Transcripts For CSPAN2 Impeachment Trial Of President Trump U.S. Senate 20240713

Whatsoever. They made the argument that it makes sense to try the case and then consider documents. They made no argument that the white make sense to have trial without witnesses are and why, because its indefensible. Its indefensible. No trial in america has ever been conducted like that, and so you would nothing about it. And that should be the most telling thing about councils argument. They had no defense of the mcconnell resolution because there is done. They couldnt defend on the basis of president , they couldnt defend on the base of history, based on the constitution, they couldnt defend at all. So what did they say . First they made the representation that the house is claiming there is a such thing as executive privilege. Thats nonsense. No one here has ever suggested theres 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 ever say that a single document was privileged or single witness had something privileged to say. And why didnt they invoke privilege . What wyoming out and even of the havent quite invoke it. Why not in the house . Because in order to claim privilege as been no because they are good lawyers, you have to specify which document, which line, which conversation, and he didnt want to do that because to do that the president would have to reveal the evidence of his guilt. Thats why they made no invocation of privilege. Now they make the for the argument that the house should only be able to impeached after the exhaust all legal remedies. As if the constitution says the house shall have sole power of impeachment, asterisk, but only after he goes to court, in the District Court and the court of appeals and en bloc and the Supreme Court and its remade and they go back up the chain in six years. Why did the founders require exhaustion of legal remedies . Because they didnt want to put the impeachment process in the courts. And you know whats interesting is that while these lawyers for the president are here before you today saying that house shouldve gone to court, they are in court saying the house may not go to court to enforce subpoenas. I kid you not. Other lawyers, maybe not the ones at this table but other lawyers for the present are in court saying the exact opposite of what theyre telling you today. Theres saying you cannot enforce congressional subpoenas. Thats nontraditional. You cant do it. Counsel brings up the case involving Charles Cooperman who was a deputy to john bolton and says he did what he should do. He went to court to fight us. Welcome the justice what took the position he cant do that. So these lawyers are saying he should and those lawyers are saying he shouldnt. They cant have it both ways. Interestingly, while mr. Kupperman went to court and theyre putting for doing that, his boss john bolton now says theres no necessity for him to go to court. He doesnt have to do it. Hes wanted to come and talk to you. Hes wanted to come and testify and tell you what he knows. The question is, do you want to hear it lacks 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 as a drug deal . To want to know why it wasnt a drug to the joint ask why it was a drug deal . To want to ask why he would told people go talk to the lawyers . You should want to know. They dont want you to know. They dont want you to know. The president doesnt want you to know. Can you really live up to the lcf taken to be impartial and not know . I dont think you can. Now, they also made argument that youll hear more later on from apparently professor schwartz that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. Its interesting that they had to go outside the realm of constitutional lawyers and scholars to a criminal defense to make that argument because no reputable constitutional law expert would do that. Indeed the one they called in house reopens golden house said exactly the opposite. Theres a reason he is not sitting at the table much to his dismay and that is because he doesnt support their argument. So they say one thing but they will ignore him for the other. They say the president is very transparent. He may have refused every subpoena every document requested by the released two documents. The document on the july 25 call and the document on the april 21 call. Lets face it. He was forced to release the record of the july 25 call when he got caught. When a whistleblower filed a complaint, will open an investigation he was forced because he got caught. You dont get credit for transparency when you get caught. And whats more, which revealing of course is damning. Now they point to the owner of the record he has been released april 21 call and thats interesting. Thats a congratulatory call but whats interesting about it is the president was urged on that call to make up the issue of corruption and, indeed, in the readout of that call the white house misleadingly said he did. But now that weve seen the record we see that he didnt. And notwithstanding councils claim in their trial brief that the president raise the issue of corruption in his phone call, the july 25 call of course that were doesnt appear in either conversation and why because the only corruption he could about was the corruption that he could help bring about. Now, mr. Cipollone made the representation that republicans were not even allowed in the depositions conducted in the house. Now, im not going to suggest to you that mr. Cipollone would deliberately make a false statement or i will leave it to mr. Cipollone to make those allegations against others. But i will tell you this. Hes mistaken. Hes 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 president ial impeachment or other that had that kind of access for the opposite party. There were depositions in the clinton impeachment. There were depositions in the nixon impeachment. So what they would say is some secret process, well, there were the same private deposition 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 be present to present evidence, two of his counsel present. Is also just plain wrong, just plain wrong. There have been deliberate misleading but it is just plain wrong. Youve also heard my friends at the other table make attacks on the and chairman nadler. You will hear more of that. Im not going to do them the dignity of respond to them but i will say this. They make a very important point although its not the point i think theyre trying to make. When you hear them attack the house managers, what youre really hearing is we dont want to talk about the president s guilt. We do want to talk about mcconnell resolution and how badly a third is that we dont want to talk about how pardon the expression backwards it is traveling trial and then ask for witnesses. And so will attack the house managers because maybe we can distract you for a moment from whats before you. Maybe if we attack house managers you be thinking about them instead of thinking about the guilt of the present. Youll hear more of that and every time you do, every time giving them attack 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 just before this . What are they trying to deflect my attention from . Why dont they have a better argument to make on the merits . Finally, the ask where we hear . Awfully why were here. Because the president use the power of his office to coerce an ally at war with an adversary at war with russia, use power of his office to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid that you appropriate and we appropriated to defend an ally and defend ourselves. Because its our National Security as well. And why . To fight corruption. Thats nonsense and you know it. He withheld that money and he withheld even meeting with him in the oval office, the president of 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. Thats what this is about. You want to say thats okay. Their brief says okay. A present has the right to do it. He can do whatever he wants. You want to say thats okay . You have to say that every future president can come into office and they can do the same thing. Are we prepared to say that . Well, thats why we are here. I know youll do representative lofgren here yield to representative lofgren. Mr. Chief justice, senators, counsel for the president , the house managers strongly support senator schumer amendment which would ensure a fair, legitimate trial based on a full evidentiary record. The senate can remedy President Trumps unprecedented coverup by taking a straightforward step. It can ask for the key evidence that the president has improperly blocked. Standard schumer amendment does just that. The amendment authorizes a subpoena from white house documents that are directly relevant to this case. These documents focus on the president s scheme to strong arm ukraine, to announce an investigation into his political opponent, to interfere with the 2020 election. The documents will reveal the extent of the white house is coordination with the president s agents such as ambassador sondland and rudy giuliani, who pushed the president s socalled drug deal on ukrainian officials. Withholding a promise to the white house. They include records for the people who may have objected such as ambassador bolton. This is an important impeachment case because the president , the most Important Documents will be at the white house. Documents, senator schumer provide more clarity in context about President Trump scheme. The amendment defends the president from hiding evidence as hes previously tried to do. How subpoena these documents as part of the impeachment inquiry but the president rejected this and every document subpoena from the house. As powerful as our evidence is, and make no mistake, it overwhelmingly approves his guilt. Did not receive a single document from the executive Branch Agency including the white house itself. Recent revelations from press reports, additional witnesses such as us underscore how relevant these documents and therefore why the president has been so desperate to hide them and since misconduct. I trial without all the evidence is not a fair trial. It be wrong for you senators acting as judges to be deprived of relevant evidence. When you are judging these most serious charges. It would be unfair to the American People who overwhelmingly believe the president should reduce all evidence. Documentary evidence is used in all trials. As the story goes, the documents dont lie. Documents inside into the offense under investigation. The need for such evidence is especially important in Senate Impeachment trials. More than 200 years of Senate Practice make clear that documents are the first order of business. They present to the senate before witnesses take the stand and great volume to ensure the senate has the evidence it needs to evaluate the case. Documentary evidence has never been limited to the documents by the house. The senate throughout its existence has exercised its authority to its clear rules of procedure to subpoena documents in the trial. We dont know with certainty the documents will say. We simply want the truth. Whatever that truth may be. So to the American People, they want to know the truth. So should everybody in this chamber regardless of our party affiliation. There are key reasons why this amendment is necessary. Will begin walking through the history and president of Senate Impeachment trials. Ill let you know about the houses efforts to get the documents, which were met by the president and his administration categorical movement to hide all evidence at all costs. Well address this specific need for these subpoenaed white house documents. Ill tell you why these documents 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 it articles of impeachment. Others adjusted also incorrectly, that it would be strange for the senate to issue subpoenas. The claims are without any historical president ial or legal support. Over the past two centuries, the senate has always understood its sole power under the constitution to try all impeachment requires the senate to fit a court of impeachment and hold a trial. In fact, the senators assign so authority only twice in the constitution. First, given the house Sole Authority to impeach and second, given the senates Sole Authority to try the impeachment. If the founders had intended for the senate to serve as some kind of a body, they would have said that. But no, they wrote this. Article one section three, the senate shall have full power to try all impeachments. The senate has always received relevant documents and impeachment trials and the senates rules of procedure and practice made clear that new evidence will be considered. All 15 Senate Impeachment trials considered new evidence. Lets look at a few examples that show the senate takes new evidence and impeachment trial. The first ever president ial impeachment trial in 1868 against president Andrew Johnson allowed the house managers to spend the first two days of a trial introducing new documentary evidence. It was the same in judge johns trial in 1804. New documents presented in the Senate Nearly a week before they made their Opening Statements and later throughout the trial. As mentioned earlier by mr. Schiff, in modern times in 2010, the impeachment trial included seven months of pretrial discovery and 6000 pages of documentary evidence admitted at trial after the evidence was admitted the senate held its trial. In president clintons case, it did not involve subpoenas. Because president clinton had already produced huge amount of documents. They turned over to congress from 90000 pages of relevant documents gathered during the course of his yearlong investigation. I remember the Judiciary Committee going over invoking at the documents. Even with all those documents, the clinton trial concluded the opportunity to present new evidence and admission of additional documents and witnesses. It also shows how President Trumps refusal to produce any relevant documents in response to subpoenas is different than past presence. Lincoln president clinton and president johnson. Even president nixon. In short, not a single president has categorically refused to cooperate with impeachment investigation. Not a single president has issued a blanket direction to his administration to produce note documents and no witnesses. These are what the senate must rely on. The senate should issue a subpoena for documents at the ferry proceedings so this body, the house manager, the president can account for the documents in the presentation and deliberations. It doesnt make sense to request and receive documents after the parties present their case. 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 saw white house documents, why do we have them . Not because we didnt try. Its because the white house refused to give them to us. The president defense team seems to believe the white house is permitted to completely refuse to provide any documents without regard to whether or not it is privileged. They apparently believe that congresses authority is subject to the approval of the president. But thats 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 note with meetings from the president. Even before the house launched the investigation, that led to this trial, President Trump rejected congresses constitutional responsibility to use it Lawful Authority to investigate his actions. His administration was fighting off the subpoenas, proclaiming i have an article to, or i have the right to do whatever i want as president. Here is what he said. Here i have an article two, i have the right to do whatever i want as president. Even after the house formally announced its investigation of misconduct in ukraine. It still continued his obstruction. September the ninth, 2019, the House Investigative Committee had to attempt to monetarily obtain documents from the white house. The white house refused to engage or respond to the House Committee. On october fourth, the House Committee oversight was a subpoena the White House Acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, this time compelling the production of documents in 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 on that, the President Trump and his administration cannot participate in this partisan inquiry. Under these circumstances. The president simply declared that he will not participate in investigation he didnt like. On october 18, the white House Counsel sent a letter to the house confirming that it was continuing to stonewall. The white House Counsel stated the president reviewed to participate. The constitution, article one section two said the house shall have the sole power of impeachment just as in article one section three, the senate has sole power to try. Participation in a duly authorized congressional investigation isnt optional. Its not up to the president to decide whether to participate or not. The constitution gives the house sole power of impeachment, it gives the senate the sole power to trial impeachment. The president may not like being impeached but its the preside president , not the congress decides when impeachment proceedings are appropriate in the impeachment power is no power at all. If you let him walk from congress and the american peop people, the evidence to cover up his offenses, the impeachment power truly will be meaningless. Well have the backandforth with these documents, executive privilege. The president s lawyers keep saying it, they talk about how the legal rights that justify hiding the truth from of withholding information but thats a distraction, thats not what the constitution provides. The truth is, in the course of the entire impeachment inquiry, President Trump has not once asserted executive privilege. A single time. It was not the reason provided by mr. Cipollini to come by with the house was subpoena. President trump didnt offer legal justification withholding the evidence. Heres the truth. President , members of congress, judges and the Supreme Court have recognized throughout our nations history that congresses investigative power are at their absolute peak during impeachment proceedings. Your powers, executive privilege do not 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 tape recordings to prosecutors and to congress, it was soundly rebuked by the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court ruled against him. House Judiciary Committee voted that he be impeached with obstruction of congress. It would be remarkable to the United States senate to declare the history that the president has the right to decide whether his impeachment trial is legitimate. It would be extraordinary for the senate to refuse to seek important documentary evidence, especially when the president has yet to assert any privilege to justify withholding documents. There is another reason its important. The documents sought are directly relevant to the president s conduct. The white house is concealing documents involving officials who have direct knowledge of key offense at the heart of this trial. This isnt just a guess. We know these documents exist from the witnesses who testify in the house and from other documents. Lets walk through those specific documents that the white house should send to the senate. They include, among other documents, related to President Trumps direct communications with president zelensky, President Trumps request of political investigation, including medications with rudy giuliani, ambassador and others, President Trumps unlawful old of the 391 Million Dollars of military aid concerned that white house officials reported nfc Legal Counsel in real time, the president s decision to recall ambassador lee jovanovich from ukraine, the first set of documents, the senate should get about toms communication with the president of ukraine, it would include the phone call april 21 and july 25. As well as the september 252019 meeting with president zelensky in new york. We know officials prepared talking points for the president in preparation for both with ukrainian president. The talking points were about american policy as reflected by the vote of congress as well as the Trump Administration itself. They didnt include any mention of the bidens or the 2016 election interference or investigation that President Trump requested july 25 call. Heres a clip of lindeman explaining how the president ignored the. About american policy, reflecting the views of the congress and Trump Administration. If i could turn your attention to the april 21 call, the first call between President Trump and resident zelensky. Did you prepare talking points for backhaul . Yes, i did. To the talking points include obstruction in ukraine . Yes. That was something the president was supposed to waive with president zelensky. Those with a recommended talking points clear through the staff. Materials provided july 25 call that Lieutenant Colonel lindeman mentioned are highly relevant. It would help confirm the president s actual statements for president zelensky are unrelated to Foreign Policy objectives of their own administration and show they served his own personal interest. These documents also include handwritten notes and other documents that white house official and related during calls and meetings. We know that Lieutenant Colonel been been, jennifer williams, all testified to taking contemporary handwritten notes during the july 25 call. They both testified that president zelensky made an explicit reference to prisma that was not included in the memorandum that the white house released to the white house. He is a clip of that. Both of you recall president zelensky conversation, raising the issue or mentioning charisma, do you not . Correct. Yet, charisma does not appear anywhere. Correct. Why do you need documents after the calls and meetings . Would shed light on how these events would proceed in the white house and what actions would take in moving forward. National security advisor, john bolton wasnt on the 25th call but he was apparently informed about the content of the call afterwards. His reaction, once he was informed would be helpful to understand the extent to which President Trumps actions deviated from american policy in american citizens. Is another set of documents, they relate to the political investigation that President Trump to announce. The documents in efforts to pressure ukraine to announce investigation and that decision that plays both on military aid to ukraine. Ambassador bolton was the first witness to President Trumps abuse of power. He reported directly to the president , he supervised the entire staff and National Security council. Public reports indicate that john bolton is a notetaker in every meeting. Witness testimony, we know ambassador bolton hosted the meeting where ambassador solomon told ukrainian officials that the promise white house meeting would be scheduled if they announced the investigation. We know bolton was briefed about the meeting immediately following when ambassador said he had a deal with Mick Mulvaney. To schedule the promised white house meeting if ukraine announced investigation into the bidens in the 2016 election. We also know ambassador bolton was involved in the president on a president ial decision memorandum in august. Reflecting the consensus Agency Opinion that would use Ukrainian Security sessions was vital to americas National Security. Something congress had approved, appropriated. Something the president signed. Reports indicate that they were involved in a late Oval Office Meeting where he, secretary pompeo and secretary esper all tried to convince the president to release the eight. Ambassador bolton had come forward and publicly confirmed that he was a witness to important events but also, he had the new evidence that no one has seen yet. If we know theres evidence thats not yet come out, all of us should go on to hear it. We should want to hear now before ambassador bolton testifies. We should get documents and records relating to his testimony including notes which would provide evidence about what was discussed in meetings related to ukraine, which would help to evaluate testimony. The evidence not restricted to ambassador bolton during his public testimony, ambassador stated i have not had access to all my phone records. He said he and his lawyers said repeatedlys for these materials, he said the materials would help, we should look at those. Ambassador also testified that he exchanged a number of emails with top officials like Mick Mulvaney about his efforts to pressure ukraine to announce the investigation, President Trump demanded. Heres his testimony. Let me say, precisely because we did not think we were engaging in improper behavior, we made every effort to ensure that the relevant decisionmakers at the National Security council and state department knew the important details of our efforts. The suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or road diplomacy is absolutely false. I have now identified certain state Department Emails and messages that provide contemporaneous support from my view. These emails show the leadership the state department, National Security council and 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 the possession precise. These emails referenced in this testimony are in the possession of the white house, state department and even the department of energy. During his testimony, ambassador song went to started this way. Everyone was in the who. It was no secret. These emails are important to understand the full scope of the scheme. Relevant evidence did not confine the Trump Administration officials. The senate should also get white house records relating to the president private agents who acted on his behalf in ukraine, including rudy giuliani, victoria and joe. What this testimony and documents have made clear that giuliani, a frequent visitor to the white house who also received and made frequent calls to the white house was acting on behalf of of the president to press ukrainian officials to announce investigation that would personally and politically benefit the president. For example, the may 10, 2019 letter for mr. Giuliani, and zelensky as shown on this slide, acting as personal counsel for President Trump with his knowledge and consent. He requested a meeting and to be joined with who is very familiar. He was collaborating in this effort, the senate should get the white house records of meetings, calls involving mr. Giuliani. These records are important to help you understand the extent of which of the white house was involved in mr. Giulianis effort to coerce ukraine to announce the investigation the president wanted. The record would also show how the president s personal political agenda became more important than policies to help americas National Security interests. The president s counsel may consistent with his prior attempts to hide evidence, assert client privilege would cover the documents but the president s personal Attorney Client privilege cannot shield evidence as misconduct in offi office. Or that of his aides or his lawyers precipitation. We arent asking for documents jet legal advice, you need documents about their game documents that relate directly to the president s unlawful decision to withhold 391 billion appropriated bipartisan, help ukraine witnesses have testified that President Trump directly ordered a hold on the Security Assistance despite the unanimous opinion of his agencies that the aid should be released. And partly, according to the government accountabilitys office, his action violated the law. January 16, 2020, the independent watchdog issued a legal opinion finding that President Trump violated the law when he held up Security Assistance to ukraine. The gao said faithful execution of law does not permit the present to substitute his own policy priorities for those that congress enacted into law. Omb withheld funds for policy reasons which is not permitted under the control act. Withholding was not problematic delay. Therefore, we conclude that omb violated the ica. The fact that the president s action to freeze the aide, which used to pressure ukraine to announce political investigation he wanted was the official consent, consensus of his own administration but also against the law to help himself. That helps demonstrate these actions were taken for President Trumps personal and political benefit. Witness testimony and it made clear the white house has seen a significant body of documents that relate to these aspects to the president s scheme. Some of these documents outline the planning of the president s freeze. For example, the New York Times reported in june that mr. Mulvaney emails his senior advisor, 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 about the very issues under investigations as part of this impeachment. It tells us the white house is in possession of communications that goes to the heart before you. The senate should also get materials from the late august meeting with President Trump, secretary defense mark esper and secretary of state mike pompeo when they tried to convince the president that freeing up the money for ukraine was the right thing to do. According to New York Times, ambassador bolton told the president , this is in americas interest. The senate should review highly relevant documents which reflects realtime assertion by President Trumps own senior aide that ukrainian aid win for in the National Security interest of the United States there would be no legitimate reason to hold up the aide. Documents that include after the fact justifications to try and overcome legal problems in the unanimous objection freezing assistance to ukraine and we know these documents exist. For example, january third, 2020, they stated in a letter the New York Times it had discovered 20 spots of documents of 40 pages, reflecting emails between white house official robert blair and omb official michael that relate directly to the freezing of a Ukraine Security system. Omb wouldnt release them and they refused to produce these documents at the direction of the president in response to the house lawful subpoena. The Washington Post reported that a confidential white house review of President Trumps decision to hold up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an afterthefact justification for the debate over whether the delay was legal. Thats known as a coverup. The white house lawyers apparently uncovered the email exchanges between Mick Mulvaney and white house budget officials speaking to provide some explanation for withholding the funds the president had already ordered on hold. The documents also purportedly include communications between white house officials and outside agencies, not only does congress have a right to see them, the public does, too. Under freedom of information laws. The senate has the greatest interest in and right to compel the documents. Indeed, the news expense, white house lawyers are reportedly worried about unflattering exchanges and it could have a minimum, bears the president. Perhaps they should be impressed about that. They cannot outweigh the constitutional interests in this proceeding. Any evidence of guilt, including the real reason the president organs the funds without or afterthefact, knowingly unlawful conduct, they must be provided to ensure a full and fair trial. No privilege or National Security rationale can be used as a shield for disclosing misconduct. There are key white house documents relating to multiple instances when white house officials reported their concerns the white house lawyers about the president scheme to press ukraine to do domestic political favor. For example, vinton and doctor harold both informed them about that july 10 meeting in which ambassadors son revealed he had a deal. Im going to go directly to the clip by doctor hill because doctor phil also reported that meeting to John Eisenberg as she explained her testimony. I had this discussion after the meeting. The subsequent meeting after both meetings when you spoke to him and relay to him what ambassador said, what did ambassador bolton safety . I want to highlight that vassar bolton wanted me to hold back in the room. He was making a strong point of what was being said. When i came back and alerted to him, he had specific instructions for me. Specific instructions was that i have to go to the lawyers, John Eisenberg, our senior counsel for the National Security council to basically say that i am not past whatever drug deal that they are cooking up. What did you understand it to mean that they were cooking up . I took it to mean investigations for using. Did you speak to the lawyers . They did. You relate everything you just told us . Precisely. How it unfolded as well, it was full discussion. There is something wrong going on here. White house officials were told repeatedly, go tell the lawyers about it. Doctor hill, vindman, mr. Morrison who reported to mr. Eisenberg at least two conversations. We need the note of the documents to find out what was said and again, attorneyclient privilege cannot shield information about misconduct for the impeachment trial of the president of the United States. Now its interesting, this amendment is supported by 200 years of press. Its needed to prevent the president from continuing to hide the evidence and thats why the specific documents requested are so important for this case. Its faithful to the constitutions provisions, the senate to have the sole power for all impeachment. The senate should act on the subpoena now. Fourteen of the senates 15 impeachment trials threshold evidentiary including the timing nature and scope of witness testimony and gathering of all relevant documents to address the outset of the trial. There are practical considerations has why the subpoenas need to be issued now. Resolving whether the subpoenas should be issued now would let us immediately engage with white house to resolve a legitimate privilege issues if any exist and ensure you get the documents as soon as possible so they can be presented to the senators in advance of witness testimony. Waiting to resolve these threshold matters until after the parties represented their case would undercut the profits of a genuine credible trial. Common sense from a tradition and fairness all compel the amendment should be adopted and it should be adopted now. Members of the senate, for all the reasons ive worked today, i urge you to support the amendment to issue a subpoena the white house documents, documents that are directly relevant to evaluate the president scheme. The house did its job in the face of the president s destruction and categorical commitment to hide the evidence, we still gather direct evidence of conduct and determine that his conduct required impeachment. The president complains about due process in the house investigation but he was not only permitted to participate, he was required to participate. If he refused to do so, he refused to provide witnesses and documents that would tell his side of the story. Now its up to you. With the backing of subpoena authorized by the chief justice of the United States, you can end President Trumps obstruction. If the senate fails to take this step, you wont even 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 wouldnt want to hear all of the Available Evidence about the president s conduct. Its up to this body to make sure that happens. Its up to you to decide whether the senate will affirm its sole power and constitutional duty to try impeachment. Whether and when it will get the evidence that it needs to render a fair verdict. It will allow the president to be above the law to try the American People of truth in the process. A fair trial is essential in every way. Important for the president who hope to be exonerated, not merely acquitted by a trial scene is 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 request for truth, fairness and justice. History is watching in the house managers urge that you support the amendment. I reserve my time. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Majority leader mcconnell, senators, its remarkable that after taking the action of the breathtaking gravity, to impeach the duly elected president of the United States, after saying for weeks that they had overwhelming evidence to support their case, the first thing the house managers have done on arriving finally in this chamber after waiting for 33 days, is to say well, actually, we need more evidence. We are not ready to present our case. We need to have subpoenas and we need to do more discoveries because we dont have evidence we need to support our case. This is stunning. Stunning admission of the inadequate and broken process that the House Democrats ran in this impeachment inquiry, failed to compile a record to support their charges, it stunning they dont have the evidence they need to present their case and that they dont really have a case. If they 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 need more, we need to do more subpoenas and more work. They be thrown out of court and the lawyers would probably be sanctioned. This is not the proceeding that this body should condone. Now, we just heard this is so important, whats really at issue in the resolution here in the amendment . Its a matter of timing, its a matter of when the body will consider whether they should be witnesses or subpoenas for document. Why is it that the manager is so afraid to have to present the case, remember they have had weeks of a process that they think highly controlled. Seventeen witnesses, first in secret and fan in public, compiled a record with thousands of pages of reports there apparently afraid to make a presentation based on records they compiled and then have you decide whether they have anything worth trying to talk to more witnesses about. Why is it that they cant wait a few days to make their presentation on everything they have been preparing for weeks and defend that issue . They dont think there is any there. They want to ran faster now. They wanted to go through now, its something fake themselves failed to do. I want to compact something they are asking this party to do. The process in the house and how that process was inadequate and invalid and compiled an accurate record. Part of it has to do with accepting their request to have this body do their job for them, do to this institution coming forward and how it would alter forever the relationship between the house and senate in impeachment proceedings. First, the process in the house, what they are asking the house manager asking this body to do now is to do their job for them. They didnt take the measures to pursue these documents in the house proceedings. There have been a number of statements made about what they tried to get the document, executive privilege was asserted but lets look at what happened. They issued a subpoena to the white house and the white house explained, and we were told a few minutes ago, the white house provided no response and no rationale. Its not true in a letter, he explained in three pages the legal argument why that subpoena was invalid. The subpoena was invalid because it was issued without authorization. Weve heard a lot today about how the constitution assigned the sole power of impeachment to the house. Thats what article one, section two says. It assigned sole power of impeachment to the house. Not any member of the house and no committee of the house can exercise that authority to issue subpoenas until its been delegated by a vote of the house. There was no vote from the house. Instead, Speaker Pelosi called a press conference and she reported by holding a press conference december 24 to delegate the authority of the house and Andrew Schiff and other committees have been issuing subpoenas. Although subpoenas were invalid. That was explained to the house, manager schiff and other chairmans at the time in the october 18 letter. Did the house take any steps to remedy that . Did they try to dispute that . Did they go to court . Able to get it done before christmas. That was their goal. Those subpoenas were unauthorized. What about some of the other things that they brought up, the witnesses, witnesses who were directed not to testify. In part on this, we have heard manager shift say several times that the white house never assertive executive privilege. Let me be clear, that the lawyers trick. Because it is technically true that the white house did not assert executive privilege to a particular situation in which you do that in a particular way in which you do that. But 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 president s of both Political Parties sense the 1970s at least and this is what one attorney general expendable thought. The immunity such advisors and joy from testimonial compulsion by Congressional Committee is absolute and may not be overborne by competing congressional interest. That was janet reno in the clinton administration. Explaining the senior advisors to the president our immune from congressional opposing. That doctrine, that immunity is rooted in the same principles of executive privilege. Asserted by all president s by the 1970s. That debate went on a number of advisors who pictures they put up were directed not to testify. Did they try to challenge on court . Did they go to court on that one . Did they try to go through the constitutionally mandated accommodation process to see if there was a way to come up with some aspect of testimony to be provided, no, none of that. They just wanted to forge ahead, rush through the process, not have the evidence, and then use that as another charge in their charging sheet for the impeachment calling it obstruction of congress. And what that is as professor explained, when there is a conflict between the executive branch in the house and seeking information in the president is asserting constitutionally based privileges, thats part of the operation of separation of powers. That is a president s constitutional duty to defend the prerogatives of the office for the future of peace occupants of the office. And it is not something that can be charged as an impeachable offense. As the House Democrats have tried to say here, to do that is an abuse of power. Thats what professor explained. It is House Democrats abuse of power. We just heard manager refer to executive religion as a distraction and she was asserting these issues are just a distraction that should not hold things up. This is what the Supreme Court said about executive privilege and nixon burst the United States pray the protection were controverted to reality, fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the powers under the constitution. Inextricably rooted in the separation of powers, thats why the president s duty to defend executive branch confidentiality and thats what the president was doing here. Now, the process that they pursue 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 to try to rush ahead to have the impeachment done by christmas. What does that lead to now, they are coming to this body after process that was half baked, did not compile a reference to support their charges and asking this body to do the job for them. As mcconnell pointed out earlier today, to allow that into accept the idea that the house can bring in impeachment here that is not adequately supported, that has not been investigated, that has not got a record to support it and to turn this body into investigatory body would permanently alter the relationship between the house and the senate in impeachment proceedings. It is not the role of the senate to have to do the houses job for them. It is not the role of the senate to be doing an investigation into be doing discovery in a matter like the impeachment of the United States. If the house is not done investigation and cannot support the case, its not the time once it arrived here to start doing all of that work. That is something that 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 no evidence to support the case that they have not done their investigation then they are not going to be able to support their case. Again, whats at issue here, and i think its important to recall on the issue of this amendment, its not whether the senate, whether this body will be considering whether this should be witnesses or not but when that shoul should be considered. And theres no reason not to take the approach that was done in the clinton engagement. 100 senators agreed then that it made sense to hear from both sides before making determination on that. To hear from both sides to see what sort of case the house could present in the president s defense. In every trial system there is a mechanism for determining whether the parties acted on the trial issue. Whether there is really some there there that requires further proceedings. In this body should take that common sense approach in here what it is that the house managers have to say, why are they afraid to present their case. They had weeks in the process that they controlled to compile the records and they should be able to make the presentation now. In the one point that i will close on, we heard manager schiff say several times that we have to have a fair process here and i was struck by it that at one point he said if you allow me one side to present evidence the outcome will be predetermined. Thats exactly what happened in the house. Lets recall that the process that they had in the house was onesided. They locked the president and his lawyers out, no due process for the president. They started with secret hearings in the basement and the president could not be present by his counsel, he cannot present evidence, he cannot crossexamine witnesses. Then there was a second round in public for again they did that. And he had an opportunity to participate, in the third round of hearings that they held before the Judiciary Committee after one hearing on december 4, Speaker Pelosi she announced that she was directing chairman nadler to draft articles of impeachment. That was before the day that they had set for the president even to tell them what rights he wanted to have and to exercise in the proceeding. It was all ready predetermined. The outcome had been predetermined, the Judiciary Committee had already decided it was awkward to have any fax hearing, there was no process for the president. He was never allowed to participate. When chairman schiff says if you only allow one side to allow evidence thats what they did in the house because it had a predetermined outcome there. Because it was all onesided. Her him to lecture this body now on what a fair process would be takes some balls. A fair process would be when you come to the day of trial, be ready to start the trail and present your case and not ask for more discovery. The president is ready to proceed in the house manager should be ready to proceed in this amendment should be rejected. Counsel, the house managers have eight minutes remaining. The house is certainly not asking the senate to do the houses job. We are asking the senate to do its job. To hold a trial. Have you ever heard of a trial that does not have evidence that does not have witnesses, that is what this amendment is all about. Just a moment about the subpoenas, the president , President Trump refused to provide any information to the house, ordered all of his people to stonewall us. Now it is been suggested that we should spend two or three years litigating that question. I was a young law student working on the nixon impeachment many years ago. And i remember the day that the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision that the president had to release the tapes. I think nixon still governs the president. The house and the senate should not be required to litigate nixon after the Supreme Court and down again for it to be good law, it is good law. The president has not complied with those 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 would yield to my colleague mr. Schiff. He says that the house is not ready to present its case. Of course that is not something that you heard from any of the managers we are ready. The house because john bolton, john bolton, the house calls Mick Mulvaney, lets get this trial started shall we. We are ready to present our case, we are ready to color witnesses. The question is will you let us . That is the question before us. Mr. Fellman says i was not ready, the judge would throw me out of the cours court, of coure not they were not ready, but if he wouldve went into a court and the judge said ive made a deal with the defendant im not going to let the prosecutor call any witnesses and im not going to let the prosecutor present any documents you know who gets thrown out of the court, the judge, the judge will be taken out in handcuffs. Lets step out of the body for a moment and imagine what a real trial would look like. It would begin with the government receiving documents and being able to call witnesses and this trial should be no different. He makes reference to the letter on october 18 which followed an eightpage letter on october 8 saying we will not do anything you ask. Part law, mostly dietary. It is a letter that says what the president said on the tv screen which we will fight all subpoenas. The doctrine of absolute immunity that counsel first two has been invoked or attempted by president s of both parties and rejected by the courts. Including in the most recent decision of dawn began the former white House Counsel where the court said that would make him a king. He is no king. In this trial is determined that he shall not become a king accountable to no one answer to no one. And what is no more of this absolute immunity this fever dream of president s of both parties, this is no application to documents. Again, this amendment is on documents, there is no absolute immunity from providing documents. As representative illustrated when this case has gone to the Supreme Court in the nixon case, the court held the interest and confidentiality in the peach mint proceeding must give way to the interest of the truth in the senate and the American People. You cannot invoke privilege to protect wrongdoing. You cannot invoked privilege to protect evidence of a constitutional crime like we have here. And finally, with respect to the secret hearings that counsel keeps referring to, though secret depositions in the house were so secret that only 100 members of congress were able to be there and participate only 100 thats how secret the chamber was. Imagine in the grand jury proceeding under proceeding in the clinton investigation or in the nixon investigation, imagine inviting 50 or 100 members of congress to sit in on those. Imagine is a president would like your insisting on having his lawyer on the grand jury because there was no case being investigated against him. We have no grandeur here, why is that. Why do we have no grand jury, no special prosecutor. Because the Justice Department said they will not look into this the bars Justice Department said there is nothing to see here. If it were up to that Justice Department you would not know anything about this. That is why there was no grand jury, that is why we had to do the investigative work herself and just like in the next nixon case, clinton case, you know what deposition rules we use, terribly unfair deposition rules we used, they were written by the republicans. We use the same roles that the gop house members use. That is how terribly unfair they were. They used our rules, how dare they. How dare they. Why do we do the depositions, because we did not want one witness to hear what another witness was saying so they could either tailor their stories or know they had to admit so much and no more. Its how every credible investigation works. In the council can repeat all they like, that the president did not have a chance to participate. Did not have a chance to have counsel. President s in the Judicial Committee to offer evidence. It does not make any more true when they make the same false representation time and time again. It makes it that much more deliberate. The president couldve presented evidence in the Judiciary Committee, he chose not to. And theres a reason for that. There is a reason why the witnesses they talked about art material witnesses, they dont go to the question whether the president withheld, it will go to any of that because they have witnesses to absolve the president on the facts. You should want to see these documents, you should want to see you then. You should want to know what these private emails and Text Messages have to say. If you are going to make a decision by the president s guilt or innocence if youre going to 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, you have made up your mind, for whatever reason i am not interested in whats more i dont want the country to see this. Thats only different matter. But thats not what they require. He also requires you to do impartial justice which means to see the evidence. That is all we are asking. Do not blame yourself to the evidence. I yield back. The majority leader is rick and i. I send a motion to the desk to table the amendment and ask the knees. The question is on the motion to table. Is there efficient second . There is, the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] are there any senators wishing to vote or change his or her vote . If not the yeas are 53 and the nays are 47. The democratic leader is recognized. Mr. Chief justice. I send an amendment to the desk to subpoena certain documents and records from the state department and ask that they be read. The clerk will read the amendment. The senator from new york mrn amendment number 1285. At the appropriate place of resolving clause from the following sections notwithstanding any other provision to the resolution pursuant to rules five and six of the rules and proceedings in the senate when sitting in impeachment trials, chief justice of the secretary of the senate shall issue a subpoena to the secretary of senate commanding him to produce the time period from january 1, 2019 to the present and all documents and other records within the possession custody or control of the department of state referring or relating to a common meeting and calls between President Trump and the president of ukraine including documents, communication and other records related to preparation and followup from the president april 21 of july 25, 2019 telephone calls as well as a president s september 25, 2019 meetings that the president of ukraine in new york. The actual suspension of withholding, deleting, freezing or releasing United States foreign assistant 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 fms including but not limited often medication with the white house, department of defense and the Office Management as well as Ukrainian Government knowledge prior to august 28, 2019 of any actual or potential suspension withholding, delaying, freezing or releasing of the United States foreign assistant to ukraine including all meetings, calls or other engagements with ukrainian officials regarding suspensions or delays to ukraine. See, all documents, communication, and other records created or received by secretary michael pompeo, former special representative for ukraine negotiation Ambassador Kurt Volker, Deputy Assistant secretary george kent, within the United States charged Affairs William taylor and ambassador to the u craney and Gordon Sondland and other officials to solicit request demand induce, persuade or conduct the investigation. Schedule, cancel or withhold meeting to ukraine president or hold and release military assistance to ukraine, d, any meetings or propose meetings involving the white house that relate to ukraine including but not limited to one, president zelensky inauguration on 2020 meeting in ukraine including but not limited to President Trumps decision not to attend and ask Vice President pence to be the delegation. Asking Vice President tend not to attend and the competence of the United States. The meeting of the white house around 2019 including among others, President Trump with negotiations with Ambassador Kurt Volker and secretary rick perry in the ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and conversations with individuals before or after the meeting, three, meetings at the white house on or july 10, 2019 involving ukrainian officials in the United States individuals including but not limited to john bolton, secretary peary, ambassador volker and ambassador sondland to include the meeting with ambassador boltons meeting in the boardroom. The 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. , the plan later canceled in poland around september 1, 2019 between President Trump and president zelensky and subsequently attended by Vice President pence in the meeting at the white house on or around september 11, 2019 with President Trump, Vice President pence and mr. Mulvaney concerning the Security Assistance for ukraine. All communications including not limited to whatsapp or Text Messages on private devices between current employees including but not limited to secretary michael pompeo, ambassador volker, ambassador sondland, ambassador taylor and mike pence in the following. President zelensky or individuals associated with or asking any capacity of the representatives agent or proxy president zelensky after selection. All records physically identify that witnesses and the house of representatives peter and corey memorialized key events or concerns that any records reflecting response there too but not limited to one, august 29, 2019 sent by ambassador taylor to secretary pompeo, too, august 16, 2019, memorandum to file written by secretary kent, three, septembem filed written by Deputy Assistant secretary kent. All meetings recalled but not limited to all request for record of meetings or telephone calls scheduling items, calendar entries, state department records, email or Text Messages using personal or workrelated devices, tweeting or online, current or former employees including but not limited to secretary pompeo, ambassador volker and ambassador sondland and giuliani and the curtailment or recall of former United States ambassador chief ukraine for the United States embassy with an credible threat reports against her in any security majors taken in response. And two, the arms authorized for deputy sgt arms or any other employee of the senate and serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this section. Mr. Chief justice. The majority leader is recognized. I announce for a brief recess before the parties are recognized to debate the schumer. At the end of the debate i will move to table the amendment as the timing of these votes are specified in the underlying resolution. So i ask consent that the senate stand in recess while they call the chair. Without objection. The senate is in recess. We have seen the first vote in the senate trumpe trump triak schumer the democratic leader which wouldve sought testimony and evidence on the hold on a two ukraine, another schumer a moment is pending and you heard that a ten minute break, here on cspan2 we are going to our phone lines for a brief bit to hear from you. 202 7488920. If you are a democrat to a 27488920 and then 202 7488921 for republicans. All others used to 027488922 and if you would like to text that would be great send us a text at 202748003. Tell us your name and where you are texting from. Right now our producer in the Senate Gallery watching all of this in tweeting this on the first vote, 53 47, the senate tables the schumer amendment relevant white house documents in the records involving ukraine along party lines he said. In the amendment we see coming out, the amendment pending and you just heard opening remarks and the clerk reading them and met schumer offering a Second Amendment to the state department documents and records involving aid to ukraine. We will wait for your phone calls and just a little bit of the argument we heard earlier. She becomes the first female house member to speak in housesenate trial. Then we will hear from the deputy white House Counsel and then get your phone calls. A trial and evidence is not a fair trial. It would be wrong for you senators asking for justice to be deprived of relevant evidence print in the president s defenses when judging these most serious charges. It would also be unfair to the American People who overwhelmingly believe that the president should produce all documents and evidence. The documentary evidence is used in all files for a simple reason. As the story goes, the documents dont lie. Documents give objective realtime insight into the events on the investigation. The need for such evidence is especially important for 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 the stand in great volume to ensure the senate has evidence in needs to evaluate the case. Documentary evidence and Senate Trials have 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 out of the trial. We dont know the certainty of what the documents will say, we simply want the truth. But whatever the truth may be, so the American People want to know the truth, and so should everybody in this chamber regardless of our party affiliation. It is remarkable after taking the action of breathtaking gravity of voting to impeach the duly elected president of the United States after saying for weeks they had overwhelming evidence to support their case, the first thing the house managers have done on upon arriving in their chamber after waiting 33 days is to say, actually we need more evidence. We are not ready to present our case. We need to have subpoenas and do more discoveries because we dont have the evidence that we need to support our case. It is a stunning admission of the in adequate and broken process that House Democrats ran in this impeachment inquiry that failed to support their charges. It is stunning that they do not have the evidence that they need to present their case and that they do not really have a case. If a litigant showed up in this country on the day of trial and said to the judge actually your honor, were now not ready to go, we need more discovery and need to do more subpoenas and we need to do more work, they would be thrown out of court. This is not the sort of proceeding that this body should condone. How does deputy white House Counsel Patrick Philbin making his argument against senator schumer and they block that amendment along party lines 53 k within ten minutes and vote on another resolution. These resolutions are proposed changes to the rules by which the senate will be guided during the rest of the impeachment trial and in the coming minutes we will see a vote likely unblocking or tabling it in the amendment would allow for testimony and evidence from state department witnesses. Getting your thoughts and reaction, the number or on your screen. We will go to chase in cincinnati on the independent line. Thank you for waiting. Thank you. I appreciate you taking my call. I am usually troubled by what i saw today. I saw 53 people plainly just completely break their oath in front of the American People. This is documents, witnesses, this is not these are things that you should want to be able to want to hear and i think this is a sad day for america including senator rob portman in particular. Keep in mind under the existing rules by Mitch Mcconnell, his proposal is that they will address the issue of documents and witnesses after all of the arguments have been made by both sides and senators have asked the questions. That may be later in the process. We hear from becky on the republican line. Hi, i am glad we have checks and balances and is being put to the test for all the world to see. That is a good thing. Our competition is strong in the constitution the other countries want. This is a perfect example of how we come to the truth by having and organizing controlled environment. I would just like to say that the house has a right and responsibility to prove the facts that they say that they have are completely obvious and overwhelming and if that is not the case then this should be dismissed and be shown that the democrats want to overthrow our standing president. Which is a very serious matter. Thank you becky. If you want to texas 202 7488003. This is from thomas here in florida. They should allow witnesses now, more documents and dont waste our time, they have nothing to do with trump crimes, thank you in wichita, obvious of the attempted democrats they are guilty of abuse of power. We go to max on the democrat line in illinois. Go ahead. Hi, i do feel like today was a dark day for politics, this is not what i expect any member to represent the will of the people asked. This is pretty sad and depressing. I think they have a responsibility to uphold the constitution and adhere if this is a trial we need to hear witnesses and evidence. I dont know why theyre so eager, it seems like they are trained to push past a lot of the process that theyre claiming they are not getting. If you want to process then let the process roll out. That is pretty much it. Next up independent line, caleb in minnesota. Hi, how are you, thank you for taking my call. I think when you look at it and you look at the house and you look at the senate, i think the republicans were undermining the whole process. And honestly when you look at it, you see nadler the way they conducted themselves in those meetings, it is just crazy as an american to sit there and think that is okay. And when the Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell comes out and says what he wants, the rural setting and i think its a good idea because if they are not going to give us a fair trial, why would we want to give it back. And having a couple weeks, about three weeks where nancy pelosi over the impeachment documents, i think thats insane. If they are saying donald trump is abusing power, the nancy pelosi should be on that list to because she should not be able to do that for about three months. That is all i have to say. Lets go to wayne in texas. Next up on the republican line. Excuse me mike and pennsylvania. A great show. Lets clear that up. Having said that, the next three points, i think it is a little bit deploring for these democrats to have two get to the party and to india. We heard nothing but overwhelming evidence, its going to shock the world, and they show up and it is like a 0. Some speeches, lectures, pleading and begging and to say, we have all this stuff, and all this evidence, but you know what to bail us out because we dont really have a case here. That kind of sort of is obvious to me. Lets take a look at some text, 202 7488003. Lee from texas says awesome job republicans. Saying i am shocked at the charisma of trumps legal team. San francisco on the democrat line. Im just sad about this day that we have to deal with our country being the senate being divided where the republicans are saying that they do not want that in democrats have their witnesses and information that they want to show what the president has done. It doesnt surprise me that the president did not want to defend himself and he had to do it on twitter which is not a place to defend yourself. I am glad that nancy pelosi took a lot of stuff to the senate because shes doing the right thing by holding it. The senate has to come up with what they need to come up with before she can send the stuff. I am glad that the senators are wanting the president to take time out of the presidency to do this because they need to defend this country and they need to do that and that is all i have to say. We are very glad they moved it to three days instead of two so we wont be hearing arguments at 2 00 in the morning. The real test will be witnesses and documents. Will i republican senators pressure mcconnell so we really have witnesses and documents produced either now or after the arguments are made and one other point, im not answering questions. One other point, which is this. We hear a lot of arguments from the president s counsel, none of them directly address why there shouldnt be witnesses and documents. They talk about how bad the houses. I dont agree with that at all but they dont argue once, they dont make a single argument why there shouldnt be witnesses and documents. Senator schumer headed light adapted to the senate for his amendment tabled by republicans that would have called for witnesses and documents relating to ukraine aid. Another pending amendment deals with the state department documents and records as well. We will continue to take your phonecalls until the gavel comes down the senate and wayne on the republican line. Caller yes sir this is very entertaining. I watched it all the way through. Its very entertaining but i didnt understand the prosecution, okay . Against the defense which is the president s team to represent and to gather facts against their own client. I dont know how legal it is. Host we will hear from jim on the independent line. Go ahead. Caller thank you for taking my call. I just want anybody whos listening or watching this if they go to trial did they want to have the trial and convict them and call witnesses . I think what dishes should be called. I think evan should be presented if the republicans and the president have a defense let them put it out there. Let them put witnesses up for verdict but go ahead and have their base they oh yeah the democrats are just a bunch of phonies in presenting full evidence. He did try to obstruct congress and he did pull money from ukraine so he could get some benefits, so he could get leiden thats been proven so why dont they let the other people come first as witnesses . I dont understand that. If im on trial i want witnesses there. I dont care i want witnesses to prove im innocent. I dont want the trial to determine he is guilty because they didnt get anything. I think thats ridiculous. This is a joke with what the republicans are doing is a joke. Host its structured as a debate on the Resolution Senate Republican Leaders resolution on how the trial will be conducted. He did make some changes to the resolution in the house so the president s attorneys will now have 24 hours over the course of three days. Had been to rid the resolution also change to allow the evidence gathered presented by the house managers from the impeachment hearings as part of the impeachment resolutions to be introduced automatically into the senate. Any consideration in terms of witnesses and additional documents according to the rules as they now stand would be postponed until later. What democrats have tried to do in these first couple of amendments is try to get that included in the resolution. So far they have failed on the first one. It was tabled 5347. We go to florida and hear from greg on the democrats line. Caller there is no choice but to impeach the most crooked president ever. Its our constitutional duty. Im really getting tired of republicans gaslighting the American People and denying the truth to us. Its traitorous to the United States. Its hurting our government and they need to stand up and do whats right. Im really tired of them saying we are trying to overturn it because most people voted for Hillary Clinton not donald trump so its ridiculous to say that and there was plenty of evidence in the lower court of collusion even if there wasnt sufficient evidence for a chargeable offense. It was overwhelming. Any instances of obstruction of justice so this guy is guilty and republicans need to stop lying about it. Host we go to fold bill new york pat on the republican line. Caller thank you sir. I appreciate you taking my call. I think unfortunately what the American Public is witnessing is political theater. President trump kamenetz a businessman as a businessman and no right or wrong as far as politics and in these doing whats right for the American People and unfortunately there is a lot out there with sour grapes and if they just look at the numbers and whats happening why cant democrats and republicans just get together and do whats right for the American People and continue with job creation and high stock our kids and American Security . You can have hatred for someone and thats your own prerogative but for a man who has lost almost a billion dollars to be the president of the United States he has no reason to come out of the limelight and lose all that money if he didnt believe in what hes doing for us as americans. Host not that long ago the senate tabled the First Amendment proposed by senator schumer to allow documents and witnesses relating to ukraine. We expect another vote coming out on the 2nd amendment, second proposal to the resolution dealing with state department documents and evidence. A tweet from frank thorp of nbc who covers the hill saying a statement from senator Susan Collins republican of maine republican of maine maine who expressed an openness to witnesses in case there was any question to each frank thorp senator collins in the statement says quote i will vote to table any attempts by either side to subpoena documents or witnesses before that stage in the trial. What she is referring to is under the resolution as it currently stands that stage of the trial which comes at the very end after both sides have presented their cases after senators asked their questions to the chief justice. That would be the last phase of the trial. They would decide them on witnesses and further testimony. You are seeing the video coming from the senate. They are waiting for the chamber to gavel back in raid that should be momentarily. Theyve been out now for about 20 minutes. It often moves a little bit slower on the senate side so we will have them live when they gavel back in and of course we will hear from jan. Your thoughts come independent line in fort benning, georgia. Caller good afternoon, how are you doing today . Host fine, go ahead please caller im a man unfortunately. Host my bad. Caller im an independent however i used to be a democrat and with all the stuff thats been going on in the past several years throughout several presidencies the democrats and party have lost my support. As far as this going on with President Trump. I agree with the man which is called from new york. Hes a businessman. Hes not a politician. He doesnt owe anybody anything and most politicians in both the house and the senate have been there way too long. Im in agreement with a fouryear maximum term and no lifetime benefits for them and working for us, we the people of the United States. President trump came in their and i thank him for what he has done. Im at 32 year military career retired Sergeant Major living here in fort benning. They all have a reason to be where they are at. Its not for us. Its for their own personal gain they have millions of dollars. I have seen the contracts of the military because if such and such a person got them President Trumps come in there and is not waiting for congress or the senate to sit there and argue for five and six months over something. Hes a businessman. Host janda president s legal team in the house managers presenting their cases gathering their information over the weekend. Part of the submission by the Trump Legal Team said this. These articles reflect nothing more than the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority of the house of representatives and the framers warned against it are the senate should reject the articles of impeachment and equipped the president immediately. Waiting for the senate to return. We expect them to take up a motion to table the second resolution, the 2nd amendment proposed by senator schumer. We will have live coverage when they are back. Sally is in on the democrats line. Caller thank you for taking my call. First of all i dont feel sorry for President Trump. Look at what he did with Trump University in all the contractors that he stiffed. No bad feelings for him for that. I have Great Respect for adam schiff. I think hes a tremendous leader i think this is a very sad day for Senate Republicans in the senate with the obstruction of truth to the American People. If the truth comes out at the end hopefully it does, but if it doesnt then i think the American People have been stiffed. Thank you. Host sally sally saying its a sad day and assemblers sentiment from scott. Texting at 202 7488003 saying its sad and why isnt Mitch Mcconnell courting with the white house and how can there be separation of powers the executive gets to set the tone . We hear from casey next up. Caller thanks for taking my call. They just want to say the republicans want nothing more than to see the evidence and see all the facts that the democrats are and the house have but they have to have some sort of system to go about doing that. They didnt do that properly and now they are in the senate trying to get everything accomplished from the senate and thats not how the house is supposed to act. What is the point of having a house if they arent going to do their job . Host robin independent line in newport news, virginia. Hi there. Caller thank you for taking my call. A sad day for america and a sad day for history. Its not about republicans or democrats. Its about people in the United States and our democracy and they are undermining the constitution and this is frankly white people stop going to the polls and voting because we vote the man, vote them into office and they do what they want to do. They are fighting for the people today. In the beginning im going to table it, no. You are supposed to come out with smoking guns in the beginning. Not time to table. If he is innocent then let the chips fall where they may. But the president and his family because he cant get anyone from the United States anymore, its all his money from ukraine and the oligarchs in russia. Host to ryan next up in cheyenne wyoming on the democrats line. Caller hi there. The best thing this thing is getting way too out out of control. Out of control to give the republicans in the senate coordinating what the white house is taking to trial. This is how i wanted to go down, do everything you can to prove my innocence. If he was as innocent as he claims why doesnt he produce the documents and let the witnesses come testify on his behalf to clear his name instead of just saying hes innocent . Anyone can say that. Host we are about a half an hour into a break in the senate. So far they have blocked an amendment by senator schumer to allow documents and evidence related to the ukraine aid. We will also like we see here coming up surely when they are back another effort to block or to table his second proposal allowing documents and evidence from the state department. Your thoughts and comments are welcome on on text is well 202 7488003. This is from rodney in pennsylvania who says the socialists cant accept losing the election. They have made several failed attempts to overturn the will of the American People. My name is kenny from bismarck north dakota but i believe from the beginning this whole thing was a sham and the democrats are going to get what they deserve come election time. New york california and the other Democratic State should vote is very appalling what they are doing to to the president of the United States and from robert in arizona i keep hearing quote nobody is above the law yet i seem to be missing innocent until Proven Guilty but its not the jurors job to prove to add to the case. Its their job to weigh the facts presented and if the case was not ready should not been sent forward. If it is there should be no need for additional gathering of information of witnesses. The amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided. Mr. Manager chef rus opponent or proponent . And mr. Cipollone . Mr. Schiff you have an hour and we 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 supports the amendment to issue subpoena for documents to the state department. As we explained the first article of impeachment charges, the president was using the power of his office to solicit and pressure ukraine to announce investigations that everyone in this chamber knows to be bogus. The president didnt 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 for the charges that the president did so with corrupt motives and that his use of power for personal gain harms the National Security of the United States. As the second article of impeachment charges the president sought to conceal evidence of misconduct. He did so by ordering his entire administration, every office, every agency, every