tv U.S. Senate Senate Impeachment Trial Part 1 CSPAN January 31, 2020 11:09pm-12:44am EST
of government, created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. >> for the first time in u.s. history a president is on trial in the u.s. senate. right now we will show friday's entire proceeding under proceeding starting from the debate on house manager whether additional witnesses to testify. we begin with opening prayer and pledge followed by remarks from adam schiff. >> the senate will convene of the court of impeachment and the chaplain will lead us in prayer. >> let us pray. >> eternal lord god you have summarized ethical behavior in a single sentence.
do for others what you would like them to do for you. remind our senators that they alone are accountable to you for their conduct. lord help, them to remember tht they can't ignore you and get away with it. for we always reap what we sow. have your way mighty god, you are the potter, our senators and we are the clay. mold and make us after your will, stand up god, stretch
herself and let this nation and world no that you alone are sovereign. i pray in the name of jesus. amen. >> please join me in citing the positive allegiance to the flag. >> i pledge allegiance to the fog of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> senators please be seated. if there is no objection the proceeding of the trial are approved to date.
the deputy sergeant-at-arms will make the percolation. >> all persons are commanded to keep silent obtain of imprisonment while the senate of the united states is sitting for the trial of articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against donald john trump, president of the united states. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> information of all colleagues will take a break two hours out. >> pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 483, the senate has provided up to four hours of argument by the party equally divided on the question of whether or not it shall be in order to consider in debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. mr. manager schiff are you a proponent orqu opponent.
>> mr. cipollone are you a proponent or no opponent. mr. schiff you may proceed. >> before i began mr. chief justice, the house managers will be reserving the balance over time to respond to the counsel for the president. mr. chief justice, senators, house managers and counsel for the president. i noise speak for my fellow managers as well as counsel for the president and thinking you for your careful attention to the arguments that we have made over the course of many long days. today we were greeted to yet another development in the case when the new york times reported with the headline that says trump told bolton to help his ukraine pressure campaign book
says. he asked his national security advisor last spring and front of other advisors to pave the way for a meeting between rudolph giuliani and ukraine's new leader. according to the new york times more than two months before he asked ukraine's president to investigate his political opponents, president trump directed john r. bolton then the national security advisor to help with the pressure campaign to extract damaging information on democrats of ukrainian officials according to an unpublished manuscript bygiad mr. bolton. mr. trump gave the instruction mr. bolton wrote during an oval office conversation early may. that included the acting white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, the president's personal lawyer rudyot giuliani, and the white house counsel pat cipollone. who is now leading the president impeachment defense. you will see in a few moments
and you will recall mr. cipollone suggesting the house managers were concealing facts from the body. he said all of the facts should come out. while there is a new fact which indicates that mr. cipollone was among those. yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses. just as we predicted and it did not require any act of clairvoyance, the facts will ctcome out. they will continue to come out. in the question before you today is whether they will come out in time for you to make a complete and informed judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the president. now the times article goes on to say mr. trump told mr. bolton to call volodymyr zelensky who
recently won the election to president of ukraine to make sure he would meet with mr. giuliani who is planning a trip to ukraine to discuss the investigation of the president's son and mr. bolton's account, mr. bolton never made the call he wrote. he never made the call. mr. bolton understood that this was wrong, he understood this was not policy, he understood this was a domestic political errand and refused to make the call. mr. bolton's manuscript the most senior white house advisor as early witnesses in the effort that they have sought to distance the president trump. including the white house counsel. over several pages, according to the times mr. bolton laid out trumps fixation on ukraine and based on a mix of events and our right conspiracy theories that ukraine tried to undermine the chances of winning the presidency in 2016. as you begin to realize theor extent in names of the pressure
campaign mr. bolton began to object. he wrote in the book affirming the testimony of a former national security council aid fiona hill, mr. bolton warned thatrm mr. giuliani was a hand grenade. who would blow everybody out. as you might imagine the president denies this. the president said today i never instructed john bolton to set up a meeting with rudy giuliani. one of america's -- one of the hundred greatest corruption fighters of america. so here you have the president saying john bolton is not telling the truth. let's find out. let's put john bolton under oath. let's find out who is telling the truth. the trial is supposed to be a quest for the truth. let's let fear what we will
learn. as mr. cipollone said, let's make sure all the facts come out. >> mr. chief justice, senators, counsel for the president. last tuesday at the onset of this trial, we had mcconnell's resolution be amended to subpoena documents from the onset. this body decided to hold the question over. you have now heard opening arguments from both sides. you have seen the evidence that the house was able to collect, you have heard about the documents and witnesses president trump had from the house impeachment inquiry. we have vigorously question both
sides. the president's counsel has urged you to decide this case and render your verdict upon the record as simple as the house. the evidence in the record is sufficient. it is sufficient to convict the president on both articles of impeachment, more than sufficient. but that simply is not how trials work. as any prosecutor argued they would tell you when a case goes to trial, both sides call witnesses and subpoena documents to bring before the jury. that happens every day in court rooms all across america. there is no reason why thisce impeachment trial should be any different. the common sense fact is out of president, there has never been,
never before been a full senate impeachment trial without a single witness. in fact, you can see in the slide, everyone of the 15 prior impeachment trials, the senate has called multiple witnesses. today we ask you to follow this body uniform precedent and your common sense. we urge you to vote in favor of subpoenaing witnesses and documents. i would like to address one question at the offset. there has been much back and forth about whether if the house believed it has sufficient evidence to convict, which we do, why do we need more witnesses and documents. so i would like to be clear. the evidence presented over the
past week and a half strongly supports a vote to convict the president. the evidence is overwhelming. we have a mounting evidence, if direct and collaborated by multiple sources and improves that th the president committed impeachable offenses to cheat in the next election. the evidence confirms if left in office, president trump will continue to harm our americans national security. he will continue to speak to corrupt the upcoming election. and he will undermined our democracy also further his own personal gain. but this is a fundamental
question that must be addressed. is this a fair trial? is this a fair trial? is this a fair trial? without the ability to call witnesses and produce documents, the answer is clearly and unequivocally no. it was the president's decision to contest the facts and that is his right, but because he has chosen to contest the facts, he shall not be heard to complain, he shall not beom heard to complain that the house wishes to further prove his guilt to answer the questions he would raise. he complains that witnesses both directly to the president about his misconduct beyond his damning conversations with sondland and mulvaney. okay, let's hear from others then. the witnesses the house wishes
to call directly to the president own words, his own admissions of guilt, his own confessions of responsibility. if they did not, all the presidents men would be on their witness list. not ours. these witnesses and the documents their agencies produced tell the fullst story. and i believe we aren't interested in hearing the full story. you should want to hear it more than that the american people, we know that they want to hear. the house republicans expert witness in the house professor said if you can prove the president used military aid to pressure ukraine to investigatea a political rival and interfere in our election, it would be in
impeachable abuse of power. and senator graham two. he recognized if such evidence existed, it could potentially change his mind on impeachment. we now have another witness, a fact witness who would reportedly say exactly that. ambassador bolton's new manuscript which we will discuss in more detail in a moment reportedly confirms that the president told him and no uncertain terms, were talking with the former national security advisor saying the president told him and no uncertain terms, no aid until investigation. including the bidens. for a week and a half the president has has no such evidence exists. they arere wrong.
but if you have any doubt about the evidence, if you have any doubt about the evidence, the evidence is at your fingertips. the question is, will you let all of us including the american people simply hear the evidence and make up their own mind and you can make up your own minds. but will we let the american people hear all of the evidence. you recall ambassador bolton, the president former national security advisor is one of the witnesses we asked for lastty tuesday. we did not know at the time what he would say. we did not know what kind of witness that he would be but it's made clear that he was willing to testify. and he had relevant first-hand knowledge that had not yet been
heard. we argued that we all deserved to hear the evidence. but the president opposed him. now we know why. because john bolton could collaborate the rest of our evidence and confirm the presidents go. so today, today senators we come before you and we urge you and argue again that you let this witness and the other key witnesses we have identified come forward so you have all of the information available to you when you make this consequential decision, if witnesses are not called to hear, these proceedings will be a trial in name only. in thepl american people, cleary no fair trial when they see one.
large majorities of the american people want to hear from witnesses in this trial. and they have a right to hear from witnesses in this trial. let's hear from them. let's look them in the eye change their credibility and hear what they have to say about the president's actions. for the same reason this body should grant our request to subpoena documents, the documents at the president also brought the house from obtaining, documents from the white house, the state department, dod and omb that will complete the story and provide the whole truth, whatever they may be. we ask that you subpoena the document so you can decide for yourself if you have any doubt as to what occurred let's look at this additional evidence, to
be clear we are not asking you to track down every single document or to call every possible witness. we have carefully identified only for key witnesses with direct knowledge who can speak to the specific issues that the president has disputed. amway targeted key documents which weme understand have alrey been collected for example at the state department, they have already been collected. this will not cause a substantial delay. as i made clear last night, these matters can be addressed in a single week, asid we made clear, these matters can be addressed in a single week. we know that from president clinton's case. the senate voted to approve a motion for witnesses on january 27th, the next day the procedures for the deposition
and adjourned as the court of impeachment until february 4. in thatha brief. , the party took three depositions, the senate then resume the proceeding by voting to accept the deposition testimony into the record. in this trial too, let's do the same. we should take a brief one week break for witness testimony and document collection during which time the senate returned to its normal business. the trial should not be allowed to be different from every other impeachment trial or any other kind of trial simply because the president does not want us to know the truth, the american people that we all represent. the american people that we all
love and care about deserve to know the truth. and a fair trial requires it. this is too important of a decision to be made without all of the relevant evidence. before turning to the specific needs of these witnesses and documents, i want toe make cler we are not asking you again to break new ground. we are asking quite the opposite. we are asking you toui simply follow the senate's unbroken president and to do so in a manner that allows you to continue the senate ordinary business. the senate sitting as a court of impeachment has heard witness testimony and every other, as we said earlier and every other 15 impeachment trials in the history of the republic and in
fact these trials have had an average of 33 witnesses. in the senate has repeatedly subpoenaed and received new documents whilele adjudicating cases of impeachment. . . . impeachment. that makes sense. under ourconstitution , the senate does not just vote on impeachment. it does not just debate them. instead, the senate is commanded by the constitution to try all cases of impeachment. well, a trial required witnesses. a trial requires documents. this is the american way and >>. >> if the senate denies our emotions it is the only time in history that has put a judgment on articles of impeachment without hearing
from a single witness or receiving a single relevant document the president whose conduct is on trial. how can we justify this president or for what reason would we break precedent in these proceedings there are e many compelling reasons and documents in this case and i isyelled to manager garcia. >>. >> mr. chief justice mr. line
- - and senators last week i shared with you i was is reflecting on my first days. i mentioned one of the first thingson we were told this to be and be patient. thank you for being good listeners and for being patient with us. it has been a long journey to go but we are here today what they told us in baby judge school that we had to give all the parties in front of us a fair hearing and an opportunity to be heard and to cross-examine witnesses and to bring evidence. not that i want to talk about today because in terms of
fundamental fairness to mitigate the damage caused by obstruction of the house in curry. the present claims there is no direct evidence of his wrongdoingng despite to the contrary of ambassadors offer for more evidence in a trial that the president is arguing while blocking us from getting that direct evidence. it is a remarkable position they have taken and quite frankly never as a lawyer or a former judge have i ever seen anything like this. and for the first time in our history president trump ordered his entire administration to defy every
single impeachment subpoena. the trump administration has not produced a single document in response to the congressional subpoena. not a single page. that is neve happened before. there is no legal privilege to justify the blanket blocking of all of these documents. we know there are more relevant documents. there is no dispute about that. it is uncontested. witnesses have testified exceptional detail about these documents that exist but the president is simply hiding. president trumps blanket order to prohibit the entire executive branch from participating in the impeachment investigation witnesses they were all to follow the order to refuse to testify. much of the evidence that we
have is the result of career officials bravely coming forward despite the presidents obstruction. that those closest to the president, some may say followed his instruction. the president does not dispute that witnesses have information and relevant to the trial but that these individuals have personal and direct knowledge of the president's actions and can providehey evidence now that we don't have. the presidents council alleged house managers did have evidence in front of you. >> as house managers really the goal should be to give you all of the facts because they are asking you to do something very very consequential and
ask yourself, given the facts you have heard today that they didn't telly 't you who doesn't want to talk about the facts? who doesn't want to talk about the facts? impeachment should not be a shell game. they should give you the facts. >> this is nice rhetoric. but it is simply incorrect. the presidents council cherry picked this with the transcripts of witnesses that corrected their testimony in d public hearings and simply left out the second half of witness statements. the house managers presented the relevant evidence to you. we spent about 20 hours presenting the facts and evidence the presidents
council spent four hours focusing on the facts and the evidence. it shows the president is guilty to the extent certain facts were shown to you let's be clear, we are not the ones hiding the facts. the house managers did not fight that evidence. president trump hid the evidenc evidence. that's why we are the one standing up here asking you to silent the witnesses and hide these documents. we don't know precisely what the witnesses will say or what the documents will show. but we all deserve to hear the truth and more importantly the thamerican people deserve to hear the truth. never before has a president have hid the facts from the
american people more than this one why would this one be different the stakes are too high. , second these bills that we have been arguing it should launch a complete evidentiary record before you go on the most sacred path the constitution and trust in every single one of yo you. i can respect somece of you have deep beliefs that the removal of this president would be divisive. others may believe allowing this president to remain in the oval office because of our republic and democracy but regardless of where you are or where you land on the spectrum , you should want a fair and complete record before you
make a final decision and to understand the full stor story. it should not be about partyn affiliation. it should be about seeing all the evidence and voting your conscience based on all relevant facts. it should be about doing impartial justice. consider the harm done to our institutions our constitutional order in the face of democracy if they can choose to close their eyes to midun the full truth of the presidents misconduct, how can the american people have confidence in the result of a trial without witnesses? third, the president should want a fair trial he has said that publicly he went to trial on the merits and specifically
said it he wants a fair trial in the senate and that would have to be with witnesses and testifying including john bolton and mick mulvaney that he wanted a complete and total exoneration. whatever you say about this trial, there cannot be the exoneration from those witnesses because the acquittal on the incomplete record it is no indication not for this chamber and if the president is telling the truth and did nothing wrong and the evidence would prove that then we all knew to be the enthusiastic supporter of
subpoenas and urging you to do subpoenas and not totally in the wrong but the council should for others for testimony. and those closest to him to testify about his innocence and would be eager to presentnt the with burden sharing to strenuously oppose the testimony of the closest advisers and all the documents so that the president can get the fair trial that he wanted for more importantly so that they can get the fair trial
they deserve and at the onset one of the most important decisions you would make at this moment inor history will not be what you convict or acquit the american president or the people get aet fair trial because the face of our search on - - institution is on the perception and then to undermine that. the american people want a fair trial the overwhelming majority of americans, three out of four voters as of this past tuesday believe the trial
should have witnesses. there's not much the american people agree on these days but they do agree on that. and they know what a fair trial is that involves witnesses and evidence. the american people deserve to know the facts and they deserve to have product confidence in the process that you make the right decision. the senate must call relevant witnesses and obtain relevant documents the american people deserve a fair trial now i call my colleague manager.
>> mr. chief justice and members of the senate and councils for the president. they argued for the testimony for witnesses, ambassador john bolton, mick mulvaney, robert blair and michael duffy. and during those presentations from both parties it is abundantly clear why the direct testimony from those witnesses is so critical that new evidence continues to aswiunderscore that importance. let's start with john bolton. the presidents council has repeatedly stated that the hepresident didn't personally tell any witnesses to link military aid to the investigation. there is simply no evidence anywhere that president trump ever linked to security assistance to any investigation. most of the witnesses have
never spoken to the president at all. let alone about ukraine security assistance. not a single witness testified that the president himself said there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance of a presidential meeting or anything else. simply not true as ambassador sondland and mick mulvaney make very clear not only to the president lengthy aid to the investigation but also condition both the white house meeting and the aide on ukraine's announcement of the investigationve but if you want to acknowledge what the president told them directly the aide was linked to the witness in front of you asked for it so i mentioned this portion of the ambassador's manuscript at the beginning
and manager adam schiff referenced it as well and said the president told him this now the president has publicly lashed out at ambassador bolton and says what ambassador bolton says is not true but the denials is not the same as testimony under oath. we know that. put ambassador boltonn under oath and asked him point blank did the president use $391 million of military aid intended for an ally at war to investigate the 2020 opponent? the stakes are too high not to. i could quickly walk you through why the ambassador's testimony is essential to ensuring a fair trial.l. alsos addressing the questions you have asked in the past two days. first, cutting back the
president's counsel has said it has cited repeated public denials from the inner circle of the allegations none of them are under oath as we know from the testimony of ambassador bolton how important it really is. that ambassador bolton is the top national security aide has direct insight into the president's innerss t circle and is willing to testify under oath if everyone was in the loop and he knows new details officialsor cabinet to try to sidestep that involvement including secretary pompeo and mr. mulvaney's knowledge of the scheme. second ambassador bolton has knowledge of key events outside of the july 20th call to confirm the presidents
team this is the direct evidence the presidents council say does not exist partly because they would like you to believe the july 25th call makes up all the evidence of our case. of course that is just partrt of a large body of evidence but it is a key part but ambassador bolton is critical inside of the presidents misconduct outside of this call and you should hear it. take for example the july 10th meetingng with ukrainian officials at the white house doctor hilll testified ambassador sondland said he had a deal with mr. mulvaney if ukrainians did the investigation. according to doctor hill ambassador bolton learned this and told her to go back to the legal advisor and tell them "i am not a part of whatever drug
deal mulvaney and sondland are cooking up on this"we arty have corroboration of testimony from other witnesses like lieutenant colonel vindman. a new corroboration from ukraine from the former national security advisor recently confirmed that the roadmap for us ukraine relations with the substance of the investigations were raised and to also claim why he raise concerns that being pulled into the internal process would be bad for the country and also something that violates us law is up to the us to handle". but instead ukraine was dragged into internal politics using our present fresh on the job and inexperience and that could destroy everything".st
another key defense raised by the president is that ukraine felt noo pressure that these investigations are entirely proper but here is ukraine saying the opposite of that. do you know what else he said in the interview it was definitely john who i trusted talking about ambassador bolton.. if you want to know if they felt pressure call john bolton as a witness. and was so concerned he characterized the scheme as a drug deal with the nsc legal counsel mr. cipollone. said to ask ambassador bolton these questions directly under oath the president says that soliciting these investigations was not improper. is that true?
that is true why are they publicly saying the f investigations could destroy everything? so why did you use the words drug deal? why did you use your staff? these are questions to get the answers to. the president has suggested they have not shown any direct evidence over mr. giuliani's role of the scheme. >> the house committee was not. interested in presented with any representatives of what mayor giuliani did or whyd he did it. instead they ask you to rely on hearsay and speculation and assumption that would be inadmissible in any court. >> once w again that is simply not true.
but ambassador bolton has evidence of the role regarding ukraine in expressed concerns about it the president has suggested mr. giuliani was not doing anything improper or involved in conducting policy by their own admission so let's ask john bolton what giuliani was doing with the investigations to be politically motivated or part of the foreign policy. he would know. doctor hill would testify mr. giuliani was a hand grenade which all of the statements that giuliani was making publicly with the investigation he was promoting , the narrative he was promoting was going to backfire. "the narrative he was promoting of asking ukraine to dig up dirt on biden. doctor hill also testified ambassador bolton was so concerned he told doctor hill
and other members of the staff, staff, quote nobody should be meeting with giuliani". and closely monitoring what mr. giuliani was doing. so let's ask ambassador bolton. and then directing your staff to have no part in this. of mr. giuliani was not trying to dig dirt on biden that he could blow everything up. fourth brickle the president has said there is nothing wrong with the july 25th call. but once again the evidence suggest ambassador bolton would testify the opposite is t true. according to witness testimony ambassador bolton expressed concern before the call that it would be aa disaster because
there would be talk of investigations or worse. of the president would have you believe if all is perfect because all the evidence before you suggest otherwise. because to know that's not the case. 's the one thing i can tell you is that the issue of the investigation as a concert for trump but so if there was no scheme how did you know president trump would raise investigations on the call? what made you so concerned the call would be a disaster? and then to withhold the military aid for legitimate reason that the evidence
doesn't support that. you heard a lot. and that ambassador bolton on many occasions from the president himself that there is no legitimate reason to withhold the aid if this is a legitimate policy reason for the national security advisor that was in charge of that at this was a policy dispute to ask john bolton if that was true. that you cannot evaluate the intent or use the power anyway is appropriate and of course that is not the case and as a central part of this case as a criminal case in this country
and the claims that we want you to read the presidents mind. >> through this entire process for the house manager's insistence that they are able to read everybody's thoughts. they can read everybody's intentions and they thank you can read minds. they want to tell you what president trump thoughts. >> we routinely asked to determine the state of mind that is central to every criminal case in the country and is disingenuous for the presidents council to argue thees defendant state of mind requires a mind reader anything but the most common element of proof of any crime constitutional or otherwise but if you want more information as the president of john bolton can fill in any gaps about his state ofhe mind.
>> if you think about it, john he knows some of my thoughts and what i think about the leaders. >> with the president's conduct in ukraine john bolton knows a lot about that. let's hear from him. a fair trial demands it. and it's more than just a fair trial but remembering in america, truth matters. as mr. bolton said on januar jae the idea somehow testifying what you think is true you are destructive to the system of government that we are on - - that we have is nearly the reverse the exact reverse of the truth". as manager adam schiff started this out, the truth continues to come out. again. today. more information.
the truth will come out. and it is continuing to. the question here before this body is what do you want your place in historyry to be? do want your place in history to hear the truth or we don't want to hear it? >> given time constraints we will now summarize the reasons why mr. mulvaney and mr. duffy and mr. blair are also importan important. let's turn first to mr. mulvaney. to begin with mr. mulvaney participated in meetings and discussions with president
trump had every single stage of the scheme. we just talked about intent and motive but if you want further insight into the president's motives are intense further direct evidence of why he withheld the military aid in the whiten housese meeting, you should call his acting chief of staff. who had more access than anyone. mr. mulvaney is important because the presidents council continues to argue incorrectlys that our evidence is just hearsay and speculation. so to say this is clear as two plus two equals four. the president says they are just guessing. that is simply not true. the evidence is direct the evidence is compelling and
confirms the witnesses corroboratedor by text and e-mails and phone records. butec you want more evidence with a first-hand account to why the aid was withheld because of the quid pro quo for that white house meeting so let's hear from nick mulvaney, over and over again ambassador sondland described to multiple witnesses how mick mulvaney was directly w involved in the president scheme. here is some ofom that testimon. >> so when i came in that there would be a meeting with chief of staff mulvaney and then announce the investigation into 2016 and
t12 and ambassador bolton said i'm not part of the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland they are cooking up. >> why did you take that to mean? >> investigations or meetings. >> did you go straight to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> he makes reference and that drug deal cooked up by you and mulvaney. it is the reference to mulvaney i want to ask you about. you testified that mulvaney was aware of the quid pro quo of thiss condition that announcing the public investigation to get the white house. is that whi right quick. >> yes a lot of people were aware of that. >> including mr. mulvaney. >> correct. >> remarkably the president is still denying the facts.
even as they argue it is still not impeachable. but if the president did nothing wrong, if he held up the aid because of so-called corruption or burden sharing reasons, he shall let his chief of staff to come testify under oath before this distinguished body and say just that. what - - why does he want mulvaney to appear before the united states senate? we know the answer. because mr. mulvaney will confirm the corrupt shakedown scheme. because mr. mulvaney was in the loop. everyone was in the loop.
as ambassador sondland testimony on july 19, e-mailing several top administration officials that president zelensky was prepared to receive potus call and assure president trump he intends to run a full transparent investigation and would turn over every stone. mr. mulvaney replied, i asked and sd to set it up for tomorrow. the above e-mail seems clear that ambassador sondland testified it was clear that he was confirming to mr. mulvaney that he told president zelensky he had to tell president trump on the july 25th call he would announce the nvinvestigation and explained the reference to one of the
two phony political investigations that president trump wanted. mr. mulvaney replied that he will set up the meeting. consistent with the agreement that followed that he took a position on the investigation. but if there is any uncertainty if there is any lingeringge question of what this mean means, luscious question mick mulvaney under oath. and alsoro have heard several questions from this body off senators wanting to understand the when and the why or how the president ordered the hold on the security aide.
as the head of omb mr. mulvaney has unique insight into all of these questions. your questions. remember that e-mail exchange between mr. mulvaney and blair on june 27 when mulvaney asked blair whether they could implement the hold? and blair responded, that could be dead but congress would become unhinged? it wasn't just congress the gao hadt determined that the presidents hold violated the law. and the presidents counsel will argue that he withheld the aid as part of us foreign
policy. and that seems to make sense that the senate should hear directly from mr. mulvaney who has first-hand knowledge ofst exactly these facts. he said so himself. >> i was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. >> why doesn't president trump want mick mulvaney to testify? why? >> perhaps he is lying he also mentioned the corruption related to the dnc server absolutely no question about that. we held up the money. >> so with this investigation into the democrats was the reason to withdraw funding to ukraine? >> looking back in 2016 what he was worried about to be corrupt with that nation.
>> you just said that was quid pro quo the money will not flow unless there is an investigation of the democratic server happened as well. >> we do that all the time with foreign policy we withhold money for the triangle countries. so that they would change policies. by the way and this speaks to an important point because i heard this yesterday i can never remember the gentleman. i don't know him he testified yesterday but if you believe those reports because we have not seen any transcripts, if you read the news reports that you believe what he said yesterday he was really upset with the political influence and foreign policy. that was one of the reasons he was so upset about this i'm so on - - there will be political
influence and foreign policy. >> that's what the constitution requires? get over it? is that good enough for this body the world's greatest deliberative body, get over it? and to try to empathize and as you have seen with your own eyes the statement was unequivocal. and even given the chance in real t time on that day on october 17 for a quid pro quo he double down. get over it. get over it he said. if you have any questions of the realt answer of where the truth lies there's one way to
find out let's just question mr. mulvaney under oath for the senate trial. after all counsel said cross-examination was the greatest vehicle in the history of american jurisprudence ever invented to ascertain the truth. so finally briefly on the importance of mr. blair and mr. duffy so withholding foreign aidaw is entirely within hisis right as commander in chief that this was a normal ordinary decision and was one great big policy disagreement. and it has been proven exactly the opposite. this cannot be a policy disagreement because it actually went against us
policy. the hold was undertaken outside of the normal channels by a president who they admit was not conducting policy. though hold was concealed not only from congress but from the presidents own officials responsible for ukraine policy. and most importantly the hold violated the law. the president has the right to make policy but he does not have the right to make the law. and coerce and ally into helping him cheat with a free and fair election. to have hundreds of millions of dollars as leverage to get political dirt on the american citizen who happens to be his
political opponent. but if you remain unsure about all of this who better to ask than mr. blair or mr. duffy? they oversaw and executed the process of withholding the aid and could tell us exactly how the whole shakedown game was and under way and testify why the aid was withheld and if there was any legitimate explanation for withholding it some of you have asked that very question. multiple officials including ambassador sondland, david holmes, lieutenant colonel vindman, jennifer williams all
testified they were never given a credible explanation for the e hold. so let's ask mr. blair and mr. duffy if this happens all the time and is mick mulvaney suggest. so this time in connection were all of those witnesses left in the dark? despite the presidents refusal and then to produce a shred of mpformation with the impeachment inquiry in the house. and with 192 pages.
and that heavily redacted force. and these documents confirm mr. duffy's essential role to execute a hold. with nearly every single e-mail released. nearly every single e-mail. here is an important e-mail from that process. just 90 minutes after the july h call with the officials of department of defense to hold off on any additional dod obligation. and that the request was sensitive and to keep the information closely held and timing is important and link
to the july 25th call. and the closely held request made within two hours within that call. let's just ask. mr. duffy, they can testify about the concerns raised by dod for omb and the illegality of the whole. and why that remained in place even after dod warned the olministration that it would violate empowerment control act now the president of course has disputed this fact. but we have demonstrated
repeatedly to things that first continuing to withhold the aid would to - - prevent the department of defense before the end of the fiscal yearea and second the hold was potentially illegal has turned out to be the case by august 9th told mr. jeff lee - - duffy directly could no longer support the omb claims the hold would not preclude timely execution for the ally at war for russian backed separatist but yet he reported the told the department of defense on august 30th there was a clear direction from potus to continue to hold.
a clear direction from the president of the united states to continue the hold. so how does mr. duffy understand the direction to continueon the hold? why is the president claiming that with dod this was not unlawful to warn the administration that i was. wouldn't they like to ask mr. duffy thesens questions? finally another reason why we know this is not business as usual jul july 29, mr. duffy, political appointee with zero relevant experience, abruptly sees responsibility to coordinate
the aid of a career office omb official. and sees the responsibility from a career official. and you have no credible explanation and mr. sandy testified nothing like that had ever happened in his entire governmental career. let's think about that. if this is as routine as the president claims by career officials and has never seen anything like this happen before. mr. duffy knows why. shouldn't we just take the time to ask him? the american people deserve a
fair trial. the constitution deserves a fair trial. the public deserves a fair tria trial. a fair trial means witnesses. it means documents it means evidence. no one is above the law and i yelled to my distinguish colleague. >> mr. chief justice and senators it's not just witnesses beanie documents for documents don't lie there are specific documents relative to this in custody of the white house omb, dod and the state department and the president has hidden them from us.
to go into detail this is the impeachment case of the president of the united states what could be more important and the most important documents that go directly to who knew what and when held by the executive branch many of these are at the white house records of the phone calls with president zelensky about scheduling an oval office meeting and that decision to hold security assistance and the top aides and concerns raised by public officials and legal counsel. we have heard about ambassador bolton's hand written notes and lieutenant colonel vindman policy memorandum and the reports of those in early
august to create after-the-fact justifications but we o have not seen any of them. and those to be hidden by the president the documents at the state department and records about the recall of ambassador yovanovitch and mr. giuliani's efforts, concerns about the ukrainian reaction and about negotiations with the oval office meeting for ambassador tailors with the memos to know about mr. sondlandmp e-mails of pompeo and mulvaney at the state department. dod and omb also have records
about president trumps hold on military aid to ukraine in the justification and about hiding though hold from congress and to justify after-the-fact and about why the hold was lifted. they are at dod and omb. why haven't we seen them? because the president directed all the agencies. this trial should not reward the unprecedented obstruction by allowing him to control what evidence and to ask on behalf of the american people and and just come back to the issue of the day and to make the trial take too long they would be to link the court battles that would invoke
executive privilege with the entire impeachment process. it would be better to skip straight to the final verdict through centuries of precedent to the trial without hearing from a single witness and reviewing a single document and respectfully that should not happen. house managers are not interested in these proceedings but they are interested in the full truth and the fact the president's counsel agreed is so critical it is why we will go to court with all the rulings of the chief justice if you get the witness depositions done in eight w weeks. i know c we can because that is the law and you have theol sole power.
if questions or objections come up under executive privilege the chief justice can resolve them. we aren't suggesting of executive privilege but the chief justice can resolve issues to any assertion as the supreme court recognized judges to stay out of disputes for the sole power to have impeachments that it is why we propose we suspend the trial for one week and then go back to business as usual. and then provided at your direction the four witnesses you should hear from her readily available ambassador
bolton is already said he will appear in cannes and would move quickly within the issuance of subpoenas and the documents are ready to be produced and meanwhile the senate can continue as it did during the deposition of the impeachmente trial. that opposition and the president is the architect and to easily avoid it. and however unjustified to call you to throw up your hands and give up on a fair trial.
and a decision to forgo witnesses as part of the precedent so the bipartisan majority of the senate so the senate came to gather above party loyalty so we ask you do it again to put aside any politics or party loyalty or believe in your president we understand. so subpoena the documents and the witness is necessary to make this a fair trial to hear and see the evidence you need to impartially administer justice.ic
so even if the president asserts executive privilege , it will not harm the presidents legal right since this week's revelation confirms the importance of his testimony it is fully protected by the first amendment if he wants to testify and with prior restraint just because some of that testimony could include conversations with the president that's commonplace as long as it is not classified it is shielded by the first amendment ambassador bolton has written a book. it is inconceivable he has for bedded telling the united states senate at the high court of impeachment .nformation
at the president did attempt to invoke executive privilege he would fail. that is true for two separate reasons. first, claims of executive privilege allason involve a balancing of interest. the supreme court confirms in the nixon case executive privilege can be overcome by any for evidence in a criminal trial. that is even more true here the impeachment trial of the president of the united states which is the most important interest under the icconstitution. that would certainly outweigh any claim of privilege. and to name just a few the national security advisor to president carter, president clinton, president george w. bush and president obama
testified in congressional investigations to discuss their commission on - - conversation the top officials including presidents there is no reason that all of these people could testify but ambassador bolton a former official could not testify in the most important trial that there could possibly be. the second reason the president waived any executive privilege of the testimony. all 17 witnesses testified in the house on these matters without any assertion of privilege by the president. trump as well as his lawyers and officials have publicly discussed and tweeted about these issues at some length. the president has directly denied reports about what ambassador bolton will stay in one - -ba i say in his forthcomg
book he cannot be allowed to tell his version while using executive privilege to silence a key witness to contradictho him. you should not let the president escape responsibility only to see clearly what happened later. there are no national security risks here. . . . . first i want to give the hospital power to impeach and second article one section three where gives the senate sole power to impeachment. here's what it says. the senate shall have the sole
power to try all impeachments. when the president of the united states is tried the chief justice shall preside. i think that is a vision in the constitution means something. it is up to the senate to decide how to try this impeachment with fairness, with witnesses and documents. privilege is asserted can be decide using the process that you devise. that is not d unconstitutional. it's what the constitution provides. you have the power, you decide, please decide for a fair trial that will yield the truth and server constitution and the american people. i yield now to manager schiff.
>> senators before we yield to counsel the president i would like to take a moment by talking about what i think is at stake here. a no vote on the question before you will have long-lasting and harmful consequences long after the impeachment trial is over. we agree with the president's council on this much. this will set a new precedent it will be decided in impeachment trials from this point to the end of history. you can bet and every impeachment follows whether a presidential impeachment or the impeachment of a judge, if the judge or president believes it is to his orr her advantage that there shall be a trial with no witnesses they will cite the case of donald je trump. they will make the argument that you can adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the party accused without hearing from a singleey witness, without reviewing a single document.
and i would submit that will be a very dangerous and long-lasting precedent that we will all have to live a with. president trump's obstruction of congress strikes at the heart of our constitution and democratic system separation of powers. make no mistake, the president's actions in this impeachment inquiryhe constitute an attack n congressional oversight on a coequal nature of this branch of government. not just on the house but on the senate as well to conduct its oversight to serve as a check and balance on this president and every president that follows. if the senate allows president trump's obstruction to stand and effectively nullifies the impeachment power. it will allow future presidents to decide whether they want the misconduct to be investigated or not. whether they would like to participate in an impeachment investigation or a not.
that is the power of the congress. that is not a power of the president. by permitting a categorical b obstruction it turns the impeachment power against itself. how do we respond to the unprecedented obstruction will future debates of our branches of government and the executivea forever. it is not just impeachment. the ability of congress to conduct meaningful and probing oversight, oversight by its nature intends to be a check anr balance on the powers of the executive branch hinges on our willingness to call witnesses and compel documents the president trump is hiding with no valid justification. no presidentialus support. if wees tell the president effectively you can act corruptly, you can abuse the power of your office took a horse a foreign government to helping ut in election by
withholding military aid and when you are caught you can further abuse your powers by concealing the evidence of your wrongdoing, the president becomes unaccountable to anyone. our government is no longer a government with three coequal branches. the president effectively for all intents and purposes, becomes above the law. this is of course the opposite of what the framers intended. they purposely entrusted the power of impeachment to the legislative branch so it may protect the american people from a president who believes that he can do whatever he wants. so we must consider how her actions will reverberate for decades to come. and the impact they will have on the functioning of our democracy and as we consider this critical
decision it is important to remember no matter what you decide to do here, whether you decide to hear witnesses and relevant testimony, the facts will come out in thehe end. even over the course of this trial we have seen so many additional factsts come to ligh, the facts will come out. in all of their horror they will come out. and there are more court documents and deadlines under the freedom of information act, witnesses will tell their stories in future congressional hearings, and books and in the t media. this week has made that abundantlyee clear. the documents a president is hiding will come out. the witnesses the president is concealing will tell their stories. and we will be asked why we did
not want to hear the information when we have the chance. when we could consider the relevance and important in making the most serious w decision. what answer shall we give. if we do not pursue the truth now, if we allow it to remain hidden until it's too late to consider on the profound issue of the president innocence or guilt. what we are asking you to do on behalf of the american people is simple. usurer sole power trying impeachment by holding a fair trial. get the documents they refused to provide to the house. here the witnesses they refuse to make available toy a the houe just as his body has done in every single impeachment trial until now. let the american people know
that you understand they deserve the truth. let them know that you still care about the truth. that the truth still matters. though much divides us on this we should t agree. a trial stripped of all of its trappings should be a search for the truth. and that t requires witnesses ad testimony. you may have seen just this afternoon the president's former chief of staff general kelly said a senate trial without witnesses isse a job only how often. i trial without witnesses is only half a trial. i have to say i cannot agree. i trial without witnesses is no
trial at all. you either have a trial or you do not. and if you are going to have a real trial, you need to hear from the people who have firsthand information. we presented some of them to you. but you know as well as we there are others that you should hear from. but let me close this portion with words more powerful than general kelley's and they come from john adams in 1776 he wrote together with the right to vote those who wrote our constitution considered the right to trial by a jury the heart and lungs, the mainspring in the center wheel of our liberties without which the body must die, the watch must run down, the government must become arbitrary.
now what does that mean? without a fair trial the government must becomehe arbitrary. of course he is talking about the right of ann average citizen to a trial by jury, it is in across america when someone is trying but they are a person of influencet and power they can declare at the beginning of the trial if the government's case is so good let them prove it without witnesses. if people of power and influence can insist to the judge that the house that the prosecutors, that the government, the people must prove their case without witnesses or documents. a right reserved only for the powerful. because you know only donald trump of any defendant in
america can sit on a trial with no witnesses. if that should be true in courts throughout philly and, then as adams wrote, the government becomes arbitrary. because whether you have a fair trial or no trial at all depends on whether you're a person of power or influence like donald j trump. the body will die, the clock will run down and our government becomes arbitrary. the importance of a fair trial is not less then every courtroom in america, it is greater than any courtroom in america. because we setus the example for america. i said att the outset and i'll repeat again. your decision on guilt orr innocence is important but not decision.mportant
if we have a fair trial, however, the trial turns out, whatever your verdict may be, at least we can agree we had a fair trial. at least we can agree that the house had a fair opportunity to present its case. atr least we can agree that the president had a fair opportunity to present his case if we had a fairir trial. and we can disagree about the verdict but we canir all agree e system worked as intended we had a fair trial and we reached a decision. rob this country of a fair trial and there can be noo representation that it has any meaning how could it if the result is victim by the process. assure the american people whatever theri result may be at least they got a fair shake. there is a reason why the american people want to hear
from witnesses and it is not just about curiosity. it is because they recognize that in every courtroom in america that is just what happens. if it does not happen here the government has become arbitrary. there's one person who's entitled to a different standard and that the president of the united states. that's thehe last thing the founders intended. we reserve the balance over time. >> thank you mr. manager. >> majority leader is recogniz recognized. >> i request we take a 50 minut. recess. >> senators took a quick break and during the break several house members came to the floor to discuss how they thought the first part of today's proceedings went. the debate continued on whether additional witnesses should testify. we begin with house republicans mike johnson, mark meadows and lee selden by democratic senators maisie carano and chuck