HAVE A FAIR TRIAL. AND I THINK PRESENTERS THAT TAKE THE OATH SERIOUSLY AND I HOPE AND PRAY THAT THEY DO, THIS IS NOT THE FAIR TRIAL THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT. IT'S NOT THE FAIR TRIAL AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE. >> WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE DEMOCRATIC IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS, ACTUALLY JUST TWO OF THEM DECIDED TO SPEAK. CHUCK SCHUMER AND JERRY NADLER AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN SPELLED OUT BY THE REPUBLICANS ABOUT HOW IT WILL MOVE UPWARD.
WE FOUND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE WITNESSES AND WHAT WE FOUND OUT IS THAT THAT WOULD ALL BE DEBATED, WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE. AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE WILL BE WITNESSES AND THAT IS PRIMARILY WHAT THEY WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT. >> VERY TOUGH WORDS FROM ADAM SHIFT. WITNESSES AND A COVER-UP, THOSE WERE HIS WORDS AND THE IDEA OF HAVING THE TRIAL LAST LATE INTO THE NIGHT MEANS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL IS WHAT ADAM SCHIFF SAID. WE EXPECT CHUCK SCHUMER IN THE 11:00 HOUR TO TAKE TO THE PODIUM AND WE WILL KEEP AN EYE OUT ON THAT. LIVE COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF RESIDENT DONALD TRUMP BEGINS AT 12:30 ON CBSN. YOU WANT TO STICK AROUND. STREAM MUST ANY DEVICE THAT YOU CAN. WE WILL BE ON. STICK AROUND. WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> CHINESE OFFICIALS SAY THE FAST SPREADING CORONAVIRUS HAS KILLED AT LEAST SIX PEOPLE SPARKING RENEWED URGENCY TO KEEP A LETHAL VIRUS CONTENT.
THE NEWS COMES AFTER AN EXPERT CONFIRM THE VIRUS CAN BE TRANSMITTED HUMAN TO HUMAN. >> OFFICIALS REPORT THAT A WOMAN IN TAIWAN HAS BEEN INFECTED AFTER A TRIP TO THE EPICENTER OF THE OUTBREAK. OUR ASIA CORRESPONDENT HAS THE LATEST. >> Reporter: OFFICIALS HAVE NOW DESIGNATED NINE HOSPITALS AS TREATMENT CENTERS INCLUDING THE ONE RIGHT BEHIND ME. THAT IS ON TOP OF 61 FEVER CLINICS AND AN EMERGENCY EXPERT TEAM. ONE PIECE OF GOOD NEWS IS THAT CHINESE SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THEY HAVE FIGURED OUT THE DNA SEQUENCE OF THE VIRUS THAT OPENS UP THE POSSIBILITY OF TREATMENTS AND POTENTIALLY A VACCINE. AS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CHINESE RESIDENTS MIGRATE ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO RING IN THE NEW LUNAR NEW YEAR, CONFIRMATION OF THE VIRUS CAN BE SPREAD BETWEEN HUMANS RAISES THE POSSIBILITY OF CAN BE TRANSMITTED MORE QUICKLY AND MORE BROADLY.
THAT POSES AN EVEN GREATER CHALLENGE FOR CHINA AND NEARBY NATIONS TO CONTAIN THE OUTBREAK. TRAVELERS WITH MASKS AND QUARANTINE STATIONS AND TEMPERATURE CHECKPOINTS ARE BECOMING COMMON SITES IN AIRPORTS AND TRAIN HUBS ACROSS ASIA. THIS MEMBER SPOKE TO OUTSIDE THE WUHAN HOSPITAL SAYS IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS BUT BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT CAN HANDLE IT VERY WELL. THE NUMBER OF KNOWN INFECTIONS HAS RISEN SHARPLY SINCE YESTERDAY, TOPPING 300 CASES IN CHINA ALONE. AT LEAST 15 HOSPITAL WORKERS IN WUHAN HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH THE VIRUS. >> IF IN FACT A PERSON HAS INFECTED A HEALTHCARE WORKER, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY OF SOME CONCERN. >> THE DOCTOR FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH SAYS HUMAN TO HUMAN TRANSMISSIONS COULD BE ISOLATED INCIDENCES, BUT — >> WHEN YOU GET SUSTAINED TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER TO ANOTHER TO ANOTHER, THEN YOU HAVE A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM. THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MUCH BROADER TYPE OF OUTBREAK.
>> Reporter: THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SAYS THEY WILL ASSEMBLE AN EMERGENY COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS AND MEET ON WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS OUTBREAK CONSTITUTES A GLOBAL EMERGENCY AND HOW BEST TO CONTAIN IT. >>> TURNING TO IRAQ WHERE MULTIPLE ROCKETS WERE REPORTEDLY FIRED NEAR THE U.S. EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD, ACCORDING TO REUTERS, THEY LANDED NEAR THE EMBASSY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS BUT NO CASUALTIES WERE REPORTED. NO ONE IS CLAIMED RESPONSIBLY. THEY BLAMED IRAN BACK REALLY TARGETS FOR SIMILAR ATTACKS. >> HUNDREDS OF ANGRY DEMONSTRATORS GATHERED OUTSIDE THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OFFICIALS. IT CAME AFTER A BLOGGER RECENTLY DISCOVERED A WAREHOUSE FULL OF UNUSED HURRICANE MARIA AID AND PENSCE. IT WAS RECENTLY DAMAGED BY THE SERIES OF EARTHQUAKES. THREE OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN FIRED SINCE THE DISCOVERY BUT DEMONSTRATORS ARE CALLING ON THE GOVERNOR TO RESIGN WHICH LIKE THEY DID TO FORMER GOVERNOR RICARDO ROSSELLO. WANDA VASQUEZ CLAIMS SHE WAS UNAWARE OF THE WAREHOUSE AND HAS ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE HANDLING OF ALL AID. >> CHAOS ERUPTED ALONG THE GUATEMALA-MEXICO BORDER. THOUSANDS OF HONDURAN MIGRANTS IN A STANDOFF WITH MEXICAN FORCES AFTER THEY TRIED TO WADE ACROSS A RIVER BY THE BORDER.
THEY ARE BEING BLOCKED FROM ENTERING THE COUNTRY. THE GROUP SAYS THEY ARE TRAVELING IN LARGER NUMBERS TO PREVENT BEING SENT BACK TO HONDURAS. BUT MEXICO IS UNDER PRESSURE BY THE U.S. TO STOP LARGE GROUPS FROM REACHING THE BORDER. IMMIGRATION REPORTER SAT DOWN WITH MIKE AND PARENTS RETURNING TO THE U.S. AFTER BEING DEPORTED ILLEGALLY. HE WILL JOIN US ON THURSDAY TO EXPLAIN JUST HOW THAT HAPPENED AND WHAT COMES NEXT FOR THE FAMILY. >> WE ARE GETTING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SECLUDED ISLAND WHERE THE LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN IS ACCUSED OF TRAFFICKING UNDERAGE GIRLS. LITTLE ST. JAMES OFF THE COAST OF ST. THOMAS WAS PRIVATELY OWNED BY EPSTEIN UNTIL HIS DEATH IN AUGUST. NOW THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS SUING HIS ESTATE TO GAIN CONTROL OF IT. >> A NEW LAWSUIT PROVIDES DETAILS AND HOW HE WAS ABLE TO MAKE HIS ALLEGED CRIMES GO UNNOTICED FOR SO LONG.
>> THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS TO GET TO THE ISLAND, BY HELICOPTER OR PRIVATE BOAT IN THE SECLUSION APPEARS TO BE BY DESIGN MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO MONITOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BEHAVIOR ON THE ISLAND AND EVEN HARDER FOR THE ALLEGED VICTIMS WHO WERE BROUGHT HERE TO ESCAPE. >>> [ MUSIC ] GRETA THUNBERG IS ACCUSING WORLD LEADERS OF FUELING THE FLAMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE. SHE MADE THE REMARKS WHILE SPEAKING AT THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM IN DABO'S SWITZERLAND. CRITICIZING WORLD LEADERS FOR FAILING TO FULFILL PROMISES TO CUT EMISSIONS. >> SHE SAID SOME GOALS THAT GOVERNMENTS ARE SETTING ARE NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH. >> WE DON'T NEED A LOW CARBON ECONOMY, WE DON'T NEED TO LOWER EMISSIONS. OUR ADMISSIONS HAVE TO STOP. IF WE ARE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO STAY BELOW THE 1.5 DEGREE TARGET. AND UNTIL WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGIES, THE SCALE CAN PUT IT TO MINUS, THEN WE MUST FORGET ABOUT NET ZERO, WE NEED REAL ZERO.
>> SHE SPARKED A WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT WHEN SHE STARTED SKIPPING SCHOOL ON FRIDAYS TO PROTEST IN FRONT OF THE SWEDISH PARLIAMENT. >> PRINCE HARRY IS IN CANADA TO START HIS NEW LIFE WITH MEGAN AND THEIR SON ARCHIE. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX WAS SEEN LANDING IN VANCOUVER MONDAY NIGHT AFTER ATTENDING WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE ONE OF THE LAST OFFICIAL LOYAL ENGAGEMENTS IN LONDON. >> I THOUGHT OF YOU. >> COME THIS SPRING, THE COUPLE WILL NO LONGER BE FULL-TIME WORKING ROYALS. ELIZABETH PALMER IS OUTSIDE BUCKINGHAM PALACE WITH THE STORY. >> IT HAS BEEN A TUMULTUOUS COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT IT NOW DOES APPEAR THAT HARRY HAS DEFINITIVELY LEFT HIS OLD LIFE AND STARTED A NEW ONE. THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM BUCKINGHAM PALACE. >> PRINCE HARRY AND HE STILL GETS TO USE THE TITLE ARRIVED IN VANCOUVER LAST NIGHT AND WAS IMMEDIATELY WHISKED AWAY TO REJOIN MEGAN AND EIGHT-MONTH- OLD ARCHIE.
ONLY HOURS BEFORE HE HAD BOUND UP HIS JOB AS A SENIOR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY AT A CONFERENCE ON AFRICAN INVESTMENT. HARRY AND MEGAN'S EXIT LIKELY MEANS EVEN MORE WORK FOR PRINCE WILLIAM, THE FUTURE KING, WHO WITH HIS WIFE, KATE, WAS ON DUTY FOR THE FIRST TIME PRIMARY HOSTS OF A RECEPTION. THE PREVIOUS DAY, HARRY HAD TOLD A MEETING OF HIS PRIVATE CHARITY THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO OPTION BUT TO GO. >> WE ARE TAKING A LEAP OF FAITH. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE COURAGE TO TAKE THIS NEXT STEP. >> THIS IS NOT YET A CLEAN BREAK. >> WHAT ARE THE LOOSE ENDS? >> THERE ARE MORE LOOSE ENDS THAN THERE ARE DECISIONS. THE OUTSTANDING ONE OF COURSE IS THE MONEY. WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR WHAT? AND PROBABLY THE MOST OUTSTANDING OF ALL OF THIS IS SECURITY. >> KEEPING THE YOUNG FAMILY SAFE IS GOING TO COST A FORTUNE. AND BRITISH OR CANADIAN TAXPAYERS ARE LIKELY TO GET THE BILL. THAT WILL FUEL THE ANGER. >> THE BRITISH PUBLIC OPINION IS THAT IT IS ALL MEGAN'S FAULT AND SHE LURED HARRY AWAY FROM US AND SHE IS THE ONE THAT IS INSISTING THAT THEY HAVE A PRIVATE LIFE.
>> Reporter: TO QUALIFY THAT, IT'S A GENERATIONAL THING. OLD PEOPLE MAY BLAME MEGAN FOR TAKING HARRY AWAY AND YOUNGER PEOPLE TEND TO THINK THE COUPLE DESERVES A CHANCE AT A HAPPY LIFE AND THEY WISH THEM WELL. >> SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS IS APOLOGIZING TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN FOR AN OP- ED WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS CAMPAIGN SURROGATES. THE OP-ED PUBLISHED IN THE GUARDIAN CLAIMED THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT HAS A QUOTE BIG CORRUPTION PROBLEM. >> IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, SENATOR SANDERS SAYS IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT HIS VIEW THAT JOE BIDEN IS CORRUPT IN ANY WAY. >> ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES ARE LOOKING FOR A WAY TO BREAK THROUGH. THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN THOUGHT THEY HAD SOMETHING WITH THIS OP- ED BY A NEW YORK LIBERAL AND PROMINENT SUPPORTER OF THE VERMONT SENATOR WROTE THAT JOE BIDEN HAS A CORRUPTION PROBLEM FOR TAKING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM WEALTHY DONORS. SHE WRITES MIDDLE-CLASS JOE IS PERFECTED THE ART OF TAKING BIG CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEN REPRESENTING US CORPORATE DONORS AT THE COST OF MIDDLE AND WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS. THE OP-ED WAS LATER CIRCULATED BY THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN AND THE JOE BIDEN CAMPAIGN QUICKLY POUNCED AND OTHER OBSERVERS QUICKLY SAID THIS SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO SANDERS BACK IN 2016 WHEN HIS SUPPORTERS WOULD AGGRESSIVELY ATTACK HILLARY CLINTON AND MORE RECENTLY AFTER ELIZABETH WARREN AND JOE BIDEN.
SENATOR SANDERS CALLED ON HIS SUPPORTERS TO PLAY NICE. >> JOE AND I HAVE STRONG DISAGREEMENTS ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES AND WE WILL ARGUE THOSE DISAGREEMENTS OUT, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT MY VIEW THAT JOE IS CORRUPT IN ANY WAY. AND I'M SORRY THAT THAT OP-ED APPEARED. I FEEL THAT MY SUPPORTERS, PLEASE, ENGAGE IN CIVIL DISCOURSE, AND BY THE WAY, WE AREN'T THE ONLY CAMPAIGN THAT DOESN'T. OTHER PEOPLE WHO ACT THAT WAY AS WELL, BUT I WOULD APPEAL TO EVERYBODY TO HAVE A DEBATE ON THE ISSUES.
WE CAN DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE, WITHOUT BEING HATEFUL. >> IN RESPONSE LAST NIGHT, BIDEN TWEETED HIS THANKS TO SANDERS AND SAID THAT THOSE KINDS OF ATTACKS HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS PRIMARY. HE IS OUT HERE TODAY HOLDING AT LEAST TWO EVENTS IN COLD IOWA WHILE THE SENATORS GO BACK TO WASHINGTON FOR THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND SANDERS IS DEPLOYING A TOP SURROGATE IN HIS ABSENCE. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ WILL HOLD HERE FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. >> WILL TAKE A QUICK BREAK WHICH MEANS IT'S A GOOD TIME FOR YOU TO DOWNLOAD THE FREE CBS NEWS APP ON ALL DEVICES. VLAD IS FINGER WAGGING. YOU CAN WATCH CBSN ANYTIME ANYWHERE ON ANY CONNECTED DEVICE. THE WEBSITE IS FREE IN THE APP IS FREE IF YOU DON'T WANT THE CONVENIENCE OF A NAP AND THAT IS CBS NEWS.COM. >> GO TO THE GOOGLE PLAY STORE AND DOWNLOAD THE APP AND YOU CAN WATCH US ALL DAY LONG. >> ON YOUR SMART TV ALSO. >> IN HEALTHWATCH, PRO VACCINATION SOCIAL MEDIA POST LEADS TO THREATS AGAINST AN OHIO DOCTOR.
THE BACKLASH IS RELATED TO THE STATEMENT POSTED ON TICK-TOCK CHALLENGING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM. >> IT COMES AS A RECENT POLL FINDS 46% OF AMERICANS ARE STILL UNSURE ABOUT THE DEBUNKED ASSOCIATION. WE SPOKE WITH THE PEDIATRICIAN ABOUT THE POST AND THE FALLOUT. >> WE KNOW THAT VACCINES DON'T CAUSE AUTISM AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE MESSAGE TO GET OUT THERE. >> THE DOCTOR SAYS SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF MISLEADING ANTI-VACCINE POSTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, SO SHE CREATED THIS.
TICK-TOCK NOW HAS 1.4 MILLION VIEWS. SHE AND HER STAFF QUICKLY BECAME TARGETS. >> I HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A TSUNAMI OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS ON ALL OF MY SOCIAL MEDIA. THERE HAVE BEEN NEGATIVE AND FRAUDULENT REVIEWS. >> ONE SOCIAL MEDIA USER CALLED HER PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE AND ANOTHER COMMENTOR TOLD THE PEDIATRICIAN TO STOP KILLING OUR KIDS WITH VACCINES. EVEN THOUGH THE OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THAT VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM, 16% OF PARENTS WITH CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN 18 SAY THEY STILL BELIEVE VACCINES CAUSE MORE HARM THAN GOOD. >> ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE IN THE ERA OF THE INTERNET, THERE IS VERY LITTLE RECOURSE.
>> RENC IS A TECHNICAL RESEARCH AT THE PLANETARY OBSERVATORY. >> WHAT HAPPENS AT THE COST OF PHYSICIANS PUTTING OUT STATEMENTS TO COUNTER MISINFORMATION IS THAT THEY, HEMSELVES BECOME THE SU OF HARASSMENT CAMPAIGNS AND REPUTATION HARMING CAMPAIGNS AND MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS. >> IN RECENT MONTHS, CONGRESS HAS GRILLED SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES FOR FAILING TO STOP THE SPREAD OF MISINFORMATION AND IN A STATEMENT, TICK-TOCK SAID WE REMOVED MISINFORMATION THAT COULD CAUSE HARM TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH OR WIDER PUBLIC SAFETY. AS FOR BALDWIN, SHE SAYS SHE'S STANDING BY HER MESSAGE. >> I'M NOT TAKING MY POST DOWN, I WILL NOT BE BULLIED INTO SUBMISSION. >>> IN MONEY WATCH, UBER IS TESTING A FEATURE THAT GAVE SOME DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA THE ABILITY TO SET THEIR OWN FAIRS.
THIS IS A MOVE THAT WILL GIVE MORE DRIVERS, WRITERS CONTROL INTO THE GIG ECONOMY LAW. THE NEW LEGISLATION REQUIRES COMPANIES TO TREAT WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES INSTEAD OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. UBER, LYFT, DOOR DACHSHUND POST HAVE RAISED MORE THAN 100 $10 MILLION FOR A BAIL OUT THIS YEAR ASKING THAT VOTERS ACCEPT THE COMPANY'S FROM THE BILL. >> TESLA IS DISPUTING ALLEGATIONS OF UNEXPECTED ACCELERATION IN THE VEHICLE SAYING THAT A STOCK SHORT SELLER WAS BEHIND THE CLAIMS.
AT ISSUE ARE ROUGHLY 500,000 VEHICLES MADE FROM ONLY 13 TO 2019. A PETITION FILED LAST WEEK CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE 127 COMPLAINTS OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY MINISTRATION SAYS IT WILL REVIEW THE PETITION AND DECIDE WHETHER TO LAUNCH A FULL INVESTIGATION. >> GOOGLE AND GOOGLE CEO IS CALLING FOR REGULAR OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN AN OP-ED FOR THE FINANCIAL TIMES, HE WROTE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT BUT QUESTIONED THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH IT. HIS COMMENTS COME AS LAWMAKERS AND GOVERNMENTS CONSIDER PUTTING LIMITS ON HOW ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS USED. >> COMING UP IN THE NEXT HOUR, SENATORS PREPARE FOR OPENING ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENCE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WE GOT A LOOK AT WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT. >> AND CBS NEWS EXCLUSIVE, WHAT BERNIE SANDERS, WHY HE IS APOLOGETIC THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN THE LATEST OF ELEMENTS IN THE ONGOING CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK IN CHINA. OFFICIALS NOW SAY IT CAN BE TRANSMITTED HUMAN TO HUMAN. YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN, CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. C1 >>> HI EVERYONE I'M ANNE-MARIE GREEN.
>> THE SENATE DECIDES THE FUTURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. THIS IS A LIVE LOOK FROM CAPITOL HILL, WHERE ANY MOMENT, WE'RE EXPECTING TO HEAR FROM CHUCK SCHUMER. IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IN DAVOS, SWITZERLAND, ATTENDING THE ECONOMIC FORUM. BUT THE IMPEACHMENT SHOWDOWN IN WASHINGTON IS EXPECTED TO OVERSHADOW HIS VISIT. >> THE OTHER IS JUST A HOAX. IT'S THE WITCH-HUNT THAT'S BEEN GOING ONFOR YEARS, AND FRANKLY, IT'S DISGRACEFUL. WE'RE MEETING WITH THE BIGGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD, THE BIGGEST BUSINESSES IN THE WORLD, AND WORLD LEADERS, ALL FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> THE TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. EASTERN. UNDER THE PROPOSAL, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYERS AND DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE 24 HOURS EACH TO DELIVER OPENING ARGUMENTS.
THIS COULD LAST OVER FOUR DAYS. WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH OVER TO CAPITOL HILL NOW, WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEMOCRATS ARE SPEAKING. LET'S TAKE A LISTEN. >> ON THE ISSUE AT HAND, THE SUPREME COURT JUST ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD DELAY RULING ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S LAWSUIT AGAINST OUR HEALTHCARE LAW. IT'S A SHARP REMINDER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WHILE ALL THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS IS GOING ON, THE PRESIDENT, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY AMERICANS' HEALTHCARE. WOE IS US, IF THEY SUCCEED, EITHER THIS YEAR, OR NEXT YEAR. NOW, LET'S GET TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. AS YOU ALL KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF ALLOWING A FOREIGN OFFICIAL TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS TO BENEFIT HIM. IT PROVED THE PRESIDENT'S CRIMES ARE ACTIONS AGAINST DEMOCRACY ITSELF.
IT CANNOT BE OVERSTATED HOW SERIOUS THIS CHARGE IS. IF AMERICANS START BELIEVING THAT FOREIGNERS CAN AFFECT AND ELECT PRESIDENTS, OR SENATORS, OR GOVERNORS, IF FOREIGNERS CAN INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, OUR DEMOCRACY IS VASTLY ERODED. PEOPLE WILL START LOSING FAITH IN ELECTIONS AND THE VERY WELLSPRING AND FOUNDATION OF THIS GRAND AND GREAT NATION THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS ESTABLISHED MORE THAN 200 YEARS AGO. SO THE CHARGES, THESE CHARGES WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TRY. FOR ANYONE WHO SAYS THIS ISN'T SERIOUS, OR THIS IS DONE ALL THE TIME, NO WAY. THIS PRESIDENT IN HIS ABUSE OF POWER IS UNFORTUNATELY UNIQUE, AND WILLING TO ABUSE HIS POWER WITH FEWER CONSCIOUS QUALMS AND FAR MORE READILY, AND EASILY THAN ANY PRESIDENT WE'VE SEEN, AND BY A LONG SHOT. THE ONLY POWER THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE WHEN A PRESIDENT ABUSES POWER, OTHER THAN ELECTIONS, IS THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. VERY SERIOUSLY. SO ONE SENATOR INHOF IS SWORN IN THIS AFTERNOON, THE CEREMONIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL BE COMPLETE.
THE SENATE MUST THEN DETERMINE THE RULES OF THE TRIAL. THE REPUBLICAN LEADER WILL OFFER AN ORGANIZING RESOLUTION, THAT OUTLINES HIS PLAN FOR THE RULES OF THE TRIAL, WHICH WAS ONLY RELEASED LAST NIGHT. AMAZINGLY, WAITED UNTIL THE VERY END. IT WAS PARTISAN. IT WAS KEPT SECRET UNTIL THE EVE OF THE TRIAL. AND NOW THAT IT'S FINALLY MADE PUBLIC, IT'S OBVIOUS TO SEE WHY LEADER McCONNELL WAS KEEPING IT SO CLOSE TO HIS VEST, BECAUSE THE McCONNELL RULES SEEM TO BE DESIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.
SIMPLY EXECUTED BY LEADER McCONNELL, AND SENATE REPUBLICANS. IT APPEARS THAT LEADER úMcCONNE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING, HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER. IT ALMOST SEEMS THAT THE RESOLUTION WAS WRITTEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE, NOT IN THE SENATE. THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION IS A BLUEPRINT FOR AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ON FAST FORWARD. IT ASKS THE SENATE TO SPRINT THROUGH THE TRIAL AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, AND MAKES GETTING EVIDENCE AS HARD AS POSSIBLE. THE BOTTOM LINE? LEADER McCONNELL WANTS THE PROCESS RUSHED WITH AS LITTLE EVIDENCE AS POSSIBLE IN THE DARK OF NIGHT. HE PUSHES THE ARGUMENT NOOSE THE WE HOUR OF THE NIGHT, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T SEE THEM. IN SHORT, AGAIN, THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION WILL RESULT IN A RUSHED TRIAL, WITH LITTLE EVIDENCE IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT.
IF THE PRESIDENT IS SO CONFIDENT IN HIS CASE, THEN WHY WON'T HE PRESENT IT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT? IF LEADER Mc CONNELL, AND THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS SAY HE'S DONE NOTHING WRONG, IT'S PERFECT, WHILE NOT WHY THE SUN IS SHINING, INSTEAD OF AT 2:00 A.M.? IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHY NOT. ON SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS IMPEACHMENT Mc CONNELL'S RESOLUTION IS NOTHING SHORT OF A NATIONAL DISGRACE, AND IT WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS ONE OF THE VERY DARK DAYS OF THE SENATE.
NOT LIVING UP TO ITS RESPONSIBILITY IN OBESCENSE TO THE PRESIDENT. LEADER McCONNELL PROMISED HIS TRIAL RULES FOR WEEK. LET'S ENACT THE SAME RULES AS THE CLINTON RULES. IT TURNS OUT THE McCONNELL RULES ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE CLINTON RULES, AND THERE ARE MANY PLACES WHERE THAT HAPPENS, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION DOES NOT ADMIT THE RECORD OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS INTO EVIDENCE. SO McCONNELL SEEMS TO WANT A TRIAL WITH NO EXISTING EVIDENCE, AND NO NEW EVIDENCE. YOU CAN UNDRSTAND WHY. IT'S BECAUSE HE'S AFRAID OF EVIDENCE. SO IS PRESIDENT TRUMP. SO ARE THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. A TRIAL WITH NO EVIDENCE IS NOT A TRIAL AT ALL. IT'S A COVER-UP. SECOND, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE McCONNELL RULE LIMITS PRESENTATION BY THE PARTIES TO 24 HOURS PER SIDE OVER ONLY TWO DAYS.
LEADER McCONNELL WANTS TO FORCE THE MANAGERS TO MAKE IMPORTANT PARTS OF THEIR CASE IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT. I'VE READ THE BRIEF, IT'S ABOUT 45 PAGES. I COMMEND EACH OF YOU. IT'S A POWERFUL DOCUMENT. VERY HARD TO REBUT. IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT'S BRIEF DOESN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO REBUT IT. NEXT, THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION PROHIBITS MOTIONS TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE SENATORS' QUESTION PERIOD. AND EVEN THEN, IT REQUIRES THE SENATE TO OVERCOME AN ADDITIONAL HURDLE BY VOTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER MOTIONS TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ARE IN ORDER. SO WE'VE HAD SOME SENATORS SAY WELL I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION, BUT LATER I MIGHT VOTE FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. McCONNELL'S VERY RESOLUTION PUTS MANY OBSTACLES IN THE PATH OF GETTING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS EVEN LATER. SO REPUBLICAN SENATORS DON'T FOOL US, DON'T SAY YOU WANT TO MAKE IT EASY TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AT THE END OF THE TRIAL IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS RESOLUTION.
IS IT MAKES IT A LOT HARDER. AND FINALLY, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION ALLOWS A MOTION TO DISMISS IT ANYTIME DURING THE TRIAL. NOW WE THOUGHT THAT THE CLINTON RULES SHOULDN'T APPLY, THEY WERE UNFAIR TO US. McCONNELL KEPT HUGGING THE CLINTON RULES, AS HIS DEFENSE, BUT WE NOW SEE THAT HE DIDN'T MEAN IT. THAT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS SIMPLY COVER UP FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. SO STARTING THIS AFTERNOON, IMMEDIATELY AFTER LEADER McCONNELL INTRODUCES HIS RESOLUTION, I WILL BE OFFERING AMENDMENTS TO FIX ITS MANY FLAWS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT I WILL OFFER WILL ASK THAT THE SENATE SUBPOENA WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. THOSE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE THE RECORDS OF MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, AS WELL AS THOSE RECORDS CREATED OR RECEIVED BY MR. MULVANEY, MR. BOLTON, MR. BLARE, AND OTHER WHITE HOUSE PERSONNEL ABOUT THE DECISION TO HOLD AND RELEASE THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. IT'S VERY POSSIBLE, EVEN LIKELY, THAT SOME OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP BETWEEN HIM AND THESE PEOPLE.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SO IMPORTANT. NO ONE CAN ARGUE THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE SENATE. THE WITNESSES I'VE REQUESTED HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF ATTENTION AND RIGHTFULLY SO. PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE DOCUMENTS CAN SHED AS MUCH LIGHT ON WHY THE AID WAS CUT OFF, WHO DID IT, AND WHY IT EVOLVED, AS THE WITNESSES. AND WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT WE NEED DOCUMENTS, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S OUR FIRST CALL. I WILL THEN OFFER A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS ON THE DOCUMENTS WE REQUESTED, THE WITNESSES WE REQUESTED, AND AMENDMENTS TO FIX THE MOST EGREGIOUS DEPARTURE THAT McCONNELL MADE IN HIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION FROM THE CLINTON RULES. LET ME BE CLEAR, WE HAVE NO INTENTION TO BE DILITORY. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT LEADER McCONNELL WILL ALLOW THESE VOTES TO TAKE PLACE LATER IN THE TRIAL. SO NOW BEFORE ANY RESOLUTION PASSES, WE MUST DO IT. WE FEEL THIS IS AN OBLIGATION WE HAVE TO THE CONSTITUTION.
TO OUTLINE WHAT A FAIR TRIAL WOULD BE. TO NOT GO ALONG WITH A COVER- UP, WITH A SHAM TRIAL, AND WE WILL DO IT. WE WILL DO IT. RIGHT OFF THE BAT, REPUBLICAN SENATORS WILL FACE A CHOICE ABOUT GETTING THE FACTS, WE'RE JOINING LEADER McCONNELL AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IN TRYING TO COVER THEM UP. THIS IS A HISTORIC MOMENT, THE EYES OF AMERICA ARE WATCHING. REPUBLICAN SENATORS MUST RISE TO THE OCCASION. SENATOR DURBIN. >> THANK YOU SENATOR SCHUMER. FROM THIS VERY FIRST DAY OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, WE LEARNED THAT SENATOR Mc CONNELL, FOR SENATOR McCONNELL, POLITICAL LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN STANDARDS OF COMMON DECENCY AND DECORUM, WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVALENT IN THIS BODY SINCE THE START. SENATOR McCONNELL, AND THOSE WHO ENABLE HIM DEMONSTRATE THAT REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE, AND OBSTRUCTED THIS CONGRESS.
SENATOR McCONNELL, AND THOSE WHO ENABLE HIM BELIEVE THAT IF THEY HURRY THE PROCEEDINGS, RESTRICT THE EVIDENCE, LIMIT THE WITNESSES, AND FORCE THE W HOLEENTERPRISE INTO THE MIDNIGHT HOUR, THEY CAN CONCEAL THE MISCONDUCT BY THE PRESIDENT. THEY BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT TAKE NOTICE. THEY'RE WRONG. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OF THIS DEMOCRACY. THEY ARE WIDE AWAKE TO ANY SENATOR OR PRESIDENT WHO DISRESPECTS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES, OR CLAIMS TO BE ABOVE THE LAW. DONALD JOHN TRUMP, THE IMPEACHED PRESIDENT INSISTS HE IS INNOCENT OF A WITCH-HUNT, A CRUEL HOAX.
YET THE PRESIDENT IS UNWILLING TO PRODUCE ANY WITNESS IN HIS DEFENSE. INSTEAD, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THE RAVINGS OF THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL COUNCIL, THE FORMER LEADER OF NEW YORK CITY. THIS SELF-SERVING FOOLISHNESS PASSES FOR A CREDIBLE DEFENSE. UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN JUSTICE, OF COURSE, THE ACCUSED, IN THIS CASE THE PRESIDENT, CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY. BUT THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION GOES TO THE EXTREME OF ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT THE HOUSE MANAGERS FROM INTRODUCING INTO EVIDENCE, THE DOCUMENTS AND SWORN TESTIMONY THAT WERE PRODUCED EVEN IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
THIS McCONNELL RESOLUTION DIRECTLIY CONTRAVENESS THE RULES. EVEN SENATOR Mc CONNELL'S LOYALTY TO THIS PRESIDENT, AND HIS CORRUPTION OF THIS SENATE TRIAL CANNOT ESCAPE THE STARK REALITY. IF SENATOR McCONNELL HAS HIS WAY, CRITICAL ITEMS WILL NOT SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, BUT THEY WILL NOT ESCAPE THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LAST WEEK, MY COLLEAGUES AND I SIGNED OUR NAMES IN THE OFFICIAL SENATE RECORD, CONFIRMING OUR PROMISE TO QUOTE DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. IT WAS A SOBERING EXPERIENCE, ESPECIALLY SINCE SENATOR McCONNELL HASEXPLICITLY SAID HE WOULD DO THE COMPETE OPPOSITE. HE SAID NO TO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE IN SPITE OF THE THOROUGH AND CAREFUL INVESTIGATION THE HOUSE CONDUCTED. IN SPITE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UNPRECEDENTED STONEWALLING, WHICH DENIED CONGRESS, ACCESS TO KEY MATERIAL WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS DURING THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION IN SPITE OF THE PRESIDENT CONTINUED REVIEWSAL TO PROVIDE ANY CREDIBLE DEFERREDZ AGAINST THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM, INCLUDING IN THE TRIAL BRIEF WE SAW THIS WEEKEND.
AND THE MAJORITY LEADER'S POSITION HAS NOT CHANGED DESPITE NEW EVIDENCE MADE PUBLIC IN RECENT DAYS, WHICH LAYS OUT A COMPLEX WEB OF FALSEHOODS SURROUNDING THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN UKRAINE. NOW AS THE TRIAL BEGINS, AS NEW EVIDENCE COMES OUT, AND AFTER EACH OF US HAS REAFFIRMED OUR MOST SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITIES TO OUR STATES AND OUR COUNTRY, IS IT IS CLEAR PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE WATCHING THIS CAREFULLY, AND THEY ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED OUR PRESIDENT MAY HAVE DEMANDED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN OUR NEXT ELECTION TO HELP HIM IN HIS CAMPAIGN. THEY WANT TO KNOW ALL THE RELEVANT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE IS BEING CONSIDERED, AND THE SENATE IS ACTING FAIRLY, RATHER THAN STAGING A COVER-UP. SO I HOPE REPUBLICAN SENATORS REMEMBER THAT THEY HAVE A CHOICE. I HOPE THEY CHOOSE TO RECOGNIZE WE CANNOT DO OUR JOB AS SENATORS TO QUOTE DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE WITHOUT KEY DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT IS SO FAR BEEN HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC.
AND I HOPE THEY CHOOSE TO WORK WITH DEMOCRATS TO MAKE SURE FAIRNESS AND HONESTY IS IN THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT DESERVE. AND I WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE POINT. THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE ON TRIAL. BUT THE UNITED STATES SENATE IS ON TRIAL TOO. I'VE HEARD MANY REPUBLICANS SAY THEY WANT A TRIAL MODELED AFTER THECLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. BUT I WILL REMIND ALL OF US, THAT AT THE END OF THAT TRIAL, NO ONE DOUBTED THE SENATE HAD ACTED FAIRLY AND HONORABLY. THAT'S THE TRULY CRITICAL TEST BEFORE US IN THIS INSTITUTION, BEGINNING TODAY, AND TO BE CLEAR, WE WILL FAIL THAT TEST WITH DEAD OF NIGHT RUSHED COVER- UP RESOLUTION LIKE THE ONE MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL HAS PUT FORWARD.
WE ALL NEED TO REMEMBER THE OATH WE TOOK, AND ACT IN WAYS THAT PROVE THE SENATE AND ALL OF OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS ARE WORTHY OF THE PUBLIC'S TRUST, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. WE ALL NEED TO VOTE TODAY FOR EVIDENCE AND FAIRNESS. NOT A SHAM DESIGNED TO PROTECT AN IMPEACHED PRESIDENT FROM THE FACTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SENATOR MURRAY. >> THANK YOU. MITCH McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION IS APPALLING, AND SO IS THE DEFENSE PUT FORWARD BY THE WHITE HOUSE. THEY DON'T DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A PHONE CALL WITH A NEW YOUNG LEADER IN DESPERATE NEED OF SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES AND HIS MILITARY EFFORTS AGAINST RUSSIA. THEY DON'T DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A THREAT TO WITHHOLD FUNDING ON THAT PHONE CALL IF IN FACT THE NEW YOUNG LEADER DID NOT DO WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED. THEY DON'T DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THEY WITHHELD THE FUNDS AFTER THE PHONE CALL, EVEN THOUGH THE WATCHDOG FOR THE CONGRESS THE GENERAL CONGRESS HAS SAID IT IS ILLEGAL, WHICH THEY ARE NOT DISPUTING EITHER.
SEEMS TO ME, THEY'RE USING THE MICK MULVANEY DEFENSE. YES, THE PRESIDENT DID THE CALL. YES, HE WITHHELD THE MONEY. THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. GET OVER IT. NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND THAT'S WHAT THIS TRIAL'S ABOUT. >> QUESTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT. YES. LOOK, SENATORS TALK TO SENATORS ALL THE TILE, AND THERE ARE LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS GOING ON. I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO ANY CONVERSATIONS. YES. LOOK, IF THE WHITE HOUSE TRIES TO EXERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ON AN ORDER THAT PASSES BY DEFINITION IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, AND IS SIGNED BY CHIEF JUSTICE OR THE SUPREME COURT ON A SUBPOENA, I THINK THAT THE COURTS WOULD LOOK VERY FAVORABLY ON THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO TELL THE PRESIDENT WHO SHOULD BE HIS COUNSEL, BUT I RESPECT VERY MUCH THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT WAS OUTLINED THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS PUT TOGETHER. YES. WELL WAIT AND SEE. >> ON THAT QUESTION, DURING THE TRIAL IT'S UNUSUAL THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE ARGUMENTS [INAUDIBLE] DO YOU EXPECT HOUSE MANAGERS TO MAKE ARGUMENTS AND TO USE ONE HOUR OF DEBATE TIME? >> FIRST, SOME OF THE MOTIONS OR THE AMENDMENTS I'LL BE MAKING TO THE McCONNELL TRIAL WILL BE OBVIOUS.
THREE WEEKS AGO, I OUTLINED THE NEED FOR THREE SETS OF DOCUMENTS AND FOUR WITNESSES. SO THE SENATE MANAGERS OBVIOUSLY KNOW ALL ABOUT THEM, AND YOU KNOW THEY'RE A VERY CAPABLE GROUP AND THEY SAID THEY'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THOSE THINGS WE ASKED FOR, SO I EXPECT THEY'LL MAKE STRONG ARGUMENTS, AND THERE'S A LOT TO SAY. WELL IT IS ONE HOUR PER SIDE. THAT'S WHAT THE RULES OF THE SENATE PRESCRIBE. THAT'S WHAT THE RULES PRESCRIBE. IT WILL BE UP TO THEM IF THEY USE IT ALL. I WOULD HOPE THEY MAKE STRONG ARGUMENTS AND NOT CUT BACK. IT'S TOO IMPORTANT. >> SENATOR ROMNEY HAS ALREADY SAID HE WON'T SUPPORT ANY CHANGES TO THE RESOLUTION [INAUDIBLE] >> HE SAID THAT, I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR SENATOR ROMNEY. I WOULD HOME HE HAS CAREFULLY READ THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION. BECAUSE HE ALWAYS SAID HE THINKS THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, AND THIS MAKES IT EVEN HARDER FOR US TO GET THOSE.
YOU WENT ALREADY ONCE. I'M SORRY. TRY TO SHARE THE WEALTH. >> COMPLAIN ABOUT IT BEING RUSHED. ISN'T THIS THE LATEST EXAMPLE OF IT STINKS TO BE THE MINORITY PARTY IN THE HOUSE? >> NO, WE'RE DOING OUR JOB, AND IT'S SORT OF IRONIC, LEADER McCONNELL SAYS THE HOUSE TRIAL WAS RUSHED, SEEKS TO RUSH THE SENATE TRIAL FAR MORE SEVERELY THAN THE HOUSE TRIAL WAS. >> ON THE SUBJECT OF TRANSPARENCY, DID YOU SIGN OFF ON THE RULES [INAUDIBLE] >> NO. MY COMMENT, I WANT TO SEE THE PRESS HAVE AS MUCH ACCESS AS POSSIBLE, IT WILL BE MY VIEW, IT SHOULD BE SIMILAR TO ONE NORMAL DAY. I WAS NOT ASKED ABOUT THEM, AND DID NOT SIGN OFF ON THEM. YES. WELL WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF DISCUSSIONS AND WE GO OVER THE PROCESS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING. WE HAVE A GREAT CAUCUS LUNCH EVERY TUESDAY, AND LARGE NUMBERS OF MEMBERS PARTICIPATE, AND I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE, AND I THINK WE DO, THAT WE SORT OF COME TO AN AMALGUM.
SO WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. >> SOME OF THE TRADITIONS IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION [INAUDIBLE] >> YES. YES. YES. >> IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT A VOTE TO CHANGE THOSE RULES WOULD REQUIRE 67 VOTES? >> NO, BECAUSE THIS IS GOVERNED BY RULES OF IMPEACHMENT, WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE SENATE RULES. NO, YOU WENT. ANYONE ELSE WHO HASN'T GONE? YES, NICE QUIET LADY OVER THERE. >> DO YOU PLAN TO HAVE VOTES FOR EACH? >> YOU'LL SEE. WAIT AND SEE. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE VOTES ON THE ISSUES I MENTIONED. WITNESSES, DOCUMENTS, EGREGIOUS ROLL BACKS FROM EVEN THE CLINTON RULES WHICH WE THOUGHT WERE UNFAIR, AND YOU KNOW, WITH YOU WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO BE DILLTORY, AND HAVE 100 AMENDMENTS JUST TO DELAY THINGS.
>> HOW MANY? >> YOU'RE PERSISTENT. YES. >> CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS PROCESS? >> WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE WE THINK WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DO IT. WE THINK THAT THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS LOOKED AT WHEN THEY SAID HOW DO WE DEAL WITH A PRESIDENT WHO HAS ABUSED HIS POWER, WHO HAS DRAMATICALLY OVERREACHED, WHO HAS GONE OFF TRACK, AND THEY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION, YOU COULDN'T WAIT FOUR YEARS. THAT'S WHY THIS IS SO SERIOUS, SO SOLEMN, SO GRAVE. THAT'S HOW WE FEEL. AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SEEMS TO AGREE WITH US. BUT THAT'S OUR MOTIVATION. THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE WITNESSES WE'VE ASKED FOR, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'LL SAY. THIS IDEA THAT THESE WITNESSES. MAYBE THEY'LL BE FURTHER INCRIMINATING, BUT WE WILL REST EASY, IF WE KNOW WE HAVE REQUIRED THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE MINORITY, THAT'S NOT SOLELY UP TO US. WE NEED FOUR REPUBLICANS WHO ARE WILLING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT'S RIGHT.
WHO ARE WILLING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT AMERICA WANTS, AND NEEDS, AND NOT SIMPLY BOW DOWN TO THE PRESIDENT, WHO YOU KNOW, MOST AMERICANS KNOW WHAT THIS GUY'S ALL ABOUT. DO MOST AMERICANS REALLY BELIEVE HE WANTS A FAIR TRIAL? I DON'T THINK SO. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. >> ALL RIGHT. MINORITY LEADER, SENATOR CHUCKSCHUMER ADDRESSING úCONCER SENATE HAVE, SAYING ESSENTIALLY, THAT THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH McCONNELL WANTS TO HOLD THIS SENATE TRIAL WITHOUT ANY EXISTING EVIDENCE, AND WITHOUT THE WITNESSES THAT THE SENATE DEMOCRATS HAVE CALLED FOR, AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH. IN FACT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING AT THIS POINT, THAT IN THIS PROCEDURE THAT WILL START AT 1:00 P.M., THAT THERE WILL BE NO WITNESSES. THAT COULD CERTAINLY CHANGE AS WE COULD PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL. AND YOU CAN HEAR THE MINORITY LEADER SAYING THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE TO SENATE DEMOCRATS. SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO PREVIEW OUR HISTORIC COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, WHICH BEGINS TODAY AT 12:30 P.M. EASTERN. FULL COVERAGE FOLLOWS AT 1:00 P.M. YOU CAN KEEP UP WITH THE DEVELOPMENTS AT ANYTIME, BY VISITING OUR LIVE BLOG AT CBS NEWS.COM/IMPEACHMENT.
>>> OKAY. SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS IS APOLOGIZING TO JOE BIDEN FOR AN OP-ED WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS SURROGATES. IT ACCUSED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OF REPRESENTING CORPORATE DONORS AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKING CLASS AMERICANS. IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, SENATOR SANDERS DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM THOSE CLAIMS. >> JOE BIDEN IS A FRIEND OF MINE. I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR MANY YEARS. HE'S A VERY DECENT GUY, AND JOE AND I HAVE STRONG DISAGREEMENTS ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES, AND WE WILL ARGUE THOSE DISAGREEMENTS OUT, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT MY VIEW THAT JOE IS CORRUPT IN ANY WAY. AND I'M SORRY THAT THAT OP-ED APPEARED. >> FOR MORE ON THIS, LET'S BRING IN CBS NEWS 2020 CAMPAIGN REPORTER CARA COURTY. SHE SPOKE TO SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS ON THIS VERY TOPIC. CARA, GREAT REPORTING, SO HOW HAS THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN RESPONDED? >> WELL, VLAD, WE SAW VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S CAMPAIGN TWEET A RESPONSE TO THAT CBS STORY LATE YESTERDAY EVENING. HE THANKED SENATOR SANDERS FOR CORRECTING HIS SURROGATES OP- ED, AND HE SAID THAT WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON AS DEMOCRATS IS DEFEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT'S NOTABLE THAT WE'RE SEEING SENATOR SANDERS APOLOGIZE HERE.
SENATOR SANDERS IS, AS WE HEARD HIM, IN HIS "NEW YORK TIMES" EDITORIAL REVIEW, HE'S NOT KNOWN FOR BACK SLAPPING OR BEING SUPER JOVIAL WITH ANYONE. THE FACT THAT HE TOOK THE TIME TO APOLOGIZE, AND SAY HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THIS CHARACTERIZATION IS AN INTERESTING STEP FOR HIM. >> THIS OP-ED COMES AT AN INTERESTING TIME FOR THE TWO CAMPAIGNS. RECENTLY CRITICIZED JOE BIDEN OVER PAST COMMENTS HE MADE ON SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING. TELL US WHAT'S AT ISSUE BETWEEN THE TWO CANDIDATES. >> THIS HAS BEEN A LONG RUNNING ATTEMPT BY SANDERS FOLLOWERS, SURROGATES AND STAFF TO KIND OF DUST UP BIDEN'S SENATE RECORD, AND PAST RECORD AS VICE PRESIDENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY. AND FINALLY, WHEN BIDEN WAS ASKED ABOUT IT BY A VOTER, A WEEK AGO IN IOWA, THIS WHOLE THING KIND OF SET OFF SANDERS SURROGATES AND STAFF.
SUGGESTING THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS IN FAVOR OF CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. BIDEN RESPONDED TO THAT SAYING THAT THE VIDEO WAS DOCTORED. IT WASN'T QUITE DOCTORED, BUT IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. SINCE THEN, THERE'S BEEN THIS BACK AND FORTH ON TWITTER AND BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES, SANDERS CAMP SAYING BIDEN DID HAVE THIS APPETITE FOR CUTTING BENEFITS, AND BIDEN OUTLY DENYING IT. AND WHAT WE SAW SENATOR SANDERS MOVING TOWARD LAST NIGHT WAS TRYING TO QUELL ALL OF THIS. HE CALLED FOR MORE CIVILITY. WE'LL SEE IF THEY STILL TRY TO KIND OF FLESH OUT BIDEN'S RECORD ON SOCIAL SECURITY. SPEAKING OF CIVILITY, YOU ALSO BROUGHT UP THE TENDENCY OF SOME OF HIS SUPPORTERS AND SURROGATES, ATTACKING ONLINE. >> IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE SENATOR SANDERS HAS THE MOST FERVENT DEDICATED FOLLOWING ONLINE. IT'S VERY COMMON FOR BERNIE SUPPORTERS TO GET HASHTAGS.
AND I ASKED SENATOR SANDERS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR FOLLOWERS, SOME OF YOUR SURROGATES WHO USE PRETTY SEVERE RHETORIC, MUCH MORE SO THAN SENATOR SANDERS WOULD EVER USE AGAINST OPPONENTS, SPECIFICALLY AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND SENATOR SANDERS SAYS HE DOES NOT LIKE IT. HE DOES NOT APPROVE OF IT, AND HE DOES NOT WANT ANYMORE OF IT GOING FORWARD. HE CALLED FOR HIS SUPPORTERS, AND ALSO SUPPORTERS OF OTHER CANDIDATES TO JUST CALM DOWN, KEEP THINGS CIVIL, AND SAID THAT'S WHAT AMERICAN POLITICS IS ALL ABOUT. >> HE TOLD YOU HE ENCOURAGED HIS SUPPORTERS TO ENGAGE, IN COVERING THIS CAMPAIGN, HAVE YOU SEEN THE AGGRESSIVENESS BY WHICH SOME OF HIS SUPPORTERS ATTACKED PEOPLE THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH ONLINE? >> IT'S TOUGH VLAD, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SEPARATE, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO SEPARATE THE SENATOR FROM HIS SUPPORTERS, BUT THE SENATOR, WHEN HE'S ON THE STUMP, WHEN HE'S ON STAGE, TRAVELING ACROSS THE COUNTRY, HE WILL SAY EVERY TIME, JOE BIDEN IS MY FRIEND, ELIZABETH WARREN IS MY FRIEND.
MOST OF THESE DEMOCRATS ARE FRIENDS OF MINE, AND HE'LL SAY, YOU WON'T HEAR ME SAY A BAD WORD ABOUT THEM, WHICH USUALLY IS TRUE, HE USUALLY KEEPS IT TO THE RECORD. HE DOESN'T GET INVOLVED WITH THESE PERSONAL SPATS. WHEN YOU LOOK ONLINE, JUST AS THE GREAT AMERICAN CULTURE SOMETIMES TENDS TO DO ON TWITTER, THINGS GET A LITTLE MORE HEATED. I DON'T KNOW THAT BERNIE SANDERS SITS WITH HIS iPHONE, AND SCROLLS THROUGH TWITTER AND SEES WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING ON. HE SAID LAST NIGHT, DEFINITIVELY, A CALL TO ACTION TO HIS SUPPORTERS TO BASICALLY KNOCK IT OFF. >> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS. OF COURSE, THIS IS ALL HAPPENING AS SENATORSANDERS HAS TO STEP AWAY FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL TO FOCUS ON BEING PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, WHICH IS STARTING TODAY, AS YOU KNOW.
SO WHAT IS THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN DOING, TO MAKE SURE THAT SENATOR SANDERS KEEPS HIS PRESENCE IN IOWA AHEAD OF THE FEBRUARY 3rd CAUCUSES? >> IT'S TOUGH, VLAD. ALL OF THE SENATORS WHO ARE RUNNING RIGHT NOW ARE DEALING WITH THIS. JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, THE SENATOR CANCELED A NORTHERN IOWA RALLY HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HOLDING TOMORROW NIGHT. THEY WERE HOPING TO HOP ON A PLANE, GET OVER TO IOWA, TAKE PART IN THIS RALLY, AND COME BACK TO D.C. FOR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEY GOT MORE DETAILED SCHEDULES TODAY, AND THEY HAD TO CANCEL THAT RALLY. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE SANDERS AGAIN, WE THINK ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL UNTIL POSSIBLY SATURDAY EVENING WITH ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ. THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE INSIGHT INTO WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHEN SANDERS IS OFF THE TRAIL. HE'S USING HIS HIGH POWERED SURROGATES HITTING THE GROUND IN IOWA, TRYING TO KEEP UP MOMENTUM, I WAS ALSO SPEAKING TO A SENIOR AID IN IOWA JUST THE OTHER DAY, SAYING THEY'RE TRYING TO SECURE A HIGH POWER MUSICAL ACT. THEY'RE BASICALLY THROWING EVERYTHING THEY CAN, ALL THE FORCE THEY CAN INTO IOWA, EVEN WITHOUT SENATOR SANDERS, THEY WANT TO GET A VICTORY THERE, SO THEY'RE DOING ANYTHING IT TAKES REALLY.
>> ALL RIGHT, CARA COURTY FOR US. ALWAYS GREAT REPORTING. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, VLAD. >> WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK, YOU'RE STREAMING CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. >>> CHINESE OFFICIALS HAVE SAID THE FAST MOVING CARONA VIRUS HAS KILLED AT LEAST SIX PEOPLE. THE NEWS COMES AFTER AN EXPERT CONFIRMED THE VIRUS CAN BE TRANSMITTED HUMAN TO HUMAN. >> OFFICIALS ARE ARE ALSO REPORTING THAT A WOMAN IN TAIWAN HAS BEEN INFECTED AFTER A TRIP TO THE EPICENTER OF THE OUTBREAK.
>> Reporter: OFFENSES HERE IN WUHAN HAVE NOW DESIGNATED NINE HOSPITALS AS TREATMENT CENTERS, INCLUDING THE ONE BEHIND ME. THAT'S ON TOP OF 61 FEVER CLINICS, AND AN EMERGENCY EXPERT TEAM. ONE PIECE OF GOOD NEWS, CHINESE SENATORS SAY THEY FIGURED OUT THE DNA SEQUENCE OF THIS VIRUS, THAT OPENS UP THE POSSIBLE TREATMENT, AND A VACCINE. AS MILLIONS MIGRATE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, CONFIRMATION THE VIRUS CAN BE SPREAD AMONG HUMANS, THAT POSES AN EVEN GREATER CHALLENGE FOR CHINA AND NEARBY NATIONS TO CONTAIN THE OUTBREAK. TRAVELERS WITH MASK, QUARANTINE STATIONS HAVE BECOME COMMONPLACE ACROSS ASIA. THIS MAN WE SPOKE TO OUTSIDE A WUHAN HOSPITAL SAID IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS, BUT BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT CAN HANDLE IT VERY WELL. THE NUMBER OF KNOWN INFECTIONS HAS RISEN SHARPLY SINCE YESTERDAY, TOPPING 300 CASES IN CHINA ALONE. AT LEAST 15 HOSPITAL WORKERS IN WUHAN HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH THE VIRUS. >> IF IN FACT, A PERSON HAS INFECTED A HEALTHCARE WORKER, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY OF SOME CONCERN.
>> Reporter: HE SAYS THE HUMAN TO HUMAN TRANSMISSIONS COULD BE ISOLATED INCIDENTS, BUT — >> WHEN YOU GET SUSTAINED TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER TO ANOTHER, THEN YOU HAVE A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM. THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MUCH BROADER TYPE OF AN OUTBREAK. >> Reporter: THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SAYS THEY WILL ASSEMBLE AN EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS. THEY WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS OUTBREAK CONSTITUTES A GLOBAL EMERGENCY, AND HOW BEST TO CONTAIN IT. ANNE-MARIE, VLAD. >>> IN PUERTO RICO HUNDREDS OF ANGRY DEMONSTRATORS GATHERED OUTSIDE THE GOVERNO'S MANSION, DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ISLAND OFFICIALS. THE CHANTS CAME AFTER A BLOGGER RECENTLY DISCOVERED A WAREHOUSE FILLED WITH UNUSED HURRICANE MARIA AID IN A CITY DAMAGED BY THE RECENT EARTHQUAKESMENT DEMONSTRATORS ARE NOW CALLING ON THE GOVERNOR TO RESIGN.
MUCH LIKE THEY DID TO FORMER GOVERNOR RICARDO ROSAO. >>> MEANWHILE, CHAOS ERUPTED AMONG THE GUATEMALA/MEXICO BORDER. THOUSANDS OF HONDURAN MIGRANTS IN A STAND OFFWITH MEXICAN FORCES AFTER THEY TRY TO WADE ACROSS A RIVER BY THE MEXICAN BORDER. THE GROUP SAYS THEY'RE TRAVELING IN LARGER NUMBERS TO PREVENT BEING SENT BACK TO HONDURAS, BUT MEXICO IS UNDER PRESSURE BY THE U.S. TO STOP LARGER GROUPS FROM REACHING THE BORDER. SAT DOWN WITH MIGRANT PARENTS WHO ARE RETURNING TO THE U.S. AFTER BEING DEPORTED ILLEGALLY. HE'S GOING TO JOIN US ON THURSDAY, TO EXPLAIN JUST HOW THAT HAPPENED, AND WHAT COMES NEXT FOR THE FAMILY. >>> GRETA THUNBERG IS ACCUSING THE WORLD LEADERS OF FUELING CLIMATE CHANGE.
>> SHE ALSO SAID SOME GOALS THAT GOVERNMENTS ARE SETTING ARE NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH. >> WE DON'T NEED A LOW CARBON ECONOMY. WE DON'T NEED TO LOWER EMISSIONS. OUR EMISSIONS HAVE TO STOP IF WE ARE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO STAY BELOW THE 1.5-DEGREE TARGET. AND UNTIL WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGIES, THE F SCALE CAN PUT OUR EMISSIONS TO MINORS WE MUST FORGET ABOUT NET ZERO. WE NEED REAL ZERO. >> THUNBERG SPARKED A WORLDWIDE YOUTH MOVEMENT WHEN SHE STARTED SKIPPING SCHOOL ON FRIDAYS TO PROTEST IN FRONT OF PARLIAMENT.
>>> THE SENATE'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL KICKS OFF TODAY. CBS NEWS ANCHOR, NORAH O'DONNELL SPOKE EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS ABOUT HOW THEY WILL MAKE THEIR CASE. >> MEANWHILE, WE WILL BE KEEPING OUR EYE AS HE ATTENDS THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. >>> STAY WITH CBSN, WE'LL HAVE A FULL PREVIEW OF THE DAY'S EVENTS BEGINNING AT 12:30 EASTERN. >> AND YOU CAN FOLLOW ALL OF THE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE SENATE LIVE IN THEIR ENTIRETY RIGHT HERE ON CBSN, AND OF COURSE "RED & BLUE" WILL HAVE A FULL RECAP ONCE THE DAY'S EVENTS WRAP UP.
YOU'RE STREAMING CBSN. CBS NEWS ALWAYS ON. >>> BETWEEN THE HISTORIC IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, POLITICAL NEWS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGHMENT. >> CONSUMERS ARE HUNGRY FOR ALTERNATIVE CONTENT. SARAH FISHER TOOK A LOOK AT HOW THE SO-CALLED TRUMP EFFECT IS CHANGING THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE, AND SARAH JOINS US NOW WITH MORE ON HER WEEKLY NEWSLETTER. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. SHEAS IN WASHINGTON. WHY EXACTLY ARE SOME COMPANIES STEPPING BACK A BIT FROM THEIR POLITICAL COVERAGE? >> Reporter: ANNE-MARIE, I THINK THEY REALIZE SOME OF THEIR VIEWERS ARE JUST OVER IT. THERE'S WALL TO WALL IMPEACHMENT COVERAGE. NOT JUST THE TRIAL, BUT EVEN BEFORE THE TRIALS. BEFORE THAT THERE WAS WALL TO WALL COVERAGE OF THE MOORE TRIAL. BEFORE THAT COMEY AND KAVANAUGH.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE JUST OVER IT. SO THEY'RE HEARING FROM TWO DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES. ONE ADVERTISERS ARE OVER IT. ADVERTISERS HAVE BEEN SAYING TO NETWORKS, LOOK, WE DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND AS MUCH POLITICAL CONTENT, AND IF WE DO HAVE AN AD, CAN YOU TRY TO SPACE IT AWAY FROM SOME CANDIDATES' ADS? THE OTHER CONSTITUENCY IS IS THE VIEWERS THEMSELVES. YOU HAVE PEOPLE ONLINE, AND WATCHING TV, WHO COMPLAIN THEY'RE JUST GETTING TOO MANY POLITICAL ADS, AND THAT THEY'RE SICK OF POLITICAL COVERAGE. TO THAT END, WE'RE STARTING TO SEE RATINGS DIP. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST FEW DEBATES, FEWER PEOPLE ARE TUNING IN THAN THEY DID IN THE BEGINNING. >> I WONDER, WHEN IT COMES TO ADVERTISERS, IS IT ALSO THE FACT THAT WE SEEM TO BE VERY, VERY PARTISAN RIGHT NOW? SO SOME OF THE ISSUES WOULD BE DURING A DIFFERENT TIME THAT WOULDN'T BE DIVISIVE ISSUES, THIRD RAIL ISSUES HAVE SUDDENLY BECOME THAT, SO ADVERTISERS WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
>> I THINK THAT'S A HUGE PART OF IT. THE PARTISAN VITRIOL HAS MADE TIS A REALLY BAD ENVIRONMENT FOR ADVERTISERS. ESPECIALLY FOR ONES WHO DON'T HAVE SORT OF POLARIZING MESSAGING. I THINK ABOUT A LOT OF THE CONSUMER PACKAGE GOOD COMPANIES, PEOPLE SELLING THINGS LIKE TOOTHPASTE, AND TOILET PAPER. THESE ARE BIPARTISAN PRODUCTS. THEY DON'T WANT TO BE NEXT TO PEOPLE SCREAMING ABOUT HEALTHCARE, OR SCREAMING ABOUT THE ELECTION, SO THE DIFFICULT THING HERE IS THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO SAY TO THEM, LOOK, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, DON'T MESSAGE AROUND NEWS CONTENT, THE PROBLEM IS, ANN, AND VLAD, EVERYTHING HAS BECOME NEWS CONTEMPT. YOU HEAR THEM SAY IF THEY WANT TO RUN THE OLYMPICS OR THE SUPER BOWL, WE KNOW POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE THERE AS WELL.
SO THIS HAS BEEN A TRAP FOR THOSE ADVERTISERS THAT DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS. >> I THINK BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE MEDIA WORLD, WE SOMETIMES HAVE AN OUTSIZED PERCEPTION OF THE ROLE THAT POLITICAL COVERAGE PLAYS. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AGGREGATED NUMBERS OF VIEWERS WHO WATCH THE CABLE NETWORKS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CABLE NEWS NETWORKS, AND YOU COMPARE THAT WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FINALE OF THE BIG BANG THEORY BACK IN MAY, THEY GOT 18 MILLION VIEWERS ON THAT NIGHT.
THERE'S NO CABLE NEWS SHOW RUNNING 24 HOUR COVERAGE OF POLITICS EVEN GETTING ANYWHERE NEAR THAT NUMBER. MOST OF THE TOP RATED SHOWS IN CABLE NEWS GET AN AVERAGE OF A MILLION VIEWERS IN JUST A DEMO. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. OF COURSE, AMERICA'S PAST TIME, FOOTBALL, IS BY FAR THE MOST HIGHLY RATED EVENT ON TELEVISION. WHENEVER WE'VE HAD BREAKING NEWS ON A SUNDAY, FOOTBALL HAS TENDED TO OUTBEAT IT EVERY SINGLE TIME. I THINK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE BEGINNING IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS WHERE PEOPLE WERE SAYING VIEWERSHIP IS NOT THAT BAD.
13MILLION, 11 MILLION PEOPLE WATCHING. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT PEOPLE ARE WATCHING FOR THE AVERAGE SUNDAY NIGHT GAME, THAT'S A LIVELY GAME, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 20 MILLION PEOPLE. SO YOU'RE DEAD ON, THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT AMERICA IS FOCUSED ON. AT LEAST NOT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY IS FOCUSED ON NOW. I THINK FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO MARKET TO THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY, BEING AROUND POLITICAL CONTENT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING TO GET THEM TO PUSH THEIR POLITICS THROUGH. >> "60 MINUTES" ROUTINELY GETS 15 MILLION VIEWERS. PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN HIGH QUALITY NEWS, A GOOD STORY, WELL TOLD. WHAT MAYBE YOU'RE NOTICING IN YOUR ANALYSIS IS THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING TIRED OF THE SAME PANELS, OF THE SAME THINGS BEING REPEATED HOUR AFTER HOUR AFTER HOUR.
>> Reporter: YEAH, I THINK IT'S THE VITRIOL, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT BREAKING NEWS THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY DO WITH POLITICS. IT GOES AFTER THE CHARTS. I THINK ABOUT THE MH370 PLANE. THE THAI BOYS STUCK IN THE CAVE. BREAKING NEWS AROUND THINGS LIKE HURRICANE GETS LOTS OF VIEWERSHIP. BUT WHAT'S NOT GETTING A LOT OF CONSISTENT HIGH BUMPS IS THIS POLITICS CONTINUED.
IT'S THE SAME TYPE OF PARTISAN BICKERING, IT'S THE SAME TYPE OF PEOPLE ON CAPITOL HILL, YOU KNOW, WITH THE SAME TYPE OF MESSAGES, AND I THINK PEOPLE AT THIS POINT HAVE HEARD IT, AND THEY'RE SAYING ENOUGH. >> IT'S ACTUALLY NOT JUST US, RIGHTS? THE BRITS ARE ARE KIND OF OVER IT TOO. WHAT DOES SKY NEWS DO IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THAT BREXIT CONTENT. >> Reporter: IT MAKES ME FEEL A LITTLE BETTER IT'S NOT JUST US. SKY NETWORKS CREATED A BREXIT FREE CHANNEL FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN THE UK, WHO ARE JUST SO SICK OF HEARING ABOUT BREXIT. THE TREND HERE, LARGELY IS THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK OF PARTISAN POLITICS AND BICKERING AROUND THE WORLD, IT'S NOT JUST THE U.S., IT'S EVERYWHERE.
WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT'S COMING NEXT FOR THE 2020 ELECTION, I DON'T EXPECT ANY MORE BIG SPIKES IN VIEWERSHIP, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT DOESN'T MAKE ME AS CONCERNED KNOWING IT'S NOT JUST A U.S. PROBLEM. >> IF YOU'RE A CABLE VIEWER AND LOOKING FOR HIGH QUALITY NEWS CONTENT, LIKE THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING WITH YOU RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN STREAM CBSN. THROW TO COMMERCIAL. >> SARAH FISHER, GREAT TALKING TO YOU, THANKS. >> Reporter: THANK YOU. >>> IN HEALTH WATCH, A PRO VACCINATION SOCIAL MEDIA POST LEADS TO THREATS AGAINST AN OHIO DOCTOR. THE BACKLASH IS RELATED TO HER STATEMENT POSTED ON TIKTOK CHALLENGING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM. >> IT COMES AS A RECENT POLL FINDS 46% OF AMERICANS ARE STILL UNSURE ABOUT THIS DEBUNKED ASSOCIATION. DR.JON LAPOOK SPOKE WITH THE PEDIATRICIAN ABOUT HER POST AND THE FALLOUT.
>> WE KNOW THAT VACCINES DON'T CAUSE AUTISM, AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THAT MESSAGE TO GET OUT THERE. >> Reporter: DR. NICOLE BALDWIN SAID SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF MISLEADING ANTI- VACCINE POSTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, SO SHE CREATED THIS. BALDWIN'S TIKTOK NOW HAS 1.4 MILLION VIEWS. SHE AND HER STAFF QUICKLY BECAME TARGETS. >> I HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A TSUNAMI OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS ON ALL OF MY SOCIAL MEDIA. THERE HAVE BEEN NEGATIVE, FRAUDULENT REVIEWS. >> Reporter: ONE SOCIAL MEDIA USER CALLED BALDWIN PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. ANOTHER COMMENTER TOLD THE PEDIATRICIAN TO STOP KILLING OUR KIDS WITH VACCINES. EVEN THOUGH THE OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THAT VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM. 16% OF PARENTS WITH CHILDREN UNDER THAN 18 SAY THEY STILL BELIEVE VACCINES CAUSE MORE HARM THAN GOOD. >> ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE IN THE ERA OF THE INTERNET IS THERE IS VERY LITTLE RECOURSE.
>> Reporter: A TECHNICAL RESEARCH DIRECTOR AT THE STANFORD INVENTORY. >> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE COST OF PHYSICIANS PUTTING OUT STATEMENTS TO COUNTER MISINFORMATION IS THAT THEY THEMSELVES BECOME THE SUBJECT OF HARASSMENT CAMPAIGNS, OF REPUTATION HARMING CAMPAIGNS, OF MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS. >> Reporter: IN RECENT MONTHS, CONGRESS HAS GRILLED SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES FOR FAILING TO STOP THE SPREAD OF MISINFORMATION. IN A STATEMENT, TIKTOK SAID WE REMOVE MISINFORMATION THAT COULD CAUSE HARM TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH, OR WIDER PUBLIC SAFETY. AS FOR BALDWIN, SHE SAYS SHE'S STANDING BY HER MESSAGE. >> I'M NOT TAKING MY POSTS DOWN. I'M NOT GOING TO BE BULLIED INTO SUBMISSION. >>> IN MONEY WATCH, UBER IS TESTING A FEATURE THAT GIVES SOME DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA THE ABILITY TO SET THEIR OWN FARES. THIS MOVE IS AN ATTEMPT TO GIVE MORE DRIVERS CONTROL IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE'S GIG ECONOMY LAW.
THE NEW LEGISLATION REQUIRES COMPANIES TO TREAT THEIR WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES, INSTEAD OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. THEY HAVE RAISED MORE THAN $10 BILLION FOR A PLANNED BAIL OUT INITIATIVE THIS YEAR, ASKING THAT VOTERS EXEMPT THOSE COMPANIES FROM THE BILL. >>> TESLA IS DISPUTING UNACCEPTED ACCELERATION IN THEIR VEHICLES. AT ISSUE ARE ROUGHLY 500,000 VEHICLES MADE FROM 2013 TO 2019. A PETITION CLAIMS THERE WERE 100 COMPLAINTS OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION SAYS IT WILL REVIEW THE PETITION, AND DECIDE WHETHER TO LAUNCH A FULL INVESTIGATION. >>> GOOGLE, AND ALPHABET CEO IS CALLING FOR REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. IN AN OP-ED, HE WROTE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT. HIS COMMENTS COME AS GOVERNMENTS AND LAWMAKERS CONSIDER PUTTING LIMITS ON HOW ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS USED. >>> JB OVER HERE, MAKING US LAUGH, BECAUSE IT IS TIME FOR TUESDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK. EVERY TUESDAY, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, AND HOST, JAMES BROWN BRINGS US HIS TOP STORIES OF THE WEEK. >> AND WE HAVE HIM RIGHT HERE. >> HE'S RIGHT HERE, CRACKING US UP.
>> I ASK YOU GUYS PLEASE TELL ME WHO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> YOU HAVE BEEN ON LIKE A WHIRL WIND SCHEDULE. YOU WERE IN KANSAS CITY. >> AFTER A 14 HOUR ODYSSEY TO GET THERE. >> DO NOT ENVY YOU. >> HOW COLD WAS IT, JB? >> I LOOK LIKE A FROZEN BLACK LICORICE STICK OUT THERE. >> RUMORS YOU HAD AN OLD LADY BLANKET ON. >> HE WAS GETTING TEXTS AND TWEETS, BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT HE WAS ELTON JOHN. >> HOLDING THAT MICROPHONE, THAT IS ALL METAL. PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW COLD THAT GETS. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW THICK YOUR GLOVES ARE, YOU FEEL IT. >> I COULDN'T MOVE THE SCRIPT AROUND. TOO, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS POINT, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS HANDSOME OR CUTE ASSOCIATED WITH ME AT ALL. BUT I THOUGHT THE TEENY AFRO WOULD GET MY HEAD WARM. >> WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THE UPCOMING SUPER BOWL. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, THE KANSAS CITY CHIEFS. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CHIEFS FIRST.
YOU WERE IN KANSAS CITY FOR THEIR FIRST BIG WIN. >> I TRY TO KEEP A BIG PICTURE. THAT KANSAS CITY OFFENSE, THEIR TEAM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A GOLD MEDAL OLYMPIC TRACK TEAM. THEY'VE GOT SPEED EVERYWHERE. THEY'RE PLAYING WELL. THE DEFENSE HAS IMPROVED, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE IT ALL CENTERS AROUND PATRICK MAHOMES. I LOVE MY PRODUCER ALVIN PATRICK'S WORD, PRE-NATURAL. THIS GUY IS GIFTED. HE'S ONLY 24 YEARS OF AGE, AND HE FIRES EVERYONE UP.
HE'S GIFTED. >> THEY'RE HUNGRY. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THEY'VE BEEN TO THE SUPER BOWL. THEY'RE HUNGRIER THAN THE 49ERS, WHICH THEY'RE PLAYING. >> YOU TALK ABOUT A LONG TIME. IT'S BEEN 50 YEARS, AND THE KANSAS CITY FANS HAVE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME. THEY WERE IN SUPER BOWL I, WHICH THEY LOST. THEY WERE IN SUPER BOWL IV, BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THEY'VE HAD SOME OUTSTANDING ICONIC PLAYERS IN THAT TIME, BUT IT JUST SHOWS HOW HARD IT IS TO GET BACK THERE.
YOU DON'T TAKE THAT FOR GRANTED. ANDY REID, THE COACH IS ONE THAT EVERYONE IN AMERICA IS PULLING FOR. PERHAPS THE MOST DECORATED COACH IN THE LEAGUE WHO HAS NEVER WON A SUPER BOWL. HE'S BEEN THERE BEFORE. BUT HE GETS ANOTHER SHOT AT IT. AND PEOPLE ARE PULLING FOR HIM. >> LET ME THROW OUT A HISTORIC NUGGET. ONE OF THE MOST COLORFUL COACHES IN HISTORY, HANK STRAM. >> LET'S MATRICULATE THE BALL DOWN THE FIELD. >> HE HAD ALL OF THESE WEIRD SAYINGS. >> HE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A PLAYER PLAY FOR HIM, VLAD, AND ANNE-MARIE, BACK IN THE DAY, WHO WAS WAY OVERWEIGHT, AND PEOPLE WERE SAYING, YOU OUGHT TO GET HIM IN SHAPE. HE SAID NO, I'LL GET HIM IN SHAPE ON THE FIELD. HE WAS LIKE A RUNAWAY MANHOLE COVER. >> WHAT ABOUT THE 49ERS, WHAT DO YOU SEE IN THEM? >> GIFTED. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY PROGNOSTICATOR WHO HAD THEM ANY HERE THAN 20s COMING INTO THE SEASON. THEY ARE THE DEEPEST, THE BEST, THE MOST TALENTED TEAM.
DEFENSIVELY, THEY'VE GOT ATHLETES WHO ARE BIG, STRONG, FAST, AND RELENTLESS, AND THEY HARASSED AARON RODGERS, THE HALLER FAMER TO BE LAST WEEKEND. THESE GUYS ARE TOUGH. >> JB, BEFORE WE WRAP THIS UP, I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT SOMETHING OFF THE FIELD. THE NFL IS HAVING SOME DIFFICULTIES. SOME ISSUES WITH DIVERSIFYING ITS HEAD COACHING RANKS. RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE ONLY FOUR MINORITY HEAD COACHES OUT OF 32 TEAMS. THIS IS A LEAGUE WHERE 70% OF THE ATHLETES ARE MINORITIES. >> YOU WOULD THINK THAT FOOTBALL IS THE ULTIMATE MERITOCRACY, ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT THE PLAYERS DO ON THE FIELD. YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ALSO IN THE UPPER REACHES OF THE ORGANIZATION. NOT UNLIKE HERE IN SOCIETY IN GENERAL, THAT WOMEN, YOU KNOW, THE AGE, THEY BRING GIFTS TO THE TABLE. HERE'S THE BEST WAY I WANT TO DEAL WITH IT, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN, AND IT'S BEEN REPEATED. '03WAS WHEN THE ROONEY RULE WAS INSTITUTED, RIGHT MOVE TO TAKE, BUT TEAMS ARE ABUSING IT.
YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE LOVE, BUT TALENT COMES IN ALL SIZES. >> THANK YOU JB. >>> COMING UP IN OUR NEXT HOUR, SENATORS PREPARE FOR OPENING ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. WE'VE GOT A LOOK AT WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT. >> PLUS THE CBS NEWS EXCLUSIVE, WITH SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS. WHY HE'S APOLOGIZING TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. >>> AND THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ONGOING CORONAVIRUS IN CHINA. WHY THEY'RE NOW SAYING IT CAN BE TRANSMITTED PERSON TO PERSON.
>>> HELLO EVERYONE. I'M VLADIMIR DUTHIERS. ANNE-MARIE GREEN WILL JOIN ME IN A MOMENT. WE ARE ABOUT AN HOUR AWAY FROM HISTORY UNFOLDING ON CAPITOL HILL WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL SOON BEGIN. HERE IS A LOOK AT CAPITOL HILL WERE MITCH MCCONNELL WILL SOON INTRODUCE THE PROPOSED RULES FOR THE TRIAL. A LENGTHY DEBATE AMONG LAWMAKERS IS EXPECTED TO FOLLOW BEFORE OPENING ARGUMENTS. IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IN DAVOS, SWITZERLAND ATTENDING THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM BUT THE IMPEACHMENT SHOWDOWN IN WASHINGTON IS EXPECTED TO OVERSHADOW HIS VISIT. KATHERINE JOHNSON HAS THE LATEST FROM CAPITOL HILL . >> REPORTER: A FIGHT IS BREWING IN THE U.S. SENATE OVER HOW THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD PROCEED. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL UNVEILED THE RESOLUTION THAT WILL BE ARGUED TODAY, LAYING OUT RULES FOR THE TRIAL. THE PROPOSAL SAYS EACH SIDE WILL HAVE 24 HOURS COME OVER TWO DAYS FOR OPENING ARGUMENTS.
THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY 16 HOURS OF QUESTIONING BY SENATORS. ONLY THEN CAN THEY DEBATE AND VOTE ON WHETHER TO HAVE WITNESSES. >> IT ASKS THE SENATE TO SPRINT THROUGH THE TRIAL AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AND IT MAKES GETTING EVIDENCE AS HARD AS POSSIBLE. >> MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL SAID HE USED PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AS A MODEL FOR THIS ONE. BUT ONE BIG DIFFERENCE IS THAT NONE OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WILL BE ADMITTED AUTOMATICALLY. THE SENATE WILL HAVE TO VOTE TO ENTER IT. >> OPENING ARGUMENTS ARE EXPECTED TO GET UNDERWAY TOMORROW WITH BOTH THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM SLAMMING THE PROCESS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS PROSECUTING THE CASE SAY SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE HELPING PRESIDENT TRUMP BLOCK ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES. >> THIS IS NOT A PROCESS FOR A FAIR TRIAL. IT IS THE PROCESS FOR A RIGGED TRIAL. IT IS THE PROCESS IF YOU DON'T WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. >> IN A LEGAL BRIEF, THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM CALLS THE CASE AGAINST HIM FLIMSY END OF BRAZENLY POLITICAL ACT AND THE RESULT OF A RIGGED PROCESS. THE TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO LAST SEVERAL WEEKS. KATHERINE JOHNSON, CAPITOL HILL . >>> 60 MINUTES CORRESPONDENT AND SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST JOHN DICKERSON COVERED FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN 1999 AND JOINED CBS THIS MORNING WITH MORE ON WHAT VIEWERS CAN EXPECT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SENATE TRIAL.
>> SENATOR MCCONNELL LAID OUT GROUND RULES FOR WHAT HE HOPES TO BE A SPEEDY TRIAL. HE APPARENTLY HAS COORDINATED THESE WITH THE WHITE HOUSE. WHAT ARE THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF HIS STRATEGY? >> IF WE THINK ABOUT THIS POLITICALLY, BECAUSE THIS IS A POLITICAL PROCESS AND WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY, LET'S START WITH REWARDS. FOR REPUBLICANS, THEY ARE BIG FANS OF THIS PRESIDENT. IF YOU COME AS A REPUBLICAN, ARE SEEN AS DEFENDING THIS PRESIDENT AND KEEPING THE DEMOCRATS FROM TRYING TO HURT YOUR PRESIDENT, THEN YOU GET POLITICAL REWARDS WITH YOUR REPUBLICAN BASE. THE DOWNSIDE IS THAT REPUBLICANS LOOK LIKE ENABLERS. THEY LOOK LIKE THEY RUSHED THE PROCESS THROUGH AND THEY PROTECTED THE PRESIDENT WHO HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG AND DID NOT WANT TO INVESTIGATE IF HE HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG AND THAT PUTS THEM ON THE HOOK FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR. IF THEY ARE SEEN AS ENABLERS AND THE PRESIDENT GOES ON TO DO SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE FIND OBJECTIONABLE, THEN PROPONENTS WILL SAY THAT YOU ENABLE THE BEHAVIOR.
>> THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF REPUBLICANS HERE THAT COULD BE CRITICAL IN DECIDING WHETHER THERE ARE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE OR WHETHER THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE. TALK ABOUT THE POSITION THERE AND THERE ARE MODERATES THAT HAVE TOUGH REELECTION FIGHTS COMING UP IN THE FALL. >> THEY ARE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION FOR THIS REASON. A NEW CNN POLL SAID 51% OF THE COUNTRY SAYS THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED AND 58% THINKS THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING WRONG. THE COUNTRY ESSENTIALLY THINKS THERE SHOULD BE A PROCESS HERE THAT IS A LITTLE MORE EXTENDED. THAT IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN POSITION AT THE MOMENT.
THESE MODERATES HAVE TO WEIGH BETWEEN THE PRIDENT'S POSITION WHICH IS THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG AT ALL AND WHERE THEY LIKELY ARE WHICH IS THAT HE MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG BUT IT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE. THEY HAVE TO RIDE THOSE TWO HORSES BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION AND THEIR POSITION ALL THE WAY TO ELECTION DAY. >> IF THEY SAY HE PUT THE PRESSURE BUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, DO THEY HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS TO STAND ON TO ADMIT, HE HAD PRESSURE BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE? >> THE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND WILL BE SOMETHING TO FIGHT OVER.
BOTH SIDES WILL TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL TURF IS AND WE WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT THAT. THE CONSTITUTION IS A LITTLE MUSHY ON THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT BUT WHEN YOU READ THE DEBATES OF THAT HOT SUMMER IN PHILADELPHIA, THEY WERE JITTERY ABOUT POWER. THE QUESTION OF ABUSE OF POWER IS AT THE CENTER OF WHAT THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT AND THE REASON THEY WORRY ABOUT POWER IS BECAUSE THEY CALLED IT A CANCER AND THEY FELT LIKE IF YOU GAVE SOMEBODY POWER, THE INCLINATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT WOULD BE TO ABUSE IT. THAT WAS JUST NATURAL. SO THERE HAD TO BE THESE CHECKS ON IT. THAT IS WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT. LEAVING ASIDE IF THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY OR NOT, THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE THE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT AND THAT IS REALLY WHERE THIS CONVERSATION SHOULD TAKE PLACE.
>> THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN IN 1776 AT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS DID NOT REFER TO ACTUAL LEGAL QUESTIONS BUT RATHER TO JUDGMENT CALLS. IMPEACHMENTS HAVE HAPPENED OVER INSANITY, DRUNKENNESS, PURE MISMANAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY. THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WHO WILL DEFEND HIM ON THESE GROUNDS HAVE GOT KEN STARR AND ALAN DERSHOWITZ AMONG OTHERS. WHAT YOU MAKE OF THE TEAM? >> WANT TO WATCH THE IMPEACHMENT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT AUDIENCES OUT THERE. THERE ARE AUDIENCES OF THE SENATORS IN THE ROOM AND THERE IS A TELEVISION AUDIENCE AND THE BASE AUDIENCE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. ALL THE AUDIENCES, SOME LAWYERS ARE PICKED FOR THE AT HOME VIEWING AUDIENCE.
AND THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO SPEAKING TO THAT AUDIENCE AND HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON TELEVISION FOR YEARS AND THAT IS PART OF IT. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE COUNTRY? >> THE OUTCOME IS KNOWN. WE KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE END. >> YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN SHEPHERDS WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY JUST BASICALLY BECAUSE IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR, THIS IS A LOOK AT THIS PRESIDENT AND THE WAY HE OPERATES. IT IS A CENTRAL QUESTION OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHETHER THE PRESIDENT CAN USE HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES.
THAT IS WHAT IS AT ISSUE. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BUT THAT IS THE CENTRAL QUESTION AND IT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE GOVERNMENT PICKED AS THE PERSON GIVEN POWER ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE USE IT WISELY? IT MATTERS HERE NOT JUST WITH RESPECT TO IF HE IS IMPEACHED. WE THINK HE WILL BE ACQUITTED. BUT WHETHER HE GETS REELECTED AND WHETHER PEOPLE WOULD LIKE FOUR MORE YEARS OF THE BEHAVIOR THAT WILL BE LAID OUT IN THE COURSE OF THE SENATE TRIAL. >> THANK YOU. I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD POINT OUT TO THE IMPEACHMENTS I WAS POINTING OUT WERE FOR JUDGES. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PRESIDENT IMPEACHED FOR DRUNKENNESS. >> THE PREVIEW COVERAGE OF THE HISTORIC SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS AT 12:30 P.M.
EASTERN. FULL COVERAGE FOLLOWS AT 1:00 P.M. YOU CAN KEEP UP WITH THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SENATE TRIAL ANY TIME BY VISITING OUR LIVE BLOG ON CBS BECAUSE IT HAS NEWS.COM/IMPEACHMENT. >>> THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECLINED A FAST-TRACK A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. EARLIER THIS MONTH, 19 BLUE STATES ASK THE COURT FOR A QUICK DECISION. THEY ARE APPEALING A RULING BY A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT LATE LAST YEAR THAT SAID THE AFFORDABLE CORRECT'S INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THEY ASK THE COURT TO TAKE THE CASE AND HEAR IT ON APRIL 26th. THAT IS THE LAST SCHEDULED DAY FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS THIS TERM. TODAY'S ORDER REJECTED THAT REQUEST. THIS LIKELY MEANS NO DECISION AND THE CHALLENGE WILL BE HANDED DOWN BEFORE THIS YEAR'S ELECTION. >>> TO A DEVASTATING STORY OUT OF ARIZONA WHERE OFFICIALS SAY A MOTHER HAS ADMITTED TO KILLING HER THREE YOUNG CHILDREN. THE PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT SAID ON TWITTER THAT A 22-YEAR- OLD WOMAN RECENTLY MOVED TO ARIZONA FROM OKLAHOMA. THE CRIME TOOK PLACE IN THE FAMILY'S HOME MONDAY NIGHT. POLICE SAY THERE WERE NO OBVIOUS SIGNS OF TRAUMA ON THE CHILDREN AND THEY WERE ALL UNDER THE AGE OF FOUR. >>> ABROAD, NORTH KOREA SAYS IT NO LONGER FEELS BOUND BY ITS NUCLEAR COMMITMENTS BECAUSE THE U.S. DID NOT MEET THE DEADLINE TO RESUME TALKS.
NORTH KOREA COMMITTED TO STOPPING NUCLEAR TESTING AND PREVIOUS NEGOTIATIONS BUT TALKS BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES COLLAPSED FOLLOWING A FAILED SUMMIT BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP A NORTH KOREAN DICTATOR KIM JONG-UN LAST FEBRUARY. A PYONGYANG OFFICIAL SAID TODAY THAT THE COUNTRY WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER A NEW PATH IF THE U.S. CONTINUES TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON THE COUNTRY. >>> THE FORMER HEAD OF INTERPOL IS FACING MORE THAN 13 YEARS IN PRISON. LAST YEAR MENG HONGWEI PLED GUILTY TO ACCEPTING MORE THAN $2 MILLION IN BRIBES WHEN HE HELD POSTS IN CHINA'S COMMUNIST PARTY FROM 2005 UNTIL 2017. I 2017, MENG HONGWEI WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF INTERPOL, THE POLICE ORGANIZATION, BUT HIS TENURE WAS CUT SHORT WHEN HE SEEMINGLY VANISHED DURING A TRIP TO CHINA IN 2018. HE RESURFACED IN 2019 AND WAS DETAINED AS PART OF PRESIDENT'S XI'S DRIVE TOWARD CORRUPTION. FRANCE GRANTED HIS WIFE AFTER THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE FEARED TARGETS OF KIDNAPPING ATTEMPTS. >>> AND AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OUT FOUND SECURITY FORCES COMMITTED WAR CRIMES DURING COUNTERINSURGENCY OPERATIONS AGAINST MUSLIMS. BUT THEY A COMMISSION STOP SHORT OF ACCUSING THE TROOPS OF GENOCIDE. A MILITARY CAMPAIGN WAS LAUNCHED AGAINST THE PEOPLE IN AUGUST OF 2017 AND FORCED MORE THAN 700,000 PEOPLE TO ESCAPE TO NEIGHBORING BANGLADESH.
THE NEWS COMES DAYS BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS TOP COURT IS SET TO RULE ON WHETHER TO IMPOSE URGENT MEASURES TO STOP THE ALLEGED CONTINUING GENOCIDE . . >>> AND REPORTING ON HOW TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL MEDIA HELPED FUEL THE VIOLENCE. CHECK OUT THE DOCUMENTARY OF WOMANIZING — WEAPON ICING SOCIAL MEDIA. >>> THE WORLD'S LARGEST MINING COMPANIES OF THE BUSHFIRES AND AUSTRALIA HAVE HURT ITS COAL PRODUCTION. GROUPS SAY POOR AIR QUALITY CAUSED BY SMOKE HAS FORCED MACHINES TO OPERATE MORE SLOWLY.
THE COMPANY ALSO SAID STAFF HAS TAKEN TIME OFF TO PROTECT THEIR OWN PROPERTY FROM FIRES EARLIER THIS MORNING ON CBSN A.M., ANNE- MARIE GREEN SPOKE WITH MICHAEL MANN AN, THE DIRECTOR OF THE EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER AND STUDYING THE FIRES ON THE GROUND AND AUSTRALIA. >> I CAME TO AUSTRALIA, AND PLANNED A SABBATICAL MORE THAN A YEAR AGO TO STUDY THE LINKAGES BETWEEN DID I REALIZE THAT I WOULD BE ARRIVING IN AUSTRALIA TO SEE WHAT IS PERHAPS THE MOST EXTREME WEATHER THEY HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED IN THE FORM OF THESE WILDFIRES WILDFIRES. AND I HAVE SEEN THE IMPACT FIRSTHAND. I HAVE SEEN THE SMOKE IN THE AIR. I HAVE SMELLED THE SMOKE. I HAVE SEEN THE DAMAGE DONE BY THESE MASSIVE BUSHFIRES THAT HAVE BROKEN OUT ACROSS THE CONTINENT OF AUSTRALIA. AND IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. YOU TAKE UNPRECEDENTED HEAT WHICH AUSTRALIA HAS SEEN THE SUMMER AND UNPRECEDENTED DROUGHT WHICH THEY HAVE SEEN AND YOU PUT IT TOGETHER. YOU WILL GET THESE SORTS OF MASSIVE FAST SPREADING EXTENSIVE BUSHFIRES. AND THIS WAS PREDICTED MORE THAN A DECADE AGO. CLIMATE SCINTISTS IN AUSTRALIA SAID THAT IF WE CONTINUE TO WARM THE PLANET BY PUTTING CARBON POLLUTION INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, AT THE CURRENT RATE WE ARE GOING, BY 2020, WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE INCREASE IN SEVERITY AND EXTENT OF WILDFIRES ACROSS THE CONTINENT AND HERE WE ARE IN 2020 AND WE ARE SEEING IT.
THEY PREDICTED IT. IT IS COMING TRUE. THE PREDICTIONS ARE THAT IF WE DON'T GET THIS PROBLEM UNDERHAND, THEN WE WILL SEE FAR MORE EXTENSIVE AND WORSE BUSHFIRES IN THE FUTURE. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE CAN PREVENT IT FROM GETTING WORSE BUT WE ARE SORT OF STUCK RIGHT IN THE BEST CASE SCENARIO NEW NORMAL. SO THE LINK TO WHAT WE ARE SEEING AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS A NO-BRAINER. YOU MAY RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS INCREDIBLY HOT. BUT THE LINK BETWEEN HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND CLIMATE CHANGE, HE IS NOT CONVINCED OF. HERE HE IS IN HIS OWN BACKYARD AND I KNOW HE IS RECEIVING PRESSURE FROM PEOPLE WHO úLIVE THIS IS A TERRIBLE THING. DO YOU THINK EVENTS LIKE THIS, PARTICULARLY THE DRAMATIC IMAGES BEING BROADCAST ALL AROUND THE WORLD, THESE KOALA BEARS THAT ARE FRANTICALLY TRYING TO GET THEMSELVES TO SAFETY, DO YOU THINK THESE IMAGES AND THIS EVENT CAN SERVE TO SHIFT THE NEEDLE A LITTLE BIT? CAN YOU PUT PRESSURE ON POLITICIANS TO MAKE CHANGES? >> I THINK SO. IN FACT, I DON'T THINK SCOTT MORRISON, THE PRIME MINISTER'S RHETORIC IS REALLY CONNECTING WITH PEOPLE.
PEOPLE GET IT. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT THEY ARE SEEING IS SOMETHING THEY HAVE NOT SEEN BEFORE. úTH DOTS. THEY KNOW THIS IS CLIMATE CHANGE. THEY EXPECT THE PRIME MINISTER TO ACT, TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND THE IMAGES NOW THAT WE HAVE SEEN AROUND THE WORLD, THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE RAIN FORESTS, THE LOSS OF LIFE AND OF COURSE THESE IMAGES OF KOALA BEARS AND OTHER ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THESE UNPRECEDENTED BUSHFIRES, THIS IS SORT OF THE POSTER CHILD FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. IT IS SORT OF A POST- APOCALYPTIC VISION THAT IS GOING OUT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. AND WHAT AUSTRALIA IS EXPERIENCING IS A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR WHAT WE WILL SEE AT LARGE IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY.
>> I THINK WHAT IS CHALLENGING ABOUT THE SITUATION FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE IS THEY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE HELPLESS. AND I KNOW YOUR FOCUS IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE POLICY CHANGES AND THE BIGGER PICTURE IS WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT AND IT IS NOT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL WATER BOTTLE. BUT WHAT CAN INDIVIDUALS DO TO MAKE SOME SORT OF AN IMPACT HERE? >> THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES. SAVE ENERGY AND RECYCLE. BICYCLE TO WORK RATHER THAN DRIVE. A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO TO DECREASE THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT. AND THEY HELP WITH THIS LARGER PROBLEM. AND IT SETS A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR OTHERS. ULTIMATELY, IF WE ARE GOING TO TACKLE THIS PROBLEM, WE NEED SYSTEMIC CHANGE AND WE NEED POLICIES THAT WILL SHIFT US AWAY DRAMATICALLY FROM FOSSIL FUELS TOWARD RENEWABLE ENERGY AND WE NEED POLITICIANS THAT ARE WILLING TO SUPPORT THOSE POLICIES AND UNFORTUNATELY DONALD TRUMP IN THE U.S.
AND SCOTT MORRISON AND AUSTRALIA ARE UNWILLING TO SUPPORT THOSE POLICIES. SO WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE CAN DO? THEY CAN VOTE AND THEY CAN VOTE FOR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE WILLING TO ACT ON THEIR BEHALF RATHER THAN BEHALF OF THE FOSSIL FUEL INTEREST. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >>> WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK. BUT A QUICK REMINDER THAT WE ARE A LITTLE OVER 15 MINUTES AWAY FROM THE PREVIEW OF THE HISTORIC SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WHICH WILL BEGIN AT 12:30 EASTERN. THE TRIAL ITSELF IS DUE TO BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. EASTERN. WE WILL HAVE FULL LIVE COVERAGE RIGHT HERE ON CBSN. AFTER THE BREAK, GETTING YOU CAUGHT UP ON THE OTHER NEWS WE ARE FOLLOWING. TO STAY US. YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN. CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. >>> CHINESE OFFICIALS SAY THE CORONAVIRUS HAS KILLED SIX PEOPLE SPARKING A RENEWED URGENCY TO KEEP THE VIRUS CONTAINED. THE NEWS COMES AFTER AN EXPERT CONFIRMED THE VIRUS CAN BE TRANSPORTED HUAN TO HUMAN.
>> AND OFFICIALS ARE REPORTING THAT HE WOMAN IN TAIWAN HAS BEEN INFECTED AFTER A TRIP TO WUHAN, THE EPICENTER OF THE OUTBREAK. WE HAVE MORE ON THE LATEST. >> REPORTER: OFFICIALS IN WUHAN HAVE DESIGNATED NINE HOSPITALS AS TREATMENT CENTERS INCLUDING THE ONE RIGHT BEHIND ME. THAT IS ON TOP OF 61 FEVER CLINICS AND AN EMERGENCY EXPERT TEAM. ONE PIECE OF GOOD NEWS IS THAT CHINESE SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THEY HAVE FIGURED OUT THE DNA SEQUENCE OF THE VIRUS THAT OPENS UP THE POSSIBILITY OF TREATMENT AND POTENTIALLY A VACCINE. >> AS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CHINESE RESIDENTS MIGRATE ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO RING IN THE LUNAR NEW YEAR, CONFIRMATION THE VIRUS CAN BE SPREAD BETWEEN HUMANS IT RAISES THE POSSIBILITY IT CAN BE TRANSMITTED MORE QUICKLY AND MORE BROADLY. THAT POSES AN EVEN GREATER CHALLENGE FOR CHINA AND NEARBY NATIONS TO CONTAIN THE OUTBREAK . TRAVELERS WITH MASKS, QUARANTINE STATIONS AND TEMPERATURE CHECKPOINTS ARE BECOMING COMMON SITES AT AIRPORTS AND TRAIN HUBS ACROSS ASIA. THIS MAN WE SPOKE TO OUTSIDE OF A WUHAN HOSPITAL SAID IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS BUT BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT CAN HANDLE IT VERY WELL.
>> THE NUMBER OF KNOWN INFECTIONS HAS RISEN SHARPLY SINCE YESTERDAY, TOPPING 300 CASES IN CHINA ALONE. AT LEAST 15 HOSPITAL WORKERS IN WUHAN HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH THE VIRUS. >> IF, IN FACT, A PERSON HAS INFECTEDA HEALTHCARE WORKER, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY OF SOME CONCERN. >> DOCTORS AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SAY THAT THE HUMAN TO HUMAN TRANSMISSIONS COULD BE ISOLATED INCIDENTS. >> WHEN YOU GET SUSTAINED TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER TO ANOTHER, THEN YOU HAVE A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM BECAUSE THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MUCH MORE BROAD TYPE OF AN OUTBREAK. >> THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SAYS THEY WILL ASSEMBLE AN EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS. THEY WIL MEET WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS OUTBREAK CONSTITUTES A GLOBAL EMERGENCY AND HOW BEST TO CONTAIN IT. >>> AND PUERTO RICO, HUNDREDS OF ANGRY DEMONSTRATORS GATHERED OUTSIDE THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ISLAND OFFICIALS. THE CHANTING CAME AFTER A BLOGGER RECENTLY DISCOVERED A WAREHOUSE FILLED WITH UNUSED HURRICANE MARIA AID IN A CITY HEAVILY DAMAGED BY THE RECENT SERIES OF EARTHQUAKES. THREE OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN FIRED.
AND THE GOVERNOR BEING ASKED TO RESIGN. GOVERNOR WANDA VASQUEZ SAID SHE WAS UNAWARE OF THE WAREHOUSE AND HAS ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE HANDLING OF ALL AID. >>> GETTING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SECLUDED ISLAND WHERE THE LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN IS ACCUSED OF TRAFFICKING UNDERAGED GIRLS. LITTLE ST. JAMES OFF THE COAST OF ST. THOMAS WAS PRIVATELY OWNED BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN UNTIL HIS DEATH IN AUGUST. NOW THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS SUING HIS ESTATE TO GAIN CONTROL OF IT. >> THE NEW LAWSUIT IS PROVIDING NEW DETAILS INTO HOW JEFFREY EPSTEIN WAS ABLE TO MAKE HIS ALLEGED CRIMES GO UNNOTICED FOR SO LONG. MOLA LENGHI HAS MORE. >> REPORTER: THERE REALLY ARE ONLY TWO WAYS TO GET TO THIS ISLAND. BY HELICOPTER OR BY PRIVATE BOAT. AND THE SECLUSION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN BY DESIGN, MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO MONITOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BEHAVIOR ON THE ISLAND AND EVEN HARDER FOR ALLEGED VICTIMS WHO WERE BROUGHT HERE TO ESCAPE.
LITTLE ST. JAMES MAY LOOK LIKE A TROPICAL GETAWAY BUT AUTHORITIES SAY JEFFREY EPSTEIN USED THE PRIVATE ISLAND TO HIDE HIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. >> HE FELT HE COULD BASICALLY BE PROTECTED AND GET AWAY WITH THINGS. >> DENISE GEORGE BECAME ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS JUST MONTHS BEFORE EPSTEIN'S DEATH BY SUICIDE LAST YEAR. HER OFFICE IS NOW SUING EPSTEIN'S ESTATE. >> WHY PURSUE THESE SORT OF CHARGES NOW? >> ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS, WHY NOT NOW? I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST AT ALL.
WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT, BECAUSE OF EPSTEIN'S WEALTH AND POWER, HE WAS ABLE TO CONCEAL A LOT OF THIS. >> EPSTEIN ACQUIRED LITTLE ST. JAMES IN 1998 AND NEARBY GREAT JAMES YEARS LATER. THE LAWSUIT WANTS TO CONFISCATE HIS PROPERTY INCLUDING THE ISLANDS VALUED AT $86 MILLION. THE CONVICTED PEDOPHILE REGISTERED AS A SEX OFFENDER AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AFTER 2010 AFTER SERVING TIME IN FLORIDA FOR PROCURING AN UNDERAGE GIRL FOR PROSTITUTION. BUT GEORGE SAYS MONITORING EPSTEIN ON HIS ISLAND CAME WITH THE UNIQUE CHALLENGES FOR AUTHORITIES CHECKING UP ON HIM. >> THEY WERE STOPPED AT THE DOCK. THEY WERE TOLD THAT THIS IS AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO BECAUSE THIS IS MY PRIVATE PROPERTY AND I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO GO ANY FURTHER.
>> COURT DOCUMENTS ALLEGE EPSTEIN FLEW INTO THE ONLY AIRPORT ON ST. THOMAS AND THE SAME ONE WE FLEW INTO EARLIER THIS WEEK. >> THE AREA THAT THE PRIVATE JETS FLY IN ARE SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS AND THAT ALSO HELPS WITH THE CONCEALMENT. >> FROM THERE, EPSTEIN ALLEGEDLY SHUTTLED UNDERAGE GIRLS TO THE ISLAND USING TWO HELICOPTERS. ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS AND OTHER AIRPORT PERSONNEL REPORTED SEEING EPSTEIN WITH GIRLS WHO APPEARED TO BE AS YOUNG AS 11. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TELLS US THAT EPSTEIN CONTROLLED ALL COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION ON LITTLE ST. JAMES AND HIS ALLEGED VICTIMS WERE ESSENTIALLY TRAPPED. >> REMEMBER THAT HE OWNS THE WHOLE ISLAND. IT IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE A CHILD OR YOUNG WOMAN WOULD BE ABLE TO JUST BREAK AWAY AND RUN DOWN THE STREET TO THE NEAREST POLICE STATION.
>> THE ISLAND IS ABOUT 2 MILES FROM ST. THOMAS. ACCORDING TO THE LAWSUIT, ONE OF HIS 15-YEAR-OLD ALLEGED VICTIMS WAS SO DESPERATE TO ESCAPE THAT SHE ACTUALLY TRIED TO SWIM AWAY. >> ANOTHER ONE OF EPSTEIN'S ALLEGED VICTIMS THAT SPOKE TO CBS NEWS ON THE CONDITION WE CONCEAL HER FACE AND VOICE, TOLD US WHAT SHE SAID HAPPENED TO HER. >> HE RAPED ME AND BROUGHT ME OFF OF HIS ISLAND TO HIS OFFICE AND RAPED IN HIS OFFICE AND HE TRIED TO MEAT IN HIS ROOM ON THE ISLAND WHERE HE HAD A GUN STRAPPED TO THE BEDPOST. I COULDN'T LEAVE. THE ONLY MEANS OF GETTING OFF THE ISLAND WAS EITHER HELICOPTER OR BOAT. >> 'S ATTORNEY JORDAN MERCED REPRESENTS SEVERAL ALLEGED VICTIMS SUING EPSTEIN'S ESTATE AND HAS ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO COME FORWARD AND FILE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE ESTATE BEFORE THE LEGAL WINDOW CLOSES.
>> FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT THINK THEY HAVE MORE TIME THAN MARCH 12, 2020, THEY MAY BE WRONG. AND THEY MAY NEVER GET THEIR CHANCE AT JUSTICE IF THEY DO NOT COME FORWARD NOW. >> JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ESTATE IS DISPUTING CLAIMS THAT IT WOULD USE A POTENTIAL VICTIM'S COMPENSATION FUND TO SOMEHOW CONCEAL ANY ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN A STATEMENT TO CBS NEWS, THE ESTATE SAYS THERE WOULD BE NO OBLIGATION FOR POTENTIAL VICTIMS TO KEEP THEIR CLAIMS CONFIDENTIAL. VLAD, ANNE-MARIE. >>> PRINCE HARRY IS IN CANADA TO START HIS NEW LIFE WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND THEIR SON ARE CHEAPER AT THE DUKE OF SUSSEX WAS SEEN LANDING IN VANCOUVER MONDAY NIGHT AFTER ATTENDING WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE ONE OF HIS LAST OFFICIAL ROYAL ENGAGEMENTS AND LONDON. >> COME THIS SPRING, THE COUPLE WILL NO LONGER BE FULL-TIME WORKING ROYALS.
ELIZABETH PALMER IS OUTSIDE BUCKINGHAM PALACE WITHOUT STORY. >>> IT HAS BEEN A TUMULTUOUS COUPLE OF WEEKS BUT IT DOES NOW APPEAR THAT PRINCE HARRY HAS DEFINITIVELY LEFT HIS OLD LIFE AND STARTED A NEW ONE THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM BUCKINGHAM PALACE. >> PRINCE HARRY AND YES, HE STILL GETS TO USE THE TITLE, ARRIVED IN VANCOUVER LAST NIGHT AND WAS IMMEDIATELY WHISKED AWAY TO REJOIN MEGHAN AND úEIGHT-MONTH- ONLY HOURS BEFORE, PRINCE HARRY HAD WOUND UP HIS JOB AS A SENIOR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY AT A CONFERENCE ON AFRICAN INVESTMENT. PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN'S EXIT LIKELY MEANS EVEN MORE WORK FOR PRINCE WILLIAM, THE FUTURE KING, WHO WITH HIS WIFE KATE, WAS ON DUTY AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE FOR THE FIRST TIME, PRIMARY HOSTS OF A RECEPTION.
THE PREVIOUS DAY HARRY HAD TOLD A MEETING OF HIS PRIVATE CHARITY THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO OPTION BUT TO GO. >> WE ALL TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH. SO THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE COURAGE TO TAKE THIS NEXT STEP. >> BUT THIS IS NOT YET A CLEAN BREAK. >> WHAT ARE THE LOOSE ENDS? >> THERE ARE MORE LOOSE ENDS THAN THERE ARE DECISIONS. THE OUTSTANDING ONE OF COURSE IS THE MONEY. WHO WILL PAY FOR WHAT? AND PROBABLY THE MOST OUTSTANDING OF ALL IS THE SECURITY.
>> KEEPING THE YOUNG FAMILY SAFE IS GOING TO COST A FORTUNE. AND BRITISH OR CANADIAN TAXPAYERS ARE LIKELY TO GET THE BILL. THAT IS GOING TO GENERATE SOME ANGER. ON TOP OF THE RESENTMENT ALREADY SIMMERING MOST OF IT DIRECTED AT THE OUTSIDER IN THIS STORY. >> THE BRITISH PUBLIC OPINION IS THAT IT IS ALL MEGHAN'S FELT. THAT SHE HAS LURED HARRY AWAY FROM US. AND SHE HAS INSISTED THAT THEY HAVE A PRIVATE LIFE. >> TO QUALIFY THAT A LITTLE, IT IS A GENERATIONAL THING. OLDER PEOPLE MAY BLAME MEGHAN FOR TAKING HARRY AWAY. YOUNGER PEOPLE TEND TO JUST THINK THE COUPLE DESERVES A CHANCE AT A HAPPY LIFE AND THEY WISH THEM WELL. VLAD, ANNE-MARIE. >> THANK YOU. >>> AND THE MONEY WATCH, UBER IS TESTING A FEATURE THAT GIVES SOME DRIVERS AND CALIFORNIA THE ABILITY TO SET THEIR OWN FAIR. THIS IS A MOVE TO GIVE DRIVERS MORE CONTROL IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE'S GIG ECONOMY LAW. THE NEW LEGISLATION REQUIRES COMPANIES TO TREAT WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES INSTEAD OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
THEY ARE ASKING THAT VOTERS EXEMPT COMPANIES FROM THE BILL. >>> TESLA IS DISPUTING ALLEGATIONS OF UNEXPECTED ACCELERATION IN THEIR VEHICLES. SAYING THAT A STOP SHORT SELLER WAS BEHIND THE CLAIMS. AT ISSUE ARE ROUGHLY 500,000 VEHICLES MADE FROM 2013 UNTIL 2019. A PETITION FILED LAST WEEK CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE 127 COMPLAINTS OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRADE SAFETY ADMINISTER ASIAN SAID IT WILL REVIEW THE PETITION AND DECIDE WHETHER TO LAUNCH A FULL INVESTIGATION. >>> GOOGLE AND SEND ARE CALLING FOR REGULAR ASIAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND AN OP-ED. RIDING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT BUT APPROACHING THE BEST WAY. COMMENTS COME AS PUTTING LIMITS ON HOW OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS USED. >> THANK YOU FOR STREAMING CBSN.
WALL-TO-WALL SPECIAL COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS AFTER A QUICK BREAK. REENA NINAN IS STANDING BY WITH OUR TEAM OF CORRESPONDENTS AND ANALYSTS AND WE WILL WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN ON THE HILL AS LAWMAKERS GET READY FOR WHAT WILL CERTAINLY BE A VERY TENSE AFTERNOON. YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN. CBSN, ALWAYS ON. >>> HELLO EVERYONE. I'M REENA NINAN. ON A HISTORY MAKING DATE IN AMERICA. WE ARE MOMENTS AWAY FROM THE START OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE SENATE. WE ARE ABOUT TO WITNESS SOMETHING THAT HAS ONLY TAKEN PLACE TWICE BEFORE. THE BIG DAY WILL BEGIN WITH A TENSE DEBATE OVER THE RULES THAT WILL GOVERN THE TRIAL. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL WILL TAKE THE FLOOR MOMENTARILY AND INTRODUCED A RESOLUTION CONTAINING THOSE RULES.
HERE IS WHAT MCCONNELL WANTS. EACH SIDE GETS 24 HOURS TO ARGUE THEIR CASE. IT WILL BE SPLIT OVER TWO DAYS A PIECE. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE HOUSE AND COREY WILL ONLY BE ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD PICK THE SENATE VOTES TO DO SO. SENATORS WILL HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS IN WRITING AFTER ARGUMENTS ARE MADE. AND ONLY THEN WILL THE SENATE TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF CALLING WITNESSES. DEMOCRATS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE RULES. AND THEY WILL SEEK TO FIX THEM BY WAY OF ISSUING AMENDMENTS. SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER WENT AS FAR AS TO CALL THE RULES A DISGRACE HE THINKS THE TIMELINE IS RUSSIAN IS FURIOUS AT THE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE WILL HAVE TO BE FOUGHT FOR. AGAIN, THE TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OR ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THOSE ARTICLES ARE LIKELY TO START TOMORROW. ASSUMING THE SENATE COMES TO TERMS WITH THE RULES THIS AFTERNOON. I WANT TO BRING AN OUR PANEL.
RIKKI CLAIMANT, CAITLIN HEALY BURNS. RIKKI IS A CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST. JEFF IS A WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR REUTERS AND DON IS HISTORIAN FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE. I WANT TO START WITH YOU. BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST, WHAT WILL TODAY'S TRIAL, THE DEBATE PROCEEDINGS, LOOK LIKE? >> IT WILL BE A LITTLE UNUSUAL THAT WE WILL GET TO WATCH THE DEBATE. THE FIRST TIME THEY HELD A DISCUSSION ON THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THEY ACTUALLY DID IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. BECAUSE THEY HAD SUCH A NEW EFFORT FOR THEM. THIS TIME AROUND THE RULES ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONES USED IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. THEY WILL USE THAT AS THE STARTING POINT. BUT THEY WILL BE DEBATING AND PUBLIC. >> WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS A BIG DIFFERENCE FROM THE LAST GO AROUND UNDER CLINTON AND NOW WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RULES? >> WITNESSES ARE AN ISSUE.
IN 1999, THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE SENATORS ON BOTH SIDES THAT THEY DID NOT WANT THE WITNESSES ON THE FLOOR. PARTICULARLY THEY DID NOT WANT MONICA LEWINSKY ON THE FLOOR. AND SO THEY FINALLY AGREED TO HAVE A VIDEO DEPOSITION OF THREE WITNESSES THAT WERE SHOWN. THIS TIME AROUND, THERE IS DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE SENATORS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WITNESSES SHOULD BE PRESENT OR NOT. >> I WANT TO TURN TO RIKKI CLAIMANT ONSET. HOUSE JUDICIARY JERRY NADLER HAD SAID AT ONE POINT, AT NO POINT WOULD YOU HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT HAVING WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE RULES THAT MCCONNELL HAS SET FORWARD AND DO YOU AGREE WITH THOSE? >> I THINK JERRY NADLER MAKES IT VERY ACCURATE STATEMENT. WE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANY KIND OF TRIAL, WHETHER IT IS IMPEACHMENT OR A CIVIL TRIAL OR CRIMINAL TRIAL WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE AND YOU DON'T HAVE WITNESSES IN WHATEVER FORM. YOU COULD DO IT BY DEPOSITION. >> I APOLOGIZE. I'M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF TRACK I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU TO SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL.
>> WE BEGIN JUST 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 IS 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. KIM THE SENATE STILL SERVE OUR FOUNDING PURPOSE? CAN WE STILL PUT FAIRNESS, EVENHANDEDNESS AND HISTORICAL PRECEDENT AHEAD OF THE PARTISAN PASSION OF THE DAY? TODAY'S VOTE WILL CONTAIN SOME ANSWERS. THE ORGANIZING RESOLUTION WILL PUT FORWARD THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY OF THE SENATE. THAT IS BECAUSE IT SETS UP A STRUCTURE THAT IS FAIR, EVENHANDED AND TRACKS CLOSELY WITH PAST PRESIDENTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED UNANIMOUSLY. AFTER PRETRIAL 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 FORTH, WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION IN HAND, THE SENATE WILL CONSIDER WHETHER WE FEEL ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR WITNESS OR 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 MINORITYBACK 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 THERE AND COREY 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 ROADMAP FOR OUR TRIAL. WE NEEDED IT IN PLACE BEFORE WE COULD MOVE FORWARD. SO THE SENATE SHOULD PREPARE TO REMAIN IN SESSION TODAY UNTIL WE COMPLETE THIS RESOLUTION AND ADOPTED. THE 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 ROADMAP WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO BEGIN THE TRIAL. ALL 100 SENATORS AGREED THAT THE PROPER TIME TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF POTENTIAL WITNESSES WAS AFTER. AFTER OPENING ARGUMENTS AND SENATOR'S QUESTIONS. SOME OUTSIDE VOICES HAVE BEEN URGING THE SENATE TO BREAK WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THIS QUESTION. LOUD VOICES, INCLUDING THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE MAJORITY COLLUDED WITH SENATE DEMOCRATS AND TRIED TO FORCE THE SENATE TO PRE-COMMIT OURSELVES TO SEEK SPECIFIC WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE SENATORS HAD EVEN HEARD OPENING ARGUMENTS OR 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 IS 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 SITES. BUT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DECIDED NOT TO. THEY DECIDED THAT THE INQUIRY WAS FINISHED AND MOVED AHEAD. THE HOUSE CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE THE SAME WITNESSES THEY APPARENTLY WOULD NOW LIKE AND 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 BIPARTISAN 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 PREMATURE 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 ORDERS OR SUBPOENAS SPECIFIC WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS, I WILL MOVE TO TABLE SUCH EMOTIONS BECAUSE THE SENATE WILL DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS LATER IN THE TRIAL, JUST LIKE WE DID BACK IN 1999. 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 PRAY COMMIT OURSELVES TO REOPEN THE VERY INVESTIGATION THAT THEY THEMSELVES OVERSAW AND VOLUNTARILY SHUT DOWN.
IT WOULD BE CURIOUS TO HEAR THESE TWO HOUSE CHAIRMAN ARGUE THAT THE SENATE MUST PRAY COMMIT OURSELVES TO SUPPLEMENTING THEIR OWN EVIDENTIARY RECORD TO ENFORCING SUBPOENAS THAT THEY REFUSE TO ENFORCE, TO SUPPLEMENTING A CASE THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE RECENTLY DESCRIBED AS OVERWHELMING. OVERWHELMING. AND BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. SO MR. PRESIDENT, THESE MID-TRIAL QUESTIONS COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE US EVEN DEEPER INTO EVEN MORE COMPLEX CONSTITUTIONAL WATERS.
FOR EXAMPLE, MANY SENATORS INCLUDING MAY HAVE CONCERNS OVER BLURRING THE TRADITIONAL ROLE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WITHIN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. THE CONSTITUTION DIVIDES THE POWER THE FIRST BELONGS SOLELY TO THE HOUSE AND WITH THE POWER TO IMPEACH, COMES A RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE. THE SENATE AGREEING TO PICK UP AND CARRY ON THE HOUSE'S AND ADD YOUR KIT INVESTIGATION SET A NEW PRECEDENT THAT COULD INCENTIVIZE HASTY IMPEACHMENTS FROM FUTURE HOUSE MAJORITIES. IT COULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE HOUSE ON THE SENATE IF THE SENATE AGREES THAT WE WILL CONDUCT BOTH THE INVESTIGATION AND THE TRIAL OF AN IMPEACHMENT.
WHAT IS MORE, SOME OF THE PROPOSED NEW WITNESSES INCLUDE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS WHOSE KEY MEDICATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT AND WITH OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS LIE AT THE VERY CORE OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE. PURSUING THOSE WITNESSES COULD END UP DELAYING 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 100 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 THAT 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, THE SENATE WILL RETAKE THE ENTRANCE EXAM. THE BASIC STRUCTURE WE ARE PROPOSING IS JUST AS EMINENTLY FAIR AND EVENHANDED AS IT WAS BACK THEN. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SENATORS ARE THEMSELVES READY TO BE AS FAIR AND AS EVENHANDED. THE SENATE MADE A STATEMENT 21 YEARS AGO. WE SAID THAT THE PRESIDENTS OF EITHER PARTY DESERVE BASIC JUSTICE AND A FAIR PROCESS. A CHALLENGING POLITICAL MOMENT LIKE TODAY DOES NOT MAKE SUCH STATEMENTS LESS NECESSARY. BUT ALL THE MORE NECESSARY AND FACT. SO I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE THAT THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE VOTE ON THIS RESOLUTION OUGHT TO BE REMOTELY PARTISAN THERE IS NO REASON OTHER THAN BASE PARTISANSHIP TO SAY THIS PARTICULAR PRESIDENT DESERVES A RADICALLY DIFFERENT RULEBOOK THAN WHAT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR A PAST PRESIDENT OF YOUR OWN PARTY.
SO I WOULD URGE EVERY SINGLE SENATOR TO SUPPORT THE FAIR RESOLUTION. I URGE EVERYONE TO VOTE TO UPHOLD THE SENATE'S UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN PRECEDENT. OF A FAIR PROCESS. >> SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL OUTLINING SOME PROPOSED GROUND RULES. I WANT TO BRING AN OUR PANEL HERE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE. WE ARE ALSO EXPECTING CHUCK SCHUMER TO STEP UP TO THE PODIUM ANY MOMENT NOW. THERE HE IS. LET'S GO TO HIM LIVE. >> 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 LITTLE EVENTS IN OUR NATION'S HSTORY. WE MUST MAKE SURE THEY ARE ABLE TO PICK SOME MAY NOT WANT TO 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 JOHN TRUMP FOR COMMITTING HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF COERCING 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 IS 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 TO ATTEMPT SOMETHING ON ITS OWN IS BAD ENOUGH. FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO DELIBERATELY SOLICIT SUCH A THING, TO BLACKMAIL 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 THEM, THE PRESIDENT TO DENY THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT, DENY THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE ANY OF HIS ACTIVITIES, TO SAY ARTICLE TWO OF THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO QUOTE DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, WE ARE STARING DOWN AN EROSION OF THE SACRED DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH OUR FOUNDERS FOUGHT A BLOODIED WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.
SUCH AS THE GRAVITY OF THIS HISTORIC MOMENT. ONE SENATOR, 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 IS PUBLIC, IT IS VERY EASY TO SEE WHY. THE MACCONNELL 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 TWO OR 3:00 IN THE MORNING SO THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T SEE THEM. IN SHORT, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION WILL RESULT IN A RUSHED 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 MACCONNELL IS SO CONFIDENT THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG, WHY DON'T THEY WANT THE CASE TO BE PRESENTED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT? SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS IMPEACHMENT, THE MACCONNELL 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 THE DARKEST. LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL 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 WITH LESS EVIDENCE? HE SAID HE WANTED TO GET STARTED AND EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
IT TURNS OUT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEADERS 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 MACCONNELL RESOLUTION DOES NOT ADMIT THE RECORD OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS INTO EVIDENCE. THE LEADER MACCONNELL WANTS A TRIAL WITH NO EXISTING EVIDENCE AND NO NEW EVIDENCE. A TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS NOT A TRIAL. IT IS A COVER UP. SECOND, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION LIMITS PRESENTATION BY PARTIES TO 24 HOURS PER SIDE OVER ONLY TWO DAYS. WE START AT ONE. 12 HOURS A DAY. AT 1:00 A.M. THAT IS WITHOUT BREAKS. IT WILL BE LATER. LEADER MACCONNELL WANTS TO FORCE THE MANAGERS TO MAKE IMPORTANT PARTS OF THEIR CASE IN THE DARK OF NIGHT.
NUMBER THREE, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION PLACES AN ADDITIONAL HURDLE TO GET WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BY REQUIRING A VOTE ON WHETHER THE EMOTIONS OR EVEN AN ORDER. IF THAT VOTE FAILS, NO EMOTIONS TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WILL BE IN ORDER. I DON'T WANT ANYONE ON THE OTHER SIDE TO SAY, I'M GOING TO VOTE NO FIRST ON WITNESSES. BUT THEN LATER, I WILL DETERMINE IT. IF THEY VOTE FOR MACCONNELL'S RESOLUTION, THEY ARE MAKING IT FAR MORE DIFFICULT TO VOTE IN THE FUTURE LATER ON IN THE TRIAL. AND FINALLY, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION ALLOWS A MOTION TO DISMISS AT ANY TIME, ANYTIME IN THE TRIAL. SO IN SHORT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEADER HAS SAID, THE MACCONNELL RULES ARE NOT AT ALL LIKE THE CLINTON RULES. REPUBLICAN LEADER'S RESOLUTION IS BASED NEITHER IN PRECEDENT, NOR IN PRINCIPLE PICK IT IS DRIVEN BY PARTISANSHIP AND THE POLITICS OF THE MOMENT. TODAY, I WILL BE OFFERING AMENDMENTS TO FIX THE MANY FLAWS AND LEADER MACCONNELL'S DEEPLY UNFAIR RESOLUTION AND SEEK THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WE 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 IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET A FAIR TRIAL. AND EVERYONE IN THIS BODY KNOWS IT. EACH SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND OUR HISTORY, ALL 15 THAT WERE BROUGHT TO COMPLETION FEATURE WITNESSES. EVERY SINGLE ONE. THE WITNESSES REQUEST ARE NOT DEMOCRATS. THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MEN . THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC DOCUMENTS. THEIR DOCUMENTS PERIOD. WE DON'T KNOW THE EVIDENCE OF THE WITNESSES OR THE DOCUMENTS, IF IT WILL BE EXCULPATORY TO THE PRESIDENT OR INCRIMINATING. 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 AFTERWARDS, DECIDE IF THE SENATE SHOULD HEAR EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE IS SUPPOSED TO INFORM ARGUMENTS, NOT COME AFTER THEM BEING COMPLETED. SOME REPUBLICANS 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 IMPEACHMENT. NOT THE SOLE POWER TO REVIEW, NOT THE SOLE POWER TO REHASH, BUT TO TRY. REPUBLICANS HAVE CALLED OUR REQUESTER 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 WHITE HOUSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE BRAZEN AND WRONG. 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 THE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HIDING? IF THEY WEREN'T AFRAID OF THE TRUTH, THEY WOULD SAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. GET OUT THE TRUTH. GET WITNESSES. GET DOCUMENTS. IN FACT, AT NO POINT OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS HAVE I HEARD A SINGLE SOLITARY ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS 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 MACCONNELL IS POISED TO ASK THE SENATE TO BEGIN THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY WITHOUT WITNESSES THAT RUSHES TO THE ARGUMENTS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, THAT IN WAYS BOTH SHAMELESS AND SUBTLE, WILL CONCEAL THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. LEADER MACCONNELL CLAIMED THAT THE HOUSE HAD RUN THE MOST THOROUGH AND UNFAIR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN MODERN HISTORY. THE TRUTH IS LEADER MACCONNELL IS PLOTTING THE MOST RUSHED AND MOST UNFAIR IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN MODERN HISTORY. AND IT BEGINS TODAY. THE SENATE HAS BEFORE IT IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION. THE PRESIDENT IS ACCUSED OF COERCING A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, TO HELP HIMSELF. IT IS THE JOB OF THE SENATE TO DETERMINE IF THESE VERY SERIOUS CHARGES ARE TRUE.
THE VERY LEASED WE CAN DO IS EXAMINE THE FACTS AND REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND 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 ITS CONDUCT, THEN THIS PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS CAN COMMIT IMPEACHABLE CRIMES WITH IMPUNITY AND THE ORDER AND RIGOR OF ALL DEMOCRACY WILL DRAMATICALLY DECLINE. THE FINAL FAILSAFE OF OUR DEMOCRACY WILL BE RENDERED MOOT.
THE 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 AIRING OF THE FACTS. OR RUSH TO A PREDETERMINED 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 THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE LEADERSHIP >>> DON, I WANT TO TURN TO YOU AS YOU ARE A HISTORIAN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF COMPARISON BETWEEN RULES MITCH McCONNELL LAID DOWN AND RULES FROM 21 YEARS AGO UNDER BILL CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. CAN YOU EXPLAIN AND TAKE US BACK.
WERE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED? DID THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS OF DISCUSSING THAT AS THEY ARE NOW? >> THERE HAVE BEEN TWO PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. ONE WAS ANDREW JOHNSON IN 1868 AND THERE WERE ABOUT 40 WITNESSES AT THAT TIME. THE PRESIDENT WANTED EVERYONE ON HIS ADMINISTRATION TO TESTIFY IN HIS FAVOR AT THAT STAGE. IN THE CLINTON CASE, THERE HAD BEEN A LARGE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY KEN STAR THAT PUT OUT ENORMOUS REPORT AND REALLY INTERGATED EVERYONE IMAGINABLE. THE QUESTION WAS DO THEY ADD ANYTHING EXTRA WHEN THEY CAME TO THE TRIAL? THE GENERAL SENSE WAS PROBABLY NOT BUT THEY DID ALLOW THREE WITNESSES TO BE DEPOSED AND PROBABLY IN THE END DIDN'T CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND.
>> I WANT TO TURN TO JEFF MASON WHO IS OUTSIDE OF THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HEARD JUST NOW THERE WERE THREE WITNESSES DURING CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. AUDIO RECORDINGS WERE ALLOWED TO BE HEARD. WHAT IS THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING? WHAT IS THEIR STRATEGY? >> I THINK THE WHITE HOUSE IS CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH SENATE MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL. I AM SURE THEY LOOKED UPON HIS OPENING REMARKS WITH A GREAT DEAL OF FAVOR.
I AM STANDING OUT HERE ON THIS COLD DAY IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE BUT THE PRESIDENT ISN'T HERE, THE DAY HIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS. HE IS IN DABOS, SWITZERLAND SPEAKING TO WORLD ECONOMIC LEADERS. I CAN ASSURE YOU HE IS KEEPING PRETTY CLOSE TRACK OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND IS PLEASED THAT HIS COUNSEL WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO, IN THEIR BELIEF, REALLY LAYOUT THE CASE AND PROVE WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN ARGUING IS NOT THE CASE. >> WE HEARD NO REPUBLICAN HAS MADE THE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY LESS EVIDENCE IS BETTER THAN MORE. SCHUMER SAID HE WILL TABLE ANYTHING THAT IS PREMATURE. >> SENATOR SCHUMER HAD AN INTERESTING LINE. HE SAID A TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS A COVER UP. THAT IS GOING TO BE THE THEME OF THE DEMOCRATS. IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE I SAY AS A LAWYER ANY TRIAL WITH NO EVIDENCE AND NO WITNESSES. THEN ALL YOU ARE GETTING ARE ARGUMENTS ON THE PART OF COUNSEL WHICH LAWYERS WILL TELL YOU IS LIKE HAVING AN APPELLATE ARGUMENT WHERE THAT'S WHAT YOU HEAR.
SO IF ALL WE DO HAVE ARE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL OR ARGUMENTS OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THEN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LAWYERS FOR THE PRESIDENT, IF THAT IS ALL THERE IS BEFORE THE QUESTIONS COME FROM THE SENATORS WHICH THEN GO TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND WHAT THE QUESTIONS MEAN IS THIS, QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATORS ARE FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND FOR THE DEFENDERS OF THE PRESIDENT. SO WE ARE REALLY HAVING IN ESSENCE A LARGE APPELLATE ARGUMENT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE SENATE WILL NOT HAVE BENEFIT OF, WHICH WE HAVE HAD, WHICH IS THE WITNESSES WHO WERE LIVE DURING INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS OF THE HOUSE. SO THERE WILL BE NO FIONA HILL.
THERE WILL BE NO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. >> TO PEOPLE WHO ASK HOW CAN YOU HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT HEARING OR SEEING EVIDENCE, WHAT DO YOU SAY? >> I SAY IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO TAKE THE EVIDENCE AT THE HOUSE AND AT LAST MAKE SURE THE SENATORS READ OR HEAR THAT EVIDENCE. AND THE WITNESSES THAT THE DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE TO CALL MAY HAVE RELEVANCE FOR DEMOCRATS AND BE IN CUL PA TORI BUT WE DON'T KNOW THEY MAY BE EXCULPATORY. WHEN IT COMES TO SOMEONE LIKE JOHN BOLTON, MICK MULVANEY, WHO IS TO SAY WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY? >> YOU SEE A LIVE LOOK AT CAPITOL HILL. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IS EXPECTED TO PRESIDE. WE SEE SENATOR CORY BOOKER WHO LAST WEEK DECIDED HE IS NOT GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE. CAITLIN, I WILL BRING YOU IN. THE OTHER ELEMENT THAT EVERYONE IS WATCHING IS YOU HAVE FOLKS ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE WHO ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THAT WILL NEED TO BE HERE >> Reporter: USUALLY AT THIS TIME WE WOULD BE IN IOWA.
NOW YOU SEE SANDERS, WARREN, KLOBUCHAR WILL BE IN THE SENATE DOING JURY DUTY. CORY BOOKER WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE HE DROPPED OUT CITING IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AS A REASON HE COULDN'T CONTINUE, SAYING HE WILL HAVE TO BE IN WASHINGTON, HARD TO RAISE MONEY THAT WAY, HARD TO CAMPAIGN. I THOUGHT WHAT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR SCHUMER SAY WAS THESE WITNESSES THEY WANT TO BRING FORWARD ARE NOT DEMOCRATS. HE SAID THEY'RE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MEN. THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK EVEN IF YOU AREN'T GOING TO GET REPUBLICANS CROSSING OVER TO SUPPORT DEMOCRATS WHEN IT COMES TO THE RULES, PEOPLE LIKE MITT ROMNEY, LISA MURKOWSKI, THOSE VULNERABLE SENATORS, THEY SAY THEY WANT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE FIRST.
WHILE OPEN TO WITNESSES THEY'RE NOT REALLY READY TO MAKE THAT YET. THEY WILL SUPPORT THE RULES PACKAGE WHICH IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS HEADED FOR REALLY A PARTISAN SHOW DOWN. I THINK WHAT SCHUMER WAS TRYING TO DO WAS SAY THAT THE WITNESSES THEY WANT TO CALL ARE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN PEOPLE. SECOND, TO TRY TO PUT PRESSURE ON SOME OF THE MORE VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS FOR REELECTION IN 2020 WHO WILL BE FACING THIS VOTE. THERE WAS A CNN POLL OUT THAT SHOWED WHILE THE COUNTRY IS SPLIT ON IMPEACHMENT, ABOUT HALF WANTED SENATE TO CONVICT HERE, 70% OR NEARLY 70% WANT TO SEE NEW WITNESSES. HOW THEY TRY TO USE PUBLIC OPINION AND TRY TO CREATE MORE PRESSURE FOR SOME OF THE REPUBLICANS I THINK IS SOMETHING TO WATCH. >> I WANT TO TURN TO THE WHITE HOUSE. THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED THEIR STRATEGY YESTERDAY OF HOW THEY PLAN TO GO FORWARD. WHA DID WE LEARN? WHAT'S THEIR PLANS? WHERE DO THEY STAND ABOUT ALLOWING A JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY? >> WE LEARNED A FEW THINGS.
IN MANY WAYS, THE INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE YESTERDAY REALLY PUT INTO WRITING WHAT WE HAVE SEEN ALREADY FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP ON HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT AND LISTEN TO HIM SAY WHEN HE SPEAKS TO REPORTERS AND SPEAKS IN PUBLIC. BASICALLY THEY SEE THIS AS A SHAM. THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS ARE ARGUING HE DID NOTHING WRONG AND ACTUALLY THAT THEY SEE THAT AS ONE OF THE BIGGER WEAKNESSES IN THE DEMOCRATS' CASE WHICH IS THEY DON'T BELIEVE THIS ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE IS IMPEACHABLE.
TO THE SECOND CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE OR OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS, THAT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. THE PRESIDENT HAD THE RIGHT TO CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN SOME AREAS AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IMPEACHABLE EITHER. I THINK WE WILL SEE THAT ARGUED MORE FORCEFULLY IN THE COMING DAYS AND AGAIN IT'S REALLY JUST A CULMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING ALREADY FOR SOMETIME.
>> I WANT TO TURN TO DON RITCHIE TO GIVE US MORE HISTORICAL CONTEXT TO THIS. WHEN YOU COMPARE THE RELATIONSHIP SCHUMER AND McCONNELL AT THIS POINT TO 21 YEARS AGO, WHAT COMPARISONS WOULD YOU DRAW? >> IT'S CLEAR POLITICS HAVE BECOME MORE POLARIZING. THEY DISAGREE POLITICALLY BUT BOTH ROSE TO DECIDING TO DEFEND THE SENATE AS INSTITUTION AND WORKED CLOSELY DURING THAT PERIOD AND BROUGHT THE SENATORS TOGETHER. SENATOR McCONNELL MENTIONED THAT 100 TO NOTHING VOTE. THAT WAS QUITE A REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENT. THE SENATORS REALLY DESERVE THE CREDIT FOR BRINGING THE TWO PARTIES TOGETHER. IT MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THE TWO PARTIES THAT CLOSE TOGETHER IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE. >> IN HIS WORDS SENATOR McCONNELL SAID 21 YEARS AGO, 100 SENATORS AGREED THIS WAS THE RIGHT ROAD MAP.
WHAT'S DIFFERENT NOW? IT SEEMS LIKE A McCONNELL GUIDELINE AND SOMETHING THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO PUSH AND NONE SEEM TO BE DOVE TAILING WITH WHAT CLINTON RULES WERE. CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE DIFFERENCES? >> THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS SENATE TO WRITE ITS RULES UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE SENATE ACTUALLY PREFERS TO OPERATE UNDER PRECEDENT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IF THEY DID IT BEFORE, IT'S EASY TO JUSTIFY DOING IT AGAIN.
IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT BEFORE, IT'S HARDER TO GET TO THAT STAGE. THAT HAPPENS IN THE SENATE ON A DAILY BASIS. PRECEDENTS OUT RULE THE RULES OF THE SENATE ON MANY OCCASIONS. WHAT THEY'RE BOTH LOOKING BACK TO IS WHAT'S SIMILARITY OF THE SITUATION IN 1999 AND WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT IT? ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE WAS THAT THE HOUSE REALLY DIDN'T CONDUCT MUCH OF AN INVESTIGATION IN 1998. IT REALLY DEPENDED ON THE STARR REPORT WHEREAS WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING FOR SEVERAL WEEKS WITH THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION GOING ON.
THE WITNESSES HAD ALL BEEN ESSENTIALLY INTERGATED IN 1998 BUT A LOT OF WITNESSES THAT THE HOUSES SOUGHT TO HEAR TESTIFY FROM WERE DENIED TO THEM BECAUSE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE PEOPLE CAN SAY IT'S THE SAME AS IT WAS OR IT'S DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS. IN EACH CASE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TRY TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES. >> I WAS A COLLEGE FRESHMAN WHEN THE STARR REPORT CAME OUT. THEY HAD A POST TO STOP PRINTING THE REPORT BECAUSE IT WAS CLOGGING THE PRINTERS. WE ARE AT A SUCH DIFFERENT POINT WHERE INFORMATION IS STREAMING. I WANT TO TURN TO YOU AND ASK ABOUT PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL, WHO DEMOCRATS BELIEVE CAN BE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING WHITE HOUSE'S INTERACTION WITH UKRAINE. I WANT TO QUOTE HERE.
IT SAYS HAVING CIPOLLONE IN HIS ROLE SPEAK, NOT HAVING HIM UNDERMINES INTEGRITY OF THE IMPENDING TRIAL. THAT'S A DIRECT QUOTE. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT ARGUMENT? >> PAT CIPOLLONE REALLY KNOWS THE TRUTH AT LEAST AS TO CONVERSATIONS HE WAS PRIVY TO OR PART OF. SO HE IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION. IT WOULD BE THE POSITION THAT RUDY GIULIANI WOULD BE IN IF RUDY GIULIANI GOT HIS WISH TO BECOME AN ATTORNEY IN THE CASE WHICH OF COURSE WOULD BE RIDICULOUS BECAUSE IF THERE IS ANYONE WHO SHOULD BE A PRIMARY WITNESS FOR ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, ONE COULD SAY IT WAS RUDY GIULIANI. PAT CIPOLLONE UNDERSTANDS THE PRESIDENT'S MIND. APPARENTLY FROM EVERYTHING WE ARE GIVEN TO READ, THE PRESIDENT IS LOCK STEP WITH MITCH McCONNELL, BELIEVES IN HOW MITCH McCONNELL IS GOING TO CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS AND THAT HE, THE PRESIDENT, BELIEVES IN WHAT PAT CIPOLLONE WOULD SAY WHICH HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN THE RESPONSIVE BRIEF AND THE BRIEF IS VERY CLEAR.
THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG OR IN OTHER WORDS, THE CALL WAS PERFECT. IF HE DOES SOMETHING WRONG, IT IS NOT IMPEACH ABLE. YOU CAN'T QUESTION CIPOLLONE BECAUSE HE IS THE LAWYER, EXCEPT THE SENATORS CAN QUESTION HIM. BUT THEY'RE QUESTIONING HIM NOT ABOUT HIM. THEY'RE QUESTIONING HIM ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT HE IS THERE AS THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, NOT AS A WITNESS. >> IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, THREE WITNESSES WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE AUDIO RECORDINGS PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL. IF THERE WERE THREE WITNESSES WHO COULD BE KEY TO THE TRIAL, WHO WOULD THEY BE? >> CERTAINLY MICK MULVANEY.
NUMBER ONE, PUT MULVANEY AS NUMBER TWO. CERTAINLY JOHN BOLTON IS THE ONE EVERYONE WANTS TO HEAR FROM FOLLOWED BY MULVANEY. THEN I THINK THERE IS DEBATE WHICH YOU CAN ASK POLITICAL EXPERTS ABOUT IF IT'S OTHER PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE, IF IT'S LEV PARNAS OR IF IT IS ULTIMATELY RUDY GIULIANI. BUT THE WITNESSES THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ARE REALLY WITHIN OMB. >> I WANT TO TURN TO JEFF MASON AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HAVE HEARD RICKY LAYOUT WITNESSES PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM.
WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE? WHAT IS THEIR STRATEGY WHEN IT COMES TO ALLOWING ANYONE TO SPEAK? >> I THINK THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING TO WAIT IT OUT A LITTLE BIT WHICH IS McCONNELL'S STRATEGY, HAVE BOTH SIDES MAKE THEIR ARGUMENTS FIRST, GO THROUGH THE SEPARATE 24 HOUR PERIODS OF LAYING OUT THE CASE AND THE DEFENSE. THEN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WITNESSES. IF DEMOCRATS DO SUCCEED IN GETTING ENOUGH VOTES FROM SOME OF THE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES FROM MITT ROMNEY FOR EXAMPLE, PERHAPS SUSAN COLLINS, LISA MURKOWSKI TO ALLOW WITNESSES THEN REPUBLICANS WILL WANT WITNESSES AS WELL IN ADDITION TO THE THREE PEOPLE WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT THE DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKELY CALL.
REPUBLICANS WOULD PROBABLY CALL HUNTER BIDEN, MIGHT EVEN CALL JOE BIDEN TO COME IN AND REALLY FOCUS ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LEGAL TEAM ARE SAYING WAS GOING ON IN UKRAINE AND TO PROVE THEIR CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ACTUALLY TRYING TO DOUBLE DOWN ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT BUT WAS TRYING FIGHT CORRUPTION IN THE FOREIGN COUNTRY. >> AT THIS POINT, HOW CONFIDENT IS THE WHITE HOUSE WITH THEIR LEGAL STRATEGY GOING INTO IMPEACHMENT. WITH THESE POLLS WHERE A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE WITNESSES PRESENTED AT THE TRIAL? >> THOSE ARE TWO GOOD QUESTIONS. I WILL SEPARATE THEM SLIGHTLY. IN TERMS OF OVERALL STRATEGY I THINK THE WHITE HOUSE IS VERY CONFIDENT. AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE OUTCOME FROM THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS? IT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO LEAD TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
BECAUSE OF THAT AND THOSE FACTS THEY FEEL CONFIDENT ABOUT THIS GOING FORWARD. AS FAR AS WITNESSES, I THINK THERE IS A QUESTION MARK. IN GENERAL I THINK THE PREFERENCE NOW IS PRETTY WELL ALIGNED WITH McCONNELL'S PREFERENCES, WITH PREFERENCES THAT GRAHAM WHO IS CLOSELY TIED TO THE WHITE HOUSE LAID OUT OF JUST HAVING A QUICK TRIAL, HAVING A QUICK TRIAL AND GETTING THIS DONE, REMOVING IT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S PLATE AND THE COUNTRY'S PLATE AND ALLOWING HIM TO MOVE ON AND CLAIM VINDICATION IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD REFER RATHER THAN HAVING A LONG DRAWN OUTWIT BACK AND FORTH FROM BOTH SIDES. >> DON, WE ARE ALSO GOING TO SEE CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS PRESIDING OVER THIS TRIAL. WHAT WILL HIS ROLE BE IN ALL THIS? >> THAT'S WHAT REALLY DISTINGUISHES A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THIS IS THE ONLY CASE IN WHICH CHIEF JUSTICE COMES ACROSS THE STREET TO PRESIDE. CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO, IN A SENSE, HAVE TO BE THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE SENATE WHICH MEANS HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADJUST TO RULES AND PRECEDENTS OF THE SENATE.
IN 1868 UNDER ANDREW JOHNSON, CHIEF JUSTICE RULED AND MADE LOTS OF RULINGS AND DECIDED THINGS. BY 1999 WHEN REHNQUIST CAME OVER, THE SENATE HAD CHANGED AS A BODY AND PRESIDING OFFICER WAS NOT A POWERFUL FIGURE AND CHIEF JUSTICE HAD TO LISTEN TO THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIANS GIVE HIM ADVICE. IF CHIEF JUSTICE RULED IN A DIFFERENT WAY, HE COULD BE OVERRULED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY OF SENATORS. REHNQUIST PULLED BACK AND DID A MINIMAL JOB OF WHICH LATER HE SAID HE DID NOTHING IN PARTICULAR BUT DID IT VERY WELL AND IN FACT WAS HIGHLY REGARDED BY SENATORS AT THE TIME. SO THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE SENATE. SENATORS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO STAND UP AND WALK AROUND, TALK TO EACH OTHER, READ NEWSPAPERS DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. HE IS GOING TO ADD A LOT OF GRAVITY I THINK TO THE PROCEEDINGS. HE IS GOING TO BE A REMINDER TO SENATORS THAT IT IS NOT A TYPICAL SESSION OF THE SENATE.
>> I WANT TO BRING IN, JOINING US, OUR CBSN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR AND MOLLY HOOPER. WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING FOR AS WE ARE JUST IN THE BEGINNING? >> ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE HEARD MENTIONED IS UNDER THE DIFFERENT RULES, RULES DIFFERENT FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON THAT WE MAY SEE A MOTION TO DISMISS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL WHICH I THINK WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND POTENTIALLY AS A GAME ENDER FOR THE ENTIRE PROCESS. IN ADDITION, I WANT TO ECHO WHAT RIKKI SAID MOMENTS AGO, THAT WE ARE ALSO POTENTIALLY GOING TO LOOK AT SOMETHING VERY UNUSUAL WHICH IS A TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE, A TRIAL WITHOUT EVEN POTENTIALLY THE HOUSE'S EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE GATHERED.
AS YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING OR WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WITHOUT OTHER POTENTIALLY NEW IMPORTANT RELEVANT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. >> MOLLY, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE LIKELIHOOD IS THIS COULD BE DISMISSED AND AS FAR AS WITNESSES, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING ON CAPITOL HILL? ARE THERE ENOUGH REPUBLICANS? >> FOR THE INITIAL VOTES, WHAT SCHUMER WILL MAKE TODAY, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ENOUGH TO CALL FOR WITNESSES AT THIS POINT. REPUBLICANS ARE AGREEING TO WHAT McCONNELL HAS INCLUDED WHICH ALLOWS FOR VOTE ON WITNESSES IN ARGUMENT TO, FOR, AGAINST WITNESSES AFTER OPENING ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT IS GOING TO THE RESOLUTION. THAT'S WHY I LIKE LEADING TO THE REVELATION OF THIS. THE QUESTION HAD BEEN WHETHER OR NOT MITCH McCONNELL WOULD ALLOW NEW EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN GATHERED SENSE HOUSE VOTED ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. WHAT MITCH McCONNELL IS SAYING, AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH CLINTON, IS WE WILL ACCEPT ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT THE HOUSE VOTED ON WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY HAVE CONTAINED THAT THEY VOTED ON INITIALLY. THEN IN TERMS OF WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO ACCEPT SAY THE LEV PARNAS DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE IN TERMS OF WHY THIS AID WAS WITHHELD, THAT VOTE WILL COME LATER.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THESE REPUBLICANS LIKE MITT ROMNEY, SUSAN COLLINS, LISA MURKOWSKI, THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO SUPPORT THAT EFFORT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE REALLY WHAT CHUCK SCHUMER IS TRYING TO DO IS PUT THE VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE GREEN ROOM PRIOR TO COMING ON, PUT VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS LIKE CORY GARDNER IN A STUFF SPOT. HE IS UP FOR REELECTION IN PURPLE COLORADO. ON THE UPCOMING MOTIONS I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED TO SEE SOMEBODY LIKE CORY GARDNER, MAYBE SUSAN COLLINS, VOTING FOR WITNESSES. BUT IT WON'T BE ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME AT THIS POINT. >> CAITLIN, I WANT TO GET YOU TO WEIGH IN.
>> THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. IT'S SOMETHING THESE REPUBLICANS FOR REELECTION HAVE TO CONSIDER. YES THEY COME FROM PURPLE STATES BUT ALSO NEED TO REALLY GET THE TRUMP BASE OUT TO SUPPORT THEM. LAST WEEK WHEN MARTHA McSALLY CALLED A REPORTER A HACK, SHE'S OF COURSE UP IN ARIZONA WHICH IS AN INCREASINGLY CHANGING STATE. WE SAW. >> THEY'RE READING THE OATH RIGHT NOW. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> WILL NOTE THE NAME OF THE SENATOR WHO HAS TAKEN THE OATH AND WILL PRESENT THE OATH BOOK TO HIM FOR SIGNATURE. >> SERGEANT IN ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION. >> HEAR YE, HEAR YE ALL PERSONS ARE COMMAND TO KEEP SILENT ON PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT WHILE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS SITTING FOR TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. >> I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT FOR INFORMATION OF ALL SENATORS TRIAL BRIEFS FILED YESTERDAY BY 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 PRESEPTEMBER ISSUED JANUARY 16, 2020, WRIT OF SUMMONS ON JANUARY 16, 2020. RECEIPT OF SUMMONS, JANUARY 16, 2020. FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE FOR PRINTING IN SENATE JOURNAL. ANSWER OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST HIM ON JANUARY 16, 2020, RECEIVED BY SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 18, 2020. TRIAL BRIEF FILED BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 18, 2020, TRIAL BRIEF FILED BY THE PRESIDENT, RECEIVED BY SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 2020, REPLICATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 2020, AND REBUTTAL BRIEF FILED BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 21, 2020.
WITHOUT OBJECTION THE FORE GOING 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. >> MAJORITY LEADER RECOGNIZED. >> I ASK LIST FOR FLOOR PRIVILEGES FOR CLOSED SESSIONS. IT'S AGREED TO BY BOTH SIDES. I ASK THAT IT IS INSERTED INTO THE RECORD AND AGREED TO BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> FURTHER INFORMATION OF ALL SENATORS, I AM ABOUT TO SEND RESOLUTION TO THE DESK PROVIDING FOR OUTLINE OF THE NEXT STEPS IN PROCEEDINGS. 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 PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS, UPON USE OR YIELDING BACK OF TIME, I INTEND TO TABLE SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT. SO MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND 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 ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. RESOLVED, THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL FILE ITS RECORD WITH SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WHICH WILL CONSENT OF THOSE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO OR PRODUCED BY HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS OR MARKUPS AND ANY MATERIALS PRINTED BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660. MATERIALS IN THE 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 SHOULD BE PRINTED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES. THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL HAVE UNTIL 9:00 A.M. WEDNESDAY JANUARY 22, 2020, TO FILE ANY MOTIONS PERMITTED UNDER 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 11:00 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY JANUARY 22, 2020.
ALL MATERIALS FILED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY AND BE PRINTED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES. ARGUMENTS ARE SUCH MOTIONS SHALL BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY JANUARY 22, 2020 AND EACH SIDE MAY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO MAKE PRESENTATION FOLLOWING WHICH THE SENATE SHALL DELIBERATE IF SO ORDERED UNDER IMPEACHMENT RULES AND VOTE ON SUCH MOTIONS. FOLLOWING DISPOSITION OF SUCH MOTIONS OR IF NO MOTIONS ARE MADE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL MAKE IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED 24 HOURS OVER UP TO THREE SESSION DAYS. FOLLOWING 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 NUMBER OF PERSONS TO MAKE ITS PRESENTATION.
UPON 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 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 IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS. SENATE WITHOUT INTERVENING ACTION, MOTION, AMENDMENT SHALL THEN DECIDE WHETHER IT SHALL BE IN ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS. FOLLOWING DISPOSITION OF THAT QUESTION, OTHER MOTIONS PROVIDED UNDER IMPEACHMENT RULES SHALL BE IN ORDER.
IF THE SENATE AGREES TO ALLOW EITHER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR PRESIDENT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, THE WITNESSES SHALL FIRST BE DEPOSED AND SENATE SHALL DECIDE AFTER DEPOSITION WHICH WITNESSES SHALL TESTIFY PURSUANT TO IMPEACHMENT RULES. NO TESTIMONY SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE SENATE UNLESS PARTIES HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO DEPOSE SUCH WITNESSES. AT THE CONCLUSION OF DELIBERATIONS BY SENATE, THE SENATE SHALL VOTE ON EACH ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. >> RESOLUTION IS ARGUABLE BY PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED. MR. MANAGER SCHIFF ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OH BONENT OF THIS MOTION? >> HOUSE MANAGERS ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE RESOLUTION. >> THANK YOU. MR. CIPOLLONE, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OH BONENT? >> WE ARE PROPONENT OF THE MOTION. >> MR. CIPOLLONE, YOUR SIDE MAY PROCEED FIRST AND WILL OBSERVE 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. IT IS 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 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 CONSTITUTION AND IN FACT THEY THEMSELVES WILL ESTABLISH NOTHING BEYOND THOSE ARTICLES. YOU LOOK AT THE ARTICLES ALONE, AND 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 PAST TIME TO START THIS PROCEEDING, AND WE ARE HERE TODAY TO DO IT. WE HOPE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL AGREE WITH US AND BEGIN THIS PROCEEDING TODAY. WE RESERVE THE REMAINDER OF TIME FOR REBUTTAL. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, HOUSE MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RISE IN OPPOSITION TO LEADER MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION.
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 CHARGE PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP WITH ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. MISCONDUCT IN THE ARTICLES IS THE MOST SERIOUS EVER CHARGED AGAINST A PRESIDENT. THE FIRST ARTICLE, ABUSE OF POWER, CHARGES THE PRESIDENT WITH SOLICITING FOREIGN POWER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION. MORE OVER IT ALLEGES WE WILL PROVE 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 RUSSIANS IN PARTICULAR THAT THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS MOST IMPORTANT PATRON, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 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 EVEN IF THIS CONDUCT IS PROVED, THAT THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE HOUSE OR THIS SENATE MAY DO ABOUT IT.
IT IS THE PRESIDENT'S APPARENT BELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 2, HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS NO MATTER HOW CORRUPT OUT FITTED IN GOD ILLEGAL CLOTHING. YET WHEN 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 IN THE ELECTION, THE TRIFECTA OF CONSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT JUSTIFYING IMPEACHMENT. ARTICLE 2, THE PRESIDENT CHARGED WITH OTHER MISCONDUCT THAT WOULD LIKEWISE HAVE ALARMED FOUNDERS. FULL COMPLETE ABSOLUTE OBSTRUCTION OF A COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, THE CONGRESS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MISCONDUCT. THIS IS EVERY BIT AS DESTRUCTIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL OLD AS MISCONDUCT CHARGED IN THE FIRST ARTICLE. IF A PRESIDENT CAN OBSTRUCT HIS OWN INVESTIGATION, IF HE CAN EFFECTIVELY NULLIFY A POWER THE CONSTITUTION GIVES SOLELY TO CONGRESS, INDEED THE ULTIMATE POWER, ULTIMATE POWER THE CONSTITUTION GIVES TO PREVENT PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT THE PRESIDENT PLACES HIMSELF BEYOND ACCOUNTABILITY, ABOVE THE LAW, CANNOT BE INDICTED, CANNOT BE IMPEACHED.
IT MAKES HIM A MONARCH, THE VERY EVIL AGAINST WHICH OUR CONSTITUTION AND BALANCE OF POWERS IT CAREFULLY LAID OUT WAS DESIGNED TO GUARD AGAINST. SHORTLY, THE TRIAL ON THE CHARGES WILL BEGIN. WHEN IT HAS CONCLUDED, YOU WILL 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 OBSTRUCT THE CONGRESS IN ITS INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OWN MISCONDUCT BY ORDERING HIS AGENCIES AND OFFICERS TO COOPERATE — REFUSE TO COOPERATE IN ANY WAY, REFUSE TO TESTIFY, REFUSE TO ANSWER SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS AND EVERY OTHER MEANS. IF THE HOUSE APPROVED 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 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 A PRESIDENT WHO WOULD ABUSE HIS POWER FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF CORRUPTING THE ONLY OTHER METHOD OF ACCOUNTABILITY, OUR ELECTIONS THEMSELVES.
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 WILL MAKE. HOW CAN THAT BE? HOW CAN ANY DECISION YOU WILL MAKE BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN GUILT OR INNOCENCE, THAN 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 A FAIR TRIAL? WILL THERE BE A FAIR TRIAL? I SUBMIT 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 PRE-DETERMINED BY THE BIAS IN THE PROCEEDING. IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ALLOWED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE, IT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL. SO TOO FOR PROSECUTION. IF 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. IMAGINE THEY'RE ON JURY DUTY. IMAGINE THAT THE JUDGE WALKS INTO THE COURTROOM AND SAYS TAT SHE'S BEEN TALKING TO THE DEFENDANT AND AT THE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST, THE JUDGE HAS AGREED NOT TO LET THE PROSECUTION CALL ANY WITNESSES OR INTRODUCE DOCUMENTS.
THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT AGREED THAT THE PROSECUTOR MAY ONLY READ TO THE JURY THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. THAT'S IT. HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD A JUDGE DESCRIBE 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. UNLESS THIS TRIAL WILL BE DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OR ANY OTHER KIND OF TRIAL FOR THAT MATTER, YOU MUST ALLOW PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE, HOUSE MANAGER AND PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TO CALL RELEVANT WITNESSES. YOU MUST SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED BUT WHICH BEAR ON HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE. YOU MUST I AM PARTIALLY DO JUSTICE AS YOUR OATH REQUIRES.
WHAT DOES A FAIR TRIAL LOOK LIKE IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT? THE SHORT ANSWER IS, IT LOOKS LIKE EVERY OTHER TRIAL. FIRST RESOLUTION SHOULD ALLOW HOUSE MANAGERS TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN WITHHELD. FIRST, NOT LAST. BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS WILL HAVE THE DECISION ABOUT WHICH WITNESSES ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO CALL. AND 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, 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 EVIDENTIARY PORTION OF THE TRIAL ENDS, PARTIES ARGUE THE CASE. YOU DELIBERATE AND RENDER A VERDICT. IF THERE IS A DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR WITNESS IS RELEVANT OR MATERIAL TO CHARGES BROUGHT UNDER THE SENATE RULES, 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.
LEADER McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION WOULD TURN THE TRIAL PROCESS ON ITS HEAD, RESOLUTION REQUIRES HOUSE TO PROVE ITS CASE WITHOUT WITNESSES, WITHOUT DOCUMENTS, ONLY AFTER IT IS DONE WILL SUCH QUESTIONS BE ENTERTAINED WITH NO GUARANTEE ANY WITNESSES OR ANY DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED EVEN THEN. THAT PROCESS MAKES NO SENSE. WHAT IS THE HARM OF 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 IS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS, TRIAL FIRST AND THEN EVIDENCE, BESIDES THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WOULD INFORM THE DECISION ON WHICH WITNESSES AND HELP IN QUESTIONING, THE HARM IS THIS.
YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY 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 SELECTION. 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 THE PUBLIC ALREADY JADED BY EXPERIENCE HAS COME TO EXPECT, THIS RESOLUTION IS MERELY FIRST STEP OF EFFORT ORCHESTRATED BY WHITE HOUSE TO RUSH THE TRIAL, HIDE EVIDENCE, RENDER A FAST VERDICT OR WORST, A FAST DISMISSAL, TO MAKE THE GO AWAY AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, TO COVER MISDEEDS THEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL AND MAY NEVER LEARN HOW DEEP THE CORRUPTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION GOES OR WHAT OTHER RISK 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 EXTENSIVE OBSTRUCTION, IT WILL AFFECT THE SENATE'S POWER OF SUBPOENA AND OVERSIGHT JUST AS MUCH AS THE HOUSE. THE SENATE'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT WILL BE BEHOLD 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 HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT LEADER McCONNELL HAS ALREADY GOT VOTES TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION, THE TEXT OF WHICH WE DID NOT SEE UNTIL LAST NIGHT AND WHICH HAS BEEN CHANGED EVEN MOMENTS AGO. THEY SAY THAT LEADER McCONNELL IS A VERY GOOD VOTE COUNTER.
NONETHELESS, I HOPE THAT HE IS WRONG. NOT JUST BECAUSE I THINK THIS PROCESS, THE PROCESS CONTEMPLATED BY THE RESOLUTION IS BACKWARDS AND DESIGNED WITH A RESULT IN MIND AND THAT THE 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 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 IN THE SENATE AND MUCH IN THE HOUSE HAVE MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCTOR 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 OR AS FOUNDERS FEARED HAS FACTIONALISM OR EXCESSIVE PARTNERSHIP MADE THAT NOW I AM PO BE? ONE WAY TO FIND OUT WHAT A FAIR TRIAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE DEVOID OF PARTISAN CONSIDERATION IS TO ASK 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 HAVE THE TRIAL FIRST AND THEN DECIDE ON WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE LATER? WOULD THAT BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES? I HAVE TO THINK 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 WILL BE A FAIR TRIAL. THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE SENATE WILL BE IMPARTIAL. THEY BELIEVE THAT THE RESULT IS PRECOOKED. THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ACQUITTED. NOT BECAUSE HE IS INNOCENT. HE IS NOT. BUT BECAUSE THE SENATORS WILL VOTE BY PARTY AND HE HAS THE VOTES, VOTES TO PREVENT EVIDENCE FROM COMING OUT, 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'S 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 ITS CASE, BY LETTING THE HOUSE CALL WITNESSES, BY LETTING THE HOUSE OBTAIN DOCUMENTS, BY LETTING HOUSE DECIDE HOW TO PRESENT ITS OWN CASE AND NOT DECIDING IT FOR US.
IN SUM, BY AGREEING TO A FAIR TRIAL. LET'S TURN TO THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION, HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, WHAT FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY REQUIRE. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE MANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESOLUTION, I WILL BEGIN WITH ITS SINGLE BIGGEST FLAW. THE RESOLUTION DOES NOTTEN SURE THAT SUBPOENAS WILL IN FACT BE ISSUED FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THAT THE SENATE AND AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE AND THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO BLOCK TO FAIRLY DECIDE THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE. MORE OVER, IT GUARANTEES SUBPOENAS WILL NOT BE ISSUED NOW, WHEN THEY WOULD BE MOST VALUABLE TO THE SENATE, PARTIES, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION THE LEADER HAS INTRODUCED FIRST THE SENATE RECEIVES BRIEFS AND FILINGS FROM PARTIES. NEXT, LENGTHY PRESENTATIONS FROM THE HOUSE AND PRESIDENT. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE DESCRIBED THIS AS OPENING STATEMENTS. LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES. THAT IS THE TRIAL THAT THEY CONTEMPLATE. OPENING STATEMENTS ARE THE TRIAL. THEY'LL EITHER BE MOST OF TRIAL OR THEY'LL BE ALL THE TRIAL. IF THE SENATE VOTES TO DEPRIVE ITSELF OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE THE END OF THE TRIAL. TO SAY LET'S HAVE THE OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN WE'LL SEE MEANS LET'S HAVE THE TRIAL AND MAYBE WE CAN JUST SWEEP THIS ALL UNDER THE RUG.
YOU WILL HEAR THESE LENGTHY PRESENTATIONS FROM THE HOUSE. THERE WILL BE A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR SENATORS. THEN AND ONLY THEN, AFTER ESSENTIALLY THE TRIAL IS OVER, AFTER BRIEFS HAVE BEEN FILED, AFTER ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, AFTER SENATORS EXHAUST ALL THEIR QUESTIONS, ONLY THEN WILL SENATE CONSIDER WHETHER TO SUBPOENA CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY THE PRESIDENT HAS DESPERATELY TRIED TO CONCEAL FROM THIS CONGRESS AND AMERICAN PEOPLE.
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT UNLIKE THE CLINTON TRIAL HAVE NOT YET BEEN SEEN OR HEARD. IT IS TRUE THAT THE RECORD COMPILED BY HOUSE IS OVERWHELMING. IT IS TRUE THAT THE RECORD ALREADY COMPELS THE PRESIDENT IN THE FACE OF UNPRECEDENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, HOUSE ASSEMBLED A POWERFUL CASE, EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THAT INCLUDES DIRECT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, OFFICIALS WHO WERE UNWILLING AND UNWITTING IN THIS SCHEME AND SAW IT FOR WHAT IT WAS. YET THERE IS STILL MORE EVIDENCE RELATIVE AND PROBE TIM EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO BLOCK THAT WOULD FLESH OUT 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. GIULIANI'S ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT AND CORROBORATES SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY THAT EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.
AS DOCUMENTS RELEASED UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT HAVE DOCUMENTED ALARM AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHILE PRESIDENT ILLEGALLY WITHHELD MILITARY SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, AN ALLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA WITHOUT EXPLANATION, AS A SENIOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL MICHAEL DUFFEY INSTRUCTED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS ON JULY 25, 90 MINUTES AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE BY PHONE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SHOULD PAUSE ALL OBLIGATION OF UKRAINE MILITARY ASSISTANCE UNDER ITS PER VIEW. 90 MINUTES AFTER THAT CALL. DUFFEY 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 SENATE TO DEPRIVE ITSELF OF ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION IN MAKING SUCH A HUGE CONSEQUENTIAL JUDGMENT.
MORE OVER AS THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWER TO HIS SUMMONS AND TRIAL BRIEF MADE CLEAR, THE PRESIDENT NOW ATTEMPTS TO CONTEST FACTS ALBEIT FALSE AND MISLEADING WAYS. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. HE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO CLAIM THAT THE FACTS UNCOVERED BY 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 THAT THEY ARE 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 THE SUBPOENAS WOULD NOT IMPOSE A BURDEN. THE SUBPOENAS COVER NARROWLY TAILORED TARGETED DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT CONCEALED. SENATE DESERVES TO SEE DOCUMENTS FROM WHITE HOUSE, STATE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THESE AGENCIES SHOULD HAVE COLLECTED AND AT LEAST PRESERVED THESE. INDEED SOME CASES, AGENCIES HAVE PRODUCED DOCUMENTS IN FOIL LAWSUITS ALBEIT IN HEAVILY REDACTED FORM.
WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OR INVOLVEMENT SHOULD BE HEARD. THAT INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT'S ACT OF CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, HIS FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON WHO PUBLICLY OFFERED TO TESTIFY, TWO SENIOR OFFICIALS INTEGRAL TO IMPLEMENTING THE FREEZE ON MILITARY AID ALSO HAVE VERY RELEVANT TESTIMONY. WHY NOT HEAR IT? ROBERT BLAIR WHO SERVES AS MULVANEY'S SENIOR ADVISER, MICHAEL DUFFEY, SENIOR OFFICIAL AT OMB AND OTHER WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE THAT WE RESERVE RIGHT TO CALL LATER BUT THESE WITNESSES WITH WHOM WE WISH TO BEGIN THE TRIAL. LAST MONTH PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE CLEAR 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, QUOTE, MANY OTHER PEOPLE TESTIFY IN A SENATE TRIAL. >> WHAT IS FAIR AND FAIR TO THE SENATE, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE POMPEO, MICK, RICK PERRY, MANY OTHER PEOPLE TESTIFY. >> THE SENATE HAS OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE PRESIDENT UP ON HIS OFFER, TO MAKE HIS SENIOR AIDES AVAILABLE INCLUDING MR.
MULVANEY AND SECRETARIES PERRY AND POMPEO. NOW THE PRESIDENT IS CHANGING HIS TUNE. THE BLISTER OF WANTING WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IS OVER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT HE HAS NEVER ASSERTED A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE DURING COURSE OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, THREATENS TO INVOKE ONE NOW IN LAST DITCH EFFORT TO KEEP THE REST OF THE TRUTH FROM COMING OUT. THE PRESIDENT SENDS LAWYERS TO BREATH LESLIE CLAIM THAT THE WITNESSES OR OTHERS CANNOT POSSIBLY TESTIFY BECAUSE IT INVOLVES NATIONAL SECURITY. NEVER MIND IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID FROM AN ALLY AT WAR THAT THREATENED NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE FIRST PLACE. NEVER MIND THAT THE MOST IMPEACH ABLE SERIOUS OFFENSES WILL ALWAYS INVOLVE NATIONAL SECURITY BECAUSE THEY WILL INVOLVE OTHER NATIONS AND THAT MISCONDUCTS BASED ON FOREIGNEN TANGLEMENT WAS WHAT FRAMERS FEARED MOST, PRESIDENT'S ABSURDIST ARGUMENT AMOUNTS TO THIS.
WE MUST ENDANGER NATIONAL SECURITY TO PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY. WE MUST MAKE A PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT THREATENING SECURITY BEYOND REACH OF IMPEACHMENT POWER IF WE ARE TO SAVE THE PRESIDENCY. THIS IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE. AS JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT HAVE IN ARE SCORED, CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT. LET US TURN FROM THE ABSTRACT TO THE VERY CONCRETE AND LET ME SHOW YOU JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS HIDING IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
THERE IS A DOCUMENT WHICH THE PRESIDENT 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, 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 IT IS THE QUESTIO 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 ARTICLE 2 EMPOWERED HIM TO DENIGRATE AND DEFY A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT HE DECLARED HE WILL FIGHT SUBPOENAS. LET'S HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS. >> THEN I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2 WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. WE'RE FIGHTING ALL THE SUBPOENAS. >> TRUE TO HIS PLEDGE TO OBSTRUCT CONGRESS, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP FACED IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HE ORDERED EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DEFY EVERY SINGLE REQUEST ON EVERY SINGLE SUBPOENA.
HE ISSUED THIS ORDER THROUGH HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE OCTOBER 8, SAME COUNSEL THAT STOOD BEFORE YOU A MOMENT AGO TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT. HE THEN AFFIRMED BEGIN AT A RALLY ON OCTOBER 10. FOLLOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP'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 NEXT E COMMERCE EXPERIENCE TOUCH BRANCH UNLESS HOUSE SURRENDERED TO DEMANDS THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY PLACE PRESIDENT TRUMP IN CHARGE OF THE INQUIRY INTO HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.
NEED LESS 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 IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, ATTACKS ON WITNESSES HAVE AFFIRMED THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION TO COOPERATE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. WHY? BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY HE CONCEALS WOULD ONLY FURTHER PROVE HIS GUILT. THE INNOCENT DO NOT ACT THIS WAY. SIMPLY STATED, IT 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. TE DOCUMENTS THE PRESIDENT SEEKS TO CONCEAL INCLUDE WHITE HOUSE RECORDS INCLUDING RECORDS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S UNLAWFUL HOLD ON MILITARY AID, STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS INCLUDING TEXT MESSAGES, WHAT'S APP MESSAGES EXCHANGED BY STATE DEPARTMENT AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, NOTES WRITTEN BY CAREER PROFESSIONALS AS THEY SAW THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNFOLD IN REAL TIME, OMB RECORDS DEMONSTRATING AFTER THE FACT RATIONALE FOR PRESIDENT'S ORDERS SHOWING INTERNAL OBJECTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS VIOLATED THE LAW, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT RECORDS REFLECTING BAFFLEMENT AND ALARM THAT THE PRESIDENT SUSPENDED MILITARY AID TO A SKI SECURITY PARTNER WITHOUT EXPLANATION.
MANY OF THE PRESIDENT'S AIDS HAVE. THESE INCLUDE CENTRAL FIGURES IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INCLUDING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY. FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON AND OTHERS WITH RELEVANT TESTIMONY LIKE ROBERT BLAIR AND MICHAEL DUFFEY. MR. BLAIR WHO SERVES AS SENIOR ADVISER TO MULVANEY WORKED WITH MR. DUFFEY, A POLITICAL APPOINTEE IN OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO CARRY OUT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO FREEZE >> THEY WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN IMPLEMENTING THE HOLD AND EXTENDING IT AT THE PRESIDENT'S EXPRESSED DIRECTION.
EVEN AS CAREER OFFICIALS WARNED ACCURATELY THAT DOING SO WOULD VIOLATE THE LAW. THE PRESIDENT HAS ALSO MADE THE UNSUPPORTABLE CLAIM THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE ENFORCED SUBPOENAS IN COURT AND ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO DELAY HIS IMPEACHMENT FOR YEARS. IF WE HAD DONE SO, WE WOULD HAVE ADVOCATED THE 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 PROTRACTED COURT PROCESS WHILE THE PRESIDENT CONTINUED TO THREATEN THE SANCTITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. RESORTING TO THE COURSES CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. IF THE HOUSE EXHAUSTED LEGAL REMEDIES BEFORE IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT, IT WOULD INTERPOSE THE COURTS OR THE DECISION OF A SINGLE JUDGE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE POWER TO IMPEACH.
MOREOVER, IT WOULDN'T BY THE PRESIDENT TO PREVENT HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT BY LITIGATING THE MATTER IN COURT, APPEALING EVERY JUDGMENT, ENGAGING EVERY FRIVOLOUS MOTION OR DEVICE. INDEED, IN THE CASE OF DON MCGAHN, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WHO WAS ORDERED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND LIE ABOUT IT, WAS SUBPOENAED BY THE HOUSE IN APRIL LAST YEAR AND THERE IS STILL NO FINAL JUDGMENT. A PRESIDENT MAY NOT IMPEDE IMPEACHMENT OR ACCOUNTABILITY BY ENGAGING IN ANALYSTS LITIGATION. IT HAS BEEN THE LONG PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE TO COMPILE CORE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO REACH A REASONABLE 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 HEAR WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SENATE HAS ITS OWN POWER TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY. IT WOULD BE ONE THING OF THE HOUSE HAD SHOWN NO INTEREST AND DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES DURING ITS INVESTIGATION. EVEN THOUGH EVEN THERE, THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS PROCEEDINGS AS LONG AS IT MAKES THE FULL CASE TO THE HOUSE AS IT DID. BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS THE CAUSE OF HIS OWN COMPLAINT. WHEN THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLDS WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON HIS OWN NON-COMPLIANCE TO JUSTIFY FURTHER CONCEALMENT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT 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 IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND REVIEW NEW EVIDENCE DURING A SENATE TRIAL REGARDLESS OF WHY EVIDENCE WAS NOT 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 THE LANGUAGE AND THE STRUCTURE FOR A REASON AS ALEXANDER HAMILTO SAID, "THE SENATE IS GIVEN A FULL DISCRETION IN MATTERS OF IMPEACHMENT. THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS TO SENATORS AND THEIR JUDICIAL CHARACTER AS A COURT, FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENT ." IT REQUIRES THEM TO AIM AT REAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOCENCE OR GUILT AND REQUIRES THEM TO DO SO BY HOLDING A TRIAL.
THE SENATE HAS REPEATEDLY SUBPOENAED AND RECEIVED NEW DOCUMENTS COME OFTEN MANY OF THEM WILL ADJUDICATING CASES OF IMPEACHMENT. MOREOVER THE SENATE HAS HEARD WITNESS TESTIMONY AND EVERY ONE OF THE 15 SENATE TRIALS, FULL SENATE TRIALS, AND THE HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC, INCLUDING THOSE FOR PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON AND BILL CLINTON. INDEED, IN PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON'S AND SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, THE HOUSE WAS PERMITTED TO BEGIN PRESENTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE SENATE ON THE VERY FIRST DAY OF THE TRIAL. THE HOUSE MANAGER'S 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, MOST TRIALS THIS BODY HAS HEARD FROM MANY WITNESSES RANGING FROM THREE AND PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE, TO 40 IN PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S. AND WELL OVER 60 AND OTHER IMPEACHMENTS. AS THESE NUMBERS MADE CLEAR THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS HEARD FROM KEY WITNESSES WHEN TRYING AND 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, CONSIDERABLY LARGER MACCONNELL'S ON DESCRIPTION OF HIS WORK IN A PRIOR SENATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. AFTER STARTING ON THE SENATE TRIAL FOR THE CASE OF JUDGE CLAIRE BORN, WINTER MACCONNELL DISCOVERED AND TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY LABORED INTENSIVELY FOR TWO MONTHS AND ASSESSING THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY. IN THE SAME, LEADER MACCONNELL RECOGNIZED THE FULL-BODY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR AMASSING AND DIGESTING EVIDENCE. THERE WAS CERTAINLY A LOT OF EVIDENCE FOR THE SENATE TO AMASS AND ADJUST IN THAT PROCEEDING WHICH INVOLVED CHARGES AGAINST THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE SENATE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM 19 WITNESSES AND ALLOWED FOR OVER 2000 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.
DURING ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. ONLY THREE. THE REMAINING 37 WITNESSES AT THE PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE. SIMILARLY, THE SENATE FULL FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL THAT 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 ARE MANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF THIS POINT. INCLUDING THE SENATE'S MOST RECENT IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF JUDGE PORTEOUS IN 2010. IT IS ONE THAT MANY OF YOU AND SOME OF US KNOW WELL. IT IS CONSISTENT TOO WITH THIS LONG-STANDING PRACTICE. THERE, THE SENATE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM 26 WITNESSES. 17 OF WHOM HAD NOT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE DURING ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THUS, THERE IS A DEFINITIVE TRADITION OF THE SENATE HEARING FROM YOU WITNESSES WHEN TRYING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A RULE ELIMINATING WITNESSES TO THOSE WHO APPEARED IN THE HOUSE OR ELIMINATING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SENATE TO THAT WHICH THE HOUSE ITSELF CONSIDERED. AND THAT IS BECAUSE SENATOR JOHNSON EXPLAINED IN 1934 THE INTEGRITY OF SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS DEPEND HEAVILY ON THE WITNESSES WHO ARE CALLED. THEIR PARENTS ON THE STAND, THEIR MODE OF GIVING TESTIMONY. THERE IS THUS AN UNBROKEN HISTORY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY AND SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. PRESIDENTIAL AND JUDICIAL. I WOULD ARGUE IN THE CASE OF THE PRESIDENT, IT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO HEAR THE WITNESSES AND SEE THE DOCUMENTS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ANY CONCEIVABLE DOUBT IS DISPELLED BY THE SENATE'S OWN RULES FOR TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENT. OBTAINING DOCUMENTS AND HEARING LIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY IS SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS WHICH DATE BACK TO THE 19th CENTURY DEVOTE MORE ATTENTION TO THE GATHERING, HANDLING AND ADMISSION OF NEW EVIDENCE THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE SUBJECT. THESE ROLES EXPRESS AND CONTEMPLATE THAT THE SENATE WILL HEAR EVIDENCE AND CONDUCT A THOROUGH TRIAL WHEN SITTING AS THE COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
AT EVERY TURN THEY REJECT THE NOTION THAT THE SENATE WOULD TAKE THE HOUSE'S EVIDENTIARY RECORD, BLIND ITSELF TO EVERYTHING ELSE AND VOTE TO CONVICT OR ACQUIT. FOR EXAMPLE, RULE SIX SAYS THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND ENFORCE OBEDIENCE TO ITS ORDERS. RULE SEVEN. AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO RULE AND ALL QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF RELEVANCY.
MATERIALITY, AND REDUNDANCY. THIS WILL TOO PRESENT AT 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 PICK AT UCH 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. BUT NOTHING HERE IN THE RULES STATE SHALL PREVENT THE SENATE FROM SENDING FOR ANY WITNESS AND HEARING HIS TESTIMONY IN OPEN SENATE OR BY ORDER OF THE SENATE INVOLVING THE ENTIRE TRIAL IN THE OPEN SENATE. HERE TOO, THE SENATE'S OPERATIVE IMPEACHMENT RULES EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATE AND PROVIDE FOR SUBPOENAING WITNESSES AND HEARING THEIR TESTIMONY AS PART OF THE SENATE TRIAL. AND THE LIST GOES ON PICK THESE RULES PLAINLY CONTEMPLATE PICK A ROBUST ROLE FOR THE SENATE IN GATHERING AND CONSIDERING EVIDENCE. THEY REFLECT CENTURIES OF PRACTICE OF ACCEPTING AND REQUIRING THE EVIDENCE AND SENATE TRIALS.
THE SENATE SHOULD HONOR THAT PRACTICE TODAY BY REJECTING THE RESOLUTION. >> WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON TRIAL? WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON TRIAL BEING ARGUED? EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND HISTORY INCLUDING THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON TRIAL? AREN'T WE FOLLOWING THE SAME PROCESS AS IN THE CLINTON TRIAL? THE ANSWER IS NO. THE PROCESS FOR THE CLINTON TRIAL WAS WORKED OUT BY MUTUAL CONSENT. AMONG THE PARTIES. THAT IS NOT TRUE HERE WHERE THE PROCESS IS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED BY ONE PARTY ON THE OTHER.
SECOND, ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CLINTON TRIAL WERE TURNED OVER AS PART OF THE TRIAL. ALL 90,000 PAGES OF THEM SO THEY CAN BE USE IN THE HOUSE'S CASE. NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER BY THE PRESIDENTS IN THIS CASE AND UNDER LEADER MACCONNELL'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, THE ISSUE IN THE CLINTON TRIAL WAS NOT ONE OF CALLING WITNESSES, BUT OF RECALLING WITNESSES. ALL THE KEY WITNESES IN THE CLINTON TRIAL HAD TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OR HAD BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI.
ONE OF THEM, DOZENS OF TIMES. AND 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 BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE HOUSE. AND AS I SAID, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT WE DID NOT CALL THESE WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE WHEN THERE 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 ISSUES THAT ARE NOT PRESENT HERE.
HE MAY REST ASSURED WHATEVER ELSE THE CASE MAY BE, SUCH ISSUES WILL NOT BE PRESENT HERE. IN SUM, THE CLINTON PRECIPITANTS, IF WE ARE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT MODELING THIS PROCEEDING AFTER THE CLINTON TRIAL, THE CLINTON PRECEDENT IS ONE WHERE ALL THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED UPFRONT. FOR ALL THE WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED UPFRONT. PRIOR TO THE TRIAL. THAT IS NOT BEING REPLICATED BY THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION, NOT IN ANY WAY, NOT IN ANY SHAPE, NOT IN ANY FORM. FAR FROM IT. THE TRADITIONAL MODEL FOLLOWED IN PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S CASE AND ALL THE OTHERS, IS REALLY THE ONE MOST APPROPRIATE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES PICK THE SENATE SHOULD ADDRESS ALL THE DOCUMENTARY ISSUES AND MOST OF THE WITNESSES NOW, NOT LATER. AND NEED TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY NOW HAS ONLY INCREASED DUE TO THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
FIRST, HIS OBSTRUCTION HAS MADE HIM UNIQUELY AND PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABSENCES OF THE WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE HAVING ORDERED THEM NOT TO APPEAR. HE MAY NOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN NOW THAT THEY FOLLOWED HIS ORDERS AND REFUSED TO TESTIFY. TO DO OTHERWISE ONLY REWARDS THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION AND ENCOURAGES HIS FURTHER, FUTURE PRESENCE TO DEFY LAWFUL PROCESS IN THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS. SECOND, IF THE PRESIDENT WISHES TO CONTEST THE FACTS AND HIS ANSWER AND TRIAL BRIEF INDICATE THAT HE WILL TRY, HE MUST NOT CONTINUE TO DENY THE SENATE ACCESS TO THE RELEVANT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THAT SHED LIGHT ON THE VERY FACTUAL MATTERS HE WISHES TO CHALLENGE.
THE SENATE TRIAL IS NOT WORTHY — THERE IS NO RECORD BELOW. THERE IS 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. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE PRESIDENT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO MISLEAD YOU BY INTRODUCING DOCUMENTS SELECTIVELY AND WITHHOLDING ALL THE REST. ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE PRODUCED SO THERE IS FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TRUTH. OTHERWISE THERE IS A CLEAR RISK OF THE PRESIDENT CONTINUE TO HIDE ALL EVIDENCE HARMFUL TO HIS POSITION WHILE SELECTIVELY PRODUCING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT OR OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THEIR CREATORS.
AND FINALLY, YOU MAY INFER THE PRESIDENT'S GILTS FROM HIS CONTINUING EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES. THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE WANTS WITNESSES LIKE MICK MULVANEY AND MIKE POMPEO AND OTHERS TO TESTIFY THAT HIS IN ACTIONS WITH UKRAINE HAVE BEEN PERFECT. COUNSEL HAS AFFIRMED TODAY THAT THAT WILL BE THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE. HIS CONDUCT IS PERFECT. PERFECTLY FINE TO COARSE AND ALLY. THAT WILL BE PART OF HIS DEFENSE ALBEIT NOT WORDED IN THAT WAY. NOW HE HAS CHANGED COURSE AND DOES NOT WANT THESE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. >> THAT LAWFUL SUBPOENAS MAY 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 AND BOOKS AND FILM. THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT. THE QUESTION IS, WILL IT COME OUT IN TIME? AND WHAT ANSWERS SHOULD WE GIVE IF WE DID NOT PURSUE THE TRUTH NOW? 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 FOR VOTING AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION BUT THEY ALL CONVERGE ON A SINGLE IDEA.
FAIRNESS. THE TRIAL SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE HOUSE WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY DEPRIVED OF EVIDENCE BY A PRESIDENT WHO WISHES TO CONCEAL IT. IT SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT WHO WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM AN ACQUITTAL OR DISMISSAL IF THE TRIAL IS NOT VIEWED AS FAIR, IF IT IS NOT VIEWED AS IMPARTIAL. AND FAIR TO THE 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. AND WITH THAT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I YIELD BACK. >> MR.
SUE BALONEY, MR. SUP BELOW, YOU HAVE 57 MINUTES AVAILABLE. >> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. LEADER MACCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER. IT IS MY PRIVILEGE TO REPRESENT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THIS CHAMBER. SENATOR SCHUMER SAID EARLIER TODAY THAT THE EYES OF THE FOUNDERS ARE ON THESE PROCEEDINGS. INDEED, THAT IS TRUE. THAT IS THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT GOVERNS THESE PROCEEDINGS. WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM ADAM SCHIFF THAT COURTS HAVE NO ROLE, PRIVILEGES DON'T APPLY.
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PAST, WE SHOULD JUST IGNORE. IN FACT, MANAGER SCHIFF JUST SAID, TRY TO SUMMARIZE MY COLLEAGUES, THE DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT. NOT IN THOSE WORDS OF COURSE WHICH IS NOT THE FIRST TIME MR. SCHIFF HAS PUT WORS INTO TRANSCRIPTS THAT DID NOT EXIST. MR. SCHIFF ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE TRIFECTA. I WILL GIVE YOU A TRIFECTA. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 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 IS 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 IS BASED IN 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 ARE 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, TO THE CONTRARY TO WHAT THESE MANAGERS SAY TODAY. IT CAME TO THE EXACT OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS OF WHAT THEY SAY. LET ME QUOTE FROM THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT REPORT ON PAGE 16. ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENZYMES INVOKED IN NOTION OF DUE PROCESS, AND 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, DUE PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PERSON ACCUSED. WHEN THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION FAILED, IT EVOLVED INTO THE UKRAINE. A QUID PRO QUO. WHEN THAT DID NOT PROVE OUT, IT WAS BRIBERY OR MAYBE EXTORTION OR SOMEBODY SAID ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, TREASON. BUT INSTEAD WE GET TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT HAVE A VAGUE ALLEGATION ABOUT A NONPRIME ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
MEMBERS, MANAGERS RIGHT HRE BEFORE YOU TODAY WHO HAVE SAID THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE HAVE NO PLACE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, ON JUNE 28th, 2012, ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER BECAME THE FIRST UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE HELD IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. WHY? BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, MANAGER SCHIFF WROTE, THE WHITE HOUSE ASSERTION, A PRIVILEGE IS BACKED BY DECADES OF PRECEDENT WHICH HAS RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS SENIOR ADVISERS TO RECEIVE CANDID ADVICE AND INFORMATION FROM THEIR TOP AIDES. NEED, THAT IS CORRECT. NOT BECAUSE MANAGER SCHIFF SAID IT. BUT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT.
MR. MANAGER NADLER SAID THE EFFORT TO HOLD ERIC HOLDER IN CONTEMPT FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH VARIOUS SUBPOENAS WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND SPEAKER PELOSI CALLED THE WHOLE MATTER A LITTLE MORE THAN A WITCHHUNT. WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH HERE? WHY ARE WE HERE? ARE WE HERE BECAUSE OF A PHONE CALL? OR ARE WE HERE BEFORE THIS GREAT BODY BECAUSE SINCE THE PRESIDENT WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE, THERE WAS A DESIRE TO SEE HIM REMOVED? I REMEMBER IN THE MUELLER REPORT, THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INSURANCE POLICIES. INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT WORK OUT SO WELL. SO THEN WE MOVED TO OTHER INVESTIGATIONS. I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL IT REINSURANCE OR AN UMBRELLA POLICY. AND THAT DID NOT WORK OUT SO WELL. AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.
MANAGER SCHIFF QUOTED THE SUPREME COURT AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE SUPREME COURT AS WELL. IT WAS THEN JUSTICE REHNQUIST LATER TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST THAT WROTE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE UNITED STATES VERSUS RUSSELL IN 197 . THESE ARE THE WORDS. "WE MAY SOME DAY BE PRESENTED IN A SITUATION IN WHICH THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS ARE SO OUTRAGEOUS THAT DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES WOULD BAR THE GOVERNMENT FROM INVOKING JUDICIAL PROCESS TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION. THAT DAY IS TODAY ." THAT DAY WAS A YEAR AGO.
THAT DAY WAS IN JULY. WHEN SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER TESTIFIED. I AM NOT, TODAY, GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW BUT I WILL DO IT LATER, THE PATTERN AND PRACTICES OF IRREGULARITIES THAT HAVE GONE ON IN THESE INVESTIGATIONS FROM THE OUTSET. BUT TO SAY THAT THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE IN THE RUSH TO IMPEACHMENT, DO NOT WAIT FOR A DECISION FROM A COURT ON AN ISSUE AS IMPORTANT AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. AS IF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED BY PRESIDENTS SINCE OUR SOUNDING. THIS IS NOT SOME NEW CONCEPT. WE DON'T WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. AND THERE IS A REASON WE KEEP EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND WE ASSERT IT WHEN NECESSARY. AND THAT IS TO PROTECT, TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. THE PRESIDENT'S OPPONENTS IN THEIR RUSH TO IMPEACH HAVE REFUSED TO WAIT FOR A COMPLETE JUDICIAL REVIEW. THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE. SPEAKER PELOSI CLEARLY EXPRESSED HER IMPATIENCE AND CONTEMPT WHEN SHE 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. SO TAKE ARTICLE THREE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, REMOVE IT. WE ARE ACTING AS IF THE COURTS ARE AN IMPROPER VENUE TO DETERMINE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF THIS MAGNITUDE. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE COURTS. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A FEDERAL JUDICIARY. IT WAS INTERESTING WHEN PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN FRONT OF MR. NADLER'S COMMITTEE. HE SAID WE HAVE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, NOT TWO.
IF YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND YOU MAKE HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, IT IS YOUR ABUSE OF POWER. IT IS MORE THAN THAT. A LOT MORE THAN THAT. THERE IS A LOT MORE THAN ABUSE OF POWER IF YOU SAY THE COURTS DON'T APPLY. CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES DON'T APPLY. LET'S START WITH A CLEAN SLATE AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED. A LOT HAS HAPPENED. AS WE PROCEED IN THE DAYS AHEAD, WE WILL LAY OUT THE CASE.
WE ARE GOING TO — FOR THE CONSTITUTION SAY, WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE HERE, THIS IDEA THAT WE SHOULD IGNORE WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS IS OUTRAGEOUS. WE BELIEVE THAT WHAT SENATOR MCCONNELL HAS PUT FORWARD PROVIDES DUE PROCESS, ALLOWS THE PROCEEDINGS TO MOVE FORWARD IN EARLY FASHION. 33 DAYS, 33 DAYS THEY HELD ON TO THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES. 33 DAYS. IT WAS SUCH A RUSH OF NATIONAL SECURITY TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT BEFORE CHRISTMAS THAT THEY THEN HELD THEM FOR 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 DID NOT HIDE THIS. THIS WAS THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE.
THIS WAS THE REASON THEY DID IT. WE ARE PREPARED TO PROCEED. MAJORITY LEADER. DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY LEADER. WE ARE PREPARED TO PROCEED. IN OUR VIEW WILL COME PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BEGIN. I WILL GIVE THE REST OF MY TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. >> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL POINTS. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SIT THERE AND LISTEN TO MR. SCHIFF TELL THE TALE 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 THE TELEPHONE CALL AND RELEASED IT TO THE PUBLIC. HOW IS THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY? WHEN MR. SCHIFF FOUND OUT THERE WAS NOTHING TO HIS ALLEGATIONS, 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 UNITED STATES DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED THAT TELEPHONE CALL. STILL NOTHING. AGAIN. COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY AND A WAY THAT FRANKLY I AM UNFAMILIAR WITH ANY PRECEDENTS COME 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 THE CALL HE READ IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND HE DID NOT TELL THEM IT WAS A COMPLETE FAKE. DO YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT DUE PROCESS? I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT DUE PROCESS. NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY HAS A PRESIDENT BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS KIND OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IN THE HOUSE. 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. AND EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN GIVEN A MINIMAL DUE PROCESS. NOTHING HERE. NOT EVEN MR. SCHIFF'S REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WERE ALLOWED INTO THIS. 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 OBSTRUCTING. WHAT DOES MR. SCHIFF MEAN BY OBSTRUCTING? HE MEANS THAT UNLESS YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS, REGARDLESS OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, YOU ARE OBSTRUCTING. THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES. BY THE WAY, THERE IS STILL EVIDENCE IN THE SKIFF THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO SEE. I WONDER WHY. SNOW WITNESSES. 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 ARE NOT EVEN PREPARED TODAY TO STAND UP AND MAKE AN OPENING ARGUMENT ABOUT.
THAT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CASE. FRANKLY, THEY HAVE NO CHARGE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY ARE NOT ONLY RIDICULOUS, BUT THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO OUR OR PUBLIC. AND WHY? FIRST OF ALL, THE NOTION THAT INVOKING YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY JUST ABOUT EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON. AND 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 IS THE KIND OF THING THAT OUR STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD CRITICIZE IF WE SEE IT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. WE HAVE 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 THAT HE HAS THE TEMERITY TO COME INTO THE SENATE AND SAY, WE HAVE NO USE FOR COURTS.
IT IS OUTRAGEOUS. LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER STORY. THERE IS A MAN NAMED CHARLIE KUPPER MEN HE IS THE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. HE IS THE NUMBER TWO TO JOHN BOLTON. 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. KUPPER DID WHATEVER HE AMERICAN 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 DOES NOT LIKE COURTS. HE WENT TO COURT. AND HE SAID, JUDGE, TELL ME WHAT TO DO. I HAVE OBLIGATIONS THAT FRANKLY RISE TO 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. SHIFTED? MR. KUPPERMAN WENT TO THE JUDGE AND THE HOUSE SAID, NEVERMIND. 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 REFUSED TO DO FOR THEMSELVES. THEY ASK YOU TO TRAMPLE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
WOULD THEY EVER SUGGEST THAT THE EXECUTIVE COULD DETERMINE ON ITS OWN WHAT THIS SPEECH OR DEBATE CLAUSE MEANS? OF COURSE NOT. WOULD THEY EVER SUGGESTED 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 WHAT THEY REFUSED TO DO FOR THEMSELVES. THEY HAD A COURT DATE. AND THEY WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA. THEY EVADED A DECISION. THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO BECOME COMPLICIT IN THAT EVASION OF THE COURTS. IT IS RIDICULOUS. AND WE SHOULD CALL IT OUT FOR WHAT IT IS. OBSTRUCTION? WERE GOING TO COURT? IT IS AN ACT OF PATRIOTISM TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE IF THEY CAN DO IT TO THE PRESIDENCY, THEY CAN DO IT TO ANY OF YOU AND THEY CAN DO IT TO ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THAT IS WRONG. AND LAWRENCE TRIBE, WHO HAS BEEN ADVISING THEM, I GUESS HE DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, HE SAID, IT IS DANGEROUS TO SUGGEST THAT INVOKING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS IMPEACHABLE. IT IS DANGEROUS.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT, IT IS DANGEROUS MR. SCHIFF. SO WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WE HAVE THE HOUSE THAT COMPLETELY CONCOCTED A PROCESS THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. THEY LOCKED THE PRESIDENT OUT. 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. WE SAID, LET US SEE THE DOCUMENTS. RELEASE THEM TO THE PUBLIC. WE ARE STILL WAITING. SO THE IDEA THAT THEY WOULD COME HERE AND LECTURE THE SENATE — BY THE WAY, I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR, DID YOU REALIZE, YOU ARE ON TRIAL. MR. NADLER IS PUTTING YOU ON TRIAL. EVERYBODY IS ON TRIAL EXCEPT FOR THEM.
IT IS RIDICULOUS. IT IS RIDICULOUS. THEY SAID IN THEIR BRIEF, WE HAVE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. AND THEY ARE AFRAID TO MAKE THEIR CASE. THINK ABOUT IT. IT IS COMMON SENSE. OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THEN THEY COME HERE ON THE FIRST DAY AND THEY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, 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. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE. IT IS TOO MUCH TO LISTEN TO ALMOST. THE HYPOCRISY OF THE WHOLE THING. AND WHAT ARE THE STAKES. WHAT ARE THE STAKES? THERE IS AN ELECTION IN ALMOST NINE MONTHS. MONTHS FROM NOW, THERE WILL 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 IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE. WE HAVE — TALK ABOUT THE FRAMER'S WORST NIGHTMARE. IT IS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY HAVE DELIVERED TO YOUR DOORSTEP. IN AN ELECTION YEAR. SOME OF YOU ARE UPSET. WE ARE HERE. AND THEY ARE NOT READY TO GO. AND IT IS OUTRAGEOUS. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS. AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T STAND FOR IT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW. THEY ARE NOT HERE TO STEAL ONE ELECTION. THEY ARE HERE TO STEAL TWO ELECTIONS. IT IS BURIED IN THE SMALL PRINT OF THE RIDICULOUS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THEY WANT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT. THEY WON'T TELL YOU THAT. THEY DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY IT DIRECTLY BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE 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 HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE. NOW, THE REASON IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IS BECAUSE NO ONE EVER THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR OUR COUNTRY COME OUR CHILDREN COME OUR GRANDCHILDREN TO TRY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT TRUMP A BALLOT. TO DENY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON A FRAUDULENT INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED IN SECRET WITH NO RIGHTS. I COULD GO ON AND ON.
BUT MY POINT IS VERY SIMPLE. IT IS LONG PASSED TIME THAT WE START THIS SO THAT 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? >> WE DO. >> THANK YOU. >> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND I ASKED THAT IT BE READ. >> THE CLERK WILL READ THE DOCUMENT. >> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, MR. SCHUMER, PROPOSES AMENDMENT NUMBER 1284. AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE, INSERT THE FOLLOWING. SECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULES FIVE AND SIX OF THE RULES COME PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS PICK ONE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE SHALL ISSE A SUBPOENA TO THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE WHITE HOUSE COMMANDING HIM TO PRODUCE FOR THE TIME PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1st 2019 TO THE PRESENT, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE WHITE HOUSE, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, REFERRING OR RELATING TO A, ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE INCLUDING DOCUMENTS, KEY MEDICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS RELATED TO THE SCHEDULING OF PREPARATION FOUR AND FOLLOW-UP FROM THE PRESIDENT'S APRIL 21st, JULY 25th 2019 TELEPHONE CALLS AS WELL AS THE SEPTEMBER 25TH MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN NEW YORK.
ALL INVESTIGATIONS, INQUIRIES AND OTHER PROBES RELATED TO UKRAINE INCLUDING ANY THAT RELATE IN ANY WAY TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN, NUMBER TWO, HUNTER BIDEN AND ANY OF HIS ASSOCIATES. THREE, BREEZE AND HOLDINGS LIMITED ALSO KNOWN AS BREEZE MAMA. FOUR, INTERFERENCE OR INVOLVEMENT BY UKRAINE IN THE 2016 UNITED STATES ELECTION. FIVE, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE OR SIX, ROAD STRIKE. 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, U.S. AI AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING MFF. D, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATION, NOTES AND OTHER RECORDS CREATED OR RECEIVED BY ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF ROBERT BLAIR AND OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS RELATING TO EFFORTS TO SOLICIT, REQUEST INDUCE, PERSUADE OR COERCE UKRAINE TO CONDUCT OR ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS.
AN OFFER, SCHEDULE, OR WITHHOLD A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT OR THREE, HOLD OR RELEASE MILITARY INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. E, MEETINGS AT OR INVOLVING THE WHITE HOUSE THAT RELATED TO UKRAINE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ONE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S INAUGURATION IN 2019 AND UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION NOT TO ATTEND. TO ASK VICE PRESIDENT MIKE TENDS TO LEAD THE DELEGATION, DIRECTING VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE NOT TO ATTEND AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE DELEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES. TWO, A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND MAY 23rd, 2019. INVOLVING AMONG OTHERS, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS AMBASSADOR COLD VOELKER AND ENERGY SECRETARY RICK PERRY AND UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, GORDAN SONDLAND.
AS WELL AS ANY PRIVATE MEETINGS OR CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS BEFORE OR AFTER THE LARGER MEETING. THREE, MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR ABOUT JULY 10th, 2019 INVOLVING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR KURT VOELKER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO INCLUDE AT LEAST A MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON BECCA'S OFFICE AND SUBSEQUENT MEETING. AND FOUR, A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND AUGUST 30S 2019 INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MARK ESPER.
FIVE, A PLANNED MEETING LATER CANCELED AT WARSAW, POLAND ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 1st 2019 BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED BY VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE. AND SIX, A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 11th 2019 INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE AND MICK MULVANEY CONCERNING THE LIFTING OF THE HOLD ON THE 30 ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE. F, MEETINGS, TELEPHONE CALLS OR CONVERSATIONS RELATED TO ANY OCCASIONS IN WHICH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS REPORTED CONCERNS TO NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYERS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEGAL ADVISOR JOHN EISENBERG REGARDING MATTERS RELATED TO UKRAINE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ONE, THE DECISION TO DELAY MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. TWO, THE JULY 10th 2019 MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PICK THREE, THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25TH 2019 CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. FOUR, A SEPTEMBER 1st, 2019 MEETING BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL. AND FIVE, THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 7th 2019 CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. ANY INTERNAL REVIEW OR ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE REGARDING UKRAINE MATTERS FOLLOWING THE SEPTEMBER 9th, 2019 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT 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 AND THE SCHEDULING OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND ANY REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS BY UKRAINE. H, THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY A WHISTLEBLOWER WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ON OR AROUND AUGUST 12, 2019 TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. I, ALL MEETINGS OR CALLS INCLUDING REQUESTS FOR OR RECORDINGS OF MEETINGS OR TELEPHONE CALLS SCHEDULING ITEMS, CALENDAR ENTRIES, WHITE HOUSE VISITOR RECORDS RECORDS, OR 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 SONDLAND, VICTORIA TOM SANDOR AND FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DECISION TO END HER TOUR OR RECALL HER FROM 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 EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. >> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. >> I ASK FOR A BRIEF 15 MINUTE RECESS BEFORE THE PARTIES ARE RECOGNIZED TO DEBATE THE SCHUMER AMENDMENT. THEREFORE I ASK CONSENT THAT THE SENATE STAND IN RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO AWARDED. >> ALREADY, WE ARE OFF TO THE RACES ON CAPITOL HILL. WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A BORING BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSING OF RULES. IT HAS SET FORWARD AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION ALREADY. LET'S BREAK IT DOWN WITH OUR GUESTS HERE. FIRST, WE JUST HEARD THE MINORITY LEADER, SENATOR SCHUMER, INTRODUCED AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED RULES THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, RELATING TO EVERYTHING THAT THE MEETING WAS OF FIVE PAGES OF WHAT THEY WANTED.
THE LIKELIHOOD, MAJOR GARRETT, THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL GET WHAT THEY WANT ON THIS JOE FLACCO ZERO. REPUBLICANS WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT. THEY WILL MOVE TO TABLE. THAT WILL BE A PROCEDURAL EFFORT UNDERTAKEN BY THE MAJORITY LEADER AND WHEN THAT VOTE IS HELD, REPUBLICANS WILL HOLD THE LINE AND DEFEAT THE AMENDMENT. >> THE OTHER BIG HEADLINE THIS MORNING AS WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GO INTO THIS WITH EACH SIDE GETTING 24 HOURS APIECE TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT. MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL SAYING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE OVER TWO DAYS. LOW AND BEHOLD, HE MADE THIS ABOUT 6:00 LAST NIGHT. REPUBLICAN SENATORS WENT INTO THE WEEKLY LUNCHEON AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS WE WERE TOLD, INCLUDING SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS OF MAINE, EDITOR ROB PORTMAN OF OHIO, WHO ASKED FOR CHANGES TO THOSE RULES AND SO HERE, IN HANDWRITTEN FORM AND WE HAVE BEEN IN A GRAPHIC YOU CAN SEE, THE MAJORITY LEADER'S RESOLUTION WAS AMENDED.
IN FACT, NOW WHAT YOU HAVE IS THIS SET OF PRESENTATIONS THAT WILL STRETCH OVER THREE DAYS. THERE WERE CRITICS OF MITCH MCCONNELL THAT WE WERE CALLING MIDNIGHT MITCH, MEANING THERE WOULD BE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT MIDNIGHT OR 1:00 OR 2:00 IN THE MORNING. THIS WOULD BE OVER THREE DAYS. SO THAT IS ABOUT EIGHT HOURS A DAY. >> ANOTHER IMPORTANT CHANGE PICK THE HOUSE EVIDENTIARY RECORD WILL BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE RECORD. THAT WAS NOT PART OF SENATOR MCCONNELL'S ORIGINAL ORGANIZING RESOLUTION. THAT ALSO WRANGLED SOME SENATE REPUBLICANS WHO THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A MOVE THAT, TO PUT AT ARMS LENGTH, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A TRIAL, HOW CAN YOU NOT ACCEPT AT LEAST THE EVIDENCE? IT DOES GIVE THEN THE OPPORTUNITY AT A LATER DATE TO HAVE A VOTE TO STRIKE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE EVIDENCE THEY WANT TO DISREGARD OR FIND NOT RELEVANT.
WHAT THIS STRIKES ME AS SOMETHING I HAVE SEEN FROM MITCH MCCONNELL ON NUMEROUS CASES WHERE THE GOAL IS TO PRESERVE MOST OF HIS PROCEDURAL ARCHITECTURE. AND HE STILL HAS. ALL THE THINGS THAT PROTECT THE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ADDED TO THIS RECORD HAVE BEEN PRESERVED. HE HAS GIVEN A TEENY BIT OF GROUND IT TO SOME SENATE REPUBLICANS WHO NEEDED TO SEE THAT GROUND GIVEN IN ORDER TO MAKE A CASE THAT THIS IS A MORE FAIR PROCESS. >> I THINK WHY TODAY WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTING WAS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CHARGED A COVER-UP BY THE REPUBLICAN LEADER. HE IS NOW RELAXED THE TIMETABLE A BIT. AND WE HAVE ROUND ONE IN THIS PREVIEW OF THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC MANAGERS VERSUS THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HAD ADAM SCHIFF UP THERE FOR MORE THAN 40 SOMETHING MINUTES ACCORDING TO MY NOTES.
17 FULL SCREENS LAYING OUT DETAILS. PRESIDENT VIDEO OF THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE EVERYONE TESTIFY AND THE WHITE HOUSE MAKING THEIR CASE. HOW WOULD YOU RATE HOW EACH SIDE THAT? >> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. MOST OF SCHIFF'S ARGUMENT WAS NOT PERTINENT TO THE ACTUAL MOTION ON THE FLOOR. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WAS PROCEDURAL. HE GAME AND GAVE AN OPENING ARGUMENT WHICH IS POLITICALLY SMART IN THE SENSE THAT THEY VIEW THIS AS THE BIGGEST AUDIENCE. >> HE WAS ALSO, TO BE FAIR, MAKING THE CASE THAT IN EVERY SINGLE OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE SENATE, THERE HAVE BEEN WITNESSES CALLED.
>> RIGHT. ALTHOUGH IN THE LAST ONE, IT WAS OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE DEMOCRATS THAT THEY GOT THOSE WITNESSES. I THOUGHT SCHIFF WAS QUITE EFFECTIVE. IT WAS INTERESTING THAT THE TONE CHANGED WHEN JAY CYCLO CAME UP AND HE WAS MORE ANIMATED. IT REFLECTS MORE I THINK OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THIS AFFAIR. OR IN THIS TRIAL. BUT THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE LAST CHANGES IS THE DEGREE OF LEVERAGE THAT THESE FOUR MODERATE REPUBLICANS HAVE. THEY NEED THOSE VOTES AGAIN IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS GROUP IS GOING TO FLEX ITS MUSCLE. IT IS GOING TO BASICALLY SAY, WE WANT CERTAIN CHANGES AND THEY GOT THEM. >> SMALL CHANGES THOUGH AND WHEN ADAM SCHIFF ARGUED NEAR THE END — YOU ARE RIGHT, NORA. HE LET OFF WITH HIS OPENING ARGUMENT. BUT WHEN HE GOT TO THE RULES AND THIS UNDERLYING ORGANIZING RESOLUTION, HE SAID THIS IS THE VOTE. IF YOU BUILD IT OUT THIS WAY, THE OPENING ARGUMENTS ARE THE TRIAL.
THERE WON'T BE ANY WITNESSES. THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE DOCUMENTS. AND HE ZEROED IN ON THIS. BECAUSE THIS VOTE, THE WAY THIS STARTS, HE SAYS IS THE WAY IT WILL FINISH AND IT WILL FINISH QUICK. >> LIKE MOVING THE CHAIRS AROUND ON THE TITANIC BUT CHANGING THE DIRECTION. >> THAT IS WHY THE RESOLUTION IS SO IMPORTANT, THE ONE THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS. IT WOULD INCLUDE DOCUMENTS BY MICK MULVANEY, JOHN BOLTON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MIKE MARK ESPER AND VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO I THINK COULD HAVE BEEN CALLED OR SUBPOENAED IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. THEY HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE. THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T.
I THINK THEY LEGITIMATELY SHOULD TAKE SOME CRITICISM FOR THAT. THE ISSUE IS, WHAT SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEAR? AND ANY GOOD DECISION-MAKING INVOLVES GETTING ALL THE FACTS ON THE TABLE. ANY PROSECUTOR OR ANY GOOD LAWYER WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE EVEN IN A CIVIL TRIAL, IT IS IMPORTANT TO GATHER THE FACTS. AND REPUBLICANS, THAT WILL BE TOUGH FOR. >> I WANT TO BRING INTO CHIP REID WHO HAPPENS TO BE A LAWYER HIMSELF AND COVERED THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. LET ME ASK YOU. CHAIRMANSHIP'S PRESENTATION. THE FULL SCREEN THAT SAID THAT ZERO DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN PRESENTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.
THEY HAD FULL SCREENS WITH PICTURES OF EVERY WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED NOT TO TESTIFY, HE WAS TRYING TO PUT HIS ARGUMENT ESSENTIALLY ON FULL-SCREEN AND GRAPHICS WERE NOT ONLY THE SENATORS BUT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT THEY ARE ALL READY TO MEET THEM, STEP FOR STEP, WITH GRAPHICS AND FULL SCREENS TOO. IN THIS MODERN AGE, YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. THE TRUTH IS, MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM THERE, THE 100 SENATORS, ALREADY KNOW IF NOT ALL OF THIS, MOST OF THIS.
THEIR AUDIENCES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I FORGET WHO IT WAS ON YOUR PANEL WHO JUST SAID THAT ONE REASON THAT SCHIFF WENT RIGHT TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE ARGUMENTS IS THAT TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY REALLY. THIS IS WHEN YOU HAVE A BIG AUDIENCE. AT SOME POINT, PROBABLY, IMPEACHMENT FATIGUE IS GOING TO SET IN AND YOU WILL HAVE PEOPLE'S EYES GLAZING OVER AFTER THEY HAVE HEARD THESE ARGUMENTS AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO YOU NEED THOSE GRAPHICS. YOU NEED SOMETHING TO GRAB PEOPLE'S ATTENTION AND YOU NEED TO MAKE YOUR CASE RIGHT UP FRONT. YOU CANNOT GET MIRED AT A TIME LIKE THIS. YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR STRONGEST ARGUMENT RIGHT AT THE TOP. >> BEN TRACY IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND JOINS US AS WELL. WE SAW THE PRESIDENT'S FULL TEAM GATHERED THERE AS WELL. HIS LEGAL TEAM. THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYER MAKING THE ARGUMENTS TODAY. >> AND A GOOD CHANCE THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE LAST PART OF THAT. THE PRESIDENT WAS AT A DINNER AND DAVOS, SWITZERLAND WHERE HE IS ATTENDING THE ECONOMIC FORUM.
AFTER HE LEFT THE DINNER, THE PRESIDENT WAS TWEETING, ASSUMING FROM THE MOTORCADE, TWEETING OUT IN ALL CAPS "READ THE TRANSCRIPTS ." SOMETHING WE HAVE HEARD HIM TWEET BEFORE. A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. IT IS POSSIBLE THE PRESIDENT IS SITTING IN HIS HOTEL ROOM IN SWITZERLAND AND WATCHING THIS. WE KNOW FROM WHITE HOUSE AIDES AT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN GETTING BRIEFINGS ON THIS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. NOW HE HAS SOME FREE TIME TONIGHT TO WATCH THIS HIMSELF IF HE CHOOSES TO DO THAT. HE HAS MEETINGS TOMORROW IN SWITZERLAND AND WILL QUICKLY RETURN TO WASHINGTON DC BY EARLY EVENING TOMORROW TO BE IN PLACE FOR THIS. THE REAL QUESTION FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND FOR THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL TEAM IS, NOW THAT THIS WILL STRETCH OVER THREE DAYS, YOU COULD HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE IF THIS BEGINS AS PLANNED TOMORROW AND YOU HAVE THE HOUSE MANAGERS GO WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE TO START SATURDAY AND PICK THIS BACK UP MONDAY AND TUESDAY.
WE ARE GETTING SOME SENSE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL TEAM ON BACKGROUND CALLS THAT THEY ARE ALLUDING TO THE FACT THAT THEY MAY NOT NEED 24 HOURS. THAT THEIR CASES PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THEY >> HE WANTED CAVANAUGH CONFIRMED. THE PROCESS GAVE A LITTLE BIT AND HE KEPT THE PROCESS TOGETHER. WE SEE SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR HERE. >> THERE WAS A LOT OF SHAKING HANDS AND PATS ON THE BACK THERE. AS THE SENATE TAKES A BREAK WE ARE GOING TO STEP AWAY THEY'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS AND THEN A FINAL VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE RULES FOR THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. OUR COVERAGE OF THE SENATE TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL CONTINUE ON CBSN. YOU CAN ALSO WATCH IT AT CBSNEWS.COM OR ON THE CBS NEWS APP. I WILL BE BACK WITH UPDATES AS NEWS WARRANTS.>> I AM REENA NINAN IN NEW YORK .CONTINUING THE CBSN SPECIAL REPORT, THE PEACH MINT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IN A RECESS.
MITCH McCONNELL KICKED OFF PROCEEDINGS TO INTRODUCE A RESOLUTION CONTAINING GROUND RULES FOR THE TRIAL BUT BEFORE DEMOCRATS EVEN GOT A CHANCE TO SPEAK HE SAID HE WOULD REJECT MOTIONS FROM ACROSS THE AISLE INCLUDING CALLING WITNESSES. >> IF ANY AMENDMENTS ARE BROUGHT FORWARD TO FORCE PREMATURE DECISIONS ON MID- TRIAL QUESTIONS, I WILL MOVE TO TABLE SUCH AMENDMENTS AND PROTECT OUR BIPARTISAN PRESIDENT. IF A SENATOR MOVES TO ORDER SPECIFICÃSUBPOENA SPECIFIC WITNESSES I WILL MOVE TO TABLE SUCH MOTIONS BECAUSE THE SENATE WILL DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS LATER IN THE TRIAL JUST LIKE WE DID BACK IN 1999. >> CHUCK SCHUMER SPOKE SHORTLY AFTER McCONNELL AND HE SAID HIS CONGRESSIONAL COUNTERPARTS RESOLUTION IS NOTHING SHORT OF A NATIONAL DISGRACE. >> 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 TWO OR THREE IN THE MORNING, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT SEE THEM. >> TODAY, THE ORIGINAL RULES CHANGED JUST A SHORT WHILE AFTER McCONNELL SPOKE ON THE SENATE FLOOR.
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS PROPOSING TO ALLOW EACH SIDE TO PRESENT OPENING ARGUMENTS FOR 24 HOURS OVER THE COURSE OF THREE DAYS. AN ADDITIONAL DAY FOR EACH SIDE. SENATORS WILL HAVE 16 HOURS TO SUBMIT WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO BOTH SIDES. EVIDENCE FROM THE HOUSE WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD. THAT IS A CHANGE FROM THE ACTUAL INITIAL RULES WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE AUTOMATICALLY ENTERED THOSE DOCUMENTS. ONCE BOTH SIDES HEAR OPENING ARGUMENTS SENATORS CAN DECIDE WHETHER TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE TRIAL. WE ALSO HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, PAT CIPOLLONE. HE SAID IT IS A TACTIC TO DELAY THE TRIAL. AND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT. >> WE WILL PROCEED TO THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES IN 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 IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE ARTICLES ALONE YOU WILL DETERMINE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE.
>> >> YOU WILL RECALL THE TWO ATICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THOSE ARTICLES ARE LIKELY TO START TOMORROW ASSUMING THE SENATE COMES TO TERMS WITH THE RULES THIS AFTERNOON. I WANT TO BRING IN OUR PANEL. THEN TRACY IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND MOLLY IS A CBSN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR. I WANT TO START AT THE WHITE HOUSE. HAVE WE HEARD REACTION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AT THIS POINT? >> ABOUT AN HOUR AGO THE PRESIDENT LEFT A DINNER IN SWITZERLAND ATTENDING THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. SIX MINUTES AFTER HE LEFT THAT DINNER HE TWEETED READ THE TRANSCRIPTS. THAT IS A FAMILIAR TWEET FROM THE PRESIDENT REFERRING PEOPLE TO GO BACK AND READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL BETWEEN HIM AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE. WE ARE TOLD BY WHITE HOUSE AIDES THAT HE IS GETTING BRIEFINGS.
THE PRESIDENT IS BACK AT HIS HOTEL. IF HE WANTS HE CAN TURN ON CNN INTERNATIONAL OR CBSN AND FOLLOW ALONG WITH THIS. THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THAT HE CAUGHT THE LAST PART OF JAY SEKULOW'S PRESENTATION. HE WILL BE ABLE TO CATCH THE BULK OF THIS TRIAL HERE IN THE U.S.. >> MOLLY, THERE WERE CONCESSIONS THAT McCONNELL MADE TODAY. WALK US THROUGH THESE AND ARE YU SURPRISED? >> I AM NOT THAT SURPRISED, BECAUSE WHEN I READ THE FIRST RESOLUTION I THOUGHT THIS DOES VARY FROM THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT RULES IN SEVERAL WAYS. NUMBER ONE, THERE WERE ONLY TWO DAYS FOR BOTH SIDES TO MAKE THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE A LONG DAY FOR EITHER SIDE AND I WAS SURPRISED THAT THERE WOULD ONLY BE FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE ON THE WITNESSES.
THERE WERE JUST A FEW CHANGES THAT SEEMED MORE FAVORABLE TO THE WHITE HOUSE. I THOUGHT MITCH McCONNELL LIKES TO DO THIS. HE LIKES TO COME IN WITH THE FIRST OFFER, BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT HE HAS TO CONTEND WITH THE MODERATE REPUBLICANS THAT ARE ALWAYS ASKING FOR MORE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS AN EXTRA DAY FOR ARGUMENTS. THAT WAS THE SAME AS THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. BOTH SIDES HAD THREE DAYS EACH TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENTS. NOW, THEY HAVE THREE DAYS A PIECE TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENTS AND ALSO THIS ISSUE. I HAD A FEELING, I WAS NOT SURE HOW IT WOULD WORK, BUT IT MAKES SENSE THAT MITCH McCONNELL IS ALLOWING THAT TO COME IN. AND, REALLY AGAIN, WITH THESE FOUR MODERATES, THEY TEND TO PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN LANDMARK LEGISLATION.
>> SUSAN COLLINS, LaMARR ALEXANDER — >> EXACTLY. MITCH ROMNEY STARTED PLAYING THE ROLE OF JEFF FLAKE BUT MITT ROMNEY BASICALLY CAME IN A DIFFERENT STATE OF COURSE, BUT THEY WERE CLOSE PHILOSOPHICALLY AND IT IS A MAVERICK WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PRESIDENT.AND DURING THE KAVANAUGH, AS MAJOR GARRETT WAS SAYING, DURING THE KAVANAUGH NOMINATION , IT WAS THOSE FOR REPUBLICANS WHO PRESSED McCONNELL TO HEAR FROM A WITNESS ON GETTING ANOTHER DAY OF INTERVIEWS.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT MADE THAT PUSH AND IN THE END SUSAN COLLINS DID VOTE FOR KAVANAUGH. JEFF FLAKE VOTED FOR KAVANAUGH. SO AGAIN, MITCH McCONNELL NEEDS TO GO IN HARD THIS FIRST OFFER, KNOWING THAT HE WILL HAVE TO TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT BEFORE HE GETS TO THE FINAL RESOLUTION. >> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. YOU KNOW, MITCH McCONNELL ADDRESSED THE SENATE AND SAID HE IS WILLING TO TABLE ANYTHING BEFORE WE GET TO THE PROPER STEPS, INCLUDING WITNESSES AT THIS JUNCTURE. HOW CAN THERE BE A TRIAL IF THERE ARE NOT WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE IN PLACE? >> THIS QUESTION IS REMARKABLE. MOLLY GOT AT EXACTLY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED 21 YEARS AGO AND NOW. 21 YEARS AGO 100 SENATORS AGREED TO THE PROCEDURES. AND THERE WAS AN EFFORT BY THE SENATE MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS TO FIND CONSENSUS.
HERE, THE APPROACH WITH MITCH McCONNELL IS LET ME GET THE MOST AGGRESSIVE OFFER THAT I CAN GET THAT WILL CAPTURE A MINIMUM, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED, WHICH IS 51 REPUBLICAN SENATORS, TO GET THE MOST AGGRESSIVE SET OF RULES. AND HE PUSHED JUST A LITTLE TOO HARD BY NOT ALLOWING ANY EVIDENCE TO COME INTO THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AT THE OUTSET AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO BALKED AND SAID THE TRIAL WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO AS AMERICANS AS SEEING ANY KIND OF TRIAL, WOULD HAVE EVIDENCE. >> NOW, WE ARE PUSHING TO HAVE THIS RESEMBLE THE RULES OF THE ROAD FOR CLINTON, AND THAT WAS TO HAVE THREE DAYS TO HEAR THESE ARGUMENTS. KEEP THIS IN MIND. WE ARE WATCHING THIS AS OUR AUDIENCE IS AND SO ARE SENATORS. BUT, I CAN LOOK AT MY PHONE AND I CAN GET UP TO POWDER MY NOSE. THE SENATORS CANNOT. THEY HAVE TO SIT THERE. AND MITCH McCONNELL SAID GUESS WHAT? SO, I'M GOING TO GIVE BOTH SIDES TWO DAYS APIECE, THAT MIGHT MEAN 12 HOUR DAYS FOR YOU TO HAVE TO SIT IN YOUR SEAT AND BASICALLY ONLY HAVE A GLASS OF WATER AND YOU CANNOT GET UP TO TAKE A BATHROOM BREAK AND I THINK THEY KIND OF WENT COME ON, MITCH.>> I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT ADAM SCHIFF HAD TO SAY IN REFERENCE TO HIS ASSESSMENT AS TO WHY THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES.
>> WHAT IS THE HARM OF 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 IS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS, TRIAL FIRST, THEN EVIDENCE, BESIDES THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WOULD INFORM THE QUESTIONS ON THE WITNESSES AND HELP WITH 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 THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS ALREADY OVERWHELMING, YOU MAY NEVER KNOW THE FULL SCOPE OF THE MISCONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT OR THOSE AROUND HIM.
>> WE JUST HEARD FROM ADAM SCHIFF, YOU KNOW, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WALKED IN TODAY AND WE HEARD FROM PAT CIPOLLONE AND JAY SEKULOW AND THEY WALKED IN PRETTY CONFIDENT TODAY. >> Reporter: THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE THE VOTES. SO, I THINK THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THESE CHANGES TO THE RULES FROM 2-3 DAYS, THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT GOING TO CARE, WHAT THEY CARE ABOUT IS KEEPING THESE REPUBLICANS ON BOARD. SO, IF SMALL CHANGES TO THE RULES MEANS THAT THERE IS NOT A FACTION OF SENATORS SAYING NO, WE DON'T THINK THIS IS FAIR, THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD RATHER SEE A UNITED FRONT. IF THIS KEEPS EVERYBODY IN LOCKSTEP AND THEY ALL VOTE WITH McCONNELL AND THEY PUSH THESE RULES FORWARD, THE WHITE HOUSE FEELS THAT MEANS THERE IS LESS LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE WILL EVENTUALLY BE WITNESSES OR SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS DOWN THE ROAD.
THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS HOW MUCH TIME DOES EACH SIDE ACTUALLY TAKE RID THE PRESIDENTS LEGAL TEAM IS SIGNALING THAT THEY DO NOT NEED 24 HOURS TO MAKE THEIR CASE. SO, YOU COULD SEE, IF YOU HAVE THE HOUSE MANAGERS START TOMORROW, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY IF THEY TAKE ALL OF THEIR TIME THAT COULD PRESS THE TEAM TO START ON SATURDAY AND FINISH EARLY NEXT WEEK. BY THE ACCOUNT, THIS IS A SPEEDY TRIAL AND THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT. THEY WANT THIS OVER AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. >> WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, WE DO TALK ABOUT THE 4 MODERATE REPUBLICANS WHO HAD INFLUENCE. BUT, WHAT REALLY MATTERSIS WHETHER THOSE WITNESSES GET IN, WHETHER THERE IS MORE TESTIMONY. WILL THAT HAPPEN BASED ON THE VOTE COUNT YOU ARE HEARING AT THIS POINT? >> WHAT IS TRICKY ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION THAT MITCH McCONNELL WROTE GOES TO THE POINT OF EVIDENCE.
AND I MISSPOKE EARLIER BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT I HAVE READ INITIALLY, I THOUGHT THE ENTIRE EVIDENTIARY RECORD WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN. BUT, WHAT THIS SAYS IS ALL THOSE MATERIALS THAT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE GATHERED NEED TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, SO THAT AT A POINT IN THIS TRIAL WHEN A MOTION IS MADE TO SEE THOSE DOCUMENTS, THEY ARE PRODUCED. SO, MITCH McCONNELL ESSENTIALLY SETS UP A SITUATION WHERE HE IS GOING TO HAVE THE SENATE VOTE ON A MOTION TO SEE EVIDENCE. SO, THAT GIVES THOSE MORE VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS A YES VOTE ON SEEING MORE EVIDENCE BUT THE EVIDENCE THEY SAW WAS ALREADY PRODUCED ON THE HOUSE SIDE. SO, THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURAL TRICKS AROUND HERE AND IT IS MORE SO TO APPEAL TO THE REPUBLICANS IN THOSE PURPLE STATES LIKE CORY GARDNER WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE TOUGH VOTES IN THE NEXT FEW HOURS. WHEN CHUCK SCHUMER, WE WILL SEE THIS VOTE ON THE VARIOUS EVIDENCE HE WANTS TO SEE ADMITTED, BUT ALSO HE IS GOING TO FORCE A VOTE ON WHETHER TO HEAR FROM CERTAIN WITNESSES AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT MITCH McCONNELL IS GOING TO DO IS SAY I WANT TO TABLE THAT AMENDMENT OR I WANT TO MOVE TO TABLE YOUR MOTION WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS A BACKWARDS VOTE.
REPUBLICANS WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF KILLING SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT AND DEMOCRATS VOTING AGAINST IT BUT THE VOTE WILL LOOK LIKE REPUBLICANS VOTED IN FAVOR OF WITNESSES WHEN REALLY THEY WERE NOT. IT GIVES EVERYONE A LITTLE PROCEDURAL COVER BECAUSE THIS IS NOT JUST THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. A LOT OF THESE SENATORS ARE UP FOR REELECTION THIS YEAR AND SIX OF THEM ARE REPUBLICANS IN PURPLE STATES AND THEY HAVE TO GO HOME AND ANSWER FOR THESE VOTES AND PEOPLE LIKE CORY GARDNER ARE UNDER A SPOTLIGHT AS WELL BECAUSE ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS IS FROM DENVER, — >> AND THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THE MAJORITY. SO YOU KNOW, WE HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYSLAYING OUT THE FOUNDATION. WHAT YOU MAKE OF THE ARGUMENT THEY ARE CRAFTING AT THIS POINT? >> I THINK THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO PRESERVE THEIR DEFENSE.
THE TOP LINE TAKEAWAYS WERE COMPLAINTS ABOUT DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, ALLEGING THAT THEY CLAIM IT HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE AS A PROSECUTOR, A FORMER PROSECUTOR, IF YOU ANALOGIZE TO THE GRAND JURY, I CAN TELL YOU THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE WITH A GRAND JURY BUT WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT BALLGAME IN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD THAT WENT BY WEEKLY, THE CLAIM THAT THE ARTICLES DO NOT ALLEGE CRIMES. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT I EXPECT TO BE BROUGHT FORTH MUCH MORE STRONGLY AND IN MUCH MORE DETAIL. IT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT WOULD LEAD TO A MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE EVEN HAPPENS. SO, THE THEORY WOULD BE THE ARTICLES ARE DEFECTIVE, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY MORE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE. AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE A WELL- FOUNDED MOTION. AND THEN ON THE FINAL ARTICLE, RELATING TO OBSTRUCTION, THEY MADE THE CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASSERT CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES AND HAVE THEM LITIGATED IN THE COURSE.
>> AND JAY SEKULOW SAID THIS SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COURTS AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED THERE. >> I EXPECT THIS TO BE A KEY POINT OF CONTENTION AS IT GOES FORWARD. DEMOCRATS ARE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION STANDING IN FRONT OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND SAYING THAT THEY COULD NOT WAIT TO GO TO THE COURTS AND IT IS A FACT OF LIFE. FEDERAL LITIGATION TAKES A LONG TIME AND THERE IS AN ELECTION COMING UP IN 10-11 MONTHS. SO, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO MAKE HERE IS THAT THEY COULD NOT WAIT.ADAM SCHIFF CANNOT TURN AROUND AND SAY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, YOU GUYS SHOULD MOVE. BUT, THAT IS THE REAL POLITIC THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ROOM.
>> DEMOCRATS ARGUE THAT PAT CIPOLLONE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REPRESENT THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE IS A WITNESS.>> Reporter: LET'S GIVE PEOPLE CONTEXT ON THIS. THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT PAT CIPOLLONE WHO IS REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT AT THIS TRIAL, THEY SAY BASED ON THE OCTOBER 8 LETTER THAT PAT CIPOLLONE SENT TO CONGRESS SAYING WE ARE NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE WE THINK THIS IS A SHAM.
THAT IS PART OF THE BASIS OF THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THEY SAY 27 PLAYED A ROLE IN THAT BECAUSE HE SENT THE LETTER. SO, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR DOCUMENTS THAT MIGHT SHED LIGHT AS TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTERACTION WAS WITH PAT CIPOLLONE. WAS IT TO THE PRESIDENT WHO DIRECTED HIM TO SAY I DO NOT WANT TO BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS? SO, THEY WANT PAT CIPOLLONE TO PRODUCE THAT. THE WHITE HOUSE FIRED BACK WITH A STRONG STATEMENT . HE SAYS THE DEMOCRATS ARE AN UTTER JOKE. THEY HAVE NO CASE AND THIS — LATEST CRITICAL STUNNED PROVES IT. THE FACT HE HAS NOT TURNED OVER CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IS LUDICROUS AND TO IMPLY THAT HE CANNOT REPRESENT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IS ABSURD. CLEARLY, THE WHITE HOUSE DOES NOT PLAN TO GO ALONG WITH WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE ASKING FOR. >> WE ARE STANDING BY AND THE SENATE IS IN RECESS.
IT HAS BEEN ABOUT 15 OR SO. THEY ARE EXPECTED TO RESUME TO TAKE UP THE AMENDMENTS. AND ALSO THE TRIAL, THE RULES FOR THE TRIAL. THERE IS JOHN ROBERTS. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> MR. ADAM SCHIFF, YOU HAVE ONE HOUR. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. IN A MOMENT I WILL INTRODUCE THE HOUSE MANAGER FROM CALIFORNIA TO RESPOND ON THE AMENDMENT BUT I DID WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY BEFORE REPRESENTATIONS BECAME CONGEALED TO RESPOND TO MY COLLEAGUES ARGUMENT ON THE RESOLUTION AT LARGE.
FIRST, IT IS WORTH NOTING THEY SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION. THEY SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION. THEY MADE NO EFFORT TO DEFEND IT OR TO CLAIM THAT THIS WAS LIKE THE SENATE TRIAL IN THE CLINTON PROCEEDING. THEY MADE NO ARGUMENT THAT 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 WITHOUT WITNESSES BECAUSE IT IS INDEFENSIBLE. IT IS INDEFENSIBLE. NO TRIAL IN AMERICA HAS EVER BEEN CONDUCTED LIKE THAT. AND SO, YOU HEARD NOTHING ABOUT IT. AND THAT SHOULD BE THE MOST TELLING THING ABOUT COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT. THEY HAD NO DEFENSE OF THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. THEY COULD NOT DEFEND IT ON THE BASIS OF PRECEDENT OR HISTORY OR TRADITION OR THE BASIS OF THE CONSTITUTION, OR AT ALL. WHAT DID THEY SAY? FIRST, THEY MADE TO THE REPRESENTATION THAT THE HOUSE IS CLAIMING THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THAT IS NONSENSE. NO ONE HERE HAS EVER SUGGESTED THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BUT THE INTERESTING THING HERE IS THEY HAVE NEVER CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. NOT ONCE DURING THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION DID THEY EVER SAY A SINGLE DOCUMENT WAS PRIVILEGED OR A SINGLE WITNESS HAD SOMETHING PRIVILEGED TO SAY. WHY ONLY NOW AND EVEN NOW THEY HAVE NOT WHITE INVOKED IT, WHY ONLY NOW, WHY NOT IN THE HOUSE? BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CLAIM PRIVILEGE, AS THEY KNOW, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD LAWYERS, YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH DOCUMENT, WHICH LINE, WHICH CONVERSATION AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE, TO DO THAT, THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO REVEAL THE EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT THAT IS WHY THEY MADE NO INVOCATION OF PRIVILEGE NOW, THEY MAKE THE FURTHER ARGUMENT THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO IMPEACH AFTER THEY EXHAUST ALL LEGAL REMEDIES AS IF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENTá, BUT ONLY AFTER IT GOES TO COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND THEN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THEN THE SUPREME COURT AND IT IS REMANDED AND IN SIX YEARS.
WHY DIDN'T THE FOUNDERS REQUIRE THE EXHAUSTION OF LEGAL REMEDIES? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO PUT THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN THE COURTS. AND WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT WHILE THESE LAWYERS FOR THE PRESIDENT ARE HERE TODAY SAYING THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO COURT, THEY ARE IN COURT SAYING THE HOUSE MAY NOT GO TO IN COURT. 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 TELL YOU TODAY.
THEY SAY YOU CANNOT ENFORCE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. THAT IS NON-JUDICIAL. YOU CANNOT DO IT. THE COUNCIL BRINGS UP A CASE INVOLVING A DEPUTY TO JOHN BOLTON, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND THE SAYS HE DID WHAT HE SHOULD DO. HE WENT TO COURT TO FIGHT US. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TOOK THE POSITION HE CANNOT DO THAT. SO, THESE LAWYERS SAY HE SHOULD AND THESE SAY HE SHOULD NOT.
THEY CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. INTERESTINGLY, WHILE DR. GOVERNMENT WENT TO COURT, AND THEY APPLAUD HIM FOR DOING THAT, HIS BOSS, JOHN BOLTON, NOW SAYS THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR HIM TO GO TO COURT, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO DO THAT. HE IS WILLING TO COME AND TALK TO YOU. HE IS 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 FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS IN THE MEETINGS, SOMEONE WHO DESCRIBED WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID? THIS DEAL BETWEEN MULVANEY. AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. YOU WANT TO ASK THEM WHY IT WAS A DRUG DEAL OR WHY PEOPLE TOLD HIM TO TALK TO THE LAWYERS? YOU SHOULD WANT TO KNOW.
THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW. THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW. THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW. CAN YOU LIVE UP TO THE OATH YOU HAVE TAKEN TO BE IMPARTIAL AND NOT KNOW? I DON'T THINK YOU CAN. NOW, THEY ALSO MADE AN ARGUMENT AND YOU WILL HEAR MORE LATER ON FROM THE PROFESSOR THAT WELL, ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT IN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. IT IS INTERESTING THEY HAD TO GO OUTSIDE THE REALM OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS TO A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO REPUTABLE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT WOULD DO THAT. INDEED, THE ONE THEY CALLED IN THE HOUSE HAS SAID THE OPPOSITE. THERE IS A REASON THAT JONATHAN TURLEY IS NOT SITTING AT THE TABLE, AND THAT IS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT. SO, THEY WILL CITE HIM FOR ONE THING BUT IGNORE HIM FOR THE OTHER.
NOW, THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS TRANSPARENT AND HE MAY HAVE REFUSED EVERY REQUEST BUT HE RELEASED TO DOCUMENTS. THE DOCUMENT ON THE JULY 25 AND APRIL 21 CALLS. 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 WE OPENED AN INVESTIGATION HE WAS FORCED BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT. YOU DON'T GET CREDIT FOR TRANSPARENCY WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT. AND WHAT'S MORE, WHAT IS REVEALED AND THAT OF COURSE IS DAMNING. NOW, THEY POINT TO THE ONLY OTHER RECORD HE HAS RELEASED AND THAT IS INTERESTING. THAT IS JUST A CONGRATULATORY CALL, BUT WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT IT IS THE PRESIDENT WAS URGED TO BRING UP THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION. INDEED, IN THE READOUT OF THAT CALL THE WHITE HOUSE MISLEADINGLY SAID HE DID. BUT, NOW THAT WE HAVE SEEN THE RECORD WE SEE HE DID NOT. AND, NOTWITHSTANDING COUNSEL'S CLAIM IN THE TRIAL BRIEF THAT HE RAISED THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION ON THE JULY 25 CALL, THAT DOES NOT APPEAR IN EITHER CONVERSATION. AND WHY? BECAUSE THE ONLY CORRUPTION HE CARED ABOUT WAS THE CORRUPTION THAT HE COULD HELP BRING ABOUT.
NOW, MR. PAT CIPOLLONE 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 PAT CIPOLLONE WOULD MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT. I WOULD LEAVE IT TO HIM TO MAKE THAT ALLEGATION AGAINST OTHERS. BUT, I WILL TELL YOU THIS, HE IS MISTAKEN. HE IS MISTAKEN. EVERY REPUBLICAN ON THE THREE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES WAS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEPOSITIONS. MORE THAN THAT, THEY GOT THE SAME TIME WE DID.
YOU SHOW ME ANOTHER PROCEEDING, ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT OR OTHER THAT HAD THAT KIND OF ACCESS FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY. THERE WERE DEPOSITIONS IN THE CLINTON AND NIXON IMPEACHMENTS. SO, THEY WOULD SAY SECRET PROCESS BUT THEY WERE THE SAME PRIVATE DEPOSITIONS IN THESE OTHER IMPEACHMENTS AS WELL. FINALLY A COUPLE LAST POINTS. THEY MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY MY COLLEAGUE, CHAIRMAN NADLER, TO HAVE HIS COUNSEL PRESENT. THAT IS ALSO JUST PLAIN WRONG. I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST THEY ARE BEING DELIBERATELY MISLEADING HERE, BUT IT IS WRONG. YOU HAVE ALSO HEARD MY FRIENDS AT THE OTHER TABLE MAKE ATTACKS ON ME AND CHAIRMAN NADLER. I WILL NOT RESPOND TO THEM BUT I WILL SAY THIS, THEY MAKE AN IMPORTANT POINT ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT THE POINT I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE. WHEN YOU HEAR THEM ATTACK THE HOUSE MANAGERS, WHAT YOU ARE REALLY HEARING IS WE DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS GUILT. WE DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION AND HOW PATENTLY UNFAIR IT IS. WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUTBACKWARDS IT IS TO HAVE A TRIAL AND THEN ASK FOR WITNESSES.
WE WILL ATTACK THE MANAGERS BECAUSE MAYBE WE CAN DISTRACT YOU FOR A MOMENT FROM WHAT IS BEFORE YOU. MAYBE IF WE ATTACK THE HOUSE MANAGERS YOU WILL THINK ABOUT THEM INSTEAD OF THE GUILT OF THE PRESIDENT. YOU WILL HEAR MORE OF THAT AND EVERY TIME YOU HEAR THEM ATTACK THE 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 FROM BEFORE THIS? WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO DEFLECT MY ATTENTION FROM? WHY DON'T THEY HAVE A BETTER ARGUMENT TO MAKE ON THE MERITS? FINALLY MR.
PAT CIPOLLONE ASKED WHY ARE WE HERE? I WILL TELL YOU WHY WE ARE HERE. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO COERCE AN ALLY AT WAR WITH AN ADVERSARY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA, USE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID THAT YOU APPROPRIATED AND WE APPROPRIATED TO DEFEND AN ALLY AND DEFEND OURSELVES, BECAUSE IT IS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AS WELL. AND, WHY? TO FIGHT CORRUPTION? THAT IS NONSENSE, AND YOU KNOW IT. HE WITHHELD THAT MONEY, AND HE WITHHELD EVEN MEETING WITH HIM IN THE OVAL OFFICE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE, BECAUSE HE WANTED TO COERCE UKRAINE INTO THESE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS OPPONENT THAT HE WAS TERRIFIED WOULD BEAT HIM IN THE NEXT ELECTION. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IS OKAY? THEIR BRIEF SAYS IT IS OKAY. IN ARTICLE 2 WE HEARD, THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IS OKAY? THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT CAN COME INTO OFFICE AND DO THE SAME THING.
ARE WE PREPARED TO SAY THAT YOU MARK THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. I NOW YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE LOFGREN. >>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT. THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD ENSURE A FAIR, LEGITIMATE TRIAL BASED ON A FULL EVIDENTIARY RECORD. THE SENATE CAN REMEDY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UNPRECEDENTED COVER UP BY TAKING A STRAIGHTFORWARD STEP. IT CAN ASK FOR THE KEY EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS IMPROPERLY BLOCKED. SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT DOES JUST THAT.
THE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES A SUBPOENA FOR WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. THESE DOCUMENTS FOCUS ON THE PRESIDENTS SCHEME TO STRONG ARM UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT AND TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2020 ELECTION. THE DOCUMENTS WILL REVEAL THE EXTENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE'S COORDINATION WITH THE PRESIDENTS AGENTS SUCH AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI. WHO PUSHED THE PRESIDENTS SO- CALLED DRUG DEAL ON UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. THE DOCUMENTS WILL ALSO SHOW US HOW KEY PLAYERS IN THE SIDE THE WHITE HOUSE, SUCH AS THE WHITE HOUSE IS ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF AND HIS DEPUTY HELPED SET UP THE DEAL BY EXECUTING THE FREEZE ON ALL MILITARY AID AND WITHHOLDING A PROMISED VISIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE RECORDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE OBJECTED TO THIS SCHEME SUCH AS AMBASSADOR BOLTON. 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 TARGETS WILL PROVIDE MORE CLARITY AND CONTEXT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME. THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS THE PRESIDENT FROM A HIDING EVIDENCE AS HE HASÃPREVIOUSLY TRIED TO DO. THE HOUSE SUBPOENAED THESE DOCUMENTS AS PART OF THE INQUIRY, BUT TO THE PRESIDENT COMPLETELY REJECTED BUS AND EVERY DOCUMENT SUBPOENA FROM THE HOUSE. AS POWERFUL AS OUR EVIDENCE IS AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, IT OVERWHELMINGLY PROVES HIS GUILT, WE DID NOT RECEIVE A SINGLE DOCUMENT FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF. RECENT REVELATIONS FROM PRESS REPORTS AND ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SUCH AS TRAN39 HOW RELEVANT THESE DOCUMENTS AND WHY THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SO DESPERATE TO HIDE THEM AND HIS MISCONDUCT FROM CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
A TRIAL WITHOUT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL. IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR YOU SENATORS ACTING AS JUDGES TO BE DEPRIVED OF RELATIVE EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENTS OFFENSES WHEN YOU ARE JUDGING THESE MOST SERIOUS CHARGES. IT WOULD ALSO BE UNFAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHO OVERWHELMINGLY BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD PRODUCE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 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 200 YEARS OF SENATE PRACTICE MADE CLEAR THAT DOCUMENTS ARE GENERALLY THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.
THEY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE SENATE BEFORE WITNESSES TAKE STAND IN GREAT VOLUME, TO ENSURE THE SENATE HAS THE EVIDENCE IT NEEDS TO EVALUATE THE CASE. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SENATE TRIALS HAS NEVER BEEN LIMITED TO THE DOCUMENTS SENT BY THE HOUSE. THE SENATE, THROUGHOUT ITS EXISTENCE HAS EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO ITS CLEAR RULES OF PROCEDURE TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS AT THE OUTSET OF A TRIAL. WE DON'T KNOW WITH CERTAINTY WHAT THE DOCUMENTS WILL SAY. WE SIMPLY WANT THE TRUTH. WHATEVER THAT TRUTH MAY BE. SO, SO TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THEY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, AND SO SHOULD EVERYBODY IN THE CHAMBER REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION. THERE ARE KEY REASONS WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY. WE WILL BEGIN BY WALKING THROUGH THE HISTORY AND PRECEDENT OF SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS AND I WILL LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THE HOUSE'S EFFORTS TO GET THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE MET BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION'S CATEGORICAL COMMITMENT TO HIDE ALL THE EVIDENCE AT ALL COSTS AND WE WILL ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC NEED FOR THESE SUBPOENAED WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS.
I WILL TELL YOU WHY THEY ARE NEEDED NOW, NOT AT THE END OF THE TRIAL IN ORDER TO ENSURE A FULL, FAIR TRIAL BASED ON A COMPLETE EVIDENTIARY RECORD. SOME HAVE SUGGESTED INCORRECTLY THAT THE SENATE IS LIMITED ONLY TO EVIDENCE GATHERED BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROVED ITS RADICALS OF IMPEACHMENT. OTHERS HAVE SUGGESTED, ALSO INCORRECTLY, THAT IT WOULD BE STRANGE FOR THE SENATE TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS. THESE CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT ANY HISTORICAL LEGAL SUPPORT.
OVER THE PAST TWO CENTURIES THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT ITS SOLE POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS REQUIRES THE SENATE TO SIT AS A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT AND HOLD A TRIAL. IN FACT, THE FOUNDERS ASSIGNED SOLE AUTHORITY ONLY TWICE IN THE CONSTITUTION. FIRST, GIVING THE HOUSE SOLE AUTHORITY TO IMPEACH AND SECOND, GIVING THE SENATE SOUL AUTHORITY TO TRY THAT IMPEACHMENT. IF THE FOUNDERS HAD INTENDED FOR THE SENATE TO SERVE AS SOME SORT OF APPELLATE BODY THEY WOULD HAVE SAID THAT. BUT, NO. INSTEAD THEY WROTE THIS. ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3, THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS. THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS RECEIVED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS AND INDEED, THE SENATE'S OWN RULE OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE MAKE CLEAR THAT NEW EVIDENCE WILL BE CONSIDERED.
ALL 15 FULL SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS CONSIDERED NEW EVIDENCE. LET'S LOOK AT EXAMPLES THAT SHOW THE SENATE TAKES NEW EVIDENCE IN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. THE FIRST EVER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN 1868 AGAINST ANDREW JOHNSON ALLOWED THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO SPEND THE FIRST TWO DAYS OF THE TRIAL INTRODUCING NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IT WAS THE SAME IN JOHN PICKERING'S TRIAL IN 1804, NEW DOCUMENTS WERE PRESENTED NEARLY A WEEK BEFORE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND LATER THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. AND, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER BY MR. ADAM SCHIFF, IN 2010 THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL INCLUDED SEVEN MONTHS OF PRETRIAL DISCOVERY AND 6000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL AFTER THAT EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED THE SENATE HELD ITS TRIAL. PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE DID NOT INVOLVE SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS. WHY WAS THAT? BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY PRODUCED A HUGE TROVE OF DOCUMENTS.
THE COUNCIL TURNED OVER TO CONGRESS SOME 90,000 PAGES OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF HIS YEARS LONG INVESTIGATION AND I REMEMBER AS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE GOING OVER TO THE FORD BUILDING AND LOOKING AT THE BOXES OF THE DOCUMENT. BUT, EVEN WITH ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS, THE CLINTON TRIAL INCLUDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE AND THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES. THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT ALSO SHOWS HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE PAST PRESIDENTS. DIFFERENT FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON AND JOHNSON AND EVEN NIXON. IN SHORT, NOT A SINGLE PRESIDENT HAS CATEGORICALLY REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. NOT A SINGLE PRESIDENT HAS ISSUED A BLANKET DIRECTION TO HIS ADMINISTRATION TO PRODUCE NO DOCUMENTS AND NO WITNESSES. THESE ARE THE PRECEDENTS A SENATE MUST RELY ON. THEY SHOULD ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS AT THE OUTSET OF THE PROCEEDINGS SO THAT THIS BODY, THE HOUSE MANAGERS, THE PRESIDENT CAN ALL ACCOUNT FOR THOSE DOCUMENTS IN THE PRESENTATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO REQUEST AND RECEIVE DOCUMENTS AFTER THE PARTIES RESENT 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 DOCUMENTS. WHY DO WE HAVE THEM? IT IS NOT BECAUSE WE DID NOT TRY, IT IS BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO GIVE THEM TO US. THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM SEEMS TO BELIEVE THE WHITE HOUSE IS PERMITTED TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT IT IS PRIVILEGED. THEY APPARENTLY BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL FROM THE PRESIDENT, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. OUR CONSTITUTION SETS FORTH A DEMOCRACY WITH A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE, AND CERTAINLY NOT THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE THE LAW. EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON PRODUCED MORE THAN 30 TRANSCRIPTS OF WHITE HOUSE RECORDINGS AND KNOWS FROM MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT. HERE, EVEN BEFORE THE HOUSE LAUNCHED THE INVESTIGATION THAT LED TO THIS TRIAL, PRESIDENT TRUMP REJECTED CONGRESS'S CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO USE ITS LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE HIS ACTIONS.
HE ASSERTED THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION WAS FIGHTING ALL THE SUBPOENAS, PROCLAIMING I HAVE AN ARTICLE TOO, OR I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. HERE IS WHAT HE SAID. >> THEN I HAVE AN ARTICLE TOO, WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. >> EVEN AFTER THE HOUSE FORMERLY ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN UKRAINE HE CONTINUED HIS OBSTRUCTION, BEGINNING ON SEPTEMBER 9 2019 THE HOUSE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES MADE 2 ATTEMPTS TO VOLUNTARILY OBTAIN DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO ENGAGE WITH FRANKLY, OR EVEN RESPOND, TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEES. ON OCTOBER 4 THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT REFORM SENT A SUBPOENA TO WHITE HOUSE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, THIS TIME COMPELLING THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE BY OCTOBER 18.
ON OCTOBER 8 BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS WERE DUE THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SENT A LETTER TO SPEAKER PELOSI STATING THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS PARTISAN INQUIRY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY DECLARED HE WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN AN INVESTIGATION HE DID NOT LIKE. 10 DAYS LATER, ON OCTOBER 18, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SENT A LETTER TO THE HOUSE CONFIRMING THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO STONEWALL. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AGAIN STATED THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE. THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 SAYS THAT THE HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, JUST AS ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3, THE SENATE HAS A SOLE POWER TO TRY.
PARTICIPATION IN A DULY AUTHORIZED CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION IS NOT OPTIONAL. IT IS NOT UP TO THE PRESIDENT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND GIVES THE SENATE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS. THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT LIKE BEING IMPEACHED. BUT, IT IS THE PRESIDENT, NOT THE CONGRESS DECIDED WHEN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE APPROPRIATE, THEN THE IMPEACHMENT POWER HAS NO POWER AT ALL. IF YOU LET HIM BLOCK FROM CONGRESS AND FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE EVIDENCE TO COVER UP HIS OFFENSES, THEN THE IMPEACHMENT POWER TRULY WILL BE MEANINGLESS. WITH ALL THE BACK-AND-FORTH ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE HEARD THE PHRASE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. THE RESIDENCE LAWYERS KEEP SAYING IT. THEY TALK ABOUT JUSTIFYING HIDING THE TRUTH AND WITHHOLDING INFORMATION. BUT, THAT IS A DISTRACTION. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES AND THE UTH IS AS MENTIONED BY ADAM SCHIFF, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ENTIRE INQUIRY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT ONCE ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. NOT A SINGLE TIME. IT WAS NOT THE REASON PROVIDED BY MR. PAT CIPOLLONE FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA. INDEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT OFFER LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR WITHHOLDING THE EVIDENCE.
HERE IS THE TRUTH. PRESIDENTS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, JUDGES, AND THE SUPREME COURT HAVE RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT OUR NATION'S HISTORY THAT CONGRESS IS INVESTIGATIVE POWER IS AT PEAK DURING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. YOUR POWERS, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE A BARRIER TO GIVE ABSOLUTE SECRECY TO COVER UP WRONGDOING IF IT DID, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WOULD SEE THEIR POWER DISAPPEAR. WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON TRIED THAT ARGUMENT BY REFUSING TO PRODUCE TAPE RECORDINGS TO PROSECUTORS AND TO CONGRESS, HE WAS SOUNDLY REBUKED BY THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULED AGAINST HIM. THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE VOTED THAT HE BE IMPEACHED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. IT WOULD BE REMARKABLE FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO DECLARE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR NATIONS HISTORY, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS LEGITIMATE. AND IT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY FOR THE SENATE TO REFUSE TO SEEK IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAS YET TO ASSERT ANY PRIVILEGE TO JUSTIFY WITHHOLDING DOCUMENTS. THERE IS ANOTHER REASON THIS AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT. THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE PRESIDENTS MISCONDUCT. THE WHITE HOUSE IS CONCEALING DOCUMENTS INVOLVING OFFICIALS WHO HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY EVENTS AT THE HEART OF THIS TRIAL.
THIS IS NOT JUST A GUESS. WE KNOW THESE DOCUMENTS EXIST FROM THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE, AND FROM OTHER PUBLIC RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS. LET'S WALK THROUGH THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULD SEND TO THE SENATE. THEY INCLUDE AMONG OTHER DOCUMENTS, RELATING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS WITH RUDY GIULIANI, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AND OTHERS.PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UNLAWFUL HOLD OF THE $391 MILLION OF MILITARY AID.
CONCERNS THAT WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS REPORTED TO LEGAL COUNSEL IN REAL TIME. THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO RECALL AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH FROM UKRAINE. THE FIRST SET OF DOCUMENTS, THEY SHOULD GET ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MEDICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, IT WOULD INCLUDE THE PHONE CALLS ON APRIL 21 AND JULY 25, AS WELL AS THE SEPTEMBER 25 2019 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN NEW YORK. WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT NSC OFFICIALS PREPARED TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT IN PREPARATION OF BOTH CALLS WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.
THEY WERE ABOUT AMERICAN POLICY AS REFLECTED BY THE VOTES OF CONGRESS AS WELL AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ITSELF. THEY DID NOT INCLUDE ANY MENTION OF THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTION, INTERFERENCE, OR INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUESTED ON THE JULY 28 CALL. HERE'S A CLIP OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL EXPLAINING HOW THE PRESIDENT IGNORED THE POINTS ABOUT AMERICAN POLICY REFLECTING THE VIEWS OF BOTH THE CONGRESS AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. >> >> IF I COULD TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE APRIL 21 CALL, THAT IS THE FIRST CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. DID YOU PREPARE A, THE TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT DURING THAT CALL? >> YES, I DID. >> DID THAT INCLUDE THE TALKING POINTS WITH UKRAINE? >> YES. >> THAT WAS SOMETHING HE WAS SUPPOSED TO RAISE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? >> THEY WERE CLEARED THROUGH THE STAFF OR THE PRESIDENT, YES.
>> THE MATERIALS PROVIDED FOR THE JULY 25 CALL THAT HE MENTIONED ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT. >> THEY WERE UNRELATED TO THE FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES OF HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION. AND THEY SHOW THAT HE SERVED HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. THESE DOCUMENTS ALSO INCLUDE HANDWRITTEN NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS GENERATED DURING THE CALLS AND MEETINGS. WE KNOW FOR EXAMPLE THAT MR. MORRISON, JENNIFER WILLIAMS, THEY ALL TESTIFIED TO TAKING CONTEMPORANEOUS HANDWRITTEN NTES DURING THE JULY 25 CALL. MISS WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL DENMAN BOTH TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MADE AN EXPLICIT REFERENCE THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEMORANDUM THAT THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. HERE'S A CLIP OF THEIR TESTIMONY. >> BOTH OF YOU RECALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THAT CONVERSATION RAISING THE ISSUE, OR MENTIONING VERISMO, DO YOU NOT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. CORREC. >> AND YET IT APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE CALL RECORD THAT HAS BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS RIGHT.
>> CORRECT. >> WHY DO YOU NEED DOCUMENTS GENERATED AFTER THE CALLS AND MEETINGS? THEY WOULD SHED LIGHT ON HOW THESE WERE PERCEIVED IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN BOLTON WAS NOT ON THE 25th CALL, BUT HE WAS APPARENTLY INFORMED OF THE CONTENTS AFTERWARDS. HIS REACTION ONCE HE WAS INFORMED WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTANDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTION DEVIATED FROM AMERICAN POLICY AND AMERICAN SECURITY INTERESTS. THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE SENATE SHOULD GET AND THEY RELATE TO THE CRITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS AGENTS REPEATEDLY ASKED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO ANNOUNCE. THESE DOCUMENTS ABOUT EFFORTS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE, TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS, AND THE DECISION TO PLACE A HOLD ON A MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE. THEY WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS CONDUCT. FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS A FIRST-HAND WITNESS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER. HE REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT. HE SUPERVISED THE ENTIRE STAFF OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
PUBLIC REPORTS INDICATE THAT JOHN BOLTON IS A VORACIOUS NOTETAKER IN EVERY MEETING. FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY WE KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON HOSTED THE JULY 10, 2019 MEETING WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT THE PROMISED MEETING WOULD BE SCHEDULED IF THEY ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS. WE KNOW THAT BOLTON WAS BRIEFED ABOUT THIS MEETING IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THAT WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE HAD A DEAL WITH MICK MULVANEY TO SCHEDULE THE PROMISED WHITE HOUSE MEETING IF UKRAINE ANNOUNCED INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS INVOLVED IN REAPING THE PRESIDENT ON A PRESIDENTIAL DECISION MEMORANDUM IN AUGUST, REFLECTING THE CONSENSUS INTERAGENCY OPINION THAT UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSESSMENTS WERE VITAL TO AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY, SOMETHING THE CONGRESS HAD APPROVED, APPROPRIATED. SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD SIGNED. PRESS REPORTS INDICATE THAT HE TOO WAS INVOLVED IN A LATE AUGUST OVAL OFFICE MEETING WHERE HE, SECRETARY POMPEO AND SECRETARY ESPER ALL TRIED TO CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE AIDE. AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS COME FORWARD AND PUBLICLY CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS A WITNESS TO IMPORTANT EVENTS. BUT, ALSO THAT HE HAS NEW EVIDENCE THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN YET. IF WE KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT YET COME OUT, ALL OF US SHOULD WANT TO HEAR IT NOW BEFORE AMBASSADOR BOLTON TESTIFIES.
WE SHOULD GET DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS RELATING TO HIS TESTIMONY INCLUDING HIS NOTES, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN MEETINGS RELATED TO UKRAINE WHICH WOULD HELP TO EVALUATE HIS TESTIMONY. THE EVIDENCE IS NOT JUST RESTRICTED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON. DURING HIS TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATED I HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF MY PHONE RECORDS. úHE ALSO SAI LAWYERS HAD ASKED REPEATEDLY FOR THESE MATERIALS. HE SAID THE MATERIALS WOULD HELP REFRESH HIS MEMORY. WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT MATERIAL. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO TESTIFIED THAT HE EXCHANGED A NUMBER OF EMAILS WITH TOP OFFICIALS LIKE MICK MULVANEY ABOUT HIS EFFORTS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED. HERE IS HIS TESTIMONY. >> THIRD, LET ME SAY PRECISELY BECAUSE WE DID NOT THINK THAT WE WERE ENGAGING IN IMPROPER BEHAVIOR, WE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT THE RELEVANT DECISION-MAKERS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT KNEW THE IMPORTANT DETAILS OF OUR EFFORTS.
THE SUGGESTION THAT WE WERE ENGAGED IN THE SUM IRREGULAR OR ROGUE DIPLOMACY IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. >> I HAVE NOW IDENTIFIED CERTAIN STATE DEPARTMENT EMAILS AND MESSAGES THAT PROVIDE CONTEMPORANEOUS SUPPORT FOR MY VIEW. THESE EMAILS SHOW THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE WHITE HOUSE, WERE ALL INFORMED ABOUT THE UKRAINE EFFORTS FROM MAY 23 2019 UNTIL THE SECURITY AID WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11 2019. >> THESE EMAILS, AMONG OTHERS, ARE IN POSSESSION — >> THESE EMAILS REFERENCED IN THIS TESTIMONY ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE WHITE HOUSE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND EVEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SINCE OFFICIALS FROM ALL THREE ENTITIES COMMUNICATED TOGETHER. DURING HIS TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DESCRIBED IT THIS WAY. EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP, IT WAS NO SECRET. THESE EMAILS ARE THEREFORE 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 RELATING TO THE WHITE HOUSE IS PRIVATE AGENTS WHO ACTED ON HIS BEHALF IN UKRAINE INCLUDING RUDY GIULIANI, — WITNESS TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS HAD MADE CLEAR THAT MR.
GIULIANI, A FREQUENT VISITOR TO THE WHITE HOUSE WHO ALSO RECEIVED AND MADE FREQUENT CALLS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT TO PRESS UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD PERSONALLY AND CLINICALLY BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MAY 10 LETTER FROM MR. GIULIANI TO PRESIDENT- ELECT ZELENSKY AS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE SHOWS THAT HE WAS ACTING AS PERSONAL COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT. HE REQUESTED A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT-ELECT AND TO BE JOINED BY MISS TENZING, WHO WAS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS MATTER. THE EVIDENCE INDICATES HE WAS COLLABORATING WITH THEM IN THIS EFFORT. THE SENATE SHOULD GET THE WHITE HOUSE RECORDS OF MEETINGS, OF CALLS INVOLVING MR. GIULIANI OR MISS TENZING OR MR. DE GENOVA. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE EXTENT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS INVOLVED IN MR. GIULIANI'S EFFORTS TO COURSE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED. THE RECORDS WOULD SHOW HOW THE PRESIDENTS PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA BECAME MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE POLICIES TO HELP AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL MAY, CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO HIDE EVIDENCE, ASSERT THAT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WOULD COVER THESE DOCUMENTS BUT THE PRESIDENTS PERSONAL ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE CANNOT SHIELD EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE OR THAT OF HIS AIDES OR HIS LAWYERS PARTICIPATION IN CORRUPT SCHEMES.
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR DOCUMENTS REFLECTING LEGITIMATE LEGAL ADVICE. YOU NEED DOCUMENTS ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONEN. THERE IS A SET OF WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS THAT RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENTS UNLAWFUL DECISION TO WITHHOLD $391 MILLION APPROPRIATED BIPARTISAN, TO HELP UKRAINE. WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED A HOLD ON THE ASSISTANCE DESPITE THE UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS OF HIS AGENCIES THAT IT SHOULD BE RELEASED. ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE HIS ACTION VIOLATED THE LAW. ON JANUARY 16 2020 THE GAO, AN INDEPENDENT WATCHDOG, ISSUED A LEGAL OPINION FINDING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATED THE LAW WHEN HE HELD UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
THEY SAID FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THE PRESIDENT TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN POLICY PRIORITIES FOR THOSE THAT CONGRESS ENACTED INTO LAW. OMB WITHHELD FUNDS FOR A POLICY REASON THAT IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT. THE WITHHOLDING WAS NOT A PROGRAMMATIC DELAY, THEREFORE, WE CONCLUDE THAT OMB VIOLATED THE ICA. THE FACT THAT THE ACTION TO FREEZE THE AIDE WHICH HE USED TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS HE WANTED WAS AGAINST NOT ONLY BE OFFICIAL CONSENSUS OF HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION, BUT ALSO AGAINST THE LAW AND IT WAS TO HELP HIMSELF.
THAT HELPS DEMONSTRATE THESE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT. WHEN THIS TESTIMONY IN PUBLIC REPORTING MADE CLEAR THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A SIGNIFICANT BODY OF DOCUMENTS THAT RELATE TO THESE KEY ASPECTS OF THE PRESIDENTS SCHEME. SOME OF THESE DOCUMENTS OUTLINE THE PLANNING OF THE PRESIDENTS FREEZE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED IN JUNE THAT MR. MULVANEY EMAILED HIS SENIOR ADVISOR, MR. BLAIR. DID WE EVER FIND OUT ABOUT THE MONEY FOR UKRAINE AND WHETHER WE CAN HOLD IT BACK? THIS SHOWS THAT MR. MULVANEY WAS IN EMAIL CONTACT WITH HIS AIDES ABOUT THE VERY ISSUES UNDER INVESTIGATION AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT. IT TELLS US THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN POSSESSION OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT GO TO THE HEART OF THE CHARGES BEFORE YOU.
THE SENATE SHOULD ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, AMBASSADOR BOLTON SAID IT WAS IN THE AMERICAS INTEREST. THE SENATE SHOULD REVIEW THE HIGHLY RELEVANT DOCUMENT, WHICH REFLECTS REAL-TIME ASSERTIONS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP SENIOR AIDES , THE UKRAINIAN AID WAS IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO HOLD UP THE AID. THERE DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDE AFTER-THE-FACT JUSTIFICATIONS TO TRY TO OVERCOME LEGAL PROBLEMS IN THE ANONYMOUS OBJECTIONS TO FREEZING ASSISTANCE TO CRANE. WE KNOW THAT THESE DOCUMENTS EXIST. FOR EXAMPLE, ON JANUARY THIRD, 2020, OMB STATED IN A LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, THAT IT HAD DISCOVERED 20 RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS, CONSISTING OF 40 PAGES. REFLECTING E-MAILS BETWEEN WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL, ROBERT BLAIR AND OMB OFFICIAL, UNCLE DUFFY, THE RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE FREEZING OF THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE. OMB WOULD NOT RELEASE THEM IN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWSUIT. THEY HAVE REFUSED TO PRODUCE THESE DOCUMENTS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, IN RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE.
THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTED, THAT A CONFIDENTIAL WHITE HOUSE REVIEW OF PRESIDENT ROUHANI'S DECISION TO HOLD UP HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL EXTENSIVE EFFORTS TO GENERATE AN AFTER- THE-FACT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE DELAY WAS LEGAL. IT IS KNOWN AS A COVER-UP ACTUALLY. THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS HAD APPARENTLY UNCOVERED AND EARLY AUGUST EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN ACTE CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY AND WHAT HOUSE BUDGET OFFICIALS SEEKING TO PROVIDE INSULATION FOR WITHHOLDING THE FUNDS THE PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY ORDERED ON HOLD. THE DOCUMENTS ALSO REPORTEDLY INCLUDE TEAM INDICATIONS BETWEEN WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES.
NOT ONLY DOES CONGRESS HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THEM, THE PUBLIC DOES ALSO. UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS. AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, THE SENATE HAS THE GREATEST INTEREST IN AND RIGHT TO COMPEL THOSE DOCUMENTS. INDEED, AS THE NEWS ARTICLE EXPLAINS, WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS WORRIED ABOUT UNFLATTERING EXCHANGES AND FAX TO AT A MINIMUM, BEARS THE PRESIDENT. PERHAPS THEY SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT.
AT THE RISK OF EMBARRASSMENT CANNOT OUTWEIGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. ANY EVIDENCE OF GUILT, INCLUDING FURTHER PROOF OF THE REAL REASON THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THAT FUNDS SHOULD BE WITHHELD, OR AFTER-THE-FACT ATTEMPT TO PAPER OVER KNOWINGLY UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, THEY MUST BE PROVIDED, TO ENSURE A FULL AND FAIR TRIAL. NO PRIVILEGE OR NATIONAL SECURITY RATIONAL CAN BE USED AS A SHIELD FROM DISCLOSING MISCONDUCT. THE KEY WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO MULTIPLE INSTANCES, BUT WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS REPORTED THEIR CONCERNS TO WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS GAME TO PRESS UKRAINE TO DO THE PRESIDENT A DOMESTIC POLITICAL FAVOR. FOR EXAMPLE, LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN AND MR. HILL INFORMED LAWYERS ABOUT THE JOINT MEETING IN WHICH AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND REVEALED HE HAD A DEAL WITH MR.
MULVANEY. I WILL GO DIRECTLY TO THE CLIP IN MATT HILL. APPLETON'S DIRECTION, HE REPORTED THE MEETING TO EISENBERG, AS YOU CLINICAL HER TESTIMONY. >> I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE AMBASSADOR AFTER THE MEETING IN HIS OFFICE. A BRIEF ONE. AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING. >> THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING, AFTER BOTH MEETINGS, WHEN YOU SPOKE TO HIM, AND RELATE TO HIM WHAT AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND SAID, WHAT DID AMBASSADOR ALTON SAY TO YOU?>> I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT JOHN BOLTON WANTED ME TO HOLD BACK IN THE ROOM. AFTER THE MEETING. I WAS SITTING ON A SOFA. >> WHAT DID HE SAY. >> HE MADE A STRONG POINT THAT HE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS BEING SAID. AND WHEN I CAME BACK TO HIM, HE HAD SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION FOR ME. AND I PRESUME THAT >> >> WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION? >> I HAD TO GO TO THE LAWYERS TO JOHN EISENBERG.
I WAS WITH THE NATIONAL >> OR TO COUNSEL. TO SAY THAT YOU TELL EISENBERG, AMBASSADOR BOLTON TELL ME, I AM NOT PART OF THIS DRUG DEAL THAT MICK MULVANEY AND AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND ARE PICKING UP. >> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO ME. THE DRUG DEAL THAT MICK MULVANEY AND AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND OR COOKING UP ? >> I TOOK IT TO MEAN INVESTIGATIONS FOR A MEETING. >> DID YOU SPEAK TO THE LAWYERS? >> I DID. >> YOU RELAYED EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST TOLD US? >> PRECISELY. >> AND THE DETAILS OF HOW THE MEETING HAD GONE.
I GIVE A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THIS IN MY OCTOBER 14 DEPOSITION. >> THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG DOING ON HERE. WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WERE TOLD REPEATEDLY, GO TELL THE LAWYERS ABOUT IT. AND DR. HILL, LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN , MR. MORRISON , WHO REPORTED TO MR. EISENBERG, AT LEAST TWO CONVERSATIONS. WE NEED THE NOTES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS SAID. AND AGAIN, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CANNOT SHIELD INFORMATION ABOUT MISCONDUCT FROM THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF NET ESTATES. IT IS INTERESTING, THIS MOVEMENT IS SUPPORTED BY 200 YEARS OF PRESIDENTS.
IT IS NEEDED TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM CONTINUING TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE. THAT HIS WIFE THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT REQUESTED IS REPORTING FOR THIS CASE. IT IS FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION'S PROVISION THAT THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS. THE FINAL POINT I WILL MAKE TODAY CONCERNS URGENCY. THE SENATE SHOULD ACT ON THE SUBPOENA NOW. AT THE OUTSET OF THE TRIAL. IN 14 OF THE SENATE 15 FULL IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, THE THRESHOLD EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THE TIMING, NATURE AND SCOPE OF WITNESS TESTIMONY, AND THE GATHERING OF ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE ADDRESSED AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE TRIAL. THERE ARE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, AS TO WHY THE SUBPOENAS NEED TO BE ISSUED NOW. RESOLVING WHETHER A SUBPOENA SHOULD BE ISSUED NOW, WOULD LIKE US IMMEDIATELY ENGAGE WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, TO RESOLVE AND ASSERT LEGITIMATE PRIVILEGES, IF ANY EXIST. AND ENSURE THAT YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT THEY CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE SENATORS, IN ADVANCE OF WITNESS TESTIMONY.
WAITING TO RESOLVE THE THRESHOLD MANNERS UNTIL AFTER THE PARTIES HAVE PRESENTED THEIR CASE, WOULD UNDERCUT THE PROCESS OF A GENUINE, CREDIBLE TRIAL. SAUCE, COMMON SENSE, TRADITION AND FAIRNESS ALL COMPEL THAT THE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND SHOULD BE ADOPTED NOW. MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, FOR ALL THE MEMBERS I'VE AUTHORED TODAY, I URGE YOU, TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS. DOCUMENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO EVALUATING THE PRESIDENT SCHEME. THE HOUSE DID ITS JOB. IN THE FACE OF THE PRESENCE OF OBSTRUCTION AND CATEGORICAL COMMITMENT TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE, WE STILL GATHER DIRECT EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT.
AND DETERMINES THAT HIS CONDUCT REQUIRED IMPEACHMENT. THE PRESIDENT COMPLAINED ABOUT DUE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION. BUT HE IS NOT ONLY PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE, HE WAS REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE. YET, HE REFUSED TO DO SO. HE REFUSED TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD TELL HIS SIDE OF THE STORY. NOW, IT IS UP TO YOU. WITH THE BACKING OF THE SUBPOENA , AUTHORIZED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU CAN END PRESIDENT TRUMPS OBSTRUCTION. IF THE SENATE FAILS TO TAKE THE STEP AND WILL NOT ASK FOR THE EVIDENCE, THIS TRIAL IN YOUR VERDICT WILL BE QUESTIONED. CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE THE FULL TRUTH. THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE REASON WHY ANYONE WOULD NOT WANT TO HEAR ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT. IT IS UP TO THIS BODY, TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS. IT IS UP TO YOU, TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SENATE WILL AFFIRM THE SOLE POWER AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, TO TRY IMPEACHMENT. WHETHER AND WHEN IT WILL GET THE EVIDENCE THAT IT NEEDS, TO RENDER A VERDICT. DO NOT SURRENDER TO THE PRESIDENT STONEWALLING.
IT WILL ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO BE ABOVE THE LAW AND DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF TRUTH IN THE PROCESS. A FAIR TRIAL, IS ESSENTIAL IN EVERY WAY. IMPORTANT FOR THE PRESIDENT, WHO HOPES TO BE EXONERATED, NOT MERELY ACQUITTED, BY A TRIAL SEEN AS UNFAIR. IMPORTANT FOR THE SENATE, WHOSE VITAL ROLE IS TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. WHICH IS PRESERVED OUR AMERICAN LIBERTY FOR CENTURIES. FINALLY, IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHO EXPECT THE QUEST FOR TRUTH, FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE. HISTORY IS WATCHING AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS URGE THAT YOU SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> THANK YOU COUNSEL. >> PATRICK PHILBIN WILL PRESENT OUR ARGUMENT. >> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, MR. SCHUMER AND SENATORS. IT IS REMARKABLE, AND AFTER TAKING THE ACTION OF THE BREATHTAKING GRAVITY OF VOTING TO IMPEACH THE DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND AFTER SAYING FOR WEEKS THAT THEY HAD OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE, THE FIRST THING THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DONE UPON ARRIVING FINALLY IN THIS CHAMBER, AFTER WAITING FOR 33 DAYS, IS TO SAY, ACTUALLY , THE MORE EVIDENCE.
WE NOT READY TO PRESENT OUR CASE. WE NEED TO HAVE SUBPOENAS WE NEED TO DO MORE DISCOVERY, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE WE NEED TO SUPPORT HER CASE. THIS IS STUNNING. IT IS A STUNNING OMISSION OF AN ADEQUATE AND BROKEN PROCESS. THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS RAN IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THEY FAILED TO COMPEL THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES. IT IS STUNNING THEY DO NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE.
AND THAT THEY DO NOT REALLY HAVE A CASE. IF A LITIGANT SHOWED UP IN ANY COURT IN THIS COUNTRY, ON THE DAY OF TRIAL AND SAID TO THE JUDGE, ACTUALLY YOUR HONOR, WE ARE NOT READY TO GO. WE MORE DISCOVERY. WE NEED TO DO MORE SUBPOENAS. WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK. THEY WOULD BE THROWN OUT OF COURT AND THE LAWYERS WOULD PROBABLY BE SANCTIONED. THIS IS NOT THE SORT OF PROCEEDING THAT THIS BODY SHOULD CONDONE. NOW, WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT IS AT ISSUE IN A RESOLUTION HERE AND THE AMENDMENT.
IT IS A MATTER OF TIMING. IT IS A MATTER OF WHEN THE BODY WILL CONSIDER, WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE WITNESSES. OR SUBPOENAS FOR DOCTORS. WHY IS IT THE MANAGERS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE SO AFRAID TO HAVE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. REMEMBER, THEY HAVE HAD WEEKS OF THE PROCESS THEY ENTIRELY CONTROL. THEY HAD 17 WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED FIRST IN SECRET AND THAT IN PUBLIC. THEY HAVE COMPILED A RECORD WITH THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF REPORTS. AND THEY ARE APPARENTLY AFRAID, TO JUST MAKE A PRESENTATION, BASED ON THE RECORD THEY COMPILED, AND THEN HAVE YOU DECIDE WHETHER THERE IS ANY THERE, THERE. WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING WORTH, TRYING TO TALK TO MORE WITNESSES ABOUT. WHY IS IT THEY CANNOT WAIT A FEW DAYS TO MAKE A PRESENTATION ON EVERYTHING THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARING FOR WEEKS? AND THEN HAVE THE ISSUE CONSIDERED. BECAUSE THEY DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY THERE, THERE. AND THEY WANT TO RAM IT THROUGH NOW. THEY WANT TO RAM IT THROUGH NOW, BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THEY THEMSELVES FAILED TO DO. I WANT TO IMPACT A COUPLE OF THE ASPECTS OF WHAT THEY ARE ASKING THIS BODY TO DO. PART OF IT RELATES TO THE BROKEN PROCESS IN THE HOUSE.
AND HOW THE PROCESS WAS INADEQUATE AND INVALID. AND COMPILED AND AND INCLUDED RECORD. AND PART HAS TO DO WITH ACCEPTING WITH THE REQUEST HAVE THIS BODY DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM, WOULD YOU TO THIS INSTITUTION, GOING FORWARD. AND HOW IT WOULD ALTER FOREVER, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. FIRST, AS TO THE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE. WHAT THEY ARE ASKING THE HOUSE MANAGER, WHAT THEY ARE ASKING THE BOY TO DO NOW, IS TO DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM. BECAUSE THEY DID NOT TAKE THE MEASURES TO PURSUE THESE DOCUMENTS. IN THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS. THERE BEEN A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT HOW THEY TRY T GET THE DOCUMENTS. NO EXEC A PRIVILEGE WAS ASSERTED AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WHAT TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THEY ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO THE WHITE HOUSE. AND THE WHITE HOUSE EXPLAINED, AND WE WERE TOLD A FEW MINUTES AGO, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE PROVIDED NO RESPONSE. THEY PROVIDED NO RATIONA THAT IS NOT TRUE. IN A LETTER OCTOBER 18, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, MR.
CIPOLLONE, EXCITED THREE PAGES, WHERE THE SUBPOENA WAS INVALID . THE SUBPOENA WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS ISSUED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. WE HEARD A LOT TODAY ABOUT HOW THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS THE SOUL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE. THAT IS WHAT ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 SAYS. IT IS IS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE. NOT TO ANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE. AND A COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE CAN EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS UNTIL IT HAS BEEN DELEGATED THAT AUTHORITY BY A VOTE OF THE HOUSE. THERE WAS NO VOTE FROM THE HOUSE. INSTEAD, SPEAKER PELOSI HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE. AND SHE HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE ON SATURDAY 24.
TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE TO ADAM SCHIFF AND OTHER COMMITTEES TO HAVE THEM ISSUE SUBPOENAS. ALL SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID. AND THAT WAS INCLINED TO THE HOUSE TO ADAM SCHIFF AT THE TIME IN THE OCTOBER 18 LETTER. TO THE HOUSE TAKE ANY STEPS TO REMEDY THAT? DID THEY TRY TO DISPUTE THAT? DID THEY GO TO COURT? DID THEY DO ANYTHING TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM? NO.
AS WE KNOW, ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WITH ISSUE A SUBPOENA AND MOVE ON. THEY WANTED TO GET THROUGH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND GET IT DONE FOR CHRISTMAS. THAT WAS HER GOAL. THOUGH SUBPOENAS WERE UNAUTHORIZED. WHAT ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY BROUGHT UP? THE WITNESSES. WITNESSES, WHO WERE DIRECTED NOT TO TESTIFY. WE HEARD ADAM SCHIFF THEY SEVERAL TIMES, THE WHITE HOUSE NEVER EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. THAT IS A LAWYER TRICK. IT IS TECHNICALLY TRUE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DID NOT ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. THERE IS A PARTICULAR SITUATION IN WHICH YOU DO THAT AT A PARTICULAR WE 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 ASSERTED BY PRESIDENTS OF BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES. SINCE THE 19 SEVENTIES, AT LEAST. THIS IS WHAT ONE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS WIND ABOUT THAT. " THE IMMUNITY SUCH ADVISORS ENJOY FROM TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IS ABSOLUTE AND MAY NOT BE OVERBOARD BY COMPETING CONGRESSIONAL INTERESTS.
" THAT WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO AND THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. EXPLAINING THAT SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT ARMING FROM CONGRESSIONAL COMPULSION. AND THAT DOCTRINE, IMMUNITY IS ROOTED IN THE SAME PRINCIPLES OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. IT IS NOT ASSERTED BY ALL PRESIDENTS SINCE THE 19 SEVENTIES. AND THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH A NUMBER OF THE ADVISORS, WHOSE PICTURES THEY PUT UP, WERE DIRECTED NOT TO TESTIFY. THAT THEY TRY TO CHALLENGE THAT IN COURT? DID THEY GO TO COURT ON THAT ONE? DID THEY TRY TO GO THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS? TO SEE IF THERE WAS A WAY TO COME UP WITH SOME ASPECT OF TESTIMONY? NO, NONE OF THAT. THEY JUST WANTED TO FORGE AHEAD AND RUSH TO THE PROCESS. AND I HAVE THE EVIDENCE. AND USE THAT AS ANOTHER CHARGE IN THEIR CHARGING SHE.
FOR THE IMPEACHMENT, CALLING IT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THAT IS PROFESSOR TURLEY EXPLAINED THE IDEA THAT WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE HOUSE, IN SEEKING INFORMATION, ON THE PRESIDENT IS ASSERTING CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED PRIVILEGES, IS PART OF THE OPERATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS. THAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. TO DEFEND THE PREROGATIVE OF THE OFFICE. FOR THE FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE OFFICE. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CHARGED AS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. AS HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED TO DO. TO DO THAT, AS AN ABUSE OF POWER. THAT IS WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY IS LIKE. IT IS HOUSE DEMOCRATS ABUSE OF POWER. WE JUST HEARD MANAGER LAUGHLIN REFER TO SECULAR PRIVILEGE AS A DISTRACTION. SHE WAS ASSERTING THESE ISSUES OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARE A DISTRACTION. ADDITIONAL HOLD THINGS UP. THIS IS WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID ABOUT A SECOND A PRIVILEGE. AND NIXON VERSUS UNITED STATES. THAT THE PROTECTIONS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARE "FUNDAMENTAL TO T INEXTRICABLY ROOTED IN SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
". INEXTRICABLY ROOTED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. THAT IS WHY IT IS THE PRESIDENT'S DUTY TO DEFEND EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS. THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING HERE. NOW, THE PROCESS THAT THEY PURSUED IN THE HOUSE ABANDONED ANY EFFORT BEYOND ISSUING THE FIRST SUBPOENA THAT WAS INVALID TO WORK OUT AN ACCOMMODATION WITH THE WHITE HOUSE. AND INSTEAD, TRY TO RUSH AHEAD TOUGH IMPEACHMENT ON BY CHRISTMAS. WHAT DOES NOT LEAD TO NOW? COMING TO THIS BODY, AFTER PROCESS WAS HALF-BAKED, THAT DID NOT COMPILE A RECORD SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES. AND ASKING THIS BODY TO DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM. AS MITCH McCONNELL POINTED OUT, TO ALLOW THAT EXCEPT THE IDEA, BUT THE HOUSE CAN BRING IN IMPEACHMENT HERE THAT IS NOT ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE HAS NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED, THAT HAS NOT HAD A RECORD TO SUPPORT IT, AND TO TURN THIS BODY INTO THE INVESTIGATORY BODY, WOULD PERMANENTLY ALTER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.
IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE SENATE TO HAVE TO DO THE HOUSE HIS JOB FOR THEM. IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE SENATE TO BE DOING AN INVESTIGATION AND TO BE DOING DISCOVERY IN A MATTER LIKE THE IMPEACHMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IF THE HOUSE IS NOT ON THE INVESTIGATION AND CANNOT SUPPORT ITS CASE, IT IS NOT THE TIME, ONCE IT ARRIVES HERE, TO START DOING THE WORK. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS THE HOUSES ROLE. 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, IF THEY ABOUT THE UNDER INVESTIGATION, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE CASE.
AGAIN, WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE, AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO CALL, ON THE ISSUE OF THIS AMENDMENT, IT IS NOT WHETHER THIS BODY, THE SENATE, WILL BE CONSIDERING WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES OR NOT. BUT WHEN IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. AND THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO TAKE THE APPROACH THAT WAS DONE IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. 100 SENATORS AGREED THEN THAT IT MADE SENSE, TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES. BEFORE MAKING A DETERMINATION ON IT. TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES, TO SEE WHAT SORT OF CASE THE HOUSE COULD PRESENT. IN THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE. AND THAT MAKE SENSE. IN EVERY TRIAL SYSTEM, THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE PARTIES HAVE ACTUALLY PRESENTED A TRIAL ISSUE. WHETHER THERE IS REALLY SOME THERE, THERE. THAT REQUIRES THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. AND THIS BODY SHOULD TAKE THE COMMON SENSE APPROACH AND HEAR WHAT IT IS THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE TO SAY. WHERE THEY ARE FREE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE? THEY HAD WEEKS IN A PROCESS THAT THEY CONTROLLED, TO COMPILE THE RECORD.
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION NOW. THE ONE POINT I WILL CLOSE ON AND I HEARD ADAM SCHIFF STATE SEVERAL TIMES, WE HAVE TO HAVE A PROCESS HERE. I'M STRUCK BY IT. I ONE POINT, HE SAID, IF YOU ALLOW ONLY ONE SIDE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, THE OUTCOME WILL BE PREDETERMINED. THE OUTCOME WILL BE PREDETERMINED. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE. LET'S CALL THAT THE PROCESS THEY HAD IN THE HOUSE WAS ONE- SIDED. THEY LOCKED THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYERS OUT. THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS FOR THE PRESIDENT. THEY STARTED WITH SECRET HEARINGS IN THE BASEMENT. THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE PRESENT. HE CANNOT PRESENT EVIDENCE. HE CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.
THERE WAS A SECOND ROUND IN PUBLIC. THEY LOCKED THE PRESIDENT OUT. WE HAVE HEARD, THEY JUST SAID THE PRESIDENT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE. IN THE THIRD ROUND, OF HEARINGS THAT THEY HELD, FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AFTER ONE HEARING ON DECEMBER 4, SPEAKER, NANCY PELOSI ON THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 5, SHE ANNOUNCED THE CONCLUSION OF THE DAY IN HISTORY COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS. SHE ANNOUNCED SHE WAS HAVING JERRY NADLER COMPILE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. IT WAS BEFORE THE DAY THEY WOULD TELL THE PRESIDENT TO ANNOUNCE WHAT RIGHTS HE WOULD LIKE TO HELP. IT WAS ALREADY PREDETERMINED. THE OUTCOME HAVE BEEN PREDETERMINED. THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAD DECIDED IT WOULD NOT HAVE PACKED HEARINGS.
THE PRESIDENT WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO PURCHASE PATE. WHEN CHAIRMANSHIPS SAYS IF YOU ONLY ALLOW ONE SIDE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT PREDETERMINED OUTCOME, THAT IS WHAT THEY DID IN THE HOUSE. THEY HAD A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME. IT WAS ALL ONE-SIDED. FOR HIM TO LECTURE THIS BODY NOW, I WHATEVER PROCESS WOULD BE TAKE SOME GOAL. A PROCESS WOULD BE WHEN YOU COME TO THE DAY OF TRIAL, BE READY TO START THE TRIAL AND PRESENT YOUR CASE. NOT ASK FOR MORE DISCOVERY. THE PRESIDENT IS READY TO PROCEED. THE HOUSE MANAGER SHOULD BE READY TO PROCEED. AND THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE REJECTED. THANK YOU. >> THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE EIGHT MINUTES REMAINING. >> THE HOUSE IS CERTAINLY NOT ASKING THE SENATE TO DO THE HOUSE HIS JOB. WE ARE ASKING THE SENATE TO DO ITS JOB.
TO HOLD A TRIAL. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A TRIAL? ONE THAT DOES NOT HAVE EVIDENCE. WHEN THAT DOES NOT HAVE WITNESSES? THAT IS WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT. JUST A MOMENT ABOUT THE SUBPOENAS. PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE. HE ORDERED ALL OF HIS PEOPLE TO STONEWALL US. NOW, IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, THAT WE SHOULD SPEND TWO OR THREE YEARS LITIGATING THE QUESTION. I WAS A YOUNG LAW STUDENT, WORKING ON THE NEXT IMPEACHMENT, MANY YEARS AGO. I REMEMBER THE DAY, THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED ITS UNANIMOUS DECISION, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD TO RELEASE THE TAPES.
I THINK U. S. VERSUS NEXT AND STILL GOVERNS THE PRESIDENT. THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO LITIGATE U. S. VERSUS NIXON BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT AND DOWN AGAIN, FOR IT TO BE GOOD LAW. IT IS GOOD LAW. THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS. TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE TRUTH. THIS IS NOT ABOUT HELPING THE HOUSE. THIS IS NOT 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 WILL YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE, ADAM SCHIFF. >> HE SAYS THE HOUSE IS NOT READY TO PRESENT ITS CASE. THAT IS THE SOMETHING YOU HEARD FROM ANY OF THE MANAGERS. WE ARE READY. THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. HOUSE CALLS NICK MULVANEY. LET'S GET THE TRIAL STARTED, SHALL WE? WE ARE READY TO PRESENT OUR CASE. WE ARE READY TO ARE WITNESSES. THE QUESTION IS, WILL YOU LET US? THAT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US.
MR. PHILBIN SAYS, IF I WAS IN COURT AND I WAS NOT READY, I WILL GET THROWN OUT OF COURT. WE ARE NOT SAYING WE ARE NOT READY. YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF MR. PHILBIN WENT INTO COURT, AND THE JUDGE SAID, I HAVE MADE A DEAL WITH THE DEFENDANT. I WILL NOT LET THE DEFENDANT CALL ANY WITNESSES. WILL NOT LET THEM PRESENT A DOCUMENTS. YOU KNOW WHO GETS THROWN OUT OF COURT? THE JUDGE.
THEY WOULD BE TAKEN OUT IN HANDCUFFS. LET'S STEP OUT OF THE BODY FOR A MOMENT. IMAGINE WHAT IT WILL TRIAL WOULD LOOK LIKE. IT WOULD BEGIN WITH THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVING DOCUMENTS. BEEN ABLE TO INTRODUCE ARGUMENTS. BEING ABLE TO WITNESSES. THIS TRIAL SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT. MR. PHILBIN MAKES REFERENCE TO THE LETTER FROM MR. CIPOLLONE ON OCTOBER 18. ON OCTOBER 8. WE WILL NOT DO ANYTHING. PART LAW, PART DIATRIBE. MOSTLY DIATRIBE. YOU SHOULD READ IT. IT IS A LETTER THAT SAYS, WHAT THE PRESIDENT SET ON THE TV SCREEN. WHICH IS, WE WILL FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS. THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY THAT THE COUNSELOR PREFERS TO. IT IS BEEN INVOKED OR ATTEMPTED BY BOTH PARTIES. AND REJECTED UNIFORMLY BY THE COURTS. INCLUDING A MOST RECENT DECISION INVOLVING DON McGANN, THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. FOR THE COURT SAID, THAT WOULD MAKE HIM A KING.
HE IS NO KING. THIS TRIAL HAS DETERMINED THAT HE SHOULD NOT BECOME THE KING ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE AND ANSWERABLE TO NO ONE. AND ONCE MORE, THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. THE FEVERED DREAM OF PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES. IT IS NOT APPLICATION TO DOCUMENTS. AGAIN, THE AMENDMENT IS ON DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY TO PROVIDING DOCTORATES. AS REPRESENTATIVE LAUGHLIN DEMONSTRATE IT, WHEN THE CASE IS GOT TO THE SUPREME COURT IN THE NIXON CASE, THE COURT HELD THAT THE INTEREST IN CONFIDENTIALITY IN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING MUST GIVE WAY TO THE INTERESTS OF THE TRUTH AND THE SENATE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. YOU CANNOT INVOKE PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT WRONGDOING. YOU CANNOT INVOKE PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT EVIDENCE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME, LIKE WE HAVE HERE. AND FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO SECRET HEARINGS THAT COUNSEL REFERS TO. THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS IN THE HOUSE. THEY ARE SO SECRET THAT ONLY 100 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE ABLE TO BE THERE TO PARTICIPATE.
ONLY 100. THAT IS HOW SECRET THE CHAMBER WAS. IMAGINE THAT IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IN THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION OR IN THE NIXON INVESTIGATION. IMAGINE INVITING 50 OR HUNDRED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO SIT IN ON THOSE. IMAGINE AS THE PRESIDENT LIKE HERE, INSISTING ON HAVING HIS LAWYER ON THE GRAND JURY. BECAUSE THE CASE WAS BEING INVESTIGATED AGAINST HIM. WE HAVE NO GRAND JURY HERE. WHY IS THAT? WHY WAS THERE NO SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HERE? BECAUSE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAID, THEY WILL NOT LOOK INTO THIS. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAID, THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. IF IT WERE UP TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, YOU WILL NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. THAT IS WHY THERE WAS NO GRAND JURY. THAT IS LIKELY IN THE HOUSE HAD TO DO THE INVESTIGATIVE WORK OURSELVES.
YES, JUST LIKE IN THE NIXON CASE, JUST LIKE THE CLINTON CASE, WE USED DEPOSITIONS. YOU KNOW WHAT DEPOSITION RULES WE USED, THAT WAS TERRIBLY UNFAIR, THEY WERE WRITTEN BY THE REPUBLICANS. WE USED THE SAME RULES THAT THE GOP HOUSE MEMBERS USED. THAT IS HOW TERRIBLY UNFAIR THEY WERE. MY GOSH, THE USE OUR RULES, HOW DARE THEY? HOW DARE THEY. WHY DO WE DO DEPOSITIONS? BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT ONE WITNESS TO HEAR WHAT ANOTHER WITNESS WAS SINGING. SO THAT THEY COULD TAILOR THEIR STORIES AND KNOW THAT THEY JUST HAD TO ADMIT SO MUCH. IN EVERY CREDIBLE INVESTIGATION WORKS. COUNSEL CAN REPEAT ALL THAT THEY LIKE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE.
HE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OR OFFER EVIDENCE. THEY CAN SAY AS MUCH AS THEY LIKE. IT DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY MORE TRUE WHEN YOU MAKE THE SAME FALSE REPRESENTATION TIME AND TIME AGAIN. AND MIX IT A MUCH MORE DELIBERATE AND ONEROUS. THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. HE CHOSE NOT TO. AND THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT. THERE IS A REASON WHY THE WITNESSES THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN MATERIAL WITNESSES. IT IS NOT GO TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD THE AID FOR THIS CORRUPT PURPOSE. IT IS NOT GO TO THE. BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO WITNESSES TO HIMSELF THE PRESIDENT ON THE FACTS. USED WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS. YOU SHOULD WANT TO SEE IT. YOU SHOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PRIVATE E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES HAVE TO SAY.
IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE, IF YOU MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, YOU SHOULD WANT TO SEE WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS SAY. NOW, IF YOU DO NOT CARE, IF YOU HAVE MADE UP YOUR MIND THAT HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF MY PARTY, FOR WHATEVER REASON, I AM NOT INTERESTED. I DON'T REALLY WANT THE COUNTRY TO SEE THIS. IT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE OATH REQUIRES. IS NOT WHAT YOUR OATH REQUIRES. YOUR OATH REQUIRES YOU TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. WHICH MEANS TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. THAT IS ALL THAT WE ARE ASKING DO NOT BLIND YOURSELF TO THE EVIDENCE. I YIELD BACK. >> AND MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL IS RECKONIZE. >> I SENT A MOTION TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT . >> THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO TABLE. IS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SECONDS? THERE IS. THE CARR FIRE CALL THE ROLE. >> MR. ALEXANDER, YEA. >> MISS BALDWIN >> YEA. >> MR. BROSSEAU. >> YEA .
>> MR. BENNETT. 'S BUCK NO. >> MISSED HER LITTLE. >>> THEY ARE DEBATING THE RULES FOR THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. I WANT TO BRING IN RAIN THAT NORMAN. AND KAREN DUGAN. I LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. MOLLY COOPER IS A CBSN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR. MOLLY, WE HAD A LOT OF DEBATE. WALK US THROUGH EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING VOTED ON. >> WHAT IS BEING VOTED ON, OSTENSIBLY WHAT SHOULD BE VOTED ON, IS CHUCK SCHUMER'S A MINUTE TO REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.
BUT, WHAT'S MAJORITY LEADER, McCONNELL HAS DONE IS MOVED TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT . EVEN úTHO THE SENATORS WHO ARE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WOULD VOTE TO NOT DEMAND THE FALL DOCUMENTS . ESSENTIALLY, THE TIME ONE VOTE WILL KILL CHUCK SCHUMER'S A MINUTE. IT SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE. IT IS THE PROCEDURAL TRICKERY THAT KEEPS REPORTERS ON CAPITOL HILL ON OUR TOES. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING. AS TO WHETHER WE WILL SEE REPUBLICANS VOTING AGAINST TABLING THE MOTION, BUT WITH THE DEMOCRATS, IT IS UNCLEAR. SEVERAL OF THE MODERATE REPUBLICANS ARE THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ON HOW WITH UKRAINE, I'M NOT SURE THEY WILL VOTE WITH DEMOCRATS ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. WHAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING THEM SAY, AS THEY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE THEIR ARGUMENTS. 24 HOURS APIECE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. 24 HOURS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS OVER THREE DAYS. SENATORS GET TO SUBMIT THEIR QUESTIONS.
AND THEN DECIDE IF THE SENATE SHOULD COMPEL THE WHITE HOUSE TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO UKRAINE AND INDIVIDUALS AND CONVERSATIONS HAVE WITH THE PRESIDENT, OVER WITHHOLDING OF A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN EXCHANGE FOR POLITICAL DIRT ON AN APPOINTMENT. >> WE HAD ONE OF THE MANAGERS PRESENT HER SIDE OF THE CASE AS TO WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRESENTED. WHAT DID YOU MAKE IT ARGUMENTS YOU CONSTRUCTED?>> THE HOUSE HAS A DIFFICULT NEEDLE TO THREAD. IT WAS MR. PHILBIN WHO SAID FOR THE PRESIDENT, IF YOU HAVE THIS OVERWHELMING CASE, WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR MORE EVIDENCE NOW. ON ITS FACE IT IS A COLLOCATED QUESTION. ADAM SCHIFF ANSWERED. LOOK, FOR THE HOUSE TO RELITIGATE U. S. VERSUS NIXON FOR COUPLE OF YEARS UP-AND-DOWN TO DO WITH EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS, AND TO POTENTIALLY DEAL WITH ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY CLAIMS, IT PUSHES THE HOUSES PROCESS BEYOND THE 2020 ELECTION.
IF YOU ARE THE DEMOCRATS AND YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT WAS IMPROPER AND THAT HE IS TRYING TO GET AN ADVANTAGE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION, YOU CAN WITH A LONG. THE ARGUMENT ON ITS FACE, AND HAS A NICE SOUND BITE FOR THE PUBLICANS. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE DEMOCRATS IS A LITTLE MORE COLLOCATED. THEY ARE ADVANCING GOOD REASONS. >> I WANT TO PLAY A SOUNDBITE. ADAM SCHIFF TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS. >> MR. PHILBIN SAYS, THE HOUSE IS NOT READY TO PRESENT ITS CASE. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU HEARD FROM ANY OF THE MANAGERS. WE ARE READY. THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. THE HOUSE CALLS MICK MULVANEY. LET'S GET THE TRIAL STARTED, SHELLEY WE ARE READY TO PRESENT OUR CASE. WE ARE READY TO ARE WITNESSES. THE QUESTION IS, WILL YOU LET US. THAT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US. >> YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE VOTES. NO MATTER WHAT. TO GO FORWARD WITH THE WITNESSES. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT ADAM SCHIFF MENTIONED EARLIER IN HIS ARGUMENT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IT.
IN ORDER TO DO SO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO POINT OUT, WHICH >>> A PRIVILEGED? WHICH POINTS TO THE MEDICATIONS OVER THE VACATION WAS HAD. IT WAS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT THAT ADAM SCHIFF MADE. I THINK A SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, IT WOULD BE AN ADMISSION OF GUILT ON THE PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE IN FACT, DR. METZ RELATED TO UKRAINE. AS THIS PLAYS OUT, WE WILL SEE WHAT THEY CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ON. IF YOU CLAIM AS A CAN OF PRIVILEGE, IF THE SPECIFY WHICH DOCUMENT. WHICH INDIVIDUAL AND WHY. >> YOU ARE CORRECT. GETTING BACK TO WHAT WE JUST HEARD ADAM SCHIFF SAY, THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. THAT IS THE KIND OF DRAMATIC MOMENT THAT AMERICANS EXPECT IN A TRIAL.
THAT HAS EVIDENCE. THAT IS DESIGNED AS A TRUTH SEEKING PROCESS. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A PARTICULARLY POWERFUL ADMINISTRATION BY ADAM SCHIFF, OF WHAT IS AT STAKE. YOU ARE CORRECT. TO POINT OUT THAT ADAM SCHIFF IS SAYING, LOOK, IF YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH DOZENS OF PAGES OF RECORDS AND IDENTIFY WHICH ONES YOU WILL OR WILL NOT A PRIVILEGE TO, THAT IS GOING TO CONVEY INFORMATION. BY GIVING A BLANK REFUSAL, SOMEWHAT COUCHED IN IMMUNITY THAT CHECK HERE IS CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS. >> AYE 53-47 NAY. THE LIMIT IS TABLED . DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECKONIZE. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
AND ASK THAT IT BE READ. >> THE CLERK WILL READ THE AMENDMENT. >> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, CHUCK SCHUMER PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT 1285. AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE AND RESOLVING CLAUSE, INSERT FILING, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THE RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO RULES FIVE AND SIX OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES OF PRACTICE IN THE SENATE, WAS SITTING IN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO THE SECRETARY OF SENATE COMMANDING HIM TO PRODUCE, FOR THE TIME PERIOD OF JANUARY ONE, 2019 TO THE PRESENT, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT ESTATE, REFERRING OR RELATING TO LETTER 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 APRIL 21 AND JULY 25, 2019 TELEPHONE CALLS. AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 2005 — 2005, TO THE NINETEENTH MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, IN NEW YORK. AND THE 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, USA I, AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING, FMF, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL COMMUNITY SHOULD'S WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, THE PART OF DEFENSE, AND OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. AS WELL AS THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE, PART TO AUGUST 28, 2019, OF ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, FREEZING OR RELEASING OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
INCLUDING ALL MEETINGS, CALLS ARE OTHER ENGAGEMENTS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, REGARDING POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL SUSPENSIONS, HOLDS OR DELAYS IN UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. C, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, NOTES OR OTHER RECORDS, CREATED OR RECEIVED BY SECRETARY MICHAEL POMPEO, COUNSELOR, FORMER SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE LOGICIANS, AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT, WILLIAM E TAYLOR AND AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND AND OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS RELATED TO EFFORTS TO SOLICIT REQUEST, DEMAND, INDUCE, PERSUADE OR COERCE UKRAINE TO CONDUCT OR NOT INVESTIGATIONS.
TWO, SCHEDULE, COUNSEL WITHHOLD A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT. OR THREE, HOLD AND THEN RELEASE MILITARY AND OTHER SECRETARY SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. D ANY MEANS OR PROPOSED MEANS AT OR INVOLVING THE WHITE HOUSE THAT RELATE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NUMBER ONE, THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY IN 2018 IN KIEV, UKRAINE. INCLUDING AND NOT LIMITED TO PRESIDENT TRUMPS DECISION NOT TO ATTEND. TO ASK AND >> TO LEAVE THE DELEGATION. DIRECTING IN SAC TO NOT ATTEND. AND THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION ABOUT THE COMPENSATION OF THE NINE STATES. NUMBER TO A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND MAY 23, 2019, INVOLVING AMONG OTHERS, PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEN SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS, AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, RICK PERRY, UNITED AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, AS WELL AS PRIVATE MEETINGS OR CONVERSATIONS WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS BEFORE AFTER THE LARGER MEETING.
NUMBER THREE, MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, ON OR ABOUT JULY 10, 2019. INVOLVING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, ALDRICH YOUR MAKE AND ALEXANDER DEER LAKE. AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIAL, JOHN BOLTON, SECRETARY HARRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND. INCLUDING M.A.T. IN THE WAR ROOM. NUMBER FOUR, A 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. NUMBER FIVE, UPLAND MEETING, LATER CANCELED IN WARSAW, POLAND, ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED BY MIKE PENCE. AND A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 11, 2019. INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, MIKE PENCE AND MICK MULVANEY. CONSIDERING LETTING THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE. E, ALL COMING OCCASIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO WHAT'S OUT OR TEXT MESSAGES ON PRIVATE DEVICES BETWEEN CURRENT OR FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE POMPEO, AND LASSITER VOLKER, AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT AND THE FOLLOWING, PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, ALDRICH YOUR MAKE OR INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH OR ACTING IN ANY CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR PROXY FOR PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, BEFORE AND AFTER HIS ELECTION.
ALL RECORDS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED BY WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IMPEACHMENT A GREAT, TO MEMORIALIZE KEY EVENTS OR CONCERNS AT ANY RECORDS REFLECTING AN OFFICIAL RESPONSE THERETO, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO NUMBER ONE, ON AUGUST 20 NINTH 2019, A CABLE SENT BY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE POMPEO. NUMBER TWO, ON AUGUST 16, 2019, A MEMORANDUM TO FOLLOW WRITTEN BY DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT. NUMBER THREE, A TIMBER 15, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO FILE, WRITTEN BY DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY.
G, ALL MEETINGS ARE CALLS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL REQUESTS OR RECORDS OF MEETINGS OR TELEPHONE CALLS SCHEDULING ITEMS, CALENDAR ENTRIES, STATE DEPARTMENT VISITOR RECORDS AND EMAIL OR TEXT MESSAGES, USING PERSONAL OR WORK-RELATED DEVICES BETWEEN OR AMONG NUMBER ONE CURRENT OR FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO'S SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE POMPEO, INVESTOR VOLKER, AMBASSADOR AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND OR NUMBER TWO, RUDY GIULIANI, VICTORIA TENSING OR JOSEPH DIJ IN ABOUT OR CONTAINMENT OR RECALL OF FORMER AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH FOR THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN KIEV. INCLUDING CREDIBLE THREAT REPORTS AGAINST HER OR PROTECTIVE SECURITY MEASURES TAKEN IN RESPONSE. AND NUMBER TWO, THE SURGICAL ARMS IS UTILIZED THE SERVICES OF DEPUTY SURGICAL ARMS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE IN SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THE SECTION.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE. SPENT THE MAJORITY LEADER IS AUTHORIZED. >> I NOW SERVE A BRIEF 10 MINUTE RECESS BEFORE PARTIES ARE RECKONIZE TO DEBATE THE SCHUMER AND MINUTE. AT THE END OF THE DEBATE TIME, I WILL AGAIN MOVED TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT, AS THE TIMING OF THESE VOTES ARE SPECIFIED IN THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION. I CAN SEND THAT WE STAND IN RECESS. >> WITH OBJECTION, THE SENATE IS IN RECESS. >> THE SENATE TAKES A RECESS. WE WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE DAYS EVENTS TODAY. AS THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL HAS BEGUN. THE FOCUS WAS ON THE RULES. TO BRING IN MY PANEL.
CBSN CONSERVATORS, POLITICAL AND LEGAL. MOLLY HOOPER, WALK US THROUGH THIS. I WAS LOOKING AT THE SUBPOENA THAT CHUCK SCHUMER PUT FORTH. LOOKING AT THE SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS, AS WELL AS WITNESS TESTIMONY FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT. >> ESSENTIALLY, WHICH IS ASKING FOR, AS THE SAME DOCUMENTS AS THE PRIOR AMENDMENT. THIS TIME, HE WAS ASKING THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR THE DOCUMENTS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS FOR DOCUMENT AT THE WHITE HOUSE. THIS AMENDMENT, DOCUMENT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS WE WERE DISCUSSING OFF-CAMERA, THEY WILL PROBABLY GO FOR THE DEFENSE APARTMENT AS WELL.
JL'S CONGRESSIONAL AGENCY. THEY TURN EVERY THING OVER TO CONGRESS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SCHUMER CAN DO TO DELAY THE WHOLE PROCESS. AND MAKE EVERYBODY'S LIFE VERY FRUSTRATING ON THE FLOOR. AND ALSO PUT THE VULNERABLE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ON RECORD, AS VOTING AGAINST HAVING CERTAIN WITNESSES. WHEN IT COMES TO THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. IT IS SOMETHING THAT DEMOCRATS CAN USE IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS FOR SENATE RACES. >> WE ARE OFFICIALLY ON RECORD. WE LOOK AT THE LEGAL STRATEGY, WE HAVE SEEN THIS GO BACK AND FORTH THIS AFTERNOON. WITH CHUCK SCHUMER PRESENTED COMMITMENTS TO TABLE BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES. WHAT IS THE LEGAL STRATEGY? >> I THINK IT MAY BE MORE OF A POLITICAL STRATEGY. HAVING SEEN THE LAST DEBATE, I'LL BE SURPRISED IF YOU SEE ANYTHING DIFFERENT NOW. WHAT WE WILL HEAR IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TWO SIDES TO MAKE THE CASE.
TO THE SENATE AND ULTIMATELY TO THE PUBLIC. AS FAR AS THE LEGAL STRATEGY, I WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING THAT I SAW IN THE LAST ARGUMENT. WE MAY SEE IT AGAIN. MR. PHILBIN MADE ONE OF THE LAWYERS IN THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS. >> THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYER. >> CORRECT. AND THE BULK OF HIS TIME, HE ARGUED THEIR SHOPPING ANY DISCOVERY AT ALL.
ANYMORE EVIDENCE BROUGHT FORTH. MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT IF THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY, WHAT ANYMORE ANYWAYS. AT THE END, HE SLIPPED IN ANYWAYS, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT SURE ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW, YOU SHOULD DELETE THE DECISION. HE SAID IN THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU DO NOT NEED ANYTHING. IF YOU ARE NOT SO SURE, WE SHOULD DELAY IT. AND RAISE THE QUESTION AFTER THAT MANAGERS AND PRESIDENTS LAWYERS MAKE ARGUMENTS ABOUT IT. >> THIS IS SOMETHING MITCH McCONNELL SAID, I WILL TABLE ANYTHING UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT.
WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO COME FORWARD. >> AS WE SAW ON THE PRIOR VOTE, 53 VOTES TO TABLE. 53 REPUBLICANS SAY WE DO NOT WANT THE DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW >> MAKES AN IMPORTANT POINT. LATER IN THE PROCESS, WAS THE OVERARCHING RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED, WHO KNOWS SOMEONE THEY WANT TO GO. IT DOES SET FORTH THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH, AT THE END OF THE QUESTION TIME FROM SENATORS, THE SENATORS WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST HAVING ARGUMENTS. 2 HOURS APIECE. THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON HEARING FROM THE WITNESSES. AS SPECIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION, THEY WILL FIRST HEAR ABOUT IT AS A THE POSITION BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. AFTER THAT, WITH A SENATOR CAN SEE WHAT WAS SAID IN THE DEPOSITION, THEN THE SENATE WOULD VOTE. IN FRONT OF THE LIFE SENATE. >> WE ARE LOOKING THROUGH THE LENS OF THE ELECTION THIS NOVEMBER. WANT TO HOLD ONTO THE SENATE MAJORITY WILL PASS NOVEMBER. WALK US THROUGH WHEN THE VOTE TAKES PLACE.
ON WITNESSES. ON IF HEADING MORE WITNESSES. ON EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED. OR THE REPUBLICANS YOU ARE WATCHING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. >> FIRST OF ALL, I WATCHING SUSAN COLLINS, WHO IS UP FOR REELECTION IN MAINE. PURPLE MAINE. SUSAN COLLINS TO A BIG HIT LAST YEAR WHEN SHE VOTED IN FAVOR OF BRETT KAVANAUGH TO BE THE SEVEN COURT JUSTICE. THE MOMENT SHE DID THAT, DEMOCRATS FLOODED OUR STATE WITH MONEY. THEY DO NOT HAVE A CANDIDATE. THEY FLOODED MONEY TO MAINE, TO OUST SUSAN COLLINS FROM HER SEAT IN THE SENATE. THAT IS WHAT SENATOR I WILL WATCH. I DO RECOGNIZE, THAT AFTER SHE TOOK THE VOTE, MITCH McCONNELL MADE A POINT IN SAYING, WE WILL SPEND MONEY TO MAKE SURE SHE GETS REELECTED. FOR A PASS ON FUTURE TOUGH VOTES. YOU COULD READ BETWEEN THE LINES. CORY GARDNER IS UP FOR REELECTION IN A PURPLE STATE, COLORADO. AND LISA MURKOWSKI OF ALASKA.
NOT NECESSARILY SHE IS UP FOR REELECTION. THIS IS A REPUBLICAN SENATOR WHO LOST THE GOP PRIMARY HER LAST GO AROUND. SHE RAN AS AN INDEPENDENT. AND SHE WON. WHEN IT COMES TO HER PARTY, LISA MURKOWSKI IS BEHOLDEN TO ALASKA SHE MAKES A POINT OF LETTING THEM KNOW. NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU ABOUT HER PARTY, BUT MORE SO THAT SHE IS THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE DECISIONS THAT SHE MAKES. ALSO, I'M LOOKING AT MITT ROMNEY. IT DOES REPRESENT UTAH. HE IS A FRESHMAN. A TRUE FRESHMAN IN THE SENATE. HE WAS JUST ELECTED. THIS PAST GO AROUND. IN 2018. HE IS HAD SKIRMISHES WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE PAST. THEY HAVE WORKED TOGETHER. EVER SINCE HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. MITT ROMNEY HAS TAKEN A STEP BACK. WE DID A MORE ABOUT THIS. HE IS BEEN ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO IS NOT BEEN AFRAID TO SAY THIS IS NOT RIGHT. NOT NECESSARILY IMPEACHABLE. WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS.
I WATCHING THOSE REPUBLICANS. LAMAR ALEXANDER FROM TENNESSEE. NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION AND VERY MUCH AN ARTICLE 1 KIND OF GUY. ARTICLE 1 BEING THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF APARTMENT. GOVERNMENT. AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, THE PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO EXERT HIS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, FOR EXAMPLE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY ON THE BORDER. TO REMOVE MONEY FROM THE BORDER WALL. LAMAR ALEXANDER IS NOT AFRAID TO STAND UP. >> MOLLY HOOPER I WANT TO THANK YOU. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ANALYSIS. WILL TAKE A SHORT BREAK. AND THAT WE WILL RETURN. FOR BROADCAST VIEWERS, THERE WILL BE MUCH MORE ON YOUR LOCAL CBS STATION. YOU CAN WAS TUNED IN TO CBSN ON ANY PLATFORM OR DEVICE. SIMPLY DOWNLOAD THE CBS NEWS OUT. THIS IS BEEN A SPECIAL REPORT FOR CBSN. I REENA NINAN IN NEW YORK. >>> HELLO EVERYONE, I'M TANYA RIVERO. WE'RE WAITING FOR THE SENATE TO RESUME DAY 1 OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. SO FAR THE DEBATE HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THE RULES FOR THE TRIAL, AND THE MAIN QUESTION AT HAND IS WHETHER WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSIDERED.
KEIR AND MOLLY ARE JOINING ME NOW, AND SO FAR WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CHUCK SCHUMER OFFERING SUGGESTIONS OF THINGS HE'D LIKE TO SEE AND MITCH MCCONNELL TABLING THEM. IS THAT GOING TO BE WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FOR THE REST OF THE DAY? >> YES BECAUSE IN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, SENATORS AREN'T ALLOWED TO SPEAK. IN FACT, IF THEY'RE GOING TO SPEAK AND DELIBERATE, THEY HAVE TO GO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO DO IT. WE WON'T HEAR WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S A MOTION THAT CARRIES AT ANY POINT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS TONIGHT. SO IF A SENATOR, OH, LOOKS LIKE PERHAPS CHUCK SCHUMER IS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING. >> YES, LET'S LISTEN. >> REALIZING HOW UNFAIR LEADER MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION IS, AND THEY ARE REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO CHANGE IT. WE'RE GLAD THEY MOVED TO 3 DAYS INSTEAD OF 2 SO WE WON'T BE HEARING ARGUMENTS AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING.
BUT THE REAL TEST WILL BE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. WILL OUR REPUBLICAN SENATORS PUT PRESSURE ON MCCONNELL SO WE REALLY HAVE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED? EITHER NOW OR AFTER THE ARGUMENTS ARE MADE. I'M NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS. ONE OTHER POINT, WHICH IS THIS, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. NONE OF THEM DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHY THERE SHOULDN'T BE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. THEY TALK ABOUT HOW BAD THE HOUSE IS. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT AT ALL. BUT THEY DON'T ARGUE ONE, THEY DON'T MAKE A SINGLE ARGUMENT WHY THERE SHOULDN'T BE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, CHUCK SCHUMER THERE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ONE THING DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT SEEMS TO BE ELUDING THEM, SEEMS TO BE OUT OF THEIR GRASP. AND IT DOESN'T REALLY APPEAR AT LEAST TO ME AS IF AT THIS POINT SENATORS ARE FEELING THE PRESSURE THAT DEMOCRATS WERE HOPING AT LEAST SOME MODERATE SENATORS MIGHT FEEL, WHICH IS TO SAY ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE SOME WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS PRESENTED IN THIS TRIAL, CORRECT? >> WELL, RIGHT.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE, UM, THERE ARE KIND OF 2 THINGS ON THE TABLE. WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS RIGHT NOW OR DO WE MAKE THE DECISION LATER. AND SO WE JUST HEARD IN THE, SORT OF IN THE PRIOR AMENDMENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COUNSEL MR. PHILBIN ARGUED YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DOCUMENTS AT ALL, BUT IF YOU WANT THEM, YOU CAN DELAY THE DECISION UNTIL LATER. >> AND WHY IS THAT ADVANTAGEOUS TO REPUBLICANS? úWHY DOES IT MA DECIDE DEFINITIVELY NOW OR LATER TO SEE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES? >> BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THEY WANT TO DRAG THIS OUT AND SEE IF ANY MINDS ARE CHANGED BACK HOME BY THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE, THAT BOTH SIDES ARE GOING TO PRESENT.
TO PRESENT. AND REALLY, IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME IF YOU ASK ME, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT WEEK. BUT IN THE ISSUE OF FAIRNESS, REPUBLICANS WOULD ARGUE LET'S HEAR BOTH SIDES PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS, LET'S AS A SENATE ASK OUR QUESTIONS, HAVE BOTH SIDES ANSWER THOSE. WE CAN DELIBERATE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IF WE NEED WITNESSES, IF WE NEED MORE TO GO ON. AND ALSO, AND THEN TAKE THAT VOTE. BUT AT LEAST UNDER THIS RESOLUTION, THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON WHETHER TO HAVE WITNESSES.
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THAT WASN'T A FOREGONE CONCLUSION BECAUSE THE WAY IT WAS STRUCTURED, ESSENTIALLY THE SENATE WOULD GET TO THAT POINT, ASK THEIR QUESTIONS, THEN THEY WOULD DEBATE A MOTION TO DISMISS. UM, THEN TALK ABOUT WITNESSES, BUT THAT VOTE ON A MOTION TO DISMISS HAPPENED BEFORE THE BODY DECIDED ON WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE WITNESSES. THAT SCENARIO IS NOT HAPPENING IN THIS CURRENT RESOLUTION AS IT'S WRITTEN. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE AMENDED ANY OTHER WAY. BUT IT GUARANTEES FOR THOSE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE ON THE FENCE, THERE WILL BE A TIME FOR US TO VOTE ON THESE WITNESSES. >> THERE WILL BE. SO HELP US UNPACK THE ARGUMENTS WE'VE BEEN HEARING SO FAR TODAY FROM BOTH SIDES. >> RIGHT, SO, UM, I THINK THE MOST DIFFICULT ARGUMENT RIGHT NOW FOR THE DEMOCRATS IS PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS DEMOCRATS CLAIM THEIR CASE IS OVERWHELMING, BUT THEY'RE IN THE SENATE ASKING FOR MORE EVIDENCE NOW.
THAT ON ITS FACE IS A DIFFICULT ARGUMENT TO OVERCOME. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, I THINK THE KEY ARGUMENT IS TRIALS ARE ABOUT TRUTH SEEKING. TRIALS AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM GENERALLY AS AMERICANS. AND WHEN WE MAKE IMPORTANT DECISIONS IN OUR LIVES, REALLY IMPORTANT DECISIONS, THIS IS ONE OF THEM. POTENTIALLY CONSIDERING REMOVING A PRESIDENT, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION. YOU WANT TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS. YOU WANT TO HAVE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE TO YOU CAN MAKE THE BEST DECISION POSSIBLE. THOSE ARE THE SORT OF REALLY CORE COMPETING ARGUMENTS THAT WE'RE WATCHING PLAY OUT ON THIS AMENDMENT NOW. >> SO YOU THINK REPUBLICANS HAVE HIT ON A GOOD STRATEGY SAYING LOOK, DEMOCRATS CLAIMED THEY HAD ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD ALREADY, NOW THEY SAY THEY NEED MORE.
>> GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY WAIT, I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT FOR A FEW MINUTES, AND REALLY I THINK IT GOES DOWN TO THAT OATH THAT THE SENATE TAKES ON, YOU KNOW, I AFFIRM I'LL BE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUROR IN A SENSE. AND REPUBLICAN SENATORS LIKE A SUSAN COLLINS IN A TOUGH RE-ELECTION RACE, SHE WOULD ARGUE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHY SHE'S BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, BUT OTHER INDIVIDUALS LIKE MITT ROMNEY, THEY DO WANT TO HEAR IF THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, MADE, TREATED THE WHOLE PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT IN A FAIR WAY. BECAUSE IF AFTER BOTH SIDES MAKE THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS AND ANSWER SENATOR QUESTIONS, REPUBLICANS LIKE SENATOR COLLINS, LISA MURKOWSKI, MITT ROMNEY, FEEL LIKE THE HOUSE DID, YOU KNOW, DID VIOLATE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SOME SORT OF QUOTE UNQUOTE WITCH HUNT OR PARTISAN HIT JOB AS SOME REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO SAY, THEN THEY WON'T VOTE FOR WITNESSES.
BUT AGAIN, THEY REALLY, THE BURDEN IS ON, I THINK THE DEMOCRATS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS, TO MAKE THAT CASE. AND IF IT'S COMPELLING ENOUGH, I THINK THAT YOU'LL SEE A SUSAN COLLINS AND LISA MURKOWSKI VOTE IN FAVOR OF MORE WITNESSES. >> SO LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW IT'S COMPARING TO BILL CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. I MEAN, HE WAS IMPEACHED ON PERJURY, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> CORRECT. >> SO HOW DOES THOSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT COMPARE LEGALLY TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FACING PRESIDENT TRUMP NOW? >> SO THIS IS ONE OF THE OTHER ARGUMENTS THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT YET, BUT THE, UM, I EXPECT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COUNSEL TO MAKE THIS ARGUMENT MORE FULLY AS THEY GO FORWARD THAT THESE PARTICULAR ARTICLES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP AREN'T CAST IN THE FORM OF ALLEGING A CRIME.
SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PERJURY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THOSE IN ADDITION TO BEING IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, THOSE ARE ALSO FEDERAL CRIMES. THEY'RE CRIMES UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW. AND SO ANOTHER AREA THAT I EXPECT PERHAPS LATER IN THE ARGUMENTS TO BE MORE DEVELOPED AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND COUNSEL DISCUSS THIS IS THIS CLAIM BY BY I THINK ALAN DERSHOWITZ, THAT BECAUSE THE ARTICLES DON'T ALLEGE A CRIME, THEY'RE DEFECTIVE — >> SO THEY DON'T ALLEGE A CRIME OR MISUSE OF FUNDS THAT DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE SAY IS A CRIME? >> WELL, THEY'RE CAST IN THE FORM, ON THAT ONE, AS ABUSE OF POWER.
>> OKAY. >> SO LOOK, THE FACTS UNDERNEATH THEM COULD ESTABLISH A BRIBERY. THEY COULD ESTABLISH, UM, THEY COULD ESTABLISH A CRIME. BUT THE WAY THE HOUSE MANAGERS CHOSE TO CAST THAT CLAIM, THEY CALLED IT AN ABUSE OF POWER. >> OKAY. >> AND EVEN THE DEMOCRATS, I MEAN EVEN REPUBLICANS, SEKULOW I THINK GOT UP AND SAID OKAY, WE HEARD QUID QUO PRO, WE HEARD EXTORTION, HE HEARD BRIBERY, BUT NONE ARE MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. RIGHT? THAT WAS SORT OF HIS ARGUMENT. IF THIS WAS AN IMPEACHABLE CRIME, WHY DIDN'T YOU LIST IT? THAT'S WHAT I HEARD HIM SAYING IN RESPONSE TO THAT. >> WAS THAT A LITTLE MISSTEP THEN ON PART OF THE DEMOCRATS? SHOULD THEY HAVE NAMED BRIBERY AS AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT? >> I THINK IT'S MORE, AND MOLLY MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THIS BETTER, BUT I THINK IT'S A POLITICAL ISSUE MORE.
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND HAS THE WORD CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR IN IT. THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE IS A TERM OF ART UNDER OUR LONG HISTORY WE BROUGHT WITH US FROM ENGLAND, AND IN FACT MOST CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS WOULD TELL YOU THAT AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPEACHABLE, AND THAT MR. DERSHOWITZ'S VIEW IS AN OUT LIER. >> AND I THINK MOST REPUBLICANS WOULD AGREE TOO IF IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. IT'S ALWAYS YOUR POINT OF VIEW BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRESIDENT IS SOMETHING BOTH PARTIES WOULD ARGUE COULD BE IMPEACHABLE DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. >> RIGHT, IF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT DECIDED TO MOVE TO FIJI AND STOP DOING THEIR WORK, THAT SHOULD BE IMPEACHABLE IF IT WASN'T A CRIME. >> I THINK IF A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DID THAT IT WOULD STILL BE A CRIME! [ LAUGHTER ] >> AND WE HAVE POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT ANITA KUMAR JOINING US NOW.
WELCOME ANITA. CAN YOU TELL US WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DURING ALL THIS TODAY? >> REPORTER: WELL, AS YOU KNOW HE'S IN SWITZERLAND FOR THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. WE'VE HEARD HIM TALK A LITTLE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT TODAY. HE WAS ASKED BY SOME REPORTERS SOME QUESTIONS. HE CALLED IT A HOAX AGAIN. DIDN'T GO INTO A LOT OF DETAILS. BUT OBVIOUSLY HE'S ON A DIFFERENT TIME, SO HIS DAY HAS ALREADY ENDED. NOW THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN HE'S ASLEEP. HE COULD WELL BE WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT HIS SPOKESPERSON SAYS THAT HE'LL BE BRIEFED PERIODICALLY, BUT THAT HE'S NOT HAVING TIME TO WATCH.
HE'S BEEN MEETING WITH WORLD LEADERS ALL TODAY, AND WILL BE THERE TOMORROW AS WELL. >> WE KNOW INITIALLY THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO SEE WITNESSES AND SEE A FULL TRIAL. HE REALLY WANTED THIS, YOU KNOW, A ROBUST DEFENSE. WHY NOW HAS THE WHITE HOUSE CHANGED ITS VIEW ON THIS SENATE TRIAL? I MEAN THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM CLEARLY DOESN'T WANT TO SEE WITNESSES CALLED? >> YOU'RE DEFINITELY RIGHT ABOUT THAT. THEY'VE BEEN HAVING BRIEFINGS WITH REPORTERS THE LAST FEW DAYS AND DEFINITELY DON'T WANT THE WITNESSES. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. EVEN WHEN ALL HIS ALLIES AND SUPPORTERS AND FRIENDS WERE SAYING NO, YOU DON'T WANT WITNESSES, HE STILL WANTED THEM.
BUT I THINK THE REASON HE REALLY CHANGED HIS MIND IS REALLY CONFERRING WITH SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL. HE HAS GROWN TO TRUST MITCH MCCONNELL OVER THE LAST 3 YEARS. HE HAS SEEN HOW HE'S PUSHED THROUGH THE TAX BILL BACK THAT FIRST YEAR AND PUSHED THROUGH ALL THE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS AND REALLY GOTTEN PIECES OF THE PRESIDENT'S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THROUGH. SO MITCH MCCONNELL WAS SAYING TRUST ME, THE PRESIDENT KNOWS, MITCH MCCONNELL KNOWS HOW THE SENATE WORKS AND IS TRUSTING HIM A LITTLE BIT. SO THIS IS ISN'T EXACTLY AS THE PRESIDENT WOULD WANT IT, BUT HE TRUSTS THIS IS THE BEST WAY OUT. THE QUICKEST WAY FOR HIM TO GET BACK TO EVERYTHING ELSE, GET BACK TO THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND BACK TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE WHITE HOUSE. SO HE'S SORT OF TRUSTING MR.
MCCONNELL ON IT. >> ALL RIGHT, SO MOLLY, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE LARGER SORT OF REPUBLICAN SENATE FEEL. WE KEEP GOING BACK TO THE SAME REPUBLICAN SENATORS, MURKOWSKI, ROMNEY, COLLINS TALKING ABOUT WHICH WAY THEY'LL VOTE, BUT IF WE REALLY SURE THAT MCCONNELL HAS A LOCK ON ALL OTHER REPUBLICAN SENATORS? >> I THINK IN TERMS OF WITNESSES, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE KEY HERE, WHETHER OR NOT WE'LL HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES. THAT'S WHERE A REPUBLICAN VOTE WILL MATTER. BECAUSE IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS IT TAKES 67 SENATORS TO VOTE TO IMPEACH.
SO EVEN IF THEY LOST A HANDFUL OF VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS, THE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. SO THE WITNESSES IS WHERE THE VOTES COUNT. AND WE DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY HOW MARTHA MCSALLY WHO'S RUNNING IN ARIZONA AGAINST MARK KELLY, WE DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY HOW SHE'LL VOTE ON WITNESSES. SHE'S A STAUNCH SUPPORTERS AND HAS A LARGE TRUMP CONSTITUENCY, BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, IT'S A PURPLE STATE, AND IT'S UNCLEAR HOW SHE WILL VOTE. >> AND SOME SENATORS HAVE VERY VOCIFEROUSLY REMAINED SILENT ON THIS ISSUE. >> YES, THEIR SILENCE HAS BEEN DEAFENING. >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU! >> RIGHT! BECAUSE LET'S JUST STEP BACK FROM THIS. THIS IS, WHAT THE DID IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT, THEY BROKE THE LAW IN NOT SPENDING THE MONEY THAT CONGRESS HAVE APPROPRIATED SPECIFICALLY FOR GIVING AID TO UKRAINE. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DECIDED TO SPEND IT FOR WHATEVER REASON, AND THE ARTICLE 1 BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IS CONGRESS WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT.
THE POWER OF THE PURSE, THAT'S CONGRESS. THEY TAX YOU. BUT THAT'S CONGRESS' JOB. AND WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION DECIDES NOT TO ENACT OR CARRY OUT ESSENTIALLY THE LAW THAT CONGRESS CREATED, THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO IF YOU HAVE INSTITUTIONALISTS, INDIVIDUALS WHO FEEL A STRONG SENSE OF ARTICLE 1'S AUTHORITY, JUST ON THE BASE OF IT, THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO YOU COULD SEE MEMBERS AGAIN, SAY LIKE LAMAR ALEXANDER WHO'S A LONG TIME SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE, REPUBLICAN, HE'S RETIRING, BUT THIS JUST DOESN'T SIT RIGHT. AND WE COULD SEE HIM VOTING FOR WITNESSES TO SAY OKAY, WHY DID YOU BLOCK THE MONEY WE DIRECTED BE SPENT FOR UKRAINE? >> RIGHT.
YOU DO THINK CONGRESS KNOWING IT'S IN THEIR POWER TO DO SO WOULD BE CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE THIS IS LIKE YOU SAID A DIRECT POWER OF CONGRESS. >> RIGHT. AND BY THE PRESIDENT SAYING YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, WELL CONGRESS CAN TELL HIM WHAT TO DO, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WORKING TOGETHER TO RISE UP AND OVERTURN PIECES OF LEGISLATION HE VETOES. SO IN THE MIDST OF THIS OR THE BACKGROUND, TIM KAINE HAS GARNERED 51 VOTES FOR HIS WAR POWERS RESOLUTION THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS CONGRESS WILL NOT SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT GOING TO WORK, TAKING, YOU KNOW, ACTION AGAINST IRAN FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS.
BUT BASICALLY IT ASSERTS CONGRESS' ROLE WHEN IT COMES TO WAR POWERS. AND YOU KNOW WE'LL SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT. >> RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, ANITA, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME INSIGHT INTO WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE'S LEGAL STRATEGY WILL BE TOMORROW? >> REPORTER: YEAH, I MEAN WE GOT A HINT REALLY FROM WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE'S, YOU KNOW THE TRUMP DEFENSE PUT OUT THIS WEEKEND IN THE 2 DOCUMENTS THEY SENT OVER TO CAPITOL HILL. FAIRLY LENGTHY DOCUMENTS. THEY REALLY DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE UKRAINE SITUATION AS MUCH AS THEY TALKED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS. CAN THIS PRESIDENT BE BROUGHT UP ON IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, CAN HE GO THROUGH THE TRIAL. THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT PROCESS THAT THE HOUSE DIDN'T ENGAGE IN A FAIR PROCESS — >> ANITA, I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT THE SENATE IS BACK IN ORDER AND WE'LL LISTEN IN.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IS SPEAKING. >> THANK YOU, AND MR. CIPOLLONE. MR. SCHIFF, YOU HAVE AN HOUR AND WILL BE ABLE TO RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL. >> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. I AM VAL DEMINGS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGES THE PRESIDENT WITH 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 AN 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 MOTIVE, 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 THAT. 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'S GUILTY, AND HE KNOWS IT, AND HE KNOWS THE EVIDENCE HE'S CONCEALS WILL ONLY FURTHER DEMONSTRATE HIS CULPABILITY. NOT WITHSTANDING THIS EFFORT TO STONEWALL OUR INQUIRY, THE HOUSE AMASSED POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. CONFIRMED AND CORROBORATED BY HUNDREDS OF TEXTS, E-MAILS, AND DOCUMENTS. MUCH OF THAT EVIDENCE CAME FROM PATRIOTIC, NON-PARTISAN OFFICIALS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THEY'RE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HONORED THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW AND GAVE TESTIMONY REQUIRED BY CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA IN THE FACE OF THE PRESIDENT'S TAUNTS AND INSULTS.
THESE OFFICIALS DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN TO INDUCE AND PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. HIS USE OF $391 MILLION OF VITAL MILITARY AID TAXPAYER MONEY APPROPRIATED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS BY CONGRESS IS LEVERAGED TO FORCE UKRAINE TO COMPLY AND IS WITHHOLDING OF A MEETING DESPERATELY SOUGHT BY THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. THIS TESTIMONY WAS PARTICULARLY COMPELLING BECAUSE THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS AT THE VERY CENTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WRONG DOING. WE HEARD FIRSTHAND FROM DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS WHO SAW UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND WHO IMMEDIATELY, IMMEDIATELY SOUNDED THE ALARMS. AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WHO RETURNED TO UKRAINE LAST YEAR AS ACTING AMBASSADOR TEXTED OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION GORDON SONDLAND WHO WAS DELEGATED AUTHORITY OVER UKRAINE MATTER THAN NONE OTHER PRESIDENT TRUMP TESTIFIED WE KNEW THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, AND WE FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS. AND DAVID HOLMES, A SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV SAID IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT SOME ACTION ON A BIDEN INVESTIGATION WAS A CONDITION FOR AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING. DURING THEIR TESTIMONY, MANY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS DESCRIBE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS INCLUDING TEXT MESSAGES, E-MAILS, FORMER DIPLOMATIC CABLES, AND NOTES THAT WOULD 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 CONFERSES HE HAD WITH KEY OFFICIALS. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THE REFERRED TO E-MAILS OVER THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND THAT UKRAINE ANNOUNCE POLITICAL QUESTIONS. AS WE WILL SEE THROUGH E-MAILS 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 OVERSAW UKRAINE POLICY MATTERS IN WASHINGTON FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT WROTE AT LEAST 4 MEMOS TO DOCUMENT CONCERNING CONDUCT HE WITNESSED OR HEARD. AND AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT HE AND OTHER AMERICAN 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 SENSE 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'D 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 OFFICIALS WERE AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT'S PLOT AND HELPED CARRY IT OUT. WE'RE NOT TALKING A BURDENSOME NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC 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. AS I WILL DESCRIBE, THE SENATE SHOULD SUBPOENA THE FOLLOWING. NUMBER 1, WHAT'S APP AND OTHER TEXT MESSAGE COMMUNICATIONS. 2, E-MAILS. 3 DIPLOMATIC CABLES, AND 4 NOTES. GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS, THE HOUSE REQUESTED THEY BE PROVIDED. WHEN THESE REQUESTS WERE DENIED, WHEN OUR REQUESTS WERE DENIED, THE HOUSE ISSUED SUBPOENAS DEMANDING 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'S AN AFFRONT TO THE SENATE WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED A FULL RECORD ON WHICH TO JUDGE THE PRESIDENT'S GUILTY OR INNOCENCE, AND IT'S AN AFFRONT TO THE CONSTITUTION WHICH STATES 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. IN 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 OTED, 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 AND THEN ADDRESS IN A 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 INVESTIGATING 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 OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN VITAL MILITARY AID. AFTER THE STATE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFIRS 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 THAT HE WOULD RESPOND TO THE COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS BY THE RETURN DATE, OCTOBER 4th. 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 STONE WALL THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. TODAY 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 PROVIDE THEM BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE DIRECTED IT TO DEFY THE SUBPOENA.
NOT WITHSTANDING THIS UNLAWFUL OBSTRUCTION THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF BRAVE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, THE HOUSE WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY WITH REMARKABLE RESCISSION SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT THAT ARE SITTING RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE SITTING RIGHT NOW AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT. I'D LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH 4 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 APPS AND TEXT MESSAGES FROM OFFICIALS CAUGHT UP IN THE EVENTS, INCLUDING AMBASSADORS SONDLAND AND TAYLOR AND ALSO DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT.
ALL 3 OF WHOM CONFIRM IN THEIR TESTIMONY THEY REGULARLY USE WHAT'S APP TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETY KENT EXPLAINED, WHAT'S APP IS A DOMINANT FORM OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE WORLD. WE KNOW THE STATE DEPARTMENT POSSESSES THE RECORDS OF WHAT'S APP AND TEXT MESSAGES FROM CRITICAL EYEWITNESSES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND TAYLOR AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT. WE KNOW THE DEPARTMENT IS DELIBERATELY, DELIBERATELY CONCEALING THESE RECORDS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, AND WE KNOW THEY COULD CONTAIN HIGHLY RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN TO CONDITION OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL ACTS ON THE ANNOUNCEMENTS 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 WHAT'S APP MESSAGES. THOSE RECORDS CONFIRM WITH A FULL REVIEW OF THESE TEXTS AND WHAT'S APP MESSAGES WOULD HELP TO PAINT A VIVID FIRSTHAND PICTURE OF STATEMENTS AND BELIEFS HELD BY IMPORTANT PLAYERS OF EVENTS UNFOLDING IN REAL TIME.
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 TEXTED DIRECTLY WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THIS IMAGE PRODUCED BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER APPEARS TO BE A SCREEN SHOT OF A TEXT MESSAGE 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 QUO PRO 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 WHAT OTHER EXCHANGES ABOUT THE MILITARY AID AND THE 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 THE VITAL RECORDS. THESE ARE RECORDS THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE TURNED OVER IF NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING. TO GET A SENSE OF WHY TEXTS AND WHAT'S APP MESSAGES ARE SO VITAL, JUST CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE WE'VE GLEANED FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S PARTIAL PRODUCTION. ON JULY 10th AT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS, A UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TEXTED 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 THAT REALIZED THEY NEEDED TO APPEASE RUDY GIULIANI BY CARRYING OUT THE INVESTIGATIONS. OF COURSE MR. GIULIANI HAD PUBLICLY CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN FOREIGN POLICY, BUT WAS INSTEAD ADVANCING HIS CLIENT'S, THE PRESIDENT'S OWN PERSONAL INTEREST. IN ANOTHER EXCHANGE WE SAW 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 A SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL, HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE. ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP, HE'LL 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 TEXT ACCURATELY SUMMARIZED THE PRESIDENT'S 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. THE NEXT DAY AMBASSADOR VOLKER WROTE TO RUDY GIULIANI. THESE MESSAGES CONFIRM MR. GIULIANI'S CENTRAL ROLE, THE PREMEDITATED NATURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SOLICITATION OF POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AND PRESSURE CAMPAIGN WAGED ON UKRAINE BY MR. GIULIANI AND SENIOR OFFICIALS AT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DIRECTION. AGAIN THIS IS JUST SOME OF WHAT WE LEARNED FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S RECORDS. THERE WERE NUMEROUS WHAT'S APPS MESSAGES IN AUGUST WHILE AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND AND MR. GIULIANI WERE PRESSURING THEM TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED, AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TEXTS FURTHER REVEALS HOW MUCH MORE MATERIAL THERE LIKELY IS THAT RELATES TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THERE'S NO DOUBT MESSAGES FROM OTHER OFFICIALS INVOLVED AND IN TOUCH WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, TAYLOR, AND KENT WOULD FURTHER ILLUMINATE THE MALFEASANCE ADDRESSED IN OUR FIRST ARTICLE.
FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 19th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT THE UPCOMING JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THEN SENT AN E-MAIL UPDATING KEY OFFICIALS, INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, AND HIS SENIOR ADVISOR ROBERT BLAIR. IN THIS E-MAIL HE NOTED THAT HE PREPARED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO WAS WILLING TO MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DESIRED. SECRETARY PERRY AND MICK MULVANEY THEN RESPONDED TO SONDLAND ACKNOWLEDGING THEY RECEIVED THE E-MAIL AND RECOMMENDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PHONE CALL THAT BECAME THE JULY 25th 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 DIRECTLY EXPLAINED THAT THIS E-MAIL DEMONSTRATED QUOTE EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP. >> EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP. IT WAS NO SECRET. EVERYONE WAS INVOLVED 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 AFTER SONDLAND PERSONALLY CONVEYED THE PRESIDENT'S WISH FOR INVESTIGATIONS 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 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 EVIDENCE THE FULL E-MAIL CHAIN AND OTHER RELATED E-MAILS TO THIS KEY TIME PERIOD WOULD ALSO BE HIGH WILL I RELEVANT. WE DON'T HAVE THE 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 OMPLETE 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 LIMITED TO A VERY NARROW TIME PERIOD, BUT NEVERTHELESS, DESPITE THE HEAVY REDACTIONS, THESE HIGHLY LIMITED GLIMPSES INTO THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S SECRET RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT THOSE RECORDS ARE FULL OF INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THIS TRIAL. FOR EXAMPLE, SEVERAL OF THE NEWLY RELEASED E-MAILS SHOW MULTIPLE CONTACTS BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO AND MR. GIULIANI. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FACT. MR. GIULIANI SERVED AS THE PRESIDENT'S POINT PERSON IN EXECUTING HIS CORRUPT SCHEME. MR. GIULIANI REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED HE WAS FURTHERING THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AGENDA AND POLITICAL INTERESTS, NOT TO PROMOTE THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND SENIOR OFFICIALS DIRECTED TO SUPPORT GIULIANI'S EFFORTS IN UKRAINE IS RELEVANT, DISTURBING, AND TELLING. FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW THAT ON MARCH 26th AS MR. GIULIANI WAS PURSUING THE PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE AGENDA IN UKRAINE, AND JUST A DAY AFTER THE HILL PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE OF GIULIANI'S UKRAINE CONSPIRACY THEORY, SECRETARY POMPEO AND MR.
GIULIANI SPOKE DIRECTLY ON THE PHONE. THAT SAME WEEK PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER PERSONAL SECRETARY WAS ASKED BY MR. GIULIANI'S ASSISTANT FOR A DIRECT CONNECTION TO SECRETARY POMPEO. BASED ON THESE RECORDS, IT IS IT ALSO CLEAR THAT SECRETARY POMPEO WAS ALREADY ACTIVITY ENGAGED WITH MR. GIULIANI IN EARLY SPRING OF 2019, AND IT ALSO APPEARS 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 THE DETAILS AND EXCHANGES WITH GIULIANI AND SECRETARY POMPEO.
MOREOVER, BASED ON CALL RECORDS LAWFULLY OBTAINED BY THE HOUSE FROM THIS PERIOD WE KNOW FROM MARCH 24th TO MARCH 30th, MR. GIULIANI CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE SEVERAL TIMES AND ALSO CONNECTED WITH AN UNIDENTIFIED NUMBER NUMEROUS TIMES. THESE RECORDS SHOW THAT ON MARCH 27th, MR. GIULIANI PLACED A SERIES OF CALLS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT SWITCHBOARD. SECRETARY POMPEO'S ASSISTANT AND THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD IN QUICK SUCCESS, ALL WITHIN LESS THAN 30 MINUTES. OBTAINING E-MAILS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERSHIP'S INTERACTION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRIVATE LAWYER IN THIS PERIOD WHEN MR.
GIULIANI WAS ACTIVITY 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, EXCUSE ME, THAT LEV PARNAS, AN ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI, HAS ASSISTED HIM IN HIS REPRESENTATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT GIULIANI LIKELY SPOKE WITH SECRETARY POMPEO ABOUT UKRAINE MATTERS EVEN EARLIER THAN PREVIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD. ACCORDING TO MR. PARNAS, GIULIANI WROTE IN EARLY 2019 THAT HE APPARENTLY SPOKE WITH SECRETARY POMPEO ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE U.S. AMBASSADOR IN UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH. MR. GIULIANI VIEWED HER AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME AND ORCHESTRATED A LONG RUNNING SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER. HERE'S WHAT MR. PARNAS SAID ABOUT THIS JUST LAST WEEK. >> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PART OF THE MOTIVATION TO GET RID OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TO GET HER OUT OF POST WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS IN THE WAY OF HIS EFFORT TO GET THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF JOE BIDEN? >> THAT WAS THE ONLY MOTIVATION.
>> THAT WAS THE ONLY MOTIVATION? >> THERE WAS NO OTHER MOTIVATION. >> THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE KNOW. THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS WE KNOW TO EXIST, BUT THERE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY MORE, INCLUDING FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S REQUEST FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT OF HER AROUND THE TIME THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS SPEAKING DIRECTLY, DIRECTLY WITH SECRETARY POMPEO. BUT THAT STATEMENT NEVER CAME. THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS GATHERED THESE RECORDS, AND THEY'RE READY TO BE TURNED OVER PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA FROM THE SENATE.
IT WOULD NOT BE A TIME CONSUMING OR LENGTHY PROCESS TO OBTAIN THEM, AND THERE ARE CLEARLY RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME. IF WE WANT THE FULL AND COMPLETE TRUTH, THEY WE NEED TO SEE THESE E-MAILS. THE SENATE SHOULD ALSO SEEK A THIRD ITEM THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE, AND THAT'S AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S 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 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 IN PRIVATE, AND I EXPRESSED TO HIM MY SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WHILE THE UKRAINIANS WERE DEFENDING THEIR COUNTRY FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. AMBASSADOR BOLTON RECOMMENDED A SEND A FIRST PERSON CABLE TO SECRETARY POMPEO RELAYING MY CONCERNS. I DID SO ON AUGUST 29th, DESCRIBING THE FOLLY I SAW IN WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AT A TIME WHEN HOSTILITIES WERE STILL ACTIVE IN THE EAST AND RUSSIA WAS WATCHING CLOSELY TO GAUGE THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.
THE RUSSIANS WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE HUMILIATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT THE HANDS OF THE AMERICANS. I TOLD THE SECRETARY 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 TO UKRAINE. >> WHILE WE KNOW FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND GEORGE KENT, WE KNOW THE CABLE WAS RECEIVED, WE DON'T KNOW HOW OR ARE WHETHER THE STATE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED. NOR DO WE KNOW IF THE STATE DEPARTMENT POSSESSES ANY OTHER PERSONAL RECORDS RELATING TO THIS CABLE. THIS CABLE FIRST DEMONSTRATES THE HARM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BY USING FOREIGN POLICY AN AS INSTRUMENT OF HIS OWN PERSONAL, SECOND ON THE SAME DAY THE CABLE WAS SENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S SENIOR AID TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT HE WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE.
HE ADDED THE UKRAINIANS WERE JUST DESPERATE FOR IT TO BE LEASED. IN OTHER WORDS, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EMPLOY TO APPLY PRESSURE ON UKRAINE WAS WORKING. AND FINALLY BASED ON RECORDING BY THE NEW YORK TIMES, WE NOW KNOW THAT WITHIN DAYS OF AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SENDING THE CABLE, PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED THE ASSISTANCE WITH SECRETARY P.M. AND JOHN BOLTON. YOU PERHAPS IT WAS DURING THIS MEETING, THERE PERHAPS PRODDED BY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CABLE, ALL 3 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. ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME, THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAN NO LODGER CLAIM THE TOPIC OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE REMAINS CLASSIFIED TODAY IN LIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO DECLASSIFY HIS 2 TELEPHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDET ZELENSKY AND MR. MULVANEY'S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE. THE FOURTH CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE SENATE SHOULD SUBPOENA ARE CONTEMPORANEOUS FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS FROM STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WHO WERE CAUGHT UP IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEMES.
THESE WOULD HELP COMPLETE THE RECORD AND CLARIFY HOW THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNFOLDED IN REAL TIME AND HOW THE UKRAINIANS REACTED. MR. KENT WROTE NOTES OR MEMOS TO FILE AT LEAST 4 TIMES ACCORDING TO HIS TESTIMONY 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 1st WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? >> I DID. >> AND DID YOU TAKE NOTES RELATED TO MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH NOT ALL OF THEM THAT YOU RECITED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT? >> ALL OF THEM. >> AND YOU ARE AWARE, I PRESUME TAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PROVIDED THE NOTES. >> I AM AWARE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MAY BE COMING SOONER OR LATER. >> WELL, WE WOULD WELCOME THAT. >> THE STATE DEPARTMENT NEVER PRODUCED THE NOTES. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT TESTIFIED ABOUT A KEY DOCUMENT HE DRAFTED ON AUGUST 16th DESCRIBING HIS CONCERNS THAT THE PRESIDENT, THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS ATTEMPTING TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO OPENING POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.
>> I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOU MR. KENT. IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID THAT, UM, YOU HAD IN MID-AUGUST IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME THAT GIULIANI'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. UM, MR. KENT, DID YOU ACTUALLY WRITE A MEMO DOCUMENTING YOUR CONCERNS THAT THERE WAS AN EFFORT UNDERWAY TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO OPEN AN 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 SUBJECT TO THE SEPTEMBER 27th SUBPOENA. >> AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE PIECE OF PAPER FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT RELATIVE TO THIS INVESTIGATION. >> DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT ALSO MEMORIALED A CONVERSATION WHERE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBED A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL ACCUSING AMERICA OF HYPOCRISY FOR ADVISING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGAINST INVESTIGATING A PRIOR UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.
MR. KENT SAID VOLKER MADE THE POINT THAT THE UKRAINIANS, WHO HAD OPENED THEIR AUTHORITIES UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD OPENED INVESTIGATIONS OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT. HE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS APPROPRIATE. AND THEN DOUBTED AMERICAN CREDIBILITY ON ANTICORRUPTION MEASURES. RECORDS OF THESE CONVERSATIONS AND OTHER NOTES BY SENIOR OFFICIALS IN UKRAINE WOULD FLESH OUT AND HELP COMPLETE THE RECORD FOR THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. 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 HAVE SOUGHT THESE MATERIALS IN COURT OR AWAITED FURTHER LAWSUITS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. ANY SUCH SESSION IS MERITLESS. TO START THE CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO REQUIRE SUCH LAWSUITS, WHICH HAS NEVER OCCURRED, IT'S NEVER OCCURRED IN ANY PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT.
MOREOVER THE PRESIDENT HAS REPEATEDLY ARGUMENTED THE HOUSE IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO FILE A SUIT TO ENFORCE ITS SUBPOENAS. AND IN THE FREEDOM OF ADMINISTRATION ACT CASES, THEY'VE ONLY GRUDGINGLY AND SLOWLY PRODUCED AN EXTREMELY SMALL SET OF MATERIALS BUT HAS INSISTED ON APPLYING HEAVY AND DUBIOUS REDACTIONS. 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 CAN NOT LET THE PRESIDENT PLAY A GAME OF KEEP AWAY AND DICTATE WHAT EVIDENCE THE SENATORS CAN AND CANNOT SEE BURIED ON HIS GUILTY OR INNOCENCE. THIS BODY CANNOT PERMIT HIM TO HIDE ALL EVIDENCE WHILE INSISTING ON LAWSUITS HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY THINK WE CAN FILE.
ONES HE KNOWINGS WON'T BE RESOLVED UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION HE IS TRYING TO CHEAT TO WIN. INSTEAD, TO HONOR YOUR OATHS TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE WE EARN EACH SENATOR TO REPORT 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 HOW THEY SHOULD WORK HERE. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE 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 DEMAND 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. CIPOLLONE? >> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I WON'T REPEAT ALL THE ARGUMENTS 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 THE DO SOMETHING HE WOULDN'T DO FOR HIMSELF, AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAID WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO DO OUR JOBS FOR US. AND MR. SCHIFF CAME UP HERE AND 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 CHARLIE KUPPERMAN HIRED. HE SAID IN RESPONSE TO ONE, TO THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 5th FROM CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, AND THE HOUSE CHAIRS, WITHDRAWING THE SUBPOENA TO DR.
KUPPERMAN, 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'RE DISMAYED THAT COMMITTEES HAVE DECIDED NOT TO SEEK RESOLUTION FROM THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ON THIS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND ENDS THE LETTER BY SAYING IF THE HOUSE CHOOSES NOT TO PURSUE THROUGH SUBPOENA THE TESTIMONY OF DR. KUPPERMAN AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON, LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR, THAT'S THE HOUSE'S DECISION, AND THEY MADE THAT DECISION. THEY NEVER SUBPOENAED AMBASSADOR BOLTON, NEVER CALLED HIM IN THE HOUSE, AND WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA FOR KUPPERMAN BEFORE THE JUDGE COULD RULE AND ASKED THE CASE BE MOOTED. THEN THEY CAME HERE AND ASK YOU TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR JOHN BOLTON. IT'S NOT RIGHT. I YIELD THE REMINDER OF MY TIME TO MR.
SEKULOW. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, MANAGERS SAID FACTS ARE A STUBBORN THING. LET ME GIVE YOU SOME FACTS. IT'S FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ACTUALLY TESTIFIED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT TIE AID TO INVESTIGATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGED ANY LEAK HE SUGGESTED WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN SPECULATION. UNCONNECTED TO ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT. HERE'S THE QUESTION, WHAT ABOUT THE AID? AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID THE AID WAS NOT TIED. ANSWER, I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE CONCLUSIVELY TIED EITHER. I SAID I WAS PRESUMING IT. QUESTION, OKAY. SO THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD YOU THEY WERE TIED? ANSWER, THAT'S CORRECT. QUESTION, SO YOUR TESTIMONY AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S TESTIMONY IS CONSISTENT, AND THE PRESIDENT DID NOT TIE INVESTIGATIONS, AID TO INVESTIGATIONS. ANSWER, THAT'S CORRECT. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO TESTIFIED HE ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY ABOUT THE ISSUES AND THE PRESIDENT EXPLICITLY TOLD HIM HE DIDN'T 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 JOHNSON. THAT'S THE FACTS. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. HERE'S THE LAW. AS EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS KNOWS, UNDOUBTEDLY AWARE, SEPARATE FROM PRIVILEGES IS THE PRESIDENT'S COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGES. THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE HAS CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS. COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED A GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE CONVERSATIONS THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICIAL DUTIES BECAUSE SUCH IS NODED TO PROTECT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXECUTIVE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.
IT 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 PROVIDE A PRESIDENT AND THOSE THAT ASSIST HIM WITH FREEDOM TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES IN THE PROCESS OF ULTIMATELY SHAPING POLICIES AND DECISIONS AND TO DO SO IN A WAY MANY WOULD BE UNWILLING TO EXPRESS EXCEPT IN PRIVATE. FOR THIS REASON PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH PRIVILEGED. THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT THIS PRIVILEGE. COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS, AND BY THE WAY, LAWYER LAWSUITS, LAWYER LAWSUITS? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DUALLY ELECTED, AND THE MANAGERS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT LAWYER LAWSUITS? THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS LAWYER LAWSUITS. IT'S DISRESPECTING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO EVEN SAY THAT IN THIS CHAMBER.
HERE'S THE LAW. COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS IN THE COURSE OF PREPARING ADVICE COME UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE, EVEN WHEN THE 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 MOST APPLY BOTH TO COMMUNICATIONS WHICH THESE ADVISORS SOLICIT AND RECEIVE FROM OTHERS AS WELL AS THOSE THEY AUTHORIZE THEMSELVES.
THE PRIVILEGE ALSO EXTENDS TO THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS STAFF BECAUSE OFTEN THE STAFF HAVE TO FORMULATE ADVICE GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT. LAWSUITS. THE CONSTITUTION. A DANGEROUS MOMENT FOR AMERICA WHEN AN IMPEACHMENT OF A 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. >> MS. DEMINGS, YOU HAVE 13 MINUTES OF REBUTTAL. MR. SCHIFF? >> THANK YOU, LET ME JUST RESPOND TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUE'S POINTS IF I CAN. FIRST COUNSEL SAID WELL THE HOUSE WOULD LIKE TO CALL JOHN BOLTON, BUT THE HOUSE DID NOT SEEK HIS TESTIMONY DURING THE INVESTIGATION. FIRST OF ALL WE DID. SITED JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY, AND HE TOLD US I'M NOT COMING AND IF YOU SUBPOENA ME I WILL SUE YOU. THAT WAS HIS ANSWER. I WILL SUE YOU. HE'S REPRESENTED BY THE SAME LAWYER THAT REPRESENTS DR. KUPPERMAN WHO ACTUALLY DID SUE US WHEN HE WAS SUBPOENAED SO WE KNOW JOHN BOLTON WOULD MAKE GOOD ON THAT THREAT. NOW MR. SEKULOW SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT LAWYER LAWSUITS, AND I HAVE TO CONFESS I WASN'T COMPLETELY FOLLOWING THE ARGUMENT, BUT SOMETHING ABOUT LAWYER LAWSUITS, 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 CASES ARGUING CONGRESS CAN'T GO TO COURT TO ENFORCE ITS SUBPOENAS, SO WHEN THEY SAY SOMETHING ABOUT LAWYER LAWSUITS, AND THEY SAY THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE HOUSE SUING TO GET THE WITNESSES TO SHOW UP, THEIR OWN OTHER LAWYERS ARE IN COURT SAYING THE HOUSE HAS NO SUCH RIGHT.
THEY'RE IN COURT SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE LAWYER LAWSUITS. SO THAT ARGUMENT CAN'T BE MADE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. WHAT'S MORE, IN THE MCGAHN LITIGATION THAT TESTED THE SAME BOGUS THEORY OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, IN THE LAWSUIT INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER DON MCGAHN. THE ONE TOLD TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN TO LIE ABOUT IT, THAT LAWSUIT TO GET HIS TESTIMONY. JUDGE JACKSON RULED ON THAT RECENTLY, ON THAT BOGUS CLAIM, THE JUDGE SAID THAT'S NONSENSE. BUT 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. IT'S ONE ALREADY FILED INVOLVING DON MCGAHN. THAT'S ABOUT TO BE DECIDED. SO UNLESS YOUR REAL PURPOSE HERE IS DELAY, TO AVOID TESTIMONY, WERE ASK YOU JUST WISH TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF A WILLINGNESS TO COME FORWARD, TO HAVE THE COURT'S BLESSING, IF THAT'S REALLY TRUE, AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE MCGAHN 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'D BE UNWILLING TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH A SENATE, HE COULDN'T SHOW UP FOR AN INTERVIEW, BUT HE COULD PUT IT IN A BOOK. I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T SPEAK TO HIS MOTIVATION. BUT I CAN TELL YOU HE'S WILLING TO COME NOW IF YOU'RE WILLING TO HEAR HIM. BUT OF COURSE THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO BE BOUND BY THAT COURT DECISION WITH MCGAHN. BUT THE COURT SAID SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE ONE OF THE BOLTON'S LAWYERS MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY'RE NATIONAL SECURITY PEOPLE AND DON MCGAHN IS JUST THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, NO OFFENSE TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, BUT APPARENTLY YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.
SO THEY COULDN'T BE BOUND BY WHAT THE COURT IN THAT CASE SAID. WELL THE JUDGE IN THE MCGAHN CASE SAID THIS APPLIES TO NATIONAL SECURITY STUFF TOO. SO WE HAVE A DECISION. AND THE HARRIET MYERS CASE, THE COURT MADE CLEAR THERE WAS NO ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE IMMUNITY. THERE WERE ALSO COMMENTS ABOUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S TESTIMONY, AND IT WAS ALONG THESE LINES. VOLKER SAID THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD HIM THE AID WAS CONDITIONED OR THE MEETING WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE DOING THE SHAM INVESTIGATION, SO I GUESS THAT'S CASE CLOSED. UNLESS THE PRESIDENT TOLD EVERYONE, CALLED THEM INTO HIS OFFICE AND SAID I'LL TELL YOU NOW AND YOU KNOW, IF HE DIDN'T TELL EVERYONE, I GUESS 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 THAT 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, IT'S PART OF WHY THEY WITHHELD THE MONEY.
AND WHEN REPORTERS SAID THEY'RE DESCRIBING A QUID QUO PRO, HE SAID YEAH, 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? AND IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS, IF THEY'RE REALLY CHALLENGING THE FACT THE PRESIDENT CONDITIONED $400 MILLION IN MILITARY AID TO AN ALLY AT WAR, IF MICK MULVANEY HAS ALREADY SAID PUBLICLY 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 IMPARTIAL JUSTICE REQUIRES YOU TO HEAR FROM HIM? NOW COUNCIL ALSO REFERRED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AND SONDLAND SAYING WELL THE PRESIDENT TOLD ME THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO. OF COURSE AT THE TIME HE BECAME AWARE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT. PRESUMABLY BY MR. CIPOLLONE. SO THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT THIS WAS GOING TO COME TO LIGHT ON THE ADVICE APPARENTLY OF MR.
CIPOLLONE OR OTHERS. THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WAS WITHHELD FROM CONGRESS, THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. BUT NONETHELESS, THE WHITE HOUSE WAS AWARE OF THE COMPLAINT. WE LAUNCHED OUR OWN INVESTIGATIONS. YES, THEY GOT CAUGHT, AND WHAT DOES HE SAY? IT'S CALLED FALSE EXCULPATORY, THAT'S A FANCY WAY OF SAYING IT'S A FALSE, PHONY ALIBI. NO QUID PRO QUO. HE WASN'T CAN EVEN ASKED THE QUESTION, HE JUST BLURTED IT OUT. THAT'S THE DEFENSE? AND HE DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THE OTHER HALF OF THE CONVERSATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT SAYS NO QUID PRO QUO. BUT ZELENSKY NEEDS TO GO TO THE MIC, AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT. SO THAT'S LIKE SAYING NO QUID PRO QUO EXCEPT QUID PRO QUO. THAT'S THEIR ALIBI? THEY DIDN'T ALSO MENTION, AND YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THIS OF COURSE IN THE REAL TRIAL IF WE HAVE A REAL TRIAL. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID WHEN ASKED IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, THE ANSWER IS YES.
AND WHAT'S MORE WHEN IT CAME TO MILITARY AID IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS 2 PLUS 2. WE'RE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN ADD 2 PLUS 2. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WATCHING THAT CAN ADD 2 PLUS 2 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 EXPLANATION FOR HOLDING UP AID THAT WE ALL SUPPORTED AND VOTED ON IN A VERY BIPARTISAN WAY HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR IT. IN THE CALL HE NEVER BRINGS UP CORRUPTION EXCEPT THE CORRUPTION HE WANTS TO BRING ABOUT. IT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIUS TO ADD 2 PLUS 2. IT EQUALS 4 OR THIS IN CASE IT EQUALS GUILT. NOW YOU'LL HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS. 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 ASK ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS? OR THE HOUSE, MR. SCHIFF, WHAT ABOUT THIS TEXT MESSAGE? WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ASK ME THAT QUESTION OR MY COLLEAGUES? I THINK YOU WOULD, I THINK YOU SHOULD, BUT THE BACKWARDS WAY THE RESOLUTION IS DRAFTED, YOU GET 16 HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT DOCUMENTS YOU'VE NEVER SEEN. AND IF YOU DO DECIDE AT THAT POINT ONCE THE TRIAL IS ESSENTIALLY 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? ANY SENSE AT ALL? I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT MAY BE IN THE DOCUMENTS. YOU HEARD ABOUT THE THREE AMIGOS. AMIGO VOLKER AND AMIGO SONDLAND ARE 2 OF THE 3 PEOPLE THE PRESIDENT PUT IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY. THE THIRD AMIGO IS SECRETARY RICK PERRY, THE FORMER SECRETARY OF ENERGY. BUT WE KNOW FROM AMIGO SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS CERTAINLY IN THE LOOP AND KNEW ALL ABOUT THIS SCHEME. AND WE KNOW FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S TESTIMONY AND HIS TEXT MESSAGES AND 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? WELL SURPRISINGLY WE DIDN'T GET THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY RECORDS EITHER. BUT ANY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IS COVERED BY THIS AMENDMENT. WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO KNOW? DON'T 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.
IT'S THE PRESIDENT THAT'S TRYING TO RUSH THROUGH THIS. AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT WHATEVER YOU DECIDE HERE, MAYBE A WASTE OF BREATH AND ALREADY DECIDED, BUT WHATEVER YOU DECIDE HERE, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE. MAYBE IT WILL BE SOMEONE IN THIS CHAMBER. BUT I GUARANTEE YOU THIS, WHOEVER THAT NEXT PRESIDENT IS, WHETHER THEY DID SOMETHING RIGHT OR WRONG, THERE WILL COME A TIME THAT YOU IN THIS BODY WILL WANT TO SUBPOENA THAT PRESIDENT AND THAT ADMINISTRATION. YOU'LL WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS. ARE YOU PREPARED TO SAY 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? YOU WANT ME TO COME 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 — >> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED. >> I YIELD BACK, THANK YOU. >> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. >> MOTION TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT. >> THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO TABLE. IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? >> THERE IS. >> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. >> MR. ALEXANDER. >> AYE. >> MR. BENNETT. >> NO. >> MRS. BLACKBURN. >> NO. >> MR. BOOKER. >> NO. >> MR. BOSEMAN. >> NO. >> MR. BROWN. >> NO. >> MR. BURR. >> NO. >> MS. CANTWELL. >> NO. >> MR. CASEY. >> NO. >> MR. CASSIDY. >> NO. >> MS. COLLINS [ INAUDIBLE ] >> MR. >> NO. >> MR. COTTON. >> AYE. >> MR. KRAMER. >> AYE. >> MR. CRUZ. >> AYE. >> MR. DANES. >> AYE. >> MISS DUCKWORTH. >> NO.
>> MS. ERNST. >> NO. >> MRS. FEINSTEIN. >> NO. >> MR. GARDNER AYE. >> MR. GRASSLEY. >> NO. >> MS. HARRIS. >> NO. >> MR. HOLLY. >> AYE. >> MR. HOVEN. >> AYE. >> MR. ENHOFF. >> AYE. >> MR. JOHNSON. >> AYE. >> MR. JONES. >> NO. >> MR. KAINE. >> NO. >> MR. KENNEDY. >> AYE. >> MR. KING. >> NO. >> MS. KLOBUCHAR. >> NO. >> MR. LANGFORD. >> AYE. >> MR. LEHI. >> NO. >> MR. LEE. >> AYE. >> MRS. LEFLER. >> AYE. >> MR. MANCHIN. >> NO. >> MR. MARKEY. >> NO. >> MR.
MCCONNELL. >> AYE. >> MS. MCSALLY. >> AYE. >> MR. MERKLEY. >> NO. >> MR. MORAN. >> AYE. >> MS. MURKOWSKI. >> AYE. >> MR. MURPHY. >> NO. >> MRS. MURRAY. >> NO. >> MR. PAUL. >> AYE. >> MR. PURDUE. >> AYE. >> MR. PETTERS. >> NO. >> MR. PORTMAN. >> NO. >> MR. REID. >> AYE. >> MR. ROBERTS. >> AYE. >> MR. ROMNEY. >> AYE. >> MS. ROSEN. >> NO. >> MR. ROUNDS. >> AYE. >> MR. RUBIO. >> AYE. >> MR. SANDERS. >> NO. >> MR. SASSE. >> AYE. >> MR. SCHUMER. >> NO. >> MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA. >> AYE.
>> MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. >> AYE. >> MR. SHELBY. >> AYE. >> MS. SMITH. >> NO. >> MR. SULLIVAN. >> AYE. >> MR. TESTER. >> NO. >> MR. THOONE. >> NO. >> MR. TILLIS. >> AYE. >> MR. TOOMEY. >> AYE. >> MR. UDAL. >> NO. >> MR. WARNER. >> NO. >> MS. WARREN. >> NO. >> MR. WHITEHOUSE. >> NO. >> MR. WICKER. >> NO. >> MR. WIDEN. >> NO. >> MR. YOUNG. >> AYE. >> IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? IF NOT 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 DOCUMENTED AND ASK THAT IT BE READ. >> THE CLERK WILL READ THE AMENDMENT. >> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBER 1286. AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE RESOLVING CLAUSE, INSERT THE FOLLOWING. SECTION NOT WITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULES 5 AND 6 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE, IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, 1, 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 1st 2019 TO THE PRESIDENT 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 THE 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 USAI AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS FMF INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 1, COMMUNICATIONS AMONG, BETWEEN, OR REFERRING TO DIRECTOR MICHAEL JOHN MICK MULVANEY, ASSIST ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT ROBERT BLAIR, ACTING DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFEY OR ANY OTHER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE.
2, COMMUNIQUESES RELATED TO REQUESTS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR UKRAINE MILITARY ASSISTANCES AND RESPONSE TO THOSE REQUESTS. 3, 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. 4, COMMUNICATIONS SENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE REGARDING A HOLD OR BLOCK ON CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATIONS REGARDING THE RELEASE OF FMF FUNDS TO UKRAINE. 5, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INCLUDED BUT NOT LIMITED IN THE UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFEY, MARK ú MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE. 6, ALL DRAFT AND FINAL VERSIONS OF THE AUGUST 7th, 2019 MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, AND OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ABOUT THE RELEASE OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, SECURITY ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 7, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO AUGUST 28th, 2019 OF ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, OR FREEZING OF UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE, FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE INCLUDING ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS WITH UKRAINE REGARDING POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL DELAYS IN ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
COMMUNICATIONS, OPINIONS, ADVICE, COUNCIL, APPROVALS, OR CONCURRENCES PROVIDED BY ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET REGARDING THE ACTUAL SUSPENSION, HOLDING, DELAYING, OR FREEZING OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE INCLUDING LEGALITY UNDER THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT. C, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFEY TAKING OVER DUTIES RELATED TO APPORTIONMENTS OF AID FROM MARK SANDY OR ANY OTHER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE. ALL MEETINGS RELATED TO THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INTERAGENCY MEETINGS ON JULY19th, JULY 23rd, JULY 26th, AND JULY 31st, 2019 INCLUDING ANY DIRECTIONS TO STAFF PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETINGS AND ANY READ OUTS FROM THE MEETINGS.
E, THE DECISION ANNOUNCED ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11th, 2019 TO RELEASE APPROPRIATED FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NOTES, DOCUMENTS, OR MORE RELATED TO IT. 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 PHONE CALLS, AS WELL AS HIS SEPTEMBER 25th, 2019 MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 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 AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. >> THE MAJORITY 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'LL BE MOVING TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT, AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT BOTH EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES ARE ADDRESSED IN THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION. >> THANK YOU.
THE AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR 2 HOURS, EQUALLY DIVIDED. MR. MANAGER SCHIFF, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT OF THE MOTION? >> PROPONENT. >> MR. CIPOLLONE, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT? >> OPPONENT. >> THEN MR. SCHIFF, YOUR SIDE WILL PROCEED FIRST AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL. THANK YOU. >> BEFORE I BEGIN, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS RESERVE THE BALL 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'M JASON CROW FROM THE GREAT STATE OF COLORADO. THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO SUBPOENA KEY DOCUMENTS DOCUMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OR OMB. THESE 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 RE-ELECTION RAIN. 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 THESE MEMORIES WAS SCAVENGING SCRAP METAL ON THE STREETS OF BAGHDAD IN 2003 THAT WE HAD TO BOLT ON THE SIDE OF OUR TRUCKS BECAUSE WE HAD NO ARMOR TO PROTECT AGAINST ROAD SIDE 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 WE'RE TALKING OF $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 OUTER THIS SCHEME ALONE. HE NEEDED A LOT OF PEOPLE TO HELP HIM. AND THAT'S WHY WE KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT IT AS DO TODAY. BUT THERE IS MUCH MORE TO KNOW. >> INCLUDING LAWYERS THAT THE HOLD. VIOLATING THE LAW. THEY EXPOSE THE LENGTHS THE OMB WENT THROUGH TO JUSTIFY THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD. THEY WOULD SHOW THAT SENIOR OFFICIALS REPEATEDLY TRIED TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO RELEASE THE HOLD. 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 THE DOCK UNITED — DOCUMENTS OR GUESSING WHAT THEY MIGHT SHOW. WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMITTEES IN THE HOUSE TALKED ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS OMB CONTINUES TO HOLD TO THIS DAY. WE KNOW THE DOCUMENTS EXIST AND KNOW THE ONLY REASON WE DO NOT HAVE THEM IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED OMB NOT TO PRODUCE THEM.
BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT THEY WOULD SHOW. TO DEMONSTRATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OMB DOCUMENTS AND VALUE THEY PROVIDE IN THE TRIAL, I WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT WE KNOW EXISTS BUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO TURN OVER. AS WE DISCUSSED, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO TURN OVER ANY DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE IN RESPONSE TO MULTIPLE SUBPOENAS AND REQUESTS. BASED ON WHAT'S KNOWN FROM THE TESTIMONY AND THE FEW DOCUMENTS OBTAINED FROM PUBLIC REPORTING AND LAWSUITS, IT'S CLEAR THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE'S 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 MAKE CLEAR THE DOCUMENTS STILL CONCEALED BY THE PRESIDENT. WE KNOW THE OMB HAS DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL 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. THIS FUNDING HAD WIDE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BECAUSE AS MANY WITNESSES TESTIFIED, PROVIDING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE ALSO BENEFITS OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY.
IMPORTANTLY THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTIONS CAME WEEKS AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE HAD TAKEN THE ANTICORRUPTION 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'S BEEN FOLLOWED EVERY YEAR THAT WE'VE PROVIDED THAT ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING THE FIRST 2 YEARS UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. NONETHELESS THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTIONS CAME DAYS AFTER DOD ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE ON JUNE 1st ANNOUNCING THEY'D PROVIDE THEIR 250 MILLION PORTION OF THE AID TO UKRAINE. ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTING, THE DAY AFTER DOD'S PRESS RELEASE, A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL NAMED ROBERT BLAIR CALLED THE OMB ACTING DIRECTOR TO TALK ABOUT THE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE. ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS MR. BLAIR SAID QUOTE WE NEED TO HOLD IT UP. OMB HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE MY DOCUMENTED RELATED TO THIS CONVERSATION. THE SENATE CAN GET THEM BY PASSING THE AMENDMENT AND ISSUES A SUBPOENA.
BUT THERE'S MORE. THE SAME DAY BLAIR SAID TO HOLD UP THE AID, MICHAEL DUFFEY E-MAILED THE DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND TOLD HER THE PRESIDENT HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AID. HE COPIED MARK SANDY, A CAREER OFFICIAL AT OMB WHO TOLD US ABOUT THE E-MAIL IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE. LIKE ALL OTHERS THAT E-MAIL WAS NOT PRODUCED BE BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.
WE KNOW THE E-MAIL EXISTS HOWEVER BECAUSE IN RESPONSE TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUIT, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS FORCED TO RELEASE A REDACTED E-MAIL CONSISTENT WITH SANDY'S DESCRIPTION. BUT OMB'S PROVIDED NONE OF THE DOCK CAN YULES YULES ENTS TO THE HOUSE. 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 THEY ISSUED THE SUBPOENA.
PICKUP BUT THERE'S MORE. THEN BLAIR E-MAILED DUFFEY SAYING 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 SANDY, 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 12th E-MAIL DIDN'T MENTION CONCERNS ABOUT ANY OTHER COUNTRY OR AID PACKAGES.
JUST UKRAINE. SO THE DOZENS OF COUNTRIES THAT WE PROVIDE AID IN 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 THE JULY 12th E-MAIL AND REFUSED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS SURROUNDING IT BECAUSE BECAUSE OMB WAS TOLD TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY THE PRESIDENT. 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 ORDERS TO HOLD THE MILITARY AID. IN THE SECOND HALF OF JULY, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL CONVENED A SERIES OF MEETINGS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON MILITARY AID. OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHOW WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE MEETINGS. FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 18th, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF CONVENED A ROUTINE INTERAGENCY 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 DIPLOMAT TO UKRAINE PARTICIPATED IN THE MEETING, AND HE DESCRIBED HIS REACTION AT HIS OPEN HEARING.
>> IN A REGULAR NSC SECURE VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL ON JULY 18th, I HEARD A STAFF PERSON FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET SAY THERE WAS A HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BUT COULD NOT SAY WHY. FOR THE END OF THE AN OTHERWISE NORMAL MEETING, THE PERSON OFF SCREEN SAID SHE WAS FROM OMB AND HER BOSS INSTRUCTED HER NOT TO IMPROVE ADDITIONAL SECURITY SPENDING FOR UKRAINE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
I AND OTHERS SAT IN ASTONISHMENT. THE UKRAINIANS WERE FIGHTING RUSSIANS AND COUNTED NOT ONLY ON 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 WOULDN'T 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 23rd WHERE WE UNDERSTAND 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 26th. WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT AT THAT MEETING, OMB STRUGGLED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION FOR THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON THE AID. AND 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 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 HOLD. OMB DID NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT PROVIDING FOLLOW UP FROM ANY OF THE MEETINGS. DID THESE OMB OFFICIALS COME PREPARED WITH TALKING POINTS FOR THESE MEETINGS? DID OMB OFFICIALS TAKE NOTES DURING ANY OF THE 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 THIS SUBPOENA, THE SENATE CAN FIND OUT THE ANSWERS TO 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 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. THAT CALL WAS AT 9:00 A.M. JUST 90 MINUTES AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP HUNG UP THE PHONE, DUFFEY, THE POLITICAL APPOINTEE AT OMB 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. WE HAVE A REDACTED COPY OF THIS E-MAIL 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 E-MAIL, DUFFEY TOLD THE DOD OFFICIALS THAT BASED UPON THE GUIDANCE HE RECEIVED, THEY SHOULD HOLD OFF ON ANY ADDITIONAL DOD OBLIGATIONS OF THESE FUND. HE ADDED THE REQUESTS WERE SENSITIVE AND THEY SHOULD KEEP THE INFORMATION CLOSELY HELD, MEANING DON'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT IT.
WHY DID HE 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 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. THEY SENT A DOCUMENT INCLUDING A CAREFULLY DIRECTED FOOTNOTE DIRECTING DOD TO HOLD OFF ON SPENDING THE FUNDS TO AQUOTE ALLOW FOR AN INTERAGENCY 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 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 RECALL, HE CAN NOT RECALL ANYTHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENING BEFORE. THE DRAFTING OF THIS UNUSUAL FUNDING DOCUMENT AND ISSUANCE OF THE DOCUMENT MUST HAVE GENERATED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF E-MAIL TRAFFIC AND DOCUMENTS AT OMB. MEMOS, E-MAIL TRAFFIC, AND DOCUMENTATION THAT WE WOULD ALL SEE IF THE SENATE ISSUED A SUBPOENA. SO IT WAS THE RESULT FROM THE EVENTS ON JULY 25th? WHERE WAS MR. DUFFEY'S GUIDANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE HOLD COMING FROM? WHY WAS THE REQUEST SENSITIVE? WHAT WAS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN OMB'S DIRECTION TO THE DOD AND THE CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY JUST 90 MINUTES BEFORE? DID AGENCY OFFICIALS COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE QUESTIONS COMING FROM 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. IS TENSIONS AND CHAOS SURROUNDING THE FREEZE ESCALATED AT THE END OF THE JULY WHEN DUFFEY, 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 CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS REMOVED FROM THE FUNDING APPROVAL PROCESS AFTER HE HAD RAISED CONCERNS TO DUFFEY ABOUT WHETHER THE HOLD WAS LEGAL UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, OMB HAS REFUSED TO TURN OVER ANY DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING THAT DECISION TO REPLACE MR. SANDY. WHY DID DUFFEY, A POLITICAL APPOINTEE, WAS THE WHITE HOUSE INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION? WAS SANDY REMOVED BECAUSE HE HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE HOLD? BY AUGUST 7, 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'RE 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 WROUGHT. 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 IT WAS 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 INTERAGENCY PROCESS. 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 INTERAGENCY 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 DOCUMENTS BETWEEN JULY 25 AND SEPTEMBER 10. 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 IN AN EFFORT 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 WILL HAVE THEM IN TIME AND WHO HEAR WILL BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY. >> MR. SEKULOW? >> 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 EGG 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, THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENSE WHO OVERSAW USAID SHIPMENTS SAID THE HOLD CAME AND WENT SO QUICKLY, THEY DID NOT NOTICE ANY CHANGE. UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE DAVID HALE, EXPLAINED THE PAUSE DATE WAS FUTURE ASSISTANCE, NOT TO KEEP THE ARMY GOING NOW. SO THE MADE-UP NARRATIVE THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE TAKING SOME ACTION ON INVESTIGATIONS IS FURTHER DISPROVED BY THE STRAIGHTFORWARD FACT THAT THE AIDE 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 30. THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE THE HALT TO ANYONE. SOUNDS LIKE THIS MAY BE A 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 IT WAS WITHHOLDING OVER $100 MILLION IN AID TO AFGHANISTAN OVER CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION. IN AUGUST OF 2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND SEOUL WERE IN TALKS TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE SOUTH KOREA'S SHARE OF THE EXPENSE OF U.S.
MILITARY SUPPORT FOR SOUTH KOREA. IN JUNE, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAUGHT OR 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 MIGRATION 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 THAT 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 IT ACTUALLY FELT THAT IN THE THREE YEARS THAT I WAS THERE, PARTLY BECAUSE OF MY EFFORTS, BUT ALSO THE INTERAGENCY 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 TIMES AGREED THAT JAVELINS ARE INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE WEAPONS AT STOPPING ARMORED ADVANCE, AND THE RUSSIANS ARE SCARED THEM. AMBASSADOR VOELKER EXPLAINED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVED EACH OF THE DECISIONS MADE ALONG THE WAY AND AS A RESULT, AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE STRENGTHENED.
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 AIDE 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 AIDE.
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 SO THAT THE MONEY AND THE EQUIPMENT GOT TO THE PEOPLE ON THE FRONT LINES. NEED I ALSO REITERATE, THE SUPPOSED INTERAGENCY 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 INTERAGENCY 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 COLLEAGUES' ARGUMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, MR. SEKULOW MAKES THE POINT THAT THE AIDE ULTIMATELY GOT RELEASED. THEY ULTIMATELY GOT THE MONEY. RIGHT? ES. THEY GOT THE MONEY AFTER THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT. AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO RELIEVE THE HOLD ON THE AIDE. AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT, YES. BUT EVEN THEN, EVEN THEN THEY HAD HELD ONTO THE AIDE 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 úSUPP THAT, THAT WE HAD TO INTERVENE BECAUSE HE WITHHELD THE AIDE SO LONG AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON UKRAINE GOT ALL OF THE AIDE 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'S NOT ONLY VIOLATED THE LAW, IT NOT ONLY TOOK AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO MAKE SURE THEY ULTIMATELY GOT THE AIDE, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE DEFENSE TO WHY YOU SHOULDN'T SEE THE DOCUMENTS? IS THAT WHAT WE ARE TO BELIEVE? COUNSEL ALSO SAYS, HE'S NOT THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD AID. AND THAT'S TRUE. AFTER ALL, COUNSEL SAYS, PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD AID TO EGYPT. YES.
AT THE URGING OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. SENATORS McCAIN AND GRAHAM URGE THAT THAT AIDE 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 DO WE STILL WANT TO GIVE AID TO THIS GOVERNMENT AFTER THIS REVOLUTION? WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT AIDE HAS NEVER BEEN WITHHELD. THAT'S ABSURD. BUT I WOULD HOPE AND EXPECT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME AIDE HAS BEEN WITHHELD BY A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO COERCE AND ALLY AT WAR TO HELP HIM SHEET 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. RIGHT? THE ARGUMENT, 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, WITHOUT IT YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOURSELF AND WE'LL HAVE TESTIMONY ABOUT JUST WHAT KIND OF 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 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 VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY OUR ALLY IN THE DOOR AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT WOULD LET THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER? WHAT MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND? SO IT'S NOT JUST THE AID, IT'S NOT JUST WHEN THE AID IS DELIVERED, IT'S NOT JUST IF 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 MESSAGE IT SENT WAS A DISASTER.
IT WAS A DISASTER. NOW, YOU MIGHT ASK YOURSELF, BECAUSE COUNSEL HAS SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GIVEN LETHAL 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 THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM? WAS THERE NO CORRUPTION UKRAINE IN 2017? WAS THERE NO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IN 2018? NO. UKRAINE HAS ALWAYS BATTLED CORRUPTION. IT WASN'T THE PRESIDENT, LACK OF CORRUPTION IN ONE YEAR TO ANOTHER. IT WAS THE PRESENCE OF JOE BIDEN AS A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. THAT WAS THE KEY CHANGE IN 2019. THAT MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE. IT GETS BACK TO ONE OF THE KEY MOMENTS IN THIS SAGA. YOU KNOW, 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 THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN 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 25 BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BUT ON JULY 26, THE VERY NEXT DAY. NOW, YOU MAY HAVE WATCHED SOME OF THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS OR YOU MAY HAVE AND PEOPLE MAY HAVE SEEN IT, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T. BUT THERE'S THE SCENE IN A UKRAINIAN RESTAURANT IN KIEV WITH GORDON SONDLAND, BEAR IN MIND GORDON SONDLAND WHO SAID THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY A QUID PRO QUO, WHEN TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR THIS IS NOT SOME NEVER- TRUMPER. THIS IS A MILLION-DOLLAR DONOR TO THE TRUMP INAUGURATION. OKAY? IF THERE'S A BIAS THERE IT'S CLEARLY A MILLION-DOLLAR BIAS IN FAVOR OF THIS PRESIDENT NOT AGAINST HIM. SO THERE IS A SCENE IN KIEV IN THIS RESTAURANT, AND SONDLAND HAS A CELL PHONE AND HE'S SITTING WITH DAVID HOLMES WHO IS A CAREER DIPLOMAT. U.S. DIPLOMAT IN THE UKRAINE EMBASSY. AND GORDON SONDLAND TAKES OUT HIS PHONE AND HE CALLS THE WHITE HOUSE. GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.
GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING FOR THE PRESIDENT. AND IT TAKES A WHILE TO BE CONNECTED 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 BARINEAU HIM OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT BUT THIS IS A GUY WHO CAN PICK UP THE CELL PHONE AND CALL THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM A RESTAURANT IN KIEV AND HE DOES.
AND THE PRESIDENT IS SO LOUD THAT DAVID HOLMES THIS DIPLOMAT CAN HEAR IT. AND WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT SAY? DOES HE SAY, HOW IS THAT REFORM COMING IN THE RODMAN? 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 WILL DO ANYTHING YOU WANT. HE LOVES YOUR — AND THEY GO ON TO TALK ABOUT OTHER THINGS AND THEN THEY HANG UP. AND DAVID HOLMES TURNS TO THE AMBASSADOR AND SAYS, IN LANGUAGE WHICH I WILL HAVE TO MODIFY. TO REMOVE AN EXPLETIVE. SAYS 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 WANTS. THIS IS A MILLION-DOLLAR DONOR TO THE TRUMP INAUGURATION ADMITTING THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT UKRAINE. HE DOESN'T CARE WHETHER THEY GET MILITARY DOLLARS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHAT POSITION ZELENSKY GOES INTO IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS WITH PUTIN.
HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THAT. ISN'T THAT CLEAR? IT'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 WANTED OF THE BIDENS. SO WHEN YOU ASK DO YOU WANT TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS? DO YOU WANT TO KNOW IF THESE DOCUMENTS CORROBORATE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WILL THE DOCUMENTS SHOW AS WE FULLY EXPECT THEY WILL THAT THE ONLY THING HE CARED ABOUT WAS THE BIG STUFF THAT AFFECTED HIM? DAVID HOLMES' RESPONSE WAS, 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, YOU KNOW, RUSSIA IS FIGHTING TO REMAKE THE MAP OF EUROPE BY DINT OF MILITARY FORCE. 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 UNDERCUT OUR OWN ALLY, IF WE GIVE RUSSIA REASON TO BELIEVE WE WILL HAVE THEIR BACK, THAT WILL USE UKRAINE AS A PLAYTHING OR WORSE, TO GET THEM TO HELP US CHEAT IN AN ELECTION, THAT WILL ONLY EMBOLDEN PUTIN TO DO MORE.
YOU 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 THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN IS ONLY TOO ACCUSTOMED TO AND HAT IS THE KIND OF CORR THAT HE FINDS AND HE PERPETUATES THROUGH HIS OWN REGIME AND HE PUSHES ALL AROUND THE WORLD. MY COLLEAGUE VAL DEMINGS MADE REFERENCE TO A CONVERSATION WHICH I THINK IS ONE OF THE OTHER KEY VIGNETTES IN THIS WHOLE SAD SAGA. AND THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT AMBASSADOR VOELKER HAS WITH ANDRIY YERMAK, ONE OF THE TOP AIDES TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AND THIS IS A CONVERSATION IN WHICH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, SORRY, AMBASSADOR VOELKER IS DOING WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. WHICH IS HE IS TELLING YERMAK, YOU GUYS SHOULDN'T REALLY DO THIS INVESTIGATION OF YOUR FORMER PRESIDENT POROSHENKO. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FOR A POLITICAL REASON. YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T ENGAGE IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. AND AS REPRESENTATIVE DEMINGS SAID, WHAT'S THE RESPONSE OF UKRAINE? OH, YOU MEAN LIKE THE ONE YOU WANT US TO DO OF THE BIDENS AND THE CLINTONS? THROUGH 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 IT 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 NIANG THE RULE OF LAW AND SAYING DON'T ENGAGE IN POLITICAL PROSECUTIONS AND HAVING THEM THROW IT RIGHT BACK IN OUR FACE, YOU 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 ARE HERE. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. >> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. >> I SEND A MOTION TO THE DESK TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AND I ASK THAT YEAS AND NAYS. >> IS THERE A SUFFICIENT SECOND? THERE IS. THE CLERK WILL CONDUCT OR CALL THE ROLL.
>> MR. ALEXANDER? >> AYE. >> MS. BALDWIN? >> NO. >> MR. BRAZEAU? >> AYE MR. BENNETT? >> MRS. BLACKBURN? MR. BLUMENTHAL? MR. BLUNT? >> AYE. >> MR. BOOKER? >> NO. >> MR. BOZEMAN? MR. BRAUN? MR. BROWN? MR. BURR? MS. CANTWELL? MRS. CAPTEL? >> AYE. >> MR. CARDIN? MR. CARPER? MR. CASEY? >> NO. >> MR. CASSIDY? >> AYE. >> MS. COLLINS? MR. KUNZ? >> NO. >> MR. CORN AND? >> NO. >> MS. CORTEZ MASTO? MR. COTTON? >> AYE. >> MR. KRAMER? MR. CRAPO? MR. CRUZ MR. DAINES? >> HEIGHT. >> MS. DUCKWORTH? >> NO. >> MR. DURBIN? MS. ERNST? MRS. FEINSTEIN? >> NO. >> THIS IS FISHER? >> AYE. >> MR. GARDNER? >> AYE >> THIS IS GILLIBRAND? >> NO. >> MR. GRAHAM? >> AYE.
>> MR. GRASSLEY? MS. HARRIS? >> NO. >> MS. HASSAN? >> NO. >> MR. HOLLY? >> AYE. >> MR. HEINRICH? MS. HIRONO? MR. HOVEN? MRS. HYDE-SMITH? >> AYE. >> ESTHER INHOFE? MR. JOHNSON? >> AYE. >> MR. JONES? MR. KANE? >> NO. >> MR. KENNEDY? >> AYE. >> MR. KING? >> NO. >> MS. KLOBUCHAR? >> NO. >> MR. LANGFORD? >> AYE. >> MR. LEAHY? MR. LEE? MRS. LEFFLER? MR. MANSION? >> NO. >> MR. MARKEY? >> NO. >> MR.
McCONNELL? MS. McSALLY? >> AYE. >> MR. MENDEZ? >> NO. >> MR. MERKLEY? >> NO. >> MR. MORAN? MS. MURKOWSKI? MR. MURPHY? MRS. MURRAY? MR. PAUL? >> AYE. >> MR. PURDUE? >> AYE. >> MR. PETERS? >> NO. >> MR. PORTLAND FLEA MR. REED? MR. RAICHE? >> HEIGHT. >> MR. ROBERTS? >> MR. ROMNEY? MS. ROSEN? MR. ROUNDS? >> AYE. >> MR. RUBIO? >> AYE. >> MR. SANDERS? >> NO. >> MR. SASS? >> AYE. >> MR. SHOTS? >> AYE. >> MR. SCHUMER? >> NO. >> MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA? MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA? MRS. SHAHEEN? MR. SHELBY? MRS. CINEMA? >> NO. >> THIS IS SMITH? >> NO. >> MR. SULLIVAN? >> AYE. >> MR. TESTER? >> NO. >> MR. THUNE? >> AYE MR. TELLIS? MR. TOOMEY? MR. UDALL? MR. VAN HOLLEN? MR. WARNER? MS. WARREN? >> NO. >> MR. WHITE HOUSE? MR. WICKER? MR. WYDEN? >> NO. >> MR. YOUNG? >> AYE. >> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO JOHN MICHAEL, MICK MULVANEY. AND I ASK THAT IT BE READ. >> THE CLERK WILL REPORT. >> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER POSES AN AMENDMENT, NUMBER 1287, AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE RESOLVING CLAUSE INSERT THE FOLLOWING. SECTION NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO RULES FIVE AND SIX OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE, WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY OF JOHN MICHAEL MICK MULVANEY, 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 BY THE SECTION. >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? >> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. >> I ASK FOR A 30-MINUTE RECESS BEFORE THE PARTIES ARE RECOGNIZED TO DEBATE THE SCHUMER AMENDMENT. FOLLOWING THE DEBATE TIME I WILL ONCE AGAIN MOVE TO BECAUSE VOTE ON WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE AS I'VE REPEATEDLY SAID ARE ADDRESSED IN THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION.
SO I ASK THAT THE SENATE STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 8:00 P.M. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED. >>> THE SENATE IS NOW TAKING A 30-MINUTE DINNER BREAK IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. AFTER VOTING TO TABLE THREE AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY SENATOR SCHUMER TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS. ARGUING THE CASE FOR A SUBPOENA FROM THE OFFICE OF BUDGET MEANT AND MANAGEMENT WAS IMPEACHMENT MANAGER JASON CROW OF COLORADO. THE FRESHMAN SENATOR ARGUING THE OMB HAS KEY DOCUMENTS SHOWING EXACTLY HOW AND WHY THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE.
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL JAY SEKULOW THEN COUNTERED BY SAYING THE AID WAS DELIVERED WITHOUT UKRAINE TAKING ANY ACTION AT ALL SO, NO WRONGDOING. ADAM SCHIFF THEN ARGUED YES, BUT THE AID WAS ONLY RELEASED AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS CAUGHT IN HIS MISDEED. WE ALSO HEARD EARLIER FROM IMPEACHMENT MANAGER VAL DEMINGS, SECOND TERM SENATOR, SORRY, CONGRESSWOMAN VAL DEMINGS, SECOND TERM MEMBER FROM FLORIDA. WHO DISCUSSED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LEV PARNAS TEXT MESSAGES WHICH HAVE RECENTLY COME TO LIGHT. AS WELL AS PARNAS' INTERVIEW ON THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW. ALL RIGHT. SO KIM WHALEY AND MOLLY HOOPER JOINED ME NOW. CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST AND LAW PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE, MOLLY IS A CBSN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR AND VETERAN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER. WELCOME TO BOTH OF YOU. KIM, LET ME START WITH YOU, ARE DEMOCRATS SUCCEEDING IN GETTING SOME OF THE NEW EVIDENCE THEY WANT INCLUDED IN THIS TRIAL BY SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT IT AS THEY ARGUE FOR THESE SUBPOENAS? >> WELL, IT'S ALREADY OUT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
SO TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY ARE REPEATING NEWS REPORTS AND HIGHLIGHTING HOW IMPORTANT IT IS, ARGUABLY YES. IT'S HARD TO UNTHINKABLY WHEN SOMEONE SAYS THE COLOR BLUE. THAT'S HOW OUR BRAINS WORK. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE NOTION THAT THIS INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO BEAR IN A FORMAL WAY TO THIS TRIAL IS REALLY INDEFENSIBLE AS A MATTER OF JUST LOGIC. THIS IS A REALLY GRAVE, IMPORTANT MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY, ONE THAT SHOULDN'T BE MADE WITH HALF-BAKED INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. THERE'S NOT REALLY AN ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS NOT RELEVANT, THE KINDS OF THINGS YOU'D HEAR IN A COURTROOM TO KEEP EVIDENCE OUT IF IT IS JUST NOT PERTINENT OR BEARING ON THE ISSUE. IT COULD BE CONFUSING. WE ARE NOT HEARING THOSE ARGUMENTS. THIS REALLY IS AN ATTEMPT TO SORT OF BASICALLY KEEP INFORMATION FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT COULD UNDERMINE THE REPUBLICANS DECISION THIS PRESIDENT IN OFFICE WHICH POLITICALLY THAT'S FINE BUT THE ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO A PRESIDENCY GOING FORWARD? WE ARE NOW SEEING IN REAL TIME THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF BEING BASICALLY AMENDED TO ALLOW THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR GOING FORWARD FOR ANY PRESIDENT AND IT'S REALLY IN A WAY CHILLING TO WATCH THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT PASSIVELY PRESIDE OVER A TRIAL THAT BY ALL ACCOUNTS IS NOT REALLY A TRIAL, BUT AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE TO GET ALL THE FACTS OUT INTO THE RECORD.
>> WHEN YOU SAY CHILLING, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE CHIEF JUSTICE BE DOING INSTEAD? >> WELL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE SINCE ANDREW JOHNSON IN THE 18th CENTURY, TO ACTUALLY RULE ON RELEVANCE SO HE COULD, THERE'S NOTHING FORBIDDING HIM FROM TAKING A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN DECIDING AFFIRMATIVELY HOW THIS TRIAL WILL GO AND I THINK SOME OF US WERE WONDERING IF HE WOULD DO THAT SORT OF IN THE SPIRIT OF EXERTING THE INDEPENDENCE AND LEGITIMACY OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AS THE THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
WHICH FRANKLY THE DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE BROUGHT INTO, BROUGHT TO BEAR IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT. I AGREE WITH THAT CRITICISM. HOWEVER, IN THIS MOMENT THE ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER AMERICANS ARE GOING TO SEE THE FULL PANEL PLEAD THE FACTS AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE THAT APPEARS SO FAR TO HAVE TAKEN A PAGE FROM CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S PLAYBOOK IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT WHERE HIS ROLE IS REALLY MINISTERIAL.
HE IS REALLY A FIGUREHEAD THAT SITS THERE AND READS THE NOTES THAT ARE PUT BEFORE HIM AND IS HANDING OFF THE AUTHORITY COMPLETELY TO THE SENATE IN THIS MOMENT. THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE A MAJORITY WHEN I THINK ARGUABLY AT THE TIME IMPEACHMENT WAS INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE FRAMERS DIDN'T ANTICIPATE IT TO BE THIS KIND OF PARTISAN FIGHT. REALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A LEGITIMATE TRIAL BECAUSE REMEMBER AT THE TIME, THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED, THERE WAS NOT A REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THAT'S CERTAINLY A MORE MODERN INVENTION. AND I THINK IN THIS MOMENT MORE PARTISAN THAN WE'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY. >> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS SHOWING NO INDICATION HE IS GOING TO ASSERT HIMSELF IN THIS TRIAL.
JEFF MASON JOINS US NOW, JEFF IS A WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR REUTERS. DO WE KNOW HOW THE WHITE HOUSE IS FEELING ABOUT TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS? >> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. PART OF MY ANSWER TO THAT WILL BE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT HERE. THE PRESIDENT OF COURSE IS IN DAVOS, SWITZERLAND, WHERE HE'S BEEN ATTENDING THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. HE'S BEEN UNCHARACTERISTICALLY QUIET ON TWITTER SO WE OFTEN HAVE A WINDOW DON'T RIGHT NOW BECAUSE HE HASN'T REALLY WEIGHED IN. THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF, PEOPLE AT THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF HAVE BEEN LISTENING, AND WATCHING BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU A GOOD SENSE OF WHETHER THEY FEEL LIKE THE DAY HAS GONE WELL OR IF THE DAY HAS NOT GONE WELL. SO FAR I THINK THE STRATEGY THEY HAVE ARTICULATED THAT THEY WANTED TO EMPLOY IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN DOING AND SO I SUSPECT THEY ARE FEELING GOOD ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE GOING SO FAR.
>> MOLLY, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE GOING BECAUSE IT SEEMS EVERY TIME A RESOLUTION COMES UP TO SUBPOENA A DOCUMENT FROM A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THE VOTE IS NOT BUDGING. >> AND IT WON'T BUDGE BECAUSE REPUBLICANS HAD SAID EVEN, THE REPUBLICAN MODERATES THAT EVERYBODY ZOOMING IN ON, HAVE SAID LISTEN, WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE TO HAVE THESE WITNESSES RIGHT NOW. WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS. WE WANT TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE. WE WILL VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION THAT MITCH McCONNELL HAS PUT FORWARD AND HAS BEEN REVISED SINCE HE INTRODUCED IT LAST NIGHT BUT ULTIMATELY THAT GIVES BOTH SIDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR AND AGAINST WITNESSES AT THE END AFTER THE SENATORS HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR QUESTIONS, 16 HOURS' WORTH.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE STICKING TO. >> SINCE DEMOCRATS KNOW THAT, WHAT IS THEIR STRATEGY OF GOING THROUGH EACH SEPARATE SUBPOENA THIS WAY? >> IT'S ALMOST LIKE PROCEDURAL FILIBUSTER PARLIAMENTARY úFILIB AGE. WHICH IS ACTUALLY KIND OF INTERESTING TO WATCH UNFOLD BECAUSE I'VE COVERED CAPITOL HILL A LONG TIME AND HONESTLY — >> SORRY TO INTERRUPT. TED CRUZ IS SPEAKING. >> WE'VE SEEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND SENATE DEMOCRATS MAKING REDUNDANT MOTIONS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THE SAME MOTIONS. MOTIONS THAT ARE BEING REJECTED. AND FUNDAMENTALLY, IT IS CLEAR HOUSE DEMOCRATS VIEW THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THEIR PARTISAN ATTACKS ON THE PRESIDENT, INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON THE PRIORITIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE SENATE AT THE END OF THE DAY WILL GO FORWARD ON AND ORGANIZING RESOLUTION THAT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE RESOLUTION THAT BEGAN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. IT IS COPIED ALMOST WORD FOR WORD FROM THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
ACCEPT IN THAT INSTANCE, THE ORGANIZING RESOLUTION WAS BIPARTISAN. IT WAS 100-0. EVERY REPUBLICAN, EVERY DEMOCRAT AGREED. IN THIS INSTANCE, SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE OBJECTING TO THE VERY REASONABLE PROPOSAL THAT WAS DONE DURING THE CLINTON TRIAL, OF STARTING WITH OPENING ARGUMENTS, THEN HAVING ARGUMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATORS, AND THEN HAVING THE SENATE CHOOSE WHETHER ADDITIONAL WITNESSES ARE NECESSARY. WE'VE SEEN ONE MOTION AFTER THE OTHER AFTER THE OTHER. THEY'VE BEEN REDUNDANT, THEY'VE BEEN MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENTS. THIS SEEMS TO BE A TIME FOR ADAM SCHIFF AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO LECTURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO ATTACK THE PRESIDENT BUT THERE'S AN OLD SAYING THAT IF YOU HAVE THE FACTS, YOU BANG THE FACTS. IF YOU HAVE THE LAW, YOU BANGED THE LAW. IF YOU DON'T HAVE EITHER, YOU BANGED THE TABLE. THIS AFTERNOON WE'VE SEEN A WHOLE LOT OF TABLE BANGING AND TODAY IN THE SAME SPOT WE WERE IN WHEN WE BEGAN THE DAY. WHICH IS THE HOUSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT WERE PASSED ON A PARTISAN BASIS, THEY DON'T MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD AND THAT'S WHY THE END OF THIS PROCESS AFTER A FAIR PROCEEDING, AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS, AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT, THE END OF THIS PROCEEDING IS GOING TO BE AN ACQUITTAL BECAUSE THE HOUSE MANAGERS STILL CAN'T MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD.
>> THERE WERE SOME CHANGES MADE TO THE INITIAL McCONNELL RESOLUTION BASED ON CONCERNS FROM SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE UNITY AS YOU GET TO THE WITNESSES? >> NO. I ACTUALLY DON'T AT ALL. FOR EXAMPLE ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL ORGANIZING RESOLUTIONS FOR THE CLINTON TRIAL WAS EACH SIDE WOULD HAVE 24 HOURS. THE RESOLUTION THAT WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON LATER TONIGHT PROVIDES EACH SIDE HAS 24 HOURS FOR THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS.
THIS PARTICULAR VERSION SAID THOSE 24 HOURS WOULD BE OVER TWO DAYS. AND SO WE SAW DEMOCRATS LIGHTING THEIR HAIR ON FIRE THAT THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS EFFORT, A COVER-UP, TO HAVE 24 HOURS OF ARGUMENTS OVER TWO DAYS. GOD HELP US IF WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO ADAM SCHIFF AND THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS PRATTLE ON FOR 24 HOURS NONSTOP. BUT I THINK SENATE REPUBLICANS DID SOMETHING-WISE AND RIGHT WHICH IS SAY OKAY, WE'LL MAKE A CONCESSION. INSTEAD OF OVER TWO DAYS NOW IT'S OVER THREE DAYS. SO YOU CAN PRESENT YOUR OPENING ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF UP TO 12 HOURS A DAY FOR TWO DAYS. YOU CAN DO IT PRESUMABLY FOR UP TO EIGHT HOURS A DAY OVER THREE DAYS. I PROMISE YOU IF WE ARE AT OUR 23, AND THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE STILL REPEATING THE SAME PARTISAN ATTACKS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS STRIKING WITHIN ABOUT THREE HOURS OF THIS, THESE PROCEEDINGS BEGINNING, I LOOKED UP, THE PRESS CORPS, WAS ABOUT HALF EMPTY. AND THE GALLERY WAS ALMOST ENTIRELY EMPTY. I HAVE TO ADMIT, A ROUTINE PRACTICALLY, A ROUTINE MOTION NAMING A POST OFFICE TYPICALLY HAS MORE PEOPLE IN THE GALLERY THAN WE HAD TODAY AND I THINK THAT'S, THIS IS INDICATIVE OF SENATE REPUBLICANS GIVING THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS, THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ALL THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S STILL NOT GOING TO MEET THE STANDARD. >> GIVEN THE REDUNDANCY YOU TALKED ABOUT, DO YOU ANTICIPATE — >> WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO OUR CHAT NOW WHILE SENATOR CRUZ CONTINUES TO TALK THERE. SO I WANT TO ASK YOU, REPUBLICAN SENATORS KEEP POINTING TO THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL SAYING WE ARE FOLLOWING EXACTLY THE SAME ORDER AS THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BUT THERE'S A MAJOR DIFFERENCE. >> THERE IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE AND KIM OBVIOUSLY CAN SPEAK TO THIS BETTER THAN I FROM THE PERSPECTIVE BUT REALLY, I MEAN, THERE WERE BOXES AND BOXES AND BOXES OF EVIDENCE THAT WENT INTO THE STARR REPORT AND BY THE TIME THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOOK THEIR CASE TO THE SENATE, THE REPORT HAD ALREADY COME OUT AND THERE REALLY WAS NO QUESTION AS TO THE FACTS.
BILL CLINTON, EVERYTHING WAS PRETTY MUCH CUT AND DRIED. HAD THE BLUE DRESS, AND PRESIDENT CLINTON ON TAPE, WHEREAS IN THE SITUATION WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE. AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HEARING SOMEBODY LIKE I BELIEVE PATRICK PHILBIN THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT ON BEHALF OF THE WHITE HOUSE THAT IT'S A STUNNING ADMISSION THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE COMING HERE AND SAYING THEY NEED MORE EVIDENCE AND DOES THAT MEAN THEY DON'T HAVE A CASE AND THEY WANT THE SENATE TO DO THE HOUSE'S JOB? THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION BECAUSE THE HOUSE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THAT EVIDENCE IN THEIR BACK POCKET. THIS WAS DONE VERY QUICKLY AND IT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU'RE HEARING THE WHITE HOUSE MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE LITIGATED. THESE SUBPOENAS NEED TO BE ENFORCED AND LITIGATED THROUGH THE COURTS AND TWO HAVE ULTIMATELY THE SUPREME COURT DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT — >> BUT TO MOLLY'S POINT, THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO SAYING THAT THE HOUSE IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO SEEK JUDICIAL REMEDY.
THAT HIS PERSPECTIVE IS THE COURTS CAN'T RULE ON THIS BECAUSE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. ISN'T THAT WHAT HE'S SAYING? >> YES. THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION HAS BEEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTITUTION, HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE. THAT HIS POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION THAT THAT WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT ON HIS EXECUTIVE POWER, THAT WENT NOWHERE. BUT WE CAN IMAGINE IF THIS WERE AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS TO MOLLY'S POINT, USING THE MUELLER REPORT IT WOULD BE REALLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS IN THE MUELLER REPORT. THAT WAS DEVELOPED WITH A GRAND JURY LIKE KEN STARR. GRAND JURIES HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF POWER SO THAT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION, THE ARGUMENT WAS IF YOU'RE GOING TO HOLD A PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE, YOU HAVE TO DO IT THROUGH IMPEACHMENT THEN WE GET TO IMPEACHMENT AND THEN THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION IS IMPEACHMENT UNDER, UNDERMINES AN ELECTION. IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I DON'T NEED TO COMPLY WITH ANYTHING FROM CONGRESS AND THAT'S JUST WRONG AS A MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THERE IS AN OBLIGATION AT EVERY PRESIDENT TO DATE THAT'S BEEN, HAD TO DEAL WITH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS HAS COMPLIED TO SOME DEGREE. THE WAY PRIVILEGE WORKS IS HERE'S MY MARKED UP DOCUMENTS WITH A BUNCH OF BLACK CROSSED OUT. YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS BUT I'M GOING TO KEEP THE GOOD STUFF AND THEN YOU GO TO COURT AND YOU FIGHT ABOUT THE STUFF THAT'S BEEN BLACKED OUT. YOU DON'T SAY NO ONE SHOWS UP AT ALL. AND SO THIS IS WHY I SAID EARLIER WE ARE SEEING THE CONSTITUTION REALLY CHANGE, WE ARE WITNESSING CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT. IF THE PRESIDENT CAN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH BECAUSE YOU CAN'T INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT UNDER AN INTERNAL DOJ POLICY THAT HE'S IN CHARGE OF, AND THEN YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY REMOVE A PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF OFFICE AND PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THERE'S NO CRIME BUT OF COURSE THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT IS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WHICH IS A CRIME AND LAWYERS DON'T ALWAYS CITE THE STATUTE WHEN THEY CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A CRIME OR CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A CIVIL VIOLATION IF YOU CAN'T DO IT THROUGH CONGRESS YOU CAN'T DO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, THE ONLY BRANCH THAT'S LEFT TO ACTUALLY HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT THE PRESIDENT IS IN CHARGE OF.
AND THAT'S NOT ACCOUNTABILITY. THAT'S CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN ONE PLACE. AND IT'S SO HIGHLY PARTISAN BUT AS AMERICANS WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS MANTLE OF POWER IF YOU LIKE THIS PRESIDENT, COULD GO ONE DAY TO A DEMOCRAT. IT COULD GO ONE DAY TO SOMEONE THAT YOU DON'T LIKE AND WE ARE NOW WITNESSING THE REPUBLICANS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THERE'S NO REAL CHECKS ON THE PRESIDENCY. AND IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO BITE EVERYONE IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BECAUSE THROUGHOUT OUR LIFETIMES IF WE CAN LIVE A LONG LIFE WE ARE GOING TO SEE MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN OFFICE. >> LOOKS LIKE SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR IS ABOUT TO SPEAK SO LET'S LISTEN IN. >> I'VE MADE CLEAR FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT I'VE GOT TO DO MY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. AND IT FELT LIKE HEY, I KNOW YOU GUYS WANT TO BE SOMEWHERE ELSE IS WHAT HE WAS SAYING. AND I LITERALLY COULDN'T BELIEVE HE DID IT ONLY BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS ISN'T THE PLACE TO PLAY THOSE KIND OF POLITICS. AND WE ARE ALL THERE TO DO OUR DUTY. WE ARE GOING TO SIT THERE TILL THE VERY END. WE ARE GOING TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE AND AS I NOTED I CAN DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE. I'M A MOM. AND I WILL FIND ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. AND WE ARE GAINING MOMENTUM RIGHT NOW. BUT WHILE I'M HERE MY JOB, IS TO LISTEN TO THIS EVIDENCE.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS I'D SAY THAT REALLY STRUCK ME TODAY, AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR IS NUMBER 1, YOU DON'T PUT THE EVIDENCE AND THE WITNESSES ON AT THE END. YOU TEND TO DUDETTE AT THE BEGINNING. AND YOUR QUESTIONS SHOULD BE OF WITNESSES. NOT OF TRYING TO GET WITNESSES. AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS THIS IS ABOUT THE TRUTH. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MY COLLEAGUES, MANY OF WHOM I GET ALONG WITH AND KNOW WELL AND HAVE WORKED WITH, I KEEP LOOKING OVER AT THEM THINKING COME ON, NOW. YOU KNOW WE SHOULD AT LEAST HEAR FROM MICK MULVANEY, YOU KNOW WE SHOULD AT LEAST HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON. YOU CAN'T HAVE ALL THESE SMOKING GUN E-MAILS OUT THERE AND NOT GET TO THE FACTS AND IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT SOMEHOW THIS INFORMATION IS GOING TO EXONERATE HIM, WHAT IS HE AFRAID OF? >> VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THIS.
I SAW YOU AS A PROSECUTOR. WHAT DID YOU PICK UP ON THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN DIFFERENT FROM PAST DAYS FROM EITHER SIDE PARTICULARLY ON THE NOTES? >> WELL, I THOUGHT THAT ADAM SCHIFF'S ARGUMENT AT THE END AND I'VE MADE SOME OF THESE ARGUMENTS MYSELF, BUT HE PUT IT IN A NATIONAL SECURITY CONTEXT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT IS WHY DO WE NEED THIS EVIDENCE? RUSSIA WAS WATCHING. RUSSIA HAS BEEN WATCHING THE WHOLE TIME. AND HAVING BEEN TO UKRAINE, WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH ACTUALLY ALONG WITH SENATOR McCAIN AND SENATOR GRAHAM, AND STOOD ON THAT FRONT LINE NEW YEAR'S EVE, RIGHT AFTER DONALD TRUMP GOT ELECTED, WHERE SENATOR McCAIN MADE THE POINT OF BRINGING US THERE, BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO RUSSIA, THAT AMERICA STOOD WITH OUR ALLIES AND AMERICA STOOD WITH UKRAINE, AND THEN TO THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WATCHING AS THIS PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, HOLDS BACK THE AID, AND MESSES AROUND WITH IT, WHILE THEY'RE WATCHING TO SEE THIS IS A COUNTRY THEY'VE LITERALLY INVADED IN CRIMEA. THAT THEY LITERALLY HAVE THEIR EYES ON.
AND THEN HE DOESN'T EVEN HELP THEM OUT WITH THE AID. I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY EFFECTIVE, WHAT ADAM SCHIFF SAID AT THE END. >> ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE IT BACK TO IOWA BEFORE FEBRUARY 3rd? BERNIE SANDERS IS CHARTERING A PLANE. DO YOU HAVE PLANS IN PLACE? >> I ACTUALLY HAVE MY FAMILY THERE RIGHT NOW. THEIR REAL FOOD. AND THEY'RE OUT THERE. WE JUST ANNOUNCED THREE NEW ENDORSEMENTS TODAY FROM STATE LEGISLATORS. I HAD THE MOST LEGISLATORS AND FORMER LEGISLATORS THAT HAVE ENDORSED ME IN IOWA OF ANY CANDIDATE IN THE RACE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE SPEAKING FOR ME AND ú THEY WERE OUT TODAY IN FORCE AT THE IOWA STATE CAPITAL SPEAKING ABOUT THE SUPPORT FOR ME. THAT'S GOING TO MATTER AND THEN I'M GOING TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN WHETHER IT'S TOWN HALLS, WHETHER IT'S SCRAPING IN, AND GETTING THERE WHEN WE HAVE SUNDAY OFF, THAT'S BEEN MY PLAN. WE WERE PREPARED FOR THIS. THAT'S WHY MY HUSBAND AND DAUGHTER ARE THERE RIGHT NOW BUT I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. AND SO WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WANT TO SAY AND POKE AT US, FOR SIMPLY DOING OUR JOBS AND BEING HERE, AND ACT LIKE IT'S SOME SORT OF POLITICAL DISADVANTAGE I THINK THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY UNDERSTAND IT.
SOMETHING LIKE A RECENT POLL SHOWED NEARLY 70% OF AMERICANS THINK THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES, THINK THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO ME? THAT THE PEOPLE IN THESE EARLY STATES ARE GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE TO DO MY JOB. >> ARE YOU FEELING DISCOURAGED THAT YOU WILL EVER GET — >> DISCOURAGED? OKAY, — >> AFTER THREE VOTES HOW ARE YOU FEELING? ARE YOU FEELING DISCOURAGED ABOUT THE WITNESSES? >> I'M SOMEONE THAT ALWAYS KEEP LOOKING AT MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE IF THEY LOOK GUILTY. AND SOME OF THEM ARE KIND OF LOOKING DOWN. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAN DENY ALL WITNESSES AND LET'S SEE WHAT THEY DO AFTER A FEW DAYS OF THIS BUT I THINK THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE A VERY EFFECTIVE CASE FOR THE FACT THAT WE HAVE EVIDENCE AND WE NEED TO LISTEN TO EVIDENCE AND WE NEED TO LISTEN TO WITNESSES.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL WITH ZERO WITNESSES AND ZERO DOCUMENTS. THAT IS NOT HOW THIS WORKS. >> AND THAT WAS SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR. THERE IS A CLIP I'D LIKE TO PLAY FROM NORAH O'DONNELL'S INTERVIEWS WITH SEVERAL HOUSE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS AND THIS CLIP FOCUSES ON THAT IDEA THAT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS COULD PERHAPS SWAP WITNESSES. LET'S LISTEN. >> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES PRESUMABLY.
YOU WOULD WANT TO CALL JOHN BOLTON BUT ARE YOU PREPARED FOR WHO THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO CALL AS WITNESSES, WOULD THAT BE FAIR? >> FAIR FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS TEAM TO BE ABLE TO CALL WITNESSES THAT CAN PROVIDE MATERIAL INFORMATION ON THE CHARGES. IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SEEK TO CALL WITNESSES MERELY TO TRY TO PERPETUATE THE SAME SMEAR CAMPAIGN THAT WAS FOILED WHEN HIS PLOT WAS DISCOVERED. HUNTER BIDEN FOR EXAMPLE CAN'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD MILITARY AID, WHETHER HE WITHHELD THAT AID TO COERCE UKRAINE TO CONDUCT POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS OR WHY HE WOULDN'T MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. THE ONLY PURPOSE IN PUTTING HIM ON THEIR LIST IS THEY WISH TO TRADE MATERIAL WITNESSES LIKE MR. BOLTON AND MULVANEY AND OTHERS FOR IMMATERIAL ONES THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO ATTACK POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THAT'S AN ILLEGITIMATE ABUSE OF THE TRIAL AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE WHO MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RULE ON THE MATERIALITY OF WITNESSES AS WELL AS THE SENATORS SHOULD NOT PERMIT THAT KIND OF ABUSE. >> WOULD YOU ACKNOWLEDGE EVEN IF YOU WERE TO SUCCEED IN CALLING JOHN BOLTON AND MICK MULVANEY THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? >> THAT PRIVILEGE EVEN IF ONE COULD BE ASSERTED WOULD HAVE TO BE ASSERTED NARROWLY. >> SO, MOLLY, OVER THE WEEKEND OHIO DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SHERROD BROWN SUGGESTED THAT OKAY, IF IT TAKES, IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES, HUNTER BIDEN, FINE. ADAM SCHIFF DOES NOT SEEM TO AGREE WITH THAT. DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANY CHANCE THAT DEMOCRATS AS A WHOLE WILL EMBRACE THIS IDEA OF RECIPROCITY WHEN IT COMES TO WITNESSES? >> NO. IN A WORD, NO. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO HUNTER BIDEN AND TO BE HONEST I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS WOULD GET ON BOARD WITH HUNTER BIDEN.
THE SENATE IS AN UNUSUAL INSTITUTION AND HAS A LONG MEMORY AND A LOT OF RESPECT FOR ITS MEMBERS AND FORMER MEMBERS. ONE OF WHICH BEING LONG TIME SENATOR JOE BIDEN. WHO HAS SERVED AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, FOREIGN RELATIONS AND EVEN THOUGH HE IS A DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, HE HAS RELATIONSHIPS WITH MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE. AND I JUST DON'T SEE ALL THE REPUBLICANS LIKE SUSAN COLLINS OR LISA MURKOWSKI GOING ALONG WITH THAT. JUST BECAUSE THIS IS A FORMER COLLEAGUES SON AND GOING TO ADAM SCHIFF'S POINT, WHAT IS THE POINT? I COULD SEE REPUBLICANS WANTING TO HEAR FROM ADAM SCHIFF HIMSELF MORE SO THAN HUNTER BIDEN BECAUSE ADAM SCHIFF, OF COURSE, REPUBLICANS WILL MAKE THE ARGUMENT IT WAS HIS OFFICE THAT MET WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER BACK IN THE BEGINNING BEFORE THIS WHOLE QUOTE/UNQUOTE SAGA AS ADAM SCHIFF HAS DESCRIBED IT CAME TO LIGHT.
>> SO, JEFF, COULD YOU SEE THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL GETTING ON BOARD FOR ANY SORT OF WITNESS RECIPROCITY? RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T WANT ANY WITNESSES THEY SAY BUT IF THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE LIKE THAT DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD GET ON BOARD? >> WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD FRAME IT THAT WAY. I WOULD FRAME IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY WHICH IS IF THE DEMOCRATS SUCCEED IN GETTING SOME REPUBLICANS SUPPORT FROM SENATORS LIKE MITT ROMNEY, AND SUSAN COLLINS AND LISA MURKOWSKI, TO CALL WITNESSES SUCH AS JOHN BOLTON, OR MICK MULVANEY, THEN REPUBLICANS AND THE WHITE HOUSE ARE ABSOLUTELY GOING TO INSIST ON GETTING WITNESSES AS WELL. AND THEY WILL CALL HUNTER BIDEN. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'LL SEE IT AS A RECIPROCITY THING IN TERMS OF LET'S MAKE A DEAL. YOU GUYS CAN HAVE BOLTON IF WE CAN HAVE HUNTER. BUT I DO THINK THEY WILL ABSOLUTELY SAY IF YOU GUYS ARE GETTING WITNESSES THEN SO ARE WE AND THERE WILL BE NO DICTATING WHO AND WHAT AND WHY AND I HEARD CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF'S JUSTIFICATION OR NOT JUSTIFICATION BUT EXPLANATION OF WHAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT AND WHAT THEY WOULDN'T.
THE REPUBLICANS REPUBLICANS AND THE WHITE HOUSE WILL DISMISS THAT BECAUSE THEY SAY HUNTER BIDEN FOR EXAMPLE WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OR BE ABLE TO BE A GOOD WITNESS INSOFAR AS DESCRIBING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. AND THEIR ARGUMENT, THE WHITE HOUSE'S ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT CALL BECAUSE HE JUST WANTED TO CLAMP DOWN ON CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. >> SO THEN, IF THIS IS A LOT OF SPECULATION HERE OF COURSE BUT IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING SOME SENATORS TO VOTE FOR SOME OF THESE WITNESSES, WOULD THE PRESIDENT THEN BE ABLE TO ASSERT HIS SO- CALLED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THIS CASE AND SAY NO? >> WELL, THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND IT'S REALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR FROM THE PRESIDENT WHICH IS IMMUNITY.
IMMUNITY, PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. THAT IS, I'M NOT SHOWING UP AT ALL. THAT'S REALLY NARROW AND THAT'S THE PLACE I THINK WHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS REALLY UNLAWFUL IN DIRECTING PEOPLE TO NOT RESPOND AT ALL TO SUBPOENAS. PRIVILEGE IS NARROWER AS ADAM SCHIFF MENTIONED, THE IDEA IS THERE'S SOME COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE SO CENTRAL TO MY ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS PRESIDENT THAT THAT CAN'T BE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR BUT IT WOULD BE DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT. IT WOULD BE QUESTION BY QUESTION WITH PARTICULAR WITNESSES. AND PRIVILEGES CAN BE WAIVED SO I THINK THE ARGUMENT IN PART WOULD BE TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS TALKED ABOUT WHAT WENT ON HERE HIMSELF, INCLUDING IN THE JULY, RELEASING THE JULY 25 CALL, SUMMARY, IS THAT HE WAIVED IT.
YOU CAN'T USE A PRIVILEGE AS A SWORD AND A SHIELD. YOU CAN'T SAY I'M GOING TO GIVE UP INFORMATION THAT I COULD SAY IS PRIVILEGED BUT THEN I'M GOING TO HOLD BACK PIECES OF IT. THE WAY THE LAW WORKS IS IT'S SORT OF ALL OR NOTHING SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, THERE COULD BE AN ARGUMENT AROUND THAT. AGAIN, WE HAVE TO SEE IF THE CHIEF JUSTICE WOULD ACCEPT HIS POWER UNDER THE RULES TO RULE ON IT IN THE MOMENT. OR WHETHER HE WOULD SAY, THAT HAS TO GO TO THE UNDERLINGS, PEOPLE BELOW ME IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, STOP THE TRIAL. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE WHITE HOUSE AT THIS POINT.
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING, EARLIER ON THE PROCEEDINGS, WE HEARD JAY SEKULOW RAILING AGAINST DEMOCRATS, IN WHAT HE CALLED LAWSUITS AGAINST LAWYERS. AND THEN WE HEARD ADAM SCHIFF ADDRESSING THAT, AND SCRATCHING HIS HEAD A LITTLE BIT. NOT QUITE SURE EXACTLY WHAT SEKULOW WAS REFERRING TO. >> WELL, LAWSUITS AGAINST LARCENY, THEIR ARGUMENT APPEARS TO BE — FOR THE CONGRESS STO, BASICALLY, CHALLENGE'S ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN COURT IS ITSELF UNCONSTITUTION. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BUT WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER.
BOTH SIDES CAN USE THE COURTS. AS FAR AS WHAT PARTICULAR LAWYER IS BEING SCRUTINIZED HERE, IT'S HARD TO SAY. EMPLOYEES WHO HAD TO HIRE PRIVATE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, VERY EXPENSIVE, SDWROUFT MAKE SURE THEY DIDN'T SAY SOMETHING WRONG IN THE GRAND JURY. AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE THE PROCESS IS MESSY. ANYONE WHO'S BEEN IN A CIVIL ACTION. THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE LAW WORKS. BUT I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE AS A LAW PROFESSOR AND A LAWYER THAT THE LAW IS IS A WAY THAT WE SEE JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY. AND WE SEE POSITIVE CHANGE. AND WE SEE FAIRNESS HAPPENING. AND I THINK AS AMY KLOBUCHAR SUGGESTED, A TRIAL WITH NO WITNESSES ISN'T REALLY FAIR TO EITHER SIDE. >> RIGHT. AND SPEAKING OF AMY KLOBUCHAR, SHE'S BEING ASKED BY REPORTER, LOOK, HOW ARE YOU GONNA KEEP YOUR CAMPAIGN GOING WITH THIS TRAIL, AND SHE SAID MY FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IS AS A SENATOR.
BUT CLEARLY THERE ARE SEVERAL CANDIDATES WHOSE CAMPAIGN IS ON HOLD RIGHT NOW. ARE THEY REALLY ABLE TO DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE? >> WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. SHE CERTAINLY CAN'T BE — THEY CAN'T BE IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE. AND WITH THE IOWA CAUCUS JUST A COUPLE WEEKS AWAY, IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THEM TO BE ON THE GROUND. AS WE ALL KNOW, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN POLITICS, AND IN PARTICULAR AT A CAUCUS LIKE IOWA, IS JUST TO GET PEOPLE MOTIVATED TO GET OUT OF THEIR HOUSES AND APARTMENTS TO GO SHOW UP ON CAUCUS DAY. THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TO HAVE A CANDIDATE THERE.
AND SHE CAN'T DO THAT. THAT SAID, SHE WAS MAKING AN ARGUMENT, AND IT'S PROBABLY A REASONABLE ONE, THAT EVEN PEOPLE IN IOWA WOULD EXPECT THAT SHE AND THE OTHER SENATORS WHO ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WOULD DO THEIR JOBS. >> RIGHT. >> AND THERE'S REALLY NOT ANOTHER ANSWER FOR HER OR FOR BERNIE SANDERS OR ELIZABETH WARREN OR ANYONE WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WHO HAPPENS TO BE A SENATOR. >> MOLLY, DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT? >> I'D LOVE TO BE SITTING NEXT TO AMY KLOBUCHAR VERSUS ACTUALLY AMY KLOBUCHAR, NEXT TO HER, PENNSYLVANIA, SOME KEY STATES ON THE SENATE FLOOR. WARREN BETWEEN NEVADA, CORTEZ. SANDERS HAS MARYLAND AND WISCONSIN. SO THESE PEOPLE ARE SITTING AT THEIR SEATS ALL DAY. YOU GOTTA TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. AND OH, TO BE A FLY ON THE WALL. >> MAKING FRIENDS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> MOLLY HOOPER, KIM WAILY, AND JEFF MASON, THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>> WE'RE GONNA TAKE A QUIT BREAK AS THE SENATORS TAKE THEIR OWN BREAK. MUCH MORE AHEAD ON THIS DAY. >> AND WE'RE BACK WITH MOLLY HOOPER AND KIM WEHLE. ASSOCIATE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL IN THE WHITEWATER INVESTIGATION. MOLLY IS A CBSN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR, CAPITOL HILL REPORTER. MOLLY, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS QUESTION OF WITNESSES. IF WITNESSES ARE CALLED, WHAT WOULD THAT PORTION OF THE TRIAL LOOK LIKE? IT WOULD LOOK VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'RE SEEING SO FAR, CORRECT? >> ABSOLUTELY. AND THE WAY THAT MITCH MCCONNELL STRUCTURED THIS RESOLUTION, IT ACTUALLY SPECIFIED THAT IF THE SENATE DOES AGREE TO ALLOW THE HOUSE OR THE PRESIDENT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, THOSE WITNESSES SHALL BE DEPOSED FIRST. AND THAT WOULD HAPPEN BEHIND CLOSED DOOR. DEPENDING ON WHO WAS ALLOWED TO BE IN THE ROOM, YOU GET A MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTION TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS.
SO WE MIGHT NOT EVEN SEE, NECESSARILY, WHAT IS SAID BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. BUT WE MAY. AND AFTER THAT POINT, THE SENATE COULD VOTE TO SEE THIS PERSON LIVE ON THE SENATE FLOOR OR NOT. FIRST THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT DEPOSITION PERIOD. AND MAYBE KIM COULD SPEAK TO THIS ASPECT WHEN IT COMES TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. BECAUSE IF THE WHITE HOUSE MAKES THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS — THAT THEY'RE INVOKING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE DEPOSITIONS COULD START BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, AND SENATORS IN THE PAST HAVE AGREED TO GO, NOT NECESSARILY OFF THE RECORD, BUT TO HAVE MORE OF A CLASSIFIED SESSION.
SO THAT THEY DON'T WANT NECESSARILY REVEAL THOSE ASPECTS THAT ARE COVERED IN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. >> KIM, CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THAT? ESPECIALLY IF, FOR INSTANCE THE REPUBLICANS SAY HEY, OKAY WE'LL HAVE WITNESSES. WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER. WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? >> WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME IS WE'RE HEARING FROM REPUBLICANS THAT THIS SPADE-WORK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE. BUT AS MOLLY SUGGESTS, THE FACT THAT THE RULES ALLOW FOR DEPOSITIONS MEANS THE RULES KONLT PLATE THERE WILL BE WITNESSES CONTEMPLATE THERE WILL BE WITNESSES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE IN.
A CIVIL CONTEXT, THE DEPOSITION IS WHERE THE LAWYER WITHOUT A JUDGE SITS DOWN AND HEARS WHAT A WITNESS HAS TO SAY. AND THEN THEY DECIDE WHETHER TO USE THEM IN THE TRIAL LATER. LIKE THE CRIMINAL CONTEXT, WITNESSES SHOW UP AT THE GRAND JURY, THE PROSECUTORS GET TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. THEN THEY DECIDE WHETHER TO USE THEM AT TRIAL. AND IT'S AT THAT POINT THAT PRIVILEGE COULD COME UP. I DO THINK THAT — TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THERE WERE EVER TO BE REPUBLICANS — ENOUGH FOR REPUBLICANS THAT WOULD AGREE TO HAVE WITNESSES, WE WOULD SEE WITNESSES FOR BOTH SIDES, PRESUMABLY. AS WE'RE HEARING PUBLICLY, THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'S COMING UP FROM LEV PARNAS, FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS, THE OFFICE OF THE GOA ISSUED A REPORT SAYING THE WITHHOLDING OF AID WAS ILLEGAL. LOTS OF SOMETHING IS HAPPENING SINCE THE DECEMBER 20th VOTE. AND MOST OF IT IS REALLY DAMAGING TO THE PRESIDENT. IF WE START OPENING THAT UP, WE WILL SEE A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. THE WHISTLEBLOWER MIGHT BE ONE OF THEM. AND THEN THE QUESTION WOULD BE WOULD CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS MAKE A RULING THAT, LISTEN, THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS JUST HANDING THE BATON OFF.
KIND OF LIKE SOMEONE CALLING A TIP LINE. LISTEN, I THINK I KNOW WHERE THE MURDER WEAPON MIGHT BE. ONCE THAT PERSON CALMS THE TIP LINE, NO ONE REALLY CARES WHO THE PERSON IS BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST PASSING IT ON. BUT THAT COULD REALLY COMPLICATE THE PROCESS AND MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED FOR BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. BUT IT WOULD BENEFIT, I THINK, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE MORE FACTS TO MAKE THIS SERIOUS DECISION. WHETHER IT IS TO ACQUIT OR WHETHER IT IS TO REMOVE WHICH IS QUITE UNUSUAL, I THINK UNTHINKABLE IN THIS MOMENT, PROBABLY.
BUT AT LEAST WE COULD SEE, LISTEN, IT WAS A FAIR PROCESS. ALL THE CARDS WERE ON THE TABLE. AND WE KNOW WHAT WE WERE IT DEALING WITH. >> RIGHT. IT IS INTERESTING CONSIDERING THE MAJORITY THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE IN THE SENATE THAT THEY ARE SO WARY OF WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY STILL CLEARLY HAVE THE UPPER HAND. >> YEAH, THERE ARE SO MANY MOVING PIECES GOING ON HERE. I THINK THE WAY LAWYERS DEFEND CASES. YOU MAKE A DEFENSE ON THE FACTS. THE STORY IS NOT WHAT IS BEING PUT FORTH, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT. WE HAVEN'T HEARD A WHOLE LOT ABOUT THAT. THE ARGUMENT ESPECIALLY AFTER MR. PARNAS'S PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT THIS WAS TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION. FIONA HILL UNDERMINED THAT. THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, THAT DOESN'T HOLD UP. THE SECOND ARGUMENT IS THAT AS A LEGAL ARGUMENT, THIS ISN'T JUSTIFIABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW. MOST CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS INCLUDING OUR COLLEAGUE HERE AT CBS, JONATHAN TURLEY, AGREE THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT.
SO THEIR BEST STRATEGY, REALLY, IS TO KEEP A LID ON IT AND TO MAKE IT GO AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. BECAUSE THE FACTS OF THE LAW ARE NOT ON THEIR SIDE. THE OTHER ARGUMENT, I THINK, IS QUITE IRONIC THAT WE'RE HEARING. WELL, THIS IS UNDERMINING AN ELECTION. AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE. OF COURSE, IMPEACHMENT IS MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION SIX TIMES. SO IT CAN'T BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BUT ALSO THE BIGGER, I THINK, THREAD THAT IS BEING LOST IN THE DETAILS IS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. >> YES. >> MR. MUELLER SAID THAT THERE IS ONGOING — THAT'S WHAT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS ABOUT. WE SAW THAT THE RUSSIANS TAPPED BARIZMA, THE COMPANY THAT HUNTER BIDEN WORKED FOR. SO IT'S STILL ONGOING. AND AMERICANS HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES, WOULD WE RATHER HAVE RUSSIANS MAKE THE DECISIONS? OR WOULD WE RATHER HAVE A REPRESENT IN THE SENATE MAKE THE DECISION? THE SENATE DOES ANSWER, IN THEORY, TO AMERICANS.
THE RUSSIANS DO NOT. SO IT'S KIND OF TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. NATIONAL SECURITY IS FRONT AND CENTER FOR THIS TRIAL. AND WE'RE NOT HEARING ENOUGH ABOUT IT, I DON'T THINK FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S AT THE HEART OF THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. >> KIM WEHLE, THANK YOU SO MUCH. MOLLY HOOPER, THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON NOW. >>> MORE THAN A DOZEN SENATORS PARTICIPATING IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WERE ALSO THERE WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED. MITCH MCCONNELL IS ONE OF THEM. AND HERE'S WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGER REQUEST TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES BACK THEN. >> I SAY THIS NOT REALLY JUST TO PLAY COCKY BUT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE ARGUMENT THE WHITE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE MAKING FOR A MERE THREE WITNESSES IS CERTAINLY NOT AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST. >> AND HERE IS WHAT SENATOR MCCONNELL SAID ABOUT WITNESSES TODAY. >> IF ANY AMENDMENTS ARE BROUGHT FORWARD TO FORCE PREMATURE 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 IN ORDER TO SUBPOENA SPECIFIC WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS, I WILL MOVE TO TABLE SUCH MOTIONS BECAUSE THE SENATE WILL DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS LATER IN THE TRIAL JUST LIKE WE DID BACK IN 1999. >> SO THE QUESTION IS NOW JUST HOW CLOSE IS SENATOR MCCONNELL STICKING TO THOSE 1999 SENATE TRIAL RULES? AND JUST HOW REASONABLE WILL HE FIND DEMOCRATS' REQUESTS TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES MORE THAN TWO DECADES LATER? FOR MORE ON, THIS LET'S BRING IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN, THOMAS WAY LAN. WAYLAN. WE JUST HEARD IN THIS CLIP, SENATOR MCCONNELL SAYING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS' REQUEST FOR WITNESSES IN THE SENATE TRIAL IS NOT UNREASONABLE. OOINL SO SORRY. WE'RE GONNA HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU IN JUST A BIT. WE JUST HEARD THAT THE SENATE TRIAL HAS JUST RESUMED. >> THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN AND QUEEN QUEENS. FURZ SOME FOLKS HAVE SAID, IS THAT COMPLICATED? 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 PINEDS US TOGETHER, ALL OF US AS AMERICANS, BINDS US TOGETHER, ALL OF US AS AMERICAN, 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. OF A FAIR TRIAL. THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, INCLUDING WITH RESPECT TO MICK MULVANEY. WHO HAS EVER HEARD OF A TRIAL WITH NO WITNESSES? BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SOME ARE CONTEMPLATING HERE TODAY.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADDRESS THAT FUNDAMENTAL FLAW. IT WOULD INSURE THAT THE TRIAL INCLUDES TESTIMONY FROM A KEY WITNESS, THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETS. MICK MULVANEY. AND IT WOULD ENSURE THAT 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 ALONG THE SENATE'S OWN LONGSTANDING IMPEACHMENT RULE 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 BURY THE EVIDENCE AND COVER UP HIS CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER.
THE HOUSE TRIED TO GET MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY. WE SUBPOENAED HIM. MR. MULVANEY TOGETHER WITH OTHER KEY WITNESSES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE AIDE ROBERT BLAIRE, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL MICHAEL DUFFEY, AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER JOHN EISENBERG, WERE CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE 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 TRIAL. MR. MULVANEY WAS AT THE CENTER OF EVERY STAGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S SUBSTANTIAL PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AGAINST UKRAINE. BASED ON THE EXPENSE INCH EVIDENCE THE HOUSE DID OBTAIN, IT IS CLEAR THAT MULVANEY WAS CRUCIAL IN PLANNING THE SCHEME, EXECUTING ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND CARRYING OUT THE COVERUP.
E-MAILS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY SHOW THAT MR. MULVANEY WAS IN THE LOOP. ON THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO EXPLICITLY CONDITION A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON UKRAINE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION BENEFICIAL TO THE PRESIDENT'S REELECTION PROSPECTS. HE WAS CLOSELY INVOLVED IN IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANTS. AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADMITTED THAT THE FUNDS OTHER THANKING WITHHELD TO PUT PRESSURE ON UKRAINE. TO CONDUCT ONE OF THE PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED. PHONY.
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION 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 IT 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. 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 MOSTLY IMPORTANTLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL.
A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES WITNESSES. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. THAT IS WHY THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ADOPTED. BEFORE WE DISCUSS MR. MULVANEY'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S GEOPOLITICAL SHAKEDOWN, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES WOULD BE A STUNNING DEPARTURE 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 SCREEN. AS 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 TESTIMONY, SERIOUSLY. THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS TAKEN ITS OBLIGATION TO EVALUATE THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT BASED ON A FULL BODY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION SERIOUSLY. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.
RESPECTFULLY, IT IS IMPORTANT TO HONOR THAT UNBROKEN PRECEDENT TODAY. SO THAT MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY, WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR, AS TO WHAT HE MIGHT BE 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 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 EXECUTIVE A COVERUP.
HE HAS ORDERED THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION TO IGNORE THE POWERS OF CONGRESS, A SEPARATE AND COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, TO IN A MANNER WHICH IS UNPRECEDENTED IN AMERICAN HISTORY. 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 SLIDES, 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 TROUBLEAM, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION DID NOT MAKE ANY LEGITIMATE ATTEMPTS TO REACH A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION WITH THE HOUSE OR COMPROMISE REGARDING ANY DOCUMENT REQUEST OR WITNESS SUBPOENAS.
WHY? BECAUSE PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP WASN'T INTERESTED IN COOPERATING. HE WAS PLOTTING A COVERUP. 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 NIXON, WHOSE RTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT INCLUDED OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, DID NOT BLOCK KEY WHITE HOUSE AIDES FROM TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS DURING THE SENATE WATERGATE HEARINGS. IN FACT, HE PUBLICLY URGED WHITE HOUSE AIDES TO TESTIFY. REMEMBER ALL OF THOSE WITNESSES WHO CAME IN FRONT OF THIS BODY? CAME A LOOK AT THE SCREEN. JOHN DEAN, THE FORMER WHITE HOUSE KOURNL, TESTIFIED FOR MULTIPLE DAYS PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA.
H. R. HALEDERMAN, PRESIDENT NIXON'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, WAS SUBPOENAED AND TESTIFIED. ALEXANDER BUTTERFIELD, THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WHO 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 A CHOIR BOY. TWO OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN TRIED BEFORE THE SENATE. HOW DID THEY CONDUCT THEMSELVES? WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON AND ANDREW JOHNSON DID NOT BLOCK ANY WITNESSES FROM PARCHING IN THE SENATE TRIAL. PLUMP PRESIDENT TRUMP BY CONTRAST REFUSES TO ALLOW RELEVANT WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING TO THIS VERY DAY. MANY OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S WHITE HOUSE AIDES TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF CONGRESS. EVEN BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF FORMAL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MID-19-90s, THE HOUSE AND SENATE HEARD FROM MORE THAN 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. AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CHART, THE TESTIMONY WAS PACKAGED AND DELIVERED TO THE SENATE. HERE WE ARE SEEKING WITNESSES THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE THE HOUSE. APPARENTLY PRESIDENT TRUMP THINKS HE CAN DO WHAT NO OTHER PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM HAS ATTEMPTED TO DO IN SUCH A BRAZEN FASHION.
FLOAT ABOVE THE LAW AND HIDE THE TRUTH. FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STABBED. TO STAND. LET ME NOW ADDRESS SOME BEDROCK PRINCIPLES ABOUT CONGRESS' AUTHORITY. TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS. OUR BROAD POWER WAS INQUIRY AT THEIR STRONGEST DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. WHEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE CUSTOMERS RESPONSIBILITY EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 1. 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 THAT SWRPS 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 THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER OF PREVENTING A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF HIS CONDUCT. OR OF SECURING HIMSELF AGAINST THE DISGRACE OF A 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, ASKED THAT HE HAD SERVED AS PRESIDENT ONCE EXCLAIMED "WHAT MOCKERY WOULD IT BE FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO SAY THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT EXTENDING EVEN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HIMSELF, AND YET TO SAY THAT THE HOUSE HAD NOT THE POWER TO OBTAIN THE EVIDENCE AND PROOF ON WHICH THEIR IMPEACHMENT WAS BASED?" HAMILTON, STORY, ADAMS AND OTHERS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE PRESIDENT CANNOT INSULATE HIMSELF FROM CONGRESS' INVESTIGATION OF HIS WRONGDOING.
THE PRESIDENT COULD DECIDE WHAT EVIDENCE GETS TO BE PRESENTED IN HIS OWN TRIAL THAT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY NULLIFY. THE CONSTITUTIONAL 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 MUM HAS FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MULVANEY HAS FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO SHAKE DOWN UKRAINE AND PRESSURE ITS NEW PRESIDENT INTO ANNOUNCING PHONY INVESTIGATION 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 OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION. 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 NOUNSING AN INVESTIGATION ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION DESIGNED TO ELEVATE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL STANDING.
MR. MULVANEY, PERHAPS MORE THAN ANY OTR ADMINISTRATION WITNESS EXCEPTING THE PRESIDENT, HAS FIRSTHAND INSIGHT INTO THE DECISION TO WITHHELD $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AND SECURITY AID TO A VULNERABLE UKRAINE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. INDEED, OUR INVESTIGATION REVEALS 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 IS A MEMBER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CABINET. AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TEAM AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. HE REMAINS AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.
WHICH IMPLEMENTED THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. AS THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RECENTLY CONCLUDED. IN SHORT, 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, THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. MR. ON SUNDAY LAND.ED $1 MILLION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INAUGURATION. HE CERTIFIED THAT EVERYBODY WAS IN THE LOOP. AND THAT IT WAS NO SECRET WHAT WAS CAN GOING ON. IN FACT, AS EARLY AS MAY OF 2019, AMBASSADOR SONDLANDMADE ú ON UKRAINE MASTERS WITH MR. MULVANEY. HERE IS WHAT DAVID HOLD, AN OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE, HAD TO SAY ON THAT MATTER.
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S MANDATE AS THE ACCREDITED AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION DID NOT COVER INDIVIDUAL MEMBER STATES, LET ALONE NONUNION MEMBERS LIKE UKRAINE. HE MADE CLEAR THAT HE HAD DIRECT AND FREQUENT ACCESS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MICK MULVANEY AND PORTRAYED HIMSELF AS THE CONDUIT TO THE PRESIDENT AND 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 GREET 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 COUNCIL SENIOR DIRECTOR, DOCTOR 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 OF THE MEETINGS THAT HE WAS HAVING.
AND HE SAID TO ME THAT I'M BRIEFING THE PRESIDENT. I'M BRIEFING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY. I'M BRIEFING SECRETARY POMPEO, AND I'VE TALKED TO BOLTON, WHO ELSE DO I HAVE TO DEAL WITH? AND THE POINT IS WE HAVE AN AGENCY PROCESS THAT DEALS WITH ARBITRATION CRANE. IT INCLUDES MR. HOLMES. IT INCLUDES A WHOLE LOAD OF OTHER PEOPLE. BUT IT STRUCK ME YESTERDAY WHEN YOU PUT UP ON THE SCREEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S E-MAIL, AND WHO WAS ON THEM, AND HE HAD THESE ARE PEOPLE I NEED TO KNOW, BUT HE WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. BECAUSE HE WAS BEING INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND. AND WE WERE BEING INVOLVED IN NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN POLICY. AND THOSE TWO THINGS HAD JUST DIVERGED. >> AND THERE'S MORE. MUCH MORE. A MONTH LATER, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AT THE TIME, JOHN BOLTON, TOLD DR.
FIONA HILL TO TELL THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL'S LAWYER THAT HE WAS NOT PART OF WHATEVER DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND 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 ZEZENSKI, IF UKRAINE ANNOUNCED TWO PHONY INVESTIGATIONS, INVOLVING THE BIDENS AND 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE. HERE WAS TESTIMONY ABOUT SONDLAND DESCRIBING THIS DRUG DEAL HE HAD WITH MULVANEY. >> WHEN I CAME IN, THERE WILL BE A DEAL HERE, I'LL HAVE A MEETING WITH MULVANEY. THERE WILL BE A MEETING IF THE UKRAINIANS OPEN UP INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016. BY THIS POINT, HAVING HEARD MR. GIULIANI OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON THE TELEVISION AND ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT HE WAS ACERTEDING, BY THIS POINT IT WAS CLEAR THAT BARRISMA WAS CODE FOR THE BIDENS.
I COULD SEE WHY HE WAS ALARMED. AND HE SAID THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE. WE'RE THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. WE CAN'T BE INVOLVED IN THIS. >> THE REFERENCED AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MICK MULVANEY WAS SO UPSETTING THAT DR. HILL REPORTED IT TO NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEGAL ADVISOR. >> WHEN I CAME BACK AND RELATED IT TO HIM, HE HAD SOME VERY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR ME. AND I'M PRESUMING THAT THAT'S SFLOORS WHAT WAS THAT INSTRUCTION? >> SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION WAS THAT I HAD TO GO TO THE LAWYERS, JOHN EISENBERG, OUR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL, TO BASICALLY SAY YOU TELL EISENBERG AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD ME THAT I AM NOT PART OF THIS WHATEVER DRUG DEAL THAT MULVANEY AND SONDLAND ARE COOKING UP.
>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN BY THE DRUG DEAL THAT MULVANEY AND SONDLAND WERE COOKING UP? >> I TOOK IT TO MEAN INVESTIGATIONS OR 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 AMENDMENT, WHO SHOULD APPEAR BEFORE THE SENATE, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FREE AND FAIR TRIAL.
>> A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF IT. >> INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY? >> CORRECT. >> THE DOCUMENTS ALSO HIGHLIGHT THE EXTENSIVE INVOLVEMENT OF MICK MULVANEY. IN THIS GEOPOLITICAL SHAKEDOWN SCHEME. E-MAIL MESSAGES SWORN BY SONDLAND DURING HIS SWORN TESTIMONY SHOWED THAT HE INFORMED MR. MULVANEY AS WELL AS SECRETARY POMPEO AND SECRETARY KERRY OF HIS EFFORTS TO PERSUADEPRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION DESIRED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. FOR EXAMPLE AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND E- MAILED SEVERAL TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY, STATING THAT HE HAD TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO HELP PREPARE HIM FOR A PHONE CALL 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. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE CLEAR IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO THE BARRISMA BIDEN INVESTIGATIONS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL.
MR. MULVANEY WROTE IN RESPONSE "I ASKED NSC TO SET IT UP. WHAT EXACTLY DID MR. MULVANEY KNOW ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN COMMITMENT TO TURN OVER EVERY STONE? THESE REQUIRE ANSWERS UNDER OATH FROM MR. MULVANEY. MR. MULVANEY IS ALSO. 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. >> I WAS INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE MONEY WAS HELD UP TEMPORARILY. >> THE PUBLIC REPORTS CONFIRM MR. MULVANEY'S OWN ACCOUNT THAT HE HAD INFORMATION THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF THIS INQUIRY. SPECIFICALLY RELATED WHY THE PRESIDENT ORDERED A HOLD ON AID TO UKRAINE AND KEPT IT IN PLACE.
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. MULVANEY AND ROBERT BLAIR. A STATION ADVISOR ON JUNE 27th. WHEN MR. MULVANEY ASKED DID WE EVER FIND OUT ABOUT THE MONEY FOR UKRAINE AND WHETHER HE CAN HOLD IT BACK? WHAT PROMPTED THAT E-MAIL? ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS, MR. MUM WAS ON AFRGS 1 MULVANEY WAS ON AIR FORCE 1. AIR FORCE 1. WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. WHEN HE SENT IT. WHAT OTHER CONVERSATIONS DID MR. MULVANEY HAVE WITH THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ABOUT THIS UNLAWFUL FREEZE? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW THERE IS OTHER SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE CONCERNING MR. MULVANEY'S ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE SCHEME. ACCORDING TO MULTIPLE WITNESSES, THE DIRECTION TO FREEZE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WAS DELIVERED BY MICK MULVANEY HIMSELF. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL, MARK SANDY, TESTIFIED ABOUT A JULY 12th E-MAIL FROM MR.
BLAIRE STATING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DIRECTING A HOLD ON MILITARY SUPPORT FUNDING FOR UKRAINE. WAS MR. BLAIRE ACTING AT MR. MULVANEY'S EXPRESS DIRECTION? THE MEMBERS OF THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY DESERVE TO KNOW. ON JULY 18th, A HOLD WAS ANNOUNCED TO THE AGENCIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OVERSEEING UKRAINE POLICY MATTERS. THOSE PRESENT WERE BLIND SIGHTED BY THE ANNOUNCEMENT. THAT THE SECURITY AID APPROPRIATED BY THIS CONGRESS ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO UKRAINE WHICH IS STILL AT WAR WITH RUSSIAN-BACKED SEPARATISTS IN THE EAST. THEY WERE ALARMED THAT THAT AID HAD INEX POLITICABLY BEEN PUT ON HOLD. MEANWHILE, OFFICIALS AT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND WITHIN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BECAME INCREASINGLY CONCERNED. MEANWHILE, OFFICIALS AT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND WITHIN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BECAME INCREASINGLY CONCERNED.
THEIR CONCERN TURNED OUT TO BE ACCURATE. PUBLIC REPORTS HAVE INDICATED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN POSSESSION OF ALL THESE E- MAILS. EXCHANGES BETWEEN ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, AND WHITE HOUSE BUDGET OFFICIALS SEEKING TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE FUNDS. AN SPLAVENGZ, I SHOULD NOTE, THAT EXPLANATION, I SHOULD NOTE, THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO PROVIDE AFTER THE PRESIDENT ALREADY ORDERED THE HOLD.
MR. MULVANEY PRESUMABLY HAS ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTION 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 AT THE WHITE HOUSE, MR. MULVANEY LEFT NO DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THE ESSENTIAL MILITARY AID AS LEVERAGE TO TRY TO EXTRACT PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF HIS EFFORT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN A 2020 ELECTION. THIS WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY PRESS CONFERENCE. MR. MULVANEY MADE CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS, IN FACT, PRESSURING UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE, RATHER THAN RUSSIA, HAD INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS. A CONSPIRACY THEORY PROMOTED BY NONE OTHER THAN THE GREAT PURVEYOR OF DEMOCRACY, VLAD MIR PUTIN HIMSELF. WHEN WHITE HOUSE REPORTERS ATTEMPTED TO CLARIFY THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A QUID PRO PRO RELATED TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE, MR. MULVANEY REPLIED "WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME" WITH FOREIGN POLICY.
>> THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE DNC SERVEER? ABSOLUTE. NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. BUT THAT'S IT. AND THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY. >> SO THE DEMAND FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATS WAS PART OF THE REASON THAT HE WANTED TO WITHHELD FUNDING TO UKRAINE? >> WE LOOKED BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016. WHICH WAS PART OF THE THING THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IN CORRUPTION WITH THAT NATION. AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE. >> WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS A QUID PRO QUO. IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER HAPPENED AS WELL. >> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME. WITH FOREIGN POLICY. WE WERE HOLDING MONEY AT THE SAME TIME FOR WHAT WAS IT? THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE COUNTRIES.
WE WERE HOLDING UP THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE COUNTRIES SO THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE THEIR POLICIES ON IMMIGRATION. BY THE WAY, IN THIS SPEECH TO — >> I'M SORRY? >> THIS SPEAKS TO AN IMPORTANT POINT. BECAUSE I HEARD THIS YESTERDAY. AND I CAN NEVER REMEMBER THE GENTLEMAN. MCKINNEY? HE TESTIFIED YESTERDAY. IF YOU BELIEVE THE NEWS REPORTS, BECAUSE WE'VE NOT SEEN ANY TRANSCRIPTS OF, THIS THE ONLY TRANSCRIPT I'VE SEEN WAS SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. IF YOU READ THE NEWS REPORTS AND YOU BELIEVE THEM, WHAT DID MCKINNEY SAID YESTERDAY? MCKINNEY SAID YESTERDAY THAT HE WAS LITERALLY UPSET WITH THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS. AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY, GET OVER IT. THERE'S GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY. >> IN THIS EXTRAORDINARY PRESS CONFERENCE, MR. MULVANEY SPOKE WITH AUTHORITY. AND CONVICTION. ABOUT WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THE AID. HE DID NOT MINCE HIS WORDS. BUT THEN FOLLOWING THE PRESS CONFERENCE, HE TRIED TO WALK BACK HIS STATEMENT. AS IF HE HAD NOT SAID THEM. OR HAD NOT MENTIONED. 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 IS IT FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINES OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. STEP BACK 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 INDICTED OR PROSECUTED IN OFFICE. AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, THE PRESIDENT HAS ACTUALLY FILED A BRIEF IN THE 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 ABUDZS HIS POWER. TRIES TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION. UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. BREAKS THE LAW IN DOING SO. AND THEN TRY TRYS TO COVER IT UP. THIS IS AMERICA. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. IF THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS EVEN 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 ULTIMATELY 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 INCONSISTENT WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. YOU WOULD'LL INHIBIT HEAR THAT THE REASON NO DOUBT HEAR THAT THE REASON THE PRESIDENT BLOCKED THESE WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING, INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY, IS BECAUSE OF SOME LOFTY CONCERN FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE PRESERVATION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. LET'S GET REAL. HOW CAN BLOCKING WITNESSES FROM TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT HELP PRESERVE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY? THIS TYPE OF BLANKET OBSTRUCTION UNDERMINES THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND DEEMS THE CONSTITUTION A POTENTIALLY MORTAL DEATH BLOW.
TO BE CLEAR, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PROVIDE A LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE BASIS FOR HIS COMPLETE AND TOTAL BLOCKAGE OF EVIDENCE. 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 COUNSEL, IN A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 18th, 2019. PRESIDENT TRUMP SIMPLY DECIDED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE. IN THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OWN WRONGDOING. IT WAS A CATEGORICAL DECISION NOT TO COOPERATE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC FACTS OR LEGAL ARGUMENTS. IN FACT, EVEN THE WORDS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THROUGH HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WERE MADE UP. IN A LETTER, MR. KIP LONEY REFERRED TO SO-CALLED EXECUTIVE CIPOLLONE REFERRED TO SO-CALLED EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS. THAT IS NOT A RECOGNIZED JURIS PRUSHL SHIELD. PRUDENTIAL SHIELD. THOSE CAN BE RESOLVED DURING THIS 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.
EVERY COURT WHO ADDRESSED THIS LEGAL FICTION HAS REJECTED IT. AS THE SUPREME COURT EMPHATICALLY STATED IN UNANIMOUS FASHION ON ITS DECISION ON THE NIXON TAPES, CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS OF THE PRESIDENT MUST YIELD TO AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. WHEN THERE IS A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR THE INFORMATION. AND THERE IS HERE TODAY. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT MR. MUM MULVANEY AS THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET IS UNIQUELY SITUATED TO PROVIDE THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY WITH RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHARGES IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION HAS NO BASIS IN LAW AND SHOULD YIELD TO THIS BODY COEQUAL 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 EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE FOR WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN THE SENATE JUST LAST MONTH. LET'S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE. >> SO WHEN IT'S FAIR, IT WILL BE FAIR IN THE SENATE, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MIKE POMPEO. I'D LOVE TO HAVE MICK. I'D LOVE TO HAVE RICK PERRY. AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE. TESTIFY. >> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, AS HE AND HIS ADVISORS REPEATEDLY CLAIM. THEY SHOULD ALL SIMPLY TESTIFY IN THE SENATE TRIAL. WHAT IS PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP HIDING FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? >> THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A FAIR TRIAL. OUR DEMOCRACY NEEDS A FAIR TRIAL. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL.
A FAIR TRIAL NEEDS WITNESSES. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME. >> MR. SUBLIMITY, >>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MICHAEL, I SERVE AS DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT AND SUPPORTS THE RESOLUTION. THERE IS SIMPLY NO NEED TO ALTER THE PROCESS ON WITNESS — WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, FROM THAT OF THE CLINTON TRIAL. WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THIS BODY 102 ZERO. AT ITS CORE, THIS CASE IS VERY SIMPLE AND THE KEY FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED. FIRST. YOU SEE IN THE TRANSCRIPTS. WHICH THE PRESIDENT RELEASED TRANSPARENTLY, UNPRECEDENTEDLY. THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO FOR ANYTHING. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS ARE NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE CALL. SECOND, PRESIDENT ZELINSKI AND THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICIALS IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT REPEATEDLY HAVE SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO AND THERE WAS NO PRESSURE. TIRD. THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE PAUSE IN THE AID AT THE TIME OF THE CALL, AND WERE NOT AWARE OF IT, DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF IT, UNTIL MORE THAN A MONTH LATER.
FOURTH, THE ONLY WITNESSES IN THE 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 IS PRETTY OBVIOUS. THE AID FLOWED AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENTS ON SCHEME AT 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 IS JOB FOR IT. WITH THAT, OF THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. CIPOLLONE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. JUST A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS. FIRST OF ALL, AS HE SAID, ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN THIS QUESTION IS ADDRESSED. UNDER THE RESOLUTION, THAT WILL BE NEXT WEEK. THIS RESOLUTION WAS ACCEPTED 100-0, SOME OF 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 HAVE NOT EVEN STARTED YET. WE ARE HERE TODAY, WE CAME HOPING TO HAVE A TRIAL. THEY SPENT THE ENTIRE DAY TELLING OU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THEY CANNOT PROVE THEIR CASE. I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT IN FIVE MINUTES AND SAVED US ALL A LOT OF TIME.
THEY CAME HERE TALKING ABOUT THE GAO. IT IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS FOR CONGRESS. DO YOU KNOW WHO DISAGREES WITH THE GAO? DO NOT 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 US MAC YOU KNOW WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY? QUID PRO QUO. BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY. ONLY IN WASHINGTON WOULD SOMEONE SAY THAT IT IS WRONG WHEN YOU DO NOT 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 AND HISTORY WHERE THE DELIVERY TIME WAS LONGER THAN THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. úTHEY COME ACCUSE PEOPLE — BY THE WAY, THEY FALSELY ACCUSED YOU.
YOU ARE ON TRIAL NOW. THEY FALSELY ACCUSE PEOPLE OF PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. REALLY? SINCE THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER, THAT IS ALL WE HAVE HAD FROM THEM. THEY HAVE 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 HAVE ORGANIZED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO INVESTIGATE INCESSANTLY THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENT. AND THEY COME HERE AND MAKE FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. I THINK THE DOCTORS CALL THAT PROJECTION. IT IS TIME FOR IT TO END. IT IS TIME FOR SOMEONE, FOR THE SENATE, TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING. I SAID IT, THEY DID NOT DENY IT. THEY ARE TRYING TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NAME FROM THE BALLOT. AND THEY CAN'T PROVE THEIR CASE. THEY HAVE TOLD YOU THAT ALL DAY LONG. THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING SOME OF YOU SENATORS TO DO.
SOME OF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO USE YOUR OFFICE TO REMOVE YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT FROM THE BALLOT. THAT IS WRONG. THAT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY. AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IT IS NOT REALLY A SHOW OF CONFIDENCE. SO, WE WILL, I SUPPOSE, HAVE THIS DEBATE AGAIN NEXT WEEK. IF WE EVER GET THERE. IT IS 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 WILL SEE. BUT THIS RESOLUTION IS RIGHT, AND IT IS 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 IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT. IS IT NOW, OR IS IT A WEEK FROM NOW? SERIOUSLY. CAN WE PLEASE START? THANK YOU. >> MR. CIPOLLONE, IS YOUR SIDE COMPLETE? >> YES WE ARE, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. >> THANK YOU, THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 14 MINUTES REMAINING. >> COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 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. AN THE CORRUPTION OF OUR DEMOCRACY. HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THAT IS WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ALL ABOUT. NOW, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AGAIN, HAS DECLINED TO ADDRESS THE SUBSTANTIVE MERITS OF THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED. TRIED TO SUGGEST THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE ONLY BEEN FOCUSED ON TRYING TO OUST PRESIDENT TRUMP. NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. IN THE LAST YEAR, WE PASSED 400 BILLS TO THIS CHAMBER, 275 OF THOSE BILLS ARE BIPARTISAN IN NATURE. ADDRESSING ISSUES LIKE LOWERING HEALTHCARE COSTS AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES. TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC. WE HAVE WORKED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM. I PERSONALLY WORKED WITH HIM ALONG WITH ALL OF YOU ON THE FIRST STEP BACK. WE WORKED WITH HIM ON THE U.S./MEXICO/CANADA TRADE AGREEMENT. WE WORKED WITH HIM TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT.
WE DO NOT HATE THIS PRESIDENT, BUT WE LOVE THE CONSTITUTION, WE LOVE AMERICA. WE LOVE OUR DEMOCRACY. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, BY MR. SACK HELLO, AS HE OPENED, BEFORE THIS. WHY ARE WE HERE? LET ME SEE IF I CAN POSIT AND ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. WE ARE HERE SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZENFOR POLITICAL AND PERSONAL GAIN. WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION AND CORRUPTD OUR DEMOCRACY. WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD 391 MILLION DOLLARS 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 OF USED 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 DO NOT KNOW, NOW YOU KNOW. I YIELD TO MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING, AND JUST WANT TO PROVIDE A COUPLE QUICK FACTS CHECKS ON MY COLLEAGUES AT THE OTHER TABLE. FIRST, MR. SAID THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS WERE NOT MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENTS ONE SKI. LET'S THINK BACK TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN A CALL. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER FROM THE CALL THAT PRESIDENTS ONE SKI THINGS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE JAVELIN ANTITANK WEAPONS AND SAID THEY WERE READY TO ORDER SOME MORE. AND WHAT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMPS 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 IS TELLING.
THAT IT TAKES PLACE IN THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION. SO, YES, SECURITY ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE, DID, BUT NOT CALL, IT CAME UP IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASK. WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DO YOU THINK THAT SINCE TWO UKRAINE? THEY ARE NOT STUPID. THE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS OR NOT STUPID. NOW, MR. PURPURA SAID THEY NEVER FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, THEY NEVER FOUND ABOUT THE FREEZE IN THE AID UNTIL A COUPLE MONTHS AFTER. HE NEEDS TO BE MORE ACCURATE IN HIS FACTS. LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE TESTIMONY WILL HEAR AND YOU WILL ONLY HEAR IT BECAUSE IT TOOK PLACE IN THE HOUSE, THESE ARE OTHER WITNESSES YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HEAR. YOU HAD CATHERINE CROFT, A WITNESS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, A CAREER OFFICIAL WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, WHO TALKED ABOUT HOW QUICKLY, ACTUALLY, AFTER THE FREEZE WENT INTO PLACE, UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT IT AND SHE STARTED GETTING CONTEXT FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY HERE IN WASHINGTON. SHE SAID SHE WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THEIR DIPLOMATIC TRADE CRAP.
NOW WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS SHE WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH HOW QUICKLY THE UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT SOMETHING THAT 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 SAID THAT HER OFFICE STARTED GETTING INQUIRIES FROM UKRAINE ABOUT 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 PRESIDENTS ONE SKI, UKRAINE'S FOREIGN MINISTRY RECEIVED A DIPLOMATIC CABLE FROM ITS INDUSTRY INDICATING THAT TRUMP HAD FROZEN THE MILITARY AID WITHIN A WEEK.
THAT CABLE IS REPORTED TO HAVE GONE FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY TO THE UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY. AND, THE FORMER UKRAINIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER, LENA SAID, QUOTE, "WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION. IT WAS DEFINITELY MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES." SHE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE CABLE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY PROVIDED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S OFFICE. BUT, YOU LEARN MORE ABOUT LATER, UNDER THE 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 THE WHY THE UKRAINIANS WANTED TO KEEP IT SECRET, THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT IT. YOU CAN IMAGINE WHY. ZELENSKY DID NOT WANT HIS OWN PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS HOLDING BACK AID FROM HIM. WHAT IS THAT LOOK LIKE FOR A NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WHO IS TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THAT HE'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND HIS OWN COUNTRY BECAUSE HE HAS SUCH A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH A GREAT PATRON OF THE UNITED STATES? HE DID NOT WANT UKRAINIANS TO KNOW ABOUT IT BUT YOU KNOW EVEN MORE THAN THAT, HE DID NOT WANT THE RUSSIANS TO KNOW ABOUT IT FOR THE REASONS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
SO, YES, THE UKRAINIANS KEPT IT CLOSE TO THE VEST. NOW, MR. PURPURA ALSO WENT ON TO SAY, WELL, THE UKRAINIANS SAY THEY DID NOT FEEL ANY PRESSURE. THAT IS WHAT THEY SAY NOW. OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT IS NOT TRUE. WE HAVE HAD TESTIMONY THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE USED AS A POLITICAL PAWN. IN U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS. THEY RESISTED IT. YOU WILL HEAR MORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT, BUT THE EFFORTS TO PUSH BACK ON THIS PUBLIC STATEMENT, HOW THEY TRIED TO, WATERTOWN, HOW THEY TRIED TO LEAVE OUT THE SPECIFICS AND HOW GIULIANI AT THE PRESIDENT'S BEHEST, FORCE THEM IN A NOTE, NOPE, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE CREDIBLE IF YOU DON'T ADD BURISMA AND YOU DO NOT ADD 2016. YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THE úPRESSU SO, WHY ISN'T PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NOW SAYING HE WAS PRESSURED? WELL, CAN YOU IMAGINE THE IMPACT OF THAT? CAN YOU IMAGINE THE IMPACT OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IF YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGED TODAY, YES WE FELT PRESSURE. YOU WOULD TOO! WE ARE AT WAR WITH RUSSIA, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. YEAH, WE FELT PRESSURE. WE NEEDED THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILITARY AID BUT YOU THINK I'M GOING TO SAY THAT NOW? I STILL CANNOT GET IN THE WHITE HOUSE DOOR.
THEY LET THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER IN. I CAN'T EVEN GET IN WHITE HOUSE DOOR. THINK I'M GOING TO GO OUT NOW AND ADMIT TO THIS SCHEME? ANYONE WHO HAS WATCHED THIS PRESIDENT THE LAST THREE YEARS KNOWS HOW VINDICTIVE HE CAN BE. TO YOU AND THINK IT WOULD BE SMART FOR THE PRESIDENT FOR UKRAINE TO CONTRADICT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SO DIRECTLY ON AN ISSUE HE IS BEING IMPEACHED FOR? THAT WOULD BE THE WORST FORM OF MALPRACTICE FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED HE WOULD DENY IT. WE SHOULD BE SURPRISED IF YOU 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 ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE WITNESSES OR IF ARE GOING TO WITNESSES, WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHEN. AS IF, LATER, THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, OH, YES, WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE THE WITNESSES NOW. IT IS JUST A QUESTION OF WHEN. OKAY. AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID, LET'S BE REAL. THERE WILL BE NO WIND. THERE WILL BE NO WIND.
DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EPIPHANY A FEW DAYS FROM NOW AND SAY OKAY, WE ARE READY FOR WITNESSES. NO, 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 IS 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 HAW ROAD GOAL IS THAT YOU WILL NEVER GET TO THAT POINT. YOU WILL NEVER GET TO THAT POINT. WHEN THEY SAY WHEN, THEY MEAN NEVER. I YELLED 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. MISS BALDWIN. MR. BARRASSO. MR. BENNETT. MRS. BLACKBURN. MR. BLUMENTHAL. MR. BLUNT. MR. BOOKER. MR. BOZEMAN. MR. BRAUN. MR. BROWN. MR. BURR. MS. CANTWELL. MRS. O. MR. CARDIN. MR. CARPER. MR. CASEY. MR. CASSIDY. MS. COLLINS. MR. . MR. CORNYN. MISS CORTEZ MANIFESTO. MR. COTTON. MR. KRAMER. MR. CRAPO. MR. CRUZ. MR. DAINES. MS. DUCKWORTH. MR. DURBIN. MR. NZ. MS. ERNST. MRS. FEINSTEIN. MRS. FISHER. MR. GARDNER. MRS. JILL A BRAND. MR. GRAHAM. MR. GRASSLEY. MS. HARRIS. MS. HASSAN. MR. HOLLY. MR. HEINRICH. MS. SERONO. MR. HOVEN. MRS. HYDE SMITH. MR.
IN HALF. MR. JOHNSON. MR. JONES. MR. KANE. MR. KENNEDY. MR. KING. MS. KLOBUCHAR. MR. LANGFORD. MR. LEAHY. MR. LEE. MRS. LEFFLER. MR. MANSION. MRS. MARQUIS. MR. McCONNELL. MS. MIX SALLY. MR. MENENDEZ. MR. MERKLEY. MR. MORAN. MS. MARKOWSKI. MR. MURPHY. MRS. MURRAY. MR. PAUL. MR. PERDUE. MR. PETERS. MR. PORTMAN. MR. REED. MR. RISH. MR. ROBERTS. MR. ROMNEY. MS. ROSEN IN. MR. ROUSE. MR. RUBIO. MR. SANDERS. MR. SASS. MR. SHOTS. MR. SCHUMER. MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA. MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. MRS. SHAHEEN. MR. SHELBY. MS. CINEMA. MS. SMITH. MS. STABBING NOW. MR. SULLIVAN. MR. TESTER. MR. SOON. MR. TELL US. MR. TOOMEY. MR. UDALL. MR. VAN HOLLAND.
MR. WARNER. MS. WARREN. MR. WHITEHOUSE. MR. WHITAKER. 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 NAYS ARE 47. THE AMENDMENT IS TABLED. >> CHIEF JUSTICE. >> MR. MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. >> I WOULD ASK CONSENT TO ASK THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER, SINCE THERE IS A CERTAIN SIMILARITY TO ALL THESE AMENDMENTS, WHETHER HE MIGHT 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 MADE FOR THEM.
WE WILL HAVE VOTES ON ALL OF THOSE, WE WILL ALSO, THE LEADER, WITHOUT CONSULTING US, MAY CHANGE, MAKE A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THE SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATED FROM THE 1999 CLINTON RESOLUTION, WE WANT TO CHANGE THOSE. SO, THERE WILL BE A GOOD NUMBER OF VOTES. WE ARE WILLING TO DO SOME OF THOSE VOTES TOMORROW, THERE IS NO REASON WE HAVE TO DO THEM ALL TONIGHT. AND 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. >> AS I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY, ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS, UNDER THE RESOLUTION, COULD BE DEALT WITH AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF ROOM. >> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. >> MR. ALEXANDER. >>> ALL RIGHT, THE SENATE IS TAKING A LITTLE BREAK AND A LITTLE VOTE, WHICH MOLLY IS GOING TO EXPLAIN TO US THE PROCESS THAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW. >> SO, WHAT HAPPENS IS, WE JUST SAW IN THE LEAD UP TO THIS FORUM CALL, QUOTE UNQUOTE MITCH McCONNELL SAYING HEY, LET'S JUST STACK THESE VOTES BECAUSE CHUCK SCHUMER HAS A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS HE WANTS TO OFFER, AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING TO GO WITH THIS PACE WHICH COULD LAST ALL NIGHT.
LET'S JUST STACK THESE VOTES, WE WILL HAVE THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME ESSENTIALLY, AND CONDENSE THE SCHEDULE. AND, CHUCK SCHUMER CAME UP AND SAID NO, I WANT TO HAVE A DEBATE AND A VOTE ON EACH OF MY AMENDMENS, HOWEVER, I AM WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU IN TERMS OF THE SCHEDULE, BECAUSE, BEAR IN MIND, THE CHIEF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT IS PRESIDING OVER THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. >> AND HE HAS A DAY JOB. >> HE HAS A DAY JOB. WHICH INCIDENTALLY, DECIDES A LOT FOR THIS COUNTRY. HAS TO DO WITH THE LAW. AND, SO SCHUMER SAID OKAY, WELL WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT, ON THE TIMING AND TERMS OF WHEN WE WILL COME BACK, ESSENTIALLY.
AND SO, WHAT HAPPENED IS, WHEN YOU HEAR McCONNELL SAYING I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING YEARS OF C-SPAN AND SENATE.COM ARE VERY FAMILIAR. IT BASICALLY IS A PLACEHOLDER THAT ALLOWS THE CLOCK TO RUN WHILE THE SENATE IS WAITING FOR A SENATOR TO COME AND SPEAK, AND OR SAY WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW. WHAT I BELIEVE IS HAPPENING, WE CANNOT SEE THEM BECAUSE OF COURSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE ENTIRE CHAMBER, BUT I IMAGINE THAT MITCH McCONNELL AND CHUCK SCHUMER ARCHONS HAVING ABOUT, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? LET'S DO ONE MORE AMENDMENT TONIGHT, TAKE A VOTE, WE WILL RECONVENE TOMORROW, SO RIGHT NOW THEY ARE JUST WORKING OUT THESE SORT OF YOU KNOW, HOUSEKEEPING DETAILS, BUT NOT THE HOUSEKEEPING DETAILS RELATED TO IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OVERALL. >> SO DOES IT LOOK LIKE PERHAPS THEY'RE PLANNING ON WRAPPING UP SOON? >> I WOULD SAY PROBABLY THEY ARE.
AGAIN, SCHUMER WAS VERY MINDFUL OF CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IS SCHEDULE. AND, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT CHUCK SCHUMER WANTS TO ADD, ONE OF WHICH, BEING A SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, THAT DEBATE WOULD GO PROBABLY VERY MUCH LIKE THE DEBATE HAS BEEN GOING THIS FAR THIS AFTERNOON, RELATED TO THE DEMAND FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, FROM OMB, FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND EARLIER TODAY, I BELIEVE IT WAS ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS, AB ADAM SCHIFF, MENTIONED THAT THE ENERGY DEPARTMENT COULD EXPECT TO, YOU KNOW — SO SCHUMER HAS A NUMBER OF THESE UP HIS SLEEVE. BUT SO, MOLLY, IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THEN AT THIS POINT, THAT THE DEMOCRAT STRATEGY IS TO PAINSTAKINGLY GO THROUGH EACH SINGLE ONE OF THESE POTENTIAL SUBPOENAS, OR EVIDENCE, FOR WITNESSES, AND NOT RUSH THROUGH THEM? >> EXACTLY. AND REMEMBER, WHAT WE JUST SAW UNFOLD, I BELIEVE IT WAS ADAM SCHIFF CAME UP AND RESPONDED TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL POP CIPOLLONE'S OBSERVATION, BUT REALLY, THE DEMOCRATS, THIS IS CIPOLLONE, DEMOCRATS ARE JUST DRYING OUT THIS PROCESS BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, THEY ARE NOT — AND THIS IS PER CIPOLLONE, THEY DON'T SAY THAT THEY ARE CAMPAIGNING WITNESSES, THEY JUST SAY WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS DEBATE NOW? AND ADAM SCHIFF CAME UP AND SAID THAT IS A LITTLE DISINGENUOUS BECAUSE BASICALLY, WE WILL NOT GET THE EVIDENCE, WE CANNOT HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, WE CANNOT INTRODUCE THIS INFORMATION UNTIL AFTER THE SENATORS HAVE ALREADY ASKED QUESTIONS.
AND BY THE WAY, IN THIS RESOLUTION, THERE IS ONLY FOUR HOURS ALLOWED UNDER THIS RESOLUTION FOR BOTH SIDES TO PROPOSE AND DEBATE HAVING WITNESSES. >> SO THERE'S NO WAY THEY COULD QUESTION THESE WITNESSES, INCLUDE ALL THE EVIDENCE I WANT TO INCLUDE. >> EVEN JUST MAKE THE CASE FOR THEM. BECAUSE LOOK AT YOUR CLOCK, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN THERE? THAT IS LOT LONGER THAN FOUR HOURS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE BEEN MAKING A CASE FOR THE USE KEY DOCUMENTS. AND, MOST RECENT VOTE WAS ON MICK MULVANEY COMPELLING MICK MULVANEY TO COME BEFORE THE CONGRESS. AND SO REALLY WHAT IT IS DOING, IS BUYING DEMOCRATS TIME TO MAKE THEIR CASE FOR THESE WITNESSES UP FRONT, AS OPPOSED TO WAITING UNTIL THE END OF THE PROCESS WHEN, AGAIN, YOU ONLY GET TO OURS A PIECE.
>> RIGHT, BECAUSE EACH SINGLE TIME THEY ARE MAKING THE CASE FOR THE RESOLUTION, WE ARE ACTUALLY HEARING SOME OF THE EVIDENCE. >> EXACTLY. AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, THESE DEMOCRATS, IF YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING, OF COURSE GREAT CBSN BEERS HAVE BEEN WATCHING, THE EXHIBITS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED, THE VIDEO PRESENTATIONS, IT IS WELL PREPARED. AND OBVIOUSLY THESE HOUSE MANAGERS CAME PREPARED TO PLAY, AND TO MAKE THESE AMENDMENTS AGAIN, BEFORE THE SENATE VOTES ON McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION. >> RIGHT, SO THIS REQUEST THAT McCONNELL HAS, CAN'T YOU JUST PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER IN ONE LITTLE BUNDLE AND WE CAN VOTE ON THEM AT ONCE? >> SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS IS, THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE, THEY WILL QUOTE UNQUOTE STUCK VOTES.
SO ESSENTIALLY THAT LOOKS LIKE OKAY, WE ARE VOTING ON — WE ARE GOING TO DEBATE A RESOLUTION , HOLD THAT VOTE, WE WILL DEBATE THE NEXT RESOLUTION, THAT FOOT, AND WEIGHED INTO THE VERY AND WHEN THEY CAN JUST GO BOOM BOOM BOOM, VOTE ON EACH ONE. BUT SCHUMER IS BASICALLY SAYING, NO. WE DO NOT WANT THAT. AND, HE INTIMATED THAT THESE CHANGES THAT WE LEARNED OF EARLIER TODAY, WHEREBY BOTH SIDES, THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, WOULD HAVE THREE DAYS TO MAKE THEIR CASE AS OPPOSED TO CONDENSING IT INTO TWO. THESE CHANGES THAT McCONNELL MADE AT THE BEHEST OF THE MORE MODERATE MEMBERS OF THIS CAUCUS, CHARLES SCHUMER SAID, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE A LOT MORE, HE DID NOT USE THE WORD NEFARIOUS, BUT TRICKY THAN THEY SEEM. IT IS NOT SO CLEAR-CUT. IT IS NOT JUST THREE DAYS AND YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE BEING ALLOWED IN. >> THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. >> THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. AND I HAVE A FEELING HE WANTS TO AMEND A LOT OF THOSE DETAILS.
>> SO IS THAT WHAT THEY ARE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW? >> ESSENTIALLY, AGAIN HOW I ENVISION IT, WHAT HAS NORMALLY HAPPENED IN THE PAST, IS THE LEADERS WOULD BE DISCUSSING THE AMENDMENTS THAT CHUCK SCHUMER WAS GOINGTO BRING UP. AGAIN, I HAVE A FEELING THAT IT IS IN RELATION TO THE TIME AND THE TIMING OF WHEN — OF HOW LONG THE SENATE WILL GO TONIGHT. WEATHER THE SENATE WILL IN FACT WAIT AND LISTEN TO DEBATE OVER THIS AMENDMENT TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. >> MOLLY, SORRY TO INTERRUPT BUT I AM HEARING THAT A SENATOR IS SPEAKING, LET'S LISTEN IN.
>> JUST A LOT OF ARGUMENTS INCLUDING, WE CONTINUE TO THINK ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS GETTING RID OF THE PRESIDENT. THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID. SO, IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY DID NOT PREPARE VERY WELL FOR THIS TRIAL AND I FIGURE THAT THAT IS HOW IT'S GOING TO BE. YOU KNOW? THEY ARE DEFENDING A PRESIDENT WHO HAS SAID UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT. I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING. >> RIGHT, WE JUST HEARD A SENATOR THERE COMBINING THAT REPUBLICANS KEEP SAYING THIS IS ALL ABOUT TRYING TO GET RID OF A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT AND THE SENATOR THERE JUST SAID NO, THAT IS NOT OUR POINT. OUR POINT IS, HE DID WRONG. HE DID WRONG. AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. DO YOU THINK, THOUGH, THERE IS SOME TASTE THAT REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE FROM THE BEGINNING BEEN TARGETING THIS PRESIDENT? >> OH, SURE. AND WANTS THIS TRIAL GETS STARTED, YOU KNOW PAT CIPOLLONE EMPLOYED THE SENATE, LET'S JUST GET THIS TRIAL STARTED ALREADY.
THE WHITE HOUSE WILL MAKE THAT POINT AND HOLD UP THAT WASHINGTON POST HEADLINE , YOU KNOW, THE RACE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT HAS BEGUN. AND THAT HEADLINE CAME THE DAY OF THE INAUGURATION, OR THE DAY AFTER THE INAUGURATION OF DONALD TRUMP. >> AT THE SAME TIME AS A SENATOR POINTED OUT, THEY CANNOT JUST HIDE BEHIND THAT, IF THE PRESIDENT DOES DO SOMETHING WRONG. >> OF COURSE. AND YOU KNOW, I AM NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSING THAT IS A STRATEGY, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DID HEAR A LOT FROM THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS, AND THOSE DEFENDERS OF THE PRESIDENT, LIKE DOUG COLLINS, JOHN RADCLIFFE, JIM JORDAN, INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE PLAYING A ROLE BEHIND THE SCENES, IN TERMS OF MESSAGING MESS.
THEY HAVE PUSH THAT MESSAGE, THAT THIS WAS OUT FROM THE — YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS DALTON BECAME THE PRESIDENT, DEMOCRATS INTRODUCED RESOLUTIONS TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT FOR ONE THING OR ANOTHER. COMMENTS HE MADE REGARDING CHARLOTTESVILLE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS GOING ON AT THE BORDER, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE AIMED AT IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP. AND YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO OF COURSE, THE OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT ANGRY. AND, REPUBLICANS WILL POINT TO THAT AND SAY, LOOK, THEY HAVE BEEN WANTING TO DO THIS THE WHOLE TIME, AND AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT CAME OUT, AND IT DID NOT PROVIDE, IT DID NOT SAY THAT THERE WAS RUSSIAN COLLUSION AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE 10 ITEMS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LISTED. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN LISTED BUT BOB MUELLER DID NOT RECOMMEND IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT. HE DIDN'T RECOMMEND NOT IMPEACHING HIM EITHER. HE REALLY LEFT THAT INTO THE HANDS OF CONGRESS. AND REALLY, THAT ADDED SUCH A WRINKLE FOR BOTH SIDES, REALLY.
BECAUSE TALKING TO REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE LEADING UP TO THE MUELLER REPORT, A NUMBER OF THEM SAID TO ME, WE ANTICIPATE THAT BOB MUELLER WILL RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT MANDATE. BUT KEN WENT TO CONGRESS WITH HIS, I MEAN, BANKERS BOXES. LIKE MASSIVE NUMBERS OF BANKERS BOXES FULL OF EVIDENCE AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THE HOUSE IMPEACH THAN IN PRESIDENT CLINTON, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN WITH BUBBLER, WHICH LEFT THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SORT OF IN THIS NO MAN'S LAND OF WHERE TO GO, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE MUELLER REPORT, BOB MUELLER DID LIST 10 ITEMS OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT, HOW DO YOU ARGUE THAT? YOU KNOW? AND THEN, THIS CALL COMES OUT AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT IS LIKE OH BOY, HERE WE GO.
AND BECAUSE IT HAS GONE SO QUICKLY, THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION FROM START TO FINISH WENT SO QUICKLY, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, TO THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND ANDREW JOHNSON, YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE DAY, THAT REPUBLICANS ARE PRINTED AT THE FACT THIS IS SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS ARE PUSHING FROM THE BEGINNING. THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A REASON TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. FAIR OR NOT, THAT IS WHAT REPUBLICANS I THINK WILL BE ARGUING. >> RIGHT, MOLLY HOOPER IS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK IN A FEW MOMENTS WITH MORE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. YOU ARE STREAMING "RED & BLUE," ON CBSN. >>> WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU BACK TO THE SENATE FLOOR WHERE SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER IS SPEAKING. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, MR. SCHUMER, PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT.
NUMBER 1288. AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE RESOLVING CLAUSE, ANSWER THE FOLLOWING. SECTION. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO RULES FIVE AND SIX OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, ONE. THIS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, 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 OF A CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, REFERRING OR RELATING TO LETTER A, THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION OF HOLDING, 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, USA I, AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING, FMF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ONE, COMMUNICATIONS AMONG OR BETWEEN OFFICIALS OF A DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHITE HOUSE, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OR OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT.
TWO, DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, NOTES OR OTHER RECORDS CREATED, SENT, OR RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY MARK ESPER, DEPUTY SECRETARY DAVID NORQUIST, UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE ELAINE McCUSKER, AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, LAURA COOPER, OR MR. ERIC SHOOTING. THREE. DRAFT OR FINAL LETTERS FROM DEPUTY SECRETARY DAVID NORQUIST TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND LETTER FOR, UNREDACTED COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS RELEASED IN RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST BY THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY TRACKING NUMBER 19 DASH F DASH 1934.
B, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO AUGUST 28th, 2019 OF ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, FREEZING, OR RELEASING OF UNITED STATES FOR INSISTENCE, 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 FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE, AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, AND TWO, COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY ABOUT UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE. MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. C, COMMUNICATIONS, OPINIONS, ADVICE, COUNSEL, APPROVALS, OR CONCURRENCES PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, 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 PLAN OR ACTUAL MEETINGS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON AUGUST 16th, AUGUST 19, OR AUGUST 30th, 2019.
E, THE DECISION ANNOUNCED ON OR ABOUT TO SEPTEMBER 11th, 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 LETTER OF, ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 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, AND LETTER TO, ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE, AND SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS ACTION.
>> THE AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS, EQUALLY DIVIDED. MR. MANAGER SHIFT, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT? MR. CIPOLLONE? MR. SCHIFF, THE HOUSE MANAGERS CAN PROCEED FIRST AND 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 WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY GETTING SOMETHING OFF MY CHEST. SOMETHING THAT HAS 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 IS GETTING. HOW LONG THIS DEBATE IS TAKING. IT IS ALMOST 10:00 P.M.
IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THEY SAY, LET'S GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD, LET'S GET MOVING. AND THE WHOLE TIME, THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK ABOUT IS HOW LATE IT IS IN OTHER PLACES.
Free Discount Prescription Drug Cards
