coming? how's the attack on corruption going? no, he just says is he going to do the investigation? is zielinski gonna do the investigation? and sunderland says, yes he will do anything you want. he loves your. this the extent of his interest in the ukraine and they go on to talk about other things and then they hang up and david holmes turns to the ambassador and says, and language i will have to modify , to remove an expletive. he says something along the lines of does th the president give a blank about ukraine? and sunderland says no he doesn't give a blank about ukraine. he only cares about the big stuff like the investigation of the bidens that giuliani once. this is a million-dollar donor to the trump inaugural. admitting the president doesn't care about ukraine he doesn't care whether they get militarily dollars to defend themselves he doesn't care what position zelensky goes into in these investigations. he doesn't care about that. isn't that clear? it's a why he didn't care about corruption in 2017 or 2018. and he certainly didn't care about in 2019, all he cared about was the big stuff that affected him personally. like this investigation that he wanted of the bidens. so when you ask if you want to see these documents? do you want to know if these documents corroborate will they show will be expected well that the only thing he cared about was the big stuff that affected him. david holmes response was well you know there is some big stuff going on here like the war with russia. this isn't withholding aid because of a revolution in egypt. this is withholding aid from a country in which 15000 people have died fighting the russians. and as ambassador taylor said and others, russia is fighting to remake the map of europe by military force. we think that is just about ukraine security, we are very deceived. it's about our security. it's about the tens of thousands of troops that we have in europe. and if we undercut our own ally, if we give rusher reason to believe we will not have their back, they will use ukraine as a plaything, or worse to get them to help eschew an election. that will only embolden pollutant to do more. use set it as often as i have the only thing he respects his strength. you think that looks like strength to vladimir putin? i think that looks like something vladimir putin is only too accustomed to. that is the kind of corruption that he finds and he perpetuates with its own regime and he pushes all around the world. my colleague made reference to a conversation that is another key vignettes in this whole sad saga. and that is a conversation that ambassador volker has with andre your mark was a top aide to zelensky. this is a conversation with ambassador volker is doing exactly what is supposed supposed to be doing. he is telling them you guys really shouldn't do this investigation of your former president because it would be for a political reason. you should not in be in political investigations. and what was the response of ukrainians? oh you mean like the ones you want to studio for the bidens and the clintons. through it right back in his face. ukraine is not oblivious to that hypocrisy. misters sekulow says what are we here for? part of our strength is not only our support for allies in our military, but is what we stand for. we used to stand for the rule of law, we used to champion the rule of law around the world. part of the law was that no one is above the law. but to be out in ukraine or anywhere else and saying don't be in political prosecutions. and having them throughout writeback interfaced, you mean like the one you want us to do. that is why we are here. that is why we are here. that is why we're hear! hear!. i yield back. >> chief justice i sent a motion to the desta table the amendment and ask for yeas and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will cal call the roll. mr. alexander mr. baldwin mr. grasso mr. bennett, missus blackburn, mr. blumenthal, mr. blunt, mr. booker, mr. bozeman, mr. braun, mr. brown, mr. burke, ms. cantwell, missus o-uppercase-letter, mr. cardin, mr. carper, mr. casey, mr. cassidy, ms. collins, mr. coons, mr. cornyn, ms. cortez master, mr. cotton, mr. kramer, mr. crapo, mr. cruz, mr. daines, ms. duckworth, mr. durbin, mr. enzi, ms. ernst, missus feinstein, missus fisher, mr. gardner, missus gibran, mr. graham, mr. grassley, ms. harris, ms. hassan, mr. holly, mr. heinrich, mr. wrona, mr. hoven, missus heidi smith, mr. inhofe, mr. johnson, mr. jones, mr. kane, mr. kennedy, mr. king, ms. klobuchar, mr. lankford, mr. leahy, mr. lee, missus leffler, mr. mansion, mr. markey, mr. mcconnell, ms. mick sally, mr. menendez, mr. merkley, mr. moran, ms. murkowski, mr. murphy, missus murray, mr. paul, mr. perdue, mr. peters, mr. portman, mr. reid, mr. risch, mr. roberts, mr. romney, ms. rosen, mr. rounds, mr. rubio, mr. sanders, mr. sass, mr. shots, mr. schumer, mr. scott of florida, mr. scott of south carolina, ms. shaheen, mr. shelby, ms. sinema, ms. smith, ms. stabenow, mr. sullivan, mr. tester, mr. thune, mr. tillis, mr. toomey, mr. udall, mr. van holland, mr. warner, ms. warren, mr. whitehouse, mr. wicker, mr. wyden, mr. young,. [silence] [silence] [silence] 's. >> the yeas or 53 the nazar 47 the motion is tables. >> the democratic leaders recognized. mr. chief justice i send at to the desk to have a subpoena for jon michael mick mulvaney. >> clerical report. >> the senator from new york mr. schumer poses an amendment number 1287. at the appropriate place in the resolving clause insert the following. section notwithstanding any provisions of this resolution pursuant to rules five and six of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate. when sitting on impeachment trials the chief justice of the united states met through the secretary of the senate will issue a subpoena by taking a testimony of jon michael mick mulvaney, and the sgt at arms is authorized to utilize the services of the deputy sgt at arms or any other employee of the senate and serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this section. >> chief justice the. >> the geordie leaders recognized. >> i would ask for a 30s minute recess to debate the term remove it. file the debate time i would once again moved to table the amendment because votes on witnesses and evidence as i have repeatedly said are addressed in the underlying resolution. so i asked that the senate stand in recess until 8:00 p.m. >> without objection so ordered. thank you everybody. >> live from the u.s. senate in a live view of the capital from the office building is the senate stands in recess what is scheduled for a half-hour break. but is typical with these breaks it could last just a little bit longer. we'll use this opportunity to update you on where things stand. a reminder that senate democrats putting forth three measures to have more evidence in the trial and here is what happens, first of all and subpoena white house documents it was tabled by partyline vote of 53 to 47. also to subpoena those state department documents also party line vote 53 to 47, and just a moment ago the white house budget document. that is where hayes how things stand right now. our phone lines are open and we want to hear from you. you can also send us a text message the senators are leaving the senate chambers heading to their respective offices for a dinner break. the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell, we are going to show you the scene outside the senate chamber to get here the area code here in washington d.c. and we will get your messages 2,027,487,488,924 republicans 740-8922 for independence. let's hear from tracy first step if you look at this outside the senate chamber, go ahead tracy. >> hi, first of all i'm get a sale was a republican from 1994 until 2017, however in 2017 i switched to no party because i cannot even recognize the republican party any longer. based on they don't have any shame at destroying the constitution. i have watched democrats describe what is happen this far and their description is exactly what happened. they present visual and coincide with the information. and yet the republicans when they get out there they pontificate wild theories that the president is blocking subpoenas is equivalent to be no elevator evidence available or to be searched. and that we should now because he has been blocked since the hearings, we should even have it even now. for years the republicans were the ones who said here, get a pocket constitution, rita, be familiar with that know what your rights are. and now they're saying all of the constitution was throat out. and i simply can't. i don't even recognize what the republican party is anymore. >> host: thanks for the call i will leave it there. you can listen to the trial on the free c-span radio act all of it is streamed on the web at c-span.org the democrats line is with julian. how much been watching today julian? >> caller: often on i just got back and i was listening to some the comments from the previous break i would like to respond to some of them. because it is been very disappointing to see the cheap parlor tricks that are being used by the defense counsel seemed to be working on my fellow americans. we do support trump. every time i hear republican caller referred to the trial of a sitting president and this is the only venue were trial of his sitting president can occur. it's a serious matter every time i hear a caller referred to it is entertaining, theater, or boring, i don't understand why they are commenting on this either. rather than the substance of the trial of a sitting president. i also want to mention all the theater is all created by the republicans in this process. they are complaining about the house not resenting all their witnesses and evidence when they themselves don't grant assess to said witnesses and documents and it's obvious. and they say again and again executive privilege. and the defense counsel even in this trial admitted that they have never claimed executive privilege and that came from trump zone defense counsel in the keep talking about in their opening argument. and i just think that the people who are talking about all this theatrical stuff need to be awake to the fact they're using it as an excuse they are buying into this theater that's been presented to them on they are using it as a know nothing to engage in the substance of the issue. again it's the same thing there's no substance because the house did not pass without a bipartisan basis so there's no substance. again you are falling for a cheap parlor trick that's being used by the trump defense team, including the house which is that that they say any lack of bipartisan support is the lack of substance. no, it is substance because you could have a flawless case that is one 100% flawless on the evidence, and i'm not saying democrats have you have this case and you have a house minority vote in partyline against it and people could use the same excuse. they need to wake up and look at the stunt it is obvious trump is guilty, thank you. >> host: were looking at some of the senators and republican of ohio reported from the hill.com and he urged saturday mitch mcconnell to change it from two days to three days. so after the rules have been set tonight by the senate, the trial getting underway tomorrow and ernest allowing the house democrats three days, 24 hours over three days instead of two days to complete their argument in the presence defense team will be the same. we just talk to me the publican from ohio. here's how it's playing outside of the beltway. here's susan calling on the republican online from hawaii. good morning susan. >> good morning, it's actually afternoon here now. thank you. my curiosity is i've been watching this over and over today as well as a periods of weeks. it appears that the question to investigate the bidens really set off and i'm really curious that there's never been any conversation about what it was the bidens did or did not do, or why is that so integrated into this whole entire issue? was withholding aid from ukraine and one saying the president of ukraine to investigate the bidens? there is never been conversation about why. why were the bidens to be investigated? b1 senator cruz admit early were suckers senator kansas is the senator subway in the basement where centers can also speak to reporters. let's listen. >> in the middle of day one of the impeachment trial, and i don't think it has been a good day for the house managers. we have seen the house managers and democrats making redundant motions over and over and over again the same motions motions that are being rejected. and fundamentally, it is clear house democrats view this as an opportunity to continue their partisan attacks on the president instead of focusing on the priorities of the american people. the senate, at the end of the day will go forward on and organizing resolution that is virtually identical to the resolution that began the clinton impeachment trial. it is copied almost word for word from the impeachment trial. except in that instance organizing resolution was bipartisan it was 100 to nothing, every republican and democrat agreed, in this instance emmett democrats are objecting to the very reasonable. proposal that was done during the clinton trial starting with opening arguments, then having arguments, questions from the senators, and then having the senate choose whether additional witnesses are necessary. we have seen one motion after the other, after the other they have been redundant in making the same arguments. this seems to be a time for adam schiff and the house managers to lecture the american people and to attack the president. but there's an old saying if you have the facts you bang the facts if you have the law you bang the law if you don't have either should bang the table. stephanie seen a whole lot of table banging and at the end of the day we are at the same spot we began the day which is the house articles of impeachment they were passed on a partisan basement, they don't meet the constitutional standard. and that's why the end of this process, after fair proceeding after hearing the arguments of the house managers and the president, the end of this proceeding is going to be in acquittal because the house manager still cannot meet the cause additional threshold. >> there was a change to the original. [inaudible] doesn't signal there may not be unity? >> for example one of the elements of the original organizing resolution for the clinton trial was that each side would have 24 hours. the resolution that we are going to vote on later tonight provides each side have 24 hours for a coming arguments. this particular version said this 24 hours to be over two days. and so we saw democrat sliding hair on fire that is an outrageous effort, a cover-up to have 24 hours of argument over two days, god help us if we have to listen to adam schiff in the house democrats prattle on for 24 hours nonstop. but you know what, i think the republicans did something wise and right and they said okay, we will make a concession, instead of over two days it's over three days. so you can present your opening arguments instead of up to 12 hours a day for two days, you can do it similarly for up to eight hours a day over three days. i promise you if we are at our 23, and the house democrats are still repeating the same partisan attack against the president, you know is striking that was about three hours of these proceedings beginning, i looked up to the press floor and it was about half empty. in the gallery was almost entirely empty i have to admit a routine practically, practically a routine motion naming a post office typically has more people in the gallery them he had today, and i think this is indicative of senate republicans giving the house republicans, the house democrats all the opportunity they would like to present their case, but at the end of the day it's still not going to be enough. >> given the redundancy talked about you think the white house would offer a motion to dismiss tomorrow as it's written under the rules? >> i don't, i don't think we are going to see a dismissal and i think a dismissal is not nearly as good an outcome for the president and for the country, as will be a final judgment on the merits. i think it's can happen is we are going to proceed according to the resolution up to 24 hours for each side. we are going to have up to 16 hours of questions from senators and then we will have a vote on whether additional documents are necessary. if the vote is yes, then this trial could extend for many weeks or months. if the vote is no, though i think is likely is they will vote to move the final judgment and that will end within her record acquittal. with each center standing voting guilty or not guilty. on the reason the president is going to be acquitted of these privat these -- the impeachment is not if you disagree with the president or dislike or have political differences with the president. impeachment of a president is only allowed if you demonstrate that the president has committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. and you saw very little today about satisfying that constitutional standard from the house managers. so a lot of arguments about how the house democrats disagree with the president politically. but that's not the legal standard, we are looking at the constitutional standard it's not going to be a dismissal but an acquittal on the merits at the end of both sides having an opportunity to present their case. >> what about mcconnell's approach to overseeing. [inaudible] >> i think it has been good to see republicans united i think it's good to lay out a process that is copied from bill clinton's impeachment trial proceeded and that was unanimous. the party that i think is being quite unreasonable on this are senate democrats. they are not agreeing to the same procedure that every republican and democrat agreed to with bill clinton. and that's the manifestation of the times they are in today. the times are in today, they are angry and partisan. i gotta say when i go home to texas, and my experience in texas and people outside of the beltway, they are tired of this never-ending partisan impeachment drama. these attacks on the president. texas i talked to was interested in jobs, wages, securing the borders, rebuilding our military, defending our nation and our constitutional right. that is what we should be focused on. but today house democrats and senate democrats their only priority seems to be partisan attacks on the president to make reference to another time and another organization, i think it's time to move on. >> it this time as her question of where their way more witnesses? are you a yes or no and that? >> i think the house had an obligation to develop their case and i think they failed miserably. now they heard from 17 witnesses and the house, but it was really striking let's take john bolton, there's been a lot of discussion about john bolton. some of the most important argument concerning the testimony of john bolton. which is that the house democrats as john bolton testified for the house. and jo john bolton and his secretary did something unusual. they went to a federal court, district judge, and said listen, we have two conflicting legal obligations. we have a request from the house to testify and we have an instruction not to testify because of executive privilege. in jon government said judge you tell me what to do and i'll follow your instruction. the house democrats withdrew the subpoena, rather than litigated in try to get that testimony, house democrats didn't enforce the subpoena. now they are trying to ask the senate to do the work they should have done. they failed their constitutional burden, time to move on. center klobuchar can come to the camera? >> usa question joining hearing come here so we can hear? [inaudible] >> i have made it clear from the very beginning i have got to do my constitutional duty. and it's not like o'hare know you guys want to be somewhere else i know that's what he was saying. i literally could not believe he did it only because i think this isn't the place to those kind to play those kind of politics we are all here to do her duties and were gonna sit here till the very end. we are to listen to the evidence. as i noted i can do two things at once. i am a mom and i will find one way or another to run for president. and we are gaining momentum right now, but while i am here my job is to listen to this evidence. and one of the things that struck me today as a former prosecutor is number one, you don't put the evidence and the witnesses on the deep end he put them at the beginning. the question should be of the witnesses not trying to get witnesses. in the second thing this is about the truth. i don't know how my colleagues, many of whom i get along with and know well, and have worked with. i am looking over at them saying come on now you know we should at least hear from mikel bovee any, you know we should at least hear from john bolton. you can't have all of the smoking gun e-mails out there and not get to the facts. and if the president believes that somehow this information is going to exonerate him, what is he afraid of? >> eyesight with the prosecutor what did you pick a bond that might have been different from. [inaudible] >> while i thought the adam schiff argument at the end, and i have made some of these argument myself. but he put it in the national security context and it was the argument why do we need this evidence? russia was watching they were watching the whole time. having watched the ukraine all this time with senator mccain and chris senator graham, stood on that front line on new year's eve, right after donald trump got elected were senator mccain made the points of bringing us there because he wanted to send a clear message to russia. that america stood with our allies. and america stayed with ukraine. into think about the fact that they are watching as this president, president trump pulled back the aid and messes around with it while they are watching to see. this is a country they have literally invaded, they literally have their eyes on. and then he does not even help them out with the aid. i thought that was very effective of what adam schiff that it the end. >> are you can get back to iowa before february 3. bernie sanders is chartering a plane do you have plans? >> i actually have my family there right now, they are very good. they are out there we just and announce three new endorsements today. i have the most legislators and former legislators of anyone in the race. what is that mean? i have a lot of people out there speaking for me. and it's not just window dressing. they were out today enforce, at the iowa state capitol speaking about their support for me. that is going to matter. and i'm going to do everything i can whether it's town halls, skype being in and whether it's getting there when we have sunday off. that has always been my plan, we were prepared for this that's why my husband and daughter are there right now. but i have a constitutional duty, so whatever the president's lawyers want to say and poke at us, for just simply doing our job in being here and acts like it's some kind of political disadvantage. i think the people of this country understand it. something like a recent poll said nearly 70% of america's think there should be witnesses and evidence. so what does that mean to me? that the people in these early states are going to understand that i have to do my job. >> are you feeling discouraged? it's. >> i am someone who always keeps looking at my colleagues to see if they look guilty. and some of them are kind of looking down, i don't know how they can deny witnesses. let's see what they do after a few days of this. but i think the house managers, made a very effective case for the fact that we have evidence, and we need to listen to evidence and we need to listen to witnesses. you can't have a trial with zero witnesses and zero documents. that is not how this works. [inaudible] [silence] >> from the senate basement you heard the leafs are the dings of the subway system that is adjacent to where amy klobuchar stood. she is the ranking and chair of that committee is senator blunt of missouri. we are going to use the next couple of minutes to what you have seen so far on what is essentially day one of the trial. although officially it was last week when the centers were sworn in. a day to debate the procedure and the rules moving forward. and then the arguments being put forth first by the house democrats and then the president's defense team that will begin tomorrow. i want to share with you the decorum. could you heard from klobuchar that she's looking at her colleagues in the senate and according to the rules the senators must be present and they must remain in their seats. there are no phones or electronic devices. if they want any messages they will be relayed from pages outside of the chamber into the floor. access to the well is restricted. this is a headline from politico.com. stuck in their seats, senators confront trial tedium. story available online, senators are not used to just sitting there with hours on end without being able to weigh in or express their opinions, or give a speech. and that is how it will continue to unfold over the next several days. all 100 senators in the u.s. senate. the cameras controlled by the senate we are not c-span cameras. we are restricted what we can show and where. we have cameras in the subway of the capital in adjacent to the doors of the u.s. senate. the press area somewhat pinned in a senators make their way to and from the senate chamber. jason is joining us from clarksville indiana. >> caller: hi thanks for taking my call. good evening. i'm calling on the independent line. i just have two quick points to make i have been watching this since the very beginning. two points is that on the democratic side, what i am wondering is why can't or why won't they release this whistleblower? let this whistleblower come forth, that would bring up a lot of evidence. and then on the republican side, if there is nothing to hide, why not go ahead and release all of the e-mails and documents that the democrats are requesting? let the cards fall on the table as they may, and to believe president trump will be acquitted, absolutely. however, my concern is more of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren in this country. and what may come later on down the line. >> the issue of the documents is really what transpired today were three amendments put forth by the senate democratic chuck schumer and they were tabled along a partyline vote. democrats are saying the whistleblower is irrelevant because he did not have firsthand knowledge of the incident. but they did hear from 17 witnesses in the house trial. here are some of the headlines outside of washington d.c. cleanness from "the san francisco chronicle". he eases the limits which was going to be two days over 24 hours which should be a 12 hour day with a dinner break. that is now been extended to a three day. so presumably eight hours of opening arguments by house democrats, each day. and then the president's defense team would have the same to do so as well. we should point out that when the senate does reconvene after the dinner break, next is led by chuck schumer is to subpoena the testimony of the acting white house chief of staff, forests self carolina mick mulvaney. they are in recess schedule to come back at the top of the hour. sometimes these recesses because of the dinner break could extend beyond that half an hour. let's go next to robert joining us from kansas. good evening robert. just pointing out senator michael bennet is outside of the chamber and is also one of the four democrats running for president. go ahead robert. >> caller: i was wondering, the reason the democrats feel they needed to impeach trump in the beginning is like the very first thing out of his mouth after the inauguration was an argument about the crowd size. a very petty, a very childish argument that i did not understand it all. and the second he is a con man. in a con has worked for him. but i go to the polls, what i might get a think about with joe biden's son? does every american now have that on their mind? he has worked his con, and now after what he had done to mccain on the floor, i think you know what i'm talking about, correct? anyway, he humiliated him with twitter, he's going to threaten anyone who goes against him. and if it was truly impartial, the senators would not have to stand up and announce how they vote. >> thanks for the call couple text messages this is from aron of washington. all this is going to do is push everyone further into their corners. dems will always say he's guilty, republicans will always say dems have been unconstitutional, there is no middle ground anymore. the impeachment is only going to further divide, this is actually a sad day in our great nation. another comment from reviewer this is from joe in michigan. assuming the facts alleged in the articles of impeachment are true. do they support the claim that the president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors? if not no witnesses are necessary. you can send us the text to (202)748-8003. centers outside the chamber with live coverage on c-span2. let's go to michael in pasadena texas. go ahead michael. >> caller: how are you doing this evening? >> great thank you. >> caller: i have been following whe when it was in the house, and the way shift ran that whole committee, was just totally unfair. i mean the republicans did not have a preachers prayer in the house. they were rude to him, they did not have one witness that was not a hearsay witness. there was no concrete evidence to start with. but yet they kept pushing, kept pushing to impeach the president. i will say one thing, i have seen presidents from eisenhower to trump, and trump has been the most -- best president that we have had. and he thanks more like the american people think. why are we giving all of this age to these countries without questioning? and when he goes to questioning it upsets people. and it upsets people because i think personally, that money is going there, but it's coming back. :. >> it ended may 261858 busting a total of 83 days. he was not convicted by one vote to stay as president of the united states and bill clinton was impeached the trial begin january 7th, 1999. wrapped up every 12, 1999 lasting a total of 37 days. joining us from new orleans the democrat of maryland making his way back. >> thank you for taking my call. >>caller: i want to comment on the gentle man talking about the whistleblower i want to talk about the importance of why that is not a good idea. the whistleblower act is in our constitution to protect the identity of the individual. this is important because to protect against witness intimidation and witness and tampering and things of that nature so definitely that should not be released. >> senator van hollen democrats from maryland and it is known as the clock we have a camera showing you what's happening outside the chamber as reporters tried to grab them for a question as they are heading to or from the senate chamber per cap next is michael from tennis - - tennessee the democratic line. >>caller: good evening. thank you for airing this and being nonpartisan. i just want to comment what we are seeing so far. i am disappointed in the republicans against the democrats to have a trial just trying to get rules in place we need all the evidence to show. >> thank you for the call. >>host: a text message can they blame judge roberts this is a joke the democrats should all be impeached like return my money spent on the russian collusion and this ridiculous trial. the president by the way is in the davos switzerland he was there earlier today now it's in the middle of the night but the president earlier said these articles reflect nothing more than the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the house of representatives. the senate should reject the articles of impeachment and acquit the president immediately go from new york good evening. >>caller: i am a lifelong republican. i have got to say i'm very disappointed with my party today the very least they could do is see the evidence before they make something up. something does not feel right. if he is so innocent then let us see what is going on. >>host: thank you from bedford new york. our producer said here is a quotation from one of the president's attorneys said this all supposedly started because of a whistleblower. where is that whistleblower? jennifer you are next democratic line phoenix arizona. >>caller: thanks for taking my call. i have been following the impeachment perk i followed it in the house and then in the senate. one thing i noticed today the voters have been consistently been 53 / 47 which to me that sounds more like a power struggle than a thoughtful vote. and i am concerned with the tabling does this mean we will not subpoena witnesses or documents? or does that mean it will be done later? is this a process thing right now or will the trial actually happen. >>host: there are two questions the trial will happen presumably tomorrow we began one - - starting it tomorrow going eight hours senator mcconnell initially puts forth two days, 24 hours for each side that will make a long day into the evening with those senate republicans who felt that was not the white one - - the right way to proceeds will have three days for republicans and three days for democrats if they want to take all three days it is estimated eight hours each day so the debate they could vote again on witnesses based on the clinton model that could be as early as next week but for all of us today our lesson in parliamentary procedure members of the senate are making their way back to the senate chamber seven minutes past the hour and now we go to frank from texas. >>caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm a vietnam veteran and an independent. what i see here is basically bush whacking the president i don't in particular like the things he has done. however i'm looking at a bigger picture which i think a lot of us may look at and i see the democratic party a lot of my relatives are democrats and they are telling me the party has left them. i'm looking at the bigger picture what's good for our country is jobs, a lot of things are being done and he said he would do what he is doing them. so again on the evidence. i will listen to the protester out of harvard says no crimes were committed so i will take that stand on this. i believe sometimes we have to look at a bigger picture but what scares the heck out of me with communism is what we fought in vietnam and now i see the aoc squad they do not represent i think i think they are a threat to the republic per se that's my personal opinion. nothing against them individually or personally. i respect their nationality and race and creed. but i believe our country might to be in peril if we are going to go down this route of possibly communism so people that i know have given their lives i was at the v.a. in houston today. this is something i am concerned about. again there's plenty of guilt and shame to go around for both parties. >>host: thank you for your call senator kennedy has been one of the president's fiercest supporters. let show you members of the house impeachment team as we listen to andrew joining us from colorado on the republican line. >>caller: how are you doing. to get to the bottom of this we have to get carmelo out there that whistleblower. >>host: delaware the democratic line. >>caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i believe the republicans have their eyes closed they are in line by the russians which are communist and they need to wake up because here is what happens when you don't vote all these people in congress if you line their pockets and then this is how they behave we need evidence. >>host: here from the senate chair of the rules committee. based on the senate impeachment trial underway at the next is jane joining us from new york good evening go ahead. >>caller: my name is jake. you are fine. i just want to touch on a few subjects. i will be brief but i am surprised everybody is so surprised how the senate trial is going. i remember at the end of the house the democrats were cheering now they are not everything is quiet the tables are turned it's a republican run senate's of course we have a majority in the house or in the senate i should say. so the tables have turned in a field public will act out but i don't think like what will happen no matter what everybody will be upset. that this isn't a happy day for anybody either the democrats come together or throughout the impeachment. that adam schiff admitted to corruption in previous years with the ukraine with a whole oil and gas thing and the manager so we come i cannot pronounce her last name. she said the documents whether to prove guilt or innocence. why are they trying to prove guilt or innocence in the senate during the trial? after the fact the house already implementing the charges? shouldn't that have already been the case that you need those documents to prove guilt or innocence. >>host: this is a trial. the house put forth the charges the trial is in the sun and it's up to the senators to serve as jurors if the president is innocent or guilty. >>caller: of course i just felt you it cannot be moved up to a trial status if you don't have those documents to accuse somebody of being guilty in the first place. >>host: that is where the debate has been all day today with senate or house democrats pushing for those documents. what will happen when senators reconvene we will hear from chuck schumer who will be pushing to subpoena acting white house chief of staff nick mulvaney and then on the final set of rules moving forward. we expect the senate trial portion will get underway 1:00 o'clock p.m. eastern we will take cues from the senate leader mitch mcconnell to confirm that and i should happen later in the evening. live coverage continues here on c-span2 with more phone calls. >> mister schiff the managers will go first with equally reserve time for rebuttal. >> mister chief justice and distinguish members of the senate and counsel for the president, my name is joaquin jeffries i have the honor of representing the eighth congressional district of new york in brooklyn and is one of the most diverse districts in the nation. in fact i have been told that i have the ninth most african-american district in the country and the 16th most jewish. here on the hill they have said is that complicated? but as my friend leon goldenberg says back home, you have the best of both worlds. in america, our diversity is a strength. it is not a weakness. one of the things that binds us together, all of us as americans regardless of race or religion of reason or sexual orientation or gender that we believe in the rule of law and a fair trial. supporting this amendment to support witness testimony including with respect to nick mulvaney. who has ever heard of a trial with no witnesses? that is exactly what some are contemplating here today. this amendment would address that fundamental flaw to ensure the trial includes testimony from a key witness , the president acting chief of staff and head of the office of management and budget. nick mulvaney. and that the senate can consider his testimony immediately. let's discuss why the need to hear from nick mulvaney is so critical. first undercutting more than impeachment trial practice. it imparts from every impeachment trial today and goes against the long-standing impeachment rules which contemplates the possibility of new witness testimony. with any criminal or civil trial procedure why should this president be held to a different standard? second, the proposed amendment of witness testimony in his necessary of the determined effort to bury the evidence to cover up the corrupt abusive power. the house tried to get nick mulvaney's testimony. we subpoenaed him. along with national security adviser john bolton. senior white house aide blair, omb official and national security council layer john eisenberg. they are forced to testify before the house is part of the impeachment inquiry. that president trump was determined to hide from the american people what they had to say. the president directed the entire executive branch of all the top aides and advisers to defy all request with their testimony. that cannot be allowed to stand. mister mulvaney is a highly relevant witness in this trial and was at the center of every stage of the substantial pressure campaign against ukraine. based on extensive evidence it is clear to crucial to implement the implementation to carry out the cover-up e-mail and witness testimony show that nick mulvaney was in on the president's decision to condition a white house meeting of the investigations to the president's reelection prospect. and also involved to implement and subsequently that the funds were being withheld to put pressure on ukraine to conduct a phony political investigation that the president wanted. phony political investigation. the trial would not be complete without the testimony of nick mulvaney. make no mistake the evidentiary record we have built is powerful and can clearly establish the president's guilt on both of the articles of impeachment. but it is hardly complete. the record comes to you without the testimony of mister mulvaney and other important witnesses. that brings me one final observation. the american people agree there cannot be a fair trial without hearing from witnesses who have relevant information the constitution, our democracy the senate and most importantly the american people who deserve a fair trial. in order to provide the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that is why this amendment should be adopted. before we discuss mister mulvaney's knowledge from the geopolitical shakedown and impeachment trial without witnesses would be a stunning departure from this institution's past practice. this distinguished party - - body has conducted impeachment trials all have included witnesses including just a handful as indicated on the screen and in one case 100 different witnesses. as the slide shows the average number of witnesses to appear at the senate impeachment trial is 33. at least three of those instances including the impeachment of bill clinto clinton, witnesses appeared before the senate who had not previously appeared before the house. that's because the senate, this great institution has always taken its responsibility to administer a fair trial seriously. the senate has always taken its duty to obtain evidence the senate has taken its obligation to evaluate the president's conduct based on the full body of available information seriously. this is the only way to ensure fundamental fairness for everyone involved. respectfully it's important to honor that unbroken precedent today. for that mister mulvaney's testimony as for fear of what he might say would form this distinguished body of americans. this amendment is important to counter the president's determination to bury the evidence of his high crimes and misdemeanors. as we explain in detail today despite considerable efforts by the house to obtain relevant documents and testimon testimony, president trump has directed the entire executive branch to execute a cover-up. he has ordered the entire administration with a separate and coequal branch of government in a way that is unprecedented in american history. there are 71 requests by the house and the white house produced zero documents. seventy-one requests. zero documents. president trump is personally responsible with that senate of information and what to consider in the trial. when faced with the congressional impeachment inquiry set up by the framers of the constitution in article one the president refused to comply in any respect and ordered his senior aides to fall in line. in response to his obstruction 12 key witnesses refused to appear for testimony and the house impeachment inquiry. no one has heard what they have to say. these witnesses that the abuse of power. what is the president hiding? equally troublesome? they did not make any legitimate attempt to make a reasonable accommodation with the house to compromise with any document request or subpoena. why? because president donald john trump was not interested in corroborating but interested in a cover-up. so think about what he is doing complete and total presidential obstruction is unprecedented in american history. even president nixon whose articles of impeachment include obstruction of congress did not block key white house aides from testifying in front of congress during the senate watergate hearings. in fact he urged white house aides to testify. remember all those witnesses who came in front of this body? take a look at the screen. john dean, former, president nixon former chief of staff was subpoenaed and testified. alexander butterfield, the white house official who revealed the existence of the tapes testified publicly before the senate. and so did several others. president trump complete and total obstruction makes richard nixon look like a choir boy. two other presidents have been tried before the senate. how could they conduct themselves? william jefferson clinton and andrew johnson did not block any witnesses from participating in the senate trial. president trump by contrast refuses to let relevant witnesses from testifying to this very day. many of president clinton's white house aides testified. even before the commencement of the formal impeachment proceedings. during various investigations in the mid- 19 nineties the house and senate heard from more than two dozen white house aides including the white house counsel, former chief of staf staff, and multiple senior advisers to president clinton. president clinton himself gave testimony on camera and under oath also loving the most senior advisers and the chief of staff and white house counsel to testify. in that investigation that led to his impeachment. as you can see in the chart , the testimony was packaged and delivered to the senate. know witnesses who defied subpoenas, no aides to have personal knowledge of misconduct was directed to stay silent by president clinton. may have an entirely different situation. here we are seeking witnesses the president has blocked from testifying before the house. the president thinks he can do what no other president before him has attempted to do in such a brazen fashion. to hide the truth from the american people. that cannot be allowed to stand. let me now address bedrock principles about congresses authority to conduct investigations. the broad powers are at their strongest during the impeachment proceeding. in the house and senate exercised responsibility expressly set forth in article one of the constitution. nearly 140 years ago the supreme court recognized that when the house or senate is determining a question of impeachment, there is no reason to doubt the right to compel the attendance of witnesses and answer to proper questions in the same manner and by the use that the courts of justice can in like cases. our nation's founders the greatest legal minds recognize these principles early on. supreme court justice story exclaimed the president should not have the power of preventing a thorough investigation of his conduct or securing himself against the disgrace of the public conviction by impeachment if he should deserve it. president trump cannot function as judge, jury and executioner of our democracy. and it wasn't just the courts that confirm this, some of our nations leading public servant servants, representative john quincy adams speaking on the floor of the house after he had served as president exclaimed, what mockery would it be for the constitution of the united states to say the how should have the power of impeachment, extending even to the president of the united states, himself but yet the house doesn't have the power to obtain the evidence on which the impeachment will face. as hamilton, story, adams and others have recognized, the president cannot insulate himself from congresses investigation of his wrongdoing. and then to get presented at his own trial to nullify that constitutional power of impeachment. this amendment is important because president trump simply cannot be allowed to hide the truth. no other president has done i it, the supreme court does not allow it. and the president is not above the law. witnesses matter. documents matter. evidence matters. the truth matters. let me turn to the third justification for this that is critical to consider the case for removal it is imperative we hear from the president's closest aid, intimately involved of the key stages of this extraordinary abuse of power. president trump knows this why else would he be trying so hard to prevent nick mulvaney from testifying before you? there are at least four reasons why mister mulvaney's testimony is critical. to begin, as acting white house chief of staff and head of om omb, nick mulvaney has first-hand knowledge of president trump and his efforts to shakedown ukraine and pressure its new president and to announcing a phony investigation. mister mulvaney was there at each critical stage of president trump. he was in the loop and in the planning. he was in the loop with the implementation, and he was in the loop with - - when the schema fell apart. he even admitted publicly the aid was withheld in order to pressure ukraine with the investigation designed to elevate the president's political standing. mister mulvaney perhaps more than any other administrations witness excepting the president has first-hand insight in the decision to withhold $391 million of military and security to a vulnerable ukraine without justification. indeed our investigation reveals that president trump personally ordered mister mulvaney to execute a freeze july 2019. he holds a seniormost position of staff at the white house and a member of president trump's cabinet and responsible for president trump's team at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. he remains director of omb which implemented the hold on the security assistance in violation of the law. from the gao recently concluded. in short respectfully the senate responsibility to conduct a complete and fair trial demands that mister mulvaney testify. second mister mulvaney's testimony is critical because of his knowledge of the planning of president trump's abuse of powe power. the us ambassador to the european union testified that there was a quid pro quo. ambassador sans lend - - t3 gave $1 million to the inauguration and testified that everybody was in the loop and that it was no secret what was going on. in fact as early as ma may 2019, ambassador sondland made it clear he was talking about ukraine matters with mister mulvaney that the us embassy in ukraine had to say on that matter. >> ambassador sondland mandate as the ambassador of the european union did not cover individual member states let alone nonmember countries. he made clear he had direct infrequent access to president trump and chief of staff mulvaney and portrayed himself as the conduit to the president and mister mulvaney for this group. >> after the us delegation returned from the inauguration of the new ukrainian president in april, they could secure an oval office meeting with president trump to brief him on their trip in part because of ambassador sondland connection to nick mulvaney. then during the june 18, 2019 meeting, ambassador sondland a national security council senior director doctor hill said he was in charge of ukraine and that he had been briefing senior white house officials including mister mulvaney. about his efforts to undertake as doctor hill put it, a domestic political hearing in ukraine here is doctor hill explaining this herself. >> i was upset with him and he said to me i'm briefing the president and chief of staff mulvaney and secretary pompeo. who also i have to deal with? that we have a robust process dealing with ukraine includes ambassador taylor and a whole lot of other people but it struck me yesterday when you put up on screen ambassador sondland e-mails that he says this is what he developed you are absolutely right because he has been involved in a domestic political event and we were involved in national security and foreign policy and those two things diverged. >> there is more. much more. one month later president trump national security advisor at the time, john bolton told doctor hill to tell the nsc lawyers that he was not part of whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney were cooking up. he made that statement after ambassador sondland specifically said he had a deal with mister mulvaney to schedule the white house visit for president zelensky if ukraine announced to phony investigations involving the biden 2016 election interference in the investigations sought by president donald john trump. doctor hill's testimony describing this drug deal he had with mulvaney. >> one weekend ambassador sondland was supposed to say we have a deal here. there will be a meeting i agree with chief of staff mulvaney there will be a meeting if ukraine will announce the investigation into 2016. by this point hearing from mister giuliani over and over again of all the issues that he was asserting by this point it was clear burisma was the issue i could see why the colonel was alarmed and said we cannot be involved in this. >> the referenced agreement between ambassador sondland and nick mulvaney, was so upsetting that doctor hill reported it to the national security council legal advisors. here is a testimony of doctor hill explaining the particular concerns. >> he was making a very strong point of exactly what was being said. then i came back to relate to him he had very specific instructions. >> what was that quick. >> that i have to go to the lawyers to the senior counsel for the national security council to basically say if you tell eisenberg im not part of the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand that to mean that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up quick. >> i took it as an investigation or a meeting. >> did you speak to the lawyers quick. >> i certainly did. >> sondland testimony not only corroborates doctor hill's account but he actually says that mulvaney, the subject of this amendment who should appear before the senate will have a free and fair trial sondland says mulvaney knew all about it. >> i want to ask you that he makes reference in the drug deal cooked up by you and mulvaney is the reference that i want to ask you about. you testified that mulvaney was aware of the quid pro quo of this condition the ukrainians had to meet with the public investigation to get the white house meeting. >> other people were aware. >> including mister mulvaney? >> correct. >> the documents also highlight but with this geopolitical shakedown bass on - - summarized by ambassador sondland shows that he informed mister mulvaney and secretary pompeo and secretary pao of his efforts to persuade president zelensky to announce the investigation desired by president trump. for example as shown on the screen, july 19 ambassador sondland e-mailed several top officials including mister mulvaney stating he talked to president zelensky to help prepare him for a phone call with president trump. he reported that president zelensky assured president trump he would run a fully transparent investigation that will turn over every stone. ambassador sondland made clear in his testimony he was referring to the burisma and biden 2016 election interference investigation that was explicitly mentioned by president trump on the july 25 phone call. mister mulvaney wrote a response i asked him to set it up. what exactly did mister mulvaney know about the ukrainian commitment to turn over every stone? and when did he know it? these and many other questions require answers. under oath from mister mulvaney. he is also a central figure as president trump implemented the pressure campaign. according to public reports and witness testimony, mister mulvaney was deeply involved with implementing including the unlawful briefs on $391 million of aid to ukraine. it isn't just other people fingering mister mulvaney, he himself has admitted that he was involved. >> again i was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. >> public reports confirm mister mulvaney's own account that he has information goes to the heart of this inquir inquiry, specifically related why the president ordered a hold on aid to ukraine and kept it in place despite deep seated concerns among trump administration officials. the new york times article on the screen summarizes an e-mail conversation between mister mulvaney and robert blair the senior advisor june 27 when mister mulvaney asked did we ever find out for the money so we can hold it back? what prompted that e-mail? according to public reports mister mulvaney was on air force one. air force one. with president trump when he sent it. what other conversations did mister mulvaney have with president and white house officials about this unlawful freeze? the american people deserve to know. there is another significant evidence to implement the scheme. according to multiple witnesses the freeze of security assistance was delivered by nick mulvaney himself testifying about a julyh e-mail that president trump is directing a hold on military support funding for ukraine was he working at the express direction of mulvaney cracks the members of this distinguished body deserve to know. on july 18 a hold was announced to the administration to oversee the policy matters. they were blindsided by the announcement that the security aid appropriated by this congress on a bipartisan basis to ukraine which is still at war with russian back separatis separatist, they were alarmed the aide had inexplicably been put on hold. meanwhile officials at the defense department and omb became increasingly concerned that the hold also violated the law. their concerns turned out to be accurate. reports have indicated the white house is in possession of early august e-mails and exchanges between acting chief of staff mulvaney and white house budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for the funds. an explanation i should note they tried to provide after the president had already ordered the hold. but then to provide them to the senate and to the american people. finally at a press briefing mister mulvaney left no doubt president trump withheld the essential military aid as leverage to extract phony political investigations as part of his efforts to solicit for interference in the 2020 election. this was an extraordinary press conference and mulvaney made clear that he was in fact pressuring ukraine to investigate the conspiracy theory that ukraine rather than russia had interfered in the 2016 election. and promoted by none other than the great purveyor of democracy vladimir putin himself. the white house attempted to clarify the acknowledgment of a quid pro quo related to security assistance mulvaney replied we do that all the time with foreign-policy. i have news for you. get over it. let's listen to a portion of that stunning exchange. >> they also mention the corruption related to the server absolutely no question. that's why we held up the money. >> asking for an investigation with the democrats is part of the reason. >> looking back at 2016 is the one thing he was worried about. >> what you described is a quid pro quo that funding will not flow and thus the investigation happens as well. >> we do that all the time with foreign-policy. we were also holding money from the northern triangle countries so they would change their policy on immigration. this speaks to an important point and i heard this yesterday. that if you believe a news report because we have not seen any transcripts of this. if you read the news report he said he is upset with the political influence of foreign-policy that's one of the reasons he was so upset. i have news for everybody. get over it there will be political influence and foreign-policy. >> in this extraordinary press conference, mister mulvaney spoke with authority and conviction about why president trump withheld the aide. he did not mince his words but following the press conference he tried to walk back the statement we need to hear from mick mulvaney directly so he can clarify his true intentions. so let's briefly address the president's arguments that he can block the testimony. that argument is not only wrong but fundamentally undermined a system of checks and balances. step back for a moment to consider the extraordinary position that president trump tries to manufacture for himself. the department of justice has already said the president cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office. as we sit here today the president has filed a brief in the supreme court to say he cannot be criminally investigated as well while in the white house. so the senate and the house are the only checks that are left when the president of uses his power. and to undermine the national security. and then try to cover it up. but no one is above the law. and if they are investigated by congress they should comply with lawful subpoena in connection with the impeachment inquiry or trial he is the ultimate arbiter if he did anything wrong, that cannot stand. if he can to be indicted or impeached then can't be held accountable. that is inconsistent with the united states constitution. the reason the president blocked all these witnesses including mulvaney from testifying is because of a lofty concern. with that executive privilege. let's get real. how could blocking witnesses from telling the truth about the president's misconduct help preserve the office of the president? this type of blanket obstruction undermines the credibility of the office of the presidency with a potentially mortal deathblow. to declare executive privilege does not provide a legally justifiable basis and in fact as you have heard earlier today president trump never even invoked executive privilege. not even once. how can you consider his argument in a serious fashion? instead of speaking through the distinguished white house counsel, pat cipollone in a letter dated october 8, 2019, president trump simply decided he did not want to participate in the investigation into his own wrongdoing. a categorical decision of specific facts or legal arguments. and that president trump used through the white house counsel were made up. in the letter pat cipollone referred to executive branch confidentiality interests. but that is not a recognized jurisprudence shield or a proper assertion of executive privilege. those could be resolved during the testimony as they have been for decades. the president claimed mister mulvaney could not be compelled to testify because of absolute immunity. but to address this legal fiction has rejected it. the supreme court emphatically stated in unanimous fashion on the nixon tapes, confidentiality interest of the president must yield to the impeachment inquiry if there is a legitimate need for the information as there is here today. there can be no doubt that mister mulvaney as president chief of staff and head of omb is uniquely situated to provide this distinguished body with relevant and important information about the charges to the articles of impeachment. the obstruction has no basis in law and should yield to this body call equal authority to investigate impeachable and corrupt conduct. one final point if the president wanted to make witnesses available even while preserving the limited protections of executive privilege, he can do so. in fact president trump testified in the senate just last month. let's go to the videotape. >> i would love to have pompeo rick perry, and many other people testify. >> of president trump has nothing to hide he and his advisers as they repeatedly claimed they should all testify in the senate trial. what is president donald john trump hiding from the american people? the constitution requires a fair trial. our democracy needs a fair trial. the american people deserve a fair trial. a fair trial means witnesses. a fair trial means documents. a fair trial means consideration of all available evidence. a fair trial means testimony from mick mulvaney. mister chief justice, the house manager we reserve the balance of her time. . . . . a s on witness says and documents from that of the clinton trial which was supported by this body 100-0. at its core, this case is very simple, and the key facts are undisputed. first, you've seen the transcripts, which the president released transparently, unprecedented. there was no quid pro quo for anything. security assistance funds are not even mentioned on the call. second, president of zelensky and the highest ranking officials in the ukrainian government repeatedly have said there was no quid pro quo and there was no pressure. third, the ukrainians were not even aware of the pause in the aid at the time of the call and were not aware of it, did not become aware of it until more than a month later. fourth, the only witnesses in the house record who actually spoke to the president about the aid of, ambassador sondland and senator ron johnson. say the president was unequivocal in saying there was no quid pro quo. fifth, and this one is pretty obvious, the aid flowed, and president of trump and president of zelensky met without any investigation started or announced. finally, and i ask that you not lose sight of the big picture here. by providing lethal aid to ukraine, president of trump has proven himself to be a better friend and ally to ukraine than his predecessor. the time for the house managers to bring their case is now. they had their chance to develop their evidence before they send the articles of impeachment to this chamber. this chamber's role is not to do the houses job for it. with that, i yield the balance of my time to mr. cipollone. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a couple of observations. first of all, as mr. purpura said as we are talking about when the question was addressed. under the resolution, this resolution was accepted 100 100-nothing. some of you were here then and thought it was great. if we keep going like this it will be next week. for those of you keeping score at home, they haven't even started yet. we are here today. we came hoping to have a trial. they spent the entire day telling you and the american people that they can't prove their case. i could have told you that in five minutes and saved us all a lot of time. they came here talking about the gao. it's an organization that works for congress. do you know who disagrees with the gao? don't take it from me, they do. they say the articles of impeachment that makes no claim of any violation of any law. by the way, you know what also doesn't, you can search high and low in the articles of impeachment and you know what it doesn't say? quid pro quo, because there wasn't any. only in washington with some one say that it's wrong when you don't spend taxpayer dollars fast enough, even if you spend them on time. let's talk about the judiciary y committee for a second. two days in the judiciary committee, the judiciary committee is supposed to be in charge of impeachment. the delivery time for these articles they produce was 33 days. i think this might be the first impeachment in history where the delivery time was longer than the investigation into the judiciary committee. they come here and falsely accuse people -- by the way, they falsely accused you. you are on trial now. they falsely accuse people of phony political investigations. really. since the house democrats took over, that's all we've had from them. they've used their offense, although many do the taxpayers send to washington to pay them to conduct phony political investigations against the president, against its family, against anyone who knew him. they started impeaching him the minute he was elected. they have organized the house of representatives to investigate the political opponent and they come here and make false allegations of phony political investigations. i think the doctors call to projection. it's time for it to end. it's time for someone, for the senate to hold them accountable. think about what they are asking. they are trying to remove president trump's name from the ballot, and they can't prove their case. they've told you that all day long. think about what they are asking some of you senators to do. some of you are running for president. they are asking you to use your office to remove your political opponent from the ballot. that's wrong. that's not in the interest of our country, and to be honest with you, it's not really a show of confidence. so, we will, i suppose, have this debate again next week if we ever get there. it's getting late. i would ask you respectfully if we could simply start. maybe tomorrow we can start and if they can make their argument and make a case they once called overwhelming. we will see. but this resolution is right and it's fair, and it makes sense. you have a right to hear what they say before you have to decide these critical issues. that's all this is about. is it now or is it a week from now? seriously, can we please start? thank you. >> mr. cipollone, is your side complete? >> yes we are. >> you have 14 minutes remaining. >> councicounsel for the presidt indicated that we have not charged president trump with a crime. we have charged him with crimes against the united states constitution. hi crimes and misdemeanors. abuse of power strikes at the very heart of what the framers of the constitution's were concerned about. betrayal of one's oath of office for personal gain into corruption of our democracy. hi crimes and misdemeanors. that's what this trial is all about. counsel for the president again has declined to address the substantive merits of the amendment that has been offered. try to suggest that house democrats have only been focused on trying to oust president trump. nothing else can be further from the truth. last year we passed 400 bills and send them to the chamber, 275 of those bills are bipartisan in nature, addressing issues like lowering health care costs and prescription drug prices, trying to deal with the gun violence epidemic. we've worked with president trump on criminal justice reform. i personally worked with him along with all of you on the first step act. we worked with him on the us-mexico canada trade agreement. we worked with him to fund the government. we don't hate this president, but we love the constitution. we love america. we love our democracy. that's why we are here today. the question was asked as opening before this, why are we here. let me see if i can just pause and answer to that question. we are here because president trump pressured a foreign government to target an american citizen for political and personal gain. we are here because president trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election and corrupted our democracy. we are here, sir, because president trump withheld $391 million in military aid from a vulnerable ukraine without justification in a manner that has been deemed unlawful. we are here, sir, because president donald trump elevated his personal political interest and subordinated to the national security interest of the united states of america. we are here, sir, because president trump corruptly abused his power, and then he tried to cover it up. and we are here, sir, to follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the constitution, and present the truth to the american people. that is why we are here, mr. sekulow. and if you don't know, now you know. i yield to my distinguished colleague, chairman schiff. >> i think the gentleman for yielding, and just want to provide a couple of quick fact check's on with my colleagues at the other table. first, mr. purpura said security assistance funds were not mentioned at all in the july 25 call him president trump and president zelensky. let's think back to what was discussed in that call. you might remember from that call that president zelensky thanks president trump for the javelin weapons and says they are ready to order some more. and what is president trump's immediate response? i have a favor to ask you. what was it about the president of ukraine bringing up military assistance that triggered the president to go immediately to the fever that he wanted? i think that is telling that it takes part in that part of the conversationconversations a. yey assistance and military assistance did come up immediately preceding the ask. what kind of message do you think that since the ukraine? they are not stupid. people watching this are not stupid. they say they never found out what thethey didn't find out abe free use in the aid until months later. mr. purpura needs to be more careful with his facts. let me tell you about some of the testimony that you are going to hear, and you will only hear it because it took place in the house. these were other witnesses he wouldn't be able to hear it. but you had kathryn croft, the witness from the state department, the career official at the state department, who talked about how quickly actually after the freeze went into place, ukrainians found out about it and she started getting contacts from the ukrainian embassy in washington. she said she was impressed with her diplomatic tradecraft and what does that mean? she was impressed with how quickly the ukrainians found out about something that the administration was trying to hide from the american people. ukraine found out about it. in fact, laura cooper, a career official at the defense department, said that her office started getting inquiries from ukraine about the issues with the aid on july 25, the very day of the call. so much for ukraine not finding out about this for a month later. but i thought this was very telling "the new york times" disclosed that july 30, so within a week of the call between president trump and president zelensky, the foreign ministry received a diplomatic cable from it embassy indicating trump had frozen the military aid within a week. that is reported to have gone from the ukrainian embassy to the ukrainian foreign ministry. and the former ukrainian deputy foreign minister, elaine asarc d they had this information and it was mentioned there were issues. she went on to say that cable is provided to president zelensky office. that andre the director heard tp silent and not discuss the hold with reporters were congress. while the testimony about why they wanted to keep it secret that they knew about it, you can imagine why. zelensky didn't want his own people to know the president was holding back aid from him. what does that look like for the new president of ukraine trying to make the case that he's going to be able to defend his own country because he had such a great relationship with the patron of the united states. but he didn't let the russians to know about it for the reasons we talked about earlier. so, yes they kept it close. he also went on to say the ukrainians say they don't feel any pressure. that's what they say now. of course we know that is not true. we have had testimony that they didn't want to be used as a political pawn in u.s. domestic politics. they resisted it and you will hear more testimony about the efforts to push back on this public statement and how they tried to water it down to leave out the specifics of how giuliani forced them. this isn't going to be credible if