Hello and welcome to the bbcs special coverage of the second day of President Trumps impeachment trial. Im katty kay in washington. Senate republicans set ground rules, rejecting democrat demands for new witnesses to be called. President trump weighs in with his view. Its a total hoax. Its a disgrace. But anger from democrats. They say theyre trying to uphold the rule of law. Part of our strength is not only our support for our allies, is not only our military might, its what we stand for. Hello and welcome to bbc news. Its day 2 in washington of President Trumps impeachment trial. He is accused by democrats on two counts one of abusing his power and the second one of obstructing congress. But with republicans in the majority in the upper house, its unlikely the president will be removed from office. That will resume shortly with arguments by the prosecution, for about three days, to be followed by the defence and questions. Sometimes next week, there will be questions from the senate. Yesterday, we saw democratic prosecutors clashing with mr trumps lawyers over the rules and process, as they hoped to allow witnesses join the senate portion of the trial. Part of our strength is not only our support for our allies, is not only our military might, its what we stand for. To be out in ukraine
or anywhere else in the world, championing the rule of law and saying, dont engage in political prosecutions, and having them throw it right back in ourface, oh, you mean like you want us to do . Thats why were here. In response, the president s lawyers also pressed the issue of fairness, arguing that House Democrats had rushed through a process and that President Trump should not have been impeached at all. When you look at these articles of impeachment, theyre not only ridiculous, they are dangerous to our republic. A partisan impeachment is like stealing an election. And thats exactly what we have. We have. Talk about the framers worst nightmare. Its a partisan impeachment that theyve delivered to your doorstep. We can speak to the bbcs north america correspondent Gary Odonoghue live now from capitol hill. Gary, a lot of debate right late
into the night, Something Like 1am the morning here in washington, over the morning here in washington, over the whole process of how this trial is going to be conducted. The democrats or the white house come out better from that long debate . They did not win any of those votes, all 11 of them that took until almost 2am last night, but what they have done is put republicans on the record. One republican on one vote, kind of minor vote Susan Collins voted with them but apart from that straight down party lines. Its not the last chance the democrats will get the chance to try and get witnesses and documents. They will get another opportunity i would guess probably on thursday or friday of next week, and by that time, they will of hope to have persuaded some republicans. The only need for. Its a big ask but they only need four to
switch sides in order to make that happen. And that stage, the length of the trial is anyones guess. Gary, lets look ahead its what we are going to have today. Yesterday was about process, although we did hear some of the arguments surrounding the meat of the case as well. What do democrats have to do today the kind of ignite interest in this, having spent hours speaking about this yesterday . this, having spent hours speaking about this yesterday . I think what they would do is, we will hear a lot of material that we heard before christmas as part of the impeachment inquiry. They will set out the chronology as clearly as they can for some but also, they will continue to do what they started to do this morning and last night. Thats to build a separate narrative away from the whole business of ukraine about the nature of this trial itself. Weve already heard them talking about a cover up and you know better than anyone else that this word cover up resonates
down the history of impeachment in this country, back to nixon and the cliche about the burglary and the cover up being the real crime in the real problem. That is the kind of thing theyre going to try and push quite heavily, i think, through the coming days, that the white house, the republicans are not allowing documents or witnesses and that constitutes an unfair trial and an attempt to cover up because they know that the math is against them in terms of the final outcome. Gary, we did have some sort of centrist republicans way into change the rules even before the processor yesterday. What does that tell you about where certain republicans are in this . We know there is a handful that have expressed a wish to see some different kind of approach, potential for witnesses to my for
example. Susan collins has said that. We have heard that from others as well, lisa murkowski, and mitt romney in utah has said that more forcefully. Youre getting towards the sort of numbers prepared to apply some kind of pressure. You are right. There was that lunch yesterday before the trial began we re yesterday before the trial began were some concerns were expressed to Mitch Mcconnell as we understand. He came out of that having change the rules, which gave each side and extra day to make their case. Gave some pretty big concessions in terms of evidence being entered into the record. And that was a result of direct pressure from his own side. He knows there are certain amount of people who need to keep on site and he has to allow them a little bit of leeway to keep their own electorate happy apart from anything else. Its a balancing act but i think some of the dates here are quite importance. If you look forward, if you cast
your mind forward, ten days, two weeks, you have the state of the union. If everything wraps up on the republican timetable, we could get a virtual quit the president on saturday of next week, maybe on monday, the day before the state of the Union Address. And how would that be for the president if he walks into the house of representatives having just been acquitted by congress on impeachment charges and says, i am still here . |j charges and says, i am still here . am still here. Everybody watching this time to very carefully because the worst thing. Going into the state of Union Address with the impeachment trails to going on. What are the steps that we can look for coming in this . The senate has now adopted the trial rules, and today the democrats will start to present their evidence uncovered during the house inquiry to support the two charges against donald trump
abuse of power, obstruction of congress which he denies. They have 2a hours to do this. They can spread it out over the course of three days. The defence lawyers will then get to respond to the democratic case. They also have 2a hours over three days. There will then be a question and answer period, where senators can direct questions to the prosecution or defence through Chiefjustice John Roberts. They dont say those questions, they cannot talk, remember, pain of imprisonment. This is likely to last up to 16 hours. Then the full senate will take a vote on whether to allow additional witnesses or evidence. If the senate votes yes, additional witnesses such as former National Security advisor john bolton or White House Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney could be called. If they vote no, the trial will go straight to closing arguments and discussions. Once we get there, there will be a final vote on whether to impeach the president. As gary was just saying, could be the end of next week. If 67 senators vote yes, extremely unlikely, donald trump removed from office. A no vote, and mr trump remains in office as the 45th president of the United States. Im joined from here in washington byJonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington university, and kim wehle, the author of how to read the constitution and why. Former prosecutor herself. Let me start with you. Im confused about this. In trials, many of which you have conducted, you have witnesses and evidence and then you have questions posted but we are looking ata questions posted but we are looking at a timetable or you could have all of the senators asking their questions before they have heard from witnesses. How does that work . Because this is not a judicial proceeding, although the constitution does refer to it as a trial. Trial is mentioned in the sixth amendment, preserving criminals defendant right to a jury trial. The framers underwent a trial was. The
constitution goes on to talk about witnesses and talk about facts. Most people seeing this on television, yeah, the idea isjurors decide fact based. This is not following that process. Based. This is not following that process. Will the senators then be able to ask questions after they have heard from witnesses or do we not know that . I thing one step could happen is a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment after we hear from both the articles of impeachment after we hearfrom both sides in the articles of impeachment after we hear from both sides in terms of making arguments will stub it is conceivable that republicans would say, listen, theres nothing here that warrants going further on witnesses and then there would not be anything in addition. With clinton, which is what this process is based on, ken starr, my former bossin is based on, ken starr, my former boss in the whitewater investigation, had four years in a grandjury to investigation, had four years in a grand jury to develop 90,000 plus pages of documentation that then
went to the senate for trial. We dont have that. There was no special prosecutor appointed by attorney general bar and the house investigators did not go to the courts to move to compel compliance with lawful subpoenas by the congress. Really, the vote on whether to hear from congress. Really, the vote on whether to hearfrom john bolton in particular is going to be a watershed moment because most americans want an actual trial and regardless of little party, i think they deserve to hear from all the witnesses and get to the bottom of the facts and then have the representatives decide what to do about it, if anything. Letsjust listen to what the president , who was thousands of miles away in switzerland, had to say about the issue of witnesses being called, and specifically about john bolton, issue of witnesses being called, and specifically aboutjohn bolton, who is the former National Security adviser. Heres what mr trump had to say this morning. The problem with john is that its a National Security problem, you know . You cant have somebody whos at National Security. And, if you think about it, john, he knows some of my thoughts. He knows what i think about leaders. What happens if he reveals what i think about a certain leader and its not very positive . He knows other things. And i dont know if we left on the best of terms. I would say probably not, you know, and so you dont like people testifying when they didnt leave on good terms and that was due to me, not due to him. So well see what happens. Is the president saying there, whatever the senate decides in terms of calling witnesses, actually, the white house and going to turn around and say this is a National Security issue, therefore they cannot testify anyway . I believe he is. The president started with a classic executive privilege defence. There isa executive privilege defence. There is a recognised executive privilege come a particular for some ,
particular for someone like john bolton. Courts have recognised the annuity president said just there when he ended by saying and i really dont want him because he did not leave on good terms, that is obviously extraconstitutional, something that is not a proper basis for blocking a witness through constitutional means. The president has been in court even during the house investigation, raising a think on executive immunity, saying that people like bolton cannot be called at all, that they are immune from being forced before a congressional committee. That is a little different in my view. Thats a rather untenable position for the second offensive line is, he has to appear, but i get to object to questions. The problem is ofjohn bolton appears, the course will have
to side which areas in which questions would be allowed. In most of those fights, they would come of would likely prevail. It would slow things down. Once congress crosses the rubicon on witnesses, it takes time. Witnesses have to be deposed. And these type of challenges have to be heard. Which is what we all have to bea be heard. Which is what we all have to be a little bit nibble about this because we just dont really know when all of this is going to wrap up. If youre the president s defence lawyer, jonathan, in this trial, and the president is in davos, and it normally would have the witness with you, but he is thousands of miles away, is what he is saying helpful or not . It is not. There was an interesting statement made by the president , when he was
asked, do you believe abuse of power is not an impeachable offence . He said no, it can be, and seems to suggest but not in this case. That actually is the correct answer. That is the way the defence team should be arguing but its not. Theyre presenting a very extreme view that impeachable offences must involve crimes. That makes indictable anonymous with impeachable. Most of us anonymous with impeachable. Most of us disagree with that. But now apparently their own client disagrees, unless he walks that back. Kim, do we resolve this issue of whether you have to have committed a crime in order to be impeached and removed from office . How does that get resolved . Or is it just a political issue of how the senators are going to vote for it . Its a political issue at this point. Most political scholars would
suggest abuse of power is why there is an impeachment clause. The framers were worried about Unlimited Power concentrated one brains. If you really president s brief, there isa you really president s brief, there is a standard of a crime plus a crime that would undermine the safety of the constitution itself also been inserting a needle that does not exist in law. In theory, if you go to the courts. The court could say, im not can resolve this because it they put a question, but at the end of the day, the question before americans and he senate is whether what happened here is something that would give rise to a reason for removal, and obstruction of congress is recognised in the United States code as a crime. Its a bit of, i think, United States code as a crime. Its a bit of, ithink, the United States code as a crime. Its a bit of, i think, the legal argument, it gets kind of technical, and a political organ that might win over voters. Im going to jump in
there, kim wehle, Jonathan Turley. Straight to capitol hill, were adam schiff is just speaking. Straight to capitol hill, were adam schiff isjust speaking. This trial should be no different than any other trial in america. It should involve the calling of witnesses, it should involve the production of documents. The house should have the opportunity to prove its case. And if we prove our case, the senate should convict and remove the president from office. But the senate should allow us a fair trial. The senate should allow us a child thats fair to the American People, one that allows the house to call releva nt one that allows the house to call relevant witnesses, witnesses. The senate is not a court of appeals. That was conceited, albeit in the wee hours of the morning, by the president s own team. There is no court below. The house charge the president , the senate tries the case. A trial involves witnesses. If
it is fair. We laid out exactly why these witnesses are important, what we expect they would have to say. We laid out all the documents that the ministration is withholding and how the senators, if they are doing impartial justice should want the senators, if they are doing impartialjustice should want to see those documents. The president late last night early this morning depending on where youre in the world bragged that he thought things we re world bragged that he thought things were going well because they had all the materials. Indeed they do have the materials. Indeed they do have the material. Hidden from the American People. That is nothing to brag about. If the senators are serious about wanting to learn all the facts, if the president s team wa nts to the facts, if the president s team wants to contest any of the facts, these documents and witnesses will need to be produced. But the American People here withjohn bolton has to say. Other people hear what Mick Mulvaney has to say or secretary pompeo or any of the other witnesses with relevant information. They want to know. The American People overwhelmingly want to hear from these witnesses and for a very good reason, because they can shed
light on the president s misconduct. Today, yesterday, we made the case for the witnesses and the documents. Today, we will begin our trial with the factual chronology. We will go into extensive detail about what happened and when and how we know that it happened. We do not assume that it happened. We do not assume that anyone in the senate was able to watch all of the house testimony. Some of you in the press were able to do that. We cannot assume the senators were able to do that. Let alone the American People were able to do so. Wheatley will lay out all the facts and chronology we will lay out. We believe we will make an overwhelming case for the president s conviction on both article one and article two, and with that i am happy to take a few questions. Im going to respond to the questions. Mr nadler has been criticised. Are you open to a witness exchange, so that republicans can call on hunter
biden . This is not like some fantasy football trade, as i said yesterday. This is not, we will offer you this if you give us that. A witness that will allow us to smear a president ial candidate if you want to get a legitimate witness. That is not a trade. Trials are not trades for witnesses. We offered last night to have the chiefjustice of the Supreme Court rule on a question of it to reality for any of the witnesses. And you know something . Not surprisingly, the president s tea m not surprisingly, the president s team was vehemently opposed. Not because the president s team does not trust the chiefjustice to make an impartial decision but because they do trust the chiefjustice make an impartial decision. Thats not what they want. They want a smear. They want to effectuate the scheme that they were unable to do when
they try to get ukraine to smear the bidens, they want to use this trial to smear the bidens. That is not the purpose of this trial and the senator should not allow it to be abused in this way. How many people are listening to your arguments . 0r have they made up their mind . cannot speak for the senators. I would hope that they have an open mind. Asi would hope that they have an open mind. As i said yesterday, whatever they may have thought any past, whatever they may have had in the past, there is an event, a constitutional dimension, that supersedes all of that and that of the oath they took a debating of this trial. I have to hope that some if not all of the senators will abide by that oath and will hear us with an open mind. But even if they dont, i do expect the American People are watching, and i think the American People are listening. And they do have an open mind. And its
those americans we are talking to also. As i said before, we are trying this case to two juries, the senate and the American People. Was it appropriate. Did the chief justice change anything about how you prepare or present your arguments . When you schedule a trial, as Mitch Mcconnell did, designed to be hidden in the dead of night, were you require litigants going at it for the entire day to go into the wee hours, youre going to have tempers flare. It happens in every courtroom in america as well as to but were going to try to keep focused on the facts. The president s team would like nothing more than to provoke a bitter conflict, we are not to let them. The facts are damning, we are going to let them out in great detail. Thank you. That was adam schiff, who
is the head of the Intelligence Committee in the house of representatives. He is one of the seven house managers who are conducting this trial in the senate on behalf of the democrats, the prosecutors, if you want to call them that. A few things there that i picked up on, and lets in brak in Jonathan Turley picked up on, and lets in brak in jonathan tu rley and picked up on, and lets in brak in Jonathan Turley and kim wehle. Let me bring up this issue that adam schiff said, about the quid pro quo of witnesses, with the democrats saying we wants to have witnesses from the white house who we think are important to understanding whether the president to try to put pressure on ukraine in order to have investigation with the bidens and the white house saying, if you call these witnesses the notion of the bidens themselves. And adam schiff at one point saying that republicans wa nt to at one point saying that republicans want to use this trial to smear the bidens. And its not about smearing the bidens. Unpacked that a little bit for our audience. What is going on with that quid pro quo, and was
he right, adam schiff, to say the items are not material . The bidens are . Normally, that rules of evidence in the trial, where the judge will decide what kind of information should go to the jury. Some stuff is irrelevant or immaterial. I think the argument here is that someone likejohn bolton, who was in thejuly ten meeting, in which he said he would did not want any part of a drug dealer was being cooked up. He did not want, allegedly, the guy 25 meeting with zelensky and President Trump to happen. He took copious notes. He has first hand knowledge ofi notes. He has first hand knowledge of i donald trump withheld the eight and withheld the white house meeting. The argument is, he can shed light on the question under the first article of impeachment as to whether mr trump abused the power of his office to stay in power rather than actually to root out corruption in ukraine. The arguments thing the
republicans, the counterargument, hunter biden should then be also, if you open up the door tojohn bolton, lets open the door to other witnesses. Hunter biden can weigh in on whether there was corruption in ukraine that justifies on whether there was corruption in ukraine thatjustifies Donald Trumps alternative narrative that thatis trumps alternative narrative that that is what he was really worrying about stuff mr schiff is saying, thatis about stuff mr schiff is saying, that is kind of a ruse. I think it isa that is kind of a ruse. I think it is a trial tactic for defence lawyers to make the trial about hunter biden. We saw this a little bit with matt gaetz attacking hunter biden for his addiction problems. That is off limits, arguably. That has nothing to do with whether, in his mind, President Trump made a decision for his power rather than the American People. As far as whether it is a fair request to ask
for a horse trade, this reciprocity, thatis for a horse trade, this reciprocity, that is not a legal concept. You are not going to see that ever in a court. But were in a political process. We are not exactly a trial. Numbers of Congress Make these deals all the time for sub is not happen in real time yesterday, where as you reported, the original proposal for the resolution of the process, to go forward , the resolution of the process, to go forward, Mitch Mcconnell had it agreed to changed in real with handwritten notes to allow actual evidence from house come in and also to allow three days versus two days. I dont think it is beyond the pale to ask for this kind of agreement stop point agreement. Agreement. Jonathan turley, there isa agreement. Jonathan turley, there is a bigger issue here. The white houses argument, as kim was laying out there, President Trump ordering the withholding of military aid to ukraine because he wanted to investigate corruption in the country. At the heart of that corruption was whether hunter biden, who was on the board of an energy, a
Ukrainian Energy company, burisma, was using his proximity to the Vice President in a way that was corrupt. Has the white house in the course of the house impeachment process presented evidence to say there is an alternative story here . This is actually nothing to do with a political issue for the president , this is a legitimate concern about corruption in ukraine and military aid to ukraine around corruption . Have they made that case sufficiently . They have certainly stated the case. It sounds like, kim andl stated the case. It sounds like, kim and i may disagree about hunter biden. I think hunter biden is clearly a relevant witness. I am a terminal defence criminal defence attorney and would feel in this case i could be allowed to call him. They are relevant when they can share evidence on the defence theory. But President Trump is arguing is he was
fighting corruption in ukraine. Important enough that contract between hunter biden and the Ukrainian EnergyCompany Burisma was still ongoing in 2019 stuff it had technically ended just before this call. I think that is. Im sorry tojump in call. I think that is. Im sorry to jump in there. Call. I think that is. Im sorry tojump in there. I want to go quickly to the senate because lindsay graham, the republican senator, is giving a very quick press co nfe re nce. Senator, is giving a very quick press conference. We werent expecting this for select had a quick listen. Treated so poorly by the Republican House was mac i remember clinton very well. We got challenged, rightly so, about what were doing and why are doing it. I would not co operate at all with these people fibre the president. You said executive privilege was a very powerful argument for you. Would you entertain at all, still on
the table, joe biden or hunter biden . Cesaro. The table, joe biden or hunter biden . Cesaro. I have the table, joe biden or hunter biden . Cesaro. I have said all along a crime does not have to be committed to impeach the president. Isaid committed to impeach the president. I said that in the clinton case. But abuse of power, in this case, i think undercut the ability of the president to literally do his job because heres what i would say but executive privilege. There is nobody more important to the president that is secretary of state and National Security adviser and chief of staff. He needs to protect the institution of the presidency. If im asked to waive executive privilege, i will say no. The option is to stop the trial and go to court or have the senate decide the privilege. And heres what im going to tell if you want to blow through these
privileges, if you come to the senate asked me to destroy the privilege, forget it. Im not can endure this kind of behaviour, so the only option available to the senate now is to recognise the privilege and that is the end of boltons testimony, or stop the trial and send it to court which they shouldve done to begin with. I am not going to legitimise what i think is a dangerous process. So im not going to trade executive privilege. Hunter biden, if he has got a decent lawyer at all, he will claim the fifth amendment because you get 50,000 a month getting in 2014 you get 50,000 a month getting in 201a to you get 50,000 a month getting in 2014 to do what . And when your company gets investigated by the ukrainian prosecutor the same to you get on the phone to the state department and your Business Partner meets with john kerry, this dismissal that hunter biden did everything on the up hunter biden did everything on the up and up, i dont know that he did everything on the up and up. To answer your question, i did
everything on the up and up. To answeryour question, i did not everything on the up and up. To answer your question, i did not say you had to commit a crime to be impeached from my point was the contrast. This is the first impeachment article where there has been no crime alleged. It is up to the senate as impartialjurors to ta ke the senate as impartialjurors to take a look at the information and make a decision whether or not we should remove the president of the estate from office and bar him from ever serving a camp full so that has never ever happened in this nations history. We have got to go. The trialjust started at one p m. The Supreme Court said that was the missing piece wrongly decided . think he referred to executive privilege because this is different because of the three posts he was talking about. Anchor senators in a rush to get to the floor of the senate because this trial is going to start in about a minute. They also want to get their points across to the press because once they get into the cynic in with her to put their phones and a special box and
they are not allowed to communicate with reporters at all and are not allowed to talk it off for the duration of about eight hours we suspect so it is a long period in which we dont hear from them so they want to get their views out to they want to get their views out to the press. Jonathan, im sorry i interacted you earlier celeste pick up interacted you earlier celeste pick up again. You heard Lindsey Graham talking about this issue of hunter biden. Whether this trial is about him in corruption or whether it is about the president and abuse of power, all that part of the same thing or are they distinct . They are pa rt of thing or are they distinct . They are part of the same thing. A trial involves a prosecution theory and defence theory hunter biden is part of the letter. I will note both of those senators rejected the argument being put forward of the White House Team that a crime is necessary for impeachment. That follows the president s ultimate this morning suggesting that he also believes abuse of power without a crime can be the basis for impeachment. This will create a more and more difficult if not bizarre situation
where the white House Counsel is arguing a theory that the president and many of the senators are expressly rejecting most of ive written about that theory and testified about that in the clinton impeachment and testify about the theory and the donald trump impeachment and it is in my view currently untenable from a constitutional or historical perspective. The problem is the White House Team has constructed its defence around this rather precarious and challenge a bolt proposition. Kim, this issue of a crime be necessary for impeachment, if my memory serves me right, it was Lindsey Graham then a young congressman who during bill clintons trial, also said actually abuse of power as it was then can be an impeachable offence. And people that have different views on that. For a lot of players on the National Stage with this process, there is hypocrisy all over the place, saying one thing at one point and Something Else and another point in time. It is againa else and another point in time. It is again a distraction. Back to the point with hunter biden, i do disagree actually that hunter biden would not be a material or relevant witness in a criminal trial. I do not disagree. We just saw happen with Lindsey Graham is it is a defence strategy to make the trial about Hunter Bidens alleged wrongdoing and Lindsey Graham suggested that he should get a good lawyer and plead the fifth amendment. I have tojump in because we should go straight to the senate where proceedings are being called to order. There is a Chiefjustice John Roberts. Let us pray. Sovereign god, author of liberty, we gather in this Historic Chamber for the solemn
responsibility of these impeachment proceedings. Give wisdom to the distinguished Chiefjustice John Roberts as he presides. Lord, you are all powerful. And know our thoughts before we form them. As our lawmakers have become jurors, remind them of your admonition in first corinthians 10 31 that whatever they do should be done for your glory. Help them remember that patriots reside on both sides of the aisle,
that words have consequences and that words have consequences and that how something is said can be as important as what is said. Give them a civility built upon integrity that brings consistency in their beliefs and actions. We pray in your powerful name, amen. Please join pleasejoin me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the audit states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. If there is no objection, the journal of proceedings of the trial are approved today. No objections so awarded. The sergeant at arms omit the proclamation. Will make the proclamation. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are commanded to keep silent only on pain of imprisonment. While the senate of the us is sitting for the trial on the us is sitting for the trial on the articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against donald john trump, the president of the other states. Of the United States. The majority leader is recognised. No
motions were filed this morning so we shall proceed to the house managers presentation and will go for approximately two hours and take a short recess when there is an appropriate break time between presenters. Pursuant to the provisions of the Senate Resolution 483, the managers of the house of representatives have 24 hours to make the presentation of their case. The senate will now hear you. Mr chiefjustice, senators, counsel for the president and my fellow house managers, i want to begin by thanking you, chiefjustice, for a very long day, for the way you presided over these proceedings. And i want to thank the senators also. We went well into the morning, as
you know, untili we went well into the morning, as you know, until i believe around 2am. And you paid attention to every word and argument you heard from both sides in this impeachment trial andi both sides in this impeachment trial and i know we are both deeply grateful for that. It was an exhausting day for us certainly. But we have adrenaline going through our veins and for those that are required to sit and listen, it is a much more difficult task and of course we know our positions, you have the added difficulty of having to weigh the facts and the law. So i wa nt to to weigh the facts and the law. So i want to begin today by thanking you for the conduct of the proceedings yesterday and for inviting your patience as we go forward. We have some very long days yet to come. So let us begin. When a man unprincipled in private life
desperate and his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents. Those words were written by Alexander Hamilton in a letter to president George Washington at the height of the panic of 1792. A financial credit crisis that shook our young nation. Hamilton was responding to sentiments related to
washington as he travelled the country to america in the face of that crisis might descend from a republican form of government plunging instead to that of monarchy. The framers of the constitution worried then as we worry today that a leader might come to power not to carry out the will of the people that he was elected to represent, but to pursue his own interests. They feared that a president would subvert our democracy by abusing the awesome power of his office for his own personal or political gain. And so they devised a remedy as powerful as they devised a remedy as powerful as the evil it was meant to combat. Impeachment. As centuries have passed, our founders have impeachment. As centuries have passed, ourfounders have achieved an almost mythical character. We are aware of their flaws, certainly some very painful and pronounced indy. And yet when it came to the drafting ofa and yet when it came to the drafting of a new system of government never seen before and was no guarantee it
would succeed, we cannot help but be in all of their genius. Their prescience even, vindicated time and time again. Still it may be because of their brilliance, and the brilliance of their worst, we find year after year more difficult to imagine them as human beings. This is no less true amount of hamilton, notwithstanding his recent return to celebrity. But there were human beings, they understood human frailties even as they exhibited them, and they could appreciate just as we can have power can corrupt and even as we struggle to understand how the framers might have responded to president ial misconduct of the kind and character that we are here to try, we should not imagine for one moment that they lacked basic common sense. Or refuse to apply ourselves. They knew what it was like to live under a desperate. And they risked their lives to be free
of it. They knew they were creating an enormously powerful executive and they knew they needed to constrain it. They did not intend for the power of impeachment to be used frequently, or over mere matters of policy but they put it in the constitution for a reason. For a man who was subvert the interest of the nation to pursue his own interests. For a nation to pursue his own interests. Fora man he nation to pursue his own interests. For a man he was eager perpetuate himself in office by inviting for interference and cheating in an election. For a man who would be disdainful of constitutional limit, ignoring or defeating the other branches of government and their coequal powers. For a man who believe the constitution gave him the right to do anything he wanted and practised in the art of deception. For a man who believed that he was above the law and beholden to no one, for a man in short he would be a king. We are here today in this hello chamber hallowed it chamber, our thinking
the solemn action for on the third time in history because the 45th president of the United States has acted precisely as hamilton and his contemporaries feared. President trump solicited for interference in our immigranta trump solicited for interference in our immigrant a collection of government abusing the power of his office to seek help from a broad abroad to improve his relation prospect home. And when he was caught, he used the powers of that office to obstruct the investigation into his own misconduct. To implement this corrupt scheme, President Trump pressured the president of ukraine to publicly announce investigations into two discredited allegations that would benefit president froms 2020 potential campaign. When the ukrainian president did not immediately assent, President Trump withheld two official acts to induce the ukrainian leader to comply. A
head of state meeting in the oval office and military funding. Both we re office and military funding. Both were of great consequence to ukraine and to our National Interest insecurity but looms largest. President trump withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid toa millions of dollars in military aid to a Strategic Partner at war with russia to secure foreign help with his reelection in other words to cheat. In this way, the president used official state powers available only to him and unavailable to any political opponent to advantage himself in a democratic election. His scheme was undertaken for a simple but corrupt reason, to help them win reelection in 2020. But the effect of his scheme was to undermine ourfree effect of his scheme was to undermine our free and effect of his scheme was to undermine ourfree and Fair Elections and to put our National Security at risk. It was not even necessary that ukraine undertake the political investigations the
president was seeking him with a meal he had to announce them. This is significant for President Trump had no interest in fighting corruption as he would claim after he was caught, rather his interest was in furthering corruption by the announcement of investigations that we re announcement of investigations that were completely without merit. The first sham investigation that President Trump desire was into former Vice President joe biden, who had sought the removal of a corrupt ukrainian prosecutor the previous during the previous us administration. The Vice President acted in accordance with us official policy at the time. And was supported unanimously by our european allies and key Global Financial institutions such as the International Monetary fund that shared the concern over corruption. Despite this fact and the course of the skin, President Trump and his
agents press the ukrainian president to announce an investigation into the false claim that Vice President biden one of the corrupt prosecutor removed from power in order to stop an investigation into burisma holdings, a company on whose board joe bidens son hunter sat. This allegation is simply untrue. And it is been widely debunked by ukrainian and american experts alike. That reality mattered not to President Trump. To him, the value in promoting a negative tale about the former Vice President biden true or false was its usefulness to his Reelection Campaign. It was a smear tactic against a political opponent that President Trump apparently feared. Remarkably, but predictably, russia two has sought this to support this effort to smear mr biden. Reportedly hacking into the Ukrainian Energy company at the centre of the president prospect Disinformation Campaign only last
week. Russia almost certainly was looking for information related to the former Vice President s son so that the kremlin could also weapon i sent against mr biden just like it did against Hillary Clinton in 2016 when russia hacked and released e mails from her president ial campaign. And President Trump is made it abundantly clear that he would like nothing more than to make use of such durer against mr biden just as he made use of secretary clintons hacked and released e mails in his previous potential campaign. Which brings us to the other sham investigation, that President Trump demanded that the ukrainian leader announce. This investigation was appointed to a debunked Conspiracy Theory alleging that ukraine, not russia interfere in the 2016 president ial election. This narrative propagated by the Russian Intelligence Services contends that ukraine sought to help
Hillary Clinton and harm then candidate donald trump and a computer server providing this fiction is hidden somewhere in ukraine. That is the so called crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory. This tale is also patently false and remarkably it is exactly the inverse of what the Us Intelligence communities unanimously assessed that russia interfered in the election and it sweeping and systemic fashion in order to hurt Hillary Clinton and help donald trump. Nevertheless, the president evidently believed that a public announcement lending credence to these allegations by the ukrainian president could assist his reelection by putting to rest any doubts americans may have had of the legitimacy of his first election. Even as he invited for interference in the next. To the degree that most
americans have followed the president possibly effort to involve and foreign power in our election, they may be most familiar with this entreaty to the ukrainian president on the now infamousjuly 25 call to do us on the now infamousjuly 25 call to dousa on the now infamousjuly 25 call to do us a favour, though. And investigate biden in the 2016 Conspiracy Theory. But that call was not the beginning of the story. Nor was it the end. Rather it was merely pa rt was it the end. Rather it was merely part although a significant part of a months effort by President Trump and his allies and associates who apply significant and increasing pressure on ukraine to announce these two political motivated investigations. Key figures in the Top Administration were aware or directly involved or took part in the scheme. As he saw yesterday, one witness, i a the scheme. As he saw yesterday, one witness, ia northerner to the scheme. As he saw yesterday, one witness, i a northerner to the president possibly a number committee put it this way, everyone was in the loop. A million dollar
donator. Without providing a specific date for the proposed visit to the white house, the president conditioned this coveted head of state meeting on the announcement of these sham investigations. For ukraines new and untested leader, unofficial meeting with the president of the United States in the oval office was critical. It would help bestow on him important domestic and International Legitimacy as he sought to implement unambitious Anti Corruption platform. Actual and apparent support from the president of the United States would also for this position as he sought to negotiate a Peace Agreement with russias president vladimir putin, seeking an end to russia possibly illegal annexation and continued military occupation of parts of ukraine. But most pernicious and President Trump condition hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally
appropriated taxpayer funding military assistance to the same purpose to apply more pressure on ukraine possibly her to announce investigation. This military aid which has long enjoyed bipartisan support was designed to help ukraine defend itself from the kremlins aggression. More than 15,000 ukrainians have died fighting Russian Forces and their proxies. 15,000. In the military aid was for such essentials as sniper rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers, radar, night vision goggles and other vital support for the war effort. Most critically, the military aid that we provide ukraine helps to protect and advance american National Security interests in the region and beyond. America has an abiding interest in stemming russian expansionism and resisting any nation possibly efforts to remake the map of europe by dint of military force even as we have tens of thousands of troops stationed there. Moreover as a witness put it
during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids ukraine and her people so that we can fight russia over there and we dont have to fight russia here. That when the president s scheme was exposed in the house of representatives performed its constitutional responsibility to investigate the matter, President Trump use the same unrivaled authority at his disposal as commander in chief to cover up his wrongdoing. In unprecedented fashion, the president ordered the entire executive branch of the United States of america to categorically refuse and completely obstruct the house must s impeachment investigation. Such a wholesale obstruction of a correctional impeachment has never before occurred in our democracy. And it represents one of the most blatant efforts at a cover up in history. If not remedied by his
conviction in the senate and removal from office, President Trumps abuse of his office and obstruction of congress will permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of government. Inviting future president s to operate as if they are also beyond the reach of accountability, congressional oversight and the law. On the basis of this egregious misconduct, the house of representatives returned to articles of impeachment against the president. First charging the president. First charging the president abuse the powers of the presidency to solicit for interference in the upcoming election for his personal political benefit. And second that President Trump instructed an impeachment inquiry into that abuse of power in order to cover up his misconduct. The house did not take this extraordinarily step lightly. As we will discuss, impeachment exists for
cases in which the conduct of the president rises beyond mere policies disputes to be decided otherwise and without urgency at the ballot box. Instead we are here today to consider a much more grave matter and that is an attempt to use the powers of the presidency to cheat an election for precisely this reason. The president possible misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box. President s misconduct. We cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly one. In using his office to get a political advantage and abusing the powers of that office in such a way to jeopardise our National Security and the integrity of our elections and obstructing the investigation into his own wrongdoing, the president has shown that he believes that he is above the law. And its scornful of
constraint. And as we saw yesterday on the screen, they under article two, he can do anything he wants. Moreover, given the seriousness of the conduct at issue and its persistence, this matter cannot and must not be decided by the courts, which apart from the president s in that sheet presence of the chief justice here today, are given no role in impeachment and out of the house or the sentence. Being drawn into litigation taking many months or yea rs into litigation taking many months or years to complete would provide the president with an opportunity to continue his misconduct. He would remain secure in the knowledge that he may tie up the congress in the courts indefinitely. As he has with don mcgann, rendering the impeachment power effectively meaningless. We also took the step with the knowledge this was of the first time the president solicited for interference in our elections. In 2016, then candidate donald trump implored russia to hack his opponents e mail accounts, something the Russian Military agency did only hours later. Only hours later. When the president said hey russia if you we re the president said hey russia if you were listening, they were listening. Only hours later they hacked his opponenfs only hours later they hacked his opponents campaign. And the president has made it clear this was all president has made it clear this was all also have the last time, asking china only recently tojoin ukraine in investigating his political opponent. Over the coming days and we were sent to you and to the American People the extensive evidence collected during the house must make impeachment inquiry into the president s abuse of power. Overwhelming evidence. Notwithstanding his unprecedented and wholesale obstruction of the
investigation into that misconduct. You will hear and read testimony from courageous Public Servants who upheld their oath to the constitution and their legal obligations to comply with congressional action despite a categorical order by President Trump not to co operate with the impeachment inquiry. These are courageous americans who were told by the president of united not to co operate, not to appear, not to testify but who in the sense of duty to do so. That had the sense of duty to do so. That had the sense of duty to do so. But more than that, you will hear from witnesses who have not yet testified. Like john bolton and Mick Mulvaney, mr blair and mr duffy. And if you can believe the president posit words last month, you will also hear from secretary pompeo. You will hear at the same
time as the American People. That is if you allow it. If we have a fair trial. During our presentation, you will see documentary records. Both the president was unable to suppress. That exposed the president s scheme in detail. He will learn of further evidence that has been revealed in the days since the house voted to president from even as the president and his agents have persisted in their efforts to cover up wrongdoing from congress and the public. And you will see dozens and the public. And you will see d oze ns of and the public. And you will see dozens of new documents providing new and Critical Evidence of the president s guilt that remain at this time in the president s hands. And in the hands of the department of defence and the department of state and the office of management and budget and even the white house. You will see them and so will the American People if you allow it. If
in the name of a fair trial you will demand it. These are politically charged times. Tippers can run high. Particularly when this president is concerned. But these are not unique times. Deep divisions under the agreements were hardly alien concept to the framers. So they designed impeachment power in such a way as to insulate it as best they could from the crush of partisan politics. The framers placed the question of removal before the United States senate. A body able to rise above the fray, to soberlyjudge the president s conduct or misconduct for what it was, nothing more and nothing less. In federalist 65, hamilton wrote tomorrow stay in the senate. It is up to you to be the tribunal that hamilton envisioned. It is up to you to show the American People and yourselves that his confidence in that of the other founders was rightly placed. The constitution entrusted you to be responsible for the impartiality of impartial jurors, no matter what your Party Affiliation or your vote in the previous election or the next, our duty is to the constitution into the rule of law. I recognise there will be times during the trial you may
long to return to the business of the senate. The American People look forward to the same. But not before you decide what kind of democracy that you believe we ought to be. And what the American People have a right to expect in the conduct of their president. The house believes that an impartial juror, their president. The house believes that an impartialjuror, upon hearing the evidence that the manager role layout in the coming days, well find constitution demands the removal of donaldj trump his office as president of the United States. But that will be for you to decide. With the weight of history upon you, and as president kennedy once said, a good conscience youre only sure reward. In drafting our constitution, the framers designed a new and untested form of government. It would be based on
free and Fair Elections to enjoy our political leaders will be chosen democratically and by citizens of our country alone. Having broken from a from a king with unbridled authority often places his own interest a bove authority often places his own interest above those of the people, the framers established a structure that would guarantee the chief executives power flowed only from his obligation to the people, rather than from a sovereign whose power was conferred on him by divine right. In this new architecture, no branch of government or individual would predominate over another. In this way, the founders insured that their elected leaders and the president would use the powers of office only to undertake that which the people desired and not for their personal aggrandizement or enrichment. What did those who rebelled and fought a revolution desire . No different than what we, the generations that followed, desire, that no person, and
including and especially the president , would be above the law. Nothing could be more dangerous to a democracy than a commander in chief who believed he could operate with impunity, free from accountability. Nothing, that is, except a congress thatis nothing, that is, except a congress that is willing to let it be so. To ensure that no such threat could ta ke ensure that no such threat could take root and subverts our fledgling democracy, the framers. The three branches. That ambition may be made to counter ambition. They provided for president ial elections every four years and the framers required that the president swear an oath to faithfully execute the law and to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Even with these guardrails and place, the framers understood that individuals could come to power who d efy individuals could come to power who defy that solemn oath, to pursue his own interest rather than those of
the country he led. For that reason, the country he led. For that reason, the framers adopted a tool used by the framers adopted a tool used by the British Parliament to constrain its officials, the power of impeachment. Rather than a mechanism to overturn election, impeachment be remedy of last resort. And unlike england the, the framers applied this ultimate check to the highest office in the land, to the President Office in the land, to the president of the United States. Impeachment and removal of a duly elected president was not intended for policy and buttes or Poor Administration of the state. Instead, the framers had in mind the most serious offences, those that against the public itself. Hamilton explained that impeachment was not designed to cover only statutory or common law crimes but instead crimes against the body politic. Hamilton wrote. In other words, impeachment would be confined to abuses of Peoples Trust and to the society itself. This is precisely the abuse that has been undertaken by our current president. When he withheld money and support foran when he withheld money and support for an ally at war to secure a political benefit. The punishment for those crimes would fit the political nature of the offence, as james wilson, a delicate of the Constitutional Convention and future associate justice of Supreme Court reasoned, impeachments are defined to political characters, political crimes and misdemeanors and political punishments. That punishment, the framers determine,
would be neither presents norfinds but instead limited removalfrom office and disqualification from holding future office. The framers chose to undertake impeachment for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors to underscore the requirements of an offence against society. In this phrase, high defies both the crimes in the misdemeanors, in that both relate to a high injustice, a transgression committed against the people and to the public trust. The framers had two broad categories in mind, those actions that are facially permissible under the president s authority but are based on corrupt motives, such as seeking to obtaina on corrupt motives, such as seeking to obtain a personal benefit through public office, and those that far exceed the president s Constitutional Authority or violate the legal limits on that authority. In article one, we deal with the first evil, was the framers wished to guard against. That is cases in which a present corrupt elite abusive power otherwise bestowed on him to secure a personal reward. Guarding against a president who undertakes official acts with a corrupt motive of helping himself is at the heart of the impeachment power. As one scholar explained, the president s duty to faithfully execute the law requires the undertakes actions only when motivated in the Public Interest rather than in their private self interest. Rather than in their private self i nterest. Efforts rather than in their private self interest. Efforts to withhold official acts for personal gain counter manned the president s sacred oath and therefore constitute impeachable behaviour as it was conceived of by the framers. In article two, we also deal with a second evil contemplate by the founders, who made it clear the president ought not operate beyond the limits least on him by
legislative and judicial branches. Impeachment was warranted for a president who usurped the power of the constitution that was not granted to him, such as to defy congress right to determine the propriety, the scope, and the nature of impeachment inquiry into his own misconduct. The framers fashioned a powerful chief executive but not one the unaccountability of law. When a president wields power in ways that are inappropriate and seek to extinguish the rights of the congress, he exceeds the power of his Constitutional Authority and violates the limits placed on his conduct. Obstruction of a separate and coequal branch of government for the purposes of covering up in abuse of power not only implies a corrupt content but also shows a remarkable
antipathy towards the balance of power enshrined in our constitution. It isa power enshrined in our constitution. It is a betrayal of the president s sacred oath of office and a failure to put the country before himself. On september 24, 2019, speaker of the house nancy pelosi announced that the house of representatives would move forward with an official impeachment inquiry into president donaldj impeachment inquiry into president donald j trump. The impeachment inquiry into president donaldj trump. The announcements followed public reporting in the United States and ukraine that the president and his agents sought ukraines help in his reelection effort and revelations that the white house was blocking from congress and Intelligence Committee whistle blower complaint possibly related to this grave offence. The next day, on september 25, under exurban every pressure, the white house released publicly the record of thejuly house released publicly the record of the july 25 call between
President Trump and ukrainian President Trump and ukrainian president vladimir zelensky. The president requested the new leader undertake investigations benefit to the Reelection Campaign. President trump claimed the call was perfect. Farfrom trump claimed the call was perfect. Far from perfect, the trump claimed the call was perfect. Farfrom perfect, the call trump claimed the call was perfect. Far from perfect, the call record revealed a president who used his high office to personally and directly pressed the leader of a foreign country to do his political dirty work. Asking for a favour, President Trump insisted that President Trump insisted that president zelensky investigate a formidable potential political opponent, former Vice President joe biden, as well as the baseless Conspiracy Theory that ukraine, not russia, interfered in the 2016 election to assist then candidate froms opponent. Witnesses who listened to the call as it
transpired testified that they immediately recognised these requests did not represent official us policy and instead were politically charged appeals not appropriate for a president to make. Few witnesses emphasised it was not necessary that ukraine actually undertake the investigations, only that the ukraine president announced them. President trumps objective not to encourage a Foreign Government to legitimate allegations in this of misconduct, made clear by the fa ct of misconduct, made clear by the fact the investigations he wants had been discredited entirely. Rather, the president just been discredited entirely. Rather, the president just wanted been discredited entirely. Rather, the president just wanted political benefit by tarnishing inflatable rival and attempting to erase from history his previous election misconduct. To compel the ukraine president to do this political dirty work, President Trump withheld from president zelensky does make official acts of great importance,
that coveted white house meeting to which president salutes he had already been invited, and threaded 91 million in assistance ukraine needed to fight resistance. Two. Inside its own borders, the similac support conferred on it by an oval office visit with the president of the United States and the life savings a part of her military aid was essential. Support of our military aid. Directly the listing for interference and in exchange for the political investigations beneficial to his reelection, the president put his own interests above the National Interest. President trump undermine the integrity of our free and Fair Elections by pressing a foreign power to influence our most sacred right as citizens, our right to freely choose our leaders. Any
threaten our National Security by withholding critical aid from a partner on the front lines of war with russia and an aggressor that has threatened peace and stability on an entire continent, in so doing the president sacrificed not only the president sacrificed not only the security of our european allies but also our nations core National Security interests. President trump undertook this pressured campaign through hand picked agents inside and outside of government, who circumvented traditional policy channels. President trump intentionally bypassed many Us Government career officials with responsibility over ukraine and advanced his scheme primarily through the effort of his personal attorney, rudy giuliani. President trump carried out this scheme with the knowledge of senior ministration officials, including the president s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney,
secretary of state mike pompeo, Vice President mike pence, john eisenberg, and White House Council pat cipollone. When the president became aware this he would be uncovered, he took an unprecedented effort to obstruct the impeachment inquiry and hide it from the public and from congress. Including all evidence related to his misconduct. That cover up continues today. As the ministration is not provided a civil document pursuant to lawful subpoenas by the house. A single document. Ministration also can use to prevent witnesses from cooperating. Further objecting to house, efforts the president is no doubt proud of it. But which threatened the integrity of this house of congress as a coequal
branch of power, our conduct to undertake oversight but to hold a president accountable. Despite these effo rts president accountable. Despite these efforts to obstruct our inquiry, the house of her percentages uncovered overwhelming evidence related to the president s misconduct through interviews with 17 witnesses who appeared before the intelligence oversight and reform in Foreign Affairs committees. Many of these witnesses bravely defied white house orders not to comply with dual the authorised congressional subpoenas and were not for them, were it not for ambassador marie ofjohn rich, the first through the breach, we may never know the president s scheme. I wa nt never know the president s scheme. I want you to imagine this for a minute, what kind of courage that took. For ambassador yovanovitch, the subject of that vicious smear campaign. To stand up to the president of the United States, who is instructing her through his agents, you would not testify, you will tell them nothing. Or bill taylor, west point graduate, vietnam vetera n, taylor, west point graduate, vietnam veteran, with a bronze star, and something he was even more proud of, the combat infantry mens badge. He knows what courage is. Showed a different kind of courage in vietnam. He also showed courage, as did others, and coming forward, in
defining the president s order defying the president s order, to tell the American People what he knew. But for the courage of people like this, and Lieutenant Colonel vindman, but for their courage, we would know nothing of the president s misconduct, nothing. When the president directs his ire towards these people, this is why. Because they show the courage to come forward. We held in the Intelligence Committee seven open hearings, with 12 fact witnesses. Separately, thejudicial hearings, with 12 fact witnesses. Separately, the Judicial Committee held public hearings with constitutional law experts and council from the intelligence, constitutional law experts and councilfrom the intelligence, house Intelligence Committee, as it sought to determine whether to draft and consider articles of impeachment. The house also collected text m essa g es the house also collected Text Messages related to the president s scheme from a witness who provided limited personal communications. Since the conclusion of our inquiry on the new evidence has continued to come to light, after Court Ordered releases of administration documents and public reporting, underscoring that there is significantly more evidence of president s guilt which he continues to block from congress, including the senate. Nevertheless, the documents and testimony that we we re the documents and testimony that we were able to collect paints an overwhelming and damning picture of the president s efforts to use the power of his office to corruptly solicit foreign help in his Reelection Campaign and withhold official acts and military aid to compel that support. Over the coming days, you will hear remarkably consistent evidence of President Trump osma corrupt scheme and cover up. When you focus on the evidence uncovered during the
investigation, you appreciate there was no serious dispute about the fa cts was no serious dispute about the facts underlying the president s conduct. And this is why you will hear the president s lawyers make the astounding claim that you cannot impeach a president for abusing the powers of his office. Because they cant seriously contest that that is exactly, exactly what he did. And so they must go find a lawyer somewhere, a pair they could not go to their own attorney general a paralytic could it was just reported, in a memo, he wrote a president could be impeached for abusing public trust. Could not go to bill barfor that. Could not go
to bill barfor that. Could not go to jonathan tu rley. To bill barfor that. Could not go toJonathan Turley. Had to go to a criminal defence lawyer and professor. And why . Because they cannot contest the facts. The president was the key player in this scheme. Everyone was in the loop. He directed the actions of his team. He personally asked a Foreign Government to investigate his opponent. These facts are not in dispute. Ultimately, the question for you is whether the president s undisputed actions require the removal of the 45th president of the United States from office because he abused his office and the public trust by using his power for personal gain by seeking illicit foreign assistance in his reelection and covering it up. Other than voting on whether to send our men and women to war, this is. There is, i think, and women to war, this is. There is, ithink, no and women to war, this is. There is, i think, no greater response validity before you than the one
before you now. Responsibility before you now. Responsibility before you. The oath taken to impartially weighty facts requires objective consideration, decisions that are about country and not party, about the constitution, not politics, about what is right and what is wrong. After you consider the evidence and what your oath to render a fair and impartial verdict, i suggest to you today the only conclusion consistent with the facts of law, not just the conclusion consistent with the facts of law, notjust the law but the constitution, is clear. As described by constitutional law experts testimony before the house, if this conduct is not impeachable, then nothing is. Let me take a moment to describe to you how we intend to present the case over the coming days. Today, you will hear the details of the president osma corrupt scheme in narrative form,
illustrating the timeline of the effort through the testimony of numerous witnesses who came before the house, as well as documents and materials we collected as evidence during investigation. After you hear the factual chronology, we will then discuss the constitutional framework of impeachment as it was envisioned by the founders, before we analyse how the facts of the president s misconduct and cover up lead to the conclusion that the president undertook the sort of corrupt course of conduct that impeachment was intended to remedy. Let me start with a preview of the president s scheme, the details of which you will hear during the course of this day. President trumps month long scheme, month long scheme to extract help in his 2020 Reelection Campaign from the ukrainian president involved an effort to solicit and then compel the new leader to announce political investigations. The announcements, with reference to specific investigations, one intended to undermine the unanimous consent of our intelligence agencies, congress and special Council Robert mueller that rush interfered in the 2016 election to help then candid trump russia interfered. And another to hurt the candidacy of former president joe biden. The kremlin itself has been responsible for first propagating one of the two false narratives that the president desired. In figure 2017, less than a month after the us Intelligence Committee assessed that russia alone was responsive for a covert influence campaign designed to help President Trump windy 2016 election, president putin said. Those were put ins words february two, 2017. This is false. It is part ofa two, 2017. This is false. It is part of a russian counter narrative that President Trump and some of his allies have adopted. Fiona hill, senior director for europe and russia at the National Security council, described. Youre watching bbc world news. In a moment or two, we have beyond 100 days coming up. This is adam schiff. Just a few moments ago, he was saying Donald Trumps actions were a betrayal of the president s sacred office. He was talking about the call to ukraines president. He said
he was getting him to do his political dirty work. That call that donald trump of persons referred to as perfect. Lets get analysis from Gary Odonoghue come alive for us there on capitol hill, and, gary come after the row yesterday after rules. The details of the case against the president. Yes. Adam schiff their Committee Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the house, the lead prosecutor, if you like, on behalf of the democrats, setting out the sort of broad brush of how he plans to approach this thing. Putting front and centre, right at the beginning of his presentation, this whole idea that the senate should do its duty properly, should ask for the documents, should authorise the appearance of witnesses. Making that pa rt appearance of witnesses. Making that part about the process part of this trial presentation as well. Trying to put pressure on those senators to agree. Why would you not want to see
all this documentation, all these witnesses . He says, you can hear from these witnesses. You just need to choose to do so. And then setting out what he believed was the impeachable nature of what the president done. He said of this is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. And really trying to address the narrative which you will hear from the defence later on in the trial, that actually you can only impeach on a crime. You have to commita only impeach on a crime. You have to commit a statutory crime to be impeached. Thats something that a lot of scholars disagree with. It something the prosecution here disagree with. They say that high crimes and misdemeanors mentioned in the constitution goes beyond, goes beyond the criminal law and into the realms of behaviour and trust and the way that the presidency treats the way that the presidency treats the American People. You can see the broadbrush. He said we are going to hear more about the narrative of the
ukraine deal in the ukraine arrangements in ukraine scenario over the coming days, as well the timeline, but also trying to fix in senators minds there this idea that, look, if theres more information out there, why not hear it . And he took that shot just a short while ago at the white house layers, saying you cannot contest the facts. That is like your grappling around for other defences. Yes, thats right, and thats one of the strategies that have been from the defence in the White House Team on this, that route the impeachment inquiry, the autumn, they refused to hand over documents. They refused to agree to certain witnesses appearing. Some chose to, somejust to come along against the instructions of the white house and about some of the key ones did not, likejohn bolton, about some of the key ones did not, like john bolton, the about some of the key ones did not, likejohn bolton, the former National Security adviser, like the acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney,
these people, democrats believe, who have Key Information about the ukrainian timeline. More importantly, where the decisions and when the decisions came. When did, if he did, the president speak with Mick Mulvaney about it . What was the instruction was not how far up the chain did it go . How explicit was it . What was the connection if any between the withholding of the aid and what was being asked of ukraine . All these things are the sort of details of the democrats, what they believe they have quite a lot of evidence on at the moment. The witnesses are getting a lot of attention, not surprisingly. There are paper trails in organisations like this and they want them. Gary, thanks, once again, as i take you back to the floor of the senate and adam schiff. Plenty more analysis coming from Washington Post on we
willjoin beyond 100 days and that is coming up with katty kay in just a moment or two. Thanks for watching. Youre watching beyond 100 days. The un suspects mohammabin salman was involved in hacking the phone ofjeff bezos, the head of amazon and the owner of the Washington Post. Saudi arabia calls the allegations absurd, but the un wants an immediate investigation. Bezos phone was hacked by a malicious video file from an account reportedly belonging to the saudi crown prince. After a Marathon Senate session yesterday, it is day two of the President Trump osma impeachment trial and democrats are setting out the evidence against him. Pa rt of part of our strength is not only our military make strength of our
allies, it is what