Clinton model. He didnt say he supported it. Cory gardner faces a tough Reelection Campaign in colorado. Hes a republican from colorado here. What well have when they come back at 3 05 or 3 06, if theyre going to debate the schumer proposal, an eightpage proposal put together by Chuck Schumer asking for documents and other communications from the white house. Mentioneds Mick Mulvaney and asks for communications from joe biden as well. That will be important. The term of art that youll hear a lot later this afternoon and then tonight is a motion to table. What does that mean from a parliamentary perspective . A motion to table is just that you try to set aside or kill a given proposal. So what Chuck Schumer will do, he will put this proposal on the floor. Adam schiff will debate it. Then youll have the white House Counsel office. The president s lawyers will debate it. And then it would be up for a vote. Unless you move to table. This is something that Mitch Mcconnell indicated he would move to table. The vote is not on the schumer proposal. Its on the motion to table. If you vote 51 people, a majority to table, its done. That probably is what a lot of these votes will be like this afternoon and tonight, bret. Thanks, chad. Lets go to andy mccarthy, former u. S. Assistant attorney. Im struck by the juxtapositions between the positions of the lawyers on the competing sides theyre taking and the way the rhetoric interestingly at times undermines the positions they want to take. For example, adam schiff on behalf of the house managers makes the argument repeatedly that the case that the house made against the president is overwhelming. He does that in the context of trying to make an argument that they need evidence and witnesses. They called the evidence he called the evidence the new evidence theyre asking for at various times vital and crucial. He referred to the witnesses as key witnesses. Of course, its not possible if the evidence is already overwhelming and the case is already overwhelming that they could have made an overwhelming case without substantial evidence that was vital and key and crucial. So i think his rhetoric is running into his position. At the same time, on the president s side, the president while i think the president s lawyers are emphasizing the constitutional infirmity of the two charges, the president wants to contest the facts of the case. Some of that has seeped into the rhetoric of his lawyers. The problem i think he has with that and this was this is has to be something that concerns with the moderate republican senators, the president is taking the position that the facts need to be litigated, that actually supports the argument for why you should hear from witnesses who havent been heard from yet and who may have things to say that are relevant on those different subjects. Now, they can make the argument that the house should have called those witnesses or made a better effort to get them. The fact is that the rhetoric of contesting the facts is supervisor porting the argument of the people who say that more witnesses are necessary. Yeah. Andy, what about the schiff argument against fairness . We covered that committee heari hearing. Obviously it was opposite. The republicans said his operation is not fair at all. Its interesting. I think the perhaps the unforced error that senator mcconnell made was not allowing the record in the house to be brought in total into the senate, which would normally be a pro forma thing. But it was clearly done for the reason of trying to highlight the what they per receive as the unfairness and with good reason, the infairness of the house proceedings. I thought that they could have make that point without leaving themselves vulnerable to claims and complaints about not bringing the whole record in. Lawyers always talk about the difference in a trial between the weight and the add miss ability of evidence. What that means is that you can let evidence come in even evidence that the under lying authenticity of which or procedures supporting which are shaky and make the argument that that evidence should not be accorded great weight because the way it was collected or other attendant circumstances about it. He should have probably just allowed all that stuff to come in and let the lawyers make the argument that the house proceedings were unfair. Chris . Yeah, real quickly. I want to pick up on something that you said. Its not just Susan Collins one of the people pushing to rules. She put out a statement. Thats pause shes in a tough fight for reelection in maine. Shes a moderate republican senators by a lot of her supporters because she was the key vote to confirm brett kavanaugh. Shes the vote to put him over the top. So to the degree that she can show during this trial, i dont know how she will vote in the end on President Trump and removal, but shes leading the charge on witnesses and changing the rules a little bit. She wants to show shes a free agent, a free operator and not under the thumb of Mitch Mcconnell or donald trump. Lets bring in cohost of the five, dana perino and Juan Williams. Dana, youve dealt with white House Counsels, Pat Cipollone. Most of the time not out there making the cases publicly. Yeah, white House Counsels are hostages in their office. Theyre not so busy they dont have a lot of time to lead. I thought mat cipollone is a very good lawyer. She didnt read from notes. He knew the law. Presents well. For the people towning in that this might be the first time that theyre seeing him, that might be compelling to keep watches. If you recall when this first got underway and john roberts came over and got sworn in and swore everybody in, i mentioned that this is the senate is very different from the house. Its somber, serious and i think you could see today, you know, its a little like watching paint dry. Were expecting up to 50 amendments. Theyre going to spend an hour debating each amendment. By thursday, i think that some senators will be crying uncle and their names might be Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and amy klobuchar. They want to win an election. Because of this schedule, they can no longer take quick trips there to do a quick rally and get back in time. I agree with chris. Another thing that happened with Susan Collins. She lost the endorsement of planned parent hood. They decided to endorse her opponent. Now planned parenthood is much more partisan in recent year. Senator mcconnell wants to keep the majority, he has to think about what the senators need. I would not be surprised by suggesting theyll finish the Opening Statements in 48 hours, it gave her a way, Susan Collins to say i was able to prevail on this important issue even though it might not be that important in the end. Yeah. Good point. Political point for her and probably Mitch Mcconnell would like some of those members to have a little bit of cover on some of these issues along the way as they prepare for the very tough elections. This is as much about the senate bringing in Juan Williams and whether or not the senate maintains republican majority for republicans than it is about the big question here, juan. Well, i think the politics are obvious. I agree the analysis has been on target with regard to collins, which youll have to keep in mind, some of those politics apply to Lisa Murkowski of alaska and certainly to the number of republicans that are retiring including lamar alexander. So i think thats part of that overall dynamic. But to me, i was struck this morning by actually hearing the best of the president s rebuttal. I think Pat Cipollone did an excellent job. It starts with jay sekulow that says why are we here . Are we here about a phone call . Whats the big deal . Then you hear Pat Cipollone say why are we here . Are we here despite the fact that this president was transparent in releasing the transcript of that phone call . There were suspicions about the democrats about a previous called. Didnt amount to much. This is the first time that it wasnt in the briefs that was presented that we heard a real rebuttal coming from the white house. From someone other than the president has been very vocal in his own rebuttal. Were in a short recess now. The Senate Impeachment trial of president donald j. Trump continues. We have you covered here on fox. Until i almost lost my life. My doctors again ordered me to take aspirin, and i do. Be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. Listen to the doctor. Take it seriously. The better question would be where do i not listen to it. While im eating my breakfast. On the edges of cliffs. On a ski lift. Everywhere. For a limited time, go to audible. Com to save 50 on your first year of membership. Iand i dont add up the years. But what i do count on is boost high protein. And now, introducing new boost mobility with collagen for joint health. When taken daily, its key nutrients help support joints, muscles, and strong bones. New, boost mobility. And now for their service to the community, we present limu emu doug with this key to the city. [ applause ] its an honor to tell you that Liberty Mutual customizes your Car Insurance so you only pay for what you need. And now we need to get back to work. [ applause and band playing ] only pay for what you need. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. 45 plus at average risk. Ive heard a lot of excuses to avoid screening for colon cancer. Im not worried. It doesnt run in my family. I can do it next year. No rush. Cologuard is the noninvasive option that finds 92 of colon cancers. You just get the kit in the mail, go to the bathroom, collect your sample, then ship it to the lab. Theres no excuse for waiting. Get screened. Ask your Healthcare Provider if cologuard is right for you. Most insured patients pay 0. Were back with our continuing coverage of the trial for President Trump on impeachment that is now over in the senate side. We want to bring in Jason Chaffetz who is standing by, a former congressman and fox news contributor. What are your thoughts so far, sir . I think its important to note how adam schiff is a large liability for the democrats. He will be central to a lot of the rebuttal that the republicans make. His testimony will be attacked by the republicans. I thought the most salient argument made to date is attacking or going after the democratic argument that by going to court, somehow you are obstructing congress. I thought that was the most passionate and probably had the most attention of the senators because i do think a lot of senators will say, whoa, whoa, democrats. Youre going way too far if you think by going to the courts is somehow an obstruction of congress. Heres this is s4 control room. Chuck schumer on this process from the senate floor. It was kept secret until the very eve of the trial. Now that its public, its very easy to see why. The mcconnell rules seem to be designed by President Trump for President Trump. What do you think of that . It is a body controlled by republicans. The president is obviously republican. The idea that they get 24 hours to make their case and that somehow that is not enough, they the democrats will control that time, make their case. I dont think they can make it in two minutes. To argue that 24 hours is not enough i think will fall on deaf ears. I thought it was interesting when Pat Cipollone said theyre not ready to go. This case isnt ready. It goes to the point that you made about the fact that they chose not to issue subpoenas and pursue them and wait for the court system. Now they want the same people in the room. I wonder if youre not the right person to ask but i wonder if democrats have regrets about the way they handled this process so far . The delay of the 33 days is inexcusable. Everybody understands that. Andy mccarthy when i heard him interviewed is absolutely right. Adam schiff cannot have it both ways. He cant say we have to have these particular people testify. At the same time, hes having we have an iron clad cause that is uncontested. Thats not true. It wont resonate and it wont win over the hearts and minds of any senator. Jason chaffetz, thanks for the time. We appreciate it. Back with our panel here. Chris, were looking now at coming back from recess and starts this debate about amendments. We dont know exactly how this is going to go. Were told senator schumer has up to 50 or more. Oh, no. An hour for each one. Each one will be tabled by the Senate Majority leader. The wait tabling here we go. Back in session. Very well. Mr. Cipollone. Okay. Mr. Schiff, you have an hour. Thank you, mr. Chief justice. In a momently introduce house manag manager loffgen to respond. First, its worth noting that they said nothing about the resolution. They said nothing about the resolution. They made no effort to defend it. They made no effort to even claim that this was like the senate trial in the clinton proceeding. They made no argument that, well, this is different here because of this or that or they made no argument about that whatsoever. They made no argument that it makes sense to try the case and then consider documents. They made no argument about why it makes sense to have a trial without witnesses. And why . Because its indefensible. Its indefensible. No trial in america has ever been conducted like that. So you heard nothing about it. And that should be the most telling thing about counsels argument. They had no defense of the mcconnell resolution because there is none. They couldnt defend it on the basis of Senate Precedent or Senate History tradition. Couldnt defense it at all. So what did they say . First they made the representation that the house is claiming there is no such thing as executive privilege. Thats nonsense. No one here has ever suggested theres no such thing as executive privilege. The interesting thing here is they have never claimed executive privilege. Not once during the house investigation did they ever see a single document was privileged or a single witness had something privileged to say. Why didnt they invoke privilege . Why only now . Now they havent quite invoked it. Why only now . Why not in the house . Because in order to claim privilege as they know because theyre good lawyers, you have to specify which document, which line, which conversation and they didnt want to do that because to do that the president would have to reveal the evidence of his guilt. Thats why they made no invocation of privilege. Now they make the further argument that the house should only be able to impeach after they exhaust all legal remedies. As if the constitution says the house shall have the sole power of impeachment asterisk. But only after it goes to court, in the district court, the court of appeals and on the Supreme Court and go back up the chain and takes years. Why didnt the founders require the exhaustion of legal remedies . Because they didnt want to put the impeachment process in the courts. You know what is interesting is that while these lawyers for the president are here before you today saying the house should have gone to court, theyre in court saying the house may not go to court to enforce subpoenas. I kid you not. Other lawyers, maybe not the ones in this table but other lawyers for the president are in court saying the exact opposite of what theyre telling you today. Theyre saying you cannot enforce congressional subpoenas. That is nonjudicialable. You cant do it. Counsel brings up the case of Charles Kupperman who was a deputy to john bolton. He said he did what he needed to. He went to court. The Justice Department said he cant do that. These lawyers are saying he should, they are saying they cant. They cant have it both ways. Interestingly, while dr. Kupperman went to court and they applaud him for doing that, his boss, john bolton says theres no necessity for him to go to court. He doesnt have to do it. Hes willing to come and talk to you. Hes willing to come and testify and tell you what he knows. The question is do you want to hear it. Do you want to hear it . Do you want to hear from someone in the meetings, someone that described what the president did, this deal between mulvaney and sondland as a drug deal. Do you want to know why it was a drug deal . Do you want to ask him why it was a drug deal . Do you want to ask him why he told people go talk to the lawyers . You should want to know. They dont want you to know. They dont want you to know. The president doesnt want you to know. Can you really live up to the oath you have taken to be impartial and not know . I dont think you can. Thigh made the argument that youll hear that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. They had to go outside the realm of constitutional lawyers to a criminal defense lawyer to make that argument because no reputable constitutional law expert would do that. Indeed the one that they called in the house, republicans called, Jonathan Turley said the opposite. Theres a reason that Jonathan Turley is not sitting at the table. Thats because he doesnt support their argument. So theyll cite him for one thing but ignore him for the other. They say oh, the president is very transparent. He may have refused every subpoena, every document request but he released two documents. The dockment on the july 25th call and the document on the april 21st call. Lets face it. He was forced to release the record of the july 25th call when he got caught. When a whistleblower filed a complaint, when we opened an investigation. He was forced because he got caught. You dont get credit for transparency when you get caught. And what is more, what is revealed in that of course is damning. Now they point to the only other record hes released, april 21st call. That is just a con grad la torre call. What is interesting about it is the president was urged on that call to bring up the issue of corrupti corruption. In the readout of the call, the white house misleadingly said he did. Now that weve seen the record, we see he didnt. Not withstanding counsels claim in their trial brief that the president raised the issue of corruption in his phone call, that word doesnt appear in either conversation. And why . Because the only corruption he cared about is the corruption he could bring about. Mr. Cipollone made the representation that republicans were not even allowed in the depositions conducted in the house. Now, im not going to suggest to you that mr. Cipollone would deliberately make a false statement. Ill leave it to mr. Cipollone to make those allegations against others. But i will tell you this. Hes mistaken. Hes mistaken. Every republican on the three investigative committeeses allowed to participate in the depositions. More than that, they got the same time we did. You show me another proceeding, another president ial impeachment or other that had that kind of access for the opposite party . There were depositions in the clinton impeachment and the nixon impeachment. So what they would say is some secret process. They were the same private depositions in these other impeachments as well. Finally, a couple of last points. They make the argument the president was not allowed in the Judiciary Committee chair by my colleague, chairman nadler to be present, to present ed, to have his counsel president. That is also just plain wrong. Just plain wrong. Im not going to suggest to you theyre being deliberately misleading, but its plain wrong. Youve also heard my friends at the other table make attacks on me and chairman nadler. Youll hear more of that. Im not going to do the dignity of responding. But they make a very important point but its not the point that i think theyre trying to make. When you hear them attack the house managers, what youre really hearing is we dont want to talk about the president s guilt. We dont want to talk about the mcconnell resolution and how unfair it is. We dont want to talk about h how to pardon the expresident elects, how ass backwards it is to have a trial and then ask for witnesses. Well attack the house managers because maybe we can distract you from what is before you for a moment. Maybe if we attack the house managers, youll think about them instead of thinking about the guilt of the president. Youll hear more of that. Every time you do, every time you hear them attacking the house managers, ask yourselves, away from what issue are they trying to distract me . What is the issue that came up before this . What are they trying to deflect my attention from . Why dont they have a better argument to make on the merits . Finally, mr. Sekulow asked, why are we here . Why are we here . Ill tell you why were here. Because the president used the power of his office to coerce an ally at war with an adversary at war with russia, use the power of his office to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid that you appropriated to defend an ally and defend ourselves because its our National Security as well. Why . To fight corruption . Thats nonsense. You know it. He withheld that money and he withheld meeting with him in the oval office because he wanted to coerce ukraine into these sham investigations of his opponent. That he was terrified would beat him in the next election. Thats what this is about. You want to say thats okay . The brief says thats okay. The president has a right to do it. Article 2, the president said he can do whatever he wants. You want to say thats okay . You have to say that every future president can come into office and do the same thing. We prepared to say that . Thats why were here. I now yield to representative lofgren. Mr. Chief justice, senators, counsel for the president , the house managers strongly support senator schumers amendment, which would ensure a fair legitimate trial based on a full evidentiary record. The senate can remedy President Trumps unprecedented coverup by taking a straightforward step. It can ask for the key evidence that the president has improperly blocked. Senator schumers amendment does just that. The amendment authorizes the subpoena for white house documents that are relevant to this case. They focus on the president s scheme to strong arm ukraine to announce an investigation into his political opponent to interfere with the 2020 election. The documents will reveal the extent of the white houses coordination with the president s agents such as ambassador sondland and rudy guliani who pushed the president socalled drug deal on ukrainian officials. The documents will also show us how key players inside the white house such as the president s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney and his deputy, robert blair, helped set up the deal by executing the freeze on all military aid and withhold ago promise visit to the white house. The documents include records of the people who may have objected to this scheme and such as ambassador bolton. This is an important impeachment case against the president. The most Important Documents are at the white house. The documents senator schumers amendment targets would provide more clarity and context against the president s scheme. The amendment prevents the president from hiding evidence as he has previously tried to do. Now, the house subpoenaed these documents as part of the impeachment inquiry. The president completely rejected this. Every document subpoena from the house. As powerful as our evidence is and make no mistake, it overwhelming overwhelmingly proves his guilt, we did not receive a single document from the executive branch agency. Recent revelations from press reports, freedom from information act requests, additional witnesses like lev parnas underscore how relevant these documents and therefore why the president has been so desperate to hide them and his misconduct from congress and from the American People. A trial without all of the relevant evidence is not a fair trial. It would be wrong for you senators acting as judges to be deprived of relevant evidence of the president s offenses. When injury judging these most serious charges. It would also be unfair to the American People that overwhelmingly believe the president should produce all relevant documents and evidence. Now, documentary evidence is used in all trials for a simple reason as the story goes. The documents dont lie. Documents give objective realtime insight into the events under investigation. The need for such evidence is especially important in Senate Impeachment trials. More than 200 years of Senate Practice make clear that documents are generally the first order of business. Theyve been presented to the senate before witnesses take the stand in great volume to ensure the senate has the evidence they needs to evaluate the case. Now, documentary evidence in Senate Trials has never been limited to the documents sent by the house. The senate throughout its existence has exercised its Authority Pursuant to its clear rules of procedure to subpoena documents at the outset of the trial. We dont know with certainty what the documents will say. We want the truth. Whatever that truth may be. So do the American People. They want to know the truth. So should everybody in this chamber regardless of our party affiliation. Theres key reasons why this amendment is necessary. Well begin by walking through the history and precedent of Senate Impeachment trials. Ill let you know about the houses efforts to get the documents which were met by the president and his administrations categorical commitment to hide all the evidence at all costs. Well address the specific need for these subpoenaed white house documents. Ill tell you why these documents are needed now. Not at the end of the trial, in order to ensure a full, fair trial based on the complete evidentiary report. Some have suggested incorrectly that the senate is limited only to evidence gathered before the house approved its articles of impeachment. Others have suggested also incorrectly that it was somehow strange for the senate to issue subpoenas. These claims are without any historical precedent or legal support. The past two centuries, the senate has always understood that its sole power under the constitution to true all impeachments to require the senate to sit as impeachment and hold a trial. The founders assigned Sole Authority only twice in the constitution. First, giving the house sole thought to impeach and second giving the senate Sole Authority to try that impeachment. If the founders had intended for the senate to serve as some kind of appellate body, they would have said that. But no. Instead they wrote this. Article 1, section 3, the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. The senate has always received the relevant documents in impeachment trials and indeed the senates own rules of procedure and practice make clear that new evidence will be considered. Precedent shows this. All 15 full Senate Impeachment trials considered new evidence. Lets look at a few examples that show the senate takes new evidence in impeachment trials. The first ever president ial impeachment trial in 1868 against president Andrew Johnson allows the house managers to spend the first two days of the trial introducing new documentary evidence. It was the same in judge pickerings trial in 1804. New documents were presented a week before house managers made their Opening Statement and later through the trial. And has been mentioned earlier by mr. Schiff, in modern times in 2010, George Porteous trial had seven months of pretrial discovery and seven pages of documentary evidence admitted at trial after the evidence was admitted the senate held its trial. President clintons case did not involve subpoenas for documents. Now why was that . Because president clinton had already produced a huge trove of documents. The counsel turned over to congress some 90,000 pages of relevant documents gathered in the years long investigation. I remember going to the floor building, looking at the boxes of the documents. Even with all of those documents, the clinton trial included the opportunity to prevent new evidence and admission of additional documents and three witnesses. The clinton impeachment precedent also shows how President Trumps refusal to produce any relevant documents in response to congressional subpoenas is different than past president s. Different from president clinton. Different from president johnson. And even president nixon. In short, not a single president has categorically refused to cooperate with an impeachment investigation. Not a single president has issued a blanket direction to his administration to produce no documents and no witnesses. These are the precedents a senate must rely on. The senate should issue a subpoena for documents at the very outset of the proceedings so that this body, the house managers, the president can all account for those documents in their presentations and deliberations. It doesnt make sense to request and receive documents after the partys present their cases. The time is now to do that. So why is the amendment needed to prevent President Trump from continuing his categorical commitment to hide the evidence . In this case the house sought white house documents. Why . Its not because we didnt try. Its because the white house refused to give them to us. The president s defense team says the white house will not provide documents without regard to whether or not it is privileged. They apparently believe that congress authority is subject to the approval of the president. But thats not what the constitution says. Our constitution sets forth a democracy with a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one and certainly not the president is above the law. Now even president nixon produced more than 30 transcripts of white house recordings and notes and meetings with the president. Here even before the house launched the investigation that led to this trial, President Trump rejected Congress Constitutional responsibility to use its Lawful Authority to investigate his actions. He asserted his administration was fighting all the subpoenas. Proclaiming i have an article 2 or i have the right to do whatever i want as president. Heres what he said. Then i have an article 2 where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. Even after the house formally announced its investigation of the president s conduct in ukraine, the president still continued his obstruction beginning on september 9, 2019, the house investigative committees made two attempts to voluntarily obtain documents from the white house. The white house refused to engage with frankly or even respond to the House Committees. On october 4, the House Committee on oversight and reform sent a subpoena to White House Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. This time compelling the production of documents and the white house by october 18. On october 8 before the white house documents were due, the white House Counsel sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi stating that President Trump and his administration cannot participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances. The president simply declared that he will not participate in an investigation that he didnt like. Ten days later, on october 18, the white House Counsel sent a letter to the house confirming that it would continue to stone wall. The white House Counsel again stated the president refused to participate. Well, the constitution, article 1 section 2 set the house will have the sole power of impeachment just as in article 1, section 3, the senate has a sole power to try. Participation in a duly authorized congressional investigation is not option. Its not up to the president to decide whether to participate or not. The constitution gives the house the sole power of impeachment. It gives the senate the sole power to trial impeachments. The president may not like being impeach. But its the president , not the its the president , not the congress decides when impeachment proceedings are appropriate, then the impeachment power is no power at all. If you let him block from congress and from the American People the evidence to cover up his offenses, then the impeachment power truly will be meaningless. With all the back and forth about these documents, we heard the phrase executive privilege. His lawyers have said it. They talked about hiding the truth, withholding information. Thats a distraction. Thats not what the constitution provides. The truth is as has been mentioned by mr. Schiff, in the course of the entire impeachment inquiry, President Trump has not once asserted executive privilege. Not a single time. It was not the reason provided by mr. Cipollone for refusing to comply with the houses subpoena. President trump didnt offer legal justification for withholding the evidence. Heres the truth. President s, members of congress, judges and the Supreme Court have recognized throughout our nations history that Congress Investigative power are at their absolute peak during impeachment proceedings. Your powers. Executive privilege cannot be a barrier to give absolute secrecy to cover up wrong doing. If it did, the house and the senate would see their power disappear. When president nixon tried that argument by refusing to produce tape recordings to prosecutors and to congress, he was soundly rebuked by the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him. The house Judiciary Committee voted that he be impeach for obstruction of congress. It would be remarkable for the United States senate to declare for the first time in our nations history that the president has an absolute right to decide whether his own impeachment trial is legitimate. It would be extraordinary for the senate to refuse to seek important documentary evidence, especially when the president has yet to assert any privilege to justify withholding documents. Now, theres another reason this amendment is important. The documents sought are directly relevant to the president s misconduct. The white house is concealing documents involving officials who have direct knowledge of key events at the heart of this trial. This isnt just a guess. We know these documents exist from the witnesses who testified in the house and from other public release of documents. Lets walk through those specific documents that the white house should send to the senate. They include among other documents relating to President Trumps direct communications with president zelensky, President Trumps request for political investigations including communications with rudy guliani, ambassador sondland and others. The president s unlawful hold of the 391 million of military aid. Concerns that white house officials reported to nsc Legal Counsel in rile time. The president s decision to recall ambassador marie yovanovitch. The first set of documents the senate should get about the president S Communications with the president of ukraine would include the phone calls on april 21 and july 25. As well as the september 25, 2019 meeting with president zelensky in new york. We know, for example, that nsc officials prepared talking points for the president in preparation for both calls with ukrainian president. The talking points were from congress and the Trump Administration itself. They didnt include any mention of the bidens or the 2016 election interference or investigations that President Trump requested on the july 25th call. Heres a clip of Lieutenant Colonel vindman explaining how the president ignored the points about american policy reflecting the views of both the congress and the Trump Administration. Colonel vindman, if i could turn your attention to the april 21 call, the first call between President Trump and president zelensky. Did you prepare talking points for the president to use during that call . Yes, i did. Did those talking points include rooting out corruption in ukraine . Yes. That was something the president was supposed to raise in the conversation with president zelensky . Those were the recommended talking points that were cleared through the nsc staff for the president , yes. The materials provided for the july 25th call that Lieutenant Colonel vindman mentioned are highly relevant. They could help confirm that the president s actual statements to president zelensky were unrelated to the Foreign Policy objectives of his own administration and show that they served his own personal interests at the expense of americas National Security interests. These documents also include handwritten notes and other documents that white house officials generated during the calls and meetings. We know for example that Lieutenant Colonel vindman, mr. Morrison, Jennifer Williams all testified to taking handwritten notes during the july 25th call. Miss williams, and Lieutenant Colonel vindman both testified that president zelensky made a reference to burisma that was not included in the memorandum that the white house released the public. Heres a clip of their testimony. Both of you recall president zelensky in that conversation raising the issue or mentioning burisma. Do you not . Thats correct. Correct. Yet the word burisma appears nowhere in the call record released to the public. Is that right . Thats right. Correct. Why you need documents generated after the calls and meetings . They would shed light on how these events were perceived in the white house and what actions were taken moving forward. For example, National Security adviser john bolton wasnt on the 25th call but he was apparently informed about the contents of the call after ward. Hes reaction once he was informed would be helpful to understanding the extent to which President Trumps actions deviated from american policy and American Security interests. Theres another set of documents that the senate should get. They relate to the political investigations that President Trump hand his agents repeatedly asked ukrainian officials to announce. These documents about efforts to pressure ukraine to announce investigations and the decision to place a hold on military aid to ukraine, they would be very important for you to evaluate the president s conduct. For example, ambassador bolton is a firsthand witness to the president s abuse of power. He reported directly to the president. He supervised the entire staff of the National Security counsel. Public reports indicate that john bolton is a voracious note taker. From witness testimony we know that ambassador bolton hosted the july 10 meeting where ambassador sondland said the white house meeting would be announced if they had the investigations. Bolton was briefed about this when ambassador sondland said he had a deal with Mick Mulvaney to schedule the promised white house meeting if ukraine announced investigations in to the bidens and the 2016 election. We also know ambassador bolton was involved in briefing the president on a president ial decision memorandum in august reflecting the consensus interagency opinion that Ukrainian Security assessments was vital to americas National Security. Something that congress had approved, appropriated, something the president had signed. Press reports indicate that he too was involved in a late august Oval Office Meeting where he, secretary pompeo and secretary esper all tried to convince the president to release the aid. Now, ambassador bolton has come forward and publicly confirmed that he was a witness to important events. But also that he has new evidence that no one has seen yet. If we know theres evidence that is not yet come out, all of us should want to hear it. We should want to hear it now before ambassador bolton testifies, we should get documents, records relating to his testimony including his notes, which would provide contemporaneous evidence about what was discussed in meetings related to ukraine to help evaluate his testimony. The evidence is not just restricted to ambassador bolton during his public testimony, sondland stated i didnt have access to all of my phone records. He said he and his lawyers asked for these materials. He said the materials would help refresh his memory. We should look at those, that material. Ambassador sondland testified that he exchanged emails with top officials like muck mulvaney to pressure ukraine, to announce the investigations President Trump demanded. Heres his testimony. Let me say precisely because we did not think that we were engaging in improper behavior, we made every effort to ensure that the relevant Decision Makers at the National Security council and the Statement Department new the important details of our efforts. The suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false. I have now identified certain Statement Department emails and messages that provide contemporaneous support for my view. These emails show the leadership of the state department, the National Security council and the white house were all informed about the ukraine efforts from may 23, 2019 until the security aid was released on september 11th, 2019. These emails among others are in the possession precise these emails are in the possession of the white house, the state department and even the department of energy since officials from all three entities communicated together. During his testimony, ambassador sondland described it this way. Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. These emails are there fore important to understanding the full scope of the scheme. The request for relevant evidence is not confined to Trump Administration officials. The senate should also get white house records relating to the president s private agents who acted on his behalf in ukraine, including rudy guliani, victory toensing and joe digenova. Rudy guliani was acting on behalf of the president to announce investigations that would personally and politically benefit the president. For example, the may 10th 2019 letter from mr. Guliani to president elect zelensky has shown on this slide states that he was acting as personal counsel to President Trump with his knowledge and consent. He requested a meeting with the president elect and to be joined by mrs. Toensing who have very familiar with this matter. The evidence indicates that he was collaborating with mrs. Toensing and mr. Digenova in this effort. The senate should have the white house records of meetings, calls involving mr. Guliani, mrs. Toensing or mr. Digenova. This is point to help you understand the white houses efforts to coerce the ukraine to announce the investigation the president wanted. The records would also show how the president s personal political agenda became more important than policies to help americas National Security interests. The president s counsel made consistent with his prior attempts to hide evidence assert that Attorney Client privilege would cover the documents. The president s personal Attorney Client privilege cannot shield evidence of misconduct in office or that of his aides or lawyers participation in corrupt schemes. We are not asking for documents reflecting legitimate legal advice. You need documents about their actions to pressure ukraine to announce an investigation to President Trumps political opponent. Theres a set of white house documents that relate directly to the president s unlawful decision to withhold 391 million appropriated bipartisan to help ukraine. Witnesses have testified that President Trump directly ordered a hold on this Security Assistance despite the unanimous opinion of his agencies that the aid should be released. Importantly, according to the Government Accountability office, his action violated the law. On january 16, 2020, the gao, an independent watch dog issued a legal opinion finding that President Trump violated the law when he held up Security Assistance to ukraine. The gao said and i quote faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that congress enacted into law. Omb withheld funds for a policy reason which is not permitted under the impoundment control act. The withholding was a progmatic delay and therefore we conclude that omb violated the ica. The fact that the president s action to freeze the aid which he used to pressure ukraine to announce the political investigations that he wanted was against not only the official consensus of his own administration, but also against the law and it was help himself. That helps demonstrate these actions were taken for President Trumps personal and political benefit. Witness testimony and public reporting made clear the white house has a significant body of documents that relate to these key aspects of the president s scheme. Some of these documents outline the planning of the president s freeze. For example, the New York Times reported in june that mr. Mulvaney emailed his senior adviser, mr. Blair, did we ever find out about the money for ukraine and whether we can hold it back . This shows that Mister Mulvaney was in the video contact with his aides about the various issues under investigation as part of this impeachment. It tells us that the white house is in possession of communications that go to the heart of the charges before you. This and it should also get materials prepared for sunday notes for the late august meeting with President Trump, mark esper, as secretary of state mike pompeo when they tried to give us the president that freeing freeing up the money for ukraine was the right thing to do. According to the New York Times, and rasir bolton told the president , this was in americas interest. This and it should that highly relevant document which reflects realtime assertions by President Trumps own senior aide that ukrainian aid was in the National Security interest of the United States, and that there was no legitimate reason to hold up the aide. Their documents have included afterthefact justifications to try and overcome legal problems and the unanimous objections to freezing assistance to ukraine. We know these documents exist. For example, on january 3rd, 2020, omb stated in a letter to the New York Times that it had discovered 20 responsive documents consisting of 40 pag pages. Reflecting emails between white house official robert blair and omb official Michael Duffy that relate directly to the freezing of the u. S. Security systems. Omb would not release them in a lawsuit. They have refused to produce these documents at the direction of the president in response to the house is a lawful