schumer. >> good afternoon everyone. some of you are probably wondering what is left to be said after listening for all of this for the last two or three weeks. as you know i am rather parsimonious, i thought it was best to wait until this is behind us before having a more open discussion with all of you about what we have just witnessed. let me start by saying, i don't think any of you doubt that this was the most partisan exercise. we all fully remembered and it's been said numerous times, roughly a year ago you should not go forward with an impeachment. as it was not bipartisan. i watched it very carefully over the years, our leadership position was overlapped and even before that we were working together on appropriation bill act in the early days. i'm pretty sure she did not want to do this. but the fact that she was pulled into the distraction what appeared to be a political instinct a year ago underscores that this was a purely political exercise. now, having been dragged into something she felt was a mistake, the second impulse was let's get this over as quickly as possible. get her out of here get over to the other body and let them deal with it. and that's what you have an abbreviated trump hated in the house. but even during the abbreviated. it was pretty clear that they had unmasked a significant body of evidence from witnesses and you heard them argue about over here frequently. had they provided in the house record testimony from 13 witnesses and testimony from 17 witnesses, and we had 180 questions that we witness 193 witness video clips and 28000 pages of evidence. so, i asked my staff to count up the number of times we heard from the house managers during the presentations, how many times it was already proven. there were 60 times, 60 in which house managers said during their presentation to us that the case was either proven or approved 60 times. there were 33 more times when one or more of the house manager said in the evidence was overwhelming. where is the nonsense about witnesses coming from. i have a pretty good idea. after this exercise left the house and came over to the senate there was a lot of hole they were taking and how they were going to sell it to the american people. even though we already had all of this testimony and all of these witnesses what told them. of course if you asked the average citizen they think they are to be witnesses in a trial. wouldn't you get an answer that you want. so the speaker i gathered decided to sit on an impeachment paper after arguing that this was never graded to see that he needed be removed as soon as possible. in laughably think that somehow gave me leverage to conceive their principal local argument which this is all about witnesses here on our side. that brought one where smile to my face that you witnessed in which i was perplexed by the strategy that was being employed. finally when it came obvious to everyone, the democratic senators were saying when he said the papers over and some of her own members were saying for they got back into the light and the papers came over and we knew full well this is going to be about witnesses. i have said that my colleagues in december of the anticipation of the impeachment that their strategy would be to get out of the house quickly and leave it in the senate and leslie. anendlessly. it was not so much about president trump but taking the senate. in my counterparts governor schumer pretty much admitted that's what this was all about. it was about taking the senate and trying to get my guys to have -- i am proud of my colleagues were seen through that, even though if you ask a typical voter if there should be witnesses in a trial they say short there ought to be witnesses. then it was about not the president, we all knew he was not going to be removed from office. but trying to take the senate. so i am proud of my members for resisting the temptation to go down that path and also preventing the second strategy it is pretty clear if democrats cannot win this one to embarrass the chief justice. in the way that could've been done was with a 5050 vote whether he would've been accused had he chosen not to rule i can imagine he would have, it's pretty clear that what a drag the supreme court right into the middle of the meal storm as well. we reached the conclusion, i think this is a political exercise from the beginning to the end and the final irony of it all is a speaker was right in the beginning. because here we are today in a position of the political impact and all started about politics, how did in with politics. the president has the highest approval rating since he has been in office. i tell you as a pul they are ber shape today than before they started. i am not predicting what will be the biggest issue in november but i can tell you this. right now this is a political loser for them. they initiated it, they thought it was a great idea and at least for the short term it has been a political mistake. >> a couple of your members have been critical of the president's conduct in one of them today said he would vote to convict the president of abuse of power, mitt romney. why would a president asking for an country to investigate? >> i've been responding to you for years. what i'm here to talk about is the political impact of this. we have completed it, we listen to the arguments, we voted, it's in the rearview mirror. and i think what is appropriate now is the political impact of it. it is pretty clear already said we are where we are right now. >> and honorable question. >> i was surprised and disappointed that i still think that we have great k mark on this and rendered good position going into the senate races in the presidential race with regard to this issue there may be other issues between now and november. >> speaker pelosi is talking about next steps in his or serious crisis moving on after impeachment? >> i've watched these investigations over the years by both sides, i really think the american people are more likely to focus at this point and for the rest of the year on what kind of shape is a country in. how do you feel about things, are you better off, as president reagan put it, are you better off now than you were four years ago? i think the investigation will go on that is what congress do does, we did it, they did it, i would not expect that to stop. i think in the end it's not likely to have much of an impact on any of the races, the presidential or senate. [inaudible question] is any chance mitt romney is expelled? >> i was surprised and disappointed but we have much work to do for the american people and i think senator romney has been largely supportive of most everything we try to accomplish. [inaudible question] i am sure you are paying close attention. that's what we've been talking about the last three weeks. >> obviously you and chuck schumer had a lot of disagreements about how the trial should go. how would you characterize your relationship with the minority leader coming out of this? >> i think the relationship is fine. but adopting the rules did not serve his purpose. let's go back to what he was trying to achieve. we had a discussion before we began the trial. he wanted to guarantee at least some number of witnesses before we started. i felt that our best interest in the best interest of the country was served by listening to the argument and going through the questioning. before we got to the question of witnesses because we might or might not include at that point that we needed any witnesses because we had amount of evidence headed our way. we were referred to repeatedly which was the best argument against additional witnesses. how many times did they have to say the case was conclusive. or proven or approved or overwhelming. when you listen to those arguments being made by the managers you scratch your head and say really. do we need to hear more? we were not angry, he was trying to in achieve an outcome that helped him win the senate. and i felt clinton president made more sense not only for the country but for us. >> can you talk a little bit more about why it was so important not just to make sure the president was acquitted but united conference voting to acquit the president and how fear of the republican members may have help make that decision. >> obviously i hoped that the result in the senate would be similar or exactly the same as is under the result in the house. the speaker said as she was initially corrected, she said sometimes we don't want this to be obtained, we listed a number of things the founder said when they put impeachment in the constitution. and they were concerned about it becoming a routine effort based on policy difference. or personality difference. does that some familiar? the main thing that drove andrew johnson impeachment, they did not like him. sound familiar? that is the kind of thing that the founders did not want to happen. that we would get into a routine of doing this all the time because we had a policy difference or personality difference. i am glad it ended the way we did and i hope the message to the house of representatives, don't do this again. >> how long will senator romney be in the doghouse. [laughter] >> we don't have dog houses here. the most important vote is the next vote. >> can you talk about what is on the senate agenda going forward and given the animosity between the speaker and the president at last night's state of the union speech. do you think the congress can accomplish anything legislatively with the white house. >> my biggest problem is with the house of representatives. we were pretty different approaches to america's problems between the house and senate. i think we have a chance to do more business. i certainly hope so, looking at infrastructure, land and water conservation, in the midst of the election there are some things that we can do together and even though several of you have completely bought into the notion that we are dysfunction dysfunctional, i would point you back to the end of last year, there were a number of dramatic bipartisan accomplishments and the overall spending bills at the end of the year, admittedly they did not move independently but in the bill was a huge number of priorities for both sides and those only get negotiated on a bipartisan basis. so i don't buy the notion that the congress is dysfunctional. we have big differences. look at what the house does and look what we do. we are big differences. but we will get more work done for the iraqi people. they will settle all of this in november and decide they want to leave the country going forward and honorabl.[inaudible questio. >> i have not thought about that. i personally don't support it but i have not thought about a. [inaudible question] >> i don't tell the committee chairman went to look at. when abuse suggested earlier the house is probably still in investigatory business. i can only suggest the senate choose to do that as well. but we don't have a dictatorship over the senate and i don't tell the committee chairman and want to take a look at. >> you have avoided answering the question including twice today,. >> would you like to make it a third time. [inaudible question] i think that is what we just dealt with for three weeks. we listened, we voted, we had a number of internal meetings to discuss all of this which you all ended up knowing a good deal about in writing about. it is time to move on. this decision has been made and as far as i'm concerned it's in the rearview mirror and the consequences of it in terms of the future are up to the voters of the country to decide who they want to leave the government for the next four, and our case, the next six yea years. >> what to make of the fact that the house voted bipartisan against and in the senate you have the opposite was senator romney -- >> i think pretty clearly partyline both ways. i think that's what you can take out of it. pretty much partyline in both chambers. thanks a lot everybody. [inaudible conversations] good afternoon everybody. this is clearly not happy day for the nation or the senate, the senate turned its back on the truth, on a fair trial on doing what the founding fathers would've wanted us to do. but democrats walked out of the senate chamber with their heads held high because they sought the truth, we did everything we could to get the truth, the american people believed that in new we were fighting for the truth and know it to this day. i am very proud of my caucus, they voted his or her conscious. every member cared about the fundamental. . . . . failed to live up to what his country is all about, failed to live up to getting the truth. early in the process, we defined what a ferd trial was, witnesses, documents. we did not know what the witnesses would say, we did not try to have a long list of witnesses, we simply looked at the ones. [inaudible] and what they would say. and now that our republican colleagues have rejected a fair trial, there is a giant asterix next to the presidency coital. the asterix says he was acquitted without facts, he was acquitted without a fair trial, and it means that his acquittal is virtually valueless. so leader mcconnell and the white house may be chairing this as a win, history will view this as a puritan victory for senate republicans in the senate republican party, for the republican party, and for president trump. there was a metaphor here, mcconnell and i were each supposed to speak. me at 330, him at 345. while i was speaking, only to republicans were in the chamber. they were hiding in the cloakroom. when mcconnell spoke, they all came out. that's a metaphor, they were afraid to hear the other side, they were a hate afraid to hear the truth, they were afraid to talk about what was right. our members all sat and listened to mcconnell, what he said didn't really bothers. for one thing, he did not defend -- address a single charge in the two articles of impeachment. all he could do was attack. attack this common attack back, attacked the democrats, attacked the house. this is a sacred trial, talk about the facts. but they couldn't. and i believe the american people will realize that this was one of the largest coverups in the history of our nation. i believe the american people will know who stood in the way of truth, who were afraid of the facts, who covered it up. and make no mistake about it, the drip, drip, drip of evidence is going to keep coming out. with each new revelation, republicans are going to have to answer for their votes. they chose to turn their backs on the american people, and stand for a cover-up. they chose to use that attack in finger-pointing. later mcconnell could not even bring himself to say what the president did was wrong when you asked him a few minutes ago. that is astounding. maybe he believes what dershowitz believes, this president can do anything he wants. so, as i said, we always knew it was an uphill fight, no one had allusions that the president would be convicted. but we made the fight for truth, the fight for facts, and it created a bipartisan impeachment. that can never be erased from history, never. and by the way, the chart mcconnell had was as deceptive as most of his arguments. how many of those witnesses were allowed by president trump on that chart? zero. how many documents were allowed by president trump in the impeachment trial? zero. this warranted all the witnesses they wanted. so i'll take some questions. >> how important will be hit politically and historically that this was a bipartisan vote and what was your reaction you found it was going to be? >> first i do want to salute mit mitt romney, the pressure on every republican was enormous. every republican knows that this president has been vengeful, vicious sometimes, and they don't want to oppose him. there are a whole lot of republicans who knew we were right but said i don't want the bother of being attacked relentlessly by the president and the hard right. so the fact that this is bipartisan, holds up a beacon as to what was right and what was wrong. and the fact that the democrats were united in conviction, and conviction of the president and more important on witnesses and on documents. that speaks legions. >> can you speak a little bit -- senator mcconnell was making the argument that the polling numbers looked better for his republican incumbents. >> the thing about mcconnell is he says the houses being political but all he doesn't talk politics. the bottom line is that you believe the truth prevails, if you believe that the american people wanted the facts, we are happy to live with that verdict and see what takes us. plain and simple. >> 's approval rating is at 49% are you concerned that this effort was a gift to the president? >> no, no not at all, this was seeking the truth. if you believe rights prevails, and we know we're right and they did they were wrong by evidence by this hiding, shaking in the cloakroom and being unwilling to listen to the other side, then you know it's going to work out. and i believe it will work out. paul numbers go up and down. that is not what motivated us here. something as serious as this you try to figure out what is the right thing to do, what is the truth, how do you get the truth, and you move forward. the chips will fall where they may. but almost always up american history is any indication, when you're right the chips fall in your side. >> did mention come to you before he. >> i learned of the world just before he made the call he wrestled with it and he showed far more courage than every other republican other than mix romney. i did not know where he would come out. i told him he should wrestle with this conscious, he's a religious man, with god, and come to the conclusion to do the right thing. and i told him we would be friends the matter what. >> no no no you always shout out, i try to go to the milder manner people occasionally periods. [laughter] >> do you think the house i have represented as well subpoena jon boehner? >> that's up to them i'm not going to get into it. >> but if they do. >> i am not going to comment on what the house of representatives should do. they did a very fine job, i do not have any second-guessing of them. the irony is they did a far better job than the senate did under mitch mcconnell's leadership, he covered it all up in the house did not. >> is this issue been put to bed? >> the idea that we had too many impeachments we had too few impeachments, the standard should not be how many or what's politically right or wrong. the standard should be did the president creek have high crimes and misdemeanors? i think it's conclusive that the president did it. and if he does it in three months they should impeach him and f the next president does it they should impeach him or her. the bottom line is simple. this idea that the election should decide if the founding fathers thought election should decide, they would not have put impeachment in the constitution. they obviously said there some instances where impeachment should decide. and there is no term limit set. so it's not all second term is okay and all of that. it's the most ridiculous argument that election should decide when the founding fathers put impeachment in the constitution. >> ukraine as part of this trial. see you think ukraine could be a toxic issue? what would be the signs of support? >> we should be supporting ukraine, there has been bipartisan support for ukraine in the past. there's a very strong votes for aid to ukraine. but what happens is, when the president comes up with this crazy conspiracy theory that came out of someone's mind and originally out of russian intelligence, the republicans say that must be true. when so many people know he's wrong, when so many people know he is missed truthful. it is very damaging to the republic. you should not be afraid to tell a president he is wrong. when you know he is. but donald trump has them all very fearful, very fearful. v-neck speaker pelosi has been criticized by the republicans for whipping up this speech,. >> i think the greater issue was the partisan nature of the speech, it was untruthful in many places, the worst thing about this was the president made this a campaign rally, a reality tv show, even sounded like a carnival. if so do meeting to the presidency, of his speech. that's what i'm aghast at. >> you made reference to senator manchin do you worry about some of those? - i said truthful out and i think those members who voted for truth, who voted for witnesses and documents has the american people for, will be rewarded for it. nope, nope, not you. you. >> there's been a number of the president's allies coming out saying mitt romney should be taken out of the republican conference. when you think that says? >> plenty, it makes my case. if you stand up when you think the president is wrong, and by the way the vast majority of americans and a good chunk of republican said the president is wrong. they may have come to a different conclusion but they said he is wrong. and they want to throw you out of the party? that's why the percentage of people who are americans are less today than when donald trump took office. >> republicans voted against witnesses and conviction. [inaudible] >> you're all asking these political questions goss mitch mcconnell, he is interested in politics, we are interested in finding the truth. >> has lisa michalski have issues with the partisanship that you agree? >> i'm not gonna tell you what she said. i went to her last night and she said nobody could come to an agreement. i said i went to mcconnell three times before i sent the letter that asked for witnesses and documents and said let's negotiate a bipartisan agreement, he was not interested. after he sent the letter i met with mcconnell and said let's negotiate. i said not if you have witnesses and documents, he was not willing to negotiate. that's what created the rift, we were willing to sit down and talk. >> relating to the riff that you talk about, earlier leader mcconnell said despite the partisan divide that has occurred he does still think there are things that congress can get done together. you agree that? >> i always want to try, but is laughable. this is leader mcconnell dick durbin mentioned that we have amendments on the floor leader mcconnell has day after day, week after week month after month refused to put things on the floor to debate. it was laughable that he said impeachment is getting in the way of getting things done. the on thing he getting done, is trying to put all these right-wing judges on the floor that he can pass with 50 votes. so it laughable to say they want to get things done. but we are always welcome. if you want to sit down and try to bring things to the floor in the lower moments, hallelujah, we await the day. >> do you have any advice to your caucus about taking the high road and moving on? >> we did take the high road and i'm proud of it. we walk with her head held high. i think the republican caucus is ashamed of what they did. smith following up on that you're saying republicans are afraid of the truth when you think they have to be afraid of now? >> they are always afraid of donald trump they are always afraid of donald trump. he has no dissension, they look back at the last year when the two senators who had the courage to oppose him, senator flake a conservative but it and can serve it in court he hounded them out of the party. thank you everybody. [background noises] [background noises] [background noises]