Get worried, sometimes what they do is they draft memos. Because when they are concerned about getting caught up in something that doesnt seem right, they dont want to be a part of it. On that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about Ukraine Military aid to acting director it advocated for the release of the funds and said that military aid was consistent with National Security interests, it would help oppose russian aggression and was backed by strong bipartisan support. President trump did not lift the hold. Over the next several weeks, they continued to issue documents that kept kicking the can down the road, supposedly to allow for more of this interagency process. While inserting those footnotes in the apportionment documents saying the delay wouldnt affect the funding. Here is the really shocking pa part. There was no interagency proce process. They made it up. It had ended months before. They made it up because nobody could say the real reason for the hold. In total, omb issued nine of these documents between july 25th and september 10th. Did the white house responded to ombs concerns and recommendation to release the aid . To the white house instruct omb to continue creating a paper trail in an effort to justify the hold . Who knew what and when . Omb documents would shed light on ombs actions as the president s scheme unraveled. Did the white house direct omb to continue issuing the hold . What was omb told about the president s reasons for releasing the hold . What communications did omb officials have with the white house around the time of the release . As the president s scheme unraveled, did anyone at omb connect the dots about the real reasons for the hold . The omb documents would shed light on all of these questions and the American People deserve answers. I remember what it feels like to not have the equipment you need when you need it. Real peoples lives are at stake, thats why this matters. We need this information so we can ensure this never happens again. Eventually this will all come out we will have answers to these questions. The question now is whether we will have them in time and who hear will be on the right side of history. The house managers reserve the balance of our time for an opportunity to respond to the president s argument. Thank you, mr. Sekulow. Thank you mr. Chief justice, members of the senate. Manager crow, you should be happy to know that the aid that was provided to ukraine over the course of the president S Administration included lethal weapons. Those were not provided by the previouS Administration. The suggestion that ukraine failed to get any equipment is false, the Security Assistance was not funding ukraine over the summer of 2019, there was no lack of equipment due to temporary pause, it was for future funding. The ukraine deputy minister of defense that oversaw u. S. Aid shipments said the hold came and went so quickly, they didnt notice any change. Under secretary of state david hale, explained the pause was for future assistance, not to keep the army going now. The made up a narrative that Security Assistance was conditioned on ukraine taking some action on investigations is further disproved by the straightforward fact that the aide was delivered on september 11th 2019 without ukraine taking any action on any investigation. Its interesting to note that the Obama Administration withheld 585 million of promised aid to egypt in 2013 but the administrations public message was the money was not officially on hold as technically it was not due until september 30th. The end of the fiscal year. It sounds like this may be a practice of a number of administrations. To the president , this president has been concerned about how aid is being put forward. There have been pauses on foreign aid in a variety of contexts. In september of 2019, the administration announced it was withholding aid to afghanistan about concerns of government corruption. In august of 2019, President Trump announces the administration and south korea were in talks to substantially increase the military support for south korea, in june President Trump paused over 550 million in foreign aid to el salvador, honduras, and guatemala because those countries were not barely sharing the burdens of preventing mass migration to the United States. This is not the only administration, as i said president obama withheld hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to egypt. To be clear and i want to be clear, ambassador Marie Yovanovitch testified that our policy actually got stronger under President Trump, largely because unlike the Obama Administration, thiS Administration made the decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine to help ukraine fend off russian aggression. She testified in a deposition before your very committees that in the three years that i was there partly because of my efforts but also because of the Interagency Team and President Trumps decision to provide lethal weapons to ukraine that our policy actually got stronger. Deputy assistant secretary kent agreed that javelins are effective in stopping the advance and russians are scared of them. Ambassador voelker explained americas policy toward ukraine strengthened. When we want to talk about facts, go to your own discovery and your own witnesses that you called. This all supposedly started because of a whistleblower. Where is that whistleblower . The house managers have 35 minutes remaining. Mr. Chief justice, in war, time matters. Minutes and hours can seem like years. The idea that it made it there eventually just doesnt work. The aid was provided, it was provided by congress. This senate in the house of representatives with the president s signature, congress is the one that sends the aid. Millions of dollars of this aid would have been lost because of the delay had congress not actually passed another law that extended that deadline to allow the funds to be spent. Let me repeat that, the delay had jeopardized the expenditure of the money to such an extent that congress had to pass another law to extend the deadline so that the money and the equipment got to the people on the front lines. Need i also reiterate the suppose it interagency process, the concerns the president and his counsel continue to raise about corruption and making sure the process went right. There was no interagency process. The whole thing was made up, it was a phantom. There was a delay and delays matter. Mr. Chief justice of reserve the balance of my time for mr. Schiff. Thank you mr. Chief justice, a few additional points i would like to make on this amendment and on my colleagues arguments. First of all, mr. Sekulow makes the point that the aide was ultimately released, they ultimately got the money, right . Yes, they got the money after the president got caught, after the president was forced to release the hold on the aid, after he got caught, yes. But even then, even then they had held onto the aid so long that it took a subsequent act of congress to make sure it could all go out the door. As the president supposed to get credit for that, that we had to intervene because he withheld the aid so long and that is the only reason ukraine got all of the aid that we approved the first place . My colleagues have glossed over the fact that what they did was illegal, that the gao an independent Watchdog Agency found that hold was illegal so it not only violated a law, it took an act of congress to make sure they ultimately got the a aid. This is supposed to be the defense to why you shouldnt see the documents, is that what we are to believe . The council also says he is not the first president to withhold aid, that is true. After all, the council says president obama withheld aid to egypt at the urging of members of congress. Senators mccain and graham urged that aid be withheld and why because theres a revolution in egypt after it was appropriated. That wasnt something that was hidden from congress, that was a pretty darn good reason to think that we still want to give aid to this government after this revolution . We arent saying that aid has never been withheld, thats absurd. I would hope and expect, this is the first time aid has been withheld by a president of the United States to coerce an ally at war to help him cheat in the next election. I think that is a first. What we do here may determine whether its the last. One other thing about this pause in aid to come of the argument no harm no foul. He got caught, they got the aid whats the big deal . As we heard during the trial, its not just the aid. The aid is obviously the most important thing as mr. Crow mentioned, without it, you cant defend yourself and well have testimony about just what kind of military aid the president s withholding we also had testimony that it was the fact of the aid itself that was so important to ukraine, the fact that the United States had ukraines back, and why because this new presence of ukraine, this new untested former comedian president of ukraine at war with russia was going to be going into a negotiation with Vladimir Putin, with an eye to end that conflict and whether he went into that negotiation from a position of strength or position of weakness would depend on whether we had his back. When the ukrainians learned and the russians learned that the president of the United States did not have his back and was withholding this aid, what message do you think that sent to Vladimir Putin . What message do you think it sent to Vladimir Putin when donald trump wouldnt let zelensky in the door of the white house but let the Russian Foreign minister, what message does that send . Its not just the aid, is not just when the aid is delivered, is not just all of the aid delivered, its what message does the freeze send to our friend and even more importantly to our foe . The message it sent was a disaster, it was a disaster. You might ask yourself, President Trump has given lethal weapons to ukraine, you might ask yourself if the president was so concerned about corruption, why did he do that in 2017 and why did he do that in 2018 . Why was it only 2019 that there was a problem, was there no corruption in ukraine in 2017, was there no corruption in ukraine in 2018 . No, ukraine has always battled corruption, it wasnt lack of corruption from one year to another, it was the presence of joe biden as a potential candidate for president , that was the key change in 2019 that made all the difference. It gets back to one of the key moments in this saga. A lot of you are attorneys, probably much better attorneys than i am and im sure you had the experience in cases you tried where there was some vignettes, some conversation, some document that may not have been the most important on its face but it told you something about the case that was much larger than that conversation. For me one of those conversations was not on july 25th between President Trump and president zelensky but on july 26th, the very next day. You may have watched some of the house proceedings or people watching may have seen it, maybe they didnt but there is this seen any ukrainian restaurant, a restaurant in kiev with Gordon Sondland. He said there was absolutely a quid pro quo, this is not some never trumper, this is a milliondollar donor to the trump inauguration. If there is a bias there, its clearly a milliondollar bias in favor of this president , not against him. There is a scene in this restaurant and somnolent has his cell phone and hes sitting with david holmes who was a career diplomat, u. S. Diplomat in the ukraine embassy. Gordon sondland takes out his phone and he calls the white house, it takes a while to be connected but he its connected to the president , thats pretty impressive, this isnt some guy with no relation to the president , this is a guy who picked up his cell phone and can call the president of the United States from a restaurant in kiev and he does and the president s voice is so loud that david holmes is diplomat can hear it. What does the president say . Does he say how is that reform coming . I was the attack on corruption going . No. No, he just says is he going to do the investigation . Is zelensky going to do the investigation . Somnolent says yes. Hell do anything you want, he loves your ass, this is the extent of the interest in ukraine, they go on to talk about other things and then they hang up and david holmes turns to the ambassador and the says in language that i will have to modify to remove an expletive, something along the lines of does the president give a blank about ukraine . And sondland says no, he doesnt give a blank about ukraine, he only cares about the big stuff, like the investigation of the bidens that giuliani wants. This is a milliondollar donor to the trump inaugural admitted in the president doesnt care about ukraine, he doesnt care about whether they get military dollars to defend themselves, he doesnt care about what position zelensky goes into, he doesnt care about that. Thats why he didnt care about corruption in 2017 or 2018 and he certainly didnt care about it in 2019, all he cared about is the big stuff that affected him personally like this investigation that he wanted of the bidens. When you ask do you want to see these documents, do you want to know if these documents corroborate ambassador sondland, will they show that the only thing he cared about was the big stuff that affected him . David holmes response was you know there is some big stuff going on here like a war with russia. This isnt withholding aid to because of a revolution in egypt, this is withholding aid from a country in which 15,000 people have died fighting the russians. As ambassador taylor said and others, rushes fighting to remake the map of europe by dint of military force. We think that is just about ukraines security, we are very deceived it is about our security. Its about the tens of thousands of troops that we have in europe and if we undercut our own ally, if we give russia reason to believe we dont have their back, they will use ukraine as a plaything or worse to get them to help us cheat in election, that will only embolden putin to do more. The only thing he respects his strength, do you think that looks like strength . I think that looks like something Vladimir Putin is only too accustomed to and that is the kind of corruption that he finds and perpetuates in his own regime and he pushes all around the world. My colleague made reference to a conversation which i think is another key vignette in this whole sad saga and that is a conversation that ambassador volker has with andre you yermas with zelensky and ambassador volker is doing exactly what he supposed to be doing hes telling yermak, you guys shouldnt really do this investigation of your former president because it would be for a political reason, you really shouldnt engage in political investigations. As representative deming said what is the response of the ukrainians . The one you want us to do of the bidens and the clintons . Ukraine is not oblivious to that hypocrisy. Mr. Sekulow says what are we here for . Part of our strength is not only our support for our allies and military might, its what we stand for. We used to stand for the rule of law, we used to champion the rule of law around the world. Part of the rule of law is of course that no one is above the law. To be out in ukraine or anywhere else saying dont engage in political prosecutions and having them throw it right back in our face, like th the one you want us to do . Thats why we are here. Thats why we are here. I yield back. The majority leader is recognized. I send a motion to the desk to table the amendment and ask for yays and nays. Mr. Alexander. Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Bennett. Mrs. Blackburn. This is the third vote to table a motion that we have watched play out over the course of this afternoon trying to get documents from omb this time around, the state Department Prior to that and the white house prior to that and adam schiff going back through highlight moments of the house investigation in terms of dramatic chapters in all of that, this is live coverage of the Senate Impeachment trial of President Trump that we are watching play out here. Im here in washington with bret baier and Chris Wallace and Katie Pavlich. Bret a lot of this is playing out again, we saw the same arguments playing out in the Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee that adam schiff program. You wonder as this is being drawn out in the battle over these amendments that will go down by a Party Line Vote 5347 just like the other two amendments went down. You wonder what the Opening Statement is going to be like and what the following arguments are going to be like if everything is on the floor like this burning Chris Wallace. You have some reporting on the floor from various reporters who are there who reported a few senators nodding off throughout the proceedings, well see if that increases as time goes on. I want to report to the nation that nobody fell asleep at this table, we followed every single second of every single argument, nobody fell asleep. There was discussion of other things like the British Royal family but in any case i agree with you. One of the things that strikes me that this was supposed to be the last hour and hour and a half, it was supposed to be an argument about whether or not to subpoena documents from the office of management and budget. There was time spent on that but particularly in the closing statement made by adam schiff, there was no discussion of that, having said that i think its pretty smart on the part of the democrats, they are taking this time to in effect make their opening arguments, to make the case against the president , to make the case for why the senate needs to hear from more witnesses and evidence and i think to some degree the white house lawyers are making a mistake. Theres nothing to say here, all of this is bogus, the house managers are taking the chance to make the case they want to make and this is being watched by millions of people on three cable channels, i dont know why you wouldnt take the time and every second you have two make an argument on behalf of the president. If i were the president i would not be especially pleased. Were going to talk to Kellyanne Conway in just a few minutes, Katie Pavlich it would seem that is part of their strategy, they want to move this along and they dont necessarily want to spend a lot of time going over territory they feel like is going on before. They feel like its the obligation of house managers and democrats to make their case and they dont have to prove their innocence, the democrats have to prove why they believe the president should be removed from congress. Adam schiff did get closer to why we are here and why the impeachment inquiry in the house is open in the first place and that is because democrats believe the july 25th phone call was improper but if you read a transcript, the president urged earlier today the white house has argued for months now, it was a friendly phone call. There may be some questionable sentences about what the president is exactly asking for but you go to the u. N. In september and president zelensky says there was no pressure. Adam schiff made the argument ukraine was in dire straits and this was a dire situation without u. S. Aid and it seems to me the ukrainians have been making the opposite argument. Jay sekulow whos on the white House Counsel team came up and made the argument as well that the aid being paused was not an uncommon occurrence for President Trump, he brought up the issue of egypt and other countries the president has withdrawn aid from in response to corruption. Im not sure if you are sitting at home you look at the aid question and to say im glad the president didnt ask any questions about where my tax dollars are going, i think you say im glad theres somebody looking out for where my money is going and whether its going to have foreign corruption in ukraine. I have a prediction, i think it will be 5347, im pretty sure. You can see senators sitting there on the front of their desk, they been there all day. They cant leave, they can take breaks, they are pretty much stuck there, they can drink milk and drink water, they are stuck on their desks and we are told there will be another amendment in the pipeline here. This can continue. I feel like we are right in their shoes, we have been there the entire afternoon in the same kind of restrictions except we dont have any milk. 5347. The democratic leader is recognized. Mr. Chief justice, i send an amendment to the desk to issue a subpoena to Mick Mulvaney and i ask that it be read. This is the next amendment, this is a subpoena to hear the acting white house chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and they are reading the amendment now. This is a change in his other amendments, the minority leader has been offering all afternoon, this is the first subpoena if you go back to some of the documents the democrats submitted earlier, they talk about Mick Mulvaney, this is going to be a different type of debate, not so much about documents but specifically hearing about persons and testimony and Mick Mulvaney is a number one here. What we have been told by the Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell is once they read this amendments they will take a 30 minute dinner break. If they will debate that afterwards. We are looking at a 9 00 before they get the disposition of that. What still remains on the table is the question about whether or not there will be a late night closed session and Mitch Mcconnell right now is announcing there will be a 30 minute recess. Moved to table the amendment because votes on witnesses and evidence as ive repeatedly said are addressed in the underlying resolution. I asked the senate stand in recess until 8 00 p. M. Without objection, so ordered. There was a quest for a subpoena at a specific witness, Mick Mulvaney. Mitch mcconnell is a saying that doesnt count, thats not what were doing at this stage in the game, that will happen after we hear the 24 hours of arguments on both sides, he tabled that and gave everyone a 30 minute break for dinner. We are going to take a quick break, weve got exclusive first reaction from the white house and Kellyanne Conway is joining us in studio next. Beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. Ladiladidi entresto is a Heart Failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. Entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. Heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. Entresto helps improve your hearts ability to pump blood to the body. Dont take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. Dont take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if youve had angioedema with an ace or arb. The most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. The beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for Heart Failure. Ask your doctor about entresto for Heart Failure yeah entrust your heart to entresto. The beat goes on martha back continuing coverage of the senate trial, we are here with exclusive reaction from the white house. Joining us here on set as Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president. Bret how much have you watched . Quite a bit, and very impressive day for the perspective of the white house for the following reasons. This is our first time to argue the facts of the case and we have a full throated defense of the facts which is a very robust offense. I believe that Pat Cipollone and jay sekulow were calm and confident in arguing for why we should start the same rules that apply to the clinton impeachment 21 years ago. His main point was we have 100 senators, complete bipartisan agreement that those rules when the last president was impeached were fair, everybody felt it was a fair process. Why would you pregame the system now and argue if you are Chuck Schumer or adam schiff for these other folks today, its not fair, not enough, start with that and then make your argument. I didnt think it was a particularly strong day for the democrats because much of this weve heard before, they seem to be marching in place and they are arguing about not having enough time seems to be really specious because you dont need much time if your two articles of impeachment are thin. They came to the two articles from the factfinding chamber, they have obstruction of congress, whatever that means, and abuse of power. Maybe theyd need would more time if they had bribery, extortion, quid pro quo, russia collusion, if the mueller testimony or the Mueller Investigation were entered into the record but they dont have any of that, everything they promised us for years now would happen hasnt happened and they couldnt include it in the articles. Martha one of the things they keep bringing up as a request for documents in the argument that adam schiff just made is if you had a good motivation for withholding that money from ukraine for that period of time during that window, why not produce the documents that show that . If you havent done any if you know it wasnt for political purpose, why not prove it by saying here is Mick Mulvaney, here is the players that were in that discussion when we talked about the concerns we had about corruption . Thankfully thats not the way american jurisprudence works for any of us including the president of the United States. Its bad enough in my view that the democrats want the senate to fill in all the gaps they failed to complete when they had their chance as a factfinding body, that is bad enough but now to ask the executive branch to do that, they failed to go to the other coequal branch, they fail to take some of their open questions to the judiciary. They should have done that, professor Jonathan Turley made that point, he said you didnt even invoke the Judicial Branch to ask about the questions of executive privilege. They rushed through and now they want the senate and the executive branch to fill in the blanks. American jurisprudence doesnt work that way, we dont say i think Martha Maccallum is guilty of something, if i could just poke around her private spaces in her house or listen to her friends converse about her im going to find something eventually. It doesnt work that way. I think the democrats prove they have no shame but they have not proved there is no case. I want to repeat a criticism i made it to your face and see how respond to this and it comes to the question of communication strategy. It clearly although they have been debating the three motions, subpoena documents, the democrats have taken full use of their time, the full hour they are allowed to make a lot of their opening argument and particularly at the end, adam schiff making a strong rhetorical argument as to what the president did wrong, why its important and why he needs to be removed from office, not just the documents. I guess the thing that surprises me a little on the part of the white house lawyers is that oftentimes they are only taking 20 minutes of their our i understand the argument, there is nothing to see here we dont need to dignify this but the democrats are at least using every minute they have and their viewers out there every minute to say heres our case. Your site isnt. Dont confuse repetitive with relevant. Chris repetitive doesnt hurt to. Anything times zero still equals zero. If they say a thousand times and what they are saying is a sugar high for them or a viral moment, its repetitive of what they told us in the house, adam schiff was the intel chairman, first he was in the of the basement of the capital doing what he was doing and we still dont have access to some of the evidence that is unbelievable that the president s lawyers still to this moment would not have access what if there is exculpatory evidence in there . Chris republican members of congress who were there. They tell us they have the public as well. Unlike the house proceeding at least a trial is familiar to most americans, they sat on the jury, they know how the trials work. They know many times the defense will say now its time for the defense, do you have an Opening Statement . Sure . The defense rests, thats the defense says youve got no case. The burden of proof always rests on the prosecutors table. You want to remove him from office under the constitution . You prove the case. I dont think its a matter of time so much as a substance and i have said all along that for the president full and fair trial does not mean quick or protracted, short or long, it means full and fair. If you can accomplish that in shorter order, fine, if it does go longer because maybe youve given to witnesses later on, thats fine too. The idea for 24 hours for each side to make its case is not sufficient when you are only dealing with two charges seems to be very vacuous. Bret the president has said publicly and in fact they played clips during the house managers time saying sure, lets hear from john bolton, lets hear from Mick Mulvaney, i want to be clear, i want to be acquitted, lets get this hoax he repeats that over and over again, that its a hoax, over and over again. Are you worried that vocal republicans are going to join to say yes we want to hear the witnesses . We respect the process under the constitution which means the senators are the jury, they will make the decision motion by motion, issue by issue as to what they want to do. I believe senators like senator Susan Collins made that point too, she was around during the clinton impeachment, we didnt get to the matter of witnesses until after we heard the arguments. If people talking about witnesses really are proving my point that they have no case. If they want us all to focus on witnesses which procedurally should not take place anytime soon because they dont want you to focus on the substance. You have a law lecturing us about bribery, extortion, quid pro quo, they want you to talk about witnesses. The reason the president says he wants to hear from Mick Mulvaney is because theres nothing to hide. Taking the extraordinary step of releasing a call with a foreign leader which by its very nature meant that he declassified it, by the very nature they declassified communications for the purposes of releasing it and being transparent and accountable. Even today and leading up to this, you hear democrats mischaracterizing what was said in the call where you have a transcript of the call. He said do me a favor. No he didnt, he said do us a favor he said talking about biden and his son, youre darn right he was. The new yorker had a big cover story, will Hunter Bidens dubious business dealings and a tumultuous personal life interfere with his fathers president ial campaign . People were talking about it, they dont do that now but they were raising questions and the president talks about corruption with president zelensky. President trump agrees with the ukrainian people who overwhelmingly elected a president who was running very clearly and boldly on a platform of anticorruption. Martha with regard to john bolton the president said he would want to hear from him. He has said now which is past the timeline of the house investigation so this is new information, he would be willing if subpoenaed we saw the subpoena for Mick Mulvaney, what they do anything to restrict his testimony if he is called . Executive privilege is sacrosanct, we shouldnt take it lightly because certain people dont want him to be president. That up the president saying lets hear from these people, these lawyers have told him how this affects the presidency and the institution and executive privilege moving forward is very important. Its a threshold question for someone like me do we want to impair or subvert executive privilege just because a certain people want the drama to continue. I remember the clinton impeachment 21 years ago, some of the people i worked with were in high school i like to remind them, for those of us who remember, there were witnesses that actually testified to. They had already spoken, they werent brandnew in the senate. I think he had been deposed already and had given testimony, i think everyone who wants to see john bolton marching in, they are going to be sorely disappointed because so much of this will probably be done quietly behind the scenes. I think we are a long way away from that and i think we should take this bit by bit but today i heard tons of repetition, even adam schiffs remarks just now before they went on dinner break and struck me as a wasted opportunity for the democrats because we already heard all of this from adam schiff before, somehow hes able to hold court like hes on tv shows and say whatever he wants with nobody objecting remind everybody, hes not under oath. Witnesses would be under oath. The people we saw in question would be under oath. Martha Amy Klobuchar is speaking right now. I think this isnt the place to play those kinds of politics and we are there to do our duty, we will sit there to the very end and look at the evidence. I can do two things at once, i am a mom and i will find one way or another to run for president. We are gaining momentum right now, while im here my job is to listen to this evidence. One of the things i say that struck me today is a former prosecutor is number 1, you dont put evidence and witnesses on at the end, you tend to do that at the beginning, your question should be of witnesses, a lot of trying to get witnesses. The second thing is this is about the truth and i dont know how my colleagues, many of whom who i get along with and know well and have worked with, i keep looking over at them thinking come on come on now. You know we should at least hear from Mick Mulvaney, you know we should hear from john bolton. You cant have all the smoking gun emails out there and not get to the facts and if the president believes that somehow this information is going to exonerate him, what is he afraid of . [reporter questioning] i thought adam schiffs argument at the end and i have made some of these arguments myself, he put it in the National Security context, the argument is why do we need this evidence . Russia was watching, russia has been watching the whole time and having been to ukraine with ambassador yovanovitch along with senator mccain and the senator graham and stood on that front line new years eve right after donald trump got elected where senator mccain made the point of bringing us there because he wanted to send a clear message to russia that america stood with our allies, that america stood with ukraine and to think about the fact that they are watching as this president , President Trump holds back the aid and messes around with it, they are watching to see, this is a country they have literally invaded in crimea. They literally have their eyes on and he doesnt even help them out with the aid. I thought that was effective when adam schiff set the end. Bret senator Amy Klobuchar talking to reporters outside the senate chamber. If you want to respond . If shes interested in truth, here are a couple of inconvenient facts for her and her democratic colleagues. Of course russia invaded crimea on the watch of senator Amy Klobuchar and president barack obama. Inconvenient fact for her, ukraine got its aid. History speaks in large swaths and somebody will say thats a shame ukraine didnt get there aid under President Trump, actually they did that. If they got less of it . Note, they got more of it then in the previouS Administration, they used it for very important defense apparatus, they are using them i think as we speak against foreign aggressors. Chris one of the arguments the democrats made was this specific aid, i agree with you this president has given far more lethal aid than the other president , president obama who gave blankets having said that, this particular aide 391 million that had been approved by congress and certified by the Defense Department that ukraine was not corrupt, this president held it up and releases it after the whistleblower story comes out, after adam schiff says he got caught and he had delayed so long that congress had to pass a new law to release the aid further. That is knitting together the timing is clear. The white house was aware of the whistleblower before the report came out. We were aware of that in august. The whistleblower report made public to the press or the public. It hadnt gotten to congress until just before it released the aide to. Thats not what Amy Klobuchar is saying. Youre too logical for them. Shes saying we should have more evidence. Chris answer the question, youre kind of pivoting off it. It was september 9th, september 10th the story breaks, now the democrats know about the whistleblower and are going to begin an investigation and then on september 11th or 12th, the president releases the aide. Youre saying its a coincidence . Yes, why wouldnt it be . Nobody has presented any evidence the president ever intended for ukraine not to get that aid and in fact they have it. The ukrainian president wanted a meeting in the oval office, we get requests from every head of state, this gentleman got two meetings. If the Vice President had a meeting with you, hes the number two they got elected together. He gets a meeting just a month after he is sworn into office just two months after the parliamentary election five months after his election, he has a meeting with President Trump. We fulfilled that request. I think a very important point to make too, senator klobuchar and others if shes running for president , she shouldnt be there, she should be in iowa. She already decided how shes going to vote. Chris by law she has to be there. Let me make my point. If she were being honest as a fact finder, she would tell everybody, ive already decided how im going to vote. Martha she would say i would like to hear from these other witnesses, i want to ask you another question about Gordon Sondland saying to the president on the phone, yes he is going to do the investigation the day after he talks to zelensky, that would appear to tie the aide to the investigation. Sondlands testimony buried so much, i think taken together it ended up being a hot mess. His quid pro quo claim was about a meeting, it wasnt about the aide and that was very confusing too many people who heard a quid pro quo quid pro quo and all of a sudden they are latin aficionados. I hadnt heard quid pro quo in quite a while. There was no investigation there was no investigation. The aide was released. You need ukraines help to beat joe biden as much as you needed russia to beat hillary clinton. Its right there. Amy klobuchar another sign that we need more evidence, more witnesses at the same time her colleagues are going the evidence is overwhelming. Which is it . Bret last week you have the split screen with the china deal in the usmca. This week the president isnt davos. Whats the plan as it continues . Is it to put him in these positions all over the place out on the about or see could be watching from the white house . The president s schedule be no different. Hes been one of the most active, energetic president s in my lifetime. The accomplishments speak for itself three years in. The trade deals, the Supreme Court justices. That sounds like two terms to me. When the president went to davos, it was to talk about the economic miracle that is the United States of america right now. The number of jobs that have been created not just lowwage jobs but the wage growth in the wage boost has been in the lower half of wage earners. Expendable collarbone. Its the fact that we are net exporters of natural gas and oil for the First Time Ever and we are exporting to places like poland. That cant make russia happy. The president s economic agenda and the trade deals, he said i want bilateral trade deals but they have to be reciprocal and fair. Why were we caring half a trillion dollar annual debt with china, the second largest economy. Now we have an enforceable in writing deal with china and the projections on that will be that the chinese will buy 200 billion in goods. Usmca helps farmers, manufacturers, ranchers. 176,000 jobs predicted by the nonpartisan predictors. I happen to know what the rest of his week looks like and you have some exciting things coming up. Martha ive got to go. Do you think this wraps up by the state of the union . It may but we have february 4 circle. This president should go to the n address the country. The state of the union is strong. National security, Economic Security and he wants to project forward all the good hes going to do in 2020 to build on the successes. Martha a quick couple thoughts. Do we have time . Lets go to dana. The white houses most effective 10 minutes were the ones just now by Kellyanne Conway. She can talk about the whole picture. She was not mired in the details. I find it hard to believe democrats made any kind of splash say. This is the democrats fourth attempt in that. I dont think they moved the needle but we will be here again tomorrow. Bret 30 seconds and i am timing you. I think the democrats had a pretty good day. They made it clear dont let the president decide on the legitimacy of an impeachment in the congress and secondly i think they put the republicans on the defensive in terms of are you shielding this president by denying the American People the opportunity to see the witnesses, to see the documents. The best republicans could do with same wire we hear . Just over a phone call . The reiteration from the democrats is that they are fighting. Ukraine got the aide and if impeachment now turns on the difference between causation and coincidence, we are going to have a lot of impeached president s. Bret we had a long day of coverage, long day of listening and we will continue to every day of this impeachment trial. Martha see you back here tomorrow. Tucker carlson is coming up next just down the hall in washington, d. C. Have a good night, everybody, and get ready for part two as we head into tomorrow. Bret see you. Tucker this is a fox news alert. The Senate Impeachment trial of the president of the United States is still underway on capitol hill. Senators have taken a dinner break. Its all scheduled to begin once more very soon. Were going to listening to the key moments tonight. What exactly is happening . What are you watching . How long will it continue . What does it mean . The man on first is the one to answer those questions. Bill hemmer, host of bill hemmer reports which just premiered yesterday to the delight of everyone at fox news. Thank you. Tucker recovered the last impeachment more than 20 years ago