICTING THE PRESIDENT?

NO.

NOT BY CONVICTION ALONE.

BY CONVICTING HIM IF THE HOUSE PROVES ITS CASE AND ONLY IF THE HOUSE PROVES ITS CASE.

BUT BY LETTING THE HOUSE PROVE IT'S CASE.

BY LETTING THE HOUSE CALL WITNESSES.

BY LETTING THE HOUSE OBTAIN DOCUMENTS.

BY LETTING THE HOUSE DECIDE HOW TO PRESENT ITS OWN CASE AND NOT DECIDING IT FOR US.

IN SUM, BY AGREEING TO A FAIR TRIAL.

NOW LET'S TURN TO THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION.

THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT TRIALS AND WHAT FAIR NEWS AND IMPARTIALITY REQUIRE.

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE MANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESOLUTION, I WILL BEGIN WITH THE SINGLE BIGGEST FLAW.

THE RESOLUTION DOES NOT ENSURE THAT SUBPOENAS WILL IN FACT BE ISSUED FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THAT THE SENATE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE AND THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO BLOCK TO FAIRLY DECIDE THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

MOREOVER, IT GUARANTEES THAT SUBPOENAS WILL NOT BE ISSUED NOW.

WHEN THEY WOULD BE MOST VALUABLE TO THE SENATE, THE PARTIES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION, THE LEADER HAS INTRODUCED FIRST THE SENATE RECEIVES BRIEFS AND FILINGS FROM THE PARTIES.

NEXT, IT HEARS LENGTHY PRESENTATIONS FROM THE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT NOW -- THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAVE DESCRIBED THIS AS OPENING STATEMENTS.

LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES, THAT IS THE TRIAL THAT THEY CONTEMPLATE.

THE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE THE TRIAL.

THEY'LL BE MOST THE TRIAL OR ALL THE TRIAL.

IF THE SENATE VOTES TO DEPRIVE ITSELF OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, THE OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE THE END OF THE TRIAL.

SO TO SAY LET'S JUST HAVE THE OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN WE'LL SEE MEANS LET'S HAVE THE TRIAL.

MAYBE WE CAN JUST SWEEP THIS ALL UNDER THE RUG.

SO YOU'LL HEAR THESE LENGTHY PRESENTATIONS TO THE HOUSE.

THERE WILL BE A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR THE SENATORS AND THEN AND ONLY THEN, AFTER THE TRIAL IS OVER, AFTER THE BRIEFS HAVE BEEN FILED, AFTER THE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, AFTER THE SENATORS EXHAUST THEIR QUESTIONS, ONLY THEN WILL THE SENATE CONSIDER TO SUBPOENA CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DESPERATELY TRIED TO CONCEAL FROM THIS CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT UNLIKE THE CLINTON TRIAL HAVE NOT YET BEEN SEEN OR HEARD.

IT'S TRUE THE RECORD COMPILED BY THE HOUSE IS OVERWHELMING, IT'S TRUE THE RECORD ALREADY COMPELS THE CONVICTION OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE FACE OF UNPRECEDENTED RESISTANCE BY THE PRESIDENT.

THE HOUSE ASSEMBLED A POWERFUL CASE, EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THAT INCLUDES DIRECT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY OF OFFICIALS UNWILLING AND UNWITTING IN THIS SCHEME AND SAW IT FOR WHAT IT WAS.

YET THERE'S STILL MORE EVIDENCE RELATIVE AND PROBATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO BLOCK THAT WOULD FLESH OUT THE FULL EXTENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT AND THOSE AROUND HIM.

WE HAVE SEEN THAT OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS NEW EVIDENCE HAS CONTINUED TO COME TO LIGHT AS THE NONPARTISAN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE HAS DETERMINED THAT THE HOLD ON MILITARY TO UKRAINE WAS ILLEGAL AND BROKE THE LAW.

AS JOHN BOLTON HAS OFFERED TO TESTIFY IN THE TRIAL AS ONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S AGENTS, LEV PARNAS HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT CLARIFIES MR. GULIANI'S ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE ED AND CORROBORATE CORROBORATES AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY THAT EVERYBODY WAS UNDER THE LOOP.

AND THE ALARM AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHILE THE PRESIDENT ILLEGALLY WITHHELD MIDDLE TARRY SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, AN ALLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

AS A SENIOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL, MICHAEL DUFFY INSTRUCTED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS ON JULY 25, 90 MINUTES AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE BY PHONE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SHOULD PAUSE ALL OBLIGATION OF UKRAINE MILITARY ASSISTANCE UNDER ITS PURVIEW.

90 MINUTES AFTER THAT CALL.

DUFFY ADDED "GIVEN THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE REQUEST, I APPRECIATE YOUR KEEPING THAT INFORMATION CLOSELY HELD TO THOSE WHO NEED TO KNOW TO EXECUTE THE DIRECTION."

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT, THERE IS SIMPLY NO RATIONALE BASIS FOR THE SENATE TO DEPRIVE ITSELF OF ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION IN MAKING SUCH A HUGELY CONSEQUENTIAL JUDGMENT.

MOREOVER, AS THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWER TO HIS SUMMONS AND HIS TRIAL BRIEF MADE CLEAR, THE PRESIDENT NOW ATTEMPTS TO CONTEST THE FACTS ALBEIT IN FALSE AND MISLEADING WAYS.

THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

HE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO CLAIM THE FACTS UNCOVERED BY THE HOUSE ARE WRONG WHILE ALSO CONCEALING MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE THAT BEAR PRECISELY ON THOSE FACTS.

IF THIS BODY SEEKS IMPARTIAL JUSTICE, IT SHOULD ENSURE SUBPOENAS ARE ISSUED AND ISSUED NOW BEFORE THE SENATE BEGINS EXTENDED PROCEEDINGS BASED ON A RECORD THAT EVERY PERSON IN THIS ROOM AND EVERY AMERICAN WATCHING AT HOME KNOWS DOES NOT INCLUDE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY IT SHOULD BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO BE SO.

COMPLYING WITH THESE SUBPOENAS WOULD NOT IMPOSE A BURDEN.

THE SUBPOENAS COVER NARROWLY TAILORED AND TARGETED DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS CONCEALED.

THE SENATE DESERVES TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

THESE AGENCIES ALREADY SHOULD HAVE COLLECTED AND AT LEAST PRESERVED THESE DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO HOUSE SUBPOENAS.

INDEED, IN SOME CASES, AGENCIES HAVE ALREADY PRODUCED DOCUMENTS IN FOILED LAWSUITS IN HELY REDACTED FORM.

WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OR INVOLVEMENT SHOULD BE HEARD.

THAT INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, JOHN BOLTON WHO HAS PUBLICLY OFFERED TO TESTIFY, TWO SENIOR OFFICIALS IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S FREEZE ON UKRAINE'S MILITARY AID ALSO HAVE VERY RELEVANT TESTIMONY.

WHY NOT HEAR IT?

ROBERT BLAIR WHO SERVES AS MULVANEY'S SENIOR ADVISER, MICHAEL DUFFY, A SENIOR OFFICIAL AT OMB AND OTHER WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE THAT WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CALL LATER, BUT THESE WITNESSES WITH WHOM WE WISH TO BEGIN THE TRIAL.

LAST MONTH PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE CLEAR THAT HE SUPPORTED HAVING SENIOR OFFICIALS TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE DURING HIS TRIAL DECLARING HE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SECRETARY POMPEO, MR. MULVANEY, NOW FORMER SECRETARY PERRY AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE TESTIFY IN THE SENATE TRIAL.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MIKE POMPEO, LOVE TO HAVE MITCH, RICK PERRY AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE TESTIFY.

>> THE SENATE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE PRESIDENT UP ON HIS OFFER TO MAKE HIS SENIOR AIDES AVAILABLE INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY AND PERRIES AND POMPEO.

BUT NOW THE PRESIDENT IS CHANGING HIS TUNE.

THE BLUSTER OF WANTING HIS WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IS OVER.

NOT WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE'S NEVER ASSERTED A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE DURING THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE THREATENED TO EVOKE ONE NOW IN A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO KEEP THE REST OF THE TRUTH FROM COMING OUT.

THE PRESIDENT SENDS HIS LAWYERS HERE TO CLAIM THAT HE'S WITNESSES OR OTHERS CANNOT POSSIBLY TESTIFY BECAUSE IT INVOLVES NATIONAL SECURITY.

NEVER MIND THAT IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID FROM AN ALLY AT WAR THAT THREATENED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

NEVER MIND THE MOST IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WILL ALWAYS INVOLVE NATIONAL SECURITY BECAUSE THEY WILL INVOLVED OTHER NATIONS AND THAT MISCONDUCT BASED ON FOREIGN ENTANGLE MEANT IS WHAT THE FRAMERS FEARED MOST.

THE PRESIDENT'S ABSURDIST ARGUMENT AMOUNTS TO THIS.

WE MUST ENDANGER NATIONAL SECURITY TO PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY.

WE MUST MAKE A PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT THREATENING OUR SECURITY BEYOND THE REACH OF AN IMPEACHMENT POWER IF WE'RE TO SAVE THE PRESIDENCY.

THIS IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE.

AS JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVE UNDERSCORED, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT.

LET US TURN FROM THE ABSTRACT TO THE CONCRETE AND LET ME SHOW YOU JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS HIDING IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

THERE'S A DOCUMENT WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER IN WHICH HIS TOP DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE SAYS TO TWO OTHER APPOINTEES OF THE PRESIDENT, "AS I SAID ON THE PHONE, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN."

THE ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO TURN OVER THAT DOCUMENT AND SO MANY MORE.

WE ONLY KNOW ABOUT ITS EXISTENCE.

WE HAVE ONLY SEEN ITS CONTENTS BECAUSE IT WAS TURNED OVER BY A COOPERATING WITNESS.

THIS IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HIDE FROM YOU AND FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY, HE WOULD HIDE GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF HIS DANGEROUS MISCONDUCT.

THE ONLY QUESTION IS AND IS THE QUESTION RAISED BY THIS RESOLUTION, WILL YOU LET HIM.

LAST YEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL ALLOW HIM TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTED.

EVIDENTLY BELIEVING THAT HE WILL FIGHT OFF SATISFIES.

LET'S HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS.

>> THEN I HAVE IN ARTICLE 2 WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.

>> TRUE TO HIS PLEDGE TO OBSTRUCT CONGRESS, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP FACED AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HE ORDERED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DEFY EVERY SINGLE REQUEST ON EVERY SINGLE SUBPOENA.

HE ISSUED THIS ORDER THROUGH HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE, OCTOBER 8, THE SAME COUNSEL THAT STOOD BEFORE YOU TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.

HE AFFIRMED IT AGAIN AT A RALLY ON OCTOBER 10.

FOLLOWING THE PRESIDENT'S CATEGORICAL ORDER WE NEVER RECEIVED KEY DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND REFUSING TO RESPOND TO CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT DID NOT MAKE ANY, ANY FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE EVER.

INSTEAD, MR. CIPOLLONE'S LETTER STATED IN EFFECT THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD WITHHOLD ALL EVIDENCE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH UNLESS THE HOUSE SURRENDERED TO DEMANDS THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY PLACE PRESIDENT TRUMP IN CHARGE OF THE INQUIRY INTO HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, THAT WAS A NONSTARTER AND DESIGNED TO BE SO.

THE PRESIDENT WAS DETERMINED TO OBSTRUCT CONGRESS NO MATTER WHAT WE DID.

HIS CONDUCT SINCE, HIS ATTACKS ON THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, HIS ATTACKS ON WITNESSES HAVE AFFIRMED THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION TO COOPERATE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

WHY?

THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HE CONCEALS WOULD ONLY FURTHER PROVE HIS GUILT.

THE INNOCENT DO NOT ACT THIS WAY.

SIMPLY STATED, THIS TRIAL SHOULD NOT REWARD THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION BY ALLOWING HIM TO CONTROL WHAT EVIDENCE IS SEEN AND WHEN IT IS SEEN AND WHAT EVIDENCE WILL REMAIN HIDDEN.

THE DOCUMENTS THE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO CONCEAL INCLUDE WHITE HOUSE RECORDS, INCLUDING RECORDS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S UNLAWFUL HOLD ON MILITARY AID, STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS INCLUDING TEXTS AND WHATSAPP MESSAGES AND NOTES BY CAREER PROFESSIONALS AS THEY SAW THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNFOLD IN REAL TIME.

OMB RECORDS DEMONSTRATING EFFORTS TO FABRICATE AND AFTER-THE FACT RATIONALE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS IN SHOWING INTERNAL OBJECTION THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS VIOLATED THE LAW.

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT RECORDS REFLECTING BAFFLEMENT AND ALARM THAT THE PRESIDENT SUSPENDED MILITARY AID TO A KEY SECURITY PARTNER WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

MANY OF THE PRESIDENT'S AIDES HAVE ALSO FOLLOWED HIS ORDERS AND REFUSE TO TESTIFY.

THESE INCLUDE CENTRAL FIGURES IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INCLUDING MICK MULVANEY, JOHN BOLTON AND MANY OTHERS WITH RELEVANT TESTIFY LIKE ROBERT BLAIR, MICHAEL DUFFY.

MR. BLAIR, WHO SERVES AS A SENIOR ADVISER TO ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, WORKED DIRECTLY WITH MR. DUFFY, A POLITICAL APPOINTEE IN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO CARRY OUT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO FREEZE VITAL MILITARY AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS REFUSED TO DISCLOSE THEIR COMMUNICATIONS EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW FROM WRITTEN TESTIMONY, PUBLIC REPORTING AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUITS THAT THEY WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN IMPLEMENTING THE HOLD AND EXTENDING IT AS THE PRESIDENT'S EXPRESS DIRECTION.

EVEN EVEN AS CAREER OFFICIALS WARNED ACCURATELY THAT DOING SO WOULD VIOLATE THE LAW.

THE PRESIDENT HAS ALSO MADE THE INSUPPORT BE CLAIM THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE ENFORCED SUBPOENAS IN COURT AND ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT TO DELAY HIS IMPEACHMENT FOR YEARS.

IF WE HAD DONE SO, WE WOULD HAVE ABDICATED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ACT ON THE OVERWHELMING FACTS BEFORE US AND THE EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

WE COULD NOT ENGAGE IN A DELIBERATELY PROTECTED COURT PROCESS WHILE THE PRESIDENT CONTINUED TO THREATEN THE SANCTITY OF OUR ELECTIONS.

RESORTING TO THE COURTS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

IF THE HOUSE WERE COMPELLED TO EXHAUST ALL LEGAL REMEDIES BEFORE IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT, IT WOULD INTERPOSE THE COURTS ON THE DECISION OF A SINGLE JUDGE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE POWER TO IMPEACH.

MOREOVER, IT WOULD INVITE THE PRESIDENT TO PREVENT HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT BY ENDLESSLY LITIGATING THE MATTER IN COURT APPEALING EVERY JUDGMENT, ENGAGING IN EVERY MOTION OR DEVICE.

INDEED IN THE CASE OF DON McGANN, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WHO WAS ORDERED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND LIE ABOUT IT, HE WAS SUBPOENAED IN APRIL LAST YOUR AND STILL NO FINAL JUDGMENT.

A PRESIDENT MAY NOT DEFEAT IMPEACHMENT OR ACCOUNTABILITY BY ENGAGING IN ENDLESS LITIGATION.

INSTEAD, IT'S BEEN THE LONG PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE TO COMPILE CORE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO REACH A REASONED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO IMPEACH AND THEN TO BRING THE CASE HERE TO THE SENATE FOR A FULL TRIAL.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DID HERE WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SENATE HAS ITS OWN POWER TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY.

IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF THE HOUSE SHOWED NO INTEREST IN DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES DURING THE INVESTIGATION EVEN THOUGH THERE THE HOUSE IS HAS THE SOLE RIGHT TO DETERMINE PROCEEDINGS AS LONG AS IT MAKES THE FULL CASE TO THE HOUSE AS IT DID.

BUT IT'S QUITE ANOTHER WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS THE CAUSE OF HIS OWN COMPLAINT WHEN THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLDS WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND THEN ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON HIS OWN NONCOMPLIANCE TO JUSTIFY FURTHER CONCEAL MEANT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE ITS CRYSTAL CLEAR WE WOULD NEVER SEE A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR A SINGLE WITNESS WHEN HE DECLARED AS WE JUST WATCHED THAT HE WOULD FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS.

AS A MATTER OF HISTORY AND PRECEDENT, IT WOULD BE WRONG TO ASSERT THAT THE SENATE HAS OBTAINED NEW EVIDENCE REGARDLESS OF WHY IT WASN'T PRODUCED IN THE HOUSE.

YOU CAN AND SHOULD INSIST ON RECEIVING ALL THE EVIDENCE SO YOU CAN RENDER IMPARTIAL JUSTICE AND CAN EARN THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC IN THE SENATE'S WILLINGNESS TO HOLD A FAIR TRIAL.

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE SENATE DOES NOT JUST VOTE ON IMPEACHMENTS.

IT DOES NOT JUST DEBATE THEM.

INSTEAD IT IS COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO TRY ALL CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.

IF THE FOUNDERS INTENDED FOR THE HOUSE TO TRY THE MATTER AND THE SENATE TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL BASED ON THE COLD RECORD FROM THE OTHER CHAMBER, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO.

BUT THEY DID NOT.

INSTEAD, THEY GAVE US THE POWER TO CHARGE AND YOU THE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS.

THE FRAMERS CHOSE THEIR LANGUAGE IN THE STRUCTURE FOR A REASON.

AS ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID, THE SENATE IS GIVEN OFF DISCRETIONS OF MATTER.

THE CONTUSION NOT SPEAKS TO SENATORS IN THEIR JUDICIAL CHARACTER AS A COURT FOR THE TRIAL ONLY IMPEACHMENTS.

IT REQUIRES THEM TO AIM AT REAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOCENCE OR GUILT AND REQUIRES THEM TO DO SO BY HOLDING A TRIAL.

THE SENATE IS REPEATEDLY SUBPOENAED AND RECEIVED NEW DOCUMENTS, OFTEN MANY OF THEM WHILE ADJUDICATING CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.

MOREOVER, THE SENATE HAS HEARD WITNESS TESTIMONY IN EVERY ONE OF THE 15 SENATE TRIALS IN THE HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC, INCLUDING THOSE FOR ANDREW JOHNSON AND BILL CLINTON.

INDEED IN PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON'S SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, THE HOUSE MANAGERS WERE PERMITTED TO BEGIN PRESENTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON THE VERY FIRST DAY OF THE TRIAL.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS INITIAL PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTS IN PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S CASE CARRIED ON FOR THE FIRST TWO DAYS OF TRIAL AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER WHICH WITNESSES WERE CALLED TO APPEAR IN THE SENATE.

THIS HAS BEEN THE STANDARD PRACTICE IN PRIOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.

INDEED, IN MOST TRIALS THIS BODY HAS HEARD FROM MANY WITNESSES RANGING FROM THREE IN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE TO 40 IN PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S AND WELL OVER 60 IN OTHER IMPEACHMENTS.

AS THESE NUMBERS MADE CLEAR, THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS HEARD FROM KEY WITNESSES WHEN TRYING AN IMPEACHMENT.

THE NOTION THAT ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE HOUSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IS SQUARELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY CONTRARY TO SENATE PRECEDENT.

NOTHING IN LAW OR HISTORY SUPPORTS IT.

TO START, CONSIDER LEADER McCONNELL'S OWN DESCRIPTION OF HIS WORK IN A PRIOR SENATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

AFTER SERVING ON THE SENATE TRIAL COMMITTEE OF JUDGE CLAIRE CLAIREBORN.

LEADER McCONNELL SAID THEY WORKED FOR TWO MONTHS AMASSING THE NECESSARY TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE.

HE SAID THE FULL BODY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR A MASSING AND DIGESTING EVIDENCE.

THERE WAS A LOT OF EVIDENCE TO AMESS AND DIGEST, WHICH INVOLVE PROCEEDINGS FROM 19 WITNESSES.

IT ALLOWED FOR OVER 2,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD OVER THE COURSE OF THAT TRIAL.

AT NO POINT DID THE SENATE LIMIT EVIDENCE TO WHAT WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE.

IT DID THE OPPOSITE.

CONSISTENT WITH UNBROKEN SENATE PRACTICE IN EVERY SINGLE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, EVERY SINGLE ONE.

FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE 40 WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED DURING PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S SENATE TRIAL, ONLY THREE PROVIDED TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE.

ONLY THREE.

THE REMAINING 37 WITNESSES TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE.

SIMILARLY, THE SENATE'S FULL FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WHICH INVOLVED CHARGES AGAINST JUDGE PICKERING INVOLVED TESTIMONY FROM 11 WITNESSES, ALL OF WHOM WERE NEW TO THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAD NOT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE.

THERE'S MANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF THIS POINT INCLUDING SENATE'S MOST RECENT IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF A JUDGE IN 2010.

ONE THAT MANY OF YOU AND SOME OF US KNOW WELL.

IT TOO IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS LONGSTANDING PRACTICE.

THERE THE SENATE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM 26 WITNESSES, 17 OF WHOM HAD NOT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE DURING ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THERE'S A TRADITION OF THE SENATE HEARING FROM NEW WITNESSES WHEN TRYING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A RULE LIMITING WITNESSES TO THOSE THAT APPEARED IN THE HOUSE OR LIMITING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SENATE TO THAT WHICH THE HOUSE ITSELF CONSIDERED.

THAT IS BECAUSE AS SENATOR JOHNSON EXPLAINED IN 1934, THE INTEGRITY OF SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS DEPEND HEAVILY UPON THE WITNESSES THAT ARE CALLED.

APPEARANCE ON THE STAND, MODE OF GIVING TESTIMONY.

THERE'S THUS AN UNBROKEN HISTORY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY IN SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.

PRESIDENTIAL AND JUDICIAL.

FOR THE CASE OF A PRESIDENT, IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO HEAR THE WITNESSES AND SEE THE DOCUMENTS.

ANY CONCEIVABLE DOUBT ON THIS SCORE AND THERE SHOULD BE NONE LEFT IS THE SPELL BY THE SENATE'S OWN RULES FOR TRIALS OF IMPEACHMENT.

OBTAINING DOCUMENTS AND HEARING LIVE WITNESS IS SO IMPORTANT THAT THE RULES IN THE SENATE TRIAL WHICH DATES BACK TO THE 19th CENTURY DEVOTE TO THE GATHERING OF NEW EVIDENCE THAN ANY OTHER SUBJECT.

THESE RULES EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATE THAT THE SENATE WILL HEAR EVIDENCE AND CONDUCT A THOROUGH TRIAL WHEN SITTING AS A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

AT EVERY TURN THEY REJECT THE NOTION THAT THE SENATE WOULD THAT TAKE THE HOUSE'S REPORT AND VOTE TO A QUIT OR CONVICT.

FOR EXAMPLE, RULE 6 SAYS THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND ENFORCE OBEDIENCE TO ITS ORBEDERS.

RULE 7, AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO RULE ON ALL QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCE INCLUDED BUT NOT LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY AND REDUNDANCY.

THIS RULE 2 PRESUMES THAT THE SENATE TRIAL WILL HAVE TESTIMONY GIVING RISE TO SUCH QUESTIONS.

RULE 11 AUTHORIZES THE FULL SENATE TO DESIGNATE A COMMITTEE OF SENATORS TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE AND TAKE TESTIMONY AT SUCH TIMES AND PLACES AS THE COMMITTEE MAY DETERMINE.

AS RULE 11 MAKES CLEAR, THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE FULL SENATE FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION.

NOTHING PROHIBITS THE SENATE FOR HEARING ANY WITNESS' TEAM IN OPEN SENATE OR BY ORDER OF THE SENATE INVOLVING THE ENTIRE TRIAL IN THE OPEN SENATE.

HERE TOO, THE SENATE'S RULES EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATE AND PROVIDE FOR SUBPOENAING WITNESSES AND HEARING THEIR TESTIMONY AS PART OF THE SENATE TRIAL.

AND THE LIST GOES ON.

THESE RULES PLAINLY CONTEMPLATE ROBUST ROLE FOR THE SENATE IN GATHERING AND CONSIDERING EVIDENCE.

THEY REFLECT CENTURIES OF PRACTICE OF ACCEPTING AND REQUIRING NEW EVIDENCE IN SENATE TRIALS.

THIS SENATE SHOULD HONOR THAT PRACTICE TODAY BY REJECTING THIS RESOLUTION.

WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON TRIAL?

WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON TRIAL WILL BE ARGUED?

EVEN IF WE ARE DEPARTING FROM EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN HISTORY, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT -- IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON, WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON TRIAL?

AREN'T WE FOLLOWING THE SAME PROCESSES AS IN THE CLINTON TRIAL?

THE ANSWER IS NO.

FIRST, THE PROCESS FOR THE CLINTON TRIAL WAS WORKED OUT BY MUTUAL CONSENT.

AMONG THE PARTIES.

THAT IS NOT TRUE HERE FOR THE PROCESS TO START TO BE IMPOSED BY ONE PARTY ON THE OTHER.

SECOND ALL OF IF DOCUMENTS IN THE CLINTON TRIAL WERE TURNED OVER PRIOR TO THE TRIAL.

ALL 90,000 PAGES OF THEM SO THEY COULD BE USED IN THE HOUSE'S CASE.

NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER BY THE PRESIDENT IN THIS CASE.

AND UNDER LEADER McCONNELL'S PROPOSAL, NONE MAY EVER BE.

THEY CERTAINLY WON'T BE AVAILABLE TO YOU OR TO US DURING MOST OR ALL OF THE TRIAL IF WE ARE REALLY GOING TO FOLLOW THE CLINTON PRECEDENT, THE SENATE MUST INSIST ON THE DOCUMENTS NOW BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGINS.

THIRD, ISSUES IN THE CLINTON TRIAL IS NOT ONE OF CALLING WITNESSES BUT OF RECALLING WITNESSES.

ALL OF THE KEY WITNESSES IN THE CLINTON TRIAL HAD TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OR BE INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI.

ONE DOZENS OF TIMES.

THEIR TESTIMONY WAS ALREADY KNOWN.

PRESIDENT CLINTON HIMSELF TESTIFIED ON CAMERA AND UNDER OATH BEFORE THE SENATE TRIAL.

HE ALLOWED MULTIPLE CHIEFS OF STAFF AND OTHER KEY OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY, AGAIN, BEFORE THE SENATE TRIAL TOOK PLACE.

HERE NONE OF THE WITNESSES WE SEEK TO CALL, NONE OF THEM HAVE TESTIFIED OR HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE HOUSE.

AS I SAID, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT WE DIDN'T CALL THE WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE WHEN THEIR UNAVAILABILITY WAS CAUSED BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

LAST, AS YOU WILL REMEMBER, THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE HERE, THE TESTIMONY IN THE CLINTON TRIAL INVOLVED DECORUM ISSUES THAT ARE NOT PRESENT HERE.

YOU MAY REST ASSURED WHATEVER ELSE THE CASE MAY BE, SUCH ISSUES WILL NOT BE PRESENT HERE.

IN SUM, THE CLINTON PRECEDENT IF YOU'RE SERIOUS ABOUT IT, THE CLINTON PRECEDENT IS ONE WHERE ALL THE DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN PROVIDED UP FRONT.

WHERE ALL THE WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED UP FRONT PRIOR TO THE TRIAL.

THAT IS NOT BEING REPLICATED BY THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION.

NOT IN ANY WAY, NOT IN ANY SHAPE, NOT IN ANY FORM, FAR FROM IT.

THE TRADITIONAL MODEL FOLLOWED IN THE PRESIDENT'S CASE AND THE OTHERS IS REALLY THE ONE THAT IS MOST APPROPRIATE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE SENATE SHOULD ADDRESS ALL THE DOCUMENTARY ISSUES AND THOSE ARE THE WITNESSES NOW NOT LATER.

THE NEED TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY NOW HAS INCREASED DUE TO THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

HE'S UNIQUELY AND PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABSENCES OF THE WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE, HAVING ORDERED THEM NOT TO APPEAR.

IT REWARDS THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION AND ENCOURAGES FURTHER FUTURE PRESIDENTS TO DEFY LAWFUL PROCESS IN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS.

SECOND, IF THE PRESIDENT WISHES TO CONTEST THE FACTS, AND HIS ANSWER AND TRIAL BRIEF INDICATES THAT HE WOULD TRY, HE MUST NOT CONTINUE TO DENY THE SENATE ACCESS TO THE RELEVANT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THAT SHED LIGHT ON THE VERY FACTUAL MATTERS THAT HE WISHES TO CHALLENGE.

THE SENATE TRIAL IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO AN APPEAL WHERE THE PARTIES MUST ARGUMENT THE FACTS ON THE RECORD BELOW.

THERE'S NO RECORD BELOW.

THERE'S NO BELOW.

THIS IS THE TRIAL.

THIRD, THE PRESIDENT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO MISLEAD THE SENATE BY SELECTIVELY INTRODUCING DOCUMENTS WHILE WITHHOLDING THE VAST BODY OF DOCUMENTS THAT MAY CONTRADICT HIM.

THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.

THE PRESIDENT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO MISLEAD YOU BY INTRODUCING DOCUMENTS SELECTIVELY AND WITHHOLDING ALL OF THE REST.

ALL OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE PRODUCED SO THERE'S FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TRUTH.

OTHERWISE, THERE'S CLEAR RISK THE PRESIDENT WILL HIDE ALL EVIDENCE HARMFUL TO HIS POSITION WHILE SELECTIVELY PRODUCING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT OR OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THEIR CREATORS.

FINALLY, THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT FROM HIS CONTINUING EFFORT.

HE WANTS WITNESS LIKEyd AND POMPEO TO TESTIFY AND HIS INTERACTIONS WITH UKRAINE HAVE BEEN PERFECT.

COUNSEL SAID IT'S PERFECT.

PERFECT FINE TO WITHHOLD AN ALLIE TO COERCE A MILITARY AID TO INFLUENCE THE NEXT ELECTION.

NOW HE HAS CHANGED COURSE AND DOES NOT WANT HIS WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.

THE LOGICAL INFERENCE IN ANY CORE LAW IS THE PARTY'S CONTINUED OBSTRUCTION OF SUBPOENAS THEY BE CONSTRUED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

LET ME CONCLUDE, THE FACTS WILL COME OUT IN THE END.

THE DOCUMENTS WHICH THE PRESIDENT IS HIDING WILL BE RELEASED THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OR THROUGH OTHER MEANS OVER TIME.

WITNESSES WILL TELL THEIR STORIES IN BOOKS AND FILM AND THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT THE QUESTION IS WILL IT COME OUT IN TIME AND WHAT ANSWER SHALL WE GIVE IF WE DID NOT PURSUE THE TRUTH NOW AND LET IT REMAIN HIDDEN UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE TO CONSIDER ON THE PROFOUND ISSUE OF THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

THERE ARE MANY OVERLAPPING REASONS ON THE RESOLUTION.

THERE'S FAIRNESS.

THE TRIAL SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE HOUSE WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY DEPRIVED OF EVIDENCE BY A PRESIDENT WHO WISH TO CONCEAL IT.

IT SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT WHO WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM AN ACQUITTAL OR DISMISSAL IF THE TRIAL NOT VIEWED AS FAIR.

IF IT IS NOT VIEWED AS IMPARTIAL.

AND FAIR TO SENATORS WHO ARE TASKED WITH THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING WHETHER TO CONVICT OR ACQUIT AND SHOULD DO SO WITH THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF THE FACTS.

AND FAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO DESERVE THE FULL TRUTH AND WHO DESERVE REPRESENTATIVES WHO WILL SEEK IT ON THEIR BEHALF.

WITH THAT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. SEKULOW YOU HAVE 57 MINUTES AVAILABLE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, LEADER MK CONNELL AND IT'S MY PLEASURE TO REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE CHAMBER.

MR. SCHUMER SAID THE EYES ARE ON THIS CHAMBER AND IT'S THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT GOVERNS THESE PROCEEDINGS.

WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM MEMBER SCHIFF, COURTS HAVE NO ROLE-PRIVILEGES DON'T APPLY, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST WE SHOULD JUST IGNORE.

IN FACT, TRYING TO SUMMARIZE MY COLLEAGUE'S DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT HE SAID NOT IN THOSE WORDS OF COURSE, WHICH IS NOT LXX!

PUT WORDS INTO TRANSCRIPTS THAT DID NOT EXIST.

MR. SCHIFF ALSO TALKED ABOUT A TRIFECTA.

I'LL GIVE YOU A TRIFECTA.

DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.

THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO ACCESS EVIDENCE.

AND THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT AT HEARINGS.

THAT'S A TRIFECTA.

A TRIFECTA THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

MR. SCHIFF IS SAYING THE COURTS DON'T REALLY HAVE A ROLE IN THIS.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, WHY WOULD THAT MATTER?

BECAUSE IT'S BASED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

ONE MANAGER SAID IT IS YOU THAT ARE ON TRIAL, THE SENATE.

HE ALSO SAID AND OTHERS DID THAT YOU'RE NOT CAPABLE OF ABIDE BIG YOUR OATH.

THEN WE HAD THE INVOCATION OF THE GHOST OF THE MUELLER REPORT.

I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THAT REPORT.

IT CAME UP EMPTY ON THE ISSUE OF COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA.

THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION.

IN FACT THE MUELLER REPORT TO THE CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MANAGERS SAY TODAY.

I IT CAME TO THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS OF WHAT THEY SAY.

LET ME QUOTE FROM THE HOW MUCH IMPEACHMENT REPORT AT PAGE 16.

THOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS IN TIMED INVOKED THE NOTION OF DUE PROFS AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL.

WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH DUE PROCESS.

BECAUSE DUE PROCESS DEMANDS AND THE CONTINUATION REQUIRES THAT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS WORRYING A LOT OF ABOUT DUE PROCESS, DUE PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PERSON ACCUSED.

WHEN THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION FAILED IT EVOLVED INTO UKRAINE.

A QUID PRO QUO.

WHEN THAT DIDN'T PROVE OUT IT WAS BRIBERY OR EXTORTION OR A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE SAID TREASON.

INSTEAD WE GET TWO ARTICLES OF I AM -- IMPEACHMENT ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND ABUSE OF POWER.

MEMBERS, MANAGERS, RIGHT HERE MANY SAID CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES HAVE NO PLACE IN THESE PROCEEDING.

JUNE 28, 2012 ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER WAS THE FIRST ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE HELD IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CONTEMPT.

WHY?

BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEEDINGS MANAGER SCHIFF SAID THE ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE HAS RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR ADVISORS TO RECEIVE CANDID ADVICE AND INFORMATION FROM THEIR TOP AIDES.

INDEED THAT'S CORRECT.

NOT BECAUSE MANAGER SCHIFF SAID IT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT.

HE SAID THE ABILITY TO HOLD HIM IN CONTEMPT FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND CALLED IT LITTLE MORE THAN A WITCH HUNT.

WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH HERE?

WHY ARE WE HERE?

ARE WE HERE BECAUSE OF A PHONE CALL OR BECAUSE OF THE GREAT BODY BECAUSE SINCE THE PRESIDENT WAS SWORN IN TO OFFICE, THERE WAS A DESIRE TO SEE HIM REMOVED.

I REMEMBER IN THE MUELLER REPORT THERE WERE DISCUSSION REMEMBER, INSURANCE POLICIES.

INSURANCE POLICY DIDN'T WORK OUT SO WELL SO THEN WE MOVEMENT TO OTHER INVESTIGATIONS.

I GUESS YOU'D CALL IT RE-INSURANCE OR AN UMBRELLA POLICY AND THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT SO WELL.

AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.

MANAGER SCHIFF QUOTED THE SUPREME COURT AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO AND IT WAS CHIEF JUSTICE RANQUIST WHO WROTE O UNITED STATES VERSUS RUSSELL IN 1973, THESE THE WORDS, WE MAY SOME DAY BE PRESENTED WITH A SITUATION WHERE THE CONDUCT IS SO OUTRAGEOUS THERE MAY BE BLOCKING OF PRIVILEGE.

THAT DAY IS TODAY.

THAT DAY WAS A YEAR AGO.

THAT DAY WAS IN JULY.

SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER TESTIFIED.

I AM NOT TODAY GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW AND I WILL DO IT LATER, AND THE PATTERN AND PRACTICES OF IRREGULARITY HAVE GONE ON FROM THE OUTSET.

BUT TO SAY THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE THE RUSH TO IMPEACHMENT TO NOT WAIT FOR A DECISION FROM A COURT ON AN ISSUE AS IMPORTANT AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AS IF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HASN'T BEEN UTILIZED BY PRESIDENTS SENSE OUR FOUNDING.

THIS IS NOT SOME NEW CONCEPT.

WE DON'T WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND THERE'S A REASON WE KEEP EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND ASSERT IT WHEN NECESSARY AND THAT IS TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

THE PRESIDENT'S OPPONENTS AND THEIR RUSH TO IMPEACHMENT HAVE REFUSED TO WAIT FOR COMPLETE JUDICIAL REVIEW.

THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE.

SPEAKER PELOSI SAID WE CANNOT BE AT THE MERCY OF THE COURTS.

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.

WE CANNOT BE AT THE MERCY OF THE COURTS.

AND REMOVE IT.?

WE'RE ACTING AS IF THE COURTS ARE NOT TO DETERMINE ISSUES OF THIS MAGNITUDE?

THAT IS WHY WE HAVE COURTS.

THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

IT WAS INTERESTING WHEN PROFESSOR TURLY TESTIFIED AND SAID WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

IF YOU IMPEACHMENT A PRESIDENT AND MAKE A HIGH CRIME OF GOING TO COURTS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

A LOT OF MORE THAN THAT.

THERE'S A LOT MORE THAN ABUSE OF POWER IF YOU SAY THE COURTS DON'T APPLY.

CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES DON'T APPLY.

START WITH A CLEAN SLATE AS IF NOTHING'S HAPPENED.

A LOT OF HAS HAPPENED.

AS WE PROCEED IN THE DAYS AHEAD WE WILL LAY OUT OUR CASE.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT FORWARD TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE CONSTITUTION'S SAKE OF WHAT'S TAKEN PLACE HERE.

IF THIS IDEA THAT WE SHOULD IGNORE WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS IS OUTRAGEOUS.

WE BELIEVE WHAT SENATOR McCONNELL PUT FORWARD PROVIDES DUE PROCESS ALLOWS THE PROCEEDINGS TO MOVE FORWARD IN AN ORDERLY FASHION.

33 DAYS THEY HELD ON TO THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES.

33 DAYS.

THERE WAS SUCH A RUSH OF NATIONAL SECURITY TO IMPEACHMENT THIS PRESIDENT BEFORE CHRISTMAS THEY THEN HELD THEM 33 DAYS.

TO DO WHAT?

TO ACT AS IF THEY NEGOTIATE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD NEGOTIATE THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

THEY DIDN'T HIDE THIS.

THIS WAS THE EXPRESS PURPOSE.

THIS WAS THE REASON THEY DID IT.

WE'RE REPAIRED TO PROCEED.

MAJORITY LEADER, DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY LEADER WE'RE PREPARED TO PROCEED.

I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.

>> MR. CIPOLLONE.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE ADDITIONAL POINTS.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SIT THERE AND LISTEN TO MR. SCHIFF TELL THE TALE THAT HE JUST TOLD.

LET'S REMEMBER HOW WE ALL GOT HERE.

THEY MADE FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT A TELEPHONE CALL.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DECLASSIFIED THAT TELEPHONE CALL AND RELEASED IT TO THE PUBLIC.

HOW'S THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY?

WHEN MR. SCHIFF FOUND OUT THERE WAS NOTHING TO HIS ALLEGATIONS HE FOCUSSED ON THE SECOND TELEPHONE CALL.

HE MADE FALSE AND HIS COLLEAGUES MADE FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE SECOND TELEPHONE CALL THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE ONE HE HAD DEMANDED.

SO THEaj PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DE CLASSIFIED AND RELEASED THAT TELEPHONE CALL.

STILL NOTHING.

AGAIN, COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY IN A WAY THAT FRANKLY I'M UNFAMILIAR WITH ANY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RELEASING A CLASSIFIED TELEPHONE CALL WITH A FOREIGN LEADER.

WHEN MR. SCHIFF SAW HIS ALLEGATION FALSE, AND HE KNEW IT ANYWAY, WHAT DID HE DO?

HE WENT TO THE HOUSE.

HE MANUFACTURED A FRAUDULENT VERSION OF THAT CALL.

HE MANUFACTURED A FALSE VERSION OF THAT CALL.

HE READ IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND DIDN'T TELL THEM IT WAS A COMPLETE FAKE.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT DUE PROCESS?

I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT DUE PROCESS, NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY HAS A PRESIDENT BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS KIND OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE.

MR. NADLER TOLD HIS COLLEAGUES WHEN HE TOOK OVER THE HOUSE HE WAS REALLY GOOD AT IMPEACHMENT.

BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE PROCEEDINGS TOOK PLACE IN A BASEMENT OF THE HOUSE.

THE -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE PRESIDENT WAS FOREBIDDEN FROM ATTENDING AND HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT.

IN EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN GIVEN A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF DUE PROCESS.

NOTHING HERE.

INFORMATION WAS LEAKED OUT.

WITNESSES WERE THREATENED.

GOOD PUBLIC SERVANTS WERE TOLD THEY'D BE HELD IN CONTEMPT.

THEY WERE TOLD THEY WERE OBSTRUCTING.

WHAT DOES MR. SCHIFF MEAN BY OBSTRUCTING?

HE MEANS UNLESS YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS REGARDLESS OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THEN YOU'RE OBSTRUCTING.

THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES.

BY THE WAY, THERE'S STILL EVIDENCE WE HAVEN'T BEEN ALLOWED TO SEE.

I WONDER WHY.

NO WITNESSES.

LET'S THINK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE, THEY HELD THESE ARTICLES FOR 33 DAYS.

WE HEAR ALL THIS TALK ABOUT AN OVERWHELMING CASE.

AN OVERWHELMING CASE THEY'RE NOT EVEN PREPARED TODAY TO STAND UP AND MAKE AN OPENING ARGUMENT ABOUT.

THEY HAVE NO CHARGE AND THESE ARE DANGEROUS TO OUR REPUBLIC AND WHY?

FIRST OF ALL, THE NOTION THAT INVOKING YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT'S BEEN DONE BY JUST ABOUT EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON.

THAT THAT IS OBSTRUCTION.

THAT IS OUR PATRIOTIC DUTY, MR. SCHIFF.

PARTICULARLY WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A WHOLESALE TRAMPLING OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS I'M UNFAMILIAR WITH IN THIS COUNTRY.

FRANKLY IT'S THE KIND OF THINK OUR STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD CRITICIZE IF WE SEE IT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT AND MR. SCHIFF SAID HAVE I GOT A DEAL FOR YOU.

ABANDON ALL YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FORGET ABOUT YOUR LAWYERS AND COME IN AND DO EXACTLY WHAT I SAY.

NO THANK YOU.

THEN HE HAS THE TEMERITY TO COME INTO THE SENATE AND SAY, WE HAVE NO USE FOR COURTS.

IT'S OUTRAGEOUS.

LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER STORY.

THERE'S A MAN NAMED CHARLIE CUPPERMAN.

THE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.

HE'S THE NUMBER TWO TO JOHN BOLTON.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, MR. SCHIFF WANTS YOU TO FORGET BUT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER HOW WE GOT HERE.

THEY THREATENED HIM.

THEY SENT HIM A SUBPOENA.

MR. CUPPERMAN DID WHAT ANY AMERICAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO.

USED TO BE ALLOWED TO DO.

HE WAS FORCED TO GET A LAWYER AND PAY FOR THAT LAWYER AND HE WENT TO COURT.

MR. SCHIFF DOESN'T LIKE COURTS.

HE SAID JUDGE, TELL ME WHAT TO DO.

I HAVE OBLIGATIONS THAT FRANKLY RISE WITH THE SUPREME COURT HAS CALLED THE APEX OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THE AREA OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND THEN I HAVE A SUBPOENA FROM MR. SCHIFF.

WHAT DO I DO?

YOU KNOW WHAT MR. SCHIFF DID?

MR. CUPPERMAN WENT TO THE JUDGE AND THE HOUSE SAID, NEVER MIND, WE WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA.

WE PROMISE NOT TO ISSUE IT AGAIN.

THEN THEY COME HERE AND ASK YOU TO DO THE WORK THEY REFUSE TO DO FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY ASK YOU TO TRAMPLE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

NOW, WOULD THEY EVER SUGGEST THAT THE EXECUTIVE CAN DETERMINE ON ITS OWN WHAT THE PEACH OF THE DAY CLAUSE MEANS?

OF COURSE NOT.

WOULD THEY SUGGEST THE HOUSE COULD INVADE THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?

I HOPE NOT.

BUT THEY COME HERE AND ASK YOU TO DO WHAT THEY REFUSE TO DO FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY HAD A COURT DATE AND WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA AND EVADED A DECISION AND ASKING TO YOU BECOME COMPLICIT IN THAT EVASION OF COURTS AND IT'S RIDICULOUS AND WE SHOULD CALL IT OUT FOR WHAT IT IS.

OBSTRUCTION FOR GOING TO COURT?

IT'S AN ACT OF PATRIOTISM TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT.

IF THEY CAN DO IT TO THE PRESIDENT, THEY CAN DO IT TO ANY OF YOU AND DO IT TO ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THAT'S WRONG.

AND LAWRENCE TRIBE WHO'S BEEN ADVISING THEM, I GUESS HE DIDN'T TELL YOU IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT HE SAID IT'S DANGEROUS TO SUGGEST INVOKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS IMPEACHABLE.

IT'S DANGEROUS.

YOU KNOW WHAT, IT IS DANGEROUS, MR. SCHIFF.

WHAT WHERE HE DOING HERE?

WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT LOCKED THE PRESIDENT OUT AND BY THE WAY, WILL MR. SCHIFF GIVE DOCUMENTS?

WE ASKED HIM FOR DOCUMENTS WHEN CONTRARY TO HIS PRIOR STATEMENTS IT TURNED OUT HIS STAFF WAS WORKING WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

WE SAID LET US SEE THE DOCUMENTS.

RELEASE THEM TO THE PUBLIC.

WE'RE STILL WAITING.

SO THE IDEA THAT THEY WOULD COME HERE AND LECTURE THE SENATE BY THE WAY, DID YOU REALIZE MR. NADLER'S ON TRIAL.

EVERYBODY'S ON TRIAL EXCEPT FOR THEM.

IT'S RIDICULOUS.

THEY SAID WE HAVE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND THEY'RE AFRAID TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

THINK ABOUT IT.

IT'S COMMON SENSE.

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THEN THEY COME ON THE FIRST DAY AND SAY WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, IF I SHOWED UP IN ANY COURT IN THIS COUNTRY AND I SAID, JUDGE, MY CASE IS OVERWHELMING BUT I'M NOT READY TO GO YET.

I NEED MORE EVIDENCE BEFORE I CAN MAKE MY CASE.

I WOULD GET THROWN OUT IN TWO SECONDS AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE.

IT'S TOO MUCH ALMOST, THE HYPOCRISY OF THE WHOLE THING.

AND WHAT ARE THE STAKES?

THERE'S AN ELECTION IN ALMOST NINE MONTHS.

MONTHS FROM NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ELECTION.

SENATORS IN THIS BODY THE LAST TIME HAD VERY WISE WORDS.

THEY ECHOED THE WORDS OF OUR FOUNDERS FOUNDERS BIPARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IS LIKE STEALING AN ELECTION.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE.

TALK WITH THE FRAMERS' WORSE NIGHTMARE.

IT'S A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THEY DELIVERED TO YOUR DOOR STEP IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

SOME ARE UPSET BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE IN IOWA RIGHT NOW AND INSTEAD WE'RE HERE AND THEY'RE NOT READY TO GO AND IT'S OUTRAGEOUS.

IT'S OUTRAGEOUS.

AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T STAND FOR IT, I'LL TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW.

THEY'RE NOT HERE TO STEEL ONE ELECTION, THEY'RE HERE TO STEAL TWO ELECTIONS.

IT'S BURIED IN THEIR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY WANT TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT.

THEY WON'T TELL YOU THAT.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY IT DIRECTLY BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE HERE TO DO.

THEY'RE ASKING THE SENATE TO ATTACK ONE OF THE MOST SACRED RIGHTS WE HAVE AS AMERICANS.

THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE OUR PRESIDENT.

IN AN ELECTION YEAR IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE AND SHUNT BE.

THE REASON IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE IS BECAUSE NO ONE EVER THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR OUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN TO TRY TO ROW -- REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM A BALLOT.

TO DENY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

BASED ON A FRAUDULENT INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED IN SECRET WITH NO RIGHTS.

I CAN GO ON AND ON BUT MY POINTS IS VERY SIMPLE.

IT'S LONG PAST TIME WE START THIS SO WE CAN END THIS RIDICULOUS CHARADE AND GO HAVE AN ELECTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> DOES THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL YIELD BACK THE REMAINDER OF THEIR TIME?

THANK YOU.

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

I SENT AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND ASK IT BE READ.

>> THE CLERK WILL READ THE DOCUMENT.

>> >> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER PROPOSES AMENDMENT 1284 AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE RESOLVING CLAUS SECTION NO WITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULES 5 AND 6 OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS ONE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE WHITE HOUSE COMMANDING HIM TO PRODUCE FOR THE TIME PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 20109 TO THE PRESENT ALL DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION, CONSULT DID I OR CONTROL OF THE WHITE HOUSE INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL REFERRING OR RELATING TO A, ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE INCLUDING DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS RELATED TO THE SCHEDULING OF, PREPARATION FOR AND FOLLOW-UP FROM THE PRESIDENT'S APRIL 21 AND JULY 25, 2019 TELEPHONE CALLS AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN NEW YORK.

B, ALL INVESTIGATIONS, INQUIRIES OR OTHER PROBES RELATING TO UKRAINE INCLUDING ANY THAT RELATE IN ANY WAY TO ONE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN, TWO, HUNTER BIDEN AND ANY OF HIS ASSOCIATES, THREE, BURISMA HOLDINGS HOLDINGS LIMITED, FOUR, INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINE IN THE 2016 UNITED STATES ELECTION.

FIVE, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE OR SIX CROWD STRIKE.

C, THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, HOLDING, DELAYING, FREEZING OF INTERFERENCE ASSISTANCE OR ANY KIND TO UKRAINE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE UKRAINE INITIATIVE USAI AND FINANCING FMF.

D, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, NOTES AND OTHER RECORDS CREATED OR RECEIVED BY ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, THEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN R. BOLTON AND ROBERT B. BLAIR AND OTHER OFFICIALS RELATING TO EFFORTS TO ONE SOLICIT REQUEST, DEMAND, INDUCE, PERSUADE OR COERCE UKRAINE TO CONDUCT OR ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS.

TWO, OFFER SCHEDULE, CAN SELL OR WITHHOLD A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT OR THREE, HOLD AND THEN RELEASE MILITARY AND OTHER SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

E, MEETINGS AT OR INVOLVING THE WHITE HOUSE RELATED TO UKRAINE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ONE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION ON MAY 20, 2019 IN KIEV AND PRESIDENT'S TRUMP DECISION NOT TO ATTEND AND ASK VICE PRESIDENT PENCE TO ATTEND AND DIRECTING HIM NOT TO ATTEND AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE DELEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

TWO, A MEETING OF THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND MAY 23, 2019 INVOLVING AMONG OTHERS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THEN SPECIAL REPRESENT FOR UKRAINE AMBASSADOR VOELKER AND ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY AND UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION GORDON SUNDLAND AND THREE, MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR ABOUT JULY 10, 2019 INVOLVING UKRAINEE OFFICIALS YERMAK AND OFFICIALS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON AND SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOELKER AND SUNLAND AND SUBSEQUENT MEETING IN THE WARD ROOM.

FOUR, A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND AUGUST 30, 2019 INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MIKE POMPEO AND MARK ESPER.

A MEETING LATER CANCELED IN POLAND BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND A MEETING SCHEDULED INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND MR. MULVANEY CONSIDERING THE LIFTING OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE.

F, MEETINGS TELEPHONE CALLS RELATING TO ANY OCCASIONS WHERE THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL REPORTED CONCERNS TO NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL LAWYERS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL LEGAL ADVISER JOHN EISENBERG RELATING TO MATTERS RELATED TO UKRAINE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DECISION TO DELAY MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRAINE, THE JULY 10, 2019 MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

THREE, THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25, 2019 CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

FOUR, A SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SUNLAND AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL AND FIVE, THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 7, 2019 CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SUNLAND.

G, ANY INTERNAL REVIEW OR ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE REGARDING UKRAINE MATTERS FOLLOWING THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS COLLECTED THAT PERTAIN TO THE HOLD ON MILITARY AND OTHER SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, THE SCHEDULING OF THE WHITE HOUSE MEET FORG -- MEETING FOR THE UKRAINE AND INVESTIGATIONS BY UKRAINE.

H, THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY A WHISTLEBLOWER ON AR AUGUST 12 TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUTE AND I, REQUESTS FOR OR RECORDINGS OF MEETINGS OR TELEPHONE CALLS SCHEDULING ITEMS CALENDAR ENTRIES, WHITE HOUSE VISITOR RECORDS AND E-MAIL OR TEXT MESSAGES USING PERSONAL OR WORK-RELATED DEVICES BETWEEN OR AMONG, ONE, CURRENT OR FORMER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND TWO, RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI AND AMBASSADOR SUNDLAND, AND J, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE YOVANOVITCH INCLUDING THE DECISION TO END HER TOUR OR RECALL HER THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN KIEV AND TWO THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS IS AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS OR ANY OTHER OTHER EMPLOYEE IN SERVING THE SUBPOENA TO BE AUTHORIZED BY THIS SECTION.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I'LL ASK FOR A BRIEF 15-MINUTE RECESS BEFORE THE PARTIES ARE RECOGNIZED TO DEBATE THE SCHUMER AMENDMENT.

THEREFORE I ASK TO RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR.

>> OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

>> AND THE SENATE TRIAL IS GAVELLED TO A RECESS.

YOU SAW THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS SAY FOR 15 MINUTES AT THE REQUEST OF THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH McCONNELL.

WE JUST HEARD THE CLERK OF THE SENATE READ A FAIRLY LENGTHY AMENDMENT.

THE LANGUAGE OF AN AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER, CHUCK SCHUMER ASKING FOR A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE RELATED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND ANYTHING AROUND THE PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES AT THE WHITE HOUSE RELATED TO UKRAINE.

JUST TO RE-INTRODUCE OUR DESK I'M GOING GO TO THE TABLE FIRST WHERE I'M HEARING FROM OUR PRODUCER, OUR DIRECTOR WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS SAY HELLO TO ALL OF YOU AGAIN.

ELIZABETH CHRYST ON MY RIGHT.

YOU WORKED IN THE SENATE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.

JOHN HEART ON MY LEFT AND MARTIN PAONE AS THE SENATE SECRETARY AND MARGARET TAYLOR WORKED IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

I WANT YOU ALL TO STAND BY BECAUSE I WANT TO TURN QUICKLY TO LISA DESJARDINS OUR WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT.

TO GET A SENSE FROM YOU, LISA, WHAT WE HAVE JUST SEEN.

BECAUSE EACH SIDE WAS GIVEN UP TO AN HOUR TO MAKE THE OPENING CASE FOR THEIR ARGUMENT GOING INTO THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

WE HEARD A QUICK OPENING BY THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS AND THEN ALMOST A FULL HOUR BY ADAM SCHIFF THE LEAD MANAGER FOR THE HOUSE.

THEN A REBUTTAL FROM TWO OF THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT.

THE WHITE HOUSE LEAD COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE AND JAY SEKULOW, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER.

A DIRECT AND CONTRASTING SET OF DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT THE TRIAL IS ALL ABOUT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THIS MIGHT SEEM A BIT NITPICKY BUT WHAT WE HEARD WERE THE OPENING ARGUMENTS ON THE RULES FOR THIS TRIAL.

THIS WILL SET UP THE OPENING GRANDPAS THE SUBSTANCE OF IT BUT TECHNICALLY IT WAS SUPPOSED ABOUT THE RULES AND IN LARGE PART IT WAS WE SAW MITCH McCONNELL AS LEADER SCHUMER PRESENTED HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RATHER LENGTHY ASKING FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS BASICALLY EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT'S CONTACTS WITH UKRAINE AND MEETINGS, PHONE CALLS, EVERYTHING.

IT'S CENTRAL TO THE DEMOCRATS CASE.

AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WEN THEY COME BACK.

IT WAS FASCINATING TO BE IN THE SENATE CHAMBER WHERE NO ONE IN THE CHAMBER HAD ANY COMMUNICATION DEVICE INCLUDING SENATORS.

ONLY PEN AND PAPER AND IN SOME CASES PENCIL AND PAPER AND YOU CAN SEE WHICH SENATORS WERE ALERT AND PAYING ATTENTION AND WHICH ONES WERE NOT.

IN FACT I SAW A FEW WHO SEEMED TO HAVE A LITTLE TROUBLE STAYING WEAK AT DIFFERENT POINTS.

FOR THE MOST PART YOU COULD SEE THERE WERE SENATORS PAYING VERY CLOSE ATTENTION.

THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AMY KLOBUCHAR AND THE PRESIDENT'S ALLIE WAS PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION.

IT'S A FASCINATING LOOK AT WHO PERHAPS IS GOING OVER THESE ARGUMENTS IN REAL TIME.

>> INTERESTING FOR US WHERE WE SIT AND WHY THE ONLINE AUDIENCE SEES IS THE INDIVIDUAL SPEAKING AND THE SENATE AND PRESIDING OFFICER WHO RIGHT NOW WE DON'T GET THE LOOK YOU AND THE OTHER REPORTERS DO BECAUSE YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE THE SENATE AND SENATORS AND WHETHER THEY'RE PAYING ATTENTION AND WHO'S TAKING NOTES AND WHO ISN'T.

WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU TO BE OUR EYES FROM THE SENATE CHAMBER.

YANISH THIS IS THE FIRST CHANCE TO HEAR FROM WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE MAKE THE PRESIDENT'S CASE AND COME OUT SWINGING.

WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN MR. CIPOLLONE IN PUBLIC BUT WE CAN SEE WHAT AN ADVOCATE HE IS FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT PAT CIPOLLONE AND JAY SEKELOW MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT IT'S ALL RIGGED.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE MAD THE PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE DEMOCRATS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT WHEN THEY SAY IT'S A RUSH BECAUSE FOR 33 DAYS THEY ARGUED NANCY PELOSI DID NOT SEND THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE SHE WAS TRYING TO DICTATE THE RULES OF THE SENATE.

THEY'RE ACCUSING NANCY PELOSI AND THE DEMOCRATS WORKING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT CHARGED WITH HOW HE GOT HERE.

IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE PAT CIPOLLONE SPEAK ONG THE SENATE FLOOR BECAUSE HOUSE MANGERS AND DEMOCRATS WILL MAKE THE ARGUMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED.

THEY WANT HIM TO RECUSE HIMSELF.

THEY SAID PAT CIPOLLONE IS A FACT WITNESS AND KNOWS A LOT OF DETAILS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ALLEGED MISBEHAVIOR AND THE PRESSURING OF UKRAINE TO GO AND INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN.

AT THE WHITE HOUSE, MARK WHO IS THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE WAS SPEAKING AS THIS WAS GOING ON AND SAYING IT WAS HIP PROTE CAL TO SAY DEMOCRATS -- HYPOCRITICAL SAYING THEY SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES AND ADAM SCHIFF AS THE LEAD IMPEACHMENT MANAGER ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE IS A FACT WITNESS AND WAS BASICALLY HAVING A BAD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WHISTLE BOSTON GLOBE.

THERE'S BEEN A REBOUND CHARGE RATHER THAN IF SCHIFF DID NOT HANDLE THE WHIL BLOWER COMPLAINT IN THE RIGHT WAY AND THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING AFTER REPRESENTATIVE SCHIFF SAYING HE SHOULD BE RECUSING HIMSELF.

THAT'S SOMETHING INTERESTING AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

SOMETHING OF NOTE IS BOTH LAWYERS SAID THEY WILL NOT TALK ABOUT THE LAST THREE YEARS.

THEY'RE TRYING TO BROADEN THIS OUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND NOT MAKE IT JUST ABOUT THE CHIEF CHARGES ABOUT UKRAINE BUT SAYING FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN DEALING WITH DEMOCRATS AND NOW BEING HAUNTED BY THE GHOST OF THE ROBERT MUELLER INVESTIGATION NOW HE WAS FOUND NOT TO HAVE COORDINATED WITH RUSSIA DEMOCRATS ARE MOVING TO ANOTHER CHARGE AND SAYING IT'S UNFAIR IN THEIR EYES.

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR KEEPING IN TOUCH AT WHICH HE -- AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT IS IT'S BEEN IN THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS A WITCH HUNT.

THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T WANT ME IN OFFICE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

KNIFE BEEN TRYING TO GET -- THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET RID OF ME FROM THE BEGINNING.

IT'S AN ARGUMENT USED TO DEFLECT THE SPECIFICS OF THE CASE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE.

>> YOU USE THE TERM DEFLECT WHICH IS WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING.

THEY'VE BEEN DEFLECTING AND PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THEIR FACTS.

SEKULO AND CIPOLLONE DID DO A JOB BUT THE REPUBLICANS WERE ALLOWED IN THE MEETINGS.

THEY TALKED ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYERS NOT INVITED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THE WHITE HOUSE TURNED DOWN THE INVITATION WHEN THEY HAD THE IMPEACHMENT HEARING.

THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB IN PRESENTING A STRONG FORCEFUL CASE BUT WHEN THE FACTS AREN'T ON YOUR SIDE YOU ARGUE PROCESS.

>> HOW DO YOU SIZE UP WHAT YOU HEARD THIS MORNING FROM ADAM SCHIFF WHO WAS SPEAKING FOR THE MANAGERS AND HOUSE ATTORNEY.

>> THEY'LL REHASH THE ARGUMENT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND I HOPE THE VIEWERS UNDERSTAND IT'S ABOUT AN ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENT.

IT'S 65 LINES LONG.

IT'S BARELY THREE PAGES.

IT REALLY IS ALMOST THE SAME AS THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENT.

THESE ARE NOT THE OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OR THE HOUSE COUNSEL.

THEY ARE ARGUING WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION.

I THINK THEY'RE BOTH GOING TO MAKE THE CASE AND EIGHT OFA LOT OF THE SAME OVER AND OVER AGAIN FROM SENATOR SCHUMER AND OTHERS JUST TO ADOPT THE ORGANIZATIONAL RESOLUTION THEN WE'D HEAR OPENING STATEMENTS OR ARGUMENTS FROM THE TWO COUNSELS AND QUESTIONS FROM QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATORS.

>> SO THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING?

>> IT COULD BE A LONG, LONG DAY.

>> IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ORGANIZING DOCUMENT AND THE RULES AND THE RULES GO TO THE VERY CRITICAL PIECES OF THE TRIAL.

ONE QUESTION IN MY MIND, MAR GET GET -- PAR MARGARET TAYLOR SAYING WE NEED THE EVIDENCE.

ARE THEY ARGUING THEIR CASE IS WEAK?

HOW DO THEY WALK THAT LINE?

>> IT'S SCHUMER OFFERING THE AMENDMENT TO GET SUBPOENAS AND SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

WE'LL PROBABLY SHORTLY SEE THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARGUE IN SUPPORT OF THAT AMENDMENT BUT SENATOR SCHUMER WASN'T INVOLVE AND HE SAID I WANT TO SEE MORE DOCUMENTS.

THESE ARE PRECISELY THE TYPES OF DOCUMENTS HOUSE DEMOCRATS SUBPOENAED DURING THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN THE HOUSE.

THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO PROVED DOCUMENTS AND YOU SEE A SENATOR SAYING I WANT TO SEE THEM.

ANOTHER ISSUE I THINK IS INTERESTING HERE IS THAT BOTH THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSELS HAVE MADE THE ARGUMENT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT ISSUE TO COURT.

THE ISSUE OF TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENT TO COURT.

THEY SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COURT PROCESS BEFORE COMPLETING THEIR IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

WHAT'S INTERESTING THOUGH IS THAT IN PROCEEDINGS OUTSIDE OF COURT IN RELATION TO McGAHN'S TESTIMONY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAID THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT.

IF BOTH ARE TRUE IT WOULD BE SITUATION WHERE THERE WOULDN'T BE A WAY TO COMPEL DOCUMENT EVIDENCE AND PROTECT WITNESS EVIDENCE FROM THE PRESIDENT.

>> IS THAT A CONTRADICTION.

THE WHITE HOUSE ARGUMENT IS YOU HAVEN'T GONE TO COURT TO TRY TO COMPEL THE COURTS.

>> JOHN HART WE HEARD LISA DESCRIBE THE REACTION.

SHE SAID THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION AND REPUBLICAN SENATORS KEEPING A CLOSE EYE TO SEE IF ANY ARE PREPARED TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.

SHE MENTIONED SUSAN COLLINS.

WHAT IS THE THINKING RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF WHETHER ANY OF THEM MAY BE WILLING TO PART WITH THEIR OWN PARTY'S LEADERSHIP AND ULTIMATELY ASK THE WITNESSES.

WITNESSES SHOULD BE CALLED.

>> WELL, MITT ROMNEY RELEASED A STATEMENT SAYING HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT WITNESSES UNTIL AFTER THE OPENING STATEMENT.

THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL HE SENT TO THE SENATE.

WHAT I WOULD LOOK FOR IS NOT JUST WHAT THE MODERATES MIGHT DO.

I THINK THE MODERATES CAN AFFECT THE PROCESS ON THE MARGINS.

THEY MAY BE ABLE TO PROLONG IT TO SOME EXTENT BUT WHAT IF A SENATOR LIKE BEN FAS AND DESCRIBED ADAM SCHIFF AS A CLOWN SHOW AND WHERE WILL HE BE IN THE PROCESS?

THAT WILL BE TELLING.

IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST TIME THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY HAVE STARTED TO DEFEND THEIR POSITION.

IT IS A PROCEDURAL QUESTION BUT THEY'VE BEGUN TO PREVIEW THE ARGUMENTS WE'LL BE HEARING THE NEXT FEW DAYS.

>> ARE YOU SUGGESTING SOME OF THE SENATORS WHO THE WHITE HOUSE HAS COUNTED ON MAY BE RETHINKING WHERE THEY ARE?

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THEY'RE RETHINK AT THIS POINT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THRESHOLD HAS BEEN CROSSED.

THE DOOR HAS NOT BEEN SLAMMED SHUT.

IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN.

>> YOU SAID SMALL CHANGE MARTIN PAONE WHEREIN WE WERE TOLD FROM LAST NIGHT THAT HE WAS ASKING FOR THE TRIAL OR THE OPENING DISCUSSION OF THE RULES ON ARGUMENTS 12 HOURS A DAY AND THAT WAS CHANGED.

WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT?

>> SENATOR SCHUMER'S ARGUMENT THAT A LOT OF THE DEBATE WOULD BE HAPPENING IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT, EARLY IN THE MORNING MAY HAVE RUNG TRUE AMONG SOME OF HIS COLLEAGUES SAYING THEY NEED TO DO IT OVER A THREE-DAY SPAN.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO SIT THERE FOR 12 HOURS AT A CRACK.

AND THEY MADE THE CHANGE ALLOWING THE HOUSE TO PUT THEIR GOVERNANCE INTO THE RECORD.

>> WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE.

>> IT'S AN IMPORTANT CHANGE.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING YET AS TO WHY HE WAS GENEROUS IN THAT RESPECT BUT I IMAGINE YOU HEARD FROM A COUPLE FOLKS ON HIS SIDE THERE WAS NO NEED TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING SINCE THE MATERIAL IS OUT THERE THE HOUSE SIDE.

>> LET'S GO TO LISA DESJARDINS.

HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO GET THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON WHY THE CHANGE BY LEADER McCONNELL.

>> SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS OF MAINE AND OTHERS PUSHED BACK AGAINST LEADER McCONNELL OVERNIGHT AND THIS MORNING AND SAID THEY FELT THE IDEA OF 24 HOURS ACROSS TWO DAYS, 12-HOUR SESSIONS WAS NOT GOING TO MAKE THIS A MORE FAIR TRIAL.

THEY ALSO PUSHED BACK AGAINST THE McCONNELL BLOCK AGAINST ALLOWING ALL THE HOUSE EVIDENCE TO GO INTO THE RECORD.

THEY ALSO FELT THAT WAS A PROBLEM.

SUSAN KOLCOLLINS IT SEEMS IS TIGRYING TO MAKE THIS AS CLOSE TO THE CLINTON RESOLUTION AS POSSIBLE AND SOMETHING YOU AND YOUR GUEST ARE TALKING ABOUT AND THOSE WERE THE TWO BIGGEST CHANGES FROM THE CLINTON RESOLUTION AND SENATOR McCONNELL TOOK THEM OUT IN THE LAST MINUTE LEADING UP TO THE RESOLUTION BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES FROM HIS OWN SIDE OR WAS GOING TO LOSE SOME AND THAT'S NOT HOW YOU WANT TO BEGIN LOSING SOME OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND THAT PRESSURE WAS ENOUGH TO FORCE SENATOR McCONNELL TO CHANGE THE RESOLUTION AND IT'S A BIG STRATEGIC BATTLE OVER HOW THE SENATE PLAYS OUT.

THERE ARE NOT MANY RULES AND WHEN DURING THE DAY THE TRIAL WILL OCCUR SHOWS THE POLITICS OF HOW McCONNELL IS WORKING WITH HIS OWN SENATE REPUBLICANS AND HOW MUCH THEY'RE WILLING TO PUSHBACK AS HE'S TRYING TO CREATE A TRIAL MOST BENEFICIAL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND WHEN THEY PUSH BACK AND WHEN.

THIS IS WHERE THEY FELT HE'D GONE TOO FAR.

>> LISA DESJARDINS WITH HIR REPORTING AT THE CAPITAL.

ELIZABETH CHRYST DOES IT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING HE WAS READY TO DO AND THERE MAY BE KRIS -- CRITICISM OR SOMETHING HE WAS PUSHED TO DO.

>> I WOULD GUESS IT WAS SOMETHING HE WAS HALFWAY PLANNING.

THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT DIDN'T SAY IF IT WOULD BE A TWO-DAY OR THREE-DAY OR FOUR-DAY PERIOD.

WE WERE SORT OF FIGURING HOW LONG THE SENATORS WOULD BE COMFORTABLE SITTING IN THE CHAIRS AND LISTENING.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A BIG ISSUE IN OTHER WORDS.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS AND THAT IS THAT THE EVIDENCE RATHER THAN TAKING A VOTE, WHICH WAS CONTROVERSIAL.

THE DEMOCRATS JUMPED ON THAT AS SOON AS THEY HEARD ABOUT IT.

WHAT ABOUT THAT PIECE?

>> THEY CAN STILL HAVE THAT VOTE FOR MORE EVIDENCE.

THIS CREATE THE BEGINNINGS PART OF THE EVIDENCE.

THE BASE OF THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE HOUSE HAS ALREADY DONE.

>> WHICH IT HAD BEEN THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE A VOTE EVEN TO ENTER THAT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THIS ALLOWS THAT TO BE JUST THE BASE.

WE'LL SEE IF THEY ALLOW MORE OF THAT.

>> JOHN HART, WHAT ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF LEADER McCONNELL BE SHARED TO SHOW EARLY ON.

>> THAT'S PROBABLY UNKNOWABLE.

THAT MAY WE WILL HAVE BEEN PREBAKED.

HE NEEDED TO SHOW SENATOR COLLINS AND SHE NEEDED TO SHOW SHE ACHIEVED SOME MOVEMENT AND THAT ACCOMPLISHED THAT.

SOMETHING WE WERE DISCUSSING IS THERE MAY BE A MOVE AND A DESIRE TO HAVE A SHORT TRIAL TO GET BERNIE SANDERS BACK ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

MITT ROMNEY JOKED ABOUT THAT.

I THINK HE DID HALF NOT JOKING.

>> I HEARD A CONVERSATION WITH OTHERS.Y >> THEY'RE LESS THAN TWO WEEKS FROM THE IOWA CAUCUS AND HAVE THE IDEA WHO IS THE STRONGER CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATS AND KEEPING BERNIE SANDERS AND WE'RE IN THE POLITICS BUT THAT'S WHAT WASHINGTON IS.

>> AND JUST TO REITERATE, THIS IS A POLITICAL PROCESS.

THIS ISN'T A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN A COURT.

THIS IS DESIGNED TO BE A POLITICAL PROCESS LED BY POLITICAL LEADERS.

ON THAT NOTE THERE WAS ALSO TALK IN THE PRESS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO WRAP IT UP BEFORE THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.

IN SOME RESPECTS THERE'S A LOT OF PUSH AND PULL ON THE SCHEDULE WHICH I THINK IS WHY WE'RE SEEING SOME OF THIS ARGUMENTATION AROUND THE TIMING.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

IT IS THE IOWA CAUCUSES BUT IT'S ALSO THE STATE OF THE UNION SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY NIGHT FEBRUARY 4 RIGHT AFTER THE IOWA CAUCUS.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR I HEAR FOLKS AT THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE BEEN MAKING COMMENTS.

WHAT ARE YOU HEARING?

>> WE HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THE CHIEF OF STAFF FOR VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE.

AND MARK SHORT WAS ESSENTIALLY TAKING A SWING AT REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF SAYING HE HIMSELF SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE PROCESS.

HE'S SAYING THAT BECAUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET MR. CIPOLLONE TO RECUSE HIMSELF SAYING HE WAS TOO INVOLVED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PUSH TO GET UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HUNTER BIDEN AND THAT HE SHOULD BE RECUSING HIMSELF.

HE MR SHORT IS SAYING PEOPLE ARE READY FOR THIS TO BE CLOSED AND GET ALL THE PROBLEMATIC PEOPLE OUT OF THIS AND AT THE SAME TIME THE WHITE HOUSE IS SAYING PAT CIPOLLONE IS JUST GOING TO LEAD THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT.

WE SHOULD NOT EXPECT FOR PAT CIPOLLONE TO BE STEPPING DOWN AND GOING AFTER ADAM SCHIFF.

AND THE CHANGES WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AND WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT MITCH McCONNELL MADE THE CHANGES IN THE RESOLUTION IN THE LAST MINUTE.

THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE HAS CONCEDE THE FACT EVIDENCE FROM THE HOUSE IN THE DEPOSITIONS AND HEARINGS AND THAT WAS IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE SHARED WITH SENATORS AS THEY DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

IT'S SEEN AS A CONCESSION ON THE WHITE HOUSE END BUT I'VE BEEN TALKING TO SOME DEMOCRATIC AIDES WHO SAID MITCH McCONNELL IS MAKING IT HARD TO CALL WITNESSES THOUGH WHITE HOUSE AIDES SAY THEY EXPECT WITNESSES TO BE CALLED EVENTUALLY THERE'S SPINNING ON BOTH SIDES WITH DEMOCRATS SAYING WE'RE HAPPY WITH THE CHANGES AND MITCH McCONNELL WAS FORCED AND THINK IT'S BAD FOR THE WHITE HOUSE THEY'LL BE EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN THE SENATE TRIALS BUT THEY ALSO SAY MITCH McCONNELL STILL ISN'T PLAYING FAIRLY.

>> TO SAY THEY'RE SPINNING GOING ON ON BOTH SIDES IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT THOUGH THIS SAY -- IS A PROCESS OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION AS MARGARET TAYLOR SAID IT'S PLAYING OUT ON A POLITICAL LANDSCAPE HERE.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

MARTIN PAONE WE ARE LOOKING AT DOCUMENTS AND HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES OVERSEEING THE PROCESS.

HE IS RECOGNIZING MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM, THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO SPEAK.

YESTERDAY THE POLITICS PLAYS ON.

COMPARE THIS TO THE BILL CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

A DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> EVEN WHEN THEY GREED ON THE SECOND RESOLUTION ON HOW TO FINISH THE TRIAL, MR. DASCHLE AGREED HOW TO DISAGREE AND HE ASKED FOR A COUPLE AMENDMENTS AND WE ENDED UP VOTING ON THE RESOLUTION ITSELF THAT ENDED FEBRUARY 12 AND THAT WAS PASSED.

THINGS WENT MORE SMOOTHLY.

>> WE'LL GIVE YOU THE CREDIT.

>> WELL, THANK YOU.

BUT THE FACT IS THIS IS MUCH MORE HARD-EDGED POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE TO SAY THE LEAST.

THEY'RE STRONG HAVE A VOTE ON WHETHER TO EVEN CONSIDER TO ALLOW SUBPOENA OF WITNESSES.

AND THERE BE A VOTE ON SUBPOENAED WITNESSES.

THE TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND THIS IS DEFINITELY A FAR MORE POLARIZED EFFORT.

>> WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BACK DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL THAT SHOW THE TWO OF YOU.

VULE TO NELL WHERE -- YOU'LL HAVE TO TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE IN THE PICTURES.

MARTIN PAONE.

YOU ARE IN A COUPLE OF THEM AS WELL.

YOU SEE CHIEF JUSTICE AT THE TIME REHNQUIST PRESIDING OVER THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.

THERE YOU ARE IN THE WHITE SUIT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.

WE ARE ADHERING TO TRADITION.

THERE'S A LOT OF OF THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE CONSTITUTION HERE AND YET IT'S VERY POLITICAL AND AS EVERYBODY KNOWS MORE POLARIZED.

>> POLITICS WILL WIN THE DAY.

I HATE TO SAY THAT BUT IT IS.

THERE ARE POLITICAL CREATURES AND THERE'S A LOT OF AT STAKE AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A PUSH AND PULL APPARENTLY INTO THE OPENING HOURS FOR PROBABLY THE REST OF THE TRIAL.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SAYS ABOUT THE SENATE.

YOU WOULD HOPE THEY CAN GET ABOVE IT BUT THE SENATORS AND MEMBERS ARE HUMAN AND POLITICS IS POLITICS FOR THE DAY.

>> WE'RE REMINDING OUR AUDIENCE BY MY CLOCK WE'RE 25 MINUTES INTO WHAT WAS TO BE A 15-MINUTE RECESS.

THEY WERE GOING TO LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT BEFORE THEM AND THEN DISCUSS HOW THEY WERE GOING PROCEED.

WE'RE WATCHING THE SENATE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.

WE DON'T HAVE A VIDEO OF THEtX THEY TURNED OFF THE CAMERAS WHILE IN RECESS.

WE'LL GO BACK TO THE FLOOR AS SOON AS THE SENATE.

THIS IS A FEED WE'RE GETTING FROM THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL AND WE DON'T SEE WHAT'S GOING ON THE FLOOR.

LET ME COME BACK TO YOU, MARGARET TAYLOR IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TODAY'S DEBATE AND THEN THE VOTE OVER THE SHAPE OF THIS TRIAL GOING FORWARD.

WHY DOES IT MATTER SO MUCH WHAT THEY'RE DEBATING RIGHT NOW?

>> I THINK AS YOU SAID IT'S GOING TO SHAPE WHAT THE REST OF THE TRIAL ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE.

SOO -- SO IN THAT RESPECT IT'S NOT A PROCEDURAL BACK AND FORTH.

IT HAS A SUBSTANTIVE EFFECT WHICH IS WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WILL COME INTO THE TRIAL AND WHAT'S THE PROCESS LOOK LIKE AND ULTIMATELY THAT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON HOW PEOPLE FEEL HOW THEY CAST THEIR VOTE AND THAT PROCESS IS TRYING TO SHAPE WHAT THE PROCESS LOOKS LIKE TO THEIR FAVOR.

>> AND JOHN HART WE WERE DISCUSSING MINUTES AGO HOW THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, PAT CIPOLLONE WHO WE HAVEN'T SEEN IN PUBLIC.

HE'S AN EXPERIENCED TRIAL LOU -- LAWYER AND THE DRAMATIC FLAIR HE BROUGHT AND JAY SEKELOW AND WE KNEW MORE ABOUT HIM.

>> THEY FEEL THEY HAVE THE HIGH GROUND PROCEDURALLY -- >> I'M GOING INTERRUPT YOU BECAUSE WE'RE SUDDENLY BACK WITH NO WARNING.

HERE WE GO.

>> VERY WELL.

>> I WANTED TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS BECAME CONGEALED TO RESPOND TO MY COLLEAGUE'S ARGUMENT ON THE RESOLUTION AT LARGE.

FIRST, IT'S WORTH NOTING THEY SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION.

THEY SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION.

THEY MADE NO EFFORT TO DEFEND IT.

THEY MADE NO EFFORT TO CLAIM THAT THIS WAS LIKE THE SENATE TRIAL IN THE CLINTON PROCEEDINGS.

THEY MADE NO ARGUMENT THAT WELL, THIS IS DIFFERENT HERE BECAUSE OF THIS OR THAT.

THEY MADE NO ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT WHATSOEVER.

THEY MADE NO ARGUMENT THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO TRY THE CASE AND THEN CONSIDER DOCUMENTS.

THEY MADE NO ARGUMENT ABOUT WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A TRIAL WINCE NO WITNESSES -- WITH NO WITNESSES.

WHY?

IT'S NOT DEFENSIBLE.

NO TRIAL HAS BEEN CONDUCTED LIKE THAT AND THAT SHOULD BE THE MOST TELLING THING ABOUT COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT.

THEY HAD NO DEFENSE OF THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION THERE WAS NONE.

THEY COULDN'T DEFEND IT ON THE BASIS OF SENATE HISTORY OR ON THE BASIS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THEY COULDN'T DEFEND IT AT ALL SO WHAT DID THEY SAY?

FIRST THEY MADE THE REPRESENTATION THE HOUSE IS CLAIMING THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THAT'S NONSENSE.

NO ONE HERE HAS SUGGESTED THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BUT THE INTERESTING THING HERE IS THEY'VE NEVER CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

NOT ONCE.

DURING THE INVESTIGATION DID THEY EVER SAY A SINGLE DOCUMENT WAS PRIVILEGED OR A WITNESS HAD SOMETHING PRIVILEGE TO SAY.

EVEN NOW THEY HAVEN'T INVOKED IT.

WHY ONLY NOW AND IN THE HOUSE?

BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CLAIM PRIVILEGE AS THEY KNOW BECAUSE THEY'RE GOOD LAWYERS YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH DOCUMENT, WHICH LINE, WHICH CONVERSATION, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE TO DO THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO REVEAL THE EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT.

THAT'S WHY THEY MADE NO INVOCATION OF PRIVILEGE.

NOW THEY MAKE THE FURTHER 'HUUSQ'T THE HOUSE SHOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO PIECE AFTER THEY EXHAUST ALL LEGAL REMEDIES.

AS IF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOUL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT ASTERISK.

BUT ONLY AFTER IT GOES TO COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS AND ON DOWN AND THE SUPREME COURT AND REMANDED AND THEY GO BACK UP TO CHAIN AND TO SIX YEARS.

WHY DIDN'T THE FOUNDERS REQUIRE THE EXHAUSTION OF LEGAL REMEDIES?

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN THE COURTS.

WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT WHILE THESE LAWYERS FOR THE PRESIDENT ARE HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY SAYING THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO COURT, THEY ARE IN COURT SAYING, THE HOUSE MAY NOT GO TO COURT TO ENFORCE IT SO I KID YOU NOT, OTHER LAWYERS MAYBE NOT THE ONES AT THIS TABLE BUT OTHER LAWYERS FOR THE PRESIDENT ARE SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY'RE SAYING TODAY.

THEY'RE SAYING YOU CANNOT EP FORCE SUBPOENAS.

THEY BRING UP THE CASE INVOLVING CHARLES CUPPERMAN A DEPUTY TO JOHN BOLTON AND SAYS HE DID WHAT HE SHOULD DO IS GO TO COURT AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TOOK THE POSITION, HE CAN'T DO THAT.

SO THESE LAWYERS ARE SAYING HE SHOULD AND SOME ARE SAYING HE SHUNT.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

INTERESTINGLY WHAT DR. CUPPERMAN WENT TO COURT AND THEY APPLAUD HIM FOR DOING THAT, HIS BOSS, JOHN BOLTON NOW SAYS THERE'S NO NECESSITY FOR HIM TO GO TO COURT.

HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO IT.

HE'S WILLING TO COME AND TALK TO YOU.

HE'S WILLING TO COME AND TESTIFY AND TELL YOU WHAT HE KNOWS.

THE QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT TO HEAR IT?

DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FjO1 SOMEONE IN THE MEETINGS, SOMEONE WHO DESCRIBED WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID?

THIS DEAL BETWEEN MULVANEY AS A DEAL?

DO YOU KNOW WHY IT WAS EYE DRUG DEAL?

DO YOU WANT TO ASK HIM WHY IT WAS A DRUG DEAL?

DO YOU WANT TO ASK HIM WHY HE REPEATEDLY TOLD PEOPLE GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS.

YOU SHOULD WANT TO KNOW.

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW.

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW.

THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW.

CAN YOU REALLY LIVE UP TO THE OATH YOU'VE TAKEN TO BE IMPARTIAL AND NOT KNOW?

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN.

NOW, THEY ALSO MADE THE ARGUMENT YOU'LL HEAR MORE LATER ON FROM APPARENTLY PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND THEY HAD TO GO TO A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO REPUTABLE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT WOULD DO TA.

THE ONE THE REPUBLICANS CALLED IN THE HOUSE DID THE OPPOSITE AND HE'S NOT HERE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT.

THEY'LL SIDE WITH HIM FOR ONE THING AND NOT FOR THE OTHER.

THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT RELEASED TWO DOCUMENTS.

THE DOCUMENT ON THE JULY 25 CALL AND THE DOCUMENT ON THE APRIL 21 CALL.

LET'S FACE IT, HE WAS FORCED TO RELEASE THE RECORD OF THE JULY 25 CALL WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT WHEN A WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A COMPLAINT AND FORCED BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT.

DON'T GET CREDIT FOR TRANSPARENCY WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT.

AND ONCE MORE AND REVEALED IN THAT IS DAMNING.

THEY POINT TO THE OTHER RECORD APRIL 21 AND THAT'S A CONGRATULATORY CALL BUT WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT IT IS THE PRESIDENT WAS URGED ON THAT CALL TO BRING UP THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION.

INDEED IN THE READ OUT OF THAT CALL THE WHITE HOUSE MISLEADINGLY SAID HE DID.

BUT NOW THAT WE SEE THE RECORD WE SEE HE DIDN'T AND NO WITHSTANDING COUNSEL'S CLAIM THE PRESIDENT RAISED THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION IN HIS PHONE CALL, THE JULY 25 CALL AND THAT WORD DOESN'T APPEAR IN EITHER CONVERSATION AND WHY?

BECAUSE THE ONLY CORRUPTION HE CARED ABOUT WAS THE CORRUPTION HE COULD HELP BRING ABOUT.

NOW, MR. CIPOLLONE AND MR. SEKULOW MADE THE REPRESENTATION THAT REPUBLICANS WERE NOT EVEN ALLOWED IN THE DEPOSITIONS CONDUCTED IN THE HOUSE.

NOW, I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT MR. CIPOLLONE WASN'T ALOUD I'LL LEAVE IT TO HIM TO MAKE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OTHERS.

I WILL TELL YOU HE'S MISTAKEN.

EVERY REPUBLICAN ON THE THREE COMMITTEES WAS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEPOSITIONS AND MORE THAN THAT, THEY GOT THE SAME TIME WE DID.

YOU SHOW ME ANOTHER PROCEEDINGS OR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT OR OTHER THAT HAD THAT KIND OF ACCESS FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY.

THERE WERE DEPOSITIONS IN THE IMPEACHMENT AND THAT SAID THERE WAS A SECRET PROFS BUT THERE WERE THE SAME PROCESS IN THE OTHER IMPEACHMENTS AS WELL.

FINALLY, A COUPLE LAST POINTS.

THEY MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE TO BE PRESENT AND HAVE HIS COUNSEL PRESENT.

THAT IS ALSO JUST PLAIN WRONG.

JUST PLAIN WRONG.

I CAN SUGGEST THEY'RE DELIBERATELY MISLEADING YOU BUT IT'S JUST PLAIN WRONG.

WE'VE ALSO HEARD, MY FRIENDS, MAKE ATTACKS ON ME AND CHAIRMAN NADLER.

I WILL NOT RESPOND BUT THEY MAKE AN IMPORTANT POINT THOUGH IT'S NOT THE POINT I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE WHEN YOU HEAR THEM ATTACK THE HOUSE MANAGERS, WHAT YOU'RE REALLY HEARING IS WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S GET.

WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION AND HOW PATENTLY UNFAIR IT IS OR TALK ABOUT HOW TO PARDON THE EXPRESSION IT IS TO HAVE A TRIAL AND THEN ASK FOR WITNESSES AND ATTACK HOUSE MANAGERS BECAUSE MAYBE WE CAN DISTRACT YOU FOR A MOMENT FROM WHAT'S BEFORE YOU.

MAYBE IF WE ATTACK HOUSE MANAGERS YOU'LL BE THINKING ABOUT THEM INSTEAD OF THINKING WITH THE GUILT OF THE PRESIDENT.

YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT AND EVERY TIME YOU DO AND EVERY TIME YOU HEAR THEM ATTACKING HOUSE MANAGERS I WANT YOU TO ASK YOURSELVES, AWAY FROM WHAT ISSUE ARE THEY TRYING TO DISTRACT ME?

WHAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT CAME UP BEFORE ME?

WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO DEFLECT MY ATTENTION FROM?

WHY DON'T THEY HAVE A BETTER ARGUMENT TO MAKE ON THE MERITS?

FINALLY, MR. SEKULOW ASKS WHY ARE WE HERE?

I'LL TELL YOU WHY WE'RE HERE, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO COERCE AN ALLY AT WAR AND USE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID YOU APPROPRIATED AND WE APPROPRIATED TO DEFEND AN ALLY AND DEFEND OURSELVES BECAUSE IT'S OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AS WELL.

AND WHY?

TO FIGHT CORRUPTION?

THAT'S NONSENSE AND YOU KNOW IT.

THEY WITHHELD THE MONEY AND MEETING WITH HIM IN THE OVAL OFFICE, THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, BECAUSE HE WANTED TO COERCE UKRAINE INTO THE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS OPPONENT HE WAS TERRIFIED WOULD BEAT HIM IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

YOU WANT TO SAY THAT'S OKAY?

THE PRESIDENT HAS A RIGHT TO DO IT.

THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

DO YOU WANT TO SAY THAT'S OKAY?

THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT CAN COME INTO OFFICE AND DO THE SAME THING.

ARE WE PREPARED TO DO THAT?

WELL THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

I NOW YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE LAUGHLIN.

>> MILITARY CHIVE -- CHIEF JUSTICE WE STRONGLY SUPPORT CENTER SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT TO ENSURE A FAIR, LEGITIMATE TRIAL BASED ON A FULL EF DEN -- EVIDENTIARY RECORD AND IT CAN ASK FOR THE KEY EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT HAS IMPROPERLY BLOCKED.

SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT DOES JUST THAT AND AUTHORIZE AS A SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY TO THIS CASE FOR HIS SCHEME TO STRONG STRONG-ARM UKRAINE AND INTERFERE WITH THE 2020 ELECTION.

THE DOCUMENTS WILL REVEAL THE EXTENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE'S COORDINATION WITH THE PRESIDENT'S AGENTS SUCH AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI WHO PUSHED THE PRESIDENT'S SO-CALLED DRUG DEAL ON UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND THE DOCUMENTS WILL SHOW HOW KEY PLAYERS INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE SUCH AS THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY AND HIS DEPUTY, ROBERT BLAIR, HELPED SET UP THE DEAL BY EXECUTING THE FREEZE ON ALL MILITARY AID AND WITHHOLD PROMISED VISIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE RECORDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE OBJECTED TO THE SCHEME SUCH AS AMBASSADOR BOLT TON.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT IMPEACHMENT CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS WILL BE AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE DOCUMENTS, SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT SCHUMER'S TARGETS WOULD PROVIDE MORE CLARITY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME.

THIS PREVENTS THE PRESIDENT FROM HIDING EVIDENCE WHICH HE HAS PREVIOUSLY TRIED TO DO.

THE HOUSE SUBPOENAED THE DOCUMENTS.

BUT THE PRESIDENT COMPLETELY REJECTED THIS AND EVERY DOCUMENT REQUEST PR-D THE HOUSE.

AS POWERFUL AS OUR EVIDENCE IS.

MACH NO MISTAKE IT OVERWHELMING PROVES HIS GUILT, WE DID NOT RECEIVE A SEPG WILL DOCK YOU'LL FROM THE EXECUTIVE WRAPB MUCH AGENCY INCLUDING THE WHEAT HOUSE ITSELF.

RECENT REV LAYINGS FROM PRESS REPORTS, ADDITIONAL WITNESSES UNDERSCORE HOW RELEVANT THE DOCUMENT AND THERE WHY THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SO DESPERATE TO HIDE THEM AND HIS MISS CONDUCT FROM CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

A TRIAL WITHOUT ALL OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS NOT A FARE TRIAL.

IT WILL BE LONG FOR YOU SENATORS ACTING AS JUDGES TO BE DEPRAOEFBED OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE.

THE PRESIDENT'S OFFENSES, WHEN YOU JUDGE THESE MOST SERIOUS CHARGES.

IT'S ALSO UNFAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO OVERWHELMING BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD PRODUCE ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENT.

THIS IS USED IN ALL TRIALS FOR A SIMPLE REASON, AS THE STORY GOES THE DOCUMENTS DON'T LIE.

DOCUMENTS GIVE OBJECTIVE REAL-TIME INSIGHT INTO THE EVENTS UNDER INVESTIGATION.

THE NEED FOR SUCH EVIDENCE IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.

MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF SENATE PRACTICE MAKE CLEAR THAT DOCUMENTS ARE GENERALLY THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS HES.

THEY HAVE BEEN> WHAT THE DOCUMENTS WILL SAY.

WE SIMPLY WANT THE TRUTH, WHATEVER THE TRUTH MAYBE.

SO DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

SO SHOULD WE WERE IN THE TKHAEUPL BER REGARDLESS OF OUR PARTY AFFILIATION.

THERE ARE KEY REASONS THIS AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY.

WE WILL AGAIN BY WALKING THROUGH THE HISTORY AND PRECEDENCE OF SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.

I WILL LET YOU HO ABOUT THE HOUSES EFFORTS TO GET THE DOCUMENTS MET BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE CATEGORICAL COMMITMENT TO HIDE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AT ALL COSTS.

WE WILL ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC NEED FOR THESE SUBPOENAED WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENT.

I WILL TELL YOU WHY THE DOCUMENT ARE NEEDED THOU.

NOT AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, IN ORDER TO NOT SHOWER A FULL FARE TRIAL BASED ON A COMPLETE HE HAD DIDN'TERY RECORD.

POW SOME HAVE SUGGESTED NOT COMERLY THE SENATE IS LIMITED ONLY TO EVIDENCE GATHERED BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROVED IT'S ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

OTHERS HAVE SUGGESTED ALSO UNCORRECTLY THAT IT WOULD BE STRANGE FOR THE SENATE TO ISSUE SUB PONE AS.

THESE CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT ANY HISTORICAL, PRESIDENTIAL, OR LEGAL SUPPORT.

OVER THE PAST TWO CENTURIES THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT'S SOLE POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS REQUIRES THE SENATE TO SIT AS A COURT OF I AM PATCHMENT AND HOLD A TRIAL.

IN FACT THE FOUNDERS ASSIGNED SOLE AUTHORITY ONLY TWICE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

FIRST GIVING THE HOUSE FULL AUTHORITY TO IMPEACH AND SECOND GIVING THE SENATE SOLE AUTHORITY TO TRY THAT YOU MEAN PEACHMENT.

IF THE FOUNDERS INTENDED FOR THE SENATE TO BE A PELLET BODY THEY WOULD OF SAID.

THAT INSTEAD THEY WROTE THIS.

ARTICLE ONE, SECTION 1.

THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POW ARE TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS.

THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS RECEIVED RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN YOU MEAN PEACHMENT TRIALS AND INDEED THE SENATE'S OWN RULES AND PROCEDURES MAKE CLEAR THAT NEW EVIDENCE WILL BE CONSIDERED.

PRECEDENCE SHOWS THIS ALL 15 FULL SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS CONSIDERED NEW EVIDENCE.

LET'S LOOK AT A FEW EXAMPLES SHOWING THE SENATE TAKES NEW EVIDENCE IN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.

THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN 1863 AGAINST PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON ALLOWED MANAGERS TO SPEND THE TP-RS TWO DAYS EN TREE DEUCING NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

IT WAS THE SAME IN JOHN PICKERRING'S TRIAL IN 106 1804.

NEW DOCUMENTS WERE PRESENTED ALMOST A WEEK AHEAD.

AND AS MENTIONED EARLIER BY MR. SCHIFF IN MODERN TIMES, 2010, JUDGE PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL HAD 7 MONTHS OF PRETRIAL DISCOVERY AND 1000 PAUPBLGZ OF DOCUMENTARY AFTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED THE SENATE HELD THE TRIAL.

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE DIDN'T HOLD DOCUMENTS.

WHY WAS THAT?

BECAUSE PRESIDENT CLINTON PRODUCED A HUGE TROVE OF DOCUMENTS.

SOME 90,000 PAGES OF REV VANITY DOCUMENTS WERE GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF A YEAR'S LONG INVESTIGATION.

I REMEMBER GOING TO THE BUILDING TO LOOK AT THE BOXES OF THE DOCUMENTS.

EVEN WITH ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENT THE : TON TRIAL INCLUDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE NEW EVIDENCE AND ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL DOCK TAOUPLT AND THREE WITNESSES.

THE CLEAN TON I AM IMPEACHMENT ALSO SHOWS HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REFUSE AL TO PRODUCE ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE IS DIFFERENT THEN PAST PRESIDENTS.

DIFFERENT FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON.

DIFFERENT FROM PRESIDENT JOHNSON.

EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON.

IN SHORT NOT A SINGLE PRESIDENT HAS CATEGORICALLY REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.

NOT A SINGLE PRESIDENT HAS ISSUED A BLANKET STATEMENT TO PRODUCE NO DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES.

THIS IS WHAT THE SENATE MUST RELY ON.

THE SENATE SHOULD ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENT AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE PROCEEDINGS SO THIS BODY CAN ALL ACCOUNT FOR THESE DOCUMENTS IN THE PRESENTATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS.

IT DOES THE MAKE SENSE TO REQUEST AND RECEIVE DOCUMENTS AFTER THE PARTIES PRESENT THEIR CASES.

THE TIME IS NOW TO DO THAT.

SO, WHY IS THE AMENDMENT NEEDED TO PREVENT PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM CONTINUING HIS CATEGORICAL COMMITMENT TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE?

IN THIS CASE THE HOUSE SOUGHT WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENT.

WHY DO WE HAVE THEM?

IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TRY.

IT'S BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO GIVE THEM TO US.

THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM SEEMS TO BELIEVE THE WHITE HOUSE IS COMMITMENTED TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTS WITHOUT REGARD WHETHER OR NOT IT'S PREUF HR-PBLGED.

THEY APPARENTLY BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS' AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS.

OUR CONSTITUTION SETS FORTH A DEMOCRACY WITH A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO MAKE SURE NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON PRODUCED MORE THAN 0 TRANSCRIPTS OF WHITE HOUSE RECORDINGS AND NOTES FROM MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

HERE EVEN BEFORE THE HOUSE LAUNCHED THE INVESTIGATION HEADING TO THIS TRIAL PRESIDENT TRUMP REJECTED CONGRESS' CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO USE IT'S LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO EN SR-FT GATE HIS ACTION.

HE A CERTIFICATED HIS ADMINISTRATION WAS FIGHTING ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS.

PRO!ING I HAVE AN ARTICLE TWO TO DO WHAT I WANT AS PRESIDENT.

HERE IS WHAT HE SAID.

>> I HAVE AN ARTICLE TWO WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.

>> OTHER THAN AFTER THE HOUSE FORMALLY ANNOUNCED IT'S INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN UKRAINE, THE PRESIDENT STILL CONTINUED HIS OBSTRUCTION.

BEGINNING ON SEPTEMBER 9th, 2019, THE HOUSE INVEST TKPWAEGS COMMIT OTHERS MADE TWO ATTEMPT TO INVOLVE UNTEARLY OBTAIN DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO EN GAUGE WITH, FRANKLY OR EVEN RESPOND TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEES.

ON OCTOBER 4th THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT REFORM SENT A SUBPOENA TO WHITE HOUSE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF NICK MULL VEINY THIS TIME COMPELLING THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE BY OCTOBER 1st.

ON OCTOBER 8th THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL SENT A LETTER TO SPEAKER PELOSI STATING THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION CAN NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS PARTISAN INQUIRY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY DECLARED HE WON'T PARTICIPATE IN A EN INVESTIGATION HE DIDN'T LIKE.

TEN DAYS LATER ON OCTOBER 1st THE WHOEUS HOUSE COUNCIL SENT A LETTER TO THE HOUSE CONFIRMING IT WOULD CONTINUE TO STONEWALL.

THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL AGAIN STATED THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE.

WELL THE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE ONE SECTION TWO SAYS THE HOUSE WILL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT JUST AS IN ARTICLE ONE, SECTION # +* THREE.

THE SENATE HAS THE SOLE POWER TO TRY.

PARTICIPATION IN A DUALLY AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION IS NOT OPTIONAL.

IT'S NOT UP TO THE PRESIDENT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT.

THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

IT GIVES THE SENATE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS.

THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT LIKE BEING IMPEACHED.

IT'S THE PRESIDENT NOT THE CONGRESS TO DECIDE WHEN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE APPROPRIATE THEN THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS NO POWER AT ALL.

IF YOU LET HIM BLOCK FROM CONGRESS AND FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE EVIDENCE TO COVER UP HIS OWE FINANCES THEN THE IMPEACHMENT POWER TRULY WILL BE MEANING LESS.

WITH ALL OF THE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE HEARD THE PHRASE "EXECUTIVE PREUF HR-PBLG."

THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYERS SAY IT THEY TALK ABOUT JUST LEGAL RIGHTS.

THAT'S A DISTRACTION.

THE TRUTH IS -- PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT ONCE A CERTIFICATED EXECUTIVE PREUF.

NOT A S-PBG WILL TIME.

IT'S NOT THE REASON PROVIDED FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSE'S SUBPOENA.

EN DEED PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T OFFER LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR WITH HOLDING THE EVIDENCE.

HERE IS THE TRUTH.

PRESIDENTS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, JUDGES AND THE SUPREME COURT HAVE RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT OUR NATION'S HISTORY THAT CONGRESS' INVESTIGATION POWER ARE AT THEIR PEAK DURING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

YOUR POWERS, HE CAN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CAN'T BE TO COVER UP WRONG DOING.

IF IT DID THE HOUSE AND SENATE WOULD CEO THEIR POWER DISAPPEAR.

WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON TRYD THAT ARGUMENT, REFUSING TO PRODUCE TAPE RECORDED ARGUMENTS.

HE WAS SOUNDLY REBOUT BY ANOTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULED AGAINST HIM.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE VOTED HE BE IMPEACHED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

IT WOULD BE REMARKABLE FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO DECLARE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY THE PRESIDENT HAS AN ABSOLUTE DECIDE WHETHER HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS LEGITIMATE.

IT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY FOR THE SENATE TO REFUSE TO SEEK IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAS YET TO A CERTIFICATE ANY PRIVILEGE TO JUSTIFY WITH HOLDING DOCUMENTS.

NOW THERE IS ANOTHER REASON THIS AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT.

THE DOCUMENT SOUGHT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.

THE WHITE HOUSE IS CONCEALING DOCUMENTS, IN SROFPLING OFFICIALS THAT HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT KEY EVIDENCE AT THE HEART OF THE TRIAL.

THIS ISN'T JUST A YES.

WE KNOW THE DOCUMENTS EXIST FROM THE WITNESS WHOSE TESTIFYD IN THE HOUSE AND FROM OTHER PUBLIC RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS.

LET'S WALK THROUGH THOZ SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS THAT THE WHOEUS HOUSE SHOULD SEND TO THE SENATE.

THEY INCLUDE AMONG OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT'S REQUEST FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS WITH RUDY GUILIANI.

PRESIDENT'S TRUMP AWES UNLAW TPUFL HOLD OF MILITARY AID.

CONCERNS THAT WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS REPORTED TO NSC LEGAL COUNCIL IN REAL TIME.

THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO RECALL THE AMBASSADOR FROM UKRAINE.

THE FIRST ZEST OF DOCUMENTS THE SENATE SHOULD GET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WOULD INCLUDE THE PHONE CALLS ON APRIL 32nd AND 21st AND AND JULY 25th.

WE KNOW THE - TK-RPB THE TALKING POINTS WERE ABOUT AMERICAN POLICY AS REFLECTED BY THE VOTES OF CONGRESS AS WELL AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, ITSELF.

THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY MENTION OF THE BOYD ENS OR 201 ELECTION INTERFERENCE OR INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUESTED ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

HERE IS A CLIP OF LEW LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINMAN EXPLAINING HOW THE PRESIDENT IGNORED THE POINTS RENEXTING THE VIEWS.

>> COLONEL F I COULD TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE APRIL 21st CALL.

THE FIRST CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT SEW OF UKRAINE DID YOU PREPARE TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT TO USE DURING THAT CALL EUFPLT.

>>?>> YES, I DID.

>> DID THOSE INCLUDE ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?

>> YES.

EUFPLG THAT WAS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WAS TO RAISE IN THE CONVERSATION?

>> THOSE WERE THE RECOMMENDED TALKING POINTS CLEARED THROUGH THE STAFF FOR THE PRESIDENT, YES.

>> THE MATERIALS PROVIDED FOR THE JULY 25th CALL THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN MENTIONED ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT.

THEY COULD HELP CONFIRM THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTUAL STATEMENTS TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WERE UNRELATE TO THE FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES OF HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION AND SHOW THAT THEY SERVED HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

THESE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE HANDWRITTEN NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS GREEN RATED DURING CALLS AND MEETINGS.

WE KNOW LIEUTENANT COL VINDMAN AND OTHERS TESTIFIED TO TAKING HANDWRITTEN NOTES DURING THE JULY 25th CALL.

BOTH TESTIFYD THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MADE A REFRPBLG THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEMORANDUM RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC.

HERE IS A CLIP OF THEIR TESTIMONY.

>> BOTH OF YOU RECALL PRESIDENT ZEL,ENSKI MENTIONED BARIZMA IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECTS.

>> CORRECT.

>> YET THE WORD APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE CALL RECORD TO THE PUBLIC.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> CORRECT.

>> WHY DO YOU NEED DOCUMENTS AFTER CALLS AND MEETINGS?

THEY WOULD SHED LIGHT ON THE EVENTS PERCEIVED IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND ACTIONS TAKEN MOVING FORWARD.

FOR EXAMPLE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON WAS NOT ON THE 25th CALL BUT INFORMED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE CALL AFTERWARDS.

HIS REACTION, ONCE HE WAS INFORMED WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTANDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTION DOVE YATEED FROM AMERICAN POLICY AND AMERICAN SECURITY INTERESTS.

THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF DOCUMENTS THE SENATE SHOULD GET.

THEY RELATE TO THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS AGENTS REPEATEDLY ASKED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO ANNOUNCE.

THE DOCUMENTS ABOUT EFFORTS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE, ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS AND DECISION TO PLACE A HOLD ON MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

THEY WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR TO YOU EVALUATE THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

FOR EXAMPLE AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS A FIRST-HAPPENED WITNESS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER.

HE REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT, SUPERVISED THE ENTIRE STAFF OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL.

PUBLIC REPORTS INDICATE THAT JOHN BOLTON IS A SROER A NOTE TAKER IN ALL MEETINGS.

WE KNOW HE HOSTED THE JULY 20th, 019 TENTH, 2019 MEETING.

WE KNOW BOLTON WAS BRIEFED ABOUT THE MEETING MODE HO FOLLOWING IT WHEN THE AMBASSADOR SAID HE HAD A DEAL WITH NICK MUVVANEY TO SCHEDULE THE MEETING IF THEY THEY BROUGHT UP THE BIDENS.

WE KNOW THEY WERE PART OF A DECISION IN AUGUST REFLECTING THE CONSENSUS INNER AGENT OPINION THAT UKRAINIAN ASSISTANCE WAS VIAL TO AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY.

SOMETHING CONGRESS APPROVED A APPROPRIATED, SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT HAD SIGNED.

PRESS REPORTS INDICATED HE WAS INVOLVED IN A LATE AUGUST OVAL OFFICE MEETING WHERE IT WAS TRIED TO CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE AID.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS COME FORWARD AND CONFIRMED HE WAS A WITNESS TO IMPORTANT EVENTS.

ALSO HE HAS NEW EVIDENCE THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN YET.

IF WE KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT YET COME OUT WE SHOULD ALL WANT TO HEAR IT WE SHOULD WANT TO HEAR IT NOW BEFORE AMBASSADOR TESTIFIES.

WE SHOULD GET DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS RELATING TO HIS TESTIMONY INCLUDING HIS NOTES PROVIDING CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE FOR WHAT WAS DISCUSSION FOR MEETINGS OF UKRAINE TO HELP EVALUATE HIS TESTIMONY.

THE EVIDENCE IS NOT JUST RESTRICTED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

AMBASSADOR GORDON SAID I DON'T HAVE AOBG ASSESS TO ALL OF MY PHONE RECORDS.

HE SAID HE AND HIS LAWYERS ASKED REPEATEDLY FOR THE MATERIALS.

THEY WOULD HELP REFRESH HIS MEMORY.

WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE MATERIALS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE EXCHANGED A NUMBER OF E-MAILS ABOUT EFFORTS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED.

HERE IS HIS TESTIMONY.

>> LET ME SAY PRECISELY BECAUSE WE DID NOT THINK THAT WE WERE ENGAGING IN IMPROPER BEHAVIOR WE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO INSURE THAT THE RELEVANT DECISION MAKERS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT KNEW THE IMPORTANT DETAILS OF OUR EFFORTS.

THE SUB JUGS THAT WE SUGGESTION THAT WE WERE ENGAGED IN ROUGE DIPLOMACY IS FALSE.

I HAVE IDENTIFIED STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS AND MESSAGES THAT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR MY VIEW.

THESE E-MAILS SHOW THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND THE WHITE HOUSE WERE ALL INFORMED ABOUT THE UKRAINE EFFORTS FROM MAY 23rd, 2019 UNTIL THE SECURITY AID WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11th, 2019.

>> THESE E-MAILS AMONG OTHERS ARE IN THE POSSESSION --.

THESE E-MAILS REVENUED IN THE TESTIMONY ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE WHITE HOUSE, STATE DEPARTMENT, AND EVEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SINCE OFFICIALS FROM ALL ENTITIES COMMUNICATED TOGETHER.

YOU KNOW DURING HIS TESTIMONY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DESCRIBED IT THIS WAY.

EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

IT WAS NO SECRET.

THESE E-MAILS ARE THERE IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE FULL SCOPE OF THE SCHEME.

THE REQUEST FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS NOT CONFINED TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS.

THE SENATE SHOULD ALSO GET WHITE HOUSE RECORDS REFERRING TO THE PRESS' PRIVATE AGENTS ACTING ON HIS BE HALF IN THE UKRAINE.

WITNESS TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT MR. GUILIANI A FREQUENT VISITOR TO THE WHITE HOUSE WHO ALSO RECEIVED AND MADE FREQUENT CALLS TO THE WHITE HOUSE WAS ACTING ON BE HALF OF THE PRESIDENT TO PRESS UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION THAT'S WOULD P-RPBL HO AND POLITICALLY BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT.

TPREZ THE MAY 10th, 2019 LETTER FROM GUILIANI TO PRESIDENT ZELINSKI.

HE REQUESTED A MEETING AND JOIN.

IT COULD LAB RATES HE WAS COLLABORATING IN THE EFFORT.

THE SENATE SHOULD GET THE WHITE HOUSE RECORDS OF MOATINGS AND CALLS INVOLVING MR. GUILIANI.

THESE RECORDS ARE IMPORTANT TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE WAS INVOLVED IN MR. GUILIANI'S EFFORTS TO COHERES UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE EN INVESTIGATION THAT'S THE PRESIDENT WANTED.

THE RECORDS WOULD ALSO SHOW HOW THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL POLITICAL AUGEND AB CAME MORE IMPORTANT THAN POLICIES TO HELP AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL MADE CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO HIDE EVIDENCE A CERTIFICATE THAT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WOULD COVER THE DOCUMENTS.

THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE CONDITION SHIELD MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE OR LAWYERS PARTICIPATION IN CORRUPT SCREAMS.

WE'RE NOT ACTING FOR DOCUMENT REFLECTING LEGITIMATE LEGAL ADVICE.

YOU NEED DOCUMENTS ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE AND ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENT.

THERE IS A SET OF WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENT THAT RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S UNLAWFUL DECISION TO WITH HOLD $391 MILLION APPROPRIATED BIPARTISAN TO HELP UKRAINE.

WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY ORDER TO HOLD ON THIS SECURITY ASSISTANCE DESPITE THE UNANIMOUS OPINION OF HIS AGENCY THAT'S THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED.

IMPORTANTLY ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE HIS ACTION VIOLATED THE LAW.

ON JANUARY 1st, 2020 THE GAO AN INDEPEND WATCHDOG ISSUED A LEGAL OPINION FINDING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATED THE LAW WHEN HE HELD UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO U CRANE.

THE GAO SAID FAITH FULL EXECUTION OF THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THE PRESIDENT TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN POLICY PRIORITIES FOR THOSE THAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED INTO LAW.

OMB WITH HELD FUNDS FOR A POLICY REASON WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.

THE WITH HOLDING WAS NOT A PRO PROGRAMIC DELAY.

THERE WE CONCLUDE OMB VIOLATED THE OCA.

TO FROZE THE AID TO PRESSURE URK CRANE TO ANNOUNCE THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS HE WANTED WAS NOT ONLY AGAINST THE OFFICIAL CONSENSUS OF HIS OWN AD MACHINE STATION BUT AGAINST THE LAW TO HELP HIMSELF.

THAT HELPS TKEPL ON STATE THESE ACTIONES WERE TAKEN FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S P-RPBL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT.

WITH THIS PUB HR-BG REPORTING MADE CLEAR THE WHITE HOUSE A SIGNIFICANT BODY OF DOCUMENTS RELATE TEG THESE KEY ASPECTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS OUT LEAN THE PLANNING OF THE PRESIDENT'S FREEZE.

FOR EXAMPLE THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTD IN SKWAOUPB THAT MR. MULVANEY E-MAILS BLAIR.

THIS SHOWS THAT MR. MULVANEY WAS IN E-MAIL CONTACT WITH AIDS ABOUT THE ISSUES OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT IS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT.

IT TELLS US THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN POSSESSION OF COMMUNICATION THAT'S GO TO THE HEART OF THE CHARGES BEFORE YOU.

THE SENATE SHOULD GET MATERIALS PREPARED FOR SUMMARY NOTES FROM THE LATE AUGUST MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, SECRETARY DEFENSE, AND SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO WHEN THEY TRIED TO CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT THAT FREEING, THIS IS A QUOTE "FREEING UP THE MONEY FOR UKRAINE WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO."

ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD THE PRESIDENT THIS IS IN AMERICA'S INTEREST.

THE SENATE SHOULD REVIEW THE HIGHLY RELEVANT DOCUMENT WITH REAL TIME ASSERTIONS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN SENIOR AIDS THAT AOU SCREENIAN AID WAS IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO HOLDUP THE AID.

THERE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT INCLUDE AFTER THE FACT JUSTIFICATIONS TO OVERCOME LEGAL PROBLEMS AND THE OBJECTIONS TO FREEZING ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

WE KNOW THESE EXIST.

FOR EXAMPLE ON JANUARY 3rd, 2020, OMB STATED IN A LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES IT DISCOVERED 20 RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS CONSISTING OF 40 PAGES REFLECTING E-MAILS BETWEEN WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL ROBERT BLAIR AND OMB OFFICIAL MICHAEL DID YOU DUFFY THAT RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE FREEZING OF THE U CRANE SECURITY SYSTEM.

OMB WOULDN'T RELEASE THEM AND REFUSE TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE'S LAWFUL SUBPOENA.

THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTD THAT A CONFIDENTIAL WHITE HOUSE REVIEW OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO HOLDUP HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL EXTENSIVE EFFORTS TO GENERATE AN AFTER-THE-FACT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION AND THE DEBATE IS ILLEGAL.

THEY UNCOVERED THE E-MAILS EXCHANGES BETWEEN NICK MUVVANE AND WHITE HOUSE BUDGET OFFICIALS TO SEEK AN AN EXPLANATION OF WITH HOLDING FUNDS.

THE DOCUMENTS ALSO REPORTEDLY INCLUDE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES.

NOT ONLY DOES CONGRESS HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THEM, THE PUBLIC DOES TO UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS.

AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY THE SENATE HAS THE GREATEST INTEREST IN AND RIGHT TO COMPEL THOSE DOCUMENTS.

INDEED OTHERS THE NEWS ARTICLE EXPLAINS WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS ARE REPORTEDLY QUOTE WORRY ABOUT UNFLATTERING EXCHANGES THAT COULD EMBASSER THE PRESIDENT.

PERHAPS THEY SHOULD BE WORRY ABOUT THAT.

THE RISK OF EMBARRASSMENT DOES NOT OUT WEIGHT THE CONSTITUTION IN THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

ANY EVIDENCE OF GUILT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERING THE FUNDS WITH HELD OR ATTEMPTS TO COVER UNLAWFUL CONDUCT THEY MUST BE PROVIDED TO INSURE A FULL AND FARE TRIAL.

NO PREUFP LEDGE OR INACTION AL SECURITY RATIONAL CAN BE USED AS A SHIELD FROM DISCLOSING MISCONDUCT.

THERE ARE KEY WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO MULTIPLE INSTANCES.

WHEN WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS REPORTED CONCERNS TO WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO PRESS UKRAINE TO DO A DOMESTIC POLITICAL FAVOR.

FOR EXAMPLE VINDMAN AND HILL INFORMED ABOUT THE MEETING WHERE IT WAS REVEALED HE HAD A DEAL WITH MR. MULVANEY.

I AM GOING TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE CLIP BY DR. HILL BECAUSE DR. HILL, PARDON ME, ALSO REPORTED THAT MEETING TO JOHN ISENBERG AS SHE EXPLAINED IN HER TESTIMONY.

>> I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON AFTER THE MEETING IN HIS OFFICE, A BRIEF ONE AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS.

SO THE SEQUENT MEETINGS OR AFTER BOTH MEET -LGZINGS AND WHEN YOU SPOKE TO HIM WHAT DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON SAY TO YOU?

>> I WANT TO HIGH HEIGHT THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WANTED ME TO HOLD BACK.

I WAS ON THE SOFA WITH A COLLEAGUE.

>> IN THAT MEETING.

>> HE WAS MAKING A STRONG POINT HE WANTED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS BEING SAID.

WHEN I CAME BACK AND RELATED IT TO HIM HE HAD SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR ME.

>> WHAT WAS THAT SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION.

>> SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION WAS THAT I HAD TO GO TO THE LAWYERS, TO JOHN ISENBERG, SENIOR COUNCIL FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, TO BASICALLY SAY YOU TELL ISENBERG, AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD ME THAT I'M NOT PART OF THIS DEAL THAT MULVANEY AND SONDLAND WERE COOKING UP.

>> WHAT DID YOU TAKE THAT TO MEAN?

>> EN SRAEUFT INVESTIGATIONS FOR A MEETING.

>> DID YOU GO TO THE LAWYERS?

>> I DID.

>> DID YOU RELAY WHAT YOU TOLD US?

>> I RELATED PRECISELY AND HOW THE MEETING UNFOLDED AS WELL.

I GAVE A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THIS ON MY OCTOBER 14th DEPOSITION.

ING THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG GOING ON HERE.

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WERE TOLD REPEATEDLY DON'T TELL THE LAWYERS ABOUT IT.

DR. HILL, LIEUTENANT COL. VINDMAN, MR. MORRISON WHO REPORTED TWO CONVERSATIONS AT LEAST.

WE NEED THE NOTES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS SAID AND AGAIN ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE CAN NOT SHIELD INFORMATION ABOUT MISCONDUCT OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

NOW IT'S INTERESTING THIS AMENDMENT IS SUPPORTED BY TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF PRECEDENCE.

IT'S NEEDED TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM CONTINUING TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE.

THAT'S WHY THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS REQUESTED ARE SO IMPORTANT FOR THIS CASE.

IT'S FAITHFUL FOR THE CONSTITUTIONS PROVISION THAT THE SENATE HAS THE SOLE POWER TO TROY ALL IMPEACHMENTS.

THE FINAL POINT I WILL MAKE TODAY CONTAINS URGENCY.

TO ACT ON THIS NOW AT THE OUTSET OF THE TRIAL.

IN FOURTEEN OF THE FIFTEEN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, THRESHOLD INFORMATION TRIALS WERE ADDRESSED AT THE OUTSET OF THE TRIAL.

THIS ARE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ASK THE SUBPOENAS NEED TO BE ISSUED NOW.

RESOLVING A SUBPOENA NOW WOULD LET US ENGAGE WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

TO INSURE YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO BE PREVENTED TO THE SENATORS IN ADVANCE OF WUTNESS TESTIMONY.

WAITING UNTIL AFTER PARTIES PRESENT THE CASE WOULD UNDER CUT THE PROCESS OF A GENUINE TRIAL.

THUS COMMON SENSE, TRADITION AND FAIRNESS ALL COMPEL THE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND IT SHOULD BE ADOPTED THOU.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, FOR ALL OF THE REASONS I WALKED THROUGH TODAY I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT AND ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENT.

DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TOY VALUE EIGHTH THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

THE HOUSE DID IT'S JOB.

IN THE FACE OF PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION AND CATEGORICAL COMMITMENT TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE WE STILL GATHERED DIRECT EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT AND DETERMINED HIS CONDUCT REQUIRED IMPEACHMENT.

THE PRESIDENT CHAINS ABOUT DUE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION.

HE WAS NOT ONLY PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE.

HE WAS REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE.

YET HE REFUSED TO DO SO.

HE REFUSED TO PROVIDE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS TELLING HIS SIDE OF THE STORY.

NOW IT'S UP TO YOU.

WITH THE BACKING OF A SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES U END PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION.

IF THE SENATE FAILS TO TAKE THE STEP WE WON'T ASK FOR THE EVIDENCE.

THIS TRIAL AND YOUR VERDICT WILL BE QUESTIONED.

CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE THE FULL TRUTH THERE.

IS NO PLAUSIBLE REASON WHY ANYONE WOULDN'T WANT TO HEAR ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

IT'S UP TO THIS BODY TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.

IT'S UP TO YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SENATE WILL A FIRM IT'S SOLE POWER AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO TRY IMPEACHMENTS.

WHETHER AND WHEN IT WILL GET THE EVIDENCE THAT IT NEEDS TO RENDER A FAIR VERDICT.

DON'T SURRENDER TO THE PRESIDENT'S STONEWALLING.

IT WILL ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO BE ABOVE THE LAW AND DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF TRUTH IN THE PROCESS.

A FARE TRIAL IS ESSENTIAL IN EVERY WAY.

IMPORTANT FOR THE PRESIDENT WHO HOPES TO BE EXONERATED NOT MERELY A KWEUFTED BY A TRIAL SEEN AS UNFAIR.

IMPORTANT FOR THE SENATE PROTECTING AND DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PRESERVING OUR AMERICAN LIBERTY FOR CENTURIES.

AND TIMELY IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO EXPECT A QUEST FOR TRUTH, FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE.

HISTORY IS WATCHING.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS -- TO PRESERVE THE AMEND PHEPBTD.

I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

>> IN PHILBIN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MAJORITY LEADER McCON AL, SCHUMER, SENATORS.

IT'S REMARKABLE AFTER TAKING THE ACTION OF THE BREATHTAKING GRAVITY OF VOTING TO IMPEACH THE DUALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND AFTER SAYING FOR WEEKS THEY HAD OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE THE FIRST THING THE HOUSE MOONAGERS HAVE DONE AFTER ARRIVING IN THE CHAMBER, WAITING FOR 33 DAYS, IS TO SAY ACTUALLY WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE.

WE'RE NOT READY TO PRESENT OUR CASE.

WE NEED SUBPOENAS AND MORE DISCOVERY.

WE DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE WE NEED TO SUPPORT OUR CASE THIS.

IS STUNNING.

IT'S A STUNNING ADMISSION OF THE IN ADEQUATE AND BROKEN PROCESS THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS RAN IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT FAILED TO COMPILE A RECORD TO SUPPORT CHARGES.

IT'S STUNNING THEY DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED TO PREVENT THEIR CASE.

THAT THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A CASE.

IF A LITIGANT SHOWED UP ANY DAY IN THIS COUNTRY FOR A DAY OF TRIAL AND SAID, JUDGE, WE'RE NOT READY.

WE NEED MORE DISCOVERY, MORE SUBPOENAS AND MORE WORK.

THEY WOULD BE THROWN OUT OF COURT AND THE LAWYERS WOULD LIKELY BE SANCTIONED.

THIS IS NOT THE PROCEEDING THIS BODY SHOULD CONDONE.

WE HAVE JUST HEARD THIS IS SO IMPORTANT.

LET'S CONSIDER WHAT IS AT ISSUE IN THE RESOLUTION HERE AND THE AMENDMENT.

IT'S A MATTER OF TIMING.

A MATTER OF WHEN THE BODY WILL CONSIDER WHETHER THERE SH-RB WITNESSES FOR SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS.

WHY ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS SO AFRAID TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

REMEMBER THEY HAVE HAD WEEKS OF A PROCESS THEY ENTIRELY CONTROL.

THEY HAD 17 WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED FIRST IN SECRET THEN IN PUBLIC.

THEY HAVE COMPILED A RECORD WITH THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF REPORTS.

THEY'RE APPARENTLY AFRAID TO JUST MAKE A PRESENTATION BASED ON THE RECORD THEY COMPILED AND THEN HAVE YOU DECIDE WHEN THERE IS ANYTHING THERE.

WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING WORTH TRYING TO TALK TO MORE WITNESSES ABOUT.

WHY IS IT THEY CAN'T WAIT A FEW DAYS TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION ON EVERYTHING THEY HAVE PREPARED FOR WEEKS AND THEN HAVE THAT ISSUE CREDITED.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY THERE, THERE.

THEY WANT TO RAM THIS THROUGH NOW.

THEY WANT TO RAMMING THIS THROUGH NOW WHEN IT'S SOMETHING THEY THEMSELVES FAILED TO DO.

I WANT TO UNPACK A COUPLE OF THE ASPECTS THEY'RE ASKING THIS PODY TO DO.

PART RELATES TO THE BROKEN PROCESS IN THE HOUSE AND HOW THAT PROCESS WAS IN ADEQUATE AND IN VALID AND COMPILED WITH EN ADEQUATE RECORD.

PART HAS TO DO WITH ACCEPTING THEIR REQUEST TO HAVE THIS BODY DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM WOULD DO TO THIS INSTITUTION GOING FORWARD.

AND HOW IT WOULD ALTER THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE FOR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

FIRST FOR THE HOUSE.

THEY'RE ASKING THE HOUSE MANAGER TO DO NOW, TO DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM.

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TEAK THE MEASURES TO PURSUE THESE DOCUMENTS IN THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS.

THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT THEY TRIED TO GET THE DOCUMENTS.

NO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WAS A SKPERTD THINGS LIKE THAT.

LSS LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED.

THEY ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE WHITE HOUSE EX MAINED.

WE WERE TOLD A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT THE WHITE HOUSE PROVIDED NO RESPONSE OR RATIONAL.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

A LETTER OCTOBER 18th WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL EXPLAINED IN THROW PAGES OF LOWELL ARGUMENT WHY THE SUB EVEN OTHER WAS IN VALID.

IT WAS EN VALID BECAUSE IT WAS ISSUED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.

WE HAVE HEARD A LOT TODAY ABOUT THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE.

THAT'S WHAT ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TWO SAID.

THE SOLE POWER OF I IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

NO COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE CAN EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE SUBPOENAS UNTIL IT'S DELEGATED BY A VOTE OF THE HOUSE.

THERE WAS NO VOTE BY THE HOUSE.

INSTEAD SPEAKER PELOSI HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE.

TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE TO MANAGER SCHIFF AND OTHERS WITH SUBPOENAS.

THE SUBPOENAS WERE IN VALID.

THAT WAS EXPLAINED TO MANAGER SCHIFF AND CHAIRMAN AT THE TIME IN THE OCTOBER 18th ALREADY.

DID THE HOUSE TAKE STEPS TO REMEDY THAT?

DISPUTE THAT?

IF TO COURT?

RESOLVE THE PROBLEM?

NO.

AS WE KNOW ALL THAT THEY WANTED TO DO WAS ISSUE A SUBPOENA AND MOVE ON.

THEY JUST WANTED TO GET THROUGH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE AND GET IT DONE BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

THAT WAS THEIR GOAL.

>> SO THOSE SUBPOENAS WERE UNAUTHORIZED.

WHAT ABOUT OTHER THEPBGSZ THEY BROUGHT UP.

WITNESSES.

WITNESSES DIRECTED NOT TO TESTIFY.

AND PART OF THIS, WE HAVE HEARD MANAGER SCHIFF SAY SEVERAL TIMES THE WHITE HOUSE NEVER A CERTIFICATED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

LET ME BE CLEAR ON THAT.

THAT IS A LAWYER'S TRICK.

IT'S TECHNICALLY TRUE THE WHITE HOUSE DIDN'T A CERTIFICATE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THIS IS A PARTICULAR SITUATION WHICH YOU DO THAT, A PARTICULAR WAY THAT YOU DO THAT.

THERE IS ANOTHER DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY OF SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT THAT IS BASED ON THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IT HAS BEEN A CERTIFICATED BY PRESIDENTS OF BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES SINCE THE 1970s ANOTHER LEAST.

THIS IS WHAT ONE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLAINED ABOUT THAT.

THE IMMUNITY SUCH ADVISORS ENJOY FROM TESTIMONY COMPOSITION FROM A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IS ABSOLUTE AND MAY NOT BE OVER BORN BY COMPETING INTERESTS ."

THAT WAS JANET RENO FROM THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION EX CHAINING THAT SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT ARE I AM PHAOUPBD TO THIS.

THIS IS IN THE SAME OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IT HAS BEEN A CERTIFICATED BY ALL PRESIDENTS SINCE THE 1970.

DID THEY TRY TO KHAL THAT EN N. COURT?

DID THEY GO TO COURT ON THAT ONE?

DID THEY TRY TO GO YOU THIS THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED A ACCOMMODATION PROCESS TO SEE IF THERE WAS A WAY TO COME UP WITH ASPECT OF TESTIMONY?

NO, NONE OF THAT.

THEY JUST WANTED TO FORGE AHEAD.

RUSH YOU THIS THE PROCESS, NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE AND USE THAT AS A CHARGE FOR THE IMPEACHMENT CALLING IT OBSTRUCTION OF CON YES.

WHAT THAT IS, PROCESSOR TURLY EXPLAINED.

WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE HOUSE AND SEEKING INFORMATION AND THE PRESIDENT IS A CERTIFICATING CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED PRIVILEGES THAT'S PART OF THE OPERATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS.

THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE OFFICE FOR THE FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE OFFICE.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CHARGED AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

TO DO THAT IS AN ABUSIVE POWER.

THAT'S WHAT WAS HE CAN MEANED.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS ABUSE OF POWER.

WE JUST HEARD A REFERENCE TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AS A DISTRACTION.

THAT THIS IS A DISTRACTION THAT SHOULDN'T HOLD THINGS UP.

THIS IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES.

-- "FUNDAMENTAL TO THE OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND IN EXPLICITLY ROOTED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS" THAT'S WHY IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S DUTY TO DEFEND EXECUTIVE BAN MUCH CONFIDENTIALITY.

THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING HERE.

NOW, THE PROCESS THAT THEY PURSUED IN THE HOUSE ABANDONED ANY EFFORT BEYOND ISSUES THE FIRST SUBPOENA IN VALID TO WORK OUT AN A ACCOMMODATION WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AND INSTEAD RUSH AHEAD TO HAVE THE IMPEACHMENT DONE BY CHRISTMAS.

WHAT DID THAT LEAD TO NOW?

THEY'RE COMING TO THIS BODY AFTER A PROCESS THAT WAS HALF BAKED THAT DIDN'T COMPILE RECORDS SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR CHARGES AND ASKING THIS BODY TO DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM.

NOW AS LEADER MCCONNELL POINTED OUT EARLIER TODAY IN COMMENTS TO ALLOW THAT, TO ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT THE HOUSE CAN BRING AN I IMPEACHMENT HERE NOT SUPPORTED, AND TO TURN THIS BODY INTO A INVESTIGATION BODY WOULD PERMANENTLY ALTER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

IT'S NOT THE ROLL OF THE SENATE TO HAVE TO DO THE HOUSES JOB FOR THEM.

IT'S NOT THE ROLL OF THE SENATE TO BE DOING NOT INVESTIGATION AND DISCOVERY IN THE MATTER AN IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IF THEY CONDITION SUPPORT THE CASE IT'S NOT TO ARRIVE HERE TO DO THAT WORK.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS THE HOUSE'S ROLL.

SO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS INSTITUTION, I BELIEVE NOT TO ALLOW THE HOUSE TO TURN IT INTO A SITUATION WHERE THIS BODY WOULD HAVE TO BE DOING THE HOUSES WORK FOR IT IF THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CASE, THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR INVESTIGATION THEN THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE.

AGAIN WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECALL OPT ISSUE OF THE AMENDMENT.

IT'S NOT WHETHER THE SENATE, WHETHER THE BODY WILL BE CREDITING WHETHER THIS SHOULD BE WITNESSES OR NOT BUT WHEN THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO TAKE THE APPROACH DONE IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

A HUNDRED SENATORS AGREED THEN THAT IT MADE SENSE TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES.

BEFORE MAKING A DETERMINATION ON THAT.

TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES AND SEE WHAT SORT OF CASE THE HOUSE COULD PRESENT IN THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.

THAT MAKES SENSE.

IN EVERY TRIAL SYSTEM THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE PARTIES PRESENTED A TRIABLE ISSUE.

WHETHER THERE IS SOMETHING THERE TO REQUIRE THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

THIS BODY SHOULD TAKE THAT COMMON SENSE APPROACH AND HEAR WHAT IT IS THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE TO SAY.

WHY ARE THEY AFRAID TO PRESENT THEIR CASE?

THEY HAD WEEKS IN A PROCESS TO CONTROL AND COMPILE THEIR RECORD.

THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT PRESENTATION NOW.

THE ONE POINT I WILL CLOSE ON WE HAVE HEARD MANAGER SCHIFF WE NEED A FARE PROCESS HERE.

HE SAID AT ONE IMPORTANT IF YOU ALLOW ONE SIDE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THE OUTCOME WILL BE PREDETERMINED.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE.

LET'S RECALL THE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE IS ONE SIDED.

THEY LOCKED THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYERS OUT.

NO DUE PROCESS FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THEY STARTED WITH SECRET HEARINGS IN THE BASEMENT.

THE PRESIDENT COULDN'T BE PRESENT BY COUNCIL, COULDN'T PRESENT EVIDENCE OR CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES.

THERE WAS A SECOND ROUND AGAIN THEY LOCKED THE PRESIDENT OUT.

THE PRESIDENT HAD A OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE.

IN THE THIRD ROUND OF HEARINGS THEY HELD BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AFTER ONE HEARING ON DECEMBER 4th SPEAKER PELOSI, THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 5th WENT OUT AND ANNOUNCED THE CON KHAOUGS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

THAT WAS DIRECTING CHAIRMAN NADLER TO DRAFT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THAT WAS BEFORE THE DAY THE PRESIDENT WAS TO SET TO TELL HIM THE RIGHTS HE WANTED TO HAVE AND EXERCISE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.

IT WAS PREDETERMINED.

THE OUTCOME WAS PREDETERMINED.

THE SKWROU DISH AIRY DECIDED NO FACT HEARINGS.

THERE WAS NO PROCESS FOR THE PRESIDENT.

HE WASN'T ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE WHEN THEY'RE MAN SHIFT SAYS HERE YOU ONLY ALLOW ONE SIDE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT IS WHAT THEY DID IN THE HOUSE.

THEY HAD A PREDETERMINED OUT COME THERE.

FOR HIM TO LECTURE THIS BODY NOW ON A FARE PROCESS TAKES SOME GULL.

A FARE PROCESS IS COMING TO THE DAY OF TRIAL, BE READY TO START THE TRIAL, PRESENT YOUR CASE AND NOT ASK FOR MORE DISCOVERY.

THE PRESIDENT IS READY TO PROCEED, THE HOUSE MANAGER SHOULD BE READY TO PROCEED, THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE REJECTED.

THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE EIGHT MINUTES REMAINING.

>> THE HOUSE IS CERTAINLY NOT ASKING THE SENATE TO DO THE HOUSE'S JOB.

WE'RE ASKING THE SENATE TO DO IT'S JOB, TO HOLD A TRIAL.

YOU HAVE HEARD OF A TRIAL HA DOES THE HAVE EVIDENCE?

THAT DOES THE HAVE WITNESSES?

THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT.

A MOMENT ABOUT THE SUBPOENAS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE, ORDERED ALL OF HIS PEOPLE TO STONEWALL US.

NOW IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD SPEND TWO OR THREE YEARS LIT TPWAEUTING THAT QUESTION.

-- LIT PAY PAY LITIGATING THAT QUESTION.

I WAS A YOUNG LAW STUDENT WORKING ON THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT MANY YEARS AGO.

I REMEMBER THE DAY THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED IT'S UNANIMOUS DECISION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD TO RELEASE THE TAPES.

I THINK USV NICK ON LIT GATES THE SENATE.

I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE LITIGATED AGAIN TO BE GOOD LAW.

IT IS GOOD LAW.

THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE TRUTH.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT HELPING THE HOUSE.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT HELPING THE SENATE.

THIS IS ABOUT GETTING TO THE TRUTH AND MAKING SURE THAT IMPARTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE AND THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SATISFIED THAT A FAIR TRIAL HAS BEEN HELD.

I WOULD YIELD NOW TO MY COLLEAGUE MR. SCHIFF.

>> MR. PHILBIN SAYS THE HOUSE IS NOT READY TO PRESENT THE CASE.

OF COURSE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU HEARD FROM A MANAGER.

WE ARE READY.

THE HOUSE CALLED JOHN BOLTON.

THE HOUSE CALLED NICK MULVANEY LET'S GET THIS TRIAL STARTED SHALL WE.

WE'RE READY TO PRESENT OUR CASE AND CALL OUR WITNESSES.

THE QUESTION IS WILL YOU LET US.

MR. PHILBIN SAYS IF I SHOWED UP IN COURT AND SAID I WASN'T READY THE JUDGE WOULD THROW ME OUT OF THE COURT.

WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT READY.

YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IF MR. PHILBIN GOES NO A COURT AND THE JUDGE SAYS I MADE A DEAL WITH THE DEFENDANT I'M NOT GOING TO LET THE PROSECUTOR CALL WITNESSES.

I WON'T ALLOW THE PROSECUTOR TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS.

YOU KNOW WHO GETS THROWN OUT OF THE COURT?

THE JUDGE.

THE JUDGE WOULD BE TAKEN OUT IN HANDCUFFS.

LET'S STEP OUT OF THE BODY AND IMAGE EN A REAL TRIAL.

IT WOULD BEGIN WITH THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVING DOCUMENTS AND INTRODUCE DOCUMENT, CALL WITNESSES.

THIS TRIAL SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT.

MR. PHILBIN MAKES REFERENCE TO THE LESSON SEPTEMBER 18th FOLLOWING A LETTER ON OCTOBER 8th SAYING WE WON'T DO ANYTHING YOU ASK.

PART LAW, PART DIATRIBE.

MOSTLY DIATRIBE, YOU SHOULD READ IT.

IT'S A LETTER THAT SAYS WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID ON THE TV SCREEN.

WHICH S WE WILL FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS.

THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS BEEN EVOKED AND ATTEMPTED BY BOTH PARTIES AND REJECTED BY THE COURTS.

INCLUDING THE MOST RECENT DECISION THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL WHERE THE COURT SAID THAT WOULD MAKE HIM A KING.

HE'S NO KING.

THIS TRIAL IS DETERMINED THAT HE SHALL NOT BECOME A KING, ACCORDABLE TO NO ONE, ANSWERABLE TO NO ONE.

WHAT IS MORE, THIS IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, THIS FEVER DREAM OF BOTH PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES.

IT HAS NO APPLICATION TO DOCUMENTS.

AGAIN THIS A HELPEDMENT IS ON DOCUMENTS.

NO IMMUNITY FROM PROVIDING DOCUMENTS.

AS REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED WHEN THE CASE HAS GONE TO THE SUPREME COURT IN THE NIXON CASE THE COURT HELD THAT THE INTEREST AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF A IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING MUST GIVE WAY TO THE INTERESTS OF THE TRUTH, THE SENATE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

YOU CONDITION INVOKE PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT WRONGDOING.

YOU CAN'T INVOKE PRIVILEGE TO PROVOKE EVIDENCE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME LIKE WE HAVE HERE.

FINALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE SECRET HEARINGS THAT COUNCIL KEEPS REFERRING TO.

THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS IN THE HOUSE WERE SO SECRET THAT ONLY A HUNDRED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE ABLE TO BE THERE TO PAR PARTICIPATE.

ONLY A HUNDRED.

THAT'S HOW SECRET THE CHAMBER WAS.

IMAGINE THAT IN THE FRANKED JURY PROCEEDINGS IN THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION OR IN THE NIXON INVESTIGATION IMAGINE INVITING 50 OR A HUNDRED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO SIT ON THOSE.

IMAGINE AS THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE HERE, THE PRESIDENT INSISTING ON HIS LAWYER IN THE GRAND JURY BECAUSE OF A CASE BEING INVESTIGATED AGAINST HIM.

WE DIDN'T HAVE A GRAND JURY HERE.

WHY NO GRAND JURY OR SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HERE?

BECAUSE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAID THEY WOULDN'T LOOK INTO THIS.

THEY SAID THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

IF IT WERE UP TO THAT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO GRAND JURY.

WHY WE IN THE HOUSE HAD TO DO INVESTIGATION WORK OURSELVES.

JUST LIKE IN THE NIXON CASE AND THE CLINTON CASE WE USED DEPOSITIONS.

YOU KNOW THE RULES WE USED, THE UNFAIR DEPOSITION RULES WE USED?

THEY WERE WRITTEN BY THE REPUBLICANS.

WE USED THE SAME RULES THAT THE GOP HOUSE MEMBERS USED.

THAT'S HOW TERRIBLY UNFAIR THEY WERE.

MY GOSH, THEY USED OUR RULES, HOW DARE THEY.

HOW DARE THEY.

WHY DO WE HAVE DEPO SIGS?

BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT ONE WITNESS TO HEAR WHAT ANOTHER WITNESS WAS SAYING SO THEY COULD EITHER TAYLOR THEIR STORIES OR KNOW THEY HAD TO ADMIT SO MUCH AND NO MORE.

IT'S HOW EVERY CREDIBLE INVESTIGATION WORKS.

THIS, THE COUNCIL CAN REPEAT ALL THEY LIKE THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE OR HAVE COUNCIL PRESIDENT.

THEY CAN SAY IT ALL THEY LIKE, IT DOESN'T ANYMORE TRUE WHEN THEY MAKE THE SAME FALSE REPRESENTATION TIME AND TIME AGAIN IT MAKES IT THAT MUCH MORE DELIBERATE AND ONEROUS.

THE PRESIDENT COULD OF PRESENTED EVIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

HE CHOSE NOT TO.

THIS IS A REASON FOR THAT.

THERE IS A REASON WHY THE WITNESSES THEY TALKED ABOUT ARE NOT MATERIAL WITNESSES.

THEY DON'T GO TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WITH HELD THE AID FOR THIS CORRUPT PURPOSE OR ANY OF THAT.

THEY HAVE NO WITNESSES TO ABSOLVE THE PRESIDENT ON THE FACTS.

YOU SHOULD WANT TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS.

YOU SHOULD WANT TO SEE THEM.

YOU SHOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT THESE PRIVATE E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES HAVE TO SAY.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A DESIG ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO MACH A DECISION ABOUT HIM BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE YOU SHOULD WANT TO SEE WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS SAY.

NOW IF YOU DON'T CARE, IF YOU HAVE MADE UP YOUR MIND THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON I'M NOT INTERESTED AND ONCE MORE I DON'T WANT THE COUNTRY TO SEE THIS, THAT'S A HOLY DIFFERENT MATTER.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE OATH REQUIRES.

IT'S NOT WHAT YOUR OATH REQUIRES.

YOUR OATH REQUIRES YOU TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE, WHICH MEANS TO SEE THE EVIDENCE.

TO SEE THE EVIDENCE.

THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING.

JUST DON'T BLIND YOURSELF TO THE EVIDENCE.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> -- I ASK FOR THE YEAs AND NAYs.

WHY HE ON THE MOTION TO TABLE.

>> IS MR. ALEXANDER.

>> MS. BALDWIN.

>> MR. BARRASSO.

>> MR. BENNETT.

>> MS. BLACK BURN.

>> MR. BLUMENTHAL.

>> MR. BLUNT.

MR. BOOKER.

>> MR. BOOZMAN.

>> MR. BRAUN.

MR. BROWN.

>> MR. BURR.

>> MS. CANTWELL.

>>S WILL CAPITO.

>> MR. CARDIN.

>> MR. CARP.

ER.

>> MR. KACEY.

MR. CASSIDY.

>> MS. COLLINS.

>> MR. COONS.

>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ARE VOTING ON AN AMENDMENT BY CHUCK SCHUMER ESSENTIALLY CALLING ON THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO SUBPOENA THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO DELIVER A LONG LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COMMUNICATION WITH MEETINGS WITH PHONE CALLS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED.

WITH THE INTER ACTIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

IT'S AT THE HEART OF THE I IMPEACHMENT ISSUE BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PRIOR NOW BEFORE THE SENATE.

THEY'RE VOTING WHICH THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE HOUSE WAS NOT ABLE TO GET WHETHER THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE SUBPOENAED BY THE SENATE.

>> THEY'RE CALLING THE ROLL, WE CAN ONLY HEAR SOME OF THE YESES AND NOs, THIS IS THE FIRST TEST F YOU WILL OF THE EVER BY DEMOCRATS TO GET THIS REPUBLICAN MAJORITY SENATE TO LISTEN TO EVIDENCE TO HEAR WITNESSES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AS YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT WITH YOUR GUESTS THAT KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE.

THE RULES OF THE SENATE TRIAL HERE ARE DIFFERENT THEN THE USUAL RULES OF THE SENATE.

HERE IS NOT THE IDEA OF A FILIBUSTER OR CLOSURE.

THEY DON'T NEED 60 VOTES FOR ANYTHING.

ANY MOTION IN A SENATE TRIAL PASSES WITH 51 VOTES.

IN THIS CASE SENATOR MCCONNELL SPECIFICALLY NEEDS 51 VOTES TO TABLE OR KILL THE SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENT NOW.

JUDY, WHAT IS ALSO NOTABLE IN THIS CASE TPH-RBG THIS TRIAL A TIE FAILS.

A 50/50 VOTE WOULD TECHNICALLY, I WAS TOLD, COULD BE BROKEN BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

NOBODY EXPECTS THAT AND A 50/50 VOTE WOULD FAIL.

IF MCCONNELL ONLY GETS 50 VOTES THE MOTION TO TABLE TPAEULDZ.

THAT WOULD BE A VICTORY FOR THE DECK KRATZ.

HOWEVER IF HE MADE THE MOTION TO TABLE I SUSPECT MCCONNELL FIELDS HE HAS THE 51 VOTES HE NEEDS.

>> Woodruff: WE CONDITION HEAR, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO HEAR HOW THE SENATORS ARE CASTING THEIR VOTES.

WHETHER ANY REPUBLICANS ARE SUBMITTING FROM THEIR OWN PARTY AND VOTING NOT TO TABLE WHICH IS AS YOU SAY THE MAJORITY LEADER'S EFFORT TO KILL THE A HELPEDMENT BY MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER.

OUR COVERAGE THAT HAS ANCHORED.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF AT OUR SKEWED YO IN WASHINGTON.

WE'RE WATCHING THIS VOTE.

OUR COVERAGE WILL CONTINUE ON TELEVISION AS WELL AS ON-LINE.

WE WILL STEP AWAY FROM ANALYSIS OF THIS TRIAL.

WE WILL FOCUS ON PRO SUEDING TONIGHT'S NEWSHOUR BROADCAST.

WE WANT YOU TO STAY HERE AND WATCH THE COVERAGE.

WILL YOU HEAR THE VOTE ANNOUNCED MOMENTARILY AND HEAR THE TRIAL INTERRUPTED.

FOR NOW THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

WE WILL SEE YOU SOON.

>> MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SEUFRPLGT MRS. SHAHEEN.

>> MR. SHELBY.

>>S WILL SINEMA.

>>S WILL SMITH.

>>S WILL STABENOW.

>> MR. SULLIVAN.

>> MR. TESTER.

>> MR. THUNE.

>> MR. TILLIS.

>> MR. TOOMEY.

>> MR. UDALL.

>> MR. VAN HOLLEN.

>> MR. WARNER.

>> MS. WARREN.

>> MR. WHITEHOUSE.

>> MR. WICKER.

>> MR. WYDEN.

>> MR. YOUNG.

>> ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO VOTE OR CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?

IF NOT THE YEAs ARE 53.

THE THEYS NAYS ARE 47.

THE AMENDMENT IS TABLED.

>> DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

I ASK THAT IT BE READ.

>> THE CLERK WILL READ THE AMENDMENT.

>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT.

NUMBER 1285.

AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE REVOLVEING CLAUSE INSERT THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS.

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE RESOLUTION.

IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING IN I IMPEACHMENT TRAOEULDZ.

ONE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA COMMANDING TO PRODUCE FROM JANUARY 1, 019 TO THE PRESENT ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE REFERRING OR RELATING TO A, ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE INCLUDING DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS RELATING TO THE SCHEDULING OF PREPARATION FOR AND FOLLOWING UP ON THE APRIL 21 AND JULY TELEPHONE CALLS AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 25th, 2005 MEETING WITH THE PR-Z OF U CRANE MEETING IN NEW YORK.

B -- HOLDING, DELAYING OR FREEZING OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND TO UKRAINE.

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE UKRAINE SECURITY INITIATIVE AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, AND OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

AS WELL AS THE UKRAINIAN'S -- OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, HOLDING, DELAYING, FREEZING OR RELEASING OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

INCLUDING ALL MEETINGS, CALLS OR OTHER ENGAGEMENTS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS OF HOLDS AND DELAYS OF UNITED STATES ASSISTANTS TO UKRAINE.

C, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATION, NOTES AND OTHER RECORDS CREATED OR RECEIVED BY CREATE POMPEO, COUNSELOR, FORMER SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GEORGE CENT, THEN -- WILLIAM B. TAYLOR AND AN BASS DORE GORDON SOND.

IN LAND.

EFFORTS ONE -- PERSUADE OR COHERES AOU SCREEN TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS.

TWO SCHEDULE, CANCEL OR WITH HOLD A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THREE, HOLD MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

D, MEETINGS RELATING TO AOU SCREEN, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PRESIDENT ZELINSKI'S INAUGURATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT CHOOSING TO ATTEND, THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE DELEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

TWO A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON AROUND MAY 23, 2015 INVOLVE AGO HONG OTHERS PRESIDENT PRESIDENT TRUMP, AS BASS DORE KURT VOLKER, KURT PERRY, AND UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION GORDON SONDLAND AND ANY PRIVATE MEETINGS WITH THE INDIVIDUALS BEFORE OR AFTER THE LARGER MEETING.

THREE, MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE INVOLVING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO INCLUDE A MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE AND SUBSEQUENT MEETING IN THE WARD ROOM.

FOUR, MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND AUGUST 30, 2019, INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, MARK ESPER.

FIVE, A PLANNED MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED BY VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND, SIX, MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE AND MR. MULVANEY CONCERNING THE LIFTING OF THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE.

E, ALL COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WHAT'S AN OR TEXT MESSAGES ON PRIVATE DEVICES BETWEEN CURRENT OR FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SECRETARY MICHAEL R. POMPEO, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND CUTIE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

PHYSICAL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ANDRIY YERMAK, ASSOCIATED WITH OR ACTING IN ANY CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR PROXY FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BEFORE AND AFTER HIS ELECTION.

F, ALL RECORDS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED BY WITNESS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT MEMORIALIZE KEY EVENTS OR CONCERNS AT ANY RECORDS REFLECTING OFFICIAL RESPONSE THERE TO INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ONE, ON AUGUST 29, 2019 CABLE ISN'T BE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO SECRETARY POMPEII POE.

TWO, AUGUST 16, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO FILE WRITTEN BY DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY SENT AND THREE A 15, 2019 MEMORANDUM FILE WRITTEN BY DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT.

G, ALL MEETINGS OR ALWAYS INCLUDING BUILT NOT LIMITED TO ALL REQUESTS FOR RECORDS OF MEETINGS OR TELEPHONE CALLS SCHEDULING ITEMS, CALENDAR ENTRIES, STATE DEPARTMENT VISITOR RECORDS AND E-MAIL OR TEXT MESSAGES USING PERSONAL OR WORK-RELATED DEVICES BETWEEN OR AMONG ONE, CURRENT OR FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SECRETARY MICHAEL R. POMPEO, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

TWO, RUDY GUILIANI, VICTORIA OR JOSEPH VGEN,VA OR FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH TO THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN KIEV INCLUDING CREDIBLE THREATS AND ANY PROTECTIVE SECURITY MEASURES TAKEN IN RESPONSE.

TWO, THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS IS AUTHORIZED TO OUGHT LIES SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE IN SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED RECOGNIZED.

>> A BRIEF TEN-MINUTE RECESS BEFORE THE PARTIES ARE RECOGNIZED TO DEBATE THE SCHUMER AMENDMENT.

AT THE END OF THE DEBATE TIME, I'LL AGAIN MOVE TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AS THE TIME CAN OF THESE VOTES ARE SPECIFIED IN THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION.

SO I ASK CONSENT THAT THE SENATE STAND IN RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SENATE IS IN RECESS.

>> IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE.

I'M AWARE OF ONE SENATOR PRESENT WHO WAS UNABLE TO TAKE THE IMPEACHMENT OATH LAST THURSDAY WILL HE PLEASE RISE RAISE HIS RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN?

DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT AN ALL THINGS AN PERTAINING TO THE TRIAL OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOW PENDING YOU WILL DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS SO HELP YOU GOD?

>> I DO.

>> THE SECRETARY WILL NOTE THE NAME OF THE SENATOR WHO HAS JUST TAKEN THE OATH AND WILL PRESENT THE OATH BOOK TO HIM FOR SIGNATURE.

THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.

>> HERE YE HERE YE ALL PERSON ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT.

THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I'D LIKE TO STATE THAT FOR THE INFORMATION ALL SENATORS THE TRIAL BRIEFS FILED YESTERDAY BY THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN PRINTED AND ARE NOW AT EACH SENATOR'S DESK.

>> THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE FOR PRINTING IN THE SENATE JOURNAL.

THE PRESEPT ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2020, WRIT OF SUMMONS ON JANUARY 16, 2020, RECEIPT OF SUMMONS DATED JANUARY 16, 2020.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE FOR PRINTING IN THE SENATE JOURNAL PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF JANUARY 16, 2020.

THE ANSWER OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST HIM ON JANUARY 16, 2020, RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 18, 2020.

THE TRIAL BRIEF FILED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 18, 2020.

THE TRIAL BRIEF FILED BY THE PRESIDENT, RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 2020.

THE REPLICATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 2020.

AND REBUTTAL BRIEF FILED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 21, 2020.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE FOREGOING DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

I NOTE IN THE PRESENCE IN THE SENATE CHAMBER OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I SENT TO THE DESK A LIST OF FLOOR PRIVILEGES FOR CLOSED SESSIONS IT'S BEEN AGREED TO BY BOTH SIDES.

CAN I THAT IT BE INSERTED IN THE RECORD AND AGREED TO BY UNANIMOUS CONN'T.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> FURTHER INFORMATION OF ALL SENATORS I'M ABOUT TO SEND A RESOLUTION TO THE DESK PROVIDING FOR OUTLINE OF THE NEXT STEPS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.

IT WILL BE DEBATABLE BY PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED, SENATOR SCHUMER WILL THEN SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION TO THE DESK.

ONCE THAT AMENDMENT HAS BEEN OFFERED AND REPORTED, WE'LL HAVE A BRIEF RECESS.

WHEN WE RECONVENE, SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT WILL BE DEBATABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS, UPON THE USE OF YIELDING BACK OF TIME I INTEND TO MOVE TO TABLE SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT.

SO, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A RESOLUTION TO THE DESK AND ASK THAT IT BE READ.

>> THE CLERK WILL READ THE RESOLUTION.

>> SENATE RESOLUTION 483, TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

RESOLVED, THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL FILE ITS RECORD WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WHICH WILL CONSIST OF THOSE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO OR PRODUCED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS OR MARK-UPS IN ANY MATERIALS PRINTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

MATERIALS IN THIS RECORD WILL BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, SUBJECT TO ANY HEARSAY, EVIDENTIARY OR OTHER OBJECTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY MAKE AFTER OPENING PRESENTATIONS ARE CONCLUDED.

ALL MATERIALS FILED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE PRINTED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES.

THE PRESIDENT AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL HAVE UNTIL 9:00 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22nd, 2020 TO FILE ANY MOTIONS, PERMITTED UNDER THE RULES OF IMPEACHMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MOTIONS TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS.

RESPONSES TO ANY SUCH MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN 11 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22nd, 2020.

ALL MATERIALS FILED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY AND BE PRINTED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES.

ARGUMENTS ON SUCH MOTIONS SHALL BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY JANUARY 2ndnd, 2020 AND EACH SIDE MAY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO MAKE ITS PRESENTATION.

FOLLOWING WHICH THE SENATE SHALL DELIBERATE IF SO ORDERED UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES AND VOTE ON ANY SUCH MOTION.

FOLLOWING THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH MOTIONS, OR IF NO MOTIONS ARE MADE, THEN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL MAKE ITS PRESENTATION IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED 24 HOURS OVER UP TO THREE-SESSION DAYS.

FOLLOWING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, PRESENTATIONS, PRESIDENT SHALL MAKE HIS PRESENTATION FOR PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 24 HOURS OVER THREE DAYS.

EACH SIDE MAY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO MAKE ITS PRESENTATION.

UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESIDENT'S PRESENTATION, SENATORS MAY QUESTION THE PARTIES FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED 16 HOURS.

UPON THE CONCLUSION OF QUESTIONING BY THE SENATE THERE SHALL BE FOUR HOURS OF ARGUMENT BY THE PARTIES EQUALLY DIVIDED FOLLOWED BY DELIBERATION BY THE SENATE IF SO ORDERED UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT SHALL BE ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS.

THE SENATE WITHOUT ANY INTERVENING ACTION, MOTION OR AMENDMENT SHALL THEN DECIDE BY YEA AND NAY THERE BE ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS.

FOLLOWING THE DISPOSITION OF THAT QUESTION, OTHER MOTIONS PROVIDED UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES SHALL BE IN ORDER.

IF THE SENATE AGREES TO ALLOW EITHER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE PRESIDENT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, THE WITNESSES SHALL FIRST BE DEPOSED AND SENATE SHALL DECIDE AFTER DEPOSITION WHICH WITNESSES SHALL TESTIFY PURSUANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT RULES.

NO TESTIMONY SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE SENATE UNLESS THE PARTIES HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEPOSE SUCH WITNESSES.

AT THE CONCLUSION OF DELIBERATION BY THE SENATE, THE SENATE SHALL VOTE ON EACH ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> THE RESOLUTION IS ARGUABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED.

MR.

MANAGER SCHIFF, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT OF THIS MOTION?

>> MANAGERS ARE IN OPPOSITION.

>> THANK YOU.

MR. CIPOLLONE, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE WE ARE PROPONENT.

>> MR. CIPOLLONE, YOUR SIDE MAY PROCEED FIRST WE'LL RESERVE REBUTTAL TIME IF YOU WISH.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, SENATORS.

MY NAME IS PAT CIPOLLONE, I AM HERE AS COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OUR TEAM IS PROUD TO BE HERE REPRESENTING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION, IT IS A FAIR WAY TO PROCEED WITH THIS TRIAL.

IT IS MODELED ON THE CLINTON RESOLUTION WHICH HAD 100 SENATORS SUPPORTING IT THE LAST TIME THIS BODY CONSIDERED AN IMPEACHMENT.

IT REQUIRES THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO STAND UP AND MAKE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND MAKE THEIR CASE.

THEY HAVE DELAYED BRINGING THIS IMPEACHMENT TO THIS HOUSE FOR 33 DAYS.

33 DAYS TO THIS BODY.

AND IT'S TIME TO START WITH THIS TRIAL.

IT'S A FAIR PROCESS, THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAND UP AND MAKE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT.

THEY WILL GET 24 HOURS TO DO THAT.

THEN THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

AFTER THAT, ALL OF YOU WILL HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF EITHER SIDE.

ONCE THAT'S FINISHED AND YOU HAVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, WE WILL PROCEED TO THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES AND SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS THAT WILL COME BEFORE THIS BODY.

WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS, WE BELIEVE THAT ONCE YOU HEAR THOSE INITIAL PRESENTATIONS, THE ONLY CONCLUSION WILL BE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.

AND THAT THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DO NOT BEGIN TO APPROACH THE STANDARD REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND IN FACT, THEY THEMSELVES WILL ESTABLISH NOTHING BEYOND THOSE ARTICLES, YOU LOOK AT THOSE ARTICLES ALONE YOU WILL DETERMINE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN WITH THIS PROCESS.

IT IS LONG PASTIME TO START THIS PROCEEDING AND WE'RE HERE TODAY TO DO IT.

AND WE HOPE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL AGREE WITH US AND BEGIN THIS PROCEEDING TODAY.

WE RESERVE THE REMAINDER OF OUR TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS AND COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, HOUSE MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RISE IN OPPOSITION TO LEADER McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION.

LET ME BEE GIBB BY SUMMARIZING WHY.

LAST WEEK WE CAME BEFORE YOU TO PRESENT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACH IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ONLY THE THIRD TIME IN OUR HISTORY.

THOSE ARTICLES CHARGE PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE MOST SERIOUS EVER CHARGED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THE FIRST ARTICLE ABUSE OF POWER, CHARGES THE PRESIDENT WITH SOLICITING A FOREIGN POWER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

MORE OVER ALLEGES WE WILL PROVE THAT HE SOUGHT TO COERCE UKRAINE INTO HELPING HIM CHEAT BY WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, TWO OFFICIAL ACTS, A MEETING THAT THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE DESPERATELY SOUGHT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE WHITE HOUSE TO SHOW THE WORLD AND THE RUSSIANS IN PARTICULAR THAT THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS MOST IMPORTANT PATRON, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND EVEN MORE PERNICIOUSLY PRESIDENT TRUMP ILLEGALLY WITHHELD ALMOST $400 MILLION IN TAXPAYER FUNDED MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

A NATION AT WAR WITH OUR RUSSIAN ADVERSARY TO COMPEL UKRAINE TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE ELECTION.

ASTONISHINGLY THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL BRIEF FILED YESTERDAY CONTENDS THAT EVEN IF THIS CONDUCT IS PROVED THAT THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE HOUSE OR THIS SENATE MAY DO ABOUT IT.

LITTLE THE PRESIDENT'S APPARENT BELIEF THAT UNDER ARTICLE 2 HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS NO MATTER HOW CORRUPT.

OUTFITTED IN GALLAUDETY LEGAL CLOTHING.

AND YET WHEN THE FOUNDERS WROTE THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE THEY HAD PRECISELY THIS TYPE OF MISCONDUCT IN MIND.

CONDUCT THAT ABUSES THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT, THAT UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, THAT INVITES FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OF AN ELECTION, IT IS THE TRIFECTA OF CONSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT JUSTIFYING IMPEACHMENT.

IN ARTICLE TWO THE PRESIDENT DISCHARGED WITH OTHER MISCONDUCT THAT WOULD LIKEWISE HAVE ALARMED THE FOUNDERS, THE FULL, COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE OBSTRUCTION OF A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THE CONGRESS.

DURING THE COURSE OF ITS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MISCONDUCT, THIS IS EVERY BIT AS DESTRUCTIVE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER AS MISCONDUCT CHARGED IN THE FIRST ARTICLE.

IF A PRESIDENT CAN OBSTRUCT HIS OWN INVESTIGATIONF HE CAN EFFECTIVELY NULLIFY A POWER THE CONSTITUTION GIVES SOLELY TO CONGRESS, THE ULTIMATE POWER, THE ULTIMATE POWER THE CONSTITUTION GIVES TO PREVENT PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, THEN THE PRESIDENT PLACES HILL SELF BEYOND ACCOUNTABILITY, ABOVE THE LAW.

CANNOT BE INDICTED, CANNOT BE IMPEACHED.

IT MAKES HIM A MONARCH, THE VERY EVIL AGAINST WHICH OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE BALANCE OF POWERS IT CAREFULLY LAID OUT WAS DESIGNED TO GUARD AGAINST.

SHORTLY THE CHARGES WILL BEGIN.

AND WHEN IT HAS CONCLUDED, YOU'LL BE ASKED TO MAKE SEVERAL DETERMINATIONS.

DID THE HOUSE PROVE THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY SEEKING TO COERCE A FOREIGN NATION TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

AND DID HE OBSTRUCT THE CONGRESS IN ITS INVESTIGATION INTO ITS OWN MISCONDUCT BY ORDERING HIS AGENTS AND OFFICERS TO COOPERATE COOPERATE, REFUSE TO COOPERATE IN ANY WAY, TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY TO, REFUSE TO ANSWER SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS AND TO EVERY OTHER MEANS.

AND IF THE HOUSE HAS PROVED ITS CASE, WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL NOT BE SERIOUSLY CONTESTED, YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER AT LEAST ONE OTHER CRITICAL QUESTION.

DOES THE COMMISSION OF THESE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS REQUIRE THE CONVICTION AND REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT.

WE BELIEVE THAT IT DOES AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT IT BE SO OR POWER OF IMPEACHMENT MUST BE DEEMED A RELIC OR CASUALTY TO PARTISAN TIMES AND AMERICAN PEOPLE LEFT UNPROTECTED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT WHO ABUSE HIS POWER FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF CORRUPTING THE ONLY OTHER METHOD OF ACCOUNTABILITY, OUR ELECTIONS THEMSELVES.

AND SO YOU WILL VOTE TO FIND THE PRESIDENT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY.

TO FIND HIS CONDUCT IMPEACHABLE OR NOT IMPEACHABLE.

BUT I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THESE ARE NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS YOU WILL MAKE.

HOW CAN THAT BE.

HOW CAN ANY DECISION YOU WILL MAKE BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN GUILT OR INNOCENCE AND REMOVING THE PRESIDENT OR NOT REMOVING THE PRESIDENT.

I BELIEVE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION IN THIS CASE IS THE ONE YOU WILL MAKE TODAY, MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IS THE QUESTION YOU MUST ANSWER TODAY.

WILL THE PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET A FAIR TRIAL?

WILL THERE BE A FAIR TRIAL?

I SUBMIT THAT THIS IS AN EVEN MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION THAN HOW YOU VOTE ON GUILT OR INNOCENCE BECAUSE WHETHER WE HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WILL DETERMINE WHETHER YOU HAVE A BASIS TO RENDER A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT.

IT IS FOUNDATIONAL THE STRUCTURE UPON WHICH EVERY OTHER DECISION YOU WILL MAKE MUST REST.

IF YOU ONLY GET TO SEE PART OF THE EVIDENCE, IF YOU ONLY ALLOW ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER A CHANCE TO PRESENT THEIR FULL CASE, YOUR VERDICT WILL BE PREDETERMINED BY THE BIAS IN THE PROCEEDING.

IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ALLOWED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF HIS INNOCENCE IT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

SO, TOO, FOR THE PROSECUTION.

IF THE HOUSE CANNOT CALL WITNESSES OR INTRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE IT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

IT'S NOT REALLY A TRIAL AT ALL.

AMERICANS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ARE WATCHING US RIGHT NOW AND IMAGINE THEY'RE ON JURY DUTY, IMAGINE THAT THE JUDGE WALKS INTO THAT COURTROOM AND SAYS THAT SHE'S BEEN TALKING TO THE DEFENDANT AND THAT THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THE JUDGE AS HAHAS AGREED NOT TO LET THE PROSECUTION CALL ANY WITNESSES.

OR INTRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS.

THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT HAVE AGREED THAT THE PROSECUTOR MAY ONLY READ TO THE JURY THE TRY TRANSCRIPTS OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.

THAT'S IT.

HAS ANYONE ON JURY DUTY IN THIS COUNTRY EVER HEARD A JUDGE DESCRIBE SUCH A PROCEEDING AND CALL IT A FAIR TRIAL?

OF COURSE NOT.

THAT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL, IT'S A MOCKERY OF A TRIAL.

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THIS PROCEEDING THE ONE WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW, IS THE TRIAL.

THIS IS NOT THE APPEAL FROM A TRIAL.

YOU ARE NOT APPELLATE COURT JUDGES.

OKAY, ONE OF YOU IS.

AND UNLESS THIS TRIAL IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OR ANY OTHER KIND OF TRIAL FOR THAT MATTER, YOU MUST ALLOW THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE, THE HOUSE MANAGER AND THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TO CALL RELEVANT WITNESSES.

YOU MUST SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED.

TO BEAR ON HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE YOU MUST IMPARTIALLY DO JUSTICE AS YOUR OATH REQUIRES.

SO WHAT IS A FAIR TRIAL LOOK LIKE IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT?

THE SHORT ANSWER IS, IT LOOKS LIKE EVERY OTHER TRIAL.

FIRST, THE RESOLUTION SHOULD ALLOW THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN WITHHELD.

FIRST, NOT LAST.

BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS WILL FORM THE DECISION ABOUT WHICH WITNESSES ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO CALL.

AND WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE CALLED, THE DOCUMENT REEVIDENCE WILL BE AVAILABLE AND MUST BE AVAILABLE TO QUESTION THEM WITH, ANY OTHER ORDER MAKES NO SENSE.

NEXT, THE RESOLUTION SHOULD ALLOW HOUSE MANAGERS TO CALL THEIR WITNESSES, AND THEN THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THE SAME AND ANY REBUTTAL WITNESSES.

WHEN THE EVIDENTIARY PORTION OF THE TRIAL ENDS THE PARTIES ARGUE THE CASE.

YOU DELIBERATE AND RENDER A VERDICT.

IF THERE'S A DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR WITNESS IS RELEVANT OR MATERIAL TO THE CHARGES BROUGHT UNDER THE SENATE RULES THE CHIEF JUSTICE WOULD RULE ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALITY.

WHY SHOULD THIS TRIAL BE DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER TRIAL?

THE SHORT ANSWER IS, IT SHOULDN'T.

WOULD TURN THE TRIAL PROCESS ON ITS HEAD.

HIS RESOLUTION REQUIRES THE HOUSE TO PROVE ITS CASE WITHOUT WITNESSES, WITHOUT DOCUMENTS AND ONLY AFTER ITS DONE WILL SUCH QUESTIONS BE INTER TAINTED WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT ANY WITNESS OR ANY DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED EVEN THEN.

THAT PROCESS MAKES NO SENSE.

SO WHAT IS THE HARM MUCH WAITING UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL, OF KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD ON THE QUESTION OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES.

BESIDES THE FACT IT'S COMPLETELY BACKWARDS, TRIAL FIRST THEN EVIDENCE, DECIDES THE FACTS THAT THE DOCUMENTS WOULD INFORM THE DECISION ON WHICH WITNESSES AND HELP IN THEIR QUESTIONING, THE HARM IS THIS: YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY OF THE EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO CONCEAL THROUGHOUT MOST OR ALL OF THE TRIAL.

AND ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS ALREADY OVERWHELMING, YOU MAY NEVER KNOW THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT OR THOSE AROUND HIM.

AND NEITHER WILL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE CHARGES HERE INVOLVE THE SACRIFICE OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AT HOME AND ABROAD AND THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION.

IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN AFTER THE CONVICTION, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST KNOW ABOUT IT.

BUT IF AS A PUBLIC ALREADY JADED BY EXPERIENCE HAS COME TO SUSPECT, THIS RESOLUTION IS MERELY THE FIRST STEP OF AN EFFORT ORCHESTRATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO RUSH THE TRIAL, HIDE THE EVIDENCE AND RINDIER A FAST VERDICT OR WORSE A FAST DISMISSAL.

TO MAKE THE COVER UP HIS MISDEEDS.

THEN AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE DEPRIVED OF FAIR TRIAL AND MAY NEVER LEARN HOW DEEP THE CORRUPTION OF THIS ADMINISTRATION GOES OR WHAT OTHER RISKS TO OUR SECURITY AND ELECTIONS REMAIN HIDDEN.

THE HARM WILL ALSO ENDURE FOR THIS BODY.

IF THE SENATE ALLOWS THE PRESIDENT TO GET AWAY WITH SUCH EXPENSIVE OBSTRUCTION IT WILL AFFECT THE SENATE'S HOURS OF SUBPOENA AND OVERSIGHT JUST AS MUCH AS THE HOUSE.

THE SENATE'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT WILL BE BEHOLDEN TO THE DESIRES OF THIS PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS WHETHER HE OR SHE DECIDES THEY WANT TO COOPERATE WITH THE SENATE INVESTIGATION OR ANOTHER IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND TRIAL.

OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES WILL BE BROKEN, PRESIDENTS WILL BECOME ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE.

NOW IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT LEADER McCONNELL HAS ALREADY GOT THE VOTES TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION.

THE TEXT OF WHICH WE DID NOT SEE UNTIL LAST NIGHT WHICH HAS BEEN CHANGED EVEN MOMENTS AGO.

THEY SAY THAT MR. McCONNELL IS A VERY GOOD VOTE COUNTER.

NONETHELESS I HOPE THAT HE'S WRONG.

AND NOT JUST BECAUSE I THINK THIS PROCESS, THE PROCESS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION IS BACKWARDS AND DESIGNED WITH RESULT IN MIND, AND RESULT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL, I HOPE THAT HE IS WRONG BECAUSE WHATEVER SENATORS MAY HAVE SAID OR PLEDGED OR COMMITTED HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY AN EVENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION.

YOU HAVE ALL NOW SWORN AN OATH.

NOT TO EACH OTHER, NOT TO YOUR LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP, NOT TO THE MANAGERS OR EVEN TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE, YOU HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

THAT OATH BINDS YOU, THAT OATH SUPER CREEDS ALL ELSE.

MANY OF YOU IN THE SENATE AND MANY OF US IN THE HOUSE HAVE MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

THIS OR THIS TRIAL OR THIS MOTION OR EXPECTATIONS, NONE OF THAT MATTERS NOW.

THAT IS ALL IN THE PAST.

NOTHING MATTERS NOW BUT THE OATH TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

AND THAT OATH REQUIRES A FAIR TRIAL.

FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT AND FAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

BUT IS THAT REALLY POSSIBLE?

OR IS THE FOUNDERS FEARED HAS FASHIONALLISM OR PARTISANSHIP MADE THAT NOW IMPOSSIBLE.

ONE WAY TO FIND OUT WHAT A FAIR TRIAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE DEVOID OF PARTISAN CONSIDERATION, IS TO ASK YOURSELF HOW WOULD YOU STRUCTURE THE TRIAL IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY WAS AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE PARTY OF THE PRESIDENT WAS.

WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO YOU HAVE TRIAL FIRST THEN DECIDE ON WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE LATER.

>> AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED.

MR.

MANAGER SCHIFF, ARE YOU A PROCEED MOMENT OR OPPONENT?

THANK YOU.

MR. CIPOLLONE.

>> OPPONENT.

>> MR. SCHIFF YOU HAVE AN HOUR WILL BE ABLE TO RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.

I AM VAL KELPING FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA -- DEMINGS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO ISSUE SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

AS WE EXPLAIN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, THE PRESIDENT WAS USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT AND PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS THAT EVERYONE IN THIS CHAMBER KNOWS TO BE BOGUS.

THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T EVEN CARE IF INVESTIGATION WAS ACTUALLY CONDUCTED JUST THAT IT WAS ANNOUNCED.

WHY?

BECAUSE THIS WAS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT.

THE FIRST ARTICLE FURTHER CHARGES THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SO WITH CORRUPT MOTIVES.

AND THAT HIS USE OF POWER FOR PERSONAL GAIN HARMED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

AS THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE OF THIS CONDUCT.

HE DID SO BY ORDERING HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION, EVERY OFFICE, EVERY AGENCY, EVERY OFFICIAL, TO DEFY EVERY SUBPOENA SERVED IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT TAKE THESE EXTREME STEPS TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF HIS INNOCENCE.

OR TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY AS CAREER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYONE TAKE SUCH EXTREME STEPS TO HIDE EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY PROVING HIS INNOCENCE.

AND I DO NOT FIND THAT HERE TODAY.

THE PRESIDENT IS ENGAGED IN THIS COVER UP BECAUSE HE IS GUILTY AND HE KNOWS IT.

AND HE KNOWS THAT THE EVIDENCE HE'S CONCEALING WILL ONLY FURTHER DEMONSTRATE HIS CULPABILITY.

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS EFFORT TO STONEWALL OUR INQUIRY, THE HOUSE AMASSED POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

CORROBORATE THEIR TESTIMONY AND SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT SCHEME.

FOR INSTANCE, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHO RAISED CONCERNS THAT MILITARY AID HAD BEEN CONDITIONED ON THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS DESCRIBED A LITTLE NOTEBOOK IN WHICH HE WOULD TAKE NOTES ON CONVERSATIONS, HE HAD WITH KEY OFFICIALS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REFERRED BY DATE AND RECIPIENT TO E-MAILS REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND THAT UKRAINE ANNOUNCE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

AS WE'LL SEE THROUGH E-MAILS THAT WERE SENT TO SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TOP ADVISORS INCLUDING ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, SECRETARY OF STATE, MICHAEL POMPEO AND SECRETARY OF ENERGY, RICK PERRY.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE KENT, WHO OVER SAW UKRAINE POLICY MATTERS IN WASHINGTON FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT WROTE AT LEAST FOUR MEMOS TO FILE, TO DOCUMENT CONCERNING CONDUCT HE WITNESSED OR HEARD.

AND AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT HE AND OTHER AMERICAN OFFICIALS COMMUNICATED WITH HIGH LEVEL UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS INCLUDING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF.

VIA TEXT MESSAGE AND WHATSAPP ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S IMPROPER DEMAND AND HOW UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WOULD RESPOND TO THEM.

BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE RECEIVED AND ON EVIDENCE THAT HAS SINCE EMERGED ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND OTHERS THAT WE WILL DESCRIBE, BEAR DIRECTLY ON THE ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY WOULD HELP COMPLETE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNFOLDED IN REALTIME.

THEY WILL SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS UNDERSTOOD THE CORRUPT NATURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND AND THEY WOULD FURTHER EXPOSE THE EXTENT TO WHICH SECRETARY POMPEO, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY AND OTHER SENIOR TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WERE AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT'S PLOT AND HELPED CARRY IT OUT.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A BURDENSOME NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC, DISCRETE SET OF MATERIALS HELD BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

DOCUMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY COLLECTED IN RESPONSE TO OUR SUBPOENA.

BUT HAS NEVER PRODUCED.

WE KNOW THESE MATERIALS EXIST.

WE KNOW THEY ARE RELEVANT AND WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO CONCEAL THEM.

I WILL DESCRIBE THE SENATE SHOULD SUBPOENA THE FOLLOWING, WHATSAPP, DIPLOMATIC CABLES, NOTES.

GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, HOUSE REQUESTED THAT THEY BE PROVIDED.

WHEN THESE REQUESTS WERE DENIED, WHEN OUR REQUEST WERE DENIED THE HOUSE ISSUED SUBPOENAS COMMANDING THAT THE DOCUMENTS BE TURNED OVER.

BUT AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNLAWFULLY DEFIED THAT SUBPOENA AND I STAND HERE NOW AS I STAND HERE NOW, THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS ALL THESE DOCUMENTS IN ITS POSSESSION BUT REFUSES BASED ON THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO LET THEM SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.

THIS IS AN AFFRONT TO THE HOUSE, WHICH HAS FULL POWER TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS.

IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE SENATE, WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED A FULL RECORD ON WHICH TO JUDGE THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE AND IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE CONSTITUTION WHICH MAKES CLEARLY THAT NOBODY, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE THE LAW.

AND IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES ARE HIDING FROM THEM AND WHY IT IS BEING HIDDEN.

AND PRIOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, THIS BODY HAS ISSUED SUBPOENAS REQUIRING THE RECIPIENT TO HAND OVER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, IT MUST DO SO AGAIN HERE.

AND IT MUST DO SO NOW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL, NOT THE END.

OF COURSE THE NEED FOR A SENATE SUBPOENA ARISES, BECAUSE AS I HAVE NOTED THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DEFY A SUBPOENA FROM THE HOUSE.

AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE OUR OWN EFFORTS TO GET THOSE MATERIALS.

I'LL THEN ADDRESS IN A MORE DETAILED FASHION EXACTLY WHAT DOCUMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS HIDDEN FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WHY THE SENATE SHOULD REQUIRE IT TO TUSH THEM OVER.

ON SEPTEMBER 9th, EXERCISING THEIR ARTICLE ONE OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY, THE HOUSE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE SOUGHT A DOCUMENT REQUEST -- SENT A DOCUMENT REQUEST TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

THE COMMITTEE SOUGHT MATERIALS RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS POLITICAL RIFLE, AS WELL AS HIS DANGEROUS UNEXPLAINED WITHHOLDING OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN VITAL MILITARY AID AFTER THE STATE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 27th.

IN A LETTER ON OCTOBER 1, SECRETARY POMPEO ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF THE SUBPOENA.

AT THAT TIME HE STATED THAT HE WOULD RESPOND TO THE COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS BY THE RETURN DATE, OCTOBER 4.

BUT HIS RESPONSE NEVER CAME.

INSTEAD ON OCTOBER 8 PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER, WRITING ON THE PRESIDENT'S BEHALF, ISSUED A DIRECTION CONFIRMING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD STONEWALL.

THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

TO DATE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT, NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA.

BUT WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED -- WHO TESTIFIED INDICATED THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD GATHERED ALL OF THE RECORDS AND WAS PREPARED TO PRODUCE -- PROVIDE THEM BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE DIRECTED IT TO DEFY THE SUBPOENA.

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS UNLAWFUL OBSTRUCTION THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF BRAVE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, THE HOUSE WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY WITH REMARKABLE PRECISION SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT THAT ARE SITTING RIGHT NOW THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE SITTING RIGHT NOW AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

I'D LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH FOUR KEY CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD BE SUBPOENAED AND WHICH ILLUSTRATE THE HIGHLY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT COULD PRODUCE IMMEDIATE LEAD, COULD PRODUCE THEM IMMEDIATELY FOR THIS TRIAL.

THE FIRST CATEGORY CONSISTS OF WHATSAPP AND OTHER TEXT MESSAGES FROM STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS CAUGHT UP IN THIS -- THESE EVENTS.

INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND TAYLOR AND ALSO DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT.

ALL THREE OF WHOM CONFIRM IN THEIR TESTIMONY THAT THEY REGULARLY USE WHATSAPP TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECT KENT, WHATSAPP IS A DOMINANT FORM OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE WORD.

WE KNOW THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT POSSESSES THE RECORDS OF WHATSAPP AND TEXT MESSAGES FROM CRITICAL EYE WITNESSES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND TAYLOR AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT.

WE KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS DELIBERATELY -- DIB BRATLY CONCEALING THESE REPORTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND WE KNOW THAT THEY COULD CONTAIN HIGHLY RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN TO CONDITION OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL ACTS ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN.

WE KNOW THIS NOT ONLY FROM TESTIMONY, BUT ALSO BECAUSE AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH A SMALL BUT TELLING SELECTION OF HIS WHATSAPP MESSAGES.

THOSE RECORDS CONFIRM WITH THE FULL REVIEW OF THESE TEXT AND WHATSAPP MESSAGES FOR RELEVANT OFFICIALS WOULD HELP TO PAINT A VIVID FIRSTHAND PICTURE OF STATEMENTS, DECISIONS, CONCERNS AND BELIEFS HELD BY IMPORTANT PLAYERS OF EVENTS UNFOLDING IN REALTIME.

FOR EXAMPLE, THANKS TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S MESSAGES WE KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND A KEY PLAYER IN THE PRESIDENT'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN WHO TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE ABOUT A QUID PRO QUO ARRANGEMENT, TEXT DIRECTLY WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THIS IMAGE PRODUCED BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER APPEARS TO BE A SCREEN SHOT OF A TEXT MESSAGE THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EXCHANGED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT PLANS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT.

THE VERY SAME VISIT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BADLY NEEDED AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP LATER WITHHELD AS PART OF THE QUID PRO QUO DESCRIBED BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN HIS TESTIMONY.

THIS BODY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT ELSE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID IN THIS AND OTHER RELEVANT EXCHANGES ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING -- ABOUT THE MILITARY AID AND PRESIDENT'S DEMAND.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS CONVEYED AND WHEN.

WE DON'T KNOW IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO CONCEAL THESE VITAL RECORDS.

THESE ARE RECORDS THAT STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE TURNED OVER IF NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION AND DESIRE TO COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING.

TO GET A SENSE OF WHY TEXTS AND WHATSAPP MESSAGES ARE SO VITAL, JUST CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE WE'VE GLEANED FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S PARTIAL PRODUCTION.

ON JULY 10, AT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, AT WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PRESSURED UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENT A UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TEXT AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I FEEL THAT THE KEY FOR MANY THINGS IS RUDY AND I AM READY TO TALK WITH HIM AT ANY TIME.

THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S ULTIMATUM, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS RECOGNIZED THAT THEY NEEDED TO APIECE RUDY GUILIANI BY CARRYING OUT THE INVESTIGATION.

MR. GUILIANI HAD PUBLICLY CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN FOREIGN POLICY BUT IT WAS INSTEAD ADVANCING HIS CLIENT'S.

THE PRESIDENT'S OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS.

FURTHER IN ANOTHER TEXT MESSAGE EXCHANGED PROVIDED BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER WE SEE EVIDENCE THAT UKRAINE UNDERSTOOD PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMANDS LOUD AND CLEAR.

ON THE MORNING OF JULY 25th, HALF AN HOUR BEFORE THE INFAMOUS CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER WROTE TO SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL, HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE.

ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR VISIT TO WASHINGTON.

GOOD LUCK.

SEE YOU TOMORROW.

KURT.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CONFIRMED THAT THIS TEXT ACCURATELY -- DIRECTED DIRECTIVE TO HIM EARLIER THAT MORNING.

AFTER THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL RESPONDED.

POINTEDLY, PHONE CALL WENT WELL.

HE THEN DISCUSSED POTENTIAL DATES FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

THEN THE VERY NEXT DAY AMBASSADOR VOLKER WROTE TO RUDY GUILIANI EXACTLY THE RIGHT MESSAGES AS WE DISCUSSED.

THESE MESSAGES CONFIRM MR. GUILIANI'S CENTRAL ROLE OF PREMEDITATED NATURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SOLICITATION OF POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AND THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN ON UKRAINE RAGED BY MR. GUILIANI AND SENIOR OFFICIALS AT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DIRECTION.

AGAIN, THERE IS JUST -- THIS IS JUST SOME OF WHAT WE LEARNED FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S RECORDS.

AS YOU WILL SEE DURING THIS TRIAL PRESENTATION, THERE WERE NUMEROUS WHATSAPP MESSAGES IN AUGUST, WHILE AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND AND MR. GUILIANI WERE PRESSURING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S TOP AIDES TO ISSUE A STATEMENT ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.

AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TEXT THAT YOU SAW EARLIER ABOUT WITHHOLDING THE AID FURTHER REVEALS HOW MUCH MORE MATERIAL THERE LIKELY IS THAT RELATES TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THERE COULD BE NO DOUBT THAT A FULL PRODUCTION OF RELEVANT TEXT AND WHATSAPP MESSAGES FROM OTHER OFFICIALS INVOLVED IN UKRAINE AND TOUCH WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT WORKS FURTHER ILLUMINATE THE MALFEASANCE ADDRESS IN OUR FIRST ARTICLE.

THIS LEADS TO THE SECOND CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS LAWFULLY -- UNLAWFULLY WITHHOLDING, E-MAILS INVOLVING KEY STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS CONCERNING INTERACTIONS WITH SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND RELATING TO MILITARY AID, A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS RIVAL.

FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 19th AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT THE UPCOMING JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SEPTEMBER AN E-MAIL UPDATING KEY OFFICIALS ABOUT SECRETARY POMPEO INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, MULVANEY AND SENIOR ADVISOR, ROBERT BLAIR.

AND THIS E-MAIL HE NOTED THAT HE PREPARED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS WILLING TO MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLITICAL INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DESIRED.

SECRETARY PERRY AND MICK MULVANEY THEN RESPONDED TO SONDLAND ACKNOWLEDGING THEY RECEIVED THE E-MAIL AND RECOMMENDING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PHONE CALL.

THAT BECAME THE JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE.

WE KNOW ALL OF THIS NOT BECAUSE THE STATE DEPARTMENT PROVIDED US WITH CRITICAL DOCUMENTS, BUT INSTEAD BECAUSE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PROVIDED US A REPRODUCTION OF THE E-MAIL.

IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND QUITE CORRECTLY EXPLAINED, THAT THIS E-MAIL DEMONSTRATED, QUOTE, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

>> IT WAS NO SECRET, EVERYONE WAS INFORMED VIA E-MAIL ON JULY 19th, DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL CALL.

AS I COMMUNICATED TO THE TEAM I TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN ADVANCE THAT ASSURANCES TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND TURN OVER EVERY STONE WERE NECESSARY IN HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> EVEN VIEWED ALONE, THIS REPRODUCED E-MAIL IS DAMNING.

IT WAS SENT SHORTLY AFTER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PERSONALLY CONVEYED THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATION TO UKRAINIANS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, LEADING SEVERAL OFFICIALS TO SOUND ALARMS.

IT WAS SENT JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE JULY 25 CALL WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR A FAVOR.

AND BY ITSELF THIS E-MAIL SHOWS WHO WAS EMBROILED IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PLAN TO PRESSURE THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL GAIN.

BUT IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THE FULL E-MAIL CHAIN AND OTHER RELATED E-MAILS TO THIS KEY TIME PERIOD WOULD ALSO BE HIGHLY RELEVANT.

WE DON'T HAVE THOSE E-MAILS BECAUSE THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS HIDING THEM AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT.

THE SENATE SHOULD ISSUE THE PROPOSED SUBPOENA TO ENSURE A COMPLETE RECORD, A COMPLETE RECORD OF THESE AND OTHER RELEVANT E-MAILS.

ANY DOUBT THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS CONCEALING CRITICAL EVIDENCE FROM THIS BODY WAS RESOLVED WHEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS RECENTLY ORDERED TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING E-MAILS PURSUANT TO A LAWSUIT UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE HEAVILY REDACTED AND ARE LIMITED TO A VERY NARROW TIME PERIOD.

BUT NEVERTHELESS, DESPITE THE HEAVY REDACTION THESE HIGHLY LIMITED GLIMPSE INTO THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S SECRET RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT THOSE RECORDS ARE FULL OF INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THIS TRIAL.

FOR EXAMPLE, SEVERAL OF THESE NEWLY ELECTED -- RELEASED E-MAILS SHOW MULTIPLE CONTACT BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO AND MR. GUILIANI THROUGHOUT 2019.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FACT.

MR. GUILIANI SERVED AS THE PRESIDENT'S POINT PERSON IN EXECUTING HIS CORRUPT SCHEME.

MR. GUILIANI REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED THAT HIS ROLE WAS TO ADVANCE THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AGENDA.

THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL INTERESTS, NOT TO PROMOTE THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE ATTORNEY WAS IN CONTACT AT KEY JUNK TERSE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHO SENIOR OFFICIALS WERE DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT TO SUPPORT MR. GUILIANI'S EFFORTS IN UKRAINE IS RELEVANT, DISTURBING AND TELLING.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW THAT ON MARCH 26th, AS MR. GUILIANI WAS PURSUING THE PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE AGENDA IN UKRAINE, AND JUST ONE WEEK AFTER THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE FEATURING MR. GUILIANI'S CONSPIRACY THEORIES, SECRETARY POMPEO AND MR. GUILIANI SPOKE DIRECTLY ON THE PHONE.

THAT SAME WEEK, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER PERSONAL SECRETARY WAS ASKED BY MR. GUILIANI'S ASSISTANT FOR A DIRECT CONNECTION TO SECRETARY POMPEO.

BASED ON THESE RECORDS, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT SECRETARY POMPEO WAS ALREADY ACTIVELY ENGAGED WITH MR. GUILIANI IN EARLY SPRING OF 2019.

IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THESE EFFORTS WERE BACKED BY THE WHITE HOUSE GIVEN THE INVOLVEMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL SECRETARY.

THIS BODY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THESE E-MAILS AND OTHER FILES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FLUSHING OUT THESE EXCHANGES AND THE DETAILS SURROUNDING MR. GUILIANI'S COMMUNICATIONS WITH SECRETARY POMPEO.

MORE OVER, BASED ON CALL RECORDS LAWFULLY OBTAINED BY THE HOUSE FROM THIS PERIOD, WE KNOW THAT FROM MARCH 24th TO MARCH 30th, MR. GUILIANI CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE SEVERAL TIMES AND ALSO CONNECTED WITH AN UN UNIDENTIFIED NUMBER NUMEROUS TIMES.

THESE RECORDS SHOW THAT ON MARCH 27th, MR. GUILIANI PLACED A SERIES OF CALLS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT SWITCH BOARD.

SECRETARY POMPEO'S ASSISTANT AND THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCH BOARD IN QUICK SUCCESSION ALL WITHIN LESS THAN MINUTES.

OBTAINING E-MAILS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERSHIP, INTERACTION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRIVATE LAWYER IN THIS PERIOD WHEN MR. GUILIANI WAS ACTIVELY ORCHESTRATING THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE, RELATED TO THE SHAM INVESTIGATION INTO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE 2016 ELECTION, WOULD FURTHER CLARIFY THE PRESIDENT'S INVOLVEMENT AND DIRECTION AT THIS KEY JUNCTURE IN THE FORMATION OF A PLOT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE INTO OUR ELECTION.

WE ALSO KNOW BASED ON RECENTLY OBTAINED DOCUMENTS THAT PROMISED AN ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GUILIANI HAS ASSISTED HIM IN HIS REPRESENTATION OF PRESIDENT TRIP, THAT GUILIANI LIKELY SPOKE WITH SECRETARY POMPEO ABOUT UKRAINE MATTERS EVEN EARLIER THAN PREVIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD.

ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTS OBTAINED FROM THIS DEPARTMENT, MR. GUILIANI WROTE AN EARLY FEBRUARY OF 2019 THAT HE APPARENTLY SPOKE WITH SECRETARY POMPEO ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE, MARIA VOINOVICH.

MR. GUILIANI VIEWED HER AS IMPEDIMENT TO IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME AND ORCHESTRATED A LONG RUNNING SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER.

HERE IS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THIS JUST LAST WEEK.

>> YOU BELIEVE THAT PART OF THE MOAT SEPARATION TO GET RID OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS IN THE WAY OF THIS EFFORT TO GET THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN.

>> THAT WAS THE ONLY MOTIVATION.

NO OTHER MOTIVATION.

>> THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE KNOW.

THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE KNOW TO EXIST BUT THERE ARE UNDOUBTFULLY MORE.

INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH REQUEST FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT OF HER AROUND THE TIME THAT MR. GUILIANI WAS SPEAKING DIRECTLY WITH SECRETARY POMPEO, THAT STATEMENT NEVER CAME.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS GATHERED THESE RECORDS AND THEY ARE READY TO BE TURNED OVER PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA ON THE SENATE.

IT WOULD NOT BE A TIME CONSUMING OR LENGTHY PROCESS TO OBTAIN THEM AND THERE ARE CLEARLY, CLEARLY IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

IF WE WANT THE FULL AND COMPLETE TRUTH, THEN WE NEED TO SEE THOSE E-MAILS.

THE SENATE SHOULD ALSO SEEK A THIRD ITEM THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE AND THAT'S AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EXTRAORDINARY FIRST PERSON DIPLOMATIC CABLE TO SECRETARY POMPEO DATED AUGUST 29 AND SENT AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, JOHN BOLTON.

IN WHICH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR STRENUOUSLY OBJECTED TO THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE.

AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECOUNTED IN HIS DEPOSITION.

>> NEAR THE END OF AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S VISIT I ASKED TO MEET HIM REALLY DURING WHICH I EXPRESSED TO HIM MY SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WHILE THE UKRAINIANS WERE DITCHING THEIR COUNTRY FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON RECOMMEND THAT I SEND A FIRST PERSON CABLE TO SECRETARY POMPEO DIRECTLY RELAYING MY CONCERNS.

I WROTE AND TRANSMITTED SUCH A CABLE ON AUGUST 29th DESCRIBING THE FOLLY I SAW IN WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID WHEN HOSTILITIES WERE STILL ACTIVE IN THE EAST WHEN RUSSIA WAS WATCHING CLOSELY TO GAUGE THE LEVEL OF AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.

THE RUSSIANS, AS I SAID IN MY DEPOSITION, WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE HUMILIATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT THE HANDS OF THE AMERICANS.

I TOLD THE SECRETARY THAT I COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT DEFEND SUCH A POLICY.

ALTHOUGH I RECEIVED NO SPECIFIC RESPONSE, I HEARD THAT SOON THEREAFTER THE SECRETARY CARRIED THE CABLE WITH HIM TO A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOCUSED ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE.

>> WHILE WE KNOW FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT THAT THE CABLE WAS RECEIVED, WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR HOW THE STATE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED.

NOR DO WE KNOW IF THE STATE DEPARTMENT POSSESSES ANY OTHER INTERNAL RECORDS RELATING TO THIS CABLE.

THIS CABLE IS VITAL FOR THREE REASONS.

FIRST, IT DEMONSTRATES THE HARM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY WHEN HE USED FOREIGN POLICY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.

SECOND, ON THE SAME DAY THE CABLE WAS SENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S SENIOR AIDE TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT HE WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WHOLE MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

HE ADDED THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE JUST DESPERATE AND TO BE RELEASED.

IN OTHER WORDS, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORT TO USE MILITARY AID TO APPLY ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON UKRAINE WAS WORKING.

AND FINALLY, BASED ON REPORTING BY THE "NEW YORK TIMES" WE NOW NONA WITHIN DAYS OF AMBASSADOR TAILOR SENDING THAT CABLE, PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE WITH SECRETARY POMPEO, DEFENSE SECRETARY ESPER AND NATIONAL SECURE ADVISOR BOLTON BROUGHT AMBASSADOR CABLE TO THE WHITE HOUSE, PERHAPS IT WAS DURING THIS MEETING.

THERE PERHAPS PRODDED BY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CABLE ALL THREE OF THEM PLEADED -- PLEADED WITH THE PRESIDENT TO RESUME THE CRUCIAL MILITARY AID YET THE PRESIDENT REFUSED.

THIS BODY HAS A RIGHT TO SEE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CABLE AS WELL AS THE OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS ADDRESSING THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO IT.

ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME, THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAN NO LONGER CLAIM THAT THE TOPIC OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE REMAINS CLASSIFIED TODAY IN LIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO DE DECLASSIFY HIS TWO TELEPHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MR. MULVANEY'S PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE FOURTH CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE SENATE SHOULD SUBPOENA ARE CONTEMPORANEOUS, FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS FROM STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHO WERE CAUGHT UP IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT SCHEME.

THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL BY DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND THE POLITICAL OFFICER DAVID HOLMES, WOULD HELP COMPLETE THE RECORD AND CLARIFY HOW THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNFOLDED IN REALTIME AND HOW THE UKRAINIANS REACTED.

MR. KENT WROTE NOTES OR MEMOS TO FILE AT LEAST FOUR TIMES ACCORDING TO HIS TESTIMONY.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOOK EXTENSIVE NOTES OF NEARLY EVERY CONVERSATION HE HAD, SOME IN A LITTLE NOTEBOOK.

AND DAVID HOLMES, THE EMBASSY OFFICIAL IN UKRAINE WAS A CONSISTENT NOTE TAKER OF IMPORTANT MEETINGS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

>> DID YOU TAKE NOTES OF THIS CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 1 WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND?

>> I DID.

>> DID YOU TAKE NOTES RELATED TO MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS IF NOT ALL OF THEM THAT YOU RECITED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

>> ALL OF THEM, MR. GOLDMAN.

>> YOU ARE AWARE I PRESUME THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PROVIDED THOSE NOTES TO THE COMMIT FREE, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I AM AWARE.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF REVYING THEM TO ASK YOU THESE QUESTIONS.

>> CORRECT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MAY BE COMING SOON IRRELEVANT OR LATER.

>> WELL, WE WOULD WELCOME THAT.

>> THE STATE DEPARTMENT NEVER PRODUCED THOSE NOTES.

AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE DEPUTY SECRETARY -- DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT TESTIFIED ABOUT KEY DOCUMENT THAT HE DRAFTED ON AUGUST 16 DESCRIBING HIS CONCERNS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS ATTEMPTING TO PRESSURE UKRAINE INTO OPENLY -- OPENING POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS.

>> I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOU, MR. KENT.

IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD IN MID AUGUST IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME THAT GUILIANI'S EFFORTS TO GIN UP POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOW INFECTING U.S.

ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINE, LEVERAGING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S DESIRE FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

MR. KENT, DID YOU ACTUALLY WRITE A MEMO DOCUMENTING YOUR CONCERNS THAT THERE WAS AN EFFORT UNDERWAY TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO OPEN INVESTIGATION TO BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> YES, MA'AM, I WROTE A MEMO TO THE FILE ON AUGUST 16th.

>> BUT WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT MEMO, DO WE?

>> I SUBMITTED IT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT SUBPOENA TO THE SUBPOENA.

>> WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE PIECE OF PAPER FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT RELATIVE TO THIS INVESTIGATION.

>> DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT ALSO MEMORIALIZED A SEPTEMBER 15 CONVERSATION AT WHICH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBED A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL ACCRUESING AMERICA OF HYPOCRISY FOR ADVISING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGAINST INVESTIGATING A PRIOR UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

MR. KENT DESCRIBED THAT CONVERSATION DURING HIS TESTIMONY.

HE SAID, BUT THE MORE AWKWARD PART OF THE CONVERSATION CAME AFTER SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE VOLKER MADE THE POINT THAT THE UKRAINIANS WHO HAD OPENED THEIR AUTHORITY UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD OPENED INVESTIGATIONS OF FORMER PRESIDENT PARASINKO HE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS APPROPRIATE.

AND THEN, ANDRIY YERMAK SAID, WHAT?

YOU MEAN THE TYPE OF INVESTIGATIONS YOU'RE PUSHING FOR US TO DO ON BIDEN AND CLINTON.

THE CONVERSATION MAKES CLEAR THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS UNDERSTOOD THE CORRUPT NATURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST, THERE FOR DOUBTED AMERICAN CREDIBILITY ON ANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURES.

OTHER NOTES BY SENIOR AMERICAN OFFICIALS IN UKRAINE WOULD FLESH OUT AND HELP COMPLETE THE RECORD FOR THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY WOULD TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH AND -- TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO THIS BODY.

YOU SHOULD REQUIRE THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE THEM.

TO SUMMARIZE, THE SENATE SHOULD ISSUE THE SUBPOENA PROPOSED IN THE AMENDMENT REQUIRING THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO TURN OVER RELEVANT TEXTS AND WHATSAPP MESSAGES, E-MAILS, DIPLOMATIC CABLES AND NOTES.

THESE DOCUMENTS BEAR DIRECTLY ON THE TRIAL OF THIS BODY.

THE TRIAL THAT THIS BODY IS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO HOLD.

THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY RELEVANT TO THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEIR EXISTENCE HAS BEEN ATTESTED TO BY CREDIBLE WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE AND THE ONLY REASON WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE THEM IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ORDERED HIS ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO TO HIDE THEM.

THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS MAY SUGGEST THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD START -- THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT THESE MATERIALS IN COURT OR WAITED FURTHER LAWSUITS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, AKAFOIA LAWSUITS, ANY SUCH SUGGESTION IS MERITLESS.

TO START THE CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO REQUIRE SUCH LAWSUITS.

WHICH HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN ANY PREVIOUS REPEATEDLY AND STRENUOUSLY AIR ARGUED THAT THE HOUSE IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO FILE A SUIT TO ENFORCE ITS SUBPOENAS.

AND IN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CASES, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ONLY GRUDGINGLY AND SLOWLY PRODUCED AN EXTREMELY SMALL SET OF MATERIALS BUT HAS INSISTED ON APPLYING HEAVY AND DUBIOUS REDACTIONS.

FOIA LAWSUITS FILED BY THIRD PARTIES CANNOT SERVE AS A CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

IN FACT, IT IS STILL ALARMING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PRODUCED MORE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUITS BY PRIVATE CITIZENS AND ENTITIES THAN CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.

FINALLY, AS WE ALL KNOW, LITIGATION WOULD TAKE AN EXTREMELY LONG TIME, LIKELY YEARS, NOT WEEKS OR MONTHS, WHILE THE MISCONDUCT OF THIS PRESIDENT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

THE MISCONDUCT OF THIS PRESIDENT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

IF THIS BODY IS TRULY COMMITTED TO A FAIR TRIAL, IT CANNOT LET THE PRESIDENT PLAY A GAME OF KEEP AWAY AND DICTATE WHAT EVIDENCE THE SENATORS CAN AND CANNOT SEE BURIED ON HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

THIS BODY CANNOT PERMIT HIM TO HIDE ALL THE EVIDENCE WHILE DISINGENUOUSLY INSISTING ON LAWSUITS THAT HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY THINK WE CAN FILE.

ONES THAT HE KNOWS WON'T BE RESOLVED UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION HE IS TRYING TO CHEAT TO WIN.

INSTEAD, TO HONOR YOUR OATHS TO DO IMPARTIALITY JUSTICE, WE URGE EACH SENATOR TO SUPPORT A SUBPOENA TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND THAT SUBPOENA SHOULD BE ISSUED NOW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL RATHER THAN AT THE END.

SO THESE DOCUMENTS CAN BE REVIEWED, AND THEIR IMPORTANCE WEIGHED BY THE PARTIES, THE SENATE AND BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT IS HOW THINGS WORK IN EVERY COURTROOM IN THE NATION, AND IT IS HOW THEY SHOULD WORK HERE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE STATES, AS YOU ALL KNOW, ARE SO -- THE STAKES, AS YOU ALL KNOW, ARE SO HIGH.

THE TRUTH IS THERE.

FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS.

THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO HIDE IT.

THIS BODY SHOULD NOT SURRENDER TO HIS OBSTRUCTION BY REFUSING TO AND IN A FULL RECORD.

THAT IS WHY THE HOUSE MANAGERS SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.

AND, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME.

>> MR. CIPPOLONE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WON'T REPEAT ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE ALREADY WITH RESPECT TO THESE MOTIONS.

I WOULD SAY ONE THING BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO MY CO-COUNSEL.

MR. SCHIFF CAME HERE AND SAID HE'S NOT ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING HE WOULDN'T DO FOR HIMSELF, AND THE HOUSE MANAGER SAID, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO DO OUR JOBS FOR US.

AND MR. SCHIFF CAME UP HERE AND HE SAID, I CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

REMEMBER PAUL HARVEY?

IT'S TIME FOR THE REST OF THE STORY.

HE DIDN'T CALL HIM IN THE HOUSE.

HE DIDN'T SUBPOENA AMBASSADOR BOLTON IN THE HOUSE.

I HAVE A LETTER HERE FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S LAWYER, HE'S THE SAME LAWYER THAT CHARLIE KUPERMAN HIRED.

STATED NOVEMBER 8th, HE SAYS I RIDE AS COUNSEL TO DR. CHARLES KUPERMAN AND TO AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON IN RESPONSE TO, ONE, TO THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 5 FROM CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, ANGLE AND ACTING CHAIR MALONEY, THE HOUSE CHAIRS, WITHDRAWING THE SUBPOENA TO DR. KUPERMAN.

I MENTIONED THAT EARLIER, AND TO RECENT PUBLISHED REPORTS ANNOUNCING THAT THE HOUSE CHAIRS DO NOT INTEND TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

HE GOES ON AND SAYS, WE ARE DISMAYED THAT THE COMMITTEES HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO JOIN US IN SEEKING RESOLUTION FROM THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THIS MO MOMENTOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

AND HE ENDS THE LETTER BY SAYING, IF THE HOUSE CHOOSES NOT TO PURSUE THROUGH SUBPOENA THE TESTIMONY OF DR. KUPERMAN AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON, LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR, THAT IS THE HOUSE'S DECISION, AND THEY MADE THAT DECISION.

THEY NEVER SUBPOENAED AMBASSADOR BOLTON, THEY DIDN'T TRY TO CALL HIM IN THE HOUSE, AND THEY WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA FOR CHARLES KUPERMAN BEFORE THE JUDGE COULD RULE, AND THEY ASK THAT THE CASE BE MOOTED, AND NOW THEY COME HERE AND THEY ASK YOU TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR JOHN BOLTON.

IT'S NOT RIGHT.

I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. SEKULOW.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

MADAM JUST SAID FACTS ARE A STUBBORN THING.

LET ME GIVE YOU SOME FACTS, FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ACTUALLY TESTIFIED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT TIE AID TO INVESTIGATIONS.

INSTEAD, THAT HE ACKNOWLEDGED ANY LEAK HE HAD SUGGESTED WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN SPECULATION, UNCONNECTED TO ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

HERE'S THE QUESTION -- WHAT ABOUT THE AID?

AMBASSADOR VOLCKER SAYS THEY WERE TIED -- THAT THE AID WAS NOT TIED.

ANSWER, I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE CONCLUSIVELY TIED EITHER, I SAID I WAS PRESUMING IT.

QUESTION: OKAY.

AND, SO, THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD YOU THEY WERE TIED?

ANSWER: THAT IS CORRECT.

QUESTION: SO YOUR TOM AND AMBASSADOR VOLCKER'S TESTIMONY IS CONSISTENT, AND THE PRESIDENT DID NOT TIE INVESTIGATIONS -- AID TO INVESTIGATIONS?

ANSWER: THAT IS CORRECT.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO TESTIFIED THAT HE ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY ABOUT THESE ISSUES, AND THE PRESIDENT EXPLICITLY TOLD HIM THAT HE DID NOT WANT ANYTHING FROM UKRAINE.

I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO.

TELL ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

SIMILAR COMMENTS WERE MADE TO SENATOR JOHNSON.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

STUBBORN, BUT THAT'S THE FACTS.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

HERE'S THE LAW.

AS EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS KNOWS, UNDOUBTEDLY AWARE, SEPARATE FROM EVEN STATE SACRED PRIVILEGES IS THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE TO THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES.

THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE'S CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS, COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED A GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST IN PRESERVING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF CONVERSATIONS THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE PRESIDENT'S PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES BECAUSE SUCH CONFIDENTIALITY IS NEEDED TO PROTECT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXECUTIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, INRE-SEALED CASES, THAT WAS DECIDED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS.

THE SUPREME COURT FOUND SUCH A PRIVILEGE NECESSARY TO GUARANTEE THE CANDOR OF PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS AND TO PROVIDE A PRESIDENT AND THOSE WHO ASSIST HIM WITH FREEDOM TO EXPLORE ALTERRORIST IN THE -- ALTERNATIVES IN THE PROCESS OF ULTIMATELY SHAPING POLICIES AND MAKE DEGREE SESSIONS, AND TO DO SO IN A WAY MANY WOULD BE WILLING TO EXPRESS EXCEPT IN PRIVATE.

FOR THESE REASONS, PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS ARE PRESUMPTIVELY PRIVILEGED.

THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT THIS PRIVILEGE.

COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS, AGAIN, QUOTING COURTS -- AND BY THE WAY, LAWYER LAWSUITS?

LAWYER LAWSUITS?

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DULY ELECTED.

AND THE MEMBERS, THE MANAGERS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT LAWYER LAWSUITS?

THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS LAWYER LAWSUITS.

IT'S DISRESPECTING THE CONSTITUTION TO HAVE THE UNITED STATES TO EVEN SAY THAT IN THIS CHAMBER.

LAWYER LAWSUITS.

HERE'S THE LAW -- COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS IN THE COURSE OF PREPARING ADVICE FOR THE PRESIDENT COME UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE, EVEN WHEN THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE NOT MADE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT.

EVEN WHEN THEY'RE NOT MADE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT, ADVISOR TO ADVISOR.

GIVEN THE NEED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT ELBOW ROOM FOR ADVISORS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM ALL KNOWLEDGEABLE SOURCES, THE PRIVILEGE MUST APPLY BOTH TO COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH THESE ADVISORSADVISEADVISORS SOLICIT AND RECEIVE FROM OTHERS AS WELL AS THOSE THEY AUTHORIZE THEMSELVES.

THE PRIVILEGE MUST ALSO EXTEND TO COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORED OR RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO SOLICITATION BY MEMBERS OF A PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR'S STAFF, SINCE IN MANY INSTANCES ADVISORS MUST RELY ON STAFFS TO INVESTIGATE AN ISSUE AND FORMULATE ADVICE GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT.

LAWSUITS.

THE CONSTITUTION.

A DANGEROUS MOMENT FOR AMERICA, WHEN AN IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS BEING RUSHED THROUGH BECAUSE OF LAWYER LAWSUITS.

THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS IT, IF NECESSARY, THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS IT, IF NECESSARY.

THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> MRS. DEMINGS, YOU HAVE 13 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

MR. SCHIFF.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

LET ME JUST RESPOND TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES' POINTS, IF I CAN.

FIRST, COUNSELOR SAID, WELL, THE HOUSE WOULD LIKE TO CALL JOHN BOLTON, BUT THE HOUSE DID NOT SEEK HIS TESTIMONY IN THE INVESTIGATION.

FIRST OF ALL, WE DID.

WE INVITED JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY AND YOU KNOW WHAT HE TOLD US?

I'M NOT COMING, AND IF YOU SUBPOENA ME, I WILL SUE YOU.

THAT WAS HIS ANSWER, I WILL SUE YOU.

MR. BOLTON IS REPRESENTED BY THE ASSUME LAWYER WHO REPRESENTS DR. KUPERMAN WHO ACTUALLY DID SUE US WHEN HE WAS SUBPOENAED, SO WE KNEW THAT JOHN BOLTON WOULD MAKE GOOD ON THAT THREAT.

NOW, SEKULOW SAID SOMETHING ABOUT LAWYER LAWSUITS.

I WASN'T COMPLETELY FOLLOWING THE ARGUMENT, BUT THAT WE'RE AGAINST LAWYER LAWSUITS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS -- THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS IN COURT IN THAT CASE AND OTHER CASESSER ARE DO YOUING CONGRESS CANNOT -- AND OTHER COURTS ARGUING CONGRESS CANNOT GO TO COURT TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS.

SO WHEN THEY SAY LAWYER LAWSUITS AND THEY SAY THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE HOUSE SUING TO GET THE WITNESSES TO SHOW UP AND THEY SHOULD HAVE SUED TO GET THEM TO SHOW UP, THEIR OTHER LAWYERS ARE IN THE HOUSE SAYING THEY HAVE NO SUCH RIGHT, THEY'RE IN COURT SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE LAWYER LAWSUITS.

SO THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE MADE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

WHAT'S MORE, IN THE KUPERMAN LITIGATION -- I'M SORRY, IN THE MCGHAN LITIGATION WHICH TESTED THE SAME BOGUS THEORY OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, IN THAT LAWSUIT, ONCE AGAIN, INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER DON MCGHAN, THE ONE WHO WAS TOLD TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN TO LIE ABOUT IT, THAT LAWSUIT TO GET HIS TESTIMONY, JUDGE JACKSON RULED ON THAT VERY RECENTLY WHEN THEY MADE THE SAME BOGUS CLAIM, HE'S ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM SHOWING UP, AND THE JUDGE SAYS THAT'S NONSENSE.

THERE'S NO SUPPORT FOR THAT NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, NOT IN THE CASE LAW THAT IS MADE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTHE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THE JUDGE SAID SOMETHING MORE THAT WAS VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE WHAT WE URGED JOHN BOLTON'S LAWYER IS YOU DON'T NEED TO FILE A LAWSUIT.

DR. KUPERMAN, YOU DON'T NEED TO FILE A LAWSUIT, THERE'S ONE ALREADY FILED INVOLVING DON MCGHAN THAT'S ABOUT TO BE DECIDED.

SO UNLESS YOUR REAL PURPOSE HERE IS DELAY, UNLESS YOUR REAL PURPOSE HERE IS TO AVOID TESTIMONY AND YOU JUST WISH TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF A WILLINGNESS TO COME FORWARD, YOU JUST WANT TO HAVE THE COURT'S BLESSING, IF THAT'S REALLY TRUE, AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE MCGHAN DECISION.

OF COURSE, THEY WERE NOT WILLING BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TESTIFY.

NOW, FOR WHATEVER REASON, JOHN BOLTON IS NOW WILLING TO TESTIFY.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS.

MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE HE HAS A BOOK COMING OUT.

MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE IT WILL BE VERY HARD TO EXPLAIN WHY HE WAS UNWILLING TO SHARE IMPORTANT INFORMATION WITH THE SENATE THAT HE COULDN'T SHOW UP FOR A HOUSE DEPOSITION OR INTERVIEW BECAUSE HE WOULD NEED COURT PERMISSION TO DO IT BUT HE CAN PUT IT IN A BOOK.

I DON'T KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK TO HIS MOTIVATION BUT I CAN TELL YOU HE IS WILLING TO COME NOW IF YOU ARE WILLING TO HEAR HIM.

BUT, OF COURSE, THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO BE BOUND BY THAT COURT DECISION IN MCGHAN, BUT THE COURT SAID SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THEYMAN MAKING, ONE -- THEY HAD BEEN MAKING, ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS JOHN BOLTON'S LAWYER HAD BEEN MAKING AS TO WHY THEY NEEDED THEIR OWN SEPARATE LOCATION, JOHN BOLTON AND KUPERMAN ARE NATIONAL SECURITY PEOPLE AND DON MCGHAN IS JUST WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.

NO OFFENSE TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, BUT APPARENTLY YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE HOUSE SECURITY SO THEY COULDN'T BE BOUND BY WHAT THE COURT IN THE MCGHAN CASE SAID.

WELL THE JUDGE IN THE MCGHAN CASE SAID THIS APPLIES TO NATIONAL SECURITY STUFF, TOO.

SO WE DO HAVE A COURT DECISION AND WHAT'S MORE WE HAVE THE COURT DECISION IN THE HARRIET MIERS CASE IN THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHERE THE COURT MADE SHORT SHRIFT OF THIS CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE AND COMPLETE TOTAL IMMUNITIES.

THERE WERE COMMENTS MADE BY AMBASSADOR VOLCKER'S TESTIMONY BY MR. SEKULOW ALONG THESE LINES -- VOLCKER SAID THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD HIM THE AID WAS BEING CONDITIONED OR THE MEETING WAS BEING CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE DOING THE SHAM INVESTIGATION.

SO I GUESS THAT'S CASE CLOSED.

UNLESS THE PRESIDENT TOLD EVERYONE, CALLED HIM INTO THEIR OFFICE AND SAID, HEY, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU NOW AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU NOW, IF HE DIDN'T TELL EVERYONE, I GUESS IT'S CASE CLOSED.

WELL, YOU KNOW WHO THE PRESIDENT DID TELL, AMONG OTHERS?

HE TOLD MICK MULVANEY.

MICK MULVANEY WENT OUT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION AND SAID, YES, THEY DISCUSSED IT, THIS INVESTIGATION, THIS RUSSIAN NARRATIVE, IT WASN'T UKRAINE THAT INTERVENED IN 2016, IT WAS RUSSIA.

I'M SORRY, IT WASN'T RUSSIA, IT WAS UKRAINE.

YES, THAT BOGUS 2016 THEORY, YES, THEY DISCUSSED IT AND THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON THEY WITHHELD THE MONEY.

THE REPORTER SAID YOU'RE DESCRIBING A QUID PRO QUO.

HIS ANSWER WAS, YEAH, GET USED TO IT OR GET OVER IT.

WE DO IT ALL THE TIME.

NOW, THEY HAVEN'T SAID THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM MICK MULVANEY.

I WONDER WHY.

THE PRESIDENT DID TALK TO MICK MULVANEY ABOUT IT.

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO HEAR WHAT MICK MULVANEY HAS TO SAY?

I MEAN, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS, IF THEY'RE REALLY CHALLENGING THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT CONDITIONED $400 MILLION IN MILITARY AID TO AN ALLY AT WAR, IF MICK MULVANEY HAS ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY THAT HE TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT IT AND THIS IS PART OF THE REASON WHY, DON'T YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HEAR FROM HIM?

DON'T YOU THINK IMPARTIALITY JUSTICE REQUIRES YOU TO HEAR FROM HIM?

NOW, COUNSELS REFERRED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SONDLAND SAYING, WELL, THE PRESIDENT TOLD ME THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

SO AT THE TIME THE PRESIDENT SAID TO SONDLAND NO QUID PRO QUO, HE BECAME AWARE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, PRESUMABLY BY MR. CIPPOLONE.

SO THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT THIS WAS GOING TO COME TO LIGHT ON THE ADVICE, APPARENTLY, OF MR. CIPPOLONE, OR MAYBE OTHERS, THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY WITHHELD A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT FROM CONGRESS, ITS INTENDED RECIPIENT, BUT, NONETHELESS, THE WHITE HOUSE WAS AWARE OF THAT COMPLAINT WOAVMENT LAUNCHED OUR OWN INVESTIGATIONS.

YES, THEY GOT CAUGHT AND IN THE MIDST OF BEING CAUGHT, WHAT DID HE SAY?

IT'S CALLED A FALSE EXCULPATORY FOR THOSE AT HOME, IT'S A FANCY WAY OF SAYING FALSE ALIBI.

NO QUID PRO QUO.

HE WASN'T ASKED THE QUESTION WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO.

HE JUST BLURTED IT OUT.

THAT'S THE DEFENSE THAT THE PRESIDENT DENIES IT?

AND WHAT'S MORE INTERESTINGLY, HE DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THE OTHER HALF OF THAT CONVERSATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT SAYS NO QUID PRO QUO.

HE SAYS NO QUID PRO QUO, BUT ZELENSKY NEEDS TO GO TO THE MIC, AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF SAYING NO QUID PRO QUO EXCEPT THE QUID PRO QUO.

AND HERE'S WHAT THE QUID PRO QUO IS, HE NEEDS TO GO TO THE MIC AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT.

THAT'S THEIR ALIBI?

THEY DIDN'T ALSO MENTION, OF COURSE -- AND YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THIS DURING THE TRIAL, IF WE HAVE A REAL TRIAL -- AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO SAID THAT WE'RE OFTEN ASKED WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?

THE ANSWER, IS YES, THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTE QUID PRO QUO.

WHAT'S MORE, WHEN IT CAME TO THE MILITARY AID, IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS TWO PLUS TWO.

BUT I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING, WE'RE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN ADD UP TWO PLUS TWO.

THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WATCHING THIS CAN ADD UP TWO PLUS TWO, ALSO.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT TELLS HIS CHIEF OF STAFF WE'RE HOLDING UP THE AID BECAUSE OF THIS, AS THE CHIEF OF STAFF ADMITTED, WHEN THE PRESIDENT GIVES NO PLAUSIBLE OR OTHER EXPLANATION FOR HOLDING UP AID THAT YOU ALL AND WE ALL SUPPORTED AND VOTED ON A VERY BIPARTISAN WAY, HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR IT, WHEN, IN THAT CALL, HE NEVER BRINGS UP CORRUPTION EXCEPT THE CORRUPTION HE WANTS TO BRING ABOUT, IT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIUS, IT DOESN'T TAKE ALBERT EINSTEIN TO ADD TWO PLUS TWO.

IT EQUALS FOUR.

IN THIS CASE, IT EQUALS GUILT.

NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 16 HOURS.

THAT'S A LONG TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS.

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ASK ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS IN THAT 16 HOURS?

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SAY, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, WHAT DID MICK MULVANEY MEAN WHEN HE E-MAILED SO AND SO AND SAID SUCH AND SUCH?

WHAT'S YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THAT?

BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE PRETTY DAMNING EVIDENCE OF EXACTLY WHAT THE HOUSE IS SAYING HERE.

WHAT'S YOUR EXPLANATION, MR. SEKULOW?

WHAT'S YOUR EXPLANATION?

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ASK ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS?

OR ASK THE HOUSE, MR. SCHIFF, WHAT ABOUT THIS TEXT MESSAGE?

DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST SUCH IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT ARGUING?

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ASK ME THAT QUESTION OR MY COLLEAGUES?

I THINK YOU WOULD OR SHOULD, BUT THE BACKWARDS WAY THIS RESOLUTION IS DRAFTED, YOU GET 16 HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT DOCUMENTS YOU'VE NEVER SEEN.

YOU KNOW WHAT'S MORE?

IF YOU DO DECIDE AT THAT POINT AFTER IT'S OVER THAT YOU DO WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS AFTER ALL AND THE DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCED, YOU DON'T GET ANOTHER 16 HOURS.

YOU DON'T GET 16 MINUTES.

YOU DON'T GET 16 SECONDS TO ASK ABOUT THOSE DOCUMENTS.

DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU?

DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?

I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT MAY BE IN THE DOCUMENTS, YOU PROBABLY HEARD ABOUT THE THREE AMIGOS.

MY COLLEAGUES MENTIONED TWO OF THE THREE AMIGOS.

AMIGO VOLCKER AND AMIGO SONDLAND.

THESE ARE TWO OF THE THREE PEOPLE THAT THE PRESIDENT PUT IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY.

THE THIRD AMIGO IS SECRETARY RICK PERRY, THE FORMER SECRETARY OF ENERGY.

WE KNOW FROM AMIGO SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS CERTAINLY IN THE LOOP, HE KNEW EXACTLY ALL ABOUT THIS SCHEME, AND WE KNEW FROM AMBASSADOR VOLCKER'S TESTIMONY AND HIS TEXT MESSAGES AND HIS WHAT'S APPS THAT THAT AMIGO WAS IN THE LOOP.

WHAT ABOUT THE THIRD AMIGO?

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO KNOW IF THE THIRD AMIGO WAS IN THE LOOP?

NOW, AS MY COLLEAGUES WOULD EXPLAIN, WHEN WE GET TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RECORDS THAT, WELL, SURPRISINGLY, WE DIDN'T GET THOSE EITHER.

BUT ANY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS COVERED BY THIS AMENDMENT.

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO KNOW -- DON'T YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE THIRD AMIGO KNEW ABOUT THIS SCHEME?

I'D LIKE TO KNOW.

I THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT IN YOUR 16 HOURS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, I GUESS I'LL FINISH WITH SOMETHING MR. SEKULOW SAID, HE SAID THIS WAS A DANGEROUS MOMENT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO RUSH THROUGH THIS, SOMEHOW.

IT IS A DANGEROUS MOMENT, BUT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO RUSH THROUGH THIS TRIAL, WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO HAVE A REAL TRIAL HERE.

THE PRESIDENT'S TRYING TO RUSH THROUGH THIS.

AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT WHATEVER YOU DECIDE HERE -- AND MAYBE THIS IS WASTED BREATH AND MAYBE IT'S ALREADY DECIDED -- BUT WHATEVER YOU DECIDE HERE, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT'S GOING TO BE, MAYBE SOMEONE IN THIS CHAMBER, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU THIS, WHOEVER THAT NEXT PRESIDENT IS, WHETHER THEY DID SOMETHING RIGHT OR THEY DID SOMETHING WRONG, THERE'S GOING TO COME A TIME WHERE YOU AND THIS BODY ARE GOING TO WANT TO SUBPOENA AT THE PRESIDENT AND THAT ADMINISTRATION.

YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS.

ARE YOU PREPARED TO SAY THAT THAT PRESIDENT CAN SIMPLY SAY, I'M GOING TO FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS?

ARE YOU PREPARED TO SAY AND ACCEPT THAT PRESIDENT SAYING, I HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, YOU WANT ME TO COME TESTIFY?

SENATOR, DO YOU WANT ME TO COME AND TESTIFY?

NO, NO, I HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

YOU CAN SUBPOENA ME ALL YOU LIKE.

I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT, AND WHEN YOU GET TO COURT, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, YOU CAN'T SEE ME IN COURT.

ARE YOU PREPARED FOR THAT?

THAT'S WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS LIKE.

DON'T THINK THIS IS THE LAST PRESIDENT, IF YOU ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW THIS TO TAKE PLACE.

>> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.

I YIELD BACK, THANK YOU.

THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> TABLE THE AMENDMENT.

QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO TABLE.

>> THE YEAS AND NEIGHS.

IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?

THERE IS.

THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.

>> MR. ALEXANDER.

AH.

BALDWIN.

NO.

BARRASSO.

AYE.

BENNETT.

NO.

MRS. BLACKBURN.

AYE.

MR. BLUMENTHAL, (INAUDIBLE).

NT (INAUDIBLE).

WILL BOOKER (INAUDIBLE).

MR. BOOZMAN, (INAUDIBLE).

MR. BRAWN.

>> (INAUDIBLE).

MR. BROWN.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. BURR.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. CANTWELL.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. CAPITO.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. CARDIN.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. CARPER.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. CASEY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. CASSIDY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. COLLINS.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. COONS.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. CORNYN.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. CORTEST CORTEZ MASTO.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. CORNYN.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. COTO, (INAUDIBLE).

RUZ.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. DAINES.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. DUCKWORTH.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. DURBIN.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. ENZI.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. ERNST.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. FEINSTEIN.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. FISHER.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. GARDNER.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. GILLIBRAND.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. GRAHAM.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. GRASSLEY.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. HARRIS.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. HASAN.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. HAWLEY.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. HINRICH.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. HIRONO.

INAUDIBLE.

OEVEN.

INAUDIBLE.

MS.

HIDE SMITH.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. INHOFE.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. JOHNSON.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. JONES.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. KAIN E. (INAUDIBLE).

MR. KENNEDY.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. KING.

INAUDIBLE.

MRS. KLOBUCHAR.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. LANGFORD.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. LAHEY.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. LEE.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. LEFFLER.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. MANCHIN.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. MARKEY.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. MCCONNELL.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. MCSALLY.

OBLE.

R. MENENDEZ.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. MERKLEY.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. MORAN, INAUDIBLE.

URKOWSKI.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. MURPHY, INAUDIBLE.

S. MURRAY,.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. PAUL.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. BEER DUE.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. PETERS.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. PORTMAN.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. REED.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. RISCH.

(INAUDIBLE), MR. ROBERTS.

.

MR. ROMNEY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. ROSEN.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. ROUNDS.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. RUBIO.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. SANDERS.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. SASSE.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. SCHATZ.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. SCHUMER.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

INAUDIBLE.

MRS. SHAHEEN.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. SHELBY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. SINEMA.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. SMITH.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. STABENOW.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. SULLIVAN.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. TESTER.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. THUNE.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. TILLIS.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. TOOMEY.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. UDALL.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. VAN HOLEN.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. WARNER.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. WARREN.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. WHITEHOUSE.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. WICKER.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. WYDEN.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. YOUNG.

(INAUDIBLE).

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO VOTE OR CHANGE THEIR VOTE?

IF NOT, THE YEAS ARE 53, THE NAYS 47.

THE MOTION TO TABLE IS AGREED TO.

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN OFFICE AND MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DOCUMENTS, AND I ASK THAT IT BE READ.

>> THE CLERK WILL READ THE AMENDMENT.

>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, MR. SCHUMER, PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NO.

1286.

AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE RESOLVING CLAUSE INSERT THE FOLLOWING SECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULES 5 AND 6 OF RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, ONE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, COMMANDING HIM TO PRODUCE FOR THE TIME PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2019, TO THE PRESENT ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, REFERRING OR RELATING TO, A, THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, FREEZING OR RELEASING OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS U.S.A.I.

AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING, REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS FMF, INCLUDE BUG NOT LIMITED TO, ONE, COMMUNICATIONS AMONG, BETWEEN OR REFERRING TO DIRECTOR MICHAEL JOHN MICK MULVANEY, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT ROBERT BLARE, ACTING DIRECTOR RUSSELL VAUGHT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFY OR ANY OTHER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE.

TWO, COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO REQUESTS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR INFORMATION ABOUT UKRAINE SECURITY OR MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND RESPONSES TO THOSE REQUESTS.

THREE, COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO CONCERNS RAISED BY ANY OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE RELATED TO THE LEGALITY OF ANY HOLD ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

FOUR, COMMUNICATIONS SENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE REGARDING A HOLD OR BLOCK ON CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATIONS REGARDING THE RELEASE OF FMF FUNDS TO UKRAINE.

FIVE, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN, ONE, OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE ELAINE McCUES KERR AND, TWO, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFY, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MARK SAN DIOR ANY OTHER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE.

SIX, ALL DRAFT AND FINAL VERSIONS OF THE AUGUST 7th, 2019 MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION AND OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ABOUT THE RELEASE OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

SEVEN, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE, PRIOR TO AUGUST 28, 2019, OF ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, FREEZING OR RELEASING OF THE UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING ALL MEETINGS, CALLS OR OTHER ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS REGARDING POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL SUSPENSIONS, HOLDS OR DELAYS IN UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

B, COMMUNICATIONS, OPINIONS, ADVICE, COUNSEL, APPROVALS OR CONCURRENCES PROVIDED BY ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET REGARDING THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION WITHHOLDING DELAYING, FREEZING OR RELEASING OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING LEGALITY UNDER THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.

C, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFY TAKING OVER DUTIES RELATED TO APPORTIONENMENTS OF USAI FROM DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MARK SAN DIOR ANY OTHER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE.

D, ALL MEETINGS RELATED TO THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INTER-AGENCY MEETINGS ON JULY 18th, 2019, JULY 23rd, 2019, JULY 26, 2019, AND JULY 31, 2019, INCLUDING ANY DIRECTIONS PROVIDED TO STAFF PARTICIPATED IN THOSE MEETINGS AND ANY READOUTS FROM THOSE MEETINGS.

E, THE DECISION ANNOUNCED ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, TO RELEASE APPROPRIATED FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY NOTES, MEMORANDA, DOCUMENTATION OR ACCORDANCE RELATED TO THE DECISION.

F, ALL DRAFT AND FINAL VERSIONS OF TALKING POINTS RELATED TO THE WITHHOLDING OR RELEASE OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RELATED TO CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE TALKING POINTS, AND, G, ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, INCLUDING DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS RELATED TO THE SCHEDULING OF PREPARATION FOR AND FOLLOW UP FROM THE PRESIDENT'S APRIL 21st AND JULY 25th, 2019 TELEPHONE CALLS, AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 25th, 2019 MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN NEW YORK AND, TWO, THE SERGEANT AT ARMS IS AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE IN SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

AJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> FIRST, A SCHEDULING NOTE.

AS THE PARTIES ARE READY TO DEBATE THIS AMENDMENT, I SUGGEST WE GO AHEAD, GET THROUGH THE DEBATE, AND VOTE BEFORE WE TAKE A 30-MINUTE RECESS FOR DINNER.

AND I WOULD REMIND EVERYONE THAT I WILL BE MOVING TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT, AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT BOTH EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES ARE ADDRESSED IN THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION.

UM.

>> THE AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS.

EQUALLY DIVIDED.

MANAGER SCHIFF, ARE YOU AN OPPONENT OR PROPONENT OF THE MOTION.

>> (INAUDIBLE).

MR. SIP LOANY, A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT?

>> (INAUDIBLE).

THEN MR. SCHIFF, YOUR SIDE WILL PROCEED FIRST AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

>> THANK YOU.

BEFORE I BEGIN, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I AM JASON CROW FROM THE GREAT STATE OF COLORADO.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TO SUBPOENA KEY DOCUMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OR OMB.

THESE DOCUMENTS GO DIRECTLY TO ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSES OF POWER, HIS DECISION TO WITHHOLD VITAL MILITARY AID FROM A STRATEGIC PARTNER THAT'S AT WAR TO BENEFIT HIS OWN PERSONAL REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

BUT WHY SHOULD THAT MATTER?

WHY SHOULD ANYBODY CARE?

WHY SHOULD I CARE?

BEFORE I WAS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, I WAS AN AMERICAN SOLDIER, SERVING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, AND ALTHOUGH SOME YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THAT TIME, THERE ARE STILL SOME MEMORIES THAT ARE SEARED IN MY BRAIN.

ONE OF THOSE MEMORIES WAS SCAVENGING SCRAP METAL ON THE STREETS OF BAGHDAD IN THE SUMMER OF 2003, THAT WE HAD TO BOLT ON TO THE SIDE OF OUR TRUCKS BECAUSE WE HAD NO ARMOR TO PROTECT AGAINST ROADSIDE BOMBS.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TROOPS NOT GETTING THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY NEED, WHEN THEY NEED IT, IT'S PERSONAL TO ME.

TO BE CLEAR, HERE, WE ARE TALKING $391 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY INTENDED TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BY HELPING OUR STRATEGIC PARTNER, UKRAINE, FIGHT AGAINST VLADIMIR PUTIN'S RUSSIA, AN ADVERSARY OF THE UNITED STATES.

BUT THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT CARRY OUT THIS SCHEME ALONE.

HE NEEDED A LOT OF PEOPLE TO HELP HIM, AND THAT'S WHY WE KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT IT AS WE DO TODAY.

BUT THERE IS MUCH MORE TO KNOW.

AND THAT'S WHAT TRIALS ARE FOR.

TO GET THE FULL PICTURE.

WE KNOW THERE IS MORE BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP NEEDED THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO STOP WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A ROUTINE RELEASE OF FUNDS MANDATED BY CONGRESS, A RELEASE OF FUNDS THAT WAS ALREADY UNDERWAY.

FOR THE PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER DON'T NEED ME TO TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE 87 OF YOU IN THIS ROOM VOTED FOR THOSE VITAL FUNDS TO SUPPORT OUR PARTNER UKRAINE.

WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE TESTIFIED EXTENSIVELY ABOUT OMB'S INVOLVEMENT IN CARRYING OUT THE WHOLE.

IT WAS OMB THAT RERAID THE PRESIDENT'S INSTRUCTION -- RELAYED THE PRESIDENT'S INSTRUCTIONS AND IMPLEMENTED THE HOLD AND OMB THAT SCRAMBLED TO JUSTJUSTIFY THE FREEZE.

OMB HAS KEY DOCUMENTS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER TO CONGRESS.

IT IS TIME TO SUBPOENA THOSE DOCUMENTS.

THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE MILITARY AID HOLD.

THEY WOULD SHOW THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AND MOTIVATIONS BEHIND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FREEZE.

THEY WOULD REVEAL THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY CAREER OMB OFFICIALS, INCLUDING LAWYERS, THAT THE HOLD WAS VIOLATING THE LAW.

THEY WOULD EXPOSE THE LINKS TO WHICH OMB WENT TO JUSTIFY THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD.

THEY WOULD REVEAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE FREEZE ON UKRAINE AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY, AND THEY WOULD SHOW THAT SENIOR OFFICIALS REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTED TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO RELEASE THE WHOLE.

IN SHORT, THEY'D SHOW EXACTLY HOW THE PRESIDENT CARRIED OUT THE SCHEME TO USE OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDS TO BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

WE ARE NOT SPECULATING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE NOT GUESSING WHAT THE DOCUMENTS MIGHT SHOW.

DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION IN THE HOUSE,T WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMITTEES IDENTIFIED MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT OMB CONTINUES TO HOLD TO THIS DAY.

WE KNOW THESE DOCUMENTS EXIST, AND WE KNOW THAT THE ONLY REASON WE TONIGHT HAVE THEM IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED OMB NOT TO PRODUCE THEM, BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT THEY WOULD SHOW.

TO DEMONSTRATE THE OMB DOCUMENTS AND THE THE VALUE THEY WOULD PROVIDE IN THIS TRIAL, I WOULD LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF WHAT WE KNOW EXISTS BUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER.

AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER ANY DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE IN RESPONSE TO MULTIPLE SUBPOENAS AND REQUESTS.

BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN FROM THE TESTIMONY AND THE FEW DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED THROUGH PUBLIC REPORTING AND LAWSUITS, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO HIDE THIS EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF WHAT IT WOULD SHOW.

THE DOCUMENTS OFFER STARK EXAMPLES OF THE CHAOS AND CONFUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME SET OFF ACROSS OUR GOVERNMENT, AND THEY MAKE CLEAR THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS STILL BEING CONCEALED BY THE PRESIDENT.

WE KNOW THAT OMB HAS DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL THAT AS EARLY AS JUNE, THE PRESIDENT WAS CONSIDERING HOLDING MILITARY AID FOR UKRAINE.

THE PRESIDENT BEGAN QUESTIONING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AFTER CONGRESS APPROPRIATED AND AUTHORIZED THE MONEY.

250 MILLION IN DoD FUNDS AND 141 MILLION IN STATE DEPARTMENT FUNDS.

THIS FUNDING HAD WIDE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BECAUSE, AS MANY WITNESSES TESTIFIED, PROVIDING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION ALSO BENEFITS OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY.

IMPORTANTLY, THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTIONS CAME WEEKS AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE HAD UNDERTAKEN THE ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS AND OTHER MEASURES MANDATED BY CONGRESS AS A CONDITION FOR RECEIVING THAT AID.

SO THERE IS A PROCESS FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE FUNDS MAKE IT TO THE RIGHT PLACE AND TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE, A PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED EVERY YEAR THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDING THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING THE FIRST TWO YEARS UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

NONETHELESS, THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTIONS CAME DAYS AFTER DoD ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE.

ON JUNE 18, ANNOUNCING IT WOULD PROVIDE ITS 250 MILLION PORTION TO HAVE THE TAXPAYER-FUNDED MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTING, THE DAY AFTER DoD'S PRESS RELEASE, A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL NAMED ROBERT BLARE CALLED OMB'S ACTING DIRECTOR RUSSELL VAUGHN TO TALK ABOUT THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS, MR. BLARE TOLD VAUGHT, QUOTE, WE NEED TO HOLD IT UP.

OMB HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS CONVERSATION, THE SENATE CAN GET THEM BY PASSING THE AMENDMENT AND ISSUING A SUBPOENA.

BUT THERE'S MORE.

THE SAME DAY, BLARE -- BLAIR TOLD VAUGHT TO HOLD UP THE AID.

MICHAEL DUFFY E-MAILED DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY DEFENSE ELAINE McCUES KERR AND TOLD HER THE PRESIDENT HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AID.

DUFFY COP COPIED MARK SANDY, A CAREER INITIAL AT OMB WHO TOLD US ABOUT THE EMAIL IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE.

LIKE ALL OTHERS, THAT EMAIL WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.

WE KNOW THIS EMAIL EXISTS, HOWEVER, BECAUSE, IN RESPONSE TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUIT, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS FORCED TO RELEASE A REDACTED EMAIL CONSISTENT WITH SAN DI'S DESCRIPTION.

BUT OMB PROVIDED NONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE.

WITH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THE SENATE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVEOBTAIN AND REVIEW THE FULL RECORD THAT COULD FURTHER DEMONSTRATE HOW AND WHY THE PRESIDENT WAS HOLDING THE AID.

THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD ALSO SHED LIGHT ON THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE WHOLE.

ON JULY 3rd, THE STATE DEPARTMENT TOLD VARIOUS OFFICIALS THAT OMB BLOCKED IT FROM DISPENSING $141 MILLION IN AID.

OMB HAD DIRECTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO SEND A NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS ABOUT SPENDING THE MONEY.

AND WITHOUT THAT NOTIFICATION, THE AID WAS EFFECTIVELY BLOCKED.

WHY DID OMB BLOCK THE CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION?

WHO TOLD THEM TO DO IT?

WHAT WAS THE REASON?

THE SENATE WOULD GET THOSE ANSWERS IF IT ISSUED THIS SUBPOENA, BUT THERE'S MORE.

ON JULY 12th, BLAIR, THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WHO HAD CALLED VAUGHT ON JUNE 19th AND SAID "WE NEED TO HOLD IT UP," THEN SENT AN EMAIL TO DUFFY AT OMB.

BLAIR SAID, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTING A HOLD ON MILITARY SUPPORT FUNDING FOR UKRAINE.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS, YOU KNOW.

THE ONLY REASON WE KNOW ABOUT IT IS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF MARK SAN DI, THE CAREER OMB OFFICIAL WHO FOLLOWED THE LAW AND COMPLIED WITH HIS SUBPOENA.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT IN FRONT OF YOU, SANDY TESTIFIED THE JULY 12 EMAIL DID NOT MENTION CONCERNS ABOUT ANY OTHER COUNTRY OR ANY OTHER AID PACKAGES, JUST UKRAINE.

SO OF THE DOZENS OF COUNTRIES WHERE WE PROVIDE AID AND SUPPORT, THE PRESIDENT WAS ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT ONE OF THEM, UKRAINE.

WHY?

WELL, WE KNOW WHY.

BUT OMB HAS STILL REFUSED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THIS JULY 12 EMAIL AND HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTS SURROUNDING IT ALL BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT TOLD OMB TO CONTINUE TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM CONGRESS IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHAT WAS HE AFRAID OF?

A SUBPOENA ISSUED BY THE SENATE WOULD SHOW US.

OMB ALSO HAS DOCUMENTS ABOUT A KEY SERIES OF MEETINGS TRIGGERED BY THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO HOLD THE MILITARY AID.

IN THE SECOND HALF OF JULY, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL CONVENED A SERIES OF INTERAGENCY MEETINGS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON MILITARY AID.

OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHOW WHAT HAPPENED DURING THOSE MEETINGS.

FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 18th, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF CONVENIENT A ROUTINE INTER-AGENCY MEETING TO DISCUSS UKRAINE POLICY.

DURING THE MEETING, IT WAS THE OMB REPRESENTATIVE WHO ANNOUNCED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACED A HOLD ON ALL MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR OUR MOST SENIOR DUMB MAT TO UKRAINE PARTICIPATED IN THAT MEETING AND HE DESCRIBED HIS REACTION AT HIS OPEN HEARING.

>> IN A REGULAR N.F.C.

SECURITY VIDEO CALL ON JULY 18 I HEARD A STUFF STAPH PERSON FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET SAY THERE WAS A HOLD ON SECURITY SYSTEMS TO UKRAINE BUT COULD NOT SAY WHY.

FOR THE END OF AN OTHERWISE NORMAL MEETING, A VOICE ON THE CALL, THE PERSON WAS OFF SCREEN, SAID THAT SHE WAS FROM OMB, AND HER BOSS HAD INSTRUCTED HER NOT TO APPROVE ANY ADDITIONAL SPENDING ON SECURITY SYSTEMS FOR UKRAINE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

I AND OTHERS SAT IN ASTONISHMENT.

UKRAINIANS WERE FIGHTING RUSSIANS AND COUNTED ON NOT ONLY THE TRAINING AND WEAPONS BUT ALSO THE ASSURANCE OF U.S. SUPPORT.

ALL THAT THE OMB STAFF PERSON SAID WAS THAT THE DIRECTIVE HAD COME FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO OMB.

IN AN INSTANT, I REALIZED THAT ONE OF THE KEY PILLARS OF OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS THREATENED.

>> IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT OMB WOULD NOT HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS FOLLOWING THIS BOMBSHELL ANNOUNCEMENT.

IT SURELY DOES.

IT WAS THE AGENCY THAT DELIVERED THE SHOCKING NEWS TO THE REST OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING THE VITAL MILITARY AID FROM OUR PARTNER, AND WE WOULD SEE THESE DOCUMENTS, IF THE SENATE ISSUED A SUBPOENA.

THE JULY 18th MEETING WAS JUST THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF MEETINGS WHERE OMB HELD THE LINE AND ENFORCED THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON THE AID.

BUT THERE WAS A SECOND MEETING ON JULY 23 WHERE WE UNDERSTOOD AGENCIES RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF OMB'S HOLD ON THE AID.

AND THEN A THIRD MEETING AT A MORE SENIOR LEVEL, ON JULY 26, WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT, AT THAT MEETING, OMB STRUGGLED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION FOR THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON THE AID.

AND TEN THEN A FOURTH MEETING ON JULY 31st WHERE THE LEGAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE HOLD WERE RAISED.

AT EACH OF THESE MEETINGS, THERE WAS CONFUSION ABOUT THE THE SCOPE AND THE REASONS FOR THE HOLD.

NOBODY SEEMED TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON, BUT THAT WAS EXACTLY THE POINT.

ALL OF THE AGENCIES, EXCEPT OMB, WHICH WAS SIMPLY CONVEYING THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER, SUPPORTED THE MILITARY AID AND ARGUED FOR LIFTING THE WHOLE.

OMB DID NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS PARTICIPATION, PREPARATION OR FOLLOW-UP FROM MANY OF THESE MEETINGS.

DID THESE OMB OFFICIALS COME PREPARED WITH TALKING POINTS FOR THESE MEETINGS?

DID OMB OFFICIALS TAKE NOTES DURING ANY OF THESE MEETINGS?

DID THEY EXCHANGE E-MAILS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON?

DID OMB DISCUSS WHAT REASONS THEY COULD GIVE EVERYONE ELSE FOR THE HOLD?

BY ISSUING THE SUBPOENA, THE SENATE CAN FIND OUT THE ANSWERS TO ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND OTHERS LIKE THEM.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS.

OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD ALSO REVEAL KEY FACTS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON JULY 25th.

ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP CONDUCTED HIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DURING WHICH HE DEMANDED A FAVOR.

THIS FAVOR WAS FOR UKRAINE TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

THAT CALL WAS AT 9:00 A.M. JUST 90 MINUTES AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP HUNG UP THE PHONE, DUFFY, THE POLITICAL APPOINTEE AT OMB WHO IS IN CHARGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS E-MAILED DoD TO, QUOTE, FORMALIZE, END QUOTE, THE HOLD ON THE MILITARY AID.

JUST 90 MINUTES AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL, A CALL IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED FOR A FAVOR.

THAT EMAIL WAS ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU.

WE HAVE A REDACTED COPY OF THIS EMAIL BECAUSE IT WAS RECENTLY RELEASED THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

IT WAS NOT RELEASED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE'S SUBPOENA.

IN THIS EMAIL, DUFFY TOLD THE DoD OFFICIALS THAT, BASED ON THE GUIDANCE HE HAD RECEIVED, THEY SHOULD, QUOTE, HOLD OFF ON ANY ADDITIONAL DoD OBLIGATIONS OF THESE FUNDS.

HE ADDED THAT THE REQUEST WAS, QUOTE, SENSITIVE, AND THAT THEY SHOULD KEEP THIS INFORMATION CLOSELY HELD, MEANING, DON'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT IT.

WHY DID DUFFY CONSIDER THE INFORMATION SENSITIVE?

WHY DIDN'T HE WANT ANYONE TO LEARN ABOUT IT?

ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS MAY BE FOUND IN OMB E-MAILS, E-MAILS THAT WE COULD ALL SEE, IF YOU ISSUE A SUBPOENA.

BUT THERE'S MORE.

REMEMBER THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDED TO CREATE A WAY TO STOP FUNDING THAT WAS ALREADY UNDERWAY, THE TRAIN HAD ALREADY LEFT THE STATION, AND SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

LATER IN THE EVENING OF JULY 25th, OMB FOUND A WAY, EVEN THOUGH DoD HAD ALREADY NOTIFIED CONGRESS THAT THE FUNDS WOULD BE RELEASED, HERE IS HOW THE SCHEME WORKED -- OMB SENT DoD A FUNDING DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDE ADD CAREFULLY WORDED FOOTNOTE DIRECTING DoD TO HOLD OFF ON SPENDING THE FUNDS.

QUOTE, TO ALLOW FOR AN INTER-AGENCY PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE BEST USE, END QUOTE.

REMEMBER THAT LANGUAGE, TO ALLOW FOR AN INTER-AGENCY PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE BEST USE.

LET ME EXPLAIN THAT.

THE FOOTNOTE STATED THAT THIS, QUOTE, BRIEF PAUSE, WOULD NOT PREVENT DoD FROM SPENDING THE MONEY BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR WHICH WAS COMING UP ON SEPTEMBER 30th.

OMB HAD TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT KNEW THAT NOT SPENDING THE MONEY WAS ILLEGAL, AND THEY KNEW THAT DoD WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT, AND THEY WERE RIGHT, DoD WAS WORRIED ABOUT IT.

MR. SANDY TESTIFIED THAT, IN HIS 12 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AT OMB, HE COULD NOT RECALL ANYTHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENING BEFORE.

THE DRAFTING OF THIS UNUSUAL FUNDING DOCUMENT AND THE HERB INSURANCE OF THE DOCUMENT -- AND THE ISSUANCE OF THE DOCUMENT MUST HAVE GENERATED TRAFFIC AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION AT OMB.

MEMOS, EMAIL TRAFFIC AND DOCUMENTATION THAT WE WOULD ALL SEE IF THE SENATE ISSUED A SUBPOENA.

SO WHAT WAS THE RESULT FROM THE SERIES OF EVENTS ON JULY 25th?

WHERE WAS MR. DUFFY'S GUIDANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE HOLD COMING FROM?

WHY WAS THE REQUEST SENSITIVE?

WHAT WAS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN OMB'S DIRECTION THE DoD IN THE CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY 90 MINUTES BEFORE.

DID AGENCIES COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE QUESTIONS COMING FROM THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS.

A SUBPOENA WOULD PROVIDE THOSE ANSWERS.

OMB DOCUMENTS ALSO WOULD REVEAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE DECISION TO HAVE A POLITICAL APPOINTEE TAKE OVER UKRAINE FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY.

THE TENSIONS AND CHAOS SURROUNDING THE FREEZE ESCALATED AT THE END OF JULY WHEN DUFFY, A POLITICAL APPOINTEE AT OMB, WITH NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE IN FUNDING APPROVALS, TOOK AUTHORITY FOR RELEASING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AWAY FROM SANDY, A CAREER OMB OFFICIAL.

SANDY COULD THINK OF NO OTHER EXPLANATION OF A POLITICAL -- NO OTHER EXAMPLE OF A POLITICAL APPOINTEE TAKING ON THIS RESPONSIBILITY.

SANDY WAS GIVEN NO REASON, OTHER THAN THAT MR. DUFFY WANTED TO BE, QUOTE, MORE INVOLVED IN DAILY OPERATIONS, END QUOTE.

DURING HIS DEPOSITION, SANDY CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS REMOVED FROM THE FUNDING APPROVAL PROCESS AFTER HE HAD RAISED CONCERNS TO DUFFY ABOUT WHETHER THE HOLD WAS LEGAL UNDER THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, OMB HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER ANY DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING THAT DECISION TO REPLACE MR. SANDY.

WHY DID DUFFY, A POLITICAL APPOINTEE WITH NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA, TAKE OVER RESPONSIBILITY FOR UKRAINE FUNDING APPROVAL?

WAS THE WHITE HOUSE INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION?

WAS SANDY REMOVED BECAUSE HE HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE WHOLE?

BY AUGUST 7th, PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT WERE WORRIED, AND WHEN PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT GET WORRIED, SOMETIMES WHAT THEY DO IS THEY DRAFT MEMOS BECAUSE, WHEN THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING CAUGHT UP IN SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT, THEY DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF IT.

SO ON THAT DAY, MARK, SANDY, AND OTHER COLLEAGUES AT OMB DRAFTED AND SENT A MEMO ABOUT UKRAINE MILITARY AID TO ACTING DIRECTOR VAUGHT.

ACCORDING TO SANDY, THE MEMO ADVOCATED FOR THE RELEASE OF THE FUNDS.

IT SAID THAT THE MILITARY AID WAS CONSISTENT WITH AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS, IT WOULD HELP TO OPPOSE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND BACKED BY STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT LIFT THE HOLD.

OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS, OMB CONTINUED TO ISSUE FUNDING DOCUMENTS THAT KEPT KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, SUPPOSEDLY TO ALLOW FOR MORE OF THIS, QUOTE, INTER-AGENCY PROCESS.

WELL, INSERTING THOSE FOOTNOTES THROUGHOUT THE APPORTIONMENT DOCUMENTS STATING THAT THE DELAY WOULDN'T AFFECT THE FUNDING, BUT HERE'S THE REALLY SHOCKING PART -- THERE WAS NO INTER-AGENCY PROCESS.

THEY MADE IT UP.

IT HAD ENDED MONTHS BEFORE.

THEY MADE IT UP BECAUSE NOBODY COULD SAY THE REAL REASON FOR THE HOLD.

IN TOTAL, OMB ISSUED NINE OF THESE COMETS BETWEEN JULY 25th AND SEPTEMBER 10th SEPTEMBER 10th.

DID THE WHITE HOUSE RESPOND TO OMB'S CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATION TO RELEASE THE AID?

DID THE WHITE HOUSE INSTRUCT OMB TO CONTINUE CREATING A PAPER TRAIL NEAR EAST TO JUSTIFY THE HOLD?

WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN?

OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHED LIGHT ON OMB'S ACTIONS, AS THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNRAVELED.

DID THE WHITE HOUSE DIRECT OMB TO CONTINUE ISSUING THE HOLD?

WHAT WAS OMB TOLD ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S REASONS FOR RELEASING THE HOLD?

WHAT COMMUNICATIONS DID OMB OFFICIALS HAVE WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AROUND THE TIME OF THE RELEASE?

AS THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNRAVELED, DID ANYONE AT OMB CONNECT THE DOTS ABOUT THE REAL REASON FOR THE HOLD?

THE OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHED LIGHT ON ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS.

I REMEMBER WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO NOT HAVE THE EQUIPMENT YOU NEED WHEN YOU NEED IT.

REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT STAKE, THAT'S WHY THIS MATTERS.

WE NEED THIS INFORMATION SO WE CAN ENSURE THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.

EVENTUALLY, THIS WILL ALL COME OUT.

WE WILL HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.

THE QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER WE'LL HAVE THEM IN TIME AND WHO HERE WILL BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.

>> MR. SEKULOW.

CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT.

>> THANK YOU.

MR. SEKULOW.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

MANAGER CROW, YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY TO KNOW THAT THE AID THAT WAS PROVIDED TO UKRAINE OVER THE COURSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ADMINISTRATION INCLUDED LETHAL WEAPONS.

THOSE WERE NOT PROVIDED BY THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

THE SUGGESTION THAT THE UKRAINE FAILED TO GET ANY EQUIPMENT IS FALSE.

THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT FOR FUNDING UKRAINE OVER THE SUMMER OF 2019, THERE WAS NO LACK OF EQUIPMENT DUE TO THE TEMPORARY PAUSE, IT WAS FUTURE FUNDING.

THE UKRAINE DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENSE WHO OVERSAW U.S. AID SHIPMENTS SAID THE HOLCAME AND WENT SO QUICKLY, THEY DID NOT NOTICE ANY CHANGE.

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE DAVID HALE, EXPLAINED THE PAUSE WAS FUTURE ASSISTANCE, NOT TO KEEP THE ARMY GOING NOW.

SO THE MADEUP NARRATIVE THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE TAKING SOME ACTION ON INVESTIGATIONS IS FURTHER DISPROVED BY THE STRAIGHTFORWARD FACT THAT THE AID WAS DELIVERED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, WITHOUT UKRAINE TAKING ANY ACTION ON ANY INVESTIGATION.

IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WITHHELD $585 MILLION OF PROMISED AID TO EGYPT IN 2013, BUT THE ADMINISTRATION'S PUBLIC MESSAGE WAS THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT OFFICIALLY ON HOLD AS TECHNICALLY IT WAS NOT DUE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30th, THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

SO THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE THE HALT TO ANYONE.

SOUNDS LIKE THIS MAY BE THE PRACTICE OF A NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIONS.

IN FACT, TO THE PRESIDENT, THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT HOW AID IS BEING PUT FORWARD.

SO THERE HAVE BEEN PAUSES ON FOREIGN AID IN A VARIETY OF CONTEXTS.

IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019, THE ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS WITHHOLDING THE OVER $100 MILLION IN AID TO AFGHANISTAN OVER CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION.

IN ALL AUGUST OF 2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED THE ADMINISTRATION AND SEOUL WERE IN TALKS TO POTENTIALLY INCREASE SOUTH KOREA'S SHARE OF THE EXPENSE OF U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT FOR SOUTH KOREA.

IN JUNE, PRESIDENT TRUMP CUT OR PAUSED OVER $550 MILLION IN FOREIGN AID TO EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS AND GUATEMALA BECAUSE THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT FAIRLY SHARING THE BURDENS OF PREVENTING MASS MIGRATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES.

THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ADMINISTRATION.

AS I SAID, PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF AID TO EGYPT.

TO BE CLEAR -- AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR -- AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HERSELF TESTIFIED OUR POLICY ACTUALLY GOT STRONGER UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP LARGELY BECAUSE, UNLIKE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, QUOTE, THIS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE TO HELP UKRAINE FEND OFF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

SHE TESTIFIED IN A DEPOSITION BEFORE YOUR VARIOUS COMMITTEES THAT IN THE THREE YEARS I WAS THERE, PARTLY BECAUSE OF MY EFFORTS, BUT ALSO THE INTER-AGENCY TEAM AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE THAT OUR POLICY ACTUALLY GOT STRONGER.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT, WHOSE NAME HAS COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES, AGREED JAVELINS ARE INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE WEAPONS AT STOPPING ARMORED ADVANCE AND THE RUSSIANS ARE SCARED OF THEM.

AMBASSADOR VOLCKER EXPLAINED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVED EACH OF THE DECISIONS MADE ALONG THE WAY AND, AS A RESULT, AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE STRENGTHENED.

SO WHEN WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT FACTS, GO TO YOUR OWN DISCOVERY AND YOUR OWN WITNESSES THAT YOU CALLED.

THIS ALL SUPPOSEDLY STARTED BECAUSE OF A WHISTLEBLOWER.

WHERE IS THAT WHISTLEBLOWER?

>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 35 MINUTES REMAINING.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

AT WAR, TIME MATTERS.

MINUTES AND HOURS CAN SEEM LIKE YEARS.

SO THE IDEA THAT, WELL, IT MADE IT THERE EVENTUALLY JUST DOESN'T WORK.

AND, YES, THE AID WAS PROVIDED, IT WAS PROVIDED BY CONGRESS.

THIS SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WITH THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE.

THE CONGRESS IS THE ONE THAT SENDS THE AID.

AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF THIS AID WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST BECAUSE OF THE DELAY, HAD CONGRESS NOT ACTUALLY PASSED ANOTHER LAW THAT EXTENDED THAT DEADLINE TO ALLOW THE FUNDS TO BE SPENT.

LET ME REPEAT THAT.

THE DELAY HAD JEOPARDIZED THE EXPENDITURE OF THE MONEY TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT CONGRESS HAD TO PASS ANOTHER LAW TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE, SET THE MONEY AND THE EQUIPMENT, GOT TO THE PEOPLE ON THE FRONT LINES.

NEED I ALSO REITERATE, THE SUPPOSED INTER-AGENCY PROCESS, THE CONCERNS THAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNSEL CONTINUE TO RAISE ABOUT CORRUPTION AND MAKING SURE THAT THE PROCESS WENT RIGHT, THERE WAS NO INTER-AGENCY PROCESS.

THE WHOLE THING WAS MADE UP.

IT WAS A PHANTOM.

THERE WAS A DELAY, AND DELAYS MATTER.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME FOR MR. SCHIFF.

>> MR. SCHIFF.

THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

JUST A FEW ADDITIONAL POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE ON THIS AMENDMENT AND ON MY COLLEAGUE'S ARGUMENTS.

FIRST OF ALL, MR. SEKULOW MAKES THE POINT THAT THE AID ULTIMATELY GOT RELEASED.

THEY ULTIMATELY GOT THE MONEY, RIGHT?

YES, THEY GOT THE MONEY AFTER THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT, AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO RELIEVE THE HOLD ON THE AID, AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT, YES.

BUT EVEN THEN, EVEN THEN THEY HAD HELD ON TO THE AID SO LONG THAT IT TOOK A SUBSEQUENT ACT OF CONGRESS TO MAKE SURE IT COULD ALL GO OUT THE DOOR.

SO, WHAT, IS THE PRESIDENT SUPPOSED TO GET CREDIT FOR THAT, THAT WE HAD TO INTERVENE BECAUSE HE WITHHELD THE AID SO LONG?

AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON UKRAINE GOT ALL OF THE AID THAT WE HAD APPROVED IN THE FIRST PLACE?

MY COLLEAGUES HAVE GLOSSED OVER THE FACT THAT WHAT THEY DID WAS ILLEGAL, THAT THE GAO AND INDEPENDENT WATCHDOG AGENCY FOUND THAT THAT HOLD WAS ILLEGAL, SO IT NOT ONLY VIOLATED THE LAW, IT NOT ONLY TOOK AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO MAKE SURE THEY ULTIMATELY GOT THE AID -- THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE DEFENSE TO WHY YOU SHOULDN'T SEE THE DOCUMENTS?

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE?

COUNSEL SAID, WELL, HE'S NOT THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD AID, AND THAT'S TRUE.

AFTER ALL, COUNSEL SAYS, WELL, PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD AID TO EGYPT.

YES, AT THE URGING OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

SENATORS McCAIN AND GRAHAM URGED THAT THAT AID BE WITHHELD, AND WHY?

BECAUSE THERE WAS A REVOLUTION IN EGYPT AFTER IT WAS APPROPRIATED.

THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS, THAT WAS A PRETTY DARN GOOD REASON TO THINK THAT WE STILL WANT TO GIVE AID TO THIS GOVERNMENT AFTER THIS REVOLUTION.

WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT AID HAS NEVER BEEN WITHHELD, THAT'S ABSURD.

BUT I WOULD HOPE AND EXPECT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME AID HAS BEEN WITHHELD BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

TO COERCE AN ALLY AT WAR, TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION, I THINK THAT'S A FIRST, BUT WHAT WE DO HERE MAY DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S THE LAST.

AND ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS PAUSE IN AID.

THE ARGUMENT, WELL, NO HARM, NO FOUL.

OKAY, YOU GOT CAUGHT, THEY GOT THE AID, WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?

WELL, AS WE HEARD DURING THE TRIAL, IT'S NOT JUST THE AID.

I MEAN, THE AID IS, OBVIOUSLY, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

AS MR. CROW MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT IT, YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOURSELF, AND WE'LL HAVE TESTIMONY ABOUT JUST WHAT KIND THE MILITARY AID THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING.

BUT WE ALSO HAD TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS THE FACT OF THE AID ITSELF THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO UKRAINE, THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD UKRAINE'S BACK, AND, WHY?

BECAUSE THIS NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THIS NEW UNTESTED FORMER COMEDIAN, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, AT WAR WITH RUSSIA, WAS GOING TO BE GOING INTO A NEGOTIATION WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN WITH AN EYE TO ENDING THAT CONFLICT, AND WHETHER HE WENT INTO THAT NEGOTIATION FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH OR A POSITION FROM OF WEAKNESS WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER WE HAD HIS BACK.

AND, SO, WHEN THE UKRAINIANS LEARNED AND THE RUSSIANS LEARNED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DID NOT HAVE HIS BACK WAS WITHHOLDING THIS AID, WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK THAT SENT TO VLADIMIR PUTIN?

WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK IT SENT TO VLADIMIR PUTIN WHEN DONALD TRUMP WOULDN'T LET ZELENSKY OUR ALLY INTO THE WHITE HOUSE BUT LET THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER?IT'S NOT JUST THE AID, IT'S NOT JUST WHEN THE AID IS DIFFERED.

IT'S NOT JUST WHEN ALL OF THE AID IS DELIVERED, IT'S ALSO WHAT MESSAGE DOES THE FREEZE SEND TO OUR FRIEND AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY TO OUR FOE.

AND THE MENIAL IT SENT WAS A -- MESSAGE IT SENT WAS A DISASTER.

WAS A DISASTER.

NOW, YOU MIGHT ASK YOURSELF, BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY HEY PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GIVING AWAY WEAPONS TO UKRAINE.

YOU MIGHT ASK YOURSELF IF THE PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION, WHY DID HE DO THAT IN 2017 AND WHY DID HE DO THAT IN 2018.

WHY WAS IT ONLY 2019 THERE WAS A PROBLEM.

WAS THERE NO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IN 2017?

WAS THERE NO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IN 2018.

NO.

UKRAINE'S ALWAYS BATTLED CORRUPTION.

IT WASN'T THE PRESENCE OR THE LACK OF CORRUPTION FROM ONE YEAR TO ANOTHER IT WAS THE PRESENCE OF JOE BIDEN AS A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

THAT WAS THE KEY CHANGE IN 201.

THAT MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

IT GETS BACK TO ONE OF THE KEY MOMENTS IN THIS SAGA.

A LOT OF YOU ARE ATTORNEYS, YOU'RE PROBABLY MUCH BETTER ATTORNEYS THAN I AM AND I'M SURE YOU HAD THE EXPERIENCE IN CASES YOU TRIED WHERE THERE WAS SOME VIGNETTE, SOME CONVERSATION, SOME DOCUMENT MAYBE NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT ON ITS FACE BUT IT TOLD YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE CASE THAT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN THAT CONVERSATION.

FOR ME ONE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS WAS NOT ON JULY 25TH BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BUT ON JULY 26TH, THE VERY NEXT DAY.

NOW, YOU MAY HAVE WATCHED SOME OF THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS AND PEOPLE WATCHING MAY HAVE SEEN IT MAYBE THEY DIDN'T.

BUT THERE'S THIS THEME IN UKRAINIAN RESTAURANT, RESTAURANT IN KYIV WHERE GOURD GORDON SONDLAND, THIS IS NOT SOME NEVER TRUMPER THIS IS A MILLION DOLLAR DONOR TO THE TRUMP INAUGURATION.

IF THERE WAS A BIAS IT'S IN FAVOR OF THIS PRESIDENT NOT AGAINST HIM.

SO THERE'S A THEME IN KYIV IN THIS RESTAURANT AND SONDLAND HAD A CELL PHONE AND SITTING WITH DAVID HOLMES WHO IS A CAREER U.S.

DIPLOMAT IN THE UKRAINE EMBASSY.

AND GORDON SONDLAND CALLS HIS HOME AND CALLS THE WHITE HOUSE, GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING FOR THE WHITE, HOLDING FOR THE PRESIDENT BUT HE'S CONNECTED TO THE PRESIDENT.

THAT'S PRETTY IMPRESSIVE.

THIS ISN'T SOME GUY WITH NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT MAY SAY GORDON SONDLAND I BARELY KNOW HIM BUT THIS IS A GUY WHO CAN PICK UP HIS PHONE AND CALLS THE UNITED STATES FROM KYIV.

AND HE DOES.

SO HE ALLOWS THAT DAVID HOLMES, THIS DIPLOMAT CAN HEAR IT.

AND WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT SAY?

DOES HE SAY HOW IS THAT RENOACIAL COMING IN THE RATA.

HOW IS THE ATTACK ON CORRUPTION GOING?

NO.

HE JUST SAYS IS HE GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION.

IS ZELENSKY GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION.

AND SONDLAND SAYS YES, HE'LL DO ANYTHING YOU WANT.

HE LOVES YOUR ASS.

THIS IS THE EXTENT TO THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST IN CUE CRANE.

THEY -- IN UKRAINE.

THEY GO ON TO TALK BUTT THINGS AND THEN THEY HANG UP -- TALK ABOUT OTHER THINGS AND THEN THEY HANG UP.

THEN DAVID HOW MANY TURNS TO THE AMBASSADOR AND SAYS IN LANGUAGE WHICH I WILL HAVE TO MODIFY.

TO REMOVE AN EXPLETIVE.

SO SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF DOES THE PRESIDENT GIVE A BLANK ABOUT UKRAINE.

AND SONDLAND SAYS NO, HE DOESN'T GIVE A BLANK ABOUT UKRAINE.

HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG STUFF LIKE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS THAT GIULIANI WANT.

THIS IS A TRUMP DONOR TO THE INAUGURAL.

ADMITTING THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT UKRAINE, HE DOESN'T CARE WHETHER THEY GET MILITARY DOLLARS TO DEFEND HIMSELF, HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHAT POSITIONS ZELENSKY GOES INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS WITH PUT PUTIN.

HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THAT.

ISN'T THAT CLEAR.

THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT CORRUPTION IN 2017 OR 2018 AND HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT IT IN 2019.

ALL HE CARED ABOUT WAS THE BIG STUFF THAT AFFECTED HIM PERSONALLY LIKE THIS INVESTIGATION THAT HE WANT OF THE BIDENS.

SO WHEN YOU ASK DO YOU WANT TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS.

STUDENT TO KNOW IF THESE DOCUMENTS CORROBORATE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND OR WILL THE DOCUMENTS THEY SHOW THAT WE FULLY EXPECT THEY WILL THAT THE ONLY THING HE CARED ABOUT WAS THE BIG STUFF THAT AFFECTED HIM.

DAVID HOLMES RESPONSE WAS WELL YOU KNOW THERE'S SOME BIG STUFF GOING ON HERE LIKE A WAR WITH RUSSIA.

THIS ISN'T WITHHOLDING AID BECAUSE OF A REVOLUTION IN EGYPT.

THIS IS WITHHOLDING AID FROM A COUNTRY IN WHICH 15,000 PEOPLE HAVE DIED FIGHTING THE RUSSIANS.

AND AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID AND OTHERS, RUSSIA'S FIGHTING TO REMAKE THE MAP OF EUROPE BY DINT OF MILITARY FORCE.

IF WE THINK THAT'S JUST ABOUT UKRAINE'S SECURITY WE ARE VERY DECEIVED.

IT'S ABOUT OUR SECURITY.

IT'S ABOUT THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS THAT WE HAVE IN EUROPE.

AND IF WE UNDER CUT OUR OWN ALLY, IF WE GIVE RUSSIA REASON TO BELIEVE WE WILL NOT HAVE THEIR BEEN BACK.

THAT WE'LL USE UKRAINE AS A PLAY THING OR WORSE, TO GET THEM TO HELP US CHEAT IN AN ELECTION.

THAT NOT ONLY EMBOWLEDDENED PUTIN TO DO MORE.

YOU'VE SAID IT AS OFTEN AS I HAVE THE ONLY THING HE RESPECTS IS STRENGTH.

DO YOU THINK THAT LOOKS LIKE STRENGTH TO VLADIMIR PUTIN.

I THINK THAT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING VLADIMIR PUTIN IS AWE KULS ACTUALAWE -- ACCUSTOMED TO THAT HE PERPETUATES IN HIS OWN REGIME AND PUSHES AROUND THE WORLD.

VAL DEMINGS MADE REFERENCE TO ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS WHICH I THINK IS THE OTHER KEY VIGNETTE IN THIS WHOLE SAD SAGA AND THAT'S THE CONVERSATION THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER HAD WITH THE TOP AID TO PRESIDENT SLN SKI.

THIS IS A CONVERSATION IN WHICH AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING WHICH IS HE'S TELLING YERMAK, YOU GUYS SHOULDN'T REALLY DO THIS INVESTIGATION OF YOUR FORMER PRESIDENT PORT SHENK -- POROSHENKO BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T GET INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION.

AND WHAT'S THE RESPONSE OF THE UKRAINEIANS.

OH, YOU MEAN LIKE THE ONE YOU WANT US TO DO OF THE BIDENS AND THE CLINTONS.

THREW IT RIGHT BACK IN HIS FACE.

UKRAINE'S NOT OBLIVIOUS TO THAT HYPOCRISY.

MR. SEKULOW SAYS WHAT ARE WE HERE FOR.

PART OF OUR STRENGTH IS NOT ONLY OUR SUPPORT FOR OUR ALLIES NOT ONLY OUR MILITARY MIGHT, IT'S WHAT WE STAND FOR.

WE USED TO STAND FOR THE RULE OF LAW.

WE USED TO CHAMPION THE RULE OF LAW AROUND THE WORLD.

PART OF THE RULE OF LAW IS OF COURSE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

BUT TO BE OUT IN UKRAINE OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD CHAMPION THE RULE OF LAW AND SAY DON'T ENGAGE IN POLITICAL PROSECUTIONS AND HAVING THEM THROW IT RIGHT BACK IN OUR FACE OH I MEAN LIKE THE ONE YOU WANT US TO DO.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MAJORITY LEADER'S RECOGNIZED.

>> I SENT A MOTION TO THE DESK TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AND ASK THE AYES AND NAYS.

>> IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?

THERE IS.

THE CLERK WILL CONDUCT, WILL CALL THE ROLL.

>> MR. ALEXANDER, AYE.

MS. BALDWIN, YES.

MR. BARRASSO.

MR. BENNET.

MRS. BLACKBURN.

MR. BLUMENTHAL.

MR. BLUNT, AYE.

MR. BOOKER, AYE.

MR. BOOZMAN.

MR. BRAWN, MR. BROWN, MR.

BORROW.

MR. CANTWELL -- BURR.

MR. CAPITAL WELL.

MS. CAPITO.

MR. CARTEN.

MR. CARPER, MR. CASEY.

MR. CASSIDY.

MS. COLLINS.

MR. COONS.

TH CORNING.

MS. CORTEZ MASTO.

MR. COTTON.

MR. KRAMER.

MR. CRAPO.

MR. CRUZ, AYE.

MR. DAINES.

MS. DUCKWORTH, NO.

MR. DURBIN.

MR. -- MS. ERNST, NO.

THSNOMS.

FEINSTEIN.

THS SPANISHER.

FISHER.

MR. GARDNER.

MS. GILLIBRAND.

MR. GRAHAM.

MR. GRASSLEY.

MR. HARRIS.

MR. HASSAN.

MR. HOLLY, AYE.

MR. HEINRICH.

MR. RONO.

MR. HOGAN.

MRS. HYDE-SMITH.

MR. INHOFE.

MR. JOHNSON, AYE.

MR. JONES.

MR. KAINE .

MR. KENNEDY.

MR. KING.

MS. KLOBUCHAR.

MR. LANKFORD.

MR. LAY LAY ME.

MR. LEE.

MS.

LESSER T MANSION.

MARKEY.

MR. MCCONNELL.

MS. MCSALLY.

MR. MENENDEZ, NO.

MR. MERKLEY, NO.

MR. MORAN.

MS. MURKOWSKI.

MR. MURPHY.

MRS. MURRAY.

MR. PAUL.

MR. PURDUE.

MR. PETERS.

MR. PORTLAND.

MR. REED.

MR.

WISH.

MR. ROBERTS.

MR. ROMNEY, NO.

MR. ROSEN.

ROUNDS.

MR. RUBIO.

MR. SANDERS.

MR. SASSE.

MR.

SHOTS.

MR. SCHUMER, NO.

MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA.

MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

MRS. SHAW SHEEN.

MR. SHELBY.

MS. SINEMA.

MS. SMITH.

THIS IS STABENOW.

MR. SULLIVAN.

MR. TESTER.

MR. THUNE.

MR. TILL IS.

MR. TOOMEY.

MR. UDALL.

MR. VAN HOLLAND, NO.

MR. WARNER.

MS. WARREN, NO.

MR. WHITE HOUSE, NO.

MR. -- MR.

WIDEN.

MR. YOUNG, AYE.

>> THE AYES ARE 53, THE NAYS ARE 47.

THE MOTION IS TABLED.

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> THERE CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO JOHN MICHAEL MICK MULVANEY AND I ASK IT BE READ.

>> CLERK WILL REPORT.

>> SENATOR FROM MORK, NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER WITH AMENDMENT 1287.

AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE AND THE RESOLVING CAUSE INSERT 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 TRIAL THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF SENATE SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY OF JOHN MICHAEL MICK MULVANEY AND THE SURGERY AT ARMSES AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES ON THE DEPOSITTITY SURGERY AT ARMS OR -- DEPUTY AT THE SURGERY OF ARMS THORLTZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER'S RECOGNIZED.

>> I WOULD ASK FOR A 30 MINUTE RECESS BEFORE THE PARTIES ARE RECOGNIZED TO DEBATE THE SHOOMPLE AMENDMENT.

FOLLOWING -- THE SCHUMER AMENDMENT.

FOLLOWING DEBATE TIME I WILL ONCE AGAIN MOVE TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE AS I REPEATEDLY ARE ADDRESSED IN THE UNDERLYING RHESUS LOTION.

SO RESOLUTION.

I ASK THE SENATE STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 8:00 PM.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.

>> THE EYES OF THE FOUNDER ARE ON THESE PROCEEDINGS.

BUT IT'S THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT GOVERNS THESE PROCEEDINGS.

WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM SENATOR SCHIFF, COURTS HAVE NO ROLE, PROMISE DON'T APPLY.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST, WE SHOULD JUST IGNORE.

IN FACT, MR. SCHIFF JUST SAID TRYING TO SUMMARIZE MY COLLEAGUE'S DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT.

HE SAID NOT IN THOSE WORDS OF COURSE WHICH IS NOT THE FIRST TIME MR. SCHIFF HAS PUT WORDS INTO TRANSCRIPTS THAT DID NOT EXIST.

MR. SCHIFF ALSO TALKED ABOUT A TRIFECTA.

I'LL GIVE YOU A TRY OF COURSE TAUGHT.

-- TRIFECTA.

DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THAT TOOK PLACE DURING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION WITNESSES.

THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO ACCESS EVIDENCE AND THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL PRESIDENT AT HEARINGS.

THAT'S A TRIFECTA.

A TRIFECTA THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

MR. SCHIFF DID SAY THE COURTS REALLY DON'T HAVE A ROLE IN THIS.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, WHY WOULD THAT MATTER?

IT MATTERS BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

ONE MANAGER SAID THAT IT IS YOU THAT ARE ON TRIAL, THE SENATE.

HE ALSO SAID THAT, AND OTHERS DID, THAT YOU'RE NOT CAPABLE OF ABIDING BY YOUR OATH.

AND THEN WE HAD THE INVOCATION OF THE GHOST OF THE MUELLER REPORT.

I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THAT REPORT.

IT CAME UP EMPTY ON THE ISSUE OF COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA.

THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION.

IN FACT THE MUELLER REPORT TO THE CONTRARY WHAT THESE MANAGERS SAY TODAY CAME TO THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION OF WHAT THEY SAY.

LET ME QUOTE FROM THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT REPORT AT PAGE 16.

ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS IN TIMES INVOKED THE NOTION OF DUE PROCESS, AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH IT.

BELIEVE ME WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH DUE PROCESS.

BECAUSE DUE PROCESS DEMANDS AND THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS, WE'RE HEARING A LOT ABOUT DUE PROCESS, DUE PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PERSON ACCUSED.

WHEN THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION FAILED, IT EVOLVED INTO UKRAINE.

A QUID PRO QUO.

THEN THAT WASN'T PROVED OUT SOMEBODY SAID BRIBERY OR EXTORTION.

SOME MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE SAID TREASON.

BUT INSTEAD WE GET TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT HAVE A VAGUE ALLEGATION ABOUT A NON-CRIME ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SIT THERE AND LISTEN TO MR. SCHIFF TELL THE TAIL THAT HE JUST TOLD.

LET'S REMEMBER HOW WE ALL GOT HERE.

THEY MADE FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT A TELEPHONE CALL.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DECLASSIFIED THAT TELEPHONE CALL AND REARE RELEASED IT TO THE PUBLIC.

HOW IS THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY.

WHEN MR. SCHIFF FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS NOTHING TO HIS ALLEGATION, HE FOCUSED ON THE SECOND TELEPHONE CALL.

HE MADE FALSE AND HIS COLLEAGUES MADE FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THAT SECOND TELEPHONE CALL THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE ONE HE HAD DEMANDED.

SO THE PRESIDENT OF THE INFORMATION DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED THAT TELEPHONE CALL.

STILL NOTHING.

AGAIN, COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY IN A WAY THAT FRANKLY I'M UNFAMILIAR WITH ANY PRECEDENT OF ANY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RELEASING A CLASSIFIED TELEPHONE CALL WITH A FOREIGN LEADER.

WHEN MR. SCHIFF SAW THAT HIS ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE AND HE KNEW IT ANYWAY, WHAT DID HE DO?

HE WENT TO THE HOUSE AND HE MANUFACTURED A FRAUDULENT VERSION OF THAT CALL.

HE MANUFACTURED A FALSE VERSION OF THAT CALL.

HE READ IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND HE DIDN'T TELL THEM IT WAS A COMPLETE FAKE.

YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT DUE PROCESS, I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT DUE PROCESS.

NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY HAS THE PRESIDENT BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS KIND OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IN THE HOUSE.

IT WASN'T CONDUCTED BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

NOW MR. NADLER WHEN HE APPLIED FOR THAT JOB TOLD HIS COLLEAGUES WHEN THEY TOOK OVER THE HOUSE THAT HE WAS REALLY GOOD AT IMPEACHMENT.

BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE PROCEEDINGS TOOK PLACE IN A BASEMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE PRESIDENT WAS FORBIDDEN FROM ATTENDING.

THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT.

IN EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN GIVEN A MINIMAL DUE PROCESS.

NOTHING HERE.

NOT EVEN MR. SCHIFF'S REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WERE ALLOWED INTO IT.

INFORMATION WAS SELECTIVELY LEAKED OUT.

WITNESSES WERE THREATENED.

GOOD PUBLIC SERVANTS WERE TOLD THAT THEY WOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT.

THEY WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE AWKOBSTRUCTING.

WHAT DOES MR. SCHIFF MEAN BY OBSTRUCTING.

HE MEANS THAT UNLESS YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS REGARDLESS OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THEN YOU'RE OBSTRUCTING.

THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES.

BY THE WAY, THERE'S STILL EVIDENCE IN THE SKIFF THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ALLOWED TO SEE.

I WONDER WHY.

NO WITNESSES.

NOW LET'S THINK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE FOR A SECOND.

LET'S THINK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

THEY HELD THESE ARTICLES FOR 33 DAYS.

WE HEAR ALL THIS TALK ABOUT AN OVERWHELMING CASE.

AN OVERWHELMING CASE THAT THEY'RE NOT EVEN PREPARED TODAY TO STAND UP AND MAKE AN OPENING ARGUMENT ABOUT.

THAT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CASE.

FRANKLY THEY HAVE NO CHARGE.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THEY'RE NOT ONLY RIDICULOUS, THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO OUR REPUBLIC, AND WHY?

FIRST OF ALL, THE NOTION THAT INVOKING YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT'S BEEN DONE PIE JUST ABOUT EVERY PRESIDENT -- BY JUST ABOUT EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON.

THAT THAT IS OBSTRUCTION.

THAT IS OUR PATRIOTIC DUTY, MR. SCHIFF, PARTICULARLY WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A WHOLESALE TRAMPLING OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT I'M UNFAMILIAR WITH IN THIS COUNTRY.

FRANKLY IT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT OUR STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD CRITICIZE IF WE SEE IT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT.

AND MR. SCHIFF SAID HAVE I GOT A DEAL FOR YOU.

ABANDON ALL YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

FORGET ABOUT YOUR LAWYERS AND COME IN AND DO EXACTLY WHAT I SAY.

NO THANK YOU.

NO THANK YOU.

AND THEN HE SAYS, HE HAS THE TO MAYORITY -- TUMERITY TO COME IN AND SAY WE HAVE NO WOULD FOR COURTS.

IT'S OUTRAGEOUS.

LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER STORY.

THERE'S A MAN NAMED CHARLIE CUPPERMAN.

HE'S THE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.

Y THE NUMBER TWO TO JOHN BOLTON.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, MR. SCHIFF WANTS YOU TO FORGET BUT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER HOW WE GOT HERE.

THEY THREATENED HIM.

THEY SENT HIM A SUBPOENA.

MR. CUPPERMAN DID WHAT ANY AMERICAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO, USED TO BE ALLOWED TO DO.

HE WAS FORCED TO GET A LAWYER.

HE WAS FORCED TO PAY FOR THAT LAWYER.

AND HE WENT TO COURT.

MR. SCHIFF DOESN'T LIKE COURTS.

HE WENT TO COURT AND HE SAID JUDGE, TELL ME WHAT TO DO.

I HAVE OBLIGATIONS THAT FRANKLY RISE, WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS CALLED THE APEX OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THE AREA OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

AND THEN I HAVE A SUBPOENA FROM MR. SCHIFF, WHAT DO I DO.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT MR. SCHIFF DID?

MR. CUPPERMAN WENT TO THE JUDGE AND THE HOUSE SAID NEVER MIND, WE WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA, WE PROMISE NOT TO ISSUE IT AGAIN.

AND THEN THEY COME HERE AND THEY ASK YOU TO DO THE WORK THAT THEY REFUSE TO DO FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY ASK YOU TO TRAMPLE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

NOW, WOULD THEY EVER SUGGEST THAT THE EXECUTIVE COULD DETERMINE ON ITS OWN WHAT THE SPEAKER DEBATE CLAUSE MEAN?

OF COURSE NOT.

WOULD THEY EVER SUGGEST THAT THE HOUSE COULD INVADE THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?

I HOPE NOT BUT THEY COME HERE AND THEY ASK YOU TO DO WITH A THEY REFUSE TO DO FOR THEMSELVES.

THEY HAD A COURT DATE.

AND THEY WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA.

THEY EVADED A DECISION AND THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO BECOME PLICIT IN THAT E -- TO BECOME COMPLIS IT IN -- COMPLACENT IN EVASION OF THE COURT.

WE SHOULD CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

OBSTRUCTION FOR GOING TO COURT.

IT'S AN ACT ON PATRIOTISM TO OBSTRUCT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE IF THEY COULD DO IT TO THE PRESIDENT THEY COULD DO IT TO ANY OF YOU AND THEY COULD DO IT TO ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THAT'S WRONG.

AND ONCE TRIED WHO HAS BEEN ADVISING THEM, I GUESS HE DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT HE SAID IT'S DANGEROUS TO SUGGEST THAT INVOKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS IMPEACHABLE.

IT'S DANGEROUS.

AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT, IT IS DANGEROUS, MR. SCHIFF.

WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?

WE HAVE THE HOUSE THAT COMPLETELY CONCOCTED A PROCESS THAT WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

THEY LOCKED THE PRESIDENT OUT.

OH, AND BY THE WAY, WILL MR. SCHIFF GIVE DOCUMENTS?

WE ASKED HIM FOR DOCUMENTS, WE ASKED HIM FOR DOCUMENTS WHEN CONTRARY TO HIS PRIOR STATEMENTS IT TURNED OUT THAT HIS STAFF WAS WORKING WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

LET US SEE THE DOCUMENTS, RELEASE THEM TO THE PUBLIC.

WE'RE STILL WAITING.

SO THE IDEA THAT THEY WOULD SCUM HERE AND LECTURE THE SENATE.

BY THE WAY ARE I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR DID YOU REALIZE YOU'RE ON TRIAL.

MR. NADLER'S PUTTING YOU ON TRIAL.

EVERYBODY'S ON TRIAL EXCEPT FOR THEM.

IT'S RIDICULOUS.

IT'S RIDICULOUS.

THEY SAID IN THEIR BRIEF WE HAVE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND THEY'RE AFRAID TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

THINK ABOUT IT.

THINK ABOUT IT.

IT'S COMMON SENSE.

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND THEN THEY COME HERE ON THE FIRST DAY AND THEY SAY DO YOU KNOW WHAT, WE NEED SOME MORE EVIDENCE.

NOW LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.

IF I SHOWED UP IN ANY COURT IN THIS COUNTRY AND I SAID JUDGE, MY CASE IS OVERWHELMING BUT I'M NOT READY TO GO YET.

I NEED MORE EVIDENCE BEFORE I CAN MAKE MY CASE.

I WOULD GET THROWN OUT IN TWO SECONDS AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE.

IT'S TOO MUCH TO LISTEN TO ALMOST.

THE HYPOCRISY OF THE WHOLE THING.

AND WHAT ARE THE STAKES, WHAT ARE THE STAKES.

THERE'S AN ELECTION IN ALMOST NINE MONTHS.

MONTHS FROM NOW THESE GOING TO BE AN ELECTION.

SENATORS IN THIS BODY THE LAST TIME HAD VERY WISE WORDS.

THEY ECHOED THE WORDS OF OUR FOUNDERS.

A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IS LIKE STEALING AN ELECTION.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE.

WE HAVE, TALK ABOUT THE FRAMERS WORST NIGHTMARE.

IT'S A PARTISAN IMPEAFLT THAT THEY'VE DELIVERED TO YOUR DOORSTEP.

IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

SOME OF YOU ARE UPSET BECAUSE YOU SHOULD BE IN IOWA RIGHT NOW BEINSTEAD WE'RE HERE AND THEY'RE NOT READY TO GO.

AND IT'S OUTRAGES.

IT'S OUTRAGEOUS.

AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T STAND FOR IT.

I'LL TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW.

THEY'RE NOT HERE TO STEAL ONE ELECTION THEY'RE HERE TO STEAL TWO COLLECTIONS.

THEY WANT TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT.

THEY WON'T TELL YOU THAT.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY IT DIRECTLY BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE HERE TO DO.

THEY ARE ASKING THE SENATE TO ATTACK ONE OF THE MOST SACRED RIGHTS WE HAVE AS AMERICANS.

THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE OUR PRESIDENT IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE NOW.

THE REASON IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE IS BECAUSE NO ONE EVER THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA ARE FOR OUR COUNTRY, FOR OUR CHILDREN, FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN.

TO TRY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM A BALLOT.

TO DENY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON A FRAUDULENT INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED IN SECRET WITH NO RIGHTS.

WELL I COULD GO ON AND ON BUT MY POINT IS VERY SIMPLE.

IT'S LONG PAST TIME THAT WE START THIS SO WE CAN END THIS RIDICULOUS CHARADE AND GO HAVE AN ELECTION.

JEUKSZED>> THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS USING HIS POWER OF THE OFFICE TO SOLICIT AND PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS THAT EVERYONE IN THIS CHAMBER KNOWS TO BE BOGUS.

THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T EVEN CARE IF AN INVESTIGATION WAS ACTUALLY CONDUCTED, JUST THAT IT WAS AWE NOWMSED.

WHY?

BECAUSE THIS WAS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT.

THE FIRST ARTICLE FURTHER CHARGES THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SO WITH CORRUPT MOTIVE AND THAT HIS USE OF POWER FOR PERSONAL GAIN HARMED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGES THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE OF THIS CONDUCT.

HE DID SO BY ORDERING HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION, EVERY OFFICE, EVERY AGENCY, EVERY OFFICIAL TO DEFY EVERY SUBPOENA IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

PRESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY COULDN'T DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT TAKE THESE EXTREME STEPS TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF HIS INNOCENCE OR TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY AS A CAREER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYONE TAKE SUCH EXTREME STEPS TO HIDE EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY PROVING HIS INNOCENCE.

AND I DO NOT FIND THAT HERE TODAY.

THE PRESIDENT IS ENGAGED IN THIS COVER UP BECAUSE HE IS GUILTY AND HE KNOWS IT.

AND HE KNOWS THAT THE EVIDENCE HE IS CONCEALING WILL ONLY FURTHER DEMONSTRATE HIS CULPABILITY.

FOR INSTANCE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHO RAISED CONCERNS THAT MILITARY AID HAD BEEN CONDITIONED ON THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS DESCRIBED A LITTLE NOTEBOOK IN WHICH HE WOULD TAKE NOTES ON CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH WITH KEY OFFICIALS.

AND RECEPT UNITS IN E-MAILS THE PRESIDENT'S DEMANDS THAT UKRAINE ANNOUNCE POLITICAL VOGZ VOKSZ AS WE'LL SEE THROUGH -- VOKSZ AS WE'LL SEE THROUGH E-MAILS THAT WERE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TOP ADVISERS INCLUDING TOP CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, SECRETARY OF STATE MICHAEL POMPEO AND SECRETARY OF ENERGY RICK PERRY.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT WHO OVERSAW POLICY MATTERS FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT WROTE AT LEAST FOUR MEMOS TO FILE TO DOCUMENT CONCERNING CONDUCT HE WITNESSED OR HEARD.

AND KURT VOLKER PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT HE AND OTHER OFFICIALS COMMUNICATED WITH HIGH LEVEL UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS INCLUDING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF VIA TEXT MESSAGE AND WHAT'S APP ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S IMPROPER DEMANDS AND HOW UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WOULD RESPOND TO THEM BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE RECEIVED AND ON EVIDENCE THAT HAS SINCE EMERGED ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND OTHERS THAT WE WILL DESCRIBE BEAR DIRECTLY ON THE ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY WOULD HELP COMPLETE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNFOLDED IN REAL TIME.

THEY WOULD SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS UNDERSTOOD THE CORRUPT NATURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMANDS.

AND THEY WOULD FURTHER EXPOSE THE EXTENT TO WHICH SECRETARY POMPEO ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND OTHER SENIOR TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WERE AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT'S PLOT AND HELPED CARRY IT OUT.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A BURDENSOME NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC DISCREET SET OF MATERIALS HELD BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

DOCUMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY COLLECTED IN RESPONSE TO OUR SUBPOENA BUT HAS NEVER PRODUCED.

WE KNOW THESE MATERIALS EXIST.

WE KNOW THEY ARE RELEVANT AND WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO CONCEAL THEM.

THE SENATE SHOULD SUBPOENA THE FOLLOWING.

WHAT'S APP COMMUNICATION.

TWO E-MAILS, THREE CABLES AND FOUR NOTES.

GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS THE HOUSE REQUESTED THAT THEY BE PROVIDED.

WHEN THESE REQUESTS WERE DENIED, WHEN OUR INTERESTS WERE DENIED THE HOUSE ISSUED SUBPOENAS COMMANDING THAT THE DOCUMENTS BE TURNED OVER.

BUT AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNLAWFULLY DEFIED THAT SUBPOENA AND I STAND HERE NOW AS I STAND HERE NOW THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS ALL THESE DOCUMENTS IN ITS POSSESSION THAT REFUSES BASED ON THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO LET THEM SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.

THIS IS AN AFFRONT TO THE HOUSE WHICH HAS FULL POWER TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS.

IT IS AN AWE FRONT TO THE SENATE WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED A FULL RECORD ON WHICH TO JUDGE THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE AND IT IS AN AWE FRONT TO A FRONT TO THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS CLEARLY THAT NOBODY, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW.

AND IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES ARE HIDING FROM THEM AND WHY IT IS BEING HIDDEN.

AND PRIOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THIS BODY HAS ISSUED SUBPOENAS REQUIRING THE RECIPIENT TO HAND OVER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

IT MUST DO SO AGAIN HERE.

AND IT MUST DO SO NOW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL, NOT THE END.

OF COURSE, THE NEED FOR A SENATE SUBPOENA ARISES BECAUSE AS I'VE NOTED, THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DEFY A SUBPOENA FROM THE HOUSE.

AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE OUR OWN EFFORTS TO GET THOSE MATERIALS.

I'LL THEN ADDRESS IN A MORE DETAILED FASHION EXACTLY WHAT DOCUMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS HIDDEN FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WHY THE SENATE SHOULD REQUIRE IT TO TURN THEM OVER.

ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, EXERCISING THEIR ARTICLE 1 OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY THE HOUSE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE SENT A DOCUMENT REQUEST TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

THE COMMITTEE SOUGHT MATERIALS RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL AS WELL AS HIS DANGEROUS UNEXPLAINED WITHHOLDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN VITAL MILITARY AID AFTER THE STATE DEPARTMENT FILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS -- FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 27TH.

IN A LETTER ON OCTOBER 1ST, SECRETARY POMPEO ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF THE SUBPOENA.

AT THAT TIME HE STATED HE WOULD RESPOND TO THE COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS BY THE RETURN DATE OCTOBER 4.

BUT HIS RESPONSE NEVER CAME.

INSTEAD, ON OCTOBER 8TH, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER WRITING ON THE PRESIDENT'S BEHALF ISSUED A DIRECTION CONFIRMING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD STONEWALL THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

TO DATE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT.

NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA.

BUT WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED INDICATED THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD GATHERED ALL OF THE RECORDS AND WAS PREPARED TO PRODUCE PROVIDE THEM BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE DIRECTED IT TO DEFY THE SUBPOENA.

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS UNLAW OBSTRUCTION THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF BRAVE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, THE HOUSE WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY WITH REMARKABLE PRECISION SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT THAT WERE SITTING RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE SITTING RIGHT NOW AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH FOUR KEY CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD BE SUBPOENAED AND WHICH ILLUSTRATE THE HIGHLY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT COULD PRODUCE.

IMMEDIATELY.

THEY COULD PRODUCE THEM IMMEDIATELY FOR THIS TRIAL.

THE FIRST CATEGORY CONSISTS OF WHAT'S APP AND OTHER TEXT MESSAGES FROM STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS CAUGHT UP IN THESE EVENTS INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND TAYLOR AND ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY GEORGE KENT ALL THREE OF HIM CONFIRMED IN THEIR TESTIMONY THAT THEY REGULARLY USE WHAT'S APP TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER AND FOREIGN BEEN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT CONNECT EXPLAINED WHAT'S APPEAR IS A DUMP INFORMANT FORM OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE WORLD.

WE KNOW THAT.

>> AGAIN, I'M JUDY WOODRUFF AND WE ARE BACK WITH OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.

IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE ALREADY AS THE 100 SENATORS HAVE BEEN IN THE CHAMBER SINCE EARLY THIS AFTERNOON LISTENING TO ARGUMENTS ABOUT HOW THIS TRIAL WILL PROCEED.

WATCHING IT ALL I'M JOINED BY OUR LISA DESJARDINS AND AT THE WHITE HOUSE OUR FOUR DISTINGUISHED EXPERTS WITH ME HERE AT THE TABLE.

THEY ARE MARTIN PEONE THE DEMOCRATIC SECRETARY DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

ELIZABETH CHRIS WAS THE REPUBLICAN SENATE SECRETARY DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S TRIAL.

MARGARET TAYLOR HAS WORKED ON THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, SHE WAS ALSO AN ATTORNEY AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR TEN YEARS AND JOHN HART WORKED FOR CONGRESSMAN TOM CO-IMURN REPUBLICAN OF OKLAHOMA DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU.

YOU'VE BEEN WITH US ALL AFTERNOON INTO THE EVENING.

WE'RE NOW BACK WITH LIVE COVERAGE BUT I WANT TO GO FIRST HAD FIRST TO LISA BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT HALF AN HOUR AGO WHEN THE SENATE WAS GAVELED INTO A RECESS.

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL ASKED FOR THIS RECESS AFTER THE DEMOCRATS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS INTRODUCED A RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SUBPOENA THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE WAITING FOR THE SENATE TO RECONVENIENT AT WHICH POINT I GUESS THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER SAYS HE'S GOING TO ASK TO TABLE THAT PROPOSAL.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

WE'VE SEEN ONE AFTER ANOTHER SENATOR SCHUMER'S PROPOSALS FOR DOCUMENTS UP UNTIL NOW ALL BEING TABLED OR KILLED ESSENTIALLY BY A RESOUNDING PARTISAN VOTE 53 VOTES ALL THE REPUBLICANS VOTING AGAINST TAKING UP THOSE MOTIONS RIGHT NOW FOR KIND OF QUASHING THE IDEA OF THOSE SUBPOENAS AT THIS MOMENT.

THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT WE'LL SEE ANY OTHER DIFFERENT VOTES LATER TONIGHT BUT I HAVE A BETTER SENSE WHERE THE REST OF THE NIGHT'S GOING.

BY NOW WE EXPECT GIVEN WHAT SENATOR SCHUMER HAS SAID IN THE PAST THAT HE WILL PROPOSE MORE AMENDMENTS AFTER THIS ONE REGARDING MR. MULVANEY LIKELY TO INCLUDE THE THREE OTHER WITNESSES THE DRARKZ WOULD LIKE TO CALL IN THIS TRIAL AND THAT OF COURSE IS JOHN BOLTON THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR ALSO OMB TOP AIDE TWO OMB FIGURES ACTUALLY ONE OF THEM BEING ROBERT BLAIR.

THE OTHER ONE BEING MICHAEL DUFFY, OF COURSE.

THOSE ARE THE FOUR WITNESSES THE TRACKS WANT TO CALL AND WE I THINK SHOULD EXPECT FOUR ROUNDS INCLUDING THIS CURRENT ONE FROM MULVANEY OF AMENDMENTS TONIGHT ON THOSE WITNESSES WITH AN HOUR TO TWO HOURS OF DEBATE TIME ON EACH ONE.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE WILL BE HERE COMING UP TO MIDNIGHT BUT VERY POSSIBLY TONIGHT ON THE EAST COAST.

>> YOU ARE FORGETTING A NAME.

WE'LL GIVE YOU A PASS LISA KEEPING SO MUCH IN YOUR HEAD ON THIS DAY BUT TO RECAP AS YOU JUST SAID EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON AND INTO THE EVENING THE SENATE WAS LISTENING TO THE ARGUMENTS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ABOUT OVER THE DESIRE TO CALL, RATHER TO REQUIRE EVIDENCE BE TURNED OVER BY OMB BY THE WHITE HOUSE BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

EVERY ONE OF THOSE PROPOSALS, AMENDMENTS BY THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER WERE DEFEATED OR TABLED IN ESSENCE BY THE REPUBLICANS BY A VOTE AS YOU SAID OF 53-47 RIGHT DOWN PARTY LINES.

IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HEADING FOR TONIGHT ALTHOUGH THESE ARE SUBPOENAS OF INDIVIDUALS RATHER THAN ASKING FOR EVIDENCE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND YOU KNOW I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE AFTER THIS IS SORT OF AN INCREASED DIVIDE OVER SORT OF THE MECHANICS OF THIS TRIAL AND I THINK SORT OF HARD PRTISAN TACTICS WILL INCREASE.

WHEN YOU TALK TO SENATORS AS I HAVE JUST IN THE LAST HOUR AS THEY SORT OF WERE GULPING DOWN PIZZA AND TALKING TO REPORTERS A FEW OF THEM.

WHEN YOU TALK TO DEMOCRATS JUDY WHAT THEY ARE HEARING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS REALLY AN ATTACK ON HOUSE MANAGERS.

THEY'LL SAY THINGS LIKE SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY FROM CONNECTICUT SAID I ACTUALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE AT ALL.

ALL THEY SEEM TO BE DOING IS ATTACKING THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

WHEN YOU TALK TO REPUBLICANS THEY SAY THEY DON'T THINK THERE REALLY IS A CONNECTION OF THE DOTS IN THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS CASE AND THEY DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO GET ANY MORE EVIDENCE OF IT.

I'M INCREASINGLY HEARING FROM REPUBLICANS JUDY AN ARGUMENT THAT PERHAPS THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE PROTECTION OF PRIVILEGE IN CASES LIKE THIS.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE HEARD A LOT ESPECIALLY FROM SENATORS.

USUALLY YOU THINK OF CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE ON THESE QUESTIONS AS BEING DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED BUT REPUBLICAN SENATORS A LITTLE BIT TONIGHT JUDY ARE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT THAT PROTECTION OF PRIVILEGE MORE FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS INTO THE EVENING.

LET ME QUICKLY COME TO YOU YACH YAMICHE.

THEY TOOK A BREAK, IT'S A LITTLE AFTER 8.

THEY THEY HAD THEY WOULD BE BACK WITH AN HALF AN HOUR SO WE'RE KEEPING ONE EYE ON THE CAMERA THAT WILL BRING US THE VIDEO FROM THE SENATE FLOOR ONCE IT GETS UNDER WAY.

BUT YAMICHE IT IS INTERESTING IN LISTENING TO THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PRESIDENT WHETHER IT'S THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OR THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER JOE SEKULOW, THERE IS SHALL WE SAY A SHARPNESS TO THEIR ARGUMENT OF DISMISSIVENESS TOWARD PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC SET OF ARGUMENTS?

>> THIS OF COURSE JUDY HAS BEEN THIS HISTORIAN DAY AND A BAD DAY ESSENTIALLY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THAT ALL OF THIS PAGEANTRY ALL OF THIS CEREMONY MEAN ALL OF THINGS HAPPENING REALLY SHUTS DOWN WASHINGTON D.C.

IN TERMS OF THE POLITICAL CONVERSATION.

EVERYONE'S TALKING ABOUT THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

THEY'RE SAYING THAT ALL OF THIS IS MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING AND THE DEMOCRATS BEING BITTER ABOUT THE PRESIDENT WINNING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN AND THE 20116 ELECTION.

SEKULOW AND CIPOLLONE ARE SAYING THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAD TO FIND SOMETHING TO DO TO TRY TO TAKE DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP.

PAT CIPOLLONE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE GHOST OF THE ROBERT MUELLER INVESTIGATION.

HE'S MAKING THE CASE OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED THEIR BEST TO LAUNCH INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE PRESIDENT TO TRY TO FIND SOME WAY TO SAY HE'S DOING SOMETHING WRONG WHEN THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION ENDED WITHOUT HIM BEING INDICTED DEMOCRATS QUICKLY TURNED TO THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATION.

>> NO QUESTION WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THOSE ARGUMENTS AND IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THEY CONTINUE TO BRING UP THOSE ARGUMENTS TONIGHT AS WE YOU CAN AS THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOW AS WE SAID ASKING TO SUBPOENA INDIVIDUALS.

THE WHITE HOUSE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF.

TWO TOP OMB OFFICIALS JOHN BOLTON WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO BY THE WAY HAS SAID HE IS WILLING TO TESTIFY IF HE'S SUBPOENAED BUT THAT'S THE BIG IF, WHETHER THE SENATE'S GOING TO DO THAT OR NOT.

AS WE WAIT FOR THE SENATE TO COME BACK INTO SESSION, I'M GOING TO BRING IN OUR GUESTS HERE AT THE TABLE WITH ME AND TURN TO YOU ELIZABETH CHRIST FIRST HAVING BEEN THROUGH THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE PARALLELS OR THE LACK OF PARALLELS THERE REALLY IS NO EXACT PRESS DENT FOR WHAT'S GOING ON.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE TRIALS WERE DIFFERENT.

THEY WERE DIFFERENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN BOTH CASES.

SO THERE IS NOT AN EXACT MIRROR IMAGE BUT AS I'VE SAID SENATOR MCCONNELL TRIED TO MIRROR WHAT WAS DONE IN THE CLINTON EMME.

AS BEST THEY COULD GIVEN -- CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AS BEST HE COULD GIVEN THERE ARE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> WE ALL LONG FOR SOME SORT OF ORDER.

WE ARE USED TO SEE A SENATE GOVERNED BY RULES AND BY ORDER.

SO MARTY, THIS IS A CASE WHERE I WOULDN'T SAY THEY'VE MADE UP THE RULES, THEY CERTAINLY TRIED TO DEPEND ON PRECEDENT BUT THEY'VE HAD TO COME UP WITH A NEW GAME PLAN HAVEN'T THEY?

>> YES.

EACH IMPEACHMENT PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IS DIFFERENT.

OBVIOUSLY JOHNSON WAS MUCH LONGER WITH A LOT OF WITNESSES.

CLINTON HAPPENED THREE WITNESSES, THEY WERE DEPOSED.

THEY WERE DIFFERENT ISSUES AND THIS ONE IS TOTALLY UNIQUE AND SO THE UNIQUE COUNT IS INVOLVED AND MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS SO WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES.

>> NO ONE AROUND FROM THE JOHNSON IMPEACHMENT.

TRYING TO TALK BIT, IT WAS OVER A HUNDRED AND SOME YEARS AGO WHERE THERE ARE FOLKS AROUND WHO WERE PART OF CLINTON BUT NOT THAT MANY.

WHELM YOU THINK ABOUT IT, JOHN HART, THERE AREN'T THAT MANY SENATORS.

THERE ARE A FEW WHO WERE AROUND 25 YEARS AGO.

WE'VE BEEN SEEING THOSE PICTURES OF LINDSEY GRAHAM VERSUS TODAY.

>> JUDY, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ENOUGH ABOUT THE FACT THIS IS CALLED A TRIAL BUT IT'S NOT A FORMAL TRIAL IN A LEGAL SENSE.

AND THE FOUNDERS WANT TO CREATE A PROCESS WHERE THE SENATE WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF TAKING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE IT'S A POLITICAL BODY AND RATHER THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS TODAY RAISED THE ISSUE OF WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE IS ARE WE GOING TO OVERTURN A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRETTY.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED HIM INTO THE WHITE HOUSE AND THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE DEATH PANELLITY IN POLITICS.

SO THEY SAID THE BAR HAS TO BE VERY HIGH BUT THE FOUNDERS CREATED A VERY VYING VAGUE STANDARD.

WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PRECEDENT IN HISTORY IN A DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD.

THEY'RE NOT QUITE MAKING IT OFTEN AS THEY GO, WE'RE NOT IN TOTALLY YOU CHARTERED WATERS BUT THEY ARE IN NEW TERRITORIES.

THIS IS ONLY THE THIRD TIME WOVE DONE IN THIS OUR HISTORY SO IT'S NOT EXPECTED THEY ARE WRESTLING WITH HOW TO GO FORWARD.

>> THE CONSTITUTION REFERS TO HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS BUT THERE'S DEBATE RIGHT NOW OVER WHAT THAT MEANS.

I AM TOLD LISA PICKED UP NEW.

>> HI.

OF COURSE ONE THING WE KEEP COMING BACK TO THERE'S THE FOUR PRESIDENTIAL CAN DEATHS IN THAT ROOM SENATORS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND THEY WOULD PROBABLY MUCH RATHER BE IN IOWA RIGHT NOW.

I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TO SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR AND IT'S NOTE WORTHY JUDY FOR SENATORS TO TALK TO THE PRESS, USUALLY SENATORS HAVE TO GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO AVOID REPORTERS HERE.

IN THIS CONSTRUCT BECAUSE OF THE WAY SECURITY IS SET UP AT THE CAPITOL WHERE ENTIRE FLOORS AROUND THE SENATE ARE SHUT OFF ESSENTIALLY FOR REPORTERS.

FOR A SENATOR TO SPEAK TO REPORTERS THEY HAVE TO GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO FIND OUT.

AMY EXPWHROAB CHAR HAS BEEN DOING THIS.

I JUST SPOKE WITH HER.

SHE HAS INTENSE FRUSTRATION THAT PAT CIPOLLONE MENTIONED THEM THAT SHOULDN'T THEY BE IN IOWA.

SHE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS APPROPRIATE JOKE BUT SAID SHE CAN DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE WHILE SHE IS HERE.

IS SHE GETTING TO IOWA BEFORE FEBRUARY 3RD.

WILL SHE MAKE IT THERE BEFORE THAT IMPORTANT DATE.

SHE ACTUALLY DIDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

INSTEAD SHE SAID HER FAMILY IS THERE NOW.

SHE HAS FAITH IN THEM AND THE SURROGATES WHO ENDORSED HER IN IOWA, IOWA STATE LAWMAKERS BUT IT'S A QUESTION OVER HER HEAD SHE'S NOT SURE WHEN THESE GOING TO BE ABLE TOIC MEMORANDA IT THERE.

HER CAMPAIGN IS SURGING, SHE'S GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION "NEW YORK TIMES" ENDORSEMENT ALONG WITH ELIZABETH WARREN.

YOU CAN SEE SHE'S TRYING BY SPEAKING TO REPORTERS HERE AT THE CAPITOL BUT IT IS A REAL ISSUE FOR HER CAMPAIGN I THINK SHE'S NOT IN IOWA.

>> NO QUESTION.

SHE CAN GET SOME ATTENTION BY TALKING TO THE MEDIA HERE IN WASHINGTON BUT I THINK IT WAS AMY WALTER ON THE NEWSHOUR YESTERDAY OR LAST NIGHT SHE WAS REPORTING FROM IOWA AND SHE SAID THE VOTERS HERE IN THESE WANING DAYS REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM THE CANDIDATES ESPECIALLY THE VOTERS WHO ARE UNDECIDED AND IT MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE THAT SOMEONE THEY ARE INTERESTED IN MIGHT NOT BE THERE BUT AT THIS POINT WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE OR WATCH.

I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A BREAK IN THE TRIAL THIS WEEK.

I BELIEVE THE TRIAL GOES THROUGH SAT.

THERE'S A BREAK ON SUNDAY SO IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET A FLIGHT FROM WASHINGTON AND COME RIGHT BACK ON MONDAY MORNING BEFORE THE TRIAL RESUMES.

LET'S COME BACK TO THIS QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE'S A PRECEDENT OR NOT.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

WHY DO WE STILL DEBATE WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS?

>> WELL THERE IS A DEBATE AMONG LEGAL SCHOLARS ABOUT WHAT DOES HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS REALLY MEAN BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY A FAIR AMOUNT OF CONSENSUS THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE A STATUTORY LIKE A CRIME THAT AGAINST AN EXISTING STATUTE.

SO ALEXANDER HAMILTON WHEN HE WAS GOING AROUND AND SELLING THE CONSTITUTION TO THE STATES SAID WHAT WE MEAN BY HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IS REALLY A FENCE AGAINST THE POLITICAL BODY A FINANCES AGAINST THE PEOPLE DIRECTLY.

IN THIS INSTANCE THE ARGUMENT THAT HOUSE SENATORS ARE TRYING TO MAKE IS THIS EFFORT TO INTERFERE IN AN ELECTION USING THE OFFICIAL OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IS SUCH AN OFFENSE.

>> WE ARE BACK ON THE SENATE FLOOR WITH NO WARNING.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

MY NAME IS HAKEEM JEFFERIES AND I HAVE THE HONOR OF REPRESENTING THE 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN AND QUEENS.

IT IS ONE OF THE MOST DIVERSE DISTRICTS IN THE NATION.

IN FACT, I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT I HAVE THE 9TH MOST AFRICAN AMERICAN DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY AND THE 16TH MOST JEWISH.

HERE ON THE HILL SOME FOLKS HAVE SAID HAKEEM, IS THAT COMPLICATED?

BUT AS MY FRIEND LEON GOLDENBERG SAYS BACK AT HOME, HAKEEM, YOU'VE GOT THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.

YOU SEE, IN AMERICA OUR DIVERSITY IS A STRENGTH.

IT IS NOT A WEAKNESS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BINDS US TOGETHER, ALL OF US AS AMERICANS REGARDLESS OF RACE, REGARDLESS OF RELIGION, REGARDLESS OF REGION, REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION, REGARDLESS OF GENDER IS THAT WE BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW AND THE IMPORTANCE OF A FAIR TRIAL.

THE HOUSE MANAGER STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TO SUBPOENA WITNESS TESTIMONY INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO MICK MULVANEY.

WHO EVER HEARD OF A TRIAL WITH NO WITNESSES.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SOME ARE CONTEMPLATING HERE TODAY.

THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADDRESS THAT FUNDAMENTAL FLAW.

IT WOULD ENSURE THAT THE TRIAL INCLUDE TESTIMONY FROM A KEY WITNESS.

THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET MICK MULVANEY.

AND THE SENATE CAN CONSIDER HIS TESTIMONY IMMEDIATELY.

LET'S DISCUSS WHY THE NEED TO HEAR FROM MICK MULVANEY IS SO CRITICAL.

FIRST, LEADER MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION UNDERCUTS MORE THAN 200 YEARS OF SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL PRACTICE.

IT DEPARTS FROM EVERY IMPEACHMENT TRIAL CONDUCTED TO DATE AND GOES AGAINST THE SENATE'S OWN LONG STANDING IMPEACHMENT RULES WHICH CONTEMPLATES THE POSSIBILITY OF NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY.

IN FACT, IT DEPARTS FROM ANY CRIMINAL OR CIVIL TRIAL PROCEDURE IN AMERICA.

WHY SHOULD THIS PRESIDENT BE HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD.

SECOND, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY IS NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT'S DETERMINED EFFORT TO BARRYBURY THE EVIDENCE AND COVER UP HIS CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER.

THE HOUSE TRIED TO GET MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY.

WE SUBPOENAED HIM.

MR. MULL VIDEO TAPEY TOGETHER WITH OTHER KEY WITNESSES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON.

SENIOR WHITE HOUSE AIDE ROBERT BLAIR.

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL MICHAEL DUFFY AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL LAWYER JOHN EISENBERG.

WERE CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DETERMINED TO HIDE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.

THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND ALL OF HIS TOP AIDES AND ADVISORS TO DEFY ALL REQUESTS FOR THEIR TESTIMONY.

THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND.

THIRD, MR. MULVANEY IS A HIGHLY RELEVANT WITNESS TO THE EVENTS AT ISSUE IN THIS TRUAL.

MR. MULVANEY WAS AT THE CENTER OF EVERY STAGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S SUBSTANTIAL PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AGAINST UKRAINE.

BASED ON THE EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE THE HOUSE DID OBTAIN, IT IS CLEAR THAT MULVANEY WAS CRUCIAL IN PLANNING THE SCREAM, EXECUTING ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND CARRYING OUT THE COVER UP.

E-MAILS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY SHOW THAT MR. MULVANEY WAS IN THE LOOP ON THE PRESIDENT 'S DECISION TO EXPLICITLY CONDITION A WHITE HOUSE LEADING ON UKRAINE'S ANNOUNCEMENT ON INVESTIGATESINVESTIGATIONS BENEFICIAL TO THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION PROSPECTS.

IT WAS CLOSELY INVOLVED IN IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADMITTED.

THAT THE FUNDS WERE BEING WITHHELD TO PUT PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO CONDUCT ONE OF THE PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED.

PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

A TRIAL WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF MICK MULVANEY.

MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD THAT WE HAVE BUILT IS POWERFUL AND CAN CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT ON BOTH OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

BUT IT IS HARDLY COMPLETE.

THE RECORD COMES TO YOU WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MULL VIDEO TAPEY AND -- MULVANEY AND OTHER IMPORTANT WITNESSES.

AND THAT BRINGS ME TO ONE FINAL PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGREE THAT THERE CANNOT BE A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT HEARING FROM WITNESSES WHO HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO PROVIDE THE CONSTITUTION, OUR DEMOCRACY, THE SENATE, THE PRESIDENT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL.

A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES WITNESSES.

IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

THAT IS WHY THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ADOPTED.

BEFORE WE DISCUSSED MR. MULVANEY'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S GEO POLITICAL SHAKEDOWN, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES WOULD BE A STUNNING DEPARTIAL FROM THIS INSTITUTION'S PAST PRACTICE.

THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY HAS CONDUCTED 15 IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, ALL HAVE INCLUDED WITNESSES.

SOMETIMES THOSE TRIALS INCLUDED JUST A HANDFUL OF WITNESSES AS INDICATED ON THE SCREAM.

AT OTHER TIMES, THEY INCLUDED DOZENS.

IN ONE CASE THERE WERE OVER A HUNDRED DIFFERENT WITNESSES.

AT THE SLIDE SHOWS, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF WITNESSES TO APPEAR AT A SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS 33 AND IN AT LEAST THREE OF THOSE INSTANCES, INCLUDING THE IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON, WITNESSES APPEARED BEFORE THE SENATE WHO HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE.

THAT'S BECAUSE THE SENATE, THIS GREAT INSTITUTION HAS ALWAYS TAKEN ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO ADMINISTER A FAIR TRIAL SERIOUSLY.

THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS TAKEN ITS DUTY TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE INCLUDING WITNESS TEST MOAN SERIOUSLY -- TESTIMONY SERIOUSLY.

IT HAS TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT ON A FULL BODY OF INFORMATION SERIOUSLY.

THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.

RESPECTFULLY, IT IS IMPORTANT TO HONOR THAT UNBROKEN PRECEDENT TODAY.

TODAY THAT MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR AS TO WHAT HE MIGHT SAY CAN INFORM THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY OF AMERICANS.

THIS AMENDMENT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO COUNTER THE PRESIDENT'S DETERMINATION TO BURY THE EVIDENCE OF HIS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

AS WE'VE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL TODAY DESPITE CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS BY THE HOUSE TO OBTAIN RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DIRECTED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO EXECUTE A COVER UP.

HE HAS ORDERED THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION TO IGNORE THE POWERS OF CONGRESS A SEPARATE AND CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE HIS OFFENSES IN A MANNER THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

IT WAS 71 REQUESTS BY THE HOUSE FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE.

THE RESPONSE?

THE WHITE HOUSE PRODUCED ZERO DOCUMENTS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

71 REQUESTS.

ZERO DOCUMENTS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DEPRIVING THE SENATE OF INFORMATION IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER IN THIS TRIAL.

THIS POINT CANNOT BE OVERSTATED.

WHEN FACED WITH A CONGRESSIONAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, A PROCESS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ARTICLE 1, THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO COMPLY IN ANY RESPECT.

AND HE ORDERED HIS SENIOR AIDES TO FALL IN LINE.

AS SHOWN ON THE SLIDE AS A RESULT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION, 12 KEY WITNESSES INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY REFUSED TO APPEAR FOR TESTIMONY IN THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

NO ONE HAS HEARD WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

THESE WITNESSES INCLUDE CENTRAL FIGURES IN THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGED IN ARTICLE 1.

WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT HIDING.

EQUALLY TROUBLESOME PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION DID NOT MAKE ANY LEGITIMATE ATTEMPTS TO REACH A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION WITH THE HOUSE OR COMPROMISE REGARDING ANY DOCUMENT REQUESTS OR WITNESS SUBPOENAS.

WHY?

BECAUSE PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP WASN'T INTERESTED IN COOPERATING, HE WAS PLOTTING A COVER UP.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND THINK ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DOING.

COMPLETE AND TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION IS UNPRECEDENTED IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

EVEN PRESIDENT NEXT TIRNTION HIS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT INCLUDED OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS DID NOT BLOCK KEY WHITE HOUSE AIDS IN TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS DURING THE SENATE WATERGATE HEARINGS.

IN FACT HE PUBLICLY URGED WHITE HOUSE AIDES TO TESTIFY.

REMEMBER THOSE WITNESSES WHO CAME IN FRONTS OF THIS BODY.

TAKE A LOOK AT THE SCREEN.

JOHN DEAN THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TESTIFIED FOR DAYS PURSUANT TO THE SUBPOENA.

H.R.

HALDEMAN WAS SUBPOENAED AND TESTIFIED.

ALEXANDER BUTTERFIELD.

9THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS TO REVEALED THE EXISTENCE OF THE TAPES TESTIFIED PUBLICLY BEFORE THE SENATE AND SO DID SEVERAL OTHERS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COMPLETE AND TOTAL OBSTRUCTION MAKES RICHARD NIXON LOOK LIKE 9 THE CHOIR BOY.

TIE OTHERTWO OTHER PRESIDENTS TRIED BEFORE THE SENATE HOW DID THEY CONDUCT THEM SAYS?

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON AND ANDREW JOHNSON DID NOT BLOCK ANY WITNESSES FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE SENATE TRIAL.

PRESIDENT TRUMP BY CONTRAST REFUSES TO PERMIT RELEVANT WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO THIS VERY DAY.

OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S WHITE HOUSE AIDS TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF CONGRESS, EVEN BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF FORMAL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

DURING VARIOUS INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MID 1990'S THE HOUSE AND THAT HEARD FROM TWO DOZEN WHITE HOUSE AIDES INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.

THE FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AND MULTIPLE SENIOR ADVISORS TO PRESIDENT CLINTON.

PRESIDENT CLINTON HIMSELF GAVE TESTIMONY ON CAMERA AND UNDER OATH.

HE ALSO ALLOWED HIS MOST SENIOR ADVISORS INCLUDING MULTIPLE CHIEFS OF STAFF AND WHITE HOUSE COUNSELS TO TESTIFY IN THE INVESTIGATION THAT LEAD TO HIS IMPEACHMENT.

AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CHART THE TESTIMONY WAS PACKAGED AND DELIVERED TO THE SENATE.

THERE WERE NO MISSING WITNESSES WHO HAD DEFIED SUBPOENAS.

NO AIDES WHO HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF HIS MISCONDUCT WERE DIRECTED TO STAY SILENT BY PRESIDENT CLINTON.

WE HAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATION IN THIS CASE.

HERE WE ARE SEEKING WITNESSES THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED FROM TEST FIGURE BEFORETEST FIGURE BEFORE THE HOUSE -- TESTIFY FIGURE BEFORE THE HOUSE.

PRIDE TRUMP BELIEVES HE CAN DO SOMETHING NO OTHER PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM COULD DO IN SUCH A BRAZEN FASHION.

FLOAT ABOVE THE LAW AND HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND.

LET ME NOW ADDRESS SOME BEDROCK PRINCIPLES ABOUT CONGRESS' AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS.

POWERS OF INQUIRY ARE AT THEIR STRONG ES DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

WHEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE EXERCISE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSTITUTION.

NEARLY 140 YEARS AGO, THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT WHEN THE HOUSE OR SENATE IS DETERMINING A QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE RIGHT TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES.

AND THEIR ANSWER TO PROPER QUESTIONS IN THE SAME MANNER AND BY THE USE OF THE SAME MEANS THAT COURTS OF JUSTICE CAN IN LIKE CASES.

OUR NATION'S FOUNDERS AND GREATEST LEGAL MINDS RECOGNIZED THESE PRINCIPLES EARLY ON.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY EXPLAINED THAT PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER OF PREVENTING A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF HIS CONDUCT.

OR OF SECURING HIMSELF AGAINST THE DISGRACE OF THE PUBLIC CONVICTION BY IMPEACHMENT, IF HE SHOULD DESERVE IT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CANNOT FUNCTION AS JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER, OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

AND IT WASN'T JUST THE COURTS WHO CONFIRMED THIS FOR US.

SOME OF OUR NATION'S LEADING PUBLIC SERVANTS, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS SPEAKING ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AFTER HE HAD SERVED AS PRESIDENT, ONE EX CLAIMED WHAT MOCKERY WOULD IT BE, FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, EXTENDING EVENLY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HIMSELF, AND YET TO SAY THAT THE HOUSE HAD NOT THE POWER TO OSH TAKEN THE EVIDENCE AND PROOFS ON WHICH THEIR IMPEACHMENT WAS BASED.

THAT'S HAMILTON, STORY, ADAMS AND OTHERS HAVE RECOGNIZED, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT INSULATE HIMSELF FROM CONGRESS'S INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS WRONGDOING.

THE PRESIDENT SHOULD DECIDE WHAT EVIDENCE GETS TO BE PRESENTED IN HIS OWN TRIAL, THAT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY NULLIFY THE CONSTITUTION POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

THIS AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP SIMPLY CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HIDE THE TRUTH.

NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS DONE IT.

THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT ALLOW IT.

AND THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

WITNESSES MATTER.

DOCUMENTS MATTER.

EVIDENCE MATTERS.

THE TRUTH MATTERS.

LET ME NOW TURN TO A THIRD JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS AMENDMENT.

MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY IS CRITICAL TO CONSIDERING THE CASE FOR REMOVAL.

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT'S CLOSEST AIDE, A MAN INTIMATELY INVOLVED AT KEY STAGES OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY ABUSE OF POWER.

PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWS THIS.

WHY ELSE WOULD HE BE TRYING SO HARD TO PREVENT MICK MULVANEY FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE YOU?

THERE ARE AT LEAST FOUR REASONS WHY MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY IS CRITICAL.

TO BEGIN WITH, AS ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, MICK MULVANEY HAS FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO SHAKEDOWN UKRAINE AROUND PRESSURE ITS NEW -- AND PRESSURE ITS NEW PRESIDENT INTO ANNOUNCING PHONY INVESTIGATIONS.

MR. MULVANEY WAS IN THE LOOP AT EACH CRITICAL STAGE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME.

HE WAS IN THE LOOP IN THE PLANNING OF THE SCHEME.

HE WAS IN THE LOOP IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION.

AROUND HE WAS IN THE LOOP -- AND HE WAS IN THE LOOP WHEN THE SCHEME FELL APART.

HE EVEN ADMITTED PUBLICLY THAT THE AID WAS WITHHELD IN ORDER TO PRESSURE UKRAINE INTO ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION DESIGNED TO ELEVATE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL STANDING.

IN MULVANEY, BRAPS MORE THAN -- MR. MULVANEY PERHAPS MORE THAN ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION WITNESS EXCEPTING THE PRESIDENT, HAS FIRSTHAND INSIGHT INTO THE DECISION TO WITHHOLD $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AND SECURITY AID TO A VULNERABLE UKRAINE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.

INDEED OUR INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY ORDERED MR. MULVANEY TO EXECUTE THE FREEZE IN JULY OF 2019.

MR. MULVANEY HOLDS THE SENIOR MOST STAFF POSITION AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE'S A MEMBER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CABINET AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TEAM AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.

HE REMAINS THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WHICH IMPLEMENTED THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN VIEDGES OF THE LAW, AS THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RECENTLY CONCLUDED.

IN SHORTLY, RESPECTFULLY, THE SENATE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE AND FAIR TRIAL DEMANDS THAT MR. MULVANEY TESTIFY.

SECOND, MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY IS CRITICAL BECAUSE OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLANNING OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER.

AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, TESTIFIED THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS NOT A SO-CALLED NEVER TRUMPER.

MR. SONDLAND GAVE $1 MILLION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INAUGURATION.

HE TESTIFIED THAT EVERYBODY WAS IN THE LOOP AND THAT IT WAS NO SECRET WHAT WAS GOING ON.

IN FACT AS EARLY AS MAY OF 2019, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE CLEAR THAT HE WAS COORDINATING ON UKRAINE MATTERS WITH MR. MULVANEY.

HERE IS WHAT DAVID HOLMES, AN OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE HAD TO SAY ON THAT MATTER.

>> WELT IMOFER SONDLAND MANDATE AS THE CREDIBLE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, DIDN'T COVER NONUNION STATES, HE MADE CLEAR HE HAD DIRECT AND FUTURE ACCESS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND PORTRAYED HIMSELF AS THE CONDUIT TO MR. MULVANEY FOR THIS GROUP.

>> AFTER THE U.S. DELEGATION RETURNED FROM THE INAUGURATION OF THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN APRIL THEY WERE ABLE TO SECURE AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

TO BRIEF HIM ON THEIR TRIP IN PART BECAUSE OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S CONNECTION TO MICK MULVANEY.

THEN DURING A JUNE 18th, 2019 MEETING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INFORMED NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTOR DR. iPHONE HILL THAT HE WAS -- FIONA HILL THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE AND THAT HE HAD BEEN BRIEFING SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY ABOUT HIS EFFORTS TO UNDERTAKE, AS DR. HILL PUT IT, A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND, IN UKRAINE.

HERE IS DR. HILL EXPLAINING THIS HERSELF.

>> SO I WAS UPSET WITH HIM THAT HE WASN'T FULLY TELLING US ABOUT ALL THE MEETINGS THAT HE WAS HAVING.

AND HE SAID TO ME, BUT I'M BRIEFING THE PRESIDENT.

I'M BRIEFING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY.

I'M BRIEFING SECRETARY POMPEO AND I TALKED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON, WHO ELSE DO I HAVE TO DEAL WITH?

WE HAVE A ROBUST INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT INCLUDES AMBASSADOR BE TAYLOR AS THE CHARGE IN UKRAINE, IT INCLUDES A WHOLE LOAD OF OTHER PEOPLE.

BUT IT STRUCK ME YESTERDAY WHEN YOU PUT UP ON THE SCREEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S E-MAILS AND WHO WAS ON THESE E-MAILS AND HE SAID THESE WHICH ARE PEOPLE THAT NEEDED TO KNOW THAT HE WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

HE WAS INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND AND WE WERE INVOLVED IN NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN POLICY AND THOSE TWO THINGS HAD JUST DIE VERNLGD.

DIVERGED.

>> THERE IS MORE, MUCH MORE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AT THE TIME, JOHN BOLTON TOLD DR. FIONA HILL TO TELL THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S LAWYERS THAT HE WAS NOT PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MRCHL WERE COOKING UP.

-- MULVANEY WERE COOKING UP.

HE MADE THAT STATEMENT AFTER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT HE HAD A DEAL WITH MR. MULVANEY TO SCHEDULE A WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

IF UKRAINE ANNOUNCED TWO PHONY INVESTIGATIONS, INVOLVING THE BIDENS, AND 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE, INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE SOUGHT BY PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP.

HERE IS DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY ABOUT SONDLAND DESCRIBING THIS DRUG DEAL HE HAD WITH MULVANEY.

>> 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, AND INTO 2016 AND BURS.

I CUT ITBURISMA.

I CUT IT OFF THERE, AFTER HEARING MR. GIULIANI OVER AND OVER ON THE TELEVISION AND THE ISSUES HE WAS ASSERTING, MR. GIULIANI WAS LAYING IT OUT THERE, I COULD SEE WHY COLONEL VINLAND WAS MANY LAIRMD.

HE SAID WE ARE THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WE CAN'T BE INVOLVED IN THIS.

>> THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MICK MULVANEY WAS SO UPSETTING THAT DR. HILL REPORTED TO IT NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEGAL ADVISORS.

HERE IS THE TESTIMONY OF DR. HILL EXPLAINING THESE PARTICULAR CONCERNS.

>> AND WHAT DID HE SAY?

>> HE WAS MAKING A VERY STRONG POINT THAT HE WANTED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS BEING SAID.

AND WHEN I CAME BACK AND RELATED IT TO HIM HE HAD SOME VERY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION FOR ME.

AND I'M PRESUMING THAT THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING.

>> WHAT WAS THE INSTRUCTION?

>> THE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION THAT I HAD TO GO TO THE LAWYERS, TO JOHN EISENBERG, YOU TELL EISENBERG, AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD ME THAT I'M NOT PART OF THIS DRUG DEAL THAT SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP.

>> WHAT DID YOU TAKE THAT TO MEAN?

>> I TOOK IT INVESTIGATIONS FOR A MEETING.

>> DID YOU GO SPEAK TO THE LAWYERS?

>> I CERTAINLY DID.

>> SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY, NOT ONLY CORROBORATES DR. HILL'S ACCOUNT, HE ACTUALLY SAYS THAT MICK MULVANEY, THE SUBJECT OF THIS AMENDMENT, WHO SHOULD APPEAR BEFORE THE SENATE IF W'RE GOING TO HAVE A FREE AND FAIR TRIAL.

SONDLAND SAYS MICK MULVANEY KNEW ALL ABOUT IT.

>> WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT IS MAKES REFERENCE TO A DRUG DEAL KICKED UP BY YOU AND MULVANEY.

IT IS 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 THESE PUBLIC INVESTIGATIONS TO GET WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YEAH, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF IT.

AND -- >> INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY?

>> CORRECT.

>> THE DOCUMENTS ALSO HIGHLIGHT THE EXTENSIVE INVOLVEMENT OF MICK MULVANEY IN THIS GEOPOLITICAL STHAIK DOWN SCHEME.

-- SHAKEDOWN SCHEME.

E-MAIL MESSAGES SUMMARIZED BY GOSH SONDLAND DURING HIS SWORN TESTIMONY SHOW THAT HE INFORMED MR. MULVANEY AS WELL AS SECRETARY POMPEO AND SECRETARY PERRY OF HIS EFFORTS TO PERSUADE IF THE ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS DESIRED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

FOR EXAMPLE AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, ON JULY 17th AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INFORMED SEVERAL OFFICIALS, THAT HE HAD TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO HELP HIM PREPARE FOR A PHONE CAUGHT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HE REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PLANNED TO ASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE INTENDS TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND WILL TURN OVER EVERY STONE.

WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE CLEAR IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO THE BURISMA BIDENS AND 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE EXPLICITLY MENTIONED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL.

MR. MULVANEY WROTE IN SPOFNTION I ASKED NSC TO SET IT UP.

WHAT EXACTLY DID MR. MULVANEY KNOW ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN COMMITMENT TO TURN OVER EVERYBODY STONE?

AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

THESE AND MANY OTHER QUESTIONS REQUIRE ANSWERS UNDER OATH.

FROM MR. MULVANEY.

MR. MULVANEY IS ALSO A CENTRAL FIGURE WITH RESPECT TO HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP IMPLEMENTTHIS PRESSURE CAMPAIGN.

ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY, MR. MULVANEY WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH IMPLEMENTING THE SCHEME, INCLUDING THE UNLAWFUL WHITE HOUSE FREEZE ON $391 MILLION IN AID TO UKRAINE.

BUT THIS ISN'T JUST OTHER PEOPLE FINGERING MR. MULVANEY.

MR. MULVANEY HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE WAS INVOLVED.

>> I WAS INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE MONEY WAS HELD UP TEMPORARILY.

OKAY?

>> THE PUBLIC REPORTS CONFIRM MR. MULVANEY'S MULVANEY'S OWN ACCOUNT THAT HE HAS INFORMATION THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF THIS INQUIRY, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO WHY THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD ON AID TO UKRAINE AND KEPT IT IN PLACE.

DESPITE DEEP SEEDED CONCERNED AMONG TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS.

THIS NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE ON THE SCENE SUMMARIZES AN E-MAIL CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. MULVANEY AND ROBERT BLAIR, A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION ADVISOR, ON JUNE 27.

WHEN MR. MULVANEY ASKED, DID WE EVER FIND OUT ABOUT THE MONEY FOR UKRAINE AND WHETHER WE CAN HOLD IT BACK?

WHAT PROMPTED THAT E-MAIL?

ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS MR. MULVANEY WAS ON AIR FORCE ONE.

AIR FORCE ONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WHEN HE SENT IT.

WHAT OTHER CONVERSATIONS DID MR. MULVANEY HAVE WITH THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ABOUT IN UNLAWFUL FREEZE?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW.

SPHWHRS OTHER SIGNIFICANTLY EVIDENCE CONCERNING MR. MULVANEY'S ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE SCHEME.

ACCORDING TO MULTIPLE WITNESSES THE DIRECTION TO FREEZE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ATO UKRAINE WAS DELIVERED BY MICK MULVANEY HIMSELF.

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL MARK SANEY TESTIFIED ABOUT A JULY 12th E-MAIL SAYING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DIRECTING A HOLD ON MILITARY SUPPORT FUNDING FOR UKRAINE.

WAS MR. BLAIR ACTING AT MR. MULVANEY'S EXPRESS DIRECTION?

MEMBERS OF THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY DESERVE TO KNOW.

ON JULY 18th THE HOLD WAS ANNOUNCED TO THE AGENCIES AND THE ADMINISTRATION OVERSEEING UKRAINE POLICY MATTERS.

THOSE PRESENT WERE BLIENLD-SIDED BY THE ANNOUNCEMENT.

IS -- BLIENLD-SIDED BLIND SIDED BY THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE SECURITY, WITH RUSSIAN BAKSD SEPARATISTS IN THE EAST THEY WHICH ARE ALARMED THAT AID HAD INEXPLICABLY BEEN PUT ON HOLD.

MEANWHILE OFFICIALS AT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND WITHIN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BECAME INCREASINGLY CONCERNED THAT THE HOLD ALSO VIOLATED THE LAW.

THEIR CONCERN TURNED OUT TO BE ACCURATE.

PUBLIC REPORTS HAVE INDICATED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN POSSESSION OF EARLY AUGUST E-MAILS, EXCHANGES BETWEEN ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND WHITE HOUSE BUDGET OFFICIALS SEEKING TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE FUNDS.

AN EXPLANATION I SHOULD NOTE THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO PROVIDE AFTER THE PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY ORDERED THE HOLD.

MR. MULVANEY FROOUMABLY HAS ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS -- PRESUMABLY HAS ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ANSWERS ARE BUT HE SHOULD PROVIDE THEM TO THIS SENATE.

AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

FINALLY, ON OCTOBER 17th, 2019, AT A PRESS BRIEFING, IF HE WHITE HOUSE, MR. MULVANEY LEFT NO DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THE ESSENTIAL MILITARY AID, AS WHRENCH TO -- LEVERAGE TO TRY EXTRACT EX PHONY INVESTIGATIONS, TO TRY THE SOLICIT AID IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

THIS WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY PRESS CONFERENCE.

MR. MULVANEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS IN FACT PRESSURING UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE CONSPIRACY THEORY, THAT UKRAINE RATHER THAN RUSSIA HAD HAD INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION, A CONSPIRACY THEORY PORTRAYED BY THE PURVEYOR OF RUSSIAN, VLADIMIR PUTIN HIMSELF.

QUID PRO QUO RELATED TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE MR. MULVANEY APPLIED WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.

WITH FOREIGN POLICY.

I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU.

GET OVER IT.

LET'S LISTEN TO A PORTION OF THAT STUNNING EXCHANGE.

>> DID HE ALSO MENTION TO ME PAT THAT THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER, ABSOLUTELY, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

BUT THAT'S IT.

THAT'S THE REASON WE HELD UP THE MONEY.

NOW THERE WAS A REPORT -- >> THE DEMAND FOR THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATS WAS PART OF THE REASON HE ORDERED TO HOLD FUNDING TO UKRAINE.

>> THE LOOK BACK TO 2016 CERTAINLY WAS PART OF THE THING THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IN CORRUPTION WITH THAT NATION AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE.

>> LET'S BE CLEAR, YOU DESCRIBED AS A QUID PRO QUO, IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRAT'S 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 CUBS.

WE WERE HOLDING UP NORTHERN TRIANGLE COUNTRIES SO THAT 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 AROUND I CAN NEVER REMEMBER THE GENTLEMAN WHO TESTIFIED, WAS IT McKINNEY, I DON'T KNOW, WHO TESTIFIED YESTERDAY, IF YOU BELIEVE THE NEWS REPORTS, WE HAVE SEEN NO TRANSCRIPTS OF THIS, THE ONLY TRANSCRIPT IS SONDLAND'S FROM THIS MORNING, WHAT DID McKINNEY SAY YESTERDAY?

McKINNEY SAID HE WAS VERY WRITEUP SET WITH THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN POLICY, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS HE SAID.

I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY.

GET OVER IT.

THERE IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

>> IN THIS EXTRAORDINARY PRESS CONFERENCE.

MR. BE MULVANEY SPOKE WITH AUTHORITY AND CONVICTION ABOUT WHY PRLT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THE AID.

HE DID NOT MINCE HIS WORDS BUT FOLLOWING THE PRESS CONFERENCE HE TRIED WALK BACK HIS STATEMENTS AS IF HE HAD NOT SAID THEM OR HAD NOT MEANT THEM.

WE NEED TO HEAR FROM MICK MULVANEY DIRECTLY SO HE CAN CLARIFY HIS TRUE INTENTIONS.

HAVING GONE THROUGH THE NEED FOR THE EVIDENCE LET'S BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENTS THAT HE CAN BLOCK THIS TESTIMONY.

THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT ONLY WRONG, IT FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINES OUR SYSTEMS OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT AND CONSIDER THE EXTRAORDINARY POSITION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO MANUFACTURE FOR HIMSELF.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS ALREADY SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE DIECTED INDICTED OR PROSECUTED WHILE IN OFFICE.

HE HAS FILED A BRIEF IN SUPREME COURT SAYING HE CANNOT BE CRIMINALLY INVESTIGATED AS WELL WHILE IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

SO THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE ARE THE ONLY CHECKS THAT ARE LEFT WHEN THE PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER.

TRIES THE CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

KNOWLEDGE E-UNDERBLIENS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, BREAKS THE LAW WHEN DOING SO AND THEN TRIES TO COVER IT UP.

THIS IS AMERICA.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

BUT IF THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS EVEN VECTED -- INVESTIGATED BY CONGRESS, IF HE IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHETHER HE SHOULD COMPLY WITH LAWFUL SUBPOENAS IN CONNECTION WITH AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OR TRIAL THEN HE IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF WHETHER HE DID ANYTHING WRONG.

THAT CANNOT STAND.

IF HE CAN'T BE INDICTED AND HE CAN'T BE IMPEACHED AND HE CAN'T BE REMOVED THEN HE CAN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

THAT IS INCONSISTENTLY WITH THE UNITED STATES -- INCONSISTENT WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

NOW YOU WILL NO DOUBT HEAR ATHIS THE REASON THE PRESIDENT BLOCKED UL THESE WITNESSES INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY FROM TESTIFYING IS BECAUSE OF SOME LOFTY CONCERN FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE PRESERVATION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

LET'S GET REAL.

HOW CAN BLOCK WITNESSES FROM TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT HELP PRIRVE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY?

THIS TYPE OF BLANKET OBSTRUCTION UNDERMINES THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND DEALS CONSTITUTION A POTENTIALLY MORTAL DEATH BLOW.

TO BE CLEAR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PROVIDE A LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE BASIS FOR HIS COMPLETE AND TOTAL BLOCKAGE I EVIDENCE.

IN FACT AS YOU HEARD EARLIER TODAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER EVEN INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, NOT ONCE.

AND WITHOUT EVER ASSERTING THIS PRIVILEGE HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER HIS ARGUMENT IN A SERIOUS FASHION?

INSTEAD SPEAKING THROUGH MR. CIPOLLONE, THE DISTINGUISHED WHITE HOUSE COUNT IN A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 8th, 2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP SIMPLY DECIDED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE INTO THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OWN WRONGDOING.

IT WAS A CATTLE GORE CAL DECISION NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN SPECIFIC FACTS OR LEGAL ARGUMENTS.

IN FACT EVEN THE WORDS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THROUGH HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WERE MADE..

IN THE LETTER, MR. CIPOLLONE REFERRED TO EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIAL INTEREST.

-- CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST.

THAT IS NOT A PROPER EXERS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THOSE CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE TESTIMONY AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES.

AND FINALLY, THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THAT MR. MULVANEY COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY BECAUSE OF SO-CALLED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

BUT EVERY COURT TO ADDRESS THIS LEGAL FICTION HAS REJECTED IT.

NORTHBOUND UNANIMOUS FASHION ON ITS DECISION ON NIXON CITY'S, CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE PRESIDENT MUST YIELD TO AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHEN THERE IS AN LEGITIMATE NEED FOR THE INFORMATION AS THERE IS HERE TODAY.

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT MR. MULVANEY AS THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF STAFF AND THE HEAD OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET IS UNIQUELYUNIQUELY SITUATED TO PROVIDE THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY WITH RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHARGES IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE ABOUT THE'S OBSTRUCTION HAS NO BASIS IN LAW AND SHOULD YIELD TO THIS BODY'S CO-EQUAL AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE IMPEACHABLE AND CORRUPT CONDUCT.

ONE FINAL POINT BEARS MENTION.

IF THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO MAKE WITNESSES AVAILABLE EVEN WHILE PRESERVING THE LIMITED PROTECTIONS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HE CAN DO SO.

IN FACT PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPRESSSHIS DESIRE FOR WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN THE SENATE JUST LAST MONTH.

LET'S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE.

>> SO WHEN IT'S FAIR IT WOULD BE FAIR IN THE SENATE, I WOULD LOOK AT MIKE POAMPLE, I'D LOVE TO HAVE MICK, I'D LOVE TO HAVE RICK PERRY AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE TESTIFY.

>> IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOTHING TO HAID, AS HE AND HIS ADVISORS REPEATEDLY CLAIM THEY SHOULD ALL TESTIFY IN THIS TRIAL.

WHAT IS PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP HIDING FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A FAIR TRIAL.

A DEMOCRACY NEEDS A FAIR TRIAL.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL.

A FAIR TRIAL MEANS WITNESSES, A FAIR TRIAL MEANS DOCUMENTS.

A FAIR TRIAL MEANS A CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

A FAIR TRIAL MEANS TESTIMONY FROM MICK MULVANEY.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME.

>> MR. CIPOLLONE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS MICHAEL PURPURA, I SERVE AS DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.

WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT AND SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO NEED TO ALTER THE PROCESS ON WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS FROM THAT OF THE CLINTON TRIAL.

WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THIS BODY 100 TO ZERO.

AT ITS CORE, THIS CASE IS VERY SIMPLE, AND THE KEY FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.

FIRST, YOU'VE SEEN THE TRANSCRIPTS WHICH THE PRESIDENTIAL RELEASED, TRANSPARENTLY, UNPRECEDENTEDLY.

THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO FOR ANYTHING.

SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS AREN'T EVEN MENTIONED ON THE CALL.

SERK: PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICIALS IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT REPEATEDLY HAVE SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, AND THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.

THIRD: THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE PAUSE IN THE AID AT THE TIME OF THE CALL, AND WEREN'T AWARE OF IT, DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF IT, UNTIL MORE THAN AMONTH LATER.

-- A MONTH LATER.

4th.

>>> THE: THE ONLY WITNESSES INTHE HOUSE RECORD WHO ACTUALLY SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE AID, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SENATOR RON JOHNSON, SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL IN SAYING THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

FIFTH, AND THIS ONE'S PRETTY OBVIOUS, THE AID FLOWED, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MET WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATIONS, STARTED OR ANNOUNCED.

FINALLY, AND I ASK THAT YOU NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE BIG PICTURE HERE.

BY PROVIDING LETHAL AID TO UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS PROVEN HIMSELF TO BE A BETTER FRIEND AND ALLY TO UKRAINE THAN HIS PREDECESSOR.

THE TIME FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO BRING THEIR CASE IS NOW.

THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE TO DEVELOP THEIR EVIDENCE BEFORE THEY SENT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO THIS CHAMBER.

THIS CHAMBER'S ROLE IS NOT TO DO THE HOUSE'S JOB FOR IT.

WITH THAT, I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. CIPOLLONE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

JUST A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, AS MR. PURPURA SAID, ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN THIS QUESTION IS ADDRESSED.

UNDER THE RESOLUTION, THAT WOULD BE NEXT WEEK.

THIS RESOLUTION WAS ACCEPTED 100 TO NOTHING, SOME MUCH YOU WERE HERE THEN, THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT.

IF WE KEEP GOING LIKE THIS, IT WILL BE NEXT WEEK.

FOR THOSE OF YOU KEEPING SCORE AT HOME, THEY HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED YET.

WE'RE HERE TODAY.

WE CAME HOPING TO HAVE A TRIAL.

THEY SPENT THE ENTIRE DAY TLLING YOU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T PROVE THEIR CASE.

I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU ARE THAT IN FIVE MINUTES.

AND SAVED US ALL A LOT OF TIME.

THEY CAME HERE TALKING ABOUT THE GAO.

IT'S AN ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS FOR CONGRESS.

DO YOU KNOW WHO DISAGREES WITH THE G AMPTO?

DON'T TAKE IT FROM ME.

THEY DO.

THEY SENT YOU ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THAT MAKES NO CLAIM OF ANY VIOLATION OF ANY LAW.

BY THE WAY, YOU KNOW WHAT ALSO DOESN'T?

YOU CAN SEARCH HIGH AND LOW IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY?

QUID PRO QUO.

BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY.

ONLY IN WASHINGTON WOULD SOMEONE SAY THAT IT'S WRONG WHEN YOU DON'T SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS FAST ENOUGH, EVEN IF YOU SPEND THEM ON TIME.

NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR A SECOND.

TWO DAYS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, TWO DAYS.

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE OF IMPEACHMENTS.

THE DELIVERY TIME FOR THE ARTICLES THEY PRODUCED WAS 33 DAYS.

I THINK THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY WHERE THE DELIVERY TIME WAS LONGER THAN THE INVESTIGATION NET JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

-- IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THEY COME HERE AND FALSELY ACCUSE PEOPLE -- BY THE WAY THEY FALSELY ACCUSED YOU.

YOU'RE ON TRIAL NOW.

THEY TALSLY -- FALSELY ACCUSE PEOPLE OF PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, REALLY?

SINCE THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER, THAT'S ALL WE'VE HAD FROM THEM.

THEY'VE USED THEIR OFFICE ALL THE MONEY, THAT THE TAXPAYERS SEND TO WASHINGTON TO PAY THEM, TO CONDUCT PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, AGAINST HIS FAMILY, AGAINST ANYONE WHO KNEW HIM.

THEY STARTED IMPEACHING HIM THE MINUTE HE WAS ELECTED.

THEY'VE WEAPONIZED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TO INVESTIGATE INCESSANTLY THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENT.

AND THEY COME HERE AND MAKE FALSE ALLEGATION HE OF FUNNY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

I THINK THE DOCTORS CALL THAT PROJECTION.

IT'S TIME FOR IT TO END.

IT'S TIME FOR SOMEONE, FOR THE SENATE, TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING.

I SAID IT, THEY DIDN'T DENY IT.

THEY'RE TRYING TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NAME FROM THE BALLOT AND THEY CAN'T PROVE THEIR CASE.

THEY'VE TOLD YOU THAT ALL DAY LONG.

THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING SOME OF YOU SENATORS TO DO.

SOME MUCH YOU -- SOME OF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO USE YOUR OFFICE TOO REMOVE YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT -- TO REMOVE YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT FROM THE BALLOT.

THAT'S WRONG.

THAT'S NOT IN THE INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY.

AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IT'S NOT REALLY A SHOW OF CONFIDENCE.

SO WE WILL BE, I SUPPOSE, HAVE THIS DEBATE AGAIN NEXT WEEK, IF WE EVER GET THERE.

IT'S GETTING LATE.

I WOULD ASK YOU, RESPECTFULLY, IF WE COULD SIMPLY START.

MAYBE TOMORROW WE CAN START.

AND THEY CAN MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT AND THEY CAN, I GUESS, MAKE A CASE THAT THEY ONCE CALLED OVERWHELMING.

WE'LL SEE.

BUT THIS RESOLUTION IS RIGHT, AND IT'S FAIR, AND IT MAKES SENSE.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY BEFORE YOU HAVE TO DECIDE THESE CRITICAL ISSUES.

THAT'S ALL THIS IS ABOUT.

IS IT NOW, OR IS IT A WEEK FROM NOW?

SERIOUSLY, CAN WE PLEASE START?

THANK YOU.

>> THE HOUSE -- IN CIPOLLONE IS YOUR SIDE COMPLETE?

>> YES, WE ARE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 14 MINUTES REMAINING.

>> COUNSEL FOR THE IF THE INDICATED THAT WE HAVE NOT CHARGED PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH A CRIME.

WE HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

ABUSE OF POWER.

STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

BETRAYAL OF ONE'S OATH OF OFFICE.

FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

AND THE CORRUPTION OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THAT'S WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ALL ABOUT.

NOW COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AGAIN HAS DECLINED TO ADDRESS THE INTARVE MERITS OF -- INDICATIVE MERITS OF THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS -- SUBSTANTIVE MERITS OF THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED.

ONLY FOCUSED ON TRYING TO OUST PRESIDENT TRUMP, NOTHING FURTHER COULD BE FROM THE TRUTH.

THIS PAST YEAR, 275 OF THOSE BILLS ARE BIPARTISAN IN NATURE.

ADDRESSING ISSUES LIKE LOWERING HEALTH CARE COST AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES.

TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC.

WE'VE WORKED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM.

I PERSONALLY WORKED WITH HIM, ALONG WITH ALL OF YOU, ON THE FIRST STEP ACT.

WE WORKED WITH HIM ON THE U.S. MEXICO-CANADA TRADE AGREEMENT.

WE WORKED WITH HIM TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT.

WE DON'T HATE THIS PRESIDENT BUT WE LOVE THE CONSTITUTION.

WE LOVE AMERICA.

WE LOVE OUR DEMOCRACY.

THAT'S JUDGE WE'RE HERE TODAY.

-- WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

THE QUESTION WAS ASKED BY MR. MR. WITH SEKULOW, AS WE OPENED, WHY ARE WE HERE, LET ME SEE IF I CAN JUST POSIT AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL AND PERSONAL GAIN.

WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION AND CORRUPTED OUR DEMOCRACY.

WE ARE HERE SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID FROM A VULNERABLE UKRAINE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, IN A MANNER THAT HAS BEEN DEEMED UNLAWFUL.

WE ARE HERE SIR BECAUSE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ELEVATED HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS AND SUBORDINATED THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP CORRUPTLY ABUSED HIS POWER AND THEN HE TRIED TO COVER IT UP.

AND WE ARE HERE SIR, TO FOLLOW THE FACTS, APPLY THE LAW, BE GUIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE, MR. SEKULOW, AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW, NOW YOU KNOW.

I YIELD TO MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.

>> I THANK GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING AND WANT TO PROVIDE SOME QUICK FACT CHECKS FOR MY COLLEAGUES AT THE OTHER TABLE.

FIRST MR. PURPURA SAID THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS WERE NOT MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WELL, LET'S THINK BACK TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THAT CALL.

YOU MIGHT REMEMBER FROM THAT CALL THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THANKS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE JAVELIN ANTI-TANK WEAPONS AND SAYS THEY ARE READY TO ORDER SOME MORE.

FTC ANDAND WHAT IS PRLT'S IMMEDIATE RESPONSE.

I HAVE A FAVOR TO ASK, THOUGH.

WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE BRINGING UP MILITARY ASSISTANCE THAT TRIGGERED THE PRESIDENT TO GO IMMEDIATELY TO THE FAVOR THAT HE WANTED?

I THINK THAT'S TELLING, THAT IT TAKES PLACE IN THAT PARTLY OF THE CONVERSATION.

SO YES, SECURITY ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE, DID COME UP IN THAT CALL.

IT CAME UP IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASK.

WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DO YOU THINK IT SENDS TO UKRAINE?

THEY'RE NOT STUPID.

THE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS AREN'T STUPID.

AND MR. PURPURA SAYS WELL THEY NEVER FOUND OUT ABOUT OR THEY DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THE FREEZE IN THE AID UNTIL A MONTH LATER.

MR. PURPURA NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE MORE CAREFUL WITH HIS FACTS.

LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR, AND YOU'LL ONLY HEAR IT BECAUSE IT TOOK PLACE IN THE HOUSE.

THESE WERE OTHER WITNESSES YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HEAR IT.

BUT YOU HAD KATHERINE CROFT A WITNESS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, A CAREER OFFICIAL FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO TALKED ABOUT HOW QUICKLY ACTUALLY AFTER THE FREEZE WENT INTO PLACE THE UKRAINIANS STARTED FINDING OUT ABOUT IT AND SHE STARTED GETTING CONTACTS FROM THE UKRAINIAN CONSUL HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

SHE FOUND OUT WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO HIDE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

UKRAINE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.

IN FACT LAURA COOPER A CAREER OFFICIAL AT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, SID THAT HER OFFICE STARTED GETTING INQUIRIES FROM UKRAINE WITH THE ISSUES WITH THE AID ON JULY 25th, THE VERY DAY OF THE CALL.

SO MUCH FOR UKRAINE NOT FINDING OUT ABOUT THIS FOR A MONTH LATER.

BUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS VERY TELLING, TOO.

THE NEW YORK TIMES DISCLOSED THAT BY JULY 30th, SO WITHIN A WEEK OF THE CALL, BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, UKRAINE'S FOREIGN MINISTRY RECEIVED A DIPLOMATIC CABLE FROM ITS EMBASSY INDICATING THAT TRUMP HAD FROZEN THE MILITARY AID.

WITHIN A WEEK.

THAT CABLE IS REPORTEDLY GONE FROM THE UKRAINE DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER, SAID, WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION, IT WAS GENTLY MENTIONED THERE WERE SOME ISSUES.

SHE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE CABLE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY PROVIDED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S OFFICE.

BUT ANDRE YERMAK A TOP AID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REPORTEDLY DIRECTED HER TO KEEP SILENT AND NOT DISCUSS THE HOLD WITH REPORTERS OR CONGRESS.

NOW, WE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT WHY THE UKRAINIANS WANTED TO KEEP IT SECRET THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THE HOLD.

YOU CAN IMAGINE WHY.

ZELENSKY DIDN'T WANT HIS OWN PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS HOLDING BACK AID FROM HIM.

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR A NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WHO IS TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THAT HE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND HIS OWN COUNTRY BECAUSE HE HAS SUCH A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GREAT PATRON, THE UNITED STATES.

HE DIDN'T WANT CROONSZ TO KNOW ABOUT IT -- UKRAINIANS THE KNOW ABOUT IT BUT YOU KNOW HE DIDN'T WANT THE RUSSIANS TO KNOW ABOUT IT FOR THE REASON WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.

YES, UKRAINIANS KEPT IT CLOSE TO THE VEST.

NOW, MR. PURPURA ALSO WENT ON TO SAY WELL THE UKRAINIANS SAY THEY DON'T FEEL ANY PRESSURE.

THAT'S WHAT THY THEY SAY NOW.

OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE.

WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE USED AS A POLITICAL PAWN IN U.S.

DOMESTIC POLITICS.

THEY RESISTED IT.

YOU'LL HEAR MORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT, ABOUT THE EFFORTS TO PUSH BACK ON THIS PUBLIC STATEMENT, HOW THEY TRIED TO WATER IT DOWN, HOW THEY TRIED TO LEAVE OUT THE SPECIFICS, AND HOW GIULIANI AT THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTION HESS TO FORCE THEM, NO THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE CREDIBLE IF YOU DON'T ADD BURISMA AND YOU DON'T ADD 2016.

YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THE PRESSURE.

THEY FELT IT.

WHY SEASONALITY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYING HE WAS NOT PRESSURED?

YOU CAN MARGIN THE PRESSURE OF THAT, YOU CAN IMAGINE THE PRUFER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IF HE WERE TO DAJ HELL YES WE FELT PRESSURED.

WHAT ABOUT RUSSIA FOR CRYING OUT LOUD?

WE NEEDED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILITARY AID.

I CAN'T GET IN THE WHITE HOUSE DOOR, THEY LET LAF ROF LAVROV IN.

FESS DO YOU THINK I'M GOING TO ADMIT TO THIS SCHEME?

I MEAN, ANYONE WHO'S WATCHING THIS PRESIDENT IN THE LAST THREE YEARS KNOWS HOW VINDICTIVE HE CAN BE.

DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE SMART FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO CONTRADICT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SO DIRECTLY ON AN ISSUE HE'S BEING IMPEACHED FOR?

THAT WOULD BE THE WORSE FORM OF MALPRACTICE FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

WE SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED HE WOULD DENY IT.

WE SHOULD BE SURPRISED IF HE WERE TO ADMIT IT.

NOW, LET ME JUST END WITH A COUPLE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT MR. CIPOLLONE'S COMMENTS.

HE SAYS, THIS IS NO BIG DEAL.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WITNESS HE OR IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WITNESSES.

WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHEN, JUST TALKING ABOUT WHEN AS IF LATER THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WELL YES, WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE THE WITNESSES NOW.

IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHEN.

OKAY, AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID, LET'S BE REAL.

THERE WILL BE NO WHEN.

THERE WILL BE NO WHEN.

YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EPIPHANY A FEW DAYS FROM NOW AND SAY OKAY WE'RE READY FOR WITNESSES.

NO, THEIR GOAL IS GET YOU TO SAY NO NOW, GET YOU TO HAVE THE TRIAL, AND THEN, ARGUE MAKE IT GO AWAY.

LET'S DISMISS THE WHOLE THING.

THAT'S THE PLAN.

A VOTE TO DELAY IS A VOTE TO DENY.

LET'S MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THAT.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN EPIPHANY A FEW DAYS FROM NOW AND SUDDENLY SAY OKAY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO DESERVE THE ANSWERS.

THEIR WHOLE GOAL IS THAT YOU'LL NEVER GET TO THAT POINT.

YOU'LL NEVER GET TO THAT POINT.

WHEN THEY SAY WHEN, THEY MEAN NEVER.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT, AND ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS.

>> IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND?

THERE IS.

THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.

>> MR. ALEXANDER, AYE.

MS. BALDWIN, MR. BARRASSO.

MR. BENNETT, MRS. BLACKBURN.

AYE.

MR. BLUM EVERYONE THAT'LL.

MR. BLUNT, MR. BOOKER, MR. BOOZMAN.

MR. BRAUN, MR. BROWN, MR. BUR.

MS. CANTWELL, MRS. CAPITOW, MR.

CARVER, MR. CASEY, MR. CASSIDY.

MS. COLLINS.

MR. COONS.

MR. CORNYN.

MS. CORTEZ MASTO.

MR. COTTO.

MR. KRAMER, MR. CRAPO.

MR. CRUZ, MR. DAINES.

MS. DUCKWORTH.

MR. DURBIN.

MR. ENZI.

MS. ERNST.

MRS. FEINSTEIN.

MRS.

FISH FISHCHER.

, MR. GARDNER, MRS. GILLIBRAND.

MR. GRAHAM, MR. GRASSLEY.

MS. HARRIS.

MS. HASS AN.

MR. HAWLEY.

MR. HEINRICH.

MS. HIRONO.

MR. HOEVEN, MR. MS. HYDE-SMITH.

MR. INHOFE, MR. JOHNSON, MR. JONES, MR. KAINE.

MR. KENNEDY, MR. KING, MS. KLOBUCHAR, MR. LARCHGFORD, MR. LEAHY.

MR. LEE, MR. LOEFFLER.

MR. MANCHIN.

MR. MARKEY.

MR. McCONNELL, MR. McSALLY, MR. MENENDEZ.

MR. MERKLEY.

MR. MORAN, MS. MURKOWSKI.

MR. MURPHY, MR. MURRAY, MR. PAUL, MR. PERDUE.

MR. PETERS, MR. PORTMAN, MR. REED, MR. RISCH.

MR. ROBERTS, MR. ROMNEY.

MS. ROSEN.

MR. ROWNDZ.

MR. RUBIO.

MR. SANDERS.

MR. SASSE.

MR. SCHATZ, MR. SCHUMER.

MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA.

MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

MRS. SHAHE RVETIONN.

MR. SHELBY.

MS. SINEMA.

MS. SMITH.

MS. STABENOW.

MR. SULLIVAN.

MR. TESTER.

MR. THUNE.

MR. 'TILIS.

MR. TOOMEY.

MR. UDALL.

MR. VAN HOL RVETIONEN.

HAD WARNER.

MS. WARREN.

MR. WHITEHOUSE.

MR. WICKER.

MR. WYDEN.

MR. YOUNG.

>> ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WISHING TO CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?

IF NOT, THE YEAS ARE 53, AND THE 93S ARE 47.

THE NAYS ARE 47.

THE MOTION IS TABLED.

MR.

MAJORITY LEADER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I ASK WHETHER HE WOULD BE WILLING TO ENTER INTO A CONSENT AGREEMENT TO STACK THESE VOTES.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE INQUIRY IS PERMITTED.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS VERY SIMPLE.

AS HAS BEEN CLEAR TO EVERY SENATOR, AND THE COUNTRY, WE BELIEVE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

AND A COMPELLING CASE HAS BEEN PLAYED FOR THEM.

WE WILL HAVE VOTES ON ALL OF THOSE.

WE WILL ALSO, THE LEADER WITHOUT CONSULTING US MADE CHANGES OF A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, THAT SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATED FROM THE 1999 CLINTON RESOLUTION.

WE WANT TO CHANGE THOSE.

SO THERE WILL BE A GOOD NUMBER OF THOSE.

WE ARE WILLING TO DO SOME OF THOSE VOTES TOMORROW.

THERE'S NO REASON WE HAVE TO DO THEM ALL TONIGHT.

AND INCONVENIENT THE SENATE -- INCONVENIENCE THE SENATE AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

BUT WE WILL NOT BACK OFF ON GETTING VOTES ON ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS WHICH WE REGARD AS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTRY.

>> QUESTION.

>> AS I'VE SAID REPEATLY TO ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS UNDER THE RESOLUTION COULD BE DEALT WITH AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

I SUGGEST THE OFFICE FOR A QUORUM.

>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.

>> MR. ALEXANDER.

>> AND WE'VE JUST HEARD CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS ASK FOR A QUORUM IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

THIS FOLLOWS THE LATEST IN A SERIES OF VOTES, EXACTLY ALONG PARTY LINES, WHEREIN THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY BY 53 VOTES TO 47 VOTES FOR DEMOCRATS HAVE TABLED AN AMENDMENT, AN EFFORT BY DEMOCRATS TO EITHER SUBPOENA A WITNESS, A KEY FIGURE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WAS MICK MULVANEY, THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE PREVIOUSLY SEVERAL VOTES THERE WERE ATTEMPTS TO SUBPOENA RECORDS, INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE, FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

AND YOU JUST IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES HEARD THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH McCONNELL, ASK HIS DEMOCRATIC COUNTERPART, CHUCK SCHUMER, IF THEY WOULD BE WILLING AS HE PUT IT TO STACK THE VOTES, TO DO A NUMBER OF THESE VOTES FOR OTHERS IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO SUBPOENA.

YOU HEARD CHUCK SCHUMER SAY WE THINK THESE ARE IMPORTANT, WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE A VOTE ON EACH AND EVERY ONE.

HE SAID NO, I WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE SOME OF THESE VOTES TOMORROW.

LET ME WIDEN THIS OUT AND BRING OUR GUESTS HERE AT THE TABLE INTO THIS CONVERSATION.

MARTY PAONE, WHEN THAT HAPPENED, BASICALLY CHUCK SCHUMER WAS SAYING WE DON'T WANT TO CONDENSE THIS, WE THINK IT MATTERS, WE WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE THINK SHOULD BE SUBPOENAED.

>> YES, AND McCONNELL WASN'T TRYING TO DENY HIM THE VOTES ON EACH OF THESE BUT HE WAS TRYING TO FROM THE SENATOR'S QUALITY OF LIFE STANDPOINT, TRYING TO STACK THE DEBATE SO AS YOU WOULD DEBATE ALTON DUFFY, THREE BACK TO BACK DEBATES AND THEN THREE VOTES TO TRY COMPRESS IT A LITTLE.

SURE, OBVIOUSLY BELIEVES THAT EACH ONE IS IMPORTANT IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND HE'S OBJECTED BUT HE SAID HE WAS WILLING TO DO SOME TOMORROW.

WHICH IS -- WHICH IS REASONABLE, THERE'S NO RULE THAT SAYS THIS ALL HAS TO BE DONE TODAY.

>> Woodruff: LISA DESJARDINS, AT THE CAPITAL, THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS IT LOOKS LIKE.

>> THIS IS ONE OF THE ARE SITUATIONS WHEN THERE IS A POTENTIAL TO END THIS DEBATE FOR TONIGHT AND PICK IT UP FORM TOMORROW.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT THE OFFER SCHUMER WAS MAKING TO SENATOR McCONNELL.

THAT'S THE REASON FOR QUORUM CALL, PUTTING THE TRIAL ON HOLD IS WHAT THE QUORUM CALL DOES, WHILE THE LEADERS OF THE SENATE FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO NEXT.

AS I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE PICTURE YOU SEE A WOMAN WITH A YELLOW JACKET, LAURA DOVE, SENATOR McCONNELL'S FLOOR MANAGER.

THE MORE ACTIVITY YOU SEE FROM HER THE MORE YOU FEEL THERE WILL BE A DEAL.

ENDING UP TRYING TO FIND A WAY OUT OF A LONG NIGHT LIKE THIS, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY'VE QUITE GOTTEN THERE YET.

>> Woodruff: WE SEE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE GATHERED AROUND THE CHIEF JUSTICE AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HEARD SENATOR SCHUMER SAY OUT OF INTEREST, THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S INTEREST, I THINK IT'S BELIEVED HE HAS A DAY JOB, AND THAT IS, PRESIDING OVER THE SUPREME COURT.

MAYBE THEY'RE USING THAT ARGUMENT, WELL THEY ARE USING THAT ARGUMENT ALONG WITH THE SENATORS.

LET ME BRING IN ELIZABETH CHRYST ON THIS.

YOU ARE WATCHING THE CHOREOGRAPHY ON THE SENATE FLOOR.

WHAT DO YOU SEE?

>> YOU SEE THE TWO PARTY SECRETARIES TALKING AND OBVIOUSLY DISCLOSING HOW MANY MORE SENATOR SCHUMER HAD TO GO, MAYBE OFFERING SOME IDEAS ON WELL COULD WE DO TWO OR THREE BACK TO BACK AND THEN HAVE BACK TO BACK VOTES?

SHE THEN TOOK SOME INFORMATION THAT GARY HAD GIVEN, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SECRETARY TO HER OVER TO SENATOR McCONNELL.

I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO PUZZLE THROUGH THIS TO MAKE IT A LITTLE SHORTER OR A LITTLE LESS PAINFUL FOR TONIGHT.

TOMORROW IS A NEW DAY AND THERE IS MORE OF THIS PLUS OTHER MOTIONS THAT COULD BE OFFERED BEFORE YOU GET TO THESE OPENING ARGUMENTS, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE BEEN HEARING ALREADY.

IN THE GENERAL DEBATES.

BUT YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY GET TO THAT POINT TOMORROW AT SOME POINT.

>> Woodruff: THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CLEARLY DECIDED IN THE STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCHUMER THAT THEY NOT ONLY WANTED THESE DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES, THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM MICK MULVANEY AND SOME OF THE OTHER NAMES, JOHN BOLTON FORMER WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORY.

AND THOSE WHO WORK AT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WE HAVE HEARD OF JOHN EISENBERG, THE DEMOCRATS AREN'T LETTING GO OF THE IDEA THAT THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM THESE FOLKS.

THEY'RE NOT READY TO LET IT GO YET.

>> WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE SENATE FLOOR, MY FORMER ARE BOSS TOM COBURN WOULD OFFER HUNDREDS OF AMENDMENTS ON SPENDING BILLS.

HE WOULD MAKE DECISIONS ON THE FLY HOW FAR HE COULD PUSH.

THERE IS A POINT WHERE THE MOTION BECOMES UNPRODUCTIVE.

THERE IS A JUDGMENT CALL THE SENATOR HAS TO MAKE.

IF THEY RISK GOING TOO FAR THEY RUN THE RISK OF LOSING THE WHOLE CASE.

SCHUMER MAY BE PUSHING IT TOO FAR.

THE REQUEST SIMPLY AS MARTY DESCRIBED IS TO COMPRESS.

IT'S NOT TO DENY SCHUMER'S RIGHT TO HAVE THESE VOTES.

I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT IN THE NEXT FEW MINUTES TO MOVE FORWARD IN A WAY THAT EXPEDITES TO SOME DEGREE, BECAUSE SCHUMER WANTS TO WIN THESE VOTES DOWN ROAD.

HE RISKS ALIENATING THESE VOTES HE WANTS TO HAVE LATER IN THE WEEK.

>> Woodruff: I DON'T HAVE MY GLASSES ON SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HELP ME WITH WHOM HE'S TALKING TO.

WHO ELSE WANTS -- AS YOU SAY, MARTY.

>> IRONICALLY THE USUAL WAY OUT OF THIS SITUATION WOULD BE A TWO WAY SECRETARY NEGOTIATE A DEAL WHERE, ALL RIGHT WE'LL DEBATE THREE OF THESE MOTIONS TONIGHT AND WE'LL VOTE ON THEM TOMORROW AND THAT LET'S EVERYBODY ELSE LEAVE.

BUT AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS DIFFERENT THAN LEGISLATIVE, PEOPLE CAN'T LEAVE.

THEY ALL HAVE TO STAY.

THAT TAKES A LOT OF THEIR LEVERAGE AWAY FROM NEGOTIATING A DEAL HERE OTHER THAN TO SAY YEAH WE'LL DEBATE AND VOTE ON ONE MORE TONIGHT AND DEBATE AND VOTE ON TWO MORE TOMORROW.

>> FURTHER DELAYS, THE BEGINNING OF THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

SO THERE'S A COST FOR SURE.

>> Woodruff: AND ELIZABETH YOU JUST SAID THERE ARE OTHER MOTIONS THAT MAY BE INTRODUCED AND HAVE TO BE VOTED ON BEFORE THEY GET TO THE ARGUMENT.

>> REMEMBER AFTER THE ARGUMENTS AND AFTER THE 16 HOURS OF QUESTIONS, YOU'RE RIGHT BACK TO THIS QUESTION WHICH UNDER THE ORGANIZING RESOLUTION, IS ALLOWED FOUR HOURS.

YOU ARE RIGHT BACK TO WHERE WE ARE.

WHO DO YOU WANT TO SUBPOENA, WHAT DOCUMENTS DO YOU WANT TO PUT IN EVIDENCE.

SO THAT'S PROVIDED FOR IN THE RESOLUTION.

IT IS ALREADY PROVIDED FOR.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS TWICE.

>> Woodruff: WELL, IN SOME WAY.

THAT'S A QUESTION WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING.

WE ARE WATCHING THE SENATE FLOOR LIVE.

AS THEY ARE TAKING WHAT THEY CALL A QUORUM CALL.

BUT IT'S ALL DESIGNED TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH, WORK OUT, SOME SORT OF AN ARRANGEMENT, WHEREIN THEY WILL SHORTEN THE PROCEEDINGS TONIGHT.

IT LOOKS LIKE MARGARET TAYLOR IS THAT BOTH SIDES ARE SAYING, WE'RE PREPARED TO CALL THIS L QUITS, EARLIER TONIGHT.

DOES IT MEAN THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO RIGHT BACK TO WORK TOMORROW, THOUGH?

>> YES, I DO SUSPECT LIKE MY COLLEAGUES HERE THAT THEY ARE PROBABLY WORKING OUT A DEAL.

BUT I DO JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK THE THREE OTHER WITNESSES THAT SENATOR SCHUMER HAS IN MIND WHICH HE'S MENTIONED IN PRESS REPORTS AND IN PRIOR DAYS, SO JOHN BOLTON, ROBERT BLAIR WHO IS THE SENIOR ADVISORIES TO MICK MULVANEY, THESE COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN PARTICULAR ROBERT BLAIR AND MICHAEL DUFFY, I JUST WANT TO TELL THE LISTENERS WHY THEY'RE IMPORTANT.

ONE OF THE REASONS THEY'RE IMPORTANT IS THAT THERE WAS E-MAILS AND COMMUNICATIONS REVEALED AFTER THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ENDED.

REVEALED IN THE PRESS.

THAT SHOWED CRUCIAL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS TOGETHER WITH MICK MULVANEY AND PENTAGON OFFICIALS CONTROLLING MONEY AT THE PENTAGON.

WHY THESE WERE SO IMPORTANT IS THEY WOULD HIGHLIGHT THE PARTICULAR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MICK MULVANEY AND THESE OFFICIALS AT THE PENTAGON AND WHEN WAS COMING AS A DIRECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT IN THESE COMMUNICATIONS.

THAT IS ONE EFT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT REPUBLICANS SAID WASN'T FULLY TIED UP.

>> Woodruff: AND WOULD INTENTIONALLY FURTHER SHED LIGHT ON WHY THIS WAS AN UNUSUAL THING.

THE FACT THAT IT CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF WAS ASKING THE MONEY BE HEMMED UP AND AS MUCH AS THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM OF LAWYERS ARE SUGGESTING THIS IS PERFECTLY NORMAL, IT'S DONE ALL THE TIME, THE DEMOCRATS KEEP COMING BACK AND SAYING OH BUT IT'S ONLY DONE WHEN COCK CONGRESS HAS ASKED FOR IT, ONLY DONE WHEN THE PRESIDENT WANTS A FAVOR.

>> AND TO MARGARET'S POINT THERE WILL BE 16 HOURS FOR SENATORS TO ASK QUESTIONS.

WHY WOULDN'T A SENATOR ASK THAT IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS OR TO THE WAREHOUSEWHAWSLAWYERS AND NOT GET A ANSWER, MAYBE THE PUBLIC SHOULD UNDERSTAND, MAYBE WE NEED A BETTER ANXIOUS THAN THAT.

THEN THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THE DEBATE ON WITNESSES AND SUBPOENAING PEOPLE.

>> Woodruff: EXEMPT THEY HAVE TO MAKE SOME OF THE ARGUMENT FOR CALLING A WITNESS.

THEY MAY HAVE THE OPTION FOR DOING THAT AFTER, BUTTER THEY'RE SAYING TTYs CART THE IT'S THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

WE CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION UNTIL AFTER WE'VE DEBATED ALL OF THIS.

IT'S A BIT CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.

I CAN'T TELL WATCHING THE SENATE FLOOR IF THEY'RE CLOSER OR NOT ANY CLOSER.

>> LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PUTTING CLOTHING ON, MAYBE COLLECTING THEIR PERSONAL -- >> Woodruff: THIS IS FROM 20 YEARS AT THE SENATE.

>> EXACTLY.

YOU'RE READING -- >> HOWEVER LONG YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE IT WILL TAKE THAT AMOUNT, TWICE THAT AMOUNT.

>> Woodruff: LISA DESJARDINS, YOU'RE PUZZLING ALONG WITH US, YOU MAY HAVE SOME REAL INFORMATION.

>> I MAY OR MAY NOT.

I THINK YOU GUYS ARE READING THE SAME TEA LEAVES I AM.

WE HAVE DANIEL BUSH IN THE CHAMBER.

IF HE SEES ANYTHING NOTEWORTHY HE'LL POP OUT AND LET US KNOW.

TWO THINGS, PICKING UP WHAT MARGARET SAID, THESE WITNESSES AND WHY THEY ARE SO IMPORTANT.

WE ARE HEARING FROM DEMOCRATS AGAIN AND AGAIN TONIGHT, THIS IS WHY SENATOR SCHUMER EMPHASIZED THAT, THEY BELIEVE THIS IS THEIR ONLY CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS.

THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT AT THE END WHEN THERE IS A VOTE ON WHETHER TO TALK ABOUT WENS OR NOT, THEY DON'T THINK THAT VOTE WILL PASS AT THIS POINT.

THEY THINK THAT THERE WILL NOT REALLY BE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WITNESSES LATER ON IN THIS TRIAL.

THEY THINK IT'S THEIR OWN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ABOUT THE KIND OF INFORMATION THEY'D LIKE TO SEE AND SPEAK GOING MICHAEL DUFFY WHOSE NAME WILL NEVER FORGET AGAIN, HE WAS THE OMB OFFICIAL WHO SIGNED OFF ON THE HOLD ON THE UKRAINE MONEY.

AND SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO REPORT ON AND I'M HAPPY TO GET THIS OPPORTUNITY, THERE WASN'T JUST ONE HOLD ON THE UKRAINE FUNDING.

IT WAS A SERIES OF HOLDS.

SOME WERE FOR A DAY, TWO DAYS, THREE DAYS, SOME WERE THREE WEEKS.

EACH ONE HAD TO BE RENEWED.

MICHAEL DUFFY OVERSAW THAT PROCESS AND AT ONE POINT HE OVERTOOK THAT PROCESS.

HE SORT OF OVERSAW THE PERSON WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOLD AND MIDWAY THROUGH HE TOOK IT OVER ALLEGEE TOGETHER.

WHY DID HE DO THAT?

THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT DEMOCRATS WANT ANSWERED BUT HE WAS REALLY THE OFFICIAL MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR STARTING THAT HOLD AND KEEPING IT GOING.

THAT'S WHY DEMOCRATS WANT TO SPEAK TO HIM.

YEAH, I DO THINK, IT LOOKS LIKE IF THEY'RE PAUSING THIS LONG THEY'RE GOING DO REACH A DEAL.

IT'S A MATTER OF WHEN.

>> Woodruff: VERY HELPFUL.

>> FUTURE PROCEDURE ON QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE DWRAK LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND I ASK THAT IT BE READ.

>> THE CLERK WILL REPORT.

>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER PROAPS AN AMENDMENT NUMBER 1288.

AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE ROAFLG CRAWZ INSERT THE FOLLOWING, SECTION NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULES 5 AND 6 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURES AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, ONE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE COMMANDING HIM TO PRODUCE FOR THE TIME PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2019 TO THE PRESENT, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REFERRING OR RELATING TO A, THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAYING FREEZING OR RELEASING OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE SORE SECURITY ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND TO UKRAINE.

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE, USAI AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING, FMF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ONE, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WHITE HOUSE, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF STATE OR OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT.

TWO, DOCUMENTS COMMUNICATES, NOTES OR OTHER NOTES CREATED BY THE SECRETARY MARK ESPER, DEPUTY SECRETARY DAVID NOR NORREQUISITE OR MR. ERIC TUNING.

THREE, DRAFT OR FINAL LETTERS FROM DEPUTY SECRETARY DAVID NORQUISF TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND 4, UNREDACTED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST BY THE CENTER OF PUBLIC EQUITY TRACKING NUMBER 19-F-1934.

B, UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO AUGUST 28th, 2019 OF ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING DELAYING FREEZING OR RELEASING OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL MEETINGS, CALLS, OR OTHER ENGAGEMENTS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS REGARDING POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL SUSPENSIONS, HOLDS OR DELAYS IN UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ONE, COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, CONCERNING THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY'S INQUIRIES, ABOUT UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND TWO, COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY ABOUT THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE, SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

C, COMMUNICATIONS, OPINIONS, ADVICE, APPROVALS OR CONCURRENCES PROVIDED 50 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OMB MO OR THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE LEGALITY OF ANY SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, FREEZING OR RELEASING OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

D, PLANNED OR ACTUAL MEETINGS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, RELATED TO UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE, TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY TALKING POINTS AND NOTES FOR SECRETARY MARK ESPER'S PLANNED OR ACTUAL MEETINGS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON AUGUST 16, AUGUST 19 OR AUGUST 30, 2019.

E, THE DECISION ANNOUNCED ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, TO RELEASE APPROPRIATED FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY NOTES, MEMORANDA, DOCUMENTATION OR CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO THE DECISION AND F, ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER RECORDS REMITTED TO THE SCHEDULING OF PREPARATION FOR AND FOLLOW-UP FROM THE PRESIDENT'S APRIL 21 AND JULY 25, 2019 TELEPHONE CALLS AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN NEW YORK AND 2, THE SERGEANT AT ARMS IS AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE IN SERVING THE SUBPOENA ISSUED BY THIS ACTION.

>> THE AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS, EQUALLY DIVIDED.

MR.

MANAGER SCHIFF ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT?

>> A PROPONENT.

>> MR. CIPOLLONE?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WE ARE AN OPPONENT.

>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS CAN RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL BE RESERVING THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME TO RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY GETTING SOMETHING OFF OF MY CHEST.

SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN BOTHERING ME FOR A LITTLE WHILE.

COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND SOME OTHER FOLKS IN THIS ROOM HAVE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT HOW LATE IT'S GETTING.

HOW LONG THIS DEBATE IS TAKING.

IT'S ALMOST 10 P.M.

IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

THEY SAY LET'S GET THE SHOW TON ROAD, LET'S GET MOVING.

AND THE WHEEL TIME THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK ABOUT IS HOW LATE IT IS IN OTHER PLACES.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT IS THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT IN EUROPE.

WHERE WE HAVE OVER 60,000 U.S.

TROOPS.

THERE ARE HELICOPTER PILOTS FLYING TRAINING MISSIONS, TANKERS MANEUVERING ACROSS FIELDS.

INFANTRY MEN WALKING WITH HUNDRED POUND PACKS AND, YES, UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS TO WAKE UP IN THEIR TRENCHES FACING OFF AGAINST RUSSIAN TANKS RIGHT NOW.

AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE FOLKS WANT TO HEAR US TALK ABOUT HOW TIRED WE ARE OR OUR LATE IT IS.

WE HAVE TIME TO HAVE THIS DEBATE.

THAT'S WHY THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TO SUBPOENA KEY DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

BECAUSE JUST LIKE THE SUBPOENA FOR OMB, THESE DOCUMENTS FROM DOD SPEAK DIRECTLY TO ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP HE IS ABUSES.

HIS WITHHOLDING OF CRITICAL MILITARY AID FROM OUR PARTNER, UKRAINE, TO FURTHER HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

$250 MILLION OF TAXPAYER FUNDED MILITARY AID FOR UKRAINE WAS MANAGED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

AS PART OF THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.

THESE FUNDS APPROVED BY 87 SENATORS IN THIS VERY ROOM WOULD PURCHASE ADDITIONAL TRAINING, EQUIPMENT AND ADVISING THE STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY OF UKRAINE'S ARMED FORCES.

THE EQUIPMENT APPROVED FOR UKRAINE INCLUDED SNIPER RIFLES, ROCKET-PROPELLED GRENADE, COUNTER ARTILLERY RADAR AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES.

THIS EQUIPMENT WAS TO BE PURCHASED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY FROM AMERICAN BUSINESSES.

THIS EQUIPMENT ALONG WITH THE TRAINING AND ADVISING PROVIDED BY DOD WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BY HELPING OUR FRIEND, UKRAINE.

FIGHT AGAINST VLADIMIR PUTIN'S RUSSIA.

EARLIER, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT, WELL, IT MADE IT THERE.

THE AID EVENTUALLY MADE IT THERE.

DELAY DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, YOU HEARD ME TALK ABOUT WHY THE DELAY DOES MATTER.

BUT WHAT COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T SAY IS THAT ALL OF THE AID HAS NOT MADE IT THERE.

CONGRESS HAD TO PASS ANOTHER LAW THAT $35.2 MILLION OF THAT AID WOULDN'T EXPIRE AND LAPSE, BUT TO THIS DAY 18.5 MILLION DOLLARS OF THAT MONEY REMAINS OUTSTANDING AND HASN'T MADE ITS WAY TO THE BATTLEFIELD.

IT WAS DOD THAT REPEATEDLY ADVISED THE WHITE HOUSE AND OMB ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO NOT ONLY UKRAINE, BUT ALSO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.

IT WAS DOD IN AUGUST OF 2019 THAT WARNED OMB THAT THE FREEZE WAS UNLAWFUL THAT THE FUNDS COULD BE LOST AS A RESULT.

AND IT WAS DOD THAT SCRAMBLED AFTER THE HOLD WAS LIFTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION ON SEPTEMBER 11th TO SPEND THE FUNDS BEFORE THEY EXPIRED AT THE END OF THE MONTH.

WITHOUT A DOUBT DOD HAS KEY DOCUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER TO CONGRESS, KEY DOCUMENTS TO GO TO THE HOUSE OF THE WAYS ABUSED HIS POWER.

IT'S TIME TO SUBPOENA THOSE DOCUMENTS.

DOD DOCUMENTS WOULD PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THIS HOLD.

THEY WOULD SHOW THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AND MOTIVATIONS BEHIND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FREEZE.

THEY WOULD REVEAL THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY DOD AND OMB OFFICIALS THAT THE HOLD WAS VIOLATING THE LAW.

THEY WOULD REVEAL OUR DEFENSE OFFICIALS' GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE FREEZE ON UKRAINE AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.

THEY WOULD SHOW THAT SENIOR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTED TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO RELEASE THE AID.

IN SHORT, THEY WOULD FURTHER ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO USE OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDS TO BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

WE ARE NOT SPECULATING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THESE DOCUMENTS OR GUESSING WHAT THEY MIGHT SHOW BECAUSE DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION IN THE HOUSE, WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMITTEES IDENTIFIED MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT DOD CONTINUES TO WITHHOLD.

WE KNOW THESE DOCUMENTS EXIST AND WE KNOW THAT THE ONLY REASON WE DO NOT HAVE THEM IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT I AM LEVEL DIRECTED THE PENTAGON NOT TO PRODUCE THEM BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT THEY WOULD SHOW.

TO DEMONSTRATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DOD DOCUMENTS AND VALUE THEY WOULD PROVIDE IN THIS TRIAL, I WOULD LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF WHAT WE KNOW EXISTS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO REFUSE TO TURN OVER.

AND AGAIN, BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN FROM THE TESTIMONY IN THE FEW DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED THROUGH PUBLIC REPORTING AND LAWSUITS IT'S CLEAR THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO HIDE THIS EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF WHAT IT WOULD SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WE KNOW THAT DOD HAS DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL THAT AS EARLY AS JUNE THE PRESIDENT WAS CONSIDERED HOLDING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE PRESIDENT BEGAN QUESTIONING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR.

THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTIONS CAME DAYS AFTER DOD ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE.

ON JUNE 18th.

ANNOUNCING IT WOULD PROVIDE 250 MILLION PORTION OF THE AID TO UKRAINE.

ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTING, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ELAINE McCUSKER, WHO MANAGES THE DOD'S BUDGET LEARNED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTIONS.

WE KNOW THIS E-MAIL EXISTS.

BECAUSE IN RESPONSE TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUIT, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS FORCED TO RELEASE A REDACTED E-MAIL.

DOD PROVIDED NONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LAURA COOPER AND HER TEAM WERE TASKED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WITH RESPOND TOPPING THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTIONS ABOUT UKRAINE ASSISTANCE.

MISS COOPER TESTIFIED THAT SHE PUT THOSE ANSWERS IN AN E-MAIL AND DESCRIBED THOSE E-MAILS DURING HER DEPOSITION.

SHE TESTIFIED THAT DOD ADD ADVISE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS CRUCIAL FOR BOTH UKRAINE AND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND HAD STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS.

THE DOD PROVIDED NONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE.

WITH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT THE SENATE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN AND REVIEW THE FULL RECORD THAT COULD FURTHER DEMONSTRATE HOW AND WHY THE PRESIDENT WAS HOLDING THE AID.

LAURA COOPER ALSO TESTIFIED ABOUT INTERAGENCY MEETINGS THAT HOE CURED IN LATE 2019.

WHICH DOD WAS SHOCKED TO LEARN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD PLACED A MYSTERIOUS HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT SEVERAL OF THOSE MEETINGS BECAUSE MISS COOPER PARTICIPATED IN THEM.

IN SOME CASES WITHOUT OTHER SENIOR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS.

HOWEVER, WE DON'T HAVE LAURA COOPER'S NOTES FROM THOSE MEETINGS.

WE DON'T HAVE THE E-MAIL SHE SENT TO SENIOR DOD OFFICIALS REPORTING THE NEWS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD.

WE DON'T HAVE THE E-MAILS THAT SHOW THE RESPONSE FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND OTHER SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIALS BECAUSE DOD HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE THEM.

SEPARATELY, LAURA COOPER TESTIFIED ABOUT WHEN THE UKRAINE -- WHEN UKRAINE FIRST LEARNED OF THE PRESIDENT'S SECRET HOLD ON THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

THE SAME DAY AS PRESIDENT'S JULY 25th CALL, WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DOD OFFICIALS RECEIVED TWO E-MAILS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT INDICATING THAT OFFICIALS FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY AND CONGRESSIONAL STAFF HAD BECOME AWARE OF THE HOLD WERE STARTING TO ASK QUESTIONS.

MISS COOPER TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS INFORMED, QUOTE, UKRAINIAN EMBASSY AND HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ARE ASKING ABOUT THE MILITARY AID.

END QUOTE.

AND THAT THE HILL KNOWS ABOUT THE SITUATION TO AN EXTENT AND SO DOES UKRAINIAN BEAM SEE.

ALL OF THIS SHOWS THAT PEOPLE WERE STARTING TO GET VERY WORRIED.

AGAIN, THIS AMENDMENT FOR SUBPOENA TO DOD WOULD COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF THESE IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS.

BUT AGAIN THERE IS MORE.

DOD DOCUMENTS WOULD ALSO REVIEW KEY FACTS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON JULY 25th AFTER OMB DIRECTED DOD TO, QUOTE, HOLD OFFER ON ANY ADDITIONAL DOD OBLIGATIONS FOR THE ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

HOW DID DOD OFFICIALS REACT TO OMB'S DIRECTIVE TO KEEP THIS ORDER QUIET?

DID DOD OFFICIALS RAISE IMMEDIATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE HOLD.

CONCERNS THAT THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY VOCALLY ARTICULATE TO OMB IN AUGUST.

DID DOD OFFICIALS HEAR FROM THE AMERICAN BUSINESSES THAT WERE ON TAP TO PROVIDE THE EQUIPMENT FROM UKRAINE.

WAS DOD INFORMED OF THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD WOULD UNDERMINE AMERICAN JOBS?

ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS MAY BE FOUND IN DOD E-MAILS.

E-MAILS THAT WE COULD ALL SEE IF YOU ISSUE THE SUBPOENA.

OFFICIALS RAISED SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT AND LEGALITY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S HOLD ON THE MILITARY AID.

WE KNOW THIS FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY, PUBLIC REPORTING AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUITS.

FOR EXAMPLE, AT AN INTERAGENCY MEETING ON JULY 31, LAURA COOPER, ONE OF THE OFFICIALS AT DOD ANNOUNCED THAT BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO LEGALLY AVAILABLE OPTIONS TO CONTINUE THE HOLD THEY DID NOT HAVE DIRECTION TO PURSUE EITHER OF THOSE LEGAL OPTIONS, DOD WOULD HAVE TO START SPENDING THE FUNDS ON AUGUST 6th.

COOPER EXPLAINED THAT IF THEY DID NOT START SPENDING THE FUNDS THEY WOULD RISK VIOLATING THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.

IT WAS A FATEFUL WARNING BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

THROUGHOUT AUGUST, PENTAGON OFFICIALS GREW INCREASINGLY CONCERNED AS THE HOLDS DRAGGED ON.

ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTING, DOD WROTE TO OMB ON AUGUST 9th TO SAY THAT IT COULD NO LONGER CLAIM THE DELAY WOULD HAVE NO AFFECT ON THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO SPEND THE FUNDS.

WE ONLY KNOW THIS THROUGH RECENT REPORTING ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE E-MAIL.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CERTAINLY HASN'T MADE THIS INFORMATION PUBLIC.

IN RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RELEASE UNDERSTAND AUGUST 9th E-MAIL FROM ELAINE McCUSKER, THE PENTAGON'S CHIEF BUDGET OFFICER.

IS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU, IT IS ALMOST ENTIRELY BLACKED OUT.

ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTING, THE E-MAIL SAID, QUOTE, AS WE DISCUSSED AS OF 12 AUGUST WE DON'T THINK WE CAN AGREE THAT THE PAUSE WILL NOT PRECLUDE TIMELY EXECUTION.

WE HOPE IT WON'T AND WE'LL DO ALL WE CAN TO EXECUTE ONCE THE POLICY DECISION IS MADE.

BUT NO CAN LONGER MAKE THAT DECLARATIVE STATEMENT.

LET ME INTERPRET WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING SAID HERE.

WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING SAID IS, WE'RE IN TROUBLE.

WE CAN'T SPEND THE MONEY IN THE TIME THAT WE HAVE LEFT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO COVER YOUR TRACKS ANY MORE AND SAY THAT WE CAN.

THE EXTENSIVE REDACTIONS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT HIGHLIGHT THE ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING.

THEY ALSO UNDERSCORE WHY THE SENATE MUST SUBPOENA DOD DOCUMENTS TO ENSURE THAT ALL OF THE RELEVANT FACTS COME TO LIGHT.

AND, YES, THERE IS MORE.

BASED ON THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY McCUSKER AND OTHERS AT DOD, OMB EVENTUALLY DROPPED FROM THE DOCUMENT THE STATEMENT THAT THE HOLD WOULD NOT PRECLUDE TIMELY EXECUTION OF THE FUNDS.

BUT OMB ALSO CIRCULATED TALKING POINTS CLAIMING THAT, QUOTE, NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY OMB THAT WOULD PRECLUDE OBLIGATION OF THESE FUNDS BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, END QUOTE.

LET ME JUST EXPLAIN WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

EVERYBODY IS GETTING WORRIED.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT SOMETHING BAD IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN.

NOBODY HAS A GOOD EXPLANATION.

AND NOBODY WANTS TO BE LEFT HOLDING THE BAG.

THEY'RE SENDING THE E-MAILS, THEY'RE SENDING THE MEMOS TO SAY, I TOLD YOU SO.

I'M NOT GOING TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE.

DOD'S McCUSKER TOOK ISSUE WITH OMB'S TALKING POINT.

SHE DID SO IN WRITING.

MISS McCUSKER E-MAILED MR. DUFFY THAT THE TALKING POINTS WERE JUST NOT ACCURATE AND THAT DOD HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY CONVEYING THAT POINT FOR WEEKS.

AGAIN, WE KNOW THIS FROM A PRESS REPORT NOT FROM DOCUMENTS PRODUCED TO CONGRESS BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

NOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID RELEASE SOME DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO A LAWSUIT UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

SO HERE IS WHAT MISS McCUSKER'S E-MAIL LOOKED LIKE WHEN IT WAS RELEASED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

HER CONCERN THAT OMB'S TALKING POINT WAS, QUOTE, JUST NOT ACCURATE, WAS AGAIN ENTIRELY BLACKED OUT.

WHAT ELSE IS BEING HIDDEN FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

THE SENATE SHOULD ISSUE THE SUBPOENA.

DOD DOCUMENTS WOULD ALSO SHED LIGHT ON OMB'S ACTIONS AS PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNRAVELED.

ON SEPTEMBER 9th, MISS McCUSKER INFORMED DUFFY THAT DOD COULD FALL SHORT OF SPENDING $120 MILLION OR MORE BECAUSE OF TE HOLD.

DUFFY RESPONDED BY SUGGESTING THAT IT WOULD BE DOD'S FAULT IF THEY ENDED UP VIOLATING THE ACT.

McCUSKER RESPONDED, QUOTE, YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS, I AM SPEECHLESS.

END QUOTE.

IT WILL COME AS NO SURPRISE THEN THAT THE ADMINISTRATION ENTIRELY REDACTED THIS E-MAIL, TOO.

WHEN IT PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUIT.

THANKS TO PUBLIC REPORTING, THOUGH, WE DO KNOW ITS CONTENTS, WHAT ELSE IS BEING HIDDEN FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHAT OTHER REACTIONS DID THIS EXCHANGE SET OFF WITHIN DOD AND WERE THOSE CONCERNS BROUGHT BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S DOCUMENTS WOULD SHED LIGHT ON THESE QUESTIONS.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS.

MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE RECORD BEFORE THE HOUSE FULLY SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP FROZE VITAL MILITARY AID TO PRESSURE UKRAINE INTO HELPING THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

THE DOD DOCUMENTS WOULD PROVIDE FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THIS SCHEME.

THEY WOULD EXPOSE THE FULL EXTENT OF THE TRUTH TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEY WOULD FIRMLY REBUT ANY NOTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ACTING BASED ON CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION OR OTHER COUNTRY'S CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE PRESIDENT KNOWS IT.

IF THERE WAS ANY DOUBT RECENT EVENTS PROVE THAT DOD HAS DOCUMENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THIS TRIAL.

AS I SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER IN CONGRESS I WAS A SOLDIER IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN I DO KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO NOT HAVE THE EQUIPMENT THAT YOU NEED.

MEN AND WOMEN WHO WORK AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND ADMINISTER THIS VITAL AID UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY, TOO.

THAT IS WHY THEY REPEATEDLY MADE THE CASE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WHY MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE IS IMPORTANT, THAT IT WOULD NOT ONLY HELP UKRAINE BUT ALSO BOLSTER OUR DETERRENCE AGAINST FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN EUROPE.

EVERY TIME WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS THAT MIGHT SEEM ABSTRACT TO PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY.

I DO THINK ABOUT THOSE 60,000 U.S.

TROOPS THAT WE HAVE IN EUROPE.

MANY OF WHOM BY THE WAY ARE STATIONED THERE WITH THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR SPOUSES, THEIR CHILDREN.

AND HOW THEIR TRAINING AND WORKING EVERY DAY TO HOLD THE LINE AND FIGHT FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY IN EUROPE.

IF THE WAR ON UKRAINE SPILLS OVER OUTSIDE OF UKRAINE IT IS THOSE MEN AND WOMEN THAT WILL HAVE TO GET INTO THEIR TANKS, IN THEIR HELICOPTERS AND DO THEIR JOB.

UNITED STATES SENATE CANNOT LET THIS INFORMATION REMAIN HIDDEN.

IT GOES DIRECTLY TO ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSES OF POWER AGAIN WITHHOLDING AID THAT 87 PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ALREADY VOTED FOR.

THE PRESIDENT, THE SENATE AND AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL, LET'S SEE THE DOCUMENTS AND LET'S SEE THEM NOW AND LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

I WOULD LIKE TO END BY READING A SHORT TRANSCRIPT, SOMETHING THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT EARLIER THIS EVENING.

THIS IS A TRANSCRIPT FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY.

JUST WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO READ IT TO YOU.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT A TRIP THAT HE MADE TO VISIT OUR FRIENDS UNRUH CRANE.

UKRAINE.

WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE DEFENSE MINISTER, IT WAS THE FIRST MEETING OF THE DAY.

WE WENT OVER THERE.

THEY INVITED US TO A CEREMONY THAT THEY HAVE IN FRONT OF THEIR MINISTRY EVERY DAY.

EVERY DAY THEY HAVE THIS CEREMONY.

IT'S ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR CEREMONY WHERE SOLDIERS IN FORMATION, THE DEFENSE MINISTER, FAMILIES OF SOLDIERS WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED ARE ALL THERE.

AND THE SELECTION WHICH SOLDIERS ARE HONORED WHICH SHOULDERS HAVE BEEN KILLED ARE HONOR ASKED ON THE DATE OF IT.

SO WHATEVER TODAY'S DATE IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE THERE TODAY ON THE 22nd OF OCTOBER, THE FAMILIES OF THOSE SOLDIERS WHO WERE KILLED ON ANY 22nd OF OCTOBER IN PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS WULD BE THERE.

END QUOTE.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS TALKING ABOUT OUR FRIENDS.

AT LEAST 13,000 OF THEM HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS IN THE FIGHT FOR LIBERTY IN EUROPE.

THIS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS A NATIONAL DISGREAT.

AND ONLY IN THE -- ONLY THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM CAN FIX IT.

IT'S TIME TO ISSUE THE SUBPOENAS.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENTS.

>> MR. CIPOLLONE.

>> THANK YOU.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

I WILL BE BRIEF.

THIS MAY SEEM LIKE SOME DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT THE SAME ISSUES OVER AND OVER AND OVER FOR A LONG TIME.

AND I THINK THAT SOMETHING THAT AMERICANS DON'T -- ONE OF THE THINGS THEY DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND ABOUT WASHINGTON IS HOW IT CAN BE THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS THINKS BEST USE OF TIME FOR THIS BODY TO SPEND AN ENTIRE DAY DECIDING SIMPLY THE ISSUE OF WHEN THIS BODY SHOULD DECIDE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS SUBPOENAED.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BODY NOW.

IT'S NOT THE QUESTION FINALLY OF WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS AS MAJORITY LEADER HAS MADE CLEAR MULTIPLE TIMES THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION SIMPLY ALLOWS THAT ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED A WEEK FROM NOW.

THE ONLY QUESTION AT ISSUE NOW, HOUSE MANAGERS KEEP SAYING HOW CAN YOU HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES, HOW CAN YOU HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT DOCUMENTS.

THAT'S NOT EVEN THE ISSUE.

THE ISH IS ONLY NOW WHETHER YOU HAVE TO DECIDE THAT ISSUE TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES NOW OR DECIDE IT IN A WEEK AFTER YOU HEAR THE PRESENTATION.

WHY ARE THEY SO EAGER TO HAVE YOU BUY A PIG IN A POKE Y.

IS IT NECESSARY TO MAKE THAT DECISION WITHOUT HAVING MORE INFORMATION.

IN THE CLINTON TRIAL, THIS BODY AGREED 100-0 THAT IT MADE MORE SENSE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION AND THEN DECIDE HOW TO PROCEED.

THAT IT WAS RATIONAL TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO HEAR THE PRESENTATIONS AND THEN DECIDE WHAT MORE WAS NECESSARY.

WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE THAT DECISION NOW WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

THE RATIONAL THING TO DO IS TO HEAR WHAT SORT OF CASE THEY PRESENT AND IMPORTANTLY TO HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAD NO OPPORTUNITY IN THE HOUSE TO PRESENT ANY DEFENSE.

WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW AND ABOUT PRECEDENT.

BUT WHAT WAS UNPRECEDENTED WITH THE PROCESS THAT WAS USED IN THE HOUSE.

A PROCESS THAT BEGAN WITH AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT STARTED WITHOUT ANY VOTE BY THE HOUSE.

THAT IS A POINT I MADE EARLIER.

CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE NOT TO ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

SO THE PRESS CONFERENCE THE SPEAKER PELOSI HELD ON SEPTEMBER 24 DID NOT VALIDLY INITIATE OR GIVE POWER TO COMMITTEES TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.

SO WE'RE TALKING NOW ABOUT THE DOD DOCUMENTS, WHAT EFFORTS DID THEY MAKE IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS TO GET THESE DOCUMENTS THEY ISSUED ONE INVALID SUBPOENA, TOTALLY UNAUTHORIZED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, IT WAS UNPRECEDENTED BECAUSE IT WAS ISSUED IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PURPORTEDLY WITHOUT ANY VOTE FROM THE HOUSE, NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN OUR HISTORY IN A PRESIDENT SHALL IMPEACHMENT.

IT WAS UNLAWFUL, IT WAS UNAUTHORIZED AND THAT'S WHY NO DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED THEY MADE NO OTHER EFFORTS TO PURSUE THAT.

SO, WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW.

THE RULE OF LAW APPLIES TO HOUSE DEMOCRATS AS WELL THEY DIDN'T ABIDE BY IT.

IT WAS UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS DEFENSE, NO OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT WITNESSES, NO OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTEDDED BY COUNSEL, NO OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

THREE ROUNDS OF HEARINGS, THEY WILL MENTION, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THEY WERE WILLING TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT RIGHTS BUT IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AFTER ONE HEARING THE SPEAKER ANNOUNCED CONCLUSION THAT ARTICLES WERE GOING TO BE DRAFTED AND COMMITTEE HAD ALREADY DECIDED THEY WOULD HEAR NO FACT WITNESSES.

THERE WERE NO RIGHTS FOR THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT MAKES SENSE WHAT'S RATIONAL WHAT SO 0 SENATORS, 21 YEARS THOUGHT WAS RATIONAL BUT TO HEAR THE CASE THAT CAN CAN PRESENTED ON THE RECORD ESTABLISHND SO FAR AND THEN DECIDE IF SOMETHING ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE.

LET THE PRESIDENT MAKE HIS CASE, WE'RE READY TO GET THIS STARTED.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS SHOULD BE AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 38 MINUTES REMAINING.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I WILL BE BRIEF.

COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO SAY A LOT OF THINGS THAT JUST REALLY RUB ME THE WRONG WAY.

HE SAYS WE'RE TALKING AND SAYING THE SAME ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

I'M READY TO KEEP GOING.

BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DEBATE.

WE NEED TO HAVE IT NOW.

HE ALSO SAID SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT WASHINGTON.

I HAVEN'T BEEN MERE VERY LONG, I CAN TELL YOU I DON'T THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CARE VERY MUCH WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON ARE SITTING AROUND DEBATING ALL THE TIME AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT THEIR GOVERNMENT IS WORKING FOR THEM.

WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S CORRUPTION IN THEIR GOVERNMENT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY UNDERSTAND.

THAT'S WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT.

COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT SAID, WHY NOW?

WHY THE INFORMATION NOW?

THE BOATER QUESTION IS WHY NOT NOW.

THIS TRIAL HAS STARTED.

LET'S HAVE THE FACTS AND INFORMATION NOW.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE TIME IS RIGHT.

THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T ISSUE THOSE SUBPOENAS, GET THE FACTS, GET THE TESTIMONY, HAVE THE DEBATE, LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I WILL YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. MR. SCHIFF.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATORS, I'LL BE BRIEF.

I DO WANT TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE MADE.

FIRST IS THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE AND I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU'LL HEAR AGAIN.

THAT THIS SUBPOENA ISSUED BY THE HOUSE ARE INVALID.

WELL, THAT'S REALLY WONDERFUL.

IMAGINE WHEN YOU ISSUE SUBPOENAS THEY WILL DECLARE YOURS INVALID AS WELL.

WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM THEY'RE INVALID BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ISSUED THE WAY THE PRESIDENT WANTS.

PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS, YOU HAVE TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA THE WAY WE SAY AND THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE AFTER THIS FROM IS A RESOLUTION THAT WE APPROVE OF ADOPTED BY THE FULL HOUSE.

FIRST THEY COMPLAIN THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION, NO FORMAL RESOLUTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THEN WE ASKED THEY COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT.

THEY COMPLAIN WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE ONE, THEY COMPLAINED WHEN THEY DID HAVE ONE.

THEY MADE THAT ARGUMENT ALREADY IN COURT AND THEY LOST.

IN THE McGAHN CASE THEY SIMILARLY ARGUED THIS SUBPOENA FOR MR. McGAHN IS INVALID AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE SAID, ESSENTIALLY, THAT'S NONSENSE.

THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GET TO DECIDE HOW THE HOUSE CONDUCTS AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GET TO DECIDE WHETHER A SUBPOENA IT ISSUES IS VALID OR INVALID.

THE HOUSE GETS TO DECIDE BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS GIVEN SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

NOW COUNSEL SAYS, WHY ARE WE GOING THROUGH ALL THESE DOCUMENTS?

AREN'T ALL THESE MOTIONS THE SAME?

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DOCUMENTS HERE.

THEY WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER THAN FOR YOU TO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS WE SEEK.

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT DEFENSE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS THEY'RE WITHHOLDING.

OF COURSE THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT.

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS BECAUSE IF IT'S ABSTRACT, FOR YOUR ARGUMENT FOR DOCUMENTS, THEY CAN SAY, WELL THAT'S REALLY NOT THAT IMPORTANT, RIGHT?

IT'S JUST SOME GENERIC THING.

WHEN YOU LEARN AS YOU WERE LEARNED TODAY AND TONIGHT WHAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE, WHEN YOU SEE THE EFFORTS TO CONCEAL THOSE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT E-MAILS THAT MY COLLEAGUE, MR. CROW, JUST REFERRED TO YOU SEE WHAT WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC AND IT'S ALL REDACTED.

WE FIND OUT WHAT'S UNDER THOSE REDACTIONS AND, WOW, SURPRISE.

IT'S INCRIMINATING INFORMATION THEY HAVE REDACTED OUT THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THE BASIS FOR REDACTION UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT THAT'S WHAT WE CALL A COVER UP.

THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THAT TODAY.

DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THE BEFORE AND AFTER REDACTED AND NON-REDACTED.

THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR FROM THESE WITNESSES ABOUT THE DETAILED PERSONAL NOTES THAT THEY TOOK, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED PERSONAL NOTES.

NOW, THEY WANT TO TRY TO CONTEST WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID.

ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

BECAUSE SONDLAND AFTER HE TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT TALKED DIRECTLY WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND TALKED DIRECTLY WITH MR. MORRISON AND EXPLAINED HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

WELL, GUESS WHAT, MR. MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOOK DETAILED NOTES.

THERE IS A DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD MR. SONDLAND, WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO SEE THE NOTES?

THEY DON'T WANT TO YOU KNOW THE NOTES EXIST.

THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS DEBATE.

THEY WOULD RATHER JUST ARGUE, JUST ABOUT DOCUMENTS.

IT'S JUST ABOUT WHEN.

WE WENT THE SENATORS AFTER 16 HOURS OF QUESTIONS BEFORE THEY CAN SEE ANYTHING.

YOU KNOW WHAT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE CASE.

THE WHEN MEANS NEVER.

AND FINALLY THE CLINTON PRECEDENT.

PRESIDENT CLINTON TURNED OVER 90,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE TRIAL.

I AGREE.

LET'S FOLLOW THE CLINTON PRECEDENT.

IT'S NOT EVEN GOING TO TAKE 90,000 DOCUMENTS.

THE DOCUMENTS ARE ALREADY COLLECTED.

YOU HEARD THE TESTIMONY ON THE SCREEN OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAY THEY WILL BE TURNED OVER SHORTLY.

WE'RE STILL WAITING.

THEY'RE STILL SITTING THERE.

AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

WE CAN PLAY A VIDEO FOR YOU OF SECRETARY ESPER ON ONE OF THE SUNDAY SHOWS SAYING WE'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH THESE SUBPOENAS, THAT WAS ONE WEEK.

THEN SOMEBODY GOT TO HIM.

ALL OF A SUDDEN HE WAS SINGING A DIFFERENT TUNE.

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS HOLD.

AND YES WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT THESE WITNESSES CAN TELL YOU.

WE'RE SHOWING YOU WHAT MICK MULVANEY COULD TELL YOU.

WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU.

WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO SAY NO.

WE'RE MAKING IT HARD FOR YOU TO SAY, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM THESE PEOPLE, I DON'T WANT TOO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS, WE'RE MAKING IT HARD.

NOT OUR JOB TO MAKE IT EASY.

OUR JOB TO MAKE IT HARD TO DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF A FAIR TRIAL.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE TAKING THE TIME TO DO IT.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MAJORITY LEADER -- CHIEF JUSTICE.

I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AND ASK FOR YEAHS AND NAYS.

>> SUFFICIENT SECOND?

THERE IS.

CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.

>> MR. ALEXANDER.

MISS BALDWIN.

MR. BARRASSO.

MR. BENNETT.

MRS. BRACH BURN.

MR. BLUMENTHAL.

MR. BLUNT.

MR. BOOKER.

MR. BOOZMAN.

MR. BRAUN.

MR. BROWN.

MR. BURR.

MISS CAN'T WELL.

MRS. CAPITO.

MR. CARDIN.

MR. CARPER.

MR. CASEY.

MR. CASSIDY.

MISS COLLINS.

MR. COONS.

MR. CORNYN.

MS. CORTEZ MASTO.

MR. COTTON.

>> Woodruff: IN THE MIDDLE OF ANOTHER ROLL CALL VOTE ON ONE OF THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE PROCESS SO THAT THERE WOULD BE A SUBPOENA ISSUED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE HOLD THAT WAS PLACED FROM JULY UNTIL SEPTEMBER ON AID INTENDED FOR UKRAINE.

THIS IS JUST THE LATEST IN SEQUENCE OF VOTES THE SENATE HAS TAKEN EVERYONE WITH VIRTUALLY WITH THE SAME RESULTS, A VOTE OF 53 REPUBLICANS TO 47 DEMOCRATS ALONG PARTYLINES.

WE EXPECT THE RESULT WILL BE THE SAME THIS TIME.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF OVERSEEING PBS'S LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WHICH IS UNDERWAY.

REMINDER THEY ARE STILL IN THE RULES DECIDING PHASE OF THIS TRIAL.

THEY HAVEN'T YET GOTTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS.

WHAT THEY'RE DEBATING RIGHT NOW WHAT THEIR VOTING ON IS WHETHER OR NOT TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO INDIVIDUALS AND WHETHER OR NOT TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

THAT WAS VOTED DOWN.

EVIDENCE FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, THAT WAS VOTED DOWN.

NOW THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.

THEY ALSO VOTED DOWN A SUBPOENA FOR THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY.

PROCESS GOES ON.

WE DON'T EXPECT A DIFFERENT RESULT.

BUT WE ARE WATCHING THE SENATE IN AN EXTRAORDINARY SESSION WHERE EVERY SENATOR IS REQUIRED TO STAY IN HIS OR HER SEAT WHILE THESE DISCUSSIONS OF THE MOTIONS TAKE PLACE WHILE THE VOTES TAKE PLACE.

SO THEY'RE GETTING NEAR THE END OF THE ALPHA BELT.

THEY WILL SHORTLY BE AN ANNOUNCEMENT BY CHIEF JUSTICE AS TO WHAT THE RESULT IS THEN WE'LL FIND OUT IF THE DEMOCRATS PLAN TO CONTINUE TONIGHT INTRODUCING MOTIONS OR RATHER INTRODUCING AMENDMENTS THAT THEN WILL BE DISCUSSED WITH AN HOUR GIVEN TO EACH SIDE.

ALTHOUGH THEY HAVEN'T BEEN USING THAT MUCH TIME.

LET'S LISTEN IN.

>> MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA.

MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

MRS. SHAHEEN.

MR. SHELBY.

MISS SINEMA.

MISS SMITH.

MISS STABENOW.

MR. SULLIVAN.

MR. TESTER.

MR. THUNE.

MR. TIL HIS.

MR. TOOMEY.

MR. UDALL.

MR. VAN HOLLEN.

MR. WARNER.

MS.

WARN.

MR. WHITEHOUSE.

MR. WICKER.

MR. WYDEN.

MR. YOUNG.

>> ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE CHAMBER WHO WISH TO CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE.

IF NOT THE YEAHS ARE 53 THE NAY, ARE 47.

AMENDMENT IS TABLED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO ROBERT B. BLAIR AND MICHAEL P. DUFFY CAN I THAT IT BE READ.

>> THE CLERK WILL REPORT.

>> SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, MR. SCHUMER, POSES AN AMENDMENT NO.

1289.

AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE OF THE RESOLVING CLAUSE INSERT THE FOLLOWING.

SECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE THIS RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULES FIVE AND SIX OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IBSEN AT WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, ONE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF SENATE SHALL, A, ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT B. BLAIR AND, B, ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR TAKING OF TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL P. DUFFY.

AND TWO, SERGEANT-AT-ARMS IS AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE IN SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION.

>> THE AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS, EQUALLY DIVIDED.

MR.

MANAGER SCHIFF OR OPPONENT OR PROPONENT?

MR. CIPOLLONE?

MR. SCHIFF HOUSE MANAGERS CAN THEN PROCEED AND RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

MY NAME IS SYLVIA GARCIA, I AM CONGRESSWOMAN FROM TEXAS AND THE HOUSTON REGION.

YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN SITTING FOR SOME TIME AS WELL AS YOU AND IT BROUGHT TO MIND THE MANY YEARS THAT I SPENT AS A JUDGE, JUSTICE ALL OF YOU TODAY ARE JUDGES IN THIS HEARING.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT I SAY A FEW WORDS BEFORE I START OUR ARGUMENT FOR THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE SCHEME OF THINGS, IT'S REALLY NOT THAT VERY COMPLICATED.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, EVERY DAY AMERICANS KNOW WHAT A TRIAL LOOKS LIKE.

WHETHER THEY HAVE SEEN IT ON PERRY MASON OR "LAW AND ORDER" OR MAYBE BEEN IN COURT THEMSELVES.

THEY KNOW WHAT A TRIAL IS.

IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BOTH SIDES, IT'S ABOUT WITNESSES.

IT'S ABOUT DOCUMENTS, IT'S ABOUT GETTING A FAIR SHOT.

AND THAT'S ALL THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY.

IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE TRIAL THAT THEY EXPECT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE IF IT WERE THEY WHO WERE ACCUSED OR ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE SOMETHING THEY WOULD WANT THE SAME THING.

SO FOR ME, IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE GET A FAIR TRIAL WHICH IS WHY I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TO SUBPOENA ROBERT BLAIR AND MICHAEL DUFFY.

BLAIR AND DUFFY ARE THE TWO OFFICIALS WHO CARRIED OUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER TO FREEZE VITAL MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD SHED LIGHT ON CENTRAL FACTS THE HOUSE UNCOVERED IN OUR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THEIR TESTIMONY WILL FURTHER AFFIRM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO LEGITIMATE POLICY REASON FOR THE ORDER.

BLAIR WORKS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AS SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY.

DUFFY IS THE POLITICAL APPOINTEE, HE WORKS IN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

THERE HE SERVES AS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.

BOTH WERE SUBPOENAED BY THE HOUSE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES.

BOTH WERE ORDERED NOT TO APPEAR.

SO BOTH FAILED TO APPEAR FOR THEIR SCHEDULED DEPOSITION.

DESPITE REPEATED OUTREACH AND DESPITE LEGAL DUTY TO COMPLY, BLAIR AND DUFFY ARE NOT HOUSEHOLD NAMES.

MANY AMERICANS HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THEM.

BUT THEY AVOIDED THE MACHINERY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THEY IMPLEMENTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INSTRUCTION TO FREEZE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

THEY COMMUNICATED ABOUT THE FREEZE WITH EACH OTHER WITH MULVANEY, WITH OMB'S ACTING DIRECTOR RUSSELL AND WITH NUMEROUS OFFICIALS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

THEY STOOD AT THE CENTER OF THE TANGLED WEB.

SOME OF THEIR COMMUNICATIONS ARE KNOWN TO US FROM THE TESTIMONY OF OTHER WITNESSES BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEES.

OTHER COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN REVEALED THROUGH PUBLIC REPORTING AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT RELEASES.

BUT THESE COMMUNICATIONS ONLY PARTLY PENETRATE THE SECRECY IN WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO CLOSE THE INSTRUCTIONS TO FREEZE MILITARY AID TO VULNERABLE STRATEGIC PARTNER.

AS PLENTIFUL EVIDENCE CONFIRMS, OFFICIALS THROUGHOUT THE GOVERNMENT WERE STUMPED, LITERALLY STUMPED, ABOUT WHY THE FREEZE WAS HAPPENING.

THEY WERE THWARTED WHEN THEY TRIED TO GET INFORMATION FROM BLAIR AND DUFFY.

CONSISTENT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORT TO HIDE ALL EVIDENCE BLAIR AND DUFFY HAVE DEFIED THE HOUSE'S SUBPOENAS AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION.

TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE PASSED I WOULD LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOME KEY EVENTS WHICH BLAIR AND DUFFY PARTICIPATED IN.

TO START, BLAIR AND DUFFY WERE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL STAGES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FREEZE OF THE MILITARY AID.

ON JUNE 18, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ISSUED A STATEMENT THAT IT WOULD BE PROVIDED $250 MILLION PORTION OF THE ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND THAT UKRAINE HAD MET ALL THE REQUIRED PRECONDITIONS FOR RECEIVING THE MONEY.

THE VERY NEXT DAY ON JUNE 19, BLAIR AND HIS ROLE AS ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF OMB THE CALL WAS TO TALK ABOUT MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS, BLAIR TOLD HIM, QUOTE, WE NEED TO HOLD IT UP.

THAT SAME DAY DUFFY WHO REPORTS TO VOTT E-MAILED DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ELAINE McCUSKER ABOUT THE MILITARY AID.

REFUSED TO PRODUCE THE E-MAIL TO THE HOUSE AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, A COPY THAT HAVE E-MAIL WAS RECENTLY PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO IN THE E-MAIL, DUFFY IN DOPED DOD THAT, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT HAS ASKED ABOUT THIS FUNDING RELEASE.

DUFFY COPIED.

A CAREER OFFICIAL WHO REPORTS TO HIM AND WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE ABOUT THIS E-MAIL.

SANDY TESTIFIED THAT McCUSKER PROVIDED THE REQUESTED INFORMATION TO HIM WHICH HE SHARED WITH DUFFY.

THESE COMMUNICATIONS RAISE DOLLARS MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT BLAIR AND DUFFY AND THEY'RE IN THE BEST POSITION TO PROVIDE ANSWERS.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHO OR WHAT PROMPTED BLAIR TO TELL VOUGHT THAT OMB NEEDED TO FREEZE THE AID.

WHO?

WHAT REASON WAS BLAIR GIVEN?

AND WHO INSTRUCTED DUFFY TO REACH OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WHO TOLD HIM THE PRESIDENT HAD QUESTIONED AND WHAT WERE THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND DID DUFFY AND BLAIR HAVE COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE WITH THE PRESIDENT?

WITH ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY BETWEEN THEMSELVES, WHAT ABOUT THE FUNDING RELEASE.

AND THE PRESIDENT'S SO-CALLED QUESTION.

BLAIR AND DUFFY COULD PROVIDE THE ANSWERS.

THEY COULD EXPLAIN WHAT DIRECTIONS THEY RECEIVED, WHEN THEY WERE PROVIDED AND WHO PROVIDED THEM.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW THESE FACTS.

THE NEXT SIGNIFICANT EVENT IN OUR TIMELINE HAPPENS AT THE END OF JUNE.

ON JUNE 27, BLAIR GOT E-MAIL FROM HIS BOSS, MULVANEY.

MULVANEY WAS AN AIR FORCE ONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS, MULVANEY ASKED BLAIR, QUOTE, DID WE EVER FIND OUT ABOUT THE MONEY FOR UKRAINE AND WHETHER WE CAN HOLD IT BACK.

BLAIR RESPONDED, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE BUT HE SAID THEY SHOULD, QUOTE, EXPECT CONGRESS TO BECOME UNHINGED.

WHEN DID MULVANEY AND BLAIR FIRST DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT'S FREEZE ON MILITARY AID.

WAS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ISSUE IN THIS E-MAIL.

DID MULVANEY EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS OWE SO IMPORTANT TO FREEZE THE MONEY EVEN IF IT WOULD COST CONGRESS, QUOTING AGAIN, BECOMING UNHINGED.

DID THEY DISCUSS WHY CONGRESS WOULD HAVE SUCH A STRONG REACTION AND WHETHER IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED.

DID BLAIR RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS SEEMINGLY UNEXPLAINED DECISION TO FREEZE THE FUND?

THE SENATE COULD OBTAIN THESE ANSWERS BY HEARING FROM THESE WITNESSES DIRECTLY.

NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FREEZE.

DESPITE BLAIR'S WARNING ABOUT HOW CONGRESS WOULD REACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED A FREEZE ON MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE IN JULY.

BLAIR AND DUFFY WERE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN EXECUTING THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER.

TO BE CLEAR, CERTAIN DECISIONS REMAIN IN SECRECY BUT KEY ACTIONS HAVE BEEN REVEALED.

ON JULY 3, THE STATE DEPARTMENT TOLD VARIOUS OFFICIALS THAT OMB WAS BLOCKING FROM SPENDING THE $141 MILLION PORTION OF THE AID, MORE SPECIFICALLY, OMB DIRECTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO SEND A NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS ABOUT SPENDING THE AID.

WITHOUT THAT NOTIFICATION, THE AID WAS EFFECTIVELY FROZEN.

WHO FROM OMB ORDERED THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO SEND ITS CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.

DID THEY GIVE A REASON, WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

BUT REMEMBER, AT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INSTRUCTION, OMB AND STATE DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT TO THE HOUSE BUT THE DIRECTION ALMOST CERTAIN LIE CAME FROM DUFFY OR ONE OF HIS SUBORDINATES.

ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT IN JULY 12th, BLAIR SENT AN E-MAIL TO DUFFY.

DUFFY SUBORDINATE, MARK ZANDI, SAW THE E-MAIL AND DESCRIBED IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE.

AS SANDY TESTIFIED IT WAS BLAIR WHO CONVEYED THAT, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTING A HOLD ON MILITARY SUPPORT FUNDING FOR UKRAINE.

WHAT PORE DISCUSSIONS TOOK PLACE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO FREEZE THE AID.

DID THE PRESIDENT OR MULVANEY GIVE BLAIR A REASON FOR THE FREEZE?

DID BLAIR KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS HOLDING THE AID TO PRESSURE U CABE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

WE ALSO KNOW TWO DAYS BEFORE BLAIR SENT HIS E-MAIL TO DUFFY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD UKRAINE I DON'T KNOW OFFICIALS THAT HE HAD A DEAL WITH MULVANEY.

THE DEAL CONSISTSED OF A WHITE HOUSE VISIT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UKRAINE CONDUCTING THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT.

THAT IS WHAT PROMPTED AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO SAY, HE WAS, QUOTE, NOT PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP.

BLAIR IS MULVANEY'S SENIOR ADVISOR.

DID BLAIR KNOW ABOUT THE SONDLAND-MULVANEY DEAL?

DID HE KNOW THAT THEY WERE LEVERAGING OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE VISITS FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GET UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVAL?

THE WHITE HOUSE WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY REASON FOR THE HOLD, THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD OFFICIALS ACROSS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FREEZE ON THE MILITARY AID.

AROUND JULY 17 OR 18, DUFFY E-MAILED BLAIR.

HE ASKED ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE FREEZE.

BUT HE GOT NO EXPLANATION.

INSTEAD, BLAIR INSISTED, QUOTE, WE NEED TO LET THE HOLD TAKE PLACE AND THEY COULD, QUOTE, REVISIT THE ISSUE WITH THE PRESIDENT LATER.

AND THE HOUSE WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM MULTIPLE OFFICIALS INCLUDING AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WHO WAS UNTIL VERY RECENTLY OUR TOP DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE, OUR NUMERO UNO, WE ALSO HEARD FROM SEVERAL OTHER OFFICIALS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE NSC STAFF AND OMB, BUT NO ONE -- NO ONE HEARD ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE FREEZE AT THE TIME.

NO ONE.

NADA.

SENATORS, THINK ABOUT IT.

NOT EVEN OUR TOP U.S.

DIPLOMAT TO UKRAINE HAD ANY IDEA AS TO WHY THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED E FUND FROZEN.

THAT IS SHOCKING.

THAT SHOULD WORRY EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US HERE.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE THOSE WITNESSES.

THEY'RE UP IN THE SLIDES.

AGAIN, NO ONE ELSE KNEW WHY.

WHY THIS DECISION MADE SO SECRETLY AND WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION.

WHY WAS THE PRESIDENT COMPROMISING THE SAFETY OF THE STRATEGIC ALLY IN THE REGION.

WHY WAS HE HARMING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN THE PROCESS.

ON JULY 26, DUFFY ATTENDED A MEETING OF A HIGH LEVEL EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIAL.

DUFFY MADE CLEAR THAT THE FREEZE ON MILITARY AID WAS BASED ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EXPRESS SELECTION.

BUT APPARENTLY HE COULD NOT FAIRLY EXPLAIN WHETHER IT WAS A FREEZE BEYOND A VAGUE REFERENCE TO CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION.

>> THE OFFICIAL SAID -- >> WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE ALL PROVIDED THE SAME CONSISTENT RECOUNTING OF WHAT HAPPENED.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE STATEMENTS ON THE SLIDE, OFFICIALS WERE NOT PROVIDED CLEAR EXPLANATION FOR SUCH A DRAMATIC STEP.

AS WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED EARLIER, AND WE'LL EXPLAIN IN MORE DEPTH DURING THE TRIAL, THESE FACTS CONTRADICT THE WHITE HOUSE'S RECENT CLAIM OF WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP FROZE THE UKRAINE AID.

THOSE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW EFFORTS BY THIS PRESIDENT AND THOSE AROUND HIM TO FABRICATE EXPLANATION AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S ILLEGAL SCHEME CAME TO LIGHT.

IN FACT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF THE FREEZE REPORTEDLY FOUND THAT MULVANEY AND OMB ATTEMPTED TO CREATE AN AFTER THE FACT JUSTIFICATION.

FOR THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION.

THAT IS POLITE WAY OF SAYING, MULVANEY'S TEAM LED AN EFFORT TO COVER UP THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

AND TO MANUFACTURE MISLEADING, FREE TEXTUAL EXPLANATIONS TO HIDE THE CORRUPTION.

BUT, SENATORS, THERE'S STILL MORE.

BLAIR AND DUFFY WERE ALSO INVOLVED IN THE EVENTS SURROUND SURROUNDING THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25 PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

ON JULY 19, BLAIR, ALONG WITH OTHER OFFICIALS RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

THE E-MAIL DESCRIBED A CONVERSATION HE HAD JUST HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATED, THAT ZELENSKY WAS, QUOTE, PREPARED TO RECEIVE POTUS CALL AND WILL ASSURE HIM THAT HE INTENDS TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND, QUOTE, TURN EVERY STONE.

AS REFLECTED IN THIS E-MAIL AND CONFIRMED BY HIS TESTIMONY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD HELPED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PREPARE FOR HIS JULY 25 PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

TELLING HIM IT WAS NECESSARY TO ASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WOULD CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATIONS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THEN REPORTED BACK TO BLAIR AND OTHERS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PREPARED TO DO JUST THAT.

SO BLAIR KNEW THE PLAN AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PUT IT, HE WAS IN THE LOOP ON THE SCHEME.

WHY WAS BLAIR PART OF THIS GROUP?

WHAT'S HIS INVOLVEMENT, WHAT WAS HIS INVOLVEMENT IN SETTING UP THE CALL.

WHAT DID HE UNDERSTAND SONDLAND'S MESSAGE TO MEAN?

WHAT DID HE KNOW ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS SOUGHT BY THE PRESIDENT?

DID HE HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OR MULVANEY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST FOR THE INVESTIGATION.

WE NEED BLAIR'S TESTIMONY TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

AND THEN, SIX DAYS LATER, BLAIR WAS IN THE SITUATION ROOM LISTENING IN -- LISTENING IN ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JULY 25 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

HE HEARD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISE THE ISSUE OF U.S. AID TO UKRAINE.

HE HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPOND BY ASKING FOR, QUOTE, A FAVOR, THOUGH.

NAMELY INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 20 2016 ELECTION AND OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

THE HOUSE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF THREE OF THE OTHER OFFICIALS WHO LISTENED IN TO THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25 CALL.

DIRECTLY LISTENED IN.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, KIM MORRISON AND JENNIFER WILLIAMS.

EACH OF THEM EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE CALL.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND TIM MORRISON IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THE CALL TO NSC LAWYERS.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS SAID THE CALL, QUOTE, STRUCK HER AS UNUSUAL AND INAPPROPRIATE.

AND, FURTHER, QUOTE, MORE POLITICAL IN NATURE.

SENATORS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO HEAR IF BLAIR SHARED THE CONCERNS OF THE OTHER OFFICIALS WHO LISTENED TO THE PRESIDENT'S CALL.

WHAT WAS HIS REACTION TO THE CALL D. HE TAKE NOTE?

WAS HE AT ALL CONCERNED LIKE THE OTHER OFFICIALS, DID HE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND WHY.

THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE SUGGESTS THAT HE DID KNOW, BUT THE SENATE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK HIM DIRECTLY.

JUST 90 MINUTES AFTER THAT JULY 25 CALL, BLAIR'S CONTACT AT OMB, MICHAEL DUFFY, SENT OFFICIALS THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AN E-MAIL TO MAKE SURE THAT DOD CONTINUED TO FREEZE THE MILITARY AID THAT UKRAINE SO DESPERATELY NEEDED.

THIS E-MAIL LIKE ALL OTHERS WAS NOT PRODUCED TO THE HOUSE.

HOWEVER, IT WAS PRODUCED PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER IN A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUIT.

AS THE E-MAIL REFLECTS, DUFFY TOLD THE DOD OFFICIALS THAT BASED ON THE GUIDANCE HE HAD RECEIVED THEY SHOULD, QUOTE, HOLD OFF ANY ADDITIONAL DOD OBLIGATIONS OF THESE FUNDS.

DUFFY ADDED THAT THE REQUEST WAS SENSITIVE AND THAT THEY SHOULD KEEP THIS INFORMATION CLOSELY HELD.

THIS E-MAIL, TOO, RAISES QUESTION THAT DUFFY SHOULD ANSWER.

WHAT EXACTLY WAS THE WHO GAVE IT TO HIM 6789 WAS IT CONNECTED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PHONE CALL.

AND WHY WAS IT SO SENSITIVE THAT HE DIRECTED DOD TO KEEP IT CLOSELY HELD.

THE SENATE SHOULD DEMAND THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.

THE SENATE SHOULD ALSO HEAR FROM DUFFY AS TO WHY HE ABRUPTLY REMOVED A CAREER OMB OFFICIAL WHO QUESTIONED THE FREEZE ON MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

AND WHETHER HE DID SO AT THE DIRECTION OF THE WHITE HOUSE OR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THROUGHOUT JULY, MARK ZANDI, THE OMB CAREER OFFICIAL WHO HANDLED MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE, REPEATEDLY TRIED TO GET DUFFY TO PROVIDE ANIMATION NATION FOR THE FREEZE.

HE WAS UNSUCCESS.

SANDY AND OTHER OFFICIALS FROM OMB AND THE PENTAGON ALSO RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FREEZE VIOLATING THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT, THE FEDERAL LAW THAT LIMITS THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO WITHHOLD FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED BY CONGRESS.

IN FACT, TWO CAREER OMB OFFICIALS ULTIMATELY RESIGNED IN PART BASED ON CONCERNS ABOUT THE HANDLING OF THE UKRAINE MILITARY AID FREEZE.

THESE CONCERNS WERE NOT UNFOUNDED.

JUST LAST WEEK, THE NONPARTISAN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ISSUED A DETAILED LEGAL OPINION FINDING OMB HAVE VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW BY EXECUTING THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO FREEZE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

REMARKABLY, ON JULY 29, AFTER SANDY HAD EXPRESSED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE FREEZE, DUFFY REMOVED SANDY FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR UKRAINE MILITARY AID.

INSTEAD DUFFY TOOK OVER RESPONSIBILITY FOR WITHHOLDING THE AID HIMSELF.

HE WAS THE POLITICAL APPOINTEE, HE HAD NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE.

HE HAD NO DEMONSTRATION OF INTEREST IN SUCH MATTERS, HIS LAST JOB HAD BEEN AS A STATE LEVEL REPUBLICAN PARTY OFFICIAL.

HE'S THE ONE WHO TOOK OVER RESPONSIBILITY FOR WITHHOLDING THE AID.

HE GAVE NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR HIS DECISION.

HE ONLY SAID THAT HE WANTED TO BECOME, QUOTE, MORE INVOLVED IN DAILY OPERATIONS.

SANDY, THROUGH HIS DECADES OF EXPERIENCE TESTIFIED THAT NOTHING LIKE THIS HAD EVER HAPPENED IN HIS CAREER.

HIS BOSS, A POLITICAL APPOINTEE, JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE A SUDDEN INTEREST IN BEING MORE HANDS ON.

AND WAS NOW LASER FOCUSED EXCLUSIVELY ON UKRAINE.

THE SENATE SHOULD ASK DUFFY -- WAS HE DIRECTED TO.

WHY WAS SANDY REMOVED FROM HIS RESPONSIBILITY OVER EYE CRANE AID.

WAS IT BECAUSE HE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE FREEZE?

THESE QUESTIONS ARE THOSE THAT DUFFEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER.

NOW WE MOVE ON TO WARNING FROM DOD.

AROUND THIS PERIOD IN LATE JULY AND EARLY AUGUST, DUFFEY ALSO IGNORED WARNINGS FROM DOD ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE FREEZE.

THE SENATE SHOULD HEAR FROM HIM AND JUDGE WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.

THROUGHOUT JULY AND AUGUST, DUFFEY EXECUTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FREEZE OF THE MILITARY AID THROUGH SERIES OF FUNDING DOCUMENTS FROM OMB AND CAREFULLY WORDED FOOTNOTES, OMB TRIED TO CLAIM THAT THIS, QUOTE, WAS A BRIEF PAUSE AND IT WOULD NOT AFFECT DOD'S ABILITY TO SPEND THE MONEY ON TIME.

AS WE KNOW -- NOW KNOW FROM PUBLIC REPORTING AS THE FREEZE CONTINUED DOD OFFICIALS GREW MORE AND MORE ALARMED.

THEY KNEW THE FREEZE WOULD IMPACT DOD'S ABILITY TO SPEND THE FUNDS BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

DOD OFFICIALS INCLUDING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY McCUSKER VOICED THESE CONCERNS TO DUTCH FEE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.

FIRST, IN AN E-MAIL ON AUGUST 9th, McCUSKER TOLD DUFFEY, DOD COULD NO LONGER SUPPORT OMB'S CLAIM THAT THE FREEZE WOULD NOT PRECLUDE TIMELY EXECUTION OF THE AID FOR UKRAINE.

HER E-MAIL READ AND I QUOTE, AS WE DISCUSS AS OF 12 AUGUST, I DON'T THINK WE CAN AGREE THAT THE PAUSE WILL NOT PRECLUDE TIMELY EXECUTION.

WE HOPE IT WON'T AND WE WILL DO ALL WE CAN TO EXECUTE ONCE THE POLICY DECISION IS MADE.

BUT CAN NO LONGER MAKE THAT A DECLARATIVESTATEMENT.

THEN AGAIN ON AUGUST 12th, McCUSKER WARNED DUFFEY IN AN E-MAIL, THE FOOTNOTES NEEDED TO INCLUDE A CAVEAT THAT, QUOTE, EXECUTION RISK INCREASES CONTINUED DELAYS.

THE HOUSE NEVER RECEIVED THESE DOCUMENTS FROM OMB OR DOD.

WE KNOW WHAT THEY CONTAIN BECAUSE OF PUBLIC REPORTING, DESPITE PERSISTENT EFFORT BY TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO KEEP THEM FROM CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC.

THE PENTAGON'S ALARM SHOULD HAVE RAISED CONCERNS FOR DUFFEY.

DID HE SHARE DOD'S CONCERNS WITH ANYONE ELSE.

DID HE AGREE WITH THOSE CONCERNS OR TAKE ANY ACTIONS IN RESPONSE.

DID HE TAKE DIRECTION FROM BLAIR BLAIR, THE WHITE HOUSE OR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THESE QUESTIONS THAT DUFFEY SHOULD ANSWER DESPITE HIS ACTIONS EXECUTING THE PRESIDENT'S FREEZE, DUFFEY INTERNALLY EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS ABOUT IT.

IN AUGUST HE SIGNED OFF ON MEMORANDUM TO ACTING DIRECTOR VOUGHT THAT RECOMMENDED RELEASING THE AID THAT MEMO STATED, THE MILITARY AID WAS CONSISTENT WITH UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY IN THE REGION.

THAT IT SERVED TO COUNTER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND THAT THE AID WAS ROOTED IN BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS.

THIS IS CONTRARY TO DUFFEY'S ACTIONS LEADING UP TO THE MEMO.

WHAT CHANGED.

WHAT CAUSED DUFFEY TO DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION TO WITHHOLD THE AID.

DUFFEY SHOULD BE CALLED TO EXPLAIN.

WHY HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRESIDENT RELEASE THE AID.

WHAT OTHER STEPS HE TOOK TO ADVOCATE FOR THE RELEASE.

DOES HE KNOW WHY HE WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE DISREGARDED THE RECOMMENDATION.

BASED ON PUBLIC REPORTING, WE KNOW AFTER THE PRESS REPORTED THE FREEZE IN LATE AUGUST, OMB CIRCULATED TALKING POINTS FALSELY CLAIMING, QUOTE, NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY OMB THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE OBLIGATION OF THESE FUNDS BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

>> Woodruff: HOUSE MANAGER REPRESENTATIVE SYLVIA GARCIA OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, CONTINUES TO MAKE THE CASE FOR A SUBPOENA.

IT IS NOW 11:00 P.M.

IN THE EAST AND WE AT THE PBS "NEWSHOUR" ARE GOING TO STEP AWAY FROM OUR ANCHORED COVERAGE BUT NOT TOE WORRY WE WILL CONTINUE TO CARRY THE ONGOING EVENTS IN THE SENATE TONIGHT UNTIL THEY END.

RIGHT HERE ON YOUR PBS STATION OR ONLINE AT YOUTUBE.

PBS.ORG/NEWSHOURS AND OTHER SOCIAL CHANNEL TOMORROW WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK HERE WHEN SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL CONTINUES WITH DAY TWO AT 1:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME.

THANKS TO CORRESPONDENTS LISA DESJARDINS AND OTHERS ALONG WITH EXPERTS HERE AT THE TABLE WITH ME JOHN HART, ELIZABETH CHRYST, MARTIN, THANKS TO ALL OF YOU BEING HERE ALL DAY WE ARE SAYING GOOD NIGHT BUT OUR COVERAGE AS WE SAY CONTINUES OF DAY ONE OF THE SENATE TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT TRUMP ON IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> WITH A FORMAL AND LENGTHY E-MAIL HE ASSERTED IT WOULD BE DOD FAULT NOT OMB'S IF DOD WAS UNABLE TO SPEND FUNDS IN TIME.

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ELAINE McCUSKER REPORTEDLY RESPONDED, I AM SPEECHLESS.

WE NOW KNOW THAT DOD'S CONCERNS WERE WELL FOUNDED.

THE PRESIDENT'S FREEZE ON THE SECURITY AID WAS ILLEGAL.

DUFFEY SHOULD BE CALLED TO TESTIFY ABOUT WHY DOD'S REPEATED WARNINGS WENT UNHEEDED.

WHAT PROMPTED HIS E-MAIL THAT 'TEMPTED SHIFT BLAME - AND ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT RELEASED THE AID ONLY AFTER HIS SCHEME WAS EXPOSED.

SENATORS, MAKE NO MISTAKE WE HAVE A DETAILED FACTUAL RECORD.

THAT HE DID THIS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO A NORTHBOUND THE HIT CAL INVESTIGATIONS HE WANTED.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION SET OFF A CASCADE OF CONFUSION AND MISS DIRECTION WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE PROGRAM MUCH.

AS THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL A POEBTYS CARRIED OUT HIS ORDERS CAREER OFFICIALS TRIED TO DO THEIR JOBS.

OR AT THE VERY LEAST NOT BREAK THE LAW.

MORE LIGHT WOULD BE SHED ON HOW THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS WERE CARRIED OUT.

THAT IS WHY COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE ISSUED SUBPOENAS FOR BOTH TESTIMONY.

BUT PLAYER AND DUFFY AS I SAID EARLIER LIKE MANY OTHER TRUMP OFFICIALS REFUSED TO APPEAR BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THEM NOT TO.

>> AND WITNESSES JUST DON'T APPEAR.

UNITED STATES SENATE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION TO CONTINUE TO EVADE ACCOUNTABILITY BASED ON THIS EVER SHIFTING AND EVER MERIT LESS EXCUSES.

WE NEED TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

BLAIR AND DUFFY HAVE VALUABLE TESTIMONY TO OFFER, THE SENATE SHOULD CALL UPON THEM TO DO THEIR DUTY BY ISSUING THIS SUBPOENA.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE THE HOUSE MANAGERS RECEIVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME FOR A OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT.

>> HONORABLE SENATORS JUST TO CORRECT A FEW THINGS.

MR. DUFFY DIDN'T COME FROM A STATE JOB.

MR. DUFFY CAME FROM DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF AT DOD.

BIG DIFFERENCE THERE.

MANAGER GARCIA SAID HE FAILED TO APPEAR.

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WOULD NOT ALLOW AGENT C. COUNCIL TO APPEAR WITH MR. DUFFY OR MR. BLAIR.

THEY WOULD NOT LET AGENCY COUNCIL APPEAR WITH EITHER OF THEM.

OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL DETERMINED OF COURSE THAT THE EXCLUSION OF AGENCY COUNCIL FROM HOUSE PROCEEDINGS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IT'S A PRETTY BASIC RIGHT.

SO WHAT DID THEY DO?

THEY TOOK NO ACTION ON THE SUBPOENAS.

BUT NOW THEY WANT YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON THEM.

THE MANAGERS HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL DAY THAT WE WANT TO BURY EVIDENCE, HIDE EVIDENCE, THAT HYPOCRISY IS ASTOUNDING.

THEY HAVE SAID LET'S NOT FOR FET WHY WE ARE HERE.

WELL, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE THEY THREW DUE PROCESS, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND OUR CONSTITUTION OUT THE WINDOW IN THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE.

THEY STARTED IN A SECRET PWUFRPGER HEARING WHERE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNCIL WERE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO IMPEACH THEM.

INTEL JUDICIARY COMMITTEES WERE A ONE SIDED CIRCUIT.

NUNES ASKED TO CALL WITNESSES IT WAS DESIGNED BY RANKING MEMBER SCHIFF.

THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL FAIRNESS.

THAT'S NOT HOW OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM WORKS.

IT HAVE NOTLY IS NOT HOW OUR IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS DESIGNED BY OUR CONSTITUTION.

THE HOUSE TOOK NO ACTION ON THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO MR. DID YOU HAVELY AND MR. BLAIR BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT A COURT TO TELL THEM THEY WERE TRAMPING ON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

NOW THEY WANT THE CHAMBERS TO DO IT FOR THEM.

>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 1 MINUTES REMAINING.

>> FACT CHECKS ONCE BETWEEN.

FIRST OF ALL THE COMPLAINT IS MADE WELL THE HOUSE WOULDN'T ALLOW AGENCY COUNCIL.

WHY WOULDN'T THE HOUSE ALLOW AGENCY COUNCIL TO BE PRESENT IN THE SECRET DEPOSITION THAT'S YOU HAVE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER THE SECRET DEPOSITION AS LOUD A HUNDRED MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE TO PARTICIPATE.

THERE ARE A HUNDRED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

WE COULD OF HAD THE SECRET DEPOSITION HERE ON THE SENATE FLOOR.

BY THE WAY WHERE DID DEMOCRATS GET THE RULE OF NO AGENCY COUNCIL DURING THE DEMO SIGNIFICANCES?

WE GOT IT FROM THE REPUBLICANS.

THIS WAS THE REPUBLICAN DEPOSITION RULE.

WE CAN SITE YOU.

ADAMANT EXPLANATION BY OTHERS HOW THE RULES ARE SO IMPORTANT THAT THE DEPOSITIONS NOT BE PUBLIC.

THAT AGENCY COUNCIL BE EXCLUDED AND WHY?

YOU WILL GET A GOOD SENSE OF IT WHEN YOU SEE THE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT GEORGE KENT.

HE DESCRIBES BEING AT A MEETING AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DOCUMENT REQUEST FROM CONGRESS.

WHAT THEY WILL DO ABOUT THESE.

WHAT IS RESPONSIVE AND WHAT IS NOT RESPONSIVE.

THE ISSUE COMES UP OF A LETTER THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT SENT TO CONGRESS SAYING YOU'RE INTIMIDATING THE WITNESSES.

SECRETARY KENT TESTIFIED NO THE CONGRESS WAS NOT INTIMIDATING WITNESSES.

IT WAS THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO PREVENT THEM FROM TESTIFYING.

SO MY COLLEAGUES AT THE OTHER TABLE SAY, WHY AREN'T AWE LOUING THE MINDERS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO SIT NEXT TO THE WITNESSES AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY IN THE DEPOSITIONS?

WE HAVE SEEN ALL TOO MUCH WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THIS INVESTIGATION TO DIN WITH WITHOUT HAVING AN AGENCY MINDER SITTING THIS ON THE DEPOSITION.

BY THE WAY THE AGENCY MINDERS DON'T GET TO SIT IN FOR GRAND JURY INTER VOWS EITHER.

THERE IS A VERY GOOD INVESTEST INVESTIGATION REASON USED WHO HAVE BEEN ADAMANT ABOUT THE POLICY OF EXCLUDING AGENCY COUNCIL.

IT WAS ALSO REPRESENTED THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WON ALLOW THE MINORITY TO CALL WITNESSES.

THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE.

FULLY ONE-THIRD OF THE WITNESS THAT'S APPEARED IN OPEN HEARING AND OUR COMMITTEE WERE MINORITY CHOSEN WITNESSES.

NOW WHAT THEY ENDED UP HAVING TO SA +* WAS PRETTY DARN INCRIMINATING OF THE PRESIDENT.

NONE THE LESS THEY CHOSE THEM.

SO, THIS IDEA WELL WE HAD NO DUE PROCESS.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURES IN THE CLINTON AND NUMBERS ON IMPEACHMENTS.

THEY CAN CONTINUE TO SAY WE DIDN'T BUT WE DID.

IN SHOULD RESPECT WE GAVE GREATER DUE PROCESS OPPORTUNITIES.

THE KHAUPL IS MADE WE TRANS APPROXIMATELIED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY DARING TO SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES.

HOW DARE WE SUBPOENA AD MACHINE STATION OFFICIALS, RIGHT.

CONFERENCE NEVER DOES THAT.

HOW DARE WE SUBPOENA THEM.

WELL, THE COULD THE HEARD HA ARGUMENT P THE CASE OF DON McBEGAN.

YOU SHOULD READ THE JUDGE'S PEN KWON IN FINDING THIS!

HAS NO SUPPORT, PO SUBSTANCE.

IT WOULD RESULT IN A MONARCHY.

IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE JUDICIAL EQUIVALENT OF DON'T LET THE DOR HIT YOU ON THE BACKSIDE ON THE WAY OUT COUNCIL.

NO MERIT HAD.

COUNCIL CAN REPEAT THAT ARGUMENT AS MUCH AS HE WOULD HIKE.

THIS IS NO SUPPORT IN THE COURT FOR IT.

NO SUPPORT IN THIS BODY.

NOT IF YOU WANT YOUR SUBPOENAS IN THE FUTURE TO MEAN ANYTHING AT ALL.

I YIELD BACK.

ERG BA JOT LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AND I ASK FOR THE YEAs AND THEYS.

>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.

>> WILL ALEXANDER.

MRS. BALDWIN.

MR. BARR-RBG ASSO.

MR. BENNETT.

MRS. BLACKBURN.

MR. PWHROUPL ENTHAL.

MR. BLUNT.

MR. BOOKER.

MR. BOOZMAN.

MR. BRAUN.

MR. BROWN.

MR. BURR.

MS. CANTWELL.

S WILL CAPITO.

MR. CARDIN.

MR. CARP.

ERER.MR.

CASEY.

MR. CASSIDY.

MS. COLLINS.

MR. COONS.

MR. CORNYN.

MS. CORTEZ MASTO.

MR. COTTO.

MR. CRAMER.

MR. CRAPO.

MR. CRUZ.

MR. DAINES.

MS.

DUCK.

SOME WORTH.

MR. DURBIN.

MR. ENZI.

MS. ERNST.

MRS. FEINSTEIN.

MRS. FISCHER.

MR. GARDNER.

MRS. GILL GILLIBRAND.

MR. GRAHAM.

MR. GRASSLEY.

MRS. HARRIS.

MS. HASSAN.

MR. HAWLEY.

MR. HEINRICH.

MS. HIRONO.

MR. HOEVEN.

MRS. HYDE-SMITH MR. INHOFE.

MR. JOHNSON.

MR. JONES.

MR. KAINE.

MR. KENNEDY.

MR. KING.

MS. KLOBUCHAR.

MR. LANKFORD.

MR. LEAHY.

MR. LEE.

MRS. LOEFFLER.

MR. MANCHIN.

MR. MARKEY.

MR. MCCONNELL.

MS. McSALLY.

MR. MENENDEZ.

MR. MERKLEY.

MR. MORAN.

MS. MURKOWSKI.

MR. MURPHY.

MRS. MURRAY.

MR. PAUL.

MR. PERDUE.

MR. PETERS.

MR.

PORT MAN.

PORTMAN.

MR. REID.

MR. RISCH.

MR. ROBERTS.

MR. ROMNEY.

MS. ROSEN.

MR. ROUNDS.

MR. RUBIO.

MR. SANDERS.

MR. SASSE MR. SCHATZ.

MR. SCHUMER.

MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA.

MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

MRS. SHAHEEN.

MR. SHELBY.

MS. SINEMA.

MS. SMITH.

MS. STABENOW.

MR. SULLIVAN.

MR. TESTER.

MR. THUNE.

MR. TILLIS.

MR. TOOMEY.

MR. UDALL.

MR. VAN HOLLEN.

MR. WARNER.

MS. WARREN.

MR. WHITEHOUSE.

MR. WICKER.

MR. WYDEN.

MR. YOUNG.

>> DOES ANY SENATOR WISH TO CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE.

THE YEAs ARE 53.

THE NAYs ARE 47.

THE A HELPEDMENT IS TABLED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK.

I ASK IT BE READ.

IT IS SHORT.

>> THE CLERK WILL REPORT.

>> SENATOR FROM NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT 1290 ON PAGE TWO BETWEEN LIONS FOUR AND FIVE INSERT FOLLOWING.

IF DURING THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP ANY PARTY SEEKS TO ADMIT EVIDENCE NOT SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE RECORD OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SUBJECT TO A DUALLY AUTHORIZED SUBPOENA THAT PARTY SHOULD PROVIDE THE OTHER PARTY ALL OF THE DOCUMENT RESPONSIVE TO THE SUBPOENA.

THIS INCLUDES ANY SUBPOENA ISSUED TO THE PURSUANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -FL.

THE SENATE WILL TAKE ALL PROPER MEASURES FOR THE HANDLING OF INFORMATION IN THE RECORD.

>> THE MAJORITY RECORD IS RECOGNIZING.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE TO STAY CLOSE TO THE CHAMBER.

GO WITH A HARD FIVE MINUTES.

I ASK WE STA IN RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

>> COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT INDICATING WE HAVE NOT CHARGED PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH A CRIME.

WE HAVE CHARGED WITH HIM CRIMES TWENT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

ABUSE OF POWER.

STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT THE PRAEUPLERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

BE TRAIL OF ONES OATH OF OFFICE ORE PERSONAL GAIN.

THE CORRUPTION OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THAT'S WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ALL ABOUT.

COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT HAS, RYED TO SUBJECT THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE ONLY BEEN FOCUSED ON RYING TO OUST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HOG COULD BE FURTHER ARE ARE THE TRUTH.

WE HAVE PASSED 25 BILLS BIPARTISAN.

HO +*EKING HEARING CARE COST AND PRESKREPG DRUG PRICES, TPWUPB VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC.

WE HAVE WORKED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM.

I PERM HO WORKED WITH HIM ALONG WITH ALL OF YOU ON THE PERCENT STEP ACT.

WE WORKED WITH HIM ON THE U.S. MEXICO CANADA TRADE AGREEMENT.

WE WORKED WITH HIM TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT.

WE DON'T HATE THIS PRESIDENT BUT WE LOVE THE CONS AT THE TUITION, WE LOVE AMERICA, WE LOVE OUR DEMOCRACY.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TO TODAY.

THE QUESTION WAS ASKED WHY, WHY ARE WE HERE LET ME SEE IF I CAN PAUSE IT IN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

WE ARE HERE SIR BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL AND PERSONAL GAIN.

WE ARE HERE SIR BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION AND CORRUPTED OUR DEMOCRACY.

WE ARE HERE SIR BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HELD $391 MILLION FROM A VULNERABLE UKRAINE WITHOUT JUST ANY CATION IN A MANNER THAT IS HAN BEEN DEEMED UNLAWFUL.

WE ARE HERE SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ELEVATED HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTEREST AND SUBORDINATED THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP CORRUPTLY OWE A. BEAUSED HIS POWER AND THEN HE TRIED TO COVER IT UP.

AND WE ARE HERE SIR TO FOLLOW THE FACTS, A HIGH THE LAW, BE GUIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW, NOW YOU KNOW.

URGENT FALSELY ACCUSE PEOPLE OF PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, REALLY.

>> SINCE THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER.

THAT'S ALL WE HAVE HAD FROM THEM.

>> THEY HAVE USED THEIR OFFICE TO CONDUCT PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

AGAINST HIS FAMILY.

THEY HAVE WEAPONIZED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENT.

THEY DOM HERE WITH FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF TONY POLITICAL ALLIGATIONS.

I THINK THE DOCTORS CALL IT PROJECTION.

IT'S TIME FOR IT TO NOTED.

IT'S TIME FOR SOMEONE, POOR THE SENATE TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING.

I SAID IT, THEY DIDN'T DENY IT.

THEY'RE TRYING TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NAME FROM THE BALLOT.

THEY CAN'T PROVE THEIR CASE.

THEY HAVE TOLD YOU THAT ALL DAY LONG.

THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING SOME OF YOU SENATORS TO DO.

SOME OF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO USE YOUR OFFICE TO REMOVE YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT FROM THE BALLOT.

THAT'S WRONG.

THAT'S NOT IN THE INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY OR A SHOW OF CONFIDENCE.

SO WE WILL I SUPPOSE HAVE THIS DEGATE AGAIN NEXT WOKE IF WE EVER GET HAD.

IT'S GETTING LATE.

I WOULD ASK YOU RESPECT FULLY IF WE COULD SIMPLY START.

MAYBE TOMORROW WE COULD START AND THEY CAN MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT.

I GUESS MAKE A CASE THEY ONCE CALLED OVERWHELMING.

WE WILL SEE.

BUT THIS RESOLUTION IS RIGHT.

IT'S FARE.

IT MAKES SENSE.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY BEFORE YOU HAVE TO DECIDE THE CRITICAL ISSUES.

IT IS TO YOU OR A WEEK FROM NOW?

SERIOUSLY CAN WE PLEASE START.

THANK YOU.

ING IF THIS IS NO OBJECT THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE.

I'M AWARE OF ONE SENATOR PRESENT UNABLE TO TAKE THE IMPEACHMENT OATH LAST THURSDAY.

WILL HE PLEASE RISE AND RISE HIS RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN.

SURPBLGT DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR ON ALL THINGS APER TANING TO THE TRIAL OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, NOW PENDING YOU WILL DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AND HAWS SO HELP YOU GOD.

>> I DO.

>> THE SECRETARY WILL NOTE THE NAM OF THE SENATOR WHO HAS JUST TAKEN THE OATH AND WILL PRESENT THE OATH BOOK TO HIM FOR SIGNATURE.

>> THE SERGEANT IN ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.

>> HEREY HEREY HEREY.

ALL PERSONS ARE FANNED TO KEEP SILENT WHILE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS SITTING ORE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

UPLGT THE BA SKWOERT HEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

I WOULD LIKE POOR THE INFORMATION OF ALL SENATORS TRIAL BRIEFS FOILED YESTERDAY BY THE PARTY HAVE BEEN PRINTED.

ARE NOW ATTACH SENATOR'S DESK.

>> THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE POOR PRINTING IN THE SENATE JOURNAL.

THE PRESEP ISSUED JANUARY 1st, 200.

WRIT OF SUMMONS AND RECEIPT OF SUMMONS JANUARY 1, 2020.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WILL BE SUB PITTED TO THE SENATE FOR PRINTING IN THE SENATE JOURNAL PURSUANT TO THE ORDER JANUARY 1st, 00.

THE ANSWER OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE ARTICLES OF YOU MEAN PEACHMENT EX HIPPED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST HIM JANUARY 1st, 2020 RECEIVED BY THE SENATE JANUARY 1st, 00, THE TRIAL BRIEF RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 18th, 020, THE TRIAL BRIEF FOILED BY THE PRESIDENT, RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 200, THE REPLICATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20th, 2020, AND THE REBUTTAL BRIEF FILED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE JANUARY 21, 2020.

WITHOUT OBJECTION THE FOR GOING DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

I NOTE THE PRESENCE IN THE HOUSE OF THE SENATE, IF THE SENATE CHAMBER OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE AND COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> IN CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I SEND TO THE DESK A LIST OF -- FORECLOSED SESSIONS.

I ASK IT BE INSERTED IN THE RECORD AND AGREED TO BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

URGENT FURTHER INFORMATION TO ALL SENATORS I'M ABOUT TO SEND A RESOLUTION FOR AN OUTLINE OF THE NEXT STEPS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.

IT WILL BE DEBATABLE BY PARTIES TWOER TWO HOURS AND SENATOR SCHUMER WILL SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK.

ONCE IT'S OFFERED AND REPORTED WE WILL HAVE A BRIEF RECESS.

WHEN WE RECONVENE SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT WILL BE DEBATE APBL BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS.

UPON THE USE OR YIELDING BACK OF TIME I PLAN TO MOVE TO TABLE SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A RESOLUTION TO THE DESK AND ASK IT BE READ.

UPLGT THE CLERK WILL READ THE RESOLUTION.

>> SENATE RESOLUTION 483 TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED PROCEDURES REGARDING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP BE, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

RESOLVED THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL FILE IT'S RECORD WITH SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WHICH WILL CONSIST OF THOSE PUBLIC LEAHLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, MARKUPS AND PRINTED MATERIALS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

MATERIALS OF THIS RECORD WILL BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE SUBJECT TO HERE SAY EVIDENTIARY OR ANY COMMENTS MADE AFTER OPENING PRESENTATIONS ARE CONCLUDED.

ALL MATERIALS PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH MAYBE PRINTED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES.

-- 9:00 A.M. JANUARY 22, 2020 TO FILE ANY MOTIONS PERMITTED UNDER THE RULES OF YOU MEAN PEACHMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, DOCUMENT OR HE HAD AT ANY TIMERY MOTIONS.

RESONSS TO SUCH POTIONS SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN 11:00 A.M. ON WED PES DAY JANUARY 12th, 2020.

ALL MATERIALS FILED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY AND PRINTED, MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES.

ARGUMENTS ON SUCH MOTIONS SHALL BE BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY JANUARY 12th, 2020.

EACH SIDE MAY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO MAKE IT'S PRESENTATION FOLLOWING WHICH THE SENATE SHALL TKHREUPB RATE IF SO ORDERED UNDER THE YOU MEAN PEACHMENT RULES AND VOTE ON ANY SUCH MOTIONS.

FOLLOWING THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH MOTIONS OR NO MOTIONS ARE MADE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL MAKE REPRESENT TAUG FOR THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED 1 HOURS UP TO THREE SESSION DAYS.

FOLLOWING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIONS FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 1 HOURS UP TO THREE SESSION DAYS.

EACH SIDE MAY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO MAKE IT'S PRESENTATION.

UPON THE CON KHAOUGS OF THE PRESIDENT'S PRESENTATION SENATORS MAY QUESTION THE PARTIES FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

NOT TO EXCEED 1 16 HOURS.

UPON THE CONCLUSION OF QUESTIONING OF THE SENATE THIS SHOULD BE FOUR HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED FOLLOWED BY DELIBERATION OF THE PRESIDENT IF SO ORDERED BY THE IMPEACHMENT RULES IN QUESTION WHETHER IT SHALL BE IN ORDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY MOTION TO SUBPOENA OR ISSUE DOCUMENTS.

THE SENATE, THEN DECIDE BY THE YAYS AND NAYS WHETHER IT'S AN ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE I IMPEACHMENT RULES.

FOLLOWING THE DISPOSITION OF THAT QUESTION OTHER MOTIONS PROVIDED UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES SHALL BE IN ORDER.

IF THE SENATE AGREES TO ALLOW AOEBGTER THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE PRESIDENT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES THE WITNESSES SHALL FIRST BE DEPOSED AND DECIDE WHICH WITNESSES SHALL TESTIFY PURSUANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT RULES.

NO TESTIMONY SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE SENATE UNLESS THE PARTIES HAVE A OPPORTUNITY TO DID I POSE SUCH WITNESSES.

AS THE CON KHAOUGS OF DELIBERATIONS OF THE SENATE THE SENATE SHALL VOTE ON EACH ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> THE RESOLUTION IS ARGUABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED.

MR.

MANAGER SCHIFF ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT OF THE MOTION?

SEURPBLGTS THANK YOU.

ARE YOU A PRO PONE OR OPPONENT.

>> YOUR SIDE MAY PROCEED FIRST AND WE WILL RESERVE REBUTTAL TIME IF YOU WISH.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL.

>> OUR TEAM IS PROUD TO BE HERE REPRESENTING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE SUPPORT THIS RESIDENT HROUGS IT'S A FAIRWAY TO PROCEED WITH THIS TRIAL.

IT IS MODELS ON THE CLINTON RESOLUTION WHICH HAD A HUNDRED SENATORS SUPPORTING IT THE LAST TIME THIS BODY CREDITED AN IMPEACHMENT.

IT REQUIRES THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO STAND UP AND MAKE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND MAKE THEIR CASE.

THEY HAVE DELAYED BRINGING THIS IMPEACHMENT TO THIS HOUSE FOR 33 DAYS.

13 DAYS TO THIS BODY.

IT'S TIME TO START WITH THIS TRIAL.

IT'S A FARE PROCESS.

THEY WILL HAVE THE TONIGHT TO MACH H. OPING STATEMENT.

THEY HAVE 4 HOURS TO DO THAT.

THEN THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

AFTER THAT ALL OF YOU HAVE 1 HOURS TO ASK WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF EITHER SIDE.

ONCE THAT'S FUN ISHED AND YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION WE WILL PROCEED TO THE INFORMATION OF WITNESSES AND MORE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS BEFORE THIS BODY.

WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

ONCE YOU HEAR THE HERBAL CON CUEINGS WILL BE THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG.

THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DON'T BEGIN TO APPROACH THE STANDARD REQUIRED BY THE CON TYING TO YOU.

THEY THEMSELF WILL ESTABLISH NOTHING BEYOND THE ARTICLES.

YOU LOCK AT THE ARTICLED ALONE YOU WILL DETERMINE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION SO WE CAN BEGIN WITH THE PROCESS.

IT'S LONG PAST TIME TO START THIS PROCEEDING.

WE'RE HERE TODAY TO DO IT.

WE HOPE THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL COMBINE WITH US AND BEGIN THE PRECEDING TO DAY.

RERESERVE THE REMAINDER OF OUR TIME FOR REBUTTAL +*PL.

>> IN CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS AND COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT HOUSE MANAGERS ON BE HALF OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENT TIS RISE IN OP OWE SIG HAD LEADER MCCONNELL'S OPPOSITION.

LET ME BEGIN WITH WHY.

LAST WEEK WE CAME BEFORE YOU TO PRECEPT ARTICLES OF YOU MEAN PEACHMENTN 'T THE PRESIDENT OF THE U SEATS ORE THE ONLY THERD I'M IN OUR HISTORY.

THE MISCONDUCT SET OUT IN THE ARTICLES IS THE MOST SOREIOUS EVER CHARGED TENTS A PRESIDENT.

THE SPURS ARTICLE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGES THE PRESIDENT WITH SOLICITING A PORN POWER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

WE WILL PROVE HE SOUGHT TO COHERES UKRAINE BY HOLDING TWO ACTS.

A MEETING THAT THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE DESPERATELY SOUGHT WITH THE PRESIDENT AT THE WHITE HOUSE TO SHOW THE WORLD THAT HE HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATES.

EVEN MORE PERNICIOUSLY PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HELD NEARLY FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

URGENT TWO HOURS FOR ARGUMENT EQUALLY DIVIDED.

YOU MAY PROCEED FIRST.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATORS THE MAJORITY HEADER AMENDED HIS RESOLUTION EARLIER TODAY TO ALLOW THE ADMISSION OF THE HOUSE RECORD THAT EVIDENCE.

THE RESOLUTION LEAVES THE SUBJECT TO OBJECTIONS.

THIS IS A GAPING HOLE IN THE RESIDENT HAOUGS.

THE RESOLUTION WOULD ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO CHERRYPICK DOCUMENT HE HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE TO THE HOUSE AND ATTEMPT TO ADMIT THEM INTO EVIDENCE HERE.

THAT WOULD ENABLE THE PRESIDENT TO USE HIS OBSTRUCTION AS A SHIELD TO HIS MISCONDUCT AND SWORD IN HIS DETPEPS.

THAT WOULD BE HOLY UNFAIR AND IMPROVER.

THE AMENDMENT ADDRESSES THE ISSUE SHOWING ANY PARTY SEEKS INFORMATION HERE THAT WAS PREVIOUS TO SUBPOENA THE PARTY MUST DO A SIMPLE AND FARE THING.

OWE ROW VIED THE OPPOSING PARTY ALL DOCUMENT RESPONSIVE TO THE SUBPOENA.

THAT'S HOW THE LAW WORKS IN AMERICA.

IT'S CALLED THE RULE OF COMPLETENESS.

WHEN THIS DID YOU SAY STORES FACTS THIS IS A SOLUTION.

TO INSURE DOCUMENT OF A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE CAN BE INTRODUCED TO DIVERT CONFUSION.

THE RULE OF THE COMPETENESS IS ROOTED IN THE COMMON SENSE PRINCIPAL THAT A FARE TRIAL DOESN'T -- MISLEAD FACT FINDERS.

THE SENATORS SHOULD EMBRACE IT AS A RULE POOR THIS TRIAL AND THE AMENDMENT DOES JUST THAT.

THIS A AMENDMENT DOES NOT LIMIT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE TRIAL.

HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM.

BUT THIS AMENDMENT DOES MAKE SURE HE DOES IT IN A FAIRWAY.

THAT'S OBSTRUCTION CAN NOT BE USED AS A WEAPON.

IT'S AN AMENDMENT ON SIMPLE FAIRNESS.

IT WILL HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET TO THE TRUTH.

>> HOUSE MANAGERS ARE NOT AFRAID, WE WANT TO GET TO THE TRUTH WHETHER IT HELPS OR HURTS OUR CASE.

THAT IS WHAT THE SENATE SHOULD WANT.

THAT IS WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT.

THIS AMENDMENT HELPS THAT PROCESS OF GETTING MORE TO GET TO THE TRUTH.

-- PROPER HANDLING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD.

THIS AMENDMENT SEEMS TO BALANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN TRANSPARENCY WITH LIMITED AND SENSITIVE INFORMATION BARING DIRECTLY ON THE CASE ARE YOU TRYING.

AS FOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SOME EVIDENCE IN THE CASE INCLUDES RECORDS OF PHONE CALL, ESTABLISHING IMPORTANT PATTERNS OF CONDUCT.

THE ORIGINAL PHONE RECORDS INCLUDING A GREAT DEAL OF MORE INFORMATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THIS BODY TO REVIEW IF NEEDED IN A CONFIDENTIAL SETTING.

IT CONTAINS SENSITIVE INFORMATION FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT AT ISSUE IN THE TRIAL AND SUB JECT THEM TO INTRUSIONS ON THEIR PRIVACY.

THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE HAS THE CAPACITY TO HANDLE SUCH MATERIAL AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO YOU AS NEED NEEDED.

URPLGT AS FOR THE HAS TIDE INFORMATION THAT THIS AMENDMENT ADDRESSES THERE MAYBE SEVERAL VERY RELEVANT CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT.

LET ME HIGHLIGHT ONE PARTICULARLY.

IT INVOLVES THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICE PRESIDENT SECURITY AID, JENNIFER WILLIAMS.

IT CONCERNS A CONVERSATION WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A VALUE TO THIS BODY TO SEE IN TRYING THE CASE.

LET ME SAY WE HAVE TWICE REQUESTED THE VICE PRESIDENT DECLASSIFY THIS DOCUMENT.

THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS NOT RESPONDED.

WE CONCLUDE THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL EFFORT BY THE PRESIDENT TO CONCEAL WRONG DOING TO THE PUBLIC.

AS IT STANDS NOW IT REMAINS CLASSIFIED.

IT MUST BE HANDLED LIKE ANY OTHER CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT BY THIS BODY.

LET ME GO A BIT FURTHER.

THE PUB LUCK SHOULD SEE THAT TESTIMONY AS WELL.

THAT CLASSIFIED TESTIMONY WAS ADDED TO THE RECORD BY THE VOICE PRESIDENT'S AID BECAUSE SHE BELIEVED I THINK ON FURTHER REFLECTION THAT IT WOULD SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT TO WHAT SHE SAID PUBLIC HO.

YOU SHOULD SEE IT.

EVALUATE IT FOR WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY.

I WOULD URGE NOT ONLY THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN HANDLE THE HAS TIDE INFORMATION THIS IS A MECHANISM FOR IT AND AND A DENT FOIBLE THAT NEED NOT BE PUBLIC AND INFORMATION THAT IS IMPROPERLY CLASSIFIED.

THAT BEARS AND SHEDS LIGHT ON YOUR DECISION SHOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO YOU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME.

>> >> THE PRESIDENT OPPOSE THIS IS AMENDMENT AND I CAN BE BRIEF IN EX MAINING WHY.

URGENT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD SAY THAT ANY SUBPOENA ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE INQUIRY.

ANY SUBPOENA AT ALL IS DETUNED ASSET A DUALLY AUTHORIZED SUBPOENA.

AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED SELF TIMES TODAY BECAUSE OF THE HOUSE STARTING THIS INQUIRY WITHOUT A VOTE IT NEVER AUTHORIZED ANY COMMITTEE TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS PURSUANT TO THE YOU MEAN PEACH MENT POWER.

THE FIRST 23 WERE ALL UNAUTHORIZED AND THAT IS WHY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID NOT RESPOND OR COMPLY TO THEM.

THAT WAS EX MAINED IN A LETTER FROM OCTOBER 1st TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS.

A LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THOSE SUBPOENAS.

THERE HAS HEFFER BEEN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TWENT THE RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT A VOTE BY THE FULL HOUSE THIS.

IS A PRINCIPAL THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR IN CASES OF THE UNITED STATES VERSUS RUMLEY.

-- TO THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE WITHOUT BEING DEL GATED THAT AUTHORITY BY THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE.

IT WAS EXPLAINED IN RUMLEY THAT DETERMINING THE VALIDITY REQUIRES, THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENT TIFFED GAVE TO THE COMMITTEE.

THIS IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO DO AWAY WITH THAT LEGAL INFIRMITY BY DEFINING ALL SUBPOENAS AS DUALLY AUTHORIZED.

WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.

I WANT TO RESPOND BRIEFLY, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE RULES OF COMPLETENESS.

THE RULES OF COMPLETENESS HAVE TO DO WITH A PARTICULAR DOCUMENT OR PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS MISLEADING IT SELF IN THAT DOCUMENT THERE IS SOMETHING SPECIFIC ABOUT IT THAT THIS IS A RESPONSE ON THE E-MAIL CHAIN.

THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT HAS SOMETHING ATTACHED TO IT.

THAT SHOULD COME INTO EVIDENCE.

SINCE ALL HE HAD DIDN'TERY ARE PRESERVED ALL UNDERLYING CAN BE MADE.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR THAT TO DO THIS AMENDMENT.

THIS DOES THE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE RULES OF KPHOETNESS.

WITH THAT I WILL KWROELD THE REMEANEDDER OF MY TIME.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE I WILL BE PROEF.

THIS RESOLUTION, THE A MACHINED HADN'T WE OPPOSE THAT IN TP +*EUBIN HAS SAID IT'S IN ESSENCE A UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO CHEER A DEFECT.

A DEFECT IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS.

HERE RESERVING OUR OBJECTIONS AS IT RELATES TO HERE SAY.

I WANT TO RESPOND TO WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF SAID REGARDING THE PRECEDINGS AND LACK OF AGENCY COUNCIL.

HE SAID IT'S MANY LIKE A GRAND JURY.

HE BEST BE TPHRAD IT'S NOT HIKE A GRAND JURY.

P IT WAS A TKPRAPD JURY AND INFORMATION WAS LEAKED WHICH IT WAS CON CONSISTENTLY YOU THIS THE PROCESS THEY COULD BE SUBJECT TO FELONY.

I WANT TO BE CHEER UTILIZING THIS AMENDMENT TO CURE A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT.

THAT WHAT THIS IS, IS WHAT WE HAVE ARGUED ABOUT NOW FOR ALMOST ELEVEN HOURS.

IT'S CHANGING THE RULES.

IT'S DIFFERENT RULES.

I CAN'T DETERMINE IF WE ARE DEALING WITH A TRIAL, A PRETRIAL MOTION, WE NOW HAVE SPENT ELEVEN HOURS ARGUING SOMETHING WE WILL ARGUE NEXT WEEK.

THE IDEA YOU CAN CURE IN THREE PARA GRAPHS CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS DOESN'T.

WE YIELD THE REST OF OUR TIME.

>> FIRST OF ALL COUNCIL HAWKS THE ARGUMENT ONCE AGAIN THAT THE SUBPOENAS THE PRESIDENT GETS TO DECIDE WHICH ARE VALID AND IN VALID, MY SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T LIKE HE MAY DECLARE IN VALID AND THAT'S THE END OF THE STORY.

THERE IT'S IN VALID, NO DOCUMENT ARE REQUIRED, NO WITNESSES NODE SHOW UP.

THERE YOU DON'T NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO GAME THE SYSTEM BY SHOWING YOU A HANDFUL OF DOCUMENTS TO MISLEAD YOU AND DEPROVE YOU OF SEEING DOCK UTILITY RELATIVE TO THAT SUBJECT.

THAT'S THE ARGUMENT.

THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T HIKE HOW THE SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED.

THE COURT HAS RULED ON THIS ISSUE AND SAID NO, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE IF A SUBPOENA IS VALID OR NOT.

THAT'S THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOUSE.

I GUESS THEY WOULD SUGGEST, THE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T MISLEAD YOU ABOUT DOCUMENT.

YOU CAN BE ASSURED THAT DOCUMENT TELL THE COMPETE TRUTH.

WE KNOW YOU CAN'T MACE A RELIANCE ON THE PRESIDENT.

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?

YOU HAVE SEEN IT.

LOOK WHAT THEY DID WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST.

THEY BLACKED OUT ALL OF THE INCRIMINATING INFORMATION.

THEY BLACKED OUT THE WE CAN'T REPRESENT MORE THAT WE WILL SPEND THIS MONEY IN TIME.

WE CAN'T REPRESENT WE WON'T BE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO INTRODUCE ONE PART OF THE E-MAIL CHAIN AND NOT THE REST.

YOU WANT A PRESIDENT WITH HOLDING DOCUMENT FROM YOU CAN INTRODUCE A DOCUMENT SUGGESTING A BENIGN EXPLANATION BUT THE REHIGH CONFIRMING THE CORRUPTNESS.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE.

THEY CHONE THIS, WE DON'T THINK THEY WERE DUE DOWELLY AUTHORIZED SUBPOENAS.

WE'RE CATEGORIZING THE DOCK UTILITY.

LET THEM CALL THEM UNDUALLY AUTHORIZED.

THE DOCUMENT CALLED FOR SHOULD NOT BE CHERRYPICKED BY A WHITE HOUSE THAT HAS SHOWN A DELIBERATE INTENT TO DECEIVE.

FINALLY COUNCIL SAYS THEY CAN'T TELL WHETHER WE'RE DEALING WITH A TRIAL HERE.

YOU KNOW SOMETHING NEITHER CAN WE.

IF THEY'RE CONFUSED SO ARE WE.

THEY'RE CONFUSED TOO.

THEY WOULD THINK IF THIS WAS A TRIAL THERE WOULD BE NO DEBATE WHETHER THE PARTY WITH THE BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD CALL WITNESSES.

OF COURSE THEY CAN.

OF COURSE THEY CAN.

THEY DON'T DECIDE WHO THE PROSECUTION CALLS AS A WITNESS.

IF YOU'RE CON USE ITED SO IS THE PUBLIC.

THEY WANT THIS TO HAWK LIKE A REGULAR TRIAL.

IT SHOULD THAT'S NOT THE HISTORY OF THIS BODY.

THAT'S THE HISTORY OF THIS BODY.

I MOE IT'S LATE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LATE.

WE DON'T CONTROL THE SCHEDULE HERE.

WE'RE NOT DECIDING TO CARRY ON THROUGH THE EVENING.

>> HAD IS A REASON WE'RE STILL HERE 5 MINUTES TO MID MOIETY.

THAT IS BECAUSE THEY TONIGHT WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

THEY'RE HOPING PEOPLE ARE A SLEEP.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE A SLOPE NOW ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, IT'S MIDNIGHT.

NOW MAYBE IN MY STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALF PEOPLE ARE AWAKE AND WATCHING.

IS THIS WHAT WE SHOULD DO WHEN WE DECIDE THE FAITH OF A PRESIDENCY?

IN THE MID MIGHT HOUR?

ARE >> YOU KNOW I STARTED OUT THE DAY ASKING WHETHER THERE COULD BE A FARE TRIAL.

CAN PRESSING THE SKEPTICISM THE COUNTRY FIELDS ABOUT WHETHER THAT'S POSSIBLE.

HOW MUCH THEY WANT TO BRIEF IT'S POSSIBLE.

I HAVE TO SAY WATCHING NOW AT MUD NIGHT THE OF THE TO HIDE THIS IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT CAN NOT BE ENCOURAGING TO THEM ABOUT WHEN THERE IS A FARE TRIAL.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AT THE DESK TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT.

I ASKED FOR THE YEAs AND NAYs.

>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.

>> MR. ALEXANDER.

>> MS. BALDWIN.

MR. BARRASSO.

MR. BENNETT.

MRS. PLAQUEBURN.

MR. BLUMENTHAL.

MR. BLUNT.

MR. BOOKER.

IN BOO SAOERBGSMAN.

MR. BRAUN.

MR. BROWN.

MR. BURR.

MS. CANTWELL.

MRS. CAPITO.

IN CARDIN.

MR. CARPER.

MR. CASEY.

MR. CASSIDY.

MS. COLLINS.

MR. COONS.

MR. CORNYN.

MS. CORTEZ MASTO.

MR. COTTO.

MR. CRAMER.

MR. CRAPO.

MR. CRUZ.

MR. DAINES.

MS. DUCKWORTH.

MR. DU R.B.I.

N. MR. ENZI.

MS. ERNST.

MS. FEINSTEIN.

MRS. FISCHE.

MR. GARDNER.

MRS. GILLIBRAND.

MR. GRAHAM.

MR. GRASSLEY.

MS. HARRIS.

IN HASSAN.

MR. HAWLEY.

MR. HEINRICH.

MS. HIRONO.

MR. HOVEN.

MRS. HYDE-SHEUGT.

MR. INHOFE.

MR. JOHNSON.

MR. JONES.

MR. KAINE.

MR. KENNEDY.

MR. KING.

MS. KLOBUCHAR.

MR. LANKFORD.

MR. LEAHY.

MR. LEE.

MS. LOEFFLER.

MR. MANCHIN.

MR. MARKEY.

MR. MCCONNELL.

MS. McSALLY.

MR. MENENDEZ.

MR. MERKLEY.

MR. MORAN.

MS. MURKOWSKI.

MR. MURPHY.

MRS. MURRAY.

MR. PAUL.

MR. PERDUE.

MR. PETERS.

MR. PORTMAN.

MR. REID.

MR. RISCH.

MR. ROBERTS.

MR. ROMNEY.

MS. ROSEN.

MR. ROUNDS.

MR. RUBIO.

MR. SANDERS.

MR. SASSE.

MR. SCHATZ.

MR. SCHUMER.

MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA.

MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

MS. SHAHEEN.

MR.

SHELL BOW.

WILL BE SHELBY.MS.

SINEMA.

MS. SMITH.

MS. STABENOW.

MR. SULLIVAN.

MR. TESTER.

MR. THUNE.

MR. TILLIS.

MR. TOMBY.

MR. UDALL.

MR. VAN HOLLEN.

MR. WARNER.

MS. WARREN.

MR. WHITEHOUSE.

MR. WICKER.

MR. WYDEN.

MR. YOUNG.

>> MR. YOUNG.

(INAUDIBLE).ÑiÑiÑiÑikKR?zÑiñxx3çóé) DOES ANY SENATOR IN THE CHAMBER WISH TO CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?

IF NO, THE AYES ARE 53, THE NEIGHS ARE 47.

THE AMENDMENT IS TABLED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

TIMIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO JOHN ROBERT BOLTON AND I ASK THAT IT BE READ.

>> THE CLERK WILLÑi REPORT.çóÑiçóçó SENATOR FROM NEW YORKÑiçóçó MR. SCHÑM RÑi PROPOSESÑiÑ SQ RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO HAVE THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY OF JOHN ROBERT BOLTON AND THE SERGEANT AT ARMS IS AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE IN SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BYÑi THIS SECTION.

>> THE AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED.

MR.

MANAGER SCHIFF, ARE YOU AçóÑiÑi ZrNPONENT?

>> (INAUDIBLE).

MR. CIPOLLONE, AN OPPONENT?çóÑiÑ'7ñrÑi (INAUDIBLE).

MR. SCHIFF, YOU MAYçó PROCEED.

YOU MAY RESERVEÑi TIMEçó FOR REBUTTAL.çóÑiçów?vWJw:÷JÑi[mk4&rçkóÑ=0U#;$egL"[4 >> BEFORE I BEGIN, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL BE RESERVING THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME TO RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TO SUBPOENA JOHN JOHN BOLTON.

I AM STRUCK BY WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SO FAR TONIGHT.

THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT PROCESS BUT THEY DO NOT SERIOUSLY CONTEST ANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THEY INSIST THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG, BUT THEY REFUSE TO ALLOW THE EVIDENCE AND HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES, THEY WILL NOT PERMIT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES, AND THEY LIE AND LIE AND LIE AND LIE.

FOR EXAMPLE, FOR MONTHS, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REPEATEDLY COMPLAINED THAT THE HOUSE DENIED HIM THE RIGHT TO QUOTE WITNESSES, TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND SO FORTH.

YOU HEARD MR. CIPOLLONE REPEAT THIS LIE TODAY.

WELL, I HAVE WITH ME THE LETTER I SENT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LAST NOVEMBER 26, INVITING THE PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNSEL TO ATTEND OUR HEARINGS, TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES, TO CALL WITNESSES OF HIS OWN, AND SO FORTH, AND HAD THE WHITE HOUSE LETTER SIGNED BY MR. CIPOLLONE REJECTING THAT OFFER.

WE SHOULD EXPECT AT LEAST A LITTLE REGARD FROM THE TRUTH FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, BUT THAT IS APPARENTLY TOO MUCH TO EXPECT.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS A TRIAL.

AT A TRIAL, THE LAWYERS PRESENT EVIDENCE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT.

MOST TEN-YEAR-OLDS KNOW THAT.

IF YOU VOTE TO BLOCK THIS WITNESS OR ANY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD BE PRESENTED HERE, IT CAN ONLY BE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE, THAT YOU DO NOT WANT A FAIR TRIAL, AND THAT YOU ARE COMPLICIT IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO HIDE HIS MISCONDUCT AND HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE HAS STATED HIS WILLINGNESS TO TESTIFY IN THIS TRIAL.

HE IS PREPARED TO TESTIFY.

HE SAYS THAT HE IS -- HAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE NOT YET DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.

HIS COMMENTS REAFFIRM WHAT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BYÑiÑ $ WHICH HIGH LIGHT AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S ROLE AND REPEATED CRITICISM OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.

IN FACT, EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE HOUSE MAKES CLEAR THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON NOT ONLY HAD FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE TO HAVE THE UKRAINE SCEENL -- OF THE UKRAINE SCHEME, BUT THAT HE WAS DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH IT.

HE DESCRIBED THE SCHEME AS A DRUG DEALÑi TO A SENIOR MEMBER OFçó HIS STAFF.

PERMÑi LAWYER RUDY GIULIANI WOULD "GLOW EVERYBODY UP.

"okçsw INDEED, IN ADVANCE TO HAVE THE JULY 25th, 2019 CALL, AMBASSADOR BOLTON EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD ASK THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT TO ANNOUNCE THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

THEN, OF COURSE, THERE WERE TO BE NOÑi INVESTIGATIONS.éúILL HE CARED ABOUTçó]IÑÑD STATES.

HE REPEATEDLY URGED HIS STAFF TO REPORT THEIR OWN CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TO LEGAL COUNSEL, THAT IS AMBASSADOR BOLTON DID, NOT THE PRESIDENT, AS THE SCHEME WAS UNFOLDING.

FINALLY, AS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, HE ALSO OBJECTED TO THE PRESIDENT'S FREEZING OF MILITARY AID FOR UKRAINE AND ADVOCATED FOR THE RELEASE OF THAT AID INCLUDING DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND, OF COURSE, AS WE ALL KNOW, THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT MAKES ILLEGAL THE PRESIDENT'S WITHHOLDING OF THAT AID AFTER CONGRESS HAD VOTED FOR IT, BUT THE PRESIDENT IGNORED THE WARNINGS ABOUT THAT BECAUSE ALL HE CARED ABOUT WAS SMEARING A POLITICAL RIVAL, THE LAW MEANT NOTHING TO HIM.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON MADE CHEER HE IS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO TO TESTIFY ABOUT EVERYTHING HE WITNESSED, BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT WANT YOU TO HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AND THE REASON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR THIS OTHER NONSENSE, AND THE REASON HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

IF THE PRESIDENT CARED ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BLOCKED MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO A VULNERABLE STRATEGIC ALLY IN AN ATTEMPT TO SECURE A PERSONAL POLITICAL FAVOR FOR HIMSELF.

NO, THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT YOU TO HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HEAR FIRSTHAND TESTIMONY ABOUT THE MISCONDUCT AT THE HEART OF THIS TRIAL.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SENATE WILL BE COMPLICIT IN THE PRESIDENT'S CRIMES BY COVERING THEM UP.

ANY SENATOR WHO VOTES AGAINST AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S TESTIMONY OR ANY RELEVANT TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT HE OR SHE WANTS TO BE PART OF THE COVERUP.

WHAT OTHER POSSIBLE REASON IS THERE TO PROHIBIT A RELEVANT WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING HERE?

UNFORTUNATELY, SO FAR, I'VE SEEN EVERY REPUBLICAN SENATOR HAS SHOWN THAT THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE COVERUP BY VOTING AGAINST EVERY DOCUMENT AND WITNESS PROPOSED.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS A FIRSTHAND WITNESS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER.

AS THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, HE REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT AND SUPERVISED THE ENTIRE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, THAT INCLUDED THREE KEY WITNESSES WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR UKRAINE MATTERS WHO TESTIFIED IN GREAT DETAIL BEFORE THE HOUSE.

DR. FIONA HILL, TIM MORRISON AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN.

MOREOVER, IN HIS ROLE, JOHN BOLTON WAS THE TIP OF THE SPEAR FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

IT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO OVERSEE EVERYTHING HAPPENING IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REGARDING FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY.

BY VIRTUE OF HIS UNIQUE POSITION, APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT, BOLTON HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE LATEST INTELLIGENCE AND DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE, INCLUDING OUR SUPPORT OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS NEW PRESIDENT, AND THAT IS WHY THE PRESIDENT AND SOME MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ARE AFRAID TO HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON BECAUSE THEY KNOW HE KNOWS TOO MUCH.

THERE IS ALSO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON KEPT A KEEN EYE ON RUDY GIULIANI WHO IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT IN CONNECTION WITH UKRAINE.

AS WE WILL DESCRIBE, AMBASSADOR BOLTON COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY WITH MR. GIULIANI AT KEY MOMENTS.

HE KNOWS THE DETAILS OF THE SO-CALLED DRUG DEAL HE WOULD LATER WARN AGAINST.

PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY, AMBASSADOR BOLTON SAID BOTH THAT HE WILL TESTIFY AND THAT HE HAS RELEVANT INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN DISCLOSED.

A KEY WITNESS HAS COME FORWARD AND CONFIRMED NOT ONLY THAT HE PARTICIPATED IN CRITICALLY IMPORTANT EVENTS BUT THAT HE HAS NEW EVIDENCE WE HAVE NOT YET HEARD.

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS DONE.

HIS LAWYER TELLS US THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS "PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN MANY OF THE EVENTS, MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHICH THE HOUSE HEARD TESTIMONY AS WELL AS MANY RELEVANT MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE TESTIMONY THUS FAR."

AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS REQUESTED AS A WITNESS IN THE HOUSE INQUIRY, BUT HE REFUSED TO APPEAR VOLUNTARILY.

HIS LAWYERS INFORMED THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WOULD TAKE THE MATTER TO COURT IF ISSUED SUBPOENAS AS HIS SUBORDINATE DID.

BUT THE AMBASSADOR CHANGED HIS TUNE.

HE RECENTLY ISSUED A STATEMENT CONFIRMING THAT "IF THE SENATE ISSUES A SUBPOENA FOR MY TESTIMONY, I AM PREPARED TO TESTIFY."

SO THE QUESTION PRESENTED AS TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS CLEAR, IT COMES DOWN TO THIS -- WILL THE SENATE DO ITS DUTY AND HEAR ALL THE EVIDENCE, OR WILL IT SLAM THIS DOOR SHUT AND SHOW IT IS PARTICIPATING IN A COVERUP BECAUSE IT FEARS TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL CHAIRMAN -- THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE IT FEARS WHAT HE MIGHT SAY, IT FEARS HE KNOWS TOO MUCH.

CONSIDER THIS AS WELL.

WHY IS PRESIDENT TRUMP SO INTENT ON PREVENTING US FROM HEARING AMBASSADOR BOLTON, HIS OWN APPOINTEE, HIS FORMERLY TRUSTED CONFIDANT?

BECAUSE HE KNOWS, HE KNOWS HIS GUILT, AND HE KNOWS THAT HE DOESN'T WANT PEOPLE WHO KNOW ABOUT IT TO TESTIFY.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS HERE TODAY WILL PARTICIPATE IN THAT COVERUP.

THE REASONS SEEM CLEAR.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTS TO BLOCK THIS WITNESS BECAUSE AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE UKRAINE SCHEME WHICH HE CALLED A DRUG DEAL.

LET'S START WITH A KEY MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE JULY 10th, JUST TWO WEEKS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NOW FAMOUS JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON HOSTED SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS IN HIS WEST WING OFFICE.

THAT MEETING INCLUDED DR. HILL, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, AMBASSADORS SONDLAND AND VOLCKER AND ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY.

AS THEY DID IN EVERY MEETING THEY TOOK WITH U.S. OFFICIALS, THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ASKED WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD SCHEDULE A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR THE NEWLY ELECTED UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, BECAUSE IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, THE NEW PRESIDENT OF AN EMBATTLED DEMOCRACY BEING INVADED BY RUSSIA TO SHOW THAT HE HAD LEGITIMACY BY MEETING WITH THE UNITED STATES.

DR. HILL TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BLURTED OUT THAT HE HAD A DEAL WITH MR. MULVANEY FOR A WHITE HOUSE VISIT, PROVIDED THAT UKRAINE FIRST ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVALS.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON IMMEDIATELY STIFFENED AND ENDED THE MEETING.

DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY IS ON THE SCREEN.

IN OTHER WORDS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND OTHERS AT THE MEETING, THEY WERE INTERESTED IN NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, THEY WERE INTERESTED IN PROTECTING AN AMERICAN ALLY AGAINST RUSSIAN INVASION.

THEY COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS SUDDEN ORDER WAS COMING FROM THE PRESIDENT TO ABANDON THAT ALLY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T YET KNOW, THEY DIDN'T YET KNOW OF THE PRESIDENT'S PLOT TO TRY TO EXTORT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT INTO DOING HIM A POLITICAL FAVOR BY ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION OF A POLITICAL RIVAL.

WHEN DR. HILL REPORTED BACK TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THE SECOND CONVERSATION, AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD DR. HILL TO GO TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY'S LEGAL ADVISOR JOHN ISENBERG AND TELL HIM, "I AM NOT PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE COOKING UP ON THIS."

HERE'S AN EXCERPT OF HER HEARING TESTIMONY.

>> THE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION WAS THAT I HAD TO GO TO THE LAWYERS, TO JOHN ISENBERG, SENIOR COUNCIL FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL TO BASICALLY SAY YOU TELL ISENBERG, AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD ME, THAT I AM NOT PART OF THIS WHATEVER DRUG DEAL THAT MULVANEY AND SONDLAND ARE COOKING UP.

>> AND WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN BY THE DRUG DEAL THAT MULVANEY AND SONDLAND WERE COOKING UP?

>> I TOOK IT TO MEAN INVESTIGATIONS FOR A MEETING.

>> DID YOU GO SPEAK TO THE LAWYERS?

>> I CERTAINLY DID.

THESE STATEMENTS AND EVENTS ARE REASON ENOUGH TO INSIST THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON TESTIFY.

HE CAN EXPLAIN THE MISCONDUCT THAT CAUSED HIM TO CHARACTERIZE THE UKRAINE DEAL -- THE UKRAINE SCHEME AS A DRUG DEAL AND WHY HE DIRECTED HIS SUBORDINATES TO REPORT THEIR CONCERNS TO LEGAL COUNSEL.

HE CAN TELL US EVERYTHING ELSE HE KNOWS ABOUT HOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, MR. MULVANEY, AND OTHERS, WERE ATTEMPTING TO PRESS THE UKRAINIANS TO DO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL BIDDING.

ONCE MORE, ONLY AMBASSADOR BOLTON CAN TELL US WHAT HE WAS THINKING AND WHAT HE KNEW AS THE SCHEME DEVELOPED.

THAT IS WHY THE PRESIDENT FEARS HIS TESTIMONY.

THAT IS WHY SOME MEMBERS OF THIS BODY FEAR HIS TESTIMONY.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S INVOLVEMENT WAS NOT LIMITED TO A FEW ISOLATED EVENTS.

HE WAS A WITNESS AT KEY MOMENTS IN THE COURSE OF THE UKRAINE SCHEME, AND ESPECIALLY IN JULY, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

I WOULD LIKE TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE EVENTS.

PLEASE REMEMBER AS I'M DESCRIBING THEM THAT THIS IS NOT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE OF ISSUES TO WHICH AMBASSADOR BOLTON COULD TESTIFY.

ONLY EXAMPLES THAT SHOW WHY HE IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT WITNESS AND WHY THE PRESIDENT IS DESPERATE TO BLOCK HIS TESTIMONY.

WE KNOW FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S ATTORNEY THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET COME TO OUR ATTENTION, BUT TO TAKE ONE EXAMPLE, WE KNOW FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL LAWYER MR. GIULIANI.

IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 2019, AMBASSADOR BOLTON CAUGHT WIND OF MR. GIULIANI'S INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINE AND SOON BEGAN TO EXPRESS CONCERNS.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON EXPRESSED STRONG CONCERNS ABOUT MR. GIULIANI'S INVOLVEMENT IN UKRAINE MATTERS.

WHEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON DESCRIBED MR. GIULIANI AS "A HAND GRENADE THAT WAS GOING TO BLOW EVERYBODY UP," IT WAS BASED ON HIS FEAR THAT MR. GIULIANI'S WORK ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT, HIS ATTEMPTS TO HAVE UKRAINE ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS -- THESE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS AND HIS CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WOULD ULTIMATELY BACKFIRE AND CAUSE LASTING DAMAGE TO THE PRESIDENT.

IT TURNS OUT, HE WAS RIGHT.

>> DID YOUR BOSS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON, TELL YOU THAT GIULIANI WAS "A HAND GRENADE"?

>> HE DID, YES.

>> Reporter: WHAT DO YOU THINK HE MEANT BY HIS CHARACTERIZATION OF GIULIANI AS A HAND GRENADE?

>> WHAT HE MEANT WAS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME IN THE CONTEXT OF ALL THE STATEMENTS MR. GIULIANI WAS MAKING PUBLICLY ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS HE WAS PROMOTING, THE STORY LINE HE WAS PROMOTING, THE NARRATIVE HE WAS PROMOTING WAS GOING TO BACKFIRE.

I THINK IT HAS BACKFIRED.

>> IN JUNE, AS AMBASSADOR BOLTON BECAME AWARE OF MR. GIULIANI'S COORDINATION WITH AMBASSADORS VOLCKER AND SONDLAND, HE TOLD DR. HILL AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF THAT "NOBODY SHOULD BE MEETING WITH GIULIANI."

BUT HE, OF COURSE, DID NOT KNOW OF THE PLOT AS TO WHY PEOPLE WERE MEETING WITH JIEWJ, THE PRESIDENT -- GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S PLOT.

DR. HILL ALSO TESTIFIED AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS "CLOSELY MONITORING WHAT GIULIANI WAS DOING AND THE MESSAGING HE WAS SENDING OUT."

BUT BOLTON WAS KEENLY AWARE THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS DOING THE PRESIDENT'S BIDDING.

THAT IS ALSO WHY THE PRESIDENT FEARS HIS TESTIMONY.

DURING A MEETING ON JUNE 13th, 2019, AMBASSADOR BOLTON MADE CLEAR THAT HE SUPPORTED MORE ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINE BY SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, BUT QUESTIONS THAT QUOTE MR. GIULIANI WAS A KEY VOICE WITH THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE, CLOSE QUOTE.

HE JOKED EVERY TIME UKRAINE IS MENTIONED GIULIANI POPS UP.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY WITH MR. GIULIANI AT KEY JUNCTURES.

ACCORDING TO CORE RECORDS OBTAINED BY THE HOUSE, MR. GIULIANI CONNECTED WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE THREE TIMES FOR BRIEF CALLS BETWEEN APRIL 23 AND MAY 10, 2019.

A TIME PERIOD THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THE RECALL OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AN ACCELERATION OF MR. GIULIANI'S EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PRESSURE UKRAINE INTO OPENING INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

FOR INSTANCE, ON APRIL 23rd, THE DAY BEFORE THE STATE DEPARTMENT RECALLED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FROM YIEWRKS MR. GIULIANI ADD AN 8 MINUTE 20 SECOND CALL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

30 MINUTES LATER HE HAD A 48 SECOND CALL WITH A PHONE NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH AMBASSADOR BOBILITY.

IF CALLED TO TESTIFY, WE CAN ASK AMBASSADOR BOLTON DIRECTLY WHAT TRANSPIRED IN THAT CALL AND WHETHER THAT PHONE CALL INFORMED HIS ASSESSMENT THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS "A HAND GRENADE THAT WAS GOING TO BLOW EVERYONE UP," AND WE CAN ASK MR. BOLTON WHY, WHEN THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILLION COMPANIES IN UKRAINE, SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF CORRUPTION, THE PRESIDENT WAS FOCUSED ON ONLY ONE.

HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.

HE CARED ONLY ABOUT THE COMPANY ON WHICH THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT'S SON HAD BEEN A BOARD MEMBER.

CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT HE WAS CONCERNED WITH CORRUPTION AND ONLY KNEW ABOUT ONE COMPANY?

WHEN THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS THAT WERE ACCUSED OF CORRUPTION?

NOW, ALTHOUGH AMBASSADOR BOLTON DID NOT LISTEN IN ON THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IN WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT A FAVOR, A FAVOR TO INVESTIGATE ONE COMPANY AND JOE BIDEN'S SON, WE HAVE LEARNED FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS OPPOSED TO SCHEDULING THE CALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WHY?

BECAUSE HE ACCURATELY PREDICTED IN THE WORDS OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT "THERE COULD BE SOME TALK OF INVESTIGATIONS OR WORSE ON THE CALL.

".

IN FACT, HE DID NOT WANT THE CALL TO HAPPEN AT ALL BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A "DISASTER."

HOW DID PRESIDENT TRUMP NO KNOW BOTTOM WOULD BRING THIS UP?

WHAT MADE HIM CONCERNED THE CALL WOULD BE A DISASTER?

I THINK WE KNOW BUT ONLY AMBASSADOR BOLTON CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

WE ALSO KNOW, BASED ON EXTENSIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT, THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD, MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTED CONCERNS TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT TYING FOREIGN POLICY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND AS DR. HILL SO APTLY PUT IT.

AFTER HE ENDED THE JULY 10 MEETING, THE MEETING WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S SON TOLD THE UKRAINES A WHITE HOUSE MEETING COULD BE SCHEDULED FOR WHITE HOUSE INVESTIGATIONS, AMBASSADOR BOLTON SPOKE TO DR. HILL AND DIRECTED HER TO REPORT HER CONCERNS TO NATIONAL SECURITY'S LEGAL ADVISOR JOHN ISENBERG.

AT THE END OF AUGUST, AMBASSADOR BOLTON ADVISED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO SEND A FIRST-PERSON CABLE TO SECRETARY POMPEO TO RELAY CONCERNS ABOUT THE HOLD ON THE MILITARY AID.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON ALSO ADVISED MR. MORRISON, DR. HILL'S SUCCESSOR AS THE TOP UKRAINE AND RUSSIA OFFICIAL ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ON AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS TO REPORT WHAT HE HEARD TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S LAWYERS.

IT'S SOUNDING SO SUSPICIOUS.

ON SEPTEMBER 1, AMBASSADOR BOLTON DIRECTED MR. MORRISON TO REPORT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S LAWYERS, AN EXPLICIT IT PROPOSAL FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO A SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL THAT "WHAT COULD HELP THEM MOVE THE AID WAS IF THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WOULD GO TO THE MIC AND ANNOUNCE THAT HE WAS OPENING THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION."

ON SEPTEMBER 7, AMBASSADOR BOLTON INSTRUCTED MR. MORRISON TO REPORT TO THE LAWYERS ANOTHER CONVERSATION MR. MORRISON HAD WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

THIS TIME, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD CONVEYED THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT RELEASE THE MILITARY AID UNLESS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS DEMANDED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE INVESTIGATIONS OF ONE COMPANY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, ONE COMPANY THAT HAD HAD VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON ON THE BOARD AND THE PRESIDENT JUST HAPPENED TO PICK THAT COMPANY FROM HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION, AND THE PRESIDENT ALSO OPPOSED FUNDING FOR CORRUPTION IN AID TO UKRAINE.

WHY DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON TELL HS SUBORDINATES TO REPORT THESE ISSUES TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYERS?

WHAT DOES HE KNOW ABOUT HOW THE LAWYERS RESPONDED TO THE CONCERNS OF DR. HILL OR OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MR. MORRISON?

AGAIN, ONLY AMBASSADOR BOLTON CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, AND WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE ANSWERS GO TO THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT, GIVEN THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO BLOCK HIS TESTIMONY.

WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT OPPOSED THE TESTIMONY -- WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT OPPOSE THE TESTIMONY OF HIS OWN APPOINTEE AS THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ADVISOR -- NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR OF THE UNITED STATES, UNLESS HE KNEW THAT THAT TESTIMONY WOULD BE DAMNING TO HIM?

AND THOSE ARE OTHER REASONS THE PRESIDENT FEARS AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S TESTIMONY.

I'D LIKE TO TURN NOW TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S KNOWLEDGE OF AND CONCERNS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ILLEGAL WITHHOLDING OF THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

AND WE ALL KNOW, OF COURSE, THAT UNDER THE ANTI-IMPOUNDMENT ACT OF 1974, PASSED TO PREVENT PRESIDENT NIXON FROM REFUSING TO SPEND MONEY APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS, WITHHOLDING MONEY APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS IS ILLEGAL, NONETHELESS, THE PRESIDENT DID IT FOR OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT MOTIVES.

BY JULY OF LAST YEAR, AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS WELL AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ILLEGALLY WITHHOLDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, AND HE AND HIS SUBORDINATES TRIED TO CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT TO PURSUE AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST AND RELEASE THE AID, INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO WITHHOLD VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT -- INSTEAD OF HOLDING THAT VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE HOSTAGE TO THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA.

THROUGHOUT THE REST OF JULY, OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL INTER-AGENCY MEETINGS, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL REPEATEDLY DISCUSSED THE FREEZE ON UKRAINE'S SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

AS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, AMBASSADOR BOLTON SUPERVISED THAT PROCESS.

THESE MEETINGS WORKED THEIR WAY UP TO THE LEVEL OF CABINET DEPUTIES, AND EVERY AGENCY INVOLVED, EXCEPT FOR THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, SUPPORTED RELEASING THE AID.

OMB, MEANWHILE, SAID ITS POSITION WAS BASED ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EXPRESS ORDERS.

WE KNOW THAT A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL AT OMB AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RAISED SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF FREEZING THE FUNDS, WHICH WE KNOW IS ILLEGAL.

AND WE NOW HAVE AN EXPLICIT RULE FROM THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WHICH WE DIDN'T NEED BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT'S WHY THE LAW WAS PASSED IN 1974, THAT THE FREEZE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ILLEGAL AND HE WAS OBVIOUSLY TOLD THIS AND VIOLATED THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.

WE KNOW AFTER THE MEETING OF CABINET DEPUTIES ON JULY 26, TIM MORE MORRISON TALKED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND, ACCORDING TO MR. MORRISON, AMBASSADOR BOLTON SAID THAT THE ENTIRE CABINET SUPPORTED RELEASING THE FREEZE AND WANTED TO GET THE ISSUE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

WHEN DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON FIRST BECOME AWARE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AND CONDITIONING THE RELEASE OF THAT AID ON UKRAINE ANNOUNCING POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS?

WHY WAS HE TOLD WAS THE REASON?

WHAT ELSE DID HE LEARN ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN THESE MEETINGS?

AGAIN, ONLY AMBASSADOR BOLTON CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, AND, AGAIN, YOU MUST PRESUME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DESPERATE FOR US NOT TO HEAR THOSE ANSWERS.

I HOPE NOT TOO MANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ARE DESPERATE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T HEAR THE SAME ANSWERS.

WE KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON TRIED WITHOUT SUCCESS THROUGHOUT AUGUST TO PERSUADE THE PRESIDENT THAT THE AID TO UKRAINE HAD TO BE RELEASED BECAUSE THAT WAS IN AMERICA'S BEST INTERESTS AND NECESSARY FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

IN MID AUGUST, WE KNOW LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WROTE A PRESIDENTIAL DECISION MEMORANDUM RECOMMENDING THE FREEZE BE LIFTED BASED ON THE CONSENSUS VIEWS TO HAVE THE ENTIRE CABINET.

THE MEMO WAS GIVEN TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON, WHO SUBSEQUENTLY HAD A DIRECT ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT, IN WHICH HE TRIED BUT FAILED TO CONVINCE HIM TO RELEASE THE HOLD.

>> HE SAID AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN LATE AUGUST 2019, BUT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT YET READY TO APPROVE THE RELEASE OF THE ASSISTANCE.

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

>> SIR, THIS THIS IS 226.

YES, 266 AND 268.

I'M ASKING YOU.

DID THAT HAPPEN OR DID IT NOT?

>> SIR, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR IN CHARACTERIZING IT.

OKAY, YEARS, I SEE.

YOU TESTIFIED TO THAT.

>> WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THAT MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> AMBASSADOR BOLTON DID NOT YET BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS READY TO APPROVE THE ASSISTANCE.

>> DID AMBASSADOR BOLTON INFORM YOU OF ANY REASON OF THE ONGOING HOLD THAT STEMMED FROM THIS MEETING?

>> NO, SIR.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S EFFORTS FAILED.

BY AUGUST 30th, OMB INFORMED DoD THAT THERE WAS "CLEAR DIRECTION FROM POTUS TO CONTINUE TO HOLD."

WHAT RATIONALE DID PRESIDENT TRUMP GIVE ARMED BOLTON AND OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS FOR REFUSING TO RELEASE THE AID?

WERE THESE REASONS CONVINCING TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND DID THEY REFLECT THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY OR THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS?

ONLY AMBASSADOR BOLTON CAN TELL US THE ANSWERS.

A FAIR TRIAL IN THIS BODY WOULD ENSURE THAT HE TESTIFIES.

THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT YOU TO HEAR AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S TESTIMONY.

WHY IS THAT?

FOR ALL THE OBVIOUS REASONS I'VE STATED.

THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS THAT HE THROWS AID TO UKRAINE IN THE INTEREST OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

IF THAT IS TRUE, WHY WOULD HE OPPOSE TESTIMONY FROM HIS OWN FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.

AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO LEGAL GROUNDS TO BLOCK AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S TESTIMONY IN THIS TRIAL.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS NOT A SPELL THE PRESIDENT CAN CAST TO COVER UP EVIDENCE OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.

IT IS A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE THAT PROTECTS SENIOR ADVISORS PERFORMING OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS A SHIELD, NOT A SWORD.

IT CANNOT BE USED TO BLOCK A WITNESS WHO IS WILLING TO TESTIFY, AS AMBASSADOR BOLTON SAYS HE IS.

AND AS WE KNOW, FROM THE NIXON CASE IN WATERGATE, THE PRIVILEGE ALSO DOES NOT PREVENT US FROM OBTAINING SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING.

THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED PRESIDENT NIXON'S ATTEMPT TO USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO CONCEAL INCRIMINATING TAPE RECORDINGS.

ALL THE SIMILAR EFFORTS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST ALSO FAIL.

THE PRESIDENT SOMETIMES RELIES ON THE THEORY OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY THAT SAYS THAT HE CAN ORDER ANYBODY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE OR TO A COURT.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS RIDICULOUS, IT'S BEEN FLATLY REJECTED BY EVERY FEDERAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE IDEA.

IT'S EMBARRASSING THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSELORS WOULD TALK ABOUT THIS TODAY.

AGAIN, EVEN IF PRESIDENT TRUMP ASSERTS AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM COMPELLED TESTIMONY, THE PRESIDENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO BLOCK AMBASSADOR BOLTON FROM APPEARING HERE.

AS ONE COURT RECENTLY EXPLAINED, PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS AND THEY DO NOT HAVE SUBJECTS WHOSE DESTINY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CONTROL.

THIS BODY SHOULD NOT ACT AS IF THE PRESIDENT IS A KING.

WE WILL SEE WITH THE NEXT VOTE ON THIS QUESTION WHETHER THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY WANT TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT AGAINST ALL INVESTIGATION, AGAINST ALL SUSPICION, AGAINST ANY CRIMES OR NOT.

THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WERE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER WHERE IT AFFECTS NATIONAL SECURITY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN IMPEACHED FOR PLACING HIS POLITICAL INTERESTS AHEAD OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

IT IS IMPERATIVE, THEREFORE, THAT WE HEAR FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR WHO WITNESSED THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME FROM START TO FINISH.

TO BE CLEAR, THE RECORD AS IT STANDS FULLY SUPPORTS BOTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

IT IS BEYOND ARGUMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MOUNTED A SUSTAINED PRESSURE CAMPAIGN TO GET UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIM POLITICALLY AND THEN TRY TO COVER IT UP.

THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT SERIOUSLY DENY ANY OF THESE FACTS.

THE ONLY QUESTION LEFT IS THIS -- WHY IS THE PRESIDENT SO INTENT ON CONCEALING THE EVIDENCE AND BLOCKING ALL DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY HERE TODAY?

ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE TRY TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE.

OF COURSE, ALL OF THIS IS RELEVANT ONLY IF THIS HERE TODAY IS A FAIR TRIAL.

ONLY IF YOU THE SENATE SITTING AS AN IMPARTIALITY JURY DO NOT WORK WITH THE ACCUSED TO CONCEAL THE EVIDENCE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WE CANNOT BE SURPRISED THAT THE PRESIDENT OBJECTS TO CALLING WITNESSES WHO WOULD PROVE HIS GUILT.

THAT IS WHO HE IS.

HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE EVIDENCE OR HEAR TESTIMONY THAT DETAILS HOW HE BETRAYED HIS OFFICE AND ASKED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTION.

BUT WE SHOULD BE SURPRISED THAT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE THE GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY IN THE WORLD WHERE WE ARE EXPECTED TO PUT OUR OATH OF OFFICE AHEAD OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY, WHERE WE ARE EXPECTED TO BE HONEST, WHERE WE ARE EXPECTED TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE SHOULD BE SURPRISED, SHOCKED THAT ANY SENATOR WOULD VOTE TO BLOCK THIS WITNESS OR ANY RELEVANT WITNESS WHO MIGHT SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THE PRESIDENT'S OBVIOUS MISCONDUCT.

THE PRESIDENT IS ON TRIAL IN THE SENATE, BUT THE SENATE IS ON TRIAL IN THE EYES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WILL YOU VOTE TO ALLOW ALL OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED HERE?

OR WILL YOU BETRAIR YOUR PLEDGE TO BE AN IMPARTIALITY JUROR?

WILL YOU BRING AMBASSADOR BOLTON HERE?

WILL YOU INSTEAD CHOOSE TO BE COMPLICIT IN THE PRESIDENT'S COVERUP?

SO FAR, I'M SAD TO SAY, I SEE A LOT OF SENATORS VOTING FOR A COVERUP, VOTING TO DENY WITNESSES, AND ABSOLUTELY INDEFENSIBLE VOTE, OBVIOUSLY A TREACHEROUS VOTE, A VOTE AGAINST AN HONEST CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, A VOTE AGAINST AN HONEST TRIAL, A VOTE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

A REAL TRIAL, WE KNOW, HAS WITNESSES.

WE URGE YOU TO DO YOU YOUR DUTY, TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL.

ALL WITNESSES ARE TO BE ADMITTED.

THAT'S AMERICAN JUSTICE.

EITHER YOU WANT THE TRUTH AND YOU MUST PERMIT THE WITNESSES, OR YOU WANT A SHAMEFUL COVERUP.

HISTORY WILL JUDGE AND SO WILL THE ELECTORATE.

>> MR. CIPOLLONE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MMBERS OF THE SENATE.

WE CAME HERE TODAY TO ADDRESS THE FALSE CASE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS -- SORRY.

WE HAVE BEEN RESPECTFUL OF THE SENATE.

WE'VE MADE OUR ARGUMENTS TO YOU, AND YOU DON'T DESERVE AND WE DON'T DESERVE WHAT JUST HAPPENED.

MR. NADLER CAME UP HERE AND MADE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST OUR TEAM, HE MADE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ALL OF YOU.

HE ACCUSED YOU OF A COVERUP.

HE'S BEEN MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THE ONLY ONE WHO SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED, MR. NADLER, IS YOU, FOR THE WAY YOU'VE ADDRESSED THIS BODY.

THIS IS THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

YOU'RE NOT IN CHARGE HERE.

NOW, LET ME ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF MR. BOLTON.

I'VE ADDRESSED IT BEFORE.

THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT THEY DIDN'T BOTHER TO CALL MR. BOLTON THEMSELVES.

THEY DIDN'T SUBPOENA HIM.

MR. COOPER WROTE THEM A LETTER.

HE SAID VERY CLEARLY, IF THE HOUSE CHOOSES NOTT TO PURSUE THROUGH SUBPOENA THE TESTIMONY OF DR. KUPERMAN AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON, LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR, THAT IS THE HOUSE'S DECISION.

AND THEY DIDN'T PURSUE AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AND THEY WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA TO MR. KUPERMAN.

SO, FOR THEM TO COME HERE, NOW, AND DEMAND THAT, BEFORE WE EVEN START THE ARGUMENTS, THAT THEY ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY REFUSE TO DO FOR THEMSELVES AND THEN ACCUSE YOU OF A COVERUP WHEN YOU DON'T DO IT, IT'S RIDICULOUS.

TALK ABOUT OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT.

NOW, LET ME READ YOU A QUOTE.

FROM MR. NADLER, NOT SO LONG AGO.

THE EFFECT OF IMPEACHMENT IS TO OVERTURN THE POPULAR WILL OF THE VOTERS.

THERE MUST NEVER BE A NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT OR AN IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF OUR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.

SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WOULD PRODUCE DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS IN OUR POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME AND WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.

WELL, YOU'VE JUST SEEN IT FOR YOURSELF.

WHAT HAPPENED, MR. NADLER?

WHAT HAPPENED?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PAY THEIR SALARIES, AND THEY'RE HERE TO TAKE AWAY THEIR VOTE.

THEY ARE HERE TO TAKE AWAY THEIR VOICE.

THEY'VE COME HERE AND THEY'VE ATTACKED EVERY INSTITUTION OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

THEY HAVE ATTACKED THE PRESIDENT, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THEY HAVE ATTACKED THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.

THEY SAY THEY DON'T HAVE TIME FOR COURTS.

THEY HAVE ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES SENATE REPEATEDLY.

IT'S ABOUT TIME WE BRING THIS POWER TRIP IN FOR A LANDING.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A MAN OF HIS WORD.

HE MADE PROMISES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND HE DELIVERED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

AND THEY COME HERE AND SAY, WITH NO EVIDENCE, SPENDING THE DAY COMPLAINING THAT THEY CAN'T MAKE THEIR CASE, ATTACKING A RESOLUTION THAT HAD 100% SUPPORT IN THIS BODY, AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE HERE SUPPORTED IT AT THE TIME.

IT'S A FARCE.

AND IT SHOULD END.

MR. NADLER, YOU OWE AN APOLOGY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HIS FAMILY.

YOU OWE AN APOLOGY TO THE SENATE.

BUT MOST OF ALL, YOU OWE AN APOLOGY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. SEKULOW.

>> MR. SEKULOW.

CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

CHAIRMAN NADLER TALKED ABOUT TREACHEROUS.

AT ABOUT 12:10 A.M., JANUARY 22nd, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AT THIS BODY, ON THE FLOOR OF THIS SENATE, SAID EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE.

NOW, THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE.

MR. NADLER, IT IS NOT NONSENSE.

THESE ARE PRIVILEGES RECOGNIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO SHRED THE CONSTITUTION ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, TO SERVE WHAT PURPOSE?

THE SENATE IS NOT ON TRIAL.

THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T ALLOW WHAT JUST TOOK PLACE.

LOOK WHAT WE'VE DEALT WITH FOR THE LAST, NOW, 13 HOURS, AND WE HOPEFULLY ARE CLOSING THE PROCEEDINGS BUT NOT ON A VERY HIGH NOTE.

ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE TRY TO HIDE EVIDENCE, SO I GUESS WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA INSTRUCTED HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO NOT GIVE INFORMATION, HE WAS GUILTY OF A CRIME.

THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS, MR. NADLER?

IS THAT THE WAY YOU VIEW THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT'S INTERPRETED, AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE.

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT'S TREACHEROUS.

COME TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND SAY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE.

WE YIELD THE REST OF OUR TIME.

> THE MANAGERS HAVE 27 MINUTES REMAINING.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS NO STANDING TO TALK ABOUT LYING.

HE TOLD THIS BODY TODAY, THE PRESIDENT TOLD THIS BODY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REPEATEDLY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REFUSED TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT DUE PROCESS.

I TOLD YOU, AND IT'S AVAILABLE, PUBLIC DOCUMENT, NOVEMBER 26 LETTER FROM CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO THE PRESIDENT OFFERING HIM DUE PROCESS, OFFERING WITNESSES, OFFERING CROSS-EXAMINATIONS.

A FEW DAYS LATER, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MR. CIPOLLONE ON WHITE HOUSE STATIONARY THAT SAID, NO, WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN APPEARING.

SO, ON THE ONE HAND, THEY ARE LYING BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS CONDEMNED BY THE PRESIDENT FOR NOT GIVING HIM DUE PROCESS AFTER THEY REJECTED THE OFFER OF DUE PROCESS.

THAT LETTER REJECTING IT WAS DECEMBER 1.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAYS THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE ISSUED SUBPOENAS.

WE DID ISSUE SUBPOENAS.

THE PRESIDENT, YOU MAY RECALL -- YOU SHOULD RECALL -- SAID HE WOULD OPPOSE ALL SUBPOENAS, AND HE DID.

SO MANY OF THOSE SUBPOENAS ARE STILL BEING FOUGHT IN COURT, SUBPOENAS ISSUED LAST APRIL.

SO THAT'S ALSO UNTRUE.

AND IT'S A HE CAN OF A NERVE -- AND IT'S A HECK OF A NERVE TO CRITICIZE THE HOUSE FOR NOT ISSUING SUBPOENAS WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD OPPOSE ALL SUBPOENAS AND ISSUED A LOT OF SUBPOENAS AND HE OPPOSES ALL OF THEM AND THEY'RE TIED UP IN COURT.

THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS, AND MOST MEMBERS OF THIS BODY KNOW BETTER, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, WHICH IS A LIMITED PRIVILEGE WHICH EXISTS BUT NOT AS A SHIELD AGAINST WRONGDOING, AS THE SUPREME COURT SPECIFICALLY SAID IN THE NIXON CASE IN 1973 -- '74.

THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

MR. CIPOLLONE WROTE SOME OF THOSE LETTERS NOT ONLY SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT BUT THAT NOBODY THAT HE DOESN'T WANT SHOULD TESTIFY, AND THEN THEY HAVE THE NERVE, AND THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO HAVE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE AND OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS REPRESENTED THROUGH THEM.

IT'S AN ASSERTION OF A KINGLY PREROGATIVE, A MONARCHAL PREROGATIVE.

ONLY THE PRESIDENT -- ONLY THE PRESIDENT HAS RIGHTS AND THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED IN CONGRESS CANNOT GET INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AT ALL.

THIS BODY HAS COMMITTEES.

IT IS A 200-YEAR RECORD OF ISSUING SUBPOENAS, OF HAVING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DAY TESTIFY, OF SOMETIMES HAVING SUBPOENA FIGHTS, BUT NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO STONEWALL CONGRESS ON EVERYTHING, PERIOD.

CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO GET INFORMATION, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO GET INFORMATION.

THAT, IN FACT, IS ARTICLE 2 OF THE IMPEACHMENT THAT WE HAVE VOTED.

IT IS BEYOND BELIEF THAT THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS MONARCHAL POWERS.

I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT UNDER ARTICLE 2, AND ACTS ON THAT.

DEFIES EVERYTHING.

DEFIES THE LAW TO WITHHOLD AID FROM UKRAINE, DEFIES THE LAW IN A DOZEN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS ALL THE TIME, AND LIES ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME, AND SAYS TO MR. CIPOLLONE HERE TO LIE ABOUT IT.

THESE FACTS ARE UNDENIABLE, UNDENIABLE.

I RESERVE.

>> MR. CIPOLLONE ONCE AGAIN COMPLAINED THAT WE DID NOT REQUEST JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY, BUT, OF COURSE, WE DID.

WE DID REQUEST HIS TESTIMONY, AND HE WAS A NO-SHOW.

WHEN WE TALKED TO HIS COUNSEL ABOUT SUBPOENAING HIS TESTIMONY, THE ANSWER WAS, YOU GIVE US A SUBPOENA, AND WE WILL SUE YOU AND, INDEED, THAT'S WHAT MR. BOLTON'S ATTORNEY DID WITH THE SUBPOENA FOR DR. KUPERMAN.

SO THERE WAS NO WILLINGNESS BY MR. BOLTON TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE.

HE SAID HE WOULD SUE US.

NOW, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH HIS SUING US?

WELL, THEIR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UNDER BILL BARR IS IN COURT ARGUING ACTUALLY IN THAT VERY CASE INVOLVING DR. KUPERMAN THAT THEY CAN'T SUE -- DR. KUPERMAN CAN'T SUE THE ADMINISTRATION ANT THE CONGRESS.

THAT'S THE SAME POSITION CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION IS TAKING, APPARENTLY NOT THE SAME POSITION THESE LAWYERS ARE TAKING.

BUT HERE'S THE BIGGER PROBLEM WITH THAT, WE SUBPOENAED DON MCGHAN AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER.

YOU SHOULD KNOW WE SUBPOENAED DON MCGHAN IN APRIL 2019.

IT'S JANUARY OF 2020.

WE STILL DON'T HAVE A DECISION FROM A -- A FINAL DECISION FROM THE COURT REQUIRING HIM TO TESTIFY.

IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, IT WILL BE ONE YEAR SINCE WE ISSUED AT THE SUBPOENA.

NOW, THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE NOTHING MORE THAN FOR US TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ONE YEAR OR TWO YEAR OR THREE YEARS OF LITIGATION TO GET ANY WITNESS TO COME BEFORE THE HOUSE.

THE PROBLEM IS THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO CHEAT IN THIS ELECTION.

WE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF WAITING ONE YEAR OR TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS, WHEN THE VERY OBJECT OVER THE SCHEME WAS TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION, IT'S NOT LIKE THAT THREAT'S GONE AWAY.

JUST LAST MONTH, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WAS IN UKRAINE, STILL TRYING TO SMEAR HIS OPPONENT, STILL TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION.

THE PRESIDENT SAID EVEN WHILE THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION WAS GOING ON, WHEN HE WAS ASKED WHAT DID YOU WANT IN THAT CALL WITH ZELENSKY?

AND HIS ANSWER WAS, WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE HONEST ABOUT IT, ZELENSKY SHOULD DO THAT INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.

HE HASN'T STOPPED ASKING THEM TO INTERFERE.

YOU THINK THE UKRAINIANS HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT WHAT HE WANTS?

ONE TO HAVE THE WITNESSES, DAVID HOLMES, TESTIFIED ABOUT THE PRESSURE THAT UKRAINE FEELS, AND HE MADE A VERY IMPORTANT POINT, IT ISN'T OVER.

IT'S NOT LIKE THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

THIS EFFORT TO PRESSURE UKRAINE GOES ON TO THIS DAY.

WITH THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER CONTINUING THE SCHEME AS WE SPEAK, WITH THE PRESIDENT INVITING EVEN OTHER NATIONS TO ALSO INVOLVE THEMSELVES IN OUR ELECTION.

CHINA, HE WANTS, NOW, TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.

THIS IS NO INTANGIBLE THREAT TO OUR ELECTIONS.

WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, IT'S BEEN REPORTED AT THE THE RUSSIANS HAVE TRIED TO HACK BURISMA.

WELL WHY DO YOU THINK THEY'RE HACKING BURISMA?

BECAUSE, AS CHAIRMAN NADLER SAYS, EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE INTERESTED -- THERE'S ONE COMPANY OUT OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF UKRAINIAN COMPANIES, IT'S A COINCIDENCE THAT THE SAME COMPANY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TRYING TO SMEAR JOE BIDEN OVER HAPPENS TO BE THE COMPANY THE RUSSIANS ARE HACKING.

NOW, WHY WOULD THE RUSSIANS DO THAT?

WELL, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE LAST ELECTION, THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE D.N.C., AND THEY STARTED TO LEAK CAMPAIGN DOCUMENTS IN A DRIP, DRIP, DRIP, AND THE PRESIDENT WAS ONLY TOO HAPPY.

OVER 100 TIMES IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS TO HAVE THE CAMPAIGN TO CITE THE RUSSIAN DOCUMENTS AND THE RUSSIANS ARE AT IT AGAIN.

THIS IS NO THREAT TO THE INDEPENDENCES OF OUR ELECTIONS.

THE RUSSIANS ARE AT IT AS WE SPEAK AND DOES THE PRESIDENT SAY BACK OFF, RUSSIA, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR HELP?

I DON'T WANT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE?

NO, HE'S SAYING, COME ON IN, CHINA.

AND HE'S GOT HIS GUY IN UKRAINE CONTINUING THE SCHEME.

WE CAN'T WAIT A YEAR OR TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS LIKE WE'VE HAD TO WAIT WITH DON MCGHAN TO GET JOHN BOLTON IN TO TESTIFY TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS THREAT IS ONGOING.

COUNSELOR ALSO SAYS, WELL, THIS IS JUST LIKE OBAMA, RIGHT, THIS IS JUST LIKE OBAMA, CITING THE FAST AND FURIOUS CASE, THEY DON'T MENTION THAT, IN THAT INVESTIGATION, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TURNED OVER TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS.

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THAT.

THEY SAY IT'S JUST LIKE OBAMA.

WELL, WHEN YOU FIND VIDEO OF BARACK OBAMA SAYING UNDER ARTICLE 2 HE CAN DO ANYTHING, THEN YOU CAN COMPARE BARACK OBAMA TO DONALD TRUMP.

WHEN YOU FIND VIDEO OF BARACK OBAMA SAYING I'M GOING TO FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS, YOU CAN COMPARE BARACK OBAMA TO DONALD TRUMP.

AND FINALLY, MR. CIPOLLONE SAYS, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A MAN OF HIS WORD.

WELL, IT'S TOO LATE IN THE EVENING FOR ME TO GO INTO THAT ONE, EXCEPT TO SAY THIS -- PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE HIS WORD HE WOULD DRAIN THE SWAMP.

HE SAID HE WOULD DRAIN THE SWAMP.

AND WHAT HAVE WE SEEN?

WE'VE SEEN HIS PERSONAL LAWYER GO TO JAIL, HIS CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN GO TO JAIL, HIS DEPUTY CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN CONVICTED OF A DIFFERENT CRIME, HIS ASSOCIATE'S ASSOCIATE LEV PARNAS UNDER INDICTMENT.

THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.

THAT'S, I GUESS, HOW YOU DRAIN THE SWAMP IS YOU HAVE ALL YOUR PEOPLE GO TO JAIL.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT WAS MEANT BY THAT EXPRESSION, BUT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, HOW DOES SOMEONE WHO PROMISES TO DRAIN THE SWAMP COERCE AN ALLY OF OURS INTO DOING A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION?

THAT IS THE SWAMP.

THAT'S NOT DRAINING THE SWAMP, THAT'S EXPORTING THE SWAMP.

I KNEELED BACK.

>> I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT FOR ME TO ADMONISH BOTH THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IN EQUAL TERMS TO REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE ADDRESSING THE WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY.

ONE REASON IT HAS EARNED THAT TITLE IS BECAUSE ITS MEMBERS AVOID SPEAKING IN A MANNER AND USING LANGUAGE THAT IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO CIVIL DISCOURSE.

IN THE 1905 SWING TRIAL, A SENATOR OBJECTED WHEN ONE OF THE MANAGERS USED THE WORD "PETTY FOGGING" AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER SAID THE WORD OUGHT NOT TO BE USED.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ASPIRE TO THAT HIGH A STANDARD, BUT I THINK THOSE ADDRESSING THE SENATE SHOULD REMEMBER WHERE THEY ARE.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU.

I MOVE TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AND ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS.

>> A SUFFICIENT SECOND?

THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLE.

>> MR. ALEXANDER.

AYE.

MR. BALDWIN.

NO.

MR. BARRASSO.

AYE.

MR. BENNETT.

NO.

MRS. BLACKBURN.

AYE.

MR. BLUMENTHAL.

NO.

MR. BLUNT.

AYE.

MR. BOOKER.

NO.

MR. BOOZMAN.

AYE.

MR. BRAUN.

AYE.

MR. BROWN.

NO.

MR. BURR.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. CANTWELL.

NO.

MS. CAPITO.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. CARDIN.

NO.

MR. CARPER.

NO.

MR. CASEY.

NO.

MR. CASSIDY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. COLLINS.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. COONS.

NO.

MR. CORNYN.

AYE.

MS. CORTEZ MASTO.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. COTTON.

AYE.

MR. CRAMER.

(INAUDIBLE).

WILL CRAPO.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. CRUZ.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. DANES.

AYE.

MS. DUCKWORTH.

NO.

MR. DURBIN.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. ENZI.

NO.

MS. ERNST.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. FEINSTEIN.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. FISHER.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. GARDNER.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. GILLIBRAND.

NO.

WILL GRAHAM.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. GRASSLEY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. HARRIS.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. HASSAN.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. HAWLEY.

INAUDIBLE.

MR. HINRICH.

INAUDIBLE.

MS. HIRONO.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR.HOVEN.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR.

HIDE SMITH.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. INHOFE.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. JOHNSON.

AYE.

MR. JONES.

NO.

MR. KAINE.

NO.

MR. KENNEDY.

(INAUDIBLE).

WILL KAINE.

NO.

MS. KLOBUCHAR.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. LANGFORD.

AYE.

MR. LEAHY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. LEE.

AYE.

MRS. LOEFFLER.

AYE.

MR. MANCHIN.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. MARKEY.

NO.

MR. MCCONNELL.

AYE.

MR. MCSALLY.

AYE.

MR. MENDEZ.

NO.

MR. MERKLEY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. MORAN.

AYE.

MS. MURKOWSKI.

AYE.

MR. MURPHY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. MURRAY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. PAUL.

AYE.

MR. PERDUE.

AYE.

MR. PETERS.

NO.

MR. PORTMAN.

AYE, MR. REED.

NO.

MR. RISCH.

AYE.

MR. ROBERTS.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. ROMNEY.

AYE.

MS. ROSEN.

NO.

MR. ROUNDS.

AYE.

MR. RUBIO.

AYE.

MR. SANDERS.

NO.

MR. SASSE.

AYE.

MR. SCHATZ.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. SCHUMER.

NO.

MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA.

AYE.

MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA (INAUDIBLE).

>> MRS. SHAHEEN.

NO.

MR. SHELBY.

(INAUDIBLE).

MS. SINEMA.

N. MS. SMITH.

NO.

SMZMRS.

STABENOW.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. SULLIVAN.

(INAUDIBLE)?

MR. TESTER.

.

MR. THUNE.

AYE.

MR. TILLIS.

AYE.

MR. TOOMEY.

AYE.

MR. UDALL.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. VAN HOLEN.

NO.

MR. WARNER.

MS. WARREN.

>> NO.

>> Reporter: MR. WHITEHOUSE.

NO.

MR. WICKER.

(INAUDIBLE).

MR. WYDEN.

NO.

MR. YOUNG.

AYE.

NYONE IN THE CHAMBER WHO WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE HIS OR HER VOTE?

IF NOT THE YEAS ARE 53, THE NAYS 47.

THE AMENDMENT IS TABLED.

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO PROVIDE FOR A VOTE OF THE SENATE ON ANY MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS AFTER THE QUESTION PERIOD, AND I WAIVE ITS READING.

>> ANY OBJECTION TO THE WAIVING OF THE READING?

>> I OBJECT.

THERE IS AN OBJECTION.

I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST FOR A WAIVER.

>> DOES ANY SENATOR HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THE WAIVING OF THE READING?

THERE IS AN OBJECTION, YES.

THE CLERK WILL READ THE AMENDMENT.

>> SENATOR FROM NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER PROPOSES AMENDMENT 1292.

ON PAGE 3, LINE 8, STRIKE FOUR HOURS AND INSERT 2 HOURS.

ON PAGE 3, LINE 10, STRIKE THE QUESTION OF AND ALL THAT FOLLOWS THROUGH RULES ON LINE 12.

ON PAGE 3, LINE 14, INSERT "ANY SUCH MOTION" AFTER "DECIDE."

ON PAGE 3, LINE 15, STRIKE "WHETHER" AND ALL THAT FOLLOWS THROUGH DOCUMENTS ON LINE 17.

ON PAGE 3, LINE 18, STRIKE THAT QUESTION AND INSERT ANY SUCH MOTION.

ON PAGE 3, LINE 23 AND 24, STRIKE AND THE SENATE SHALL DECIDE AFTER DEPOSITION WHICH WITNESSES SHALL TESTIFY AND INSERT AND THEN SHALL TESTIFY IN THE SENATE.

>> THE AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED.

MR.

MANAGER SCHIFF, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT?

MR. CIPOLLONE, A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT.

>> (INAUDIBLE).

MR. SCHIFF, YOU MAY PROCEED AND MAY RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

>> SENATORS, THIS AMENDMENT MAKES TWO IMPORTANT CHANGES TO THE MCCONNELL RESOLUTION.

THE MCCONNELL RESOLUTION DOES NOT ACTUALLY PROVIDE FOR AN IMMEDIATE VOTE.OmúBj7