witnesses, ukranian officials knew president trump had placed a hold on security assistance soon after it was ordered in july of 2019, so we know that not only did u.s. officials know about it and omb communicated about it, but the ukranians knew about it as well. we know from former deputy foreign minister of ukraine alana zerkel, she stated it publicly, in fact, that ukranian officials knew about it and had found out about it in july. we also know from the testimony of laura cooper that her staff received two emails from the state department on july 25th revealing that the ukranian embassy was, quote, asking about military assistance, end quote, and fiona hill knew about that to an extent, end quote. that was on the same day of the president s call to president
can you explain who has paid for rudy giuliani s legal fees, international travel, and other expenses in his capacity as president trump s attorney and representative? the short answer to the question is i don t know who s paying rudy giuliani s fees, and if he is not been paid by the president to conduct this domestic political errand for which heads devo has devoted so time, if other clients are paying and subsidizing his work in that respect, it raises profound questions, questions that we can t answer at this point. but there are some answers that we do know. as he has acknowledged, he s not there doing foreign policy, so
all eyes are on senator lisa murkowski of alaska and lamar alexander of tennessee. as you know, assuming there is not a vote in support of more witnesses, will there be a vote in favor of a quitting president trump, and it seems likely that if they do not call witnesses, senate republicans will be pretty united in a quitting president trump, and it s possible that at least two democrats, specifically joe mansion of west virginia and perhaps kirsten of arizona, maya quit the president. even if it s a party line vote, president trump will be able to say, i was acquitted by the senate, even though nancy pelosi, speaker of the house, is out there trying to say, if they don t call for additional witnesses, he will not be acquitted. according to the constitution and the law, he will. let s go to dana bash now. dana, what are you hearing? reporter: this has been a
we re going to take a quick break before the impeachment trial of president trump. we ll continue after this. ahh no, come on. i saw you eating poop earlier. hey! my focus is on the road, and that s saving me cash with drivewise. who s the dummy now? whoof! whoof! so get allstate where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. sorry! he s a baby!
president continued to block those subpoenas. the argument about a full house vote really was just an excuse about president trump s obstruction. the president refused to comply with the house subpoenas before the house vote and after the house vote. the only logical explanation is the one that president trump gave us all along. he was determined to fight all the subpoenas, because in president trump s view, according to what he said, he can do whatever he wants. now, that s not what the constitutional republic entrusted to us by what the founders had in mind. this argument doesn t just apply to impeachment, it would apply to normal oversight investigations. and it doesn t just apply to the house. it would also apply to the senate. by sanctioning the president s blanket obstruction, the senate would be curtailing its own subpoena power in the future as well as the house s and the oversight obligation that we