Members of the senate, good evening. My name is michael perpura. I serve as deputy counsel to the president. We strongly oppose the amendment and support the resolution. There is simply no need to alter the process on witnesses and documents from that of the clinton trial, which was supported by this body 1000. At its core, this case is very simple, and the key facts are undisputed. First, youve seen the transcripts which the president released transparently, unprecedentedly. There was no quid pro quo for anything. Security Assistance Funds arent even mentioned on the call. Second, president zelensky and the highest ranking officials in the Ukrainian Government repeatedly have said there was no quid pro quo, and there was no pressure. Third, the ukrainians were not even aware of the pause in the aid at the time of the call and werent aware of it, did not become aware of it until more than a month later. Fourth, the only witnesses in the house record who actually spoke to the president
I think its especially so because the core of the houses case is quite simple. When they pass the articles of impeachment i was a little bit on the fence on whether they should have included obstruction of justice from the Mueller Report or bribery. They didnt. They kept it simple. The narrative is clear. The president solicited foreign interference in our election using his leverage over the u. S. Treasury and our funds to do it. And abused power in the process and hes blocking it. What they are able to do now is come at that same story over and over again from different angles. Highlighting why each of those threads are particularly relevant to that bigger story. Lets listen in to what the next step is it. Amendment is tabled. Mr. Chief justice. Democratic leader is recognized. I send amendment to the desk to issue subpoena to john bolton and ask it be read. The clerk will report. Senator from new york mr. Schumer proposes an amendment number 1291. At the appropriate place in the res
White house review, of President Trumps decision to hold up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate at afterthefact justification for the debate over whether the delaying was legal. That is known as a coverup, actually. The white house lawyers had apparently uncovered early august email exchanges between acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and white house budget officials seeking to provide some explanation for withholding the funds the president had already ordered on hold. The documents also reportedly include communications between white house officials and outside agencies. Not only does congress have a right to see them, the public does too under freedom of information laws. As a matter of constitutional authority, the senate has the greatest interest in and right to compel those documents. Indeed, as the news article explains, white house lawyers are reportedly worried about unflattering exchanges and fact they could at a minimum embarrass the president. P
When people in the government get worried, sometimes what they do is they draft memos. Because when theyre concerned about getting caught up in something that doesnt seem right, they dont want to be a part of it. So, on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about Ukraine Military aid to acting director vaughn. According to sandy, the memo advocated for the release of the funds. It said that the military aid was consistent with American National security interests, it would help to oppose russian aggression, and it was backed by strong bipartisan support. But President Trump did not lift the hold. Over the next several weeks, omb continued to issue funding documents that kept kicking the can down the road. Supposedly to allow for more of this, quote, interagency process. Well, inserting those footnotes throughout the apportionment documents stating the delay wouldnt affect the funding. But heres the really shocking part. There was no interagency proces
And when people in the government get worried, sometimes what they do is they draft memos because when theyre concerned about getting caught up in something that doesnt seem right, they dont want to be a part of it. So on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about Ukraine Military aid to acting director vought. According to sandy, the memo advocated for the release of the funds. It said that the military aid was consistent with American National security interests. It would help to oppose russian aggression and it was backed by strong bipartisan support. But President Trump did not lift the hold. Over the next several weeks, omb continued to issue funding documents that kept kicking the can down the road. Supposedly to allow for more of this quote interagency process. Well, inserting those footnotes throughout the apportionment documents stating that the delay wouldnt affect the funding but heres the really shocking part. There was no interagency pro