Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate Senate Impeachment Trial 20200204

>> thank you mr. chief justice, majority leader mcconnell, democratic leader schumer, senators, thank you very much on behalf of all of us for your continued attention. today we areom going to complete our argument and finish her closing argument. we will complete that in a very efficient. of time, you understand the arguments that we have been making. at the end of the day, the key conclusion we believe the onlyco conclusion based on the evidence and based on the articles of impeachment memselves in the constitution, is that you must vote to acquit the president. at the end of the day, this is an effort to overturn the results of one election and to try to interfere in the coming election that begins today in iowa. and we believe that the only proper results, if we are applying the golden rule of a peach meant, if we are implying the rules of impeachment that were so eloquently stated by members of the democratic party the last time we were here. the only of robert result here is to acquit the president and to leave it to the voters to choose their president. >> with that i will turn it over to judge ken starr and we will move through a series of start presentations. thank you.. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, majority leader mcconnell, minority leader schumer, house impeachment managers and their very able staff, as world war i, the war to end all wars, was drawing to a close and american soldiers sat down at a piano and composed a song. it was designed to be part of a musical review for his army camp out on long island. the song was god bless america. the composer of course was irving berlin. he came here at the age of five, son of immigrants who came into this country for freedom. as composers are wont to do, berlin works with the lyrics. the song needed to be pure, and needed to be above politics, bipartisanship, he intended it to be a song for all america. but he intended for mored than just a song. it was to be a prayer for the country. as you're very distinguished chaplain, admiral barry black has done in his prayers on these long days that you have spent as judges in the high court of impeachment, we have been reminded of what our country is all about. and that it stands for one nation, under god. the nation is about freedom, and we hear the voice of martin luther king jr. and his dream filled speech about freedom. echoing the great passages inscribed on america's temple of justice, the lincoln memorial which stood behind to doctor king he spoke on that historic day. doctor king is gone, felled by an assassin's bullet, but his words remain with us. and during his magnificent life, after king spoke not only about freedom, freedom standing alone, he spoke frequently about freedom and justice. and in his speeches, he'd summit up regularly the words of a unitarian abolitionist from the prior century, theodore parker. who referred to the moral ark of the universe, the long moral arc of the universe points towards justice. freedom and justice. freedom whose contours have been shaped over the centuries in the english-speaking world. justice benjamin cardozo called the authentic forms of justice through which the community expresses itself in law. authentic, authenticity, and at the foundation of those authentic forms of justice, is fundamental fairness. it's playing by the rules. it's why we don't allow deflated footballs, or stealing signs from the field.es rules are rules. they are here to be followed. and so i submit to a key question to be asked as yoube begin your deliberations. for the rules here faithfully followed? if not, if that is your judgment, then with allnt due respect, the prosecutor should not be rewarded. justice federal prosecutors are not rewarded. you did not follow the rules. you should have. as a young lawyer, i was blessed to work with one of the great trial lawyers of his time, and i asked him what's your secret. he had just defended successfully a former united states senator who was charged with a serious offense, perjury, before a federal grand jury. his response was simple and forthright. his words could have come from prairie lawyer abe lincoln, i let the judge and jury know that they can believe and trust every word that comes out of my mouth. i will not to be proven wrong. and so here is a question as you begin your deliberations. ntve the facts, as presented to you, as a court, as a high court of impeachment proven trustworthy? has there been full and fair disclosure in the course of these proceedings? fundamental fairness. i recall these words from the podium last week. a point would be made by one of the presidents lawyers and then this would follow, the house of managers had didn't tell you that. why not? and again, the house managers didn't tell you that. whywh not? at the justice department on the fifth floor of theor robert f kennedy building, is this simple inscription. the united states that once it's points, when justice it is done its citizens in the courts. not did we win? not to did we convict? rather, the moral question was stjustice done? of course as it has been said frequently, the house of representatives does under our constitution enjoy the sole power of impeachment. no one has disputed that fact. they have got the power, but that doesn't mean anything goes. it doesn't mean that the house cannot be called to account in the high court of impeachment for its actions and exercising that power. a question to be asked, are we to countenance violation of the rules and traditional procedures that have been filed screwed illicitly in prior impeachment proceedings? and the judiciary committee, the judiciary committee of the house of representatives compare and contrast the thoroughness of that committee in the agege of nixon. it's thoroughness in the age of clinton with all of its divisiveness, within the committee in this proceeding. a question to be asked to the house judiciary committee rush to judgment in fashioning the articles of impeachment? did it carefully gather the facts, assess the facts before it concluded we need nothing more than the panel of very distinguished professors and the splendid presentations by both the majority counsel and the minority counsel. we ask some questions, the republicans asked him questions, we heard their answers, we are ready to vote. we are ready to try this case in the high court of impeachment. what wasim being said and the sounds of silence was this, we don't have time to follow the rules. we won't even allow the house judiciary minority members who have been seeking us time and again to have their day. just one day. to call their witnesses. oh yes that is expressly provided for in the rules, we will break those rules. it's not liberty and justice for all, they observe the power of the president is ultimately the power to persuade. oh yes the commander-in-chief and yes charged with the conduct and authorities to guide the nation's foreign relations but ultimately it's the power to persuade i suggest to you so too, the house is so powered to impeach is likewise ultimately a power to persuade over in the house. a question to be asked, and the fast track impeachment process in the house of representatives, the house majority persuade the american people? not just partisans, rather did the houses case when over the overwhelming majority of the consensus of the american people. the question fairly to be asked. will i cast my vote to convict and remove the president of the united states when not a single member of the president's party, the party of lincoln was persuaded. at any time in the process. in contrast and when i was here last week, i noted for the record of these proceedings that in the next cent impeachment the house vote to authorize the inquiry was 410 to four. in the clinton impeachment, divisive controversial 31 democrats voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry. here, of course, in sharp contrast, the answer is none. it is said that we live in highly and perhaps hopelessly partisan times and it said that no one is open to persuasion anymore. they are getting their news entirely from their favorite media platform. and that platform of choice is fatally deterministic. while, at least the decision of decision-makers under oath, who are bound by sacred duties by oath or affirmation to do impartial justice, leaves the platforms out. those of modern-day intermediaries and shapers of thought and expression of opinion are outside these walls where you serve. finally, what is before this court very energetically described by the abled house managers, but fairly viewed will it rise to the high crime of misdemeanor? one so brave and serious to bring about the profound disruption of the article to branch. the disruption of theo government?er and to tell the american people, yes, i will say this is thed way it would be read. your votes in the last election is hereby declared null and void. and by the way, were not going to allow you, the american people, to sit in judgment on this judgment of this president and his record in november. that is neither freedom nor justice. it is certainly not consistent with the basic freedom of we the people. the freedom to vote. i think the court, i yielded to my colleague. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, good afternoon. i will be relatively brief today and will not repeat the arguments we have made throughout, but i just want to highlight a few things. there's a number of reasons the articles of impeachment are deficient and must fail. my colleagues have spent the past week describing those reasons. my time today, i would like to review just a few core facts which again, remember are all drawn from the record on which the president was impeached in the house and that the house managers are brought to this body in support of the president's removal. first, the president did not condition security assistance or meeting on anything and during the july 25 call. in fact, both investor yovanovitch and mr. tim morrison confirmed that the javelin missiles and the security assistance were completely unrelated. the concerns that lieutenant colonel vindman expressed on the call or by his own words and admission, based on deep policy concerns. and remember, as we said before and everyone in this room knows, the president sets the foreign policy. the unelected staff implements the foreign-policy. others on the call including lieutenant colonel vindman's boss, mr. morrison and general keith kellogg had no such concerns,te and have stated they have heard nothing improper, unlawful, or otherwise troubling on the july 25 call. second, president zelensky and his top advisers agreed that there is nothing wrong with the july 25 call and that they felt no pressure from president trump. president zelensky said the call was good, normal, and no one pushed him. president zelensky's topic five andrea yermak asked if he ever thought there is a connection between the u.s. military aid and the request for investigations? he was adamant that we never had that feeling and we did not have the feeling this aid was connected to any one specific issue. several other top ukrainian officials said the same thing both publicly and in readouts of the july 25 call to ambassador taylor, ambassador volker, and others. third, president zelensky and the highest levels of ukrainian government did not learn of the pause until august 28, 2019, more than a month after the july 25 call between president trump and president zelensky. president zelensky himself said i had no idea the military aid was held up. when i did i find out i brought up with patients in a meeting in warsaw. meeting the vice president. the meeting in warsaw took place three days after the article was published on september 1, 2019. mr. your. >> on trent yermak also said that they learned of the pause from the august 20 article and just last week, while we were in this trial, alexander dan malec former chair of the defense counsel for ukraine olfirst found out the u.s. was withholding aid was by reading politicos article published august 28. he also said there is panic within the zelensky administration when they found out about the hold from the political article indicating the highest levels of the administration were unaware of the pause until the article was published. and if that is not enough, ambassador volker, and vascular taylor, deputy assistant of state george kent, and mr. morrison all also testified that the ukrainians did not know about the security hold until the political article in august 28. and we showed you the text message from mr. yermak to volker just hours after the article was published. you'll also remember all of the high love rural bilateral meetings which with ukrainians did not bring up the pausing ukrainian assistance because they did not n know about it. when they did find outta on august 28, they raise the issue at the very next meeting in warsaw on september 1. this is a really important point. as ambassador volker testified if ukrainians did not know about the pause, then there was no leverage implied. that's why the house managers inve kept claiming and continue to say during whole trial as they knew about the clause before late august. that is inaccurate. we pointed out that laura cooper whom they rely, testified she didn't really know what the e-mail she saw related to security assistance were about. we told you catherine croft who works for ambassador volker couldn't remember the specifics of when she believed about the pause and she couldn't remember when news of the pause was public. the house managers also mentioned lieutenant colonel vindman who claimed a vague recollections of inquiries about aid in the mid august timeframe. but lieutenant colonel vindman agreed that they first learned about the hold on assistance one probably when the first stories emerged in the open source. in former deputy said she knows about the pause in july is inconsistent with statements by her boss, the then foreign minister review crane he said he learned of the pause from a news article of which the august 28 political article was the first period as well as those of all the other top level ukrainian officials i have mention. the testimony of the top u.s. diplomats responsible for ukraine, and the many intervening meetings where the pause was not mentioned. none of the house witnesses testified that president trump ever said there is any linkage between security assistance and investigations. when ambassador solidly answer the president on september 9, the president told him i want nothing. i want nothing. i want no quid pro quo. before he asked the president, ambassador sondland presumed in told ambassador taylor and mr. morrison that there was a connection between the security assistance and investigations. that was before he asked the president directly. even earlier on august 31, senator ron johnson as the president if there is any connection between security assistant and investigation.co this president answered no way, i would never do that. who told you that? under secretary of state david hale, mr. kent and volker both testified they were not aware of any connection whatsoever between security assistance and investigations. the house managers repeatedly point to a statement by acting chief of staff mick mulvaney during an october press conference. when it became clear that the media was misinterpreting his comments or that he t hadhe simy misspoken, mr. mulvaney promptly, on the very day of the press conference issued a written statement making clear there was no quid pro quo. there is a statement. let me be clear, there is absolutely noo "pro between ukrainian military aid and investigation into the 2016 election. the president never told me to it withhold any money until the ukrainians did anything related to the server. the only reason we were holding the money was concern of lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption. accordingly, mr. mulvaney, in no way confirm the link irbetween the pause security assistance and investigations. a garbled or misinterpreted statement or mistaken statement that was promptly clarified on the same day as the original statement, is not the kind of reliable evidence that would lead to the removal of the president of the united states from office. in any event, mr. mulvaney also stated during the press conference itself, that the money held up had absolutely nothing to biden. no, why does assault matter? i think senator romney really got to the hearts of this issue on thursday evening. when he asked both parties whether there was any evidence that president trump directed anyone to tell the ukrainians that security assistance was being held up on the condition of an investigation into the bidens. that was the question. there is no w such evidence. fifth, the security assistance was released when the president's concerns with burden sharing and corruption were addressed. by a number of people including some in this chamber today. without ukraine ever announcing or undertaking any investigations. you have heard repeatedly that no one in the administration knew why the security system was paused. that is note true. two of the house managers on witnesses testified regarding the reason for the pause. as mr. morrison testified, at a july meeting attended by officials in the executive branch agencies, the reason provided for the pause by a representative from the office of management and budgetse was that the president was concerned about corruption in ukraine and he wanted to make sure ukraine was doing enough to manage that corruption. further, according to sandy,de the deputy associate for national security of the office of management and budget, we had reserved request fort additional information on what other countries were contributing to ukraine. we told you about the work that was being done to monitor and collect information about anticorruption reforms in ukraine, and burden sharing during the summer pause. we told you about how, when president zelensky asked vice president pence in about the pause, vice president pence asked according to jennifer williams, what the status of his reform efforts were that he could then convey back to the president and also wanting to hear if there is more that european countries could do to support ukraine. mr. morrison, who was actually at the warsaw meeting, testified similarly to vice president pence delivered a message about anticorruption and burden sharing. we told you about the september 11 call with president trump, center department and vice president pence, mr. morrison testified the entire process culminating in september 11 call gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance. all without any investigations being announced. now the focus so far on the house managers allegation that there is quid pro quo quality security assistance. let me turn very briefly to the claim that the presidential meeting was also conditioned on investigations. remember, by the end of thef july 25 call, president trump it personally president zelensky to meet three times. twice by phone, once in a letter. without any preconditions.ny you heard that the white house was working behind the scenes to schedule the meeting and how difficult scheduling those meetings can be. the two presidents plan to meet in warsaw, just as president zelensky requested on the july 25 call. president trump had to cancel at the last minute due to hurricane dorian. president trump and president zelensky then met three weeks later in new york without ukraine investigations. finally the one thing that houtz witnesses agreed upon was that president trump has strengthen the relationship between the u.s. in ukraine and that it hasas been a better ukraine to ukraine in a ostronger opponent of russian aggression them president obama. most notably, ambassador taylor, ambassador volker, an investor yovanovitch all testified that president trump's reversal of his presidential refusal to send lethal aid was meaningful and significant policy development and improvement for which president trump deserves credit. just last week, ambassador voelker who knows more about u.s. ukraine relationships than nearly if not everyone, published a piece in foreign policy magazine. i'd like to redo an excerpt. beginning in mid 2017 and continuing until the impeachment investigation began in september 2019, u.s. policy toward ukrainen was strong, consistent, and enjoyed support across administration, bipartisan support in congress, and support among u.s. allies and in ukraine itself. the trump administration also coordinated ukraine policy closely with allies in europe and canada, maintaining a united front against russian aggression in in favor of ukrainian democracy reform, sovereignty and territorial integrity. ukraine policy is one of the few areas where u.s. and european policies have been in lockstep. the administration listen to efthe fama ban on arms to ukraine delivering among other things javelin antitank missiles, cutters, anti- sniper systems. despite the recent furor over the pause in u.s. security assistance this past summer, the circumstances of which of the topic of impeachment hearings, u.s. defensive support for ukraine has been and remains robust. and more, according to ambassador voelker. it is therefore tragedy for both the u united states and ukraine that u.s. partisan politics, which have culminated in the ongoing impeachment process have left ukraine and its new reform zelensky expose and relatively isolated. the only one who benefits from this the house managers fear tht heavy burden of proof. it is because they didn't get the initial witnesses or documents that they failed to pursue. it's because their own witnesses have already offered substantial evidence and importantly, as you've heard fromm perthshir prr dershowitz, it doesn't support or alleging an impeachable offense regardless any witnesses or documents. members of the senate, it's been an incredible honor and privilege to speak to you in this chamber. i hope that what i've shown has been helpful to your understanding of the facts and they would respectfully ask you to vote to acquit the president of the wrongful charges against him. i yield to mr. philbin. mr. chief justice, members of the senate, we've heard repeatedly throughout the past week and a half or so the president is not above the law and i'd like to focus in my last remarks here on an equally important principle which is that the house of representatives also is not above the law in the wa way that they conduct the impeachment proceedings and bring the matter here before the senate because in very significant and important respects, they didn't follow the law. from the outset they begin an impeachment inquiry without a vote from the house and therefore without authority delegated to any committee to begin an impeachment inquiry against the president of the united states. that was unprecedented in our history and they do not have authority and holding a press conference to delegate the sole power of impeachment from the house to the kennedy commanded the result was 23 totally unauthorized and invalid subpoenas were issued at the beginning of this impeachment inquiry. after that, the house violated every principle of due process and fundamental fairness in a way that hearings were conducted, and we've been through that. i'm not going to go through the details again, but it is significant because denying the present and the ability to be president or council to cross-examine witnesses andss present evidence fundamentally skewed the proceedings in the house off representatives. without the ability to have a fair proceeding that reflected the fact they were not truly defined in the search for truth we had the procedural protections and the right of the cross-examination and a mechanism for getting to the fact and that was not present in the house of representatives. and last, manager schiff had an interesting witness who'd been involved with the stuff into discussions with the whistleblower guided the factual inquiry in the house, so why does this matter? because the lack of the vote meant that there was no democratic accountability and no lawful authorization in the process. advanced server procedural that they couldn't rely on for any conclusion other than to reject the articles of impeachment to acquit the president. and it mattered because the president in response to these to follow the proper procedure and follow the law has writes of his own and of the executive branch and that's the president's response to the invalid subpoena that we are not going to comply with them and the president asserted other rights toverrights to the execu. when there were subpoenas for the advisors to come and testify along with virtually every president since nixon they couldn't be called to testify in the president asserted that effect and subpoena called for the executive branch officials to testify without the presence of agency counsel that established principles that have been asserted before. before. with the house managers say in response? they accused the president in the second article of impeachment to try and do a search of destruction that this was an unprecedented response and refusal to cooperate. it was unprecedented 23 subpoenas were issued in the presidential impeachment inquiry without a valid authorization from the house. the president's response was to a totally unprecedented attempt house to do that which it has no authority to do. there were letters explaining that there was no attempt by the house to attempt an accommodations process even though the white house offered to engage in the process. there was no attempt by the house to use other mechanisms to resolve in the differences in the executive branch it was just straight to the impeachment. they asserted today and on other occasions the president's counsel and i and my colleague had made a bad arguments, just window dressing. in an ordinary court of law one does accuse the opposing counsel of making these bad faith arguments likely it if you make the accusation that hathat accue backed up with an analysis, but there hasn't been an analysis, there's just been accusations. when the president asserts the immunity of his senior advisers and that is the principal administered by everprincipleadr president since nixon. let me read you what the attorney general janet reno during the clinton administration said about this exact immunity. she said that advisers to the president or compelled to testify before congress, and i quote, the immunity enjoyed from testimonial compulsions by the congressional committee is absolute and may not be overburdened by the competing congressional interests. she went on to say compelling one of the president's immediate advisers to testify on a matter of executive decision-making would raise serious constitutional problems no matter what the assertions mean. with that bad faith or the attorney general asserting that principle and bad faith and president clinton, president obama asserted the same principle for his senior political adviser. these are principles defending separation of powers that the president asserted through decades. president trump had the interest of the office of the presidency, and assertinpresidencycome and e same principles here. that is vital for the continued operation of the separation of powers. house managers have also said once the president asserted and resisted them, they had no time to do anything else. they couldn't accommodate or go through the process or litigate but the idea that there is no time for dealing with that friction is antithetical to the proper functioning of the separation of powers. it goes against part of the way the separation of power is tpposed to work for the interbranch friction is meant to take time to resolve and slow things down and to be somewhat difficult to work through and forcecu the branches to work together to accommodate the interest of each branch, not just to jump to the conclusion that we have no time for that. we have to assert absolute authority on one side of the equation. this is something justice brandeis pointed out in a famous dissent in myers versus the united states but cited many times by the court majority. the doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the convention in 1787 not to promote efficiency, not to make the government quickly but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. the purpose was not to avoid friction, but by means of the inevitable friction incident the distribution of the governmental power among the department to save the people from photograp photography. that is a vital principle that the friction betweenit the branches, even if it means taking longer, not jumping straight to impeachment is a part of the constitutional design and required to force the branches to determine incrementally where their interests lie and not to jump straight to the nuclear weapon of the constitution. we have also heard from the house managers that everything the president did here is urging the prerogatives of his office and the principles of immunity must be wrong and rejected because only the guilty will assert art privilege. only the guilty won't allow evidence. that is definitely not a principle of americanan jurisprudence. it's antithetical to the fundamental principles of our system of law. so, we pointed out in the trial memorandum the supreme court has made clear the idea of punishing someone for asserting rights or privileges and evidence of guilt is contrary to the basic principles of due process. and it takes on an even more malignant tenor when the principleve is asserted in the context of a dispute between the branches relating to the boundaries of their relative powers because with the house is essentially asserting in this case is that any assertion of the prerogatives of the office of the president, any attempt to maintain the principles of separation of powers of executive confidentiality of that have been asserted by the paspastpresidents can be treatee house as evidence of guilt. and here the entire second article of impeachment is structured on the assumption that the house can treat the assertion of principles in the separation of powers as an impeachable offense. it boils down to its essence and assertion that defending the separation of powers if the president i does it in a way tht theyio don't like him in a time that they don't like it can be treated as an impeachable offense. and that is an incredibly dangerous assertion because, if it were accepted, it would fundamentally alter the balance between the different branches of the government and suggest if that the professor explained and professor dershowitz explained here that if congress makes a demand on the executive and the recessed, based on separation of powers principles, the past presidents have asserted, congress can nonetheless a we decided to proceed for impeachment. we have the sole power and this is the principle they asserted the judiciary committee report. we have the power of impeachment that means we are the charge of our own action. there's no need for accommodation and no need for the court. we will determine any resistance that you provide is it so impeachable. that would fundamentally transform our government by essentially giving the house the same sort of power the parliamentary system to use it as an effective vote of no-confidence against economist or, not the way the framers set up our three branch system of government with a powerful executive to be independent from the legislature. that's why the professor explained the second article of impeachment here would be abuse of power by congress. it would make the exit of his dependent on congress in a manner antithetical to the system of the framers. so, why is it that there are all of these defects in the house managers case for impeachment? why are they asserting principles with only the guilty with us or privileges? that isn't part of our system of law. why are they asserting that if the executives resist, the house has the sole power to determine the boundaries of its own power in relation to the executive, also not something that is in our system of jurisprudence. i think it's because -- why the lack of due process in the proceedings below? i think that as we have explained, it's because this was a purely partisan impeachment from the start. it was purely partisan and purely political. and that's something the framers foresaw. i will point to a passage from federalist number 65. a number of different passages from that have been cited over the course of the past week. but i don't think this one has. it's just after hamilton points out he warns an impeachment in the hous house could be the resf persecution of van and tempered desigintemperatedesign majorityf representatives. then he goes on, though the latter supposition may seem harsh, it might not like they often be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of this action will in certain cases extend overall numerous bodies have been and that's very 18th century language. we don't talk about team in extending their sector over men but it's pressure nonetheless. we might not be comfortable with the terms, but it's accurate for what can happen. and that is what has happened in this impeachment. it's a purely partisan political process. it was opposed bipartisan way in the house and was done so by a process that was not designed to persuade anyone to get to the truth or to provide the process idd abide by past presidents. it was done to get it finished by christmas on a political timetable. and it's not something that this chamber should condone. that in itself provides a sufficient and substantial reason for rejecting the articles of impeachment. members of the senate, it's been an honor to be able to address you over the past week and a halfe or two weeks. and i thank you for your attention and yield to mr. sekulow. >> mr. chief justice, majority leader mcconnell, democratic leader schumer, house managers, i want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your patience with these two weeks. i want to focus on one last point. we believe that we have established overwhelmingly that both articles ofof impeachment failed to allege impeachable offenses and that therefore, both articles one and two must fail. this entire campaign of impeachment that started from the very first day the president was inaugurated was a partisan one. and it should never happen again. for three years this push for impeachment came straight from the president's opponents and when it finally reached a crescendo with this body the united states senate was put into a horrible position. i want to start by taking a look back. on the screen is a graphic from the "washington post" headline on january 20, 2017. the campaign to impeach president trump has become. this was posted to 90 minutes 1r he was sworn in. i also want to play a video where members as early as january 15 and 2017, before the president was sworn into office were calling for his impeachme impeachment. >> i want to say this for donald trump [inaudible] i think he's already done a number of things which hlegitimately raise the question of impeachment. >> i wil >> i will fight every day until -- >> high-rise today, mr. speaker, to call for the impeachment of the president of the united states of america. >> the main reason i'm interested is not so much the senate, but because i think that he's committed impeachable offenses. >> if we get to that point, yes i think that is grounds to start an impeachment proceeding. >> we are going to get the impeachment hearing immediately. >> why do you think the president trump should be impeached? >> there are five reasons why we think he should be impeached. >> would you vote yes or no? >> they would vote yes. >> i would vote to impeach. >> we are going to go in and seek [inaudible] >> i introduc >> i introduce articles in july of 2017. all he did yesterday is make sure that those articles to expire. >> i'm concerned if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected. >> it is time for an impeachment charge. >> my personal view is that he does deserve impeachment. >> one of the members of the house of representatives said we are bringing these articles of impeachment as he doesn't get elected again and here we are, ten monthsne before they electin doing exactly what they predicted. the whistleblowers lawyer sent out a message january 30, 2017, let me put it up on the screen. it has started. the first of many steps. rebellion, impeachment will follow ultimately. and here we are. what this body and this nation and this president has just endured, with the house managers forced upon this great body is unprecedented and unacceptable. this is exactly and precisely what the founders feared. this was the first totally partisan presidential impeachment in the nations history, and itt should be the last. with the house democrats would've been to the nation to the constitution, to the office of the president committed the president himself and tons this body is outrageous. they've cheated the power of impeachment, and unfortunately across the country has not been better for that. we urge the body to dispense with these partisan articles of impeachment for the sake of the nation, for the sake of the constitution. as we have demonstrably proven, the articles are flawed on their face. they are a product of a reckless impeachment inquiry that violated all notions of due process and fundamental fairness. and then incredibly, incredibly when these articles were finally brought to this chamber without a single republican vote, the managers then claimed that now they need more process. now they need more witnesses. that all of the witnesses they compiled into what the testimony that you heard was not enough. your job was to do their job, the one frankly that they failed to do. timesve already said many that the churches themselves do not allege a crime or misdemeanor let alone a high crime or misdemeanor. there's nothing in the charges that coulchurchesthat could perf the duly elected president or warrant the negation of an election and the subversion of the american people spoke. that should be whatever party you are affiliated with. >> you are being asked to do this wi when tonight, citizens f iowa are going to be caucusing for the first caucus for the presidential season, election season for the democratic party, tonight. i think there's one thing that's clear. the president has had a concern about other countries carrying their fair share of burdens of financial aid. no one can doubt, and i think we clearly set forth the issue of corruption in ukraine. the presidents and administrations policy on evaluating foreign aid and the conditions upon which it is given has been clear. mr. kirk er -- mr. purpura laid that out in great detail. the president's opponents don't like the president and they really don't like his policies. >> they objected to the fact that the president chose not to rely each and every time on the advice of someone subordinates. even though he coming onto the unelected bureaucrats for him, weren't elected to office. the president under our constitutional structure is the one who decides our nations foreign policy. >> here is a perfect example. the house manager brough house s up frequently. lieutenant colonel vindman admitted on the testimony he did not know if there was a crime or anything of that nature, that is his quote, but again he had deep policy concerns. so, there you have it. the real issue is policy disputes. elections have consequences, and we all know that. and if you do not like the policies and the particular administration or a particular candidate, you are welcome to prefer anothevote for another c. the answer is elections, not impeachment. to be clear, and our country in the united states, the president elected by the american people is in the words of the supreme court, the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations and foreign policy for the government. no unelected bureaucrat, not unhappy members of the house of representatives, and however you are defining high crimes and misdemeanors, there is no definition that includes disagreeing with a policy decision as an acceptable ground for the removal of the president of the united states. >> done. the first article of impeachment is therefore constitutionally invalid and should be immediately rejected by the senate. now come as for the second article of impeachment, president trump in no way obstructed congress. he acted with extraordinary transparency by declassifying and releasing the transcript of lhe july 25 call and the earlier call. it is the july 25 call which is reportedly at the heart of the articles of impeachment. he did so soon after the inquiry was announced and despite the fact the privileges of white but couldn't have been asserted, he released them anyway in order to facilitate the house inquiry into question all of it, all the hearsay to get the transcript out. now, i want to take a moment because my colleague, the deputy white house counsel children addresaddressed this idea of privilege. i have heard over and over again, and you have, too, phrases like cover up, but the assertion othat theassertion ofy covered. here's what the supreme court of the united states said about privileges. and the variety of contexts and to punish a person because he has done what thele law allows m to do is a due process violation of the basic order, the basic sort come in for an agent of the states to pursue a course of action whose objection is to penalize a person's reliance on his constitutional rights is unconstitutional and how much more so when you're talking about the president of the united states. >> how about this. and this goes into the context of the assertions of privileges and other constitutional privileges, the allegation has been a few asserted privilege you arwho are assumed to be gui. that has been the assertion. why would you do that? is explained at great length and i don't want to go over that ivain, the importance of the executive privilege and what it means for the functioning of the government,ea but i will say th. as the supreme court has recognized in other contexts with other privileges, the privilege served to protect the innocent who otherwise might be beensnared by ambiguous circumstances it was generally regarded and found as a privilege of great value and protection of the benefit. it then goes on to say safeguard against the technical prosecutions. >> i'm not going to do that again how all of this started off as isabel, three years ago. how all of this began. there was no point to go over the cover because that evidence is undisputed that the courts must put that in fairplay. we talked about the fact the house violated the rules and mr. philbin laid out in great detail. when seeking the advice of the president's closest advisers for the department of justice regarding an entity of the house managers act as if it does not exist. the sole testimony on the matters from the executive branch is, confidential terms of decision-making, process on the matters of foreign relations and national security, and that is when the protections are at their highest levels. let's not forget the lord of the executive branch council at the witness proceedings whenn executive branch were being examined. notwithstanding the substantial abuse of process and executive branch responded to each and every subpoena that identified the specifics and in each you connot just remove the constitutional violations by saying you didn't comply. >> you've heard of one recipienl of a subpoena, and this is in fact we talked about a number of times, but wrap up and i think it is worth saying again we are set to go to court and the judge was going to make that decision. the house withdrew the subpoena and moved to the recipient's case before the court will. that was because they didn't like the judge selected and they the ruling the way was going to go. go. were they didn't need the witness in the first place. whatever the reason, there was one undisputed fact as the case was in court, they moved it out by removing the subpoena the assertion of the valid constitutional privileges cannot be an impeachable offense and that is what article two is , the obstruction of congress. for the sake of the constitution and for the sak of the office of the president, this body must stand as a study work against this reckless dangerous proposition it doesn't just affect this president, it affects every man and woman who occupies the high office. as we sit in the first article of impeachment we believe the second is invalid and should also be rejected. a v. and immunities of the executive branch while simultaneously disrespecting the framers system of checks and balances which designates the judicial branch as the arbiter of disputes. the house of representatives violated the constitutional order and abused the power of impeachment in order to obstruct the president's ability to faithfully execute the duties of his office. these articles failed on their face as they do not meet the standards for the impeachable offenses. no amount of testimony could change the fact. we'vwe have already discussed se of the specifics. i think oleksander hamilton has been quoted a lot in there is a reason. what has occurred over the past two weeks, really the past three months is exactly what oleksander hamilton and other founders of the great country in federal 65 when he learned how peachpit had the ability to advocate for the passions of the whole community and divided into parties more or less friendly to the accused. he learned that impeachment connected itself with the fraction and what with all the animosities, influence and interest on one side or the other. he continued the convention appears through the senate in this party i and would be the least to the articles that may be supposed in the same federalist 65 hamilton regarded the members of the senate not only as the inquisitors for the nation, but as the representatives of the nation as a whole. thhe said these words they could have been found in the tribunal sufficiently dignified or significant independent. what other body would be likely to feel confident enoughis in is own situation to preserve the influence necessary impartiality between an individual accused and the representatives of the people. they took the oath and questioned the oath. they said the senate is on trial. based on the presentations that we've made in the trial brief and arguments we put forth today we believe both articles should be immediately rejected. the nation's representatives for an office in this body must unite the two protect the constitution and separation of powers, and there was a time not that long ago even within this administration where bipartisan agreements could be reached to serve the interest of the american people. take a listen to this. >> today we had a beautiful bipartisan moment where democrats and republicans were working together to keep up out of the country and to use these devices to accomplish that goal. it's not perfect and we need to do a lot more but today was a good step and i want to praise all the people, democrats and republicans working together on this bill. >> we can see if we worked together in a bipartisan way. this is the place that we can all agree that we've got to do more so we can work together, so i applaud. >> we are joined today by so many members of congress, republicans, democrats who worked very hard on this bill. it was an effort by everybody. something you don't hear that much about but it would be over the coming period of time. we passed this in the senate 8 87-12 and then we tested 358 to 36. the nextgning of initiative dovetails nicely with the bill you signed into law a i simply ask the body to stand firm today. protect the integrity of the united states senate, stand firm today to protect the office of the president can stand fir preo protect the constitution, stand firm today to protect the will of the americanco people" and to protect the nation. i ask that this partisan impeachment come to an end to restore the constitutional balance copper that is in my view and in our view what justice demands in the constitution required. with that, mr. chief justice, i yield my time to the council, mr. cipollone. >> thin >> thank you, mr. chief justice and members of the senate i want to express on behalf of the team our gratitude. our gratitude to you, mr. chief justice for presiding over thiss trial. our gratitude to you, peter mcconnell and gratitude to you democratic leader schumer and all of you on both sides of the aisle for your time and attention i want to express my gratitude between. it's large and with a large number of people who've helped in this effort i won't name them all for their hard work in the defense of the constitution and in defense of the president and in defense of the american people's right to vote, i wantef to thank as members of the team that republican members of the house of representatives who have also been engaged in that effort throughout this entire period of time. and democrats in the house that voted against the partisan impeachment. and i also want to thank the president of the united states for his confidence in us to send us here to represent him to all of you in this great body, and for all he's done on behalf of the american people. i would make a couple of additional points. number one as we have said repeatedly, we've never been in a situation like this in our history. we have a bite of impeachment. it is not even alleged a violation of law. it is tasked and we're sitting here on the day that begins in iowa. it's wrong. there is only one answer to that and the answer o is to reject te articles of impeachment to have confidence in the american people, to have confidence in the results of the upcoming election and confidence and respect for the last and software without coming into leave the choice of the president to the american people and leavand leave to them also e accountability for the members of the house of representatives who did that. that's what the constitution requires. point number two, and i think that should be done on a bipartisan basis and that is what i ask you to do. point number two, i believe the american people are tired of the endless investigations and false investigations coming out of the house in the beginning as my colleague pointed out. it's a waste of tax dollars, it's a waste of the american people's time, and i would argue more importantly, most importantly, the opportunity cost of that. the opportunity cost of what you could be doing, what the house couldt be doing working with the president to achieve those things on behalf of the american people, it is far more important than the endless investigations. in the way that this president had done successfully he's achieved successful results in the economy and across so many other areas working with you on both sides of the aisle, and he wants to continue to do that. and that is what i believe the american people want is to come to washington to focus on and spend your time on and unify us as opposed to the division that is caused by these types of proceedings. the end of the day we put our faith in the senate because we know you will put your faith in hthe american people. you will leave the choice where you belong. a dathe day after they put the centrist first. he is eager to go before the american people in this upcoming election. at thehe end of the day that is the only resource. it's the only result that i believe guided by your word from the past we can together and the era of impeachment. we can put faith in the american people can put faith in their wisdom and judgment. that's where our founders put the power. that'stre where it belonged. and i urge you on behalf of every american is for the country, the president has done nothing wrong and these types of impeachments must end. you'll vindicate the rights of both and vindicated the constitution, you'll vindicate the rule of lawti by rejecting these articles, and i ask you to do that on a bipartisan basis to speak to and figur end the era f impeachment once and for all. i thank you for the bottom of my heart for listening to us andri for considering the case on behalf of the president. >> i come here today to ask you reject these articles of impeachment. thank you for granting permission here in the senate on behalf of the president and i ask you on his behalf and on behalf of the american people, reject these articles. thank you. >> it's a problem that here at the end of the trial, the president's lawyers stillhe dispute the meeting of high crimes and misdemeanors. some say it requires ordinary crime or if the president is behaving if it's good for the country it's okay, neither is correct. we need to clearit this up and looking at what the founders said. when the founders created the presidency, they gave the president great power. they've been through ththey havr to get rid of the king with too much power in the convention if they turn to the impeachment clause madison argued in favor of impeachment and said it was indispensable. he asked to sho shall any man bt justice and a voted to commit the most extensive injustice. randolph defended the propriety of impeachment since the executive would have the great opportunity of abusing his power. now, the initial draft of the constitution provided for the enpeachment for treason or bribery. mason asks, quote, why is the provision restraineduo to create the treasonous defined in the constitution would reach many great and dangerous offenses and he added hastings isn't guilty of treason. attempts to subvert the constitution might not be treasonous. hastings impeachment at this time was well known and not limited to a crime. they considered adding the word maladministration to the abuse of power but madison objected, he said so they a term so the administration was withdrawn and placed with a more certain term, high crimes and misdemeanors because the founders knew the law. the commentary which madison said was a book and every man's hand describes the high crimes and misdemeanors against king and government. hamilton called high crimes and misdemeanors those offenses that proceed from the misconduct from the abuse or violation of some public trust. during ratification, randolph and virginia cited the president's receipt of all humans from the foreign power as an example and mason's example was the president who would, quote, pardon crimes advised by himself or before the indictment or conviction to stop the inquiry and prevent detention, detection. it's clear they knew what they wrote. the president's lawyers tried to create confusion for you. don't let them. high crimes and misdemeanors mean abuse of power against the order. the conduct that is corrupt whether or not a crime. some say with an election coming but without terms there was always an election coming. impeachment in electio the elecr was not to be the founders would have said so so here we are, congress passed the law to fund ukraine and fight the russians that invaded their country. president trump illegally held up the funding to coerce ukraine to announce an investigation to hurt his strongest opponent. he abused his power correctly to benefit himself personally then he tried to cover it up. that is impeachable. the facts are clearac and so is the constitution. the only question is what you in thand the senate will do. our founders created the government with the tension between the three branches to present authoritarianism. none of the ranger branches woue allowed to grab all the power. impeachment is to make sure the president who had the greatest opportunity to grab power would be held in check. it's a blunt instrument that's what the founders gave us. some thought the existence of prevent misconduct by presidents but sadly they were wrong because twice in the last half-century in president corruptly used his power to try to cheat in an election. first mixed in with watergatee and now another president corruptly abuses his power to cheat. it's what we call political parties. they built a system where each branch ofan government would gud their power not one where guarding the faction was more important than guarding the government. opposing a president of your own party isn't easy. it wasn't easy when republicans voted to impeach nixon and the judiciary committee. it wasn't easy for senator barry goldwater to tell nixonmm to resign. but your code isn' you are on to the easy thing. it's to do impartial justice. it requires convictionnd and removal of president trump. >> mr. chief justice. >> councicounsel for the presid. >> senators, since i was a little girl and started going to church i've been inspired by the words in scripture. whatever you did for one of these least of my brothers you did for me. they are called to always look out for the most vulnerable. sometimes fighting for the most vulnerable means holding the most powerful accountable, and that is what we are here to do today. the american people will have to live with the decisions made in this chamber. in fact, senators, i believe that the decision in this case will affect the strength of democracy around the world. democracy is a gift each generation gets to the next one. if we say that this president can put his own interests above all else even when lives are at stake, then we get the nations children a weaker democracy than we inherited from those that came before us. the next generation deserves better. they are counting on us. i am a catholic and my faith teaches me that we all need forgiveness. i've given this president the benefit of the doubt from the beginning despite my position to show many policies, i know the success of the nation depends on the success of the leader but he has let us down. senators, we know what the president did and why he did it. the fact is not in doubt. senators, on both sides of the aisle he said as much. the r question is does it warrat removal from office? we say yes. we cannot simply hope that this haesident will realize that he's done wrong or inappropriate and hope that he does better. we have done so many times. we know that he's not apologiz apologized, he's not offeredng o change. we all know that he will do it again. but president trump did this time pierces the heart of who we are as a country when they put their interests above the country's interests is the abcs of impeachable behavior. abusing the power, betraying the nation and corrupting elections. he deserves to be removed for undermining the country. the framers designed impeachment for this very case. senators, when i was growing up in south texas picking coffin, i confess i didn't spend any time thinking about n the framers. like me, little girls and boys across america are not asking at home with the framers meant by high crimes and misdemeanors. but someday they will ask why we didn't do anything to stop this president who put his own interest above what was good for all of us. they will ask. they will want to understand. senators, we inherited a democracy and now we must protect and pass it on to the next generation. we simply can't give our children a democracy if the president is above the law because in this country nobody is above the law, not you, not me, not even the president. this president must be removed. with that i will yield to my colleague. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, two weeks ago we started the trial promising to show you the president withhold $391 million of foreign literary aid to coerce an ally in the war to help them in the 2020 election. and by many of your own admissions they succeeded in showing you that because the facts don't matter at. we also promised you that eventually all of the facts would come out and that continues to be true. we didn't just show you the president abused the power and obstructed congress, we painted a broad picture of president trump, a picture of a man whopi thinks the edition doesn't serve as a check on power but rather gives it to him in an unlimited way. a man who believes in his personal ambitions are synonymous with the good of the country. a ma man who is in a coup in his own words think that they will let you do anything. in short it is the picture of a man who always put his ownlw personal interests above the interests of the country that he has sworn to protect. but what is in the os anyway? do we simply recite them out of custom? is a firm commitment to the life of service and setting aside for personal interest, your comfort and ambition to serve the greater good. i explained last week i believe america is great not because of the ambition of any one man, not simply because we say it's true, but because of our almost 250 year history millions of americans have taken the oath atand they follow through on tht oath by giving everything to keep it. but there's more to it than simply keeping your word because an oath is also a bond between anpeople who've made it, and promise. perhaps the strongest example is between the commander-in-chief and our men and women in uniform. those men and women took the oath with the understanding the commander-in-chief, our president, but always put the interest of the countr country d their interests above his own. and understanding that his orders would be in the best interest of the country, and that they sacrifice in fulfilling those orders will always serve the common good. what we have shown the last few weeks and president trump has shown the past few years is that this promise goes a only one w way. when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. many of us in this room are parents. we try to teach our kids the important lessons of life. one of those lessons is that you won't always be the strongest. they won't always be the fastest. and you won't always win. ../ they will show the world who we really are.f the type of leaders we will be in the type of nation we will be. so let me finish where i began of why i am here standing before you. i have been carrying my kids constitutions the last two weeks and this morning i wrotes a note to explain why i'm here. our founderll recognize the failings of our people so they designed a system to ensure the ideas and principles contained in this document would always be greater than any one person. it's the idea that no one is above the law. but our system only works if people stand up and fight for it. and fighting for something important always comes with a cost. and then to embody in our constitution made the memory and spirit of those who sacrificed in the past guide you and give you strength as fu for your time.m in the >> mr. chief justice and senator and counsel for the president, president, this is a defining moment in our history and a challenging time for our nation. 1000 things have gone through my mind since his body voted to not call witnesses in this trial. the vote was unprecedented the national security advisor indicated that he was willing to testify undere oath before the senate did not want to hear what he had to say. the president's lawyers have asked you to not believe your eyes and ears to repurpose the constitution and t to believe with the reelection is in our national interest. that he can do whatever he want wants, anything to make it happen. and attempting toll do anything to hold much military aid while pressuring ukraine's president to announce bogus investigations into its most fearedpo political rival. it's about power and obstruction and breaking the law and our system of checks and balances. talking about the president of the united states this trial is also most certainly about character. working more than one job. he didn't have a famous last name that my father was rich that no powerful position can buy. my father was the man who was decent, honest, a man of integrity. and a man of good moral character. the president's lawyer never spoke about the president's character. and i find that quite telling. i joined the police department because i wanted to make a difference. and i believed i did. as a police chief i was always concerned about the message especially to young recruits into newly hired dedicated police officers. we have to be careful how we were defining what was acceptable and unacceptableha behavior inside the department and out in the community. yes, people make mistakes and yes individuals make mistakeske but we have to be clear about the culture inside the organization and we have to have a strong message the police department was not a place where corruption could reside. and where production was normalized. today unfortunately i believe we are holding young police recruits to a higher standard than we are the leader of the free world. if this body fails to hold this president accountable, you must ask yourself what kind of republic do we ultimately have with the president who thinks he can really truly do whatever he wants? he will send a terrible message to the nation that one can get away with abuse of power, obstruction, cheating and spreading false narratives if you simply know. but i reject that senators. because we are a nation of laws. abraham lincoln, the 16th president of the united states said america will never be destroyed from outside. if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. i urge you senators to vote to convict and remove this president. thank you so much for your time. >> mr. chief justice distinguish members of the senate and presidents council i mentioned on the floor last week that alexander hamilton has played a role during the impeachment trial that ben franklin only made a cameo appearance but that cameo in. appearance was important making the observation in the aftermath of that convention 1787, the framers of the constitution had created a republic if you can keep it. why would doctor franklin express ambiguity about the future of america during such a triumphant moment? because the system of government that was created at that convention of separate and coequal branches of governmen government, the independent judiciary, the free and fair press the preeminence of the rule of law all of those values all of those ideas have never before been put together in one form of government so as to whether america could sustain it. but the furtherr brilliance of our great country is that year after year, decade after decade, century after century we have helden this democracy thing together. but now all of those ideas and values and institutions are under assault not from without but from within. weth have created a republic if you can keep it. house managers have proven our case against president trump with a mountain of evidence president trump tried to cheat. he got caught and then he worked hard to cover it up. president trump corruptly abused his power. president trump obstructed a congressional and constitutional required impeachmentt inquiry. president trump solicited for an interference in american election that shredded the very fabric of our democracy. house managers have proven our case against president trump with a mountain of evidence. if the senate chooses to acquit under the circumstances then america is in the wilderness. if the senate chooses to norbert - - normalized lawn and it won't - - lawlessness iand corruptio corruption, if the senate, chooses to normalize presidential abuse of powe power, then america is in the wilderness. the senate chooses to acquit president trump without issuing a single subpoena without issuing a single witness. without a single new document. and even all is not lost the eyes of history or watching. the senate can still do the right thing. i the fifth chapter's the evidence of things not seen. so i say to all of you, my fellow americans democrats and republicans progressives and conservatives, the left and the right there are patriots all throughout this chamber and throughout the land. rule america, suburban america, small-town america. through the ups and downs and the highs and the lows and the peaks and valleys. faith in the constitution faith in our democracy faith in the rule of law of the people and by the people and for the people. faith and almighty god the senate can still do the right thing. and if we come together as americans, then together we can eradicate what threatens our democracy to continue the legitimate march for a more perfect union. >> mr. chief justice thank you for the distinguished way you have presided over these proceedings. senators we are not enemies but friends. if lincoln could speak these words then surely we could overcome our divisions and animosities. it is midnight and washington the lights are going out after a long day of the impeachment trial of donald j. trump. the senate heard arguments only hours earlier whether to call witnesses counsel for the president still maintains the evidence evidence that would prove otherwise it is midnight in washington. but all the lights have been extinguished in the bowels of the justice department donald trump's justice department a light remains on someone is hitting send let the justice department to represent justice is refusing to produce on the president's decision to withhold military aid from ukraine. the trump administration has them and is not turning them over and does not want the senate to know until it is too late. that is what happened last friday night when you left home for the weekend and a replay of the duplicity for the trial when the president's lawyers argued here the hothouse must go to court and now we are added again telling the court in the midnight filingco that it would not turn over relevant documents even as theyd argued they are not covering of the president's misdeeds. midnight in washington. all too tragic a metaphor for where the country finds itself at the conclusion of the third impeachment in history and the impeachment trial without witnesses or documents the first such trial or non- trial in impeachment h history. how did we get here? at the beginning of this proceeding you did not know whether we can prove our case. many did not have the opportunity through the investigation. and from what the president might offer. now you have seen what we promised through the president's goal guilt and a coveted white house meeting to extort in our elections and when found out engage in the most comprehensive effort to cover up his misconduct in the history of presidential impeachment with documents and witnesses and using his own obstruction as a sword and a shield.ui the house did not fight hard enough to overcome the non- implication of privilege in court and that the house that impeachment is a proper remedy. and that there was no quid pro quo offering no evidence to contradict the record in the kind of desperation for a different kind of defense. first, prevent the senate from witnesses with the most damning accounts of the president's misconduct. second, fall back on the present that it would allow any occupant of 1600 pennsylvania to be corrupt as d chooses while the congress has no power to do anything about it. that collapses of its own deadweight. presidents may abuse their power with impunity it's not a constitutional crime they claim only statutory crime even though there were no statutory crimes when the constitution was adopted. the president had to look far and wide to find a defense lawyer to make an argument unsupported by history the founders or common sense the republican expert witness in the house would not make it. serious constitutional scholars would not make it. even alan dershowitz would not make it. at least not i 1998. but this has become the president's defense and yet this proved indefensible the abuse of power is not impeachable even though it's clear with the highest of all crimes and misdemeanors but if not impeachable then a whole w range of utterly unacceptable conduct the president would now be beyondd reach. trip - - so then to move tomorrow lago permanently and let jared kushner run the country delegating to him the decision to go to war. because those things are not necessarily criminal they cannot be impeached for abuses of power this would be absurd. more than absurd, it would be dangerous. and soon mr. dershowitz tried to embellish the creation to have among those abuses of power from those that are of helping the president tohe get reelected and therefore unimpeachable and only those with gains or beyond pale. so as long as the president believes in the public interes interest, he could do anything this was such an extreme view even the president's other lawyers had to run away from it. so what are we left with cracks the house has proven the president's guilt for go he tried to coerce an ally to help him cheat by smearing his opponent and betrayed our national security in order to do it that withheld dietary aid to our ally and violated the law to do so. he covered it up, and he covers it up still. continuing obstruction as the oversight and investigatory powers of the house and senate and if left unaddressed will permanently and dangerously alter the balance of power. these undeniable facts allow the president to retreat to his final defense. he is guilty as sin but can't we just let the voters decide? he is guilty as sin but why not let the n voters clean up this mess. and here to answer that question we must look at the history of the presidency and the character of this president or lack of character and ask, can we be confident would he not be confident to continue in that very election can we be confident americans are not form power cert - - powers can decide in the president will shine any further foreign interference in democratic affairs and that inincontestable answer is no. you can't. you cannot trust the president to do the right thing. not forst one minute. not for one election. not for the sake of our country. you just can't he will not change and you know it in 2016 invited foreign interference in our election hey russia if you are listening and when the russians started to dump before the election he made use of them in everyad conceivable way with those campaign stops more than 100 times he was investigated and did everything he could to obstruct justice going so far as to fire the fbi director and special counsel to ask the white house counsel to lie on his behalf. while telling the country he has no business dealings with russia continuing to actively pursue the deal of his life the trump tower in the heart of moscow. six associates would be indicted or go to c jail russia and the effort to cover it up. on the day of that tragic chapter appears to come to an end with the bob mueller testimony he was back on the phone with another form power and once again seeking foreign help with his election. only this time to have the full powers of the presidency at his disposal. this time to use coercion this time to withhold aid where soldiers were dying every week this time to believe he could do whatever he wanted under article two and thisis time when he was caught he could make sure that the justice departmentnt would never investigate the matter. and they didn't. donald trump has no more concessions just the man he wanted him bill bar the presidency and then to do the president's bidding. and has not changed he will not change. he has made that clear himself without awareness or hesitation or without even as the most recent and egregious misconduct was discovered unapologetic and repented and undeterred. continuing to press ukraine even as the investigation was underway inviting new countries to getwa involved calling on china to do the same.. his personal emissary rudy giuliani dispatched himself to ukraine to get further foreign interference in our election. the plot goes on and the danger will never recede. he has done it before and he will do it again. what are the odds if left in office he will continue to try to cheat? i will tell you 100 percent. not five or ten or 50 but 100 percent. if youou have found him guilty and you do not remove him from office, he will continue trying toe c cheat in the election until he succeeds. then what shall you say? if russia again interferes in the election let's celebrate their efforts. what shall you say if ukraine capitulates announcing investigations into the president's rivals? what should you say when candidates compete for the allegiance of foreign powers and their elections? when they draft their platforms to encourage foreign interventionre as the most super of super packs of them all, if not legal then somehow permissible because donald trump has made it so and we refused to do anything about it but reading our hands. theyey will hack the opponents e-mail they will announcel investigations of your opponent to helpen you and all for the asking. leave donald trump in office after you have found him guilty and this is the future you will invite. we have known since the day we brought these charges the path to conviction of two thirds of the senate may be prohibitively high. yet the alternative is a runaway presidency and a nation whose elections are open to the highestti bidder. so you might ask with the president's misconduct with the evidence of his skill in the acknowledgment how have we arrived here with so little common ground? why was the nixon impeachment bipartisan why was clinton much less and now it's even fgreater today? it is not for the reason the president's lawyers would have youhe believe although they have claimed many times in many places because they did not allow the president to control it in reality it was little different than the process of prior impeachments the circumstances were different the watergate investigation and it progressed before the house there course much of the investigative work was done by the special w prosecutor and likewise an independent counsel that conducted the multiyear investigation that started with a real estate deal in arkansas and ended with a blue dress. nixon and clinton played no role in those investigations before they moved to the house judiciary committee. but you can't compare the process when it got to the judiciary committee of prior or recent impeachments it was the same as we have here. the president has the right to call witnesses and ask t questions and chose not to. the house majorities of nixon and clinton did not see the subpoena power to the minority and neither did we. although to request subpoena and compel a vote and they did. the due process the house presided was essentially some ways even greater but nevertheless the presidents council hopes through sheer repetition they can convert non- truth into truth. do not let them. every single court to hear the arguments has rejected them. the subpoenass are invalid and rejected by the mcghan core they have absolute immunity rejected by the mcghan court. they can see a crime or fraud rejected by the court. but if the process here was the same, the fact of the president's misconduct was different from one to the next the president covered it up nixon abuse the power of the office to gain the unfair advantage over his opponent but never sought to coerce a foreign power to aid his reelection nor did he sacrifice national security in such a way as withholding aid from an ally at war. . . . .for. what has changed? the short answer is we have changed. the members of congress have changed for reasons as varied as the members of this body and the hours in the house are far more accepting of the most serious misconduct of a president as long as it is a president of one's own party, and that is a trend most dangerous for our country. 50 years ago, no lawyer representing the president has ever made the outlandish argument that if the president believes the corruption would serve to get them reelected, whether it is by coercing an ally to help you cheat or any other form that he may not be impeached. that this is somehow a permissible use of his power, but here we are. the argument has been made and some appear ready to accept it and that is dangerous for there is no limiting principle to the position. it must have come as a shock to this president that our norms and institutions would prove to be so weak. al tools that the president's disposal to investigate enemies or turnout helpful opinions not worth the paper they're written on. the fbi tainted b painted by a t is correct and disloyal, the community not to be trusted against the council of vladimir putin, the press portrayed as enemies of the people the daily attacks on the guard rails about democracy so relentlessly have made us dumb and blind to the consequences. does none of that matter any more if he is the president of our party? i hope and pray we never have a president like donald trump in the party that would betray the national interest and i would hope to god that if we did, we would impeach him and democrats would lead the way i suppose you never know how difficult that is until you are confronted with it but you my friends are confronted with that difficulty now and must not shrink from it. history will not be kind. i think we all know that's not because it will be written but because whenever we are departed from the values of the nation we've come to regret an expert in all of the pages of our history. if you find the house has proven its case and still vote to acquit, your name will be tied to his record of steel of history but if you find the courage to stand up to him and speak the truth to the rank falsehood your place will be among the david who took over at goliath if you say never enough. we revere the wisdom of the founders and w the insight they head into the self-governing. we scour the words for the hidden meaning and try to place ourselves in their shoes. that we have one advantage the founders did not. for all of your genius they could see into the future. on the other hand we have the advantageon of time seeing how e great experiment in self-governance was progress. when we look at the sweep of history, there are times when the nation and the rest of the world has moved with a seemingly irresistible force of the direction of greater freedom. more freedom to speak and assemble the practice and faith and tolerate the faith of others more societies tumbling down information be born. but then like they are the outward movement against the arrest. the pendulum swings back past the center and recedes into a dark unknown. how much further will travel into the direction of how many more freedoms will be extinguished before it turns back, we cannot say it but what we do in this moment will affect its course and correction. every single vote, even a single vote by a single member can change the course of history. it is said a single man or woman of courage makes a majority. if you is there one of you will say enough. entitled to our own facts she recoils of those with the pernicious falsehoods to the truth that matters there was nothing more corrosive to democracy than c the idea that there is no truth. america also believes there is a difference between right and wrong and right matters here but there is more. the truth matters and so does decency. decency matters. patriotic in pursuit of a corrupt aim we recoil. when the president mocks the disabled, a war hero as a prisoner of war or a gold star father, we are appalled. because decency matters here and when the president tries to coerce an ally to help p them cheat it covers it up, enough. he's betrayed the national security and he will do so aga again. the truth and decency matters nothing to him. b but because we have proven our case it matters to you, truth matters to you. right matters to you. you are decent. he is not who you are. in federalist 55, jamesra madisn wrote there were certain qualities in human nature in the right-hand decency which justify the confidence in self-governance for destroying a devouring one anothe another ife midnight in washington, but the sun will rise again. i put my faith in the optimism of the founders. too mac.d, they gave us the tools to do the job, a remedy as powerful as the evil it was meant to constrain. if you in the integrity of the election and demand that invites the affairs for a man that would undermine the national security and that of our allies for a man like donald trump they gave you a remedy and meant for you to use it. they gave you an oath and agreement for you to observe it. we have proven donald trump guilty, now do impartial justice and convict him. >> i ask unanimous consent that setting to the senate stands adjourned under the previous order. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i suggest the absence of a quorum in the face of overwhelming evidence of the president's guilt in killing if left in office he will continue to seek foreign interference in the next election to convict on both articles of impeachment and removal from office donald trump, the 45th president of the united states protect the integrity of the senate stand firm and protect the office of the president, stand firm today for the constitution and protect the american people into the boat and protect the nation and ask that this partisan impeachment come to an end. it winning is the tree for our country. the following today's trial senatorsenators into the chamber to talk about the trial with some senators speaking about whether they will vote to convict or acquit the president. >> mr. president and all of my colleagues in the senate, throughout this impeachment trial, i've thought a lot about what the country stands for. for me as the son of an immigrant whose family came to the united states and germany in the 1930s, america stands as a beacon of liberty, equal justice and democracy. we are a nation forced by a revolution against the monarchy and its absolute power. fwe are a nation founded by the ratification of the most radical the democratic documented history, the constitution of the united states of america. under the constitution, we have governed by elected officers who answer to and

Related Keywords

Germany ,New York ,United States ,Arkansas ,Moscow ,Moskva ,Russia ,Texas ,Kennedy Building ,Washington ,China ,Virginia ,Canada ,Berlin ,Ukraine ,Warsaw ,L67 ,Poland ,Americans ,Ukrainians ,American ,Abraham Lincoln ,Trent Yermak ,Statessaid America ,Theodore Parker ,Abe Lincoln ,Alan Dershowitz ,Ken Starr ,Luther King Jr ,Andrea Yermak ,