comparemela.com

Mr. President , the Senate Begins this new session of congress preparing to do something that has happened only twice before in american history. Serving as a court of impeachment in a trial of the president of the United States. President donald trump stands accused by the house of representatives of committing one of the offenses the founding camers most feared when it to the stability of the republic abusing the power of office for personal gain, soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections to benefit himself. The house is also charging the president with obstructing congress in the investigation into those matters. The consequence of an unprecedented blockade of relevant witnesses and documents. Flatly denying the legislative branches Constitutional Authority to provide oversight of the executive. As all eyes turned to the senate, the question before us is, will we fulfill our duty to conduct a fair impeachment trial of the president of the United States or will we not . That is the most pressing question facing the senate at the outset of the second session of the 116th congress. Will we conduct a fair trial that examines all the facts or not . The country just saw senator mcconnells answer to that question. His answer is no. Instead of trying to find the truth, he is still using the same people talking points he was using last december. The country just a hot the republican leader views his responsibility at this pivotal , to avoid answering the looming question why shouldnt the senate call witnesses . The republican leader has not given one good reason why there should not be relevant witnesses or relevant documents. We did not hear one from leader mcconnell today or any day. Leader mcconnell tried to bury his audience under an avid lets an avalanche of recriminations and misleading information. There is only one president that matters here precesent that matters here. Never has there been an impeachment trial of the president in which the senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses. Let me repeat that. That is the salient fact here. Precedent thatne matters. There has never, in the history of our country, then an impeachment trial of a president in which the senate was denied the ability to hear from witnesses. Yet the republican leader seems intent on violating that precedent in denying Critical Evidence to this body and the american people. Later mcconnell has been clear and focal he has no intention to be bipartisan in this process. Thanminds us that rather acting like a judge and juror, he intends to act as executioner to a fair trial. Thankfully the rules of the impeachment trial will be determined by the majority of senators in this chamber. Not by the republican leader alone. Issue still is whether the senate will hill frome will hear documents. Nd see since congress recessed for the holidays, there have been several events that have significantly bolstered my argument for witnesses and categories of documents. Time hasn that bolstered leader mcconnells arguments there should not be relevant witnesses or documents. 21, the Senate Republic integrity obtained emails that showed michael and onea top official of the four witnesses i requested, asked the defense onartment to hold off sending military aid to ukraine 91 minutes after president trumps july phone call with the ukrainian president. 29, the New York Times reported several oblations several revelations about chief mulvaneys involvement. About the effort by lawyers and the white house to create legal justifications for the delay and about the depth of opposition. Indeed alarm about the delay in military assistance from parts of the administration, particularly the pentagon. Just yesterday there was a new report about a trove of unredacted emails that further exposed the serious concerns raised by Trump Administration officials about the propriety and legality of the president s decision to d play to delay military assistance to ukraine. One of those emails was from Michael Duffey one of the witnesses we requested. Clear direction from hold. To continue the clear direction from the president to continue the hold. What constituted clear direction . Did Michael Duffey get a order from the president . Or did someone like mr. Mulvaney get an order from the president that was passed on to mr. Duffy . Were there discussions by Administration Officials about covering up the reasons for the president directing the delay . Questions that can only be answered by examination evidence andntary testimony of Key Administration oath, in aunder senate trial. These developments are a devastating blow to leader mcconnells push to have a trial without the documents and witnesses we requested. Revelation mounts additional pressure on the members of this chamber to seek the whole truth with these new emails. We are getting portions of the truth. We need the whole truth. Much of the evidence obtained by the recent request has been heavily redacted. Here is an email chain between officials of the pentagon regarding the political article that first revealed the Trump Administration was delaying military assistance to ukraine. It is completely redacted. Out. Word crossed not available. Cant be seen. Here is another email with the subject line a portion meant between omb and the pentagon completely redacted. None of the words can be seen. Now that some of these reductions were covered up but only some. Why did they redacted sections they did . Who ordered it . What are they covering up . What are they hiding . These questions must be asked. When you are accused of something, you do not suppress evidence that will exonerate you. Is fact the administration going to such lengths to prevent emails from coming out is extraordinarily telling. It seems like they themselves feel they are guilty. Getting the full documentary record would undoubtably shed light on the issue at hand. These were senior Trump Officials discussing the delay in military assistance to ukraine. Who ordered it . Why it was ordered. Whether it was legal and how it was connected to the effort to pressure ukraine into announcing investigations regarding a political rival of the president. These emails represent just a sliver of the documentary evidence that exists in this case. There was an exceedingly strong case to call witnesses and request documents before the senate went out of session for the christmas break. In the short time since, that case has gotten stronger and remarkably so. Asking for critics of the president to serve as witnesses in the trial. We are asking the president men and top advisors tell their story of this. Again,mcconnell, once has been unable to make one argument,one single as to why these witnesses and documents should not be part of a trial. I want to respond to one suggestion by leader mcconnell. Examplefollow the 1999 of beginning the trial first and deciding on witnesses and documents at a later date. First, to hear mcconnell say no witnesses now but maybe some later is just another indication he has no argument against a witnesses and documents on merit. Will litter mcconnell commit will leader mcconnell commit now and discuss timing later . Second, his comparison to 1999 are hopelessly flawed and inaccurate. There were witnesses in 1990 1999 as the work in every impeachment trial of a president in history. It would be a break in precedent for there not to be witnesses. Third, there was even a greater rationale for witnesses in the clinton trial. In 1999, the witnesses had already testified. They had already testified extensively. They were bipartisan concerns about the suitability of the subject matter for the floor of the senate. There is no analogy to todays situation. The witnesses requested never testified under oath and the documents we requested have not been produced. Fourth, we have a tradition in america of a fair and speedy trial. That is why we requested only relevant information upfront. So the trial can truly be speedy and fair. And it is asense, ruse, to suggest they wait until the end of the trial to settle the hardest question when it might take time for witnesses to prepare testimony and the senate to review new documentary evidence. We can and should begin that now and ensure the trial is informed by the facts and does not suffer unnecessary delays. Finally, when leader mcconnell suggests both sides present arguments and deal with witnesses he is essentially proposing to conduct the whole trial and then, once the trial is over, consider the question of evidence. That makes no sense. That is alice in wonderland logic. The trial must be informed by the evidence, not the other way around. The house manager should be allowed to present all evidence to make their case. Andmake their case afterward ask for evidence we know is out there. If we do not get a commitment upfront that the house managers will be able to call witnesses as part of their case, the senate will act as little more than a nationally televised leading of the mock trial club. If we leave the question of witnesses and documents until the presentations are complete, leader mcconnell will argue the senate has heard enough, we should not prolong the trial. Sureat point, you can be he will label anyone who wants to subpoena evidence as a partisan. Who wants to drag the affair out. I know this because he has already told us what his position will be. This is not a mystery. After we have heard the arguments, we ought to vote and move on. Does that sound like someone in good faith who intends to have the senate reasonably consider witnesses at a later date . No, it does not. Leader mcconnells proposal to vote on witnesses and documents later is nothing more than a poorly disguised trap. After we have heard the arguments, leader mcconnell said, we are to vote and move on. All of my fellow senators, democrat and republican, should take stock of the leaders words and remember the commitment he made on National Television to take his cues from the white house. Chair, it maye feel like we are no longer no closer to establishing rules for a senate trial then when we last met. A vital question, of whether we have a fair trial ultimately rests with the majority of senators in this chamber. The president faces serious charges abuse of power, abuse of public trust, soliciting the interference of a foreign power in our elections, obstruction of convicted, heif faces the most severe punishment our constitution imagines. Chamberers gave us this the sole power to discharge the most difficult and somber duty. Will the senate rise to the occasion . I yield the floor. Announcer as we mentioned has not john bolton, expressed a willingness to testify if subpoenaed. Chuck schumer reacted to that announcement today releasing a statement that reads, momentum for uncovering the truth continues. John bolton acknowledged he needs to comply with the senate subpoena. It is up to four Senate Republicans to support bringing mr. Bolton in and the other three witnesses as long as the documents we requested to ensure all evidence is presented at the onset of the trial. Given that mr. Boltons lawyer says he has relevant information, if any senator opposes, they would make absolutely clear they are participating in a coverup. How Speaker Pelosi also commented saying they have run out of excuses. They must allow witnesses to testify and produce documents trip trump s blocked. The senate cannot be complicit in the coverup. We may hear more reaction to the impeachment news when the senate convenes today at 3 p. M. Eastern. We also expect more on nominations. The senate will swear in the newest member, kelly leffler, who replaces johnny isakson. Watch the senate live on cspan2 in the house live on cspan. The impeachment of president trump. Continue to follow the process on cspan leading to a senate trial. Live unfiltered coverage on cspan, on demand at cspan. Org impeachment, and listen on the free cspan radio app. Announcer tonight on the communicators. Whoan of freedom health, advocate for democracy, talk about the report on internet freedom. What we are seeing is general media used to be a level Playing Field for Free Expression by activists and ordinary users. Now it is being coopted by some of the more powerful, well resourced actors in society. I think that is where social Media Companies need to relevel the Playing Field to root out bad actors. Make certain policy changes within the algorithms to incentiveize the democratic discourse in conversation. Announcer watch the communicators tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan2. My names adam cook and im the 2018 cspan winner. I am here to encourage you to wrap up the competition as the deadline it getting close. You will still have time. This is about the time i started filling my documentary the first year i entered. I am in the d. C. Office right now. I will tell you that cspan2 came with an Incredible Opportunity to express my thoughts and fears about the Political Climate as well as connect with local and state leaders. I am extremely excited you all are interested in pursuing this. It is a onceinalifetime opportunity. Im excited you are taking it. Announcer there is still time to enter the studentcam competition. You have until june or 20th to create a five or six minute documentary that explores the issues you would like the candidates to address. We are giving a total of 100,000 worth of cash prizes and a grand prize of 500,000 does. For more information go to our website. Susan daniel weiss, your new book in that time opens wi a

© 2024 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.