States senate and the American People look away from the evidence. Look away from the charges. And this is an attempt to distract us in the job in front of us. Which is to determine the veracity of those two articles of impeachment, which are clearly to your point. One of them about the president s attempt to interfere in the election in 2020. By encouraging a Foreign Government to actually manipulate the process. I know you have to run, but im going to let Claire Mccaskill jump in real quick. That was a record role call vote. I want it right. You get everybody in that room and they cant leave. Thats what you get. I want to ask you, if in fact there is a vote to allow bolton to testify, are you all discussing what you do in terms of your play on them trying to keep that testimony behind closed doors under some kind of bogus, its classified . Yes, well, i think there is
probably theres consent among all democrats there should be nothing closed about this process at all. Skbluing in particular boltons testimony. You know, were going to see what mcconnells up to, and what their strategy is, and im sure theyre going to probably attempt to have him testify if he does in closed session, we are going to argue vociforously against that. Thank you for spending time with us. Were grateful. Were going to liston Chuck Schumer who is speaking right now. The real test will be witnesses and documents. Will our republican senators pressure mcconnell so we really have witnesses and documents produces. Either now or after the arguments are made. And one other point. Im not answering questions. We hear a lot about arguments from the president s council. None of them directly address
why there shouldnt be documents. I dont agree with that, but they dont argue one, they dont make a single argument. That speaks volumes. That was senator Chuck Schumer underscoring the democratic message of the day. If this is a trial, if this is the real deal, the pursuit of justice for the most powerful person in our country, why no witnesses, why no documents . Any theories. I dont know. I dont know about theories, in listening to all of this. And coming to this point in the day, i want to throw it back to the American People a little bit. You got very smart people. Lawyers and senators and others sitting around. I want to see something organic from the people on this, this is a big deal. I mean, the president of the United States has been
impeached. You have one party basically saying nothing to see here, just keep moving on. Do we really want to go there . Is that the space we want to be in as americans, where this process is so dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of ugly and stupid, people dont care. I dont believe that, i think that right now as we start to see all of these votes, this should be a check on us as americans to go wait a minute, youre going to hold off getting facts into evidence . Getting witnesses testimony into evidence before you after you make a decision . How does that work. Can i have that trial the next time im called up to court. You tickled my funny bone with this. I think when you treat voters like theyre stupid, you lose. It is true that the trump base has an emotional connection to donald trump. And he has more latitude than
any politician in our countrys history, and probably ever will. However, when you call something a trial and you forbid witnesses, you are straining those bonds. As chuck has noted, its a trial. We all know what that means. And could you imagine if you go into a courtroom tomorrow and the defense or prosecutor says, we want all the testimony to wait until after the jurys made a decision. What would you say . You think this is fair to donald trump . You think he is served by this . I mean, if this was the perfect call then youd have the perfect evidence to back up the perfect call. And youd want that out there i would think. A source close to the president says theres a reason trump wont back off the description of the call. There may be others just like it. That could be true, and also, he has to run for office. So he wants to run for office saying it was a perfect call. And just to follow up, this is america. This is a country which should actually face hard truths. Whatever the evidence is, we have to look at it, this is not ukraine. This is where this country is supposed to believe in the rule of law, and people are supposed to follow it. That means whatever the witnesses are, whatever the documents is, it is what it is, and you have to look at it, if it turns out its bad for the democrats, so be it, same thing for the republicans. Isnt ukraine investigating something were not. Nah. The irony is really incredible that for decades we have been fighting for ukraine to impose the rule of law, and now we are exporting corruption to ukraine. Its just remarkable whats
happened. Say more about that. That was amazing. The state Department Witnesses talked about this. They saw what was happening in ukraine, what they were fighting against. They were trying to get that country to be more western, to have a rule of law, to not have a corrupt system. And then you have the president of the United States calling to say i want you to go on a fishing expedition for my political opponent. Could you imagine if the president of the United States did that in the United States and said, i want the attorney general of the United States to just open a criminal investigation into every democrat . I think he and he wanted that. I think thats remarkable. That is why there is an impeachment proceeding, this is supposed to be a country based on the rule of law. We have in the record and i believe it was part of the mueller report, donald trump i think it was don mcgann that was somehow involved or asked about this in volume two of the
mueller report. Gone ald trump is on the record as wanting his political enemies, Hillary Clinton and jim comey investigating a prosecutor. That is you guys are talking about where are we . This is where we are. That was one of bars questions, that he kind of never really answered the question, has the president asked you to investigate . Yeah. What do you mean by asked . Yeah, like what is yeah, yeah. The thing i want to point out about the trump legal team, you know, lawyers value their reputation. It is a very important commodity in the world of the law. And we have a legal team. First, lets take alan dershowitz. Who has gotten to the point that hes saying on national tv, im more correct now. I mean, explain. He said back years ago. That you did not have to have a
crime underneath an impeachment. And theres some complicated law there, blackstone, and the fact that there was common law in england. Everybody agrees its a constitutional expert, with the exception of alan dershowitz. You dont have to have a violation of a specific statute to have impeachment. Now hes saying the opposite, hes going to argue it tomorrow or the next day or whenever they put on their case. When he was confronted with that, rather than saying, ive changed my mind or i was wrong. He says, well, im more correct now. Every lawyer in america went what . This is not how you speak as a lawy lawyer. You do not do that. Its trumpian. He would never agree hes made a mistake. Then you look at cipollone
today. They are showing how much they have morphed in the lawyers trump wants them to be. Rudy giulianis defense we dont call him a lawyer. Trump does. Giulianis answer to George Stephanopolous wasnt no way i won the do it again. Whenever theres been a criminal look see into donald trump. Whether it was the Campaign Finance scheme into Michael Cohen that hes now sitting in jail for. The criminality is always discovered. Hes an unindicted coconspirator by the southern
district of new york. Hes not denying he withheld military assistance because he wanted investigations what else is a lawyer supposed to do. What do you is, you do the best job you can representing your client without ruining your reputation. These people are doing serious damage to their reputations. You agree . Yes. I dont feel sorry for them in the least. I was making a list. Lets assume you dont want facts and you dont want evidence and you dont want documents. What would the potential reasons be. One reason is, we dont have time, it takes too long. We need to expedite this process and get on with the nations business. Another argument would be, we dont care. Were decided. So whatever you might put into evidence doesnt matter to us, weve already made up our minds, lets vote on this and go home. I think the third most likely reason is because the facts are going to kill us. That can only be the reason you dont want to hear it when we tried cases in federal court, you would get an objection from a defense attorney, and she might say, objection, its irrelevant. I think what shes actually saying is objection, its killing me. If something was truly irrelevant, why would you object to its introduction . Theyre not even trying to bury the lead here, john bolton would kill him. John bolton would bury him. Hes already appeared in this trial, in the house side, through the testimony of fiona hill and colonel vinman. He thought it was illegal, a drug deal and his testimony would kill him. He thought the ukrainian matter was a drug deal. Thats only what we know of john boltons thinking from other people who are one removed from the president. These are people who spoke not to the president but to john bolton. Imagine if john bolton were subpoenaed to testify, and he was inclined to tell the truth and to do so fully. Executive privilege didnt preclude him from doing that. Thats just the tip of the iceberg, nicole. I would imagine that it would be incredibly compelling and damning. Thats why they dont want it. Tip of the iceberg, whats underneath, both of you. You know john bolton, whats underneath the tip . Well, i imagine, theres somewhat informed conjecture that the president did exactly what we think he did. He didnt really want an investigation of joe biden, he wanted the announcement of around investigation of joe biden. If you really wanted an investigation of joe biden, who
would you ask to do it . The department of justice. Not ukraine. Youre going to go to a country whereby definition you have the president saying, i dont trust ukraine because theyre corrupt. Hes saying i want ukraine to do an investigation and announce an investigation of my political opponent. Its actually stupid, its criminal. Its also stupid politics. If joe and hunter biden did something wrong. Ukraines not going to hold them responsible. American Law Enforcement is. If there was anything there, thats where you go to and you notice there is no doj investigation of them. For very good reason. Theres not a scintilla of evidence. Its the only place you go, for an american president to go and ask for a credible thorough, thoughtful investigation is an american Law Enforcement agency. We would never ask another country to investigate u. S. Corruption. They may assist because theres witnesses or documents overseas. That would be coordinated through the department of justice and the lead investigationive agency would be the fbi or the cia. Thats the tip of the story line for john bolton. The question, though, do we do we put too much on that particular plate because everyone is making i think some assumptions about the book and whats going to be revealed in the book. We dont know how much he really gets into the narrative. Everyone gets ramped up about the fact that he raises his hands we dont know fully how hes going to relate this narrative to us. And i think from one perspective, republicans dont want to take that risk, which is
why theyre like, we dont need you, bolton stand down. Democrats are willing to take that risk. Its a risk that could potentially blow up, but not move these senators on the back end to vote for more documents, for evidence to come in. Lets go there. How much more do you need from bolton other than bolton to say its been stipulated. He has had weeks now to say it wasnt true. Its already been stipulated by his deputies that he called it a drug deal. Its been stipulated he described Rudy Giuliani whos under criminal federal investigation. How much more do you need . And you went right to the sweet spot i was trying to get to. Thats exactly right. Theres a lot of stuff thats already out there from the bolton world, the bolton narrative in conversations that have been put there by people
who worked with him and for him. And so the question is does he then back them up or is he backing up their stories . I think whats already on the table. I dont know how much you really are hunkering to get bolton in front of the committee at this point. We already have a lott of what hes already said took place. We dont have, michael, is conversations he had directly with the president. Thats where youre going to get into an executive privilege conundrum. I dont think weve had a lot of discussion about whether it applies. I believe once youre into impeachment, if any president can say executive privilege by somebody in my cabinet, then to cover up i dont think legally, i think the decision could be contained within the senate im not sure it would have to be litigated up and down the federal system. The Supreme Court justice could argue on that right, but a president could wave executive privilege. Theres an argument he has. In is all getting underway again. Mr. Schiff, you have an hour, and well be able to reserve time for rebuttal. Chief justice roberts, senator Senators Council from the white house. I am val demmings from the state of florida. The house managers strongly support the amendment toll issue a subpoena for documents to the state department. As we explained, the first article of impeachment charges the president with using the power of his office to solicit and pressure ukraine to announce
investigations that everyone in this chamber knows to be bogused. The president didnt care if an investigation was actually conducted just that it was announced. Why . Because this was for his own personal and political benefit. The first article further charges that the president did so with corrupt motives, and that his use of power for personal gain harmed the National Security of the United States. As a second article of impeachment charges, the president sought to conceal evidence of this conduct. He did so by ordering his entire administrati administration, every office,
every official to defy every subpoena. Served in the house impeachment inquiry. No president in history has ever done anything like this. Many president s have expressly acknowledged they couldnt do anything like this. President trump did not take these extreme steps to hide evidence of his innocence. Or to protect the institution of the presidency. As a career Law Enforcement officer, i have never seen anyone take such extreme steps to hide evidence allegedly proving his innocence. And i do not find that hear today. The president is engaged in this coverup because he is he guilty. And he knows it. And he knows that the evidence he is concealing will only further demonstrate his culpability. Notwithstanding this effort to stonewall our inquiry. The house amassed powerful evidence of the president s high crimes and misdemeanors. 17 witnesses, 130 hours of testimony combined with the president s own admissions on phone calls and in public comments. Confirmed and corroborated by hundreds of texts, emails and documents. Much of that evidence came from patriotic nonpartisan decorated officials in the state department. They are brave men and women who honor their obligations under the law and gave testimony required by congressional subpoena in the face of the
president s taunts and insults. These officials describe the president s campaign to induce and pressure ukraine to announce political investigations. His use of 391 million of vital military aid, taxpayer money appropriated by congress as leverage to force ukraine to comply. And is withholding of a meeting desperately sought by the newly elected president of ukraine. This testimony was particularly compel i compelling because the state department is at the very center of President Trumps wrongdoing. We heard firsthand from diplomatic officials who saw up close and personnel, personal
what was happening. And who immediately sounded the alarms. Ambassador William Taylor who returns to ukraine in june of last year as acting ambassador. Text other state Department Officials. I think its crazy to withhold security assistants for help with a political campaign. Ambassador to the Ukraine European Union gordon sondland. Who was delicated authority over ukraine matters, by nonother than President Trump testified. We knew these investigations were important to the president. And we followed the president s orders. And david holmes, a senior official at the u. S. Embassy in kiev said it was made clear that
some action on a Burisma Biden investigation was a condition for an oval office meeting. During their testimony many of these state Department Officials described specific documents, including Text Messages, emails, former diplomatic cables. And notes that would corroborate their testimony. And shed additional light on President Trumps corrupt keep. For instance ambassador taylor who raised concerns that military aid had been commissioned on the president s demand described a little notebook in which he would take notes on conversations he had with key officials. Ambassador sondland referred by day and recipient to emails on
the president s demand of political investigations. As well see through emails that were sent to some of President Trumps top advisers. Including acting white house chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Secretary of state michael pompeo. And secretary of energy rick perry. Deputy assistant secretary of state george ken who oversaw matters in the state department wrote at least four memos to file, to document, concerning conduct he witnessed or heard. And ambassador volcker, the special representative for ukraine negotiations, provided evidence that he and other american officials communicated with high level ukrainian
officials. Including president zielinski himself via text message and whatsapp about the president s improper demands and how ukrainian officials would respond to them based on the testimony we received and on evidence that has since emerged all of these documents. And others that we will describe. Bare directly on the allegations set forth in the first article of impeachment. They would help complete our understand i understanding of how the president s scheme unfolded in realtime. They would support the conclusion that senior ukrainian officials understood the corrupt nature of President Trumps demand. They would further expose the extent to which senior trump
administration officials were aware of the president s plot and helped carry it out. Were not talking about a burdensome number of documents, were talking about a specific discrete set of materials held by the state department. Documents the state department has already collected in response to our subpoena but has never produced. We know these materials exist. We know they are relevant and we know the president is desperately trying to conceal them. As i will describe, the senate should subpoena the following. Number one, whatsapp and other text message communications, two, emails, three, diplomatic cables and four notes. Given the significance and relevance of these documents, the house requested that they be
provided. When these requests were denied, when our requests were denied the house issued subpoenas commanding that the documents be turned over. But at the president s direction the department of state unlawfully defied that subpoena, and i stand here now as i stand here now the state department has all these documents in its possession, but refuses based on the president s order. To let them see the light of day. This is an affront to the house, which has full power to see these documents. It is an affront to the senate which has been denied a full record on which to judge the presss guilt or innocence. And it is an afront to the
constitution when states clearly that nobody, not even the president is above the law. And it is an affront to the American People who have a right to know what the president and his allies are hiding from them and why it is being hidden. And prior impeachment trials, this body has issued subpoenas requiring the recipient to hand over relevant documents. It must do so again here. And it must do so now at the beginning of the trial, not the end. Of course, the need for a Senate Subpoena arises because as ive noted, the president ordered the state department to defy a subpoena from the house. At this point id like to
briefly describe our own efforts to get those materials. Ill then address in a more detailed fashion exactly what documents the state department has hidden from the American People and why the senate should require it to turn them over. On september 9th, exercising their article one oversight authority. The House Investigative Committee sought a document request sent a document request to the state department. The committee sought materials related to the president s effort to pressure ukraine to announce investigations into his political rival as well as his dangerous unexplained withholding of millions of dollars in vital military aid. After the state department failed to produce any documents, the House Committee on foreign affairs, issued a subpoena to the state department on september 27th. In a letter on october 1st, secretary pompeo acknowledged receipt of the subpoena. Atta time, he stated he would respond to the committees subpoena for documents by the return date october 4th. But his response never came. Instead on october 8th, President Trumps lawyer writing on the president s behalf, issued a direction confirming the administration would stonewall the impeachment inquiry. To date, the state department has not produced a single document. Not a single document in response to the congressional subpoena. Witnesses who testified indicated that the state department had gathered all of the records and was prepared to produce, provide them before the white house directed it to defy the subpoena. Notwithstanding this unlawful obstruction through the
testimony of brave state department employees, the house was able to identify with remarkable precision. Several categories of documents relevant to the first article of impeachment that are sitting right now right now those documents are sitting right now at the state department. Id like to walk you through four key categories of documents that should be subpoenaed and which illustrate the highly relevant documents the state department could produce. Immediately they could produce them immediately for this trial. The first category consists of whatsapps and other Text Messages from state Department Officials caught up in these events. Including ambassador sondland and taylor, and also Deputy Assistant secretary george kent. All three of whom confirm that they regularly use whatsapp to
communicate with each other and Foreign Government officials. As Deputy Assistant secretary can explain, whatsapp is a dominant form of communication in certain parts of the world. We know the state department possesses the records of whatsapp to these proceedings including from ambassador sondland and taylor. And Deputy Assistant secretary kent. We know that the department is deliberately concealing these records at the direction of the president. And we know that they could contain highly relevant testimony about the president s plan to condition official president ial acts on the announcements of investigations for his own personal and political gain. We know this not only from testimony, but also because
ambassador volcker was able to provide us with the small but telling selection of his whatsapp messages. Those records confirm with the full review of these texts and whatsapp messages from relevant officials would help to paint a vivid firsthand picture of statements, decisions, concerns and beliefs held by important players of events unfolding in realtime. For example, thanks to ambassador volckers messages, we know that ambassador sondland who testified in the house about a quid proquo arrangement texted directly with the ukrainian president , president zelensky. This image produced by
ambassador volcker, exchanged information with president zelensky, the very same visit president zelensky badly needed. And President Trump later withheld as part of the quid proquo. This body and the American People have a right to know what else ambassador sondland and president zelensky said in this and other relevant exchanges in the white house meeting or the military aid and the president s demand but we dont know exactly what was conveyed and when. We dont know if President Trump directed the state department to conceal these vital records. These are records that the state department would have otherwise turned over if not for the president s direction and desire to cover up his wrongdoing. Just consider whether another piece of evidence weve gleaned from ambassador volckers partial production. On july 10th at the white house meetings. Ambassador sondland pressured officials. A Ukrainian Government official texts ambassador volcker. I feel the key for many things is rudy. And im ready to talk with him at any time. This is evidence that immediately following ambassador sondlands ultimatum. Ukrainian officials recognize they need to appease Rudy Giuliani, by carrying out the investigations. Of course, mr. Giuliani had publicly confirmed that he was not engaged in Foreign Policy,
but it was instead advancing his clients. The president s own personal interest. Further in another text Message Exchange provided by ambassador volcker, we see evidence that ukraine understood President Trumps demands lloyd and clear. Ambassador volcker wrote to a senior ukrainian official heard from white house. Assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. We will nail day date for visit for washington. Good luck, see you tomorrow, kurt. Ambassador sondland confirmed this text accurately summarized the president s directive to him
earlier that morning. After the phone call between President Trump and president zelensky, the ukrainian official responded, pointedly. Phone call went well. He then discussed potential dates for a white house meeting. Then the very next day, ambassador volcker wrote to Rudy Giuliani, exactly the right messages as we discussed. These messages confirm mr. Giulianis central role, the premeditated nature of President Trumps solicitation. And the Pressure Campaign on ukraine waged by mr. Giuliani and senior officials at President Trumps direction. Again this is just some of what we learned from ambassador
volckers records. As you will see during this trial presentation. There were numerous whatsapp messages. They were pressuring president zelenskys top aid to issue a statement President Trump doesnt wanted. Ambassador taylors texts you saw earlier about withholding the aid further reveals how much more material there likely is that relates to the articles for impeachment. There can be no doubt that a full production of relevant texts and whatsapp messages from other officials involved with ukraine, including ambassador songd land, ambassador taylor, and Deputy Assistant kent. Would illuminate the malfeasance addressed in our first article. The state department is unlawfully withholding emails involving key state Department Officials concerns interactions and relating to military aid. A white house meeting and the president s demand for investigations into his rivals. For example on july 19th, ambassador sondland spoke directly with president zelensky about the upcoming call between President Trump and president zelensky. Ambassador sondland sent an email updating senior officials, including mulvaney and robert blair. He prepared president zelensky was willing to make the
announcements of political investigations that President Trump desired. Secretary perry and Mick Mulvaney then responded to sondland, acknowledging they received the email in recommendation to move forward with the phone call that became the july 25 call between the president s of the United States and ukraine. We know all of this not because the state department provided us with critical documents, but instead because ambassador sondland provided us a reproduction of the email. In his public testimony, ambassador sondland quite correctly explained that this email demonstrate d everyone wa in the loop. Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on july 19th, days before the president ial call. As i communicated to the team i told president zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with President Trump. Even viewed alone, this reproduced e maim is damning. It was sent shortly after ambassador sondland personally conveyed the president s demand for investigations to ukrainians at the white house. Leading several officials to sound alarms. It was sent just a few days before the july 25 call where President Trump asked for a favor. And by itself, this email shows who was embrawled in president
trumps plan to pressure the ukrainian president for his own political gain but its off yous that the full email chain and other related emails to this key time period would also be highly relevant. We dont have those emails because the state department is hiding them. At the direction of the president , the senate should issue the proposed subpoena to ensure a complete record. A complete record of these and other relevant emails. Any doubt that the state department is concealing Critical Evidence from this body was resolved when the state department was recently ordered to release documents, including emails pursuant to a lawsuit under the freedom of information act. These documents are heavily redacted and limited to a very narrow time period. Nevertheless despite the heavy
redactions, these highly limited glimpse into the state departments secret record demonstrates that those records are full of information relevant to this trial. For example, several of these newly elected released emails show multiple contacts between the state department, including secretary pompeo and mr. Giuliani throughout 2019. This is an important fact. Mr. Giuliani served as the president s point person in executing his corrupt scheme. Mr. Giuliani repeatedly emphasized that his role was to advance the president s personal agenda. The president s political interests, not to promote the National Security interest of the United States. The fact that the president s
private attorney was in contact at key junctures with the secretary of state whose senior officials were directed by the president to support mr. Giulianis efforts in ukraine is relevant, disturbing and tell i ing. For example we know that on march 26th, as mr. Giuliani was pursuing the president s private agenda in ukraine and just one week after the hill published an article featuring mr. Giulianis ukraine conspiracy theories, secretary pompeo and mr. Giuliani spoke directly on the phone. That same week, President Trumps former personal secretary was asked by mr. Giulianis assistant for a direct connection to secretary pompeo. Based on these records it is
also clear that secretary pompeo was already actively engaged with mr. Giuliani in early spring of 2019. And it also appears that these efforts were backed by the white house, given the involvement of President Trumps personal secretary. This body and the American People need to see these emails and other files at the state department. Fleshing out these exchanges and the details surrounding mr. Giulianis communications with secretary pompeo. Moreover, based on call records lawfully obtained by the house from this period we know that from march 24th to march 30th mr. Giuliani called the white house several times and also
also connected with an unidentified number numerous times. These records show that on march 27th, mr. Giuliani placed a series of calls, a series of calls to the state department switchboard, seshlgt pompeos assistant the and the white house switchboard in quick succession all within less than 30 minutes. Obtaining emails and other documents regarding the state departments leaderships interester action with President Trumps private lawyer in this period. When mr. Giuliani was actively orchestrating the Pressure Campaign in the ukraine, related to the sham investigation into Vice President biden and the 2016 election, would further clarify the president s involvement and direction at this key juncture in the
formation of a plot to solicit foreign interference into our election. We also know based on recently obtained documents that lev parnas an associate of Rudy Giuliani, has assisted him in his representation of President Trump. That giuliani likely spoke with secretary pompeo about ukraine matters, even earlier than previously understood. According to documents obtained from mr. Participate as, mr. Giuliani wrote in early february of 2019 that he apparently spoke with secretary pompeo about the removal of the u. S. Ambassador in ukraine. Mr. Giuliani viewed her as an
impediment to implementing the president s scheme, and orchestrating a long Running Smear Campaign against her. Heres what mr. Participate as said about this just last week. You believe that part of the motivation to get rid of ambassador yovanovitch out of the way is because she was in the way there was no other motivation. These are just some of the email communications that we know. These are just some of the email communications we know to exist, but there are ungoutedly more throughing for example, ambassador yovanavithcs request
around the time that mr. Giuliani was speaking directly with secretary pompeo. That statement never came. The state department has gathered these records and they are ready to be turned over pursuant to a issubpoena from t senate. It would not be a timeconsuming or lengthy process to obtain them. They are clearly important and relevant documents to the president s president s scheme. If we want the full and complete truth then we need to see those emails. The senate should also seek a third item that the state department has refused to provide. And thats the extra ordinary first person diplomatic cable to secretary pompeo, dated august
29. And sent at the recommendation of the National Security adviser john bolton. In which ambassador taylor strenuously objected withholding of military aid to ukraine. As ambassador taylor recounted in his deposition. Near the end of ambassador boltons visit, i asked him privately during which i expressed to him my serious concern about the withholding of military assistance to ukraine while the ukrainians were defending from russian aggression. Ambassador bolton recommended that i send a first person cable to secretary pompeo directly relaying my concerns. I wrote and transmitted such a cable, describing withholding military aid to ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when russia was watching closely to gauge the level of american
support for the Ukrainian Government. The russians, as i said in my deposition, would love to see the humiliation of president zelensky at the hands of the americans. I told the secretary that i could not and would not defend such a policy. Although i received no specific response, i heard that soon there after, the secretary carried the cable with him to a meeting at the white house focused on Security Assistance for ukraine. While we know from ambassador taylor and secretary kent that the cable was received, we do not know whether or had you the state department responded. Nor do we know if the state department possesses any other internal records relating to this cable. This cable is vital for three reasons. First it demonstrates the harm that President Trump did to our National Security when he used Foreign Policy as an instrument
of his own personal political gain. Second, on the same day the cable was sent, president zelenskys senior aide told ambassador taylor that he was very concerned about the hold on military assistance. He add that had the ukrainians were just desperate, added to be released. In other words, President Trumps efforts to use military aid to apply additional pressure on ukraine was working. And finally, based on reporting by the new york times, we now know that within days of ambassador taylor sending this cable, President Trump discussed ukrainian Security Assistance with secretary pompeo, defense secretary esper and ambassador bolton. It uncovered testimony that
secretary pompeo brought ambassador taylors cable to the white house of perhaps it was during this meeting, there perhaps prodded by ambassador taylors cable, all three of them pleaded, to resume the crucial military aid. Yet the president refused. This body has a right to see the cable as well as other state Department Records addressing the official response to it. Although it may have been classified at the time, the state department could no longer claim that the topic of Security Assistance remains classified today in lightest president s decision to declassify his two telephone calls with president zelensky and mr. Mulvaneys public statements about Security Assistance. The fourth category of documents the senate should subpoena are contemporaneous first person accounts from state Department Officials who were caught up in President Trumps corrupt scheme. These documents which were described in detail by Deputy Assistant secretary kent, ambassador taylor, and political officer david holmes would help complete the record and clarify how the president s scheme unfolded in realtime and how the ukrainians reacted. Mr. Kent wrote memos to file at least four times according to his testimony. He took extensive notes of nearly every conversation he had. Some in a little notebook. And david holmes, the embassy in ukraine, had was the note taker in important meetings with ukrainian officials. Did you take notes of this conversation on september 1st with ambassador sondland . I did. All of them. And you are aware, i presume, that the state department has not provided those notes to the committee, is that right . I am aware. So we dont have the benefit of reviewing them to ask you these questions. Correct. I understand that they may be coming sooner or later. We would welcome that. The state department never produced those notes. As another example, deputy secretary Deputy Assistant secretary kent testified about a key document that he drafted on
august 16th, describing his concerns that the Trump Administration was attempting to pressure ukraine into openly opening politically motivated investigations. I would like to start with you, mr. Kent. In your testimony, you said that you had in midaugust, it became clear to me that giulianis efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now affecting u. S. Investigations with ukraine leveraging president zelenskys desire for a white house meeting. Mr. Kent durks actually write a memo documenting your concerns that there was an effort underway to pressure ukraine to open an investigation to benefit President Trump . Yes, maam. I wrote a memo to the file on august 16th. We dont have access to that memo, do we . I submitted it to the state
department subject to the september 27 subpoena. And we have not received one piece of paper from the state department relative to this investigation. Secretary kent memorialize ad september 16 conversation in which ambassador taylor described a ukrainian official accusing america of hypocrisy for advising president zelensky against investigating a prior ukrainian president. Mr. Kent described that conversation during his testimony. He said, but the more awkward part of the conversation came after special representative volker made the observation that the ukrainians who had opened their authority under president zelensky had opened investigations of former president paracinco. He didnt think that was
appropriate. And then, Andrei Yermak said what . You mean the type of investigations youre pushing for us to do on biden . And clinton . The conversation makes clear they understood the corrupt nature of President Trumps requests and therefore, doubted american credibility on anticorruption measures. Records of these conversations and other memorandum by senior american officials in ukraine would flesh out and help complete the record for the first article of impeachment. They would tell the whole truth and to the American People, and to this body. You should require the state department to provide them. To summarize, the senate should issue the subpoena proposed and the memorandum to turn over relevant texts and what messages, emails, diplomatic cables and notes. These documents bear directly on the trial of this body. The trial that this body is required by the constitution to hold. They are immediately relevant to the first article of impeachment. Their existence has been attested to by credible witnesses in the house and the only reason we dont already have them is that the president has ordered his administration including secretary pompeo to hide them. The president s lawyers may suggest that the house should
have sought these materials in court, or waited further lawsuits you understand the freedom of information act. Aka, foia lawsuits. Any such suggestion is meritless. To start, the constitution has never been understood to require such lawsuits which has never occurred. It has never occurred in any president impeachment. Moreover, the president has repeatedly and strenuously argued that the house is not even allowed to file a suit to enforce its subpoenas. In the freedom of information act, the administration has only grudgingly and slowly produced an extremely small set of materials, but has insisted on applying heavy and dubious
redactions. Foia lawsuits followed by third parties cannot serve as a credible alternative to congressional oversight. In fact, it is still alarming that the administration has produced more documents pursuant to the federal office of information act lawsuits by private citizens and entities than congressional subpoenas. Finally, as we all know, litigation would take an extremely long time. Likely years. Not weeks or months. While the misconduct of this president requires immediate attention. The misconduct of this president requires immediate attention. If this body is truly committed
to a fair trial. It cannot let the president play a game of keepaway and dictate what evidence the senators can and cannot see bearing on his guilt or innocence. This body cannot permit him to hide all the evidence, while disingenuously insisting on lawsuits that he doesnt actually think we can file. Ones that he knows wont be resolved until after the election. He is trying to cheat to win. Instead, to honor your oaths to do impartial justice. We urge each senator to support a subpoena to the state department. And that subpoena should be issued now at the beginning of the trial, rather than at the
end so these documents can be reviewed and their importance weighed by the parties, the senate, and by the American People. That is how things work and every courtroom in the nation and it is how they should work here, especially because the states as you all know, are so high. The truth is there. Facts are stubborn things. The president is trying to hide it. This body should not surrender to his obstruction by refusing to demand a full record. That is why the house managers support this amendment. And mr. Chief justice, the house managers reserve the balance of our time. Mr. Cipollone . Thank you, mr. Chief justice. In the interests of time, i wont repeat all the argument thats weve made already with respect to these motions. I would say one thing before i turn it over to my cocounsel. Mr. Schiff came here and said hes not asking you to do something he wouldnt do for himself. And the house manager said, were not asking you to do our jobs for us. And mr. Schiff came up here and he said, i call ambassador bolton. Remember, paul harvey . Its time for the rest of the story. He didnt call him in the house. He didnt subpoena ambassador bolton in the house. I have a letter here from ambassador boltons lawyer. Hes the same lawyer that charlie couperman hired. Stated november 8. He said i write the counsel to Charles Kupperman and john bolton in response to one, the letter of november 5, from chairman schiff, chairman engel, and the house chairs, with drawing the subpoena to dr. Kupperman. I mentioned that earlier. And to recent published reports announcing that the house chairs do not intend to issue a subpoena to ambassador bolton. He said we are dismay that had the committees have chosen not to join us in seeking resolution of the Judicial Branch of this momentous constitutional question. And he ends the letter by saying, if the house chooses not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of dr. Kupperman, and ambassador bolton, let the record be clear. That is the houses decision. And they made that decision. They never subpoenaed ambassador bolton. They didnt try to call him in the house. And they with drew the subpoena for Charles Kupperman before the judge could rule, and they asked that the case be mooted. Now they ask you to issue a subpoena for john bolton. Its not right. I yield the remainder of my time the mr. Sekulow. Mr. Chief justice, members of the senate. Facts are a stubborn thing. Let me give you some facts from the transcripts. Ambassador sondland actually testified unequivocally the president did not tie aid to investigations. Instead, that he acknowledged any leak he had suggested was
based entirely on his own speculation. Unconnected to any conversation with the president. Heres the question. What about the aid . Ambassador volker says they were tied, that the aid was not tied. Answer. I didnt say they were conclusively tied either. I said i was presuming it. Question. Okay. And so the president never told you they were tied. Answer. That is correct. Question. So your testimony and ambassador volkers testimony is consistent and the president did not tie investigations, aid to investigations. Answer. That is correct. Ambassador sondland also testified that he asked President Trump directbly these issues and the president explicitly told him he did not want anything from ukraine. I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell zelensky to do the right
thing. Similar comments were made to senator johnson. Those are the facts. Stubborn but thats the facts. No one is above the law. Here is the law. As every member of congress knows, up doubtedly aware, separate from even state secret privileges, the president ial communication executive privilege to communications and performance of a president s responsibilities. The president ial communication privileges constitutional origins, courts have recognized a great Public Interest in preserving the confidentiality of conversations that take place in the president S Performance of official duties because such confidentiality is needed to protect the effectiveness of the executive Decision Making process. Be that was decided in the district of Columbia Court of peas. The Supreme Court found such a privilege necessary to guarantee the candor of president ial advisers, and to provide a
president and those other assist him with freedom explore alternatives. In the process of ultimately shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express, except in private. For these reasons, president ial conversations are presumptively privileged. Theres Something Else, Something Else about this privilege. Communications made by president ial advisers, again, holding courts. And by the way, lawyer lawsuits . Lawyer lawsuits . Were talking about the impeachment of a president of the United Stateser duly elected. And the members, the managers are complaining about lawyer lawsuits . The constitution allows lawyer lawsuits. Its disrespecting the constitution of the United States to even say that in this chamber. Lawyer lawsuits. Heres the law. Communications made by president ial advisers in the course of preparing advice for the president come under the president ial communications privilege. Even when these communications are not made directly to the president. Even when theyre not made directly to the president. Adviser to adviser. Given the need to provide sufficient elbow room for advisers to obtain information from all knowledgeable sources, the privilege must apply both to communications which these advisers solicit and receive from others as well as those they authorize themselves. The privilege must also extend to communications authored or received in response to solicitation by members of a president ial advisers staff since in many instances advisers must rely on the staffs to investigate and issue and formulate advice given to the president. Lawsuits. The constitution. A dangerous moment for america. When an impeachment of a president of the United States is being rushed through because of lawyer lawsuits. The constitution allows it, if necessary, the constitution demands it, if necessary. Thank you, mr. Chief justice. You have 13 minutes for rebuttal. Mr. Schiff . Thank you, mr. Chief justice. Let me just respond to some of my colleagues points, if i can. First, counsel has said, well,
the house would like the call john bolton but the house did not seek his testimony during its investigation. First of all, we did. We invited john bolton to testify. Do you know what he told us . Im not coming and if you subpoena me, i will sue you. That was his answer. I will sue you. Mr. Bolton is represented by the same lawyer who represents dr. Kupperman who actually did sue us when he was subpoenaed. So we knew that john bolton would make good on that threat. Now, sekulow says something about lawyer lawsuits. I have to confess, i wasnt completely following argument but something about lawyer lawsuits. That we are against lawyer lawsuits. I dont know what that means but i can tell you this. The Trump Justice Department is in court in that case and other cases arguing congress cannot go to court to enforce its subpoenas. So when they Say Something about lawyer lawsuits, and they say
there is nothing wrong the house suing to get these witnesses to show up and they should have sued to get them to show up, their own other lawyers are in court saying, the house has no such right. Theyre in court saying, you cant have lawyer lawsuits. So that argument cannot be made in both directions. Whats more, in the kupperman litigation, im sorry, if the mcgham mcgahn litigation which tested the theory of absolute immunity, with don mcgahn, the one told to fire the special counsel and then to lie about it. That lawsuit to get his testimony. Judge jackson ruled on that very recently when they made the same bogus claim. He is absolutely immune from showing up. And the judge said thats nonessential. Theres no support for that. Not in the constitution. None in the case law made out of
whole cloth. But you know, the judge said something more that was very interesting. Because what we urged john boltons lawyer is, you dont need to file a lawsuit. Dr. Kupperman, you dont need to file a lawsuit. Theres one already filed involving don mcgahn thats about to be decided. So unless your real purpose is delay, unless your real purpose is to avoid testimony and you just wish to give the impression of a willingness to come forward, you just want to have the courts blessing. If thats really true, agree to be bound by the mcgahn decision. They did not want to testify. For whatever reason, john bolton is now willing to testify. I dont know why that is. Maybe it is because he has a book coming out. Maybe it is because it would be very hard to explain why he was unwilling to explain information with the senate that he couldnt
show up for a house deposition or interview, because he would need Court Permission to do it but he can put it in a book. I cant speak to his motivation. But i can tell you hes willing to come now if youre willing to hear him. But of course they werent willing to be bound by Court Decision in mcgahn. The court said something very interesting. One of the arguments they had been making, as to why they needed their own separate litigation, well, john bolton and john kupperman, theyre National Security people and mcgahn is just white house counsel. Apparently you have nothing to do with white house security. So they couldnt be bound by what the court in the mcgahn case said. Well, the judge that, this applies to National Security stuff too. So we do have a Court Decision. Whats more, we have the decision in the harriet meyers
case in the george w. Bush administration where likewise the court made short shrift of this investigation of absolute and total immunity. There were comments made about ambassador volkers testimony by will sekulow and it was long these lines. Mr. Volker said the president never told him the aid was being conditioned, or the meeting was being conditioned on ukraine doing the sham investigation. So i guess thats case closed. Unless the president told everyone, called him into their office and said, ill going to tell you now and im going to tell you now, if he didnt tell everyone, i guess its case closed. Do you know who the president did tell . Among others . He told Mick Mulvaney. He went out on National Television and said yes, they discussed it. This investigation, this russian narrative. Wasnt ukraine that intervened in 2016. It was russia. Im sorry. Wasnt russia. It was ukraine. Yes. That bogus 2016 theory, yes, they discussed it. Yes, it was part of the reason they withheld the money. When they said youre kind of describing a quid pro quo. His anxious was, yeah, get used to it, or get over it. We do it all the time. Now, they havent said they want to hear from Mick Mulvaney. I wonder why. The president did talk to mick mulvany about it. Wouldnt you like the hear what he has to say . If you really want to get to the bottom of it, if theyre really challenging the fact the president conditioned 400 million of aid to aer with a, he said he already talked to the president about and it this is part of reason why. Dont you think you should hear from him . Dont you think impartial justice requires to you hear from him . Counsel referred to ambassador sondland and sondland saying,
there was no quid pro quo. At the time the president said no quid pro quo, he became aware of the whistleblower complaint. Presumably by mr. Cipollone. And so the president knew that this was going to come to light on the advice apparently of mr. Cipollone or maybe others, the director of National Intelligence for the first time in history withheld a whistleblower complaint from congress, its intended recipient. Nonetheless, the white house was aware of that complaint. We launched our own investigations. Yes, they got caught. In the midst of being caught, what did they say . It is called a false exculpatory. For those at home, that is a way of saying, it is a false, phony alibi. No quid pro quo. He wasnt even asked the question was there a quid pro quo. He just blurted it out. Thats the defense that the president denies it . Whats more interesting, he didnt tell but the other half of that conversation where the
president said no quid pro quo. Emno quid pro quo but zelensky needs to go to the mic and she want to do it. Which is equivalent of saying no quid pro quo except the quid pro quo. And heres what the quid pro quo is, he needs to go to the mic and she want to do it. Thats their alibi . They didnt also mention, and youll hear about this during the trial if we have a real trial. Ambassador son sondland said, were often asked, was there a quid pro quo, the answer is yes, there is a quid pro quo. An absolute quid pro quo. Whats more, when it came to the military aid, it was as simple as two plus two. Ill tell you something. Were not the only people who can add up two plus two. There are millions watching this who can add up two plus two
also. When the president tells his chief of staff, were holding up the aid because of this, as the chief of staff admitted, when the president gives no plausible other explanation for holding up aid that you all and we all supported and voted on in a very bipartisan way, has no explanation for it. In that call he never brings up corruption except the corruption he wants to bring about. It doesnt take a genius, it doesnt take Albert Einstein to add up two plus two. It equals four. In this case, it equals guilt. Now, youre going to have 16 hours to ask questions. Youre going to have 16 hours. That is a long time ask questions. Wouldnt you like to be able to ask about the documents in that 16 hours . Wouldnt you like to be able to say, counsel for the president ,
what did mick mulvany mean when he emailed so and so and said such and such . Whats your explanation . That seems to be pretty damning evidence of what the house is saying. What is your explanation . Mr. Sekulow, what is your explanation . Wouldnt you like to be able to ask the documents . Or ask the house, mr. Schiff, what about this text message . Doesnt that suggest such, what the president is arguing, wouldnt you like to be able to ask me that question or my colleagues . I think you would and i think you should. The backwards way this resolution is drafted, you get 16 hours to ask a question about a document youve never seen. If do you decide at that point after the trial is essentially over that you want to see the documents after all, and the documents are produced, you dont get another 16 hours. You dont get 16 minutes. You dont get 16 seconds to ask about those documents. Does that make any sense to you . Does that make any sense at all . Ill tell you something i would like to know that may be in the documents. You probably heard about, you know more about the three amigos. My colleagues mentioned two of the three. Amigo volker and amigo sondland. These are two of the three people the president put in charge of ukraine policy. The third is secretary rick perry, the former secretary of energy. We know from amigo sondlands testimony that he was certainly in the loop. He knew all about this scheme. And we know from ambassador volkers testimony, and his text message, his whatsapps, hes in the loom. What about the third amigo . Wouldnt you like to know if the third amigo was in the loop . Now, as my colleagues will explain when we get to the
department of energy records, well, surprisingly, we didnt get those either. But any communication between department of energy and the department of state is covered by this amendment. Wouldnt you like to know . Dont you think the American People have a right to know what the third amigo knew about this scheme . Id like to know. I think you should be able to ask questions about it in your 16 hours. At the end of the day, i guess ill finish with something mr. Sekulow said. He said this was a dangerous moment. Were trying to rush through this somehow. Its a dangerous moment. Were not trying the rush through this trial. Were trying to have a real
trial here. The president is trying to rush through this. And i have to tell you, whatever you decide here, maybe this is a waste of breath and maybe it is already decided, but whatever you decide here, i dont know who the next president will be. Maybe someone in this chamber. But i guarantee you this. Whoever that next president is, whether they did something right or they did something wrong, there will come a time where you and this body will want to subpoena that president and that administration. Youre going to want to get to the bottom of serious allegations. Are you prepared to say that president can simply say, im going to fight all subpoenas. Are you prepared to say and accept that president saying, i have absolute immunity. You want me to come testify . Senate, you want me to come
testify . No, no, i have absolute immunity. You can subpoena me all you like. Ill see you in court. When you get to court, ill tell you, you cant see me in court. Are you prepared for that . Thats what the future looks like. Dont think this is the last president , if you allow this to happen, that will allow this to take place. Your time i yield back. Thank you. The majority leader is recognized. We table the amendment. The question is on a motion to table. Is there a sufficient second . There is. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Alexander. Ms. Baldwin. Mr. Bennett. Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blunt. Mr. Booker. Mr. Bozeman. Mr. Braun. Mr. Brown. Mr. Burr. Miss cantwell. Mr. Carden. Mr. Carper. Mr. Casey. Mr. Cassidy. We are listening to the second round of voting. A familiar sound because we are witnessing a very similar partisan breakdown as expected here on the Second Democratic amendment to subpoena for state department documents. The most recent subpoena failed on the Party Line Vote. Senator mccaskill here at msnbc headquarters in new york. What are we seeing . Youre seeing a repeat of the last vote. It will be 4753. 53 tow table motion. Mcconnell, this is a tactic thats used in order to give, sometimes, to give senators cover. Because what you say is, it was a procedural vote. Wasnt a sensitive vote. I was waiting to table. I was not voting against witnesses. I was going to vote for witnesses later. So it is a common tactic used by the majority with a minority amendment. To in fact move to table amendment. Thats why all the republicans are voting yes and the democrats are voting no. A little counter intuitive when you know theyre votock whether or not we get documents from the state department. And yet, senator, as you remind us, this would be a
routine Party Line Vote like the first rejected attempt to speenl records that the house managers, the democrats are so critical to trying their case. What is not routine, particularly for viewers who may be joining us here, it is 6 30 in the evening on the east coast. The birds eye view of this senate chamber. How frequently would you see it this filled for this many hours in a row . You would never see it filled this many hours. I have seen most of the seats filled a few times when there was a vote to repeal obamacare. It was a full chamber. It was a full chamber when ted kennedy came back. It was a surprise at the end of his life to vote to sustain obamacare. When we do vote, amendment after amendment after amendment, you have more people on the floor because youre doing rolling votes for hours on end. But this is really unusual and i
wish the senators would realize how efficient this is. Typically a vote takes 45 minutes. This is going to take probably five or six minutes because everybody is at their desk and they simply assistant and state their vote. A typical vote is you would see at the beginning of the vote, you would see three or four people wander in. Then after 15 minutes, you would see seven or eight more people wander in. Then when the vote is about to expire, you would see a bunch wander in and they would wander off as soon as they voted unless there was another vote right afterwards so you wouldnt hit Critical Mass on the floor is what im saying. And it is a reminder, were watching Chuck Schumer cast his vote. A news viewer interested in this, and also at times thought it went on for a while or certain arguments were repeated or maybe even stepped away from your television to go to your
phone or refrigerator, this is rare time where the senators have been more attendant than many of us watching. As we see here, they are sitting here taking this all in. I wonder what you think they make of it given that they are sticking to party procedural split for now. Well, first of all, it is very hard for them. They cant talk on one another. They cant even go back to the cloak room and grab a quick cup of coffee. They cant pass notes to one another, they cant look at their phones, they cant look at Reading Materials other than the impeachment trial. This is extraordinarily unusual and i would vent you are a guess that the vast majority of people. In body have not set still for this long without talking for most of their adult life. And i believe were at the whys. Lets listen to the chief justice. We are awaiting the chief justice having apparently, it appears, have gone through each of the senators presence. Whats happening now is the clerk is adding up, counting, he marks on a long narrow piece of paper everybodys name, he marks either yes or no with a line. Now hes counting and tabulating the bottom. Now he will turn and show that tabulation. So we can see that on the left part of screen of the. Is there anyone wishing to vote . Or change their vote . And this is the script. If not, the yays are 53. The nays are 47. The motion to table is agreed to. And there you have it. On the second major procedural and evidentiary question. The same exact outcome. 5347. Lets listen in. Mr. Chief justice, i send an amendment to the doeks subpoena Certain Office and management and budget documents, and i ask that it be read. The clerk will read the amendment. The senator from new york, mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment number 1286. At the appropriate place in the resolving clause, insert the following. Section notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution pursuant we are listening to the reading of the amendment. I want to catch viewers up and invite all my panelists including senator mccaskill to tell us what were seeing. It would be easy in watching this, eugene robinson, to feel grinding repetition of the senate floor and question, okay, do we really need to go on . What are we doing . And yet on the other side, i want everyone to understand, im holding our brand new printout of this request. Whether people think it will repeat and repeat at the beginning of this trial, we are seeing the democrats lay out painstakingly each part of the government that they argue, we started with the white house, we had a vote on the state department and now we move to the omb. What the House Democrats are doing is taking another bite of the evidentiary apple, right . I mean, theyre presenting the case which they will get to present in full. When that time comes. Whats interesting during the argument over the subpoena at the state department documents, when congressman schiff got up at the end, it seemed, he seemed resigned to the fact this would be a party vote. In fact, he spent more time
talking about witnesses than he did talking about state department documents. And i think that may be a people in we hear in this debate as well. Especially from schiff. A lot of focus on the witnesses. It seems to be somewhat resigned to the fact that were going to have several of these Party Line Votes on documents. And this really goes to how the senate operates. Now there is a microscope on it. There is a different officer. This is still very obviously the push and pull of the United States senate to. Bring into our coverage someone who knows it well for many years. What do you see that the senate is doing at this very moment . What weve seen so far is
evidence versus rhetoric. The house managers have incorporated evidence into every bit of their argument, to obtain further evidence. It seems like the Trump Defense team showed up thinking this was just a procedural day. All they needed to do was talk about the procedural issues and what they want to do is talk about the procedural issues behind us already. Not as much the procedural issues in the trial. The house managers have used every minute to lay in the actual evidence against the president , and for hours on end, they were not saying one word about evidence. It was as if they didnt even know that it filed. It may be they thought it would be procedural and they have more homework to do on the evidence. The one thing that was so extraordinary to see in a Senate Impeachment trial. This is the second one ive watched now in this country. Youre not supposed to live through two Senate Impeachment trials of a president but here we are. To see a lawyer stand up and tell an outright lie to the United States senate. And that was about the house of representatives, a profab abpro, that republicans were not allowed to participate in the depositions. That was a complete and outright lie. Adam schiff was very charitable. In all my time seeing it from Municipal Court rooms, from murder trials to Senate Impeachment trials, i have never seen a lawyer willfully lie in a way that was a provable lie at that moment in the actual
proceeding. That was just an extraordinary thing for those senators to witness today. Yeah. You lay it out. You say living through two impeachment trials. Many of us are old enough to remember when a member of congress yelled out to the president , quote, you lie about a statement that was true. Today you have someone presenting on behalf of the president , and they are the one actually lying. We will dip back in when we get more action. This is the latest and greatest, your view of the arguments being made here. The office of management and budget is crucial. It deals with government and money, something bunk from your government career and it deals with a witness who could be a defense witness for the president. So far has been running from telling his story, Mick Mulvaney. Their and this is obviously evidence thats relevant. The issue with evidence in real proceedings is, is it relevant . The evidence against introducing new evidence that it is not relevant. All of this is very clearly relevant. There is another very important part of this that is frequently lost because this looks like a had republicans versus democrat fight. They do not blank the evidence actually is. They do not know what john bolton will say. Well take a 30minute recess for dinner and i would remind everyone, ill be moving to table the amendment and it is important to remember that the evidence and witnesses are addressed in the underlying resolution. Thank you. The amendment is arguable for two hours equally divided. Mr. Manager schiff, are you a proponent or opponent . Mr. Cipollone . Then your side will go first and you will have time for rebuttal. Thank you. Before i begin, the house manage letters reserve the balance of our time to respond to counsel for the president. Mr. Chief justice, senators, i am jason crow from the great state of colorado. The house managers strongly support this for key documents from the omb. These documents go directly to one of President Trumps abuses
of power. His decision to withhold vital military aid from a Strategic Partner that is at war to be benefit his own campaign. Why should it matter in why should anybody care . Why should i care . Before i was a member of congress, i was an american soldier serving in iraq and afghanistan. And although some years have passed since that time, there are still some memories that are seared in my brain. One of those memories was scavenging scrap metal in baghdad in the supper of 2003 that we had to bolt on to the
sides of our trucks because we had no armor to protect against roadside bombs. So when we talk about troops not getting the equipment they need, when they need it, it is personal to me. To be clear here, we are talking about 391 million of taxpayer money. Intended to protect our National Security by helping our Strategic Partner ukraine fight against Vladimir Putins russia, an adversary of the United States. But the president could not carry out this scheme alone. He needed a lot of people to help him. And thats why we know as much about it as we do today. But there is much more to know. Thats what trials are for. To get the full picture. We know theres more because President Trump needed the office of management and budget to figure out how to stop what should have been a routine release of funds mandated by congress. A release that was already underway. But the people in this chamber dont need me to tell you that because 87 of you in this roop voted for those vital go funds to support our partner, ukraine. Witnesses before the house testified extensively about ombs involvement in carrying out the hold. It was omb that relayed the president s instructions and implemented the hold and it was omb that scrambled to justify
the froze. Omb has key documents that President Trump has refused to turn over to congress. It is time on subpoena those documents. These documents would provide insight into critical aspects of the military aid hold. They would show the motivations behind President Trumps freeze of they would reveal the concerns expressed by career omb officials including lawyers that the hold was violating the law. They would expose the lengths to which omb went to justify the president s hold. They would reveal concerns about the impact of the freeze on ukraine and u. S. National security. And they would show that senior thats the repeatedly attempted to convince President Trump to
release the hold. In short, they would show exactly how the president carried out the zeem use our National Defense funds to benefit his personal political campaign. We are not speculating about the existence of these documents. We are not guessing what the documents might show. During the course of the investigation in the house, witnesses who testified before the committees identified multiple documents directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry that omb continues to hold to this day. We know these documents exist and we know the only reason we do not have them is because the president directed omb not to produce them. Because he knows what they would show. To demonstrate the significance of the omb documents and the value they would provide in this trial, i would like to walk you
through some of what we know exists, but which the Trump Administration has refused to turn over. As we have discussed, the Trump Administration has refused to turn over any documents to the house in response to multiple subpoenas and requests. Based on what is known from the testimony and the few documents that have been obtained but public reporting and lawsuits, it is clear that the president is trying to hide this evidence because he is afraid of what it would show. The documents offer stark exams of the chaos and confusion the president s scheme set off across our government and they make clear the importance of the documents still being concealed by the president. We know that omb has documents that reveal as early as june. The press was considering withholding aid from ukraine. The president began questioning military aid to ukraine after
congress appropriated and authorized the money. 250 million in d. O. D. Funds and 141 million in state department funds. This funding had wide bipartisan support because as many witnesses testified, providing military aid to ukraine to defend itself against russian aggression also benefits our own National Security. Importantly, the president s questions came weeks after the department of defense already certified that ukraine had undertaken the anticorruption reforms and other measures mandated by congress as a condition for receiving that aid. So there is a process for making sure that the funds make it to the right place, and to the right people. A process that has been provided every year that weve been
providing Security Assistance to ukraine including the first two years under the Trump Administration. Nonetheless, the president s questions came days after d. O. D. Issued a press release. On june 18th, announcing it would provide its 250 million portion of the taxpayer funded military aid to ukraine. According to public recording, the day after d. O. D. s press release, a white house official named robert blair called ombs acting director to talk about the military aid to ukraine. According to public reports, mr. Blair told vought, we needle to hold it up. They have refused to release documents related to this conversation. The senate can get them bypassing the amendment and issuing a subpoena. But there is more. The same day blair told him to hold up the aid, mike duffy, a
political appointee at omb, emailed detect undersecretary defense and told her that the president had questions about the aid. They contacted a career official who talked about his email in the testimony before the house. Like all others, that email was not produced by the Trump Administration in the house impeachment investigation. We know this email exists because in response to a freedom of information lawsuit, they were forced to release a redacted email consistent with sandys description. But omb provided none of those documents to the house. With this proposed amendment, the senate has an obligation to obtain and review the whole record that could further demonstrate how and why the president was withholding the aid. These documents would also shed light on the president s order
to implement the hold. On july 3, the state department told various officials that omb blocked it from dispensing 141 million in aid. Omb had directed the state department not to send a notification to congress about spending the money. And without that notification, the aid was effectively blocked. Why did omb block the congressional notification . Who told them to do it . What was the reason . The senate would get those answer thats the it issued this subpoena. But there is more. On july 12th, blair, the white house official who had called vought on june 19th and said we need to hold it up, then sent an email to duffey at omb. Blair said, quote, the president is directing a hold on military support funding for ukraine. We havent seen this email. The only reason we know about it is from the testimony of mark sandy, the career official who followed the the law and complied with his subpoena. As you can see from the transcript excerpt in front of you, sandy testified that the july 12th email did not mention concerns about any other country or any other aid packages. Just ukraine. So the dozens of countries where we provide aid and support, the president was only concerned about one of them. Ukraine. Why . Well, we know why. But omb has still refused to provide a copy of this july 12 email, and has refused to provide any documents surrounding it all because the president told omb to continue to hide the truth from congress and the American People. What was he afraid of . A subpoena issued by the senate would show us. Omb also has documents about a key series of meetings triggered by the president s order to hold the military aid. In the second half of july, the National Security council convened a series of interagency meetings about the president s hold of military aid. Omb documents would show what happened during those meetings. For example, on july 18th, the National Security Council Staff convened a routine interagency meeting to discuss ukraine policy. During the meeting it was the omb representative who announced that President Trump placed a hold on all military aid to ukraine. Ambassador bill taylor, our most senior diplomat to ukraine participated in that meeting. And he described his reaction at his open hearing. In a regular nsc Video Conference call on july 18th i heard a staff person from the office of management and budget say there was a hold on Security Assistance to ukraine but could not say why. For the end of an otherwise normal meeting, a voice on the call, the person was off screen said that she was from omb and her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending on Security Systems for ukraine until further notice. I and others sat in astonishment. Ukrainians were fighting russians and counted on not only the training and weapons but also the assurance of u. S. Support. All that the omb staff person said was that the directive had come from the president to the chief of staff to omb. In an instant, i realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for ukraine was threatened. Its hard to believe that omb would not have any documents
following this bomb shell announcement. It surely does. It was the agency that delivered the shocking news to the rest of the u. S. Government that the president was withholding the vital military aid from our partner. And we would see these documents if the senate issued a subpoena. The july 18th meeting was just the first in a series of meetings where omb held the line and the hold on the aid but there was a second meeting on july 23rd where we understood agencies raised concerns about the legality of ombs hold on the aid. A third meeting at a more senior level on july 26th, witnesses testified that at that meeting, omb struggled to offer an explanation for the president s hold on the aid. And then a Fourth Meeting on july 31st where the legal concerns about the hold were
raised and there was confusion about the scope, nobody seemed to know what was going on and that was sal texactly the point. All of the agencies supported the military aid and argued for lifting the hold. Omb did not produce a single document providing information about his participation, preparation or follow up from any of these meetings. Did these omb officials come prepared with talking points for these meetings . Did omb officials take notes during any of these meetings . Sta did omb discuss reasons they could give everyone else for the hold. By issuing this subpoena, the senate can find out the answers to all of those questions and others like them. The American People deserve answers. Omb documents would also reveal
key facts about what happened on july 25th. On july 25th, President Trump conducted his phone call with president zelensky during which he demanded a favor. This favor was for ukraine to conduct an investigation to benefit the president s reelection campaign. That call was at 9 00 a. M. Just 90 minutes after President Trump hung up the phone, duffy, the political appointee at omb who is in charge of National Security programs emailed dod to quote formalize, end quote, the hold on the military aid. Just 90 minutes after President Trumps call, a call in which the president had asked for a favor, that email is on the screen in front of you. We have a redacted copy of this email because it was recently released through the freedom of information act. It was not released by the Trump Administration in response to the houses subpoena. In this email, duffey told the dod officials that based on the guidance he had received, they should quote hold off on any additional dod obligations of these funds. He added that the request was quote sensitive and that they should keep this information closely held, meaning dont tell anybody about it. Why did duffey consider the information sensitive . Why didnt he want anyone to learn about it . Answers to those questions may be found in omb emails, emails that we could all see if you issue a subpoena. But theres more. Remember the administration needed to create a way to stop funding that was already underway. The train had already left the
station. And Something Like this had never been done before. Later in the evening of july th 25th, omb found a way, even though dod had already notified congress that the funds would be released. Here is how the scheme worked. Omb sent dod a funding document that included a carefully worded footnote directing dod to hold off on spending the funds. Quote, to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use end quote. Remember that language. To allow for an interagency process to determine the best use. Let me explain that. The footnote stated that this quote brief pause would not prevent dod from spending the money by the end of the fiscal year which was coming up on september 30th. Omb had to do this because it
knew that not spending the money was illegal. And they knew that dod would be worried about that. And they were right. Dod was worried about it. Mr. Sandy testified that in his 12 years of experience at omb, he could not recall anything like this ever happening before. The drafting of this unusual funding document and the issuance of the document must have generated a significant amount of email traffic, memos and other documentation at omb. Memos, email traffic and documentation that we would all see if the senate issued a subpoena. So what was the result from the series of events on july 25th, where was mr. Duffeys guidance to implement the hold coming from . Why was the request sensitive . What was the connection between ombs direction the dod in the call President Trump had with president zelensky just 90 minutes before. Did agency if i recalofficials e about the questions coming from ukrainian officials. The American People deserve answers. A subpoena would provide those answers. Omb documents also would reveal information about the decision to have a political appointee take over ukraine funding responsibility. The tensions and chaos surrounding the freeze escalated at the end of july when duffey, a political appointee at omb with no relevant experience and funding approvals took authority for releasing military aid to ukraine away from sandy, a career omb official. Sandy could think of no other explanation of a political no other example of a political
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.