citing a quick trial and an acquittal. the president is in switzerland. we have the complete coverage of all that is happening tonight. >> bret: we begin tonight with correspondent mike emanuel on capitol hill. >> good evening to you. before about on the resolution, democrats are offering an amendment to try to make some tweaks such as demanding white house documents and state department documents. earlier this afternoon there was a change to the guidelines set by majority leader mitch mcconnell. he agreed that each side will have up to 24 hours over three days to present their opening arguments. initially it was supposed to be over two days. the house record will now be admitted as evidence while originally it was going to be left out. senator susan collins and others requested changes from senator mcconnell and over today's luncheon. she is seen as a key to having a vote in critical stages of the trial. senator chuck schumer was thrilled about the change from hitting more changes could be on the way, "republicans understanding how unfair senator mcconnell's trial rules are, and republican senators are beginning to tell him to change them. the real task will be whether they pressure senator mcconnell to allow witnesses and documents. at the pressure campaign continue from the lead house impeachment manager, adam schif. >> the truth will come out. the question is, will it come out in time? and what answer shall we give if we do not proceed the truth now and let it remain hidden, until it was too late to consider on the profound issue of the president's guilt or innocence. >> one big difference between the house trial and send impeachment process is attorneys for president trump are participating and argue that he is treated unfairly in the house. >> what has taken place in these proceedings is not to be confused with due process. because due process demands, and the constitution requires that fundamental fairness, and a new process -- we are hearing a lot about due process -- due process is designed to help protect the person accused. >> moments ago, senator susan collins put out a statement saying she is likely to support having witnesses testify at a later stage in the trial, as she did back in 1999 with bill clinton. it will be interesting to see if she can get three of the republican senators to join her to force witnesses in the trial, but considering republicans unify today, these data my craddock amendments are set to fail, which are expected to pass. >> bret: thank you. >> martha: let's take a look at the republican defense strategy. good evening chad pergram. >> good evening. the defense is not so much a defense of president trump but it seems like it is in an effort to undercut democratic impeachment managers. >> did you realize you are on trial? mr. nadler is putting everyone on trial. everyone on trial except for them, it's ridiculous. to speak of the white house counsel says a partisan impeachment is like stealing an election. they are not here to steal one election, they are here to steal two elections. the president's defense team knows they will see adam schiff a lot this week, as the lead impeachment manager. some of their defense is to call into question the credibility of schiff. the president added seven house republicans to his defense team this week. they won't have speaking roles during the trial but on television instead. here is doug collins, republican of georgia. speak of the cover-up of the fact that adam schiff is a bad witness. adam schiff does not tell the american public how much he and his community knew about the whistle-blower and the issues going forward. >> the white house tonight called that a joke. back to your. >> bret: chad, thank you. let's get some analysis. chris wallace, the anchor of "fox news sunday." katie pavlich, news editor of townhall.com. the argument that the white house is making through the council, is it compelling to those senators who are on the line about allowing witnesses or not? >> katie: i think that is to be seen. mitch mcconnell has clearly written out a resolution that allows for the cases to be presented first, and then they will vote again to maybe help witnesses down the road if they feel like they need more information to solidify their vote, if they need more information because they are on the line about which way to go,y will be able to say, we want to compel witnesses to come. whether those are witnesses we have not heard from yet, such as secretary pompeo or john bolton, for example, or by the bear witnesses we have heard from. colonels and men, ambassador sondland, for example, that remains to be seen. but yes, they are going after the credibility of adam schiff are good reason. he has a credibility problem when it comes to his history with the white house. he talked about the russia probe and send there was evidence hiding in plain sight, they would just need to see the mueller report. a lot of what he said today about the president hiding something, we just need witnesses to prove that he has done something wrong. a guilty instead of innocent attitude. he keeps calling for witnesses. but when it says go both ways. republicans want to hear from hunter biden. they want to hear from adam schiff and they also want to hear from the whistle-blower. be careful what you wish for when it comes to that side. >> martha: we've been talking about john bolton, and he is really the premier witness. when you raise this question of whether or not there is going to be a witness, adam schiff spoke a little while ago saying, don't you want to know why bolton called it a drug deal? don't you want to know the whole story? and why wouldn't he want to know, was his argument. for the white house's part, the argument has mostly been about process and fairness, and whether or not the president has received due process so far. >> chris: i think there are two key witnesses republicans want to hear from. one is john bolton, except that we know from the record that john bolton didn't like this. as you pointed out, he was calling this a drug deal, he was saying rudy giuliani is a hand grenade that is going to blow us all up. i would also think very much they would want to hear from the acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney, who seems to have been, whatever it is that went on and whether or not you think it was improper or not, he seems to have been a willing participant in this effort and seems to be the person who took the president's orders. because remember, he is still, i think, the chief of the office of the office of management and budget, although he is really in the white house role. he is the one who sent it over just hours after the july 25th phone call, and cut off the $391 million in military aid that have been approved by congress to go to ukraine. interesting point that adam schiff made, because a lot of people are saying, why weren't all these people heard from? you had, in the case of nixon, and in the case of clinton you had justice department investigations, special counci councils, grand juries, and adam schiff pointed out, there is a reason that we in the house had to carry out our own investigation, and that is because when the whistle-blower issued his report and it was sent to the inspector general and the inspector general forwarded it to the justice department, bill barr's justice department, they said we are not going to pursue this case, we do not think there is a legal argument here. and they kicked it back to the whistle-blower, which is how it ended up not going to the justice department for investigation, and instead straight to the house intelligence committee. so to a certain degree, the house and adam schiff and the house intelligence committee had to take up this task of an investigation because the justice department refused to do it. >> bret: but there's a lot we don't know about the early connections with the whistle-blower and the house intelligence committee. that is some of the heart of the republicans' questioning, saying maybe adam schiff should be one of the witnesses. >> chris: and that is blowing back and forth now too because the democrats are saying pat some should be a fact witnesses. the most interesting question to me today is going to be how long will we continue on this process of having amendments. we know we are going to get defeated, you are in for a lot because once an amendment goes to the floor, you get two hours. you get an hour -- and these are all amendments offered by the democrats. first, the house managers, the house democrats get to make their argument. then the white house lawyers get to make their argument. >> bret: there is not enough milk to go around. [laughter] >> chris: but this could go on for a long time. at some point you think mitch mcconnell is going to say, instead of having the debate we are going to table it right away. >> bret: let's bring in the panel from new york, perino, juan williams, cohosts of "the five," andy mccarthy, andy, let's start with yo you. let's hear from you, talks on on the day? >> you want to hear from another lawyer, do you? >> bret: maybe not. [laughter] >> as i sat and listened, you do wish that chief justice roberts could actually stop them in the middle of some of these arguments and pepper them with some questions because particularly with respect to the arguments about the need for these witnesses and documents, i thought senator lofgren did a very effective job making her argument but a lot of what she is arguing for is evidence that she knows it exists because of the unchallenged records. so for example, she wants the talking points for the preparation for the zelensky, trump telephone call on july 25th because she thinks that will show that the president departed from the script in terms of his own ukraine policy. well, how does she know that? they got testimony in the house hearings from lieutenant colonel vindman, who said he wrote the talking points and the president departed from the script. in other words, there is a lot going on here where they are arguing for documents because they know the documents exist on the basis of the unrebutted testimony in the house hearings, which suggests to me that these materials, these documents are not particularly material or important, in the sense that they don't move the ball up the field in terms of moving the case. they want to get a bunch of documents to corroborate points that nobody is refuting or trying to argue against. and i just think, if the chief justice was able to pepper the lawyers with questions as the arguments were being made, those arguments could be brought out and maybe we could get to the finish line a little faster. >> bret: next impeachment we will work on that. speak of the other thing that occurs to me, i think the president's lawyers have done a great job so far but i really think they need to put this in context. a person just watching the arguments about ukraine could easily draw the conclusion that the president is being unreasonable by a, in a sweeping way, withholding all of these documents, but this happens in a context where ukraine followed hard on the pelosi investigation -- mueller investigation, which went over for two years, including making the president's own white house counsel available to investigators and all the president got out of it, obviously mueller didn't make his case in the end, but by cooperating, this only fed on the investigation but had the effect of extending it and making it more difficult for him to govern. i think they need to put this in the greater context of the fact that this follows on the mueller investigation, where there was extensive cooperation. >> bret: they will have a lot of time in 24 hours once this gets started. the president hasn't weighed in much, one line on twitter. it said one thing and that is "read the transcript!" >> juan: the lawyers, the president's lawyers have made that point repeatedly, saying he was transparent in releasing the transcript of the phone call. you know what strikes me, though, is that we are on a partisan march so far. i think we are in lockstep. i think mitch mcconnell behind doors is trying to hold onto control of his caucus and so far, so good, although it looks, as we discussed, that he had to make some compromise with regard to the length of time that the house managers will be able to present their case. the larger point that i'm taking away from today is that i noticed on both sides they are making the analogy to the court of law, and what would a judge say if the defense attorney said -- if the judge himself said i have been in consultation with the defendant and the defendant has asked no witnesses or evidence be introduced at this point, let's proceed. people would say that's ridiculous. the contrary point coming from the president's lawyers who say, what kind of court would allow someone to come into the prosecutor's to say, we have a great case but we need more evidence. they would say, if you're not ready to proceed, then why would you come at all? i think they are both trying, in terms of the court of public opinion, and we know what the court of public opinion holds. about a clear split, 46%, 47% of saying this president should be removed. and about 50% plus say they approve of the house having impeached president trump, but today, i think both sides are playing to the cameras, playing to the audience. in terms of what they know about watching a trial on television, a criminal trial, much more than impeachment. and in terms of the impeachment, just more lockstep voting, in terms of what we can see on camera. >> martha: you talk about the polls. i want to go to dana. when you look at these numbers, they really have not shifted much in this process. 51% in the latest gallup poll say they do not want to see the president impeached and removed. and a lot of this comes down to the swing states, the senate races, where these houses may flip when you look at susan collins, lisa murkowski, some of these races. what do you think about the moderate republicans right now who are may be in the middle on some of these issues as to how this plays out? >> dana: this is a great question because this is truly what this is really all about. the case for impeachment and removing president trump, if it were overwhelming on the facts and the merits and there was bipartisan report for it, we would all know that by now. i think that is why speaker pelosi was so reluctant to do impeachment for a long time. she kept pumping the breaks and when it became, get in front of the parade or get run over by it, she decided, i guess i better figure out a way to do impeachment. that fist bump to bill maher when he congratulated her on impeachment, she was like, my work is done. republicans will try to take back the house, that is a little bit farther away, in the senate, senator majority leader mitch mcconnell has to try to keep -- >> martha: chief justice roberts is breaking it back to order. let's listen. >> we will reserve time for rebuttal. >> chief justice roberts, senators, counsel for the white house, i am val demings from the state of florida. the house managers strongly support the amendment to issue subpoena for documents to the state department. as we explain, the first article of impeachment charges, the president was using the power of his office to solicit and pressure ukraine to announce investigation that everyone in this chamber knows to be bogus. the president didn't even 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 furthers charges that the president did so with corrupt motive, and that his abuse of power for personal gain harmed the national security of the united states. as the second article of impeachment charges, the president sought to conceal evidence of this conduct. he did so by ordering his entire administration, every office, every agency, every official to defy every subpoena served in the house impeachment inquiry. no president in history has ever done anything like this. many presidents have expressly acknowledged that they couldn't 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 here today. the president is engaged in this cover-up because he is 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 presidents high crimes and misdemeanors. 17 witnesses, 130 hours of testimony combined with the president's own admission 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 honored 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. issues of $391 million of vital military aid, taxpayer money appropriated on a bipartisan basis by congress as leverage to force ukraine to comply and withhold a meeting desperately sought by the newly elected president of ukraine. this testimony was particularly compelling because the state department is at the very center of president trump's wrongdoing. we heard first-hand from diplomatic officials who saw up close and personal what was happening, and who immediately, immediately foun sounded the al. pastor william taylor, who returned to ukraine last year as acting ambassador texted other state department officials, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." ambassador to the european union gordon sondland, who has delegated authority over ukraine matters by none other 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 keys says "it was made clear that some action on a 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 notes that would corroborate their testimony and shed additional light on president trump's corrupt scheme. for instance, ambassador taylor, who raised the problem that military aid had been conditioned on the president's demand for political investigation, described a little notebook in which he would take notes on conversations he had with key officials. ambassador sondland referred by date and recipient to emails regarding the president's demand that ukraine announce political investigation. as we will see through emails that were sent to some of president trump's top advisors, 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 kent, who oversaw ukraine policy matters in washington for the state department, wrote at least four memos to document concerning conduct he witnessed or heard. and ambassador kurt volker, the special representative for ukraine negotiations, provided evidence that he and other american officials communicated with high-level ukrainian officials, including president zelensky himself via text message and what's app 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 bear directly on the allegations set forth in the first article of impeachment. they would help complete our understanding of how the president's scheme unfolded in real time. they would support the conclusion that senior ukrainian officials understood the corrupt nature of president trump's demand, and they would further expose the extent to which secretary pompeo, acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, and other senior trump administration officials were aware of the president's plot, and helped carry it out. we are not talking about a burdensome number of documents. we are 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, what's app and other text message communications. two, emails. three, diplomatic cables. and four, notes. given the significance and relevance of these documents, the house requested 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 president's guilt or innocence. and it is an affront to the constitution, which makes clear 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 i've noted, the president ordered the state department to defy a subpoena from the house. at this point, i would like to briefly describe our own efforts to get those materials. i will 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 septembe september 27th. in a letter on october 1st, secretary pompeo acknowledged receipt of the subpoena. at that time he stated that he would respond to the committee subpoena for documents by the return date, october 4th. but his response never came. instead, on october 8th, president trump's lawyer, writing on the president's behalf, issued a direction confirming that the administration was stonewalled. the impeachment inquiry to date, the state department has not produced a single document. not a single document in response to the congressional subpoena. but witnesses who testified have indicated that the state department had gathered all 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. i would 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 what's app and other text messages from state department officials caught up in these events, including ambassador sondland and taylor and also deputy assistant secretary geore kent, all three confirming their testimony that they regular use whatsapp to communicate with each other and other foreign officials. whatsapp is a dominant form of electronic communication in certain parts of the world. we know that the state department possesses the records of whatsapp and text messages from critical eyewitnesses to these proceedings, including from ambassador sondland and taylor, and deputy assistant secretary secretary kent. we know that the department is deliberately, deliberately concealing these records at the direction of the president and we know they could contain highly relevant testimony about the president's plan on the announcement of investigation for his own personal and political gain. we know this not only from testimony but also because ambassador volker was able to provide us with a 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, first-hand picture of statements, decisions, concerns, and beliefs held by important players of events unfolding in real time. for example, thanks to ambassador volker's messages, we know that ambassador sondland, a key player in the president's pressure campaign, who testified in the house about a quid pro quo arrangement, texted directly with the ukrainian president zelensky. this image, produced by ambassador volker, appears to be a screenshot of a text message that ambassador sondland exchanged with president zelensky about plans for the white house visit. the very same visit that president zelensky badly needed and that president trump later withheld as part of the quid pro quo described by ambassador sondland in his testimony. 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 about the white house meeting are about the military aid and the president's demand, but we don't know exactly what was conveyed and when. we don't 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 desire and direction to cover up his wrongdoing. why text messages and whatsapp messages are so vital, just consider another piece of evidence we've gleaned from ambassador voelker's partial production. the white house meetings at which ambassador sondland pressured ukrainian officials to announce investigation of president trump's political opponents, a ukrainian government official texted ambassador volker, "i feel that the key for many things is rudy, and i am ready to talk with him at any time." this is evidence then immediately following ambassador sondland's ultimatum, ukrainian officials recognized that they needed 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 instead it was advanced in his clients. at the president's own personal interest. further, in another text message exchange provided by ambassador volker, we see evidence that ukraine understood president trump's demands loud and clear. on the morning of july 25th, half an hour before the infamous call between president trump and president zelensky, ambassador volker 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 down date for a visit to washington. good luck! see you tomorrow, kurt." ambassador sondland confirmed that 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 volker wrote to rudy giuliani exactly the right messages, as we discussed. these messages confirm mr. giuliani's central role. the nature of president trump's solicitation of the pressure campaign on ukraine waged by mr. giuliani and senior officials at president trump's direction. again, this is just some of what we learned from ambassador volker's records. as you will see you during this trial presentation, there were numerous whatsapp messages in august, while ambassadors volker ambassador sondland were pressuring ukraine to announce the investigation that president trump wanted and ambassador taylor's texts that you saw it earlier about withholding the aid further revealed how much more material there likely is that relates to the articles of impeachment. there can be no doubt that a full production of relevant texts and whatsapp messages from other officials involved in ukraine and in touch with ukrainian officials, including ambassador sondland, ambassador taylor, and deputy assistant secretary kent would further illuminate the malfeasance addressed in our first article. this leads to the second category of documents that the state department is unlawfully withholding. emails involving key state department officials concerning interactions with senior ukrainian officials and related to military aid, a white house meeting, and the president's demand for investigations into his rival. for example, on july 19th, master gordon sondland spoke directly with president zelensky about the upcoming july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky. ambassador sondland sent an email updating key officials about secretary pompeo, including secretary pompeo, acting white house chief of staff mulvaney, and his senior advisor robert blair. in this email he noted that he prepared president zelensky, who was willing to make announcement of political investigation that president trump desired. secretary perry and mick mulvaney then responded to sondland, acknowledging they received the email in recommending to move forward with the phone call that became the july 25th call between the president 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 demonstrated "everyone was in the loop." >> everyone was in the loop. it was no secret. everyone was informed via email on july 19th, days before the presidential 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 email is damning. it was sent shortly after investors home and personally conveyed the president 'demand for investigations by ukrainians at the white house, leaving several officials to sound alarms. it was sent just a few days before the july 25th call where president trump asked for a favor, and by itself, this email shows who was involved in president trump's plan to pressure the ukrainian president for his own political gain. but it's obvious that the full email chain and other related emails to this key time period would also be highly relevant. we don't 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 pursuing to a lawsuit under the freedom of information act. these documents are heavily redacted and are limited to a very narrow time period, but nevertheless, despite the heavy reactions, these highly limited glimpses into the state department's secret record demonstrates that those records are full of information relevant to this trial. for example, several of these newly elected or 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 interests 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. giuliani's efforts in ukraine is relevant, disturbing, and telling. 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. giuliani's ukraine conspiracy theories, secretary pompeo and mr. giuliani spoke directly on the phone. that same week, president trump's former personal secretary was asked by mr. giuliani's assistant for a direct connection for 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 trump's 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. giuliani's communication wih 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 connected with an unidentified number numerous times. these records show that on marcd a series of calls, a series of calls to the state department. secretary pompeo's assistant and the white house switchboard in quick succession, all within less then 30 minutes. obtaining emails and other documents regarding the state department leaderships' interaction with president trump's private lawyer in this period when mr. giuliani was actively orchestrating the pressure campaign in 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 mr. giuliani likely spoke with secretary pompeo on ukraine matters even earlier than previously understood. according to documents obtained from mr. parnas, 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, marie jovanovich. mr. giuliani viewed her as an impediment to implementing the president's corrupt schemes and orchestrated a long-running smear campaign against her. here is what mr. parnas said about this just last week. >> do you believe that part of the motivation to get rid of investor yovanovitch was because she was in the way of this effort to get the government of ukraine to announce investigation into joe biden? >> that was the only motivation. there was no other motivation. >> these are just some of the email communications that we know. these are just some of the email communications that we know to exist. there are undoubtedly more, including, for example, ambassador yovanovitch's request for the state department to issue a statement of support of her around the time that mr. giuliani was speaking directly, directly with secretary pompeo. but that statement never came. the state department has gathered these records and they are ready to be turned over, pursuant to a subpoena of the senate. it would not be a time-consuming or lengthy process to obtain them. and there are clearly, clearly important and relevant documents to the 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 that is ambassador taylor's extraordinary, first-person diplomatic cable to secretary pompeo, dated augus august 29th, and sent at the recommendation of the national security advisor john bolton, in which ambassador taylor strenuously objected to the withholding of military aid from ukraine is ambassador taylor recounted in his deposition. >> near the end of ambassador bolton's visit, i asked for a meeting privately during which i expressed to him my serious concern about that withholding of military assistance to ukraine while the ukrainians were defending their country from russian aggression. investor bolton recommended that i sent a first-person cable to secretary pompeo directly relating my concerns. i wrote and transmitted such a cable on august 29th, describing the folly i saw and 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, n thereafter, the secretary carried the cable with him to a meeting at the white house focused on security assistance to ukraine. >> while we know from ambassador taylor and deputy assistant secretary kent that the cable was received, we do not know whether or how 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 and political gain. second, on the same day the cable was sent, president zelensky's personal aide told ambassador taylor that he was very concerned about the hold on military assistance. he added that the ukrainians were just desperate, added to be released. in other words, president trum president trump's effort 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 asper, and national security advisor bolton. the investigation uncovered testimony that secretary pompeo brought ambassador taylor's cable to the white house. perhaps it was during this meeting. they are perhaps by ambassador taylor's cable, all three of them pleaded with the president to resume the crucial military t refused. this body has a right to see ambassador taylor's cable, as well as the other state department records addressing the official response to it. although it may have been classified at the time, the state department can no longer claim that the topic of security assistance remains classified today, in light of the president's decision to declassify his two television calls with president zelensky and mr. mulvaney's public statements about security assistance. the fourth category of documents that the senate should subpoena are contemporaneous, first-person accounts from state department officials who were caught up in president trump's 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 real time, and how the ukrainians reacted. mr. kent wrote notes or memos to file at least four times, according to his testimony. ambassador taylor took extensive notes of nearly every conversation he had, some in a little notebook, and david holmes, the embassy official in ukraine, was a consistent notetaker of important meetings with ukrainian officials. >> did you take notes of this conversation on september 1st with investors on them? >> i did. >> and did you take notes related to most of the conversations, if not all of them, that you recited in your opening statement? >> all of them, mr. goldman. >> 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 don't have the benefit of reviewing them to ask you these questions. >> correct. i understand that they may be coming, sooner or later. >> well, 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 concern that the trump administration was attempting to pressure ukraine into opening politically motivated investigations. >> i would like to start with you, mr. kent. in your testimony, you said that you had, in august it became clear to me that mr. giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated investigations were now affecting u.s. engagement with ukraine, leveraging president zelensky's desire for a white house meeting. mr. kent, did you actually write a memo documenting your concerns that there was a memo underway pressuring ukraine to open an investigation benefiting president trump? >> yes, ma'am. i wrote a memo to the file on august 16th. >> but we don't have access to that memo, do we quest do we? >> i submitted it to the state department subject to the subpoena. >> and we have not received one piece of paper from the state department relative to this investigation. >> deputy assistant secretary kent also memorialized a september 15th conversation in which ambassador taylor described a ukrainian official accusing america of hypocrisy for advising president zelensky against investigating 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 point that the ukrainians, who had opened their authorities under president president zelensky, had opened investigations of former president. he didn't think that was appropriate. then andriy yermak said, what? you mean the type of investigations you are pushing us to do on biden and clinton? the competition makes clear that the ukrainian officials understood the corrupt nature of president trump's request, and therefore doubted american credibility on anticorruption measures. records of these conversations and other notes and memoranda by senior american officials in ukraine would flush out and help lead the record for the first article of impeachment. they would tell the whole truth to the american people, and to this body. you to summarize, the senate should issue the subpoenas proposed in the amendment requiring the state department to turn over relevant messages and emails, diplomatic cables and notes. these documents bear directly on the trial of this body that 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 don't 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 awaited further lawsuits under the freedom of information act, a.k.a. foia lawsuits. any such suggestion is meritle meritless. to start, the constitution has never been understood to require such lawsuits, which has never occurred, never occurred in any previous 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 freedom of information act cases, the administration has only grudgingly and slowly produced an extremely small set of materials but has insisted on applying heavy and dubious