Impeachment Trial Day 1: Senate proceedings set to begin as rules come into focus

HAVE A FAIR TRIAL. AND I THINK THE PRESENTERS WHO TAKE THE OATH SERIOUSLY AND I HOPE AND PRAY THAT THEY DO SO, THIS IS NOT THE FAIR TRIAL THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT. THIS IS NOT THE FAIR TRIAL THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE. WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO THE DEMOCRATIC IMPEACHMENT ADMINISTRATORS, ACTUALLY ONLY TWO OF THEM DECIDED TO TALK. CHUCK SCHUMER AND JERRY NADLER AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE REPUBLICANS ON HOW IT WILL GO FORWARD. WE FOUND OUT WHETHER THERE WERE WITNESSES OR NOT AND WHAT WE FOUND OUT IS THAT THAT WOULD BE EVERYTHING DEBATE, WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.

RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE WILL BE WITNESSES AND THAT'S MAINLY WHAT THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT. VERY DIFFICULT WORDS FROM ADAM SHIFT. WITNESSES AND FINDING, THOSE WERE THEIR WORDS AND THE IDEA OF HAVING THE TRIAL LATE AT NIGHT MEANS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL IS WHAT ADAM SCHIFF SAID. WE HOPE THAT CHUCK SCHUMER WILL COME TO THE PODIUM AT THE TIME OF 11:00 AND WE WILL BE ATTENTION TO THAT. LIVE COVERAGE OF RESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S PERFORMANCE BEGINS AT 12:30 ON CBSN. DO YOU WANT TO STAY. TRANSMIT ANY DEVICE YOU CAN. WE CONTINUE. STAY. WE'LL BE BACK.

CHINESE OFFICIALS SAY THE FAST-SPREADING CORONAVIRUS HAS KILLED AT LEAST SIX PEOPLE, CAUSING A RENEWED URGENCY TO MAINTAIN A LETHAL VIRUS CONTENT. THE NEWS COMES AFTER AN EXPERT CONFIRMS THAT THE VIRUS CAN BE TRANSMITTED FROM HUMAN TO HUMAN. OFFICIALS REPORT THAT A WOMAN IN TAIWAN HAS BEEN INFECTED AFTER A TRIP TO THE EPICENTER OF THE OUTBREAK. OUR CORRESPONDENT IN ASIA HAS THE LATEST. Reporter: OFFICIALS HAVE DESIGNATED NINE HOSPITALS AS TREATMENT CENTERS, INCLUDING THE ONE RIGHT BEHIND ME. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO 61 FEVER CLINICS AND A TEAM OF EMERGENCY EXPERTS. GOOD NEWS IS THAT CHINESE SCIENTISTS SAY THEY HAVE DISCOVERED THE DNA SEQUENCE OF THE VIRUS WHICH OPENS THE POSSIBILITY OF TREATMENTS AND POTENTIALLY A VACCINE.

AS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CHINESE RESIDENTS MIGRATE ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO CELEBRATE THE LUNAR NEW YEAR, CONFIRMATION THAT THE VIRUS CAN SPREAD AMONG HUMANS RAISES THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT CAN BE TRANSMITTED FASTER AND MORE WIDELY. THAT PRESENTS AN EVEN GREATER CHALLENGE FOR CHINA AND NEARBY NATIONS TO CONTAIN THE OUTBREAK. TRAVELERS WITH MASKS AND QUARANTINE STATIONS AND TEMPERATURE CHECKPOINTS ARE BECOME COMMON SITE AT AIRPORTS AND TRAIN HUBS ACROSS ASIA. THIS MEMBER SPEAKING OUTSIDE WUHAN HOSPITAL SAYS IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS BUT BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT CAN HANDLE IT VERY WELL. THE NUMBER OF KNOWN INFECTIONS HAS INCREASED STRONGLY SINCE YESTERDAY, EXCEEDING 300 CASES IN CHINA ALONE.

AT LEAST 15 WUHAN HOSPITAL WORKERS HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH THE VIRUS. IF IN FACT A PERSON HAS INFECTED A HEALTH CARE WORKER, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY OF SOME CONCERN. THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH DOCTOR SAYS THAT TRANSMISSIBILITIES FROM PERSON TO ANOTHER COULD BE ISOLATED INCIDENTS, BUT -- WHEN YOU GET SUSTAINED TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER, FROM ANOTHER TO ANOTHER, THEN YOU HAVE A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM . THAT WOULD ALLOW A MUCH WIDER TYPE OF OUTBREAK. Reporter: THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SAYS THEY WILL MEET A COMMITTEE OF EMERGENCY EXPERTS ON WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS OUTBREAK CONSTITUTES A GLOBAL EMERGENCY AND HOW BEST TO CONTAIN IT.

Returning to Iraq, where multiple rockets were allegedly fired near the US embassy in Baghdad, according to REUTERS, they landed near the embassy and other government buildings, but no casualties were reported. NO ONE CLAIMS RESPONSIBLY. THEY BLAMEED IRAN FOR ACTUAL TARGETING OF SIMILAR ATTACKS. HUNDREDS OF ANGRY PROTESTERS GATHERED OUTSIDE THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY FROM OFFICIALS. It came about after a blogger recently discovered a warehouse full of unused Hurricane Maria aid and PENSCE. IT WAS RECENTLY DAMAGED BY THE SERIES OF EARTHQUAKES. THREE OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN FIRED SINCE THE DISCOVERY BUT PROTESTERS ARE ASKING THE GOVERNOR TO RESIGN, AS THEY DID FOR FORMER GOVERNOR RICARDO ROSSELLO.

WANDA VÁSQUEZ STATES THAT SHE WAS UNKNOWN ABOUT THE WAREHOUSE AND HAS ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE HANDLING OF ALL THE AID. CHAOS BREAKD OUT ON THE GUATEMALA-MEXICO BORDER. THOUSANDS OF HONDURIAN MIGRANTS IN A CLASH WITH MEXICAN FORCES AFTER THEY TRIED TO CROSS A RIVER AT THE BORDER. THE ENTRY TO THE COUNTRY IS BEING BLOCKED. THE GROUP SAYS THEY TRAVEL IN GREATER NUMBERS TO AVOID BEING SENT THEM BACK TO HONDURAS. BUT MEXICO IS UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE UNITED STATES TO PREVENT LARGE GROUPS FROM REACHING THE BORDER. THE IMMIGRATION REPORTER SAT WITH MIKE AND HIS PARENTS WHO RETURNED TO THE US AFTER BEING ILLEGALLY DEPORTED.

HE WILL JOIN US ON THURSDAY TO EXPLAIN HOW IT HAPPENED AND WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE FAMILY. WE ARE LOOKING CLOSER AT THE RECOMMENDED ISLAND WHERE THE LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN IS ACCUSED OF TRAFFICKING UNDERAGE GIRLS. LITTLE ST. JAMES OFF THE SHORE OF ST. THOMAS WAS THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN UNTIL HIS DEATH IN AUGUST. NOW THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS SUING HIS ESTATE TO GAIN CONTROL OF IT. A NEW LAWSUIT GIVES DETAILS AND HOW HE COULD MAKE HIS ALLEGED CRIMES GO UNHEALTHED FOR SO LONG. THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS TO GET TO THE ISLAND, BY HELICOPTER OR BY PRIVATE BOAT.

THE ISOLATION APPEARS TO BE BY DESIGN, MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO MONITOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BEHAVIOR ON THE ISLAND AND EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE ALLEGED VICTIMS WHO WERE BROUGHT HERE TO ESCAPE. GRETA THUNBERG ACCUSES WORLD LEADERS OF FOODING THE FLAMES OF CLIMATE CHANGE. She made these statements while speaking at the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM IN DABO SWITZERLAND. CRITICIZE WORLD LEADERS FOR FAILING TO KEEP EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROMISES. HE SAID SOME GOALS GOVERNMENTS ARE SETTING DO NOT GO FAR ENOUGH. WE DON'T NEED A LOW CARBON ECONOMY, WE DON'T NEED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS. OUR ADMISSIONS HAVE TO STOP.

IF WE WANT TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAY BELOW THE GOAL OF 1.5 DEGREES. AND UNTIL WE DO NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGIES, THE SCALE CAN PUT IT TO LESS, THEN WE SHOULD FORGET ABOUT NET ZERO, WE NEED REAL ZERO. HE CAUSED A WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT WHEN HE STARTED SKIPPING SCHOOL ON FRIDAYS TO PROTEST IN FRONT OF THE SWEDISH PARLIAMENT. PRINCE HARRY IS IN CANADA TO START HIS NEW LIFE WITH MEGAN AND HIS SON ARCHIE. THE DUKE OF SUSSEX WAS SEEN LANDING IN VANCOUVER ON MONDAY NIGHT AFTER ATTENDING WHAT WILL LIKELY BE ONE OF THE LAST OFFICIAL LOYAL ENGAGEMENTS IN LONDON.

I THOUGHT OF YOU. COMING THIS SPRING, THE COUPLE WILL NO LONGER BE FULL-TIME WORKING ROYALTY. ELIZABETH PALMER STANDS OUTSIDE BUCKINGHAM PALACE WITH THE STORY. IT'S BEEN A TUMULTUOUS COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE HARRY HAS DEFINITELY LEFT HIS OLD LIFE AND STARTED A NEW LIFE. THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM BUCKINGHAM PALACE. PRINCE HARRY AND HE CAN STILL USE THE TITLE ARRIVED IN VANCOUVER LAST NIGHT AND WAS IMMEDIATELY TAKEN TO MEET EIGHT-MONTH-OLD MEGAN AND ARCHIE. JUST A FEW HOURS EARLIER HE HAD CONSTITUTED HIS JOB AS A SENIOR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY AT A CONFERENCE ON AFRICAN INVESTMENTS.

THE DEPARTURE OF HARRY AND MEGAN LIKELY MEANS EVEN MORE WORK FOR PRINCE WILLIAM, THE FUTURE KING, WHO WITH HIS WIFE, KATE, WAS ON DUTY FOR THE FIRST TIME AS THE CHIEF HOST OF A RECEPTION. THE DAY EARLIER, HARRY HAD TOLD AT A MEETING OF HIS PRIVATE CHARITY that there had been no other option but to go. WE ARE TAKING A LEAP OF FAITH. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE COURAGE TO TAKE THIS NEXT STEP. THIS IS STILL NOT A CLEAN BREAK. WHAT ARE THE LOOSE ENDS? THERE ARE MORE LOOSE ENDS THAN DECISIONS. THE HIGHLIGHT OF COURSE IS THE MONEY.

WHO IS GOING TO PAY WHAT? AND PROBABLY THE MOST HIGHLIGHTING THING ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS SECURITY. KEEPING YOUNG FAMILY SAFE IS GOING TO COST A FORTUNE. AND BRITISH OR CANADIAN TAXPAYERS LIKELY HAVE THE BILL. THAT WILL FEED THE ANGER. BRITISH PUBLIC OPINION IS THAT IT'S ALL MEGAN'S FAULT AND SHE TOOK HARRY FROM US AND SHE'S THE ONE WHO INSISTS THEY HAVE A PRIVATE LIFE. Reporter: RATING THAT IS A GENERATIONAL THING. OLDER PEOPLE MAY BLAME MEGAN FOR REMOVING HARRY AND YOUNGER PEOPLE TEND TO THINK THAT THE COUPLE DESERVES THE CHANCE FOR A HAPPY LIFE AND WISH THEM WELL.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS APOLOGIZES TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN FOR AN OPINION WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS CAMPAIGN SURGES. THE OPINION ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE GUARDIAN STATED THAT THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT HAS A BIG CORRUPTION PROBLEM. IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, SENATOR SANDERS SAYS IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT HIS OPINION THAT JOE BIDEN IS CORRUPT IN ANY WAY. ALL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES ARE LOOKING FOR A WAY FORWARD. THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN THOUGHT THEY WERE ON TO SOMETHING WITH THIS OPINION FROM A NEW YORK LIBERAL AND PROMINENT SUPPORTER OF THE VERMONT SENATOR WROTE THAT JOE BIDEN HAS A CORRUPTION PROBLEM FOR ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RICH DONORS.

SHE WRITES THAT MIDDLE CLASS JOE HAS PERFECTED THE ART OF ACCEPTING BIG CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEN REPRESENTING AMERICA'S CORPORATE DONORS AT THE EXPENSE OF MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS AMERICANS. THE OPINION ARTICLE WAS LATER CIRCULATED BY THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN AND THE JOE BIDEN CAMPAIGN QUICKLY Pounced AND OTHER OBSERVERS QUICKLY SAID THIS SOUNDS A LOT LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO SANDERS IN 2016 WHEN HIS SUPPORTERS AGGRESSIVELY ATTACKED HILLARY CLINTON AND MORE RECENTLY AFTER ELIZABETH WARREN AND JOE BIDEN. SENATOR SANDERS CALLED HIS FOLLOWERS TO PLAY WELL. JOE AND I HAVE STRONG DISAGREEMENTS ON SEVERAL TOPICS AND WE DISCUSS THOSE DISAGREEMENTS, BUT IT IS NOT AT ALL MY OPINION THAT JOE IS CORRUPT IN ANY WAY.

AND I'M SORRY THAT THAT OP-ED APPEARED. I FEEL THAT MY SUPPORTERS PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THE CIVIL DISCOURSE, AND BY THE WAY, WE ARE NOT THE ONLY CAMPAIGN THAT DOESN'T. OTHER PEOPLE WHO ACT LIKE THIS TOO, BUT I CALL ON EVERYONE TO HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT THE ISSUES. WE CAN DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEMENT, WITHOUT BEING HATEFUL. IN RESPONSE LAST NIGHT, BIDEN TWEET HIS THANKS TO SANDERS AND SAID THOSE KINDS OF ATTACKS HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS PRIMARY. HE'S HERE TODAY HOLDING AT LEAST TWO EVENTS IN COLD IOWA AS SENATORS RETURN TO WASHINGTON FOR THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND SANDERS IS DEPLOYING A SENIOR SUPERVISOR IN HIS ABSENCE.

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ WILL BE EXPECTED HERE ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. YOU'RE TAKING A QUICK BREAK, WHICH MEANS IT'S A GOOD TIME TO DOWNLOAD THE FREE CBS NEWS APP ON ALL DEVICES. VLAD SHOWS THE FINGER. YOU CAN WATCH CBSN ANYTIME, ANYWHERE WITH ANY CONNECTED DEVICE. THE WEBSITE IS FREE THE APP IS FREE IF YOU DON'T WANT THE CONVENIENCE OF A NAP AND THAT'S CBS NEWS.COM. GO TO THE GOOGLE PLAY STORE AND DOWNLOAD THE APP AND YOU CAN SEE US ALL DAY. ALSO ON YOUR SMART TV. ON HEALTHWATCH, A PRO-VACCINATION SOCIAL MEDIA POST LEADS TO THREATS AGAINST AN OHIO DOCTOR.

THE REACTION IS RELATED TO THE STATEMENT POSTED ON TICK-TOCK CHALLENGING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM. IT COMES AS A RECENT SURVEY FINDS THAT 46% OF AMERICANS ARE STILL UNSURE ABOUT THE DISASSEMBLED ASSOCIATION. WE SPOKE WITH THE PEDIATRIAN ABOUT THE POST AND THE CONSEQUENCES. WE KNOW THAT VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE MESSAGE GOES THERE. THE DOCTOR SAYS SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF MISLEADING ANTI-VACCINE POSTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, SO SHE CREATED THIS. TICK-TOCK NOW HAS 1.4 MILLION VIEWS. SHE AND HER STAFF QUICKLY BECOME TARGETS. I HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A TSUNAMI OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS ON ALL MY SOCIAL MEDIA.

THERE HAVE BEEN NEGATIVE AND FRAUDULENT OPINIONS. A SOCIAL MEDIA USER CALLED HER NUMBER ONE PUBLIC ENEMY AND ANOTHER COMMENTER TOLD THE PEDIATRIAN TO STOP KILLING OUR CHILDREN WITH VACCINES. Even though the overwhelming scientific consensus is that vaccines do not cause autism, 16% of parents with children under 18 say they still believe vaccines cause more harm than good. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE IN THE INTERNET ERA, THERE ARE VERY FEW RESOURCES. RENC IS A TECHNICAL RESEARCH AT THE PLANETARY OBSERVATORY. WHAT HAPPENS AT THE EXPENSE OF DOCTORS WHO MAKE STATEMENTS TO CONTRAST THE MISINFORMATION IS THAT THEY THEMSELVES BECOME THE SUPPORT OF THE HARASSMENT CAMPAIGNS AND THE CAMPAIGNS TO DAMAGE THE REPUTATION AND THE CAMPAIGNS OF DISINFORMATION.

IN RECENT MONTHS, CONGRESS HAS QUESTIONED SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES FOR FAILING TO STOP THE SPREAD OF MISINFORMATION AND IN A STATEMENT, TICK-TOCK SAID WE ELIMINATE MISINFORMATION THAT COULD CAUSE HARM TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH OR LIFE. PUBLIC SECURITY IN GENERAL. AS FOR BALDWIN, HE SAYS HE KEEPS HIS MESSAGE. I WILL NOT DELETE MY POST, I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED INTO SURRENDERING. ON MONEY WATCH, UBER IS TESTING A FEATURE THAT GAVE SOME DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA THE ABILITY TO SET THEIR OWN SHOWS. THIS IS A MOVE THAT WILL GIVE MORE DRIVERS AND WRITERS CONTROL IN THE GIG ECONOMY ACT. NEW LEGISLATION REQUIRES COMPANIES TO TREAT WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES RATHER THAN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.

UBER, LYFT, DOOR DACHSHUND POST HAVE RAISED OVER $100 MILLION FOR A BAILOUT THIS YEAR BY ASKING VOTERS TO ACCEPT THE LAW COMPANY'S FILES. TESLA IS DISPUTING ALLEGATIONS OF UNEXPECTED ACCELERATIONAT THE VEHICLE SAYING A SHORT-ACTING SELLER WAS BEHIND THE CLAIMS. AT QUESTION ARE APPROXIMATELY 500,000 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM THE 13TH TO 2019 ALONE. A PETITION FILED LAST WEEK CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE 127 COMPLAINTS OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE NATIONAL MINISTRY OF ROAD SAFETY SAYS IT WILL REVIEW THE PETITION AND DECIDE WHETHER TO START A FULL INVESTIGATION. GOOGLE AND GOOGLE'S CEO CALLS FOR REGULAR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN AN OPINION ARTICLE FOR THE FINANCIAL TIMES, HE WROTE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT BUT QUESTIONED THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH IT.

THEIR COMMENTS ARE MADE AS LAWS AND GOVERNMENTS CONSIDER PLACING LIMITS ON HOW ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS USED. COMING UP, IN THE NEXT HOUR, SENATORS PREPARE FOR OPENING ARGUMENTS IN THE IN-PERSON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, WE TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT. AND CBS NEWSEXCLUSIVE, WHAT BERNIE SANDERS, WHY HE IS APOLOGIZING FOR FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE OFFERS THE LAST OF THE ELEMENTS IN THE CURRENT CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK IN CHINA. OFFICIALS NOW SAY IT CAN BE TRANSMITTED FROM HUMAN TO HUMAN. YOU'RE STREAMING CBSN, CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. C1 HELLO EVERYONE I'M ANNE-MARIE GREEN. THE SENATE DECIDES THE FUTURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THIS IS A LIVE LOOK FROM CAPITOL HILL, WHERE AT ANY MOMENT WE EXPECT TO HEAR CHUCK SCHUMER. MEANWHILE, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IN DAVOS, SWITZERLAND, ATTENDING THE ECONOMIC FORUM. BUT THE IMPEACHMENT CONFRONT IN WASHINGTON IS EXPECTED TO DOWNLOAD HIS VISIT. THE OTHER THING IS JUST A DECEPTION. IT'S THE WITCH HUNT THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS AND FRANKLY, IT'S SHAMEFUL. WE MEET WITH THE WORLD'S LARGEST COMPANIES, THE WORLD'S LARGEST COMPANIES AND WORLD LEADERS, ALL FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. ORIENTAL. UNDER THE PROPOSAL, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYERS AND DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE 24 HOURS EACH TO PRESENT OPENING ARGUMENTS.

THIS COULD LAST MORE THAN FOUR DAYS. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO CAPITOL HILL NOW, WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE THE DEMOCRATS ARE TALKING. LET'S LISTEN. ON THE ISSUE AT HAND, THE SUPREME COURT JUST ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD DELAY JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S LAWSUIT AGAINST OUR HEALTH LAW. IT IS A CLEAR REMINDER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WHILE ALL THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS IS GOING ON, THE PRESIDENT AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE TRYING TO TAKE HEALTH CARE AWAY FROM AMERICANS. Woe to us if they make it, whether this year or next. NOW, LET'S GET TO THE ISSUE IN CONSIDERATION.

AS EVERYONE KNOWS, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF ALLOWING A FOREIGN OFFICIAL TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION TO BENEFIT HIM. HE SHOWED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CRIMES ARE ACTIONS AGAINST DEMOCRACY ITSELF. IT CANNOT BE EXCESSIVELY HOW SERIOUS THIS CHARGE IS. IF AMERICANS BEGIN TO BELIEVE THAT FOREIGNERS CAN AFFECT AND ELECT PRESIDENTS, SENATORS OR GOVERNORS, IF FOREIGNERS CAN INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, OUR DEMOCRACY WILL ERODE BIG. PEOPLE WILL BEGIN TO LOSE FAITH IN THE ELECTIONS AND IN THE VERY MANUAL AND FOUNDATION OF THIS GREAT AND GREAT NATION THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS ESTABLISHED OVER 200 YEARS AGO. So the charges, these charges ask us to try them.

FOR ONE WHO SAYS THIS IS NOT SERIOUS, OR THIS IS DONE ALL THE TIME, IN NO WAY. THIS PRESIDENT IN HIS ABUSE OF POWER IS UNFORTUNATELY UNIQUE, AND HE IS WILLING TO ABUSE HIS POWER WITH LESS CONSCIOUSLY AND MUCH MORE EASILY AND EASILY THAN ANY PRESIDENT WE HAVE SEEN, AND WITH MUCH MORE. THE ONLY POWER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE WHEN A PRESIDENT ABUSES POWER, OTHER THAN ELECTIONS, IS THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. VERY SERIOUS. AS AN INHOF SENATOR TAKES THE OATH THIS AFTERNOON, THE CEREMONIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL BE COMPLETE. THE SENATE MUST THEN DETERMINE THE RULES OF THE TRIAL.

THE REPUBLICAN LEADER WILL OFFER AN ORGANIZING RESOLUTION, OUTLINEING HIS PLAN FOR THE TRIAL RULES, WHICH WAS ONLY RELEASED LAST NIGHT. INCREDIBLY, WAITED UNTIL THE END. HE WAS PARTISAN. IT WAS KEPT SECRET UNTIL THE EVE OF THE TRIAL. AND NOW THAT IT'S FINALLY BEING PUBLIC, IT'S OBVIOUS TO SEE WHY LEADER McCONNELL KEPT IT SO CLOSE TO HIS VEST, BECAUSE THE McCONNELL RULES APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. SIMPLY EXECUTED BY LEADER McCONNELL AND THE SENATE REPUBLICANS. IT SEEMS THAT THE LEADER ÚMcCONNE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO COVER HIS EVIL ACTION, HOOK, LINE AND SINK.

IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE THE RESOLUTION WAS WRITTEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE, NOT THE SENATE. THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION IS A MODEL FOR A FAST FORWARD TAX TRIAL. IT ASKS THE SENATE TO GET THROUGH THE TRIAL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, AND MAKES GETTING EVIDENCE AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE. THE BOTTOM LINE? LEADER McCONNELL WANTS THE PROCESS TO BE EXPLOITED WITH AS LITTLE PROOF AS POSSIBLE IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT. PUSH THE ARGUMENT ABOUT US HOUR OF THE NIGHT, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT SEE THEM. IN SUMMARY, AGAIN, THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION WILL RESULT IN A WAITING TRIAL, WITH LITTLE EVIDENCE IN THE DEATH OF THE NIGHT.

IF THE PRESIDENT HAS SO MUCH CONFIDENCE IN HIS CASE, WHY DOES HE NOT PRESENT IT IN FULL LIGHT? IF LEADER Mc CONNELL AND THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS SAY HE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG, THAT'S PERFECT, AND NO WHY IS THE SUN SHINING INSTEAD OF 2:00 A.M.? IT'S VERY OBVIOUS WHY NOT. ON SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS POSTAL TRIAL, Mc CONNELL'S RESOLUTION IS NOTHING LESS THAN A NATIONAL DISGRACE, AND WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS ONE OF THE SENATE'S VERY DARK DAYS. FAIL TO FULFILL YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IN OBESCENCE TOWARDS THE PRESIDENT. LEADER McCONNELL PROMISED HIS TEST RULES DURING THE WEEK.

LET'S ENACT THE SAME RULES AS THE CLINTON RULES. IT TURNS OUT THAT THE McCONNELL RULES ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE CLINTON RULES, AND THERE ARE MANY PLACES WHERE THAT HAPPENS, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION DOES NOT ADMIT THE RECORD OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AS EVIDENCE. SO McCONNELL SEEMS TO WANT A TRIAL WITHOUT EXISTING EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT NEW EVIDENCE. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY. IT'S BECAUSE HE'S AFRAID OF TESTS. SO IS PRESIDENT TRUMP. SO ARE THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. A TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS NOT A TRIAL AT ALL. IT'S A COVER-UP. SECOND, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE McCONNELL RULE LIMITS THE FILING OF PARTIES TO 24 HOURS PER BADO IN ONLY TWO DAYS.

LEADER McCONNELL WANTS TO FORCE ADMINISTRATORS TO MAKE IMPORTANT PARTS OF THEIR CASE IN THE DEATH OF THE NIGHT. I HAVE READ THE SUMMARY, IT IS ABOUT 45 PAGES. I CONGRATULATE EACH OF YOU. IT IS A POWERFUL DOCUMENT. VERY DIFFICULT TO REFUTE. IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE IT. THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION NEXT PROHIBITS MOTIONS TO SUMMON WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE SENATORS' QUESTION PERIOD. AND EVEN THEN, IT REQUIRES THE SENATE TO OVERCOME AN ADDITIONAL OBSTACLE TO VOTE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTIONS TO SUMMON WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ARE IN ORDER. SO SOME SENATORS SAID WELL, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION, BUT LATER I COULD VOTE FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

McCONNELL'S SAME RESOLUTION PLACES MANY OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF OBTAINING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS EVEN LATER. SO THAT REPUBLICAN SENATORS DO NOT DECEIVE US, DO NOT SAY THAT YOU WANT TO FACILITATE VOTING FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AT THE END OF THE TRIAL IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS RESOLUTION. DOES IT MAKE IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT? AND FINALLY, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION ALLOWS A MOTION TO DISMISS IT AT ANY TIME DURING THE TRIAL. NOW WE THINK THAT THE CLINTON RULES SHOULD NOT APPLY, THEY WERE UNFAIR TO US. McCONNELL CONTINUED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CLINTON RULES, AS HIS DEFENSE, BUT NOW WE SEE THAT HE WAS NOT SERIOUS.

THAT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS SIMPLY COVER FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. SO STARTING THIS AFTERNOON, IMMEDIATELY AFTER LEADER McCONNELL PRESENTS HIS RESOLUTION, I WILL OFFER AMENDMENTS TO CORRECT ITS MANY DEFECTS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT I WILL OFFER WILL REQUEST THE SENATE TO COURT DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE RELATING TO THE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. THOSE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE RECORDS OF MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, AS WELL AS RECORDS CREATED OR RECEIVED BY MR. MULVANEY, MR. BOLTON, MR. BLARE AND OTHER WHITE HOUSE STAFF ON THE DECISION TO MAINTAIN AND RELEASE MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

IT IS VERY POSSIBLE, EVEN LIKELY, THAT SOME OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP BETWEEN HIM AND THESE PEOPLE. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE SO IMPORTANT. NO ONE CAN ARGUE THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE SENATE. THE WITNESSES I HAVE REQUESTED HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF ATTENTION AND rightly so. PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT DOCUMENTS CAN SHED AS MUCH LIGHT ON WHY AID WAS CUT OFF, WHO MADE IT AND WHY IT EVOLVED, AS WITNESSES CAN. AND WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT WE NEED DOCUMENTS, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S OUR FIRST CALL.

THEN I WILL OFFER A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE DOCUMENTS WE REQUESTED, THE WITNESSES WE REQUEST, AND AMENDMENTS TO FIX THE MOST ADDING DEPARTURE THAT McCONNELL MADE IN HIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION FROM THE CLINTON RULES. LET ME BE CLEAR: WE HAVE NO INTENTION TO BE DILITES. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT LEADER McCONNELL WILL ALLOW THESE VOTES TO BE TAKEN LATER IN THE TRIAL. SO NOW, BEFORE ANY RESOLUTION IS APPROVED, WE MUST MAKE IT. WE FEEL THAT THIS IS AN OBLIGATION WE HAVE TO THE CONSTITUTION. TO OUTLINE WHAT WOULD BE A FAIR TRIAL. IF WE DO NOT CONTINUE WITH A COVER-UP, WITH A FALSE TRIAL, AND WE WILL DO IT.

WE WILL DO IT. IMMEDIATELY, REPUBLICAN SENATORS WILL FACE A CHOICE OVER GETTING THE FACTS, WE JOIN LEADER McCONNELL AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IN TRYING TO COVER THEM UP. THIS IS A HISTORICAL MOMENT, THE EYES OF AMERICA ARE WATCHING. REPUBLICAN SENATORS SHOULD SEIZE THE OCCASION. SENATOR DURBIN. THANK YOU SENATOR SCHUMER. SINCE THIS FIRST DAY OF THE TAX TRIAL, WE LEARNED THAT SENATOR Mc CONNELL, FOR SENATOR McCONNELL, POLITICAL LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE STANDARDS OF DECENCE AND COMMON DECORUM, WHICH HAVE PREVALENT IN THIS BODY SINCE THE BEGINNING. SENATOR McCONNELL AND THOSE WHO ALLOW HIM SHOW THAT REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE AND OBSTRUCTED THIS CONGRESS.

SENATOR McCONNELL, AND THOSE WHO ENABLE HIM, BELIEVE THAT IF THEY APPRECIATE THE PROCEDURES, RESTRICT THE EVIDENCE, LIMIT THE WITNESSES, AND FORCE THE ENTIRE COMPANY UNTIL MIDNIGHT, THEY CAN HIDE THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT. THEY BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T REALIZE. YOU ARE WRONG. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OF THIS DEMOCRACY. THEY ARE VERY AWARE OF ANY SENATOR OR PRESIDENT WHO DOES NOT RESPECT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES, OR CLAIMS TO BE ABOVE THE LAW. DONALD JOHN TRUMP, THE ACCUSED PRESIDENT INSISTS THAT HE IS INNOCENT OF A WITCH HUNT, A CRUEL DECEPTION. HOWEVER, THE PRESIDENT IS UNWILLING TO PRESENT ANY WITNESS IN HIS DEFENSE.

INSTEAD, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THE DISAPPEARANCES OF THE LEGAL COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT, THE FORMER LEADER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. THIS SELFISH NONSENSE PASSES FOR A CREDIBLE DEFENSE. ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN JUSTICE, OF COURSE, THE ACCUSED, IN THIS CASE THE PRESIDENT, CANNOT BE FORCED TO WITNESS. BUT THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION GOES TO THE EXTREME OF ATTEMPT TO LIMIT THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS FROM INTRODUCING INTO EVIDENCE THE DOCUMENTS AND SWORN TESTIMONIES THAT WERE PRODUCED EVEN IN THE HOUSE PROCEDURES. THIS McCONNELL RESOLUTION DIRECTLY CONTRAVENTS THE REGULATIONS. EVEN SENATOR Mc CONNELL'S LOYALTY TO THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS CORRUPTION OF THIS SENATE TRIAL CANNOT ESCAPE THE BRIGHT REALITY.

IF SENATOR McCONNELL GETS OUT, CRITICAL ARTICLES WON'T SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, BUT THEY WON'T ESCAPE THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LAST WEEK, MY COLLEAGUES AND I SIGNED OUR NAMES ON THE OFFICIAL SENATE MINUTE, CONFIRMING OUR PROMISE TO COME TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. IT WAS A HEARING EXPERIENCE, ESPECIALLY SINCE SENATOR McCONNELL HAS EXPLICITLY SAID HE WOULD DO THE OPPOSITE. HE SAID NO TO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE DESPITE THE DEEP AND CAREFUL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE CHAMBER. DESPITE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UNPRECEDENTED FILTRATION, WHICH DENIED CONGRESS ACCESS TO KEY WITNESSES, MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS DURING THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION DESPITE THE PRESIDENT CONTINUED REVIEWS TO PROVIDE ANY CREDIBLE DELAY AGAINST THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM, INCLUDING IN THE EVIDENCE BRIEF WE SAW THIS WEEKEND.

AND THE MAJORITY LEADER'S POSITION HAS NOT CHANGED DESPITE NEW EVIDENCE MADE PUBLIC IN RECENT DAYS, WHICH DISENCHANTMENT A COMPLEX WEB OF FALSEHOODS REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN UKRAINE. NOW AS THE TRIAL BEGINS, AS NEW EVIDENCE COMES OUT, AND AFTER EACH OF US HAS REAFFIRMED OUR MOST SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITIES TO OUR STATES AND OUR COUNTRY, IT'S CLEAR THAT PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE WATCHING THIS CAREFULLY AND DEEPLY CONCERNED OUR PRESIDENT MAY HAVE DEMANDED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN OUR UPCOMING ELECTION TO HELP HIM IN HIS CAMPAIGN. THEY WANT TO KNOW ALL THE RELEVANT TESTIMONIALS AND THE EVIDENCE IS BEING CONSIDERED, AND THE SENATE IS ACTING FAIRLY, INSTEAD OFPERFORM A COVERT.

SO I HOPE THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS REMEMBER THEY HAVE AN ELECTION. I HOPE YOU WILL DECIDE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE CANNOT DO OUR JOB AS SENATORS TO ENFORCE FAIR JUSTICE WITHOUT KEY DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONIALS THAT ARE UNTIL NOW HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC. AND I HOPE THEY CHOOSE TO WORK WITH DEMOCRATS TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PROCESS IS FAIR AND HONESTY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT DESERVE. AND I WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE POINT. THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE ON JUDGMENT. BUT THE UNITED STATES SENATE IS ALSO ON TRIAL. I've heard many Republicans say they want a

trial

modeled after Clinton's

impeachment

.

BUT I WILL REMIND US ALL THAT AT THE END OF THAT TRIAL, NO ONE DOUBTED THAT THE SENATE HAD ACTED FAIRLY AND HONORABLY. THAT IS THE TRULY CRITICAL TEST THAT I HAVE BEFORE US IN THIS INSTITUTION, AS OF TODAY, AND TO BE CLEAR, WE WILL FAIL THAT TEST WITH AN OVERNIGHT COVERT RESOLUTION LIKE THE ONE MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL HAS PRESENTED. WE ALL NEED TO REMEMBER THE OATH WE TOOK AND ACT IN WAYS THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SENATE AND ALL OF OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS ARE WORTHY OF THE PUBLIC'S TRUST, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO BE. WE ALL NEED TO VOTE TODAY FOR EVIDENCE AND JUSTICE.

IT IS NOT A FARCE DESIGNED TO PROTECT A PRESIDENT ACCUSED OF THE FACTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SENATOR MURRAY. THANK YOU. MITCH McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION IS SPECTACULAR, AND SO IS THE DEFENSE PRESENTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. DO NOT DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A PHONE CALL WITH A NEW YOUNG LEADER WHO DESPERATELY NEEDS THE SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS MILITARY EFFORTS AGAINST RUSSIA. DO NOT DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A THREAT TO WITHHOLD FUNDS IN THAT PHONE CALL IF IN FACT THE NEW YOUNG LEADER DID NOT DO WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED. THEY DO NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THEY HOLD THE FUNDS AFTER THE PHONE CALL, EVEN THOUGH THE CONGRESSIVE WATCHMAN THE GENERAL CONGRESS HAS SAID THAT IT IS ILLEGAL, WHICH THEY ALSO DO NOT DISPUTE.

IT SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE USING THE MICK MULVANEY DEFENSE. YES, THE PRESIDENT MADE THE CALL. YES, HE HOLDED THE MONEY. THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. GET OVER. NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND THAT'S WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ABOUT. QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. YEAH. LOOK, THE SENATORS TALK TO SENATORS ALL OVER THE TILES, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS. I'M NOT GOING TO ENTER INTO ANY CONVERSATION. YEAH. LOOK, IF THE WHITE HOUSE ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN AN ORDER THAT IS BY DEFINITION BIPARTISTIC, AND IS SIGNED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OR THE SUPREME COURT ON A SUMMONS, I THINK THE COURTS WOULD VIEW IT VERY FAVORABLY.

I'M NOT GOING TO TELL THE PRESIDENT WHO HIS COUNSEL SHOULD BE, BUT I HIGHLY RESPECT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT WAS ARISED BY THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS. YEAH. WELL WAIT AND SEE. ON THAT QUESTION, DURING THE TRIAL IT IS UNUSUAL THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE ARGUMENTS. DO YOU EXPECT THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO MAKE ARGUMENTS AND USE AN HOUR OF DEBATE TIME? FIRST, SOME OF THE MOTIONS OR AMENDMENTS I WILL MAKE TO THE McCONNELL TRIAL WILL BE OBVIOUS. THREE WEEKS AGO, I DETERMINED THE NEED FOR THREE SETS OF DOCUMENTS AND FOUR WITNESSES. SO THE SENATE MANAGERS OBVIOUSLY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM, AND YOU KNOW THEY ARE A VERY CAPABLE GROUP AND THEY SAID THEY HAVE SUPPORTED THE THINGS WE ASKED FOR, SO I HOPE THEY WILL PRESENT STRONG ARGUMENTS, AND THERE'S A LOT TO SAY.

WELL, IT'S ONE HOUR PER SIDE. THAT IS WHAT THE SENATE RULES PRESCRIBE. THAT'S WHAT THE RULES PRESCRIBE. IT WILL DEPEND ON THEM WHETHER THEY USE IT ALL. I HOPE THEY MAKE STRONG ARGUMENTS AND DON'T CUT. IT'S TOO IMPORTANT. SENATOR ROMNEY HAS ALREADY SAID HE WILL NOT SUPPORT ANY CHANGES TO THE RESOLUTION HE SAID I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR SENATOR ROMNEY. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CAREFULLY READ THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION. BECAUSE HE ALWAYS SAID HE THINKS THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, AND THIS MAKES IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO GET THEM.

YOU WERE ALREADY ONCE. I'M SORRY. TRY TO SHARE THE WEALTH. COMPLAIN ABOUT BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. ISN'T THIS THE LATEST EXAMPLE OF HOW IT SUCKS TO BE THE MINORITY PARTY IN THE HOUSE? NO, WE ARE DOING OUR JOB, AND IT'S SOMETHING IRONIC, LEADER McCONNELL SAYS THE TRIAL IN THE HOUSE WAS EXPLOITED, HE SEEKS TO EXPLOIT THE TRIAL IN THE SENATE MUCH MORE SEVERELY THAN THE TRIAL IN THE HOUSE. ON THE ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY, DID YOU APPROVE THE RULES NO. MY COMMENT, I WANT TO SEE THAT THE PRESS HAS THE MOST ACCESS POSSIBLE, IT WILL BE MY OPINION, IT SHOULD BE SIMILAR TO A NORMAL DAY.

THEY DIDN'T ASK ME ABOUT THEM AND I DIDN'T APPROVE THEM. YEAH. WELL, WE HAVE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS AND REVIEWED THE PROCESS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING. WE HAVE A BIG CAUCUS LUNCH EVERY TUESDAY, AND A LARGE NUMBER OF MEMBERS PARTICIPATE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE, AND I THINK I DO, THAT WE WILL REACH AN AMALGOMA. THIS IS WHAT WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. SOME OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE DRAFT RESOLUTION YES. YEAH. YEAH. IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT A VOTE TO CHANGE THOSE RULES REQUIRES 67 VOTES? NO, BECAUSE THIS IS GOVERNED BY RULES OF PERFORMANCE, WHICH ARE SEPARATED FROM THE RULES OF THE SENATE.

YOU DID NOT GO. ANYONE ELSE WHO HASN'T BEEN? YES, A QUIET AND NICE LADY. DO YOU PLAN TO HAVE VOTES FOR EACH? YOU WILL SEE. WAIT AND SEE. LET'S VOTE ON THE ISSUES I MENTIONED. WITNESSES, DOCUMENTS, AGGREGIOUS ROLLBACKS EVEN FROM THE CLINTON RULES THAT WE THOUGHT WAS UNFAIR, AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO BE DILLTORY WITH YOU, AND HAVE 100 AMENDMENTS JUST TO DELAY THINGS. HOW MANY? YOU ARE PERSISTENT. YEAH. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS PROCESS? WE DO THIS BECAUSE WE BELIEVE WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DO SO. WE THINK THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS LOOKED AT WHEN THEY SAID HOW TO DEAL WITH A PRESIDENT WHO HAS ABUSED HIS POWER, WHO HAS DRAMATICLY EXCEEDED, WHO HAS GONE OFF THE RAILS, AND THEY CONCLUDE, YOU COULD NOT WAIT FOR FOUR YEARS .

THAT'S WHY IT IS SO SERIOUS, SO SOLEMN, SO SERIOUS. THIS IS HOW WE FEEL. AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SEEMS TO AGREE WITH US. BUT THAT IS OUR MOTIVATION. THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE WITNESSES WE HAVE ASKED FOR, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY SAY. THIS IDEA THAT THESE WITNESSES. MAYBE THEY WILL CONTINUE MORE INCRIMINATING, BUT WE WILL BE calm, if we know that we have required the truth to

come

to light. UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE MINORITY, THAT DOES NOT DEPEND EXCLUSIVELY ON US. WE NEED FOUR REPUBLICANS WHO ARE WILLING TO STAND FOR WHAT'S RIGHT. THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT AMERICA WANTS AND NEEDS, AND NOT JUST BOW TO THE PRESIDENT, WHO KNOWS, MOST AMERICANS KNOW WHAT THIS GUY IS ABOUT.

DO MOST AMERICANS REALLY THINK THEY WANT A FAIR TRIAL? I DO NOT THINK. THANK YOU ALL. EVERYTHING WELL. MINORITY LEADER, SENATOR CHUCKSCHUMER, ADDRESSING THE SENATE, ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH McCONNELL, WANTS TO HOLD THIS TRIAL IN THE SENATE WITHOUT ANY EXISTING EVIDENCE, AND WITHOUT THE WITNESSES THAT SENATE DEMOCRATS HAVE ORDERED, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN coming and going. IN FACT DURING THE LAST DAYS, THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING AT THIS TIME, THAT IN THIS PROCEDURE WHICH WILL BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M., THERE WILL BE NO WITNESSES. THAT COULD CERTAINLY CHANGE AS WE ARE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL.

AND YOU CAN HEAR THE MINORITY LEADER SAY THAT THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE TO SENATE DEMOCRATS. SO LET'S CONTINUE ADVANCES OF OUR HISTORICAL COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPACT TRIAL, WHICH BEGINS TODAY AT 12:30 P.M. ORIENTAL. FULL COVERAGE CONTINUES AT 1:00 P.M. YOU CAN STAY UP TO DATE ON DEVELOPMENTS AT ANY TIME BY VISITING OUR LIVE BLOG AT CBS NEWS.COM/IMPEACHMENT. GOOD. SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS APOLOGIZES TO JOE BIDEN FOR AN OPINION ARTICLE WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS SUBSITUTES for him. ACCUSED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OF REPRESENTING CORPORATE DONORS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS. IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, SENATOR SANDERS DISTANTS THOSE STATEMENTS.

JOE BIDEN IS A FRIEND OF MINE. I HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR MANY YEARS. HE'S A VERY DECENT GUY, AND JOE AND I HAVE STRONG DISAGREEMENTS ON SEVERAL TOPICS, AND WE DISCUSS THOSE DISAGREEMENTS, BUT IT'S NOT AT ALL MY OPINION THAT JOE IS CORRUPT IN ANY WAY. AND I'M SORRY THAT THAT OP-ED APPEARED. FOR MORE ON THIS, WE BRING ON CBS NEWS 2020 CAMPAIGN REPORTER CARA COURTY. HE SPOKE WITH SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE. CARA, EXCELLENT REPORT, HOW HAS THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN RESPONDED? WELL, VLAD, WE SAW VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S CAMPAIGN Tweet A RESPONSE TO THAT CBS STORY YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.

HE THANKED SENATOR SANDERS FOR CORRECTING THE OPINION OF HIS SUBSITUTES, AND SAID THAT WHAT WE MUST FOCUS AS DEMOCRATS IS ON DEFEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT IS NOTABLE THAT WE SEE SENATOR SANDERS APOLOGIZE HERE. SENATOR SANDERS, AS WE HEARD IN HIS NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL REVIEW, IS NOT KNOWN FOR LEANING ON HIS BACK OR FOR BEING SUPER JOYFUL WITH ANYONE. THE FACT THAT HE TOOK THE TIME TO APOLOGIZE, AND SAY THAT HE DISAGREES WITH THIS CHARACTERIZATION IS AN INTERESTING STEP FOR HIM. THIS OPINION ARTICLE ARRIVES AT AN INTERESTING TIME FOR BOTH CAMPAIGNS. HE RECENTLY CRITICIZED JOE BIDEN FOR PREVIOUS COMMENTS HE MADE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING.

TELL US WHAT IS IN DISCOURSE BETWEEN THE TWO CANDIDATES. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG-LONG ATTEMPT BY SANDERS' SUPPORTERS, SUBSIDIARIES AND STAFF TO DUST OFF BIDEN'S SENATE RECORD AND HIS RECORD AS VICE PRESIDENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY. AND FINALLY, WHEN A VOTER ASKED BIDEN, A WEEK AGO IN IOWA, THIS WHOLE ISSUE BROUGHT UP TO SANDERS' SUBSTITUTES AND STAFF. SUGGESTING THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS IN FAVOR OF CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. BIDEN RESPONDED TO THAT BY SAYING THE VIDEO WAS DOCTED. IT WAS NOT VERY DOCTORIZED, BUT IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. Since then, there's been this back and forth on Twitter and between the candidates, Sanders Camp saying that Biden had this appetite to cut benefits, and Biden openly denying it.

AND WHAT WE SAW FROM SENATOR SANDERS last night was trying to quell all of this. HE ASKED FOR MORE CIVILITY. We'll see if they're still trying to flesh out Biden's record on social security. SPEAKING OF CIVILITY, YOU HAVE ALSO MENTIONED THE TENDENCY OF SOME OF YOUR SUPPORTERS AND SUBJECTS TO ATTACK ONLINE. IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE SENATOR SANDERS HAS THE MOST FERVENT AND DEDICATED FOLLOWING ONLINE. IT IS VERY COMMON FOR BERNIE'S FOLLOWERS TO GET HASHTAGS. AND I ASK SENATOR SANDERS, WHAT DOES HE THINK OF HIS FOLLOWERS, SOME OF HIS DEPUTYS USING PRETTY SEVERE RHETORIC, MUCH MORE THAN SENATOR SANDERS WOULD EVER USE AGAINST HIS OPPONENTS, SPECIFICALLY AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND SENATOR SANDERS SAYS HE DOES NOT LIKE?

HE. HE DOES NOT APPROVE OF IT AND DOESN'T WANT TO GO FURTHER. He called on his supporters, and also supporters of other candidates, to just calm down, keep things civil, and said that's what American politics is all about. YOU TOLD YOU THAT YOU ENCOURAGED YOUR FOLLOWERS TO PARTICIPATE, WHEN COVERING THIS CAMPAIGN, HAVE YOU SEEN THE AGGRESSIVENESS WITH WHICH SOME OF YOUR FOLLOWERS ATTACKED PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE WITH ONLINE? IT'S DIFFICULT VLAD, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SEPARATE YOURSELF, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO SEPARATE THE SENATOR FROM HIS SUPPORTERS, BUT THE SENATOR, WHEN HE'S ON THE STUMMP, WHEN HE'S ON THE STAGE, TRAVELING AROUND THE COUNTRY, WILL ALWAYS SAY, JOE BIDEN IS MY FRIEND, ELIZABETH WARREN IS MY FRIEND.

MOST OF THESE DEMOCRATS ARE FRIENDS OF MINE, AND HE WILL SAY, YOU WON'T HEAR ME SAY A BAD WORD ABOUT THEM, WHICH IS USUALLY TRUE, HE USUALLY KEEPS IT ON THE MINUTES. He does not get involved in these personal disputes. WHEN YOU SEARCH ONLINE, AS GREAT AMERICAN CULTURE SOMETIMES HAS TO DO ON TWITTER, THINGS GET A LITTLE HOTTER. I DON'T KNOW BERNIE SANDERS SITTS DOWN WITH HIS iPHONE, SCROLLS THROUGH TWITTER AND SEE WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING. Last night he said, definitely, a call to action to his supporters to basically end this. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS.

OF COURSE, ALL THIS IS HAPPENING WHEN SENATOR SANDERS HAS TO STEP AWAY FROM THE CAMPAIGN TO FOCUS ON BEING PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, WHICH STARTS TODAY, AS YOU KNOW. WHAT IS THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN DOING TO ENSURE THAT SENATOR SANDERS MAINTAINS HIS PRESENCE IN IOWA AHEAD OF THE FEBRUARY 3 CAUCUSES? IT'S DIFFICULT, VLAD. ALL THE SENATORS COMING UP RIGHT NOW ARE DEALING WITH THIS. JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, THE SENATOR CANCELLED A DEMONSTRATION IN NORTHERN IOWA THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HELD TOMORROW NIGHT. THEY HOPED TO GET ON A PLANE, GET TO IOWA, PARTICIPATE IN THIS RALLY AND RETURN TO D.C.

FOR THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE. THEY HAD MORE DETAILED SCHEDULES TODAY AND THEY HAD TO CANCEL THAT RALLY. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE SANDERS AGAIN, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN PATH UNTIL POSSIBLY SATURDAY NIGHT WITH ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ. THAT GIVES A LITTLE VIEW OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING WHEN SANDERS LEFT THE TRAIL. HE'S USING HIS HIGH POWERED SUBSTITUTES TO TOUCH THE GROUND IN IOWA, TRYING TO KEEP THE MOMENTUM, HE WAS ALSO TALKING TO A SENIOR ASSISTANT IN IOWA THE OTHER DAY, SAYING THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A HIGH POWERED MUSICAL ACT. BASICALLY THEY'RE THROWING EVERYTHING THEY CAN, EVERYTHING THEY CAN ON IOWA, EVEN WITHOUT SENATOR SANDERS, THEY WANT TO GET A VICTORY THERE, SO THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING THAT'S REALLY NECESSARY.

VERY GOOD, CARA COURTESY OF US. ALWAYS A GREAT REPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, VLAD. WE'RE BACK ON TIME, YOU'RE BROADCASTING CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. CHINESE OFFICIALS HAVE SAID THE FASTCARONA VIRUS HAS KILLED AT LEAST SIX PEOPLE. THE NEWS COMES AFTER AN EXPERT CONFIRMED THAT THE VIRUS CAN BE TRANSMITTED FROM HUMAN TO HUMAN. OFFICIALS ARE ALSO REPORTING THAT A WOMAN IN TAIWAN HAS BEEN INFECTED AFTER A TRIP TO THE EPICENTER OF THE OUTBREAK. Reporter: CRIMES HERE IN WUHAN HAVE DESIGNATED NINE HOSPITALS AS TREATMENT CENTERS, INCLUDING THE ONE BEHIND ME. TO THAT ARE ADDED 61 FEVER CLINICS AND A TEAM OF EMERGENCY EXPERTS.

GOOD NEWS, CHINESE SENATORS SAY THEY WOULD DISCOVER THE DNA SEQUENCE OF THIS VIRUS, WHICH OPENS UP POSSIBLE TREATMENT AND A VACCINE. AS MILLIONS MIGRATE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IT IS CONFIRMED THAT THE VIRUS CAN SPREAD AMONG HUMANS, PRESENTING AN EVEN GREATER CHALLENGE FOR CHINA AND NEARBY NATIONS TO CONTAIN THE OUTBREAK. TRAVELERS WEARING MASKS, QUARANTINE STATIONS HAVE BECOME COMMON ACROSS ASIA. THIS MAN WE TALK TO OUTSIDE A WUHAN HOSPITAL SAID IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS, BUT HE BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT CAN HANDLE IT VERY WELL. THE NUMBER OF KNOWN INFECTIONS HAS INCREASED STRONGLY SINCE YESTERDAY, EXCEEDING 300 CASES IN CHINA ALONE.

AT LEAST 15 WUHAN HOSPITAL WORKERS HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH THE VIRUS. IF IN FACT, A PERSON HAS INFECTED A HEALTH CARE WORKER, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY OF SOME CONCERN. Reporter: IT SAYS THAT HUMAN-TO-HUMAN TRANSMISSIBILITIES COULD BE ISOLATED INCIDENTS, BUT -- WHEN YOU ACHIEVE SUSTAINED TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER, THEN YOU HAVE A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM. THAT WOULD ALLOW A MUCH WIDER TYPE OF OUTBREAK. Reporter: THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SAYS THEY WILL FORM AN EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS. THEY WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS OUTBREAK CONSTITUTES A GLOBAL EMERGENCY AND HOW TO BEST CONTAIN IT. ANNE-MARIE, VLAD.

IN PUERTO RICO HUNDREDS OF ANGRY PROTESTERS GATHERED OUTSIDE THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION, DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ISLAND OFFICIALS. THE CHANTS EMERGED AFTER A BLOGGER RECENTLY DISCOVERED A WAREHOUSE FULL OF UNUSED AID FROM HURRICANE MARIA IN A CITY DAMAGED BY THE RECENT EARTHQUAKE. PROTESTERS ARE NOW ASKING THE GOVERNOR TO RESIGN. VERY LIKE THEY DID WITH THE FORMER GOVERNOR RICARDO ROSAO. MEANWHILE, CHAOS BREAKD OUT ON THE GUATEMALA/MEXICO BORDER. THOUSANDS OF HONDURIAN MIGRANTS IN A Clash With MEXICAN FORCES AFTER TRYING TO CROSS A RIVER ACROSS THE MEXICAN BORDER. THE GROUP SAYS THEY TRAVEL IN LARGER NUMBERS TO AVOID BEING SENT BACK TO HONDURAS, BUT MEXICO IS UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE UNITED STATES TO PREVENT LARGER GROUPS FROM REACHING THE BORDER.

HE SAT WITH MIGRANT PARENTS WHO ARE RETURNING TO THE US AFTER BEING ILLEGALLY DEPORTED. HE WILL JOIN US ON THURSDAY TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT HAPPENED AND WHAT'S COMING NEXT FOR THE FAMILY. GRETA THUNBERG ACCUSES WORLD LEADERS OF FEEDING CLIMATE CHANGE. HE ALSO SAID THAT SOME GOALS GOVERNMENTS ARE SETTING DO NOT GO FAR ENOUGH. WE DON'T NEED A LOW CARBON ECONOMY. WE DO NOT NEED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS. OUR EMISSIONS HAVE TO STOP IF WE WANT TO HAVE THE CHANCE OF STAYING BELOW THE 1.5 DEGREE TARGET. AND UNTIL WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGIES, THE F SCALE CAN PUT OUR EMISSIONS LOWER WE SHOULD FORGET ABOUT NET ZERO.

WE NEED REAL ZERO. THUNBERG PROVOKED A GLOBAL YOUTH MOVEMENT WHEN HE STARTED SKIPPING SCHOOL ON FRIDAYS TO PROTEST IN FRONT OF PARLIAMENT. SENATE IMPACT TRIAL BEGINS TODAY. CBS NEWS ANCHOR NORAH O'DONNELL SPOKE EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS ABOUT HOW THEY WILL PRESENT HER CASE. IN THE MEANWHILE WE WILL BE MAINTAINING WHEN I ATTEND THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. STAY WITH CBSN, WE'LL HAVE A FULL PREVIEW OF THE DAY'S EVENTS STARTING AT 12:30 EAST. AND YOU CAN FOLLOW ALL OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS LIVE IN ITS ENTIRETY HERE ON CBSN AND, OF COURSE, "RED & BLUE" WILL HAVE A COMPLETE SUMMARY ONCE THE DAY'S EVENTS CONCLUDE.

YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN. CBS NEWS ALWAYS ON. AMONG THE HISTORIC TAX TRIAL, POLITICAL NEWS IS AT ITS HIGH TIME. CONSUMERS ARE HUNGRY FOR ALTERNATIVE CONTENT. SARAH FISHER EXPERIENCED HOW THE SO-CALLED TRUMP EFFECT IS CHANGING THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE, AND SARAH JOINS US NOW WITH MORE IN HER WEEKLY NEWSLETTER. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. SHEA IN WASHINGTON. WHY EXACTLY ARE SOME COMPANIES MOVING A BIT AWAY FROM THEIR POLITICAL COVERAGE? Reporter: ANNE-MARIE, I THINK YOU REALIZE THAT SOME OF YOUR VIEWERS JUST OVER IT. THERE IS WALL TO WALL IMPACT COVERAGE. NOT ONLY THE TRIAL, BUT EVEN BEFORE THE TRIAL.

BEFORE THAT THERE WAS WALL-TO-WALL COVERAGE OF THE MOORE TRIAL. BEFORE THAT COMEY AND KAVANAUGH. I THINK PEOPLE ARE OVER IT. SO YOU ARE LISTENING TO TWO DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTIONS. ONE THE ADVERTISERS OVERCOME IT. ADVERTISERS HAVE BEEN TELLING THE NETWORKS, LOOK, WE DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND SO MUCH POLITICAL CONTENT, AND IF WE HAVE AN AD, CAN YOU TRY TO SEPARATE IT FROM THE ADS OF SOME CANDIDATES? THE OTHER CONSTITUTION IS THE SPECTATORS THEMSELVES. THERE ARE PEOPLE ONLINE AND WATCHING TV WHO COMPLAIN THAT THEY GET TOO MANY POLITICAL ADS AND THAT THEY ARE SICK OF POLITICAL COVERAGE. WITH THAT END, WE ARE STARTING TO SEE A DOWN IN THE RATINGS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE LATEST DEBATES, LESS PEOPLE ARE TUNING IN THAN THE FIRST BEGINNING. I WONDER, WHEN IT COMES TO ADVERTISERS, IS IT ALSO THE FACT THAT WE APPEAR TO BE VERY, VERY SUPPORTIVE NOW? SO SOME OF THE ISSUES WOULD BE DURING A DIFFERENT TIME WHICH WOULD NOT BE DIVISIVE ISSUES, THE THIRD RAILWAY ISSUES HAVE SUDDENLY BECOME THAT, SO ADVERTISERS DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT PART. PARTISAN VITRIOL HAS CREATED A REALLY BAD ENVIRONMENT FOR ADVERTISERS. ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE POLARIZING MESSAGES. I think a lot about the good consumer package companies, the people who sell things like toothpaste and toilet paper.

THESE ARE BIPARTISAN PRODUCTS. THEY DON'T WANT TO BE NEXT TO PEOPLE YELLING ABOUT HEALTH, OR YELLING ABOUT ELECTIONS, SO THE HARD THING HERE IS THAT YOU WANT TO TELL THEM, LOOK, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, DON'T MESSAGE ABOUT THE NEWS, THE PROBLEM IS, ANN AND VLAD, THAT EVERYTHING HAS BECOME BREAKING NEWS. YOU HEAR THEM SAY THAT IF THEY WANT TO HOLD THE OLYMPIC GAMES OR THE SUPER BOWL, WE KNOW THERE WILL ALSO BE POLITICAL ADS. SO THIS HAS BEEN A TRAP FOR THOSE ADVERTISERS WHO DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS. I THINK BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE MEDIA WORLD, SOMETIMES WE HAVE AN EXCEPTIONAL PERCEPTION OF THE ROLE POLITICAL COVERAGE PLAYS.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AGGREGATE NUMBER OF VIEWERS WATCHING CABLE NETWORKS, FOR EXAMPLE, CABLE NEWS NETWORKS, AND COMPARE THAT TO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE END OF THE BIG BANG THEORY IN MAY, THEY HAD 18 MILLION SPECTATORS THAT NIGHT. There is no cable news program that covers politics 24 hours a day, not even close to that number. MOST OF THE TOP RATED SHOWS ON CABLE NEWS GET AN AVERAGE OF ONE MILLION VIEWERS IN JUST ONE SHOW. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. OF COURSE, AMERICA'S PAST, FOOTBALL, IS BY FAR THE MOST WATCHED EVENT ON TELEVISION. Whenever we've had breaking news on a Sunday, football has tended to trump it every time.

I think back to some of those early

impeachment

hearings where people said the hearing isn't that bad. 13 MILLION, 11 MILLION PEOPLE WATCHING. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT PEOPLE WATCH AT THE AVERAGE SUNDAY NIGHT GAME, THAT'S A LIVING GAME, YOU'RE WATCHING 20 MILLION PEOPLE. SO YOU'RE FOCUSED ON THIS IS NOT WHAT THE UNITED STATES IS FOCUSING ON. AT LEAST NOT WHAT MOST OF THE COUNTRY IS FOCUSING ON NOW. I THINK FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO TRADE TO THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY, BEING AROUND POLITICAL CONTENT IS NOT WHAT WILL LEAD THEM TO PUSH THEIR POLITICS. "60 MINUTES" ROUTINELY GETS 15 MILLION VIEWERS.

PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN QUALITY NEWS, A GOOD STORY, WELL TOLD. WHAT YOU MAY BE NOTICEING IN YOUR ANALYSIS IS THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING TIRED OF THE SAME PANELS, OF THE SAME THINGS THAT ARE REPEATED HOUR AFTER HOUR AFTER HOUR. Reporter: YES, I THINK IT'S THE VITRIOL, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT BREAKING NEWS THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO DO WITH POLITICS. IT GOES AFTER THE GRAPHICS. I THINK OF THE PLANE MH370. THE THAI CHILDREN STUCK IN THE CAVE. THE LATEST NEWS ABOUT THINGS LIKE THE HURRICANE GET A LOT OF VIEWS. BUT WHAT IS NOT RECEIVING MANY HIGH AND CONSISTENT HITS IS THAT THIS POLICY CONTINUES.

IT'S THE SAME KIND OF PARTISAN DISCUSSION, IT'S THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE IN CAPITOL HILL, YOU KNOW, WITH THE SAME KIND OF MESSAGES, AND I THINK PEOPLE RIGHT NOW HAVE HEARD IT AND ARE SAYING ENOUGH. IT'S REALLY NOT JUST US, RIGHT? THE BRITISH GOT OVER IT TOO. WHAT IS SKY NEWS DOING AMIDST ALL THAT BREXIT CONTENT? Reporter: IT MAKES ME FEEL A LITTLE BETTER IT'S NOT JUST US. SKY NETWORKS CREATED A FREE BREXIT CHANNEL FOR THOSE IN THE UK, WHO ARE SICK OF HEARING ABOUT BREXIT. THE TREND HERE, BIG BIG, IS THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING TIRED OF PARTISAN POLITICS AND ARGUMENTS AROUND THE WORLD, IT'S NOT JUST IN THE US, IT'S EVERYWHERE.

WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT'S COMING FOR THE 2020 ELECTION, I'M NOT EXPECTING MORE BIG SPIKES IN VIEWING, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M NOT SO WORRIED TO KNOW THAT IT'S NOT JUST AN AMERICAN PROBLEM. IF YOU ARE A CABLE WATCHER AND LOOKING FOR HIGH-QUALITY NEWS CONTENT, LIKE THE DISCUSSION WE ARE HAVING WITH YOU RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN STREAM CBSN. RELEASE TO COMMERCIAL. SARAH FISHER, GREAT TALKING WITH YOU, THANK YOU. Reporter: THANK YOU. IN HEALTH WATCH, A PRO-VACCINATION SOCIAL MEDIA POST LEADS TO THREATS AGAINST AN OHIO DOCTOR. THE REACTION IS RELATED TO HIS STATEMENT POSTED ON TIKTOK CHALLENGING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM.

IT COMES AS A RECENT SURVEY FINDS THAT 46% OF AMERICANS ARE STILL UNSURE ABOUT THIS DISASSEMBLED PARTNERSHIP. THE DOCTOR. JON LAPOOK SPOKE WITH THE PEDIATRIAN ABOUT HIS PUBLICATION AND THE CONSEQUENCES. WE KNOW THAT VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM, AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THAT MESSAGE GOES OUT. Reporter: DR. NICOLE BALDWIN SAID SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF MISLEADING ANTI-VACCINE POSTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, SO SHE CREATED THIS. BALDWIN'S TIKTOK NOW HAS 1.4 MILLION VIEWS. SHE AND HER STAFF QUICKLY BECOME TARGETS. I HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A TSUNAMI OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS ON ALL MY SOCIAL MEDIA. THERE HAVE BEEN NEGATIVE AND FRAUDULENT OPINIONS.

Reporter: A SOCIAL MEDIA USER CALLED BALDWIN'S NUMBER ONE PUBLIC ENEMY. ANOTHER COMMENT TOLD THE PEDIATRIAN TO STOP KILLING OUR CHILDREN WITH VACCINES. ALTHOUGH THE SUPPORTING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THAT VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM. 16% OF PARENTS WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18 SAY THEY STILL BELIEVE VACCINES CAUSE MORE HARM THAN GOOD. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE IN THE INTERNET ERA IS THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW RESOURCES. Reporter: STANFORD INVENTORY TECHNICAL RESEARCH DIRECTOR. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE COST OF DOCTORS WHO MAKE STATEMENTS TO CONTRAST MISINFORMATION IS THAT THEY THEMSELVES BECOME THE SUBJECT OF HARASSMENT CAMPAIGNS, OF CAMPAIGNS TO DAMAGE REPUTATION, OF DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS.

Reporter: IN RECENT MONTHS, CONGRESS HAS TAUGHT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES FOR FAILING TO STOP THE SPREAD OF MISINFORMATION. IN A STATEMENT, TIKTOK SAID WE REMOVE MISINFORMATION THAT COULD CAUSE HARM TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH OR GENERAL PUBLIC SAFETY. AS FOR BALDWIN, HE SAYS HE KEEPS HIS MESSAGE. I AM NOT GOING TO DELETE MY POSTS. I AM NOT GOING TO LET MYSELF BE BULLYED INTO SUBMISSION. ON MONEY WATCH, UBER IS TESTING A FEATURE THAT GIVES SOME DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA THE ABILITY TO SET THEIR OWN RATES. THIS MOVE IS AN ATTEMPT TO GIVE MORE CONTROL TO DRIVERS IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE'S GIG ECONOMY LAW.

THE NEW LEGISLATION REQUIRES COMPANIES TO TREAT THEIR WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES, RATHER THAN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. THEY HAVE RAISED OVER $10 BILLION FOR A PLANNED RESCUE INITIATIVE THIS YEAR, ASKING FOR VOTERS TO EXEMPT THOSE COMPANIES FROM THE LAW. TESLA DISPUTES OVER THE ACCELERATION NOT ACCEPTED IN ITS VEHICLES. AT QUESTION ARE APPROXIMATELY 500,000 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM 2013 TO 2019. A PETITION CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE 100 COMPLAINTS OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION SAYS IT WILL REVIEW THE PETITION AND DECIDE WHETHER TO INITIATE A FULL INVESTIGATION. THE CEO OF GOOGLE AND ALPHABET CALLS FOR REGULATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. IN AN OPINION ARTICLE, HE WROTE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT.

THEIR COMMENTS COME AS GOVERNMENTS AND LEGISLATORS CONSIDER PLACING LIMITS ON HOW ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS USED. JB HERE, MAKING YOU LAUGH, BECAUSE IT'S TUESDAY TIME ON TUESDAY MORNING. EVERY TUESDAY, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT AND PRESENTER, JAMES BROWN BRINGS US HIS BEST STORIES OF THE WEEK. AND WE HAVE IT RIGHT HERE. HE'S HERE, MAKING LAUGHING AT US. I ASK YOU GUYS PLEASE TELL ME WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU'VE BEEN ON A SCHEDULE LIKE A WHIRLPOOL. YOU WERE IN KANSASCITY. AFTER A 14 HOUR ODYSSEY TO ARRIVE. I DON'T ENVE YOU. HOW COLD WAS IT, JB? IT LOOKS LIKE A FROZEN BLACK LICORICE OUTSIDE.

RUMORS THAT YOU HAD AN OLD WOMAN'S BLANKET. I WAS RECEIVING TEXTS AND TWEETS, BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT IT WAS ELTON JOHN. HOLD THAT MICROPHONE, THAT'S ALL METAL. PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW COLD IT IS. NO MATTER THE THICKNESS OF YOUR GLOVES, YOU'RE SORRY. I CAN'T MOVE THE SCRIPT. ALSO, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS POINT, THERE IS NOTHING LIKE HANDSOME OR CUTE ASSOCIATED WITH ME. BUT I THOUGHT THE LITTLE AFRO WOULD WARM MY HEAD. WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THE NEXT SUPER BOWL. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, THE KANSAS CITY CHIEFS. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BOSSES FIRST. YOU WERE IN KANSAS CITY FOR HIS FIRST BIG VICTORY.

I TRY TO KEEP A BIG IMAGE. THAT KANSAS CITY OFFENSE, THEIR TEAM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A GOLD MEDAL OLYMPIC TRACK TEAM. THEY HAVE SPEED EVERYWHERE. THEY ARE PLAYING WELL. THE DEFENSE HAS IMPROVED, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, IT'S ALL CENTERED AROUND PATRICK MAHOMES. I LOVE MY PRODUCER ALVIN PATRICK'S WORD, PRENATURAL. THIS GUY IS DONATED. SHE'S ONLY 24 YEARS OLD AND TURNS ON EVERYONE. IT IS DONATED. THEY ARE HUNGRY. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THE SUPER BOWL. THEY ARE HUNGER THAN THE 49ERS, WHOM THEY PLAY AGAINST. YOU TALK ABOUT A LONG TIME. IT'S BEEN 50 YEARS AND KANSAS CITY FANS HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR A LONG TIME.

THEY WERE IN SUPER BOWL I, WHICH THEY LOST. THEY WERE IN SUPER BOWL IV BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THEY HAD SOME ICONIC PLAYERS OF STANDOUTS AT THAT TIME, BUT THIS SHOWS HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO GET BACK THERE. DON'T TAKE IT FOR FOLLOWING. ANDY REID, THE COACH IS ONE THAT EVERYONE IN AMERICA IS FANKING. PERHAPS THE MOST CONDORED COACH IN THE LEAGUE WHO HAS NEVER WON A SUPER BOWL. IT'S BEEN THERE BEFORE. BUT HE HAS ANOTHER SHOT. AND PEOPLE ARE THROWING FOR IT. LET ME THROW A HISTORICAL NUGGE. ONE OF THE MOST COLORFUL COACHES IN HISTORY, HANK STRAM.

LET'S REGISTER THE BALL AROUND THE FIELD. HE HAD ALL THESE STRANGE SAIDINGS. HE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A PLAYER WHO PLAYED FOR HIM, VLAD AND ANNE-MARIE, BACK IN THE DAY, WHO WAS VERY OVERWEIGHT, AND PEOPLE SAID: YOU SHOULD GET HIM IN SHAPE. He said no, I will get him fit on the field. It was like a manhole cover blown away. WHAT ABOUT THE 49ERS? WHAT DO YOU SEE IN THEM? GIFTED. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY PREDICTOR WHO HAD THEM HERE MORE THAN 20 AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEASON. THEY ARE THE DEEPEST, THE BEST AND THE MOST TALENTED TEAM.

DEFENSIVELY, THEY HAVE ATHLETES WHO ARE BIG, STRONG, FAST AND RELENTLESS, AND THEY BULLYED AARON RODGERS, HALLER'S FAMER WHO WAS PLAYING LAST WEEKEND. THESE GUYS ARE TOUGH. JB, BEFORE I CONCLUDE THIS, I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT SOMETHING OFF THE FIELD. THE NFL IS HAVING SOME DIFFICULTIES. SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THEIR HEAD COACH RANKS. RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE ONLY FOUR MINORITY HEAD COACHES OF 32 TEAMS. THIS IS A LEAGUE WHERE 70% OF THE ATHLETES ARE MINORITIES. YOU WOULD THINK FOOTBALL IS THE ULTIMATE MERITOCRACY, ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT THE PLAYERS DO ON THE FIELD. YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ALSO AT THE HIGHEST PERSONS OF THE ORGANIZATION.

NOT UNLIKE HERE IN SOCIETY IN GENERAL, WOMEN, YOU KNOW, THE AGE, BRING GIFTS TO THE TABLE. THIS IS THE BEST WAY I WANT TO APPROACH IT, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN AND IT HAS BEEN REPEATED. '03 WAS WHEN THE ROONEY RULE WAS INSTITUTED, THE RIGHT MEASURE TO TAKE, BUT TEAMS ARE ABUSING IT. YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE LOVE, BUT TALENT COMES IN ALL SIZES. THANK YOU JB. COMING UP OUR NEXT TIME, SENATORS PREPARE FOR OPENING ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESIDENT'S TAX TRIAL. WE TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT. PLUS THE CBS NEWS EXCLUSIVE, WITH SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS.

WHY HE IS APOLOGIZING TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. AND THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ONGOING CORONAVIRUS IN CHINA. WHY NOW THEY SAY IT CAN BE TRANSMITTED FROM PERSON TO PERSON. HELLO EVERYONE. I am VLADIMIR DUTHIERS. ANNE-MARIE GREEN WILL JOIN ME IN A MOMENT. WE ARE ONE HOUR AWAY FROM THE STORY DEVELOPING IN CAPITOL HILL, WHERE THE TAX TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL SOON BEGIN. HERE'S A LOOK AT CAPITOL HILL WHERE MITCH MCCONNELL WILL SOON PRESENT PROPOSED RULES FOR THE TRIAL. A LONG DEBATE AMONG LEGISLATORS IS EXPECTED TO FOLLOW BEFORE OPENING THE ARGUMENTS. MEANWHILE, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IN DAVOS, SWITZERLAND, ATTENDING THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, BUT THE IMPEACHMENT FACE IN WASHINGTON IS EXPECTED TO DOWNLOAD HIS VISIT.

KATHERINE JOHNSON HAS THE LATEST FROM CAPITOL HILL. REPORTER: A FIGHT IS BEGINNING IN THE US SENATE OVER HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TAX TRIAL SHOULD PROCEED. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH MCCONNELL, REVEALED THE RESOLUTION THAT WILL BE DISPUTED TODAY, ESTABLISHING THE RULES FOR THE TRIAL. THE PROPOSAL SAYS EACH PARTY WILL HAVE 24 HOURS OVER TWO DAYS FOR INITIAL ARGUMENTS. THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY 16 HOURS OF QUESTIONNAIRE BY SENATORS. ONLY THEN WILL THEY BE ABLE TO DEBATE AND VOTE IF THEY HAVE WITNESSES. ASKS THE SENATE TO THROUGH THE TRIAL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND MAKES GETTING EVIDENCE AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE.

MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL SAID HE USED PRESIDENT CLINTON'S TAX TRIAL AS A MODEL FOR THIS. BUT A BIG DIFFERENCE IS THAT NONE OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING THE CAMERA PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ADMITTED. THE SENATE WILL HAVE TO VOTE TO ENTER. OPENING ARGUMENTS ARE EXPECTED TO BEGIN TOMORROW WITH BOTH THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM CLOSING THE PROCESS. HOUSE MANAGERS PROSECUTING THE CASE SAY SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE HELPING PRESIDENT TRUMP BLOCK ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES. THIS IS NOT A PROCESS FOR A FAIR TRIAL. IT IS THE PROCESS OF AN ADDED TRIAL. IT'S THE PROCESS IF YOU DON'T WANT AMERICANS TO SEE THE EVIDENCE.

IN A LEGAL BRIEF, THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM CALLS THE CASE AGAINST HIM THE END OF A BLAMEANTLY POLITICAL ACT AND THE RESULT OF A RIGGED PROCESS. THE TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO LAST SEVERAL WEEKS. KATHERINE JOHNSON, CAPITOL HILL. JOHN DICKERSON, 60 MINUTES CORRESPONDENT AND SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, COVERED THE TAX TRIAL OF FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON IN 1999 AND JOINED CBS THIS MORNING TO DELIVER MORE ON WHAT VIEWERS CAN EXPECT FROM THE TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE SENATE. SENATOR MCCONNELL SET THE GROUND RULES FOR WHAT HE HOPES TO BE A SPEEDY TRIAL. APPARENTLY HE HAS COORDINATED THEM WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF YOUR STRATEGY? IF WE THINK ABOUT THIS POLITICALLY, BECAUSE THIS IS A POLITICAL PROCESS AND WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY, LET'S START WITH THE REWARDS. FOR THE REPUBLICANS, THEY ARE BIG FANS OF THIS PRESIDENT. IF YOU COME AS A REPUBLICAN, YOU ARE DEEMED TO DEFEND THIS PRESIDENT AND PREVENT DEMOCRATS FROM TRYING TO HARM YOUR PRESIDENT, THEN YOU WILL GAIN POLITICAL REWARDS WITH YOUR REPUBLICAN BASE. THE DISADVANTAGE IS THAT REPUBLICANS SEEM ENABLING. IT SEEMS THAT THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE PROCESS AND PROTECTED THE PRESIDENT WHO HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG AND DID NOT WANT TO INVESTIGATE IF HE HAD DONE SOMETHING WRONG AND THAT PUT THEM ON THE HOOK OF FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR.

IF THEY ARE SEEN AS ENABLERS AND THE PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE FIND OBJECTIONABLE, THEN YOUR PROPOSERS SAY YOU ALLOW THE BEHAVIOR. THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF REPUBLICANS HERE WHO COULD BE CRITICAL IN DECIDING IF THERE ARE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE OR IF THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE. TALK ABOUT THE POSITION THERE AND THERE ARE MODERATES WHO HAVE DIFFICULT FIGHTS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE FALL. THEY ARE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION FOR THIS REASON. A NEW CNN POLL SAID THAT 51% OF THE COUNTRY SAY THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED AND 58% THINK THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING WRONG. THE COUNTRY ESSENTIALLY THINKS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE EXTENDED PROCESS HERE.

THAT IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN POSITION AT THE MOMENT. THESE MODERATES HAVE TO WEIGH BETWEEN THE PRIDENT'S POSITION WHICH IS THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG AND WHERE THEY ARE PROBABLY WHICH IS THAT HE MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG BUT IT'S NOT IMPACTABLE. THEY HAVE TO RIDE THOSE TWO HORSES BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION AND THEIR POSITION UNTIL ELECTION DAY. IF THEY SAY HE WAS PRESSURE BUT HE IS NOT ACCUSABLE, DO THEY HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS TO ADMIT THAT HE WAS PRESSURE BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE? THE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND WILL BE SOMETHING TO FIGHT FOR.

BOTH PARTIES WILL TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL TERRITORY IS AND WE WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT THAT. THE CONSTITUTION IS A LITTLE TOUGH ON THE ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT, BUT WHEN YOU READ THE DEBATES THAT HOT SUMMER IN PHILADELPHIA, THEY WERE NERVOUS ABOUT POWER. THE ISSUE OF ABUSE OF POWER IS AT THE CORE OF WHAT CONCERNED THE EDITORS AND THE REASON WHY THEY WORRIED ABOUT POWER IS BECAUSE THEY CALLED IT CANCER AND FELT THAT IF YOU GAVE POWER TO SOMEONE, THE INCLINATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT WOULD BE TOWARDS ABUSE IT. THAT WAS JUST NATURAL. SO THERE HAD TO BE THESE CONTROLS.

THAT'S WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT. LEAVING ASIDE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY OR NOT, THAT'S WHAT CONCERNED THEM MOST AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE THIS CONVERSATION SHOULD TAKE PLACE. THEY HAD KNOWN IN 1776 THAT CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS DID NOT REFER TO ACTUAL LEGAL ISSUES BUT TO SENTENCE CALLS. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, ACTIONS HAVE OCCURRED DUE TO MADNESS, DRUNKNESS AND PURE MISMANAGEMENT. THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WHO WILL DEFEND HIM ON THESE REASONS HAVE KEN STARR AND ALAN DERSHOWITZ AMONG OTHERS. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE TEAM? WE WANT TO SEE THE PERFORMANCE WE MUST THINK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT AUDIENCES THERE ARE. THERE ARE HEARINGS OF THE SENATORS IN THE ROOM AND THERE ARE TELEVISION HEARINGS AND GRASS-BASED HEARINGS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

ALL THE PUBLIC, SOME LAWYERS ARE ELECTED FOR THE PUBLIC WHO WATCHES THEM AT HOME. AND THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO SPEAK TO THAT AUDIENCE AND THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON TELEVISION FOR YEARS AND THAT IS PART OF IT. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE COUNTRY? THE RESULT IS KNOWN. WE KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE END. YOU WILL BE ABSOLVED. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN PASTORS? WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY BASICALLY BECAUSE IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR, THIS IS A LOOK AT THIS PRESIDENT AND THE WAY HE OPERATES. IT IS A CENTRAL ISSUE OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHETHER THE PRESIDENT CAN USE HIS POWER FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES.

THAT'S WHAT'S AT QUESTION. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BUT THAT IS THE CENTRAL QUESTION AND IT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT AS TO THE PERSON WHO IS GIVEN POWER IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE, DOES HE USE IT WISELY? HERE IT MATTERS NOT ONLY REGARDING WHETHER IT IS ACTED. WE BELIEVE HE WILL BE ACQUITTED. BUT IF HE IS RE-ELECTED AND IF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE FOUR MORE YEARS OF BEHAVIOR THAT WILL BE EXPLAINED IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL IN THE SENATE. THANK YOU. I feel like I should point out that the political judgments I was pointing out were for the judges.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PRESIDENT CHARGED FOR DRUNK. PREVIEW COVERAGE OF THE HISTORIC SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS AT 12:30 P.M. ORIENTAL. FULL COVERAGE CONTINUES AT 1:00 P.M. YOU CAN STAY UP TO DATE ON THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SENATE TRIAL AT ANY TIME BY VISITING OUR LIVE BLOG ON CBS BECAUSE IT HAS NEWS.COM/IMPEACHMENT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS REJECTED A FAST-TRACK LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. EARLIER THIS MONTH, 19 BLUE STATES ASKED THE COURT FOR A QUICK DECISION. THEY ARE APPEALING A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULING FROM LATE LAST YEAR WHICH SAID THE INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABLE MANDATE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THEY ASK THE COURT TO TAKE THE CASE AND SEE IT ON APRIL 26. THAT IS THE LAST SCHEDULED DAY FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS THIS TERM. TODAY'S ORDER REJECTED THAT REQUEST. THIS PROBABLY MEANS THERE IS NO DECISION AND THE CHALLENGE WILL BE GIVEN BEFORE THIS YEAR'S ELECTION. TO A DEVASTATING STORY FROM ARIZONA WHERE OFFICIALS SAY A MOTHER HAS ADMITTED TO KILLING HER THREE LITTLE CHILDREN. THE PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT SAID ON TWITTER THAT A 22-YEAR-OLD WOMAN RECENTLY MOVED TO ARIZONA FROM OKLAHOMA. THE CRIME OCCURRED IN THE FAMILY'S HOME ON MONDAY NIGHT. POLICE SAY THERE WERE NO OBVIOUS SIGNS OF TRAUMA ON THE CHILDREN AND THEY WERE ALL UNDER FOUR YEARS OLD.

ABROAD, NORTH KOREA SAYS IT NO LONGER FEELS BOUND BY ITS NUCLEAR COMMITMENTS BECAUSE THE US MISSED THE DEADLINE TO RESUME TALKS. NORTH KOREA COMMITTED TO STOP NUCLEAR TESTING AND PREVIOUS NEGOTIATIONS, BUT TALKS BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES COLLAPSED FOLLOWING A FAILED SUMMIT BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NORTH KOREAN DICTATOR KIM JONG-UN LAST FEBRUARY. A PYONGYANG OFFICIAL SAID TODAY THAT THE COUNTRY WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER A NEW PATH IF THE UNITED STATES CONTINUES TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON THE COUNTRY. THE FORMER INTERPOL HEAD FACES MORE THAN 13 YEARS IN PRISON. LAST YEAR, MENG HONGWEI PLED GUILTY TO ACCEPTING MORE THAN $2 MILLION IN BRIBE WHEN HE HOLD OFFICES IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA FROM 2005 TO 2017.

IN 2017, MENG HONGWEI WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF INTERPOL, THE POLICE ORGANIZATION, BUT HIS MANDATORY WAS TERMINATED WHEN HE APPARENTLY DISAPPEARED DURING A TRIP TO CHINA IN 2018. HE RESURGED IN 2019 AND WAS ARRESTED AS PART OF PRESIDENT XI'S PUSH TOWARDS CORRUPTION. FRANCE GAVE HIM HIS WIFE AFTER THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE FEARED TARGET OF KIDNAPPING ATTEMPTS. AND AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY GOVERNMENT SECURITY FORCES COMMITTED WAR CRIMES DURING COUNTERINSURGENCY OPERATIONS AGAINST MUSLIMS. BUT A COMMISSION FAILS TO ACCUSE THE TROOPS OF GENOCIDE. IN AUGUST 2017 AMILITARY CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE PEOPLE AND FORCED MORE THAN 700,000 PEOPLE TO ESCAPE TO NEIGHBOR BANGLADESH. THE NEWS COMES DAYS BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COURT RULES ON WHETHER URGENT MEASURES ARE IMPOSED TO STOP THE ALLEGED ONGOING GENOCIDE. .

AND REPORTING ON HOW TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL MEDIA HELPED FEED VIOLENCE. WATCH THE WOMANIZING DOCUMENTARY - WEAPON ICING ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THE WORLD'S LARGEST MINING COMPANIES AND AUSTRALIA'S FOREST FIRES HAVE DAMAGED THEIR COAL PRODUCTION. GROUPS SAY POOR AIR QUALITY CAUSED BY SMOKE HAS FORCED MACHINES TO RUN SLOWER. THE COMPANY ALSO SAID STAFF HAVE TAKEN TIME OFF TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY AGAINST FIRE THIS MORNING ON CBSN AM, ANNE-MARIE GREEN SPOKE WITH MICHAEL MANN AN, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES AND STUDYING LAND AND AUSTRALIAN FIRES . I CAME TO AUSTRALIA AND PLANNING A SABATICAL OVER A YEAR AGO TO STUDY THE LINKS BETWEEN I REALIZED THAT I WAS COMING TO AUSTRALIA TO SEE WHAT IS PERHAPS THE MOST EXTREME WEATHER THEY HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED IN THE FORM OF THESE FOREST FIRES WILDFIRES.

AND I HAVE SEEN THE IMPACT FIRST HAND. I HAVE SEEN THE SMOKE IN THE AIR. I HAVE SMELLED THE SMOKE. I HAVE SEEN THE DAMAGE DONE BY THESE MASSIVE FIRES THAT HAVE BREAK OUT ACROSS THE AUSTRALIAN CONTINENT. AND IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. YOU TAKE THE UNPRECEDENTED HEAT AUSTRALIA HAS SEEN OVER THE SUMMER AND THE UNPRECEDENTED DROUGHT THEY HAVE SEEN AND PUT IT TOGETHER. YOU WILL GET THIS TYPE OF FAST SPREADING, MASSIVE AND EXTENSIVE FIRES. AND THIS WAS PREACHED MORE THAN A DECADE AGO. CLIMATE SCIENTISTS IN AUSTRALIA SAID THAT IF WE CONTINUE WARMING THE PLANET BY PUTTING CARBON POLLUTION INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, AT THE CURRENT RATE WE'RE GOING, BY 2020, WE COULD SEE THE INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY AND EXTENT OF FOREST FIRES ACROSS THE CONTINENT AND HERE WE ARE IN 2020 AND WE ARE SEEING IT.

THEY PREDICTED IT. IT IS COME TRUE. THE PREDICTIONS ARE THAT IF WE DON'T SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, THEN WE WILL SEE MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE AND WORSE FOREST FIRES IN THE FUTURE. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE CAN PREVENT IT FROM WORSE, BUT WE ARE BEHIND THE BEST CASE, THE NEW NORMAL SCENARIO. SO THE LINK WITH WHAT WE ARE OBSERVING AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS OBVIOUS. YOU CAN RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S INCREDIBLY HOT. BUT HE IS NOT CONVINCED OF THE LINK BETWEEN HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND CLIMATE CHANGE. HERE YOU ARE IN YOUR OWN YARD AND I KNOW YOU'RE GETTING PRESSURE FROM PEOPLE WHO LIVE THIS IS A TERRIBLE THING.

DO YOU THINK THAT EVENTS LIKE THIS, PARTICULARLY THE DRAMATIC IMAGES THAT ARE BEING BROADCAST AROUND THE WORLD, THESE KOALA BEARS THAT ARE FRENTHICALLY TRYING TO GET TO A SAFE PLACE, DO YOU THINK THAT THESE IMAGES AND THIS EVENT CAN SERVE TO MOVE THE NEEDLE A LITTLE ? CAN YOU PRESSURE POLITICIANS TO MAKE CHANGES? I THINK SO. IN FACT, I DON'T THINK THE RHETORIC OF SCOTT MORRISON, THE PRIME MINISTER, IS REALLY CONNECTING WITH PEOPLE. PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT THEY ARE SEEING IS SOMETHING THEY HAVE NOT SEEN BEFORE. ÚTH POINTS. THEY KNOW THIS IS CLIMATE CHANGE.

THEY EXPECT THE PRIME MINISTER TO ACT, TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND THE IMAGES NOW THAT WE HAVE SEEN AROUND THE WORLD, THE DESTRUCTION OF THESE RAIN FORESTS, THE LOSS OF LIFE AND CLEARLY IMAGES OF KOALA BEARS AND OTHER ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THESE UNPRECEDENTED FIRES, ARE SOME OF THE POSTER OF CLIMATE CHANGE . IT'S A KIND OF POST-APOCALYPTIC VISION THAT'S OUT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD. AND WHAT AUSTRALIA IS EXPERIENCED IS A WARNING OF WHAT WE WILL SEE OVERALL IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMMEDIATELY. I THINK THE CHALLENGE OF THE SITUATION FOR MANY PEOPLE IS THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE HELPLESS.

AND I KNOW YOUR FOCUS IS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE POLICY CHANGES AND THE BIGGER PICTURE IS WHAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND IT'S NOT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL WATER BOTTLE. BUT WHAT CAN INDIVIDUALS DO TO GET SOME KIND OF IMPACT HERE? THERE ARE MANY THINGS WE CAN DO IN OUR DAILY LIFE. SAVE ENERGY AND RECYCLE. BIKE TO WORK INSTEAD OF DRIVING. MANY THINGS WE CAN DO TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT. AND THEY HELP WITH THIS MAJOR PROBLEM. AND GIVE A GOOD EXAMPLE TO OTHERS. ULTIMATELY, IF WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM, WE NEED SYSTEMIC CHANGE AND WE NEED POLICIES THAT DRAMATICALLY PASS US AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND WE NEED POLITICIANS WHO ARE WILLING TO SUPPORT THOSE POLICIES AND UNFORTUNATELY DONALD TRUMP IN THE USA.

USA and SCOTT MORRISON AND AUSTRALIA ARE NOT WILLING TO SUPPORT THOSE POLICIES. WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE CAN DO? THEY CAN VOTE AND THEY CAN VOTE FOR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE WILLING TO ACT ON THEIR BEHALF AND NOT ON BEHALF OF FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK. BUT A QUICK REMINDER THAT WE ARE JUST OVER 15 MINUTES AWAY FROM THE PREVIEW OF THE HISTORIC SENATE TAX TRIAL WHICH WILL BEGIN AT 12:30 EAST. THE TRIAL ITSELF MUST BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. ORIENTAL. WE WILL HAVE COMPLETE LIVE COVERAGE HERE ON CBSN.

AFTER THE BREAK, CATCH UP ON THE OTHER NEWS WE'RE FOLLOWING. TO STAY. YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN. CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. CHINESE OFFICIALS SAY THE CORONAVIRUS HAS KILLED SIX PEOPLE, PROMPTING A RENEWED URGENCY TO KEEP THE VIRUS CONTAINED. THE NEWS COMES AFTER AN EXPERT CONFIRMED THAT THE VIRUS CAN BE TRANSPORTED FROM HUAN TO HUMAN. AND OFFICIALS ARE REPORTING THAT THE WOMAN IN TAIWAN HAS BEEN INFECTED AFTER A TRIP TO WUHAN, THE EPICENTER OF THE OUTBREAK. WE HAVE MORE ON THE LATEST. REPORTER: WUHAN OFFICIALS HAVE DESIGNATED NINE HOSPITALS AS TREATMENT CENTERS, INCLUDING THE ONE RIGHT BEHIND ME. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO 61 FEVER CLINICS AND A TEAM OF EMERGENCY EXPERTS.

GOOD NEWS IS THAT CHINESE SCIENTISTS SAY THEY HAVE DISCOVERED THE DNA SEQUENCE OF THE VIRUS WHICH OPENS THE POSSIBILITY OF TREATMENT AND POTENTIALLY A VACCINE. AS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF CHINESE RESIDENTS MIGRATE ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO RECEIVE THE LUNAR NEW YEAR, CONFIRMATION OF THE VIRUS CAN SPREAD AMONG HUMANS, INCREASE THE CHANCE THAT IT COULD BE TRANSMITTED FASTER AND MORE WIDELY. THAT PRESENTS AN EVEN GREATER CHALLENGE FOR CHINA AND NEARBY NATIONS TO CONTAIN THE OUTBREAK. TRAVELERS WITH MASKS, QUARANTINE STATIONS AND TEMPERATURE CHECKPOINTS ARE BECOME COMMON SITE AT AIRPORTS AND TRAIN HUBS ACROSS ASIA. THIS MAN WE TALK TO OUTSIDE A WUHAN HOSPITAL SAID IT'S DIFFICULT TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS BUT HE BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT CAN HANDLE IT VERY WELL.

THE NUMBER OF KNOWN INFECTIONS HAS INCREASED STRONGLY SINCE YESTERDAY, EXCEEDING 300 CASES IN CHINA ALONE. AT LEAST 15 WUHAN HOSPITAL WORKERS HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH THE VIRUS. IF, IN FACT, A PERSON HAS A HEALTH CARE WORKER INFECTED, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY OF SOME CONCERN. DOCTORS FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SAY THAT HUMAN-TO-HUMAN TRANSMISSIONS COULD BE ISOLATED INCIDENTS. WHEN YOU GET SUSTAINED TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER, THEN YOU HAVE A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM BECAUSE THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW A MUCH WIDER TYPE OF OUTBREAK. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION SAYS THEY WILL FORM AN EMERGENCY COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS. THEY WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS OUTBREAK CONSTITUTES A GLOBAL EMERGENCY AND HOW BEST TO CONTAIN IT.

AND PUERTO RICO, HUNDREDS OF ANGRY PROTESTERS GATHERED OUTSIDE THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ISLAND OFFICIALS. THE CHANT CAME UP AFTER A BLOGGER RECENTLY DISCOVERED A WAREHOUSE FULL OF UNUSED AID FROM HURRICANE MARIA IN A CITY HEAVILY DAMAGED BY THE RECENT SERIES OF EARTHQUAKES. THREE OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN FIRED. AND THE GOVERNOR IS ASKED TO RESIGN. GOVERNOR WANDA VÁSQUEZ SAID SHE WAS UNAWARE OF THE WAREHOUSE AND HAS ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE HANDLING OF ALL THE AID. LOOKING CLOSER AT THE RECOMMENDED ISLAND WHERE THE LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN IS ACCUSED OF TRAFFICKING UNDERAGE GIRLS. LITTLE ST. JAMES OFF THE SHORE OF ST.

THOMAS WAS THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN UNTIL HIS DEATH IN AUGUST. NOW THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS SUING HIS ESTATE TO GAIN CONTROL OF IT. THE NEW LAWSUIT IS PROVIDING NEW DETAILS ABOUT HOW JEFFREY EPSTEIN WAS ABLE TO MAKE HIS ALLEGED CRIMES GO UNHELD FOR SO LONG. MOLA LENGHI HAS MORE. REPORTER: THERE ARE REALLY ONLY TWO WAYS TO GET TO THIS ISLAND. BY HELICOPTER OR BY PRIVATE BOAT. AND THE ISOLATION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN BY DESIGN, MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO MONITOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BEHAVIOR ON THE ISLAND AND EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE ALLEGED VICTIMS WHO WERE BROUGHT HERE TO ESCAPE.

LITTLE ST. JAMES MAY LOOK LIKE A TROPICAL ESCAPE, BUT AUTHORITIES SAY JEFFREY EPSTEIN USED THE PRIVATE ISLAND TO HIDE HIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. HE FELT LIKE HE COULD BASICALLY BE PROTECTED AND GET AWAY. DENISE GEORGE BECAME ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE US VIRGIN ISLANDS A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO EPSTEIN'S DEATH BY SUICIDE LAST YEAR. HIS OFFICE IS NOW SUING THE EPSTEIN ESTATE. WHY FILE THESE TYPES OF CHARGES NOW? ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS WHY NOT NOW? I CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT DUE TO EPSTEIN'S WEALTH AND POWER, HE WAS ABLE TO HIDE A LOT OF THIS.

EPSTEIN ACQUIRED LITTLE ST. JAMES IN 1998 AND THE CLOSE OF GREAT JAMES YEARS LATER. THE LAWSUIT WANTS TO CONFISCATE HIS PROPERTY INCLUDING THE ISLANDS VALUED AT $86 MILLION. THE CONVICTED PEDOPHILE REGISTERED AS A SEX OFFENDER AND IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AFTER 2010 AFTER SERVING A SENTENCE IN FLORIDA FOR ACQUIRING A MINOR GIRL FOR PROSTITUTION. BUT GEORGE SAYS EPSTEIN MONITORING ON HIS ISLAND COME WITH UNIQUE CHALLENGES FOR THE AUTHORITIES WHO CONTROLLED IT. THEY WERE ARRESTED AT THE DOCK. THEY TOLD THEM THIS IS THE ONLY THOSE THEY CAN GET BECAUSE IT IS MY PRIVATE PROPERTY AND I WON'T ALLOW THEM TO GO FURTHER.

COURT DOCUMENTS ALLEGE THAT EPSTEIN FLEW INTO THE ONLY AIRPORT IN ST. THOMAS AND THE SAME ONE WE FLEW TO AT THE EARLY OF THIS WEEK. THE AREA IN WHICH THE PRIVATE JETS FLY IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS AND THAT ALSO HELPS WITH CONCEALMENT. FROM THERE, EPSTEIN ALLEGEDLY TRANSPORTED UNDERAGE GIRLS TO THE ISLAND USING TWO HELICOPTERS. ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS AND OTHER AIRPORT PERSONNEL REPORTED THAT THEY SAW EPSTEIN WITH GIRLS WHO ALSO APPEARED TO BE 11 YEARS OLD. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TELLS US THAT EPSTEIN CONTROLS ALL COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION ON LITTLE ST.

JAMES AND HIS ALLEGED VICTIMS WERE ESSENTIALLY CAUGHT. REMEMBER THAT HE IS THE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE ISLAND. THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE A BOY OR GIRL COULD SIMPLY ESCAPE AND RUN DOWN THE STREET TO THE NEAREST POLICE STATION. THE ISLAND IS ABOUT 2 MILES FROM ST. THOMAS. ACCORDING TO THE LAWSUIT, ONE OF HIS ALLEGED 15-YEAR-OLD VICTIMS WAS SO DESPERATE TO ESCAPE THAT SHE ACTUALLY TRIED TO SWIM AWAY. ANOTHER OF EPSTEIN'S ALLEGED VICTIMS WHO SPOKE TO CBS NEWS ON THE CONDITION THAT WE HIDE HER FACE AND VOICE, TOLD US WHAT SHE SAID HAPPENED TO HER. HE RAPED ME AND TOOK ME FROM HIS ISLAND TO HIS OFFICE AND RAPED ME IN HIS OFFICE AND TRIED TO EAT MEAT IN HIS ROOM ON THE ISLAND WHERE HE HAD A GUN TIED TO THE BED POST.

HE COULD NOT GO OUT. THE ONLY MEANS TO LEAVE THE ISLAND WAS BY HELICOPTER OR BOAT. JORDAN MERCED'S ATTORNEY REPRESENTS SEVERAL ALLEGED VICTIMS SUING THE EPSTEIN ESTATE AND HAS ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO FILE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE ESTATE BEFORE THE LEGAL WINDOW CLOSES. FOR THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE LONGER THAN MARCH 12, 2020, YOU MAY BE WRONG. AND THEY MAY NEVER GET THE CHANCE TO GET JUSTICE IF THEY DON'T COME HERE NOW. JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ESTATE IS DISPUTING CLAIMS THAT HE WOULD USE A POTENTIAL VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND TO somehow HIDE ANY ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN A STATEMENT TO CBS NEWS, THE ESTATE SAYS THERE WILL BE NO OBLIGATION FOR POTENTIAL VICTIMS TO HOLD YOUR CLAIMS CONFIDENTIAL.

VLAD, ANNE-MARIE. PRINCE HARRY IS IN CANADA TO START HIS NEW LIFE WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND HIS SON ARE CHEAPER IN THE DUKE OF SUSSEX WAS SEEN LANDING IN VANCOUVER ON MONDAY NIGHT AFTER ATTENDING WHAT WOULD LIKELY BE ONE OF HIS LAST OFFICIAL ROYAL ENGAGEMENTS IN LONDON. COMING THIS SPRING, THE COUPLE WILL NO LONGER BE FULL-TIME WORKING ROYALTY. ELIZABETH PALMER IS OUTSIDE BUCKINGHAM PALACE WITHOUT STORY. IT'S BEEN A TUMULTUOUS COUPLE OF WEEKS BUT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE PRINCE HARRY HAS DEFINITELY LEFT HIS OLD LIFE AND STARTED A NEW LIFE THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM BUCKINGHAM PALACE. PRINCE HARRY AND YES, HE CAN STILL USE THE TITLE, ARRIVED IN VANCOUVER LAST NIGHT AND WAS IMMEDIATELY TAKEN TO MEET MEGHAN AND ONLY EIGHT MONTHS EARLIER, PRINCE HARRY HAD FINISHED HIS WORK AS A SENIOR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY AT A CONFERENCE ON AFRICAN INVESTMENT.

THE DEPARTURE OF PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN LIKELY MEANS EVEN MORE WORK FOR PRINCE WILLIAM, THE FUTURE KING, WHO WITH HIS WIFE KATE, WAS ON DUTY AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE FOR THE FIRST TIME, HOSTING A RECEPTION. The day before, Harry had told a meeting of his private charity that he had had no choice but to go. ALLWE TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH. SO THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE COURAGE TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP. BUT THIS IS STILL NOT A CLEAN BREAK. WHAT ARE THE LOOSE ENDS? THERE ARE MORE LOOSE ENDS THAN DECISIONS. THE HIGHLIGHT OF COURSE IS THE MONEY.

WHO WILL PAY FOR WHY? AND PROBABLY THE MOST HIGHLIGHT OF ALL IS SAFETY. KEEPING YOUNG FAMILY SAFE IS GOING TO COST A FORTUNE. AND BRITISH OR CANADIAN TAXPAYERS LIKELY HAVE THE BILL. THAT'S GOING TO GENERATE SOME ANGER. Aside from the resentment already brewing, most of it is directed at the outsider in this story. BRITISH PUBLIC OPINION IS THAT EVERYTHING IS WHAT MEGHAN FEELS. THAT HAS TAKEN HARRY AWAY FROM US. AND SHE HAS INSISTED THEY HAVE A PRIVATE LIFE. QUALIFY THAT A LITTLE, IT'S A GENERATIONAL THING. OLDER PEOPLE CAN BLAME MEGHAN FOR TAKING HARRY AWAY. YOUNGER PEOPLE TEND TO THINK THAT THE COUPLE DESERVES A CHANCE TO HAVE A HAPPY LIFE AND WISH THEM WELL.

VLAD, ANNE-MARIE. THANK YOU. AND THE MONEY WATCH, UBER IS TESTING A FEATURE THAT GIVES SOME DRIVERS AND CALIFORNIA THE ABILITY TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN FAIR. THIS IS A MEASURE TO GIVE DRIVERS MORE CONTROL IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE'S GIG ECONOMY LAW. NEW LEGISLATION REQUIRES COMPANIES TO TREAT WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES RATHER THAN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. THEY ASK FOR VOTERS TO EXEMPT COMPANIES FROM THE LAW. TESLA IS DISPUTING HIS ALLEGATIONS OF UNEXPECTED ACCELERATION IN ITS VEHICLES. SAYING A SHORT SELLER WAS BEHIND THE CLAIMS. AT QUESTION ARE APPROXIMATELY 500,000 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM 2013 TO 2019. A PETITION FILED LAST WEEK CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE 127 COMPLAINTS OF SUDDEN ACCELERATION.

THE ASIAN NATIONAL COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR SAID HE WILL REVIEW THE PETITION AND DECIDE WHETHER TO START A FULL INVESTIGATION. GOOGLE AND SEND REQUEST REGULAR ASIAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND AN OPINION ARTICLE. THINK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION BUT APPROACH IT IN THE BEST WAY. THE COMMENTS COME AS PUTTING LIMITS ON HOW OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS USED. THANK YOU FOR STREAMING CBSN. SPECIAL WALL-TO-WALL COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS AFTER A QUICK BREAK. REENA NINAN IS WAITING WITH OUR TEAM OF CORRESPONDENTS AND ANALYST AND WE WILL EXPLAIN TO HER WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN ON THE HILL AS THE LAW-LAWMAN PREPARE FOR WHAT WILL BE A VERY TENSE AFTERNOON.

YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN. CBSN, ALWAYS ON. HELLO EVERYONE. I'm REENA NINAN. ON A DATE THAT MAKES HISTORY IN AMERICA. WE ARE MOMENTS AWAY FROM THE START OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE SENATE. WE ARE ABOUT TO WITNESS SOMETHING THAT HAS ONLY HAPPENED TWICE BEFORE. THE BIG DAY WILL BEGIN WITH A TENSE DEBATE ABOUT THE RULES THAT WILL GOVERN THE TRIAL. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH MCCONNELL, WILL TAKE THE FLOOR MOMENTARY AND INTRODUCE A RESOLUTION CONTAINING THOSE RULES. THIS IS WHAT MCCONNELL WANTS. EACH PARTY HAS 24 HOURS TO DISCUSS ITS CASE. IT WILL BE DIVIDED INTO TWO DAYS PER PIECE.

THE HOUSE AND COREY'S EVIDENCE WILL ONLY BE ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD IF THE SENATE VOTES TO DO SO. SENATORS WILL HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS IN WRITTEN AFTER PRESENTING THE ARGUMENTS. AND ONLY THEN WILL THE SENATE ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF CALLING WITNESSES. DEMOCRATS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE RULES. AND THEY WILL SEEK TO FIX THEM BY ISSUING AMENDMENTS. SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER CAME TO CALL THE RULES A DISGRACE. I THINK THE SCHEDULE IS RUSSIAN. HE IS FURIOUS WITH THE WITNESSES AND WE WILL HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE EVIDENCE. AGAIN, THE TWO ARTICLES OF ACTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OR ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THOSE ARTICLES ARE LIKELY TO BEGIN TOMORROW. Assuming the Senate accepts the

rules

this afternoon. I WANT TO BRING A PANEL OF OURS. RIKKI CLAIMANT, CAITLIN HEALY BURNS. RIKKI IS A LEGAL ANALYST FOR CBS NEWS. JEFF IS REUTERS' WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT AND DON IS A HISTORIAN OF THE US SENATE. I WANT TO START WITH YOU. ACCORDING TO WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST, WHAT WILL TODAY'S TRIAL, THE DEBATE PROCEDURE BE LIKE? IT WILL BE A LITTLE UNUSUAL THAT WE CAN SEE THE DEBATE. THE FIRST TIME THEY ARGUED ABOUT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT, THEY ACTUALLY DID IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

BECAUSE THEY HAD AN EFFORT SO NEW TO THEM. THIS TIME THE RULES ARE VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE USED IN THE CLINTON PROSECUTION. THEY WILL USE IT AS A STARTING POINT. BUT THEY WILL BE DEBATE AND PUBLIC. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAST LAP UNDER CLINTON AND NOW WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE RULES? WITNESSES ARE A PROBLEM. IN 1999, THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SENATORS ON BOTH SIDES THAT THEY DID NOT WANT WITNESSES IN THE WORD. THEY PARTICULARLY DIDN'T WANT MONICA LEWINSKY IN THE FLAT. AND THEY FINALLY AGREED TO HAVE A VIDEO STATEMENT FROM THREE WITNESSES SHOWN.

THIS TIME, THERE IS DISAGREEMENT AMONG SENATORS OVER WHETHER WITNESSES SHOULD BE PRESENT OR NOT. I WANT TO RETURN TO RIKKI CLAIMANT ONSET. HOUSE JUDICIARY JERRY NADLER HAD SAID AT ONE POINT THAT AT NO TIME WILL YOU HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT HAVING WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE RULES THAT MCCONNELL HAS ESTABLISHED AND DO YOU AGREE WITH THEM? I THINK JERRY NADLER MAKES A VERY ACCURATE STATEMENT. WE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANY TYPE OF TRIAL, WHETHER AN IMPEACHMENT OR A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL TRIAL WHERE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AND NO WITNESSES IN ANY FORM.

YOU COULD DO IT THROUGH DEPOSITION. I APOLOGIZE. I'm going to interrupt you. I'm going to take you to Senate Majority Leader Mitchell McConnell. WE BEGIN ONLY THE THIRD PRESIDENTIAL TAX TRIAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY. THIS IS A UNIQUE RESPONSIBILITY THAT THE DRAFTERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION KNEW THE SENATE AND ONLY THE SENATE COULD HANDLE. OUR FOUNDERS TRUST THE SENATE TO OVERCOME SHORT-TERM PASSIONS AND FACTIONALISM. THEY TRUSTED THE SENATE TO SOBERLY CONSIDER WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PROVEN AND WHICH RESULT BEST SERVE THE NATION. THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH BAR, MR. PRESIDENT AND YOU CAN SAY THAT LATER TODAY, THIS BODY WILL TAKE OUR ENTRANCE EXAM.

TODAY WE WILL CONSIDER AND APPROVE AN ORGANIZING RESOLUTION THAT WILL STRUCTURE THE FIRST PHASE OF THE TRIAL. THIS INITIAL STEP WILL PROVIDE AN EARLY SIGNAL TO OUR COUNTRY. DOES KIM THE SENATE STILL SERVE OUR FOUNDING PURPOSE? CAN WE STILL PUT JUSTICE, IMPARCITY AND A HISTORICAL PRECEDENT ABOVE THE PARTISAN PASSION OF THE DAY? TODAY'S VOTE WILL CONTAIN SOME RESPONSES. THE ORGANIZING RESOLUTION WILL PRESENT THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE SENATE. THAT IS BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHES A STRUCTURE THAT IS FAIR, IMPARTIAL AND CLOSELY FOLLOWS THE PAST PRESIDENTS WHO WERE ESTABLISHED UNANIMOUSLY. AFTER PRE-TRIAL BUSINESS, THE RESOLUTION LAYS OUT THE FOUR THINGS THAT MUST HAPPEN NEXT.

FIRST, THE SENATE WILL HEAR AN OPENING PRESENTATION FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS. SECOND, WE WILL LISTEN TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. THIRD, SENATORS MAY REQUEST MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE WRITTEN QUESTION FROM ANY PARTY THROUGH THE PRESIDING JUSTICE. AND THEN, WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION IN HAND, THE SENATE WILL CONSIDER WHETHER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR WITNESS OR WITNESSES ARE NECESSARY TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THE HOUSE CASE HAS REACHED THE HIGH BAR OF OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND UNDOING A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. THE FAIR PROCESS OF THE SENATE WILL MARK A STRONG CONTRAST WITH THE UNFAIR AND BREAKING OF PRECEDENTS THAT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE HOUSE BREAK WITH PRECEDENT BY DENYING MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY THE SAME RIGHTS THAT DEMOCRATS HAD RECEIVED WHEN THEY WERE IN THE MINORITY IN 1998. HERE IN THE SENATE, EVERY SENATOR WILL HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS AND EXACTLY THE SAME ABILITY TO DO QUESTIONS . THE HOUSE BREAK WITH JUSTICE BY EXTRACTING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER AND COREY TO AN UNPRECEDENTED EXTENT. HERE IN THE SENATE, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WILL FINALLY RECEIVE EQUALITY FROM HOUSE DEMOCRATS. AND FINALLY I WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE PRESIDENT'S CASE. FINALLY, SOME JUSTICE. AT EVERY POINT, OUR DIRECT RESOLUTION WILL PROVIDE THE CLARITY AND JUSTICE THAT EVERYONE DESERVES.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS IS THE JUST ROADMAP FOR OUR TEST. WE NEED IT BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THEREFORE, THE SENATE SHOULD PREPARE TO REMAIN IN SESSION TODAY UNTIL WE COMPLETE AND ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION. THE FOUR-PART BASIC STRUCTURE ALLIANCE WITH THE FIRST STEPS OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN 1999. 21 YEARS AGO, 100 SENATORS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT THIS ROADMAP WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO BEGIN THE TRIAL. THE 100 SENATORS AGREED THAT THE RIGHT TIME TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF POTENTIAL WITNESSES WAS LATER. AFTER THE INITIAL ARGUMENTS AND THE SENATOR'S QUESTIONS.

SOME OUTSIDE VOICES HAVE URGED THE SENATE TO BREAK WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THIS ISSUE. STRONG VOICES, INCLUDING THE HOUSE MAJORITY LEADERSHIP, COLLUDED WITH SENATE DEMOCRATS AND ATTEMPT TO FORCE THE SENATE TO PRE-COMMIT TO SEEKING SPECIFIC WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE SENATORS HAD HEARD THE INITIAL ARGUMENTS OR HAD EVEN ASKED QUESTIONS S. THESE ARE POTENTIAL WITNESSES, MR. PRESIDENT, TO WHOM THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS THEMSELVES REFUSED TO LISTEN TO. WHOM THE SAME CHAMBER REFUSED TO PROSECUTE THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM. DURING YOUR OWN CONSULTATION. THE HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE ANY DEADLINE. THEY WERE FREE TO CONDUCT ANY RESEARCH THEY WANT TO CONDUCT.

IF THEY WANTED WITNESSES WHO WOULD UNDERSTAND LEGAL BATTLES OVER PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE, THEY COULD HAVE HAD THOSE SITES. BUT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE DECIDED NOT TO DO SO. THEY DECIDED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS OVER AND THEY MOVED FORWARD. THE HOUSE CHOSE NOT TO PERSECUTE THE SAME WITNESSES THEY APPARENTLY WOULD LIKE TO NOW AND WOULD LIKE TO NOW PREVIOUSLY COMMIT TO THE SENATE TO PROSECUTE US. AS I HAVE DECIDED FOR WEEKS, NO ONE, NO ONE WILL DICTATE SENATE PROCEDURE TO THE UNITED STATES SENATORS. MOST OF US ARE COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING CLINTON'S UNANIMOUS BIPARTIST PRECEDENT AGAINST OUTSIDE INFLUENCES REGARDING THE PROPER TIMING OF THESE MIDTRIAL QUESTIONS.

AND THEREFORE, IF AMENDMENTS ARE FILED TO FORCE PREMATURE DECISIONS ON MID-TRIAL ISSUES, I WILL PROPOSE SUCH AMENDMENTS AND PROTECT OUR BIPARTIST PRECEDENT. IF A SENATOR PROPOSES TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION AND ORDERS OR SUMMONS SPECIFIC WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS, I WILL TAKE THOSE EMOTIONS INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE THE SENATE WILL DECIDE THOSE ISSUES LATER IN THE TRIAL, JUST AS WE DID IN 1999. MR. PRESIDENT, TODAY YOU CAN PRESENT A CURIOUS SITUATION. WE CAN HEAR THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEMSELVES AGING FOR SUCH AMENDMENTS. WE CAN HEAR A TEAM OF ADMINISTRATORS LEADED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIAL AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE DISCUSS THAT THE SENATE SHOULD PRAY COMMIT TO REOPEN THE SAME INVESTIGATION THEY THEMSELVES MONITORED AND VOLUNTARILY CLOSED.

IT WOULD BE CURIOUS TO HEAR THESE TWO HOUSE PRESIDENTS ARGUING THAT THE SENATE SHOULD PRAY AND COMMIT TO SUPPLEMENTING THEIR OWN EVIDENCE RECORD TO APPLY THE SUMMONS THEY REFUSE TO APPLY, TO COMPLEMENT A CASE THEY THEMSELVES RECENTLY DESCRIBED AS OVERWHELMING. OVERWHELMING. AND BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. SO MR. PRESIDENT, THESE MIDTRIAL QUESTIONS COULD TAKE US EVEN DEEPER INTO EVEN MORE COMPLEX CONSTITUTIONAL WATERS. FOR EXAMPLE, MANY SENATORS, INCLUDING, MAY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DIFFUSE OF THE TRADITIONAL ROLE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WITHIN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. THE CONSTITUTION DIVIDES THE POWER WHICH FIRST IS EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE CHAMBER AND WITH THE POWER TO ACT, COMES THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE.

THAT THE SENATE AGREED TO RESUME AND CONTINUE THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION AND ADD ITS TEAM ESTABLISHED A NEW PRECEDENT THAT COULD incentivize TAXES APPROVED BY FUTURE HOUSE MAJORITIES. IT COULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE SENATE HOUSE IF THE SENATE AGREES THAT WE WILL CONDUCT BOTH THE INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL OF AN IMPEACHMENT. MOREOVER, SOME OF THE PROPOSED NEW WITNESSES INCLUDE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS WHOSE KEY DISTANCES WITH THE PRESIDENT AND OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS ARE AT THE CORE OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE. PERSECUTING THOSE WITNESSES COULD END UP DELAYING THE TRIAL IN THE SENATE AND LEAD OUR CORPORATE INTO A PROLONGED AND COMPLEX LEGAL FIGHT OVER PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE.

SUCH LITIGATION COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE PERMANENT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY WHICH SENATORS SHOULD CONSIDER VERY, VERY CAREFULLY. SO MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATE WILL NOT CONSIDER THESE BIG ISSUES WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. WITHOUT LISTENING TO THE INITIAL ARGUMENTS FIRST. THERE WERE GOOD REASONS WHY 100 OF 100 SENATORS AGREED TWO DECADES AGO TO CROSS THESE BRIDGES WHEN WE GET TO THEM. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO THIS TIME TOO. FAIR IS FAIR. THE PROCESS WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR PRESIDENT CLINTON AND BASIC JUSTICE DICTATES THAT IT SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THIS PRESIDENT TOO. SO EYES ARE ON THE SENATE.

THE COUNTRY IS LOOKING TO SEE IF WE CAN REVEAL TO THE OCCASION. 21 YEARS AGO, 100 SENATORS, INCLUDING SEVERAL OF US SITTING IN THE CHAMBER TODAY, DID EXACTLY THAT. THE BODY APPROVED A FAIR, COMMON SENSE PROCESS TOGUIDING THE BEGINNING OF A PRESIDENTIAL TAX TRIAL. TODAY, TWO DECADES LATER, THE SENATE WILL TAKE THE ENTRANCE EXAM AGAIN. THE BASIC STRUCTURE WE PROPOSED IS AS EMINENTLY FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AS IT WAS THEN. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SENATORS ARE READY TO BE SO FAIR AND FAIR. THE SENATE MADE A DECLARATION 21 YEARS AGO. WE SAID THAT THE PRESIDENTS OF EITHER PARTY DESERVE BASIC JUSTICE AND A FAIR PROCESS.

A CHALLENGING POLITICAL MOMENT LIKE TODAY DOES NOT MAKE SUCH STATEMENTS LESS NECESSARY. BUT EVERYTHING MORE NECESSARY AND DONE. THEREFORE, I WOULD TELL MY COLLEAGUES Across the aisle that there is no reason why the vote on this resolution should be remotely partisan. There is no reason other than grassroots partisanship to say that this particular president deserves a radically different rulebook than what was good enough. A FORMER PRESIDENT OF HIS OWN PARTY. THEREFORE, I ENCOURAGE EVERY SENATOR TO SUPPORT THE JUST RESOLUTION. I URGED EVERYONE TO VOTE TO MAINTAIN THE UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN PRECEDENT OF THE SENATE. OF A FAIR PROCESS.

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL DESCRIBES SOME PROPOSED GROUND RULES. I WANT TO BRING A PANEL HERE TO TALK A LITTLE MORE. WE ALSO EXPECT CHUCK SCHUMER TO GET ON THE PODIUM AT ANY TIME. THERE IS. LET'S GO TO HIM LIVE. THERE HAS BEEN GROUNDED CONCERN THAT THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY MEASURES REQUIRED FOR ACCESS TO THE GALLERIES DURING THE TRIAL COULD CAUSE REPORTERS TO MISS SOME OF THE EVENTS IN THE SENATE. I WANT TO ASSURE EVERYONE IN THE PRESS THAT I WILL OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO BEGIN THE TRIAL UNLESS THE REPORTERS TRYING TO ENTER THE GALLERY ARE SEAT.

THE PRESS IS HERE TO INFORM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT THESE LITTLE EVENTS IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY. WE MUST MAKE SURE THEY ARE ABLE TO CHOOSE SOME MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT WHAT HAPPENS HERE TO BE PUBLIC. WE MAKE. NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF MY REMARKS, THE SENATE WILL PROCEED WITH THE IMPACT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP FOR COMMITTING SERIOUS CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF COERCING A FOREIGN LEADER TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, TO BENEFIT HIMSELF, AND THEN DOING EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO COVER UP. IF PROVEN, THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE CRIMES AGAINST DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE A GREATER SUBVERSION OF OUR DEMOCRACY THAT POWERS OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS DETERMINE ELECTIONS FROM WITHIN. FOR A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO TRY SOMETHING ON ITS OWN IS BAD ENOUGH. FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO DELIBERATELY REQUEST SUCH A THING, to blackmail a foreign country with military assistance, to help it win an election, is unimaginably worse. I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY OTHER PRESIDENT DOING THIS. BEYOND THAT, FOR THEM, THE PRESIDENT TO DENY THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT, TO DENY THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE ANY OF THEIR ACTIVITIES, TO SAY THAT ARTICLE TWO OF THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS , WE ARE LOOKING DOWN AT AN erosion of the sacred democratic principles for which our founders fought a bloody war of independence.

LIKE THE GRAVITY OF THIS HISTORICAL MOMENT. A SENATOR, CEREMONIAL FUNCTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF A PRESIDENTIAL TRIAL WILL BE COMPLETE. THEN THE SENATE MUST DETERMINE THE RULES OF THE TRIAL. THE REPUBLICAN LEADER WILL OFFER AN ORGANIZING RESOLUTION THAT OUTLINES HIS PLAN. YOUR PLAN. FOR THE RULES OF TRIAL. IT IS TOTALLY PARTISAN. IT WAS KEPT SECRET UNTIL THE EVE OF THE TRIAL. AND NOW THAT IT'S PUBLIC IT'S VERY EASY TO SEE WHY. THE MACCONNELL RULES APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT ASKS THE SENATE TO ACT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AND MAKES GETTING EVIDENCE AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE.

IT COULD REQUIRE THE PRESENTATIONS TO BE MADE AT TWO OR 3 IN THE MORNING SO THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT SEE THEM. IN SUMMARY, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION WILL RESULT IN A WAITING TRIAL WITH LITTLE EVIDENCE IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT. LITERALLY, THE DARKNESS OF THE NIGHT. If the president is so confident in his case, if Leader Macconnell is so confident that the president did nothing wrong, why don't they want the case to be presented in broad daylight? SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS IMPEACHMENT, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION IS NOTHING LESS THAN A NATIONAL DISGRACE. THIS WILL GO DOWN, THIS RESOLUTION, AS ONE OF THE DARKEST MOMENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE SENATE.

PERHAPS ONE OF THE DARKEST. LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL JUST SAID HE WANTS TO FOLLOW THE CLINTON RULES. SO WHY DID YOU CHANGE THEM IN AT LEAST FOUR IMPORTANT WAYS FOR EVERYONE TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT LESS TRANSPARENT, LESS CLEAR AND WITH LESS EVIDENCE? HE SAID HE WANTED TO START AND IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. IT TURNS OUT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEADERS SAID, AMAZED TO BE ABLE TO SAY IT WITH A SERIOUS FACE, THAT THE RULES ARE THE SAME AS CLINTON'S RULES. THE RULES ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE CLINTON RULES. UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION DOES NOT ADMIT THE RECORD OF THE HOUSE PROCEDURE AS EVIDENCE.

LEADER MACCONNELL WANTS A TRIAL WITHOUT EXISTING EVIDENCE OR NEW EVIDENCE. A TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS NOT A TRIAL. IT'S A MEETING. SECOND, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION LIMITS PARTIES' FILING TO 24 HOURS PER SIDE IN ONLY TWO DAYS. WE START WITH ONE. 12 HOURS A DAY. AT 1:00 A.M. WHICH IS WITHOUT REST. IT WILL BE LATER. LEADER MACCONNELL WANTS TO FORCE DIRECTORS TO MAKE IMPORTANT PART OF THEIR CASE IN THE DARK OF THE NIGHT. NUMBER THREE, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION IMPOSES AN ADDITIONAL OBSTACLE TO OBTAINING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BY REQUIRING A VOTE ON WHETHER EMOTIONS OR EVEN AN ORDER.

IF THAT VOTE FAILS, THERE WILL BE NO EMOTIONS TO CALL WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN ORDER. I DON'T WANT ANYONE FROM THE OTHER SIDE TO SAY: I'M GOING TO VOTE NO FIRST FOR THE WITNESSES. BUT I WILL DETERMINE IT LATER. IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION, YOU ARE MAKING IT MUCH HARDER TO VOTE IN THE FUTURE BEYOND THE TRIAL. AND FINALLY, UNLIKE THE CLINTON RULES, THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION ALLOWS A MOTION TO DISMISS AT ANY TIME, AT ANY TIME IN THE TRIAL. IN SUMMARY, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LEADER HAS SAID, THE MACCONNELL RULES ARE NOTHING LIKE THE CLINTON RULES.

THE REPUBLICAN LEADER'S RESOLUTION IS NOT BASED ON PRECEDENT OR CHOICE OF PRINCIPLES; IT IS DRIVEN BY PARTISANSHIP AND THE POLITICS OF THE MOMENT. TODAY, I WILL OFFER AMENDMENTS TO CORRECT LEADER MACCONNELL'S MANY DEFECTS AND DEEPLY UNFAIR RESOLUTION AND SEEK THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WE REQUESTED, BEGINNING WITH AN AMENDMENT TO HAVE THE SENATE SUBMIT TO WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS. LET ME BE CLEAR. THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT DILATORY. THEY ONLY LOOK FOR ONE THING. THE TRUTH. THAT MEANS RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. THAT MEANS RELEVANT WITNESSES. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO GET A FAIR TRIAL. AND EVERYONE IN THIS BODY KNOWS IT.

EVERY SENATE TAX TRIAL AND OUR HISTORY, THE 15 THAT WERE COMPLETED HAVE WITNESSES. EACH. THE WITNESSES THEY REQUEST ARE NOT DEMOCRATS. THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MEN. THE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC DOCUMENTS. YOUR DOCUMENTS PERIOD. WE DO NOT KNOW THE EVIDENCE OF THE WITNESSES OR THE DOCUMENTS, WHETHER THEY WILL BE EXCULPATORY TO THE PRESIDENT OR INCRIMINATING. WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION, A SOLEMN OBLIGATION, PARTICULARLY NOW IN THIS DEEPER AND SOLEMN PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION, TO SEEK THE TRUTH AND THEN LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY. MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE OFFERED SEVERAL EXPLANATIONS FOR WITNESSES AND OPPONENT DOCUMENTS AT THE START OF THE TRIAL.

NONE OF THEM HAVE MUCH MERIT. REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID WE SHOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WITNESSES LATER IN THE TRIAL. OF COURSE, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HEAR BOTH PARTIES PRESENT THEIR CASE FIRST AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER THE SENATE SHOULD HEAR THE EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE IS SUPPOSED TO INFORM ARGUMENTS, THEY DO NOT COME AFTER THEY ARE COMPLETED. SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID THE SENATE SHOULD NOT GO BEYOND THE HOUSE RECORD BY CALLING ANY WITNESS. BUT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE SENATE THE ONLY POWER TO ATTEMPT IMPEACHMENT. IT IS NOT THE ONLY POWER TO REVIEW, NOR THE ONLY POWER TO REHASH, BUT TO TRY.

REPUBLICANS HAVE CALLED OUR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENT APPLICANTS POLITICIANS. IF SEEKING THE TRUTH IS POLITICAL, THEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS IN SERIOUS PROBLEMS. THE WHITE HOUSE HAS SAID THE WHITE HOUSE ACTION ITEMS ARE BOLD AND WRONG. If the president believes that impeachment of him is so brazen and wrong, why doesn't he show us why? WHY IS THE PRESIDENT SO INSISTANT THAT NO ONE SHOW UP? DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DISCLOSED? IF THE PRESIDENT'S CASE IS SO WEAK THAT NONE OF HIS MEN CAN DEFEND HIM UNDER OATH, SHAME ON HIM AND ON THOSE WHO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN. WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT HIDING?

WHAT ARE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HIDING? IF THEY WERE NOT AFRAID OF THE TRUTH, THEY WOULD SAY, KEEP GOING. GET THE TRUTH OUT. GET WITNESSES. GET DOCUMENTS. IN FACT, AT NO TIME DURING THE PAST MONTHS HAVE I HEARD A SINGLE SOLITAIRE ARGUMENT ON THE MENU OF WHY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE TRIAL. NO REPUBLICAN EXPLAINED WHY LESS EVIDENCE IS BETTER THAN MORE EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, LEADER MACCONNELL IS WILLING TO ASK THE SENATE TO BEGIN THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY WITHOUT WITNESSES TO USE ARGUMENTS AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, WHICH IN BOTH BLANKET AND SUBTLE WAYS, HIDE THE TRUTH .

THE TRUTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. LEADER MACCONNELL Claimed the House had conducted the most thorough and unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history. THE TRUTH IS, LEADER MACCONNELL IS PREPARING THE MOST EXPLOITED AND UNFAIR TAX TRIAL IN MODERN HISTORY. AND STARTS TODAY. THE SENATE HAS BEFORE THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION. THE PRESIDENT IS ACCUSED OF FORCING A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, TO HELP HIMSELF. IT IS THE SENATE'S JOB TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS ARE TRUE. THE BEST THING WE CAN DO IS EXAMINE THE FACTS AND REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND LISTEN TO THE WITNESSES.

TRY THE CASE. DON'T RUN FROM HIM. DON'T HIDE IT. TRY IT. BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT COMMITS CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND CONGRESS REFUSES TO ACT, REFUSES EVEN TO MAKE A FAIR TRIAL OF HIS CONDUCT, THEN THIS PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS CAN COMMIT UNPUUNABLE CRIMES WITH IMPUNITY AND THE ORDER AND RIGOR OF ALL DEMOCRACY WILL DECREASE DRAMATICLY. THE LAST SECURITY OF OUR DEMOCRACY WILL BE AVAILABLE. THE POWERFUL CHECK ON THE EXECUTIVE. THE ONE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANNY WILL BE DELETED. IN A SHORT TIME, MY COLLEAGUES, EACH OF US WILL HAVE THE CHOICE OF INITIATING THIS TRIAL IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH OR IN THE SERVICE OF THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO COVER IT UP.

IF THE SENATE WILL CARRY OUT A FAIR TRIAL AND VENTILATION OF THE FACTS. OR RUSHING TOWARDS A PREDETERMINED POLITICAL OUTCOME. MY COLLEAGUES, THE EYES OF THE NATION, THE EYES OF HISTORY, THE EYES OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE ON US. HISTORY WILL BE OUR FINAL JUDGMENT. WILL THE SENATORS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OCCASION? I GIVE THE FLOOR. UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE LEADERSHIP DON, I WANT TO RETURN TO YOU AS YOU ARE HISTORIAN OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. WE HAVE HEARD MANY COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE RULES THAT MITCH McCONNELL SET AND THE RULES 21 YEARS AGO UNDER THE BILL CLINTON TAX TRIAL.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN AND RECOVER US? WERE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED? DID YOU GO THROUGH THE SAME DISCUSSION PROCESS AS YOU ARE NOW? THERE HAVE BEEN TWO PRESIDENTIAL TAX TRIAL. ONE WAS ANDREW JOHNSON IN 1868 AND THERE WERE ABOUT 40 WITNESSES AT THAT TIME. THE PRESIDENT WANTED EVERYONE IN HIS ADMINISTRATION TO TESTIFY IN HIS FAVOR AT THAT STAGE. IN THE CLINTON CASE, KEN STAR HAD DONE A GREAT INVESTIGATION WHICH PRESENTED A HUGE REPORT AND REALLY EXCHANGED EVERYONE IMAGINABLE. THE QUESTION WAS DO THEY ADD ANYTHING EXTRA WHEN ARRIVING AT THE TRIAL? THE GENERAL SENSE PROBABLY WAS NOT BUT THEY DID ALLOW THREE WITNESSES TO BE DECLARED AND PROBABLY IN THE END THEY DIDN'T CHANGE ANYBODY'S OPINION.

I WANT TO RETURN TO JEFF MASON WHO IS OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE. WE JUST HEARD THAT THERE WERE THREE WITNESSES DURING THE CLINTON TAX TRIAL. IT WAS ALLOWED TO LISTEN TO AUDIO RECORDINGS. WHAT DOES THE WHITE HOUSE SAY? WHAT IS YOUR STRATEGY? I THINK THE WHITE HOUSE IS VERY ALIGNED WITH SENATE MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL. I'M SURE THEY WATCHED HIS OPENING SPEECHES WITH A LOT OF FAVOR. I AM HERE ON THIS COLD DAY IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE BUT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT HERE ON THE DAY HIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS. HE IS IN DABOS, SWITZERLAND, TALKING TO WORLD ECONOMIC LEADERS.

I can assure you that he is following what is going on very closely and that he is satisfied that his lawyer will have the opportunity to, in his opinion, really make the case and show that what the Democrats have been arguing is not the case. WE HEAR THAT NO REPUBLICAN HAS EXPLAINED WHY LESS TESTING IS BETTER THAN MORE. SCHUMER SAID HE WILL PRESENT ANYTHING THAT IS PREMATURE. SENATOR SCHUMER HAD AN INTERESTING LINE. HE SAID THAT A TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS A COVER-UP. THAT IS GOING TO BE THE ISSUE OF THE DEMOCRATS. IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE WHAT I SAY AS A LAWYER IN ANY TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT WITNESSES.

THEN ALL YOU ARE GETTING ARE ARGUMENTS FROM THE ATTORNEY WHICH THE LAWYERS WILL TELL YOU IT'S LIKE HAVING AN APPEAL ARGUMENT WHICH IS WHAT YOU HEAR. THEN IF ALL WE HAVE AREARGUMENTS FROM THE LAWYERS OR ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THEN THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE LAWYERS FOR THE PRESIDENT, IF THAT'S ALL, THERE ARE BEFORE THEY COME THE QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATORS WHICH THEN WILL GO TO PRESIDING JUSTICE ROBERTS AND WHAT ARE THE QUESTIONS? THEY MEAN THIS, THE SENATORS' QUESTIONS ARE FOR THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS AND FOR THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS. SO WE REALLY HAVE, IN ESSENTIAL, A GREAT APPELLATE ARGUMENT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE SENATE WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM, THAT WE HAVE HAD, WHICH ARE THE WITNESSES WHO WERE LIVE DURING THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. SO THERE WILL BE NO FIONA HILL. THERE WILL BE NO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. TO PEOPLE WHO ASK HOW YOU CAN HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT LISTENING OR SEEING EVIDENCE, WHAT DO YOU SAY? I SAY IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO BRING THE EVIDENCE TO THE CHAMBER AND FINALLY MAKE SURE THAT THE SENATORS READ OR LISTEN TO THAT EVIDENCE. AND THE WITNESSES THAT DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE TO CALL MAY HAVE RELEVANCE FOR DEMOCRATS AND BE IN CUL PA TORI BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT THEY CAN BE EXCULPATORY.

WHEN IT COMES TO SOMEONE LIKE JOHN BOLTON, MICK MULVANEY, WHO CAN SAY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY? YOU SEE A LIVE LOOK AT CAPITOL HILL. PRESIDING JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IS EXPECTED TO PRESIDE. WE SEE SENATOR CORY BOOKER WHO DECIDED LAST WEEK THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE. CAITLIN, I'LL GET YOU. THE OTHER ELEMENT THAT EVERYONE IS WATCHING IS THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND THEY WILL NEED TO BE HERE Reporter: USUALLY AT THIS TIME WE WOULD BE IN IOWA. NOW YOU SEE THAT SANDERS, WARREN, KLOBUCHAR WILL BE IN THE SENATE DOING JURY DUTY.

CORY BOOKER WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE HE LEFT OUT CITING THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AS A REASON HE COULD NOT CONTINUE, SAYING HE'LL HAVE TO BE IN WASHINGTON, HARD TO RAISE MONEY THIS WAY, HARD TO CAMPAIGN. I THOUGHT WHAT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR SCHUMER SAY IS THAT THESE WITNESSES THEY WANT TO PRESENT ARE NOT DEMOCRATS. HE SAYS THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MEN. That's something that I think even if you're not going to get Republicans to support Democrats when it

come

s to the

rules

, people like Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, those vulnerable senators, say they want to see the evidence first.

EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE OPEN TO WITNESSES, THEY ARE NOT READY TO DO SO YET. THEY WILL SUPPORT THE RULES PACKAGE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS ADDRESSED TO A REALLY PARTISAN CROWD. I THINK WHAT SCHUMER WAS TRYING TO DO IS SAY THAT THE WITNESSES THEY WANT TO CALL ARE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN PEOPLE. SECOND, TRY TO PRESSURE SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2020 WHO WILL FACE THIS VOTE. THERE WAS A CNN POLL THAT SHOWED THAT WHILE THE COUNTRY IS DIVIDED ON THE IMPEACHMENT, ABOUT HALF WANTED THE SENATE TO CONVICT HERE, 70% OR ALMOST 70% WANT TO SEE NEW WITNESSES.

HOW THEY TRY TO USE PUBLIC OPINION AND TRY TO CREATE MORE PRESSURE FOR SOME REPUBLICANS, I THINK IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD WATCH. I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE WHITE HOUSE. THE WHITE HOUSE PUBLISHED THEIR STRATEGY YESTERDAY ON HOW THEY PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD. WHAT DID WE LEARN? WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS? WHERE ARE THEY ABOUT ALLOWING JOHN BOLTON TO WITNESS? WE LEARNED SOME THINGS. IN MANY WAYS, THE INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE YESTERDAY REALLY PUTS INTO WRITTEN WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP ON HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT AND HEAR HIM SAY WHEN HE TALKS TO REPORTERS AND SPEAKS IN PUBLIC.

They basically see this as a farce. THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARGU THAT HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG AND ACTUALLY SEE THIS AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST WEAKNESSES IN THE DEMOCRATS' CASE, WHICH IS THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THIS CHARGE OF ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPACTFUL. TO THE SECOND COUNT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. THE PRESIDENT HAD THE RIGHT TO CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN SOME AREAS AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ACCUSIBLE. I THINK WE'LL SEE IT BE ARGUED MORE THOROUGHLY IN THE COMING DAYS AND AGAIN IT'S REALLY JUST A CULMINATION OF ARGUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED FOR A WHILE.

I WANT TO TURN TO DON RITCHIE TO GIVE US MORE HISTORICAL CONTEXT TO THIS. WHEN YOU COMPARE SCHUMER AND McCONNELL'S RELATIONSHIP RIGHT NOW TO THAT OF 21 YEARS AGO, WHAT COMPARISONS WOULD YOU MAKE? IT'S CLEAR THAT POLITICS HAS BECOME MORE POLARIZING. THEY DIDN'T AGREE POLITICALLY, BUT THEY BOTH DECIDED TO DEFEND THE SENATE AS AN INSTITUTION AND THEY WORKED CLOSELY DURING THAT PERIOD AND Brought THE SENATORS TOGETHER. SENATOR McCONNELL MENTIONED THAT 100 TO NONE VOTE. THAT WAS A VERY NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENT. THE SENATORS REALLY DESERVE THE CREDIT FOR BRINGING THE TWO PARTIES TOGETHER. IT MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THE TWO PARTIES CLOSER IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE.

IN HIS WORDS SAID BY SENATOR McCONNELL 21 YEARS AGO, 100 SENATORS AGREED THAT THIS WAS THE RIGHT ROADMAP. WHAT'S DIFFERENT NOW? IT LOOKS LIKE A McCONNELL GUIDELINE AND SOMETHING THAT DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO PUSH AND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE GETTING WITH WHAT THE CLINTON RULES WERE. CAN YOU GUIDE US THROUGH THE DIFFERENCES? THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THE SENATE TO WRITE ITS RULES IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. IN REALITY THE SENATE PREFERS TO OPERATE UNDER THE PRECEDENTS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. IF THEY DID IT BEFORE, IT'S EASY TO JUSTIFY DOING IT AGAIN. IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT BEFORE IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO GET TO THAT STAGE.

THAT HAPPENS IN THE SENATE DAILY. PRECEDENTS DISPLACE THE RULES OF THE SENATE ON MANY OCCASIONS. What you both look back on is how similar the situation was in 1999 and what is different about it? ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE WAS THAT THE HOUSE DIDN'T REALLY DO MUCH INVESTIGATION IN 1998. WE REALLY RELIED ON THE STARR REPORT WHILE WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING FOR SEVERAL WEEKS WITH THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION CONTINUED. ALL THE WITNESSES HAD BEEN ESSENTIALLY INTERGESTED IN 1998, BUT MANY WITNESSES WHO THE HOUSES WANTED TO HEAR TESTIMONIALS FROM WERE DENIED DUE TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. THERE ARE SEVERAL CASES WHEN PEOPLE CAN SAY IT IS THE SAME THING IT WAS OR IT IS DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS.

IN EACH CASE THEY WILL HAVE TO TRY TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES. I WAS A FRESHMAN IN COLLEGE WHEN THE STARR REPORT CAME OUT. THEY HAD A POST TO STOP PRINTING THE REPORT BECAUSE THE PRINTERS WERE CLOGGING. WE ARE AT SUCH A DIFFERENT POINT WHERE INFORMATION IS TRANSMITTED. I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU AND ASK ABOUT PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE HOUSE LEGAL COUNSEL, WHO DEMOCRATS BELIEVE MAY BE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE WHITE HOUSE'S INTERACTION WITH UKRAINE. I WANT TO QUOTE HERE. HE SAYS THAT HAVING CIPOLLONE IN HIS ROLE SPEAK, NOT HAVING HIM SUFFECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE IMMINENT TRIAL.

IT'S A DIRECT QUOTE. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT ARGUMENT? PAT CIPOLLONE REALLY KNOWS THE TRUTH AT LEAST REGARDING THE CONVERSATIONS OF WHICH HE WAS KNOWN OR IN WHICH HE WAS A PART. SO YOU ARE IN A UNIQUE POSITION. WOULD BE THE POSITION THAT RUDY GIULIANI WOULD BE IN IF RUDY GIULIANI HAD HIS DESIRE TO BE A LAWYER IN THE CASE WHICH OF COURSE WOULD BE RIDICULOUS BECAUSE IF THERE IS SOMEONE WHO SHOULD BE THE CHIEF WITNESS FOR ONE PART OR THE OTHER, YOU COULD SAY IT WAS RUDY GIULIANI. PAT CIPOLLONE UNDERSTANDS THE PRESIDENT'S MIND. APPARENT FROM EVERYTHING THEY GIVE US TO READ, THE PRESIDENT IS BLOCKED WITH MITCH McCONNELL, HE BELIEVES IN HOW MITCH McCONNELL IS GOING TO CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS AND THAT HE, THE PRESIDENT, BELIEVES IN WHAT PAT CIPOLLONE WOULD SAY THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN THE SHORT RESPONSE AND WHAT IS BRIEF IS VERY CLEAR.

THE PRESIDENT DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG OR IN OTHER WORDS, THE CALL WAS PERFECT. IF YOU DO SOMETHING WRONG, YOU ARE NOT ACCUSABLE. CIPOLLONE CANNOT BE INTERROGATED BECAUSE HE IS THE LAWYER, EXCEPT THAT THE SENATORS CAN INTERROGATE HIM. BUT THEY ARE INTERROGING HIM, NOT ABOUT HIM. THEY ARE INTERROGING HIM THAT HAPPENED TO BE THERE AS THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, NOT AS A WITNESS. IN THE CLINTON TAX TRIAL, THREE WITNESSES WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE AUDIO RECORDINGS PRESENTED AT THE TRIAL. IF THERE WERE THREE WITNESSES THAT COULD BE KEY TO THE TRIAL, WHO WOULD THEY BE? CERTAINLY MICK MULVANEY.

NUMBER ONE, PUT MULVANEY AS NUMBER TWO. CERTAINLY, JOHN BOLTON IS THE ONE EVERYONE WANTS TO HEAR FROM, FOLLOWED BY MULVANEY. THEN I THINK THERE IS A DEBATE ABOUT WHICH YOU CAN ASK POLITICAL EXPERTS ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE, IF IT'S LEV PARNAS OR IF AT THE BREAKING NEWS IT'S RUDY GIULIANI. BUT THE WITNESSES THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ARE ACTUALLY INSIDE THE OMB. I WANT TO RETURN TO JEFF MASON IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HAVE HEARD FROM RICKY LAYOUT'S WITNESSES THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM. WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM THE WHITE HOUSE?

WHAT IS YOUR STRATEGY WHILE LETTING ANYONE SPEAK? I THINK THE WHITE HOUSE IS GOING TO WAIT A LITTLE WHICH IS McCONNELL'S STRATEGY, TO HAVE BOTH PARTIES PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS FIRST, GOING THROUGH SEPARATE 24 HOUR PERIODS TO PRESENT THE CASE AND THE DEFENSE. THEN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WITNESSES. IF THE DEMOCRATS MANAGED TO GET ENOUGH VOTES FROM SOME OF MITT ROMNEY'S REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, FOR EXAMPLE, MAYBE SUSAN COLLINS, LISA MURKOWSKI, TO ALLOW WITNESSES, THEN THE REPUBLICANS WOULD WANT WITNESSES TOO IN ADDITION TO THE THREE PEOPLE WE WERE DISCUSSING THEM MOCRATS PROBABLY CALL . THE REPUBLICANS WOULD PROBABLY CALL HUNTER BIDEN, THEY COULD EVEN CALL JOE BIDEN TO COME IN AND REALLY FOCUS ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LEGAL TEAM SAY IS HAPPENING IN UKRAINE AND TO PROVE THEIR CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ACTUALLY TRYING DOUBLE UP YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENT BUT TRY TO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN THE FOREIGN COUNTRY.

AT THIS POINT, HOW CONFIDENT IS THE WHITE HOUSE WITH ITS LEGAL STRATEGY OF ENTERING IMPEACHMENT? WITH THESE SURVEYS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE WITNESSES PRESENTED AT THE TRIAL? THOSE ARE TWO GOOD QUESTIONS. I WILL SEPARATE THEM SLIGHTLY. IN TERMS OF GENERAL STRATEGY, I THINK THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A LOT OF CONFIDENCE. AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT WILL BE THE RESULT OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS? ALMOST CERTAINLY IT WILL NOT LEAD TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE. FOR THAT AND THOSE FACTS THEY FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THIS WILL GO FORWARD. AS FOR THE WITNESSES, I THINK THERE IS A SIGN OF QUESTION.

IN GENERAL I THINK THE PREFERENCE NOW IS VERY WELL ALIGNED WITH McCONNELL'S PREFERENCES, WITH THE PREFERENCES THAT GRAHAM, WHO IS VERY LINKED TO THE WHITE HOUSE, LAID DOWN TO SIMPLY HAVE A QUICK TRIAL, HAVE A QUICK TRIAL AND DO IT, TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE PRESIDENT. PLATE AND PLATE OF THE COUNTRY AND ALLOWING HIM TO GO AHEAD AND CLAIM VINDICATION IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD REFER TO INSTEAD OF HAVING A LONG BACK AND BACK MOCK ON BOTH SIDES. DON, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO SEE THE PRESIDING JUDGE, SUPREME COURT JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS, PRESIDEING THIS TRIAL. WHAT WILL BE YOUR ROLE IN ALL THIS?

THAT'S WHAT REALLY DISTINGUISHES A PRESIDENTIAL TAX TRIAL. THIS IS THE ONLY CASE IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT JUDGE CROSS THE STREET TO PRESIDE. THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, IN A SENSE, WILL HAVE TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, WHICH MEANS HE WILL HAVE TO CONFORM TO THE RULES AND PRECEDENTS OF THE SENATE. IN 1868, UNDER ANDREW JOHNSON, THE PRESIDING JUSTICE STATED AND TOOK MANY RULES AND DECIDED THINGS. IN 1999, WHEN REHNQUIST ARRIVED, THE SENATE HAD CHANGED AS AN ORGAN AND THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT A POWERFUL FIGURE AND THE PRESIDENT JUSTICE HAD TO LISTEN TO THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIES WHO GIVE HIM ADVICE.

IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE JUDGE DECLARED DIFFERENTLY, IT COULD BE OVERLOOKED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF SENATORS. REHNQUIST STEP BACK AND DID A MINIMAL JOB WHICH HE LATER SAID HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR BUT HE DID IT VERY WELL AND WAS IN FACT HIGHLY THOUGHED BY THE SENATORS AT THE TIME. THEREFORE, THE PRESIDENT JUSTICE IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE SENATE. SENATORS WILL NOT be allowed to stand and walk, talk to each other, read newspapers during the

proceedings

. I THINK IT'S GOING TO ADD A LOT OF SEVERITY TO THE PROCEDURES.

IT'S GOING TO BE A REMINDER TO SENATORS THAT THIS IS NOT A TYPICAL SENATE SESSION. I WANT TO BRING, WITH US, OUR CBSN LEGAL ASSISTANT AND MOLLY HOOPER. WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR SINCE WE ARE ONLY AT THE BEGINNING? ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE HEARD MENTIONED IS THAT UNDER DIFFERENT RULES, DIFFERENT RULES THAN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S, WE COULD SEE A MOTION TO DISMISS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL WHICH I THINK WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND POTENTIALLY LIKE AN END GAME FOR EVERYTHING PROCESS. ALSO, I WANT TO REPEAT WHAT RIKKI SAID MOMENTS AGO, THAT WE'RE ALSO POTENTIALLY GOING TO SEE SOMETHING VERY UNUSUAL WHICH IS A TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE, A TRIAL WITHOUT POTENTIALLY THE HOUSE'S EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE GATHERED.

AS YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING OR WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WITHOUT OTHER WITNESSES AND POTENTIALLY NEW IMPORTANT RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. MOLLY, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS COULD BE DISMISSED AND AS FAR AS THE WITNESSES ARE, WHAT ARE THEY HEARING IN CAPITOL HILL? ARE THERE ENOUGH REPUBLICANS? FOR THE INITIAL VOTES, WHICH SCHUMER WILL DO TODAY, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ENOUGH TO CALL WITNESSES AT THIS TIME. REPUBLICANS AGREE WITH WHAT McCONNELL HAS INCLUDED THAT ALLOWS VOTING ON WITNESSES IN ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST WITNESSES AFTER OPENING ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR.

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT IS GOING TO RESOLUTION. THAT'S WHY I LIKE TO LEAD TO THE REVELATION OF THIS. THE QUESTION HAD BEEN WHETHER OR NOT MITCH McCONNELL WOULD ALLOW NEW EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN VOTED ON IN THECAMERA WITH SENSE ON PERFORMANCE ARTICLES. WHAT MITCH McCONNELL IS SAYING, AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH CLINTON, IS THAT WE ACCEPTED THE ACTION ARTICLE THAT THE HOUSE VOTED ON WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY CONTAINED THAT THEY INITIALLY VOTED ON. So in terms of whether they're going to accept, let's say the Lev Parnas documents, White House documents, in terms of why this aid was withheld, that vote will come later.

SOUNDS LIKE THESE REPUBLICANS LIKE MITT ROMNEY, SUSAN COLLINS, LISA MURKOWSKI, ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO SUPPORT THAT EFFORT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE REALLY WHAT CHUCK SCHUMER IS TRYING TO DO IS MAKE REPUBLICANS VULNERABLE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE GREEN ROOM BEFORE WE CAME IN , PUT VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS LIKE CORY GARDNER IN A PLACE. HE IS RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION IN PURPLE COLORADO. ON THE NEXT MOTIONS I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED TO SEE SOMEONE LIKE CORY GARDNER, MAYBE SUSAN COLLINS, VOTE FOR WITNESS. BUT IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE RESULT AT THIS MOMENT. CAITLIN, I WANT YOU TO WEIGH.

THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE BOTH WAYS. IT IS SOMETHING THAT THESE REPUBLICANS SHOULD CONSIDER FOR RE-ELECTION. YES THEY COME FROM PURPLE STATES BUT THEY ALSO NEED TO REALLY REMOVE TRUMP'S BASE TO SUPPORT THEM. LAST WEEK WHEN MARTHA McSALLY CALLED A REPORTER A HACK, OF COURSE IT WAS IN ARIZONA, WHICH IS AN INCREASINGLY STUFFING STATE. WE SAW. THEY ARE READING THE OATH RIGHT NOW. LET'S LISTEN. He will write down the name of the SENATOR WHO HAS TAKEN THE OATH AND PRESENT THE OATH BOOK FOR SIGNATURE. THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION. LISTEN, LISTEN ALL THE PEOPLE ARE ORDERED TO MAINTAIN SILENCE ON PRISON SENTENCE WHILE THE UNITED STATES SENATE APPEARS FOR THE TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE STATES JOINED.

MAJORITY LEADER RECOGNIZED. I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT FOR THE INFORMATION OF ALL SENATORS THE TRIAL REPORTS SUBMITTED YESTERDAY BY THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN PRINTED AND ARE NOW ON EACH SENATOR'S DESK. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE SENATE FOR PRINTING IN THE SENATE DIARY. THE PRESEPTEMBER ISSUED ON JANUARY 16, 2020, SUMMONS WRITTEN ON JANUARY 16, 2020. RECEIPT OF SUMMONS, JANUARY 16, 2020. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE FOR PRINTING IN THE DIARY OF THE SENATE. RESPONSE OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST HIM ON JANUARY 16, 2020, RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 18, 2020.

BRIEF OF TRIAL PRESENTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 18, 2020, BRIEF OF TRIAL PRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 2020, REPLICA OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 2020, AND DISPLACEMENT WRIT PRESENTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY 21, 2020. WITHOUT OBJECTION THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRINTED IN THE CONGRESS RECORDS. I TAKE NOTE OF THE PRESENCE IN THE SENATE CHAMBER, IN THE SENATE CHAMBER, OF THE DIRECTORS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

MAJORITY LEADER RECOGNIZED. I REQUEST A LIST OF FLOOR PRIVILEGES FOR CLOSED SESSIONS. IT IS AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES. I REQUEST THAT IT BE INSERTED INTO THE FILE AND ACCEPTED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NO OBJECTION. MORE INFORMATION FROM ALL SENATORS, I AM ABOUT TO SEND A RESOLUTION TO THE DESK WHICH LAYS OUT AN OUTLINE OF THE NEXT STEPS OF THE PROCEDURE. IT WILL BE DEBATED IN PARTS FOR TWO HOURS DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY. SENATOR SCHUMER WILL SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION TO THE DESK. ONCE THAT AMENDMENT HAS BEEN OFFERED AND REPORTED, WE WILL HAVE A SHORT BREAK. WHEN WE MEET AGAIN, SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT WILL BE DEBATEABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS, ONCE USED OR RENDERED IN TIME, I INTENDE TO PRESENT SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT.

SO MR. THE PRESIDENT OF THE JUDGE SENT THE RESOLUTION TO THE DESK AND ASKED IT TO BE READ. THE SECRETARY WILL READ THE RESOLUTION. SENATE RESOLUTION 483 TO PROVIDE FOR PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO ARTICLES OF ACTION AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. It is resolved that the House of Representatives will present its file to the Secretary of the Senate, which will consent to the publicly available materials presented or produced by the Judicial Committee of the Chamber, including transcripts of public hearings or brands and any material printed by the House of Representatives or the HOUSE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

THE FILE MATERIALS WILL BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE SUBJECT TO ANY DECISIONS, EVIDENCE OR OTHER OBJECTIONS WHICH THE PRESIDENT MAY MAKE AFTER THE OPENING PRESENTATIONS CONCLUDE. ALL MATERIALS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH MUST BE PRINTED AND AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES. THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WILL HAVE UNTIL 9:00 A.M. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020, TO FILE ANY MOTION PERMITTED UNDER THE RULES OF PERFORMANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MOTIONS TO SUMMON WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENT MOTION. RESPONSES TO SUCH MOTIONS WILL BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN 11:00 A.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020. ALL MATERIALS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH WILL BE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY AND WILL BE PRINTED AND AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES.

ARGUMENTS ON SUCH MOTIONS WILL BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020 AND EACH PARTY MAY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AFTER WHICH THE SENATE WILL DELIBERATE IF SO ORDERED UNDER THE RULES OF IMPEACHMENT AND VOTE ON SUCH MOTIONS. FOLLOWING THE DISPOSAL OF SUCH MOTIONS OR IF NO MOTIONS ARE FILED, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL STAND IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLES OF IMCHARGEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED 24 HOURS FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE SESSION DAYS. AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE PRESIDENT WILL MAKE HIS PRESENTATION FOR A PERIOD THAT WILL NOT EXCEED 24 HOURS AND UP TO THREE DAYS OF SESSIONS.

EACH PART MAY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO MAKE ITS PRESENTATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESIDENT'S PRESENTATION, THE SENATORS MAY INTERROGATE THE PARTIES FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED 16 HOURS. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INTERROGATION BY THE SENATE, THERE WILL BE FOUR HOURS OF DISCUSSION BY THE EQUALLY DIVIDED PARTIES, FOLLOWED BY A DELIBERATION BY THE SENATE, IF SO ORDERED UNDER THE RULES OF IMPEACHMENT, ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT WILL BE TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY MOTION TO SUMMON WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS. THE SENATE, WITHOUT INTERVENTION, ACTION, MOTION OR AMENDMENT, WILL DECIDE WHETHER TO CONTINUE TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE UNDER THE RULES OF PERFORMANCE ANY MOTION TO SUMMON WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS.

AFTER THE DISPOSITION OF THAT QUESTION, OTHER MOTIONS PROVIDED UNDER THE IMPACTING RULES WILL BE IN ORDER. IF THE SENATE AGREES TO ALLOW THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE PRESIDENT TO CALL WITNESSES, THE WITNESSES WILL FIRST BE DEPOSED AND THE SENATE WILL DECIDE AFTER THE DEPOSITION WHICH WITNESSES SHOULD TESTIMONY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PERFORMANCE. NO TESTIMONY SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE SENATE UNLESS THE PARTIES HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEPOSE SUCH WITNESSES. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SENATE'S DELIBERATIONS, THE SENATE SHALL VOTE EACH ARTICLE OF ACTION. THE RESOLUTION IS AVAILABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS DIVIDED EQUALLY.

MISTER. ADMINISTRATOR SCHIFF ARE YOU A PROPOSER OR OH BONENT OF THIS MOTION? HOUSE MANAGERS ARE OPPOSITION TO THE RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. MISTER. CIPOLLONE, IS IT A PROPONENT OR OH BONENT? WE ARE PROPONENTS OF THE MOTION. MR. CIPOLLONE, YOUR SIDE MAY PROCEED FIRST AND WILL OBSERVE THE REBUTTAL TIME IF YOU WISH. THANK YOU MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, SENATORS, MY NAME IS PAT CIPOLLONE. I AM HERE AS AN ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. OUR TEAM IS PROUD TO BE HERE REPRESENTING PRESIDENT TRUMP. WE SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION. THIS IS A FAIR WAY TO PROCEED WITH THIS TRIAL.

IT IS MODELED ON THE CLINTON RESOLUTION WHICH HAD 100 SENATORS SUPPORTING IT THE LAST TIME THIS BODY CONSIDERED ACTION. IT REQUIRES THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO STAND UP AND MAKE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND PRESENT THEIR CASE. THEY HAVE DELAYED BRINGING THIS IMPEACHMENT TO THIS CHAMBER FOR 33 DAYS. 33 DAYS TO THIS BODY. IT'S TIME TO START WITH THIS TEST. IT IS A FAIR PROCESS. THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAND AND MAKE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT. YOU WILL HAVE 24 HOURS TO DO IT. THEN THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. AFTER THIS, ALL OF YOU WILL HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FROM ANYWHERE.

ONCE YOU'RE FINISHED AND YOU HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION, WE WILL PROCEED TO QUESTIONING THE WITNESSES AND SOME OF THE MORE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE PRESENTED BEFORE THIS BODY. WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS. WE BELIEVE THAT ONCE THEY LISTEN TO THOSE INITIAL PRESENTATIONS, THE ONLY CONCLUSION WILL BE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NO WRONG AND THAT THESE ARTICLES OF ACTION DO NOT BEGIN TO COME CLOSER TO THE STANDARD REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND IN FACT THEY THEMSELVES WILL ESTABLISH NOTHING BEYOND THOSE ARTICLES . LOOK AT THE ARTICLES ALONE AND YOU WILL DETERMINE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN THIS PROCESS. IT IS TIME TO START THIS PROCEDURE, AND TODAY WE ARE HERE TO DO IT. WE HOPE THE HOUSE MANAGERS AGREE WITH US AND BEGIN THIS PROCEDURE TODAY. WE RESERVE THE REST OF THE TIME FOR REBUTTAL. MR. THE PRESIDING JUSTICE, SENATORS, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, AND HOUSE MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RISE IN OPPOSITION TO LEADER MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION. LET ME START BY SUMMARY WHY. LAST WEEK, WE CAME BEFORE YOU TO PRESENT ARTICLES OF ACTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ONLY THE THIRD TIME IN OUR HISTORY.

THOSE ARTICLES ACCUSE PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP OF ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THE MISCONDUCT IN THE ARTICLES IS THE MOST SERIOUS EVER ACCUSED AGAINST A PRESIDENT. THE FIRST ARTICLE, ABUSE OF POWER, ACCUSES THE PRESIDENT OF REQUESTING FOREIGN POWER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTIONS. HE FURTHER ALLEGES THAT WE WILL PROVE THAT HE SEEKED TO FORCE UKRAINE TO HELP HIM DECEIT BY WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, TWO OFFICIAL ACTS. A MEETING THAT THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE DESPERATELY SEEKED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE TO SHOW THE WORLD AND RUSSIANS IN PARTICULAR THAT THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS MOST IMPORTANT PATRON, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ILLEGALLY WITHHELD NEARLY $400 MILLION IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, A NATION AT WAR WITH OUR RUSSIAN ADVERSARY, FINANCED BY TAXPAYERS, TO FORCE UKRAINE TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE ELECTION. Surprisingly, the President's

trial

brief filed yesterday maintains that even if this conduct is proven, there is nothing the House or this Senate can do about it. IT IS THE PRESIDENT'S APPARENT BELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 2, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, NO MATTER HOW CORRUPT HE IS CLOTHED IN GOD'S ILLEGAL CLOTHES. HOWEVER, WHEN THE FOUNDERS WROTE THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, THEY HAD PRECISELY THIS TYPE OF MISCONDUCT IN MIND, CONDUCT THAT ABUSES THE POWER OF THEIR OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN, THAT UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, THAT INVITES FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR PROCESS DEMOCRATIC IN ELECTIONS, THE TRIFECTA OF CONSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT THAT JUSTIFIES THE ACTION.

ARTICLE 2, THE PRESIDENT ACCUSED OTHER MISCONDUCT WHICH WOULD ALSO HAVE ALARMED THE FOUNDERS. COMPLETE COMPLETE ABSOLUTE OBSTRUCTION TO A COEQUAL POWER OF GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION OF ACTIONS INTO THE MISCONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT. THIS IS AS DESTRUCTIVE OF THE OLD CONSTITUTION AS THE MISCONDUCT ACCUSED IN THE FIRST ARTICLE. IF A PRESIDENT CAN OBSTRUCT HIS OWN INVESTIGATION, IF HE CAN EFFECTIVELY OVERRIDE A POWER THAT THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS EXCLUSIVELY TO CONGRESS, IN FACT, THE LAST POWER, THE LAST POWER THAT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES TO PREVENT PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, THE PRESIDENT STANDS BEYOND LIABILITY, ABOVE THE LAW, CANNOT BE ACCUSED, CANNOT BE ACCUSED.

IT MAKES HIM INTO A MONARCH, THE SAME EVIL THAT OUR CONSTITUTION AND BALANCE OF POWERS WHICH CAREFULLY LAID DOWN WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST. THE TRIAL ON THE CHARGES WILL BEGIN SHORTLY. WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO MAKE SEVERAL DETERMINATIONS. DID THE HOUSE PROVE THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY TRYING TO COERCE A FOREIGN NATION TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION? DID YOU OBSTRUCT CONGRESS IN ITS INVESTIGATION INTO YOUR OWN MISCONDUCT BY ORDERING YOUR AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS TO COOPERATE, REFUSING TO COOPERATE IN ANY WAY, REFUSING TO WITNESS, REFUSING TO RESPOND TO SUBMEASES FOR DOCUMENTS AND ANY OTHER MEANS?

IF THE CHAMBER APPROVED YOUR CASE AND WE BELIEVE EVIDENCE WILL NOT SERIOUSLY BE AVAILABLE, YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER AT LEAST ONE OTHER CRITICAL QUESTION. DOES THE COMMISSION OF THESE CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS REQUIRE THE CONVICTION AND DEMOTION OF THE PRESIDENT? WE BELIEVETHAT THIS IS SO AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT IT BE SO OR THAT THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A RELIC OR A VICTIM FOR PARTISAN TIMES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LEFT UNPROTECTED AGAINST A PRESIDENT WHO WOULD ABUSE HIS POWER FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF CORRUPTING THE SOLE ANOTHER METHOD OF RESPONSIBILITY, OUR OWN CHOICES.

SO YOU WILL VOTE TO FIND THE PRESIDENT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, TO FIND HIS CONDUCT IMPACTABLE OR NOT IMPACTABLE. I TELL YOU THAT THESE ARE NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS YOU WILL MAKE. HOW CAN IT BE? HOW CAN THE DECISION YOU WILL MAKE BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN GUILT OR INNOCENCE, THAN REMOVING THE PRESIDENT OR NOT REMOVING THE PRESIDENT? I BELIEVE THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION IN THIS CASE IS THE ONE YOU WILL MAKE TODAY, THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IS THE QUESTION YOU MUST ANSWER TODAY. WILL THE PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET A FAIR TRIAL? WILL THERE BE A FAIR TRIAL?

I AGREE THAT THIS IS AN EVEN MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION THAN HOW TO VOTE ON GUILT OR INNOCENCE BECAUSE WHETHER WE HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WILL DETERMINE WHETHER YOU HAVE A BASIS TO ISSUE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT. IT'S FUNDAMENTAL. THE STRUCTURE ON WHICH ANY OTHER DECISION YOU MAKE SHOULD REST. IF YOU CAN ONLY SEE PART OF THE EVIDENCE, IF YOU ONLY ALLOW ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR ENTIRE CASE, YOUR VERDICT WILL BE PREDETERMINED BY THE BIAS OF THE PROCEDURE. IF THE ACCUSED IS NOT ALLOWED TO PRESENT PROOF OF INNOCENCE, IT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

SO ALSO FOR THE PROCESS. IF THE HOUSE CANNOT CALL WITNESSES OR PRESENT DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE, IT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL. IT'S REALLY NOT A TEST AT ALL. AMERICANS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ARE WATCHING US RIGHT NOW. IMAGINE YOU ARE ON JURY DUTY. IMAGINE THAT THE JUDGE WALKS INTO THE COURT ROOM AND SAYS HE HAS BEEN TALKING TO THE ACCUSED AND AT THE ACCUSED'S REQUEST, THE JUDGE HAS AGREED NOT TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO CALL ANY WITNESS OR PRESENT DOCUMENTS. THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT AGREED THAT THE PROSECUTOR CAN ONLY READ TO THE JURY THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS.

THAT'S ALL. HAS ANYONE HEARD A JUDGE DESCRIBE A PROCEDURE AND CALL IT A FAIR TRIAL? OF COURSE NOT. THAT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL. IT IS A MOCERY OF JUDGMENT. ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, THIS PROCEDURE, WHICH WE ARE IN NOW, IS THE TRIAL. THIS IS NOT AN APPEAL FROM A TRIAL. YOU ARE NOT JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. WELL. ONE OF YOU IS. UNLESS THIS TRIAL IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER TAX TRIAL OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF TRIAL, YOU SHOULD ALLOW THE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE, THE HOUSE MANAGER, AND THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TO CALL RELEVANT WITNESSES.

YOU MUST CITE DOCUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED BUT THAT RELATE TO HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE. YOU MUST I AM PARTIALLY DO JUSTICE AS YOUR OATH REQUIRES. WHAT DOES A FAIR TRIAL LOOK LIKE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROCEEDINGS? THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE ANY OTHER TRIAL. THE FIRST RESOLUTION SHOULD ALLOW HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN WITHHELD. FIRST, NOT LAST. BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS WILL HAVE THE DECISION ON WHICH WITNESSES IT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO CALL. AND WHEN WITNESSES ARE CALLED, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WILL BE AVAILABLE AND MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR INTERROGATION.

ANY OTHER ORDER MAKES NO SENSE. THE RESOLUTION SHOULD NEXT ALLOW THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO CALL THEIR WITNESSES AND THEN THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THE SAME, AND ANY REBUTTAL WITNESSES. WHEN THE EVIDENCE PART OF THE TRIAL FINISHES, THE PARTIES DISCUSS THE CASE. YOU DELIBERATE AND SAY A VERDICT. IF THERE IS A DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR WITNESS IS RELEVANT OR MATERIAL TO THE CHARGES BROUGHT UNDER THE SENATE RULES, THE PRESIDING JUSTICE WOULD TELL ON THE ISSUE OF MATERIALITY. WHY SHOULD THIS ESSAY BE DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER ESSAY? THE SHORT ANSWER IS SHOULD NOT.

LEADER McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION WOULD REVERSE THE TRIAL PROCESS, THE RESOLUTION REQUIRES THE HOUSE TO PROVE ITS CASE WITHOUT WITNESSES, WITHOUT DOCUMENTS, ONLY AFTER THE FACT WILL SUCH QUESTIONS BE ENTERED WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED EVEN THEN. THAT PROCESS MAKES NO SENSE. WHAT IS THE DAMAGE OF WAITING UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL, OF KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE WAY IN THE ISSUE OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES? BESIDES IT IS COMPLETELY OTHERWISE, FIRST THE TRIAL AND THEN THE PROOF, PLUS THE DOCUMENTS WOULD INFORM THE DECISION ABOUT WHICH THEY WOULD WITNESS AND HELP IN THE INTERROGATION, THE DAMAGE IS THIS.

YOU WILL HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO HIDE FOR MOST OR ALL OF THE TRIAL. ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS ALREADY OVERWHELMING, THE FULL EXTENT OF THE MISCONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT OR THOSE AROUND HIM MAY NEVER BE KNOWN. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT DO IT EITHER. THE ACCUSATIONS HERE INVOLVE THE SACRIFICE OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AT HOME AND ABROAD AND A THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT TEAM. IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL MEASURES THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S CONVICTION, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW. BUT YES, AS THE PUBLIC HAS ALREADY COME FROM EXPERIENCE TO EXPECT, THIS RESOLUTION IS SIMPLY THE FIRST STEP OF THE EFFORT ORCHESTRATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE TRIAL, HIDE EVIDENCE, ISSUE A QUICK VERDICT OR, WORSE, A QUICK DESPESTATION, TO STEP OUT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, TO COVER DATES, THEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL AND WILL NEVER LEARN HOW DEEP THE ADMINISTRATION CORRUPTION IS OR WHAT OTHER RISKS TO OUR SECURITY AND ELECTIONS REMAIN HIDDEN.

THE DAMAGE WILL ALSO LAST FOR THIS BODY. IF THE SENATE ALLOWS THE PRESIDENT TO GET AWAY WITH SUCH AN EXTENSIVE OBSTRUCTION, IT WILL AFFECT THE SUMMON AND OVERSIGHT POWER OF THE SENATE AS WELL AS THE HOUSE. THE SENATE'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE WISHES OF THIS PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENTS, AND IF HE OR SHE DECIDES TO COOPERATE WITH A SENATE INVESTIGATION OR OTHER IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL, OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES WILL BE BREAKED . THE PRESIDENTS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE TO ANYONE. NOW, IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT LEADER McCONNELL ALREADY HAS VOTES TO APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION, THE TEXT OF WHICH WE DIDN'T SEE UNTIL LAST NIGHT AND WHICH HAS BEEN CHANGED EVEN MOMENTS AGO.

THEY SAY LEADER McCONNELL IS A VERY GOOD VOTE COUNTER. HOWEVER I HOPE YOU ARE WRONG. NOT ONLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROCESS, THE PROCESS CONTEMPLATED BY THE RESOLUTION IS BACKWARDS AND DESIGNED WITH ONE RESULT IN MIND AND THAT THE RESULT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL, I HOPE IT IS WRONG BECAUSE WHATEVER THE SENATORS HAVE SAID OR PROMISED OR COMMITTED THERE IS HAS BEEN REPLACED BY AN EVENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION. YOU ALL HAVE TAKEN AN OATH. NEITHER AMONG OTHERS, NEITHER IN ITS LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP, NEITHER IN THE ADMINISTRATORS OR EVEN IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE JUDGE. YOU HAVE SWORN TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

THAT OATH BINDS YOU. THAT OATH SURPASSES EVERYTHING ELSE. MANY IN THE SENATE AND MANY IN THE HOUSE HAVE MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION THIS TRIAL OR THIS MOTION OR EXPECTATIONS. NONE OF THAT MATTER NOW. ALL OF THAT IS IN THE PAST. NOTHING MATTERS NOW BUT THE OATH TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. AND THAT OATH REQUIRES A FAIR TRIAL, FAIR FOR THE PRESIDENT AND FAIR FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BUT IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE? OR OR AS THE FOUNDERS FEARED, HAS FACTIONALISM OR EXCESSIVE ASSOCIATION MADE ME NOW POSSIBLE? ONE WAY TO FIND OUT WHAT A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT PARTY CONSIDERATION SHOULD LOOK LIKE IS TO ASK HOW WOULD YOU STRUCTURE THE TRIAL IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOUR PARTY WAS AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE PARTY OF THE WAS PRESIDENT?

WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO HOLD THE TRIAL FIRST AND THEN DECIDE ON WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE? WOULD THAT BE FAIR FOR BOTH PARTIES? I HAVE TO THINK YOUR ANSWER WOULD BE NO. Let me be frank. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. RIGHT NOW, MANY, PERHAPS EVEN MOST AMERICANS, DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WILL BE A FAIR TRIAL. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SENATE WILL BE IMPARTIAL. THEY BELIEVE THAT THE RESULT IS PRECOOKED. THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ABSOLUTE. NOT BECAUSE HE IS INNOCENT. IT'S NOT. BUT BECAUSE THE SENATORS WILL VOTE BY PARTY AND HE HAS THE VOTES, VOTES TO PREVENT EVIDENCE FROM COMING OUT, VOTES SO THAT THE PUBLIC NEVER SEE IT.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A FAIR TRIAL. They want to believe that their system of government is still capable of rising to the occasion. THEY WANT TO BELIEVE WE CAN GET OVER THE GAME AND DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE COUNTRY, BUT MANY AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE THAT WILL HAPPEN. LET'S PROVE THEM WRONG. LET'S PROVE THEM WRONG. AS? CONDEMNING THE PRESIDENT? NO. NOT JUST BY CONVICTION, CONVICTING HIM IF THE HOUSE PROVES ITS CASE AND ONLY IF THE HOUSE PROVIDES ITS CASE. BUT LETTING THE CHAMBER PROVE THEIR CASE, LETTING THE CHAMBER CALL WITNESSES, LETTING THE CHAMBER OBTAIN DOCUMENTS, LETTING THE CHAMBER DECIDE HOW TO PRESENT THEIR OWN CASE AND NOT DECIDE IT FOR US.

IN SUMMARY, BY AGREEING TO A FAIR TRIAL. LET'S GET TO THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION, THE HISTORY OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, WHAT JUSTICE AND IMPARTIALITY REQUIRE. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE MANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESOLUTION, I WILL START WITH ITS BIGGEST FLAW. THE RESOLUTION DOES NOT ENSURE THAT SUMMONS WILL ACTUALLY BE ISSUED FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH THE SENATE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST HAVE AND THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL CONTINUE TO BLOCK TO FAIRLY DECIDE THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE. FURTHER, IT GUARANTEES THAT SUMMONS WILL NOT BE ISSUED NOW, WHEN THEY WOULD BE MOST VALUABLE TO THE SENATE, THE PARTIES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION THAT THE LEADER HAS FIRST PRESENTED, THE SENATE RECEIVES REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS FROM THE PARTIES. BELOW, LONG PRESENTATIONS BY THE CHAMBER AND THE PRESIDENT. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE DESCRIBED THIS AS OPENING STATEMENTS. Let's not fool ourselves. THAT IS THE JUDGMENT THEY CONTEMPLATE. OPENING STATEMENTS ARE THE JUDGMENT. EITHER THEY WILL BE THE MAJORITY OF THE EVIDENCE OR THEY WILL BE ALL THE EVIDENCE. IF THE SENATE VOTES TO DEPRIVE ITSELF OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, THE OPENING STATEMENTS WILL BE THE END OF THE TRIAL. TO SAY LET'S MAKE THE OPENING STATEMENTS AND THEN WE'LL SEE MEANS LET'S MAKE THE JUDGMENT AND MAYBE WE CAN SWEEP ALL THIS UNDER THE RUG.

YOU WILL LISTEN TO THESE LONG PRESENTATIONS FROM THE HOUSE. THERE WILL BE A QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR THE SENATORS. THEN AND ONLY THEN, AFTER THE TRIAL HAS COMPLETED, AFTER THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN FILED, AFTER THE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, AFTER THE SENATORS EXHAUST ALL THEIR QUESTIONS, ONLY THEN WILL THE SENATE CONSIDER WHETHER TO SUBMISSION CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONIES THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DESPERATELY TRIED TO HIDE FROM THIS CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONIES WHICH UNLIKE THE CLINTON TRIAL HAVE NOT YET BEEN SEEN OR HEARD. IT IS TRUE THAT HOUSE'S RECORD IS OVERWHELMING.

IT IS TRUE THAT THE FILE ALREADY BINDS THE PRESIDENT IN THE FACE OF WHAT IS UNPRECEDENTED ON THE PRESIDENT'S PART, THE HOUSE GATHERED A POWERFUL CASE, EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S HIGH CRIMES AND MINOR CRIMES. THAT INCLUDES DIRECT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONIALS, OFFICIALS WHO WERE UNWANTED AND INVESTED IN THIS SCHEME AND SAW IT FOR WHAT IT WAS. HOWEVER, THERE IS MORE RELATIVE AND INVESTIGATIONAL EVIDENCE FROM TIM THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO BLOCK AND WHICH WOULD FULLY EXPLODE THE MISCONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT AND THOSE AROUND HIM. WE HAVE SEEN THAT NEW EVIDENCE HAS CONTINUED TO COME TO LIGHT IN RECENT WEEKS AS THE NON-PARTY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE HAS DETERMINED THAT THE RETENTION OF MILITARY IN UKRAINE WAS ILLEGAL AND VIOLATED THE LAW.

AS JOHN BOLTON HAS OFFERED TO WITNESS AT THE TRIAL, AS ONE OF PRESIDENT LEV PARNAS' AGENTS HAS PRESENTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT CLARIFIES MR. GIULIANI'S ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT AND CORROBORATES SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY THAT EVERYONE WAS INFORMED. HOW DOCUMENTS RELEASED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT HAVE DOCUMENTED ALARM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHILE THE PRESIDENT ILLEGALLY WITHHELD MILITARY SUPPORT TO UKRAINE, AN ALLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA WITHOUT EXPLANATION, AS A SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL, MICHAEL DUFFEY , INSTRUCTED DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICIALS ON JULY 25, 90 MINUTES AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE ON THE PHONE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SHOULD PAUSE ALL MILITARY ASSISTANCE OBLIGATIONS TO UKRAINE UNDER THEIR PERSPECTIVE. 90 MINUTES AFTER THAT CALL.

DUFFEY ADDED "GIVEN THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE REQUEST, I APPRECIATE YOU KEEPING THIS INFORMATION CLOSE TO THOSE WHO NEED TO KNOW TO EXECUTE DIRECTION." EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY MORE THAN ENOUGH TO CONVICT, THERE IS SIMPLY NO JUSTIFIED BASIS FOR THE SENATE TO DEPRIVE ITSELF OF ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION WHEN MAKING SUCH A HUGE CONSEQUENTIAL SENTENCE. FURTHERMORE, AS THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE TO HIS SUMMONS AND TRIAL REPORT MADE CLEAR, THE PRESIDENT NOW ATTEMPTS TO CHALLENGE THE FACTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE FALSE AND MISLEADING. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. It SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to claim that the facts discovered by House are incorrect and at the same time hide mountains of evidence that refer precisely to those facts.

IF THIS BODY SEEKS FAIR JUSTICE, IT MUST ENSURE THAT SUMMONS ARE ISSUED AND THAT THEY ARE ISSUED NOW, BEFORE THE SENATE BEGINS EXTENDED PROCEDURES BASED ON A RECORD THAT EVERY PERSON IN THIS ROOM AND EVERY AMERICANS WATCHING AT HOME KNOWS DOES NOT INCLUDE DOCUMENTS NEITHER TESTIMONIALS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT ALLOW IT TO BE THAT SUCH. COMPLYING WITH THE SUMMONS WOULD NOT IMPOSE A BURDEN. THE SUMMONS COVER SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT HIDDEN. THE SENATE DESERVES TO SEE DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE OFFICE OFMANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THESE AGENCIES SHOULD HAVE COLLECTED AND AT LEAST KEPT THEM.

In fact, in some cases, agencies have produced documents in paper lawsuits, albeit in heavily redacted form. WITNESSES WITH KNOWLEDGE OR DIRECT PARTICIPATION MUST BE HEARD. THAT INCLUDES THE ACT OF THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, HIS FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON WHO PUBLICLY OFFERED TO WITNESS, TWO SENIOR OFFICIALS INTEGRAL TO IMPLEMENTING THE FREEZE ON MILITARY AID ALSO HAVE VERY RELEVANT TESTIMONIES. WHY NOT LISTEN TO IT? ROBERT BLAIR, WHO SERVES AS CHIEF COUNSEL TO MULVANEY, MICHAEL DUFFEY, SENIOR OMB OFFICIAL, AND OTHER WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE WHO WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CALL LATER, BUT THESE WITNESSES WITH WHOM WE WANT TO BEGIN THE TRIAL.

LAST MONTH, PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE CLEAR THAT HE SUPPORTED SENIOR OFFICIALS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE SENATE DURING HIS TRIAL, STATING THAT HE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SECRETARY POMPEO, MR. MULVANEY, NOW FORMER SECRETARY PERRY AND, QUOTE, MANY OTHER PEOPLE TESTIFIED IN A SENATE TRIAL. WHICH IS FAIR AND FAIR FOR THE SENATE, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE POMPEO, MICK, RICK PERRY AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE TESTIFY. THE SENATE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACCEPT THE PRESIDENT'S OFFER, TO MAKE HIS SENIOR Aides AVAILABLE, INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY AND SECRETARIES PERRY AND POMPEO. NOW THE PRESIDENT IS CHANGING HIS TONE. THE BLE OF WANTING WITNESSES TO WITNESS HAS ENDED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HAS NEVER FILED A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE DURING THE COURSE OF THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS, HE THREATENTS TO INVOKE A NOW IN THE LAST EFFORT TO PREVENT THE REST OF THE TRUTH COMES OUT.

THE PRESIDENT SENDS LAWYERS TO BREATHE LESLIE CLAIMS THAT WITNESSES OR OTHERS POSSIBLY CAN'T WITNESS BECAUSE IT INVOLVES NATIONAL SECURITY. NO MATTER, IT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID TO AN ALLY AT WAR THAT THREATENED NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMES THAT CAN OCCUR WILL ALWAYS INVOLVE NATIONAL SECURITY BECAUSE THEY WILL INVOLVE OTHER NATIONS AND THAT MISCONDUCT BASED ON FOREIGN ENtanglements WAS WHAT THE ORGANIZERS FEARED MOST, THE PRESIDENT'S ABSURDIST ARGUMENT IS THAT. WE MUST PUT NATIONAL SECURITY IN DANGER TO PROTECT NATIONAL SECURITY. WE MUST MAKE A PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT THREATEN SECURITY BEYOND THE REACH OF THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IF WE WANT TO SAVE THE PRESIDENCY.

THIS IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE. AS THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVE ANNOUNCED, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT. Let's move from the abstract to the concrete and let me show you just one example of what the President is hiding in the name of national security. THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO DELIVER IN WHICH HIS TOP DIPLOMATIC IN UKRAINE SAYS TO TWO OTHER APPOINTMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT, AS I SAID ON THE PHONE, I THINK IT'S INSANITY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. THE ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO DELIVER THAT DOCUMENT AND SO MANY MORE.

WE ONLY KNOW OF ITS EXISTENCE, WE HAVE ONLY SEEN ITS CONTENT BECAUSE IT WAS DELIVERED BY A COOPERATING WITNESS. THIS IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HIDE FROM YOU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY, HE WOULD HIDE GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF HIS DANGEROUS MISCONDUCT. THE ONLY QUESTION IS, AND IT IS THE QUESTION THAT THIS RESOLUTION RAISES, WILL THEY LET HIM? LAST YEAR, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL ALLOW HIM TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. EVIDENTLY BELIEVING THAT ARTICLE 2 WAS INTENDED TO DENIGRATE AND CHALLENGE A BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, HE DECLARED THAT HE WILL FIGHT AGAINST THE SUMMONS.

LET'S LISTEN TO THE WORDS OF THE PRESIDENT. THEN I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2 WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. WE ARE FIGHTING ALL SUMMONS. TRUE TO HIS PROMISE TO OBSTRUCT CONGRESS, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP FACED AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HE ORDERED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO CHALLENGE EVERY REQUEST FOR EVERY SUMMONS. HE ISSUED THIS ORDER THROUGH HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, PAT CIPOLLONE, ON OCTOBER 8, THE SAME LAWYER WHO APPEARED BEFORE YOU A MOMENT AGO TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT. THEN HE CLAIMED TO START AT A DEMONSTRATION ON OCTOBER 10. FOLLOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CATEGORICAL ORDER, WE NEVER RECEIVE KEY DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, BY REFUSING TO RESPOND TO CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT EVER MADE ANY FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE. IN YOUR PLACE MR. CIPOLLONE'S LETTER STATES IN EFFECT THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD RETAIN ALL EVIDENCE AT THE E-COMMERCE EXPERIENCE TOUCH BRANCH UNLESS THE HOUSE SURENDERS TO DEMANDS THAT COULD EFFECTIVELY PUT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OWN BAD BEHAVIOR. LESS NEEDED TO SAY THAT IT WAS NOT A STARTER AND DESIGNED TO BE ONE. THE PRESIDENT WAS DETERMINED TO OBSTRUCT CONGRESS NO MATTER WHAT WE DID. HIS CONDUCT SINCE, HIS ATTACKS ON THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION, ATTACKS ON WITNESSES HAVE AFFIRMED THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION TO COOPERATE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

BECAUSE? BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONIES THAT HE HIDES WOULD ONLY PROVE HIS GUILT. INNOCENT PEOPLE DON'T ACT LIKE THIS. Simply put, the trial should not reward the president's obstruction by allowing him to control what evidence is seen and when it is seen and what evidence will remain hidden. THE DOCUMENTS THE PRESIDENT SEEKS TO HIDE INCLUDE WHITE HOUSE RECORDS, INCLUDING RECORDS REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S ILLEGAL WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID, STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS INCLUDING TEXT MESSAGES, WHAT'S APP MESSAGES EXCHANGED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, NOTES WRITTEN BY CAREER PROFESSIONALS WATCHING THE PRESIDENT'S OUTLINE UNLOCKS IN REAL TIME, OMB RECORDS SHOW AFTER THE FACT JUSTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS SHOWING INTERNAL OBJECTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS VIOLATED LAW, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RECORDS REFLECT UNAWARE AND ALARM THAT THE PRESIDENT SUSPENDED MILITARY AID TO A SKI SECURITY PARTNER WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

MANY OF THE PRESIDENT'S HELP HAVE. THESE INCLUDE CENTRAL FIGURES IN THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY. FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON AND OTHERS WITH RELEVANT TESTIMONIES SUCH AS ROBERT BLAIR AND MICHAEL DUFFEY. MISTER. BLAIR, WHO SERVES AS MULVANEY'S SENIOR ADVISOR, WORKED WITH MR. DUFFEY, A POLITICAL APPOINTMENT IN THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO CARRY OUT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO FREEZE WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN IMPLEMENTING THE HOLD AND EXTENSION AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT. EVEN WHEN CAREER OFFICIALS EXACTLY WARNED THAT DOING SO WOULD VIOLATE THE LAW. THE PRESIDENT HAS ALSO MADE THE UNBEARABLE CLAIM THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE FULFILLED THE SUMMONS TO THE COURT AND ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT TO DELAY ACTION FOR YEARS.

IF WE HAD DONE SO, WE WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ACT ON THE OVERWHELMING FACTS BEFORE US AND THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING TO CHEAT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION. WE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN A DELIBERATELY PROLONGED COURT PROCESS WHILE THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO THREATEN THE SANCTITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. RESOLVING COURSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION WHICH GIVES THE CHAMBER THE SOLE POWER TO ACTION. IF THE HOUSE EXHAUSTED LEGAL REMEDIES BEFORE ACTING THE PRESIDENT, IT INTERPOSED THE COURTS OR A SINGLE JUDGE'S DECISION BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE POWER TO ACT. IN ADDITION, THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT PREVENT HIS OWN ACTION BY LIMITING THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT, APPEALING EVERY JUDGMENT, INTRODUCING EVERY FRIVOLOUS MOTION OR DEVICE.

IN FACT, IN THE CASE OF DON MCGAHN, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WHO WAS ORDERED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND LIE ABOUT IT, WAS SUMMONED BY THE HOUSE IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR AND THERE IS STILL NO FINAL JUDGMENT. A PRESIDENT CANNOT PREVENT PERFORMANCE OR ACCOUNTABILITY BY PARTICIPATING IN ANALYST LITIGATION. IT HAS BEEN A LONG PRACTICE FOR THE HOUSE TO COMPILE THE BASIC EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO REACH A REASONABLE DECISION ON WHETHER TO IMPEACH AND THEN BRING THE CASE HERE TO THE SENATE FOR A FULL TRIAL. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HEAR WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SENATE HAS ITS OWN POWER TO COMPELL DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONIALS.

IT WOULD BE ONE THING THAT THE HOUSE HAD SHOWN NO INTEREST AND DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES DURING ITS INVESTIGATION. ALTHOUGH EVEN THERE, THE CHAMBER HAS THE SOLE RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS PROCEDURES AS LONG AS IT MAKES THE COMPLETE CASE TO THE CHAMBER AS IT DID. BUT IT IS ANOTHER ONE WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS THE CAUSE OF HIS OWN COMPLAINT. WHEN THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLDS WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AND TRIES TO BASED ON HIS OWN FAILURE TO JUSTIFY ADDITIONAL CONCEALMENT. PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE VERY CLEAR THAT WE WOULD NEVER SEE A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR A SINGLE WITNESS WHEN HE DECLARED, AS WE JUST SAW, THAT HE WOULD FIGHT EVERY SUMMONS.

AS A MATTER OF HISTORY AND PRECEDENT, IT WOULD BE WRONG TO STATE THAT THE SENATE CANNOT OBTAIN AND REVIEW NEW EVIDENCE DURING A SENATE TRIAL, REGARDLESS OF WHY NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED IN THE CHAMBER. YOU CAN AND SHOULD INSIST ON RECEIVING ALL EVIDENCE SO THAT YOU CAN DELIVER FAIR JUSTICE AND EARN THE PUBLIC'S TRUST IN THE SENATE'S WILL TO HOLD A FAIR TRIAL. ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE SENATE NOT ONLY VOTES ON ACTIONS. NOT ONLY DEBATE THEM. INSTEAD, THE CONSTITUTION ORDERS TO ATTEMPT ALL CASES OF IMPEACHMENT. IF THE FOUNDERS HAD THE HOUSE TO TRY THE ISSUE AND THE SENATE TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL BASED ON THE OTHER HOUSE'S COLD FILE, THEY HAVE SAID SO.

BUT THEY DIDN'T DO IT. INSTEAD THEY GAVE US THE POWER TO ACCUSE AND YOU THE POWER TO TRY ALL ACTIONS. THE DRAFTERS CHOSE THE LANGUAGE AND STRUCTURE FOR A REASON AS ALEXANDER HAMILTO SAID: "THE SENATE HAS TOTAL DISCRETION IN MATTERS OF PERFORMANCE. THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS TO THE SENATORS AND THEIR JUDICIAL CHARACTER AS A COURT, FOR THE JUDGMENT OF PERFORMANCE." IT REQUIRES THEM TO ADDRESS REAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF INNOCENCE OR GUILT AND REQUIRES THEM TO DO SO BY CARRYING OUT A TRIAL. THE SENATE HAS REPEATEDLY RECEIVED SUMMONS AND RECEIVED NEW DOCUMENTS ARRIVING FREQUENTLY, MANY OF THEM WILL SENTENCE IN IMPEACHMENT CASES.

IN ADDITION, THE SENATE HAS HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND EACH OF THE 15 SENATE TRIAL, THE COMPLETE SENATE TRIAL, AND THE HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC, INCLUDING THOSE OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON AND BILL CLINTON. IN FACT, IN THE TAX TRIAL OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON AND THE SENATE, THE HOUSE WAS ALLOWED TO BEGIN PRESENTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE SENATE FROM THE FIRST DAY OF THE TRIAL. THE INITIAL PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTS IN PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S CASE BY THE HOUSE MANAGER DURING THE FIRST TWO DAYS OF THE TRIAL AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER WHICH WITNESSES WERE CALLED TO APPEAR IN THE SENATE. THIS HAS BEEN THE STANDARD PRACTICE IN PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

IN FACT, IN MOST OF THE TRIAL THIS BODY HAS HEARD FROM MANY WITNESSES, FROM THREE IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT CLINTON, TO 40 IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON. AND MUCH MORE THAN 60 AND OTHER PERFORMANCES. AS THESE NUMBERS MADE CLEAR, THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS LISTENED TO KEY WITNESSES IN THE TRIAL AND THE PROCEEDINGS. THE NOTION THAT ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE HOUSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IS STRONGLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY CONTRARY TO SENATE PRECEDENT. NOTHING IN LAW OR HISTORY SUPPORTS THIS. TO START, MACCONNELL IS CONSIDERABLY LARGER ABOUT THE DESCRIPTION OF HIS JOB IN A PREVIOUS SENATE PROCEEDING.

AFTER STARTING THE SENATE TRIAL IN THE CASE OF JUDGE CLAIRE BORN, WINTER MACCONNELL DISCOVERED AND TALKED ABOUT HOW SHE WORKED INTENSIVELY FOR TWO MONTHS AND EVALUATED THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY. IN THE SAME, LEADER MACCONNELL RECOGNIZED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FULL BODY TO ACCUMULATE AND DIGEST EVIDENCE. THERE SURELY WAS A LOT OF EVIDENCE FOR THE SENATE TO ACCUMULATE AND ADJUST IN THAT PROCEEDING WHICH INVOLVED CHARGES AGAINST THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE SENATE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF 19 WITNESSES AND ALLOWED OVER 2,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD THROUGHOUT OF THE COURSE OF THAT TRIAL.

AT NO TIME DID THE SENATE LIMIT THE EVIDENCE TO WHAT WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE. HE DID THE OPPOSITE. CONSISTENT WITH THE UNINTERRUPTED PRACTICE OF THE SENATE IN EVERY TAX TRIAL, EVERY ONE. FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE 40 WITNESSES WHO TESTIVED DURING PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S TRIAL IN THE SENATE, ONLY THREE PRESENTED TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE. DURING ITS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. ONLY THREE. THE REMAINING 37 WITNESSES IN THE PRESIDENTIAL TAX TRIAL testified before the SENATE. Similarly, the first full Senate impeachment trial involving charges against Judge Pickering involved the testimony of 11 witnesses, all of whom were new to impeachment

proceedings

and had not testified before the House.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF THIS POINT. INCLUDING THE SENATE'S MOST RECENT TAX TRIAL OF JUDGE PORTEOUS IN 2010. IT IS A TRIAL THAT MANY OF YOU AND SOME OF US KNOW WELL. IT IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THIS LONG-TERM PRACTICE. THERE, THE SENATE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF 26 WITNESSES. 17 OF WHICH HAD NOT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE CAMERA DURING THEIR PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATION. THEREFORE, THERE IS A DEFINITE TRADITION OF THE SENATE LISTENING TO YOU WITNESSES WHEN PROCESSING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A RULE THAT WILL ELIMINATE WITNESSES TO THETHAT THEY PRESENT IN THE HOUSE OR ELIMINATE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SENATE WHAT THE SAME HOUSE CONSIDERED.

AND THAT IS BECAUSE SENATOR JOHNSON EXPLAINED IN 1934 THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE WITNESSES WHO ARE CALLED. HIS PARENTS OF HIM AT THE STAND, THEIR WAY OF GIVING WITNESS. THERE IS, THEREFORE, AN UNINTERRUPTED HISTORY OF WITNESSES TESTIMONY AND SENATE TAX TRIAL. PRESIDENTIAL AND JUDICIAL. I would say that IN THE PRESIDENT'S CASE, IT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO LISTEN TO THE WITNESSES AND SEE THE DOCUMENTS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ANY CONCEIVABLE DOUBT IS DISSIPLATED BY THE SENATE'S OWN RULES FOR THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. OBTAINING DOCUMENTS AND LISTENING TO LIVE TESTIMONY IS SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT THE SENATE'S RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE WHEN FIRING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL DATE TO THE 19TH CENTURY DEVOTE MORE ATTENTION TO THE GATHERING, HANDLING AND ADMISSION OF NEW EVIDENCE THAN ANY OTHER TOPIC.

THESE FUNCTIONS EXPRESS AND CONTEMPLATE THAT THE SENATE WILL HEAR EVIDENCE AND CONDUCT A FULL TRIAL WHEN SITTING AS A PROPERTY COURT. At every turn they reject the idea that the Senate would take the House evidentiary record, blind itself to everything else, and vote to convict or acquit him. FOR EXAMPLE, RULE SIX SAYS THAT THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND MAKE OBEDIENCE TO THEIR ORDERS. RULE SEVEN. AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO TELL AND ALL MATTERS OF EVIDENCE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MATTERS OF RELEVANCE. MATERIALITY AND REDUNDANCY. THIS WILL, ALSO PRESENT IN THE SENATE TRIAL, WILL HAVE TESTIMONIES THAT WILL GIVE RISE TO SUCH ISSUES.

RULE 11 AUTHORIZES THE FULL SENATE TO APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF SENATORS TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE AND TAKE TESTIMONY AT SUCH TIMES AND PLACES AS THE COMMITTEE MAY DETERMINE. AS RULE 11 MAKES CLEAR, THE COMMITTEE REPORT MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE FULL SENATE FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION. BUT NOTHING HERE IN THE STATE OF THE RULES SHALL PREVENT THE SENATE FROM SENDING ANY WITNESS AND HEARING THEIR TESTIMONY IN THE OPEN SENATE OR BY ORDER OF THE SENATE WHICH INVOLVES THE ENTIRE TRIAL IN THE OPEN SENATE. HERE ALSO, THE OPERATIONAL RULES OF PERFORMANCE OF THE SENATE EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATE AND PROVIDE FOR THE SUMMONING OF WITNESSES AND LISTENING TO THEIR TESTIMONIES AS PART OF THE SENATE TRIAL.

AND THE LIST CONTINUES CHOOSING THESE RULES CLEARLY PROVIDE FOR CHOOSING A STRONG ROLE FOR THE SENATE IN THE MEETING AND CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE. THEY REFLECT CENTURIES OF PRACTICE OF ACCEPTANCE AND REQUIREMENT OF EVIDENCE AND TRIAL IN THE SENATE. THE SENATE SHOULD HONOR THIS PRACTICE TODAY BY REJECTING THE RESOLUTION. WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE CLINTON TRIAL? What about the Clinton trial being discussed? ALL OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND HISTORY, INCLUDING THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON TRIAL? ARE WE NOT FOLLOWING THE SAME PROCESS AS IN THE CLINTON TRIAL? THE ANSWER IS NO. THE PROCESS FOR CLINTON'S TRIAL WAS RESOLVED BY MUTUAL CONSENT.

BETWEEN THE PARTS. THAT IS NOT TRUE HERE WHEN THE PROCESS IS SEEKED TO BE IMPOSED BY ONE PARTY ON THE OTHER. SECONDLY, ALL DOCUMENTS FROM THE CLINTON TRIAL WERE TURNED OVER AS PART OF THE TRIAL. ALL 90,000 PAGES SO THEY CAN BE USED IN THE HOUSE CASE. NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED BY THE PRESIDENTS IN THIS CASE AND UNDER LEADER MACCONNELL'S PROPOSAL NONE CAN BE GIVEN. THEY WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE AVAILABLE TO YOU OR US FOR MOST OR ALL OF THE TEST. IF WE ARE REALLY GOING TO FOLLOW THE CLINTON PRECEDENT, THE SENATE MUST INSIST ON THE DOCUMENTS NOW, BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGINS.

Third, the issue in the Clinton trial was not calling witnesses, but remembering them. ALL OF THE KEY WITNESSES IN THE CLINTON TRIAL HAD TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OR HAD BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI. ONE OF THEM, DOZENS OF TIMES. AND HIS TESTIMONY WAS ALREADY KNOWN. PRESIDENT CLINTON HIMSELF WITNESSED BEFORE THE HOUSE AND UNDER OATH BEFORE THE SENATE TRIAL. IT ALLOWED MULTIPLE CHIEFS OF STAFF AND OTHER KEY OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY. AGAIN, BEFORE THE SENATE TRIAL TOOK HERE, NONE OF THE WITNESSES WE TRIED TO CALL, NONE OF THEM HAD TESTIFIED OR BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE HOUSE. AND AS I SAID, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT WE DID NOT CALL THESE WITNESSES IN HOUSE WHEN THE UNAVAILABILITY WAS CAUSED BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

FINALLY, AS THOSE WHO WERE HERE WILL REMEMBER, THE TESTIMONY AT THE CLINTON TRIAL INVOLVED ISSUES NOT PRESENT HERE. YOU CAN BE ASSURED THAT WHATEVER OTHER CASE MAY BE, SUCH PROBLEMS WILL NOT BE PRESENT HERE. IN SUMMARY, THE CLINTON PRECEDENTS, IF WE ARE VERY SERIOUS IN MODELING THIS PROCEDURE AFTER THE CLINTON TRIAL, THE CLINTON PRECEDENT IS ONE IN WHICH ALL THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN ADVANCE. BECAUSE ALL THE WITNESSES HAD STATED IN ADVANCE. BEFORE THE TRIAL. THAT IS NOT BEING REPLICATED BY THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION, IN ANY WAY, IN ANY WAY, IN ANY WAY. FAR FROM THERE.

THE TRADITIONAL MODEL FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND ALL THE OTHERS IS REALLY THE MOST APPROPRIATE ONE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES ELECTED THE SENATE SHOULD ADDRESS ALL DOCUMENTARY ISSUES AND THE MAJORITY OF THE WITNESSES NOW, NOT LATER. AND THE NEED TO CITE DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONIES HAS NOW ONLY INCREASED DUE TO THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION FOR VARIOUS REASONS. FIRST, HIS OBSTRUCTION HAS MADE HIM SOLELY AND PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABSENCES OF THE WITNESSES BEFORE THE CAMERA, HAVING ORDERED THEM NOT TO PRESENT. YOU CANNOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN NOW THAT THEY FOLLOWED THEIR ORDERS AND REFUSED TO WITNESS.

DOING OTHERWISE ONLY REWARDS THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION AND ENCOURAGES HIS FUTURE PRESENCE TO CHALLENGE THE LEGAL PROCESS IN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS. Second, if the President wishes to challenge the facts and his response and trial brief indicate that he will attempt to do so, he should not continue to deny the Senate access to relevant witnesses and documents that shed light on the factual issues he wishes to challenge. THE SENATE TRIAL IS UNWORTHY: THERE IS NO RECORD BELOW. THERE IS NO DOWN. THIS IS THE JUDGMENT. THIRD. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DECEIVE THE SENATE BY SELECTIVELY INTRODUCING DOCUMENTS WHILE WITHHELD THE LARGE BODY OF DOCUMENTS THAT MAY CONTRADICT.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DECEIVE YOU BY SELECTIVELY SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS AND WITHHOLDING THE REST. ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE TRUTH. OTHERWISE, THERE IS A CLEAR RISK THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL CONTINUE TO HIDE ALL EVIDENCE PREJUDICAL TO HIS POSITION WHILE SELECTIVELY PRODUCING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT OR OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THEIR CREATORS. AND FINALLY, YOU CAN INFER THE BEST OF THE PRESIDENT FROM HIS CONTINUED EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES. THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE WANTS WITNESSES LIKE MICK MULVANEY AND MIKE POMPEO AND OTHERS TO WITNESS THAT HIS ACTIONS WITH UKRAINE HAVE BEEN PERFECT.

THE LAWYER HAS STATED TODAY THAT THIS WILL BE THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE. YOUR CONDUCT IS PERFECT. PERFECTLY GREAT TO A GROUP AND ALLY. THAT WILL BE PART OF YOUR DEFENSE EVEN IF IT'S NOT worded that way. NOW HE HAS CHANGED COURSE AND DOES NOT WANT THESE WITNESSES TO WITNESS. THAT LEGAL SUMMONS CAN BE INTERPRETED AS PROOF OF GUILT. LET ME CONCLUDE. THE FACTS WILL COME OUT IN THE END. THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS HIDING WILL BE RELEASED THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OR BY OTHER MEANS OVER TIME. THE WITNESSES WILL TELL THEIR STORIES, BOOKS AND FILMS.

THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT. THE QUESTION IS WILL IT COME OUT ON TIME? AND WHAT RESPONSES SHOULD WE GIVE IF WE DON'T SEEK THE TRUTH NOW? LET IT REMAIN HIDDEN UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE TO CONSIDER THE DEEP PROBLEM OF THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE? THERE ARE MANY OVERLAPPING REASONS TO VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION BUT THEY ALL CONVERGE INTO ONE IDEA. JUSTICE. THE TRIAL MUST BE FAIR FOR THE HOUSE THAT HAS BEEN UNFAIRLY DEPRIVED OF EVIDENCE BY A PRESIDENT WHO WISHES TO HIDE IT. IT MUST BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT, WHO WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM AN ACQUITTAL OR DISMISSAL IF THE TRIAL IS NOT DEEMED FAIR, IF IT IS NOT DEEMED FAIR.

AND FAIR FOR THE SENATORS WHO HAVE THE SERIOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO CONVICT OR ACQUIT AND THEY SHOULD DO SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE FACTS. AND FAIR FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO DESERVE ALL THE TRUTH AND WHO DESERVE REPRESENTATIVES WHO SEEK IT IN THEIR NAME. AND WITH THAT, MR. CHIEF JUDGE, I surrender. MR. SUE BALONEY, MR. SUP DOWN, YOU HAVE 57 MINUTES AVAILABLE. THANK YOU MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. LEADER MACCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER. IT IS MY PRIVILEGE TO REPRESENT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THIS HOUSE. SENATOR SCHUMER TODAY SAID THE EYES OF THE FOUNDERS ARE ON THESE PROCEEDINGS.

REALLY, THAT'S TRUE. THAT IS THE CORE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT GOVERNS THESE PROCEDURES. WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM ADAM SCHIFF IS THAT THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE, PRIVILEGES DO NOT APPLY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PAST, WE SHOULD IGNORE IT. IN FACT, DIRECTOR SCHIFF JUST SAID: I TRIED TO SUMMARY THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TO MY COLLEAGUES. NOT IN THOSE WORDS OF COURSE IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME MR. SCHIFF HAS PUT WORDS INTO TRANSCRIPTS THAT DID NOT EXIST. MISTER. SCHIFF ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE TRIFECTA. I WILL GIVE YOU A TRIFECTA. DURING THE PROCESS THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, HE WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO INTERROGATE THE WITNESSES.

THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THE EVIDENCE. AND THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT AT HEARINGS. THAT'S A TRIFECTA. A TRIFECTA THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. MISTER. SCHIFF SAID THE COURTS REALLY DON'T HAVE A ROLE IN THIS. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, WHY WOULD THAT MATTER? IT MATTERS BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. AN ADMINISTRATOR SAID THAT YOU ARE THE ONE ON JUDGMENT, THE SENATE ALSO SAID THAT AND OTHERS SAY THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO KEEP YOUR OATH. AND THEN WE HAD THE INVOCATION OF THE GHOST FROM THE MUELLER REPORT.

I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THAT REPORT. IT WAS VOID ON THE ISSUE OF COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA. THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION. IN FACT, CONTRARY TO WHAT THESE DIRECTORS SAY TODAY. HE CAME TO EXACTLY OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS FROM WHAT THEY SAY. LET ME QUOTE FROM THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT REPORT ON PAGE 16. ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ENZYMES INVOKED ON THE NOTION OF DUE PROCESS, AND THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION IS NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH IT BELIEVE ME, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THESE PROCEDURES SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH DUE PROCESS. BECAUSE DUE PROCESS REQUIRES AND THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE AND DUE PROCESS, DUE PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE ACCUSED PERSON.

WHEN RUSSIA'S RESEARCH FAILED, IT EVOLVED TOWARDS UKRAINE. A QUID PRO QUO. WHEN THAT WAS NOT PROVEN, IT WAS BRIBERY OR MAYBE EXTORTION OR SOMEONE SAID ONE OF THE HOUSE MEMBERS, TREASON. BUT INSTEAD OF HAVING TWO ARTICLES OF IMPECCATION, TWO ARTICLES OF IMCHARGEMENT THAT HAVE A VEGA ALLEGATION ABOUT A NON-PRIMARY ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. TODAY'S MEMBERS AND ADMINISTRATORS BEFORE YOU WHO HAVE SAID THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE HAVE NO PLACE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, ON JUNE 28, 2012, ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER BECAME THE FIRST ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE ARRESTED ON BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CHALLENGES.

BECAUSE? BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA AFFIRED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. REGARDING THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, Manager Schiff wrote, the White House's claim is that it is a privilege supported by decades of precedent that has recognized the need for the president and his top advisers to receive candid information and advice from his top aides. . NEED, THAT'S RIGHT. NOT BECAUSE ADMINISTRATOR SCHIFF SAID SO. BUT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT. MISTER. ADMINISTRATOR NADLER SAID THE EFFORT TO HOLD ERIC HOLDER IN CONTEMPT FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL SUMMONS WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND SPEAKER PELOSI CALLED THE ENTIRE MATTER A LITTLE MORE THAN A WITCH HUNT.

WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH HERE? WHY ARE WE HERE? ARE WE HERE FOR A PHONE CALL? OR ARE WE HERE BEFORE THIS GREAT BODY BECAUSE SINCE THE PRESIDENT WAS SWORN IN, THERE WAS A DESIRE TO SEE HIM RETIRED? I REMEMBER THAT IN THE MUELLER REPORT THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INSURANCE POLICIES. THE INSURANCE POLICY DIDN'T WORK SO WELL. THEN WE GO ON TO OTHER INVESTIGATIONS. I guess you would call it reinsurance or umbrella policy. AND THAT DIDN'T WORK SO WELL. AND HERE WE ARE TODAY. ADMINISTRATOR SCHIFF SUMMONED THE SUPREME COURT AND WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE SUPREME COURT AS WELL.

THEN IT WAS JUSTICE REHNQUIST WHO LATER WAS CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST WHO WRITTEN FOR THE UNITED STATES MAJORITY AGAINST RUSSELL IN 197 . THESE ARE THE WORDS. "ONE DAY WE COULD BE PRESENTED IN A SITUATION WHERE THE CONDUCT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IS SO ODD THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS WOULD PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM INVOKING A JUDICIAL PROCESS TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION. THAT DAY IS TODAY." THAT DAY WAS ONE YEAR AGO. THAT DAY WAS IN JULY. WHEN SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER TESTIFIED. I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TODAY TO REVIEW, BUT I WILL DO SO LATER, THE PATTERNS AND PRACTICES OF IRREGULARITIES THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THESE INVESTIGATIONS SINCE THE BEGINNING.

BUT TO SAY THAT THE COURTS HAVE NO ROLE IN THE RUSH FOR IMPEACHMENT, DON'T WAIT FOR A DECISION FROM A COURT ON AN ISSUE AS IMPORTANT AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. AS IF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HAD NOT BEEN USED BYTHE PRESIDENTS FROM OUR SURVEY. THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT. WE DO NOT WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. AND THERE'S A REASON WHY WE RETAIN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT WHEN NECESSARY. AND THAT IS TO PROTECT, PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. THE PRESIDENT'S OPPONENTS, IN THEIR RUSH TO ACT, HAVE REFUSED TO WAIT FOR A COMPLETE JUDICIAL REVIEW.

THAT WAS HIS CHOICE. SPEAKER PELOSI CLEARLY EXPRESSED HER IMPATIENCE AND CONDITION WHEN SAYING: WE CANNOT BE AT THE MERCY OF THE COURTS. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT. WE CANNOT BE AT THE MERCY OF THE COURTS. SO TAKE ARTICLE THREE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, REMOVE IT. WE ARE ACTING AS IF THE COURTS WERE AN INADEQUATE PLACE TO DETERMINE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF THIS MAGNITUDE. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COURTS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER. IT WAS INTERESTING WHEN PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE IN FRONT OF MR. NADLER COMMITTEE. HE SAID WE HAVE THREE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, NOT TWO.

IF YOU ACCUSE A PRESIDENT AND COMMIT A FELONY AND A MISDEMEANOR, IT IS YOUR ABUSE OF POWER. IT'S MORE THAN THAT. MUCH MORE THAN THAT. THERE IS A LOT MORE THAN ABUSE OF POWER IF YOU SAY THE COURTS DON'T APPLY. CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES DO NOT APPLY. LET'S START WITH A CLEAN ERA AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED. A LOT HAS HAPPENED. As we move forward in the coming days, we will lay out the case. LET'S... SO THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE, THIS IDEA THAT WE SHOULD IGNORE WHAT HAS HAPPENED DURING THE PAST THREE YEARS IS SCARY. WE BELIEVE THAT WHAT SENATOR MCCONNELL HAS PRESENTED OFFERS DUE PROCESS, ALLOWING PROCEDURES TO MOVE EARLY. 33 DAYS, 33 DAYS KEPT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 33 DAYS.

THERE WAS SO MUCH HOMELAND SECURITY DEVELOPMENT TO ACT THIS PRESIDENT BEFORE CHRISTMAS THAT THEN THEY DETAINED HIM FOR 33 DAYS. DO WHAT? ACT AS IF YOU ARE NEGOTIATING. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MUST NEGOTIATE THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. THEY DID NOT HIDE THIS. THIS WAS THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE. THIS WAS THE REASON WHY THEY DID IT. WE ARE PREPARED TO PROCEED. MAJORITY LEADER. DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY LEADER. WE ARE PREPARED TO PROCEED. IN OUR OPINION, THE PROCEDURES MUST START. I WILL GIVE THE REST OF MY TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. THANK YOU MR. PRESIDING JUDGE.

I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL POINTS. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SIT THERE AND LISTEN TO MR. SCHIFF TELLS THE STORY HE JUST TOLD. LET'S REMEMBER HOW WE ALL GOT HERE. THEY MADE FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT A PHONE CALL. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DECLASSIFIES THE PHONE CALL AND RELEASED IT TO THE PUBLIC. WHAT'S THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY? WHEN MR. SCHIFF FOUND OUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN HER ALLEGATIONS OF HIM, HE FOCUSED ON THE SECOND PHONE CALL. HE MADE FALSE AND HIS TEAMMATES MADE FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THAT SECOND PHONE CALL. THAT HAPPENED BEFORE WHAT HE HAD DEMANDED.

SO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISCLAIMED AND RELEASED THAT PHONE CALL. NOTHING YET. AGAIN. COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY, AND IN A WAY THAT I FRANKLY KNOW WITH NO PRECEDENT, COMES FROM ANY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RELEASING A CLASSIFIED PHONE CALL WITH A FOREIGN LEADER. WHEN MR. SCHIFF SAW THAT HIS ACCUSATIONS WERE FALSE AND HE KNEW IT ANYWAY, WHAT DID HE DO? WENT TO THE HOUSE. AND HE FABRICATED A FRAUDULENT VERSION OF THAT CALL. HE FABRICATED A FALSE VERSION OF THE CALL AND READ IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND HE DIDN'T TELL THEM THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY FALSE.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT DUE PROCESS? I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT DUE PROCESS. NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY HAS A PRESIDENT FACED THIS TYPE OF DEPENDENCY PROCEDURE IN THE HOUSE. NOW MR. NADLER, WHEN HE APPLIED FOR THAT JOB, TOLD HIS COLLEAGUES WHEN THEY LEFT THE HOUSE, THAT HE WAS VERY GOOD AT IMPEACHMENT. BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE PROCESS WAS DONE IN A BASEMENT OF THE HOUSE. OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE PRESIDENT WAS PROHIBITED FROM ATTENDING. THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT. AND IN ALL OTHER TAX PROCEEDINGS, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN GIVEN MINIMUM DUE PROCESS.

NOTHING HERE. NOT EVEN MR. SCHIFF'S REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WERE ALLOWED IN THIS. THE INFORMATION WAS SELECTIVELY FILTERED. THE WITNESSES WERE THREATENED. GOOD PUBLIC SERVANTS WERE TOLD THEY would be held in contempt. THEY TOLD THEM THEY WERE OBSTRUCING. WHAT DOES MR. DOES SCHIFF WANT TO OBSTRUCT? He means that unless you do exactly what he says, regardless of your constitutional right, you are obstructing. THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES. BY THE WAY, THERE IS STILL EVIDENCE ON THE COMPUTER THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO SEE. I WONDER WHY. WITNESSES OF THE SNOW. LET'S THINK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE FOR A SECOND.

LET'S THINK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. THEY KEPT THESE ITEMS FOR 33 DAYS. WE HEAR ALL THIS TALK ABOUT AN OVERWHELMING CASE. AN OVERWHELMING CASE ABOUT WHICH THEY ARE NOT EVEN PREPARED TO STAND UP AND MAKE AN INITIAL ARGUMENT ABOUT IT. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CASE. FRANKLY, THEY HAVE NO CHARGE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE PERFORMANCE ARTICLES, THEY ARE NOT ONLY RIDICULOUS, BUT THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO OURSELVES OR THE AUDIENCE. AND BECAUSE? FIRST OF ALL, THE NOTION OF INVOKING YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROTECT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY ALMOST EVERY PRESIDENTS SINCE GEORGE WASHINGTON. AND THAT IS OBSTRUCTION.

THAT IS OUR PATRIOTIC DUTY, MR. SCHIFF, PARTICULARLY WHEN FACED WITH A GENERAL TRAMPLING OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHICH I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH IN THIS COUNTRY. FRANKLY, IT'S THE KIND OF THING OUR STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD CRITICIZE IF WE SEE IT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. WE HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT. AND MR. SCHIFF SAID: DO I HAVE AN OFFER FOR YOU? ABANDON ALL YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. FORGET ABOUT YOUR LAWYERS. AND GO IN AND DO EXACTLY WHAT I SAY. NO, THANKS. NO, THANKS. AND THEN HE SAYS HE HAS THE ADEQUACY TO COME INTO THE SENATE AND SAY: THEY DIDN'T USE US THE COURTS.

IT IS OUTRAGEOUS. LET ME TELL YOU ANOTHER STORY. THERE IS A MAN NAMED CHARLIE KUPPER MEN IS THE DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. HE IS JOHN BOLTON'S NUMBER TWO. YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, MR. SCHIFF WANTS YOU TO FORGET. BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER HOW WE GOT HERE. THEY THREATENED HIM. THEY SENT A SUMMONS. MISTER. KUPPER DID EVERYTHING AMERICANS WERE ALLOWED TO DO. HE WAS FORCED TO GET A LAWYER. HE WAS FORCED TO PAY FOR THAT LAWYER. AND HE WENT TO COURT. MISTER. SCHIFF DOESN'T LIKE THE COURTS. HE WENT TO COURT. AND HE SAID, JUDGE, TELL ME WHAT TO DO.

I HAVE OBLIGATIONS THAT FRANKLY RISE TO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS CALLED THE APEX OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. AND THEN I HAVE A SUMMONS FROM MR. SCHIFF. WHAT SHOULD I DO? DO YOU KNOW WHAT MR. DISPLACED? MISTER. KUPPERMAN WENT TO THE JUDGE AND THE HOUSE SAID, IT DON'T MATTER. WE WITHDRAW THE SUMMONS. WE PROMISE NOT TO ISSUE IT AGAIN. AND THEN THEY COME HERE AND ASK YOU TO DO THE JOB THEY REFUSED TO DO FOR THEMSELVES. THEY ASK YOU TO TRAMPLE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. WOULD YOU EVER SUGGEST THAT THE EXECUTIVE COULD DETERMINE FOR HIMSELF WHAT THIS SPEECH OR DEBATE CLAUSE MEAN?

OF COURSE NOT. DID YOU EVER SUGGEST THAT THE CAMERA COULD INVADE THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS? I HOPE NOT. BUT THEY COME HERE AND ASK YOU TO DO WHAT THEY REFUSED TO DO FOR THEMSELVES. THEY HAD A COURT DATE. AND THEY WITHDRAW THE SUMMONS. THEY AVOIDED A DECISION. THEY ASK THEM TO BECOME COMPLICTS IN THIS EVASION OF THE COURTS. IT'S RIDICULOUS. AND WE MUST DECLARE IT FOR WHAT IT IS. OBSTRUCTION? WERE GOING TO COURT? IT IS AN ACT OF PATRIOTISM TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE IF THEY CAN DO IT TO THE PRESIDENCE, THEY CAN DO IT TO ANY OF YOU AND THEY CAN DO IT TO ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THAT IS WRONG.

AND LAWRENCE TRIBE, WHO HAS BEEN ADVISING THEM, I guess you didn't tell them that in the Clinton impeachment trial, he said, it's dangerous to suggest that invoking constitutional rights is impeachable. IT IS DANGEROUS. AND YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S DANGEROUS MR. SCHIFF. SO WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WE HAVE THE HOUSE THAT COMPLETELY PREPARED A PROCESS THAT WE HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE. THEY LEFT THE PRESIDENT OUT. AND BY THE WAY, IT WILL BE MR. DOES SCHIFF GIVE DOCUMENTS? WE ASK FOR DOCUMENTS. WE ASKED HIM FOR DOCUMENTS WHEN CONTRARY TO HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENTS, it turned out that his staff was working with the complainant.

WE SAID, LET'S SEE THE DOCUMENTS. RELEASE THEM TO THE PUBLIC. WE ARE STILL WAITING. So the idea that they would come here and lecture the Senate... By the way, I was surprised to hear: Did you realize that you're on trial? MISTER. NADLER IS PUTTING YOU ON TRIAL. EVERYONE IS ON TRIAL BUT THEM. IT'S RIDICULOUS. IT'S RIDICULOUS. THEY SAID IN THEIR REPORT: WE HAVE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. AND THEY ARE AFRAID TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. THINK ABOUT IT. IT'S COMMON SENSE. OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO ACT WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THEN THEY COME HERE THE FIRST DAY AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT?

WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE. LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. IF I APPEARED IN ANY COURT IN THIS COUNTRY AND SAID JUDGE, MY CASE IS BORING BUT I'M NOT READY TO GO YET. I NEED MORE EVIDENCE BEFORE I CAN PRESENT MY CASE. THEY WOULD KICK ME OUT IN TWO SECONDS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN HERE. IT'S TOO MUCH TO HEAR ALMOST. THE HYPOCRISY OF THE WHOLE THING. AND WHAT ARE AT STAKE. WHAT ARE AT STAKE? THERE ARE ELECTIONS IN ALMOST NINE MONTHS. In a few months, there will be elections. THE SENATORS OF THIS BODY, THE LAST TIME, HAD VERY WISE WORDS.

THEY ARE MADE FROM THE WORDS OF OUR FOUNDERS. A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IS LIKE STEALING AN ELECTION. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE. WE HAVE... TALK ABOUT THE WORST BIRTHDAY NIGHTMARE. IT IS A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY HAVE DELIVERED TO HIS DOOR. IN AN ELECTION YEAR. SOME OF YOU ARE UPSET. WE ARE HERE. AND THEY ARE NOT READY TO GO. AND IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS. AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT TOLERATE IT. I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW. THEY ARE NOT HERE TO STEAL AN ELECTION. THEY ARE HERE TO STEAL TWO ELECTIONS. IT'S BURIED IN THE FINE PRINT OF THE RIDICULOUS ARTICLES OF THE REMEMBERMENT PROCESS.

THEY WANT TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT. THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT. THEY DON'T HAVE THE THINGS TO SAY IT DIRECTLY, BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE HERE TO DO. THEY ARE ASKING THE SENATE TO ATTACK ONE OF THE MOST SACRED RIGHTS WE HAVE AS AMERICANS. THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE OUR PRESIDENT. IN AN ELECTION YEAR. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. NOW, THE REASON WHY IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IS BECAUSE NOBODY EVER THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR OUR COUNTRY, COME OUR CHILDREN, COME OUR GRANDCHILDREN AND TRY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT, TRUMP, A BALLOT.

DENY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON FRAUDULENT RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN SECRET AND WITHOUT RIGHTS. I COULD GO ON AND ON. BUT MY POINT IS VERY SIMPLE. IT'S LONG AGO THAT WE STARTED THIS SO WE COULD FINISH THIS RIDICULOUS CHARADE AND GO HAVE AN ELECTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. DOES THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER GIVE BACK THE REST OF HIS TIME? WE DO IT. THANK YOU. THEY RECOGNIZE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBOATE CERTAIN WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS AND FILES AND REQUESTED IT TO BE READ.

THE SECRETARY WILL READ THE DOCUMENT. THE SENATOR OF NEW YORK, MR. SCHUMER, PROPOSES AMENDMENT NUMBER 1284. IN THE CORRESPONDING PLACE OF THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE, INSERT THE FOLLOWING. SECTION, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES FIVE AND SIX OF THE RULES AS PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN APPEARING IN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ELECT ONE, THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE ISSUE A SUMMONA TO THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF ORDERING HIM TO SUBMIT, DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2019 TO THE PRESENT, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS IN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE HOUSE WHITE, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. , REFERRING TO OR RELATING TO, ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, INCLUDING DOCUMENTS, KEY MEDICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS RELATED TO THE SCHEDULING OF PREP FOUR AND THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALLS ON 21 APRIL AND JULY 25, 2019 AS WELL AS THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 25 WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN NEW YORK.

ALL INVESTIGATIONS, INQUIRIES AND OTHER INQUIRIES RELATING TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING THOSE RELATING IN ANY WAY TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN, NUMBER TWO, HUNTER BIDEN AND ANY OF THEIR ASSOCIATES. THREE, BREEZE AND HOLDINGS LIMITED ALSO KNOWN AS BREEZE MAMA. FOURTH, UKRAINE INTERFERENCE OR PARTICIPATION IN THE 2016 US ELECTIONS. FIFTH, THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE OR SIX, HIGHWAY STRIKE. THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION OF WITHHOLDING, DELAY, FREEZING OR RELEASE OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN AID, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE, THE US AI AND THE FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING MFF.

D, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, NOTES AND OTHER RECORDS CREATED OR RECEIVED BY ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF ROBERT BLAIR, AND OTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS RELATED TO EFFORTS TO REQUEST OR REQUEST TO INDUCE, PERSUAD OR COERCE UKRAINE TO CONDUCT OR ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS. AN OFFER, SCHEDULING OR WITHHOLD OF A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE PRESIDENT OR THREE OF UKRAINE, WITHHOLD ORDISCLOSURE OF MILITARY INFORMATION OR AID TO UKRAINE. E, MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE OR INVOLVING THE WHITE HOUSE RELATING TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN 2019 AND UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION NOT TO ATTEND.

REQUEST VICE PRESIDENT MIKE TEND TO LEAD THE DELEGATION, INSTRUCT VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE NOT TO ATTEND, AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE US DELEGATION. TWO, ​​A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND MAY 23, 2019. WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF, AMONG OTHERS, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS, AMBASSADOR COLD VOELKER AND SECRETARY OF ENERGY, RICK PERRY, AND THE AMBASSADOR OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, GORDAN SONDLAND. AS WELL AS ANY PRIVATE MEETING OR CONVERSATION WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS BEFORE OR AFTER THE LARGER MEETING. THREE, MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND JULY 10, 2019, WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND US GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR KURT VOELKER, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE MEETING IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON BECCA'S OFFICE AND SUBSEQUENT MEETING.

AND FOUR, A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND AUGUST 30, 2019 INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO, AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MARK ESPER. FIVE, A LATER CANCELED PLANNED MEETING IN WARSAW, POLAND ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 1, 2019, BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHICH WAS LATER ATTENDED BY VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE. AND SIX, A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP, VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE, AND MICK MULVANEY ON LIFTING 30 AID FOR UKRAINE. F, MEETINGS, PHONE CALLS OR CONVERSATIONS RELATING TO ANY OCCASION IN WHICH NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS REPORTED CONCERNS TO NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ATTORNEYS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEGAL COUNSEL, JOHN EISENBERG , REGARDING MATTERS RELATING TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE DECISION TO DELAY MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

TWO, ​​THE JULY 10, 2019 MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, CHOOSE THREE, THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25, 2019 CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. FOURTH, MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL. AND FIFTH, THE PRESIDENT'S CALL ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2019 WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. ANY INTERNAL REVIEW OR EVALUATION WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE REGARDING UKRAINE MATTERS FOLLOWING THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE. THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND REFORM COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COLLECTED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE AND THE SCHEDULING OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND ANY REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS BY UKRAINE.

H, THE COMPLAINT FILED BY A WHISTLEBLOWER WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ON OR AROUND AUGUST 12, 2019 TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. I, ALL MEETINGS OR CALLS, INCLUDING REQUESTS OR RECORDINGS OF MEETINGS OR PHONE CALLS, SCHEDULING ITEMS, CALENDAR ENTRIES, WHITE HOUSE VISITOR CHECKS, OR TEXT OR EMAIL USING PERSONAL OR WORK-RELATED DEVICES BETWEEN Or BETWEEN. ONE, CURRENT OR FORMER WHITE HOUSE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND TWO, RUDOLPH W GIULIANI AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, VICTORIA TOM SANDOR AND FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DECISION TO TERMINATE IT IS REFERRED TO OR REMEMBERED BY THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN kyiv.

AND TWO, THE SERGEANT AT ARMS IS AUTHORIZED TO USE THE SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND DELIVER THE SUMMONS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION. MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. MAJORITY LEADER RECOGNIZED. I ASK FOR A SHORT BREAK OF 15 MINUTES BEFORE THE RECOGNIZATION OF THE PARTIES TO DEBATE THE SCHUMER AMENDMENT. THEREFORE, I ASK CONSENT FOR THE SENATE TO BE IN RECESS SUBJECT TO THE PRESIDENT'S CALL. NO OBJECTION, SO GRANTED. WE'RE GOING TO THE RACES IN CAPITOL HILL. WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A BORING DISCUSSION OF THE RULES.

YOU HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED A HUGE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. Let's discuss this with our guests here. FIRST, WE JUST HEARN MINORITY LEADER, SENATOR SCHUMER, INTRODUCE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED RULES THAT REQUIRES THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES TO ISSUE A SUMMONS TO THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, REGARDING EVERYTHING THAT WAS THE MEETING OF FIVE PAGES OF WHAT THEY WANTED. THE LIKELIHOOD, MAJOR GARRETT, THAT THE DEMOCRATS WILL GET WHAT THEY WANT FROM THIS JOE FLACCO ZERO. REPUBLICANS WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT. THEY WILL BE PASSED TO THE TABLE. THAT WILL BE A PROCEDURAL EFFORT MADE BY THE MAJORITY LEADER AND WHEN THAT vote is taken, the Republicans will hold the line and defeat the amendment.

THIS MORNING'S OTHER BIG HEADLINE, WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING INTO THIS WITH EACH PARTY HAVING 24 HOURS TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT. MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL SAYS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE IN TWO DAYS. BEHOLD, HE DID THIS AT APPROXIMATELY 6:00 LAST NIGHT. THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS WENT TO THE WEEKLY LUNCH AND THERE WERE SEVERAL REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO TOLD US, INCLUDING SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS OF MAINE, EDITOR ROB PORTMAN OF OHIO, THAT THEY ASKED FOR CHANGES TO THOSE RULES AND SO HERE, IN HANDWRITTEN FORM AND WE'VE BEEN IN A GRAPH THAT YOU CAN SEE, THE MAJORITY LEADER'S RESOLUTION WAS AMENDED.

IN FACT, NOW WHAT YOU HAVE IS THIS SET OF PRESENTATIONS THAT WILL LAST OVER THREE DAYS. THERE WERE REVIEWS OF MITCH MCCONNELL WHO WE CALLED MIDNIGHT MITCH, WHICH MEANS THAT EVIDENCE WOULD BE SUBMITTED AT MIDNIGHT OR AT 1:00 OR 2:00 IN THE MORNING. THIS WOULD BE MORE THAN THREE DAYS. IT'S ABOUT EIGHT HOURS A DAY. ANOTHER IMPORTANT CHANGE SELECT REGISTRATION PROOF OF THE HOUSE WILL BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE REGISTRATION. THAT WAS NOT PART OF SENATOR MCCONNELL'S ORIGINAL ORGANIZING RESOLUTION. THAT ALSO ENJOYED SOME REPUBLICAN SENATES WHO THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A MOVEMENT THAT, TO PUT AT A DISTANCE, IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A TRIAL, HOW COULD WE NOT AT LEAST ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE?

THEN GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY AT A LATER DATE TO HAVE A VOTE TO DELETE CERTAIN PARTS OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY WANT TO IGNORE OR WHICH THEY DO NOT FIND RELEVANT. WHAT THIS SEEMS TO ME IS SOMETHING I HAVE SEEN FROM MITCH MCCONNELL IN NUMEROUS CASES WHERE THE GOAL IS TO PRESERVE THE MAJORITY OF HIS PROCEDURAL ARCHITECTURE. AND STILL HAS IT. ALL THINGS THAT PROTECT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAVE BEEN PRESERVED BY HAVING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ADDED TO THIS FILE. IT HAS GAVE A LITTLE GROUND TO SOME REPUBLICAN SENATE THAT NEEDED TO SEE THAT GROUND TO DEFEND THAT THIS IS A FAIRER PROCESS.

I THINK WHAT WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTING TODAY WAS THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE ACCUSED A COVER-UP ON THE PART OF THE REPUBLICAN LEADER. THEY HAVE ALREADY RELAXED THE SCHEDULE A LITTLE. AND WE HAVE THE FIRST ROUND IN THIS ADVANCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MANAGERS AGAINST THE WHITE HOUSE. WE HAD ADAM SCHIFF THERE FOR OVER 40 MINUTES ACCORDING TO MY NOTES. 17 COMPLETE SCREENS THAT PROVIDE DETAILS. PRESIDENT THE VIDEO OF THE PRESIDENT SAYS HE WOULD BE HAPPY FOR EVERYONE TO TESTIFY AND FOR THE WHITE HOUSE TO STATE THEIR CASE. HOW WOULD YOU RATE EACH SIDE OF THAT? IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

MOST OF SCHIFF'S ARGUMENT WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL MOTION HEREOF. THE MOTION PRESENTED WAS PROCEDURE. He played the game and gave an opening argument that is politically savvy in the sense that they see him as the biggest audience. ALSO, TO BE FAIR, HE DEFINED THAT IN ALL THE OTHER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE SENATE, WITNESSES WERE CALLED. RIGHT. ALTHOUGH IN THE LAST, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE DEMOCRATS THAT THEY GOT THOSE WITNESSES. I THOUGHT SCHIFF WAS VERY EFFECTIVE. IT WAS INTERESTING THAT THE TONE CHANGED WHEN JAY CYCLO CAME OUT AND HE WAS MORE ENCOURAGED.

IT REFLECTS MORE THINK ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON THIS ISSUE. OR IN THIS TRIAL. BUT WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THE LATEST CHANGES IS THE DEGREE OF LEVERAGE THAT THESE FOUR MODERATE REPUBLICANS HAVE. THEY NEED THOSE VOTES AGAIN IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS GROUP IS GOING TO SHOW THEIR MUSCLE. IT'S BASICALLY GOING TO SAY WE WANT CERTAIN CHANGES AND THEY GOT THEM. SMALL CHANGES BUT AND WHEN ADAM SCHIFF ARGUED NEAR THE END - YOU'RE RIGHT, NORA. HE LEFT WITH HIS INITIAL ARGUMENT. BUT WHEN HE CAME TO THE RULES AND THIS UNDERLYING ORGANIZING RESOLUTION, HE SAID THIS IS THE VOTE.

IF YOU BUILD IT THIS WAY, THE INITIAL ARGUMENTS ARE THE JUDGMENT. THERE WILL BE NO WITNESSES. THERE WILL BE NO MORE DOCUMENTS. AND FOCUS ON THIS. BECAUSE THIS VOTE, AS IT STARTS, SAYS THIS IS WHAT IT WILL END AND IT WILL END FAST. HOW TO MOVE THE CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC BUT CHANGE DIRECTION. THAT IS WHY THE RESOLUTION, WHICH WAS PROPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS, IS SO IMPORTANT. IT WOULD INCLUDE DOCUMENTS FROM MICK MULVANEY, JOHN BOLTON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MIKE MARK ESPER AND VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO I THINK COULD HAVE BEEN CALLED OR SUMMONED IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

THEY HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE. THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T DO IT. I THINK THEY LEGITIMATELY SHOULD ACCEPT SOME CRITICISM FOR THAT. THE QUESTION IS WHAT SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEAR? AND ANY GOOD DECISION MAKING INVOLVES HAVING ALL THE FACTS ON THE TABLE. ANY PROSECUTOR OR ANY GOOD LAWYER WILL TELL YOU THAT EVEN IN A CIVIL TRIAL IT IS IMPORTANT TO GATHER THE FACTS. AND THE REPUBLICANS, THAT WILL BE DIFFICULT. I WANT TO BRING CHIP REID, WHO IS A LAWYER AND COVERED CLINTON'S PERFORMANCE. LET ME ASK YOU. PRESENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT. THE FULL SCREEN THAT SAID ZERO DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

THEY HAD FULL SCREENS WITH PHOTOS OF EVERY WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WHO THE PRESIDENT ORDERED NOT TO WITNESS, HE WAS TRYING TO PUT HIS ARGUMENT ESSENTIALLY ON FULL SCREEN AND THE GRAPHICS WERE NOT JUST FOR THE SENATORS BUT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE CLEAR THAT THEY ARE ALL READY TO FIND THEM, STEP BY STEP, ALSO WITH COMPLETE GRAPHICS AND SCREENS. IN THIS MODERN ERA, YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM, THE 100 SENATORS, ALREADY KNOW IF NOT ALL OF THIS, THEN MOST OF THIS. HIS AUDIENCES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I FORGOT WHO IT WAS ON YOUR PANEL THAT JUST SAID THAT ONE OF THE REASONS SCHIFF WENT STRAIGHT TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE ARGUMENTS IS THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST DAY ACTUALLY. THIS IS WHEN YOU HAVE A BIG AUDIENCE. AT SOME POINT, PROBABLY, IMPEACHMENT FATIGUE IS GOING TO ESTABLISH AND PEOPLE WILL BE CRASHED EYED AFTER HAVING HEARD THESE ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER. THEN YOU NEED THOSE GRAPHICS. YOU NEED SOMETHING TO GET PEOPLE'S ATTENTION AND YOU NEED TO STATE YOUR CASE FROM THE BEGINNING. YOU CAN'T FIND YOURSELF AT A TIME LIKE THIS. YOU SHOULD PRESENT YOUR STRONGEST ARGUMENT ABOVE.

BEN TRACY IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND JOINS US TOO. WE ALSO SAW THE PRESIDENT'S FULL TEAM MEETING. YOUR LEGAL TEAM. THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYER MAKING THE ARGUMENTS TODAY. AND IT'S A GOOD CHANCE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO CALL THE LAST PART OF THAT. THE PRESIDENT WAS AT A DINNER IN DAVOS, SWITZERLAND, WHERE HE ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC FORUM. AFTER LEAVING DINNER, THE PRESIDENT WAS TWEETING, Assuming from the motorcade, Tweeting in all caps "READ THE TRANSCRIPTS." SOMETHING WE HAVE HEARD YOU Tweet BEFORE. A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. THE PRESIDENT MAY BE SITTING IN HIS HOTEL ROOM IN SWITZERLAND AND WATCHING THIS.

WE KNOW FROM THE WHITE HOUSE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S AIDE HAS BEEN RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DURING THE DAY. YOU NOW HAVE FREE TIME TONIGHT TO WATCH THIS SAME IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO THAT. HE HAS MEETINGS TOMORROW IN SWITZERLAND AND WILL QUICKLY RETURN TO WASHINGTON DC TOMORROW EARLY AFTERNOON TO BE IN PLACE FOR THIS. THE REAL QUESTION FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND FOR THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL TEAM IS, NOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO LAST FOR THREE DAYS, COULD YOU HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE IF THIS STARTS AS PLANNED TOMORROW AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL GO IN ON WEDNESDAY , THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE TO START ON SATURDAY AND RETURN ON MONDAY AND TUESDAY.

THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL TEAM WE HAVE SOME SENSE IN THE BACKGROUND CALLS THAT THEY ARE ALLUDING TO THE FACT THAT THEY MAY NOT NEED 24 HOURS. THEIR CASES WERE VERY SIMPLE AND THEY WANTED CAVANAUGH TO BE CONFIRMED. THE PROCESS GAVE A LITTLE BIT AND HE KEPT THE PROCESS TOGETHER. HERE WE SEE SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR. THERE WAS A LOT OF HANDSHAPPING AND SLAPS ON THE BACK. WHILE THE SENATE TAKES A BREAK WE'RE GOING TO GO AWAY, THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE ON A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS AND THEN A FINAL VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE RULES FOR THIS TAX TRIAL.

OUR COVERAGE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SENATE TRIAL WILL CONTINUE ON CBSN. YOU CAN ALSO WATCH IT ON CBSNEWS.COM OR ON THE CBS NEWS APP. I WILL BE BACK WITH UPDATES AS THE NEWS WARRANTS. I'M REENA NINAN IN NEW YORK. CONTINUING WITH CBSN'S SPECIAL REPORT, THE PEACH MINT AL TRIALPRESIDENT TRUMP IS AT BREAK. MITCH McCONNELL INITIATED THE PROCEDURE TO PRESENT A RESOLUTION CONTAINING THE BASIC RULES FOR THE TRIAL, BUT BEFORE DEMOCRATS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, HE SAID HE WOULD REJECT THE MOTIONS FROM ALL COURSES, INCLUDING CALLING WITNESSES. IF AMENDMENTS ARE FILED TO FORCE PREMATURE DECISIONS ON MID-TRIAL ISSUES, I WILL PRESENT SUCH AMENDMENTS AND PROTECT OUR BIPARTIST PRESIDENT.

IF A SENATOR PROPOSES TO ORDER SPECIFIC WITNESSES, I WILL PROPOSE SUCH MOTIONS BECAUSE THE SENATE WILL DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS LATER IN THE TRIAL, JUST LIKE WE DID IN 1999. CHUCK SCHUMER SPOKE SHORTLY AFTER McCONNELL AND SAID HIS HOLOGUES IN CONGRESS RESOLUTION IS NOTHING LESS THAN A NATIONAL DISGRACE. THE McCONNELL RULES APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. IT ASKS THE SENATE TO ACT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, AND MAKES GETTING EVIDENCE AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE. IT COULD REQUIRE THE PRESENTATIONS TO BE MADE AT TWO OR THREE IN THE MORNING, SO THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T SEE THEM.

TODAY, THE ORIGINAL RULES CHANGED SHORTLY AFTER McCONNELL SPOKE ON THE SENATE. THE MAJORITY LEADER PROPOSES TO ALLOW EACH PARTY TO PRESENT OPENING ARGUMENTS FOR 24 HOURS OVER THREE DAYS. ONE ADDITIONAL DAY FOR EACH SIDE. SENATORS WILL HAVE 16 HOURS TO PRESENT WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO BOTH PARTIES. EVIDENCE FROM THE HOUSE WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE FILE. THAT'S A CHANGE FROM THE ACTUAL INITIAL RULES THAT WOULD NOT HAVE AUTOMATICALLY ENTER THOSE DOCUMENTS. ONCE BOTH PARTIES HEAR THE INITIAL ARGUMENTS, SENATORS CAN DECIDE WHETHER TO CALL ADDITIONAL WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS FOR THE TRIAL. WE ALSO HEAR FROM WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, PAT CIPOLLONE.

HE SAID IT IS A TACTIC TO DELAY THE TRIAL. AND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS. WE WILL PROCEED TO QUESTION THE WITNESSES ON SOME OF THE MOST DIFFICULT QUESTIONS THAT WILL COME BEFORE THIS BODY. WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS. WE BELIEVE THAT ONCE YOU HEAR THOSE INITIAL PRESENTATIONS, THE ONLY CONCLUSION WILL BE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. AND THAT THESE ARTICLES OF IMCHARGEMENT DO NOT BEGIN TO COME CLOSER TO THE STANDARD THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, AND IN FACT, THEY THEMSELVES SET FORTH NOTHING BEYOND THOSE ARTICLES IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE ARTICLES ONLY YOU WILL DETERMINE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE.

YOU WILL REMEMBER THE TWO ARTICLES OF ACTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT THAT YOU ARE OBSERVING IS ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THOSE ARTICLES ARE LIKELY TO BEGIN TOMORROW, Assuming the Senate accepts the rules this afternoon. I WANT TO BRING OUR PANEL. THEN TRACY IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND MOLLY IS A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR FOR CBSN. I WANT TO START WITH THE WHITE HOUSE. HAVE WE HEARD THE REACTION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AT THIS TIME? ABOUT AN HOUR AGO THE PRESIDENT LEFT A DINNER IN SWITZERLAND ATTENDING THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. SIX MINUTES AFTER LEAVING DINNER, HE TWEETED READING THE TRANSCRIPTS.

THAT'S A FAMILY TWIT FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT REFERS PEOPLE TO GO BACK AND READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL BETWEEN HIM AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE. THE WHITE HOUSE ASSISTANTS TELL US THAT THEY ARE RECEIVING INFORMATION. THE PRESIDENT IS BACK IN HIS HOTEL. IF YOU WANT, YOU CAN TURN ON CNN INTERNATIONAL OR CBSN AND FOLLOW THIS. THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE YOU CATCHED THE LAST PART OF JAY SEKULOW'S PRESENTATION. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO WATCH MOST OF THIS TRIAL HERE IN THE US MOLLY, THERE WERE CONCESSIONS THAT McCONNELL MADE TODAY. GUIDE US THROUGH THESE AND ARE YOU SURPRISED?

I'M NOT THAT SURPRISED, BECAUSE WHEN I READ THE FIRST RESOLUTION I THOUGHT THAT THIS VARY FROM CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT RULES IN SEVERAL WAYS. NUMBER ONE, THERE WERE ONLY TWO DAYS FOR BOTH PARTIES TO MAKE THEIR STARTING ARGUMENTS AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE A LONG DAY FOR EITHER PARTY AND I WAS SURPRISED THAT THERE WAS ONLY FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE ON WITNESSES. THERE WERE ONLY A FEW CHANGES THAT SEEMED MORE FAVORABLE TO THE WHITE HOUSE. I THOUGHT MITCH McCONNELL LIKED DOING THIS. HE LIKES TO COME IN WITH THE FIRST OFFER, BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT HE HAS TO CONTENT WITH THE MODERATE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE ALWAYS ASKING FOR MORE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS AN EXTRA DAY FOR ARGUMENTS.

THAT WAS THE SAME AS THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. BOTH PARTIES HAD THREE DAYS EACH TO PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS. NOW THEY HAVE THREE DAYS PER PIECE TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENTS AND ALSO THIS TOPIC. I HAD A FEELING, I WAS NOT SURE HOW IT WOULD WORK, BUT IT MAKES SENSE THAT MITCH McCONNELL WAS ALLOWING THAT TO ENTER. AND, AGAIN, WITH THESE FOUR MODERATES THEY HAVE TO PLAY A FUNDAMENTAL ROLE IN A HISTORICAL LEGISLATION. SUSAN COLLINS, LaMARR ALEXANDER -- EXACTLY. MITCH ROMNEY STARTED PLAYING THE ROLE OF JEFF FLAKE BUT MITT ROMNEY BASICALLY ARRIVED IN A DIFFERENT STATE OF COURSE, BUT THEY WERE PHILOSOPHICALLY CLOSE AND IT'S A DIFFERENT STATE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PRESIDENT.

AND DURING KAVANAUGH, AS MAJOR GARRETT SAID, DURING KAVANAUGH'S NOMINATION, THERE WERE THOSE OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO PRESSURED McCONNELL TO LISTEN TO A WITNESS ABOUT GETTING ANOTHER DAY OF INTERVIEWS. THEY ARE THE ONE WHO MADE THAT PUSH AND IN THE END SUSAN COLLINS VOTED FOR KAVANAUGH. JEFF FLAKE VOTED FOR KAVANAUGH. SO AGAIN, MITCH McCONNELL NEEDS EFFORT ON THIS FIRST OFFER, KNOWING HE WILL HAVE TO MODIFY IT A LITTLE BEFORE REACHING THE FINAL RESOLUTION. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. YOU KNOW, MITCH McCONNELL ADDRESSED THE SENATE AND SAID HE'S WILLING TO PRESENT ANYTHING BEFORE TAKING THE APPROPRIATE STEPS, INCLUDING WITNESSES IN THIS SITUATION.

HOW CAN THERE BE A TRIAL IF THERE ARE NO WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE AT THE PLACE? THIS QUESTION IS REMARKABLE. MOLLY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED 21 YEARS AGO AND NOW. 21 YEARS AGO 100 SENATORS AGREED ON THE PROCEDURES. AND THERE WAS AN EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE SENATE MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY LEADERS TO REACH A CONSENSUS. HERE, THE APPROACH WITH MITCH McCONNELL IS TO ALLOW ME TO GET THE MOST AGGRESSIVE OFFER THAT I CAN GET THAT WILL CAPTURE A MINIMUM, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED, WHICH IS 51 REPUBLICAN SENATORS, TO GET THE MOST AGGRESSIVE SET OF RULES.

And he pushed too hard by not allowing any evidence into the impeachment trial from the

begin

ning, and there are a couple of Republican senators who resisted and said that the trial that we are used to as Americans, would see any type of trial. HAVE PROOF. NOW, WE'RE PRESSING FOR THIS TO APPEAR TO THE DRIVING RULES FOR CLINTON, AND THAT WAS HAVING THREE DAYS TO HEAR THESE ARGUMENTS. KEEP THIS IN MIND. WE ARE WATCHING THIS AS OUR AUDIENCE AND ALSO THE SENATORS. BUT I CAN LOOK AT MY PHONE AND I CAN GET UP TO DUST MY NOSE.

SENATORS CANNOT. THEY HAVE TO SIT THERE. AND MITCH McCONNELL SAID GUESS WHAT? SO I'M GIVING BOTH SIDES TWO DAYS A PIECE, THAT COULD MEAN 12 HOUR DAYS SO YOU HAVE TO SIT IN YOUR SEAT AND BASICALLY JUST DRINK A GLASS OF WATER AND YOU CAN'T GET UP TO TAKE A BATHROOM BREAK AND I BELIEVE THEM THEY WERE COME ON, MITCH. I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU A LITTLE OF WHAT ADAM SCHIFF HAD TO SAY IN REFERENCE TO HIS ASSESSMENT OF WHY THEY NEED TO LISTEN TO WITNESSES. WHAT IS THE HARM OF WAITING UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL?

KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE WAY IN MATTER OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES? PLUS IT'S COMPLETELY OTHERWISE, FIRST THE TRIAL, THEN THE EVIDENCE, PLUS THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WOULD INFORM THE QUESTIONS TO THE WITNESSES AND HELP WITH THE INTERROGATION. THE DAMAGE IS THIS. YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO HIDE FOR MOST OR ALL OF THE TRIAL. AND ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS ALREADY OVERWHELMING, THE FULL EXTENT OF THE MISCONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT OR THOSE AROUND HIM MAY NEVER BE KNOWN. WE JUST HEARD FROM ADAM SCHIFF, YOU KNOW, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL CAME IN TODAY AND WE HAD HEARD FROM PAT CIPOLLONE AND JAY SEKULOW AND THEY CAME IN VERY CONFIDENT TODAY.

Reporter: THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE THE VOTES. SO I THINK WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THESE CHANGES TO THE 2 TO 3 DAY RULES, THE WHITE HOUSE IS NOT GOING TO CARE, WHAT THEY CARE ABOUT IS KEEPING THESE REPUBLICANS ON BOARD. SO, IF SMALL CHANGES IN THE RULES MEAN THERE IS NOT A FRACTION OF SENATORS WHO SAY NO, WE DON'T THINK THIS IS FAIR, THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD RATHER SEE A UNITED FRONT. If this keeps everyone together and everyone votes with McConnell and moves these rules forward, the White House feels there is less chance that there will eventually be witnesses or subpoenas for documents in the future.

THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS HOW LONG DOES EACH PART REALLY TAKE TO RELEASE? THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM IS NOTING THAT THEY DO NOT NEED 24 HOURS TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. SO YOU COULD SEE, IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS START TOMORROW, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY, IF THEY TAKE ALL THEIR TIME, IT COULD PRESSURE THE TEAM TO START ON SATURDAY AND FINISH EARLY NEXT WEEK. BY THE ACCOUNT, THIS IS A QUICK TRIAL AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. THEY WANT THIS TO OVER AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. AT THE SAME TIME, WE TALKED ABOUT THE 4 MODERATE REPUBLICANS WHO HAD INFLUENCE. BUT WHAT REALLY MATTERS IS IF THOSE WITNESSES COME IN, IF THERE IS MORE TESTIMONY.

WILL THAT HAPPEN BASED ON THE VOTE COUNT YOU'RE LISTENING TO RIGHT NOW? THE DIFFICULT THING ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION THAT MITCH McCONNELL WROTE COMES TO THE POINT OF THE TEST. AND I SPOKE WRONG BEFORE BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT I HAVE INITIALLY READ, I THOUGHT THAT ALL EVIDENT REGISTRATION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. BUT WHAT THIS SAYS IS THAT ALL THE MATERIALS THAT THE HOUSE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE GATHERED SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE CLERK OF THE SENATE, SO THAT AT ONE POINT IN THIS TRIAL WHEN A MOTION IS FILED TO SEE THOSE DOCUMENTS, THEY WILL BE PRODUCED. SO MITCH McCONNELL ESSENTIALLY SETUP A SITUATION WHERE HE WILL HAVE THE SENATE VOTE ON A MOTION TO SEE EVIDENCE.

SO, THAT GIVES THE MOST VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS A YES VOTE TO SEE MORE EVIDENCE, BUT THE EVIDENCE THEY SAW WAS ALREADY PRODUCED ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. SO, THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURAL TRICKS HERE AND IT'S MORE TO APPEAL TO REPUBLICANS IN THOSE PURPLE STATES LIKE CORY GARDNER WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE TOUGH VOTES IN THE NEXT HOURS. WHEN CHUCK SCHUMER, WE'LL SEE THIS VOTE ON THE VARIOUS EVIDENCE THAT HE WANTS TO BE ADMITTED, BUT HE'S ALSO GOING TO FORCE A VOTE ON WHETHER TO HEAR CERTAIN WITNESSES AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT MITCH McCONNELL IS GOING TO DO IS SAY I WANT TO PRESENT THAT AMENDMENT OR I WANT TO PRESENT HIS MOTION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A REVERSED VOTE.

REPUBLICANS WILL VOTE FOR KILLING THE SCHUMER AMENDMENT AND DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE AGAINST BUT THE VOTE WILL LOOK LIKE THE REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR THE WITNESSES WHEN THEY REALLY WERE NOT. GIVE EVERYONE A LITTLE PROCEDURAL COVER BECAUSE THIS IS NOT JUST THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. MANY OF THESE SENATORS ARE UP FOR RE-ELECTION THIS YEAR AND SIX OF THEM ARE REPUBLICANS IN PURPLE STATES AND THEY HAVE TO GO HOME AND ANSWER FOR THESE VOTES AND PEOPLE LIKE CORY GARDNER ARE ALSO IN THE SPOTLIGHT BECAUSE ONE OF THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE CHAMBER IS FROM DENVER, -- AND THEY WANT TO KEEP THE MAJORITY.

So you know, we heard the president's lawyers lay out the foundation. WHAT ARE YOUR OPINIONS OF THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE DEVELOPING AT THIS MOMENT? I THINK THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO PRESERVE THEIR DEFENSE. THE MAIN TIPS WERE COMPLAINTS ABOUT DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, ALLEGING THAT THEY CLAIM IT HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE AS A PROSECUTOR, A FORMER PROSECUTOR, IF YOU MAKE AN ANALOGY WITH THE GRAND JURY, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE WITH A GRAND JURY , BUT WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT GAME IN A TAX TRIAL.

ONE OF THE THINGS I HEARD HAPPENED WEEKLY, THE CLAIM THAT THE ARTICLES DO NOT ALLEGE CRIMES. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT I HOPE TO BE PRESENTED MUCH STRONGER AND IN MUCH MORE DETAIL. IT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT WOULD LEAD TO A MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLES OF ACTION BEFORE SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS. THEN THE THEORY WOULD BE THAT THE ITEMS ARE DEFECTIVE, THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER PROCEDURES IN THE CASE. AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER IT WOULD BE A WELL-FOUNDED MOTION OR NOT. AND THEN IN THE FINAL ARTICLE, RELATING TO OBSTRUCTION, THEY MADE THE CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES AND HAVE THEM LITIGATED IN THE COURSE.

AND JAY SEKULOW SAID THIS SHOULD HAVE GOED THROUGH THE COURTS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED THERE. I HOPE THIS IS A KEY POINT OF CONTAINMENT AS IT GOES FORWARD. DEMOCRATS ARE IN A DIFFICULT POSITION STANDING IN FRONT OF JUDGE ROBERTS PRESIDENT AND SAYING THEY COULD NOT WAIT TO GO TO COURT AND IT'S A FACT OF LIFE. FEDERAL LITIGATION TAKES A LONG TIME AND THERE ARE AN ELECTION COMING UP IN 10-11 MONTHS. SO THE ARGUMENT DEMOCRATS HAVE TO MAKE HERE IS THAT THEY COULD NOT WAIT. ADAM SCHIFF CAN'T TURN AROUND AND SAY TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, YOU MUST MOVE.

BUT THAT'S THE REAL POLITICS THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE ROOM. DEMOCRATS ARGU THAT PAT CIPOLLONE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REPRESENT THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE IS A WITNESS. Reporter: LET'S GIVE PEOPLE CONTEXT ABOUT THIS. THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT PAT CIPOLLONE, WHO REPRESENTS THE PRESIDENT IN THIS TRIAL, IS SAYING BASED ON THE OCTOBER 8TH LETTER THAT PAT CIPOLLONE SENT TO CONGRESS SAYING WE ARE NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING BECAUSE WE THINK THIS IS A FAKE. THAT IS PART OF THE BASIS OF THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THEY SAY THAT 27 PLAYED A ROLE IN THAT BECAUSE HE SENT THE LETTER.

So, they are looking for documents that can shed light on what was thePresident Trump's interaction with Pat Cipollone. WAS IT THE PRESIDENT WHO SAID TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THIS PROCESS? THEY WANT PAT CIPOLLONE TO PRODUCE THAT. THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONDED WITH A STRONG STATEMENT. HE SAYS DEMOCRATS ARE A COMPLETE JOKE. THEY HAVE NO CASE AND THIS: THE LAST CRITICAL STUN PROVES IT. THE FACT THAT HE HAS NOT TURNED OVER CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IS RIDICRITICAL AND TO IMPLY THAT HE CANNOT REPRESENT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IS ABSURD.

CLEARLY, THE WHITE HOUSE DOES NOT PLAN TO ACCEPT WHAT DEMOCRATS ASK FOR. WE ARE WAITING AND THE SENATE IS ON RECESS. IT'S BEEN ABOUT 15 OR SOMETHING. THEY ARE EXPECTED TO RESUME TAKING THE AMENDMENTS. AND ALSO THE TRIAL, THE RULES FOR THE TRIAL. THERE IS JOHN ROBERTS. LET'S LISTEN. MR. ADAM SCHIFF, YOU HAVE ONE HOUR. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. AT ONE MOMENT I WILL SUBMIT THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATOR TO RESPONSE ON THE AMENDMENT, BUT I WANTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE REPRESENTATIONS ARE FREEZED TO RESPOND TO MY COLLEAGUES' ARGUMENT ON THE RESOLUTION IN GENERAL.

FIRST, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THEY SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION. THEY SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION. THEY MADE NO EFFORT TO DEFEND IT OR TO CLAIM THAT THIS WAS LIKE THE SENATE TRIAL IN THE CLINTON PROCEEDINGS. THEY DID NOT ARGUE THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT HERE BECAUSE OF THIS OR THAT. THEY DIDN'T MAKE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. THEY DID NOT ARGUE THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO TRY THE CASE AND THEN CONSIDER THE DOCUMENTS. THEY DID NOT DISCUSS WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES BECAUSE IT IS INDEFENSIBLE. IT IS INDEFENSABLE. NO TRIAL IN THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN CONDUCTED LIKE THIS.

AND THEN THEY DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. AND THAT SHOULD BE THE MOST DECLARING THING OF THE LAWYER'S ARGUMENT. THEY HAD NO DEFENSE FOR THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEFENSE. THEY COULD NOT DEFEND IT ON THE BASIS OF PRECEDENT OR HISTORY OR TRADITION OR THE BASIS OF THE CONSTITUTION, OR AT ALL. WHAT DID THEY SAY? FIRST, THEY MADE THE REPRESENTATION THAT THE HOUSE CLAIMS THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT EXIST. THAT'S SILLY. NO ONE HERE HAS SUGGESTED THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DOESN'T EXIST, BUT THE INTERESTING THING HERE IS THAT THEY HAVE NEVER CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. NEVER DURING THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION DID THEY SAY THAT A SINGLE DOCUMENT WAS PRIVILEGED OR A SINGLE WITNESS HAD ANYTHING PRIVILEGED TO SAY.

WHY ONLY NOW AND EVEN NOW HAVEN'T WHITE PEOPLE INVOKED IT, WHY ONLY NOW, WHY NOT IN THE HOUSE? BECAUSE TO CLAIM PRIVILEGE, AS THEY KNOW, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD LAWYERS, YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT DOCUMENT, WHAT LINE, WHAT CONVERSATION AND THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO BECAUSE, TO DO THAT, THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO REVEAL THE PROOF OF THEIR GUILT THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T DO THAT INVOCATION OF PRIVILEGE NOW THEY MAKE THE FURTHER ARGUMENT THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO ACT AFTER EXHAUSTING ALL LEGAL REMEDIES AS IF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE HOUSE WILL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO ACT BUT ONLY THEN IT GOES TO COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND THEN TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THEN TO THE SUPREME COURT AND IT IS RETURNED AND IN SIX YEARS.

WHY DID THE FOUNDERS NOT DEMAND THE EXHAUSTATION OF LEGAL REMEDIES? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN THE COURTS. AND THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT WHILE THESE LAWYERS FOR THE PRESIDENT ARE HERE TODAY SAYING THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE COME TO COURT, THEY ARE IN COURT SAYING THAT THE HOUSE CAN'T GO TO COURT. So, I kid you not, other lawyers, maybe not the ones at this table, but other lawyers for the president are saying the opposite of what they are being told today. THEY SAY CONGRESSIVE SUMMONS CANNOT BE ENFORCED. THAT IS NON-JUDICIAL.

YOU CAN NOT DO IT. THE COUNCIL PRESENTS A CASE INVOLVING A DEPUTY TO JOHN BOLTON, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, AND SAYS HE DID WHAT HE SHOULD DO. HE WENT TO COURT TO FIGHT WITH US. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TOOK THE POSITION THAT THEY CAN'T DO THAT. THEN THESE LAWYERS SAY YOU SHOULD AND THESE LAWYERS SAY YOU SHOULD NOT. THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Curiously, while DR. THE GOVERNMENT WENT TO COURT AND THEY APPLATED HIM FOR DOING THAT, HIS BOSS, JOHN BOLTON, NOW SAYS THERE'S NO NEED TO GO TO COURT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. HE IS WILLING TO COME AND TALK TO YOU.

HE IS WILLING TO COME AND WITNESS AND TELL YOU WHAT HE KNOWS. THE QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT TO HEAR IT? DO YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO SOMEONE WHO WAS AT THE MEETINGS, SOMEONE TO DESCRIBE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID? THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN MULVANEY. AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND. DO YOU WANT TO ASK THEM WHY IT WAS A DRUG DEAL OR WHY PEOPLE TOLD THEM TO TALK TO THE LAWYERS? YOU MUST WANT TO KNOW. THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW. THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW. CAN YOU KEEP THE OATH YOU HAVE MADE TO BE IMPARTIAL AND NOT KNOW IT?

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN. NOW, THEY ALSO MADE AN ARGUMENT AND YOU WILL HEAR MORE LATER FROM THE PROFESSOR THAT WELL ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT A IMPACTABLE CRIME. IT'S INTERESTING THAT THEY HAD TO GO OUT OF THE REALM OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS TO A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER TO PRESENT THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO RELIABLE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT WOULD DO IT. Indeed, THE ONE WHO CALLED THE HOUSE HAS SAID THE OPPOSITE. THERE'S A REASON WHY JONATHAN TURLEY IS NOT SITTING AT THE TABLE, AND IT'S BECAUSE HE'S NOT SUPPORTING HIS ARGUMENT. SO THEY WILL QUOTE HIM FOR ONE THING BUT IGNORE HIM FOR THE OTHER.

NOW THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS TRANSPARENT AND COULD HAVE DENIED EVERY REQUEST BUT HE DELIVERED DOCUMENTS. THE DOCUMENT ON THE CALLS FOR JULY 25 AND APRIL 21. Let's face it, he was forced to release the record of the July 25 call when he got caught. WHEN A COMPLAINT FILED A COMPLAINT AND WE OPENED AN INVESTIGATION THEY FORCED HIM BECAUSE THEY CAUGHT HIM. YOU GET NO CREDIT FOR TRANSPARENCY WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT. AND MOREOVER, WHAT IS REVEALED AND THAT CLEARLY IS CONDEMNATION. NOW THEY POINT OUT THE ONLY OTHER RECORD HE HAS RELEASED AND WHICH IS INTERESTING. THAT'S JUST A CONGRATULATIONAL CALL, BUT THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED TO RAISE THE TOPIC OF CORRUPTION.

In fact, in the readout of that call, the White House misleadingly said that was the case. BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE SEEN THE FILE WE SEE THAT HE DID NOT. And, despite the attorney's assertion in the trial brief that he raised the issue of corruption in the July 25 call, that does not appear in either conversation. AND BECAUSE? BECAUSE THE ONLY CORRUPTION HE CARE ABOUT WAS THE CORRUPTION HE COULD HELP CAUSE. NOW, MR. PAT CIPOLLONE STATES THAT REPUBLICANS WERE NOT EVEN ALLOWED IN DEPOSITIONS HELD IN THE HOUSE. NOW, I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT PAT CIPOLLONE WOULD MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT.

I WOULD LET HIM MAKE THAT ACCUSATION AGAINST OTHERS. BUT I'LL TELL YOU THIS, HE'S WRONG. IT IS WRONG. ALL REPUBLICANS ON THE THREE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEES WERE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATEMENTS. MORE THAN THAT, THEY HAD THE SAME TIME AS US. THEY SHOW ME ANOTHER PROCEDURE, ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL OR OTHER IMPEACHMENT THAT HAD THAT TYPE OF ACCESS FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY. THERE WERE DEPOSITIONS AT CLINTON AND NIXON'S PERFORMANCES. THEN THEY WOULD SAY SECRET PROCESS BUT THEY WERE ALSO THE SAME PRIVATE DEPOSITIONS IN THESE OTHER IMPEACHMENTS. FINALLY A COUPLE LAST POINTS. THEY ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED ON THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY MY COLLEAGUE, CHAIRMAN NADLER, TO HAVE HIS LAWYER PRESENT.

THAT'S JUST WRONG TOO. I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST THEY ARE DELIBERATELY MISLEADING HERE, BUT IT'S WRONG. YOU HAVE ALSO HEARD MY FRIENDS AT THE OTHER TABLE ATTACK ME AND PRESIDENT NADLER. I WON'T ANSWER THEM BUT I WILL SAY THIS, THEY MAKE AN IMPORTANT POINT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT THE POINT I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE. WHEN YOU HEAR THEM ATTACK THE HOUSE MANAGERS, WHAT YOU'RE REALLY HEARING IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT. WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION AND HOW PAINTLY UNFAIR IT IS. WE DON'T WANT TO SPEAK BACKWARDS, IT IS TO HAVE A TRIAL AND THEN ASK FOR WITNESSES.

WE WILL ATTACK THE DIRECTORS BECAUSE PERHAPS WE CAN DISTRACT YOU FOR A MOMENT FROM WHAT IS BEFORE YOU. PERHAPS IF WE ATTACK THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEY WILL THINK ABOUT THEM INSTEAD OF THE PRESIDENT'S BLAME. YOU WILL HEAR MORE OF THAT AND EVERY TIME YOU HEAR THEM ATTACK THE HOUSE MANAGERS I WANT YOU TO ASK YOURSELF WHAT ISSUE ARE YOU TRYING TO DISTRACT ME FROM? WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM THAT ARISED BEFORE THIS? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DIFFER MY ATTENTION FROM? Why don't they have a better argument to make on the merits? FINALLY MR. PAT CIPOLLONE ASKED WHY ARE WE HERE?

I WILL TELL YOU WHY WE ARE HERE. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO COERCE AN ALLY AT WAR WITH AN ADVERSARY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA, HE USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID THAT YOU APPROPRIATE AND WE APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND AN ALLY AND DEFEND US, BECAUSE IT IS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY TOO. AND BECAUSE? TO FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION? THAT'S DUMB AND YOU KNOW IT. He withheld that money, and even refused to meet him in the Oval Office, the president of Ukraine, because he wanted to force Ukraine to participate in these bogus investigations of his opponent, who was terrified of defeating him in the next election.

THATS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. YOU MEAN IT'S FINE? HIS REPORT SAYS HE IS FINE. IN ARTICLE 2 WE HEARD THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. YOU MEAN IT'S FINE? THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT EVERY FUTURE PRESIDENT CAN TAKE OFFICE AND DO THE SAME THING. WE ARE PREPARED TO SAY YOU MARK THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE. I NOW YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE LOFGREN. MR. PRESIDENT OF THE JUDGE, SENATORS, ATTORNEY OF THE PRESIDENT. THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORTS SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD ENSURE A FAIR AND LEGITIMATE TRIAL BASED ON A COMPLETE EVIDENT RECORD. THE SENATE CAN REMEDY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UNPRECEDENTED COVER-UP BY TAKING A DIRECT STEP.

YOU CAN REQUEST THE KEY PROOF THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS IMPROPERLY BLOCKED. SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT DOES PRECISELY THAT. THE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES A SUPPORT FOR WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. THESE DOCUMENTS FOCUS ON THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN TO STRENGTHEN UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT AND INTERFERE IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS. THE DOCUMENTS WILL REVEAL THE EXTENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE COORDINATION WITH PRESIDENT AGENTS LIKE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY GIULIANI. WHO PUSHED THE PRESIDENT THE SO-CALLED DRUG DEAL AGAINST UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. THE DOCUMENTS WILL ALSO SHOW US HOW KEY PLAYERS ON THE WHITE HOUSE SIDE, SUCH AS THE WHITE HOUSE IS THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF AND HIS DEPUTY, HELPED ESTABLISH THE DEAL BY EXECUTING A FREEZE ON ALL MILITARY AID AND WITHHOLDING A PROMISED VISIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

HOME. THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE FILES OF PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE OPPOSED THIS SCHEME, SUCH AS AMBASSADOR BOLTON. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TAX CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS WILL BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THE DOCUMENTS OBJECTIVES OF SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT WILL PROVIDE MORE CLARITY AND CONTEXT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OUTLINE. THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS THE PRESIDENT FROM HIDING EVIDENCE AS HE HAS PREVIOUSLY TRIED TO DO. THE HOUSE SUBMISSIONED THESE DOCUMENTS AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION, BUT THE PRESIDENT COMPLETELY REJECTED THE BUS AND EVERY DOCUMENT SUBMISSION FROM THE HOUSE. As powerful as our evidence is and, make no mistake, it overwhelmingly proves his guilt, we did not receive a single document from any executive branch agency, including the White House itself.

RECENT REVELATIONS FROM PRESS REPORTS AND OTHER WITNESSES AS TRAN39 HOW RELEVANT THESE DOCUMENTS AND WHY THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SO DESPERATE TO HIDE THEM AND HIS MISCONDUCT FROM CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. A TRIAL WITHOUT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL. IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR YOU SENATORS TO ACT AS JUDGES TO BE DEPRIVED OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S OFFENSES WHEN YOU ARE JUDGING THESE MORE SERIOUS CHARGES. IT WOULD ALSO BE UNFAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHO STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD PRESENT ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS USED IN ALL TRIAL, FOR ONE SIMPLE REASON.

AS THE STORY GOES, THE DOCUMENTS DON'T LIE. THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDE OBJECTIVE INFORMATION IN REAL TIME ON THE EVENTS INVESTIGATED. THE NEED FOR SUCH EVIDENCE IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. OVER 200 YEARS OF SENATE PRACTICE MADE CLEAR THAT DOCUMENTS ARE GENERALLY THE FIRST AGENDA. THEY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE IN THE PRESENTATION OF WITNESSES IN LARGE VOLUME, TO ENSURE THAT THE SENATE HAS THE EVIDENCE IT NEEDS TO EVALUATE THE CASE. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SENATE TRIAL HAS NEVER BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS SENT BY THE HOUSE. THE SENATE, THROUGHOUT ITS EXISTENCE, HAS EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS CLEAR RULES OF PROCEDURE TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF A TRIAL.

WE DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHAT THE DOCUMENTS WILL SAY. WE SIMPLY WANT THE TRUTH. WHATEVER THAT TRUTH IS. LIKE THIS, LIKE THIS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THEY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, AND SO SHOULD EVERYONE IN THE HOUSE, REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION. THERE ARE KEY REASONS WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY. WE WILL BEGIN BY REVIEWING THE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND I WILL BRIEF YOU ON THE HOUSE'S EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE GATHERED BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION'S CATEGORICAL COMMITMENT TO CONCEAL ALL EVIDENCE AT ANY COST AND WE WILL ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC NEED FOR THESE DOCUMENTS CITED FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

YOUI WILL SAY WHY THEY ARE NEEDED NOW, NOT AT THE END OF THE TRIAL TO ENSURE A COMPLETE AND FAIR TRIAL BASED ON A COMPLETE EVIDENT RECORD. SOME HAVE INCORRECTLY SUGGESTED THAT THE SENATE IS LIMITED ONLY TO EVIDENCE GATHERED BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROVED ITS ACTION RADICALS. OTHERS HAVE SUGGESTED, ALSO INCORRECTLY, THAT IT WOULD BE STRANGE FOR THE SENATE TO ISSUES SUMMONS. THESE CLAIMS HAVE NO HISTORICAL LEGAL SUPPORT. OVER THE PAST TWO CENTURIES, THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT ITS ONLY POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO TRY ALL PROCEEDINGS REQUIRES THE SENATE TO SIT AS A COURT OF PROCEEDINGS AND HOLD A TRIAL.

IN FACT, THE FOUNDERS ASSIGNED SOLE AUTHORITY ONLY TWICE IN THE CONSTITUTION. FIRST, GIVE THE HOUSE SOLE AUTHORITY TO ACT AND SECOND, GIVE THE SENATE AUTHORITY TO ATTEMPT THAT ACTION. IF THE FOUNDERS HAD INTENDED THE SENATE TO SERVE AS SOME KIND OF APPELLATE BODY, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO. BUT NOT. INSTEAD OF WRITE THIS. ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3, THE SENATE SHALL ONLY HAVE THE POWER TO TRY ALL ACTIONS. THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS RECEIVED RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, AND IN FACT, THE SENATE'S OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NEW EVIDENCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. THE 15 TAX TRIAL IN THE FULL SENATE WERE CONSIDERED NEW EVIDENCE.

LET'S LOOK AT EXAMPLES THAT SHOW THAT THE SENATE TAKES NEW EVIDENCE IN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THE FIRST TAX TRIAL IN 1868 AGAINST ANDREW JOHNSON ALLOWED THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO SPEND THE FIRST TWO DAYS OF THE TRIAL PRESENTING NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IT WAS THE SAME AT JOHN PICKERING'S TRIAL IN 1804, NEW PAPERS WERE FILED ALMOST A WEEK BEFORE THE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE THEIR INITIAL STATEMENT AND THEN DURING THE TRIAL. AND, AS MR. MENTIONED BEFORE. ADAM SCHIFF, IN 2010 THE TAX TRIAL INCLUDED SEVEN MONTHS OF PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY AND 6,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT TRIAL AFTER SUCH EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSED, THE SENATE HOLDED HIS TRIAL.

PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE DID NOT INVOLVE SUMMONS FOR DOCUMENTS. WHAT WAS THAT FOR? BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY PRODUCED A HUGE KIND OF DOCUMENTS. THE COUNCIL DELIVERED TO CONGRESS ABOUT 90,000 PAGES OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS GATHERED DURING THEIR YEARS OF RESEARCH AND REMEMBERING, AS A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, ACCESSING THE FORD BUILDING AND LOOKING AT THE BOXES OF DOCUMENTS. BUT, EVEN WITH ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS, THE CLINTON TRIAL INCLUDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE AND THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES. THE CLINTON TAX DEAL ALSO SHOWS HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REFUSAL TO SUBMIT RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSIONAL SUMMONS IS DIFFERENT THAN PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS.

DIFFERENT FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON AND JOHNSON AND EVEN NIXON. IN SUMMARY, NO PRESIDENT HAS CATEGORICALLY REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. NO PRESIDENT HAS GIVEN A GENERAL DIRECTION TO HIS ADMINISTRATION NOT TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES. THESE ARE THE PRECEDENTS ON WHICH THE SENATE SHOULD TRUST. THEY MUST ISSUE A SUMMONS FOR DOCUMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCEEDING SO THAT THIS BODY, THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE PRESIDENT CAN RELY ON THOSE DOCUMENTS IN PRESENTATIONS AND DELIBERATIONS. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO REQUEST AND RECEIVE DOCUMENTS AFTER THE PARTIES PRESENT THEIR CASES. NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT.

So why is the amendment necessary to prevent President Trump from continuing his adamant commitment to hiding evidence? IN THIS CASE THE HOUSE SEEKED DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. WHY DO WE HAVE THEM? IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TRY, IT'S BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO GIVE THEM TO US. THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM APPEARS TO BELIEVE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS PERMITTED TO REFUSE TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS PRIVILEGED OR NOT. APPARENTLY THEY BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. OUR CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHES A DEMOCRACY WITH A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE, AND CERTAINLY NOT THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE THE LAW.

EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON PRODUCED OVER 30 TRANSCRIPTS OF WHITE HOUSE RECORDINGS AND KNOWS ABOUT MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT. HERE, EVEN BEFORE THE HOUSE INITIATED THE INVESTIGATION THAT LED TO THIS TRIAL, PRESIDENT TRUMP REJECTED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS TO USE ITS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE HIS ACTIONS. HE ASSURED THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION IS FIGHTING ALL SUMMONS, PROCLAIMING I TOO HAVE AN ARTICLE, OR I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. HERE'S WHAT HE SAID. THEN I ALSO HAVE AN ARTICLE, WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. EVEN AFTER THE HOUSE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN UKRAINE, HE CONTINUED HIS OBSTRUCTION, AS OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2019, THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEES MADE 2 ATTEMPT TO VOLUNTARILY OBTAIN DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO WORK FRANKLY, OR EVEN RESPOND, WITH THE HOUSE COMMITTEES. ON OCTOBER 4, THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT REFORM COMMITTEE SENT A SUMMONS TO ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, THIS TIME FORCING HIM TO SUBMIT WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS BY OCTOBER 18. THE ATTORNEY SENT A LETTER TO SPEAKER PELOSI EXPLAINING THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS PARTISAN INVESTIGATION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN AN INVESTIGATION THAT HE DIDN'T LIKE. TEN DAYS LATER, ON OCTOBER 18, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SENT A LETTER TO THE HOUSE CONFIRMING THAT HE WOULD CONTINUE WITH STONEWALL.

THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYER AGAIN STATES THAT THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE. THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 SAYS THAT THE HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO ACT, JUST AS ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3, THE SENATE HAS THE SOLE POWER TO TRY. PARTICIPATION IN A PROPERLY AUTHORIZED CONGRESSIVE INVESTIGATION IS NOT OPTIONAL. IT IS NOT UP TO THE PRESIDENT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT. THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER TO ACTION AND GIVES THE SENATE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL ACTIONS. THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT LIKE BEING IMPACTED. BUT IT IS THE PRESIDENT, NOT CONGRESS, WHO DECIDES WHEN IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURES ARE APPROPRIATE, THEN THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT HAS NO POWER.

IF THEY LET HIM BLOCK EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO COVER UP HIS CRIMES, THEN THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT WILL TRULY MAKE NO SENSE. WITH ALL THE IVAN AND FORWARD ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE HEARD THE PHRASE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. THE RESIDENCE LAWYERS KEEP SAYING IT. THEY TALK ABOUT JUSTIFYING HIDE THE TRUTH AND WITHHOLDING INFORMATION. BUT THAT'S A DISTRACTION. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES AND THE UTH IS MENTIONED BY ADAM SCHIFF, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT ONCE ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. NOT EVEN ONCE. IT WAS NOT THE REASON GIVEN BY MR.

PAT CIPOLLONE FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH SUMMONS. IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFERED NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE. HERE IS THE TRUTH. PRESIDENTS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, JUDGES, AND THE SUPREME COURT HAVE RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT OUR NATION'S HISTORY THAT CONGRESS'S INVESTIGATIVE POWER IS AT ITS MAXIMUM DURING TAX PROCEEDINGS. ITS POWERS, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE A BARRIER TO GIVING AN ABSOLUTE SECRET TO COVER UP EVIL ACTS, IF IT WERE, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WOULD SEE ITS POWER DISAPPEAR. WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON TRIED THAT ARGUMENT BY REFUSING TO SUBMIT RECORDINGS TO PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT REPRODUCED IT DEEPLY.

THE SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST THEM UNANIMOUSLY. THE HOUSE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE VOTED FOR HIM TO BE IMPECIATED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. IT WOULD BE REMARKABLE FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO DECLARE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR NATION'S HISTORY, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS LEGITIMATE. AND IT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY FOR THE SENATE TO REFUSE TO REQUEST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAS YET TO CLAIM ANY PRIVILEGE TO JUSTIFY WITHHOLDING DOCUMENTS. THERE IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT. THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.

THE WHITE HOUSE IS HIDING DOCUMENTS INVOLVING OFFICIALS WHO HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE KEY EVENTS AT THE CENTER OF THIS TRIAL. THIS IS NOT JUST AN ASSUMPTION. WE KNOW THESE DOCUMENTS EXIST BECAUSE OF THE WITNESSES WHO STATED AT THE HOUSE AND BECAUSE OF OTHER PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF DOCUMENTS. WE REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MUST SEND TO THE SENATE. THEY INCLUDE, AMONG OTHER DOCUMENTS, RELATING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS WITH RUDY GIULIANI, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND OTHERS. PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ILLEGAL WITHHOLDING OF $391 MILLION MILITARY AID. CONCERNS WHICH WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS REPORTED TO THE LEGAL COUNSEL IN REAL TIME.

THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO WITHDRAW AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH FROM UKRAINE. THE FIRST SET OF DOCUMENTS THEY SHOULD OBTAIN ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MEDICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WOULD INCLUDE THE PHONE CALLS ON APRIL 21 AND JULY 25, AS WELL AS THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN NEW YORK . WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT NSC OFFICIALS PREPARED TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT IN PREPARATION FOR BOTH CALLS WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT. THEY WERE ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS REFLECTED BY THE VOTES OF CONGRESS AS WELL AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ITSELF. THEY DID NOT INCLUDE ANY MENTION OF THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTION, INTERFERENCE OR INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUESTED ON THE JULY 28 CALL.

HERE IS A CLIP OF THE LIEUTENANT COLONEL EXPLAINING HOW THE PRESIDENT IGNORED POINTS ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS THAT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF BOTH CONGRESS AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. IF I MAY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL ON APRIL 21, THAT IS THE FIRST CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. DID YOU PREPARE TALKING POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT DURING THAT CALL? YES, I DID IT. DOES THAT INCLUDE THE TALKING POINTS WITH UKRAINE? YES. WAS THAT SOMETHING YOU WAS SUPPOSED TO PLANT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? THEY WERE AUTHORIZED THROUGH THE STAFF OR THE PRESIDENT, YES. THE MATERIALS SUPPLIED FOR THE JULY 25 CALL THAT YOU MENTIONED ARE VERY RELEVANT.

THEY WERE NOT RELATED TO THE FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES OF THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATION. AND THEY SHOW THAT HE SERVED THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTEREST AT THE EXPENSE OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. THESE DOCUMENTS ALSO INCLUDE HANDWRITTEN NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS GENERATED BY WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS DURING CALLS AND MEETINGS. WE KNOW FOR EXAMPLE THAT MR. MORRISON, JENNIFER WILLIAMS ALL TESTIFIED THAT THEY TOOK CONTEMPORARY HANDWRITTEN NOTES DURING THE JULY 25 CALL. MISS WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL DENMAN TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MADE AN EXPLICIT REFERENCE THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEMORANDUM THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC.

HERE IS A CLIP OF HIS TESTIMONY. YOU BOTH REMEMBER THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THAT CONVERSATION RAISED THE TOPIC OR MENTIONED VERISM, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. CORRECT. AND IT STILL DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE CALL LOG THAT HAS BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. CORRECT. WHY DO YOU NEED DOCUMENTS GENERATED AFTER CALLS AND MEETINGS? They would clarify how they were perceived in the White House and, for example, John Bolton was not on the 25th call, but was apparently informed of its contents afterwards. HIS REACTION ONCE INFORMED WOULD BE USEFUL IN UNDERSTANDING TO WHAT EXTENT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTION DIVERTED FROM AMERICAN POLITICS AND AMERICAN SECURITY INTERESTS.

THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE SENATE MUST OBTAIN AND THEY RELATE TO CRITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS AGENTS repeatedly asked Ukrainian officials to announce. THESE DOCUMENTS ABOUT EFFORTS TO PRESSURE ON UKRAINE, TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE DECISION TO SUSPEND MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE. IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO EVALUATE THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT. FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS A FIRST-HAND WITNESS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER. REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT. SUPERVISED ALL STAFF OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. PUBLIC REPORTS INDICATE THAT JOHN BOLTON IS A VARIOUS NOTE TAKER AT EVERY MEETING.

FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY WE KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON ORGANIZED THE MEETING ON JULY 10, 2019 IN WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT THE PROMISED MEETING WOULD BE SCHEDULED IF THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE ANNOUNCED. WE KNOW THAT BOLTON WAS INFORMED ABOUT THIS MEETING IMMEDIATELY AFTER WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE HAD A DEAL WITH MICK MULVANEY TO SCHEDULE THE PROMISED MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE IF UKRAINE ANNOUNCED INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS. WE ALSO KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON PARTICIPATED IN THE PRESIDENT'S CONFERENCE ON A PRESIDENTIAL DECISION MEMORANDUM IN AUGUST, WHICH REFLECTS THE INTER-AGENCY CONSENSUS OPINION OFTHAT THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSESSMENTS WAS VITAL TO AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY, SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS HAD APPROVED, APPROPRIATE.

SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT HAD SIGNED. PRESS REPORTS INDICATE THAT HE WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING IN LATE AUGUST WHERE HE, SECRETARY POMPEO AND SECRETARY ESPER ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE AID. AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS COME forward and PUBLICLY CONFIRMED THAT HE WITNESSED IMPORTANT EVENTS. BUT, IT ALSO HAS NEW EVIDENCE THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN YET. IF WE KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN OUT YET, WE SHOULD ALL WANT TO HEAR IT NOW BEFORE AMBASSADOR BOLTON TESTIFIES. WE MUST OBTAIN DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS RELATING TO YOUR TESTIMONY, INCLUDING YOUR NOTES, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN MEETINGS RELATED TO UKRAINE THAT WOULD HELP EVALUATE YOUR TESTIMONY.

THE EVIDENCE IS NOT RESTRICTED ONLY TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON. DURING HIS TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATED THAT I HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF MY PHONE RECORDS. ú THE SAI LAWYERS HAD ALSO REPEATEDLY REQUESTED THESE MATERIALS. HE SAID THE MATERIALS WOULD HELP REFRESH HIS MEMORY. WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT MATERIAL. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO WITNESSED THAT HE EXCHANGED SEVERAL EMAILS WITH SENIOR OFFICIALS LIKE MICK MULVANEY ABOUT HIS EFFORTS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED. HERE IS HIS TESTIMONY. THIRD, LET ME SAY PRECISELY BECAUSE WE DID NOT THINK WE WERE ENGAGING INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR, WE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT THE PEOPLE MAKING THE RELEVANT DECISIONS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT KNEW THE IMPORTANT DETAILS OF OUR EFFORTS.

THE SUGGESTION THAT WE WERE ENGAGED IN SUMA IRREGULAR OR PINAROMA DIPLOMACY IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I HAVE NOW IDENTIFIED CERTAIN EMAILS AND MESSAGES FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT PROVIDE CONTEMPORARY SUPPORT FOR MY VIEW. THESE EMAILS SHOW THAT LEADERS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE WHITE HOUSE WERE INFORMED ABOUT UKRAINE'S EFFORTS FROM MAY 23, 2019 UNTIL THE SECURITY AID WAS RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019. THESE EMAILS, AMONG OTHERS, ARE IN THE POSSESSION -- THESE EMAILS REFERRED TO IN THIS TESTIMONY ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE WHITE HOUSE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND EVEN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AS OFFICIALS OF THE THREE ENTITIES COMMUNICATE TOGETHER.

DURING HIS TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DESCRIBED IT LIKE THIS. EVERYONE WAS INFORMED, IT WAS NOT A SECRET. THEREFORE, THESE EMAILS ARE IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PLAN. REQUEST FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS NOT CLEARED TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS. THE SENATE SHOULD ALSO OBTAIN THE WHITE HOUSE RECORDS RELATING TO THE PRIVATE WHITE HOUSE AGENTS WHO ACTED ON THEIR BEHALF IN UKRAINE, INCLUDING RUDY GIULIANI, -- WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS HAD MADE CLEAR THAT MR. GIULIANI, A FREQUENT VISITOR TO THE WHITE HOUSE WHO ALSO RECEIVED AND MADE FREQUENT CALLS TO THE WHITE HOUSE, WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT TO PRESSURE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO ANNOUNCE RESEARCH THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY AND CLINICALLY.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE LETTER OF MAY 10 FROM MR. GIULIANI TO PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY, AS SHOWN IN THIS SLIDE, SHOWS THAT HE WAS ACTING AS A PERSONAL ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT. HE REQUESTED A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT-ELECT AND TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY MISS TENZING, WHO WAS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS MATTER. THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT HE WAS COLLABORATING WITH THEM IN THIS EFFORT. THE SENATE MUST OBTAIN THE MINUTES OF THE WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS, OF THE CALLS INVOLVING MR. GIULIANI OR MISS TENZING OR MR. FROM GENOA. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE WAS INVOLVED IN MR.

GIULIANI'S EFFORTS TO RECOVER UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT WANTED. THE FILES WOULD SHOW HOW THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL POLITICAL AGENDA BECAME MORE IMPORTANT THAN POLICIES IN HELPING AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY CAN, CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO HIDE EVIDENCE, ENSURE THAT THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WOULD COVER THESE DOCUMENTS, BUT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CANNOT PROTECT EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE OR THE PARTICIPATION OF HIS ASSISTANTS OR THEIR LAWYERS IN CORRUPTED SCHEMES. WE DO NOT REQUEST DOCUMENTS THAT REFLECT LEGITIMATE LEGAL ADVICE. YOU NEED DOCUMENTS ABOUT YOUR ACTIONS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENT.

THERE IS A SET OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE THAT DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE PRESIDENT'S ILLEGAL DECISION TO WITHHOLD $391 MILLION ALLOCATED BIPARTISAN DOLLARS TO HELP UKRAINE. WITNESSES HAVE STATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED THE AID TO BE SUSPENDED DESPITE THE UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS OF HIS AGENCIES THAT IT SHOULD BE RELEASED. ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, HIS ACTION VIOLATED THE LAW. ON JANUARY 16, 2020, THE GAO, AN INDEPENDENT WATCHMAN, ISSUED A LEGAL OPINION CONCLUDING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATED THE LAW WHEN HE WITHHELD SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. THEY SAID THAT THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN POLITICAL PRIORITIES FOR THOSE THAT CONGRESS ENACTED INTO LAW.

OMB WITHHELD FUNDS FOR A POLICY REASON THAT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT. THE HOLD WAS NOT A PROGRAMMABLE DELAY, THEREFORE, WE CONCLUDE THAT OMB VIOLATED THE ICA. THE FACT THAT THE AID FREEZING ACTION HE USED TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS HE WANTED WAS AGAINST NOT ONLY THE OFFICIAL CONSENSUS OF HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION, BUT ALSO AGAINST THE LAW AND WAS TO HELP HIMSELF. THAT HELPS SHOW THAT THESE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN FOR THE PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. WHEN THIS TESTIMONY IN PUBLIC INFORMATION MADE CLEAR THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A SIGNIFICANT BODY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THESE KEY ASPECTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S OUTLINE.

SOME OF THESE DOCUMENTS DISCOVER THE PLANNING OF THE FREEZE OF THE PRESIDENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED IN JUNE THAT MR. MULVANEY EMAILS HIS CHIEF ADVISOR, MR. BLAIR. DO WE EVER FIND OUT ABOUT THE MONEY FOR UKRAINE AND IF WE CAN HOLD IT? THIS SHOWS THAT MR. MULVANEY WAS IN CONTACT BY EMAIL WITH HIS ASSISTANTS ABOUT THE ISSUES BEING INVESTIGATED AS PART OF THIS ESSENTIAL AGREEMENT. IT TELLS US THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN POSSESSION OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT GO TO THE HEART OF THE CHARGES BEFORE YOU. THE SENATE SHOULD ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, AMBASSADOR BOLTON SAID IT WAS IN THE INTEREST OF AMERICA.

THE SENATE SHOULD REVIEW THE VERY RELEVANT DOCUMENT, WHICH REFLECTS REAL-TIME CLAIMS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SENIOR AIDE, THAT UKRAINIAN AID WAS IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO DELAY THE AID . THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDES AFTER THE FACT JUSTIFICATIONS TO TRY TO OVERCOME LEGAL PROBLEMS IN THE ANONYMOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE FREEZING OF CRANE ASSISTANCE. WE KNOW THESE DOCUMENTS EXIST. FOR EXAMPLE, ON JANUARY 3, 2020, OMB STATED IN A LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES THAT IT HAD DISCOVERED 20 RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS, CONSISTING OF 40 PAGES. MIRROR EMAILS BETWEEN WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL ROBERT BLAIR AND OMB OFFICIAL UNCLE DUFFY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE FREEZING OF UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

OMB WILL NOT RELEASE THEM IN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWSUIT. THEY HAVE REFUSED TO PRESENT THESE DOCUMENTS BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, IN RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE. THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTED THAT A CONFIDENTIAL WHITE HOUSE REVIEW OF PRESIDENT ROUHANI'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS REVEALING GREAT EFFORTS TO GENERATE JUSTIFICATION FOLLOWS DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE DELAY WAS LEGAL. IT IS ACTUALLY KNOWN AS A COVER-UP. WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS HAD APPARENTLY DISCOVERED IN EARLY AUGUST AN EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN ACTE'S CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, AND HOUSE BUDGET OFFICIALS SEEKING TO PROVIDE INSULATION FOR THE WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS THAT THE PRESIDENT I HAD ALREADY ORDERED ON HOLD.

THE DOCUMENTS ALSO INCLUDE INDICATIONS OF TEAMING BETWEEN WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS AND EXTERNAL AGENCIES. NOT ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE RIGHT TO SEE THEM, THE PUBLIC ALSO. UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS. AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, THE SENATE HAS THE GREATEST INTEREST AND THE RIGHT TO COMPELL THOSE DOCUMENTS. IN FACT, AS THE NEWS ARTICLE EXPLAINS, THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNFAIR EXCHANGES AND FAXED, AT THE LEAST, TO THE PRESIDENTS. MAYBE THEY SHOULD WORRY ABOUT THAT. AT THE RISK OF EMBARRASSMENT YOU CANNOT OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS IN THIS TAX PROCEDURE. ANY PROOF OF GUILT, INCLUDING FURTHER PROOF OF THE ACTUAL REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THAT THE FUNDS SHOULD BE WITHHELD, OR AFTER THE FACT, THE ATTEMPT TO FIND CONDUCT KNOWINGLY ILLEGAL, MUST BE PROVIDED, TO ENSURE A COMPLETE TRIAL AND JUST.

NO PRIVILEGE OR NATIONAL SECURITY FOUNDATION CAN BE USED AS A SHIELD AGAINST THE REVELATION OF MISCONDUCT. KEY WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS WERE RELATED TO MULTIPLE INSTANCES, BUT WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS REPORTED THEIR CONCERNS TO WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PLAYING TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO DO THE PRESIDENT A DOMESTIC POLITICAL FAVOR. FOR EXAMPLE, LIEUTENANT. COLUMN. ALEXANDER VINDMAN AND MR. HILL BRIEFED THE LAWYERS ABOUT THE JOINT MEETING IN WHICH AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND REVEALED THAT HE HAD A DEAL WITH MR. MULVANEY. I'LL GO STRAIGHT TO THE CLIP ON MATT HILL. APPLETON MANAGEMENT REPORTED THE MEETING TO EISENBERG, ACCORDING TO YOUR CLINICAL TESTIMONY.

I HAD AN DISCUSSION WITH THE AMBASSADOR AFTER THE MEETING IN HIS OFFICE. A SHORT ONE. AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING. THE LATER MEETING, AFTER BOTH MEETINGS, WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH HIM, AND YOU RELATED TO HIM WHAT AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND SAID, WHAT DID AMBASSADOR ALTON TELL YOU? I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT JOHN BOLTON WANTED ME TO STOP IN THE ROOM. AFTER THE CONFERENCE. HE WAS SITTING ON A SOFA. WHAT HE SAID. she made a strong point that she wanted to know what was being said. AND WHEN I CAME BACK TO HIM, HE HAD SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR ME.

AND I ASSUME THAT WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION? I HAD TO GO TO JOHN EISENBERG'S LAWYERS. HE WAS WITH THE NATIONAL OR TO ADVISE. TO SAY TELL EISENBERG, AMBASSADOR BOLTON TELL ME, I'M NOT PART OF THIS DRUG BUSINESS THAT MICK MULVANEY AND AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND ARE PICKING UP. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. THE DRUG DEAL THAT MICK MULVANEY AND AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND ARE COOKING UP? I TOOK THAT MEANS INVESTIGATIONS FOR A MEETING. DID YOU SPEAK WITH THE LAWYERS? I DID IT. DID YOU TELL US EVERYTHING YOU JUST TOLD? PRECISELY. AND THE DETAILS OF HOW THE MEETING HAD GONE.

I GIVE A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THIS IN MY STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 14. THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG DOING HERE. THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WERE TOLD REPEATEDLY: SEE THE LAWYERS. AND DR. HILL, LIEUTENANT. COLUMN. ALEXANDER VINDMAN, SR. MORRISON, WHO INFORMED MR. EISENBERG, AT LEAST TWO CONVERSATIONS. WE NEED THE NOTES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. TO KNOW WHAT WAS SAID. AND ONCE AGAIN, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CANNOT HIDE INFORMATION ABOUT MISCONDUCT FROM THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF NET ESTATES. IT IS INTERESTING, THIS MOVEMENT IS SUPPORTED BY 200 YEARS OF PRESIDENTS. IT IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM CONTINUED TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE.

THAT HIS WIFE REPORTS THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT REQUESTED IN THIS CASE. IT IS FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTIVE PROVISION THAT THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL ACTIONS. THE LAST POINT I WILL MAKE TODAY IS URGENCY. THE SENATE MUST ACT ON THE SUMMONS NOW. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL. IN 14 OF THE 15 COMPLETE SENATE TAX TRIAL, THE PRIMARY EVIDENTIAL ISSUES, INCLUDING THE TIMING, NATURE AND SCOPE OF WITNESSES' TESTIMONY, AND THE ASSEMBLY OF ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, WERE ADDRESSED FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL. THERE ARE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AS TO WHY SUMMONS SHOULD BE ISSUED NOW. TO RESOLVE WHETHER A SUMMONS SHOULD BE ISSUED NOW, I WOULD LIKE US TO IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE WHITE HOUSE, TO RESOLVE AND ENFORCE LEGITIMATE PRIVILEGES, IF THEY EXIST.

AND MAKE SURE YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT THEY CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE SENATORS, PRIOR TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS. WAITING TO RESOLVE THRESHOLD MODALITIES UNTIL AFTER THE PARTIES HAVE PRESENTED THEIR CASE WOULD UNDERMINE THE PROCESS OF AN AUTHENTIC AND CREDIBLE TRIAL. SALSA, COMMON SENSE, TRADITION AND JUSTICE oblige THAT THE AMENDMENT MUST BE ADOPTED AND IT MUST BE ADOPTED NOW. MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, TO ALL MEMBERS THAT I HAVE AUTHORIZED TODAY, I URGED YOU TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO ISSUE A SUMMONS FOR WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS. DOCUMENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE EVALUATION OF THE PRESIDENT SCHEME.

THE HOUSE DID ITS FUNCTION. IN THE PRESENCE OFOBSTRUCTION AND THE CATEGORICAL COMMITMENT TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE, WE STILL COLLECT DIRECT EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT. AND DETERMINES THAT HIS CONDUCT REQUIRED ESSENTIAL ACTION. THE PRESIDENT COMPLAINED ABOUT DUE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION. BUT HE WAS NOT ONLY ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE, BUT HE WAS FORCED TO PARTICIPATE. HOWEVER, HE REFUSED TO DO SO. HE REFUSED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD TELL HIS SIDE OF THE STORY. NOW UP TO YOU. BACKED BY THE SUMMONS AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES JUDGE, PRESIDENT TRUMPS' OBSTRUCTION CAN BE ENDED. IF THE SENATE DOES NOT TAKE THE STEP AND DOES NOT ASK FOR THE EVIDENCE, THIS JUDGMENT IN ITS VERDICT WILL BE QUESTIONED.

CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE THE WHOLE TRUTH. THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE REASON WHY ANYONE WOULD NOT WANT TO HEAR ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT. IT IS UP TO THIS BODY TO ENSURE THAT HAPPENS. IT IS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SENATE WILL AFFIRM THE SOLE POWER AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ATTEMPT IMPEACHMENT. IF AND WHEN YOU WILL GET THE EVIDENCE YOU NEED TO ISSUE A VERDICT. DO NOT SURRENDER TO THE SPEAKER PRESIDENT. IT WILL ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO BE ABOVE THE LAW AND DEPRIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THE TRUTH IN THE PROCESS.

A FAIR TRIAL IS ESSENTIAL IN EVERY SENSE. IMPORTANT FOR THE PRESIDENT, WHO EXPECTS TO BE EXONERATED, NOT SIMPLY ACQUITTED, THROUGH A TRIAL CONSIDERED UNFAIR. IMPORTANT FOR THE SENATE, WHOSE VITAL ROLE IS TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. WHICH PRESERVES OUR AMERICAN FREEDOM FOR CENTURIES. FINALLY, IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHO LOOK FORWARD TO THE SEARCH OF TRUTH, JUSTICE AND JUSTICE. HISTORY IS WATCHING AND HOUSE MANAGERS URGE THAT YOU SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. THANK YOU ADVISOR. PATRICK PHILBIN WILL PRESENT OUR ARGUMENT. THANK YOU MR. PRESIDING JUDGE.

MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, SR. SCHUMER AND SENATORS. IT'S REMARKABLE, AND AFTER TAKING THE STUNNING GRAVITY OF VOTING TO ACT FOR THE DUELY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND AFTER SAYING FOR WEEKS THAT THEY HAD OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE, THE FIRST THING THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE DONE FINALLY ARRIVED TO THIS CHAMBER, AFTER WAITING 33 DAYS, THAT IS, ACTUALLY, MORE EVIDENCE. WE ARE NOT READY TO PRESENT OUR CASE. WE NEED TO HAVE SUMMONS, WE NEED TO DO MORE DISCOVERY, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE WE NEED TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE. THIS IS IMPRESSIVE. THIS IS A STUNNING OMISSION OF A PROPER AND BROKEN PROCESS.

THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS CONDUCTED THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. THEY DID NOT COMPEL THE FILE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES. IT IS SHOCKING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE. AND THEY REALLY HAVE NO CASE. IF A LITIGANT SHOWED UP IN ANY COURT IN THIS COUNTRY, ON THE DAY OF TRIAL AND TOLD THE JUDGE, ACTUALLY YOUR HONOR, WE ARE NOT READY TO GO. WE DISCOVER MORE. WE NEED TO MAKE MORE SUMMONS. WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK. THEY WOULD BE EXHIBITED FROM THE COURT AND THE LAWYERS WOULD LIKELY BE SANCTIONED. THIS IS NOT THE TYPE OF PROCEDURE THAT THIS BODY SHOULD APPROVE.

NOW, WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT IS AT ISSUE IN A RESOLUTION HERE AND THE AMENDMENT. IT'S A MATTER OF TIME. IT IS A QUESTION OF WHEN THE BODY WILL CONSIDER WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE WITNESSES. OR SUMMONS FOR DOCTORS. WHY ARE ADMINISTRATORS, HOUSE MANAGERS SO AFRAID OF HAVING TO PRESENT THEIR CASE? REMEMBER THAT YOU HAVE HAD WEEKS OF THE PROCESS THAT YOU COMPLETELY CONTROL. THEY HAD 17 WITNESSES WHO STATED FIRST IN SECRET AND IN PUBLIC. THEY HAVE COMPILED A RECORD WITH THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF REPORTS. AND APPARENTLY THEY ARE AFRAID TO JUST MAKE A PRESENTATION, BASED ON THE RECORD THEY HAVE COLLECTED, AND THEN HAVE TO DECIDE IF THERE IS SOMETHING THERE, THERE.

IF THERE IS SOMETHING WORTH WORTH, TRY TO TALK TO MORE WITNESSES ABOUT IT. WHY CAN'T THEY WAIT A FEW DAYS TO MAKE A PRESENTATION OF EVERYTHING THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARING FOR WEEKS AGO? AND THEN YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE PROBLEM. BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANYONE THERE. AND THEY WANT TO ADVANCE IT NOW. THEY WANT TO ADVANCE IT NOW, BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THEY THEMSELVES FAILED TO DO. I WANT TO IMPACT A COUPLE OF THE ASPECTS OF WHAT YOU ASK OF THIS BODY. PART OF IT RELATES TO THE BROKEN PROCESS IN THE HOUSE. AND HOW THE PROCESS WAS INADEQUATE AND INVALID.

AND RECORD COMPILED AND INCLUDED. AND PART HAS TO DO WITH ACCEPTING THE REQUEST FOR THIS ORGANIZATION TO DO THEIR WORK FOR THEM, FOR THIS INSTITUTION, IN THE GOING FORWARD. AND HOW IT WOULD FOREVER ALTER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE. FIRST, REGARDING THE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE. WHAT THEY ASK FROM THE HOUSE MANAGER, WHAT THEY NOW ASK FROM THE CHILD, IS TO DO THEIR WORK FOR THEM. BECAUSE THEY DID NOT TAKE THE MEASURES TO FOLLOW THESE DOCUMENTS. IN THE HOUSE PROCEDURES. THERE ARE SEVERAL STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW THEY ARE TRYING TO OBTAIN THE DOCUMENTS.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT WAS NOT CLAIMED. WHAT AND WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. THEY ISSUED A SUMMONS TO THE WHITE HOUSE. AND THE WHITE HOUSE EXPLAINED, AND A FEW MINUTES AGO THEY TOLD US, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DID NOT GIVE AN RESPONSE. THEY DID NOT PROVIDE ANY REASON WHICH IS NOT TRUE. IN LETTER OF OCTOBER 18, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, MR. CIPOLLONE, EXCITED THREE PAGES, WHERE THE CITATION WAS INVALID. THE SUMMONS WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS ISSUED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. TODAY WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT HOW THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS THE POWER OF THE SOUL OF ACTION TO THE HOUSE.

THAT IS WHAT ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 SAYS. IT IS THE ONLY POWER OF ACTION FOR THE CHAMBER. NOT TO ANY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. AND A HOUSE COMMITTEE MAY EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUMMONS UNTIL SUCH AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DELEGATED BY A VOTE OF THE HOUSE. THERE WAS NO VOTE FROM THE HOUSE. INSTEAD, SPEAKER PELOSI HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE. AND HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE ON SATURDAY THE 24TH. TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE TO ADAM SCHIFF AND OTHER COMMITTEES TO ISSUE SUMMONS. ALL SUMMONS WERE INVALID. AND THAT TIPED TO THE HOUSE OF ADAM SCHIFF AT THE TIME IN THE LETTER OF OCTOBER 18.

DO YOU TAKE ANY MEASURES AT THE HOUSE TO SOLVE THAT? DID THEY TRY TO DISPUTE THAT? Did they go to court? DID THEY DO ANYTHING TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM? NO. AS WE KNOW, ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WAS ISSUE A SUMMONS AND MOVE ON. THEY WANTED TO GET OVER THE PERFORMING PROCESS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND FINISH IT BY CHRISTMAS. THAT WAS HIS GOAL. EVEN THOUGH THE SUMMONS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED. What about some of the other things you mentioned? THE WITNESSES. WITNESSES, WHO WERE ORDERED NOT TO TESTIFY. WE LISTENED TO ADAM SCHIFF SEVERAL TIMES, THE WHITE HOUSE NEVER EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THAT'S A LAWYER'S TRICK. IT IS TECHNICALLY TRUE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DIDN'T ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. THERE IS A PARTICULAR SITUATION WHERE YOU DO THAT, IN PARTICULAR WE DO THAT. THERE IS ANOTHER DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S SENIOR ADVISERS. WHICH IS BASED ON THE SAME PRINCIPLES AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. THIS HAS BEEN ASSURED BY PRESIDENTS OF BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES. SINCE THE 70'S, AT LEAST. THIS IS WHAT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL FEELS ABOUT THAT. "THE IMMUNITY THAT THESE ADVISORS ENJOY FROM THE OBLIGATION OF TESTIMONIALS BY THE CONGRESSIVE COMMITTEE IS ABSOLUTE AND CANNOT BE EXCESSIVE WHEN COMPETING WITH THE INTERESTS OF CONGRESS." THAT WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO AND THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

EXPLAINING THAT SENIOR ADVISORS OF THE PRESIDENT ARE ARMED BY OBLIGATION OF CONGRESS. AND THAT DOCTRINE, IMMUNITY HAS ITS ROOTS IN THE SAME PRINCIPLES OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. NOT ALL PRESIDENTS SINCE THE 70'S HAVE STATED THIS. AND THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH SEVERAL OF THE ADVISORS, WHOSE PHOTOGRAPHS THEY POSTED, WERE ORDERED NOT TO WITNESS. THAT THEY TRIED TO CHALLENGE THAT IN THE COURTS? Did they go to court for that? DID THEY ATTEMPT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONALLY ORDERED ACCOMMODATIONS? TO SEE IF THERE WAS A WAY TO PROVIDE SOME ASPECT OF THE TESTIMONY? NO, NOTHING OF THAT.

THEY JUST WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD AND HURRY INTO THE PROCESS. AND I HAVE THE EVIDENCE. AND USE THAT AS ANOTHER LOAD ON YOUR LOAD HER. BY THE IMPEACHMENT, CALLING IT OBSTRUCTION TO CONGRESS. THIS IS THAT PROFESSOR TURLEY EXPLAINED THE IDEA THAT WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE HOUSE, WHEN SEEKING INFORMATION, ABOUT THE PRESIDENT IS MAKING CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED PRIVILEGES, IT IS PART OF THE OPERATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS. THAT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT. DEFEND THE PREROGATIVE OF OFFICE. FOR THE FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE OFFICE. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CHARGED AS A IMPACTABLE CRIME.

AS THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED TO DO. DOING THAT, LIKE ABUSE OF POWER. That's Professor Turley. IT IS ABUSE OF POWER BY HOUSE DEMOCRATS. We just heard Manager Laughlin refer to secular privilege as a distraction. SHE CLAIMED THAT THESE ISSUES OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARE A DISTRACTION. ADDITIONAL STOP THINGS. THIS IS WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID ABOUT A SECOND PRIVILEGE. AND NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES. THAT CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIONS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARE "FOUNDATIONAL TO BE INEXTRICALLY ROOTED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION." INEXTRIZABLY ROOTED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. THAT IS WHY IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT TO DEFEND THE CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING HERE. NOW, THE PROCESS THEY FOLLOWED IN THE HOUSE ABANDONED ANY EFFORT BEYOND ISSUING THE FIRST SUMMONS WHICH WAS INVALID TO REACH AN ARRANGEMENT WITH THE WHITE HOUSE. AND INSTEAD, TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE DIFFICULT PERFORMANCE FOR CHRISTMAS. WHAT DOES NOW NOT LEAD TO? ARRIVING TO THIS BODY, AFTER THE PROCESS WAS IN THE MIDDLE, WHICH DID NOT RELAX A SUFFICIENT FILE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES. AND ASKING THIS BODY TO DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM. AS MITCH McCONNELL POINTS OUT, ALLOWING THAT EXCEPT THE IDEA, BUT THE HOUSE COULD BRING HERE AN ACTION THAT IS NOT ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY IT HAS NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED, THAT HAS NOT HAD A BACKGROUND TO SUPPORT IT, AND TURNING THIS BODY INTO THE INVESTIGATING BODY, WOULD ALTER PERMANENTLY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE.

IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE SENATE TO HAVE TO DO THE HOUSE THEIR WORK FOR THEM. IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE SENATE TO DO AN INVESTIGATION AND MAKE A DISCOVERY IN A MATTER LIKE THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IF THE HOUSE IS NOT IN THE INVESTIGATION AND CANNOT SUPPORT YOUR CASE, IT IS NOT THE TIME, ONCE YOU GET HERE, TO START DOING THE WORK. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS THE ROLE OF HOUSES. THIS IS SOMETHING, WHICH IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS INSTITUTION, I THINK, TO NOT ALLOW THE HOUSE TO BECOME A SITUATION IN WHICH THIS ORGANISM WOULD HAVE TO BE DOING THE WORK OF THE HOUSES FOR IT.

IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CASE, IF IT IS WHAT IS BEING INVESTIGATED, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE CASE. Again, what is at issue here, and I think it is important to call it, on the question of this amendment, is not whether this body, the Senate, will consider whether there should be witnesses or not. BUT WHEN IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. AND THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO TAKE THE APPROACH THAT WAS TAKEN IN THE CLINTON IMPEASEMENT. 100 SENATORS THEN AGREED THAT IT MADE SENSE TO LISTEN TO BOTH PARTIES. BEFORE MAKING A DETERMINATION ON THE RESPECT.

TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES, TO SEE WHAT KIND OF CASE THE HOUSE COULD PRESENT. IN DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT. AND THAT MAKES SENSE. IN EVERY TRIAL SYSTEM THERE IS A MECHANISM TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARTIES ACTUALLY HAVE PRESENTED A TRIAL ISSUE. IF THERE REALLY IS SOMETHING THERE, THERE. WHICH REQUIRES ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES. AND THIS BODY SHOULD TAKE THE COMMON SENSE APPROACH AND LISTEN TO WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE TO SAY. WHERE CAN YOU FREELY PRESENT YOUR CASE? THEY HAD WEEKS IN A PROCESS THAT THEY CONTROLLED, TO COLLECT THE FILE. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION NOW.

THE ONLY POINT I WILL CLOSING AND I HEAR ADAM SCHIFF SAY SEVERAL TIMES, WE HAVE TO HAVE A PROCESS HERE. I AM CALLED BY THAT. ONE POINT, HE SAID, IF ONLY ONE PARTY IS ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, THE OUTCOME WILL BE PREDETERMINED. THE RESULT WILL BE PREDETERMINED. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE. LET'S CALL THAT THE PROCESS THEY HAD IN THE HOUSE WAS JUST UNIQUE. THEY LEFT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYERS OUT. THERE WAS NO DUE PROCESS FOR THE PRESIDENT. THEY STARTED WITH SECRET HEARINGS IN THE BASEMENT. THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE PRESENT. YOU CANNOT PRESENT EVIDENCE.

YOU CANNOT INTERROGATE THE WITNESSES. THERE WAS A SECOND ROUND IN PUBLIC. THEY LEFT THE PRESIDENT OUT. WE HAVE HEARD THAT THEY JUST SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE. IN THE THIRD ROUND OF HEARINGS THEY HAD, FOR THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, FOLLOWING A HEARING ON DECEMBER 4, SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI ON THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 5, ANNOUNCE THE CONCLUSION OF THE DAY IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HISTORY COMMITTEE. SHE ANNOUNCED THAT SHE WAS TASKING JERRY NADLER TO COMPILE THE PERFORMANCE ARTICLES. IT WAS BEFORE THE DAY THEY WOULD TELL THE PRESIDENT TO ANNOUNCE WHICH RIGHTS HE WOULD LIKE TO HELP WITH.

IT WAS ALREADY PREDETERMINED. THE OUTCOME HAS BEEN PREDETERMINED. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE HAD DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE FILLED HEARINGS. THE PRESIDENT WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO BUY PATE. WHEN THE PRESIDENCY SAYS IF ONLY ONE PARTY IS ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THAT PREDETERMINED OUTCOME, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IN THE CHAMBER. THEY HAD A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME. EVERYTHING WAS one-sided. FOR ME TO GIVE A SERMON TO THIS BODY NOW, ANY PROCESS WOULD BE, IT WOULD TAKE SOME GOAL. A PROCESS WOULD BE WHEN YOU ARRIVE ON THE DAY OF TRIAL, BE READY TO START THE TRIAL AND PRESENT YOUR CASE.

DO NOT ASK FOR MORE DISCOVERY. THE PRESIDENT IS READY TO PROCEED. THE HOUSE MANAGER MUST BE READY TO PROCEED. AND THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE REJECTED. THANK YOU. TO THEHOUSE MANAGERS YOU HAVE EIGHT MINUTES LEFT. THE HOUSE CERTAINLY IS NOT ASKING THE SENATE TO DO ITS JOB. WE ASK THE SENATE TO DO ITS JOB. TO HOLD A TRIAL. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A TRIAL? ONE WHO HAS NO PROOF. WHEN THAT HAS NO WITNESSES? THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS ABOUT. JUST A MOMENT ABOUT SUMMONS. PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE. HE ORDERED ALL HIS PEOPLE TO SHOW US.

NOW IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD SPEND TWO OR THREE YEARS LITIGATION OF THE ISSUE. I WAS A YOUNG LAW STUDENT, WORKING ON THE NEXT IMPEACHMENT, MANY YEARS AGO. I REMEMBER THE DAY WHEN THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED ITS UNANIMOUS DECISION, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD TO RELEASE THE TAPES. I THINK THE USA AGAINST THE NEXT AND THE PRESIDENT STILL GOVERNS. THE HOUSE AND SENATE SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGED TO LITIGATE US AGAINST NIXON BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT AND DOWN AGAIN, FOR IT TO BE GOOD LAW. IT IS GOOD LAW. THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENTS.

TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE TRUTH. IT IS NOT ABOUT HELPING THE HOUSE. IT IS NOT ABOUT HELPING THE SENATE. IT'S ABOUT GETTING TO THE TRUTH. AND MAKE SURE FAIR JUSTICE IS DONE. AND THAT AMERICANS ARE SATISFIED THAT A FAIR TRIAL HAS BEEN HELD. I WILL YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE, ADAM SCHIFF. HE SAYS THE HOUSE IS NOT READY TO PRESENT ITS CASE. THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'VE HEARD FROM ANY OF THE ADMINISTRATORS. WE ARE READY. THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. CALL NICK MULVANEY HOME. LET'S START THE TEST, OKAY? WE ARE READY TO PRESENT OUR CASE.

WE ARE READY TO BE WITNESS. THE QUESTION IS WILL YOU LEAVE US? THAT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US. MISTER. PHILBIN SAYS, IF I WAS IN COURT AND I WAS NOT READY, THEY'LL THROW ME OUT OF COURT. WE ARE NOT SAYING WE ARE NOT READY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF MR. PHILBIN WENT INTO COURT AND THE JUDGE SAID: I HAVE MADE A DEAL WITH THE DEFENDANT. I WILL NOT LET THE ACCUSED CALL ANY WITNESS. DOCUMENTS WILL NOT BE PRESENTED. DO YOU KNOW WHO IS EXPELLED OUT OF COURT? JUDGE. THEY WOULD TAKE THEM OUT BY HUSBANDS.

LET'S GET OUT OF THE BODY FOR A MOMENT. IMAGINE WHAT THE TEST WILL BE LIKE. IT WOULD START WITH THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVING THE DOCUMENTS. I CAN PRESENT ARGUMENTS. POWER WITNESSES. THIS TEST SHOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT. MISTER. PHILBIN REFERS TO THE LETTER FROM MR. CIPOLLONE ON OCTOBER 18. ON OCTOBER 8. WE WILL DO NOTHING. PART LAW, PART DIATRIBE. MOSTLY rant. YOU MUST READ IT. IT IS A LETTER THAT SAYS WHAT THE PRESIDENT PUT ON THE TV SCREEN. THAT IS, WE FIGHT AGAINST ALL SUMMONS. THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY THAT THE COUNSEL PREFERS. HAS BEEN INVOKED OR ATTEMPT BY BOTH PARTIES.

AND UNIFORMLY REJECTED BY THE COURTS. INCLUDING A MORE RECENT DECISION INVOLVING DON McGANN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT. BECAUSE THE COURT SAID, THIS WOULD MAKE HIM KING. HE IS NOT KING. THIS TRIAL HAS DETERMINED THAT HE SHOULD NOT BECOME THE KING, ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE AND ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE. AND ONCE AGAIN, THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. THE FEVER DREAM OF PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES. IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO DOCUMENTS. AGAIN, THE AMENDMENT IS ON THE DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY TO GRANT DOCTORATE DEGREES. AS REPRESENTATIVE LAUGHLIN SHOWS, WHEN THE CASE REACHED THE SUPREME COURT IN THE NIXON CASE, THE COURT DETERMINED THAT THE INTEREST IN CONFIDENTIALITY IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS MUST YIELD TO THE INTERESTS OF THE TRUTH AND THE SENATE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

YOU CANNOT INVOKE A PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT A BAD ACTION. A PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE INVOKED TO PROTECT EVIDENCE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME, AS WE HAVE HERE. AND FINALLY, REGARDING THE SECRET HEARINGS TO WHICH THE LAWYER REFERS. THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS IN THE HOUSE. THEY ARE SO SECRET THAT ONLY 100 CONGRESS COULD BE THERE TO PARTICIPATE. ONLY 100. THIS IS HOW SECRET THE CHAMBER WAS. LET'S IMAGINE THAT IN THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IN THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION OR IN THE NIXON INVESTIGATION. IMAGINE INVITING 50 OR HUNDRED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO SIT ON THAT. IMAGINE THE PRESIDENT LIKE HERE, INSISTING ON HAVING HIS LAWYER ON THE GRAND JURY.

BECAUSE THE CASE AGAINST HIM WAS BEING INVESTIGATED. WE DO NOT HAVE A GRAND JURY HERE. WHY IS THAT? WHY WAS THERE NOT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HERE? BECAUSE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAID THEY WILL NOT INVESTIGATE THIS. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAID: THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE. IF YOU WERE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE YOU WOULD NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO GRAND JURY. IT IS PROBABLY THAT AT HOME WE HAD TO DO THE RESEARCH WORK OURSELVES. YES, LIKE IN THE NIXON CASE, LIKE IN THE CLINTON CASE, WE USE DEPOSITIONS. YOU KNOW WHAT DEPOSITION RULES WE USE, THAT WAS TERRIBLY UNFAIR, THEY WERE WRITTEN BY REPUBLICANS.

WE USE THE SAME RULES THAT THE GOP HOUSE MEMBERS USED. THAT'S HOW TERRIBLY UNFAIR THEY WERE. MY GOD, THE USE OF OUR RULES, HOW DARE THEY? HOW DARE THEY. WHY DO WE MAKE DEPOSITIONS? BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT ONE WITNESS TO HEAR WHAT ANOTHER WITNESS WAS SINGING. SO THEY CAN ADAPT THEIR STORIES AND KNOW THEY JUST HAD TO ADMIT A LOT. IN ALL CREDITABLE RESEARCH WORK. THE LAWYER CAN REPEAT ANYTHING THEY LIKE THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN. HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT AT THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OR TO OFFER EVIDENCE.

THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT. IT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE WHEN YOU MAKE THE SAME FALSE REPRESENTATION OVER AND OVER. AND MIXING IT MUCH MORE DELICATE AND ONErous. THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE. HE CHOSE NOT TO DO IT. AND THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT. THERE IS A REASON WHY THE WITNESSES HAVE SPOKEN IN MATERIAL WITNESS. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD THE AID FOR THIS CORRUPT PURPOSE IS NOT LEFT. IT'S NOT GOING TO THE. BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE WITNESSES FROM THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF OF THE FACTS. USED ​​I WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS.

YOU MUST WANT TO SEE IT. YOU MUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT PRIVATE EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES SAY. IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE, IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, YOU SHOULD WANT TO SEE WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS SAY. NOW IF YOU DON'T CARE, IF YOU'VE DECIDED THAT YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT OF MY PARTY, FOR WHATEVER REASON, I'M NOT INTERESTED. I REALLY DON'T WANT THE COUNTRY TO SEE THIS. IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE OATH REQUIRES. IT IS NOT WHAT YOUR OATH REQUIRES.

YOUR OATH DEMANDS YOU TO DO FAIR JUSTICE. WHAT IT MEANS TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S ALL WE ASK OF YOU DON'T BE BLIND TO THE EVIDENCE. I give up. AND MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL IS RECOGNIZED. I SUBMITTED A MOTION TO FILE THE AMENDMENT. THE QUESTION IS IN THE MOTION FOR PRESENTATION. ARE THERE ENOUGH SECONDS? THERE IS. THE CARR FIRE FLAMES THE PAPER. MR. ALEJANDRO, YES. MISS BALDWIN YES. MR. BROSSEAU. YES. MR. BENNETT. IT'S DOLLAR NO. I MISSED HER LITTLE. THE RULES OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL ARE DUE. I WANT TO BRING RAIN THAT NORMAN.

AND KAREN DUGAN. I LEGAL COLLABORATOR AND FORMER FEDERAL ATTORNEY. MOLLY COOPER IS A CBSN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR. MOLLY, WE HAD A LOT OF DEBATE. TELL US EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR. WHAT IS BEING VOTED ON, APPARENTLY WHAT SHOULD BE VOTED ON, IS A CHUCK SCHUMER MINUTE FOR THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FROM THE ADMINISTRATION. BUT, WHAT MAJORITY LEADER, McCONNELL, HAS DONE IS TRANSFER THE AMENDMENT. EVEN SENATORS WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WOULD VOTE NOT TO REQUIRE THE FALL PAPERS. ESSENTIALLY, THE MOMENT WHEN ONE VOTE WILL KILL CHUCK SCHUMER'S BY ONE MINUTE. IT SEEMS COUNTER-INTUITIVE. IT'S THE DECEPTIVE PROCEDURE THAT KEEPS CAPITOL HILL REPORTERS ON OUR FEET.

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SAYING. AS FOR WHETHER WE WILL SEE REPUBLICANS VOTE AGAINST INTRODUCING THE MOTION, BUT WITH DEMOCRATS, IT'S NOT CLEAR. SEVERAL OF THE MODERATE REPUBLICANS ARE THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE THE MOST QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WITH UKRAINE, I'M NOT SURE THEY WILL VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. WHAT WE HAVE HEARD THEM SAY, AS THEY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL BOTH PARTIES HAVE PRESENTED THEIR ARGUMENTS. APPEECE 24 HOURS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. 24 HOURS FOR HOUSE MANAGERS FOR THREE DAYS. SENATORS CAN PRESENT THEIR QUESTIONS. AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER THE SENATE SHOULD FORCE THE WHITE HOUSE TO HANDOVER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO UKRAINE AND THE PEOPLE AND CONVERSATIONS THEY HAVE WITH THE PRESIDENT, ABOUT WITHHOLDING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN EXCHANGE FOR POLITICAL DIRT ON A APPOINTMENT.

WE HAD ONE OF THE ADMINISTRATORS PRESENT HER SIDE OF THE CASE AS TO WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRESENTED. WHAT ARGUMENTS DID YOU HAVE BUILT? THE HOUSE HAS A DIFFICULT NEEDLE TO THREAD. IT WAS MR. PHILBIN, WHO SAID FOR THE PRESIDENT, IF YOU HAVE THIS OVERWHELMING CASE, WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR MORE EVIDENCE NOW? At first glance, it is a posed question. ADAM SCHIFF RESPONDED. LOOK, HAVING THE HOUSE RE-ELITIGATE US AGAINST NIXON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS UP AND DOWN TO DEAL WITH EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS, AND TO POTENTIALLY DEAL WITH ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY CLAIMS, BOOSTS THE HOUSE PROCESS BEYOND THE 2020 ELECTIONS.

IF YOU ARE DEMOCRATS AND YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT HE IS TRYING TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION, YOU CAN TAKE A LONG WAY. THE ARGUMENT IS AT THE SAME TIME AND HAS A PLEASANT SOUND FOR THE AUDIENCES. THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF DEMOCRATS IS A LITTLE MORE PLACED. GOOD REASONS ARE ADVANCED. I WANT TO PLAY A SOUND SOUND. ADAM SCHIFF TALKING ABOUT THE PROCESS. MR. PHILBIN SAYS, THE HOUSE IS NOT READY TO PRESENT ITS CASE. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU HEAR FROM ANY OF THE ADMINISTRATORS. WE ARE READY. THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON.

THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. THE HOUSE CALLS MICK MULVANEY. LET'S START THE TRIAL, SHELLEY, WE ARE READY TO PRESENT OUR CASE. WE ARE READY TO BE WITNESS. THE QUESTION IS, WILL YOU LEAVE US? THAT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US. YOU MUST HAVE THE VOTES. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT. TO CONTINUE FORWARD WITH THE WITNESSES. I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT ADAM SCHIFF MENTIONED EARLIER IN HIS ARGUMENT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. IN ORDER TO DO SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO INDICATE WHICH A PRIVILEGED? WHICH POINTS TO THE MEDICATIONS THAT WERE TAKEN DURING THE VACATION.

IT WAS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT THAT ADAM SCHIFF MADE. I THINK HE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WOULD BE AN ADMITTION OF GUILT ON THE PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS IN FACT DR. METZ RELATED TO UKRAINE. As this unfolds, we'll see why they claimed executive privilege. IF YOU CLAIM AS A PRIVILEGE CAN, IF YOU SPECIFY WHICH DOCUMENT. WHAT PERSON AND WHY. YOU ARE CORRECT. Going back to what we just heard Adam Schiff say, the house calls for John Bolton. THAT'S THE KIND OF DRAMATIC MOMENT AMERICANS EXPECT IN A TRIAL. THAT HAS PROOF.

THAT IS DESIGNED AS A PROCESS OF SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH. I THOUGHT IT WAS A PARTICULARLY POWERFUL ADMINISTRATION BY ADAM SCHIFF, OF WHAT'S AT STAKE. YOU ARE RIGHT. TO POINT OUT WHAT ADAM SCHIFF IS SAYING, LOOK, IF YOU HAVE TO REVIEW DOZENS OF PAGES OF RECORDS AND IDENTIFY WHICH YOU WILL OR WON'T HAVE PRIVILEGE, THAT'S GOING TO TRANSMIT INFORMATION. BY GIVING A BLANK DENIAL, SOMETHING IS LEFT IN THE IMMUNITY THAT VERIFIES HERE IS PRESIDING JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS. YES 53-47 NO. THE LIMIT IS PRESENTED. THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

AND ASK IT TO BE READ. THE SECRETARY WILL READ THE AMENDMENT. NEW YORK SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER PROPOSES AMENDMENT 1285. IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE AND RESOLUTION CLAUSE, INSERT THE PRESENTATION, WITHOUT OBSERVING ANY PROVISION OF THE RESOLUTION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES FIVE AND SIX OF THE RULES AND PRACTICE PROCEDURES OF THE SENATE, WAS SITTING IN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE, WILL ISSUE A SUMMONS TO THE CLERK OF THE SENATE ORDERING HIM TO SUBMIT, DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2019 TO THE PRESENT, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE STATE OF THE DEPARTMENT, REFERENCED OR RELATED TO THE LETTER A, ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

INCLUDING DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS, RELATED TO THE SCHEDULING, PREPARATION AND FOLLOW-UP OF THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALLS ON APRIL 21 AND JULY 25, 2019. AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALLS FROM SEPTEMBER 2005 -- 2005, TO THE NINETEENTH MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, IN NEW YORK. AND THE POSSIBLE SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAY, FREEZING OR RELEASE OF FOREIGN AID, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND FROM THE UNITED STATES TO UKRAINE. INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE, USA I, AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING, FMF, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL COMMUNITY DUTIES TO THE WHITE HOUSE, THE DEFENSE PART AND THE BUREAU MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

AS WELL AS THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT'S AWARENESS, UNTIL AUGUST 28, 2019, OF ANY SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAY, FREEZING OR RELEASE OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN AID TO UKRAINE. INCLUDING ALL MEETINGS, CALLS ARE OTHER ENGAGEMENTS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, REGARDING POSSIBLE OR ACTUAL SUSPENSIONS, WITHHOLDINGS OR DELAYS IN UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. C, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, NOTES OR OTHER RECORDS, CREATED OR RECEIVED BY SECRETARY MICHAEL POMPEO,Counselor, former special representative of the Logics of Ukraine, Ambassador Kurt Volker, deputy secretary George Kent, William E Taylor and Ambassador to the European Union, Ambassador Gordon Sondland and other officials of the State Department related to efforts to request, demand, induce, PERSUADE OR COERCE UKRAINE TO CONDUCT OR NOT CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS.

TWO, ​​SCHEDULE, THE LAWYER HOLDS A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. OR THREE, MAINTAIN AND THEN RELEASE MILITARY AND OTHER SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. D ANY MEANS OR MEANS PROPOSED IN OR INVOLVING THE WHITE HOUSE RELATING TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO NUMBER ONE, THE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY IN 2018 IN kyiv, UKRAINE. INCLUDING AND NOT LIMITED TO PRESIDENT TRUMPS' DECISION NOT TO ATTEND. ASK AND LEAVE THE DELEGATION. DIRECTING THE SAC NOT TO ATTEND. AND THE LATER DECISION ON COMPENSATION OF THE NINE STATES. NUMBER OF A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND MAY 23, 2019, INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEN SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS, AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, RICK PERRY, THE AMBASSADOR OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, ALSO LIKE PRIVATE MEETINGS OR CONVERSATIONS WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS BEFORE AFTER THE LARGER MEETING.

NUMBER THREE, MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, ON OR AROUND JULY 10, 2019. WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, ALDRICH YOUR MAKE AND ALEXANDER DEER LAKE. AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIAL JOHN BOLTON, SECRETARY HARRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND. INCLUDING M.A.T. IN THE WAR ROOM. NUMBER FOUR, A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND AUGUST 30, 2019. INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO, AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MARK ESPER. NUMBER FIVE, UPLAND MEETING, LATER CANCELED IN WARSAW, POLAND, ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 1, 2019, BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. LATER ATTENDED BY MIKE PENCE.

AND A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 11, 2019. WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, MIKE PENCE AND MICK MULVANEY. CONSIDERING PLACING SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE ON HOLD. E, ALL FURTHER OCCASIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TEXT MESSAGING ON PRIVATE DEVICES BETWEEN CURRENT OR FORMER OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE POMPEO, AND LASSITER VOLKER, AMBASSADOR Gordon Sondland, Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Secretary Kent and the following, President Volodymyr Zelensky, Aldrich his brand or individuals associated with or who act in any capacity as a representative, agent or attorney of President Volodymyr Zelensky, before and after his election .

ALL RECORDS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED BY WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ACCUSATION TO GREAT, TO MEMORIALIZE KEY EVENTS OR CONCERNS IN ANY RECORD REFLECTING AN OFFICIAL RESPONSE THERETO, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO NUMBER ONE, AUGUST 20, 2019, A CABLE SENT BY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE POMPEO. NUMBER TWO, ON AUGUST 16, 2019, A FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM WRITTEN BY DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT. NUMBER THREE, A PRESENTATION MEMORANDUM DATE DECEMBER 15, 2019, WRITTEN BY THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY. G, ALL MEETINGS ARE CALLS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL MEETING REQUESTS OR REGISTRATIONS OR PHONE CALLS, SCHEDULING ARTICLES, CALENDAR ENTRIES, STATE DEPARTMENT VISITOR RECORDS, AND EMAIL OR TEXT MESSAGES, USING DEVICES PERSONAL OR WORK-RELATED BETWEEN OR AMONG NUMBER ONE CURRENT OR FORMER OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE POMPEO, INVESTOR VOLKER, AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND OR NUMBER TWO , RUDY GIULIANI, VICTORIA TENSING OR JOSEPH DIJ IN ABOUT THE CONTAINMENT OR REMEMBERING OF FORMER AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

BY THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN kyiv. INCLUDING REPORTS OF CREDIBLE THREATS AGAINST HER OR PROTECTIVE SECURITY MEASURES TAKEN IN RESPONSE. AND NUMBER TWO, THE SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SURGICAL WEAPONS OR ANY OTHER SENATE EMPLOYEE ARE USED TO FULFILL THE SUMMONS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THE SECTION. PRESIDING JUDGE. SPEND THE MAJORITY LEADER IS AUTHORIZED. NOW I SERVE A BRIEF 10 MINUTE BREAK BEFORE THE PARTIES ARE RECOGNIZED TO DEBATE THE SCHUMER AND THE MINUTE. AT THE END OF DEBATE TIME, I WILL REINTRODUCE THE AMENDMENT, SINCE THE TIMING OF THESE VOTES IS SPECIFIED IN THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION. I can order that we be at recess.

WITH OBJECTION, THE SENATE IS IN RECESS. THE SENATE HAS A BREAK. WE WANT TO GUIDE YOU THROUGH TODAY'S EVENTS. HOW THE TAX TRIAL HAS STARTED IN THE SENATE. THE FOCUS WAS ON THE RULES. TO BRING MY PANEL. CBSN CONSERVATIVES, POLITICAL AND LEGAL. MOLLY HOOPER, TELL US THROUGH THIS. I was looking at the subpoena that Chuck Schumer filed. LOOKING AT THE SUMMONS DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S WITNESS TESTIMONY. ESSENTIALLY, IT IS ASKED FOR, AS THE SAME DOCUMENTS AS THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT. THIS TIME, I WAS ASKING THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS FOR DOCUMENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

THIS AMENDMENT, DOCUMENT FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS WE WERE DISCUSSING OFF CAMERA, WILL PROBABLY GO THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AS WELL. JL CONGRESS AGENCY. THEY DELIVER EVERYTHING TO CONGRESS. THIS IS SOMETHING SCHUMER CAN DO TO DELAY THE ENTIRE PROCESS. AND MAKE THE LIFE OF EVERYONE ON THE GROUND VERY FRUSTRATING. AND ALSO LEAVE THE VULNERABLE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ON RECORD, HOW THEY VOTED AGAINST HAVING CERTAIN WITNESSES. WHEN IT COMES TO THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. IT'S SOMETHING DEMOCRATS CAN USE IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS FOR SENATE RACES. WE ARE OFFICIALLY REGISTERED. WE LOOK AT THE LEGAL STRATEGY, WE HAVE SEEN IT BACK AND OUT THIS AFTERNOON.

WITH CHUCK SCHUMER THEY PRESENT COMMITMENTS TO THE TABLE BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH VOTES. WHAT IS THE LEGAL STRATEGY? I THINK IT MAY BE MORE OF A POLITICAL STRATEGY. HAVING SEEN THE LAST DEBATE, I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF YOU SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT NOW. WHAT WE WILL HEAR IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH PARTIES TO PRESENT THE CASE. TO THE SENATE AND AT THE LAST MINUTE TO THE PUBLIC. REGARDING THE LEGAL STRATEGY, I WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING THAT I SAW IN THE LAST ARGUMENT. WE COULD SEE IT AGAIN. MISTER. PHILBIN WAS ONE OF THE ADVOCATES IN THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS.

THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYER. CORRECT. AND MOST OF THE TIME, HE DISCUSSED HIS PURCHASES FOR ANY DISCOVERY. MORE EVIDENCE PRESENTED. ARGUING THAT IF THERE IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY, WHAT ELSE. IN THE END, IT WAS SLIDE UP ANYWAY, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT SURE ABOUT THAT NOW, YOU SHOULD ERASE THE DECISION. HE SAID IN THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING. IF YOU ARE NOT SO SURE, WE SHOULD DELAY IT. AND ASK AFTER ADMINISTRATORS AND LAWYER PRESIDENTS ARGUMENT ABOUT IT. THIS IS SOMETHING MITCH McCONNELL SAID, I WILL PRESENT ANYTHING UNTIL I GET TO THAT POINT. WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE.

AS WE SAW IN THE PREVIOUS VOTE, 53 VOTES TO THE TABLE. 53 REPUBLICANS SAY WE DON'T WANT THE DOCUMENT NOW THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT. LATER IN THE PROCESS, THE GENERAL RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED, WHO KNOWS SOMEONE WANTS TO GO. THE PROCEDURE IS ESTABLISHED BY WHICH, AT THE END OF THE SENATORS' QUESTION TIME, THE SENATORS WILL LISTEN TO ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST HAVING ARGUMENTS. 2 HOURS OPENING. THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON THE HEARING OF THE WITNESSES. AS SPECIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION, THEY WILL BE HEARD FIRST AS THE POSITION BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. AFTER THAT, WITH A SENATOR CAN SEE WHAT WAS SAID IN THE STATEMENT, THEN THE SENATE WOULD VOTE.

IN FRONT OF THE VITALITY SENATE. WE ARE LOOKING THROUGH THE LENS OF THIS NOVEMBER'S ELECTIONS. HE WANTS TO KEEP THE MAJORITY OF THE SENATE WILL PASS IN NOVEMBER. GUIDE US WHEN THE VOTE IS TAKEN. ABOUT THE WITNESSES. ON WHETHER THEY LEAD MORE WITNESSES. ABOUT THE EVIDENCE TO PRESENT. OR THE REPUBLICANS YOU ARE WATCHING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. FIRST OF ALL, I LOOK AT SUSAN COLLINS, WHO IS RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION IN MAINE. PURPLE MAINE. SUSAN COLLINS HAD A BIG SUCCESS LAST YEAR WHEN SHE VOTED FOR BRETT KAVANAUGH TO BE THE JUDGE OF COURT SEVEN. THE MOMENT HE DID, DEMOCRATS FLOODED OUR STATE WITH MONEY.

THEY HAVE NO CANDIDATE. They poured money into Maine to oust Susan Collins from her Senate seat. THAT'S WHAT SENATOR I WILL SEE. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AFTER SHE VOTED, MITCH McCONNELL DEFINED THAT WE WILL SPEND MONEY TO MAKE SURE SHE IS RE-ELECTED. Her to APPROVE FUTURE DIFFICULT VOTES. YOU COULD READ BETWEEN THE LINES. CORY GARDNER IS RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION IN A PURPLE STATE, COLORADO. AND LISA MURKOWSKI FROM ALASKA. HE IS NOT NECESSARILY PRESENT FOR RE-ELECTION. THIS IS A REPUBLICAN SENATOR WHO LOST THE GOP PRIMARY IN HER LAST RUN. SHE RUN AS INDEPENDENT. And she WON. WHEN IT COMES TO HER PARTY, LISA MURKOWSKI IS IN DEBT TO ALASKA AND STRIVES TO LET THEM KNOW.

NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU ABOUT YOUR PARTY OF HER, BUT MORE THAT HER BE THOUGHT INTO THE DECISIONS SHE MAKES. I'M ALSO LOOKING AT MITT ROMNEY. REPRESENTS UTAH. She is A FRESHMAN. A TRUE FRESHMAN IN THE SENATE. HE WAS JUST ELECTED. THIS PAST COMES BACK. IN 2018. HE HAS HAD SKIRMS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE PAST. THEY HAVE WORKED TOGETHER. SINCE HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. MITT ROMNEY HAS TAKEN A STEP BACK. WE DID MORE ABOUT THIS. HE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO IS NOT AFRAID TO SAY THIS IS NOT OK. NOT NECESSARILY IMPACTABLE. I WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS.

I'M LOOKING AT THOSE REPUBLICANS. LAMAR ALEXANDER OF TENNESSEE. HE IS NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION AND IS VERY TYPE OF ARTICLE 1. ARTICLE 1 BEING THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE APARTMENT. GOVERNMENT. AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST, THE PRESIDENT HAS ATTEMPTED TO EXERCISE HIS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, FOR EXAMPLE, BY DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AT THE BORDER. TO REMOVE MONEY FROM THE BORDER WALL. LAMAR ALEXANDER IS NOT AFRAID TO STAND UP. MOLLY HOOPER I WANT TO THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ANALYSIS. WILL TAKE A SHORT BREAK. AND THAT WE WILL RETURN. FOR BROADCAST VIEWERS, THERE WILL BE MUCH MORE ON YOUR LOCAL CBS STATION.

YOU CAN TUNE TO CBSN ON ANY PLATFORM OR DEVICE. SIMPLY DOWNLOAD CBS NEWS. THIS HAS BEEN A SPECIAL REPORT FOR CBSN. REENA NINAN IN NEW YORK. HELLO EVERYONE, I AM TANYA RIVERO. WE ARE WAITING FOR THE SENATE TO RESUME ON DAY 1 OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IMPLEMENTATION TRIAL. SO FAR THE DEBATE HAS FOCUSED ON THE RULES OF TRIAL, AND THE MAIN QUESTION ATTENTION IS WHETHER WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSIDERED. KEIR AND MOLLY JOIN ME NOW, AND SO FAR WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CHUCK SCHUMER OFFERING SUGGESTIONS OF THINGS HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND MITCH MCCONNELL INTRODUCING THEM.

WILL THAT BE WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FOR THE REST OF THE DAY? YES BECAUSE IN AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL THE SENATORS CANNOT SPEAK. IN FACT, IF THEY ARE GOING TO TALK AND DELIBERATE, THEY HAVE TO DO IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. WE WILL NOT LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAY, AND I THINK THAT IS A MOTION THAT APPLIES AT ANY TIME DURING TONIGHT'S PROCEEDINGS. SO IF A SENATOR, OH, IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE CHUCK SCHUMER IS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING. YES, LET'S LISTEN. REALIZE HOW UNFAIR LEADER MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION IS, AND ARE REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO CHANGE IT. WE ARE GLAD THAT IT HAS BEEN GOING TO 3 DAYS INSTEAD OF 2, SO THAT WE DON'T HEAR ARGUMENTS AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING.

BUT THE TRUE PROOF WILL BE THE WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTS. WILL OUR REPUBLICAN SENATORS PUSH MCCONNELL SO THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED? EITHER NOW OR AFTER ARGUMENTS ARE MADE. I DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS. ANOTHER POINT, WHICH IS THIS, THE PRESIDENT'S ADVICE. NONE OF THEM DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHY THERE SHOULD NOT BE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. THEY TALK ABOUT HOW BAD THE HOUSE IS. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT AT ALL. BUT THEY DON'T DISCUSS ONE, THEY DON'T MAKE A SINGLE ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THERE SHOULD NOT BE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, CHUCK SCHUMER IS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ONLY THING DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO AVOID THEM, SEEMS TO BE OUT OF THEIR REACH.

AND IT REALLY DOESN'T LOOK LIKE TO ME AT LEAST THAT THE SENATORS ARE FEELING THE PRESSURE RIGHT NOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS HOPED THAT AT LEAST SOME MODERATE SENATORS COULD FEEL, I mean OK, LET'S PRESENT SOME WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL, RIGHT? GOOD, RIGHT. And that's because there are two things on the table. WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS RIGHT NOW OR WE MAKE THE DECISION LATER. AND SO WE JUST HEARD IN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER, MR. Philbin argued that you shouldn't have any documents, but if you want them, you can delay the decision until later. AND WHY IS THAT ADVANTAGE FOR REPUBLICANS?

WHY DO YOU DEFINITELY DECIDE NOW OR LATER TO SEE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES? BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THEY WANT TO EXTEND THIS AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGE OF OPINION AT HOME BECAUSE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE, THAT BOTH PARTIES ARE GOING TO PRESENT. INTRODUCE. AND I'M REALLY NOT CLEAR IF YOU ASK ME, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO CHANGE FROM NOW TO NEXT WEEK. BUT ON THE MATTER OF JUSTICE, THE REPUBLICANS WOULD ARGUMENT, LET'S LISTEN TO BOTH PARTIES PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS, LET'S ASK OUR QUESTIONS AS A SENATE, LET'S HAVE BOTH PARTIES ANSWER THEM. WE CAN DELIBERATE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IF WE NEED WITNESSES, IF WE NEEDMORE TO FOLLOW.

AND ALSO, AND THEN MAKE THAT VOTE. BUT AT LEAST UNDER THIS RESOLUTION, THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON WHETHER TO HAVE WITNESSES. During the Clinton impeachment trial, that was not a foregone conclusion because the way it was structured, essentially the Senate would get to that point, ask its questions, and then debate a motion to dismiss. UM, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITNESSES, BUT THAT VOTE ON A MOTION TO DISMISS HAPPENED BEFORE THE BODY DECIDED TO HAVE WITNESSES OR NOT. THAT SCENARIO IS NOT HAPPENING IN THIS CURRENT RESOLUTION AS WRITTEN. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE MODIFIED ANY OTHER WAY.

BUT GUARANTEE TO THOSE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE INDICATED, THAT THERE WILL BE A TIME TO VOTE FOR THESE WITNESSES. THERE WILL BE. SO HELP US DEVELOP THE ARGUMENTS WE HAVE HEARD SO FAR TODAY FROM BOTH SIDES. WELL, SO, UM, I THINK THE MOST DIFFICULT ARGUMENT NOW FOR DEMOCRATS IS PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS DEMOCRATS CLAIM THEIR CASE IS OVERWHELMING, BUT THEY'RE IN THE SENATE ASKING FOR MORE EVIDENCE NOW. THAT'S A DIFFICULT ARGUMENT TO OVERCOME. AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THE KEY ARGUMENT IS THAT TRIAL IS FOR THE SEARCH OF THE TRUTH. JUDGMENTS AS WE GENERALLY UNDERSTAND THEM AS AMERICANS.

AND WHEN WE MAKE IMPORTANT DECISIONS IN OUR LIVES, REALLY IMPORTANT DECISIONS, THIS IS ONE OF THEM. POTENTIALLY CONSIDERING REMOVING A PRESIDENT IS A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION. YOU WANT TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS. YOU WANT TO HAVE THE MOST INFORMATION POSSIBLE SO YOU CAN MAKE THE BEST POSSIBLE DECISION. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF REALLY CORE COMPETING ARGUMENTS WE ARE NOW LOOKING AT IN THIS AMENDMENT. SO YOU THINK THE REPUBLICANS HAVE FOUND ON A GOOD STRATEGY BY SAYING LOOK, THE DEMOCRATS CLAIMED THEY ALREADY HAD ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD, NOW THEY SAY THEY NEED MORE. Going back to the question of why wait, I've thought about it for a few minutes, and I really think it comes down to that oath that the Senate takes, you know, I affirm that I will be a fair and IMPARTIAL JURY IN A SENSE.

AND REPUBLICAN SENATORS LIKE SUSAN COLLINS IN A DIFFICULT RACE FOR RE-ELECTION, SHE WOULD ARGUGE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE REASON WHY SHE'S BEING FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, BUT OTHER INDIVIDUALS LIKE MITT ROMNEY, WANT TO HEAR IF THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, DID, TRIED THE ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS FAIRLY. BECAUSE AFTER BOTH PARTIES MAKE THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS AND ANSWER THE SENATOR'S QUESTIONS, REPUBLICANS LIKE SENATOR COLLINS, LISA MURKOWSKI, MITT ROMNEY, FEEL THAT THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, VIOLATED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S STATEMENTS, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS KIND OF WITCH. HUNT OR PARTISAN HIT HIT AS SOME REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO SAY, THEN THEY WON'T VOTE FOR WITNESSES.

BUT AGAIN, REALLY, THE BURDEN IS, I THINK, ON THE DEMOCRATS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS, TO MAKE THAT CASE. And if it's convincing enough, I think you'll see Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski vote for more witnesses. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW IT COMPARES TO THE BILL CLINTON TAX TRIAL. I mean, he was accused of perjury, correct? CORRECT. AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. CORRECT. So how do those articles of impeachment legally compare to the articles of impeachment that President Trump now faces? SO THIS IS ONE OF THE OTHER ARGUMENTS WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT YET, BUT, UM, I HOPE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COUNSEL WILL MAKE THIS ARGUMENT MORE COMPLETELY AS THEY PROVIDE FORWARD ON THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT ISSUED IN THE FORM OF ALLEGING A CRIME.

THEN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PERJURY, YOU TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THOSE IN ADDITION TO BEING INdictable CRIMES, ARE ALSO FEDERAL CRIMES. THEY ARE CRIMES ACCORDING TO CRIMINAL LAW. AND I HOPE THAT ANOTHER AREA THAT MAYBE LATER IN THE ARGUMENTS WILL BE DEVELOPED FURTHER AS THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE ATTORNEY DISCUSS THIS IS THIS CLAIM BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ, WHICH I BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE THE ARTICLES DO NOT ALLEGE A CRIME, THEY ARE DEFECTIVE . - SO THEY DO NOT ALLEGE A CRIME OR MISUSE OF FUNDS THAT THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE DIDN'T SAY IS A CRIME? WELL, THEY ARE IN THE FORM, IN THAT, AS ABUSE OF POWER.

GOOD. SO LOOK, THE FACTS BELOW THEM COULD ESTABLISH A BRIBE. THEY COULD ESTABLISH, UM, THEY COULD ESTABLISH A CRIME. BUT THE WAY THE HOUSE MANAGERS CHOSE THAT CLAIM, THEY CALLED IT ABUSE OF POWER. GOOD. AND EVEN THE DEMOCRATS, I MEAN, EVEN THE REPUBLICANS, SEKULOW I THINK STOOD UP AND SAID WELL, WE HEARD QUID QUO PRO, WE HEARD EXTORTION, WE HEARD BRIBERY, BUT NONE ARE MENTIONED IN THE ACTION ARTICLES. GOOD? THAT WAS KIND OF HIS ARGUMENT. IF THIS WAS AN INDICTABLE CRIME, WHY DID YOU NOT MENTION IT? THAT'S WHAT I HEARD HIM SAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT.

WAS IT A LITTLE MISTAKE THEN ON THE PART OF THE DEMOCRATS? SHOULD THEY HAVE NAMED BRIBERY AS AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT? I THINK IT'S MORE, AND MOLLY COULD TALK ABOUT THIS BETTER, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE OF A POLITICAL ISSUE. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND HAS THE WORD CRIME AND MINOR CRIME. THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE IS A TERM OF ART IN OUR LONG HISTORY THAT WE BROUGHT WITH US FROM ENGLAND, AND IN FACT MOST CONSTITUTIONAL STUDENTS WOULD TELL YOU THAT AN ABUSE OF POWER DESCRIBED IN THIS ACTION ARTICLE IS ABSOLUTELY IMPACTANT, AND THAT MR. DERSHOWITZ'S OPINION IS A LIAR.

AND I THINK MOST REPUBLICANS WOULD ALSO AGREE IF HE WAS A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. IT'S ALWAYS YOUR POINT OF VIEW BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRESIDENT IS SOMETHING THAT BOTH PARTIES WOULD ARGUE COULD BE ACCUSIBLE DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. CORRECT, IF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT DECIDED TO MOVE TO FIJI AND STOP DOING HIS JOB, THAT SHOULD BE INdictable IF IT WAS NOT A CRIME. I THINK IF A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DID THAT IT WOULD STILL BE A CRIME! AND WE NOW HAVE POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT ANITA KUMAR JOINING US. WELCOME ANITA. CAN YOU TELL US WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DURING ALL OF THIS TODAY?

REPORTER: WELL, AS YOU KNOW HE IS IN SWITZERLAND FOR THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. WE HAVE HEARD YOU TALK A LITTLE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT TODAY. SOME REPORTERS ASKED HIM SOME QUESTIONS. HE CALLED IT A HOASE AGAIN. DON'T GO INTO A LOT OF DETAILS. BUT OBVIOUSLY HE'S AT ANOTHER TIME, SO HIS DAY IS ALREADY OVER. That doesn't necessarily mean he's asleep. HE COULD WELL BE WATCHING WHAT'S HAPPENING, BUT HIS SPOKESMAN SAYS HE WILL BE INFORMED PERIODICALLY, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE TIME TO SEE. HE HAS BEEN MEETING WITH WORLD LEADERS ALL DAY TODAY, AND HE WILL ALSO BE THERE TOMORROW.

WE KNOW THAT INITIALLY THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED THE DESIRE TO SEE WITNESSES AND SEE A COMPLETE TRIAL. I REALLY WANTED THIS, YOU KNOW, A SOLID DEFENSE. WHY NOW HAS THE WHITE HOUSE CHANGE ITS VIEW ON THIS TRIAL IN THE SENATE? I MEAN THAT THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM CLEARLY DOES NOT WANT THE WITNESSES TO BE CALLED. YOU'RE DEFINITELY RIGHT ABOUT THAT. They've been holding briefings with reporters for the past few days and they definitely don't want witnesses. YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. EVEN WHEN ALL HIS ALLIES, FOLLOWERS AND FRIENDS SAID NO, YOU DON'T WANT WITNESSES, HE STILL WANTED THEM.

BUT I THINK THE REASON HE REALLY CHANGED HIS MIND IS REALLY CONSULTING WITH SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH MCCONNELL. YOU HAVE TRUSTED MITCH MCCONNELL FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS. YOU'VE SEEN HOW HE PUSHED THE TAX BILL THAT FIRST YEAR AND PUSHED ALL THE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS AND REALLY GOT PARTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. SO MITCH MCCONNELL SAID TRUST ME, THE PRESIDENT KNOWS, MITCH MCCONNELL KNOWS HOW THE SENATE WORKS AND TRUSTS HIM A LITTLE. SO THIS IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED IT, BUT HE TRUSTS THAT IT IS THE BEST OUTPUT. THE FASTEST WAY FOR HIM TO GET BACK TO EVERYTHING ELSE, GET BACK TO THE CAMPAIGN PATH AND GET BACK TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

SO TRUST MR. MCCONNELL ON THAT. OKAY, MOLLY, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BIGGEST FEELING IN THE REPUBLICAN SENATE. WE KEEP GOING BACK TO THE SAME REPUBLICAN SENATORS, MURKOWSKI, ROMNEY, COLLINS TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY WILL VOTE, BUT WHAT IF WE'RE REALLY SURE THAT MCCONNELL HAS A BLOCK ON ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN SENATORS? I THINK IN TERMS OF WITNESSES, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE KEY HERE, WHETHER OR NOT WE HEAR FROM WITNESSES. THAT'S WHERE A REPUBLICAN VOTE WILL MATTER. BECAUSE IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS YOU NEED 67 SENATORS TO VOTE FOR IMPEACH. So even if they lost a handful of vulnerable Republicans, the president wouldn't be removed from office.

SO WITNESSES ARE WHERE VOTES COUNT. AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW HOW MARTHA MCSALLY, WHO IS RUNNING IN ARIZONA AGAINST MARK KELLY, WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW HOW SHE WILL VOTE FOR WITNESSES. SHE IS A FIRM SUPPORTER AND HAS A LARGE TRUMP constituency, BUT ULTIMATELY, IT'S A PURPLE STATE AND IT'S UNCLEAR HOW SHE WILL VOTE. AND SOME SENATORS HAVE REMAINED VERY VOCIFERENT SILENCE ON THIS ISSUE. YES, HIS SILENCE HAS BEEN DEAFING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU! RIGHT! BECAUSE LET'S STOP THIS. THIS IS WHAT THEY DID, IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT, THEY VIOLATED THE LAW BY NOT SPENDING THE MONEY THAT CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED SPECIFICALLY TO GIVE HELP TO UKRAINE.

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DECIDED TO SPEND IT FOR ANY REASON, AND THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT IN ARTICLE 1 IS CONGRESS IN THAT CASE. THE POWER OF THE PURSE, THAT IS CONGRESS. THEY IMPOSE YOU. BUT THAT'S THE JOB OF CONGRESS. AND WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION DECIDES NOT TO ENACT OR ESSENTIALLY ENFORCE THE LAW THAT CONGRESS CREATED, THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO IF THERE ARE INSTITUTIONALISTS, INDIVIDUALS WHO FEEL A STRONG SENSE OF THE AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE 1, JUST ON BASIS, THAT'S A PROBLEM. SO YOU COULD SEE THE MEMBERS AGAIN, THEY SAY LIKE LAMAR ALEXANDER, WHO IS A LONG-TIME SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE, REPUBLICAN, IS RETIRING, BUT THIS DIDN'T SIT GOOD.

AND WE CAN SEE HIM VOTE FOR THE WITNESSES TO SAY WELL, WHY DID THEY BLOCK THE MONEY WE DIRECTED TO BE SPENT IN UKRAINE? RIGHT. Do you think Congress, knowing that it is within their power to do so, would be curious to know? BECAUSE THIS IS AS YOU SAID A DIRECT POWER OF CONGRESS. RIGHT. AND IF THE PRESIDENT SAYS HE CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, WELL CONGRESS CAN TELL YOU WHAT TO DO, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WORKING TOGETHER TO STAND UP AND REPEAL THE LEGISLATION HE VETOES. SO IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS OR BACKGROUND, TIM KAINE HAS GOT 51 VOTES IN FAVOR OF HIS WAR POWERS RESOLUTION WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT CONGRESS WILL NOT SUPPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO WORK, TAKING, YOU KNOW, ACTION AGAINST IRAN DURING MORE THAN 30 DAYS.

BUT BASICALLY IT STATES THE ROLE OF CONGRESS WHEN IT COMES TO WAR POWERS. AND YOU KNOW WE'LL SEE HOW IT TURNS OUT. RIGHT. VERY GOOD, ANITA, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME VIEW OF WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL STRATEGY WILL BE TOMORROW? REPORTER: YES, I MEAN WE REALLY HAVE A Clue AS TO WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, THE TRUMP DEFENSE PUSHED THIS WEEKEND IN THE 2 DOCUMENTS THEY SENT TO CAPITOL HILL. Quite extensive DOCUMENTS. THEY DIDN'T REALLY GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THE UKRAINE SITUATION AS MUCH AS THEY TALKED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IT. CAN THIS PRESIDENT BE FOUND WITH IMPEACHMENT CHARGES?

CAN YOU GO THROUGH THE TRIAL? THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS ABOUT THE HOUSE NOT DOING A FAIR PROCESS -- ANITA, SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT THE SENATE IS BACK IN ORDER AND WE WILL LISTEN TO IT. PRESIDING JUSTICE ROBERTS SPEAKS. THANK YOU AND MR. CIPOLLON. MISTER. SCHIFF, YOU HAVE ONE HOUR AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL. CHAIRMAN JUDGE ROBERTS, SENATORS, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. I AM VAL DEMINGS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA. HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT AMENDMENT TO ISSUE SUBMONTATES FOR DOCUMENTS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THE FIRST ARTICLE OF ACCUSATION ACCUSES THE PRESIDENT OF USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO REQUEST AND PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS THAT EVERYONE IN THIS HOUSE KNOWS ARE FALSE.

THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T EVEN CARE IF AN INVESTIGATION WAS ACTUALLY DONE, JUST THAT IT WAS ANNOUNCED. BECAUSE? BECAUSE THIS WAS FOR THEIR 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 DAMAGED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES. AS THE SECOND ARTICLE OF THE IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, THE PRESIDENT SEEK TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF THIS CONDUCT. HE DID THIS BY ORDERING HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION, EVERY OFFICE, EVERY AGENCY, EVERY OFFICIAL TO DEFY EVERY SUMMONS GIVEN IN THE HOUSE ACTION INVESTIGATION. NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS DONE SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY COULD NOT DO ANY OF THAT. PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT TAKE THESE EXTREME MEASURES TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF HIS INNOCENCE OR TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCE AS A CAREER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYONE TAKE SUCH EXTREME MEASURES TO HIDE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPOSEDLY PROVE HIS INNOCENCE . AND I CAN'T 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 HIDDEN WILL ONLY PROVE HIS GUILT MORE. Despite this effort to hinder our investigation, the House accumulated powerful evidence of the President's serious crimes and misdemeanors.

CONFIRMED AND CORROBORATED BY HUNDREDS OF TEXTS, EMAILS AND DOCUMENTS. MANY OF THAT EVIDENCE COME FROM PATRIOTIC AND NON-SUPPORTANT STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS. THEY ARE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO FULFILLED THEIROBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW AND GAVE TESTIMONY REQUIRED BY THE SUMMONS OF CONGRESS IN FACE OF THE PRESIDENT'S RIDES AND INSULTS. THESE OFFICIALS DESCRIBE THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN TO INDUCE AND PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. YOUR USE OF $391 MILLION OF VITAL MILITARY AID TAXPAYER MONEY APPROPRIATE IN A BIPARTIST MANNER BY CONGRESS IS USED TO FORCE UKRAINE TO COMPLY AND IS WITHHOLDING A MEETING DESPERATELY REQUESTED BY THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

THIS TESTIMONY WAS PARTICULARLY CONVIVENT BECAUSE THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS AT THE CENTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EVIL DOINGS. WE HEARD FIRST HAND FROM DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS WHO SAW UP CLOSE AND IN PERSON WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND WHO IMMEDIATELY, IMMEDIATELY RAISED THE ALARMS. AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR, WHO RETURNED TO UKRAINE LAST YEAR AS ACTING AMBASSADOR, TEXTED OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS I THINK IT'S INSANITY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. GORDON SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, WHO WAS DELEGATED AUTHORITY OVER UKRAINE LIKE NO OTHER PRESIDENT TRUMP TESTIFIED THAT WE KNEW THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WE FOLLOWED HIS ORDERS.

AND DAVID HOLMES, A SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN kyiv, SAID IT BECAME CLEAR THAT SOME ACTION ON AN OFFERED INVESTIGATION WAS A CONDITION OF A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE. DURING THEI ENTER TRUMP. FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, WHO WAS CONCERNED THAT MILITARY AID HAD BEEN CONDITIONED ON THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, DESCRIBED A SMALL NOTEBOOK IN WHICH HE TOOK NOTES ON THE CONFERENCES HE HAD WITH KEY OFFICIALS. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REFERS TO EMAILS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND THAT UKRAINE ANNOUNCE POLITICAL ISSUES. AS WE WILL SEE THROUGH EMAILS 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 MONITORED UKRAINE POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN WASHINGTON FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT, WROTE AT LEAST 4 MEMOS TO DOCUMENT THE CONDUCT HE WITNESSES OR HEARD. AND AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT HE AND OTHER US OFFICIALS COMMUNICATED WITH HIGH-LEVEL UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, INCLUDING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF VIA TEXT MESSAGES AND WHATS APP ABOUT THEIR INAPPROPRIATE DEMANDS OF THE PRESIDENT AND HOW THEY WOULD RESPOND TO THEM THE OFFICIALS UKRAINIANS. Based on the testimony we received and the evidence that has emerged with meaning, all of these documents and others that we will describe refer directly to the accusations established in the first article of the impeachment trial.

THEY WOULD HELP COMPLETE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE PRESIDENT'S OUTLINE DEVELOPED IN REAL TIME. THEY WOULD SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS UNDERSTOOD THE CORRUPT NATURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWSUIT. AND THEY WOULD FURTHER EXPOSE THE EXTENT TO SECRETARY POMPEO, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, AND OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WERE AWARE OF AND HELPED TO CARRY OUT THE PRESIDENT'S PLOT. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LARGE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC SET OF MATERIALS IN THE WAY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT. DOCUMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY COLLECTED IN RESPONSE TO OUR SUMMONS BUT HAS NEVER PRODUCED.

WE KNOW THAT THESE MATERIALS EXIST. WE KNOW THEY ARE RELEVANT AND WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO HIDE THEM. AS I WILL DESCRIBE, THE SENATE SHOULD QUOTE THE FOLLOWING. NUMBER 1, WHAT'S APP AND OTHER TEXT MESSAGE COMMUNICATIONS. 2, EMAILS. 3 DIPLOMATIC CABLES AND 4 NOTES. GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS, THE HOUSE REQUESTED THAT THEY BE PROVIDED. WHEN THESE REQUESTS WERE DENIED, WHEN OUR REQUESTS WERE DENIED, THE CHAMBER ISSUED SUMMONS DEMANDING THE DOCUMENTS BE DELIVERED. BUT BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, THE STATE DEPARTMENT ILLEGALLY CHALLENGED THAT SUMMON, AND NOW I AM HERE, AS I AM HERE NOW, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS ALL THESE DOCUMENTS IN ITS POSSESSION, BUT REFUSES, BASED ON THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER, TO LET THEM OUT SEE THE DAYLIGHT.

THIS IS A FRONT TO THE HOUSE THAT HAS FULL POWER TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS. IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE SENATE WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED A COMPLETE RECORD TO JUDGE THE GUILTY OR INNOCENCE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE CONSTITUTION WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE THE LAW. AND IT IS A FRONT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES ARE HIDING FROM THEM AND WHY THEY ARE HIDING FROM THEM. IN PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, THIS BODY HAS ISSUED SUMMONS FORCING THE RECIPIENT TO DELIVER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

YOU MUST DO IT AGAIN HERE, AND YOU MUST DO IT NOW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL, NOT AT THE END. OF COURSE, THE NEED FOR A SENATE SUMMONS ARISES BECAUSE, AS I HAVE NOTED, THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DEFY A HOUSE SUMMONS. AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE OUR OWN EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THOSE MATERIALS AND THEN ADDRESS IN DETAIL EXACTLY WHAT DOCUMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS HIDDEN FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WHY THE SENATE SHOULD REQUIRE THEM TO RELEASE THEM. ON SEPTEMBER 9, EXERCISING ITS ARTICLE 1 OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY, THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE SUBMITTED A DOCUMENT REQUEST TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

THE COMMITTEE SEEK MATERIALS RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO ITS POLITICAL RIVAL, AS WELL AS HIS DANGEROUS AND UNEXPLAINED WITHHOLDING OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN VITAL MILITARY AID. AFTER THE STATE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS, THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFIRS COMMITTEE ISSUED A SUMMONS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 27. IN A LETTER OF OCTOBER 1, SECRETARY POMPEO ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF THE SUMMONS. AT THAT TIME HE STATED THAT HE WOULD RESPOND TO THE COMMITTEE'S SUMMONS FOR DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE RETURN DATE OF OCTOBER 4. BUT HIS ANSWER NEVER CAME. INSTEAD, ON OCTOBER 8, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER, WRITING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT, ISSUED A STATEMENT CONFIRMING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WILL PREVENT THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.

TODAY THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT. NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CONGRESSIVE SUMMONS. BUT WITNESSES WHO TESTIVED INDICATED THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD GATHERED ALL THE RECORDS AND WAS PREPARED TO PROVIDE THEM BEFORE THE WHITE HOUSE ORDERED IT TO DEFY THE SUPPORT. Despite this illegal obstruction through the testimony of brave employees of the State Department, the Chamber was able STATE. I WOULD LIKE TO GUIDE YOU THROUGH 4 KEY CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS THAT SHOULD BE CITED AND THAT 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 APPS AND TEXT MESSAGES FROM OFFICIALS STUCK IN THE EVENTS, INCLUDING AMBASSADORS SONDLAND AND TAYLOR AND ALSO DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT. THE 3 WHO CONFIRM IN THEIR TESTIMONY THAT THEY REGULARLY USE WHAT'S APP TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. AS UNDERSECRET KENT EXPLAINED, WHAT'S APP IS A DOMINANT FORM OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IN CERTAIN PARTS OF THE WORLD. WE KNOW THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS THE WHAT'S APP RECORDS AND TEXT MESSAGES OF WITNESSES CRITICAL TO THESE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND TAYLOR AND DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT. WE KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS DELIBERATELY, DELIBERATELY HIDING THESE RECORDS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, AND WE KNOW THEY COULD CONTAIN HIGHLY RELEVANT TESTIMONIALS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN TO CONDITION OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL ACTS ON ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INVESTIGATIONS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT .

WE KNOW THIS NOT ONLY FROM TESTIMONIALS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH A SMALL BUT DECLARING SELECTION OF HIS WHAT'S APP MESSAGES. THOSE RECORDS ARE CONFIRMED WITH A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THESE TEXTS AND THE WHAT'S APP MESSAGES WOULD HELP PAINT A VIVID FIRST-HAND PICTURE OF THE STATEMENTS AND BELIEFS OF THE IMPORTANT PARTICIPANTS OF THE EVENTS UNDERSTANDING 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 WITNESSED ON CAMERA ABOUT A QUID PRO QUO ARRANGEMENT, SENT A TEXT MESSAGE DIRECTLY TO THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THIS IMAGE PRODUCED BY AMBASSADOR VOLKER APPEARS TO BE A SCREEN CAPTURE OF A TEXT MESSAGE SONDLAND EXCHANGED WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REGARDING PLANS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT. THE SAME VISIT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY VERY NEEDED. AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP LATER CONTINUED AS PART OF THE QUID QUO PRO DESCRIBED BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IN HIS TESTIMONY. THIS BODY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT ELSE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID IN THIS AND WHAT OTHER EXCHANGES WERE ABOUT MILITARY AID AND THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND. BUT WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS TRANSMITTED OR WHEN. WE DO NOT KNOW IF PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO HIDE THE VITAL RECORDS.

THESE ARE RECORDS THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TURNED OVER OTHERWISE IF NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO COVER UP HIS EVIL ACTION. TO UNDERSTAND WHY TEXTS AND MESSAGES FROM APPS ARE SO VITAL, JUST CONSIDER WHETHER THERE IS OTHER EVIDENCE WE HAVE EXTRACTED FROM THE PARTIAL PRODUCTION OF AMBASSADOR VOLKER. ON JULY 10 AT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS, A UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL MESSAGES AMBASSADOR VOLKER: I FEEL THAT THE KEY TO MANY THINGS IS RUDY, AND I AM READY TO TALK TO HIM AT ANY TIME. THIS IS PROOF THAT THEY REALIZED THEY NEEDED TO SHUT DOWN RUDY GIULIANI CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATIONS.

OF COURSE MR. GIULIANI HAD PUBLICLY CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN FOREIGN POLICY, BUT INSTEAD PROVIDING THE PERSONAL INTEREST OF HIS CLIENT, THE PRESIDENT. IN ANOTHER EXCHANGE WE SAW THAT UKRAINE UNDERSTOOD PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMANDS LOUD AND CLEAR. ON THE MORNING OF JULY 25, A HALF-HOUR BEFORE THE INFAMOUS CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER WROTE TO A SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL, OVERHEARD FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. Assuming President Z convinces Trump, he will investigate and get to the bottom of what happened in 2016. We will set the date for the visit to Washington, good luck. SEE YOU TOMORROW.

KURT. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CONFIRMED THAT THE TEXT EXACTLY SUMMARY THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE THAT MORNING. AFTER THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL RESPONDED NICELY. THE PHONE CALL WENT GOOD. THE NEXT DAY AMBASSADOR VOLKER WRITTEN TO RUDY GIULIANI. THESE MESSAGES CONFIRM MR. GIULIANI'S CENTRAL ROLE, THE PREMEDITATED NATURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUEST FOR A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION, AND THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN CONDUCTED ON UKRAINE BY MR. GIULIANI AND SENIOR OFFICIALS UNDER THE LEADER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. AGAIN THIS IS JUST SOME OF WHAT WE LEARNED FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S RECORDS. IN AUGUST, THERE WERE MANY WHAT'S APPS MESSAGES, WHILE AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND AND MR.

GIULIANI PRESSED THEM TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED, AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TEXTS FURTHER REVEAL HOW MUCH MORE MATERIAL LIKELY WAS RELATED TO THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT MESSAGES FROM OTHER OFFICIALS INVOLVED AND IN CONTACT WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, TAYLOR AND KENT, WOULD FURTHER ILLUMINATE THE BAD WORK IN OUR FIRST ARTICLE. FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 19, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT THE UPCOMING JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SENT AN EMAIL UPDATE TO KEY OFFICIALS, INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO, ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, AND HIS SENIOR ADVISOR ROBERT BLAIR.

IN THIS EMAIL HE STATED THAT HE PREPARED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHO WAS WILLING TO MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED. SECRETARY PERRY AND MICK MULVANEY RESPONDED TO SONDLAND BY ACKNOWLEDGING THEY RECEIVED THE EMAIL AND RECOMMENDING GOING FORWARD WITH THE PHONE CALL THAT BECAME THE JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE. WE KNOW ALL THIS, NOT BECAUSE THE STATE DEPARTMENT PROVIDED US WITH CRITICAL DOCUMENTS. BUT INSTEAD OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PROVIDED US A REPRODUCTION OF THE EMAIL. IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND VERY DIRECTLY EXPLAINED THAT THIS MAILELECTRONIC PROVED THAT EVERYONE WAS INFORMED.

EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP. IT WAS NOT A SECRET. EVERYONE PARTICIPATED VIA EMAIL ON JULY 19, DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL CALL. WHEN COMMUNICATING WITH THE TEAM, I TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN ADVANCE THAT GUARANTEES WERE NECESSARY IN HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP TO CONDUCT A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND RETURN ALL THE STONES. EVEN SEEN ALONE, THIS REPRODUCED EMAIL IS CONDEMNING. It was sent after Sondland personally conveyed the president's desire to conduct investigations at the White House. LEADING SEVERAL OFFICIALS TO SOUND THE ALARMS. IT WAS SENT JUST A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE JULY 25 CALL WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR FAVOR, AND THIS EMAIL ALONE SHOWS WHO WAS INVOLVED IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PLAN TO PRESSURE THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL BENEFIT.

BUT IT IS PROOF THAT THE ENTIRE EMAIL CHAIN ​​AND OTHER EMAILS RELATED TO THIS KEY TIME PERIOD WOULD ALSO BE HIGH, WHY IS IT RELEVANT? WE DO NOT HAVE THE EMAILS BECAUSE THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS HIDING THEM. BY DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT. THE SENATE SHOULD ISSUE THE PROPOSED SUMMONS TO ENSURE A COMPLETE RECORD OF THESE AND OTHER RELEVANT EMAILS. ANY DOUBT THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS HIDING CRITICAL EVIDENCE FROM THIS AGENCY 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 CENSORED AND LIMITED TO A VERY Narrow TIME PERIOD, BUT YET, DESPITE THE STRONG CENSURATIONS, THESE VERY LIMITED LOOKS INTO THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S SECRET FILE SHOW THAT THOSE RECORDS ARE FULL OF INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THIS TRIAL.

FOR EXAMPLE, SEVERAL OF THE RECENTLY RELEASED EMAILS SHOW MULTIPLE CONTACTS BETWEEN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO AND MR. GIULIANI. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FACT. MISTER. GIULIANI SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT'S REFERENCE PERSON IN THE EXECUTION OF HIS CORRUPT SCHEME. MISTER. GIULIANI repeatedly emphasized that he was promoting the president's personal agenda and political interests, not to advance the national security interests of the United States. THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND SENIOR OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPORTING GIULIANI'S EFFORTS IN UKRAINE IS RELEVANT, DISTURBING AND REVEALING. FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW THAT ON MARCH 26TH AS MR.

GIULIANI WAS FOLLOWING THE PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE AGENDA IN UKRAINE, AND JUST ONE DAY AFTER HILL PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE ABOUT GIULIANI'S UKRAINIAN CONSPIRACY THEORY, SECRETARY POMPEO AND MR. GIULIANI SPOKE DIRECTLY ON THE PHONE. THAT SAME WEEK MR. GIULIANI'S ASSISTANT FOR A DIRECT CONNECTION WITH 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 SUPPORTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE GIVEN THE INVOLVEMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL SECRETARY. THIS AGENCY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THESE EMAILS AND OTHER FILES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, DELETE THE DETAILS AND EXCHANGES WITH GIULIANI AND SECRETARY POMPEO.

FURTHERMORE, BASED ON CALL RECORDS LEGALLY OBTAINED BY THE HOUSE FROM THIS PERIOD, WE KNOW THAT FROM MARCH 24 TO MARCH 30, MR. GIULIANI CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE SEVERAL TIMES AND ALSO CONNECTED TO AN UNIDENTIFIED NUMBER SEVERAL TIMES. THESE MINUTES SHOW THAT ON MARCH 27, MR. GIULIANI MADE A SERIES OF CALLS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT SWITCHBOARD. ASSISTANT SECRETARY POMPEO AND THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD IN FAST SUCCESS, ALL IN LESS THAN 30 MINUTES. OBTAINING EMAILS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE INTERACTION OF STATE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRIVATE COUNSEL IN THIS PERIOD WHEN MR. GIULIANI WAS THE ACTIVITY ORCHESTRATING THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE RELATED TO THE FAKE 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 SELECT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS .

WE ALSO KNOW, BASED ON RECENTLY OBTAINED DOCUMENTS, EXCUSE ME, THAT LEV PARNAS, AN ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI, HAS ASSISTED HIM IN HIS REPRESENTATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT GIULIANI PROBABLY SPOKE WITH SECRETARY POMPEO ABOUT UKRAINE ISSUES EVEN EARLIER THAN PREVIOUSLY UNDERSTOOD. ACCORDING TO MR. PARNAS, GIULIANI WROTE IN EARLY 2019 THAT HE APPARENTLY SPOKE WITH SECRETARY POMPEO ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF US AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH. MISTER. GIULIANI SAW HER AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME AND ORCHESTRATED A LONG DEFAMATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER. HERE IS WHAT MR. PARNAS SAID ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK. DO YOU THINK PART OF THE MOTIVATION FOR GETTING RID OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TO REMOVE HER FROM HER POSITION WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS IN THE PATH OF YOUR EFFORT TO GET THE UKRAINE GOVERNMENT TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JOE BIDEN?

THAT WAS THE ONLY MOTIVATION. WAS THAT THE ONLY MOTIVATION? THERE WAS NO OTHER MOTIVATION. THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE KNOW ABOUT. THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS WE KNOW EXIST, BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT MORE, INCLUDING FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S REQUEST FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR HER AROUND THE TIME THE MR. GIULIANI SPOKE DIRECTLY, DIRECTLY WITH SECRETARY POMPEO. BUT THAT STATEMENT NEVER ARRIVED. THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS COLLECTED THESE RECORDS AND THEY ARE READY TO BE TURNED OVER PURSUANT TO A SENATE SUBPATINAL. OBTAINING THEM WOULD NOT BE A LONG OR TIME-TAKING PROCESS, AND THERE ARE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN.

IF WE WANT THE FULL AND COMPLETE TRUTH, WE NEED TO SEE THESE EMAILS. The Senate must also look to a third item that the State Department has refused to provide, and that is the extraordinary diplomatic cable from Ambassador Taylor to Secretary Pompeo dated August 29 and sent on the recommendation of National Security Advisor John Bolton in which Ambassador Taylor opposed THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE, AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOLD IN HIS STATEMENT. NEAR THE END OF AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S VISIT, I REQUESTED TO MEET PRIVATELY AND EXPRESSED MY SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WHILE THE UKRAINIANS DEFENDED THEIR COUNTRY FROM RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON RECOMMENDED SENDING A CABLE IN FIRST PERSON TO SECRETARY POMPEO TO CONVEY MY CONCERNS. I DID THIS ON AUGUST 29, DESCRIBING THE FOOLISHNESS I SAW IN WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AT A TIME WHEN HOSTILITIES WERE STILL ACTIVE IN THE EAST AND RUSSIA WAS WATCHING CLOSELY TO GAUGE THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT. THE RUSSIANS 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 SHORTLY THE SECRETARY TOOK THE CABLE TO A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOCUSED ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE.

ALTHOUGH WE KNOW FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND GEORGE KENT, WE KNOW THAT THE CABLE WAS RECEIVED, WE DO NOT KNOW HOW OR IF THE STATE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED. WE ALSO DO NOT KNOW IF THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS ANY OTHER PERSONAL RECORDS RELATING TO THIS CABLE. THIS CABLE FIRST DEMONSTRATES THE DAMAGE PRESIDENT TRUMP DID TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BY USING FOREIGN POLICY AS A PERSONAL INSTRUMENT, SECOND, ON THE SAME DAY THE CABLE WAS SENT, A SENIOR AID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT HE WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WAITING FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE. HE ADDED THAT UKRAINIANS WERE JUST DESPERATE FOR IT TO BE RENTED.

IN OTHER WORDS, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EMPLOYMENT TO APPLY PRESSURE ON UKRAINE WAS WORKING. AND FINALLY, BASED ON THE NEW YORK TIMES RECORDING, WE NOW KNOW THAT WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SENT THE CABLE, PRESIDENT TRUMP DISCUSSED AID WITH SECRETARY P.M. AND JOHN BOLTON. PERHAPS IT WAS DURING THIS MEETING, PERHAPS PROMPTED BY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CABLE, THE 3 BEGGED, BEGGED THE PRESIDENT TO RESUME CRUCIAL MILITARY AID. STILL THE PRESIDENT REFUSED. THIS AGENCY HAS THE RIGHT TO SEE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CABLE AS WELL AS THE OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS ADDRESSING THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE. ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME, THE STATE DEPARTMENT CANNOT CLAIM THAT THE ISSUE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE REMAINS CLASSIFIED TODAY IN LIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO DECLASSIFY HIS 2 PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MR.

MULVANEY'S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE. THE FOURTH CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS THE SENATE MUST ORDER ARE CONTEMPORARY FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNTS FROM STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WHO WERE CAUGHT INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PLANS. THESE WOULD HELP COMPLETE THE RECORD AND CLARIFY HOW THE PRESIDENT'S OUTLINE DEVELOPED IN REAL TIME AND HOW UKRAINIANS REACTED. MISTER. KENT WROTE NOTES OR MEMOS TO PRESENT AT LEAST 4 TIMES ACCORDING TO HIS TESTIMONY AND DAVID HOLMES, THE EMBASSY OFFICIAL IN UKRAINE TOOK CONSEQUENTIAL NOTES IN IMPORTANT MEETINGS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. DO YOU TAKE NOTES OF THIS CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 1 WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? I DID IT. AND DID YOU TAKE NOTES RELATING TO MOST OF THE CONVERSATIONS, NOT ALL OF THE ONE YOU RECITED IN YOUR OPENING SPEECH?

ALL OF THEM. AND YOU KNOW, I'M PRESUMED THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PROVIDED THE NOTES. I AM CONSCIOUS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MAY ARRIVE LATE OR EARLY. WELL, WE'LL APPRECIATE THAT. THE STATE DEPARTMENT NEVER PRODUCED THE NOTES. DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT WITNESSED ABOUT A KEY DOCUMENT HE DRAFTED ON AUGUST 16 THAT DESCRIBES HIS CONCERNS THAT THE PRESIDENT, THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO OPEN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH YOU MR. KENT. IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID THAT BY MID-AUGUST IT HAD BEEN CLEAR TO ME THAT GIULIANI'S EFFORTS TO PUSH POLITICALLY MOTIVED INVESTIGATIONS ARE NOW INFECTING THE UNITED STATES' COMMITMENT TO UKRAINE, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S DESIRE FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING .

Mm, sir. KENT, DID YOU REALLY WRITE A NOTE DOCUMENTING YOUR CONCERNS THAT THERE WAS AN EFFORT UNDERWAY TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION TO BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP? YES, MA'AM, I WROTE A NOTE IN THE FILE ON AUGUST 16TH. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT, RIGHT? I SUBMITTED IT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT TO THE SUMMONS OF SEPTEMBER 27TH. AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE DOCUMENT FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT RELATED TO THIS INVESTIGATION. DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT ALSO RECALLED A CONVERSATION IN WHICH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBED A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL ACCUSING THE UNITED STATES OF HYPOCRISY FOR ADVISING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NOT TO INVESTIGATE A FORMER UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

MISTER. KENT SAID VOLKER POINTED OUT THAT THE UKRAINIANS, WHO HAD OPENED THEIR AUTHORITIES UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HAD OPENED INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE FORMER PRESIDENT. I DON'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE. AND THEN DOUBTS AMERICAN CREDIBILITY ON ANTI-CORRUPTION MEASURES. THE RECORDS OF THESE CONVERSATIONS AND OTHER NOTES FROM SENIOR UKRAINE OFFICIALS WOULD FORM AND HELP COMPLETE THE DOCLE OF THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE impeachment. EMAILS, DIPLOMATIC CABLES AND NOTES. THESE DOCUMENTS CORRESPOND DIRECTLY TO THE JUDGMENT OF THIS BODY, THE TRIAL THAT THIS BODY IS OBLIGED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO HOLD. THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY RELEVANT TO THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE PERFORMANCE.

ITS EXISTENCE HAS BEEN WITNESSED BY CREDIBLE WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE. AND THE ONLY REASON WE NO LONGER HAVE THEM IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS ORDERED HIS ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO, TO HIDE THEM. THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS MAY SUGGEST THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE SEEKED THESE MATERIALS IN COURT OR WAITED FOR OTHER DEMANDS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. ANY SESSION IN THIS WAY HAS NO MERIT. TO START, THE CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO REQUIRE SUCH DEMANDS, WHICH HAS NEVER OCCURRED, HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN ANY PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT. FURTHERMORE, THE PRESIDENT HAS REPEATEDLY ARGUED THAT THE HOUSE CAN'T EVEN FILE A LAWSUIT TO ENFORCE ITS SUMMONS.

AND IN THE FREEDOM OF ADMINISTRATION ACT CASES, THEY HAVE ONLY SLOWLY AND RELUCTANTLY PRODUCED an extremely small set of materials, but have insisted on strong and dubious wording. LAWSUITS BROUGHT BY THIRD PARTIES CANNOT SERVE AS A CREDITABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CONGRESSIVE OVERSIGHT. IN FACT, IT IS STILL ALARMING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PRODUCED MORE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INFORMATION ACT DEMANDS BY CITIZENS AND PRIVATE ENTITIES THAN CONGRESSIONAL SUMMONS. FINALLY, AS WE ALL KNOW, THE LITIGATION WOULD TAKE AN EXTREMELY LONG TIME. PROBABLE YEARS. NOT WEEKS OR MONTHS. WHILE THIS PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION. THE MISCONDUCT OF THIS PRESIDENTREQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION.

IF THIS BODY IS REALLY COMMITTED TO A FAIR TRIAL. YOU CAN'T LET THE PRESIDENT PLAY THE GAME OF STAY OUT AND DICTATE WHAT EVIDENCE THE SENATORS CAN AND CAN'T SEE BURIED ABOUT HIS GUILTY OR INNOCENCE. THIS AGENCY CANNOT ALLOW YOU TO HIDE ALL THE EVIDENCE WHILE YOU INSIST ON CLAIMS THAT YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE WE CAN PRESENT. THE ONE YOU KNOW WILL NOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. HE IS TRYING TO CHEAT TO WIN. INSTEAD OF HONORING THEIR OATHS TO DO FAIR JUSTICE, WE BEAT EACH SENATOR TO REPORT A SUMMONA TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND THAT SUMMONS SHOULD BE ISSUED NOW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL RATHER THAN AT THE END SO THAT THESE DOCUMENTS CAN BE REVIEWED AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE.

HEAVY BY THE PARTIES, THE SENATE AND BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS IS HOW THINGS WORK IN ALL THE COURTS OF THE NATION AND HOW THEY SHOULD WORK HERE. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE Stakes, as everyone knows, are very high. THE TRUTH IS THERE. FACTS ARE Stubborn Things. THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO HIDE IT. THIS AGENCY SHOULD NOT SURRENDER TO YOUR OBSTRUCTION BY REFUSING TO DEMAND A COMPLETE FILE. THAT'S WHY THE HOUSE MANAGERS SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, AND MR. CHAIRMAN, THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME. MR. CIPOLLON? THANK YOU MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. FOR TIME REASONS, I WILL NOT REPEAT ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS WE HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED REGARDING THESE MOTIONS.

I WOULD SAY ONE THING BEFORE I GIVE IT TO MY CO-LAWYER. MISTER. SCHIFF CAME HERE AND SAID HE WON'T ASK HIM TO DO SOMETHING HE WOULDN'T DO FOR HIMSELF, AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAID WE'RE NOT ASKING HIM TO DO OUR WORK FOR US. AND MR. SCHIFF CAME HERE AND SAID, CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON. DO YOU REMEMBER PAUL HARVEY? IT'S TIME FOR THE REST OF THE STORY. HE DIDN'T CALL HIM AT THE HOUSE. He did not summon Ambassador Bolton to the house. I HAVE A LETTER FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S LAWYER. THIS IS THE SAME LAWYER THAT CHARLIE KUPPERMAN HIRED.

HE SAID IN RESPONSE TO ONE, TO THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 5 FROM PRESIDENT SCHIFF AND THE PRESIDENTS OF THE HOUSE, WITHDRAWING THE SUMMONS TO DR. KUPPERMAN, AND TO RECENT PUBLISHED REPORTS ANNOUNCING THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE DOES NOT INTEND TO ISSUE A SUMMONS TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON. He goes on to say that we are dismayed that the committees have decided not to seek a resolution from the judiciary on this constitutional issue and ends the letter by saying that if the House decides not to subpoena the testimony of Dr. KUPPERMAN AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON, THAT MAKE IT CLEAR, THAT IS THE DECISION OF THE HOUSE, AND THEY MADE THAT DECISION.

THEY NEVER SUMMONED AMBASSADOR BOLTON, THEY NEVER CALLED HIM TO THE HOUSE AND WITHDRAW THE SUMMONS FOR KUPPERMAN BEFORE THE JUDGE COULD STATE AND REQUEST THE CASE TO BE ARGUED. Then they came here and asked him to issue a subpoena for John Bolton. NOT WELL. I GIVE THE REMINDER OF MY TIME TO MR. SEKULOW. MR. THE CHIEF JUDGE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND ADMINISTRATORS SAID THE FACTS ARE A THIN THING. LET ME GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION. IT'S FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ACTUALLY WITNESSED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT LINK AID TO THE INVESTIGATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ANY LEAK HE SUGGESTED WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN SPECULATION.

DISCONNECTED FROM ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT. HERE IS THE QUESTION, AND THE HELP? AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID HELP WAS NOT LIMITED. ANSWER, I ALSO DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE CONCLUSIVELY TIED. I SAID I WAS SHOWING OFF. QUESTION, OK. So the president never told you that they were tied? ANSWER, THAT'S CORRECT. QUESTION, SO YOUR TESTIMONY AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S TESTIMONY IS CONSISTENT, AND THE PRESIDENT DID NOT LINK INVESTIGATIONS, HE HELP INVESTIGATIONS. ANSWER, THAT'S CORRECT. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO WITNESSED THAT HE ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY ABOUT THE ISSUES AND THE PRESIDENT EXPLICITLY TOLD HIM THAT HE DID NOT WANT ANYTHING FROM UKRAINE.

I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NOTHING. I DON'T WANT QUID PRO QUO. TELL ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING. SIMILAR COMMENTS WERE MADE TO JOHNSON. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. HERE IS THE LAW. AS EVERY CONGRESS KNOWS, WITHOUT A DOUBT, CONSCIOUS, APART FROM THE PRIVILEGES ARE THE COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGES OF THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE HAS CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS. THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED A STRONG PUBLIC INTEREST IN PROTECTING CONVERSATIONS THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICIAL DUTIES BECAUSE THIS IS DEEMED TO PROTECT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXECUTIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. IT WAS DECIDED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS.

THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED SUCH PRIVILEGE TO BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE candor of presidential advisers and to provide the president and those who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives in the final policy and decision-making process, and to do so in a way that many would not be willing to do. willing to do it. EXPRESS EXCEPT IN PRIVATE. FOR THIS REASON PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH PRIVILEGED PEOPLE. IS THERE ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THISNO. MR. WICKER. NO. MR. WIDEN. NO. MR. YOUNG. YES. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? IF NOT, THE MOTION TO PRESENT IT IS ACCEPTED.

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO SUMMON A CERTAIN OFFICE AND MANAGEMENT AND DOCUMENTED BUDGET AND ASK IT TO BE READ. THE SECRETARY WILL READ THE AMENDMENT. THE SENATOR OF NEW YORK MR. SCHUMER PROPOSES AMENDMENT NUMBER 1286. IN THE CORRESPONDING PLACE OF THE RESOLUTION CLAUSE, INSERT THE FOLLOWING. SECTION WITHOUT OBSERVATION OF ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES 5 AND 6 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE, IN THE SENATE WHEN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS ARE HELD, 1, THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE CLERK OF THE SENATE WILL ISSUE A SUMMONA TO THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ORDERING HIM TO SUBMIT BY JANUARY 1, 2019 TO THE PRESIDENT ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS IN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET REFERENCE TO OR RELATED TO, THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAY, FREEZING OR RELEASE OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND FROM THE UNITED STATES TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS USAI AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS FMF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 1, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OR BETWEEN DIRECTOR MICHAEL JOHN MICK MULVANEY, ASSISTANT ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT ROBERT BLAIR, ACTING DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFEY OR ANY OTHER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE. 2, COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUESTS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE AND THE RESPONSE TO SUCH REQUESTS. 3, COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING CONCERNS RAISED BY ANY OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE RELATING TO THE LEGALITY OF ANY WITHHOLDING OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 4, COMMUNICATIONS SENT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT REGARDING A WITHHOLD OR BLOCKING OF CONGRESSIVE NOTIFICATIONS REGARDING THE RELEASE OF FMF FUNDS TO UKRAINE. 5, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICIALS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFEY, MARK Ú ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE. 6, ALL DRAFT AND FINAL VERSIONS OF THE AUGUST 7, 2019 MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE DIVISION OF NATIONAL SECURITY, DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ON THE RELEASE OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 7, The knowledge of the Ukrainian government by August 28, 2019 of any actual or potential suspension, withholding, delay or freezing of United States military assistance, foreign assistance or security assistance to Ukraine, including all meetings and calls with Ukraine regarding potential or actual.

DELAYS IN AID TO UKRAINE. COMMUNICATIONS, OPINIONS, ADVICE, ADVICE, APPROVALS OR CONCURRENCIES GIVEN BY ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET REGARDING THE SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAY OR ACTUAL FREEZING OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING LEGALITY UNDER THE CONTROL LAW OF RESERVOIRS. C, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFEY ASSUMES FUNCTIONS RELATED TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF AID FROM MARK SANDY OR ANY OTHER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE. ALL MEETINGS RELATED TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INTER-AGENCY MEETINGS ON 19 JULY, 23 JULY, 26 JULY AND 31 JULY 2019, INCLUDING ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETINGS AND ANY READING FROM THE MEETINGS.

E, THE DECISION ANNOUNCED ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 TO RELEASE FOREIGN AID, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR APPROPRIATE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NOTES, DOCUMENTS OR MORE RELATED THERETO. TALKING POINTS RELATING TO THE WITHHOLDING OR RELEASE OF FOREIGN AID, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RELATING TO CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE TALKING POINTS AND G, ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, INCLUDING DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS RELATED TO THE PREPARATION AND FOLLOW-UP SCHEDULING OF THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALLS ON APRIL 21 AND JULY 25, 2019, AS WELL AS HIS SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN NEW YORK, AND 2, THE SERGEANT AT ARMS IS AUTHORIZED TO USE THE SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE TO DELIVER THE SUMMONS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION.

MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. THEY RECOGNIZE THE MAJORITY LEADER. FIRST A SCHEDULE NOTE AS THE PARTIES ARE READY TO DEBATE THIS AMENDMENT, I SUGGEST THAT WE GO AHEAD, END THE DEBATE AND VOTE BEFORE TAKING A 30 MINUTE BREAK FOR DINNER, AND I WOULD REMIND EVERYONE THAT I'LL BE MOVING TO PRESENT THE AMENDMENT, AND IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT BOTH EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES ARE ADDRESSED IN THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION. THANK YOU. THE AMENDMENT IS AVAILABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR 2 HOURS, EQUALLY DIVIDED. MISTER. DIRECTOR SCHIFF, ARE YOU A PROPONENT OR OPPONENT OF THE MOTION? PROPOSER. MR. CIPOLLONE, ARE YOU A PROPOSER OR OPPONENT?

OPPONENT. THEN MR. SCHIFF, YOUR SIDE WILL PROCEED FIRST AND YOU MAY RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL. THANK YOU. BEFORE WE BEGIN, MR. CHAIRPERSON, THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. MISTER. CHAIRMAN, SENATORS, ADVOCATE FOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I AM JASON CROW FROM THE GREAT STATE OF COLORADO. HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE AMENDMENT TO CITE KEY DOCUMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OR OMB. THESE GO DIRECTLY TO ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSES OF POWER. THEIR DECISION TO WITHHOLD VITAL MILITARY AID FROM A STRATEGIC PARTNER WHO IS AT WAR TO BENEFIT ITS OWN RE-ELECTION RAIN.

BUT WHY SHOULD THAT MATTER? WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE? WHY SHOULD I CARE? BEFORE BECOMING A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, HE WAS AN AMERICAN SOLDIER WHO SERVED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. AND EVEN THOUGH SOME YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THAT TIME, THERE ARE STILL SOME MEMORIES THAT ARE RECORDED IN MY BRAIN. ONE OF THESE MEMORIES WAS LOOKING FOR SCRAP ON THE STREETS OF BAGHDAD IN 2003, WHICH WE HAD TO TIE UP TO THE SIDE 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'S PERSONAL TO ME.

TO BE CLEAR, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $391 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY GOING TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BY HELPING OUR STRATEGIC PARTNER UKRAINE FIGHT AGAINST VLADIMIR PUTIN'S RUSSIA, AN ADVERSARY OF THE UNITED STATES. BUT THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT CARRY OUT THIS PLAN ALONE. HE NEEDED A LOT OF PEOPLE TO HELP HIM. AND THAT'S WHY WE KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT IT AS WE DO TODAY. BUT THERE IS MUCH MORE TO KNOW. INCLUDING LAWYERS WHO HAVE IT. VIOLATING THE LAW. THEY EXPOSE THE MEANS THE OMB THROUGH TO JUSTIFY THE KEEPING OF THE PRESIDENT. THEY WOULD SHOW THAT SENIOR OFFICIALS REPEATEDLY TRIED TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO RELEASE THE HOLD.

IN SUMMARY, THEY WOULD SHOW EXACTLY HOW THE PRESIDENT CARRIED OUT THE PLAN TO USE OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. WE ARE NOT SPECULATING ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF DOCK UNITED - DOCUMENTS OR GUESSING WHAT THEY COULD SHOW. WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEES SPEAK ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS THAT THE OMB CONTINUES TO PRESERVE TO THIS DAY. WE KNOW THE DOCUMENTS EXIST AND WE KNOW THE ONLY REASON WE DON'T HAVE THEM IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT ORDERED OMB NOT TO PRODUCE THEM. BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT THEY WILL SHOW. TO DEMONSTRATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE OMB DOCUMENTS AND THE VALUE THEY BRING IN THE TRIAL, I WANT TO GUIDE YOU THROUGH WHAT WE KNOW EXISTS BUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO TURN AROUND.

AS WE DISCUSSED, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO DELIVER ANY DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE IN RESPONSE TO MULTIPLESUMMONS AND REQUESTS. BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN FROM TESTIMONY AND THE FEW DOCUMENTS OBTAINED FROM PUBLIC REPORTS AND LAWSUITS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF WHAT IT SHOWS. THE DOCUMENTS OFFER CLEAR EXAMPLES OF THE CHAOS AND CONFUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN UNLEASHED ACROSS OUR GOVERNMENT AND MAKE CLEAR THE DOCUMENTS STILL HIDDEN BY THE PRESIDENT. WE KNOW THAT THE OMB HAS DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL THAT ALREADY IN JUNE THE PRESIDENT WAS CONSIDERING HAVING MILITARY AID FOR UKRAINE.

THE PRESIDENT STARTED QUESTIONING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AFTER CONGRESS APPROPRIATE AND AUTHORIZED THE MONEY. THIS FINANCING HAD WIDE BIPARTIST SUPPORT BECAUSE, AS MANY WITNESSES STATED, PROVIDING MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE ALSO BENEFITS OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY. Importantly, the President's questions came weeks after the Department of Defense had already certified that Ukraine had taken anti-corruption reforms and other measures ordered by Congress as a condition of receiving that aid. SO THERE IS A PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT FUNDS GET TO THE RIGHT PLACE AND TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE, A PROCESS THAT WAS FOLLOWED EVERY YEAR THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED THAT AID TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING THE FIRST TWO YEARS UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

HOWEVER, THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTIONS CAME DAYS AFTER THE DOD ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE ON JUNE 1 ANNOUNCING THAT THEY WOULD PROVIDE THEIR SHARE OF $250 MILLION IN AID TO UKRAINE. ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS, THE DAY AFTER THE DOD PRESS RELEASE, A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL NAMED ROBERT BLAIR CALLED THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OMB TO TALK ABOUT MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE. ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS MR. BLAIR SAID THE QUOTE WE NEED TO KEEP IT. OMB HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE MY DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO THIS CONVERSATION. THE SENATE CAN OBTAIN THEM BY APPROVING THE AMENDMENT AND ISSUING A SUMMONS. BUT THERE IS MORE.

THE SAME DAY BLAIR SAID TO STOP THE AID, MICHAEL DUFFEY EMAILED THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND TOLD HER THE PRESIDENT HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AID. HE COPIED MARK SANDY, A CAREER WBO OFFICIAL WHO TOLD US ABOUT EMAIL IN HIS ON-CAMERA TESTIMONY. LIKE ALL THE OTHERS, THAT EMAIL WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT EMAIL EXISTS BECAUSE IN RESPONSE TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUIT, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS FORCED TO RELEASE A CENSORED EMAIL CONSISTENT WITH SANDY'S DESCRIPTION. BUT OMB DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OF THE DOCK CAN YULES YULES ENTER THE HOUSE.

ON JULY 3, THE STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMED SEVERAL OFFICIALS THAT THE OMB PREVENTED IT FROM DISPENSING $141 MILLION IN AID. OMB HAD DIRECTED THE STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO SEND A NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE SPENDING OF THE MONEY. AND WITHOUT THAT NOTIFICATION THE HELP WAS EFFECTIVELY BLOCKED. WHY DID OMB BLOCK CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION? WHO TOLD THEM TO DO IT? WHICH WAS THE REASON? THE SENATE WOULD GET THOSE ANSWERS IF THEY ISSUED THE SUMMONS. COLLECT BUT THERE IS MORE. THEN BLAIR EMAILS DUFFEY SAYING THE PRESIDENT IS ORDERING A SUSPENSION OF MILITARY SUPPORT FUNDING TO UKRAINE. WE HAVE NOT SEEN THIS, YOU KNOW?

THE ONLY REASON WE KNOW THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY OF MARK SANDY, THE CAREER OMB OFFICIAL WHO FOLLOWED THE LAW AND COMPLIED WITH HIS SUMMONS. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE EXTRACT OF THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE YOU, SANDY WITNESSED THAT THE EMAIL ON JULY 12 DID NOT MENTION CONCERNS ABOUT ANY OTHER COUNTRIES OR AID PACKAGES. ONLY UKRAINE. SO OF THE DOZENS OF COUNTRIES WE PROVIDE AID IN SUPPORT, THE PRESIDENT WAS ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT ONE OF THEM. UKRAINE. BECAUSE? WELL, WE KNOW WHY. BUT OMB HAS STILL REFUSED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE JULY 12 EMAIL AND REFUSED TO PROVIDE SURROUNDING DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT TOLD OMB TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHAT WAS I AFRAID OF? A SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE SENATE WOULD SHOW US. OMB ALSO HAS DOCUMENTS ON A KEY SERIES OF MEETINGS PROVOKED BY THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS TO HOLD MILITARY AID. ON THE SECOND FIFTH OF JULY, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL CONVENED A SERIES OF MEETINGS ON THE PRESIDENT'S WITHDRAWAL OF MILITARY AID. THE OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHOW WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE MEETINGS. FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 18, 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 SUSPENDED ALL MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, OUR SENIOR DIPLOMATIC IN UKRAINE, PARTICIPATED IN THE MEETING AND DESCRIBED HIS REACTION AT HIS OPEN HEARING. AT A REGULAR NSC SECURITY VIDEO CONFERENCE ON JULY 18, I HEARD A STAFF FROM THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET SAY THERE WAS A SUSPENSION IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR UKRAINE BUT HE COULD NOT SAY WHY. AT THE END OF A NORMAL MEETING, THE PERSON OFF SCREEN SAID HE WAS FROM OMB AND HIS BOSS INSTRUCTED HIM NOT TO IMPROVE ADDITIONAL SECURITY EXPENDITURE FOR UKRAINE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. ME AND OTHERS SIT IN AMAZEMENT. THE UKRAINIANS WERE FIGHTING AGAINST THE RUSSIANS AND HAD NOT ONLY TRAINING AND WEAPONS, BUT ALSO THE GUARANTEE OF SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES.

ALL THE OMB STAFF 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. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE OMB WOULD NOT HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS AFTER THIS BOMBSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT. SURELY YES. IT WAS THE AGENCY THAT DELIVERED THE SHOCKING NEWS TO THE REST OF THE US GOVERNMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING VITAL MILITARY AID TO OUR PARTNER. AND WE WOULD SEE THESE DOCUMENTS IF THE SENATE ISSUED A SUMMONS. THE JULY 18 MEETING WAS ONLY THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF MEETINGS IN WHICH OMB HOLD THE LINE AND ENFORCE THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY ON AID.

BUT THERE WAS A SECOND MEETING ON JULY 23 WHERE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE AGENCIES WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE OMB'S KEEPING ON THE AID. AND THEN A THIRD MEETING AT A HIGHER LEVEL ON JULY 26. WITNESSES STATED THAT AT THAT MEETING, THE OMB STRUGGLED TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR THE PRESIDENT'S WITHHOLDING OF AID. AND THEN A FOURTH MEETING ON JULY 31 WHERE LEGAL CONCERNS ABOUT MAINTAINING WERE RAISED. IN EACH OF THESE MEETINGS THERE WAS CONFUSION ABOUT THE SCOPE AND REASONS FOR THE SUSPENSION. NO ONE SEEMED TO KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING. BUT THAT WAS EXACTLY THE POINT. ALL AGENCIES, EXCEPT OMB, WHICH WAS SIMPLY TRANSMITTING THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER, SUPPORTED MILITARY AID AND ARGUED FOR LIFTING IT UP.

The OMB DID NOT PRESENT A SINGLE DOCUMENT FOLLOWING UP ON ANY OF THE MEETINGS. DID THESE OMB OFFICIALS COME PREPARED WITH TALKING POINTS FOR THESE MEETINGS? DID OMB OFFICIALS TAKE NOTES DURING ANY OF THE MEETINGS? DID THEY EXCHANGE EMAILS ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING? DID THE OMB DISCUSS WHAT REASONS THEY COULD GIVE TO EVERYONE ELSE FOR DETENTION? BY ISSUING THIS SUMMONS, THE SENATE CAN FIND THE ANSWERS TO THOSE AND SIMILAR QUESTIONS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS. THE OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD ALSO REVEAL KEY FACTS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON JULY 25. ON JULY 25, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 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 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN. THAT CALL WAS AT 9:00 A.M. JUST 90 MINUTES AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP HANGED UP THE PHONE, DUFFEY, THE POLITICAL APPOINTMENT AT OMB IN CHARGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS, EMAILS THE DOD TO QUOTE TO FORMALIZE AND FINALIZE THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY AID. JUST 90 MINUTES AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL. A CALL IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAD ASKED FOR A FAVOR. WE HAVE A REDACTED COPY OF THIS EMAIL BECAUSE IT WAS RECENTLY RELEASED VIA THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. IT WAS NOT RELEASED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE SUMMONS.

IN THIS EMAIL, DUFFEY INFORMED DOD OFFICIALS THAT, BASED ON THE GUIDANCE THEY RECEIVED, THEY SHOULD SUSPEND ANY ADDITIONAL DOD OBLIGATIONS FOR THESE FUNDS. THEY ADDED THAT THE REQUESTS WERE SENSITIVE AND THEY SHOULD KEEP THE INFORMATION CONSERVED, IE, NOT TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT. WHY DID YOU CONSIDER THE INFORMATION SENSITIVE? WHY DID YOU NOT WANT ANYONE TO LEARN ABOUT THAT? ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS CAN BE FOUND IN OMB'S EMAILS, EMAILS WHICH WE COULD ALL SEE IF IT ISSUES A SUMMONS. BUT THERE IS MORE. REMEMBER THAT THE ADMINISTRATION NEEDED TO CREATE A WAY TO STOP THE FUNDING THAT WAS ALREADY UNDERWAY.

THE TRAIN HAD ALREADY LEFT THE STATION AND SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. LATER, ON THE AFTERNOON OF JULY 25, OMB FOUND A WAY, EVEN THOUGH THE DOD HAD ALREADY NOTIFIED CONGRESS THAT THE FUNDS WOULD BE RELEASED, HERE IS HOW THE PLAN WORKED. THEY SENT A DOCUMENT INCLUDING A FOOTNOTE CAREFULLY DIRECTED TO THE DOD TO STOP EXPENDITURE OF THE FUNDS TO BE CONTRIBUTED TO ALLOW AN INTER-AGENCY PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE BEST USE. LET ME EXPLAIN THAT. THE FOOTNOTE STATES THAT THIS BRIEF PAUSE IN QUOTING WILL NOT PREVENT THE DOD FROM SPENDING THE MONEY AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR STARTING ON SEPTEMBER 30.

OMB HAD TO DO THIS BECAUSE THEY KNEW NOT SPENDING THE MONEY WAS ILLEGAL AND THEY KNEW THE DOD WOULD WORRY ABOUT IT. AND THEY WERE RIGHT. DOD WAS WORRIED ABOUT THAT. MISTER. SANDY WITNESSED THAT IN HIS 12 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AT OMB, HE COULD REMEMBER, HE DOESN'T REMEMBER THAT ANYTHING LIKE THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. THE DRAFTING OF THIS UNUSUAL FUNDING DOCUMENT AND ITS ISSUE MUST HAVE GENERATED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EMAIL AND DOCUMENT TRAFFIC AT OMB. MEMOS, EMAIL TRAFFIC AND DOCUMENTATION WE WOULD ALL SEE IF THE SENATE ISSUED A SUMMONS. WAS THIS THE RESULT OF THE EVENTS OF JULY 25?

WHERE WAS MR. OF DUFFEY'S GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTING RETENTION? WHY WAS THE REQUEST SENSITIVE? WHAT WAS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN OMB ADDRESSING THE DOD AND THE CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY JUST 90 MINUTES EARLIER? DID THE AGENCY OFFICIALS COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE QUESTIONS FROM THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS. A SUMMONS WOULD PROVIDE THOSE ANSWERS. THE OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD ALSO REVEAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE DECISION FOR A POLITICAL APPOINTMENT TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCING UKRAINE. TENSIONS AND CHAOS SURROUNDING THE FROZEN ESCALATED IN LATE JULY WHEN DUFFEY, A POLITICAL APPOINTMENT AT THE WBO WITH NO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE IN FINANCING APPROVALS, TOOK THE AUTHORITY TO RELEASE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AWAY FROM SANDY, A CAREER OFFICIAL OF THE WBO.

SANDY CANNOT THINK OF ANOTHER EXPLANATION OF A POLITICIAN, NO OTHER EXAMPLE OF AN APPOINTED POLITICAL WHO TAKES THIS RESPONSIBILITY. SANDY WAS CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE FUNDING APPROVAL PROCESS AFTER HE EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO DUFFEY ABOUT WHETHER THE HOLD WAS LEGAL UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT. Needless to say, the OMB has refused to provide any document or communication that implies this decision to replace Mr. ARENOSO. WHY WAS DUFFEY, A POLITICAL APPOINTMENT, INVOLVED BY THE WHITE HOUSE IN THAT DECISION? WAS SANDY FIRED BECAUSE HE HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE RETENTION? BY AUGUST 7, PEOPLE IN OUR GOVERNMENT WERE WORRIED.

AND WHEN GOVERNMENT PEOPLE WORRY, SOMETIMES WHAT THEY DO IS WRITE MEMES. BECAUSE WHEN THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT GETTING STUCK IN SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SEEM GOOD TO THEM, THEY DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF IT. So that day, Mark Sandy and other OMB colleagues drafted and sent a memo on Ukraine military aid to acting director WROUGH. ACCORDING TO SANDY, THE MEMO APPROVED THE RELEASE OF THE FUNDS. HE SAID THE MILITARY AID WAS CONSISTENT WITH US NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. IT WOULD HELP OPPOSE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND WAS BACKED BY STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT RAISE COMMAND.

OVER THE FOLLOWING WEEKS, THE OMB CONTINUED TO ISSUE FUNDING DOCUMENTS THAT CONTINUED TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. SUPPOSEDLY TO ALLOW MORE OF THIS INTERAGENCY PROCESS. INSERT THOSE FOOTNOTES THROUGHOUT THE DISTRIBUTION DOCUMENTS INDICATING THE DELAY WOULD NOT AFFECT FUNDING, BUT HERE'S THE REALLY SHOCKING PART. THERE WAS NO INTERAGENCY PROCESS. THEY INVENTED IT. IT HAD ENDED MONTHS BEFORE. THEY INVENTED IT BECAUSE NO ONE COULD TELL THE REAL REASON FOR THE WITHHOLDING. IN TOTAL, THE OMB PUBLISHED NINE OF THESE DOCUMENTS BETWEEN JULY 25 AND SEPTEMBER 10. DID THE WHITE HOUSE RESPOND TO THE OMB'S CONCERNS AND ITS RECOMMENDATION TO RELEASE AID?

Did the White House order OMB to continue creating a paper trail in an effort to justify the hold? WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN? THE OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHED LIGHT ON OMB ACTIONS AS THE PRESIDENT'S OUTLINE DEVELOPED. Did the White House order OMB to continue issuing the suspension? WHAT WAS OMB TOLD ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S REASONS FOR RELEASING THE KEEP?WHAT COMMUNICATIONS DID OMB OFFICIALS HAVE WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION? As the president's plan unraveled, did anyone at OMB connect the dots about the real reason for the suspension? THE OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHED LIGHT ON ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS.

I REMEMBER WHAT IT FEELS like NOT TO HAVE THE EQUIPMENT YOU NEED. WHEN YOU NEED IT. REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT STAKE. THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT. WE NEED THIS INFORMATION SO WE CAN ENSURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. IN THE END THIS WILL ALL COME OUT. WE WILL HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS, THE QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER WE WILL HAVE THEM IN TIME AND WHOEVER LISTENS TO THEM WILL BE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY. MR. SEKULOW? HOUSE MANAGERS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT. THANK YOU. MISTER.

SEKULOW? THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT OF THE JUDGE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. Manager Crow, you should be happy to know that the egg provided to Ukraine during the President's administration included lethal weapons. THOSE WERE NOT PROVIDED BY THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. THE SUGGESTION THAT UKRAINE DID NOT GET ANY EQUIPMENT IS FALSE. SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT TO FUND UKRAINE DURING THE SUMMER OF 2019. NO EQUIPMENT WAS MISSING DUE TO THE TEMPORARY PAUSE. IT WAS FUTURE FINANCING. IN UKRAINE, THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENSE WHO SUPERVISED USAID SHIPPINGS SAID THE HOLDUP COMES AND GOES SO FAST THAT THEY DON'T SEE ANY CHANGE.

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE DAVID HALE EXPLAINED THAT THE PAUSE DATE WAS FOR FUTURE AID, NOT TO KEEP THE ARMY FUNCTIONING NOW. THEREFORE, THE FABRICATED NARRATIVE THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE TAKING SOME ACTION ON THE INVESTIGATIONS IS FURTHER REPUBLISHED BY THE CLEAR FACT THAT THE AID WAS DELIVERED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, WITHOUT UKRAINE TAKING ANY ACTION ABOUT NO RESEARCH. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WITHHELD $585 MILLION OF AID PROMISED TO EGYPT IN 2013, BUT THE PUBLIC MESSAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION WAS THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT OFFICIALLY ON HOLD, AS IT WAS NOT TECHNICALLY DUE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

SO THEY DID NOT HAVE TO REVEAL THE STOP TO ANYONE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS MAY BE A PRACTICE OF VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS. IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT, THIS PRESIDENT, HAS BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE AID IS BEING PRESENTED. That's why there have been pauses in foreign aid in a variety of contexts. IN SEPTEMBER 2019, THE ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED IT WAS WITHHOLDING MORE THAN $100 MILLION IN AID TO AFGHANISTAN OVER CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION. IN AUGUST 2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND SEOUL WERE IN TALKS TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE SOUTH KOREA'S SHARE IN U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT SPENDING TO SOUTH KOREA. IN JUNE, PRESIDENT TRUMP STOPPED, CUT, OR PAUSED MORE THAN $550 MILLION IN FOREIGN AID TO EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS, AND GUATEMALA BECAUSE THOSE COUNTRIES WERE NOT FAIRLY SHARING THE BURDENS OF PREVENTING MASS MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES.

THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ADMINISTRATION AS I SAID, PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF AID TO EGYPT. TO BE CLEAR, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WITNESSED THAT OUR POLICY ACTUALLY GOT STRONGER UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP. IN LARGE PART BECAUSE, UNLIKE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, QUOTE, THIS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. TO HELP UKRAINE DEFEND RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. SHE WITNESSED IN A DEPOSITION BEFORE HER VARIOUS COMMITTEES THAT I REALLY FELT THAT IN THE THREE YEARS I WAS THERE, PARTLY DUE TO MY EFFORTS, BUT ALSO THE INTERAGENCY TEAM AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE, OUR POLICY REALLY WAS IT BECAME STRONGER.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT, WHOSE NAME HAS COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES, AGREES THAT JAVELINS ARE INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE WEAPONS FOR STOPING THE ADVANCE OF THE ARMY, AND THE RUSSIANS SCARED THEM. AMBASSADOR VOELKER EXPLAINED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVED EVERY DECISION MADE ALONG THE ROAD AND AS A RESULT THE UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE WAS STRENGTHENED. WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT FACTS, GO TO YOUR OWN DISCOVERY AND YOUR OWN WITNESSES THAT YOU CALLED. ALL OF THIS SUPPOSEDLY STARTED WITH A STRIKER. WHERE IS THAT OFFENDER? THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 35 MINUTES LEFT. MR. CHIEF JUDGE, IN WAR, TIME MATTERS. MINUTES AND HOURS CAN LIKE YEARS.

So the idea that he eventually got there just doesn't work. AND YES, HELP WAS PROVIDED. IT WAS PROVIDED BY CONGRESS. THIS SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS IS THE ONE THAT SENDS THE ASSISTANT. AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF THIS AID WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST DUE TO THE DELAY IF CONGRESS DIDN'T PASS ANOTHER LAW THAT EXTENDED THAT DEADLINE TO ALLOW THE FUNDS TO BE SPENT. LET ME REPEAT THAT. THE DELAY HAD ALLOWED MONEY TO BE SPENT TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT CONGRESS HAD TO PASS ANOTHER LAW TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR MONEY AND EQUIPMENT TO REACH THE PEOPLE ON THE FRONT LINE.

DO I ALSO NEED TO REITERATE THE SUPPOSED INTERAGENCY PROCESS? THE CONCERNS THAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LAWYER CONTINUED TO PLAN ABOUT CORRUPTION AND MAKING SURE THAT THE PROCESS WENT WELL, THERE WAS NO INTERAGENCY PROCESS. EVERYTHING WAS INVENTED. IT WAS A GHOST. THERE WAS A DELAY. AND DELAYS MATTER. MISTER. CHIEF JUDGE, I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME FOR MR. SCHIFF. MR. SCHIFF? THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. JUST A FEW ADDITIONAL POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT AND MY COLLEAGUES' ARGUMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, MR. SEKULOW NOTES THAT THE HELP WAS FINALLY FREED. IN THE END THEY GOT THE MONEY.

GOOD? IS. THEY GOT THE MONEY AFTER THEY CAUGHT THE PRESIDENT. AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO REMOVE THE AID'S RETENTION. AFTER THEY CAUGHT HIM, YES. BUT EVEN THEN, EVEN THEN THEY HAD HELD THE AID SO LONG THAT A subsequent act of Congress was needed to make sure everything could get out the door. So what, the president supports that we had to intervene because he withheld the aid for so long and that was the only reason Ukraine got all the aid we had approved in the first place? MY COLLEAGUES HAVE OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT WHAT THEY DID WAS ILLEGAL.

THAT THE GAO AND THE INDEPENDENT MONITORING AGENCY FOUND THAT THIS DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL. SO NOT ONLY WAS THE LAW VIOLATED, NOT ONLY WAS AN ACT OF CONGRESS NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THEY ULTIMATELY GOT THE HELP, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE DEFENSE OF WHY SHOULDN'T I SEE THE DOCUMENTS? IS THAT WHAT WE SHOULD BELIEVE? THE LAWYER ALSO SAYS HE IS NOT THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD AID. AND THAT'S TRUE. AFTER ALL, LAWYER SAYS, PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD AID TO EGYPT. YEAH. REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. SENATORS McCAIN AND GRAHAM URGED THAT AID BE WITHHELD AND WHY? BECAUSE THERE WAS A REVOLUTION IN EGYPT AFTER IT WAS APPROPRIATED.

THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS. THAT WAS A VERY GOOD REASON TO THINK, DO WE STILL WANT TO GIVE HELP TO THIS GOVERNMENT AFTER THIS REVOLUTION? WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT AID HAS NEVER BEEN WITHHELD. THAT'S ABSURD. BUT I HOPE AND HOPE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS WITHHELD HELP TO COERCE AND ALLY IN WAR TO HELP HIM IN THE NEXT ELECTION. I THINK IT IS THE FIRST TIME. BUT WHAT WE DO HERE MAY DETERMINE IF IT'S THE LAST. AND ONE MORE THING ABOUT THIS AID PAUSE. GOOD?

THE ARGUMENT, NO HARM, NO FAULT.Okay, they caught you, they got help, what's the problem? WELL, AS WE HEARD DURING THE TRIAL IT'S NOT JUST THE HELP. THAT IS TO say, HELP IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. LIKE MR. CUERVO MENTIONED, WITHOUT IT YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF AND WE WILL HAVE TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT KIND OF MILITARY AID THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING. BUT WE ALSO HAD WITNESS THAT IT WAS THE FACT OF THE AID ITSELF THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT FOR UKRAINE. THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD THE BACKING OF UKRAINE. AND BECAUSE? BECAUSE THIS NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THIS NEW FORMER UNPROVEN COMEDIAN, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, AT WAR WITH RUSSIA, WAS GOING TO ENTER A NEGOTIATION WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN.

WITH A VIEW TO ENDING THAT CONFLICT. AND WHETHER HE ENTERED THAT NEGOTIATION FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH OR A POSITION OF WEAKNESS WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER WE HAD HIS BACK. AND THEN WHEN THE UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT AND THE RUSSIANS FOUND OUT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT BACKING HIM, HE WAS WITHHOLDING THIS AID, WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK HE SENT TO VLADIMIR PUTIN? WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK HE SENT TO VLADIMIR PUTIN WHEN DONALD TRUMP DIDN'T LEAVE OUR ALLY VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY AT THE DOOR OF THE WHITE HOUSE BUT HE LEFT THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER?

WHAT MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND? SO IT'S NOT JUST THE AID, IT'S NOT JUST WHEN THE AID IS DELIVERED, IT'S NOT JUST IF ALL THE AID IS DELIVERED, IT'S ALSO WHAT MESSAGE DOES THE FREEZE SEND TO OUR FRIEND AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY TO OUR ENEMY? AND THE MESSAGE HE SENT WAS A DISASTER. IT WAS A DISASTER. NOW, YOU MAY ASK, BECAUSE THE LAWYER HAS SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GIVEN LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. YOU MIGHT ASK, IF THE PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION, WHY DID HE DO THAT IN 2017 AND WHY DID HE DO THAT IN 2018? WHY ONLY IN 2019 WAS THERE A PROBLEM?

THERE WAS NO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IN 2017? THERE WAS NO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE IN 2018? NO. UKRAINE HAS ALWAYS FIGHTED CORRUPTION. IT WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT, LACK OF CORRUPTION FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT. IT WAS THE PRESENCE OF JOE BIDEN AS A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. THAT WAS THE KEY CHANGE IN 2019. THAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE. RETURN TO ONE OF THE KEY MOMENTS OF THIS SAGA. YOU KNOW, MANY OF YOU ARE LAWYERS, YOU ARE PROBABLY MUCH BETTER LAWYERS THAN ME AND I'M SURE YOU HAD EXPERIENCE IN CASES THEY TRIED WHERE THERE WAS SOME VIGNETTE, SOME CONVERSATION, SOME DOCUMENT THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE At first glance, it's the most important thing, but it tells you something about the case.

THAT WAS MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT CONVERSATION. FOR ME, ONE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS WAS NOT ON JULY 25 BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, BUT ON JULY 26, THE NEXT DAY. NOW, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS OR YOU MAY HAVE AND PEOPLE MAY HAVE SEEN IT, MAYBE NOT. BUT THERE IS A SCENE IN A UKRAINIAN RESTAURANT IN kyiv WITH GORDON SONDLAND, NOTE GORDON SONDLAND WHO SAID THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY A QUID PRO QUO, WHEN TWO PLUS TWO MAKES FOUR THIS IS NOT A NEVER TRUMPER. THIS IS A MILLION DOLLAR DONOR TO TRUMP'S INAUGURATION. WELL? IF THERE IS A BIAS, IT IS CLEARLY A MILLION DOLLAR BIAS IN FAVOR OF THIS PRESIDENT, NOT AGAINST HIM.

THERE'S A SCENE IN kyiv IN THIS RESTAURANT, AND SONDLAND HAS A CELL PHONE AND IS SITTING WITH DAVID HOLMES, WHO IS A CAREER DIPLOMATIC. AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC AT THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY. AND GORDON SONDLAND TAKES OUT HIS PHONE AND CALLS THE WHITE HOUSE. GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING THE PRESIDENT. AND IT TAKES A TIME TO CONNECT BUT HE IS CONNECTED WITH THE PRESIDENT. THAT'S VERY AWESOME. THIS IS NOT A GUY WITH NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT MAY SAY GORDON SONDLAND I BARINEAU OR SOMETHING FOR EFFECT BUT THIS IS A GUY WHO CAN PICK UP THE CELL PHONE AND CALL THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM A RESTAURANT IN kyiv AND HE DOES IT.

AND THE PRESIDENT IS SO LOUD THAT DAVID HOLMES THIS DIPLOMATIC CAN HEAR HIM. AND WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT SAY? DO YOU SAY, HOW IS THIS REFORM IN RODMAN COMING? HOW IS THE ATTACK ON CORRUPTION GOING? NO. JUST SAYING, ARE YOU GOING TO DO THE RESEARCH? IS ZELENSKY GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION? AND SONDLAND SAYS YES. HE WILL DO WHAT YOU WANT. HE LOVES YOUR... AND THEY CONTINUE TALKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS AND THEN THEY HANG UP. AND DAVID HOLMES TURNED TO THE AMBASSADOR AND SAID, IN A LANGUAGE THAT I WILL HAVE TO MODIFY. TO REMOVE AN EXPLETIVE.

IT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE: THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T GIVE OBSERVATIONS ON UKRAINE? AND SONDLAND SAYS NO. IT DOES NOT GIVE ANYTHING BLANK ABOUT UKRAINE. HE ONLY CARE ABOUT THE BIG THINGS. LIKE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS THAT GIULIANI WANTS. THIS IS A MILLION DOLLAR DONOR TO TRUMP'S INAUGURATION, ADMITTING THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT UKRAINE. HE DOESN'T CARE IF THEY RECEIVE MILITARY DOLLARS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, HE DOESN'T CARE WHAT POSITION ZELENSKY FINDS IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS WITH PUTIN. HE DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. IT IS NOT CLEAR? THAT'S WHY HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT CORRUPTION IN 2017 OR 2018 AND HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T CARE IN 2019.

THE ONLY THING HE CARE ABOUT WAS THE BIG THINGS THAT AFFECTED HIM PERSONALLY. LIKE THIS INVESTIGATION I WANTED FROM THE BIDENS. SO WHEN YOU ASK DO YOU WANT TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS? DO YOU WANT TO KNOW IF THESE DOCUMENTS CORROBORATE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WILL THE DOCUMENTS SHOW, AS WE HOPE, THAT THE ONLY THING HE CARE ABOUT WAS THE BIG THINGS THAT AFFECT HIM? DAVID HOLMES' RESPONSE WAS, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE BIG THINGS HAPPENING HERE, LIKE A WAR WITH RUSSIA. THIS IS NOT WITHHOLDING AID DUE TO A REVOLUTION IN EGYPT. THIS IS WITHHOLDING AID TO A COUNTRY WHERE 15,000 PEOPLE HAVE DIED FIGHTING AGAINST THE RUSSIANS.

AND AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND OTHERS SAID, YOU KNOW, RUSSIA IS FIGHTING TO REMAKE THE MAP OF EUROPE BY MILITARY FORCE. WE THINK IT IS ONLY ABOUT THE SECURITY OF UKRAINE. WE ARE VERY DECEIVED. IT'S ABOUT OUR SAFETY. IT IS ABOUT THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS THAT WE HAVE IN EUROPE. AND IF WE UNDERMINE OUR OWN ALLY, IF WE GIVE RUSSIA REASON TO BELIEVE WE BACK HIM, THAT WILL USE UKRAINE AS A TOY OR WORSE, TO GET IT TO HELP US DECEIVE ATHE WHERE WE WERE WHEN WE STARTED THE DAY. WHICH ARE THE ARTICLES OF ACTION OF THE CHAMBER THAT WERE APPROVED IN A PARTY BASIS, THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD AND THAT IS WHY THE END OF THIS PROCESS AFTER A FAIR PROCEDURE, AFTER LISTENING TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE CHAMBER, AFTER LISTENING TO THE ARGUMENTS MR.

PRESIDENT, THE END OF THIS PROCEDURE IS GOING TO BE AN ABSOLUTION BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE CHAMBER CANNOT REACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD YET. SOME CHANGES WERE MADE TO McCONNELL'S INITIAL RESOLUTION BASED ON THE CONCERNS OF SOME OF HIS COLLEAGUES. ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THERE WILL BE NO UNITY WHEN REACHING THE WITNESSES? NO. ACTUALLY I DON'T DO IT AT ALL. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL ORGANIZING RESOLUTIONS FOR THE CLINTON TRIAL WAS THAT EACH PART WOULD HAVE 24 HOURS. THE RESOLUTION WE WILL BE VOTING ON LATER TONIGHT PROVIDES THAT EACH PART HAS 24 HOURS FOR THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS.

THIS PARTICULAR VERSION I SAID THAT THOSE 24 HOURS WOULD BE MORE THAN TWO DAYS. AND SO WE SAW THE DEMOCRATS REALIZING THAT THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS EFFORT, A MEETING, TO HAVE 24 HOURS OF ARGUMENTS IN TWO DAYS. GOD HELP US IF WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO ADAM SCHIFF AND THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS RUN FOR 24 HOURS NON-STOP. BUT I THINK THE SENATE REPUBLICANS DID SOMETHING WISE AND RIGHT, WHICH IS TO SAY WELL, WE'LL MAKE A CONCESSION. INSTEAD OF MORE THAN TWO DAYS IT IS NOW MORE THAN THREE DAYS. SO YOU CAN PRESENT YOUR OPENING ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF UP TO 12 HOURS A DAY FOR TWO DAYS.

YOU CAN DO IT PRESUMELY UP TO EIGHT HOURS A DAY FOR THREE DAYS. I PROMISE YOU THAT IF WE'RE ON OUR 23, AND THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE STILL REPEATING THE SAME PARTISAN ATTACKS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, HE WAS ON STRIKE WITHIN THREE HOURS OF THIS, THESE PROCEEDINGS BEGAN, I LOOKED UP, THE PRESS CORPS , IT WAS HALF EMPTY. AND THE GALLERY WAS ALMOST COMPLETELY EMPTY. I MUST ADMIT THAT A PRACTICALLY ROUTINE, A ROUTINE MOTION TO APPOINT A POST OFFICE TYPICALLY HAS MORE PEOPLE IN THE GALLERY THAN WE HAVE TODAY AND I THINK THAT'S INDICATIVE THAT THE SENATE REPUBLICANS GIVE TO THE HOUSE OF REPUBLICANS, TO THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS EVERY OPPORTUNITY THEY WANT TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU STILL WON'T MEET THE STANDARD. GIVEN THE REDUNDANCY YOU TALK ABOUT, DO YOU ANTICIPATE? LET'S GET BACK TO OUR CHAT NOW WHILE SENATOR CRUZ CONTINUES TALKING THERE. SO I WANT TO ASK YOU: REPUBLICAN SENATORS KEEP POINTING TO THE CLINTON TAX TRIAL SAYING WE ARE FOLLOWING THE EXACT SAME ORDER AS THE CLINTON TAX TRIAL, BUT THERE IS ONE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE AND OBVIOUSLY KIM CAN TALK ABOUT THIS BETTER THAN I CAN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE BUT REALLY, I MEAN, THERE WERE BOXES AND BOXES AND BOXES OF EVIDENCE THAT WENT INTO THE STARR REPORT AND BY THE TIME THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS TOOK THEIR CASE TO THE SENATE, THE REPORT HAD ALREADY OUT AND THERE REALLY WAS NO DOUBTS ABOUT THE FACTS.

Bill Clinton, everything was pretty cut and dried. IT HAD THE BLUE DRESS AND PRESIDENT CLINTON ON IT, WHILE IN THE SITUATION WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE. AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE LISTENING TO SOMEONE LIKE I THINK PATRICK PHILBIN, THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT, ON BEHALF OF THE WHITE HOUSE, IT'S A STUNNING ADMITTION THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS COME HERE AND SAY THEY NEED MORE EVIDENCE, AND DOES THAT MEAN? THEY HAVE NO CASE AND WANT THE SENATE TO DO THE WORK OF THE HOUSE? THERE'S A LITTLE CONFUSION BECAUSE THE HOUSE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THAT EVIDENCE IN ITS BACK POCKET.

THIS WAS DONE VERY FAST AND IS ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU ARE HEARING THE WHITE HOUSE ARGUING THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE LITIGATED. THESE SUMMONS MUST BE ENFORCED AND LITIGATED THROUGH THE COURTS AND FOR TWO OF THE TWO PURPOSES THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT -- BUT TO MOLLY'S POINT, THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO SAYING THAT THE CAMERA IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED SEEK JUDICIAL REMEDY. YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THE COURTS CANNOT TEST ABOUT THIS DUE TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. ISN'T THAT WHAT IT SAYS? YES. THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION HAS BEEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE CONSTITUTION, HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE.

THAT HIS POSITION REGARDING THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WHICH WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT ON HIS EXECUTIVE POWER, THAT DID NOT COME ANYWHERE. BUT WE CAN IMAGINE THAT IF THIS WAS AN ACTION PROCESS ACCORDING TO MOLLY'S POINT, USING THE MUELLER REPORT IT WOULD BE REALLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS IN THE MUELLER REPORT. THAT WAS DEVELOPED WITH A GRAND JURY LIKE KEN STARR. GRAND JURIES HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF POWER, SO THAT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION, THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HOLD A PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE, YOU HAVE TO DO IT THROUGH THE PERFORMANCE THEN WE GET TO THE PERFORMANCE AND THEN THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION IT'S SHOULD PERFORMANCE, IT UNDERMINES AN ELECTION.

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I DO NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH ANYTHING FROM CONGRESS AND THAT IS WRONG AS A MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION. THERE IS AN OBLIGATION ON EVERY PRESIDENT TO DATE WHO HAS HAD TO FACE AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS HAS FULFILLED TO SOME DEGREE. THE WAY PRIVILEGE WORKS IS HERE ARE MY DOCUMENTS MARKED WITH A BLACK BUNCH crossed out. YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS BUT I'M GOING TO KEEP THE GOOD THINGS AND THEN YOU GO TO COURT AND FIGHT OVER THE THINGS THAT GOT OFF. YOU'RE NOT SAYING NOBODY SHOWS UP AT ALL. AND THAT'S WHY I SAID BEFORE WE ARE SEEING THE CONSTITUTION REALLY CHANGING, WE ARE SEEING CHANGES IN THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT.

IF THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN THE JUDICIARY BECAUSE A ACTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INCHARGED UNDER AN INTERNAL DOJ POLICY THAT HE IS IN CHARGE OF, AND THEN A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE REMOVED FOR ABUSE OF OFFICE AND THE PEOPLE THEY CONTINUE TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO CRIME BUT OF COURSE THE SECOND ARTICLE OF THE IMPECATION IS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WHICH IS A CRIME AND LAWYERS DO NOT ALWAYS CITE THE STATUTE WHEN THEY CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A CRIME OR ACCUSE SOMEONE WITH A CIVIL VIOLATION IF THEY CAN'T DO IT TO JUDICIAL POWER CANNOT BE MADE THROUGH CONGRESS, THE ONLY POWER LEFT TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT RESPONSIBLE IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF WHICH THE PRESIDENT IS IN CHARGE.

AND THAT IS NOT RESPONSIBILITY. THAT IS CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN ONE PLACE. AND IT'S VERY PARTISAN, BUT AS AMERICANS WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS MANLET OF POWER. IF YOU LIKE THIS PRESIDENT, SOMEDAY YOU COULD GO TO A DEMOCRAT. ONE DAY IT COULD GO TO SOMEONE YOU DON'T LIKE AND NOW WE ARE WITNESSING REPUBLICANS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THERE ARE NO TRUE CONTROLS ON THE PRESIDENCY. AND IT WILL COME BACK TO BITE EVERYONE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. BECAUSE THROUGHOUT OUR LIFE, IF WE CAN LIVE A LONG LIFE WE WILL SEE MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN A POSITION. IT LOOKS LIKE SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR IS ABOUT TO SPEAK, SO LET'S LISTEN.

I HAVE MADE CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING THAT I HAVE TO FULFILL MY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. AND HE FELT LIKE HEY, I KNOW YOU WANT TO BE SOMEWHERE ELSE, THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING. AND I LITERALLY COULD NOT BELIEVE HE DID IT JUST BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO PLAY THAT KIND OF POLITICS. AND WE ARE ALL THERE TO DO OUR DUTY. WE ARE GOING TO SIT THERE UNTIL THE END. LET'S LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE AND AS I WILL NOTE, I CAN DO TWO THINGS AT A TIME. I AM MOM. AND I WILL FIND ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

AND WE ARE GAINING MOMENTUM RIGHT NOW. BUT WHILE I'M HERE MY JOB IS TO LISTEN TO THIS EVIDENCE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD SAY THAT REALLY CALLED ME TODAY, AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR IS NUMBER 1, THE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES ARE NOT PUT AT THE END. YOU TEND TO BE DUDETTE AT FIRST. AND YOUR QUESTIONS SHOULD BE FROM WITNESSES. NOT TO TRY TO GET WITNESSES. AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS THAT IT'S ABOUT THE TRUTH. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MY COLLEAGUES, MANY OF WHOM I GET ALONG, KNOW WELL AND HAVE WORKED WITH, I STILL LOOKING AT THEM THINKING COME ON, NOW.

HE KNOWS WE SHOULD AT LEAST LISTEN TO MICK MULVANEY, HE KNOWS WE SHOULD AT LEAST LISTEN TO JOHN BOLTON. YOU CAN'T HAVE ALL THESE SNEAKING EMAILS OUT THERE AND NOT GET TO THE FACTS AND IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT SOMEHOW THIS INFORMATION IS GOING TO EXONERATE HIM, WHAT IS HE AFRAID OF? A LOT OF ATTENTION TO THIS. I SAW YOU AS A PROSECUTOR. WHAT DID YOU RECOGNIZE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT FROM THE LAST DAYS FROM ANYWHERE, PARTICULARLY IN THE NOTES? WELL, I THOUGHT THAT ARGUMENT FROM ADAM SCHIFF AT THE END AND I HAVE MADE SOME OF THESE ARGUMENTS MYSELF, BUT I PUT IT INTO A NATIONAL SECURITY CONTEXT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT IS WHY DO WE NEED THIS EVIDENCE?

RUSSIA WAS WATCHING. RUSSIA HAS BEEN WATCHING THE WHOLE TIME. AND HAVING BEEN TO UKRAINE, WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH ALONG WITH SENATOR McCAIN AND SENATOR GRAHAM, AND WAS ON THE FRONT LINE ON NEW YEAR'S EVE, RIGHT AFTER DONALD TRUMP WAS ELECTED, WHERE SENATOR McCAIN WAS PROVIDED TO TAKE US THERE, BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO RUSSIA, THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPPORTS OUR ALLIES AND THE UNITED STATES SUPPORTS UKRAINE, AND THEN THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE WATCHING THIS PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, WITHHOLD AID AND GET UPSET WITH IT, WHILE THEY'RE LOOKING TO SEE THAT THIS IS A COUNTRY THEY HAVE LITERALLY INVADED IN CRIMEA.

THAT LITERALLY HAVE THEIR EYES ON. AND THEN THEY DON'T EVEN HELP THEM WITH THE HELP. I THOUGHT WHAT ADAM SCHIFF SAID AT THE END WAS REALLY EFFECTIVE. ARE YOU GOING TO RETURN TO IOWA BEFORE FEBRUARY 3? BERNIE SANDERS IS RENTING A PLANE. DO YOU HAVE PLANS IN THE GO? I REALLY HAVE MY FAMILY THERE RIGHT NOW. YOUR REAL FOOD. AND THEY ARE OUT THERE. WE JUST ANNOUNCED THREE NEW ENDORSEMENTS TODAY FROM STATE LEGISLATORS. I HAD THE MOST LEGISLATORS AND FORMER LEGISLATORS WHO HAVE BACKED ME IN IOWA OF ANY CANDIDATE IN THE RACE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING FOR ME AND THEY WERE AT THE IOWA STATE CAPITAL TODAY TALKING ABOUT SUPPORT FOR ME.

THAT'S GOING TO MATTER AND THEN I'M GOING TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN, WHETHER IT'S IN THE CITY HALLS, WHETHER IT'S SCRATCHING AND GETTING THERE WHEN WE HAVE SUNDAY OFF, THAT HAS BEEN MY PLAN. WE WERE PREPARED FOR THIS. THAT'S WHY MY HUSBAND AND MY DAUGHTER ARE NOW THERE BUT I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. AND WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WANT TO SAY AND LOOK AT US, FOR JUST DOING OUR JOB AND BEING HERE, AND ACTING LIKE IT'S SOME KIND OF POLITICAL DISADVANTAGE, I THINK THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY UNDERSTAND. SOMETHING LIKE A RECENT SURVEY SHOWED THAT ALMOST 70% OF AMERICANS THINK THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES, THEY THINK THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR ME? THAT THE PEOPLE OF THESE FIRST STATES WILL UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE TO DO MY JOB. DO YOU FEEL DISCOURAGED THAT YOU WILL EVER GET DISANISHED? WELL, -- AFTER THREE VOTES, HOW DO YOU FEEL? DO YOU FEEL DISCOURAGED ABOUT WITNESSES? I AM SOMEONE WHO ALWAYS KEEPS LOOKING AT MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE IF THEY LOOK GUILTY. AND SOME OF THEM ARE LOOKING DOWN. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAN DENY ALL THE WITNESSES AND SEE WHAT THEY DO AFTER A FEW DAYS OF THIS BUT I THINK THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS MADE A VERY EFFECTIVE CASE DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE EVIDENCE AND WE NEED TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE AND WE NEED TO LISTEN TO THE WITNESSES .

YOU CANNOT HAVE A TRIAL WITH ZERO WITNESSES AND ZERO DOCUMENTS. THIS IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. AND THAT WAS SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR. THERE IS A CLIP I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY OF NORAH O'DONNELL'S INTERVIEWS WITH SEVERAL HOUSE IMPEACHMENT ADMINISTRATORS AND THIS CLIP FOCUSES ON THE IDEA THAT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS COULD PERHAPS EXCHANGE WITNESSES. LET'S LISTEN. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE WITNESSES QUESTION ALLEGEDLY. YOU WOULD WANT TO CALL JOHN BOLTON BUT ARE YOU PREPARED FOR WHO THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO CALL AS WITNESSES, WOULD IT BE FAIR? FAIR SO THAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS TEAM CAN CALL WITNESSES WHO CAN PROVIDE MATERIAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHARGES.

IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SEEK TO CALL WITNESSES JUST TO TRY TO PERPETUATE THE SAME EXPLOITATION CAMPAIGN THAT WAS THRUSTED WHEN HIS PLOT WAS DISCOVERED. HUNTER BIDEN, FOR EXAMPLE, CAN'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID, WHETHER HE WAS WITHHELD THAT AID TO FORCE UKRAINE TO CONDUCT POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, OR WHY HE DIDN'T MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. THE ONLY PURPOSE OF PUTTING HIM ON THEIR LIST IS THAT THEY WANT TO EXCHANGE MATERIAL WITNESSES LIKE MR. BOLTON AND MULVANEY AND OTHERS FOR INMATTERALS THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE ATTACKING THE POLITICAL OPPONENT.

THAT IS AN ILLEGITIMATE ABUSE OF THE TRIAL AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE JUDGE WHO MAY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO STATE ABOUT THE MATERIALITY OF THE WITNESSES AND THE SENATORS SHOULD NOT ALLOW THAT TYPE OF ABUSE. WOULD YOU EVEN RECOGNIZE IF YOU MANAGED TO CALL JOHN BOLTON AND MICK MULVANEY THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? THAT PRIVILEGE, EVEN IF IT COULD BE AFFIRMED, WOULD HAVE TO BE NARROWLY AFFIRMED. SO, MOLLY, OVER THE WEEKEND OHIO DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SHERROD BROWN SUGGESTED THAT OKAY, IF IT'S NECESSARY, IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES, HUNTER BIDEN, FINE. ADAM SCHIFF DOESN'T SEEM TO AGREE WITH THAT.

DO YOU THINK THERE IS ANY CHANCE THAT DEMOCRATS AS A WHOLE WILL ACCEPT THIS IDEA OF RECIPROCITY WHEN IT COMES TO WITNESSES? NO. IN A WORD, NO. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO HUNTER BIDEN AND TO BE HONEST, I REALLY DON'T THINK ALL REPUBLICANS WILL GET ON BOARD FOR HUNTER BIDEN. THE SENATE IS AN UNUSUAL INSTITUTION AND HAS A LONG MEMORY AND A LOT OF RESPECT FOR ITS MEMBERS AND FORMER MEMBERS. ONE OF WHICH IS SENATOR JOE BIDEN. WHO HAS BEEN CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, FOREIGN RELATIONS AND ALTHOUGH HE IS A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT, HAS RELATIONSHIPS WITH MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE CORRIDOR.

AND YOU DON'T SEE THAT ALL REPUBLICANS LIKE SUSAN COLLINS OR LISA MURKOWSKI AGREE WITH THAT. JUST BECAUSE THIS IS THE SON OF A FORMER COLLEAGUE AND HE'S GOING TO THE POINT OFADAM SCHIFF, WHAT'S THE POINT? I CAN SEE REPUBLICANS WANTING TO LISTEN TO ADAM SCHIFF HIMSELF MORE THAN HUNTER BIDEN BECAUSE ADAM SCHIFF, OF COURSE, REPUBLICANS WILL ARGUE THAT IT WAS HIS OFFICE THAT MEET WITH THE FRONT IN THE BEGINNING BEFORE THIS WHOLE QUOTE/UNQUOTE SAGA LIKE ADAM SCHIFF HAS DESCRIBED THAT IT CAME TO LIGHT. SO, JEFF, COULD YOU SEE THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ADDRESSING ANY KIND OF WITNESS RECIPROCITY?

NOW THEY DON'T WANT WITNESSES, THEY SAY BUT IF THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE LIKE THIS, DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD GET UP? WELL, I'M NOT SURE I WOULD FRAM IT THAT WAY. I WOULD FRAM IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY, WHICH IS THAT IF THE DEMOCRATS CAN GET SOME REPUBLICAN SUPPORT FROM SENATORS LIKE MITT ROMNEY, SUSAN COLLINS AND LISA MURKOWSKI, TO CALL WITNESSES LIKE JOHN BOLTON OR MICK MULVANEY, THEN THE REPUBLICANS AND THE WHITE HOUSE THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY GOING TO ALSO INSIST ON GETTING WITNESSES. AND THEY WILL CALL HUNTER BIDEN. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'LL SEE IT AS A RECIPROCITY THING IN TERMS OF MAKING A DEAL.

YOU CAN HAVE BOLTON IF WE CAN HAVE HUNTER. BUT I THINK THEY WILL ABSOLUTELY SAY THAT IF YOU HAVE WITNESSES THEN SO DO WE AND THERE WILL BE NO DICTATING WHO, WHAT AND WHY AND I LISTEN TO CONGRESS SCHIFF'S JUSTIFICATION OR NON-JUSTIFICATION BUT THE EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS AND THE REPUBLICANS WOULD NOT ACCEPT AND WHAT THEY WOULD NOT ACCEPT. THE WHITE HOUSE WILL REJECT THAT BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT HUNTER BIDEN FOR EXAMPLE WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OR COULD BE A GOOD WITNESS TO THE EXTENT OF DESCRIBING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. AND HIS ARGUMENT, THE WHITE HOUSE'S ARGUMENT, IS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT CALL BECAUSE HE JUST WANTED TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

SO, IF THIS IS A LOT OF SPECULATION HERE OF COURSE, BUT IF DEMOCRATS ARE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING SOME SENATORS TO VOTE FOR SOME OF THESE WITNESSES, COULD THE PRESIDENT THEN SUPPORT HIS SO-CALLED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN THIS CASE? AND SAY NO? WELL, THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND IT'S REALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR FROM THE PRESIDENT WHICH IS IMMUNITY. IMMUNITY, PEOPLE KNOW THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. THAT IS, I DO NOT APPEAR AT ALL. THAT'S VERY NARROW AND I THINK THAT'S THE PLACE WHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS REALLY ILLEGAL BY ORDERING PEOPLE NOT TO RESPOND TO SUMMONS AT ALL.

THE PRIVILEGE IS Narrower AS ADAM SCHIFF MENTIONED, THE IDEA IS THAT THERE ARE SOME COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE SO CENTRAL TO MY ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS PRESIDENT THAT THEY CAN'T BE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR BUT WOULD BE DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT. IT WOULD BE QUESTION BY QUESTION WITH PRIVATE WITNESSES. AND THE PRIVILEGES CAN BE WAIVED, SO I THINK THE ARGUMENT IN PART WOULD BE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS TALKED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED RIGHT HERE, INCLUDING IN JULY, RELEASING THE CALL ON JULY 25, SUMMARY, IT IS THAT HE GIVEN IT UP. YOU CANNOT USE A PRIVILEGE LIKE A SWORD AND SHIELD.

YOU CAN'T SAY I'M GOING TO GIVE OUT INFORMATION THAT I COULD SAY IS PRIVILEGED BUT THEN I'M GOING TO WITHHOLD PARTS OF IT. THE WAY THE LAW WORKS IS ALL OR NOTHING, SO I THINK AT THIS POINT THERE COULD BE AN ARGUMENT AROUND THAT. AGAIN WE HAVE TO SEE IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE JUDGE WILL ACCEPT HIS POWER ACCORDING TO THE RULES TO DECLARE ABOUT THIS MOMENT. OR IF I SAY IT HAS TO GO TO THE LOWER UP, PEOPLE BELOW ME IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, STOP THE TRIAL. I THINK THAT'S WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE WHITE HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING, BEFORE THE PROCEDURE, WE HEARD JAY SEKULOW COMPLAIN AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS, IN WHAT HE CALLED LAWSUITS AGAINST LAWYERS. AND THEN WE HEAR ADAM SCHIFF ADDRESS THAT AND SCRATCH HIS HEAD A LITTLE. NOT VERY SURE WHAT SEKULOW IS REFERRING TO. WELL, THE THEFT LAWSUITS, THEIR ARGUMENT APPEARS TO BE: FOR CONGRESS STO, BASICALLY, THE CHALLENGE'S ABILITY TO DEFEND ITSELF IN COURT IS ITSELF UNCONSTITUTED. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BUT WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE. BOTH PARTIES CAN USE THE COURTS. AS FOR WHICH PARTICULAR LAWYER IS BEING STUDY HERE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY.

EMPLOYEES WHO HAD TO HIRE PRIVATE, VERY EXPENSIVE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, SDWROUFT MADE SURE THEY DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING WRONG ON THE GRAND JURY. AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE THE PROCESS IS UNKNOWN. ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN IN A CIVIL ACTION. THIS IS HOW THE LAW WORKS. BUT I BELIEVE AS A LAW PROFESSOR AND LAWYER THAT THE LAW IS ONE WAY WE SEE JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY. AND WE SEE A POSITIVE CHANGE. AND WE SEE JUSTICE BEING DONE. And I think, as Amy Klobuchar suggested, a trial without witnesses is not really fair to either side. RIGHT. AND TALKING ABOUT AMY KLOBUCHAR, THE REPORTER ASKS HER: LOOK, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP YOUR CAMPAIGN ON THIS PATH?

AND SHE SAID MY FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IS AS A SENATOR. BUT CLEARLY THERE ARE SEVERAL CANDIDATES WHOSE CAMPAIGN IS ON SUSPENSION RIGHT NOW. ARE YOU REALLY ABLE TO DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE? WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. SHE CERTAINLY CAN'T BE, THEY CAN'T BE IN TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME. AND WITH THE IOWA CAUCUS ONLY A COUPLE OF WEEKS AWAY, IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THEM TO BE ON THE FIELD. AS WE ALL KNOW, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN POLITICS, AND PARTICULARLY IN A CAUCUS LIKE IOWA, IS SIMPLY MOTIVATING PEOPLE TO LEAVE THEIR HOUSES AND APARTMENTS TO SHOW UP ON CAUCUS DAY.

THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS TO HAVE A CANDIDATE THERE. AND SHE CAN'T DO THAT. THAT SAID, SHE WAS ARGUING, AND PROBABLY IS REASONABLE, THAT EVEN PEOPLE IN IOWA WOULD EXPECT SHE AND THE OTHER SENATORS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WOULD DO THEIR JOB. RIGHT. AND THERE REALLY IS NO OTHER ANSWER FOR HER OR FOR BERNIE SANDERS OR ELIZABETH WARREN OR ANYONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WHO HAS TO BE A SENATOR. MOLLY, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR OPINION ON THAT? I WOULD LOVE TO BE SITTING NEXT TO AMY KLOBUCHAR VERSUS REALLY AMY KLOBUCHAR, NEXT TO HER, PENNSYLVANIA, SOME KEY STATES IN THE SENATE.

WARREN BETWEEN NEVADA, CORTEZ. SANDERS HAS MARYLAND AND WISCONSIN. SO THESE PEOPLE ARE SITTING IN THEIR SEATS ALL DAY. YOU HAVE TO TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. AND OH, TO BE A FLY ON THE WALL. MAKE FRIENDS. THAT'S CORRECT. MOLLY HOOPER, KIM WAILY AND JEFF MASON, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S TAKE A BREAK WHILE THE SENATORS TAKE THEIR OWN BREAK. MUCH MORE AHEAD THIS DAY. AND WE'RE BACK WITH MOLLY HOOPER AND KIM WEHLE. INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATE LAWYER IN WHITEWATER RESEARCH. MOLLY IS A CBSN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR, CAPITOL HILL REPORTER. MOLLY, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS WITNESSES QUESTION. IF WITNESSES ARE CALLED, WHAT WOULD THAT PART OF THE TRIAL BE LIKE?

IT WOULD LOOK VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE ARE SEEING SO FAR, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. AND THE WAY MITCH MCCONNELL STRUCTURED THIS RESOLUTION, ACTUALLY SPECIFIES THAT IF THE SENATE AGREES TO ALLOW THE HOUSE OR THE PRESIDENT TO SUMMON WITNESSES, THOSE WITNESSES WILL BE DEPOSED FIRST. AND THAT WOULD HAPPEN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. DEPENDING ON WHO WAS ALLOWED TO BE IN THE COURT, A MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION ASKS THIS WITNESS QUESTIONS. SO WE COULD NOT EVEN NECESSARILY SEE WHAT IS SAID BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. BUT WE CAN. AND AFTER THAT POINT, THE SENATE COULD VOTE TO SEE THIS PERSON LIVE IN THE SENATE OR NOT.

THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT DEPOSITION PERIOD FIRST. AND PERHAPS KIM COULD TALK ABOUT THIS ASPECT WHEN IT COMES TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. BECAUSE IF THE WHITE HOUSE ARGUES THAT IT IS INVOKING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, I UNDERSTAND THAT DEPOSITIONS COULD BEGIN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, AND SENATORS IN THE PAST HAVE AGREED TO GO, NOT NECESSARILY OFFICIALLY, BUT TO HAVE MORE CLASSIFIED SESSIONS. SO THAT THEY DO NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO REVEAL THOSE ASPECTS THAT ARE COVERED IN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. KIM, CAN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? ESPECIALLY IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE REPUBLICANS SAY HEY, OK WE'LL HAVE WITNESSES. WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE COMPLAINT.

WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME IS THAT WE ARE HEARING FROM REPUBLICANS THAT THIS SWORD WORK SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE. BUT AS MOLLY SUGGESTS, THE FACT THAT THE RULES ALLOW DEPOSITIONS MEANS THAT THE KONLT PLATE RULES THERE WILL BE WITNESSES CONTEMPLATED THERE WILL BE WITNESSES WHO HAVE NOT BEEN DECLARED BEFORE IN. IN A CIVIL CONTEXT, THE DEPOSITION IS WHERE THE JUDGELESS LAWYER SITS AND LISTENS TO WHAT A WITNESS HAS TO SAY. AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER TO USE THEM IN THE TRIAL AFTER. JUST AS IN THE CRIMINAL CONTEXT, WITNESSES ARE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY, PROSECUTORS CAN LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

THEN THEY DECIDE WHETHER TO USE THEM IN THE TRIAL. AND IT IS AT THAT POINT THAT PRIVILEGE COULD ARISE. I THINK THAT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE EVER WERE REPUBLICANS, ENOUGH THAT THE REPUBLICANS WOULD AGREE TO HAVING WITNESSES, WE WOULD SEE WITNESSES ON BOTH SIDES, PRESUMPIBLY. AS WE ARE PUBLICLY HEARING, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COMING OUT FROM LEV PARNAS, FROM FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS, THE GOA OFFICE ISSUED A REPORT SAYING THE WITHHOLDING OF AID WAS ILLEGAL. A LOT OF SOMETHING HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE VOTE ON DECEMBER 20. AND MOST OF IT IS REALLY HARMFUL TO THE PRESIDENT.

IF WE START OPEN THAT, WE WILL SEE A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. THE FORWARD COULD BE ONE OF THEM. And then the question would be: Would Chief Justice Roberts rule that, listen, the whistleblower had just handed over the baton? SOMETHING LIKE SOMEONE CALLING A TIPLINE. Listen, I think I know where the murder weapon could be. Once that person calms the line of information, no one really cares who he is because he is just passing it on. BUT THAT COULD REALLY COMPLICATE THE PROCESS AND MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED FOR BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BENEFIT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE MORE FACTS TO MAKE THIS SERIOUS DECISION. EITHER ABSOLUTE OR REMOVE WHAT IS VERY UNUSUAL, I THINK UNTHINKABLE AT THIS MOMENT, PROBABLY. BUT AT LEAST WE COULD SEE, HEAR, IT WAS A FAIR PROCESS. ALL THE CARDS WERE ON THE TABLE. AND WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH. RIGHT. IT IS INTERESTING, CONSIDERING THE MAJORITY THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE IN THE SENATE, THAT THEY ARE SO CAREFUL WITH THE WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY STILL CLEARLY HAVE THE WIN. YES, THERE ARE A LOT OF MOVING PARTS HERE. I THINK ABOUT THE WAY LAWYERS DEFEND CASES. YOU MAKE A DEFENSE OF THE FACTS.

THE STORY IS NOT WHAT IS TOLD, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT. WE HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH ABOUT THAT. THE ARGUMENT ESPECIALLY AFTER MR. PARNAS' PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT THIS WAS TO ERADICATE CORRUPTION. FIONA HILL UNDERMINED THAT. THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, THAT IS NOT CONTAINED. THE SECOND ARGUMENT IS THAT AS A LEGAL ARGUMENT, THIS IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW. MOST CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENDERS, INCLUDING OUR CBS COLLEAGUE, JONATHAN TURLEY, AGREE THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS A BASIS FOR ACTION. SO YOUR BEST STRATEGY, REALLY, IS TO KEEP IT COVERED AND MAKE IT GO AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.

BECAUSE THE FACTS OF THE LAW ARE NOT ON THEIR SIDE. THE OTHER ARGUMENT, I THINK THE ONE WE ARE LISTENING TO IS VERY IRONIC. WELL, THIS IS UNDERMINING AN ELECTION. AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE. OF COURSE, THE PERFORMANCE IS MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION SIX TIMES. SO IT CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BUT ALSO THE BIGGEST THREAD, I THINK, THAT IS BEING LOST IN THE DETAILS IS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. YES. MR. MUELLER SAID IT'S ONGOING, THAT'S WHAT MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION IS ABOUT. WE SAW THAT THE RUSSIANS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF BARIZMA, THE COMPANY WHICH HUNTER BIDEN WORKED FOR.

SO IT'S STILL CONTINUED. AND WE AMERICANS HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES: WOULD WE PREFER THAT THE RUSSIANS MAKE THE DECISIONS? OR WOULD WE PREFER THAT A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE SENATE MAKE THE DECISION? THE SENATE DOES RESPOND, IN THEORY, TO THE AMERICANS. THE RUSSIANS DON'T. So they're kind of two sides of the same coin. NATIONAL SECURITY IS THE MAIN AND CENTER OF THIS TRIAL. AND WE ARE NOT HEARING ENOUGH ABOUT THAT, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE HAVE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT THE HEART OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS. KIM WEHLE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOLLY HOOPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NOW LET'S MOVE FORWARD. MORE THAN A TWELVE SENATORS WHO PARTICIPATED IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TAX TRIAL WERE ALSO THERE WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPACTED. MITCH MCCONNELL IS ONE OF THEM. AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE CLINTON PROSECUTION DIRECTOR'S REQUEST TO LISTEN TO THE WITNESSES AT THE TIME. I SAY THIS NOT JUST TO PLAY NICKY, BUT TO LET THE ARGUMENT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE MAKING FOR ONLY THREE WITNESSES IS CERTAINLY NOT AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST. AND HERE'S WHAT SENATOR MCCONNELL SAID ABOUT TODAY'S WITNESSES. IF AMENDMENTS ARE FILED TO FORCE PREMATURE DECISIONS ON MID-TRIAL ISSUES, I WILL PRESENT SUCH AMENDMENTS AND PROTECT OUR BIPARTISAN PRECEDENT.

IF A SENATOR PROPOSES TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO CALL SPECIFIC WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS, I WILL PROPOSE SUCH MOTIONS BECAUSE THE SENATE WILL DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS LATER IN THE TRIAL JUST LIKE WE DID IN 1999. SO THE QUESTION NOW IS HOW CLOSE IS THE SENATOR MCCONNELL TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE 1999 SENATE TRIAL? AND HOW REASONABLE DO YOU FIND DEMOCRATS' REQUESTS TO HEAR WITNESSES MORE THAN TWO DECADES LATER? FOR MORE INFORMATION, WE BRING IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN THOMAS WAY LAN. WAYLAN. WE JUST HEAR IN THIS CLIP SENATOR MCCONNELL SAY THAT THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS' REQUEST FOR WITNESSES IN THE SENATE TRIAL IS NOT IRRATIONAL.

VERY SORRY. WE WILL HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH YOU IN A BIT. WE JUST HEARD THAT THE TRIALIN THE SENATE HAS JUST RESUMED. THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIVE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND BROOKLYN AND QUEEN QUEENS. FURZ SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID, IS THAT COMPLICATED? AS MY FRIEND LEON GOLDENBERG SAYS AT HOME, HAKEEM, YOU HAVE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. YOU SEE, IN AMERICA, OUR DIVERSITY IS A STRENGTH. IT IS NOT A WEAKNESS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT UNITS ALL OF US AS AMERICANS, UNITS ALL OF US AS AMERICANS, REGARDLESS OF RACE, REGARDLESS OF RELIGION, REGARDLESS OF REGION, REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, IS THAT WE BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW.

OF A FAIR TRIAL. THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT TO CALL WITNESSES, EVEN WITH RESPECT TO MICK MULVANEY. WHO HAS HEARD OF A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES? BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SOME ARE CONTEMPLATING HERE TODAY. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADDRESS THAT FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT. I WOULD ENSURE THAT THE TRIAL INCLUDES TESTIMONY FROM A KEY WITNESS, THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. MICK MULVANEY. AND IT WOULD ENSURE THAT THE SENATE CAN CONSIDER THEIR TESTIMONY IMMEDIATELY. WE DISCUSS WHY THE NEED TO LISTEN TO MICK MULVANEY IS SO CRITICAL. FIRST LEADER MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION UNDERMINES OVER 200 YEARS OF SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL PRACTICE.

BE A PART OF EVERY IMPEACHMENT TRIAL HELD TO DATE. AND FOLLOWS THE SENATE'S OWN LONG-LASTING RULES OF PERFORMANCE. WHICH CONTEMPLATES THE POSSIBILITY OF NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY. IN FACT, IT DEPARTS FROM ANY CRIMINAL OR CIVIL TRIAL PROCEDURE IN AMERICA. WHY SHOULD THIS PRESIDENT BE HELD WITH A DIFFERENT STANDARD? SECOND, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO WITNESSES TESTIMONY IS NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT'S DETERMINED EFFORT TO BURY EVIDENCE AND COVER UP HIS CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER. THE HOUSE TRIED TO GET MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY. WE QUOTE IT. MISTER. MULVANEY ALONG WITH OTHER KEY WITNESSES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR AID ROBERT BLAIRE, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL MICHAEL DUFFEY, AND NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER JOHN EISENBERG, WERE CALLED TO WITNESS THE CHAMBER AS PART OF THIS TAX INVESTIGATION.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DETERMINED TO HIDE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY. THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND ALL HIS TOP ASSISTANTS AND ADVISORS TO CHALLENGE ALL REQUESTS. FOR HIS TESTIMONY. THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND. THIRD, MR. MULVANEY IS A VERY RELEVANT WITNESS TO THE FACTS AT ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL. MISTER. MULVANEY WAS AT THE CENTER OF EVERY STAGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S SUBSTANTIAL PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AGAINST UKRAINE. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN INCHES OF EXPENDITURE THAT THE HOUSE OBTAINED, IT IS CLEAR THAT MULVANEY WAS CRUCIAL IN PLANNING THE PLAN, EXECUTING ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND PERFORMING THE COVER-UP.

EMAILS AND WITNESSES' TESTIMONIALS SHOW THAT MR. MULVANEY was aware. ON THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO EXPLICITLY CONDITION A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON UKRAINE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION BENEFICIAL TO THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION PROSPECTS. HE WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S RESTRICTION ON SECURITY ASSISTANTS. AND LATER ADMITTED THAT THE OTHER FUNDS HE WAS THANKFUL HAVE BEEN WITHHELD TO PUT PRESSURE ON UKRAINE. TO CONDUCT ONE OF THE FALSE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED. FAKE. POLITICAL RESEARCH INVESTIGATIONS. A TRIAL WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF MICK MULVANEY. MAKE no mistake, the evidentiary record we have built is powerful and clearly establishes the president's guilt in both articles of impeachment.

BUT IT IS NOT COMPLETE. THE FILE ARRIVES TO YOU WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MULVANEY AND OTHER IMPORTANT WITNESSES. AND THIS LEADS ME TO ONE LAST PRELIMINARY REMARK. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGREE THAT THERE CANNOT BE A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT LISTENING TO WITNESSES WHO HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO PROVIDE. THE CONSTITUTION, OUR DEMOCRACY, THE SENATE, THE PRESIDENT AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL. A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES WITNESSES. TO PROVIDE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. THAT IS WHY THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ADOPTED. BEFORE TALKING ABOUT MR. MULVANEY ON THE PRESIDENT'S GEOPOLITICAL VISIT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES WOULD BE A STUNNING DEVIATION FROM THE PREVIOUS PRACTICE OF THIS INSTITUTION.

THIS DISTINGUISHED ORGANIZATION HAS CONDUCTED 15 IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. EVERYONE HAS WITNESSES INCLUDED. SOMETIMES THOSE TRIAL INCLUDED ONLY A HANDFUL OF WITNESSES AS INDICATED ON THE SCREEN. LIKE OTHER TIMES, THEY INCLUDED DOZENS. IN ONE CASE, THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED DIFFERENT WITNESSES. IN SLIDESHOWS, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF WITNESSES PRESENTED IN A SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS 33. AND IN AT LEAST THREE OF THOSE CASES, INCLUDING BILL CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT, WITNESSES WHO HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY APPEARED BEFORE THE SENATE THE CAMERA. THAT'S BECAUSE THE SENATE, THIS GREAT INSTITUTION, HAS ALWAYS TAKEN ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO ADMINISTER A FAIR TRIAL SERIOUSLY. THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS TAKEN ITS DUTY TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONIALS, SERIOUSLY.

THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS TAKEN SERIOUSLY ITS OBLIGATION TO EVALUATE THE CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT BASED ON THE ENTIRE BODY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE FOR ALL INVOLVED. RESPECTFULLY, IT IS IMPORTANT TO HONOR THAT UNBROKEN PRECEDENT TODAY. SO THAT MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY, WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR, AS TO WHAT HE COULD SAY, CAN INFORM THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY OF AMERICANS. THIS AMENDMENT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO CONTRAST THE PRESIDENT'S DETERMINATION TO BURY THE EVIDENCE OF HIS CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. AS WE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL TODAY, DESPITE THE HOUSE'S CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONIALS, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ORDERED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO COVER UP.

HE HAS ORDERED THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION TO IGNORE THE POWERS OF CONGRESS, A SEPARATE AND COEQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, IN A MANNER UNPRECEDENTED IN AMERICAN HISTORY. THE WHITE HOUSE PRODUCED ZERO DOCUMENTS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. 71 REQUESTS. ZERO DOCUMENTS. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DEPRIVING THE SENATE OF IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO CONSIDER IN THIS TRIAL. THIS POINT CANNOT BE OVERESTIMATED. When faced with a congressional impeachment inquiry, a process expressly laid out by the framers of the Constitution in Article 1, the president refused to comply on any count. AND HE ORDERED HIS SENIOR HELPERS TO FOLLOW UP. AS SHOWN IN THE SLIDES, AS A RESULT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION, 12 KEY WITNESSES, INCLUDING MR.

MULVANEY, REFUSED TO PRESENT TESTIMONY AT THE HOUSE'S PERFORMANCE INQUIRY. NO ONE HAS LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. THESE WITNESSES INCLUDE CENTRAL FIGURES IN THE ABUSE OF POWER ACCUSED IN ARTICLE 1. WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT HIDING? ON THE SAME ISSUE, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION MADE NO LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT TO REACH A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION WITH THE HOUSE OR A COMPROMISE WITH REGARD TO ANY REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS OR WITNESS SUBPACES. BECAUSE? BECAUSE PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP WAS NOT INTERESTED IN COOPERATING. He was plotting a cover-up. IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND THINK ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DOING.

COMPLETE AND TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION IS UNPRECENTED IN AMERICAN HISTORY. EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON, WHOSE ARTICLE OF ACTION INCLUDED OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, DID NOT PREVENT KEY WHITE HOUSE ADES FROM TESTIMONYING BEFORE CONGRESS DURING THE SENATE HEARINGS IN WATERGATE. IN FACT, HE PUBLICLY URGED WHITE HOUSE AIDES TO WITNESS. DO YOU REMEMBER ALL THOSE WITNESSES WHO CAME IN FRONT OF THIS BODY? CAME A LOOK AT THE SCREEN. JOHN DEAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE KOURNL, WITNESSED FOR SEVERAL DAYS ACCORDING TO A SUMMONS. H. R. HALEDERMAN, PRESIDENT NIXON'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, WAS CALLED AND TESTIFIED. ALEXANDER BUTTERFIELD, THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WHO REVEALED THE EXISTENCE OF THE TAPES, WITNESSED PUBLICLY BEFORE THE SENATE.

AND SEVERAL OTHERS TOO. PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COMPLETE AND TOTAL OBSTRUCTION MAKES RICHARD NIXON LOOK LIKE A CHORUS BOY. TWO OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN TRIAL BEFORE THE SENATE. HOW DID THEY BEHAVE? WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON AND ANDREW JOHNSON DID NOT PREVENT ANY WITNESSES FROM PATCHING THE SENATE TRIAL. PRESIDENT REGORDO TRUMP BY CONTRAST REFUSES TO ALLOW RELEVANT WITNESSES TO TESTIMONY UNTIL THIS VERY DAY. MANY OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S WHITE HOUSE AIDE TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS. EVEN BEFORE THE START OF THE FORMAL TAX PROCEDURE. DURING THE INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MID-1919 AND 1990'S, THE HOUSE AND SENATE HEARD FROM MORE THAN TWO DOZEN WHITE HOUSE AIDE.

INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. THE FORMER CHIEF OF PERSONNEL. AND MULTIPLE SENIOR ADVISORS TO PRESIDENT CLINTON. PRESIDENT CLINTON HIMSELF GAVE TESTIMONY BEFORE CAMERA AND UNDER OATH. AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE GRAPH, THE TESTIMONY WAS PACKAGED AND DELIVERED TO THE SENATE. HERE WE ARE LOOKING FOR WITNESSES THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PREVENTED FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE. President Trump apparently believes he can do what no other president before him has so brazenly attempted to do. HE FLOATS ABOVE THE LAW AND HIDES THE TRUTH. OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE STABBED. TO REMAIN.

LET ME NOW ADDRESS SOME FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ABOUT THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS. TO CONDUCT RESEARCH. OUR BROAD POWER WAS INVESTIGATION AT ITS MAXIMUM STRENGTH DURING AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. WHEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CLIENTS OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE EXPRESSLY ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE 1. OF THE CONSTITUTION. ALMOST 140 YEARS AGO, THE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT WHEN THE HOUSE OR SENATE IS DETERMINING A MATTER OF PERFORMANCE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE RIGHT TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. AND THAT ATTENDS THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS IN THE SAME WAY AND BY USING THE SAME MEANS THAT THE COURTS OF JUSTICE CAN IN SIMILAR CASES.

THE FOUNDERS OF OUR NATION AND THE GREATEST LEGAL MINDS RECOGNIZED THESE PRINCIPLES FROM TIME. SUPREME COURT JUDGE JOSEPH STORY EXPLAINED THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT A DEEP INVESTIGATION OF HIS CONDUCT. OR TO INSURE YOURSELF AGAINST THE MISGRANT OF A PUBLIC CONDEMNATION BY IMPEACHMENT IF YOU DESERVE IT. PRESIDENT TRUMP CANNOT FUNCTION AS JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER OF OUR DEMOCRACY. AND IT WAS NOT JUST THE COURTS WHO CONFIRMED THIS TO US. SOME OF OUR NATION'S LEADING PUBLIC OFFICIALS. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, SPEAKING ON THE HOUSE FLOOR, ASKED WHO HAD ONCE SERVED AS PRESIDENT EXCLAIMED "WHAT A MOTION WOULD IT BE FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO SAY THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT EXTENDING EVEN TO THE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HIMSELF, AND STILL TO SAY THAT THE HOUSE DIDN'T HAVE THE POWER TO OBTAIN THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH HIS ACCUSATION WAS BASED?" HAMILTON, STORY, ADAMS AND OTHERS HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT ISOLATE HIMSELF FROM THE CONGRESSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS EVIL ACTIONS.

THE PRESIDENT COULD DECIDE WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD BE PRESENTED IN HIS OWN TRIAL THAT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY NULLIFY. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. THIS AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HIDE THE TRUTH. NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS DONE IT. THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT ALLOW IT. AND THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. WITNESSES MATTER. DOCUMENTS MATTER. EVIDENCE MATTERS. THE TRUTH MATTERS. LET ME NOW PASS ON TO A THIRD JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS AMENDMENT. MISTER. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY IS FUNDAMENTAL TO CONSIDER THE CASE FOR EXTRACTION. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE LISTEN TO THE PRESIDENT'S CLOSEST AID. A MAN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN KEY STAGES OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY ABUSE OF POWER.

PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWS IT. Why else would you go to such lengths to prevent Mick Mulvaney from testifying before you? THERE ARE AT LEAST FOUR REASONS WHY MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY IS CRITICAL. TO START, AS ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, MICK MUM HAS FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF MULVANEY HAS FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO SHAKE UP UKRAINE AND PRESSURE HIS NEW PRESIDENT TO ANNOUNCE FALSE INVESTIGATIONS. MISTER. MULVANEY WAS IN THE CYCLE OF EVERY CRITICAL STAGE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME. I WAS IN THE LOOP IN THE PLANNING OF THE PLAN.

IT WAS IN THE LOOP OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION. AND I WAS IN THE LOOP WHEN THE SCHEME FELL APART. HE EVEN PUBLICLY ADMITTED THAT AID WAS WITHHELD TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO START AN INVESTIGATION WHICH ANNOUNCED AN INVESTIGATION DESIGNED TO ELEVATE THE POLITICAL STANDING OF THE PRESIDENT. MISTER. MULVANEY, PERHAPS MORE THAN ANY OTR ADMINISTRATION WITNESS EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT, HAS FIRST-PARTY INFORMATION ON THE DECISION TO WITHHOLD $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AND SECURITY AID TO A VULNERABLE UKRAINE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. IN FACT, OUR INVESTIGATION REVEALS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY ORDERED MR. MULVANEY WILL EXECUTE FREEZE IN JULY 2019. MR. MULVANEY Occupies THE TOP STAFF POSITION IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE IS A MEMBER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CABINET. AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S TEAMTRUMP AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. HE REMAINS AS DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. WHICH IMPLEMENTED THE WITHHOLDING OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. AS THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RECENTLY CONCLUDED. IN SUMMARY, RESPECTFULLY, THE SENATE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONDUCT A COMPLETE AND FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES THAT MR. MULVANEY WITNESS. SECOND, MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY IS CRITICAL FOR HIS KNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER PLANNING. AMBASSADOR GORDON, UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, WITNESSED THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO. MISTER. $1 MILLION LANDED ON SUNDAY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INAUGURATION.

HE CERTIFYED THAT EVERYONE WAS AWARE. AND THAT IT WAS NOT A SECRET WHAT WAS HAPPENING. IN FACT, ALREADY IN MAY 2019, AMBASSADOR SONDLANDMADEÚ IN UKRAINE MASTERS WITH MR. MULVANEY. THIS IS WHAT DAVID HOLD, AN OFFICIAL AT THE US EMBASSY IN UKRAINE, HAD TO SAY ON THAT MATTER. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S MANDATE AS ACCREDITED AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION DOES NOT COVER INDIVIDUAL MEMBER STATES, MUCH LESS NON-UNION MEMBERS LIKE UKRAINE. HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE HAD DIRECT AND FREQUENT ACCESS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MICK MULVANEY AND PRESENTED HIMSELF AS THE CONDUIT TO THE PRESIDENT AND MR. MULVANEY FOR THIS GROUP.

AFTER THE US DELEGATION RETURNED FROM THE INAUGURATION OF THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN APRIL, THEY WERE ABLE TO SECURE A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. TO GREET YOU ON YOUR JOURNEY, IN PART, DUE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S CONNECTION WITH MICK MULVANEY. THEN DURING A MEETING ON JUNE 18, 2019, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BRIEFED THE CHIEF DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, DOCTOR FIONA HILL, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE. AND THAT HE HAD BEEN INFORMING SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY. ON HIS EFFORTS TO PERFORM, LIKE DR. HILL EXPLAINED IT: A DOMESTIC POLITICAL REMEMBER IN UKRAINE. HERE IS DR.

HILL EXPLAINING THIS SAME THING. SO I WAS ANNOYED AT HIM BECAUSE HE DIDN'T TELL US COMPLETELY ABOUT ALL THE MEETINGS HE WAS HAVING. AND HE TOLD ME THAT I AM INFORMING THE PRESIDENT. I'm reporting to Chief of Staff Mulvaney. I AM BRIEFING SECRETARY POMPEO AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH BOLTON, WHO ELSE DO I HAVE TO DEAL WITH? AND THE POINT IS THAT WE HAVE AN AGENCY PROCESS THAT IS ABOUT THE ARBITRATION CRANE. INCLUDES MR. HOLMES. IT INCLUDES A WHOLE LOAD OF OTHER PEOPLE. BUT HE CALLED ME YESTERDAY WHEN HE PUT UP AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S EMAIL, AND WHO WAS IN THEM, AND HE WAS THESE ARE PEOPLE I NEED TO KNOW, BUT HE WAS TOTALLY RIGHT.

BECAUSE HE WAS INVOLVED IN DOMESTIC POLITICAL WORK. AND WE WERE INVOLVED IN NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN POLICY. AND THOSE TWO THINGS JUST DIVERGED. AND THERE IS MORE. MUCH MORE. A MONTH LATER, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AT THE TIME, JOHN BOLTON, TOLD DR. FIONA HILL TO TELL THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYER THAT HE WAS NOT PART OF ANY DRUG DEAL SONDLAND AND MULVANEY WERE COOKING UP. HE MADE THAT STATEMENT AFTER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT HE HAD A DEAL WITH MR. MULVANEY WILL SCHEDULE A VISIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESIDENT ZEZENSKI, IF UKRAINE ANNOUNCED TWO FAKE INVESTIGATIONS, INVOLVING THE BIDENS AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE IN 2016.

HERE WAS A TESTIMONY ABOUT SONDLAND DESCRIBING THIS DRUG DEAL HE HAD WITH MULVANEY. WHEN I COME IN, THERE WILL BE A DEAL HERE, I WILL HAVE A MEETING WITH MULVANEY. THERE WILL BE A MEETING IF THE UKRAINIANS OPEN INVESTIGATIONS IN 2016. BY NOW, HAVING LISTENING TO MR. GIULIANI OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON TV AND ON EVERY ISSUE HE WAS RIGHT, AT THIS POINT IT WAS CLEAR THAT BARRISMA WAS CODE FOR THE BIDENS. I COULD SEE WHY HE WAS ALARMED. AND HE SAID THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE. WE ARE THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. WE CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS. THE REFERENCED AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MICK MULVANEY WAS SO ANNOYING THAT DR.

HILL REPORTED IT TO THE LEGAL ADVISOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. WHEN I CAME BACK AND TOOK IT TO HIM, HE HAD VERY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR ME. And I guess that's SFLOORS WHAT WAS THAT INSTRUCTION? THE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION WAS THAT I HAD TO GO TO THE LAWYERS, JOHN EISENBERG, OUR SENIOR COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, TO BASICALLY SAY THAT YOU SAY THAT EISENBERG'S AMBASSADOR, BOLTON, TOLD ME THAT I AM NOT PART OF THIS BUSINESS DRUGS THAT MULVANEY AND SONDLAND ARE COOKING UP. WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE DRUG DEAL THAT MULVANEY AND SONDLAND WERE COOKING UP WAS WANTING?

I TOOK THAT IT MEANS INVESTIGATIONS OR A MEETING. DID YOU GO TO SPEAK WITH THE LAWYERS? I certainly did. SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY NOT ONLY CORROBORATES DR. In Hill's account, he actually says that Mick Mulvaney, the subject of the amendment, should appear before the Senate if we are to have a free and fair trial. MANY PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THIS. INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY? CORRECT. THE DOCUMENTS ALSO HIGHLIGHT THE EXTENSIVE INVOLVEMENT OF MICK MULVANEY. IN THIS GEOPOLITICAL DISASSEMBLY SCHEME. EMAIL MESSAGES SWORN BY SONDLAND DURING HIS SWORN TESTIMONY SHOWED THAT HE INFORMED MR. MULVANEY AS WELL AS SECRETARY POMPEO AND SECRETARY KERRY OF THEIR EFFORTS TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION DESIRED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

FOR EXAMPLE, AS SHOWN ON SCREEN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SENDS AN EMAIL TO SEVERAL SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS, INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY, STATING THAT HE HAD SPOKEN WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO HELP HIM PREPARE FOR A PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. AND HE REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PLANS TO ASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE INTENDS TO CONDUCT A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND WILL TURN EVERY STONE. AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE CLEAR IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO THE BARRISMA BIDEN INVESTIGATIONS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL. MISTER. Mulvaney wrote in response: "He asked the NSC to establish it.

What exactly did Mr. Mulvaney know about the Ukrainian commitment to return each stone? These require answers under the oath of Mr. Mulvaney. Mr. Mulvaney is also. According to public reports and WITNESS TESTIMONY, MR. MULVANEY WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN, INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE'S ILLEGAL FREEZING OF $391 MILLION IN AID TO UKRAINE HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE MONEY WAS TEMPORARILY WITHHELD THE PUBLIC . THE REPORTS CONFIRM MR. MULVANEY'S OWN ACCOUNT THAT HE HAD INFORMATION THAT GOES TO THE CENTER OF THIS INVESTIGATION, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO WHY THE PRESIDENT ORDERED A SUSPENSION OF AID TO UKRAINE AND HAD A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR.

IN JUNE WHEN MR. MULVANEY ASKED DID WE FIND OUT ABOUT THE MONEY FOR UKRAINE AND IF YOU CAN HOLD IT? WHAT MOTIVATED THAT EMAIL ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS, MR. AIR FORCE 1. AIR FORCE 1. WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. WHEN SENT IT. WHAT OTHER CONVERSATIONS DID MR. DOES MULVANEY HAVE WITH THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ABOUT THIS ILLEGAL FREEZE? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW THAT THERE IS OTHER SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE ABOUT MR. MULVANEY'S ROLE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN. ACCORDING TO MULTIPLE WITNESSES, THE ORDER TO FREEZE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WAS DELIVERED BY MICK MULVANEY HIMSELF. MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICER MARK SANDY WITNESSING A JULY 12 EMAIL FROM MR.

BLAIRE STATING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ORDERING A SUSPENSION OF MILITARY SUPPORT FUNDING TO UKRAINE. IT WAS MR. BLAIRE ACTING IN MR. MULVANEY EXPRESS ADDRESS? THE MEMBERS OF THIS Illustrious Body DESERVE TO KNOW. ON JULY 18, A SUSPENSION TO THE ADMINISTRATION AGENCIES THAT SUPERVISE THE POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF UKRAINE WAS ANNOUNCED. THOSE PRESENT WERE BLIND BY THE ANNOUNCEMENT. THAT SECURITY AID ALLOCATED BY THIS CONGRESS IN A BIPARTIST WAY TO UKRAINE WHICH IS STILL AT WAR WITH RUSSIAN-BACKED SEPARATISTS IN THE EAST. THEY WERE ALARMED THAT THIS AID HAD BEEN POLITICALLY SUSPENSION. MEANWHILE, OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BECOME CONCERNED.

MEANWHILE, OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BECOME CONCERNED. HIS CONCERN TURNED OUT TO BE ACCURATE. PUBLIC REPORTS HAVE INDICATED THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN POSSESSION OF ALL OF THESE EMAILS. EXCHANGES BETWEEN ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND WHITE HOUSE BUDGET OFFICIALS SEEKING TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION ON THE FUNDS. A SPLAVENGZ, I MUST NOTE, THAT EXPLANATION, I MUST NOTE, THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GIVE AFTER THE PRESIDENT ALREADY ORDERED IT TO BE KEPT. MISTER. MULVANEY ALLEGEDLY HAS ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ANSWERS ARE, BUT YOU MUST PROVIDE THEM TO THIS SENATE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

FINALLY ON OCTOBER 17, 2019, AT A PRESS CONFERENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE, MR. MULVANEY LEFT NO DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WITHHELD ESSENTIAL MILITARY AID AS LEVER TO TRY TO EXTRACT FALSE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF HIS EFFORT TO SELECT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION. THIS WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY PRESS CONFERENCE. MISTER. MULVANEY MADE CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS IN FACT PRESSUREING UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THE CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE, RATHER THAN RUSSIA, HAD INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS. A CONSPIRACY THEORY PROMOTED BY NO OTHER THAN THE GREAT SUPPLIER OF DEMOCRACY, VLAD MIR PUTIN HIMSELF. WHEN WHITE HOUSE REPORTERS TRIED TO CLARIFY THIS RECOGNITION OF A PRO PRO QUID RELATED TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE, MR.

MULVANEY RESPONDED "WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME" WITH FOREIGN POLICY. CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER? ABSOLUTE. THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. BUT THAT'S ALL. AND THAT'S WHY WE HOLD THE MONEY. SO THE DEMAND FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATS WAS PART OF THE REASON YOU WANTED TO WITHHOLD FUNDING TO UKRAINE? WE LOOK BACK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016. WHICH WAS PART OF WHAT CONCERNED THEM ABOUT THE CORRUPTION WITH THAT NATION. AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE. WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS A QUID PRO QUO. YOUR FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER ALSO HAPPENS.

WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. WITH FOREIGN POLICY. WE HAVE MONEY AT THE SAME TIME WHAT WAS IT FOR? THE COUNTRIES OF THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE. WE WERE STOPING THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE COUNTRIES TO CHANGE THEIR IMMIGRATION POLICIES. BY THE WAY, IN THIS SPEECH TO -- I'M SORRY? THIS MAKES AN IMPORTANT POINT. BECAUSE I HEARD THIS YESTERDAY. AND I CAN NEVER REMEMBER THE KNIGHT. MCKINNEY? WITNESS YESTERDAY. IF YOU BELIEVE THE NEWS, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY TRANSCRIPT, THIS THE ONLY TRANSCRIPT I HAVE SEEN WAS SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. IF YOU READ THE NEWS AND BELIEVE IT, WHAT DID MCKINNEY SAY YESTERDAY?

MCKINNEY SAID YESTERDAY HE WAS LITERALLY ANNOYED WITH THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON FOREIGN POLICY. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS. AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYONE, GET OVER IT. THERE WILL BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON FOREIGN POLICY. IN THIS EXTRAORDINARY PRESS CONFERENCE, MR. MULVANEY SPOKE WITH THE AUTHORITY. AND CONVICTION. ON WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD AID. HIS WORDS WERE NOT MISSIONED. BUT AFTER THE PRESS CONFERENCE, HE TRIED TO BACK HIS STATEMENT BACK. AS IF I DIDN'T HAVE SAID THEM. OR HE HAD NOT MENTIONED IT. WE NEED TO HEAR MICK MULVANEY DIRECTLY SO HE CAN CLARIFY HIS TRUE INTENTIONS.

HAVING GONE THROUGH THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE, LET'S BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENTS THAT HE CAN BLOCK THIS TESTIMONY. THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT, BUT IT FUNDAMENTALLY HIGHLIGHTS OUR SYSTEM OF VERIFICATIONS AND BALANCES. TAKE A STEP BACK AND CONSIDER THE EXTRAORDINARY POSITION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO MAKE FOR HIMSELF. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INdicted OR PROSECUTED IN OFFICE. WHILE WE ARE HERE TODAY, THE PRESIDENT HAS FILED A WRITING WITH THE SUPREME COURT SAYING THAT HE ALSO CANNOT BE CRIMINALLY INVESTIGATED. WHILE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. SO THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE ARE THE ONLY CONTROLS LEFT.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER. TRY TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTIONS. UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. BY DOING SO YOU BREAK THE LAW. AND THEN TRY TO COVER IT. THIS IS AMERICA. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. IF THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS INVESTIGATED BY CONGRESS, IF HE IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE IF HE SHOULD COMPLY WITH LEGAL SUMMONS. IN RELATION TO AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION OR TRIAL, THEN HE IS THE FINAL ARBITRATOR OF WHETHER HE DID ANYTHING WRONG. THAT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED. IF YOU CAN'T BE CHARGED, YOU CAN'T BE CHARGED AND YOU CAN'T BE REMOVED, THEN YOU CAN'T BE RESPONSIBLE.

THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU WON'T HEAR THAT REASON DEFINITELY HEARS THAT THE REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT BLOCKED THESE WITNESSES FROM WITNESSING, INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY, IT IS DUE TO SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCE AND THE PRESERVATION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. LET'S BE REAL. HOW CAN PREVENT WITNESSES FROM TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT HELP PRESERVE THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE? THIS TYPE OF GENERAL OBSTRUCTION UNDERMINES THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCE AND CONSIDERS THECONSTITUTION A POTENTIALLY DEADLY BLOW. TO BE CLEAR, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PROVIDE A LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE BASIS FOR YOUR COMPLETE AND TOTAL BLOCKING OF EVIDENCE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, NOT ONCE. AND WITHOUT EVER ASSERTING THIS PRIVILEGE, HOW CAN YOUR ARGUMENT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY? INSTEAD OF TALKING THROUGH MR. CIPOLLONE, THE DISTINGUISHED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, IN LETTER OF OCTOBER 18, 2019. PRESIDENT TRUMP SIMPLY DECIDED HE DID NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE. IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THEIR OWN EVIL DOING. IT WAS A CATEGORY DECISION NOT TO COOPERATE WITHOUT CONSIDERING SPECIFIC FACTS OR LEGAL ARGUMENTS. IN FACT, EVEN THE WORDS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THROUGH HIS ADVISERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE WERE INVENTED. IN A LETTER, MR. KIP LONEY REFERS TO THE SO-CALLED EXECUTIVE BRANCH CIPOLLONE REFERS TO THE SO-CALLED CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THAT IS NOT A RECOGNIZED JURIS PRUSHL SHIELD. PRUDENTIAL SHIELD. THESE CAN BE RESOLVED DURING THIS TESTIMONIAL. AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES. AND FINALLY, THE PRESIDENT ASSURED THAT MR. MULVANEY COULD NOT BE FORCED TO WITNESS DUE TO SO-CALLED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. EVERY COURT THAT ADDRESSED THIS LEGAL FICTION HAS REJECTED IT. AS THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY AND EMPHATICALLY STATED IN ITS NIXON TAPES DECISION, THE PRESIDENT'S CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS MUST YIELD TO AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. WHEN THERE IS A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR THE INFORMATION. AND THERE IS HERE TODAY. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT MR. MUM MULVANEY, AS THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, IS UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO PROVIDE THIS DISTINGUISHED AGENCY WITH RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE CHARGES IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPECIATION.

THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION HAS NO BASIS IN LAW AND HE MUST YIELD TO THIS BODY THE COEQUIALITY TO INVESTIGATE IMPACTABLE AND CORRUPT CONDUCT. ONE LAST POINT NEEDS TO BE MENTIONED. IF THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO MAKE WITNESSES AVAILABLE, EVEN WHILE MAINTAINING THE LIMITED PROTECTIONS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, HE CAN DO SO. IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO HAVE WITNESSES TESTIFY IN THE SENATE LAST MONTH. LET'S GO TO THE VIDEO. SO WHEN IT'S FAIR, IT WILL BE FAIR IN THE SENATE, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MIKE POMPEO. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MICK. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE RICK PERRY.

AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE. TESTIFY. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOTHING TO HIDE, AS HE AND HIS ADVISORS REPEATEDLY CLAIM. EVERYONE MUST SIMPLY WITNESS IN THE SENATE TRIAL. WHAT IS PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP HIDING FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A FAIR TRIAL. OUR DEMOCRACY NEEDS A FAIR TRIAL. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL. A FAIR TRIAL NEEDS WITNESSES. MISTER. CHAIRMAN, THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME. MR. SUBLIMITY, MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. GOOD NIGHT. MY NAME IS MICHAEL, I SERVE AS DEPUTY ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT AND SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO NEED TO ALTER THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS PROCESS OF THE CLINTON TRIAL. WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THIS BODY 102 ZERO. IN ESSENCE, THIS CASE IS VERY SIMPLE AND THE KEY FACTS ARE UNCONSUSTABLE. FIRST. IT IS SEEN IN THE TRANSCRIPTS. WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID TRANSPARENTLY, WITHOUT PRECEDENTS. THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO AT ALL. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS WERE NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE CALL. Second, President Zelinski and the highest-ranking officials of the Ukrainian government have repeatedly said that there was no quid pro quo and that there was no pressure. TIRDO. THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE PAUSE IN AID AT THE TIME OF THE CALL, AND THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF IT, THEY DID NOT BECOME AWARE OF IT, UNTIL MORE THAN A MONTH LATER.

FOURTH, THE ONLY WITNESSES ON THE HOUSE RECORD WHO ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE AID, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SENATOR RON JOHNSON. SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL IN SAYING THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO. FIFTH, AND THIS ONE IS PRETTY OBVIOUS. AID FLOWED AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENTS IN THE SCHEME WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION, INITIATED OR ANNOUNCED. FINALLY, AND I ASK YOU NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE BIG PICTURE HERE. BY PROVIDING LETHAL AID TO UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS PROVEN TO BE A BETTER FRIEND AND ALLY TO UKRAINE THAN HIS PREDECESSOR. NOW IS THE TIME FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE. TO DEVELOP YOUR EVIDENCE, BEFORE SENDING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT TO THIS CHAMBER. THE FUNCTION OF THIS CAMERA IS NOT TO MAKE THE HOUSE, IT IS WORK FOR IT. WITH THAT, FROM THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. CIPOLLON. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. JUST A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS. FIRST OF ALL, AS YOU SAID, THE ONLY THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN THIS QUESTION IS ADDRESSED. ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION, THAT WILL BE NEXT WEEK. THIS RESOLUTION WAS ACCEPTED 100-0, SOME OF YOU WERE HERE THEN. I THOUGHT IT WAS AWESOME. IF WE CONTINUE LIKE THIS IT WILL BE NEXT WEEK.

FOR THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME, YOU HAVE NOT STARTED YET. WE ARE HERE TODAY, WE CAME EXPECTING TO HAVE A TEST. THEY SPENT THE WHOLE DAY TELLING YOU AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T PROVE THEIR CASE. I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THIS IN FIVE MINUTES AND IT SAVED US A LOT OF TIME. They came here talking about the GAO. IT IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS FOR CONGRESS. DO YOU KNOW WHO DISAGREES WITH THE GAO? DON'T TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME. THEY DO. THEY SENT HIM ACTION ARTICLES WHICH DOES NOT CLAIM ANY VIOLATION OF ANY LAW.

BY THE WAY, DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT DOESN'T ALSO DO? YOU CAN SEARCH HIGH AND LOW IN THE IMPEACHMENT US MAC ARTICLES. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY? QUID PRO QUO. BECAUSE THERE WAS NONE. ONLY IN WASHINGTON WOULD SOMEONE SAY IT'S WRONG TO NOT SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS FAST ENOUGH, EVEN IF YOU SPEND THEM ON TIME. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE FOR A SECOND. TWO DAYS AT THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, TWO DAYS, THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE OF PROCEEDINGS. THE DELIVERY TIME FOR THE ITEMS THEY PRODUCED WAS 33 DAYS. I THINK THIS COULD BE THE FIRST PERFORMANCE AND STORY WHERE THE DELIVERY TIME WAS LONGER THAN THE INVESTIGATION AT THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE.

THEY COME ACCUSING PEOPLE -- BY THE WAY, THEY FALSELY ACCUSED YOU. YOU ARE ON PROOF NOW. THEY FALSELY ACCUSE FALSE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. ACTUALLY? SINCE THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TOOK POWER, THAT'S ALL WE'VE GOT FROM THEM. THEY HAVE USED HIS OFFICE, ALL THE MONEY THAT THE TAXPAYERS SENT TO WASHINGTON TO PAY THEM, TO CARRY OUT FALSE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, AGAINST HIS FAMILY, AGAINST EVERYONE WHO KNEW HIM, THEY STARTED TO IMPEACH HIM THE MINUTE HE WAS ELECTED. THEY HAVE ORGANIZED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO INCESSANTLY INVESTIGATE THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENT. AND THEY COME HERE AND MAKE FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF FALSE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

I THINK DOCTORS CALL THAT PROJECTION. IT'S TIME FOR IT TO END. IT'S TIME FOR SOMEONE, FROM THE SENATE, TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ASK FOR. I SAID IT, THEY DIDN'T DENY IT. THEY ARE TRYING TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NAME FROM THE BALLOT. AND THEY CANNOT PROVE THEIR CASE. THEY HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU THIS ALL DAY. THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE ASKING SOME OF YOU SENATORS TO DO. SOME OF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. THEY ARE ASKING HIM TO USE HIS OFFICE TO REMOVE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT FROM THE BALLOT. THAT IS WRONG. THAT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY.

AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IT'S REALLY NOT A DEMONSTRATION OF TRUST. So I guess we'll have this debate again next week. IF EVER WE WILL GET THERE. IT'S GETTING LATE. I WOULD ASK YOU, RESPECTFULLY, IF WE CAN JUST START, MAYBE TOMORROW WE CAN START. AND YOU CAN PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENT, AND I CAN, I guess, present a case that you once called overwhelming. WE WILL SEE. BUT THIS RESOLUTION IS CORRECT, IT IS FAIR AND IT MAKES SENSE. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY BEFORE DECIDING THESE CRITICAL ISSUES. THATS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

IS IT NOW OR IS IT IN A WEEK NOW? OH REALLY. CAN WE START PLEASE? THANK YOU. MR. CIPOLLONE, IS YOUR SIDE COMPLETE? YES WE ARE, MR. PRESIDING JUDGE. THANK YOU, THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 14 MINUTES LEFT. THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER INDICATED THAT WE HAVE NOT CHARGED PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH A CRIME. WE HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH CRIMES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. ABUSE OF POWER. IT HITS THE HEART OF WHAT CONCERNS THE DRAFTERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. BETRAYAL TO THE OATH OF OFFICE. FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT. AND THE CORRUPTION OF OUR DEMOCRACY. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THAT'S WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ABOUT.

NOW, AGAIN, THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY HAS REFUSED TO ADDRESS THE SUBSTANTIAL MERITS OF THE AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED. HE TRIED TO SUGGEST THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE ONLY FOCUSED ON TRYING TO DEFEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP. NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. IN THE LAST YEAR, We passed 400 bills in this chamber, 275 of those bills are bipartisan in nature. ADDRESS ISSUES SUCH AS REDUCING HEALTH CARE COSTS AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES. TRYING TO FACE THE EPIDEMIC OF ARMED VIOLENCE. WE HAVE WORKED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM. I PERSONALLY WORKED WITH HIM ALONG WITH ALL OF YOU IN THE FIRST STEP BACK.

WE WORKED WITH HIM ON THE UNITED STATES/MEXICO/CANADA TRADE AGREEMENT. WE WORK WITH HIM TO FINANCE THE GOVERNMENT. WE DON'T HATE THIS PRESIDENT, BUT WE LOVE THE CONSTITUTION, WE LOVE AMERICA. WE LOVE OUR DEMOCRACY. THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED BY MR. I TOOK HELLO, AS IT OPENED, BEFORE THIS. WHY ARE WE HERE? LET ME SEE IF I CAN PUT AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP pressured a foreign government to target an American citizen for political and personal gain. WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION AND CORRUPTED OUR DEMOCRACY.

WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID FROM A VULNERABLE UKRAINE, WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, IN A WAY THAT HAS BEEN DEEMED ILLEGAL. WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ELEVATED HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS AND SUBORDINATED THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP CORRUPTLY USED HIS POWER AND THEN TRIED TO COVER UP. AND WE ARE HERE, SIR, TO FOLLOW THE FACTS, APPLY THE LAW, BE GUIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND PRESENT THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE, MR. SEKULOW. AND IF YOU DO NOT KNOW IT, NOW YOU KNOW IT.

I YIELD TO MY DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUE, PRESIDENT SCHIFF. I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FOR GIVING, AND I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE A COUPLE OF QUICK FACT CHECKS ON MY COLLEAGUES AT THE OTHER TABLE. FIRST, MR. HE SAID SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS WERE NOT MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE ONE SKI PRESIDENTS. LET'S REMEMBER WHAT WAS DISCUSSED ON A CALL. YOU MAY REMEMBER FROM THE CALL THAT THE PRESIDENT ONE SKI THINGS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE JAVELIN ANTI-TANK WEAPONS AND SAID THEY WERE READY TO ORDER SOME MORE. AND WHAT IMMEDIATE RESPONSE FROM THE PRESIDENT TRIUMPHS?

BUT I HAVE A FAVOR TO ASK. What happened to the fact that the president of Ukraine mentioned military assistance that prompted him to immediately go to the favor he wanted? I THINK THAT'S SAYING. WHAT TAKES PLACE IN THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION. SO, YES, SECURITY ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE, HE DID IT, BUT HE DIDN'T CALL, IT CAME UP IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE QUESTION. WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DO YOU THINK FROM TWO UKRAINE? THEY ARE NOT STUPID. PEOPLE WHO SEE THIS OR NOT ARE STUPID. NOW, MR. PURPURA SAID THEY NEVER FOUND ABOUT THAT, THEY NEVER FOUND THE FROZEN ONE IN THE HELP UNTIL A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER.

YOU NEED TO BE MORE ACCURATE IN YOUR FACTS. LET ME TELL YOU SOME OF THE TESTIMONIES YOU WILL HEAR AND YOU WILL ONLY HEAR IT BECAUSE IT TOOK PLACE IN THE HOUSE, THESE ARE OTHER WITNESSES THAT COULD NOT HEAR. I HAD CATHERINE CROFT, STATE DEPARTMENT WITNESS, CAREER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL, TALK ABOUT HOW ACTUALLY QUICKLY, AFTER THE FREEZE WAS IMPLEMENTED, THE UKRAINIANS FOUND ABOUT IT AND STARTED GETTING CONTEXT FROM THE EMBASSY FROM UKRAINE HERE. IN WASHINGTON. SHE SAID SHE WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH HIS DIPLOMATIC BUSINESS SHIT. NOW WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT MEANS SHE WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH HOW QUICKLY THE UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT SOMETHING THE ADMINISTRATION WAS TRYING TO HIDE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

UKRAINE FOUND ABOUT THIS, IN FACT, LAURA COOPER, A CAREER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICIAL, SAID HER OFFICE STARTED RECEIVING INQUIRIES FROM UKRAINE ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH AID ON JULY 25. THE SAME DAY OF THE CALL. SO MUCH THAT UKRAINE DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THIS UNTIL A MONTH LATER. BUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS VERY SAYING TOO. THE NEW YORK TIMES REVEALED THAT ON JULY 30, A WEEK AFTER THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE ONE SKI PRESIDENTS, THE UKRAINE FOREIGN MINISTRY RECEIVED A DIPLOMATIC CABLE FROM ITS INDUSTRY INDICATING THAT TRUMP HAD FROZEN MILITARY AID IN A WEEK. THAT CABLE IS REPORTED TO HAVE WENT FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY TO THE UKRAINIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGNERS.

And Ukraine's former deputy foreign minister Lena said: "WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION. IT WAS DEFINITELY MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SOME PROBLEMS." She went on to say that the cable was simultaneously delivered to President Zelensky's office. BUT, YOU WILL LEARN MORE LATER, UNDER THE SUPERIOR HELP OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IT ISHAVE DEMOCRATS BEEN ATTENTION TO THIS PRESIDENT FROM THE BEGINNING? OH, SURE. AND HE WANTS THIS TRIAL TO START, YOU KNOW PAT CIPOLLONE EMPLOYED THE SENATE, LET'S START THIS TRIAL NOW. THE WHITE HOUSE WILL DEFINE THAT POINT AND MAINTAIN THAT WASHINGTON POST HEADLINE, YOU KNOW, THE RACE TO ACT PRESIDENT HAS BEGUN.

AND THAT HEADLINE CAME ON THE INAUGURATION DAY, OR THE DAY AFTER DONALD TRUMP'S INAUGURATION. AT THE SAME TIME, AS ONE SENATOR POINTS OUT, THEY CAN'T HIDE BEHIND THAT IF THE PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WRONG. OF COURSE. AND YOU KNOW, I'M NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSING THAT IT'S A STRATEGY, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE HEAR A LOT FROM HOUSE REPUBLICANS AND DEFENDERS OF THE PRESIDENT, LIKE DOUG COLLINS, JOHN RADCLIFFE, JIM JORDAN, INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE PLAYING A ROLE BEHIND THE SCENES, IN TERMS OF MESSAGING. They've put out that message, that this came out of - you know, as soon as Dalton became president, Democrats introduced resolutions to impeach this president for one thing or another.

COMMENTS HE MADE ABOUT CHARLOTTESVILLE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE BORDER, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE WITH THE PURPOSE OF ACTING PRESIDENT TRUMP. AND YOU KNOW, BEFORE OF COURSE, THE ANGRY OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT. AND THE REPUBLICANS WILL POINT TO THAT AND SAY, LOOK, THEY'VE WANTED TO DO THIS ALL THE TIME, AND AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT CAME OUT, AND IT DIDN'T PROVIDE, IT DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS RUSSIAN COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE 10 ARTICLES OF OBSTRUCTION TO JUSTICE JUSTICE ENUMERATED. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED BUT BOB MUELLER DIDN'T RECOMMEND IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT.

HE ALSO RECOMMENDED NOT TO IMPEACH HIM. HE REALLY LEFT THAT IN THE HANDS OF CONGRESS. AND REALLY, THAT ADDED SO MUCH WRINKLE TO BOTH SIDES, REALLY. BECAUSE SPEAKING TO REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE BEFORE THE MUELLER REPORT, SEVERAL OF THEM TOLD ME THAT WE ANTICIPATED THAT BOB MUELLER WILL RECOMMEND THE ACTION. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT MANDATE. BUT KEN WENT TO CONGRESS WITH HIS, I mean, BANKERS' BOXES. LIKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF BANKERS' BOXES FULL OF EVIDENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE HOUSE UPDATES THAT TO PRESIDENT CLINTON, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN WITH BUBBLER, WHICH LEFT DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN THIS NO MAN'S LAND WHERE TO GO, BECAUSE IF WE LOOK IN THE MUELLER REPORT, BOB MUELLER LISTED 10 ITEMS OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BUT HOW DO YOU ARGUMENT THAT?

KNOW? AND THEN THIS CALL GETS OUT AND SUDDENLY IT'S LIKE OH BOY HERE WE GO. AND BECAUSE IT HAS GONE SO FAST, THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION FROM START TO FINISH WAS SO FAST, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, UNTIL THE PERFORMANCE OF CLINTON AND ANDREW JOHNSON, YOU KNOW, ON THE DAY, THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE SHOCKED BY THE FACT THIS IS SOMETHING DEMOCRATS ARE PUSHING FROM THE BEGINNING. THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A REASON TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. FAIR OR NOT, THAT'S WHAT I THINK REPUBLICANS ARE DISCUSSING. RIGHT, MOLLY HOOPER IS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE WILL BE BACK IN A FEW MOMENTS WITH MORE OF THE SENATE IMPLEMENTATION TRIAL.

YOU'RE STREAMING "RED & BLUE" ON CBSN. WE'RE GONNA TAKE IT BACK TO THE SENATE WHERE SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER SPEAKS. LET'S LISTEN. THE SENATOR OF NEW YORK, MR. SCHUMER, PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT. NUMBER 1288. IN THE CORRESPONDING PLACE OF THE RESOLUTION CLAUSE, ANSWER THE FOLLOWING. SECTION. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO RULES FIVE AND SIX OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES OF THE SENATE IN CONDUCTING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, ONE. THIS PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CLERK OF THE SENATE, WILL ISSUE A SUMMONS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ORDERING HIM TO SUBMIT, DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2019 TO THE PRESENT, ALL DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION OF A CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, REFERRING TO OR RELATING TO LETTER A, THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION OF WITHHOLDING, DELAY, FREEZING OR RELEASE OF FOREIGN AID, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND FROM THE STATES UNITED TO UKRAINE.

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE, USA I, AND FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING, FMF, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OR BETWEEN OFFICIALS OF A DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WHITE HOUSE, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OR OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT. TWO, ​​DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, NOTES, OR OTHER RECORDS CREATED, SENT, OR RECEIVED BY SECRETARY MARK ESPER, DEPUTY SECRETARY DAVID NORQUIST, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ELAINE McCUSKER, AND DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LAURA COOPER, OR MR. ERIC TIRO. THREE. FINAL DRAFT OR LETTERS FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY DAVID NORQUIST TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AND LETTER FOR UNREDACTED COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS RELEASED IN RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST BY THE CENTER PUBLIC INTEGRITY TRACKING NUMBER 19 DASH F DASH 1934.

B, THE AWARENESS OF THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT BY AUGUST 28, 2019 OF ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, DELAY, FREEZING OR RELEASE OF THE UNITED STATES BY INSISTENCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY MEETINGS, CALLS OR OTHER ENGAGEMENTS WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, REGARDING POSSIBLE OR ACTUAL SUSPENSIONS, WITHHOLDINGS OR DELAYS IN UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ON INQUIRIES FROM THE UKRAINE EMBASSY REGARDING US FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, AND TWO COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE UKRAINE EMBASSY REGARDING US FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.

MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. C, COMMUNICATIONS, OPINIONS, ADVICE, APPROVALS, OR CONCURRENCIES GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OR THE WHITE HOUSE, REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF ANY SUSPENSION, WITHHOLDING, DELAY, FREEZING, OR RELEASE OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE , MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. D, PLANNED OR ACTUAL MEETINGS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP RELATING TO US FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY TALKING POINTS AND NOTES FOR SECRETARY MARK'S PLAN LOOK FORWARD TO THE ACTUAL MEETINGS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON AUGUST 16, AUGUST 19, OR AUGUST 30, 2019.

E, THE DECISION ANNOUNCED ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11, 2019, TO RELEASE FOREIGN AID, ASSISTANCE APPROPRIATE MILITARY AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, NOTES, MEMORANDA, DOCUMENTATION, OR CORRESPONDENCE, RELATING TO THE DECISION AND LETTER OF ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS RELATED TO THE SCHEDULING, PREPARATION AND FOLLOW-UP OF THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALLS ON APRIL 21 AND JULY 25, 2019, AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN NEW YORK, AND THE LETTER TO ANY OTHER SENATE EMPLOYEE, AND DELIVER THE SUMMONS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED FOR THIS ACTION.

THE AMENDMENT IS AVAILABLE BY THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS, EQUALLY DIVIDED. MISTER. DIRECTOR'S TURN, ARE YOU A PROPOSER OR OPPONENT? MISTER. CIPOLLON? MISTER. SCHIFF, THE HOUSE MANAGERS CAN PROCEED FIRST AND RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL. MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE, THE HOUSE ADMINISTRATORS WILL RESERVE THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT. MISTER. CHAIRMAN, SENATORS ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I WOULD LIKE TO START GETTING SOMETHING OFF MY CHEST. SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BOTHERING ME FOR A WHILE. THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM HAVE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT HOW LATE IT IS GETTING.

HOW LONG THIS DEBATE LASTS. IT'S ALMOST 10:00 P.M. IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THEY SAY: LET'S PUT THE SHOW ON THE ROAD, LET'S PUT THE SHOW IN MOTION. AND ALL THE TIME THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK ABOUT IS HOW LATE IT IS IN OTHER PLACES.