equals four, the president says they are just guessing. that is simply not true. the evidence is direct. the evidence is compelling and confirmed by many witnesses corroborated by text messages, e-mails, and phone records. but if you want more evidence, if you want another firsthand account for why the aid was withheld for the undisputed quid pro quo for that white house meeting, let s just hear from mick mulvaney over and over again, ambassador sondland described to multiple witnesses how mr. mulvaney was directly involved in the president s scheme. here s some of that testimony. and so when i came in, gordon sondland was basically saying, well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting.
divided between both sides. we ve been hearing some republican senators, pat toomey of arizona, basically saying what the president did was inappropriate but it does not rise to the level of impeachment and removal from office. we got the statement from marco rubio from florida. nobody thought they would support removing him from office, but it goes a little farther than inappropriate, because the premise of his post is, assuming everything the democrats say is true, just because the standard rises to the level of impeachment doesn t mean it s the standard of the country to remove the president from office. there s rubio saying even if you think this is completely true and horrible and he should be impeached on it, and he s not disputing this point, believe it or not, i don t think it s enough for removal of office. so on the one hand you re saying what the president did was wrong, but on the other hand saying it does arise to the
difference. isn t that the difference between the house and the senate? in the house we heard none of this. we heard hardly anybody no republican to my memory, maybe you guys remember only former republicans. amash and adam kensington were critical. but no republican came out, and even marco rubio who was saying, maybe impeachment was fine, but we re different and we have a different job. because our job is not to impeach, our job is to remove. but the senators are getting to a different place, which is inappropriate. maybe some of them will get to wrong, jake, i don t know. inappropriate but shouldn t be removed for it. my question is, how does the president react to that? because we know his lawyer, pat cipollone, who by the way was in this meeting that the new york times wrote about, said everything was appropriate. alleged meeting, as rick santorum points out, but let s
witnesses, you re going to vote to shut this down after the president lied to you about mr. giuliani s role, about mr. cipollone s role? i m not saying it s true, but it s alleged by john bolton. that s the case schiff is going to make. we expected the decision from lisa murkowski an hour ago. we haven t gotten that. is she rethinking or still just hasn t released a statement? i see no evidence this is going to go another direction, but you ll see the democrats with time left to use it to say, team trump is lying to you in your house, and you re going to let him off. and what philbin said yesterday was rudy giuliani s inquiries were in connection with the 2016 election coming from ukraine. what did biden have to do with the investigation? it came in a report that rudy
mr. chief justice, president s counsel, senators. last week i shared with you that i was reflecting on my first days at a school for baby judges. you all may recall that. and i mentioned to you that one of the first things they told us was that we had to be good listeners and be patient. you as judges in this trial have certainly passed the test. thank you for being good listeners and for being patient with us. it s been quite a long journey, but we re here today to talk about the other thing they told us in baby judge school, and that was that we had to give all the parties in front much us a fair hearing, an opportunity to