 
HAVE A FAIR TRIAL. 
AND I THINK PRESENTERS THAT 
TAKE THE OATH SERIOUSLY AND I 
HOPE AND PRAY THAT THEY DO, 
THIS IS NOT THE FAIR TRIAL THAT 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT. 
IT'S NOT THE FAIR TRIAL 
AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE. 
>> WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE 
DEMOCRATIC IMPEACHMENT 
MANAGERS, ACTUALLY JUST TWO OF 
THEM DECIDED TO SPEAK. 
CHUCK SCHUMER AND JERRY NADLER 
AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 
GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN 
SPELLED OUT BY THE REPUBLICANS 
ABOUT HOW IT WILL MOVE UPWARD. 
WE FOUND OUT WHETHER OR NOT 
THERE WOULD BE WITNESSES AND 
WHAT WE FOUND OUT IS THAT THAT 
WOULD ALL BE DEBATED, WITNESSES 
AND EVIDENCE. 
AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT DOESN'T 
LOOK LIKE THERE WILL BE 
WITNESSES AND THAT IS PRIMARILY 
WHAT THEY WERE COMPLAINING 
ABOUT. 
>> VERY TOUGH WORDS FROM ADAM 
SHIFT. 
WITNESSES AND A COVER-UP, THOSE 
WERE HIS WORDS AND THE IDEA OF 
HAVING THE TRIAL LAST LATE INTO 
THE NIGHT MEANS THAT IT IS 
IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL 
IS WHAT ADAM SCHIFF SAID. 
WE EXPECT CHUCK SCHUMER IN THE 
11:00 HOUR TO TAKE TO THE 
PODIUM AND WE WILL KEEP AN EYE 
OUT ON THAT. 
LIVE COVERAGE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF RESIDENT DONALD 
TRUMP BEGINS AT 12:30 ON CBSN. 
YOU WANT TO STICK AROUND. 
STREAM MUST ANY DEVICE THAT YOU 
CAN. 
WE WILL BE ON. 
STICK AROUND. 
WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. 
>>> CHINESE OFFICIALS SAY THE 
FAST SPREADING CORONAVIRUS HAS 
KILLED AT LEAST SIX PEOPLE 
SPARKING RENEWED URGENCY TO KEEP
A LETHAL VIRUS CONTENT. 
THE NEWS COMES AFTER AN EXPERT 
CONFIRM THE VIRUS CAN BE 
TRANSMITTED HUMAN TO HUMAN. 
>> OFFICIALS REPORT THAT A 
WOMAN IN TAIWAN HAS BEEN 
INFECTED AFTER A TRIP TO THE 
EPICENTER OF THE OUTBREAK. 
OUR ASIA CORRESPONDENT HAS THE 
LATEST. 
>> Reporter: OFFICIALS HAVE NOW 
DESIGNATED NINE HOSPITALS AS 
TREATMENT CENTERS INCLUDING THE 
ONE RIGHT BEHIND ME. 
THAT IS ON TOP OF 61 FEVER 
CLINICS AND AN EMERGENCY EXPERT 
TEAM. ONE PIECE OF GOOD NEWS IS 
THAT CHINESE SCIENTISTS SAY 
THAT THEY HAVE FIGURED OUT THE 
DNA SEQUENCE OF THE VIRUS THAT 
OPENS UP THE POSSIBILITY OF 
TREATMENTS AND POTENTIALLY A 
VACCINE. 
AS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF 
CHINESE RESIDENTS MIGRATE 
ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO RING IN 
THE NEW LUNAR NEW YEAR, 
CONFIRMATION OF THE VIRUS CAN 
BE SPREAD BETWEEN HUMANS RAISES 
THE POSSIBILITY OF CAN BE 
TRANSMITTED MORE QUICKLY AND 
MORE BROADLY. 
THAT POSES AN EVEN GREATER 
CHALLENGE FOR CHINA AND NEARBY 
NATIONS TO CONTAIN THE OUTBREAK.
TRAVELERS WITH MASKS AND 
QUARANTINE STATIONS AND 
TEMPERATURE CHECKPOINTS ARE 
BECOMING COMMON SITES IN 
AIRPORTS AND TRAIN HUBS ACROSS 
ASIA. 
THIS MEMBER SPOKE TO OUTSIDE 
THE WUHAN HOSPITAL SAYS IT'S 
DIFFICULT TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD 
OF THE VIRUS BUT BELIEVES THE 
GOVERNMENT CAN HANDLE IT VERY 
WELL. 
THE NUMBER OF KNOWN INFECTIONS 
HAS RISEN SHARPLY SINCE 
YESTERDAY, TOPPING 300 CASES IN 
CHINA ALONE. 
AT LEAST 15 HOSPITAL WORKERS IN 
WUHAN HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH 
THE VIRUS. 
>> IF IN FACT A PERSON HAS 
INFECTED A HEALTHCARE WORKER, 
THAT IS OBVIOUSLY OF SOME 
CONCERN. 
>> THE DOCTOR FROM THE NATIONAL 
INSTITUTES OF HEALTH SAYS HUMAN 
TO HUMAN TRANSMISSIONS COULD BE 
ISOLATED INCIDENCES, BUT -- 
>> WHEN YOU GET SUSTAINED 
TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM ONE 
PERSON TO ANOTHER TO ANOTHER TO 
ANOTHER, THEN YOU HAVE A MORE 
SERIOUS PROBLEM. 
THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MUCH 
BROADER TYPE OF OUTBREAK. 
>> Reporter: THE WORLD HEALTH 
ORGANIZATION SAYS THEY WILL 
ASSEMBLE AN EMERGENY COMMITTEE 
OF EXPERTS AND MEET ON 
WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE WHETHER 
THIS OUTBREAK CONSTITUTES A 
GLOBAL EMERGENCY AND HOW BEST 
TO CONTAIN IT. 
>>> TURNING TO IRAQ WHERE 
MULTIPLE ROCKETS WERE 
REPORTEDLY FIRED NEAR THE U.S. 
EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD, ACCORDING TO
REUTERS, THEY LANDED NEAR THE 
EMBASSY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT 
BUILDINGS BUT NO CASUALTIES 
WERE REPORTED. 
NO ONE IS CLAIMED RESPONSIBLY. 
THEY BLAMED IRAN BACK REALLY 
TARGETS FOR SIMILAR ATTACKS. 
>> HUNDREDS OF ANGRY 
DEMONSTRATORS GATHERED OUTSIDE 
THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION 
DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR 
OFFICIALS. 
IT CAME 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 
DEMONSTRATORS ARE CALLING ON 
THE GOVERNOR TO RESIGN WHICH 
LIKE THEY DID TO FORMER 
GOVERNOR RICARDO ROSSELLO. 
WANDA VASQUEZ CLAIMS SHE WAS 
UNAWARE OF THE WAREHOUSE AND 
HAS ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE HANDLING OF ALL AID. 
>> CHAOS ERUPTED ALONG THE 
GUATEMALA-MEXICO BORDER. 
THOUSANDS OF HONDURAN MIGRANTS 
IN A STANDOFF WITH MEXICAN 
FORCES AFTER THEY TRIED TO WADE 
ACROSS A RIVER BY THE BORDER. 
THEY ARE BEING BLOCKED FROM 
ENTERING THE COUNTRY. 
THE GROUP SAYS THEY ARE 
TRAVELING IN LARGER NUMBERS TO 
PREVENT BEING SENT BACK TO 
HONDURAS. 
BUT MEXICO IS UNDER PRESSURE BY 
THE U.S. TO STOP LARGE GROUPS 
FROM REACHING THE BORDER. 
IMMIGRATION REPORTER SAT DOWN 
WITH MIKE AND PARENTS RETURNING 
TO THE U.S. AFTER BEING 
DEPORTED ILLEGALLY. 
HE WILL JOIN US ON THURSDAY TO 
EXPLAIN JUST HOW THAT HAPPENED 
AND WHAT COMES NEXT FOR THE 
FAMILY. 
>> WE ARE GETTING A CLOSER LOOK 
AT THE SECLUDED ISLAND WHERE 
THE LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN IS 
ACCUSED OF TRAFFICKING UNDERAGE 
GIRLS. 
LITTLE ST. JAMES OFF THE COAST 
OF ST. THOMAS WAS PRIVATELY 
OWNED BY EPSTEIN UNTIL HIS 
DEATH IN AUGUST. 
NOW THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS 
SUING HIS ESTATE TO GAIN 
CONTROL OF IT. 
>> A NEW LAWSUIT PROVIDES 
DETAILS AND HOW HE WAS ABLE TO 
MAKE HIS ALLEGED CRIMES GO 
UNNOTICED FOR SO LONG. 
>> THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS TO 
GET TO THE ISLAND, BY 
HELICOPTER OR PRIVATE BOAT IN 
THE SECLUSION APPEARS TO BE BY 
DESIGN MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO MONITOR 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BEHAVIOR ON 
THE ISLAND AND EVEN HARDER FOR 
THE ALLEGED VICTIMS WHO WERE 
BROUGHT HERE TO ESCAPE. 
>>> [ MUSIC ] GRETA THUNBERG IS 
ACCUSING WORLD LEADERS OF 
FUELING THE FLAMES OF CLIMATE 
CHANGE. 
SHE MADE THE REMARKS WHILE 
SPEAKING AT THE WORLD ECONOMIC 
FORUM IN DABO'S SWITZERLAND. 
CRITICIZING WORLD LEADERS FOR 
FAILING TO FULFILL PROMISES TO 
CUT EMISSIONS. 
>> SHE SAID SOME GOALS THAT 
GOVERNMENTS ARE SETTING ARE NOT 
GOING FAR ENOUGH. 
>> WE DON'T NEED A LOW CARBON 
ECONOMY, WE DON'T NEED TO LOWER 
EMISSIONS. OUR ADMISSIONS HAVE 
TO STOP. 
IF WE ARE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO 
STAY BELOW THE 1.5 DEGREE 
TARGET. 
AND UNTIL WE HAVE THE 
TECHNOLOGIES, THE SCALE CAN PUT 
IT TO MINUS, THEN WE MUST 
FORGET ABOUT NET ZERO, WE NEED 
REAL ZERO. 
>> SHE SPARKED A WORLDWIDE 
MOVEMENT WHEN SHE 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 THEIR SON ARCHIE. 
THE DUKE OF SUSSEX WAS SEEN 
LANDING IN VANCOUVER MONDAY 
NIGHT AFTER ATTENDING WHAT IS 
LIKELY TO BE ONE OF THE LAST 
OFFICIAL LOYAL ENGAGEMENTS IN 
LONDON. 
>> I THOUGHT OF YOU. 
>> COME THIS SPRING, THE COUPLE 
WILL NO LONGER BE FULL-TIME 
WORKING ROYALS. 
ELIZABETH PALMER IS OUTSIDE 
BUCKINGHAM PALACE WITH THE 
STORY. 
>> IT HAS BEEN A TUMULTUOUS 
COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT IT NOW 
DOES APPEAR THAT HARRY HAS 
DEFINITIVELY LEFT HIS OLD LIFE 
AND STARTED A NEW ONE. 
THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM 
BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 
>> PRINCE HARRY AND HE STILL 
GETS TO USE THE TITLE ARRIVED 
IN VANCOUVER LAST NIGHT AND WAS 
IMMEDIATELY WHISKED AWAY TO 
REJOIN MEGAN AND EIGHT-MONTH-
OLD ARCHIE. 
ONLY HOURS BEFORE HE HAD BOUND 
UP HIS JOB AS A SENIOR 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROYAL 
FAMILY AT A CONFERENCE ON 
AFRICAN INVESTMENT. 
HARRY AND MEGAN'S EXIT LIKELY 
MEANS EVEN MORE WORK FOR PRINCE 
WILLIAM, THE FUTURE KING, WHO 
WITH HIS WIFE, KATE, WAS ON DUTY
FOR THE FIRST TIME PRIMARY 
HOSTS OF A RECEPTION. 
THE PREVIOUS DAY, HARRY HAD 
TOLD A MEETING OF HIS PRIVATE 
CHARITY THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO 
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 NOT YET A CLEAN 
BREAK. 
>> WHAT ARE THE LOOSE ENDS? 
>> THERE ARE MORE LOOSE ENDS 
THAN THERE ARE DECISIONS. 
THE OUTSTANDING ONE OF COURSE 
IS THE MONEY. 
WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR WHAT? 
AND PROBABLY THE MOST 
OUTSTANDING OF ALL OF THIS IS 
SECURITY. 
>> KEEPING THE YOUNG FAMILY 
SAFE IS GOING TO COST A 
FORTUNE. 
AND BRITISH OR CANADIAN 
TAXPAYERS ARE LIKELY TO GET THE 
BILL. 
THAT WILL FUEL THE ANGER. 
>> THE BRITISH PUBLIC OPINION 
IS THAT IT IS ALL MEGAN'S FAULT 
AND SHE LURED HARRY AWAY FROM 
US AND SHE IS THE ONE THAT IS 
INSISTING THAT THEY HAVE A 
PRIVATE LIFE. 
>> Reporter: TO QUALIFY THAT, 
IT'S A GENERATIONAL THING. 
OLD PEOPLE MAY BLAME MEGAN FOR 
TAKING HARRY AWAY AND YOUNGER 
PEOPLE TEND TO THINK THE COUPLE 
DESERVES A CHANCE AT A HAPPY 
LIFE AND THEY WISH THEM WELL. 
>> SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS IS 
APOLOGIZING TO FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN FOR AN OP-
ED WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS 
CAMPAIGN SURROGATES. 
THE OP-ED PUBLISHED IN THE 
GUARDIAN CLAIMED THE FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT HAS A QUOTE BIG 
CORRUPTION PROBLEM. 
>> IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, 
SENATOR SANDERS SAYS IT IS 
ABSOLUTELY NOT HIS VIEW THAT 
JOE BIDEN IS CORRUPT IN ANY 
WAY. 
>> ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC 
CANDIDATES ARE LOOKING FOR A 
WAY TO BREAK THROUGH. 
THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN THOUGHT 
THEY HAD SOMETHING WITH THIS OP-
ED BY A NEW YORK LIBERAL AND 
PROMINENT SUPPORTER OF THE 
VERMONT SENATOR WROTE THAT JOE 
BIDEN HAS A CORRUPTION PROBLEM 
FOR TAKING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM 
WEALTHY DONORS. 
SHE WRITES MIDDLE-CLASS JOE IS 
PERFECTED THE ART OF TAKING BIG 
CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEN 
REPRESENTING US CORPORATE 
DONORS AT THE COST OF MIDDLE 
AND WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS. 
THE OP-ED 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 
BACK IN 2016 WHEN HIS 
SUPPORTERS WOULD AGGRESSIVELY 
ATTACK HILLARY CLINTON AND MORE 
RECENTLY AFTER ELIZABETH WARREN 
AND JOE BIDEN. 
SENATOR SANDERS CALLED ON HIS 
SUPPORTERS TO PLAY NICE. 
>> JOE AND I HAVE STRONG 
DISAGREEMENTS ON A NUMBER OF 
ISSUES AND WE WILL ARGUE THOSE 
DISAGREEMENTS OUT, BUT IT IS 
ABSOLUTELY NOT MY VIEW THAT JOE 
IS CORRUPT IN ANY WAY. 
AND I'M SORRY THAT THAT OP-ED 
APPEARED. 
I FEEL THAT MY SUPPORTERS, 
PLEASE, ENGAGE IN CIVIL 
DISCOURSE, AND BY THE WAY, WE 
AREN'T THE ONLY CAMPAIGN THAT 
DOESN'T. 
OTHER PEOPLE WHO ACT THAT WAY 
AS WELL, BUT I WOULD APPEAL TO 
EVERYBODY TO HAVE A DEBATE ON 
THE ISSUES. 
WE CAN DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER 
WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE, 
WITHOUT BEING HATEFUL. 
>> IN RESPONSE LAST NIGHT, 
BIDEN TWEETED HIS THANKS TO 
SANDERS AND SAID THAT THOSE 
KINDS OF ATTACKS HAVE NO PLACE 
IN THIS PRIMARY. 
HE IS OUT HERE TODAY HOLDING AT 
LEAST TWO EVENTS IN COLD IOWA 
WHILE THE SENATORS GO BACK TO 
WASHINGTON FOR THE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL AND SANDERS IS DEPLOYING 
A TOP SURROGATE IN HIS ABSENCE. 
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ WILL 
HOLD HERE FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. 
>> WILL TAKE A QUICK BREAK 
WHICH MEANS IT'S A GOOD TIME 
FOR YOU TO DOWNLOAD THE FREE 
CBS NEWS APP ON ALL DEVICES. 
VLAD IS FINGER WAGGING. 
YOU CAN WATCH CBSN ANYTIME 
ANYWHERE ON ANY CONNECTED 
DEVICE. 
THE WEBSITE IS FREE IN THE APP 
IS FREE IF YOU DON'T WANT THE 
CONVENIENCE OF A NAP AND THAT 
IS CBS NEWS.COM. 
>> GO TO THE GOOGLE PLAY STORE 
AND DOWNLOAD THE APP AND YOU 
CAN WATCH US ALL DAY LONG. 
>> ON YOUR SMART TV ALSO. 
>> IN HEALTHWATCH, PRO 
VACCINATION SOCIAL MEDIA POST 
LEADS TO THREATS AGAINST AN 
OHIO DOCTOR. 
THE BACKLASH IS RELATED TO THE 
STATEMENT POSTED ON TICK-TOCK 
CHALLENGING THE CONNECTION 
BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM. 
>> IT COMES AS A RECENT POLL 
FINDS 46% OF AMERICANS ARE 
STILL UNSURE ABOUT THE DEBUNKED 
ASSOCIATION. 
WE SPOKE WITH THE PEDIATRICIAN 
ABOUT THE POST AND THE FALLOUT. 
>> WE KNOW THAT VACCINES DON'T 
CAUSE AUTISM AND IT IS 
IMPORTANT FOR THE MESSAGE TO 
GET OUT 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 
BECAME TARGETS. 
>> I HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A 
TSUNAMI OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS ON 
ALL OF MY SOCIAL MEDIA. 
THERE HAVE BEEN NEGATIVE AND 
FRAUDULENT REVIEWS. 
>> ONE SOCIAL MEDIA USER CALLED 
HER PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE AND 
ANOTHER COMMENTOR TOLD THE 
PEDIATRICIAN TO STOP KILLING 
OUR KIDS WITH VACCINES. 
EVEN THOUGH THE OVERWHELMING 
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THAT 
VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM, 
16% OF PARENTS WITH CHILDREN 
YOUNGER THAN 18 SAY THEY STILL 
BELIEVE VACCINES CAUSE MORE 
HARM THAN GOOD. 
>> ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE 
HAVE IN THE ERA OF THE 
INTERNET, THERE IS VERY LITTLE 
RECOURSE. 
>> RENC IS A TECHNICAL RESEARCH 
AT THE PLANETARY OBSERVATORY. 
>> WHAT HAPPENS AT THE COST OF 
PHYSICIANS PUTTING OUT 
STATEMENTS TO COUNTER 
MISINFORMATION IS THAT THEY, 
HEMSELVES BECOME THE SU 
OF HARASSMENT CAMPAIGNS AND 
REPUTATION HARMING CAMPAIGNS 
AND MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS. 
>> IN RECENT MONTHS, CONGRESS 
HAS GRILLED SOCIAL MEDIA 
COMPANIES FOR FAILING TO STOP 
THE SPREAD OF MISINFORMATION 
AND IN A STATEMENT, TICK-TOCK 
SAID WE REMOVED MISINFORMATION 
THAT COULD CAUSE HARM TO AN 
INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH OR WIDER 
PUBLIC SAFETY. 
AS FOR BALDWIN, SHE SAYS SHE'S 
STANDING BY HER MESSAGE. 
>> I'M NOT TAKING MY POST DOWN, 
I WILL NOT BE BULLIED INTO 
SUBMISSION. 
>>> IN MONEY WATCH, UBER IS 
TESTING A FEATURE THAT GAVE 
SOME DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA THE 
ABILITY TO SET THEIR OWN FAIRS. 
THIS IS A MOVE THAT WILL GIVE 
MORE DRIVERS, WRITERS CONTROL 
INTO THE GIG ECONOMY LAW. 
THE NEW LEGISLATION REQUIRES 
COMPANIES TO TREAT WORKERS AS 
EMPLOYEES INSTEAD OF 
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 
UBER, LYFT, DOOR DACHSHUND POST 
HAVE RAISED MORE THAN 100 $10 
MILLION FOR A BAIL OUT THIS 
YEAR ASKING THAT VOTERS ACCEPT 
THE COMPANY'S FROM THE BILL. 
>> TESLA IS DISPUTING 
ALLEGATIONS OF UNEXPECTED 
ACCELERATION IN THE VEHICLE 
SAYING THAT A STOCK SHORT 
SELLER WAS BEHIND THE CLAIMS. 
AT ISSUE ARE ROUGHLY 500,000 
VEHICLES MADE FROM ONLY 13 TO 
2019. 
A PETITION FILED LAST WEEK 
CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE 127 
COMPLAINTS OF SUDDEN 
ACCELERATION. 
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY 
MINISTRATION SAYS IT WILL 
REVIEW THE PETITION AND DECIDE 
WHETHER TO LAUNCH A FULL 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> GOOGLE AND GOOGLE CEO IS 
CALLING FOR REGULAR OF 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN AN 
OP-ED FOR THE FINANCIAL TIMES, 
HE WROTE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE 
OF HAVING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT 
BUT QUESTIONED THE BEST WAY TO 
APPROACH IT. 
HIS COMMENTS COME AS LAWMAKERS 
AND GOVERNMENTS CONSIDER 
PUTTING LIMITS ON HOW 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS 
USED. 
>> COMING UP IN THE NEXT HOUR, 
SENATORS PREPARE FOR OPENING 
ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENCE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WE GOT A LOOK 
AT WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT. 
>> AND CBS NEWS EXCLUSIVE, WHAT 
BERNIE SANDERS, WHY HE IS 
APOLOGETIC THE FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN THE LATEST 
OF ELEMENTS IN THE ONGOING 
CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK IN CHINA. 
OFFICIALS NOW SAY IT CAN BE 
TRANSMITTED HUMAN TO HUMAN. 
YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN, CBS 
NEWS, ALWAYS ON.  
C1 
>>> HI EVERYONE I'M ANNE-MARIE 
GREEN. 
>> THE SENATE DECIDES THE 
FUTURE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
THIS IS A LIVE LOOK FROM 
CAPITOL HILL, WHERE ANY MOMENT, 
WE'RE EXPECTING TO HEAR FROM 
CHUCK SCHUMER. 
IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS IN DAVOS, SWITZERLAND, 
ATTENDING THE ECONOMIC FORUM. 
BUT THE IMPEACHMENT SHOWDOWN IN 
WASHINGTON IS EXPECTED TO 
OVERSHADOW HIS VISIT. 
>> THE OTHER IS JUST A HOAX. 
IT'S THE WITCH-HUNT THAT'S BEEN 
GOING ONFOR YEARS, AND FRANKLY, 
IT'S DISGRACEFUL. 
WE'RE MEETING WITH THE BIGGEST 
COMPANIES IN THE WORLD, THE 
BIGGEST BUSINESSES IN THE 
WORLD, AND WORLD LEADERS, ALL 
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
>> THE TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO 
BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. 
EASTERN. 
UNDER THE PROPOSAL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S LAWYERS AND DEMOCRATIC 
HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD HAVE 24 
HOURS EACH TO DELIVER OPENING 
ARGUMENTS. 
THIS COULD LAST OVER FOUR DAYS. 
WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH OVER TO 
CAPITOL HILL NOW, WHERE IT 
LOOKS LIKE THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
SPEAKING. 
LET'S TAKE A LISTEN. 
>> ON THE ISSUE AT HAND, THE 
SUPREME COURT JUST ANNOUNCED 
THAT IT WOULD DELAY RULING ON 
THE ADMINISTRATION'S LAWSUIT 
AGAINST OUR HEALTHCARE LAW. 
IT'S A SHARP REMINDER TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WHILE ALL 
THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS IS 
GOING ON, THE PRESIDENT, AND 
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS TRYING 
TO TAKE AWAY AMERICANS' 
HEALTHCARE. 
WOE IS US, IF THEY SUCCEED, 
EITHER THIS YEAR, OR NEXT YEAR. 
NOW, LET'S GET TO THE ISSUE AT 
HAND. 
AS YOU ALL KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP 
IS ACCUSED OF ALLOWING A 
FOREIGN OFFICIAL TO INTERFERE 
IN OUR ELECTIONS TO BENEFIT 
HIM. 
IT PROVED THE PRESIDENT'S 
CRIMES ARE ACTIONS AGAINST 
DEMOCRACY ITSELF. 
IT CANNOT BE OVERSTATED HOW 
SERIOUS THIS CHARGE IS. 
IF AMERICANS START BELIEVING 
THAT FOREIGNERS CAN AFFECT AND 
ELECT PRESIDENTS, OR SENATORS, 
OR GOVERNORS, IF FOREIGNERS CAN 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, OUR 
DEMOCRACY IS VASTLY ERODED. 
PEOPLE WILL START LOSING FAITH 
IN ELECTIONS AND THE VERY 
WELLSPRING AND FOUNDATION OF 
THIS GRAND AND GREAT NATION 
THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS 
ESTABLISHED MORE THAN 200 YEARS 
AGO. 
SO THE CHARGES, THESE CHARGES 
WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TRY. 
FOR ANYONE WHO SAYS THIS ISN'T 
SERIOUS, OR THIS IS DONE ALL 
THE TIME, NO WAY. 
THIS PRESIDENT IN HIS ABUSE OF 
POWER IS UNFORTUNATELY UNIQUE, 
AND WILLING TO ABUSE HIS POWER 
WITH FEWER CONSCIOUS QUALMS AND 
FAR MORE READILY, AND EASILY 
THAN ANY PRESIDENT WE'VE SEEN, 
AND BY A LONG SHOT. 
THE ONLY POWER THAT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE WHEN A 
PRESIDENT ABUSES POWER, OTHER 
THAN ELECTIONS, IS THIS 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. 
WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. 
VERY SERIOUSLY. 
SO ONE SENATOR INHOF IS SWORN 
IN 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, 
THAT OUTLINES HIS PLAN FOR THE 
RULES OF THE TRIAL, WHICH WAS 
ONLY RELEASED LAST NIGHT. 
AMAZINGLY, WAITED UNTIL THE 
VERY END. 
IT WAS PARTISAN. 
IT WAS KEPT SECRET UNTIL THE 
EVE OF THE TRIAL. 
AND NOW THAT IT'S FINALLY MADE 
PUBLIC, IT'S OBVIOUS TO SEE WHY 
LEADER McCONNELL WAS KEEPING IT 
SO CLOSE TO HIS VEST, BECAUSE 
THE McCONNELL RULES SEEM TO BE 
DESIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
SIMPLY EXECUTED BY LEADER 
McCONNELL, AND SENATE 
REPUBLICANS. 
IT APPEARS THAT LEADER úMcCONNE 
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO 
COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING, HOOK, 
LINE, AND SINKER. 
IT ALMOST SEEMS THAT THE 
RESOLUTION WAS WRITTEN IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE, NOT IN THE SENATE. 
THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION IS A 
BLUEPRINT FOR AN IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL ON FAST FORWARD. 
IT ASKS THE SENATE TO SPRINT 
THROUGH THE TRIAL AS FAST AS 
POSSIBLE, AND MAKES GETTING 
EVIDENCE AS HARD AS POSSIBLE. 
THE BOTTOM LINE? 
LEADER McCONNELL WANTS THE 
PROCESS RUSHED WITH AS LITTLE 
EVIDENCE AS POSSIBLE IN THE 
DARK OF NIGHT. 
HE PUSHES THE ARGUMENT NOOSE 
THE WE HOUR OF THE NIGHT, SO 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T SEE 
THEM. 
IN SHORT, AGAIN, THE McCONNELL 
RESOLUTION WILL RESULT IN A 
RUSHED TRIAL, WITH LITTLE 
EVIDENCE IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT. 
IF THE PRESIDENT IS SO 
CONFIDENT IN HIS CASE, THEN WHY 
WON'T HE PRESENT IT IN BROAD 
DAYLIGHT? 
IF LEADER Mc CONNELL, AND THE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS SAY HE'S 
DONE NOTHING WRONG, IT'S 
PERFECT, WHILE NOT WHY THE SUN 
IS SHINING, INSTEAD OF AT 2:00 
A.M.? 
IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHY NOT. 
ON SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS 
IMPEACHMENT Mc CONNELL'S 
RESOLUTION IS NOTHING SHORT OF 
A NATIONAL DISGRACE, AND IT 
WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS ONE 
OF THE VERY DARK DAYS OF THE 
SENATE. 
NOT LIVING UP TO ITS 
RESPONSIBILITY IN OBESCENSE TO 
THE PRESIDENT. 
LEADER McCONNELL PROMISED HIS 
TRIAL RULES FOR WEEK. 
LET'S ENACT THE SAME RULES AS 
THE CLINTON RULES. 
IT TURNS OUT 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 INTO 
EVIDENCE. 
SO McCONNELL SEEMS TO WANT A 
TRIAL WITH NO EXISTING 
EVIDENCE, AND NO NEW EVIDENCE. 
YOU CAN UNDRSTAND WHY. 
IT'S BECAUSE HE'S AFRAID OF 
EVIDENCE. 
SO IS PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
SO ARE THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. 
A TRIAL WITH NO EVIDENCE IS NOT 
A TRIAL AT ALL. 
IT'S A COVER-UP. 
SECOND, UNLIKE THE CLINTON 
RULES, THE McCONNELL RULE 
LIMITS PRESENTATION BY THE 
PARTIES TO 24 HOURS PER SIDE 
OVER ONLY TWO DAYS. 
LEADER McCONNELL WANTS TO FORCE 
THE MANAGERS TO MAKE IMPORTANT 
PARTS OF THEIR CASE IN THE DEAD 
OF NIGHT. 
I'VE READ THE BRIEF, IT'S ABOUT 
45 PAGES. 
I COMMEND EACH OF YOU. 
IT'S A POWERFUL DOCUMENT. 
VERY HARD TO REBUT. 
IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT'S BRIEF 
DOESN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO REBUT 
IT. 
NEXT, THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION 
PROHIBITS MOTIONS TO SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS UNTIL 
AFTER THE SENATORS' QUESTION 
PERIOD. 
AND EVEN THEN, IT REQUIRES THE 
SENATE TO OVERCOME AN 
ADDITIONAL HURDLE BY VOTING TO 
DETERMINE WHETHER MOTIONS TO 
SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS ARE IN ORDER. 
SO WE'VE HAD SOME SENATORS SAY 
WELL I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR 
McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION, BUT 
LATER I MIGHT VOTE FOR 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. 
McCONNELL'S VERY RESOLUTION 
PUTS MANY OBSTACLES IN THE PATH 
OF GETTING WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS EVEN LATER. 
SO REPUBLICAN SENATORS DON'T 
FOOL US, DON'T SAY YOU WANT TO 
MAKE IT EASY TO VOTE FOR 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AT THE 
END OF THE TRIAL IF YOU VOTE 
FOR THIS RESOLUTION. 
IS IT MAKES IT A LOT HARDER. 
AND FINALLY, UNLIKE THE CLINTON 
RULES, THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION 
ALLOWS A MOTION TO DISMISS IT 
ANYTIME DURING THE TRIAL. 
NOW WE THOUGHT THAT THE CLINTON 
RULES SHOULDN'T APPLY, THEY 
WERE UNFAIR TO US. 
McCONNELL KEPT HUGGING THE 
CLINTON RULES, AS HIS DEFENSE, 
BUT WE NOW SEE THAT HE DIDN'T 
MEAN IT. 
THAT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS 
SIMPLY COVER UP FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
SO STARTING THIS AFTERNOON, 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER LEADER 
McCONNELL INTRODUCES HIS 
RESOLUTION, I WILL BE OFFERING 
AMENDMENTS TO FIX ITS MANY 
FLAWS. 
THE FIRST AMENDMENT I WILL 
OFFER WILL ASK THAT THE SENATE 
SUBPOENA WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS 
RELATED TO THE CHARGES AGAINST 
THE PRESIDENT. 
THOSE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE THE 
RECORDS OF MEETINGS AND CALLS 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, AS WELL 
AS THOSE RECORDS CREATED OR 
RECEIVED BY MR. MULVANEY, MR. 
BOLTON, MR. BLARE, AND OTHER 
WHITE HOUSE PERSONNEL ABOUT THE 
DECISION TO HOLD AND RELEASE 
THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE. 
IT'S VERY POSSIBLE, EVEN 
LIKELY, THAT SOME OF THESE 
COMMUNICATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP BETWEEN 
HIM AND THESE PEOPLE. 
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SO 
IMPORTANT. 
NO ONE CAN ARGUE THAT THESE 
DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DIRECTLY 
RELATED TO THE CHARGES AGAINST 
THE PRESIDENT AND SHOULD BE 
REVIEWED BY THE SENATE. 
THE WITNESSES I'VE REQUESTED 
HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF ATTENTION 
AND RIGHTFULLY SO. 
PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE 
DOCUMENTS CAN SHED AS MUCH 
LIGHT ON WHY THE AID WAS CUT 
OFF, WHO DID IT, AND WHY IT 
EVOLVED, AS THE WITNESSES. 
AND WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT 
WE NEED DOCUMENTS, AND THAT'S 
WHY IT'S OUR FIRST CALL. 
I WILL THEN OFFER A SERIES OF 
AMENDMENTS ON THE DOCUMENTS WE 
REQUESTED, THE WITNESSES WE 
REQUESTED, AND AMENDMENTS TO 
FIX THE MOST EGREGIOUS 
DEPARTURE THAT McCONNELL MADE 
IN HIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION FROM 
THE CLINTON RULES. 
LET ME BE CLEAR, WE HAVE NO 
INTENTION TO BE DILITORY. 
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT 
LEADER McCONNELL WILL ALLOW 
THESE VOTES TO TAKE PLACE LATER 
IN THE TRIAL. 
SO NOW BEFORE ANY RESOLUTION 
PASSES, WE MUST DO IT. 
WE FEEL THIS IS AN OBLIGATION 
WE HAVE TO THE CONSTITUTION. 
TO OUTLINE WHAT A FAIR TRIAL 
WOULD BE. 
TO NOT GO ALONG WITH A COVER-
UP, WITH A SHAM TRIAL, AND WE 
WILL DO IT. 
WE WILL DO IT. 
RIGHT OFF THE BAT, REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS WILL FACE A CHOICE 
ABOUT GETTING THE FACTS, WE'RE 
JOINING LEADER McCONNELL AND 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN TRYING TO 
COVER THEM UP. 
THIS IS A HISTORIC MOMENT, THE 
EYES OF AMERICA ARE WATCHING. 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS MUST RISE 
TO THE OCCASION. 
SENATOR DURBIN. 
>> THANK YOU SENATOR SCHUMER. 
FROM THIS VERY FIRST DAY OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, WE LEARNED 
THAT SENATOR Mc CONNELL, FOR 
SENATOR McCONNELL, POLITICAL 
LOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT IS 
MORE IMPORTANT THAN STANDARDS 
OF COMMON DECENCY AND DECORUM, 
WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVALENT IN 
THIS BODY SINCE THE START. 
SENATOR McCONNELL, AND THOSE 
WHO ENABLE HIM DEMONSTRATE THAT 
REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT 
ENTITLED 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 HURRY THE PROCEEDINGS, 
RESTRICT THE EVIDENCE, LIMIT 
THE WITNESSES, AND FORCE THE W 
HOLEENTERPRISE INTO THE 
MIDNIGHT HOUR, THEY CAN CONCEAL 
THE MISCONDUCT BY THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THEY BELIEVE THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WILL NOT TAKE NOTICE. 
THEY'RE WRONG. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT 
ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OF THIS 
DEMOCRACY. 
THEY ARE WIDE AWAKE TO ANY 
SENATOR OR PRESIDENT WHO 
DISRESPECTS THEIR 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES, OR 
CLAIMS TO BE ABOVE THE LAW. 
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, THE 
IMPEACHED PRESIDENT INSISTS HE 
IS INNOCENT OF A WITCH-HUNT, A 
CRUEL HOAX. 
YET THE PRESIDENT IS UNWILLING 
TO PRODUCE ANY WITNESS IN HIS 
DEFENSE. 
INSTEAD, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
WITH THE RAVINGS OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S LEGAL COUNCIL, THE 
FORMER LEADER OF NEW YORK CITY. 
THIS SELF-SERVING FOOLISHNESS 
PASSES FOR A CREDIBLE DEFENSE. 
UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF 
AMERICAN JUSTICE, OF COURSE, 
THE ACCUSED, IN THIS CASE THE 
PRESIDENT, CANNOT BE COMPELLED 
TO TESTIFY. 
BUT THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION 
GOES TO THE EXTREME OF 
ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS FROM INTRODUCING INTO 
EVIDENCE, THE DOCUMENTS AND 
SWORN TESTIMONY THAT WERE 
PRODUCED EVEN IN THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. 
THIS McCONNELL RESOLUTION  
DIRECTLIY CONTRAVENESS THE 
RULES. 
EVEN SENATOR Mc CONNELL'S 
LOYALTY TO THIS PRESIDENT, AND 
HIS CORRUPTION OF THIS SENATE 
TRIAL CANNOT ESCAPE THE STARK 
REALITY. 
IF SENATOR McCONNELL HAS HIS 
WAY, CRITICAL ITEMS WILL NOT 
SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY, BUT THEY 
WILL NOT ESCAPE THE LIGHT OF 
HISTORY. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
LAST WEEK, MY COLLEAGUES AND I 
SIGNED OUR NAMES IN THE 
OFFICIAL SENATE RECORD, 
CONFIRMING OUR PROMISE TO QUOTE 
DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. 
IT WAS A SOBERING EXPERIENCE, 
ESPECIALLY SINCE SENATOR 
McCONNELL HASEXPLICITLY SAID HE 
WOULD DO THE COMPETE OPPOSITE. 
HE SAID NO TO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE 
IN SPITE OF THE THOROUGH AND 
CAREFUL INVESTIGATION THE HOUSE 
CONDUCTED. 
IN SPITE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
UNPRECEDENTED STONEWALLING, 
WHICH DENIED CONGRESS, ACCESS 
TO KEY MATERIAL WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS DURING 
THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION IN 
SPITE OF THE PRESIDENT 
CONTINUED REVIEWSAL TO PROVIDE 
ANY CREDIBLE DEFERREDZ AGAINST 
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM, 
INCLUDING IN THE TRIAL BRIEF WE 
SAW THIS WEEKEND. 
AND THE MAJORITY LEADER'S 
POSITION HAS NOT CHANGED 
DESPITE NEW EVIDENCE MADE 
PUBLIC IN RECENT DAYS, WHICH 
LAYS OUT A COMPLEX WEB OF 
FALSEHOODS SURROUNDING 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, IS 
IT IS CLEAR PEOPLE ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY ARE WATCHING THIS 
CAREFULLY, AND THEY ARE DEEPLY 
CONCERNED OUR PRESIDENT MAY 
HAVE DEMANDED A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN OUR 
NEXT ELECTION TO HELP HIM IN 
HIS CAMPAIGN. 
THEY WANT TO KNOW ALL THE 
RELEVANT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE 
IS BEING CONSIDERED, AND THE 
SENATE IS ACTING FAIRLY, RATHER 
THAN STAGING A COVER-UP. 
SO I HOPE REPUBLICAN SENATORS 
REMEMBER THAT THEY HAVE A 
CHOICE. 
I HOPE THEY CHOOSE TO RECOGNIZE 
WE CANNOT DO OUR JOB AS 
SENATORS TO QUOTE DO IMPARTIAL 
JUSTICE WITHOUT KEY DOCUMENTS 
AND WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT IS 
SO FAR BEEN HIDDEN FROM THE 
PUBLIC. 
AND I HOPE THEY CHOOSE TO WORK 
WITH DEMOCRATS TO MAKE SURE 
FAIRNESS AND HONESTY IS IN THIS 
PROCESS, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT 
THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT 
DESERVE. 
AND I WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE 
POINT. 
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE ON 
TRIAL. 
BUT THE UNITED STATES SENATE IS 
ON TRIAL TOO. 
I'VE HEARD MANY REPUBLICANS SAY 
THEY WANT A TRIAL MODELED AFTER 
THECLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
BUT I WILL REMIND ALL OF US, 
THAT AT THE END OF THAT TRIAL, 
NO ONE DOUBTED THE SENATE HAD 
ACTED FAIRLY AND HONORABLY. 
THAT'S THE TRULY CRITICAL TEST 
BEFORE US IN THIS INSTITUTION, 
BEGINNING TODAY, AND TO BE 
CLEAR, WE WILL FAIL THAT TEST 
WITH DEAD OF NIGHT RUSHED COVER-
UP RESOLUTION LIKE THE ONE 
MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL HAS 
PUT FORWARD. 
WE ALL NEED TO REMEMBER THE 
OATH WE TOOK, AND ACT IN WAYS 
THAT PROVE THE SENATE AND ALL 
OF OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS 
ARE WORTHY OF THE PUBLIC'S 
TRUST, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS 
TO COME. 
WE ALL NEED TO VOTE TODAY FOR 
EVIDENCE AND FAIRNESS. 
NOT A SHAM DESIGNED TO PROTECT 
AN IMPEACHED PRESIDENT FROM THE 
FACTS. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU SENATOR MURRAY. 
>> THANK YOU. 
MITCH McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION IS 
APPALLING, AND SO IS THE 
DEFENSE PUT FORWARD BY THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
THEY DON'T DISPUTE THAT THERE 
WAS A PHONE CALL WITH A NEW 
YOUNG LEADER IN DESPERATE NEED 
OF SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED 
STATES AND HIS MILITARY EFFORTS 
AGAINST RUSSIA. 
THEY DON'T DISPUTE THAT THERE 
WAS A THREAT TO WITHHOLD 
FUNDING ON THAT PHONE CALL IF 
IN FACT THE NEW YOUNG LEADER 
DID NOT DO WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED. 
THEY DON'T DISPUTE THE FACT 
THAT THEY WITHHELD THE FUNDS 
AFTER THE PHONE CALL, EVEN 
THOUGH THE WATCHDOG FOR THE 
CONGRESS THE GENERAL CONGRESS 
HAS SAID IT IS ILLEGAL, WHICH 
THEY ARE NOT DISPUTING EITHER. 
SEEMS TO ME, THEY'RE USING THE 
MICK MULVANEY DEFENSE. 
YES, THE PRESIDENT DID THE 
CALL. 
YES, HE WITHHELD THE MONEY. 
THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER 
HE WANTS. 
GET OVER IT. 
NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW 
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS TRIAL'S 
ABOUT. 
>> QUESTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT. 
YES. 
LOOK, SENATORS TALK TO SENATORS 
ALL THE TILE, AND THERE ARE 
LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS GOING ON. 
I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO ANY 
CONVERSATIONS. 
YES. 
LOOK, IF THE WHITE HOUSE TRIES 
TO EXERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ON 
AN ORDER THAT PASSES BY 
DEFINITION IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, 
AND IS SIGNED BY CHIEF JUSTICE 
OR THE SUPREME COURT ON A 
SUBPOENA, I THINK THAT THE 
COURTS WOULD LOOK VERY 
FAVORABLY ON THAT. 
I'M NOT GOING TO TELL THE 
PRESIDENT WHO SHOULD BE HIS 
COUNSEL, BUT I RESPECT VERY 
MUCH THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
THAT WAS OUTLINED THAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS PUT TOGETHER. 
YES. 
WELL WAIT AND SEE. 
>> ON THAT QUESTION, DURING THE 
TRIAL IT'S UNUSUAL THAT YOU 
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE 
ARGUMENTS [INAUDIBLE] 
DO YOU EXPECT HOUSE MANAGERS TO 
MAKE ARGUMENTS AND TO USE ONE 
HOUR OF DEBATE TIME? 
>> FIRST, SOME OF THE MOTIONS 
OR THE AMENDMENTS I'LL BE 
MAKING TO THE McCONNELL TRIAL 
WILL BE OBVIOUS. 
THREE WEEKS AGO, I OUTLINED THE 
NEED FOR THREE SETS OF 
DOCUMENTS AND FOUR WITNESSES. 
SO THE SENATE MANAGERS 
OBVIOUSLY KNOW ALL ABOUT THEM, 
AND YOU KNOW THEY'RE A VERY 
CAPABLE GROUP AND THEY SAID 
THEY'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF 
THOSE THINGS WE ASKED FOR, SO I 
EXPECT THEY'LL MAKE STRONG 
ARGUMENTS, AND THERE'S A LOT TO 
SAY. 
WELL IT IS ONE HOUR PER SIDE. 
THAT'S WHAT THE RULES OF THE 
SENATE PRESCRIBE. 
THAT'S WHAT THE RULES 
PRESCRIBE. 
IT WILL BE UP TO THEM IF THEY 
USE IT ALL. 
I WOULD HOPE THEY MAKE STRONG 
ARGUMENTS AND NOT CUT BACK. 
IT'S TOO IMPORTANT. 
>> SENATOR ROMNEY HAS ALREADY 
SAID HE WON'T SUPPORT ANY 
CHANGES TO THE RESOLUTION 
[INAUDIBLE] 
>> HE SAID THAT, I HAVE A GREAT 
DEAL OF RESPECT FOR SENATOR 
ROMNEY. 
I WOULD HOME HE HAS 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 
HARDER FOR US TO GET THOSE. 
YOU WENT ALREADY ONCE. 
I'M SORRY. 
TRY TO SHARE THE WEALTH. 
>> COMPLAIN ABOUT IT BEING 
RUSHED. 
ISN'T THIS THE LATEST EXAMPLE 
OF IT STINKS TO BE THE MINORITY 
PARTY IN THE HOUSE? 
>> NO, WE'RE DOING OUR JOB, AND 
IT'S SORT OF IRONIC, LEADER 
McCONNELL SAYS THE HOUSE TRIAL 
WAS RUSHED, SEEKS TO RUSH THE 
SENATE TRIAL FAR MORE SEVERELY 
THAN THE HOUSE TRIAL WAS. 
>> ON THE SUBJECT OF 
TRANSPARENCY, DID YOU SIGN OFF 
ON THE RULES [INAUDIBLE] 
>> NO. 
MY COMMENT, I WANT TO SEE THE 
PRESS HAVE AS MUCH ACCESS AS 
POSSIBLE, IT WILL BE MY VIEW, 
IT SHOULD BE SIMILAR TO ONE 
NORMAL DAY. 
I WAS NOT ASKED ABOUT THEM, AND 
DID NOT SIGN OFF ON THEM. 
YES. 
WELL WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF 
DISCUSSIONS AND WE GO OVER THE 
PROCESS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING. 
WE HAVE A GREAT CAUCUS LUNCH 
EVERY TUESDAY, AND LARGE 
NUMBERS OF MEMBERS PARTICIPATE, 
AND I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE, AND I 
THINK WE DO, THAT WE SORT OF 
COME TO AN AMALGUM. 
SO WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. 
>> SOME OF THE TRADITIONS IN 
THE DRAFT RESOLUTION 
[INAUDIBLE] 
>> YES. 
YES. 
YES. 
>> IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT A 
VOTE TO CHANGE THOSE RULES 
WOULD REQUIRE 67 VOTES? 
>> NO, BECAUSE THIS IS GOVERNED 
BY RULES OF IMPEACHMENT, WHICH 
IS SEPARATE FROM THE SENATE 
RULES. 
NO, YOU WENT. 
ANYONE ELSE WHO HASN'T GONE? 
YES, NICE QUIET LADY OVER 
THERE. 
>> DO YOU PLAN TO HAVE VOTES 
FOR EACH? 
>> YOU'LL SEE. 
WAIT AND SEE. 
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE VOTES ON 
THE ISSUES I MENTIONED. 
WITNESSES, DOCUMENTS, EGREGIOUS 
ROLL BACKS FROM EVEN THE 
CLINTON RULES WHICH WE THOUGHT 
WERE UNFAIR, AND YOU KNOW, WITH 
YOU WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO 
BE DILLTORY, AND HAVE 100 
AMENDMENTS JUST TO DELAY 
THINGS. 
>> HOW MANY? 
>> YOU'RE PERSISTENT. 
YES. 
>> CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS 
PROCESS? 
>> WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE WE 
THINK WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL 
DUTY TO DO IT. 
WE THINK THAT THIS IS, THIS IS 
WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS 
LOOKED AT WHEN THEY SAID HOW DO 
WE DEAL WITH A PRESIDENT WHO 
HAS ABUSED HIS POWER, WHO HAS 
DRAMATICALLY OVERREACHED, WHO 
HAS GONE OFF TRACK, AND THEY 
CAME TO THE CONCLUSION, YOU 
COULDN'T WAIT FOUR YEARS. 
THAT'S WHY THIS IS SO SERIOUS, 
SO SOLEMN, SO GRAVE. 
THAT'S HOW WE FEEL. 
AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SEEMS 
TO AGREE WITH US. 
BUT THAT'S OUR MOTIVATION. 
THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE 
WITNESSES WE'VE ASKED FOR, YOU 
DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'LL SAY. 
THIS IDEA THAT THESE WITNESSES. 
MAYBE THEY'LL BE FURTHER 
INCRIMINATING, BUT WE WILL REST 
EASY, IF WE KNOW WE HAVE 
REQUIRED THE TRUTH TO COME OUT. 
UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE MINORITY, 
THAT'S NOT SOLELY UP TO US. 
WE NEED FOUR REPUBLICANS WHO 
ARE WILLING TO STAND UP FOR 
WHAT'S RIGHT. 
WHO ARE WILLING TO STAND UP FOR 
WHAT AMERICA WANTS, AND NEEDS, 
AND NOT SIMPLY BOW DOWN TO THE 
PRESIDENT, WHO YOU KNOW, MOST 
AMERICANS KNOW WHAT THIS GUY'S 
ALL ABOUT. 
DO MOST AMERICANS REALLY 
BELIEVE HE WANTS A FAIR TRIAL? 
I DON'T THINK SO. 
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
MINORITY LEADER, SENATOR 
CHUCKSCHUMER ADDRESSING úCONCER 
SENATE HAVE, SAYING 
ESSENTIALLY, THAT THE SENATE 
MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH 
McCONNELL WANTS TO HOLD THIS 
SENATE TRIAL WITHOUT ANY 
EXISTING EVIDENCE, AND WITHOUT 
THE WITNESSES THAT THE SENATE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE CALLED FOR, AND 
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S 
BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH. 
IN FACT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF 
DAYS, THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
SAYING AT THIS POINT, THAT IN 
THIS PROCEDURE THAT WILL START 
AT 1:00 P.M., THAT THERE WILL 
BE NO WITNESSES. 
THAT COULD CERTAINLY CHANGE AS 
WE COULD PROCEED WITH THE 
TRIAL. 
AND YOU CAN HEAR THE MINORITY 
LEADER SAYING THIS IS 
UNACCEPTABLE TO SENATE 
DEMOCRATS. 
SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO 
PREVIEW OUR HISTORIC COVERAGE 
OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL, WHICH BEGINS TODAY AT 
12:30 P.M. 
EASTERN. 
FULL COVERAGE FOLLOWS AT 1:00 
P.M. 
YOU CAN KEEP UP WITH THE 
DEVELOPMENTS AT ANYTIME, BY 
VISITING OUR LIVE BLOG AT CBS 
NEWS.COM/IMPEACHMENT. 
>>> OKAY. 
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS IS 
APOLOGIZING TO JOE BIDEN FOR AN 
OP-ED WRITTEN BY ONE OF HIS 
SURROGATES. 
IT ACCUSED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN 
OF REPRESENTING CORPORATE 
DONORS AT THE EXPENSE OF 
WORKING CLASS AMERICANS. 
IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW, 
SENATOR SANDERS DISTANCED 
HIMSELF FROM THOSE CLAIMS. 
>> JOE BIDEN IS A FRIEND OF 
MINE. 
I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR MANY YEARS. 
HE'S A VERY DECENT GUY, AND JOE 
AND I HAVE STRONG DISAGREEMENTS 
ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES, AND WE 
WILL ARGUE THOSE DISAGREEMENTS 
OUT, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT 
MY VIEW THAT JOE IS CORRUPT IN 
ANY WAY. 
AND I'M SORRY THAT THAT OP-ED 
APPEARED. 
>> FOR MORE ON THIS, LET'S 
BRING IN CBS NEWS 2020 CAMPAIGN 
REPORTER CARA COURTY. 
SHE SPOKE TO SENATOR BERNIE 
SANDERS ON THIS VERY TOPIC. 
CARA, GREAT REPORTING, SO 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 LATE YESTERDAY EVENING. 
HE THANKED SENATOR SANDERS FOR 
CORRECTING HIS SURROGATES OP-
ED, AND HE SAID THAT WHAT WE 
NEED TO FOCUS ON AS DEMOCRATS 
IS DEFEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
IT'S NOTABLE THAT WE'RE SEEING 
SENATOR SANDERS APOLOGIZE HERE. 
SENATOR SANDERS IS, AS WE HEARD 
HIM, IN HIS "NEW YORK TIMES" 
EDITORIAL REVIEW, HE'S NOT 
KNOWN FOR BACK SLAPPING OR 
BEING SUPER JOVIAL WITH ANYONE. 
THE FACT THAT HE TOOK THE TIME 
TO APOLOGIZE, AND SAY HE DID 
NOT AGREE WITH THIS 
CHARACTERIZATION IS AN 
INTERESTING STEP FOR HIM. 
>> THIS OP-ED COMES AT AN 
INTERESTING TIME FOR THE TWO 
CAMPAIGNS. 
RECENTLY CRITICIZED JOE BIDEN 
OVER PAST COMMENTS HE MADE ON 
SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING. 
TELL US WHAT'S AT ISSUE BETWEEN 
THE TWO CANDIDATES. 
>> THIS HAS BEEN A LONG RUNNING 
ATTEMPT BY SANDERS FOLLOWERS, 
SURROGATES AND STAFF TO KIND OF 
DUST UP BIDEN'S SENATE RECORD, 
AND PAST RECORD AS VICE 
PRESIDENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY. 
AND FINALLY, WHEN BIDEN WAS 
ASKED ABOUT IT BY A VOTER, A 
WEEK AGO IN IOWA, THIS WHOLE 
THING KIND OF SET OFF SANDERS 
SURROGATES AND STAFF. 
SUGGESTING THAT THE VICE 
PRESIDENT WAS IN FAVOR OF 
CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY 
BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. 
BIDEN RESPONDED TO THAT SAYING 
THAT THE VIDEO WAS DOCTORED. 
IT WASN'T QUITE DOCTORED, 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 BIDEN DID HAVE THIS 
APPETITE FOR CUTTING BENEFITS, 
AND BIDEN OUTLY DENYING IT. 
AND WHAT WE SAW SENATOR SANDERS 
MOVING TOWARD LAST NIGHT WAS 
TRYING TO QUELL ALL OF THIS. 
HE CALLED FOR MORE CIVILITY. 
WE'LL SEE IF THEY STILL TRY TO 
KIND OF FLESH OUT BIDEN'S 
RECORD ON SOCIAL SECURITY. 
SPEAKING OF CIVILITY, YOU ALSO 
BROUGHT UP THE TENDENCY OF SOME 
OF HIS SUPPORTERS AND 
SURROGATES, ATTACKING ONLINE. 
>> IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE 
SENATOR SANDERS HAS THE MOST 
FERVENT DEDICATED FOLLOWING 
ONLINE. 
IT'S VERY COMMON FOR BERNIE 
SUPPORTERS TO GET HASHTAGS. 
AND I ASKED SENATOR SANDERS, 
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR 
FOLLOWERS, SOME OF YOUR 
SURROGATES WHO USE PRETTY 
SEVERE RHETORIC, MUCH MORE SO 
THAN SENATOR SANDERS WOULD EVER 
USE AGAINST OPPONENTS, 
SPECIFICALLY AGAINST VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND SENATOR 
SANDERS SAYS HE DOES NOT LIKE 
IT. 
HE DOES NOT APPROVE OF IT, AND 
HE DOES NOT WANT ANYMORE OF IT 
GOING FORWARD. 
HE CALLED FOR 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. 
>> HE TOLD YOU HE ENCOURAGED 
HIS SUPPORTERS TO ENGAGE, IN 
COVERING THIS CAMPAIGN, HAVE 
YOU SEEN THE AGGRESSIVENESS BY 
WHICH SOME OF HIS SUPPORTERS 
ATTACKED PEOPLE THAT THEY 
DISAGREE WITH ONLINE? 
>> IT'S TOUGH VLAD, BECAUSE YOU 
HAVE TO SEPARATE, YOU CAN 
CHOOSE TO SEPARATE THE SENATOR 
FROM HIS SUPPORTERS, BUT THE 
SENATOR, WHEN HE'S ON THE 
STUMP, WHEN HE'S ON STAGE, 
TRAVELING ACROSS THE COUNTRY, 
HE WILL SAY EVERY TIME, JOE 
BIDEN IS MY FRIEND, ELIZABETH 
WARREN IS MY FRIEND. 
MOST OF THESE DEMOCRATS ARE 
FRIENDS OF MINE, AND HE'LL SAY, 
YOU WON'T HEAR ME SAY A BAD 
WORD ABOUT THEM, WHICH USUALLY 
IS TRUE, HE USUALLY KEEPS IT TO 
THE RECORD. 
HE DOESN'T GET INVOLVED WITH 
THESE PERSONAL SPATS. 
WHEN YOU LOOK ONLINE, JUST AS 
THE GREAT AMERICAN CULTURE 
SOMETIMES TENDS TO DO ON 
TWITTER, THINGS GET A LITTLE 
MORE HEATED. 
I DON'T KNOW THAT BERNIE 
SANDERS SITS WITH HIS iPHONE, 
AND SCROLLS THROUGH TWITTER AND 
SEES WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING ON. 
HE SAID LAST NIGHT, 
DEFINITIVELY, A CALL TO ACTION 
TO HIS SUPPORTERS TO BASICALLY 
KNOCK IT OFF. 
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS. 
OF COURSE, THIS IS ALL 
HAPPENING AS SENATORSANDERS 
HAS TO STEP AWAY FROM THE 
CAMPAIGN TRAIL TO FOCUS ON 
BEING PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL, WHICH IS STARTING TODAY, 
AS YOU KNOW. 
SO WHAT IS THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN 
DOING, TO MAKE SURE THAT 
SENATOR SANDERS KEEPS HIS 
PRESENCE IN IOWA AHEAD OF THE 
FEBRUARY 3rd CAUCUSES? 
>> IT'S TOUGH, VLAD. 
ALL OF THE SENATORS WHO ARE 
RUNNING  RIGHT NOW ARE DEALING 
WITH THIS. 
JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, THE 
SENATOR CANCELED A NORTHERN 
IOWA RALLY HE WAS SUPPOSED TO 
BE HOLDING TOMORROW NIGHT. 
THEY WERE HOPING TO HOP ON A 
PLANE, GET OVER TO IOWA, TAKE 
PART IN THIS RALLY, AND COME 
BACK TO D.C. FOR IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS. 
THEY GOT MORE DETAILED 
SCHEDULES TODAY, AND THEY HAD 
TO CANCEL THAT RALLY. 
SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE 
SANDERS AGAIN, WE THINK ON THE 
CAMPAIGN TRAIL UNTIL POSSIBLY 
SATURDAY EVENING WITH 
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ. 
THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE INSIGHT 
INTO WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHEN 
SANDERS IS OFF THE TRAIL. 
HE'S USING HIS HIGH POWERED 
SURROGATES HITTING THE GROUND 
IN IOWA, TRYING TO KEEP UP 
MOMENTUM, I WAS ALSO SPEAKING 
TO A SENIOR AID IN IOWA JUST 
THE OTHER DAY, SAYING THEY'RE 
TRYING TO SECURE A HIGH POWER 
MUSICAL ACT. 
THEY'RE BASICALLY THROWING 
EVERYTHING THEY CAN, ALL THE 
FORCE THEY CAN INTO IOWA, EVEN 
WITHOUT SENATOR SANDERS, THEY 
WANT TO GET A VICTORY THERE, SO 
THEY'RE DOING ANYTHING IT TAKES 
REALLY. 
>> ALL RIGHT, CARA COURTY FOR 
US. 
ALWAYS GREAT REPORTING. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU, VLAD. 
>> WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK, YOU'RE 
STREAMING CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON. 
>>> CHINESE OFFICIALS HAVE SAID 
THE FAST MOVING CARONA VIRUS 
HAS KILLED AT LEAST SIX PEOPLE. 
THE NEWS COMES AFTER AN EXPERT 
CONFIRMED THE VIRUS CAN BE 
TRANSMITTED HUMAN TO HUMAN. 
>> OFFICIALS ARE ARE ALSO 
REPORTING THAT A WOMAN IN 
TAIWAN HAS BEEN INFECTED AFTER  
A TRIP TO THE EPICENTER OF THE 
OUTBREAK. 
>> Reporter: OFFENSES HERE IN 
WUHAN HAVE NOW DESIGNATED NINE 
HOSPITALS AS TREATMENT CENTERS, 
INCLUDING THE ONE BEHIND ME. 
THAT'S ON TOP OF 61 FEVER 
CLINICS, AND AN EMERGENCY 
EXPERT TEAM. 
ONE PIECE OF GOOD NEWS, CHINESE 
SENATORS SAY THEY FIGURED OUT 
THE DNA SEQUENCE OF THIS VIRUS, 
THAT OPENS UP THE POSSIBLE 
TREATMENT, AND A VACCINE. 
AS MILLIONS MIGRATE ACROSS THE 
COUNTRY, CONFIRMATION THE VIRUS 
CAN BE SPREAD AMONG HUMANS, 
THAT POSES AN EVEN GREATER 
CHALLENGE FOR CHINA AND NEARBY 
NATIONS TO CONTAIN THE 
OUTBREAK. 
TRAVELERS WITH MASK, QUARANTINE 
STATIONS HAVE BECOME 
COMMONPLACE ACROSS ASIA. 
THIS MAN WE SPOKE TO OUTSIDE A 
WUHAN HOSPITAL SAID IT'S 
DIFFICULT TO CONTAIN THE SPREAD 
OF THE VIRUS, BUT BELIEVES THE 
GOVERNMENT CAN HANDLE IT VERY 
WELL. 
THE NUMBER OF KNOWN INFECTIONS 
HAS RISEN SHARPLY SINCE 
YESTERDAY, TOPPING 300 CASES IN 
CHINA ALONE. 
AT LEAST 15 HOSPITAL WORKERS IN 
WUHAN HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH 
THE VIRUS. 
>> IF IN FACT, A PERSON HAS 
INFECTED A HEALTHCARE WORKER, 
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY OF SOME 
CONCERN. 
>> Reporter: HE SAYS THE HUMAN 
TO HUMAN TRANSMISSIONS COULD BE 
ISOLATED INCIDENTS, BUT -- 
>> WHEN YOU GET SUSTAINED 
TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM ONE 
PERSON TO ANOTHER TO ANOTHER, 
THEN YOU HAVE A MORE SERIOUS 
PROBLEM. 
THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A MUCH 
BROADER TYPE OF AN OUTBREAK. 
>> Reporter: THE WORLD HEALTH 
ORGANIZATION SAYS THEY WILL 
ASSEMBLE 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. 
ANNE-MARIE, VLAD. 
>>> IN PUERTO RICO HUNDREDS OF 
ANGRY DEMONSTRATORS GATHERED 
OUTSIDE THE GOVERNO'S MANSION, 
DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR 
ISLAND OFFICIALS. 
THE CHANTS CAME AFTER A BLOGGER 
RECENTLY DISCOVERED A WAREHOUSE 
FILLED WITH UNUSED HURRICANE 
MARIA AID IN A CITY DAMAGED BY 
THE RECENT EARTHQUAKESMENT 
DEMONSTRATORS ARE NOW CALLING 
ON THE GOVERNOR TO RESIGN. 
MUCH LIKE THEY DID TO FORMER 
GOVERNOR RICARDO ROSAO. 
>>> MEANWHILE, CHAOS ERUPTED 
AMONG THE GUATEMALA/MEXICO 
BORDER. 
THOUSANDS OF HONDURAN MIGRANTS 
IN A STAND OFFWITH MEXICAN 
FORCES AFTER THEY TRY TO WADE 
ACROSS A RIVER BY THE MEXICAN 
BORDER. 
THE GROUP SAYS THEY'RE 
TRAVELING IN LARGER NUMBERS TO 
PREVENT BEING SENT BACK TO 
HONDURAS, BUT MEXICO IS UNDER 
PRESSURE BY THE U.S. TO STOP 
LARGER GROUPS FROM REACHING THE 
BORDER. 
SAT DOWN WITH MIGRANT PARENTS 
WHO ARE RETURNING TO THE U.S. 
AFTER BEING DEPORTED ILLEGALLY. 
HE'S GOING TO JOIN US ON 
THURSDAY, TO EXPLAIN JUST HOW 
THAT HAPPENED, AND WHAT COMES 
NEXT FOR THE FAMILY. 
>>> GRETA THUNBERG IS ACCUSING 
THE WORLD LEADERS OF FUELING 
CLIMATE CHANGE. 
>> SHE ALSO SAID SOME GOALS 
THAT GOVERNMENTS ARE SETTING 
ARE NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH. 
>> WE DON'T NEED A LOW CARBON 
ECONOMY. 
WE DON'T NEED TO LOWER 
EMISSIONS. 
OUR EMISSIONS HAVE TO STOP IF 
WE ARE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO STAY 
BELOW THE 1.5-DEGREE TARGET. 
AND UNTIL WE HAVE THE 
TECHNOLOGIES, THE F SCALE CAN 
PUT OUR EMISSIONS TO MINORS WE 
MUST FORGET ABOUT NET ZERO. 
WE NEED REAL ZERO. 
>> THUNBERG SPARKED A WORLDWIDE 
YOUTH MOVEMENT WHEN SHE STARTED 
SKIPPING SCHOOL ON FRIDAYS TO 
PROTEST IN FRONT OF PARLIAMENT. 
>>> THE SENATE'S IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL KICKS OFF TODAY. 
CBS NEWS ANCHOR, NORAH 
O'DONNELL SPOKE EXCLUSIVELY 
WITH THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT 
MANAGERS ABOUT HOW THEY WILL 
MAKE THEIR CASE. 
>> MEANWHILE, WE WILL BE 
KEEPING OUR EYE AS HE ATTENDS 
THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. 
>>> STAY WITH CBSN, WE'LL HAVE 
A FULL PREVIEW OF THE DAY'S 
EVENTS BEGINNING AT 12:30 
EASTERN. 
>> AND YOU CAN FOLLOW ALL OF 
THE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE SENATE 
LIVE IN THEIR ENTIRETY RIGHT 
HERE ON CBSN, AND OF COURSE 
"RED & BLUE" WILL HAVE A FULL 
RECAP ONCE THE DAY'S EVENTS 
WRAP UP. 
YOU'RE STREAMING CBSN. 
CBS NEWS ALWAYS ON. 
>>> BETWEEN THE HISTORIC 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, POLITICAL 
NEWS IS AT AN ALL-TIME 
HIGHMENT. 
>> CONSUMERS ARE HUNGRY FOR 
ALTERNATIVE CONTENT. 
SARAH FISHER TOOK A LOOK AT HOW 
THE SO-CALLED TRUMP EFFECT IS 
CHANGING THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE, 
AND SARAH JOINS US NOW WITH 
MORE ON HER WEEKLY NEWSLETTER. 
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING 
US. 
SHEAS IN WASHINGTON. 
WHY EXACTLY ARE SOME COMPANIES 
STEPPING BACK A BIT FROM THEIR 
POLITICAL COVERAGE? 
>> Reporter: ANNE-MARIE, I 
THINK THEY REALIZE SOME OF 
THEIR VIEWERS ARE JUST OVER IT. 
THERE'S WALL TO WALL 
IMPEACHMENT COVERAGE. 
NOT JUST THE TRIAL, BUT EVEN 
BEFORE THE TRIALS. 
BEFORE THAT THERE WAS WALL TO 
WALL COVERAGE OF THE MOORE 
TRIAL. 
BEFORE THAT COMEY AND 
KAVANAUGH. 
I THINK PEOPLE ARE JUST OVER 
IT. 
SO THEY'RE HEARING FROM TWO 
DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES. 
ONE ADVERTISERS ARE OVER IT. 
ADVERTISERS HAVE BEEN SAYING TO 
NETWORKS, LOOK, WE DON'T WANT 
TO BE AROUND AS MUCH POLITICAL  
CONTENT, AND IF WE DO HAVE AN 
AD, CAN YOU TRY TO SPACE IT 
AWAY FROM SOME CANDIDATES' ADS? 
THE OTHER CONSTITUENCY IS IS 
THE VIEWERS THEMSELVES. 
YOU HAVE PEOPLE ONLINE, AND 
WATCHING TV, WHO COMPLAIN 
THEY'RE JUST GETTING TOO MANY 
POLITICAL ADS, AND THAT THEY'RE 
SICK OF POLITICAL COVERAGE. 
TO THAT END, WE'RE STARTING TO 
SEE RATINGS DIP. 
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST FEW 
DEBATES, FEWER PEOPLE ARE 
TUNING IN THAN THEY DID IN THE 
BEGINNING. 
>> I WONDER, WHEN IT COMES TO 
ADVERTISERS, IS IT ALSO THE 
FACT THAT WE SEEM TO BE VERY, 
VERY PARTISAN RIGHT NOW? 
SO SOME OF THE ISSUES WOULD BE 
DURING A DIFFERENT TIME THAT 
WOULDN'T BE DIVISIVE ISSUES, 
THIRD RAIL ISSUES HAVE SUDDENLY 
BECOME THAT, SO ADVERTISERS 
WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. 
>> I THINK THAT'S A HUGE PART 
OF IT. 
THE PARTISAN VITRIOL HAS MADE 
TIS A REALLY BAD ENVIRONMENT 
FOR ADVERTISERS. 
ESPECIALLY FOR ONES WHO DON'T 
HAVE SORT OF POLARIZING 
MESSAGING. 
I THINK ABOUT A LOT OF THE 
CONSUMER PACKAGE GOOD 
COMPANIES, PEOPLE SELLING 
THINGS LIKE TOOTHPASTE, AND 
TOILET PAPER. 
THESE ARE BIPARTISAN PRODUCTS. 
THEY DON'T WANT TO BE NEXT TO 
PEOPLE SCREAMING ABOUT 
HEALTHCARE, OR SCREAMING ABOUT 
THE ELECTION, SO THE DIFFICULT 
THING HERE IS THAT YOU WOULD 
WANT TO SAY TO THEM, LOOK, GO 
SOMEWHERE ELSE, DON'T MESSAGE 
AROUND NEWS CONTENT, THE 
PROBLEM IS, ANN, AND VLAD, 
EVERYTHING HAS BECOME NEWS 
CONTEMPT. 
YOU HEAR THEM SAY IF THEY WANT 
TO RUN THE OLYMPICS OR THE 
SUPER BOWL, WE KNOW POLITICAL 
ADVERTISEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE 
THERE AS WELL. 
SO THIS HAS BEEN A TRAP FOR 
THOSE ADVERTISERS THAT DON'T 
WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN 
POLITICS. 
>> I THINK BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE 
MEDIA WORLD, WE SOMETIMES HAVE 
AN OUTSIZED PERCEPTION OF THE 
ROLE THAT POLITICAL COVERAGE 
PLAYS. 
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE 
AGGREGATED NUMBERS OF VIEWERS 
WHO WATCH THE CABLE NETWORKS, 
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CABLE NEWS 
NETWORKS, AND YOU COMPARE THAT 
WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FINALE 
OF THE BIG BANG THEORY BACK IN 
MAY, THEY GOT 18 MILLION 
VIEWERS ON THAT NIGHT. 
THERE'S NO CABLE NEWS SHOW 
RUNNING 24 HOUR COVERAGE OF 
POLITICS EVEN GETTING ANYWHERE 
NEAR THAT NUMBER. 3
MOST OF THE TOP RATED SHOWS IN 
CABLE NEWS GET AN AVERAGE OF A 
MILLION VIEWERS IN JUST A DEMO. 
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
OF COURSE, AMERICA'S PAST TIME, 
FOOTBALL, IS BY FAR THE MOST 
HIGHLY RATED EVENT ON 
TELEVISION. 
WHENEVER WE'VE HAD BREAKING 
NEWS ON A SUNDAY, FOOTBALL HAS 
TENDED TO OUTBEAT IT EVERY 
SINGLE TIME. 
I THINK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE 
BEGINNING IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS 
WHERE PEOPLE WERE SAYING 
VIEWERSHIP IS NOT THAT BAD. 
13MILLION, 11 MILLION PEOPLE 
WATCHING. 
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT 
PEOPLE ARE WATCHING FOR THE 
AVERAGE SUNDAY NIGHT GAME, 
THAT'S A LIVELY GAME, YOU'RE 
LOOKING AT 20 MILLION PEOPLE. 
SO YOU'RE DEAD ON, THAT THIS IS 
NOT WHAT AMERICA IS FOCUSED ON. 
AT LEAST NOT WHAT THE MAJORITY 
OF THE COUNTRY IS FOCUSED ON 
NOW. 
I THINK FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE 
TRYING TO MARKET TO THE 
MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY, BEING 
AROUND POLITICAL CONTENT IS NOT 
WHAT IS GOING TO GET THEM TO 
PUSH THEIR POLITICS THROUGH. 
>> "60 MINUTES" ROUTINELY GETS 
15 MILLION VIEWERS. 
PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN HIGH 
QUALITY NEWS, A GOOD STORY, 
WELL TOLD. 
WHAT MAYBE YOU'RE NOTICING IN 
YOUR ANALYSIS IS THAT PEOPLE 
ARE GETTING TIRED OF THE SAME 
PANELS, OF THE SAME THINGS 
BEING REPEATED HOUR AFTER HOUR 
AFTER HOUR. 
>> Reporter: YEAH, I THINK IT'S 
THE VITRIOL, ESPECIALLY WHEN 
YOU LOOK AT BREAKING NEWS THAT 
DOESN'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY DO 
WITH POLITICS. 
IT GOES AFTER THE CHARTS. 
I THINK ABOUT THE MH370 PLANE. 
THE THAI BOYS STUCK IN THE 
CAVE. 
BREAKING NEWS AROUND THINGS 
LIKE HURRICANE GETS LOTS OF 
VIEWERSHIP. 
BUT WHAT'S NOT GETTING A LOT OF 
CONSISTENT HIGH BUMPS IS THIS 
POLITICS CONTINUED. 
IT'S THE SAME TYPE OF PARTISAN 
BICKERING, IT'S THE SAME TYPE 
OF PEOPLE ON CAPITOL HILL, YOU 
KNOW, WITH THE SAME TYPE OF 
MESSAGES, AND I THINK PEOPLE AT 
THIS POINT HAVE HEARD IT, AND 
THEY'RE SAYING ENOUGH. 
>> IT'S ACTUALLY NOT JUST US, 
RIGHTS? 
THE BRITS ARE ARE KIND OF OVER 
IT TOO. 
WHAT DOES SKY NEWS DO IN THE 
MIDDLE OF ALL THAT BREXIT 
CONTENT. 
>> Reporter: IT MAKES ME FEEL A 
LITTLE BETTER IT'S NOT JUST US. 
SKY NETWORKS CREATED A BREXIT 
FREE CHANNEL FOR THOSE WHO ARE 
IN THE UK, WHO ARE JUST SO SICK 
OF HEARING ABOUT BREXIT. 
THE TREND HERE, LARGELY IS THAT 
PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK OF 
PARTISAN POLITICS AND BICKERING 
AROUND THE WORLD, IT'S NOT JUST 
THE U.S., IT'S EVERYWHERE. 
WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT'S 
COMING NEXT FOR THE 2020 
ELECTION, I DON'T EXPECT ANY 
MORE BIG SPIKES IN VIEWERSHIP, 
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT 
DOESN'T MAKE ME AS CONCERNED 
KNOWING IT'S NOT JUST A U.S. 
PROBLEM. 
>> IF YOU'RE A CABLE VIEWER AND 
LOOKING FOR HIGH QUALITY NEWS 
CONTENT, LIKE THE DISCUSSION 
WE'RE HAVING WITH YOU RIGHT 
NOW, YOU CAN STREAM CBSN. 
THROW TO COMMERCIAL. 
>> SARAH FISHER, GREAT TALKING 
TO YOU, THANKS. 
>> Reporter: THANK YOU. 
>>> IN HEALTH WATCH, A PRO 
VACCINATION SOCIAL MEDIA POST 
LEADS TO THREATS AGAINST AN 
OHIO DOCTOR. 
THE BACKLASH IS RELATED TO HER 
STATEMENT POSTED ON TIKTOK 
CHALLENGING THE CONNECTION 
BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM. 
>> IT COMES AS A RECENT POLL 
FINDS 46% OF AMERICANS ARE 
STILL UNSURE ABOUT THIS 
DEBUNKED ASSOCIATION. 
DR.JON LAPOOK SPOKE WITH THE 
PEDIATRICIAN ABOUT HER POST AND 
THE FALLOUT. 
>> WE KNOW THAT VACCINES DON'T 
CAUSE AUTISM, AND IT'S 
IMPORTANT FOR THAT MESSAGE TO 
GET OUT THERE. 
>> 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 
BECAME TARGETS. 
>> I HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A 
TSUNAMI OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS ON 
ALL OF MY SOCIAL MEDIA. 
THERE HAVE BEEN NEGATIVE, 
FRAUDULENT REVIEWS. 
>> Reporter: ONE SOCIAL MEDIA 
USER CALLED BALDWIN PUBLIC 
ENEMY NUMBER ONE. 
ANOTHER COMMENTER TOLD THE 
PEDIATRICIAN TO STOP KILLING 
OUR KIDS WITH VACCINES. 
EVEN THOUGH THE OVERWHELMING 
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THAT 
VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM. 
16% OF PARENTS WITH CHILDREN 
UNDER THAN 18 SAY THEY STILL 
BELIEVE VACCINES CAUSE MORE 
HARM THAN GOOD. 
>> ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE 
HAVE IN THE ERA OF THE INTERNET 
IS THERE IS VERY LITTLE 
RECOURSE. 
>> Reporter: A TECHNICAL 
RESEARCH DIRECTOR AT THE 
STANFORD INVENTORY. 
>> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE COST 
OF PHYSICIANS PUTTING OUT 
STATEMENTS TO COUNTER 
MISINFORMATION IS THAT THEY 
THEMSELVES BECOME THE SUBJECT 
OF HARASSMENT CAMPAIGNS, OF 
REPUTATION HARMING CAMPAIGNS, 
OF MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS. 
>> Reporter: IN RECENT MONTHS, 
CONGRESS HAS GRILLED 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 WIDER 
PUBLIC SAFETY. 
AS FOR BALDWIN, SHE SAYS SHE'S 
STANDING BY HER MESSAGE. 
>> I'M NOT TAKING MY POSTS 
DOWN. 
I'M NOT GOING TO BE BULLIED 
INTO SUBMISSION. 
>>> IN MONEY WATCH, UBER IS 
TESTING A FEATURE THAT GIVES 
SOME DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA THE 
ABILITY TO SET THEIR OWN FARES. 
THIS MOVE IS AN ATTEMPT TO GIVE 
MORE DRIVERS CONTROL IN 
RESPONSE TO THE STATE'S GIG 
ECONOMY LAW. 
THE NEW LEGISLATION REQUIRES 
COMPANIES TO TREAT THEIR 
WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES, INSTEAD 
OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 
THEY HAVE RAISED MORE THAN $10 
BILLION FOR A PLANNED BAIL OUT 
INITIATIVE THIS YEAR, ASKING 
THAT VOTERS EXEMPT THOSE 
COMPANIES FROM THE BILL. 
>>> TESLA IS DISPUTING 
UNACCEPTED ACCELERATION IN 
THEIR VEHICLES. 
AT ISSUE ARE ROUGHLY 500,000 
VEHICLES MADE FROM 2013 TO 
2019. 
A PETITION CLAIMS THERE WERE 
100 COMPLAINTS OF SUDDEN 
ACCELERATION. 
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION SAYS IT 
WILL REVIEW THE PETITION, AND 
DECIDE WHETHER TO LAUNCH A FULL 
INVESTIGATION. 
>>> GOOGLE, AND ALPHABET CEO IS 
CALLING FOR REGULATION OF 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. 
IN AN OP-ED, HE WROTE ABOUT THE 
IMPORTANCE OF HAVING GOVERNMENT 
OVERSIGHT. 
HIS COMMENTS COME AS 
GOVERNMENTS AND LAWMAKERS 
CONSIDER PUTTING LIMITS ON HOW 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS 
USED. 
>>> JB OVER HERE, MAKING US 
LAUGH, BECAUSE IT IS TIME FOR 
TUESDAY MORNING QUARTERBACK. 
EVERY TUESDAY, SPECIAL 
CORRESPONDENT, AND HOST, JAMES 
BROWN BRINGS US HIS TOP STORIES 
OF THE WEEK. 
>> AND WE HAVE HIM RIGHT HERE. 
>> HE'S RIGHT HERE, CRACKING US 
UP. 
>> I ASK YOU GUYS PLEASE TELL 
ME WHO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
>> YOU HAVE BEEN ON LIKE A 
WHIRL WIND SCHEDULE. 
YOU WERE IN KANSAS CITY. 
>> AFTER A 14 HOUR ODYSSEY TO 
GET THERE. 
>> DO NOT ENVY YOU. 
>> HOW COLD WAS IT, JB? 
>> I LOOK LIKE A FROZEN BLACK 
LICORICE STICK OUT THERE. 
>> RUMORS YOU HAD AN OLD LADY 
BLANKET ON. 
>> HE WAS GETTING TEXTS AND 
TWEETS, BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT 
HE WAS ELTON JOHN. 
>> HOLDING THAT MICROPHONE, 
THAT IS ALL METAL. 
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW HOW COLD THAT 
GETS. 
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW THICK 
YOUR GLOVES ARE, YOU FEEL IT. 
>> I COULDN'T MOVE THE SCRIPT 
AROUND. 
TOO, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT 
THIS POINT, THERE'S NO SUCH 
THING AS HANDSOME OR CUTE 
ASSOCIATED WITH ME AT ALL. 
BUT I THOUGHT THE TEENY AFRO 
WOULD GET MY HEAD WARM. 
>> WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THE 
UPCOMING SUPER BOWL. 
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, THE KANSAS 
CITY CHIEFS. 
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CHIEFS 
FIRST. 
YOU WERE IN KANSAS CITY FOR 
THEIR FIRST BIG WIN. 
>> I TRY TO KEEP A BIG PICTURE. 
THAT KANSAS CITY OFFENSE, THEIR 
TEAM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A 
GOLD MEDAL OLYMPIC TRACK TEAM. 
THEY'VE GOT SPEED EVERYWHERE. 
THEY'RE PLAYING WELL. 
THE DEFENSE HAS IMPROVED, BUT 
MAKE NO MISTAKE IT ALL CENTERS 
AROUND PATRICK MAHOMES. 
I LOVE MY PRODUCER ALVIN 
PATRICK'S WORD,  PRE-NATURAL. 
THIS GUY IS GIFTED. 
HE'S ONLY 24 YEARS OF AGE, AND 
HE FIRES EVERYONE UP. 
HE'S GIFTED. 
>> THEY'RE HUNGRY. 
IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE 
THEY'VE BEEN TO THE SUPER BOWL. 
THEY'RE HUNGRIER THAN THE 
49ERS, WHICH THEY'RE PLAYING. 
>> YOU TALK ABOUT A LONG TIME. 
IT'S BEEN 50 YEARS, AND THE 
KANSAS CITY FANS HAVE BEEN 
WAITING 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'VE HAD SOME OUTSTANDING 
ICONIC PLAYERS IN THAT TIME, 
BUT IT JUST SHOWS HOW HARD IT 
IS TO GET BACK THERE. 
YOU DON'T TAKE THAT FOR 
GRANTED. 
ANDY REID, THE COACH IS ONE 
THAT EVERYONE IN AMERICA IS 
PULLING FOR. 
PERHAPS THE MOST DECORATED 
COACH IN THE LEAGUE WHO HAS 
NEVER WON A SUPER BOWL. 
HE'S BEEN THERE BEFORE. 
BUT HE GETS ANOTHER SHOT AT IT. 
AND PEOPLE ARE PULLING FOR HIM. 
>> LET ME THROW OUT A HISTORIC 
NUGGET. 
ONE OF THE MOST COLORFUL 
COACHES IN HISTORY, HANK STRAM. 
>> LET'S MATRICULATE THE BALL 
DOWN THE FIELD. 
>> HE HAD ALL OF THESE WEIRD 
SAYINGS. 
>> HE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A 
PLAYER PLAY FOR HIM, VLAD, AND 
ANNE-MARIE, BACK IN THE DAY, 
WHO WAS WAY OVERWEIGHT, AND 
PEOPLE WERE SAYING, YOU OUGHT 
TO GET HIM IN SHAPE. 
HE SAID NO, I'LL GET HIM IN 
SHAPE ON THE FIELD. 
HE WAS LIKE A RUNAWAY MANHOLE 
COVER. 
>> WHAT ABOUT THE 49ERS, WHAT 
DO YOU SEE IN THEM? 
>> GIFTED. 
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY 
PROGNOSTICATOR WHO HAD THEM ANY 
HERE THAN 20s COMING INTO THE 
SEASON. 
THEY ARE THE DEEPEST, THE BEST, 
THE MOST TALENTED TEAM. 
DEFENSIVELY, THEY'VE GOT 
ATHLETES WHO ARE BIG, STRONG, 
FAST, AND RELENTLESS, AND THEY 
HARASSED AARON RODGERS, THE 
HALLER FAMER TO BE LAST 
WEEKEND. 
THESE GUYS ARE TOUGH. 
>> JB, BEFORE WE WRAP THIS UP, 
I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT 
SOMETHING OFF THE FIELD. 
THE NFL IS HAVING SOME 
DIFFICULTIES. 
SOME ISSUES WITH DIVERSIFYING 
ITS HEAD COACHING RANKS. 
RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE ONLY FOUR 
MINORITY HEAD COACHES OUT OF 32 
TEAMS. 
THIS IS A LEAGUE WHERE 70% OF 
THE ATHLETES ARE MINORITIES. 
>> YOU WOULD THINK THAT 
FOOTBALL IS THE ULTIMATE 
MERITOCRACY, ESPECIALLY WITH 
WHAT THE PLAYERS DO ON THE 
FIELD. 
YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ALSO IN 
THE UPPER REACHES OF THE 
ORGANIZATION. 
NOT UNLIKE HERE IN SOCIETY IN 
GENERAL, THAT WOMEN, YOU KNOW, 
THE AGE, THEY BRING GIFTS TO 
THE TABLE. 
HERE'S THE BEST WAY I WANT TO 
DEAL WITH IT, BECAUSE WE ALL 
KNOW WHAT THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN, 
AND IT'S BEEN REPEATED. 
'03WAS WHEN THE ROONEY RULE WAS 
INSTITUTED, RIGHT MOVE TO TAKE, 
BUT TEAMS ARE ABUSING IT. 
YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE LOVE, BUT 
TALENT COMES IN ALL SIZES. 
>> THANK YOU JB. 
>>> COMING UP IN OUR NEXT HOUR, 
SENATORS PREPARE FOR OPENING 
ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESIDENT'S 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
WE'VE GOT A LOOK AT WHAT YOU 
CAN EXPECT. 
>> PLUS THE CBS NEWS EXCLUSIVE, 
WITH SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS. 
WHY HE'S APOLOGIZING TO FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. 
>>> AND THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS 
IN THE  ONGOING CORONAVIRUS IN 
CHINA. 
WHY THEY'RE NOW SAYING IT CAN 
BE TRANSMITTED PERSON TO 
PERSON. 
>>>  HELLO EVERYONE.  
I'M VLADIMIR DUTHIERS.  
ANNE-MARIE GREEN WILL JOIN ME 
IN A MOMENT.  
WE ARE 
ABOUT AN HOUR AWAY FROM HISTORY 
UNFOLDING ON CAPITOL 
HILL WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL 
SOON BEGIN.  
HERE IS A LOOK AT CAPITOL HILL 
WERE 
MITCH MCCONNELL WILL SOON 
INTRODUCE THE PROPOSED 
RULES FOR THE TRIAL.  
A LENGTHY DEBATE AMONG 
LAWMAKERS IS EXPECTED TO FOLLOW 
BEFORE OPENING 
ARGUMENTS.  
IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS IN 
DAVOS, SWITZERLAND ATTENDING 
THE WORLD ECONOMIC 
FORUM BUT THE IMPEACHMENT 
SHOWDOWN IN WASHINGTON IS 
EXPECTED TO OVERSHADOW HIS 
VISIT.  
KATHERINE JOHNSON 
HAS THE LATEST FROM CAPITOL HILL
. 
>> REPORTER:  A FIGHT IS 
BREWING IN THE U.S. SENATE 
OVER HOW THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
SHOULD PROCEED.  
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH 
MCCONNELL UNVEILED THE 
RESOLUTION THAT WILL BE 
ARGUED TODAY, LAYING OUT RULES 
FOR THE TRIAL.  
THE 
PROPOSAL SAYS EACH SIDE WILL 
HAVE 24 HOURS COME OVER 
TWO DAYS FOR OPENING ARGUMENTS. 
THAT WILL BE 
FOLLOWED BY 16 HOURS OF 
QUESTIONING BY SENATORS.  
ONLY THEN CAN THEY DEBATE AND 
VOTE ON WHETHER TO 
HAVE WITNESSES. 
>>  IT ASKS THE SENATE TO 
SPRINT THROUGH THE TRIAL 
AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AND IT 
MAKES GETTING EVIDENCE AS 
HARD AS POSSIBLE. 
>>  MAJORITY LEADER MITCH 
MCCONNELL SAID HE USED 
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL AS A MODEL FOR 
THIS ONE.  BUT ONE BIG 
DIFFERENCE IS THAT NONE OF 
THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING 
THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY WILL BE ADMITTED 
AUTOMATICALLY.  
THE SENATE 
WILL HAVE TO VOTE TO ENTER IT.
>>  OPENING ARGUMENTS ARE 
EXPECTED TO GET UNDERWAY 
TOMORROW WITH BOTH THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS AND PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM SLAMMING THE 
PROCESS.  
THE 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 FOR A RIGGED TRIAL. 
IT IS THE PROCESS 
IF YOU DON'T WANT THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE TO SEE THE 
EVIDENCE. 
>>  IN A LEGAL BRIEF, THE 
PRESIDENT'S TEAM CALLS 
THE CASE AGAINST HIM FLIMSY END 
OF BRAZENLY 
POLITICAL ACT AND THE RESULT OF 
A RIGGED PROCESS.  
THE TRIAL IS EXPECTED TO LAST 
SEVERAL WEEKS.  
KATHERINE JOHNSON, CAPITOL HILL
. 
>>>  60 MINUTES CORRESPONDENT 
AND SENIOR POLITICAL 
ANALYST JOHN DICKERSON COVERED 
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL 
CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN 
1999 AND JOINED CBS 
THIS MORNING WITH MORE ON WHAT 
VIEWERS CAN EXPECT 
FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SENATE 
TRIAL. 
>>  SENATOR MCCONNELL LAID OUT 
GROUND RULES FOR 
WHAT HE HOPES TO BE A SPEEDY 
TRIAL.  
HE APPARENTLY 
HAS COORDINATED THESE WITH THE 
WHITE HOUSE.  
WHAT 
ARE THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF 
HIS 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 REWARDS.  
FOR 
REPUBLICANS, THEY ARE BIG FANS 
OF THIS PRESIDENT.  
IF YOU COME AS A REPUBLICAN, 
ARE SEEN AS DEFENDING 
THIS PRESIDENT AND KEEPING THE 
DEMOCRATS FROM TRYING 
TO HURT YOUR PRESIDENT, THEN 
YOU GET POLITICAL 
REWARDS WITH YOUR REPUBLICAN 
BASE.  
THE DOWNSIDE IS 
THAT REPUBLICANS LOOK LIKE 
ENABLERS.  
THEY LOOK LIKE 
THEY RUSHED THE PROCESS THROUGH 
AND THEY PROTECTED 
THE PRESIDENT WHO HAD DONE 
SOMETHING WRONG AND DID 
NOT WANT TO INVESTIGATE IF HE 
HAD DONE SOMETHING 
WRONG AND THAT PUTS THEM ON THE 
HOOK FOR FUTURE 
PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR.  
IF THEY ARE SEEN AS ENABLERS 
AND THE PRESIDENT GOES ON TO DO 
SOMETHING THAT 
PEOPLE FIND OBJECTIONABLE, THEN 
PROPONENTS WILL SAY 
THAT YOU ENABLE THE BEHAVIOR. 
>>  THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF 
REPUBLICANS HERE THAT 
COULD BE CRITICAL IN DECIDING 
WHETHER THERE ARE 
WITNESSES IN THIS CASE OR 
WHETHER THERE IS MORE 
EVIDENCE.  
TALK ABOUT THE POSITION THERE 
AND THERE 
ARE MODERATES THAT HAVE TOUGH 
REELECTION FIGHTS 
COMING UP IN THE FALL. 
>>  THEY ARE IN A DIFFICULT 
POSITION FOR THIS 
REASON.  
A NEW CNN POLL SAID 51% OF THE 
COUNTRY SAYS 
THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD 
BE REMOVED AND 58% 
THINKS THE PRESIDENT DID 
SOMETHING WRONG.  
THE 
COUNTRY ESSENTIALLY THINKS 
THERE SHOULD BE A PROCESS 
HERE THAT IS A LITTLE MORE 
EXTENDED.  
THAT IS NOT 
THE REPUBLICAN POSITION AT THE 
MOMENT.  
THESE 
MODERATES HAVE TO WEIGH BETWEEN 
THE ESIDENT'S 
POSITION WHICH IS THAT HE DID 
NOTHING WRONG AT ALL 
AND WHERE THEY LIKELY ARE WHICH 
IS THAT HE MAY HAVE 
DONE SOMETHING WRONG BUT IT IS 
NOT IMPEACHABLE.  
THEY HAVE TO RIDE THOSE TWO 
HORSES BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT'S POSITION AND THEIR 
POSITION ALL THE WAY 
TO ELECTION DAY. 
>>  IF THEY SAY HE PUT THE 
PRESSURE BUT IS NOT 
IMPEACHABLE, DO THEY HAVE 
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS TO 
STAND ON TO ADMIT, HE HAD 
PRESSURE BUT IT IS NOT 
ENOUGH TO REMOVE HIM FROM 
OFFICE? 
>>  THE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND 
WILL BE SOMETHING TO 
FIGHT OVER.  
BOTH SIDES WILL TRY TO FIGURE 
OUT WHAT 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL TURF IS AND 
WE WILL HEAR A LOT 
ABOUT THAT.  
THE CONSTITUTION IS A LITTLE 
MUSHY ON 
THE QUESTION OF IMPEACHMENT BUT 
WHEN YOU READ THE 
DEBATES OF THAT HOT SUMMER IN 
PHILADELPHIA, THEY 
WERE JITTERY ABOUT POWER.  
THE QUESTION OF ABUSE OF 
POWER IS AT THE CENTER OF WHAT 
THE FRAMERS WERE 
WORRIED ABOUT AND THE REASON 
THEY WORRY ABOUT POWER 
IS BECAUSE THEY CALLED IT A 
CANCER AND THEY FELT 
LIKE IF YOU GAVE SOMEBODY 
POWER, THE INCLINATION OF 
THE HUMAN SPIRIT WOULD BE TO 
ABUSE IT.  
THAT WAS 
JUST NATURAL.  
SO THERE HAD TO BE THESE CHECKS 
ON 
IT.  
THAT IS WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS 
ABOUT.  
LEAVING 
ASIDE IF THE PRESIDENT IS 
GUILTY OR NOT, THAT IS 
WHAT THEY WERE THE MOST 
CONCERNED ABOUT AND THAT IS 
REALLY WHERE THIS CONVERSATION 
SHOULD TAKE PLACE. 
>>  THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN IN 
1776 AT HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS DID NOT REFER 
TO ACTUAL LEGAL 
QUESTIONS BUT RATHER TO 
JUDGMENT CALLS.  
IMPEACHMENTS HAVE HAPPENED OVER 
INSANITY, 
DRUNKENNESS, PURE MISMANAGEMENT 
THROUGHOUT THE 
HISTORY.  
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WHO 
WILL DEFEND 
HIM ON THESE GROUNDS HAVE GOT 
KEN STARR AND ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ AMONG OTHERS.  
WHAT YOU MAKE OF THE TEAM? 
>>  WANT TO WATCH THE 
IMPEACHMENT WE SHOULD THINK 
ABOUT THE DIFFERENT AUDIENCES 
OUT THERE.  
THERE ARE 
AUDIENCES OF THE SENATORS IN 
THE ROOM AND THERE IS A 
TELEVISION AUDIENCE AND THE 
BASE AUDIENCE OF THE 
REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE 
DEMOCRAT PARTY.  
ALL THE 
AUDIENCES, SOME LAWYERS ARE 
PICKED FOR THE AT HOME 
VIEWING AUDIENCE.  
AND THEY ARE CONDITIONED TO 
SPEAKING TO THAT AUDIENCE AND 
HAVE BEEN DOING IT ON 
TELEVISION FOR YEARS AND THAT 
IS PART OF IT. 
>>  WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE 
COUNTRY? 
>>  THE OUTCOME IS KNOWN.  
WE KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN 
IN THE END. 
>>  YOU WILL BE ACQUITTED.  
SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN 
SHEPHERDS WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT 
THIS IS AN 
OPPORTUNITY JUST BASICALLY 
BECAUSE IT IS AN ELECTION 
YEAR, THIS IS A LOOK AT THIS 
PRESIDENT AND THE WAY 
HE OPERATES.  
IT IS A CENTRAL QUESTION OF OUR 
GOVERNMENT, WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT CAN USE HIS POWER 
FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES.  
THAT IS WHAT IS AT ISSUE.  
IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BUT THAT 
IS THE CENTRAL 
QUESTION AND IT GOES TO THE 
HEART OF THE GOVERNMENT 
PICKED AS THE PERSON GIVEN 
POWER ON BEHALF OF THE 
PEOPLE USE IT WISELY?  
IT MATTERS HERE NOT JUST WITH 
RESPECT TO IF HE IS IMPEACHED.  
WE THINK HE WILL BE 
ACQUITTED.  
BUT WHETHER HE GETS REELECTED 
AND 
WHETHER PEOPLE WOULD LIKE FOUR 
MORE YEARS OF THE 
BEHAVIOR THAT WILL BE LAID OUT 
IN THE COURSE OF THE 
SENATE TRIAL. 
>>  THANK YOU.  
I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD POINT OUT 
TO 
THE IMPEACHMENTS I WAS POINTING 
OUT WERE FOR JUDGES.  
THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PRESIDENT 
IMPEACHED FOR 
DRUNKENNESS. 
>>  THE PREVIEW COVERAGE OF THE 
HISTORIC SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS AT 
12:30 P.M. 
EASTERN.  
FULL COVERAGE FOLLOWS AT 1:00 
P.M.  
YOU CAN KEEP UP 
WITH THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 
THE SENATE TRIAL ANY 
TIME BY VISITING OUR LIVE BLOG 
ON CBS BECAUSE IT HAS 
NEWS.COM/IMPEACHMENT. 
>>>  THE SUPREME COURT HAS 
DECLINED A FAST-TRACK A 
LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE 
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.  
EARLIER 
THIS MONTH, 19 BLUE STATES ASK 
THE COURT FOR A QUICK 
DECISION.  
THEY ARE APPEALING A RULING BY 
A FEDERAL 
APPEALS COURT LATE LAST YEAR 
THAT SAID THE 
AFFORDABLE CORRECT'S INDIVIDUAL 
MANDATE IS 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  
THEY ASK THE COURT TO TAKE THE 
CASE AND HEAR IT ON APRIL 26th. 
THAT IS THE LAST 
SCHEDULED DAY FOR ORAL 
ARGUMENTS THIS TERM.  
TODAY'S 
ORDER REJECTED THAT REQUEST.  
THIS LIKELY MEANS NO 
DECISION AND THE CHALLENGE WILL 
BE HANDED DOWN 
BEFORE THIS YEAR'S ELECTION. 
>>>  TO A DEVASTATING STORY OUT 
OF ARIZONA WHERE 
OFFICIALS SAY A MOTHER HAS 
ADMITTED TO KILLING HER 
THREE YOUNG CHILDREN.  
THE PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT 
SAID ON TWITTER THAT A 22-YEAR-
OLD WOMAN RECENTLY 
MOVED TO ARIZONA FROM OKLAHOMA. 
THE CRIME TOOK 
PLACE IN THE FAMILY'S HOME 
MONDAY NIGHT.  
POLICE SAY 
THERE WERE NO OBVIOUS SIGNS OF 
TRAUMA ON THE 
CHILDREN AND THEY WERE ALL 
UNDER THE AGE OF FOUR.
>>>  ABROAD, NORTH KOREA SAYS 
IT NO LONGER FEELS 
BOUND BY ITS NUCLEAR 
COMMITMENTS BECAUSE THE U.S. 
DID NOT MEET THE DEADLINE TO 
RESUME TALKS.  
NORTH 
KOREA COMMITTED TO STOPPING 
NUCLEAR TESTING AND 
PREVIOUS NEGOTIATIONS BUT TALKS 
BETWEEN THE TWO 
SIDES COLLAPSED FOLLOWING A 
FAILED SUMMIT BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP A 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 
U.S. CONTINUES TO IMPOSE 
SANCTIONS ON THE COUNTRY.
>>>  THE FORMER HEAD OF 
INTERPOL IS FACING MORE 
THAN 13 YEARS IN PRISON.  
LAST YEAR MENG HONGWEI 
PLED GUILTY TO ACCEPTING MORE 
THAN $2 MILLION IN 
BRIBES WHEN HE HELD POSTS IN 
CHINA'S COMMUNIST PARTY 
FROM 2005 UNTIL 2017.  
I 2017, MENG HONGWEI WAS 
ELECTED PRESIDENT OF INTERPOL, 
THE POLICE 
ORGANIZATION, BUT HIS TENURE 
WAS CUT SHORT WHEN HE 
SEEMINGLY VANISHED DURING A 
TRIP TO CHINA IN 2018.  
HE RESURFACED IN 2019 AND WAS 
DETAINED AS PART OF 
PRESIDENT'S XI'S DRIVE TOWARD 
CORRUPTION.  
FRANCE 
GRANTED HIS WIFE AFTER THEY 
SAID THEY WOULD BE 
FEARED TARGETS OF KIDNAPPING 
ATTEMPTS. 
>>>  AND AN INDEPENDENT 
COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY 
THE GOVERNMENT'S OUT FOUND 
SECURITY FORCES COMMITTED 
WAR CRIMES DURING 
COUNTERINSURGENCY OPERATIONS 
AGAINST MUSLIMS.  
BUT THEY A COMMISSION STOP 
SHORT 
OF ACCUSING THE TROOPS OF 
GENOCIDE.  
A MILITARY 
CAMPAIGN WAS LAUNCHED AGAINST 
THE PEOPLE IN AUGUST 
OF 2017 AND FORCED MORE THAN 
700,000 PEOPLE TO 
ESCAPE TO NEIGHBORING 
BANGLADESH.  
THE NEWS COMES 
DAYS BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS 
TOP COURT IS SET TO 
RULE ON WHETHER TO IMPOSE 
URGENT MEASURES TO STOP 
THE ALLEGED CONTINUING GENOCIDE
.  . 
>>>  AND REPORTING ON HOW 
TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL 
MEDIA HELPED FUEL THE VIOLENCE. 
CHECK OUT THE 
DOCUMENTARY OF WOMANIZING  --  
WEAPON ICING SOCIAL 
MEDIA. 
>>>  THE WORLD'S LARGEST MINING 
COMPANIES OF THE 
BUSHFIRES AND AUSTRALIA HAVE 
HURT ITS COAL 
PRODUCTION.  
GROUPS SAY POOR AIR QUALITY 
CAUSED BY 
SMOKE HAS FORCED MACHINES TO 
OPERATE MORE SLOWLY.  
THE COMPANY ALSO SAID STAFF HAS 
TAKEN TIME OFF TO 
PROTECT THEIR OWN PROPERTY FROM 
FIRES EARLIER THIS 
MORNING ON CBSN A.M., ANNE-
MARIE GREEN SPOKE WITH 
MICHAEL MANN AN, THE DIRECTOR 
OF THE EARTH SYSTEM 
SCIENCE CENTER AND STUDYING THE 
FIRES ON THE GROUND 
AND AUSTRALIA. 
>>  I CAME TO AUSTRALIA, AND 
PLANNED A SABBATICAL 
MORE THAN A YEAR AGO TO STUDY 
THE LINKAGES BETWEEN 
DID I REALIZE THAT I WOULD BE 
ARRIVING IN AUSTRALIA 
TO SEE WHAT IS PERHAPS THE MOST 
EXTREME WEATHER THEY 
HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED IN THE 
FORM OF THESE WILDFIRES
WILDFIRES.  
AND I HAVE SEEN THE IMPACT 
FIRSTHAND.  
I 
HAVE SEEN THE SMOKE IN THE AIR. 
I HAVE SMELLED THE 
SMOKE.  
I HAVE SEEN THE DAMAGE DONE BY 
THESE MASSIVE 
BUSHFIRES THAT HAVE BROKEN OUT 
ACROSS THE CONTINENT 
OF AUSTRALIA.  
AND IT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.  
YOU 
TAKE UNPRECEDENTED HEAT WHICH 
AUSTRALIA HAS SEEN THE 
SUMMER AND UNPRECEDENTED 
DROUGHT WHICH THEY HAVE 
SEEN AND YOU PUT IT TOGETHER.  
YOU WILL GET THESE 
SORTS OF MASSIVE FAST SPREADING 
EXTENSIVE BUSHFIRES.  
AND THIS WAS PREDICTED MORE 
THAN A DECADE AGO.  
CLIMATE SCINTISTS IN AUSTRALIA 
SAID THAT IF WE 
CONTINUE TO WARM THE PLANET BY 
PUTTING CARBON 
POLLUTION INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, 
AT THE CURRENT RATE 
WE ARE GOING, BY 2020, WE WILL 
BE ABLE TO SEE THE 
INCREASE IN SEVERITY AND EXTENT 
OF WILDFIRES ACROSS 
THE CONTINENT AND HERE WE ARE 
IN 2020 AND WE ARE 
SEEING IT.  
THEY PREDICTED IT.  
IT IS COMING TRUE.  
THE PREDICTIONS ARE THAT IF WE 
DON'T GET THIS 
PROBLEM UNDERHAND, THEN WE WILL 
SEE FAR MORE 
EXTENSIVE AND WORSE BUSHFIRES 
IN THE FUTURE.  
THE 
GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE CAN 
PREVENT IT FROM GETTING 
WORSE BUT WE ARE SORT OF STUCK 
RIGHT IN THE BEST 
CASE SCENARIO NEW NORMAL.  
SO THE LINK TO WHAT WE 
ARE SEEING AND CLIMATE CHANGE 
IS A NO-BRAINER.  
YOU 
MAY RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS 
INCREDIBLY HOT.  
BUT THE 
LINK BETWEEN HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND 
CLIMATE CHANGE, HE 
IS NOT CONVINCED OF.  
HERE HE IS IN HIS OWN BACKYARD 
AND I KNOW HE IS RECEIVING 
PRESSURE FROM PEOPLE WHO úLIVE  
THIS IS A TERRIBLE THING.  
DO YOU THINK EVENTS LIKE THIS, 
PARTICULARLY THE 
DRAMATIC IMAGES BEING BROADCAST 
ALL AROUND THE 
WORLD, THESE KOALA BEARS THAT 
ARE FRANTICALLY TRYING 
TO GET THEMSELVES TO SAFETY, DO 
YOU THINK THESE 
IMAGES AND THIS EVENT CAN SERVE 
TO SHIFT THE NEEDLE 
A LITTLE BIT?  
CAN YOU PUT PRESSURE ON 
POLITICIANS 
TO MAKE CHANGES? 
>>  I THINK SO.  
IN FACT, I DON'T THINK SCOTT 
MORRISON, THE PRIME MINISTER'S 
RHETORIC IS REALLY 
CONNECTING WITH PEOPLE.  
PEOPLE GET IT.  
THEY 
UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT THEY ARE 
SEEING IS SOMETHING 
THEY HAVE NOT SEEN BEFORE.  úTH 
DOTS.  
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 
OF COURSE THESE IMAGES 
OF KOALA BEARS AND OTHER 
ANIMALS THAT HAVE BEEN 
IMPACTED BY THESE UNPRECEDENTED 
BUSHFIRES, THIS IS 
SORT OF THE POSTER CHILD FOR 
CLIMATE CHANGE.  
IT IS 
SORT OF A POST- APOCALYPTIC 
VISION THAT IS GOING OUT 
TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.  
AND WHAT AUSTRALIA IS 
EXPERIENCING IS A CAUTIONARY 
TALE FOR WHAT WE WILL 
SEE AT LARGE IF WE DON'T DO 
SOMETHING ABOUT THE 
CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEM 
IMMEDIATELY. 
>>  I THINK WHAT IS CHALLENGING 
ABOUT THE SITUATION 
FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE IS 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 HAVE TO LOOK AT AND IT IS 
NOT ABOUT THE 
INDIVIDUAL WATER BOTTLE.  
BUT WHAT CAN INDIVIDUALS 
DO TO MAKE SOME SORT OF AN 
IMPACT HERE? 
>>  THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS 
WE CAN DO IN OUR 
EVERYDAY LIVES.  
SAVE ENERGY AND RECYCLE.  
BICYCLE 
TO WORK RATHER THAN DRIVE.  
A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN 
DO TO DECREASE THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT.  
AND 
THEY HELP WITH THIS LARGER 
PROBLEM.  
AND IT SETS A 
GOOD EXAMPLE FOR OTHERS.  
ULTIMATELY, IF WE ARE 
GOING TO TACKLE THIS PROBLEM, 
WE NEED SYSTEMIC 
CHANGE AND WE NEED POLICIES 
THAT WILL SHIFT US AWAY 
DRAMATICALLY FROM FOSSIL FUELS 
TOWARD RENEWABLE 
ENERGY AND WE NEED POLITICIANS 
THAT ARE WILLING TO 
SUPPORT THOSE POLICIES AND 
UNFORTUNATELY DONALD 
TRUMP IN THE U.S. AND SCOTT 
MORRISON AND AUSTRALIA 
ARE UNWILLING TO SUPPORT THOSE 
POLICIES.  
SO 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 RATHER THAN 
BEHALF OF THE FOSSIL FUEL 
INTEREST. 
>>  THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
>>  THANK YOU. 
>>>  WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 
QUICK BREAK.  
BUT A 
QUICK REMINDER THAT WE ARE A 
LITTLE OVER 15 MINUTES 
AWAY FROM THE PREVIEW OF THE 
HISTORIC SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WHICH WILL 
BEGIN AT 12:30 EASTERN.  
THE TRIAL ITSELF IS DUE TO 
BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. 
EASTERN.  
WE WILL HAVE FULL LIVE COVERAGE 
RIGHT HERE 
ON CBSN.  
AFTER THE BREAK, GETTING YOU 
CAUGHT UP ON 
THE OTHER NEWS WE ARE 
FOLLOWING.  
TO STAY US.  
YOU 
ARE STREAMING CBSN.  
CBS NEWS, ALWAYS ON.  
>>>  CHINESE OFFICIALS SAY THE 
CORONAVIRUS HAS 
KILLED SIX PEOPLE SPARKING A 
RENEWED URGENCY TO KEEP 
THE VIRUS CONTAINED.  
THE NEWS COMES AFTER AN EXPERT 
CONFIRMED THE VIRUS CAN BE 
TRANSPORTED HUAN TO 
HUMAN. 
>>  AND OFFICIALS ARE REPORTING 
THAT HE WOMAN IN 
TAIWAN HAS BEEN INFECTED AFTER 
A TRIP TO WUHAN, THE 
EPICENTER OF THE OUTBREAK.  
WE HAVE MORE ON THE 
LATEST. 
>> REPORTER:  OFFICIALS IN 
WUHAN HAVE DESIGNATED 
NINE HOSPITALS AS TREATMENT 
CENTERS INCLUDING THE 
ONE RIGHT BEHIND ME.  
THAT IS ON TOP OF 61 FEVER 
CLINICS AND AN EMERGENCY EXPERT 
TEAM.  
ONE PIECE OF 
GOOD NEWS IS THAT CHINESE 
SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THEY 
HAVE FIGURED OUT THE DNA 
SEQUENCE OF THE VIRUS THAT 
OPENS UP THE POSSIBILITY OF 
TREATMENT AND 
POTENTIALLY A VACCINE. 
>>  AS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF 
CHINESE RESIDENTS 
MIGRATE ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO 
RING IN THE LUNAR NEW 
YEAR, CONFIRMATION THE VIRUS 
CAN BE SPREAD BETWEEN 
HUMANS IT RAISES THE 
POSSIBILITY IT CAN BE 
TRANSMITTED MORE QUICKLY AND 
MORE BROADLY.  THAT 
POSES AN EVEN GREATER CHALLENGE 
FOR CHINA AND NEARBY 
NATIONS TO CONTAIN THE OUTBREAK
.  TRAVELERS WITH 
MASKS, QUARANTINE STATIONS AND 
TEMPERATURE 
CHECKPOINTS ARE BECOMING COMMON 
SITES AT AIRPORTS 
AND TRAIN HUBS ACROSS ASIA.  
THIS MAN WE SPOKE TO 
OUTSIDE OF A WUHAN HOSPITAL 
SAID 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 RISEN 
SHARPLY SINCE YESTERDAY, 
TOPPING 300 CASES IN CHINA 
ALONE.  
AT LEAST 15 HOSPITAL WORKERS IN 
WUHAN HAD 
BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH THE VIRUS. 
>>  IF, IN FACT, A PERSON HAS 
INFECTEDA HEALTHCARE 
WORKER, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY OF 
SOME CONCERN. 
>>  DOCTORS AT THE NATIONAL 
INSTITUTE OF HEALTH SAY 
THAT THE HUMAN TO HUMAN 
TRANSMISSIONS COULD BE 
ISOLATED INCIDENTS. 
>>  WHEN YOU GET SUSTAINED 
TRANSMISSIBILITY FROM 
ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER TO 
ANOTHER, THEN YOU HAVE A 
MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM BECAUSE 
THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW 
FOR A MUCH MORE BROAD TYPE OF 
AN OUTBREAK. 
>>  THE WORLD HEALTH 
ORGANIZATION SAYS THEY WILL 
ASSEMBLE AN EMERGENCY COMMITTEE 
OF EXPERTS.  
THEY 
WIL MEET WEDNESDAY TO DECIDE 
WHETHER THIS OUTBREAK 
CONSTITUTES A GLOBAL EMERGENCY 
AND HOW BEST TO 
CONTAIN IT.
>>>  AND PUERTO RICO, HUNDREDS 
OF ANGRY 
DEMONSTRATORS GATHERED OUTSIDE 
THE GOVERNOR'S 
MANSION DEMANDING 
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ISLAND 
OFFICIALS.  
THE CHANTING CAME AFTER A 
BLOGGER 
RECENTLY DISCOVERED A WAREHOUSE 
FILLED WITH UNUSED 
HURRICANE MARIA AID IN A CITY 
HEAVILY DAMAGED BY THE 
RECENT SERIES OF EARTHQUAKES. 
THREE OFFICIALS HAVE 
BEEN FIRED.  
AND THE GOVERNOR BEING ASKED TO 
RESIGN.  
GOVERNOR WANDA VASQUEZ SAID SHE 
WAS UNAWARE OF THE 
WAREHOUSE AND HAS ORDERED AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
HANDLING OF ALL AID. 
>>>  GETTING A CLOSER LOOK AT 
THE SECLUDED ISLAND 
WHERE THE LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
IS ACCUSED OF 
TRAFFICKING UNDERAGED GIRLS.  
LITTLE ST. JAMES OFF 
THE COAST OF ST. THOMAS WAS 
PRIVATELY OWNED BY 
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 INTO 
HOW JEFFREY EPSTEIN WAS ABLE TO 
MAKE HIS ALLEGED 
CRIMES GO UNNOTICED FOR SO 
LONG.  
MOLA LENGHI HAS 
MORE. 
>> REPORTER:  THERE REALLY ARE 
ONLY TWO WAYS TO GET 
TO THIS ISLAND.  
BY HELICOPTER OR BY PRIVATE 
BOAT.  
AND THE SECLUSION APPEARS TO 
HAVE BEEN BY DESIGN, 
MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO 
MONITOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S 
BEHAVIOR ON THE ISLAND AND 
EVEN HARDER FOR ALLEGED VICTIMS 
WHO WERE BROUGHT 
HERE TO ESCAPE.  
LITTLE ST. JAMES MAY LOOK LIKE 
A 
TROPICAL GETAWAY BUT 
AUTHORITIES SAY JEFFREY EPSTEIN 
USED THE PRIVATE ISLAND TO HIDE 
HIS CRIMINAL 
ACTIVITY. 
>>  HE FELT HE COULD BASICALLY 
BE PROTECTED AND GET 
AWAY WITH THINGS. 
>>  DENISE GEORGE BECAME 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS JUST MONTHS 
BEFORE EPSTEIN'S 
DEATH BY SUICIDE LAST YEAR.  
HER OFFICE IS NOW SUING 
EPSTEIN'S ESTATE. 
>>  WHY PURSUE THESE SORT OF 
CHARGES NOW? 
>>  ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS, WHY 
NOT NOW?  I CANNOT 
SPEAK TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 
PAST AT ALL.  
WHAT I 
DO KNOW IS THAT, BECAUSE OF 
EPSTEIN'S WEALTH AND 
POWER, HE WAS ABLE TO CONCEAL A 
LOT OF THIS. 
>>  EPSTEIN ACQUIRED LITTLE ST. 
JAMES IN 1998 AND 
NEARBY 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 THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
AFTER 2010 AFTER SERVING TIME 
IN FLORIDA FOR 
PROCURING AN UNDERAGE GIRL FOR 
PROSTITUTION.  BUT 
GEORGE SAYS MONITORING EPSTEIN 
ON HIS ISLAND CAME 
WITH THE UNIQUE CHALLENGES FOR 
AUTHORITIES CHECKING 
UP ON HIM. 
>>  THEY WERE STOPPED AT THE 
DOCK.  
THEY WERE TOLD 
THAT THIS IS AS FAR AS YOU CAN 
GO BECAUSE THIS IS MY 
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND I WILL NOT 
ALLOW YOU TO GO ANY 
FURTHER. 
>>  COURT DOCUMENTS ALLEGE 
EPSTEIN FLEW INTO THE 
ONLY AIRPORT ON ST. THOMAS AND 
THE SAME ONE WE FLEW 
INTO EARLIER THIS WEEK. 
>>  THE AREA THAT THE PRIVATE 
JETS FLY IN ARE 
SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE 
COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS AND 
THAT ALSO HELPS WITH THE 
CONCEALMENT. 
>>  FROM THERE, EPSTEIN 
ALLEGEDLY SHUTTLED UNDERAGE 
GIRLS TO THE ISLAND USING TWO 
HELICOPTERS.  
ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT, AIR 
TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS 
AND OTHER AIRPORT PERSONNEL 
REPORTED SEEING EPSTEIN 
WITH GIRLS WHO APPEARED TO BE 
AS YOUNG AS 11.  
THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL TELLS US THAT 
EPSTEIN CONTROLLED 
ALL COMMUNICATION AND 
TRANSPORTATION ON LITTLE  
ST. JAMES AND HIS ALLEGED 
VICTIMS WERE ESSENTIALLY 
TRAPPED. 
>>  REMEMBER THAT HE OWNS THE 
WHOLE ISLAND.  
IT IS 
NOT A SITUATION WHERE A CHILD 
OR YOUNG WOMAN WOULD 
BE ABLE TO JUST BREAK AWAY 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 15-YEAR-OLD 
ALLEGED VICTIMS WAS SO 
DESPERATE TO ESCAPE THAT SHE 
ACTUALLY TRIED TO SWIM AWAY. 
>>  ANOTHER ONE OF EPSTEIN'S 
ALLEGED VICTIMS THAT 
SPOKE TO CBS NEWS ON THE 
CONDITION WE CONCEAL HER 
FACE AND VOICE, TOLD US WHAT 
SHE SAID HAPPENED TO 
HER. 
>>  HE RAPED ME AND BROUGHT ME 
OFF OF HIS ISLAND TO 
HIS OFFICE AND RAPED IN HIS 
OFFICE AND HE TRIED TO 
MEAT IN HIS ROOM ON THE ISLAND 
WHERE HE HAD A GUN 
STRAPPED TO THE BEDPOST.  
I COULDN'T LEAVE.  
THE 
ONLY MEANS OF GETTING OFF THE 
ISLAND WAS EITHER 
HELICOPTER OR BOAT. 
>>  'S ATTORNEY JORDAN MERCED 
REPRESENTS SEVERAL 
ALLEGED VICTIMS SUING EPSTEIN'S 
ESTATE AND HAS 
ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO COME 
FORWARD AND FILE 
COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE ESTATE 
BEFORE THE LEGAL 
WINDOW CLOSES. 
>>  FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT THINK 
THEY HAVE MORE TIME 
THAN MARCH 12, 2020, THEY MAY 
BE WRONG.  
AND THEY 
MAY NEVER GET THEIR CHANCE AT 
JUSTICE IF THEY DO NOT 
COME FORWARD NOW. 
>>  JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S ESTATE IS 
DISPUTING CLAIMS 
THAT IT WOULD USE A POTENTIAL 
VICTIM'S COMPENSATION 
FUND TO SOMEHOW CONCEAL ANY 
ALLEGED CRIMINAL 
ACTIVITY IN A STATEMENT TO CBS 
NEWS, THE ESTATE SAYS 
THERE WOULD BE NO OBLIGATION 
FOR POTENTIAL VICTIMS 
TO KEEP THEIR CLAIMS 
CONFIDENTIAL.  VLAD, 
ANNE-MARIE. 
>>>  PRINCE HARRY IS IN CANADA 
TO START HIS NEW 
LIFE WITH MEGHAN MARKLE AND 
THEIR SON ARE CHEAPER AT 
THE DUKE OF SUSSEX WAS SEEN 
LANDING IN VANCOUVER 
MONDAY NIGHT AFTER ATTENDING 
WHAT IS LIKELY TO BE 
ONE OF HIS LAST OFFICIAL ROYAL 
ENGAGEMENTS AND 
LONDON. 
>>  COME THIS SPRING, THE 
COUPLE WILL NO LONGER BE 
FULL-TIME WORKING ROYALS.  
ELIZABETH PALMER IS 
OUTSIDE BUCKINGHAM PALACE 
WITHOUT STORY.
>>>  IT HAS BEEN A TUMULTUOUS 
COUPLE OF WEEKS BUT 
IT DOES NOW APPEAR THAT PRINCE 
HARRY HAS 
DEFINITIVELY LEFT HIS OLD LIFE 
AND STARTED A NEW ONE 
THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM 
BUCKINGHAM PALACE. 
>>  PRINCE HARRY AND YES, HE 
STILL GETS TO USE THE 
TITLE, ARRIVED IN VANCOUVER 
LAST NIGHT AND WAS 
IMMEDIATELY WHISKED AWAY TO 
REJOIN MEGHAN AND úEIGHT-MONTH- 
ONLY HOURS BEFORE, PRINCE 
HARRY HAD WOUND UP HIS JOB AS A 
SENIOR 
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROYAL 
FAMILY AT A CONFERENCE 
ON AFRICAN INVESTMENT.  
PRINCE HARRY AND MEGHAN'S 
EXIT 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, PRIMARY 
HOSTS OF A RECEPTION.  
THE PREVIOUS DAY HARRY HAD 
TOLD A MEETING OF HIS PRIVATE 
CHARITY THAT THERE HAD 
BEEN NO OPTION BUT TO GO. 
>>  WE ALL TAKE A LEAP OF 
FAITH.  
SO THANK YOU FOR 
GIVING ME THE COURAGE TO TAKE 
THIS NEXT STEP. 
>>  BUT THIS IS NOT YET A CLEAN 
BREAK. 
>>  WHAT ARE THE LOOSE ENDS? 
>>  THERE ARE MORE LOOSE ENDS 
THAN THERE ARE 
DECISIONS.  
THE OUTSTANDING ONE OF COURSE 
IS THE 
MONEY.  
WHO WILL PAY FOR WHAT?  AND 
PROBABLY THE 
MOST OUTSTANDING OF ALL IS THE 
SECURITY. 
>>  KEEPING THE YOUNG FAMILY 
SAFE IS GOING TO COST 
A FORTUNE.  AND BRITISH OR 
CANADIAN TAXPAYERS ARE 
LIKELY TO GET THE BILL.  
THAT IS GOING TO GENERATE 
SOME ANGER.  ON TOP OF THE 
RESENTMENT ALREADY 
SIMMERING MOST OF IT DIRECTED 
AT THE OUTSIDER IN 
THIS STORY. 
>>  THE BRITISH PUBLIC OPINION 
IS THAT IT IS ALL 
MEGHAN'S FELT.  
THAT SHE HAS LURED HARRY AWAY 
FROM 
US.  
AND SHE HAS INSISTED THAT THEY 
HAVE A PRIVATE 
LIFE. 
>>  TO QUALIFY THAT A LITTLE, 
IT IS A GENERATIONAL 
THING.  
OLDER PEOPLE MAY BLAME MEGHAN 
FOR TAKING 
HARRY AWAY.  
YOUNGER PEOPLE TEND TO JUST 
THINK THE 
COUPLE DESERVES A CHANCE AT A 
HAPPY LIFE AND THEY 
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 SET THEIR OWN FAIR.  
THIS IS A MOVE TO GIVE 
DRIVERS MORE CONTROL IN 
RESPONSE TO THE STATE'S GIG 
ECONOMY LAW.  
THE NEW LEGISLATION REQUIRES 
COMPANIES 
TO TREAT WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES 
INSTEAD OF INDEPENDENT 
CONTRACTORS.  
THEY ARE ASKING THAT VOTERS 
EXEMPT 
COMPANIES FROM THE BILL. 
>>>  TESLA IS DISPUTING 
ALLEGATIONS OF UNEXPECTED 
ACCELERATION IN THEIR VEHICLES. 
SAYING THAT A STOP 
SHORT SELLER WAS BEHIND THE 
CLAIMS.  
AT ISSUE ARE 
ROUGHLY 500,000 VEHICLES MADE 
FROM 2013 UNTIL 2019.  
A PETITION FILED LAST WEEK 
CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE 
127 COMPLAINTS OF SUDDEN 
ACCELERATION.  
NATIONAL 
HIGHWAY TRADE SAFETY ADMINISTER 
ASIAN SAID IT WILL 
REVIEW THE PETITION AND DECIDE 
WHETHER TO LAUNCH A 
FULL INVESTIGATION. 
>>>  GOOGLE AND SEND ARE 
CALLING FOR REGULAR ASIAN 
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND AN 
OP-ED.  
RIDING ABOUT 
THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING 
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT BUT 
APPROACHING THE BEST WAY.  
COMMENTS COME AS PUTTING 
LIMITS ON HOW OFFICIAL 
INTELLIGENCE IS USED. 
>>  THANK YOU FOR STREAMING 
CBSN.  
WALL-TO-WALL 
SPECIAL COVERAGE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BEGINS 
AFTER A QUICK BREAK.  
REENA NINAN IS STANDING BY 
WITH OUR TEAM OF CORRESPONDENTS 
AND ANALYSTS AND WE 
WILL WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT IS 
ABOUT TO HAPPEN ON THE 
HILL AS LAWMAKERS GET READY FOR 
WHAT WILL CERTAINLY 
BE A VERY TENSE AFTERNOON.  
YOU ARE STREAMING CBSN.  
CBSN, ALWAYS ON.  
>>>  HELLO EVERYONE.  
I'M REENA NINAN.  
ON A 
HISTORY MAKING DATE IN AMERICA. 
WE ARE MOMENTS AWAY 
FROM THE START OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL IN THE SENATE.  
WE ARE ABOUT TO WITNESS 
SOMETHING THAT HAS ONLY TAKEN 
PLACE TWICE BEFORE.  
THE BIG DAY WILL BEGIN WITH A 
TENSE DEBATE OVER THE 
RULES THAT WILL GOVERN THE 
TRIAL.  
SENATE MAJORITY 
LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL WILL 
TAKE THE FLOOR 
MOMENTARILY AND INTRODUCED A 
RESOLUTION CONTAINING 
THOSE RULES.  
HERE IS WHAT MCCONNELL WANTS.  
EACH 
SIDE GETS 24 HOURS TO ARGUE 
THEIR CASE.  
IT WILL BE 
SPLIT OVER TWO DAYS A PIECE.  
THE EVIDENCE FROM THE 
HOUSE AND COREY WILL ONLY BE 
ADMITTED INTO THE 
RECORD PICK THE SENATE VOTES TO 
DO SO.  
SENATORS 
WILL HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK 
QUESTIONS IN WRITING AFTER 
ARGUMENTS ARE MADE.  
AND ONLY THEN WILL THE SENATE 
TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF CALLING 
WITNESSES.  
DEMOCRATS 
ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE RULES.  
AND THEY WILL SEEK TO 
FIX THEM BY WAY OF ISSUING 
AMENDMENTS.  
SENATE 
MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER 
WENT AS FAR AS TO CALL 
THE RULES A DISGRACE HE THINKS 
THE TIMELINE IS 
RUSSIAN IS FURIOUS AT THE 
WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE 
WILL HAVE TO BE FOUGHT FOR.  
AGAIN, THE TWO ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT OR ABUSE OF 
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.  
THE ARGUMENTS 
FOR AND AGAINST THOSE ARTICLES 
ARE LIKELY TO START 
TOMORROW.  
ASSUMING THE SENATE COMES TO 
TERMS WITH 
THE RULES THIS AFTERNOON.  
I WANT TO BRING AN OUR 
PANEL.  
RIKKI CLAIMANT, CAITLIN HEALY 
BURNS.  
RIKKI 
IS A CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST.  
JEFF IS A WHITE HOUSE 
CORRESPONDENT FOR REUTERS AND 
DON IS HISTORIAN FOR 
THE UNITED STATES SENATE.  
I WANT TO START WITH YOU.  
BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN 
THE PAST, WHAT WILL 
TODAY'S TRIAL, THE DEBATE 
PROCEEDINGS, LOOK LIKE? 
>>  IT WILL BE A LITTLE UNUSUAL 
THAT WE WILL GET TO 
WATCH THE DEBATE.  
THE FIRST TIME THEY HELD A 
DISCUSSION ON THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT, THEY ACTUALLY 
DID IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.  
BECAUSE THEY HAD SUCH A 
NEW EFFORT FOR THEM.  
THIS TIME AROUND THE RULES ARE 
VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONES USED 
IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT.  
THEY WILL USE THAT AS THE 
STARTING 
POINT.  
BUT THEY WILL BE DEBATING AND 
PUBLIC. 
>>  WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS A BIG 
DIFFERENCE FROM THE 
LAST GO AROUND UNDER CLINTON 
AND NOW WHEN YOU ARE 
TALKING ABOUT THE RULES? 
>>  WITNESSES ARE AN ISSUE.  
IN 1999, THERE WAS 
GENERAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE 
SENATORS ON BOTH SIDES 
THAT THEY DID NOT WANT THE 
WITNESSES ON THE FLOOR.  
PARTICULARLY THEY DID NOT WANT 
MONICA LEWINSKY ON 
THE FLOOR.  
AND SO THEY FINALLY AGREED TO 
HAVE A 
VIDEO DEPOSITION OF THREE 
WITNESSES THAT WERE SHOWN.  
THIS TIME AROUND, THERE IS 
DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE 
SENATORS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT 
WITNESSES SHOULD BE 
PRESENT OR NOT. 
>>  I WANT TO TURN TO RIKKI 
CLAIMANT ONSET.  
HOUSE 
JUDICIARY JERRY NADLER HAD SAID 
AT ONE POINT, AT NO 
POINT WOULD YOU HAVE A TRIAL 
WITHOUT HAVING 
WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE.  
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE 
RULES THAT MCCONNELL HAS SET 
FORWARD AND DO YOU 
AGREE WITH THOSE? 
>>  I THINK JERRY NADLER MAKES 
IT VERY ACCURATE 
STATEMENT.  
WE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANY KIND 
OF 
TRIAL, WHETHER IT IS 
IMPEACHMENT OR A CIVIL TRIAL OR 
CRIMINAL TRIAL WHERE YOU DON'T 
HAVE EVIDENCE AND YOU 
DON'T HAVE WITNESSES IN 
WHATEVER FORM.  
YOU COULD DO 
IT BY DEPOSITION. 
>>  I APOLOGIZE.  
I'M GOING TO CUT YOU OFF TRACK 
I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU TO SENATE 
MAJORITY LEADER 
MITCH MCCONNELL. 
>>  WE BEGIN JUST THE THIRD 
PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN AMERICAN 
HISTORY.  
THIS IS A 
UNIQUE RESPONSIBILITY WHICH THE 
FRAMERS OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION KNEW THAT THE 
SENATE AND ONLY THE 
SENATE COULD HANDLE.  
OUR FOUNDERS TRUSTED THE 
SENATE TO RISE ABOVE SHORT-TERM 
PASSIONS AND 
FACTIONALISM.  
THEY TRUSTED THE SENATE TO 
SOBERLY 
CONSIDER WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN 
PROVEN AND WHICH 
OUTCOME BEST SERVES THE NATION. 
THAT IS A PRETTY 
HIGH BAR, MR. PRESIDENT AND YOU 
MIGHT SAY THAT LATER 
TODAY, THIS BODY WILL TAKE OUR 
ENTRANCE EXAM.  
TODAY, WE WILL CONSIDER AND 
PASS AN ORGANIZING 
RESOLUTION THAT WILL STRUCTURE 
THE FIRST PHASE OF 
THE TRIAL.  
THIS INITIAL STEP WILL OFFER AN 
EARLY 
SIGNAL TO OUR COUNTRY.  
KIM THE SENATE STILL SERVE 
OUR FOUNDING PURPOSE?  
CAN WE STILL PUT FAIRNESS, 
EVENHANDEDNESS AND HISTORICAL 
PRECEDENT AHEAD OF THE 
PARTISAN PASSION OF THE DAY?  
TODAY'S VOTE WILL 
CONTAIN SOME ANSWERS.  
THE ORGANIZING RESOLUTION 
WILL PUT FORWARD THE SUPPORT OF 
A MAJORITY OF THE 
SENATE.  
THAT IS BECAUSE IT SETS UP A 
STRUCTURE THAT 
IS FAIR, EVENHANDED AND TRACKS 
CLOSELY WITH PAST 
PRESIDENTS THAT WERE 
ESTABLISHED UNANIMOUSLY.  
AFTER 
PRETRIAL BUSINESS, THE 
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHES THE 
FOUR THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN 
NEXT.  
FIRST, THE 
SENATE WILL HEAR AN OPENING 
PRESENTATION FROM THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS.  
SECOND, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.  THIRD, 
SENATORS WILL BE ABLE 
TO SEEK FURTHER INFORMATION 
ABOUT POSING WRITTEN 
QUESTIONS TO EITHER SIDE 
THROUGH THE CHIEF JUSTICE.  
AND FORTH, WITH ALL THAT 
INFORMATION IN HAND, THE 
SENATE WILL CONSIDER WHETHER WE 
FEEL ANY ADDITIONAL 
EVIDENCE OR WITNESS OR 
WITNESSES ARE NECESSARY TO 
EVALUATE WHETHER THE HOUSE CASE 
HAS CLEARED OR 
FAILED TO CLEAR THE HIGH BAR OF 
OVERCOMING THE 
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND 
UNDOING A DEMOCRATIC 
ELECTION.  
THE SENATE'S FAIR PROCESS WILL 
DRAW A 
SHARP CONTRAST WITH THE UNFAIR 
AND PRECEDENT 
BREAKING INQUIRY THAT WAS 
CARRIED ON BY THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES.  
THE HOUSE BROKE WITH PRECEDENT 
BY 
DENYING MEMBERS OF THE 
REPUBLICAN MINORITY THE SAME 
RIGHTS THAT DEMOCRATS HAD 
RECEIVED WHEN THEY WERE IN 
THE MINORITYBACK IN 1998.  
HERE IN THE SENATE, 
EVERY SINGLE SENATOR WILL HAVE 
EXACTLY THE SAME 
RIGHTS AND EXACTLY THE SAME 
ABILITY TO ASK 
QUESTIONS.  
THE HOUSE BROKE WITH FAIRNESS 
BY CUTTING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COUNSEL OUT 
OF THERE AND COREY TO 
AN UNPRECEDENTED DEGREE.  
HERE IN THE SENATE, THE 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WILL 
FINALLY RECEIVE A LEVEL 
PLAYING FIELD WITH THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS.  
AND WILL 
FINALLY BE ABLE TO PRESENT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CASE.  
FINALLY, SOME FAIRNESS.  
ON EVERY POINT, OUR 
STRAIGHTFORWARD RESOLUTION WILL 
BRING THE CLARITY 
AND FAIRNESS THAT EVERYONE 
DESERVES.  
THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES, THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES 
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  
THIS IS THE FAIR ROADMAP 
FOR OUR TRIAL.  
WE NEEDED IT IN PLACE BEFORE WE 
COULD MOVE FORWARD.  
SO THE SENATE SHOULD PREPARE TO 
REMAIN IN SESSION TODAY UNTIL 
WE COMPLETE THIS 
RESOLUTION AND ADOPTED.  
THE BASIC FOUR PART 
STRUCTURE ALLIANCE WITH THE 
FIRST STEPS OF THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN 
1999.  
21 YEARS AGO, 
100 SENATORS AGREED UNANIMOUSLY 
THAT THIS ROADMAP 
WAS THE RIGHT WAY TO BEGIN THE 
TRIAL.  ALL 100 
SENATORS AGREED THAT THE PROPER 
TIME TO CONSIDER THE 
QUESTION OF POTENTIAL WITNESSES 
WAS AFTER.  
AFTER 
OPENING ARGUMENTS AND SENATOR'S 
QUESTIONS.  
SOME 
OUTSIDE VOICES HAVE BEEN URGING 
THE SENATE TO BREAK 
WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THIS 
QUESTION.  
LOUD VOICES, 
INCLUDING THE LEADERSHIP OF THE 
HOUSE MAJORITY 
COLLUDED WITH SENATE DEMOCRATS 
AND TRIED TO FORCE 
THE SENATE TO PRE-COMMIT 
OURSELVES TO SEEK SPECIFIC 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE 
SENATORS HAD EVEN 
HEARD OPENING ARGUMENTS OR EVEN 
ASKED QUESTIONS.  
THESE ARE POTENTIAL WITNESSES, 
MR. PRESIDENT, WHOM 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEMSELVES, 
THEMSELVES, DECLINED 
TO HEAR FROM.  
WHOM THE HOUSE ITSELF DECLINED 
TO 
PURSUE THROUGH THE LEGAL 
SYSTEM.  
DURING ITS OWN 
INQUIRY.  
THE HOUSE IS NOT FACING ANY 
DEADLINE.  
THEY WERE FREE TO RUN WHATEVER 
INVESTIGATION THEY 
WANTED TO RUN.  
IF THEY WANTED WITNESSES WHO 
WOULD 
TRIGGER 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 JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE DECIDED NOT TO.  
THEY DECIDED THAT THE INQUIRY 
WAS FINISHED AND MOVED 
AHEAD.  
THE HOUSE CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE 
THE SAME 
WITNESSES THEY APPARENTLY WOULD 
NOW LIKE AND WOULD 
NOW LIKE THE SENATE TO PRE-
COMMIT TO PURSUING 
OURSELVES.  
AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR 
WEEKS, NOBODY, 
NOBODY WILL DICTATE SENATE 
PROCEDURE TO UNITED 
STATES SENATORS.  
A MAJORITY OF US ARE COMMITTED 
TO 
UPHOLDING THE UNANIMOUS 
BIPARTISAN CLINTON PRECEDENT 
AGAINST OUTSIDE INFLUENCES WITH 
RESPECT TO THE 
PROPER TIMING OF THESE MID-
TRIAL QUESTIONS.  
AND SO, 
IF ANY AMENDMENTS ARE BROUGHT 
FORWARD TO FORCE 
PREMATURE DECISIONS ON MID-
TRIAL QUESTIONS, I WILL 
MOVE TO TABLE SUCH AMENDMENTS 
AND PROTECT OUR 
BIPARTISAN PRECEDENT.  
IF A SENATOR MOVES TO AMEND 
THE RESOLUTION AND ORDERS OR 
SUBPOENAS SPECIFIC 
WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS, I WILL 
MOVE TO TABLE SUCH 
EMOTIONS BECAUSE THE SENATE 
WILL DECIDE THOSE 
QUESTIONS LATER IN THE TRIAL, 
JUST LIKE WE DID BACK 
IN 1999.  
MR. PRESIDENT, TODAY MAY 
PRESENT A CURIOUS 
SITUATION.  WE MAY HEAR HOUSE 
MANAGERS THEMSELVES 
AGITATE FOR SUCH AMENDMENTS.  
WE MAY HEAR A TEAM OF 
MANAGERS LED BY THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE AND JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ARGUE THAT 
THE SENATE MUST PRAY 
COMMIT OURSELVES TO REOPEN THE 
VERY INVESTIGATION 
THAT THEY THEMSELVES OVERSAW 
AND VOLUNTARILY SHUT 
DOWN.  
IT WOULD BE CURIOUS TO HEAR 
THESE TWO HOUSE 
CHAIRMAN ARGUE THAT THE SENATE 
MUST PRAY COMMIT 
OURSELVES TO SUPPLEMENTING 
THEIR OWN EVIDENTIARY 
RECORD TO ENFORCING SUBPOENAS 
THAT THEY REFUSE TO 
ENFORCE, TO SUPPLEMENTING A 
CASE THAT THEY 
THEMSELVES HAVE RECENTLY 
DESCRIBED AS OVERWHELMING.  
OVERWHELMING.  
AND BEYOND ANY REASONABLE 
DOUBT.  
SO 
MR. PRESIDENT, THESE MID-TRIAL 
QUESTIONS COULD 
POTENTIALLY TAKE US EVEN DEEPER 
INTO EVEN MORE 
COMPLEX CONSTITUTIONAL WATERS.  
FOR EXAMPLE, MANY 
SENATORS INCLUDING MAY HAVE 
CONCERNS OVER BLURRING 
THE TRADITIONAL ROLE BETWEEN 
THE HOUSE AND THE 
SENATE WITHIN THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS.  
THE 
CONSTITUTION DIVIDES THE POWER 
THE FIRST BELONGS SOLELY TO THE 
HOUSE 
AND WITH THE POWER TO IMPEACH, 
COMES A 
RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE.  
THE SENATE AGREEING 
TO PICK UP AND CARRY ON THE 
HOUSE'S AND ADD YOUR KIT 
INVESTIGATION SET A NEW 
PRECEDENT THAT COULD 
INCENTIVIZE HASTY IMPEACHMENTS 
FROM FUTURE HOUSE 
MAJORITIES.  
IT COULD DRAMATICALLY CHANGE 
THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN 
THE HOUSE ON THE SENATE 
IF THE SENATE AGREES THAT WE 
WILL CONDUCT BOTH THE 
INVESTIGATION AND THE TRIAL OF 
AN IMPEACHMENT.  
WHAT 
IS MORE, SOME OF THE PROPOSED 
NEW WITNESSES INCLUDE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS 
WHOSE KEY MEDICATIONS 
WITH THE PRESIDENT AND WITH 
OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
OFFICIALS LIE AT THE VERY CORE 
OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE.  
PURSUING THOSE WITNESSES 
COULD END UP DELAYING THE 
SENATE TRIAL AND DRAW OUR 
BODY INTO A PROTRACTED AND 
COMPLEX LEGAL FIGHT OVER 
PRESIDENTIAL PRIVILEGE.  
SUCH LITIGATION COULD 
POTENTIALLY HAVE PERMANENT 
REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE 
INSTITUTION OF THE 
PRESIDENCY THAT SENATORS WOULD 
NEED TO CONSIDER 
VERY, VERY CAREFULLY.  
SO MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATE 
IS NOT ABOUT TO RUSH INTO THESE 
WEIGHTY QUESTIONS 
WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND WITHOUT 
DELIBERATION.  
WITHOUT EVEN HEARING OPENING 
ARGUMENTS FIRST.  
THERE 
WERE GOOD REASONS WHY 100 OUT 
OF 100 SENATORS AGREED 
TWO DECADES AGO TO CROSS THESE 
BRIDGES WHEN WE CAME 
TO THEM.  
THAT IS WHAT WE WILL DO THIS 
TIME AS WELL.  
FAIR IS FAIR.  
THE PROCESS WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR 
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND BASIC 
FAIRNESS DICTATES THAT 
IT OUGHT TO BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR 
THIS PRESIDENT AS 
WELL.  
SO, THE EYES ARE ON THE SENATE. 
THE COUNTRY 
IS WATCHING TO SEE IF WE CAN 
RISE TO THE OCCASION.  
21 YEARS AGO, 100 SENATORS 
INCLUDING A NUMBER OF US 
WHO SIT IN THE CHAMBER TODAY 
DID JUST THAT.  
THE 
BODY APPROVED A FAIR COMMON 
SENSE PROCESS TO GUIDE 
THE BEGINNING OF A PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.  
TODAY, TWO DECADES LATER, THE 
SENATE WILL RETAKE THE 
ENTRANCE EXAM.  
THE BASIC STRUCTURE WE ARE 
PROPOSING 
IS JUST AS EMINENTLY FAIR AND 
EVENHANDED AS IT WAS 
BACK THEN.  
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER 
SENATORS ARE 
THEMSELVES READY TO BE AS FAIR 
AND AS EVENHANDED.  
THE SENATE MADE A STATEMENT 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 ALL THE MORE NECESSARY AND 
FACT.  
SO 
I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES 
ACROSS THE AISLE THAT 
THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE VOTE 
ON THIS RESOLUTION 
OUGHT TO BE REMOTELY PARTISAN 
THERE IS NO REASON 
OTHER THAN BASE PARTISANSHIP TO 
SAY THIS PARTICULAR 
PRESIDENT DESERVES A RADICALLY 
DIFFERENT RULEBOOK 
THAN WHAT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR A 
PAST PRESIDENT OF 
YOUR OWN PARTY.  
SO I WOULD URGE EVERY SINGLE 
SENATOR TO SUPPORT THE FAIR 
RESOLUTION.  
I URGE 
EVERYONE TO VOTE TO UPHOLD THE 
SENATE'S UNANIMOUS 
BIPARTISAN PRECEDENT.  
OF A FAIR PROCESS.
>>  SENATE MAJORITY LEADER 
MITCH MCCONNELL 
OUTLINING SOME PROPOSED GROUND 
RULES.  
I WANT TO 
BRING AN OUR PANEL HERE TO TALK 
A LITTLE BIT MORE.  
WE ARE ALSO EXPECTING CHUCK 
SCHUMER TO STEP UP TO 
THE PODIUM ANY MOMENT NOW.  
THERE HE IS.  
LET'S GO 
TO HIM LIVE. 
>>  THERE HAS BEEN WELL-FOUNDED 
CONCERN THAT THE 
ADDITIONAL SECURITY MEASURES 
REQUIRED FOR ACCESS TO 
THE GALLERIES DURING THE TRIAL 
COULD CAUSE REPORTERS 
TO MISS SOME OF THE EVENTS ON 
THE SENATE FLOOR.  
I 
WANT TO ASSURE EVERYONE IN THE 
PRESS THAT I WILL 
VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT 
TO BEGIN THE TRIAL 
UNLESS THE REPORTERS TRYING TO 
ENTER THE GALLERY ARE 
SEATED.  THE PRESS IS HERE TO 
INFORM THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC ABOUT THESE LITTLE 
EVENTS IN OUR NATION'S 
HSTORY.  
WE MUST MAKE SURE THEY ARE ABLE 
TO PICK 
SOME MAY NOT WANT TO WHAT 
HAPPENS HERE TO BE PUBLIC.  
WE DO.  
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, AFTER THE 
CONCLUSION OF 
MY REMARKS, THE SENATE WILL 
PROCEED TO THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT 
DONALD JOHN TRUMP FOR 
COMMITTING HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS.  PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF COERCING A 
FOREIGN LEADER INTO 
INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTIONS, 
TO BENEFIT HIMSELF AND 
THEN DOING EVERYTHING IN HIS 
POWER TO COVER IT UP.  
IF PROVED, THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACTIONS ARE CRIMES 
AGAINST DEMOCRACY ITSELF.  
IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE A 
GREATER SUBVERSION OF OUR 
DEMOCRACY THAN FOR POWERS 
OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS TO 
DETERMINE THE ELECTIONS FROM 
WITHIN.  
FOR A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO ATTEMPT
SOMETHING 
ON ITS OWN IS BAD ENOUGH.  
FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT 
TO DELIBERATELY SOLICIT SUCH A 
THING, TO BLACKMAIL A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY WITH MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, TO HELP 
HIM 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, 
DENY THE RIGHT TO 
INVESTIGATE ANY OF HIS 
ACTIVITIES, TO SAY ARTICLE 
TWO OF THE CONSTITUTION GIVES 
HIM THE RIGHT TO QUOTE 
DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, WE ARE 
STARING DOWN AN EROSION 
OF THE SACRED DEMOCRATIC 
PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH OUR 
FOUNDERS FOUGHT A BLOODIED WAR 
OF INDEPENDENCE.  
SUCH AS THE GRAVITY OF THIS 
HISTORIC MOMENT.  
ONE 
SENATOR, THE CEREMONIAL 
FUNCTIONS AT THE BEGINNING 
OF A PRESIDENTIAL TRIAL WILL BE 
COMPLETE.  
THE 
SENATE THEN MUST DETERMINE THE 
RULES OF THE TRIAL.  
THE REPUBLICAN LEADER WILL 
OFFER AN ORGANIZING 
RESOLUTION THAT OUTLINES HIS 
PLAN.  
HIS PLAN.  
FOR 
THE RULES OF THE TRIAL.  
IT IS COMPLETELY PARTISAN.  
IT WAS KEPT SECRET UNTIL THE 
VERY EVE OF THE TRIAL.  
AND NOW THAT IT IS PUBLIC, IT 
IS VERY EASY TO SEE 
WHY.  
THE MACCONNELL RULES SEEM TO BE 
DESIGNED BY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.  
IT ASKS THE 
SENATE TO RUSH THROUGH AS FAST 
AS POSSIBLE AND MAKES 
GETTING EVIDENCE AS HARD AS 
POSSIBLE.  
IT COULD 
FORCE PRESENTATIONS TO TAKE 
PLACE AT TWO OR 3:00 IN 
THE MORNING SO THAT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T SEE 
THEM.  
IN SHORT, THE MACCONNELL 
RESOLUTION WILL 
RESULT IN A RUSHED TRIAL WITH 
LITTLE EVIDENCE IN THE 
DARK OF NIGHT.  
LITERALLY, THE DARK OF 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 
SHORT OF A NATIONAL DISGRACE.  
THIS WILL GO DOWN, 
THIS RESOLUTION, AS ONE OF THE 
DARKER MOMENTS IN THE 
SENATE HISTORY.  
PERHAPS ONE OF THE DARKEST.  
LEADER 
MITCH MCCONNELL JUST SAID HE 
WANTS TO GO BY THE 
CLINTON RULES.  
THEN WHY DID HE CHANGE THEM IN 
FOUR 
IMPORTANT WAYS AT MINIMUM TO 
ALL MAKE THE TRIAL LESS 
TRANSPARENT, LESS CLEAR AND 
WITH LESS EVIDENCE?  
HE 
SAID HE WANTED TO GET STARTED 
AND EXACTLY THE SAME 
WAY.  
IT TURNS OUT, CONTRARY TO WHAT 
THE LEADERS 
SAID, AMAZED HE COULD SAY IT 
WITH A STRAIGHT FACE, 
THAT THE RULES ARE THE SAME AS 
THE CLINTON 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 IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS INTO EVIDENCE.  
THE LEADER MACCONNELL 
WANTS A TRIAL WITH NO EXISTING 
EVIDENCE AND NO NEW 
EVIDENCE.  
A TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS NOT 
A TRIAL.  
IT IS A COVER UP.  
SECOND, UNLIKE THE CLINTON 
RULES, 
THE MACCONNELL RESOLUTION 
LIMITS PRESENTATION BY 
PARTIES TO 24 HOURS PER SIDE 
OVER ONLY TWO DAYS.  
WE 
START AT ONE.  
12 HOURS A DAY.  
AT 1:00 A.M.  
THAT 
IS WITHOUT BREAKS.  
IT WILL BE LATER.  
LEADER 
MACCONNELL WANTS TO FORCE THE 
MANAGERS TO MAKE 
IMPORTANT PARTS OF THEIR CASE 
IN THE DARK OF NIGHT.  
NUMBER THREE, UNLIKE THE 
CLINTON RULES, THE 
MACCONNELL RESOLUTION PLACES AN 
ADDITIONAL HURDLE TO 
GET WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BY 
REQUIRING A VOTE ON 
WHETHER THE EMOTIONS OR EVEN AN 
ORDER.  
IF THAT VOTE 
FAILS, NO EMOTIONS TO SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS WILL BE IN ORDER.  
I DON'T WANT ANYONE ON 
THE OTHER SIDE TO SAY, I'M 
GOING TO VOTE NO FIRST ON 
WITNESSES.  
BUT THEN LATER, I WILL 
DETERMINE IT.  
IF 
THEY VOTE FOR MACCONNELL'S 
RESOLUTION, THEY ARE 
MAKING IT FAR MORE DIFFICULT TO 
VOTE IN THE FUTURE 
LATER ON IN THE TRIAL.  
AND FINALLY, UNLIKE THE 
CLINTON RULES, THE MACCONNELL 
RESOLUTION ALLOWS A 
MOTION TO DISMISS AT ANY TIME, 
ANYTIME IN THE TRIAL.  
SO IN SHORT, CONTRARY TO WHAT 
THE LEADER HAS SAID, 
THE MACCONNELL RULES ARE NOT AT 
ALL LIKE THE CLINTON 
RULES.  
REPUBLICAN LEADER'S RESOLUTION 
IS BASED 
NEITHER IN PRECEDENT, NOR IN 
PRINCIPLE PICK IT IS 
DRIVEN BY PARTISANSHIP AND THE 
POLITICS OF THE 
MOMENT.  TODAY, I WILL BE 
OFFERING AMENDMENTS TO FIX 
THE MANY FLAWS AND LEADER 
MACCONNELL'S DEEPLY UNFAIR 
RESOLUTION AND SEEK THE 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS WE 
REQUESTED BEGINNING WITH AN 
AMENDMENT TO HAVE THE 
SENATE SUBPOENA WHITE HOUSE 
DOCUMENTS.  
LET ME BE 
CLEAR.  
THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NOT 
DILATORY.  
THEY 
ONLY SEEK 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. 
EACH SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND OUR 
HISTORY, ALL 15 THAT WERE 
BROUGHT TO COMPLETION FEATURE 
WITNESSES.  
EVERY 
SINGLE ONE.  
THE WITNESSES REQUEST ARE NOT 
DEMOCRATS.  
THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MEN
.  THE 
DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC 
DOCUMENTS.  
THEIR 
DOCUMENTS PERIOD.  
WE DON'T KNOW THE EVIDENCE OF 
THE 
WITNESSES OR THE DOCUMENTS, IF 
IT WILL BE 
EXCULPATORY TO THE PRESIDENT OR 
INCRIMINATING.  
WE 
HAVE AN OBLIGATION, A SOLEMN 
OBLIGATION, 
PARTICULARLY NOW DURING THIS 
MOST DEEP 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 
OPPOSING WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS AT THE START OF THE 
TRIAL.  
NONE OF THEM HAS MUCH MERIT.  
REPUBLICANS 
HAVE SAID WE SHOULD DEAL WITH 
THE QUESTION OF 
WITNESSES LATER IN THE TRIAL.  
OF COURSE IT MAKES NO 
SENSE TO HEAR BOTH SIDES 
PRESENT THEIR CASE FIRST 
AND THEN AFTERWARDS, DECIDE IF 
THE SENATE SHOULD 
HEAR EVIDENCE.  
THE EVIDENCE IS SUPPOSED TO 
INFORM 
ARGUMENTS, NOT COME AFTER THEM 
BEING COMPLETED.  
SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID THE 
SENATE SHOULD NOT GO 
BEYOND THE HOUSE RECORD BY 
CALLING ANY WITNESSES.  
BUT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE 
SENATE THE SOLE POWER 
TO TRY IMPEACHMENT.  
NOT THE SOLE POWER TO REVIEW, 
NOT THE SOLE POWER TO REHASH, 
BUT TO TRY.  
REPUBLICANS HAVE CALLED OUR 
REQUESTER WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS POLITICAL.  
IF SEEKING THE TRUTH IS 
POLITICAL, THEN THE REPUBLICAN 
PARTY IS IN SERIOUS 
TROUBLE.  
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS SAID THAT 
THE WHITE 
HOUSE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
ARE BRAZEN AND WRONG.  
IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES HIS 
IMPEACHMENT IS SO 
BRAZEN AND WRONG, WHY WON'T HE 
SHOW US WHY?  WHY IS 
THE PRESIDENT SO INSISTENT THAT 
NO ONE COME FORWARD?  
THAT NO DOCUMENTS BE RELEASED?  
IF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CASE IS SO WEAK THAT NONE OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S MEN CAN 
DEFEND HIM UNDER OATH, SHAME ON 
HIM AND THOSE WHO 
ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.  
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT HIDING?  
WHAT ARE THE REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUES HIDING?  
IF THEY 
WEREN'T AFRAID OF THE TRUTH, 
THEY WOULD SAY, GO 
RIGHT AHEAD.  
GET OUT THE TRUTH.  
GET WITNESSES.  
GET DOCUMENTS.  
IN FACT, AT NO POINT OVER THE 
LAST 
FEW MONTHS HAVE I HEARD A 
SINGLE SOLITARY ARGUMENT 
ON THE MERITS OF WHY WITNESSES 
AND DOCUMENTS SHOULD 
NOT BE PART OF THE TRIAL.  NO 
REPUBLICANS EXPLAINED 
WHY LESS EVIDENCE IS BETTER 
THAN MORE EVIDENCE.  
NEVERTHELESS, LEADER MACCONNELL 
IS POISED TO ASK THE 
SENATE TO BEGIN THE FIRST 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE 
PRESIDENT IN HISTORY WITHOUT 
WITNESSES THAT RUSHES 
TO THE ARGUMENTS AS QUICKLY AS 
POSSIBLE, THAT IN 
WAYS BOTH SHAMELESS AND SUBTLE, 
WILL CONCEAL THE 
TRUTH.  
THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.  
LEADER 
MACCONNELL CLAIMED THAT THE 
HOUSE HAD RUN THE MOST 
THOROUGH AND UNFAIR IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY IN MODERN 
HISTORY.  
THE TRUTH IS LEADER MACCONNELL 
IS PLOTTING 
THE MOST RUSHED AND MOST UNFAIR 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN 
MODERN HISTORY.  
AND IT BEGINS TODAY.  
THE SENATE 
HAS BEFORE IT IS VERY 
STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION.  
THE 
PRESIDENT IS ACCUSED OF 
COERCING A FOREIGN POWER TO 
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS, TO 
HELP HIMSELF.  
IT IS 
THE JOB OF THE SENATE TO 
DETERMINE IF THESE VERY 
SERIOUS CHARGES ARE TRUE.  
THE VERY LEASED WE CAN DO 
IS EXAMINE THE FACTS AND REVIEW 
THE DOCUMENTS AND 
HEAR THE WITNESSES.  
TRY THE CASE.  
NOT RUN FROM IT.  
NOT HIDE IT.  TRY IT.  
BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT 
COMMITS HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS AND CONGRESS 
REFUSES TO ACT, REFUSES EVEN TO 
CONDUCT A FAIR TRIAL 
OF ITS CONDUCT, THEN THIS 
PRESIDENT AND FUTURE 
PRESIDENTS CAN COMMIT 
IMPEACHABLE CRIMES WITH 
IMPUNITY AND THE ORDER AND 
RIGOR OF ALL DEMOCRACY 
WILL DRAMATICALLY DECLINE.  
THE FINAL FAILSAFE OF 
OUR DEMOCRACY WILL BE RENDERED 
MOOT.  
THE POWERFUL 
CHECK ON THE EXECUTIVE.  
THE ONE DESIGNED TO PROTECT 
THE PEOPLE FROM TYRANNY WILL BE 
ERASED.  
IN SHORT 
TIME, MY COLLEAGUES, EACH OF US 
WILL FACE A CHOICE 
ABOUT WHETHER TO BEGIN THIS 
TRIAL IN SEARCH OF THE 
TRUTH OR IN SERVICE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO 
COVER IT UP.  
WHETHER THE SENATE WILL CONDUCT 
A FAIR 
TRIAL AND AIRING OF THE FACTS.  
OR RUSH TO A 
PREDETERMINED POLITICAL OUTCOME
.  MY COLLEAGUES, THE 
EYES OF THE NATION, THE EYES OF 
HISTORY, THE EYES OF 
THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE UPON 
US.  
HISTORY WILL BE 
OUR FINAL JUDGE.  
WILL SENATORS RISE TO THE 
OCCASION?  
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
>>  UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, 
THE LEADERSHIP 
>>> DON, I WANT TO TURN TO YOU 
AS YOU ARE A HISTORIAN TO THE 
UNITED STATES SENATE. 
WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF 
COMPARISON BETWEEN RULES MITCH 
McCONNELL LAID DOWN AND RULES 
FROM 21 YEARS AGO UNDER BILL 
CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
CAN YOU EXPLAIN AND TAKE US 
BACK. 
WERE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE 
PRESENTED? 
DID THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME 
PROCESS OF DISCUSSING THAT AS 
THEY ARE NOW? 
>> THERE HAVE BEEN TWO 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 
TRIALS. 
ONE WAS ANDREW JOHNSON IN 1868 
AND THERE WERE ABOUT 40 
WITNESSES AT THAT TIME. 
THE PRESIDENT WANTED EVERYONE 
ON 
HIS ADMINISTRATION TO TESTIFY 
IN 
HIS FAVOR AT THAT STAGE. 
IN THE CLINTON CASE, THERE HAD 
BEEN A LARGE INVESTIGATION 
CONDUCTED BY KEN STAR THAT PUT 
OUT ENORMOUS REPORT AND REALLY 
INTERGATED EVERYONE IMAGINABLE. 
THE QUESTION WAS DO THEY ADD 
ANYTHING EXTRA WHEN THEY CAME 
TO 
THE TRIAL? 
THE GENERAL SENSE WAS PROBABLY 
NOT BUT THEY DID ALLOW THREE 
WITNESSES TO BE DEPOSED AND 
PROBABLY IN THE END DIDN'T 
CHANGE ANYONE'S MIND. 
>> I WANT TO TURN TO JEFF MASON 
WHO IS OUTSIDE OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
WE HEARD JUST NOW THERE WERE 
THREE WITNESSES DURING CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
AUDIO RECORDINGS WERE ALLOWED 
TO 
BE HEARD. 
WHAT IS THE WHITE HOUSE SAYING? 
WHAT IS THEIR STRATEGY? 
>> I THINK THE WHITE HOUSE IS 
CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH SENATE 
MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL. 
I AM SURE THEY LOOKED UPON HIS 
OPENING REMARKS WITH A GREAT 
DEAL OF FAVOR. 
I AM STANDING OUT HERE ON THIS 
COLD DAY IN FRONT OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE BUT THE PRESIDENT ISN'T 
HERE, THE DAY HIS IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL BEGINS. 
HE IS IN DABOS, SWITZERLAND 
SPEAKING TO WORLD ECONOMIC 
LEADERS. 
I CAN ASSURE YOU HE IS KEEPING 
PRETTY CLOSE TRACK OF WHAT'S 
GOING ON AND IS PLEASED THAT 
HIS 
COUNSEL WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO, 
IN THEIR BELIEF, REALLY LAYOUT 
THE CASE AND PROVE WHAT THE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN ARGUING IS 
NOT THE CASE. 
>> WE HEARD NO REPUBLICAN HAS 
MADE THE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY 
LESS EVIDENCE IS BETTER THAN 
MORE. 
SCHUMER SAID HE WILL TABLE 
ANYTHING THAT IS PREMATURE. 
>> SENATOR SCHUMER HAD AN 
INTERESTING LINE. 
HE SAID A TRIAL WITHOUT 
EVIDENCE 
IS A COVER UP. 
THAT IS GOING TO BE THE THEME 
OF 
THE DEMOCRATS. 
IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE I SAY AS 
A 
LAWYER ANY TRIAL WITH NO 
EVIDENCE AND NO WITNESSES. 
THEN ALL YOU ARE GETTING ARE 
ARGUMENTS ON THE PART OF 
COUNSEL 
WHICH LAWYERS WILL TELL YOU IS 
LIKE HAVING AN APPELLATE 
ARGUMENT WHERE THAT'S WHAT YOU 
HEAR. 
SO IF ALL WE DO HAVE ARE 
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL OR 
ARGUMENTS OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
AND THEN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE 
LAWYERS FOR THE PRESIDENT, IF 
THAT IS ALL THERE IS BEFORE THE 
QUESTIONS COME FROM THE 
SENATORS 
WHICH THEN GO TO CHIEF JUSTICE 
ROBERTS AND WHAT THE QUESTIONS 
MEAN IS THIS, QUESTIONS FROM 
THE 
SENATORS ARE FOR THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS AND FOR THE DEFENDERS 
OF THE PRESIDENT. 
SO WE ARE REALLY HAVING IN 
ESSENCE A LARGE APPELLATE 
ARGUMENT. 
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE 
SENATE WILL NOT HAVE BENEFIT 
OF, 
WHICH WE HAVE HAD, WHICH IS THE 
WITNESSES WHO WERE LIVE DURING 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARINGS 
OF THE HOUSE. 
SO THERE WILL BE NO FIONA HILL. 
THERE WILL BE NO AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND. 
>> TO PEOPLE WHO ASK HOW CAN 
YOU 
HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT HEARING OR 
SEEING EVIDENCE, WHAT DO YOU 
SAY? 
>> I SAY IT WOULD BE A GOOD 
IDEA 
TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO TAKE THE 
EVIDENCE AT THE HOUSE AND AT 
LAST MAKE SURE THE SENATORS 
READ 
OR HEAR THAT EVIDENCE. 
AND THE WITNESSES THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE TO CALL 
MAY 
HAVE RELEVANCE FOR DEMOCRATS 
AND 
BE IN CUL PA TORI BUT WE DON'T 
KNOW THEY MAY BE EXCULPATORY. 
WHEN IT COMES TO SOMEONE LIKE 
JOHN BOLTON, MICK MULVANEY, WHO 
IS TO SAY WHAT THEY ARE GOING 
TO 
SAY? 
>> YOU SEE A LIVE LOOK AT 
CAPITOL HILL. 
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IS 
EXPECTED TO PRESIDE. 
WE SEE SENATOR CORY BOOKER WHO 
LAST WEEK DECIDED HE IS NOT 
GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENTIAL 
OFFICE. 
CAITLIN, I WILL BRING YOU IN. 
THE OTHER ELEMENT THAT EVERYONE 
IS WATCHING IS YOU HAVE FOLKS 
ON 
THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE WHO ARE 
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THAT WILL 
NEED TO BE HERE 
>> Reporter: USUALLY AT THIS 
TIME WE WOULD BE IN IOWA. 
NOW YOU SEE SANDERS, WARREN, 
KLOBUCHAR WILL BE IN THE SENATE 
DOING JURY DUTY. 
CORY BOOKER WAS INTERESTING 
BECAUSE HE DROPPED OUT CITING 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AS A 
REASON 
HE COULDN'T CONTINUE, SAYING HE 
WILL HAVE TO BE IN WASHINGTON, 
HARD TO RAISE MONEY THAT WAY, 
HARD TO CAMPAIGN. 
I THOUGHT WHAT WAS INTERESTING 
TO HEAR SCHUMER SAY WAS THESE 
WITNESSES THEY WANT TO BRING 
FORWARD ARE NOT DEMOCRATS. 
HE SAID THEY'RE THE PRESIDENT'S 
OWN MEN. 
THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK EVEN 
IF 
YOU AREN'T GOING TO GET 
REPUBLICANS CROSSING OVER TO 
SUPPORT DEMOCRATS WHEN IT COMES 
TO THE RULES, PEOPLE LIKE MITT 
ROMNEY, LISA MURKOWSKI, THOSE 
VULNERABLE SENATORS, THEY SAY 
THEY WANT TO SEE THE EVIDENCE 
FIRST. 
WHILE OPEN TO WITNESSES THEY'RE 
NOT REALLY READY TO MAKE THAT 
YET. 
THEY WILL SUPPORT THE RULES 
PACKAGE WHICH IS IMPORTANT 
BECAUSE THIS IS HEADED FOR 
REALLY A PARTISAN SHOW DOWN. 
I THINK WHAT SCHUMER WAS TRYING 
TO DO WAS SAY THAT THE 
WITNESSES 
THEY WANT TO CALL ARE THE 
PRESIDENT'S OWN PEOPLE. 
SECOND, TO TRY TO PUT PRESSURE 
ON SOME OF THE MORE VULNERABLE 
REPUBLICANS FOR REELECTION IN 
2020 WHO WILL BE FACING THIS 
VOTE. 
THERE WAS A CNN POLL OUT THAT 
SHOWED WHILE THE COUNTRY IS 
SPLIT ON IMPEACHMENT, ABOUT 
HALF 
WANTED SENATE TO CONVICT HERE, 
70% OR NEARLY 70% WANT TO SEE 
NEW WITNESSES. 
HOW THEY TRY TO USE PUBLIC 
OPINION AND TRY TO CREATE MORE 
PRESSURE FOR SOME OF THE 
REPUBLICANS I THINK IS 
SOMETHING 
TO WATCH. 
>> I WANT TO TURN TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED THEIR 
STRATEGY YESTERDAY OF HOW THEY 
PLAN TO GO FORWARD. 
WHA DID WE LEARN? 
WHAT'S THEIR PLANS? 
WHERE DO THEY STAND ABOUT 
ALLOWING A JOHN BOLTON TO 
TESTIFY? 
>> WE LEARNED A FEW THINGS. 
IN MANY WAYS, THE INFORMATION 
THAT CAME OUT OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE 
YESTERDAY REALLY PUT INTO 
WRITING WHAT WE HAVE SEEN 
ALREADY FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP ON 
HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT AND LISTEN 
TO HIM SAY WHEN HE SPEAKS TO 
REPORTERS AND SPEAKS IN PUBLIC. 
BASICALLY THEY SEE THIS AS A 
SHAM. 
THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS ARE 
ARGUING HE DID NOTHING WRONG 
AND 
ACTUALLY THAT THEY SEE THAT AS 
ONE OF THE BIGGER WEAKNESSES IN 
THE DEMOCRATS' CASE WHICH IS 
THEY DON'T BELIEVE THIS ABUSE 
OF 
POWER CHARGE IS IMPEACHABLE. 
TO THE SECOND CHARGE OF 
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE OR 
OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS, THAT'S 
JUST SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. 
THE PRESIDENT HAD THE RIGHT TO 
CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN 
SOME AREAS AND THAT'S NOT 
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHABLE EITHER. 
I THINK WE WILL SEE THAT ARGUED 
MORE FORCEFULLY IN THE COMING 
DAYS AND AGAIN IT'S REALLY JUST 
A CULMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS 
THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING ALREADY 
FOR SOMETIME. 
>> I WANT TO TURN TO DON 
RITCHIE 
TO GIVE US MORE HISTORICAL 
CONTEXT TO THIS. 
WHEN YOU COMPARE THE 
RELATIONSHIP SCHUMER AND 
McCONNELL AT THIS POINT TO 21 
YEARS AGO, WHAT COMPARISONS 
WOULD YOU DRAW? 
>> IT'S CLEAR POLITICS HAVE 
BECOME MORE POLARIZING. 
THEY DISAGREE POLITICALLY BUT 
BOTH ROSE TO DECIDING TO DEFEND 
THE SENATE AS INSTITUTION AND 
WORKED CLOSELY DURING THAT 
PERIOD AND BROUGHT THE SENATORS 
TOGETHER. 
SENATOR McCONNELL MENTIONED 
THAT 100 TO NOTHING VOTE. 
THAT WAS QUITE A REMARKABLE 
ACHIEVEMENT. 
THE SENATORS REALLY DESERVE THE 
CREDIT FOR BRINGING THE TWO 
PARTIES TOGETHER. 
IT MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THE 
TWO PARTIES THAT CLOSE TOGETHER 
IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL 
CLIMATE. 
>> IN HIS WORDS SENATOR 
McCONNELL SAID 21 YEARS AGO, 
100 SENATORS AGREED THIS WAS 
THE 
RIGHT ROAD MAP. 
WHAT'S DIFFERENT NOW? 
IT SEEMS LIKE A McCONNELL 
GUIDELINE AND SOMETHING THAT 
THE 
DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO PUSH 
AND 
NONE SEEM TO BE DOVE TAILING 
WITH WHAT CLINTON RULES WERE. 
CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE 
DIFFERENCES? 
>> THE INTERESTING THING IS 
THAT 
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS SENATE 
TO WRITE ITS RULES UNDER ALL 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
THE SENATE ACTUALLY PREFERS TO 
OPERATE UNDER PRECEDENT AS MUCH 
AS POSSIBLE. 
IF THEY DID IT BEFORE, IT'S 
EASY 
TO JUSTIFY DOING IT AGAIN. 
IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT BEFORE, 
IT'S HARDER TO GET TO THAT 
STAGE. 
THAT HAPPENS IN THE SENATE ON A 
DAILY BASIS. 
PRECEDENTS OUT RULE THE RULES 
OF 
THE SENATE ON MANY OCCASIONS. 
WHAT THEY'RE BOTH LOOKING BACK 
TO IS WHAT'S SIMILARITY OF THE 
SITUATION IN 1999 AND WHAT'S 
DIFFERENT ABOUT IT? 
ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE WAS THAT 
THE HOUSE REALLY DIDN'T CONDUCT 
MUCH OF AN INVESTIGATION IN 
1998. 
IT REALLY DEPENDED ON THE STARR 
REPORT WHEREAS WE HAVE BEEN 
WATCHING FOR SEVERAL WEEKS WITH 
THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION GOING 
ON. 
THE WITNESSES HAD ALL BEEN 
ESSENTIALLY INTERGATED IN 1998 
BUT A LOT OF WITNESSES THAT THE 
HOUSES SOUGHT TO HEAR TESTIFY 
FROM WERE DENIED TO THEM 
BECAUSE 
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CASES 
WHERE PEOPLE CAN SAY IT'S THE 
SAME AS IT WAS OR IT'S 
DIFFERENT 
THAN IT WAS. 
IN EACH CASE THEY'RE GOING TO 
HAVE TO TRY TO RECONCILE THE 
DIFFERENCES. 
>> I WAS A COLLEGE FRESHMAN 
WHEN 
THE STARR REPORT CAME OUT. 
THEY HAD A POST TO STOP 
PRINTING 
THE REPORT BECAUSE IT WAS 
CLOGGING THE PRINTERS. 
WE ARE AT A SUCH DIFFERENT 
POINT 
WHERE INFORMATION IS STREAMING. 
I WANT TO TURN TO YOU AND ASK 
ABOUT PAT CIPOLLONE, WHITE 
HOUSE 
LEGAL COUNSEL, WHO DEMOCRATS 
BELIEVE CAN BE KEY TO 
UNDERSTANDING WHITE HOUSE'S 
INTERACTION WITH UKRAINE. 
I WANT TO QUOTE HERE. 
IT SAYS HAVING CIPOLLONE IN HIS 
ROLE SPEAK, NOT HAVING HIM 
UNDERMINES INTEGRITY OF THE 
IMPENDING TRIAL. 
THAT'S A DIRECT QUOTE. 
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT 
ARGUMENT? 
>> PAT CIPOLLONE REALLY KNOWS 
THE TRUTH AT LEAST AS TO 
CONVERSATIONS HE WAS PRIVY TO 
OR 
PART OF. 
SO HE IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION. 
IT WOULD BE THE POSITION THAT 
RUDY GIULIANI WOULD BE IN IF 
RUDY GIULIANI GOT HIS WISH TO 
BECOME AN ATTORNEY IN THE CASE 
WHICH OF COURSE WOULD BE 
RIDICULOUS BECAUSE IF THERE IS 
ANYONE WHO SHOULD BE A PRIMARY 
WITNESS FOR ONE SIDE OR THE 
OTHER, ONE COULD SAY IT WAS 
RUDY 
GIULIANI. 
PAT CIPOLLONE UNDERSTANDS THE 
PRESIDENT'S MIND. 
APPARENTLY FROM EVERYTHING WE 
ARE GIVEN TO READ, THE 
PRESIDENT 
IS LOCK STEP WITH MITCH 
McCONNELL, BELIEVES IN HOW 
MITCH McCONNELL IS GOING TO 
CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS AND THAT 
HE, THE PRESIDENT, BELIEVES IN 
WHAT PAT CIPOLLONE WOULD SAY 
WHICH HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN THE 
RESPONSIVE BRIEF AND THE BRIEF 
IS VERY CLEAR. 
THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG 
OR IN OTHER WORDS, THE CALL WAS 
PERFECT. 
IF HE DOES SOMETHING WRONG, IT 
IS NOT IMPEACH ABLE. 
YOU CAN'T QUESTION CIPOLLONE 
BECAUSE HE IS THE LAWYER, 
EXCEPT 
THE SENATORS CAN QUESTION HIM. 
BUT THEY'RE QUESTIONING HIM NOT 
ABOUT HIM. 
THEY'RE QUESTIONING HIM ABOUT 
WHAT HAPPENED THAT HE IS THERE 
AS THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, NOT 
AS A WITNESS. 
>> IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL, THREE WITNESSES WERE 
ALLOWED TO HAVE AUDIO 
RECORDINGS 
PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL. 
IF THERE WERE THREE WITNESSES 
WHO 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 DEBATE 
WHICH YOU CAN ASK POLITICAL 
EXPERTS ABOUT IF IT'S OTHER 
PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE, IF IT'S 
LEV PARNAS OR IF IT IS 
ULTIMATELY RUDY GIULIANI. 
BUT THE WITNESSES THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TALKING 
ABOUT ARE REALLY WITHIN OMB. 
>> I WANT TO TURN TO JEFF MASON 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE. 
WE HAVE HEARD RICKY LAYOUT 
WITNESSES PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO 
HEAR FROM. 
WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM THE 
WHITE HOUSE? 
WHAT IS THEIR STRATEGY WHEN IT 
COMES TO ALLOWING ANYONE TO 
SPEAK? 
>> I THINK THE WHITE HOUSE IS 
GOING TO WAIT IT OUT A LITTLE 
BIT WHICH IS McCONNELL'S 
STRATEGY, HAVE BOTH SIDES MAKE 
THEIR ARGUMENTS FIRST, GO 
THROUGH THE SEPARATE 24 HOUR 
PERIODS OF LAYING OUT THE CASE 
AND THE DEFENSE. 
THEN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT 
WITNESSES. 
IF DEMOCRATS DO SUCCEED IN 
GETTING ENOUGH VOTES FROM SOME 
OF THE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES 
FROM MITT ROMNEY FOR EXAMPLE, 
PERHAPS SUSAN COLLINS, LISA 
MURKOWSKI TO ALLOW WITNESSES 
THEN REPUBLICANS WILL WANT 
WITNESSES AS WELL IN ADDITION 
TO 
THE THREE PEOPLE WE WERE 
DISCUSSING THAT THE DEMOCRATS 
WOULD LIKELY CALL. 
REPUBLICANS WOULD PROBABLY CALL 
HUNTER BIDEN, MIGHT EVEN CALL 
JOE BIDEN TO COME IN AND REALLY 
FOCUS ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS LEGAL TEAM ARE SAYING WAS 
GOING ON IN UKRAINE AND TO 
PROVE 
THEIR CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WAS NOT ACTUALLY TRYING TO 
DOUBLE DOWN ON A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT BUT WAS TRYING FIGHT 
CORRUPTION IN THE FOREIGN 
COUNTRY. 
>> AT THIS POINT, HOW CONFIDENT 
IS THE WHITE HOUSE WITH THEIR 
LEGAL STRATEGY GOING INTO 
IMPEACHMENT. 
WITH THESE POLLS WHERE A 
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 OVERALL STRATEGY I 
THINK THE WHITE HOUSE IS VERY 
CONFIDENT. 
AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT'S 
GOING TO BE THE OUTCOME FROM 
THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS? 
IT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT 
GOING 
TO LEAD TO PRESIDENT TRUMP 
BEING 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE. 
BECAUSE OF THAT AND THOSE FACTS 
THEY FEEL CONFIDENT ABOUT THIS 
GOING FORWARD. 
AS FAR AS WITNESSES, I THINK 
THERE IS A QUESTION MARK. 
IN GENERAL I THINK THE 
PREFERENCE NOW IS PRETTY WELL 
ALIGNED WITH McCONNELL'S 
PREFERENCES, WITH PREFERENCES 
THAT GRAHAM WHO IS CLOSELY TIED 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE LAID OUT OF 
JUST HAVING A QUICK TRIAL, 
HAVING A QUICK TRIAL AND 
GETTING 
THIS DONE, REMOVING IT FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S PLATE AND THE 
COUNTRY'S PLATE AND ALLOWING 
HIM 
TO MOVE ON AND CLAIM 
VINDICATION 
IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD REFER 
RATHER THAN HAVING A LONG DRAWN 
OUTWIT BACK AND FORTH FROM BOTH 
SIDES. 
>> DON, WE ARE ALSO GOING TO 
SEE 
CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT 
JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS PRESIDING 
OVER THIS TRIAL. 
WHAT WILL HIS ROLE BE IN ALL 
THIS? 
>> THAT'S WHAT REALLY 
DISTINGUISHES A PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
THIS IS THE ONLY CASE IN WHICH 
CHIEF JUSTICE COMES ACROSS THE 
STREET TO PRESIDE. 
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED 
STATES IS GOING TO, IN A SENSE, 
HAVE TO BE THE PRESIDING 
OFFICER 
OF THE SENATE WHICH MEANS HE IS 
GOING TO HAVE TO ADJUST TO 
RULES 
AND PRECEDENTS OF THE SENATE. 
IN 1868 UNDER ANDREW JOHNSON, 
CHIEF JUSTICE RULED AND MADE 
LOTS OF RULINGS AND DECIDED 
THINGS. 
BY 1999 WHEN REHNQUIST CAME 
OVER, THE SENATE HAD CHANGED AS 
A BODY AND PRESIDING OFFICER 
WAS 
NOT A POWERFUL FIGURE AND CHIEF 
JUSTICE HAD TO LISTEN TO THE 
SENATE PARLIAMENTARIANS GIVE 
HIM 
ADVICE. 
IF CHIEF JUSTICE RULED IN A 
DIFFERENT WAY, HE COULD BE 
OVERRULED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY OF 
SENATORS. 
REHNQUIST PULLED BACK AND DID A 
MINIMAL JOB OF WHICH LATER HE 
SAID HE DID NOTHING IN 
PARTICULAR BUT DID IT VERY WELL 
AND IN FACT WAS HIGHLY REGARDED 
BY SENATORS AT THE TIME. 
SO THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS GOING 
TO 
HAVE TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN 
ORDER 
AND DECORUM IN THE SENATE. 
SENATORS ARE NOT GOING TO BE 
ALLOWED TO STAND UP AND WALK 
AROUND, TALK TO EACH OTHER, 
READ 
NEWSPAPERS DURING THE 
PROCEEDINGS. 
HE IS GOING TO ADD A LOT OF 
GRAVITY I THINK TO THE 
PROCEEDINGS. 
HE IS GOING TO BE A REMINDER TO 
SENATORS THAT IT IS NOT A 
TYPICAL SESSION OF THE SENATE. 
>> I WANT TO BRING IN, JOINING 
US, OUR CBSN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR 
AND MOLLY HOOPER. 
WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING FOR AS WE 
ARE JUST IN THE BEGINNING? 
>> ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE 
HEARD MENTIONED IS UNDER THE 
DIFFERENT RULES, RULES 
DIFFERENT 
FROM PRESIDENT CLINTON THAT WE 
MAY SEE A MOTION TO DISMISS AT 
THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL 
WHICH 
I THINK WOULD BE DIFFERENT AND 
POTENTIALLY AS A GAME ENDER FOR 
THE ENTIRE PROCESS. 
IN ADDITION, I WANT TO ECHO 
WHAT 
RIKKI SAID MOMENTS AGO, THAT WE 
ARE ALSO POTENTIALLY GOING TO 
LOOK AT SOMETHING VERY UNUSUAL 
WHICH IS A TRIAL WITHOUT 
EVIDENCE, A TRIAL WITHOUT EVEN 
POTENTIALLY THE HOUSE'S 
EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE 
HOUSE GATHERED. 
AS YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING OR 
WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WITHOUT 
OTHER POTENTIALLY NEW IMPORTANT 
RELEVANT WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS. 
>> MOLLY, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE 
LIKELIHOOD IS THIS COULD BE 
DISMISSED AND AS FAR AS 
WITNESSES, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING 
ON CAPITOL HILL? 
ARE THERE ENOUGH REPUBLICANS? 
>> FOR THE INITIAL VOTES, WHAT 
SCHUMER WILL MAKE TODAY, I 
DON'T 
THINK THERE ARE ENOUGH TO CALL 
FOR WITNESSES AT THIS POINT. 
REPUBLICANS ARE AGREEING TO 
WHAT McCONNELL HAS INCLUDED 
WHICH ALLOWS FOR VOTE ON 
WITNESSES IN ARGUMENT TO, FOR, 
AGAINST WITNESSES AFTER OPENING 
ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND 
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED 
TO 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL. 
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT IS 
GOING TO THE RESOLUTION. 
THAT'S WHY I LIKE LEADING TO 
THE 
REVELATION OF THIS. 
THE QUESTION HAD BEEN WHETHER 
OR 
NOT MITCH McCONNELL WOULD 
ALLOW NEW EVIDENCE THAT HAD 
BEEN 
GATHERED SENSE HOUSE VOTED ON 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
WHAT MITCH McCONNELL IS 
SAYING, AND THIS IS WHAT 
HAPPENED WITH CLINTON, IS WE 
WILL ACCEPT ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT THE HOUSE VOTED ON 
WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE EVIDENCE 
THEY HAVE CONTAINED THAT THEY 
VOTED ON INITIALLY. 
THEN IN TERMS OF WHETHER 
THEY'RE 
GOING TO ACCEPT SAY THE LEV 
PARNAS DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENTS 
FROM 
THE WHITE HOUSE IN TERMS OF WHY 
THIS AID WAS WITHHELD, THAT 
VOTE 
WILL COME LATER. 
IT SOUNDS LIKE THESE 
REPUBLICANS 
LIKE MITT ROMNEY, SUSAN 
COLLINS, 
LISA MURKOWSKI, THEY AREN'T 
NECESSARILY GOING TO SUPPORT 
THAT EFFORT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE 
REALLY WHAT CHUCK SCHUMER IS 
TRYING TO DO IS PUT THE 
VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS, WE WERE 
TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE GREEN 
ROOM PRIOR TO COMING ON, PUT 
VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS LIKE 
CORY 
GARDNER IN A STUFF SPOT. 
HE IS UP FOR REELECTION IN 
PURPLE COLORADO. 
ON THE UPCOMING MOTIONS I WOULD 
NOT BE SURPRISED TO SEE 
SOMEBODY 
LIKE CORY GARDNER, MAYBE SUSAN 
COLLINS, VOTING FOR WITNESSES. 
BUT IT WON'T BE ENOUGH TO 
CHANGE 
THE OUTCOME AT THIS POINT. 
>> CAITLIN, I WANT TO GET YOU 
TO 
WEIGH IN. 
>> THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE IT 
BOTH WAYS. 
IT'S SOMETHING THESE 
REPUBLICANS 
FOR REELECTION HAVE TO 
CONSIDER. 
YES THEY COME FROM PURPLE 
STATES 
BUT ALSO NEED TO REALLY GET THE 
TRUMP BASE OUT TO SUPPORT THEM. 
LAST WEEK WHEN MARTHA McSALLY 
CALLED A REPORTER A HACK, SHE'S 
OF COURSE UP IN ARIZONA WHICH 
IS 
AN INCREASINGLY CHANGING STATE. 
WE SAW. 
>> THEY'RE READING THE OATH 
RIGHT NOW. 
LET'S LISTEN IN. 
>> WILL NOTE THE NAME OF THE 
SENATOR WHO HAS TAKEN THE OATH 
AND WILL PRESENT THE OATH BOOK 
TO HIM FOR SIGNATURE.
>> SERGEANT IN ARMS WILL MAKE 
THE PROCLAMATION. 
>> HEAR YE, HEAR YE ALL PERSONS 
ARE COMMAND TO KEEP SILENT ON 
PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT WHILE 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS 
SITTING FOR TRIAL OF THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
EXHIBITED BY HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD 
JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES. 
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT 
FOR INFORMATION OF ALL SENATORS 
TRIAL BRIEFS FILED YESTERDAY BY 
PARTIES HAVE BEEN PRINTED AND 
ARE NOW AT EACH SENATOR'S DESK. 
>> THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WILL 
BE SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE FOR 
PRINTING IN THE SENATE JOURNAL. 
THE PRESEPTEMBER ISSUED  
JANUARY 16, 2020, WRIT OF 
SUMMONS ON JANUARY 16, 2020. 
RECEIPT OF SUMMONS, JANUARY 16, 
2020. 
FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE 
RECEIVED BY SECRETARY OF THE 
SENATE WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE 
SENATE FOR PRINTING IN SENATE 
JOURNAL. 
ANSWER OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
EXHIBITED BY HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST HIM ON 
JANUARY 16, 2020, RECEIVED BY 
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON 
JANUARY 18, 2020. 
TRIAL BRIEF FILED BY HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY 
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON 
JANUARY 18, 2020, TRIAL BRIEF 
FILED BY THE PRESIDENT, 
RECEIVED 
BY SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON 
JANUARY 20, 2020, REPLICATION 
OF 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
RECEIVED BY SECRETARY OF THE 
SENATE ON JANUARY 20, 2020, AND 
REBUTTAL BRIEF FILED BY HOUSE 
OF 
REPRESENTATIVES RECEIVED BY THE 
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON 
JANUARY 21, 2020. 
WITHOUT OBJECTION THE FORE 
GOING 
DOCUMENTS WILL BE PRINTED IN 
THE 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 
I NOTE THE PRESENCE IN THE 
HOUSE 
OF THE SENATE, IN THE SENATE 
CHAMBER OF THE MANAGERS ON THE 
PART OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES AND COUNSEL FOR 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
>> MAJORITY LEADER RECOGNIZED. 
>> I ASK LIST FOR FLOOR 
PRIVILEGES FOR CLOSED SESSIONS. 
IT'S AGREED TO BY BOTH SIDES. 
I ASK THAT IT IS INSERTED INTO 
THE RECORD AND AGREED TO BY 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> FURTHER INFORMATION OF ALL 
SENATORS, I AM ABOUT TO SEND 
RESOLUTION TO THE DESK 
PROVIDING 
FOR OUTLINE OF THE NEXT STEPS 
IN 
PROCEEDINGS. 
IT WILL BE DEBATABLE BY PARTIES 
FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY DIVIDED. 
SENATOR SCHUMER WILL SEND AN 
AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION TO 
THE DESK. 
ONCE THAT AMENDMENT HAS BEEN 
OFFERED AND REPORTED, WE'LL 
HAVE 
A BRIEF RECESS. 
WHEN WE RECONVENE SENATOR 
SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT WILL BE 
DEBATABLE BY PARTIES FOR TWO 
HOURS, UPON USE OR YIELDING 
BACK 
OF TIME, I INTEND TO TABLE 
SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT. 
SO MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND 
RESOLUTION TO THE DESK AND ASK 
THAT IT BE READ. 
>> THE CLERK WILL READ THE 
RESOLUTION. 
>> SENATE RESOLUTION 483 TO 
PROVIDE FOR RELATED PROCEDURES 
CONCERNING ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST DONALD JOHN 
TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
RESOLVED, THAT THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL FILE ITS 
RECORD WITH SECRETARY OF THE 
SENATE WHICH WILL CONSENT OF 
THOSE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 
MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO OR 
PRODUCED BY HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS 
OF PUBLIC HEARINGS OR MARKUPS 
AND ANY MATERIALS PRINTED BY 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 
660. 
MATERIALS IN THE RECORD WILL BE 
ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE SUBJECT 
TO ANY HEARSAY, EVIDENTIARY OR 
OTHER OBJECTIONS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT MAY MAKE AFTER 
OPENING 
PRESENTATIONS ARE CONCLUDED. 
ALL MATERIALS FILED PURSUANT TO 
THIS PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE 
PRINTED 
AND MADE 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 MOTIONS 
PERMITTED UNDER RULES OF 
IMPEACHMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION 
OF MOTIONS TO SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES 
OR DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER 
EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS. 
RESPONSES TO ANY SUCH MOTIONS 
SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN 
11:00 A.M. 
ON WEDNESDAY  
JANUARY 22, 2020. 
ALL MATERIALS FILED PURSUANT TO 
THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE FILED 
WITH THE SECRETARY AND BE 
PRINTED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO 
ALL PARTIES. 
ARGUMENTS ARE SUCH MOTIONS 
SHALL 
BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. 
ON WEDNESDAY 
JANUARY 22, 2020 AND EACH SIDE 
MAY DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF 
PERSONS TO MAKE PRESENTATION 
FOLLOWING WHICH THE SENATE 
SHALL 
DELIBERATE IF SO ORDERED UNDER 
IMPEACHMENT RULES AND VOTE ON 
SUCH MOTIONS. 
FOLLOWING DISPOSITION OF SUCH 
MOTIONS OR IF NO MOTIONS ARE 
MADE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
SHALL MAKE IN SUPPORT OF 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR 
PERIOD OF TIME NOT TO EXCEED 24 
HOURS OVER UP TO THREE SESSION 
DAYS. 
FOLLOWING HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES' PRESENTATION 
THE PRESIDENT SHALL MAKE HIS 
PRESENTATION FOR A PERIOD NOT 
TO 
EXCEED 24 HOURS OVER UP TO 
THREE 
SESSION DAYS. 
EACH SIDE MAY DETERMINE NUMBER 
OF PERSONS TO MAKE ITS 
PRESENTATION. 
UPON CONCLUSION OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S PRESENTATION, 
SENATORS MAY QUESTION THE 
PARTIES FOR A PERIOD OF TIME 
NOT 
TO EXCEED 16 HOURS. 
UPON THE CONCLUSION OF 
QUESTIONING BY SENATE, THERE 
SHALL BE FOUR HOURS OF ARGUMENT 
BY THE PARTIES EQUALLY DIVIDED 
FOLLOWED BY DELIBERATION BY THE 
SENATE IF SO ORDERED UNDER THE 
IMPEACHMENT RULES ON THE 
QUESTION OF WHETHER IT SHALL BE 
IN ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE 
UNDER IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY 
MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR 
DOCUMENTS. 
SENATE WITHOUT INTERVENING 
ACTION, MOTION, AMENDMENT SHALL 
THEN DECIDE WHETHER IT SHALL BE 
IN ORDER TO CONSIDER AND DEBATE 
UNDER IMPEACHMENT RULES ANY 
MOTION TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES OR 
DOCUMENTS. 
FOLLOWING DISPOSITION OF THAT 
QUESTION, OTHER MOTIONS 
PROVIDED 
UNDER IMPEACHMENT RULES SHALL 
BE 
IN ORDER. 
IF THE SENATE AGREES TO ALLOW 
EITHER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
OR PRESIDENT TO SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES, THE WITNESSES SHALL 
FIRST BE DEPOSED AND SENATE 
SHALL DECIDE AFTER DEPOSITION 
WHICH WITNESSES SHALL TESTIFY 
PURSUANT TO IMPEACHMENT RULES. 
NO TESTIMONY SHALL BE 
ADMISSIBLE 
IN THE SENATE UNLESS PARTIES 
HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO DEPOSE 
SUCH WITNESSES. 
AT THE CONCLUSION OF 
DELIBERATIONS BY SENATE, THE 
SENATE SHALL VOTE ON EACH 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. 
>> RESOLUTION IS ARGUABLE BY 
PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS EQUALLY 
DIVIDED. 
MR. MANAGER SCHIFF ARE YOU A 
PROPONENT OR OH BONENT OF THIS 
MOTION? 
>> HOUSE MANAGERS ARE IN 
OPPOSITION TO THE RESOLUTION. 
>> THANK YOU. 
MR. CIPOLLONE, ARE YOU A 
PROPONENT OR OH BONENT? 
>> WE ARE PROPONENT OF THE 
MOTION. 
>> MR. CIPOLLONE, YOUR SIDE MAY 
PROCEED FIRST AND WILL OBSERVE 
REBUTTAL TIME IF YOU WISH. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, 
DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, 
SENATORS, MY NAME IS PAT 
CIPOLLONE. 
I AM HERE AS COUNSEL TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
OUR TEAM IS PROUD TO BE HERE 
REPRESENTING PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
WE SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION. 
IT 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 AN 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IT REQUIRES THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
TO STAND UP AND MAKE THEIR 
OPENING STATEMENT AND MAKE 
THEIR 
CASE. 
THEY HAVE DELAYED BRINGING THIS 
IMPEACHMENT TO THIS HOUSE FOR 
33 
DAYS. 
33 DAYS TO THIS BODY. 
IT IS TIME TO START WITH THIS 
TRIAL. 
IT'S A FAIR PROCESS. 
THEY WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY 
TO STAND UP AND MAKE THEIR 
OPENING STATEMENT. 
THEY WILL GET 24 HOURS TO DO 
THAT. 
THEN THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS 
WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND. 
AFTER THAT, ALL OF YOU WILL 
HAVE 
16 HOURS TO ASK WHATEVER 
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF OF EITHER 
SIDE. 
ONCE THAT'S FINISHED AND YOU 
HAVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, 
WE 
WILL PROCEED TO THE QUESTION OF 
WITNESSES AND SOME OF THE MORE 
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 IMPEACHMENT DO NOT 
BEGIN TO APPROACH THE STANDARD 
REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTION AND IN 
FACT THEY THEMSELVES WILL 
ESTABLISH NOTHING BEYOND THOSE 
ARTICLES. 
YOU LOOK AT THE ARTICLES ALONE, 
AND YOU WILL DETERMINE THAT 
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CASE. 
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO 
ADOPT 
THIS RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN 
BEGIN WITH THIS PROCESS. 
IT IS LONG PAST TIME TO START 
THIS PROCEEDING, AND WE ARE 
HERE 
TODAY TO DO IT. 
WE HOPE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
WILL AGREE WITH US AND BEGIN 
THIS PROCEEDING TODAY. 
WE RESERVE THE REMAINDER OF 
TIME 
FOR REBUTTAL.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
HOUSE 
MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES RISE IN 
OPPOSITION TO LEADER 
MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION. 
LET ME BEGIN BY SUMMARIZING 
WHY. 
LAST WEEK, WE CAME BEFORE YOU 
TO 
PRESENT THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
FOR ONLY THE THIRD TIME IN OUR 
HISTORY. 
THOSE ARTICLES CHARGE PRESIDENT 
DONALD JOHN TRUMP WITH ABUSE OF 
POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS. 
MISCONDUCT IN THE ARTICLES IS 
THE MOST SERIOUS EVER CHARGED 
AGAINST A PRESIDENT. 
THE FIRST ARTICLE, ABUSE OF 
POWER, CHARGES THE PRESIDENT 
WITH SOLICITING FOREIGN POWER 
TO 
HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION. 
MORE OVER IT ALLEGES WE WILL 
PROVE HE SOUGHT TO COERCE 
UKRAINE INTO HELPING HIM CHEAT 
BY WITHHOLDING OFFICIAL ACTS, 
TWO OFFICIAL ACTS. 
A MEETING THAT THE NEW 
PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE DESPERATELY SOUGHT 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AT 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 ALMOST $400 MILLION IN 
TAXPAYER FUNDED MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, A NATION 
AT WAR WITH OUR RUSSIAN 
ADVERSARY TO COMPEL UKRAINE TO 
HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE ELECTION. 
ASTONISHINGLY THE PRESIDENT'S 
TRIAL BRIEF FILED YESTERDAY 
CONTENDS EVEN IF THIS CONDUCT 
IS 
PROVED, THAT THERE IS NOTHING 
THAT THE HOUSE OR THIS SENATE 
MAY DO ABOUT IT. 
IT IS THE PRESIDENT'S APPARENT 
BELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 2, HE CAN 
DO ANYTHING HE WANTS NO MATTER 
HOW CORRUPT OUT FITTED IN GOD 
ILLEGAL CLOTHING. 
YET WHEN FOUNDERS WROTE THE 
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, THEY HAD 
PRECISELY THIS TYPE OF 
MISCONDUCT IN MIND, CONDUCT 
THAT 
ABUSES THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE 
FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT, THAT 
UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY, THAT INVITES FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC 
PROCESS IN THE ELECTION, THE 
TRIFECTA OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
MISCONDUCT JUSTIFYING 
IMPEACHMENT. 
ARTICLE 2, THE PRESIDENT 
CHARGED 
WITH OTHER MISCONDUCT THAT 
WOULD 
LIKEWISE HAVE ALARMED FOUNDERS. 
FULL COMPLETE ABSOLUTE 
OBSTRUCTION OF A COEQUAL BRANCH 
OF GOVERNMENT, THE CONGRESS. 
DURING THE COURSE OF THE 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MISCONDUCT. 
THIS IS EVERY BIT AS 
DESTRUCTIVE 
OF CONSTITUTIONAL OLD AS 
MISCONDUCT CHARGED IN THE FIRST 
ARTICLE. 
IF A PRESIDENT CAN OBSTRUCT HIS 
OWN INVESTIGATION, IF HE CAN 
EFFECTIVELY NULLIFY A POWER THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES SOLELY TO 
CONGRESS, INDEED THE ULTIMATE 
POWER, ULTIMATE POWER THE 
CONSTITUTION GIVES TO PREVENT 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT THE 
PRESIDENT PLACES HIMSELF BEYOND 
ACCOUNTABILITY, ABOVE THE LAW, 
CANNOT BE INDICTED, CANNOT BE 
IMPEACHED. 
IT MAKES HIM A MONARCH, THE 
VERY 
EVIL AGAINST WHICH OUR 
CONSTITUTION AND BALANCE OF 
POWERS IT CAREFULLY LAID OUT 
WAS 
DESIGNED TO GUARD AGAINST. 
SHORTLY, THE TRIAL ON THE 
CHARGES WILL BEGIN. 
WHEN IT HAS CONCLUDED, YOU WILL 
BE ASKED TO MAKE SEVERAL 
DETERMINATIONS. 
DID THE HOUSE PROVE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY 
SEEKING TO COERCE A FOREIGN 
NATION TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE 
NEXT ELECTION? 
DID HE OBSTRUCT THE CONGRESS IN 
ITS INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OWN 
MISCONDUCT BY ORDERING HIS 
AGENCIES AND OFFICERS TO 
COOPERATE -- REFUSE TO 
COOPERATE 
IN ANY WAY, REFUSE TO TESTIFY, 
REFUSE TO ANSWER SUBPOENAS FOR  
DOCUMENTS AND EVERY OTHER 
MEANS. 
IF THE HOUSE APPROVED ITS CASE 
AND WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE 
WILL 
NOT BE SERIOUSLY CONTESTED YOU 
WILL HAVE TO ANSWER AT LEAST 
ONE 
OTHER CRITICAL QUESTION. 
DOES THE COMMISSION OF THESE 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS 
REQUIRE THE CONVICTION AND 
REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT? 
WE BELIEVE THAT IT DOES AND 
THAT 
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT 
IT BE SO OR POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT 
MUST BE DEEMED A RELIC OR 
CASUALTY TO PARTISAN TIMES AND 
AMERICAN PEOPLE LEFT 
UNPROTECTED 
AGAINST A PRESIDENT WHO WOULD 
ABUSE HIS POWER FOR THE VERY 
PURPOSE OF CORRUPTING THE ONLY 
OTHER METHOD OF ACCOUNTABILITY, 
OUR ELECTIONS THEMSELVES. 
SO YOU WILL VOTE TO FIND THE 
PRESIDENT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, 
TO FIND HIS CONDUCT IMPEACHABLE 
OR NOT IMPEACHABLE. 
I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THESE ARE 
NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT 
DECISIONS 
YOU WILL MAKE. 
HOW CAN THAT BE? 
HOW CAN ANY DECISION YOU WILL 
MAKE BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN 
GUILT OR INNOCENCE, THAN 
REMOVING THE PRESIDENT OR NOT 
REMOVING THE PRESIDENT? 
I BELIEVE 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 SUBMIT THIS IS AN EVEN MORE 
IMPORTANT QUESTION THAN HOW YOU 
VOTE ON GUILT OR INNOCENCE 
BECAUSE WHETHER WE HAVE A FAIR 
TRIAL WILL DETERMINE WHETHER 
YOU 
HAVE A BASIS TO RENDER A FAIR 
AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT. 
IT IS FOUNDATIONAL. 
THE STRUCTURE UPON WHICH EVERY 
OTHER DECISION YOU WILL MAKE 
MUST REST. 
IF YOU ONLY GET TO SEE PART OF 
THE EVIDENCE, IF YOU ONLY ALLOW 
ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER A CHANCE 
TO PRESENT THEIR FULL CASE, 
YOUR 
VERDICT WILL BE PRE-DETERMINED 
BY THE BIAS IN THE PROCEEDING. 
IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ALLOWED 
TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF 
INNOCENCE, IT'S NOT A FAIR 
TRIAL. 
SO TOO FOR PROSECUTION. 
IF HOUSE CANNOT CALL WITNESSES 
OR INTRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND 
EVIDENCE, IT'S NOT A FAIR 
TRIAL. 
IT'S NOT REALLY A TRIAL AT ALL. 
AMERICANS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY 
ARE WATCHING US RIGHT NOW. 
IMAGINE THEY'RE ON JURY DUTY. 
IMAGINE THAT THE JUDGE WALKS 
INTO THE COURTROOM AND SAYS 
TAT 
SHE'S BEEN TALKING TO THE 
DEFENDANT AND AT THE 
DEFENDANT'S 
REQUEST, THE JUDGE HAS AGREED 
NOT TO LET THE PROSECUTION CALL 
ANY WITNESSES OR INTRODUCE 
DOCUMENTS. 
THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT AGREED 
THAT THE PROSECUTOR MAY ONLY 
READ TO THE JURY THE 
TRANSCRIPTS 
OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. 
THAT'S IT. 
HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD A JUDGE 
DESCRIBE A PROCEEDING AND CALL 
IT A FAIR TRIAL? 
OF COURSE NOT. 
THAT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL. 
IT'S A MOCKERY OF A TRIAL. 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THIS 
PROCEEDING, THE ONE WE ARE IN 
RIGHT NOW IS THE TRIAL. 
THIS IS NOT THE APPEAL FROM A 
TRIAL. 
YOU ARE NOT APPELLATE COURT 
JUDGES. 
OKAY. 
ONE OF YOU IS. 
UNLESS THIS TRIAL WILL BE 
DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OR ANY OTHER 
KIND OF TRIAL FOR THAT MATTER, 
YOU MUST ALLOW PROSECUTION AND 
DEFENSE, HOUSE MANAGER AND 
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TO CALL 
RELEVANT WITNESSES. 
YOU MUST SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS 
THAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED BUT 
WHICH BEAR ON 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 IMPEACHMENT? 
THE SHORT ANSWER IS, IT LOOKS 
LIKE EVERY OTHER TRIAL. 
FIRST RESOLUTION SHOULD ALLOW 
HOUSE MANAGERS TO OBTAIN 
DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN 
WITHHELD. 
FIRST, NOT LAST. 
BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS WILL HAVE 
THE DECISION ABOUT WHICH 
WITNESSES ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO 
CALL. 
AND WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE 
CALLED, THE DOCUMENTARY 
EVIDENCE 
WILL BE AVAILABLE AND MUST BE 
AVAILABLE TO QUESTION THEM 
WITH. 
ANY OTHER ORDER MAKES NO SENSE. 
NEXT, RESOLUTION SHOULD ALLOW 
HOUSE MANAGERS TO CALL THEIR 
WITNESSES AND THEN THE 
PRESIDENT 
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THE 
SAME, AND ANY REBUTTAL 
WITNESSES. 
WHEN EVIDENTIARY PORTION OF THE 
TRIAL ENDS, PARTIES ARGUE THE 
CASE. 
YOU DELIBERATE AND RENDER A 
VERDICT. 
IF THERE IS A DISPUTE AS TO 
WHETHER A PARTICULAR WITNESS IS 
RELEVANT OR MATERIAL TO CHARGES 
BROUGHT UNDER THE SENATE RULES, 
CHIEF JUSTICE WOULD RULE ON THE 
ISSUE OF MATERIALITY. 
WHY SHOULD THIS TRIAL BE 
DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER TRIAL? 
THE SHORT ANSWER IS IT 
SHOULDN'T. 
LEADER McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION 
WOULD TURN THE TRIAL PROCESS ON 
ITS HEAD, RESOLUTION REQUIRES 
HOUSE TO PROVE ITS CASE WITHOUT 
WITNESSES, WITHOUT DOCUMENTS, 
ONLY AFTER IT IS DONE WILL SUCH 
QUESTIONS BE ENTERTAINED WITH 
NO 
GUARANTEE ANY WITNESSES OR ANY 
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED EVEN 
THEN. 
THAT PROCESS MAKES NO SENSE. 
WHAT IS THE HARM OF WAITING 
UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL, OF 
KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD 
ON 
THE QUESTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 
WITNESSES? 
BESIDES THE FACT IT IS 
COMPLETELY BACKWARDS, TRIAL 
FIRST AND THEN EVIDENCE, 
BESIDES 
THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS 
WOULD INFORM THE DECISION ON 
WHICH WITNESSES AND HELP IN 
QUESTIONING, THE HARM IS THIS. 
YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE 
THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO 
CONCEAL THROUGHOUT MOST OR ALL 
OF THE TRIAL. 
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE AGAINST 
THE PRESIDENT IS ALREADY 
OVERWHELMING, YOU MAY NEVER 
KNOW 
THE FULL SCOPE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT OR THOSE 
AROUND HIM. 
NEITHER WILL THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
THE CHARGES HERE INVOLVE THE 
SACRIFICE OF OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY AT HOME AND ABROAD AND 
A THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF 
THE 
NEXT SELECTION. 
IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL 
REMEDIAL 
STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN 
AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONVICTION, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
MUST KNOW ABOUT IT. 
BUT IF, AS THE PUBLIC ALREADY 
JADED BY EXPERIENCE HAS COME TO 
EXPECT, THIS RESOLUTION IS 
MERELY FIRST STEP OF EFFORT 
ORCHESTRATED BY WHITE HOUSE TO 
RUSH THE TRIAL, HIDE EVIDENCE, 
RENDER A FAST VERDICT OR WORST, 
A FAST DISMISSAL, TO MAKE THE 
GO 
AWAY AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, TO 
COVER MISDEEDS THEN THE 
AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WILL BE DEPRIVED OF A 
FAIR TRIAL AND MAY NEVER LEARN 
HOW DEEP THE CORRUPTION OF THE 
ADMINISTRATION GOES OR WHAT 
OTHER RISK TO OUR SECURITY AND 
ELECTIONS REMAIN HIDDEN. 
THE HARM WILL ALSO ENDURE FOR 
THIS BODY. 
IF THE SENATE ALLOWS THE 
PRESIDENT TO GET AWAY WITH SUCH 
EXTENSIVE OBSTRUCTION, IT WILL 
AFFECT THE SENATE'S POWER OF 
SUBPOENA AND OVERSIGHT JUST AS 
MUCH AS THE HOUSE. 
THE SENATE'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT 
OVERSIGHT WILL BE BEHOLD TO THE 
DESIRES OF THIS PRESIDENT AND 
FUTURE PRESIDENTS, WHETHER HE 
OR 
SHE DECIDES THEY WANT TO 
COOPERATE WITH A SENATE 
INVESTIGATION OR ANOTHER 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND TRIAL, 
OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND 
BALANCES WILL BE BROKEN. 
PRESIDENTS WILL BECOME 
ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE. 
NOW, IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT 
LEADER McCONNELL HAS ALREADY 
GOT VOTES TO PASS THIS 
RESOLUTION, THE TEXT OF WHICH 
WE 
DID NOT SEE UNTIL LAST NIGHT 
AND 
WHICH HAS BEEN CHANGED EVEN 
MOMENTS AGO. 
THEY SAY THAT LEADER McCONNELL 
IS A VERY GOOD VOTE COUNTER. 
NONETHELESS, I HOPE THAT HE IS 
WRONG. 
NOT JUST BECAUSE I THINK THIS 
PROCESS, THE PROCESS 
CONTEMPLATED BY THE RESOLUTION 
IS BACKWARDS AND DESIGNED WITH 
A 
RESULT IN MIND AND THAT THE 
RESULT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL, I 
HOPE THAT HE IS WRONG BECAUSE 
WHATEVER SENATORS MAY HAVE SAID 
OR PLEDGED OR COMMITTED HAS 
BEEN 
SUPERSEDED BY EVENT OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION. 
YOU HAVE ALL NOW SWORN AN OATH. 
NOT TO EACH OTHER, NOT TO YOUR 
LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP, NOT TO 
THE MANAGERS OR EVEN TO THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE. 
YOU HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO DO 
IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. 
THAT OATH BINDS YOU. 
THAT OATH SUPERSEDES ALL ELSE. 
MANY IN THE SENATE AND MUCH IN 
THE HOUSE HAVE MADE STATEMENTS 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCTOR 
THIS TRIAL OR THIS MOTION OR 
EXPECTATIONS. 
NONE OF THAT MATTERS NOW. 
THAT IS ALL IN THE PAST. 
NOTHING MATTERS NOW BUT THE 
OATH 
TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. 
AND THAT OATH REQUIRES A FAIR 
TRIAL, FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT, 
AND FAIR TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
BUT IS THAT REALLY POSSIBLE? 
OR OR AS FOUNDERS FEARED HAS 
FACTIONALISM OR EXCESSIVE 
PARTNERSHIP MADE THAT NOW I AM 
PO BE? 
ONE WAY TO FIND OUT WHAT A FAIR 
TRIAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE DEVOID 
OF 
PARTISAN CONSIDERATION 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 
PRESIDENT WAS? 
WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THE 
TRIAL FIRST AND THEN DECIDE ON 
WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE LATER? 
WOULD THAT BE FAIR TO BOTH 
SIDES? 
I HAVE TO THINK YOUR ANSWER 
WOULD BE NO. 
LET ME BE BLUNT. 
LET ME BE VERY BLUNT. 
RIGHT NOW, A GREAT MANY, 
PERHAPS 
EVEN MOST AMERICANS, DO NOT 
BELIEVE THERE WILL BE A FAIR 
TRIAL. 
THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE 
SENATE WILL BE IMPARTIAL. 
THEY BELIEVE THAT THE RESULT IS 
PRECOOKED. 
THE PRESIDENT WILL BE 
ACQUITTED. 
NOT BECAUSE HE IS INNOCENT. 
HE IS NOT. 
BUT BECAUSE THE SENATORS WILL 
VOTE BY PARTY AND HE HAS THE 
VOTES, VOTES TO PREVENT 
EVIDENCE 
FROM COMING OUT, VOTES TO MAKE 
SURE THE PUBLIC NEVER SEES IT. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT A FAIR 
TRIAL. 
THEY WANT TO BELIEVE THEIR 
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS STILL 
CAPABLE OF RISING TO THE 
OCCASION. 
THEY WANT TO BELIEVE THAT WE 
CAN 
RISE ABOVE PARTY AND DO WHAT'S 
BEST FOR THE COUNTRY BUT A 
GREAT 
MANY AMERICANS DON'T BELIEVE 
THAT WILL HAPPEN. 
LET'S PROVE THEM WRONG. 
LET'S PROVE THEM WRONG. 
HOW? 
BY CONVICTING THE PRESIDENT? 
NO. 
NOT BY CONVICTION ALONE, BY 
CONVICTING HIM IF THE HOUSE 
PROVES ITS CASE AND ONLY IF THE 
HOUSE PROVES ITS CASE. 
BUT BY LETTING THE HOUSE PROVE 
ITS CASE, BY LETTING THE HOUSE 
CALL WITNESSES, BY LETTING THE 
HOUSE OBTAIN DOCUMENTS, BY 
LETTING HOUSE DECIDE HOW TO 
PRESENT ITS OWN CASE AND NOT 
DECIDING IT FOR US. 
IN SUM, BY AGREEING TO A FAIR 
TRIAL. 
LET'S TURN TO THE PRECISE TERMS 
OF THE RESOLUTION, HISTORY OF 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, WHAT 
FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY 
REQUIRE.
ALTHOUGH WE HAVE MANY CONCERNS 
ABOUT THE RESOLUTION, I WILL 
BEGIN WITH ITS SINGLE BIGGEST 
FLAW. 
THE RESOLUTION DOES NOTTEN SURE 
THAT SUBPOENAS WILL IN FACT BE 
ISSUED FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, 
THAT THE SENATE AND AMERICAN 
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE AND THAT THE 
PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO BLOCK TO 
FAIRLY DECIDE THE PRESIDENT'S 
GUILT OR INNOCENCE. 
MORE OVER, IT GUARANTEES 
SUBPOENAS WILL NOT BE ISSUED 
NOW, WHEN THEY WOULD BE MOST 
VALUABLE TO THE SENATE, 
PARTIES, 
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION THE 
LEADER HAS INTRODUCED FIRST THE 
SENATE RECEIVES BRIEFS AND 
FILINGS FROM PARTIES. 
NEXT, LENGTHY PRESENTATIONS 
FROM 
THE HOUSE AND PRESIDENT. 
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE DESCRIBED 
THIS AS OPENING STATEMENTS. 
LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES. 
THAT IS THE TRIAL THAT THEY 
CONTEMPLATE. 
OPENING STATEMENTS ARE THE 
TRIAL. 
THEY'LL EITHER BE MOST OF TRIAL 
OR THEY'LL BE ALL THE TRIAL. 
IF THE SENATE VOTES TO DEPRIVE 
ITSELF OF WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS, OPENING STATEMENTS 
WILL BE THE END OF THE TRIAL. 
TO SAY LET'S HAVE THE OPENING 
STATEMENTS AND THEN WE'LL SEE 
MEANS LET'S HAVE THE TRIAL AND 
MAYBE WE CAN JUST SWEEP THIS 
ALL 
UNDER THE RUG. 
YOU WILL HEAR THESE LENGTHY 
PRESENTATIONS FROM THE HOUSE. 
THERE WILL BE A QUESTION AND 
ANSWER PERIOD FOR SENATORS. 
THEN AND ONLY THEN, AFTER 
ESSENTIALLY THE TRIAL IS OVER, 
AFTER BRIEFS HAVE BEEN FILED, 
AFTER ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, 
AFTER SENATORS EXHAUST ALL 
THEIR 
QUESTIONS, ONLY THEN WILL 
SENATE 
CONSIDER WHETHER TO SUBPOENA 
CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS 
TESTIMONY THE PRESIDENT HAS 
DESPERATELY TRIED TO CONCEAL 
FROM THIS CONGRESS AND AMERICAN 
PEOPLE. 
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY 
THAT UNLIKE THE CLINTON TRIAL 
HAVE NOT YET BEEN SEEN OR 
HEARD. 
IT IS TRUE THAT THE RECORD 
COMPILED BY HOUSE IS 
OVERWHELMING. 
IT IS TRUE THAT THE RECORD 
ALREADY COMPELS THE PRESIDENT 
IN 
THE FACE OF UNPRECEDENTED BY 
THE 
PRESIDENT, HOUSE ASSEMBLED A 
POWERFUL CASE, EVIDENCE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S HIGH CRIMES AND 
MISDEMEANORS. 
THAT INCLUDES DIRECT EVIDENCE 
AND TESTIMONY, OFFICIALS WHO 
WERE UNWILLING AND UNWITTING IN 
THIS SCHEME AND SAW IT FOR WHAT 
IT WAS. 
YET THERE IS STILL MORE 
EVIDENCE 
RELATIVE AND PROBE TIM EVIDENCE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO 
BLOCK THAT WOULD FLESH OUT FULL 
EXTENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
MISCONDUCT AND THOSE AROUND 
HIM. 
WE HAVE SEEN THAT OVER THE PAST 
FEW WEEKS NEW EVIDENCE HAS 
CONTINUED TO COME TO LIGHT AS 
THE NONPARTISAN GOVERNMENT 
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE HAS 
DETERMINED THAT THE HOLD ON 
MILITARY TO UKRAINE WAS ILLEGAL 
AND BROKE THE LAW. 
AS JOHN BOLTON HAS OFFERED TO 
TESTIFY IN THE TRIAL, AS ONE OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S AGENTS LEV 
PARNAS HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY 
EVIDENCE THAT CLARIFIES  
MR. GIULIANI'S ACTIVITIES ON 
BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT AND 
CORROBORATES SONDLAND'S 
TESTIMONY THAT EVERYONE WAS IN 
THE LOOP. 
AS DOCUMENTS RELEASED UNDER 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT HAVE 
DOCUMENTED ALARM AT THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHILE 
PRESIDENT ILLEGALLY WITHHELD 
MILITARY SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, 
AN 
ALLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA WITHOUT 
EXPLANATION, AS A SENIOR OFFICE 
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
OFFICIAL MICHAEL DUFFEY 
INSTRUCTED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIALS ON JULY 25, 90 
MINUTES 
AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE BY 
PHONE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SHOULD PAUSE 
ALL OBLIGATION OF UKRAINE 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE UNDER ITS 
PER VIEW. 
90 MINUTES AFTER THAT CALL. 
DUFFEY ADDED "GIVEN THE 
SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE 
REQUEST, 
I APPRECIATE YOUR KEEPING THAT 
INFORMATION CLOSELY HELD TO 
THOSE WHO NEED TO KNOW TO 
EXECUTE THE DIRECTION." 
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE IS 
ALREADY 
MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO 
CONVICT, 
THERE IS SIMPLY NO RATIONALE 
BASIS FOR SENATE TO DEPRIVE 
ITSELF OF ALL RELEVANT 
INFORMATION IN MAKING SUCH A 
HUGE CONSEQUENTIAL JUDGMENT. 
MORE OVER AS THE PRESIDENT'S 
ANSWER TO HIS SUMMONS AND TRIAL 
BRIEF MADE CLEAR, THE PRESIDENT 
NOW ATTEMPTS TO CONTEST FACTS 
ALBEIT FALSE AND MISLEADING 
WAYS. 
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE 
IT 
BOTH WAYS. 
HE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO 
CLAIM THAT THE FACTS UNCOVERED 
BY HOUSE ARE WRONG WHILE ALSO 
CONCEALING MOUNTAINS OF 
EVIDENCE 
THAT BEAR PRECISELY ON THOSE 
FACTS. 
IF THIS BODY SEEKS IMPARTIAL 
JUSTICE, IT SHOULD ENSURE 
SUBPOENAS ARE ISSUED AND THAT 
THEY ARE ISSUED NOW BEFORE THE 
SENATE BEGINS EXTENDED 
PROCEEDINGS BASED ON A RECORD 
THAT EVERY PERSON IN THIS ROOM 
AND EVERY AMERICAN WATCHING AT 
HOME KNOWS DOES NOT INCLUDE 
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY 
IT SHOULD BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT 
WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO BE SO. 
COMPLYING WITH THE SUBPOENAS 
WOULD NOT IMPOSE A BURDEN. 
THE SUBPOENAS COVER NARROWLY 
TAILORED TARGETED DOCUMENTS AND 
WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT 
CONCEALED. 
SENATE DESERVES TO SEE 
DOCUMENTS 
FROM WHITE HOUSE, STATE 
DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT 
AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE, THESE AGENCIES SHOULD 
HAVE COLLECTED AND AT LEAST 
PRESERVED THESE. 
INDEED SOME CASES, AGENCIES 
HAVE 
PRODUCED DOCUMENTS IN FOIL 
LAWSUITS ALBEIT IN HEAVILY 
REDACTED FORM. 
WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE 
OR INVOLVEMENT SHOULD BE HEARD. 
THAT INCLUDES THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACT OF CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY, HIS FORMER NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON 
WHO 
PUBLICLY OFFERED TO TESTIFY, 
TWO 
SENIOR OFFICIALS INTEGRAL TO 
IMPLEMENTING THE FREEZE ON 
MILITARY AID ALSO HAVE VERY 
RELEVANT TESTIMONY. 
WHY NOT HEAR IT? 
ROBERT BLAIR WHO SERVES AS 
MULVANEY'S SENIOR ADVISER, 
MICHAEL DUFFEY, SENIOR OFFICIAL 
AT OMB AND OTHER WITNESSES WITH 
DIRECT KNOWLEDGE THAT WE 
RESERVE 
RIGHT TO CALL LATER BUT THESE 
WITNESSES WITH WHOM WE WISH TO 
BEGIN THE TRIAL. 
LAST MONTH PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE 
CLEAR HE SUPPORTED HAVING 
SENIOR 
OFFICIALS TESTIFY BEFORE THE 
SENATE DURING HIS TRIAL 
DECLARING HE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE 
SECRETARY POMPEO, MR. MULVANEY, 
NOW FORMER SECRETARY PERRY, 
AND, 
QUOTE, MANY OTHER PEOPLE 
TESTIFY 
IN A SENATE TRIAL.
>> WHAT IS FAIR AND FAIR TO THE 
SENATE, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE 
POMPEO, MICK, RICK PERRY, MANY 
OTHER PEOPLE TESTIFY. 
>> THE SENATE HAS OPPORTUNITY 
TO 
TAKE THE PRESIDENT UP ON HIS 
OFFER, TO MAKE HIS SENIOR AIDES 
AVAILABLE INCLUDING MR. 
MULVANEY 
AND SECRETARIES PERRY AND 
POMPEO. 
NOW THE PRESIDENT IS CHANGING 
HIS TUNE. 
THE BLISTER OF WANTING 
WITNESSES 
TO TESTIFY IS OVER, 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT HE HAS 
NEVER ASSERTED A CLAIM OF 
PRIVILEGE DURING COURSE OF THE 
HOUSE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, 
THREATENS TO INVOKE ONE NOW IN 
LAST DITCH EFFORT TO KEEP THE 
REST OF THE TRUTH FROM COMING 
OUT. 
THE PRESIDENT SENDS LAWYERS TO 
BREATH LESLIE CLAIM THAT THE 
WITNESSES OR OTHERS CANNOT 
POSSIBLY TESTIFY BECAUSE IT 
INVOLVES NATIONAL SECURITY. 
NEVER MIND IT WAS THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN 
WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID FROM 
AN 
ALLY AT WAR THAT THREATENED 
NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE FIRST 
PLACE. 
NEVER MIND THAT THE MOST 
IMPEACH 
ABLE SERIOUS OFFENSES WILL 
ALWAYS INVOLVE NATIONAL 
SECURITY 
BECAUSE THEY WILL INVOLVE OTHER 
NATIONS AND THAT MISCONDUCTS 
BASED ON FOREIGNEN TANGLEMENT 
WAS WHAT FRAMERS FEARED MOST, 
PRESIDENT'S ABSURDIST ARGUMENT 
AMOUNTS TO THIS. 
WE MUST ENDANGER NATIONAL 
SECURITY TO PROTECT NATIONAL 
SECURITY. 
WE MUST MAKE A PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT THREATENING SECURITY 
BEYOND REACH OF IMPEACHMENT 
POWER IF WE ARE TO SAVE THE 
PRESIDENCY. 
THIS IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE. 
AS JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT 
HAVE IN ARE SCORED, 
CONSTITUTION 
IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT. 
LET US TURN FROM THE ABSTRACT 
TO 
THE VERY 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 WHICH THE 
PRESIDENT REFUSED TO TURN OVER 
IN WHICH HIS TOP DIPLOMAT IN 
UKRAINE SAYS TO TWO OTHER 
APPOINTEES OF THE PRESIDENT, AS 
I SAID ON THE PHONE, I THINK 
IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A 
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. 
THE ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO 
TURN OVER THAT DOCUMENT AND SO 
MANY MORE. 
WE ONLY KNOW ABOUT ITS 
EXISTENCE, HAVE ONLY SEEN ITS 
CONTENTS BECAUSE IT WAS TURNED 
OVER BY A COOPERATING WITNESS. 
THIS IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
WOULD 
HIDE FROM YOU AND FROM 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 QUESTIO RAISED BY THIS 
RESOLUTION, WILL YOU LET HIM? 
LAST YEAR, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 
THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE 
CONSTITUTION WILL ALLOW HIM TO 
DO ANYTHING HE WANTED. 
EVIDENTLY BELIEVING THAT 
ARTICLE 
2 EMPOWERED HIM TO DENIGRATE 
AND 
DEFY A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT HE 
DECLARED HE WILL FIGHT 
SUBPOENAS. 
LET'S HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S 
WORDS. 
>> THEN I HAVE AN ARTICLE 2 
WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO 
WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT. 
WE'RE FIGHTING ALL THE 
SUBPOENAS. 
>> TRUE TO HIS PLEDGE TO 
OBSTRUCT CONGRESS, WHEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FACED 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES HE ORDERED 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DEFY EVERY 
SINGLE REQUEST ON EVERY SINGLE 
SUBPOENA. 
HE ISSUED THIS ORDER THROUGH 
HIS 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT 
CIPOLLONE OCTOBER 8, SAME 
COUNSEL THAT STOOD BEFORE YOU A 
MOMENT AGO TO DEFEND THE 
PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT. 
HE THEN AFFIRMED BEGIN AT A 
RALLY ON OCTOBER 10. 
FOLLOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
CATEGORICAL ORDER, WE NEVER 
RECEIVED KEY DOCUMENTS AND 
COMMUNICATIONS. 
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND 
REFUSING TO RESPOND TO CONGRESS 
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT MAKE ANY, 
ANY FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE 
EVER. 
INSTEAD MR. CIPOLLONE'S LETTER 
STATED IN EFFECT THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD WITHHOLD ALL 
EVIDENCE NEXT E COMMERCE 
EXPERIENCE TOUCH BRANCH UNLESS 
HOUSE SURRENDERED TO DEMANDS 
THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY PLACE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN CHARGE OF 
THE 
INQUIRY INTO HIS OWN 
MISCONDUCT. 
NEED LESS TO SAY THAT WAS A 
NONSTARTER AND DESIGNED TO BE 
SO. 
THE PRESIDENT WAS DETERMINED TO 
OBSTRUCT CONGRESS NO MATTER 
WHAT 
WE DID. 
HIS CONDUCT SINCE, HIS ATTACKS 
ON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, ATTACKS 
ON WITNESSES HAVE AFFIRMED THAT 
THE PRESIDENT NEVER HAD ANY 
INTENTION TO COOPERATE UNDER 
ANY 
CIRCUMSTANCE. 
WHY? 
BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AND 
TESTIMONY HE CONCEALS WOULD 
ONLY 
FURTHER PROVE HIS GUILT. 
THE INNOCENT DO NOT ACT THIS 
WAY. 
SIMPLY STATED, IT 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. 
TE DOCUMENTS THE PRESIDENT 
SEEKS TO CONCEAL INCLUDE WHITE 
HOUSE RECORDS INCLUDING RECORDS 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S UNLAWFUL 
HOLD ON MILITARY AID, STATE 
DEPARTMENT RECORDS INCLUDING 
TEXT MESSAGES, WHAT'S APP 
MESSAGES EXCHANGED BY STATE 
DEPARTMENT AND UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS, NOTES WRITTEN BY 
CAREER PROFESSIONALS AS THEY 
SAW 
THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNFOLD 
IN 
REAL TIME, OMB RECORDS 
DEMONSTRATING AFTER THE FACT 
RATIONALE FOR PRESIDENT'S 
ORDERS 
SHOWING INTERNAL OBJECTIONS 
THAT 
THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS VIOLATED 
THE LAW, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
RECORDS REFLECTING BAFFLEMENT 
AND ALARM THAT THE PRESIDENT 
SUSPENDED MILITARY AID TO A SKI 
SECURITY PARTNER WITHOUT 
EXPLANATION. 
MANY OF THE PRESIDENT'S AIDS 
HAVE. 
THESE INCLUDE CENTRAL FIGURES 
IN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INCLUDING 
WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY. 
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISER 
JOHN BOLTON AND OTHERS WITH 
RELEVANT TESTIMONY LIKE ROBERT 
BLAIR AND MICHAEL DUFFEY. 
MR. BLAIR WHO SERVES AS SENIOR 
ADVISER TO MULVANEY WORKED WITH 
MR. DUFFEY, A POLITICAL 
APPOINTEE IN OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO CARRY 
OUT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO 
FREEZE 
>>  THEY WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN 
IMPLEMENTING THE HOLD 
AND EXTENDING IT AT THE 
PRESIDENT'S EXPRESSED 
DIRECTION.  
EVEN AS CAREER OFFICIALS WARNED 
ACCURATELY THAT DOING SO WOULD 
VIOLATE THE LAW.  THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ALSO MADE THE 
UNSUPPORTABLE CLAIM THAT 
THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE ENFORCED 
SUBPOENAS IN COURT 
AND ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO 
DELAY HIS IMPEACHMENT FOR 
YEARS.  
IF WE HAD DONE SO, WE WOULD 
HAVE ADVOCATED 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ACT 
ON THE OVERWHELMING 
FACTS BEFORE US AND THE 
EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT WAS 
SEEKING TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION.  
WE COULD NOT 
ENGAGE IN A DELIBERATELY 
PROTRACTED COURT PROCESS 
WHILE THE PRESIDENT CONTINUED 
TO THREATEN THE 
SANCTITY OF OUR ELECTIONS.  
RESORTING TO THE COURSES 
CONSISTENT WITH THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES THE 
HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.  
IF THE HOUSE 
EXHAUSTED LEGAL REMEDIES BEFORE 
IMPEACHING THE 
PRESIDENT, IT WOULD INTERPOSE 
THE COURTS OR THE 
DECISION OF A SINGLE JUDGE 
BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE 
POWER TO IMPEACH.  MOREOVER, IT 
WOULDN'T BY THE 
PRESIDENT TO PREVENT HIS OWN 
IMPEACHMENT BY 
LITIGATING THE MATTER IN COURT, 
APPEALING EVERY 
JUDGMENT, ENGAGING EVERY 
FRIVOLOUS MOTION OR DEVICE.  
INDEED, IN THE CASE OF DON 
MCGAHN, THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYER WHO WAS ORDERED TO FIRE 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
AND LIE ABOUT IT, WAS 
SUBPOENAED BY THE HOUSE IN 
APRIL LAST YEAR AND THERE IS 
STILL NO FINAL 
JUDGMENT.  
A PRESIDENT MAY NOT IMPEDE 
IMPEACHMENT OR 
ACCOUNTABILITY BY ENGAGING IN 
ANALYSTS LITIGATION.  
IT HAS BEEN THE LONG PRACTICE 
OF THE HOUSE TO 
COMPILE CORE EVIDENCE NECESSARY 
TO REACH A 
REASONABLE DECISION ABOUT 
WHETHER TO IMPEACH AND 
THEN TO BRING THE CASE HERE TO 
THE SENATE FOR A FULL 
TRIAL.  
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE DID 
HEAR WITH AN 
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SENATE 
HAS ITS OWN POWER TO 
COMPEL DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY. 
IT WOULD BE ONE 
THING OF THE HOUSE HAD SHOWN NO 
INTEREST AND 
DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES DURING 
ITS INVESTIGATION.  
EVEN THOUGH EVEN THERE, THE 
HOUSE HAS THE SOLE RIGHT 
TO DETERMINE ITS PROCEEDINGS AS 
LONG AS IT MAKES THE 
FULL CASE TO THE HOUSE AS IT 
DID.  
BUT IT IS QUITE 
ANOTHER WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS 
THE CAUSE OF HIS OWN 
COMPLAINT.  
WHEN THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLDS 
WITNESSES 
AND DOCUMENTS AND ATTEMPTS TO 
RELY ON HIS OWN 
NON-COMPLIANCE TO JUSTIFY 
FURTHER CONCEALMENT.  
PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE IT CRYSTAL 
CLEAR THAT WE WOULD 
NEVER SEE A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR 
A SINGLE WITNESS WHEN 
HE DECLARED, AS WE JUST 
WATCHED, THAT HE WOULD FIGHT 
ALL SUBPOENAS.  
AS A MATTER OF HISTORY AND 
PRECEDENT, IT WOULD BE WRONG TO 
ASSERT THAT THE 
SENATE IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND 
REVIEW NEW EVIDENCE 
DURING A SENATE TRIAL 
REGARDLESS OF WHY EVIDENCE WAS 
NOT PRODUCED IN THE HOUSE.  
YOU CAN AND SHOULD 
INSIST ON RECEIVING ALL THE 
EVIDENCE SO YOU CAN 
RENDER IMPARTIAL JUSTICE AND 
CAN EARN THE CONFIDENCE 
OF THE PUBLIC IN THE SENATE'S 
WILLINGNESS TO HOLD A 
FAIR TRIAL.  
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE 
SENATE DOES 
NOT JUST VOTE ON IMPEACHMENTS.  
IT DOES NOT JUST 
DEBATE THEM.  
INSTEAD, IT IS COMMANDED BY THE 
CONSTITUTION TO TRY ALL CASES 
OF IMPEACHMENT.  
IF 
THE FOUNDERS INTENDED FOR THE 
HOUSE TO TRY THE 
MATTER AND THE SENATE TO 
CONSIDER AN APPEAL BASED ON 
THE COLD RECORD FROM THE OTHER 
CHAMBER, THEY WOULD 
HAVE SAID SO.  
BUT THEY DID NOT.  
INSTEAD, THEY GAVE 
US THE POWER TO CHARGE AND YOU 
THE POWER TO TRY ALL 
IMPEACHMENTS.  
THE FRAMERS CHOSE THE LANGUAGE 
AND 
THE STRUCTURE FOR A REASON AS 
ALEXANDER HAMILTO 
SAID, "THE SENATE IS GIVEN A 
FULL DISCRETION IN 
MATTERS OF IMPEACHMENT.  
THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS TO 
SENATORS AND THEIR JUDICIAL 
CHARACTER AS A COURT, 
FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENT ." 
IT REQUIRES THEM TO 
AIM AT REAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF 
INNOCENCE OR GUILT AND 
REQUIRES THEM TO DO SO BY 
HOLDING A TRIAL.  
THE 
SENATE HAS REPEATEDLY 
SUBPOENAED AND RECEIVED NEW 
DOCUMENTS COME OFTEN MANY OF 
THEM WILL ADJUDICATING 
CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.  
MOREOVER THE SENATE HAS HEARD 
WITNESS TESTIMONY AND EVERY ONE 
OF THE 15 SENATE 
TRIALS, FULL SENATE TRIALS, AND 
THE HISTORY OF THIS 
REPUBLIC, INCLUDING THOSE FOR 
PRESIDENT ANDREW 
JOHNSON AND BILL CLINTON.  
INDEED, IN PRESIDENT 
ANDREW JOHNSON'S AND SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, THE 
HOUSE WAS PERMITTED TO BEGIN 
PRESENTING DOCUMENTARY 
EVIDENCE TO THE SENATE ON THE 
VERY FIRST DAY OF THE 
TRIAL.  THE HOUSE MANAGER'S 
INITIAL PRESENTATION OF 
DOCUMENTS IN PRESIDENT 
JOHNSON'S CASE CARRIED ON FOR 
THE FIRST TWO DAYS OF TRIAL AND 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER 
WHICH WITNESSES WERE CALLED TO 
APPEAR IN THE SENATE.  
THIS HAS BEEN THE STANDARD 
PRACTICE IN PRIOR 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.  INDEED, 
MOST TRIALS THIS BODY 
HAS HEARD FROM MANY WITNESSES 
RANGING FROM THREE AND 
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE, TO 40 
IN PRESIDENT 
JOHNSON'S.  
AND WELL OVER 60 AND OTHER 
IMPEACHMENTS.  
AS THESE NUMBERS MADE CLEAR THE 
SENATE HAS ALWAYS 
HEARD FROM KEY WITNESSES WHEN 
TRYING AND 
IMPEACHMENT.  
THE NOTION THAT ONLY EVIDENCE 
THAT WAS 
TAKEN BEFORE THE HOUSE SHOULD 
BE CONSIDERED IS 
SQUARELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY 
CONTRARY TO SENATE 
PRECEDENT.  
NOTHING IN LAW OR HISTORY 
SUPPORTS IT.  
TO START, CONSIDERABLY LARGER 
MACCONNELL'S ON 
DESCRIPTION OF HIS WORK IN A 
PRIOR SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.  
AFTER STARTING ON THE 
SENATE TRIAL FOR THE CASE OF 
JUDGE CLAIRE BORN, 
WINTER MACCONNELL DISCOVERED 
AND TALKED ABOUT HOW 
THEY LABORED INTENSIVELY FOR 
TWO MONTHS AND 
ASSESSING THE NECESSARY 
EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY.  
IN 
THE SAME, LEADER MACCONNELL 
RECOGNIZED THE 
FULL-BODY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR 
AMASSING AND 
DIGESTING EVIDENCE.  
THERE WAS CERTAINLY A LOT OF 
EVIDENCE FOR THE SENATE TO 
AMASS AND ADJUST IN THAT 
PROCEEDING WHICH INVOLVED 
CHARGES AGAINST THE 
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IN THE 
SENATE HEARD TESTIMONY 
FROM 19 WITNESSES AND ALLOWED 
FOR OVER 2000 PAGES OF 
DOCUMENTS TO BE ENTERED INTO 
THE RECORD OVER THE 
COURSE OF THAT TRIAL.  
AT NO POINT DID THE SENATE 
LIMIT EVIDENCE TO WHAT WAS 
BEFORE THE HOUSE.  IT DID 
THE OPPOSITE.  
CONSISTENT WITH UNBROKEN SENATE 
PRACTICE IN EVERY SINGLE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, EVERY 
SINGLE ONE.  
FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE 40 
WITNESSES THAT 
TESTIFIED DURING PRESIDENT 
JOHNSON'S SENATE TRIAL, 
ONLY THREE PROVIDED TESTIMONY 
TO THE HOUSE.  DURING 
ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.  
ONLY THREE.  
THE REMAINING 
37 WITNESSES AT THE 
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE.  
SIMILARLY, THE SENATE 
FULL FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
THAT INVOLVED CHARGES 
AGAINST JUDGE PICKERING 
INVOLVED TESTIMONY FROM 11 
WITNESSES, ALL OF WHOM WERE NEW 
TO THE IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS AND HAD NOT 
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE.  
THERE ARE MANY OTHER EXAMPLES 
OF THIS POINT.  
INCLUDING THE SENATE'S MOST 
RECENT IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
OF JUDGE PORTEOUS IN 2010.  
IT IS ONE THAT MANY OF 
YOU AND SOME OF US KNOW WELL.  
IT IS CONSISTENT TOO 
WITH THIS LONG-STANDING 
PRACTICE.  
THERE, THE SENATE 
HEARD TESTIMONY FROM 26 
WITNESSES.  17 OF WHOM HAD 
NOT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE 
DURING ITS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.  
THUS, THERE IS A DEFINITIVE 
TRADITION OF THE SENATE HEARING 
FROM YOU WITNESSES 
WHEN TRYING ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT.  THERE HAS 
NEVER BEEN A RULE ELIMINATING 
WITNESSES TO THOSE WHO 
APPEARED IN THE HOUSE OR 
ELIMINATING EVIDENCE BEFORE 
THE SENATE TO THAT WHICH THE 
HOUSE ITSELF 
CONSIDERED.  
AND THAT IS BECAUSE SENATOR 
JOHNSON 
EXPLAINED IN 1934 THE INTEGRITY 
OF SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS DEPEND 
HEAVILY ON THE WITNESSES 
WHO ARE CALLED.  
THEIR PARENTS ON THE STAND, 
THEIR 
MODE OF GIVING TESTIMONY.  
THERE IS THUS AN UNBROKEN 
HISTORY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY 
AND SENATE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIALS.  
PRESIDENTIAL AND JUDICIAL.  
I WOULD ARGUE 
IN THE CASE OF THE PRESIDENT, 
IT IS EVEN MORE 
IMPORTANT TO HEAR THE WITNESSES 
AND SEE THE 
DOCUMENTS.  AND YOU CAN SEE 
THAT ANY CONCEIVABLE 
DOUBT IS DISPELLED BY THE 
SENATE'S OWN RULES FOR 
TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENT.  
OBTAINING DOCUMENTS AND 
HEARING LIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY 
IS SO FUNDAMENTAL 
THAT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND 
PRACTICE IN THE 
SENATE WHEN SITTING ON 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS WHICH DATE 
BACK TO THE 19th CENTURY DEVOTE 
MORE ATTENTION TO 
THE GATHERING, HANDLING AND 
ADMISSION OF NEW 
EVIDENCE THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE 
SUBJECT.  
THESE ROLES 
EXPRESS AND CONTEMPLATE THAT 
THE SENATE WILL HEAR 
EVIDENCE AND CONDUCT A THOROUGH 
TRIAL WHEN SITTING 
AS THE COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.  
AT EVERY TURN THEY 
REJECT THE NOTION THAT THE 
SENATE WOULD TAKE THE 
HOUSE'S EVIDENTIARY RECORD, 
BLIND ITSELF TO 
EVERYTHING ELSE AND VOTE TO 
CONVICT OR ACQUIT.  
FOR 
EXAMPLE, RULE SIX SAYS THE 
SENATE SHALL HAVE THE 
POWER TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE 
OF WITNESSES AND 
ENFORCE OBEDIENCE TO ITS ORDERS.
RULE SEVEN.  
AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDING 
OFFICER TO RULE AND ALL 
QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCE INCLUDING 
BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
QUESTIONS OF RELEVANCY.  
MATERIALITY, AND 
REDUNDANCY.  
THIS WILL TOO PRESENT AT THE 
SENATE 
TRIAL WILL HAVE TESTIMONY 
GIVING RISE TO SUCH 
QUESTIONS.  
RULE 11 AUTHORIZES THE FULL 
SENATE TO 
DESIGNATE A COMMITTEE OF 
SENATORS TO RECEIVE 
EVIDENCE AND TAKE TESTIMONY 
PICK AT UCH TIMES AND 
PLACES AS THE COMMITTEE MAY 
DETERMINE.  
AS RULE 11 
MAKES CLEAR, THE COMMITTEE'S 
REPORT MUST BE 
TRANSMITTED TO THE FULL SENATE 
FOR FINAL 
ADJUDICATION.  BUT NOTHING HERE 
IN THE RULES STATE 
SHALL PREVENT THE SENATE FROM 
SENDING FOR ANY 
WITNESS AND HEARING HIS 
TESTIMONY IN OPEN SENATE OR 
BY ORDER OF THE SENATE 
INVOLVING THE ENTIRE TRIAL IN 
THE OPEN SENATE.  
HERE TOO, THE SENATE'S 
OPERATIVE 
IMPEACHMENT RULES EXPRESSLY 
CONTEMPLATE AND PROVIDE 
FOR SUBPOENAING WITNESSES AND 
HEARING THEIR 
TESTIMONY AS PART OF THE SENATE 
TRIAL.  
AND THE LIST 
GOES ON PICK THESE RULES 
PLAINLY CONTEMPLATE PICK A 
ROBUST ROLE FOR THE SENATE IN 
GATHERING AND 
CONSIDERING EVIDENCE.  
THEY REFLECT CENTURIES OF 
PRACTICE OF ACCEPTING AND 
REQUIRING THE EVIDENCE AND 
SENATE TRIALS.  
THE SENATE SHOULD HONOR THAT 
PRACTICE TODAY BY REJECTING THE 
RESOLUTION.
>>  WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON 
TRIAL?  
WHAT ABOUT THE 
CLINTON TRIAL BEING ARGUED?  
EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL AND HISTORY INCLUDING THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF 
PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON, WHAT 
ABOUT THE CLINTON 
TRIAL?  
AREN'T WE FOLLOWING THE SAME 
PROCESS AS IN 
THE CLINTON TRIAL?  
THE ANSWER IS NO.  
THE PROCESS 
FOR THE CLINTON TRIAL WAS 
WORKED OUT BY MUTUAL 
CONSENT.  AMONG THE PARTIES.  
THAT IS NOT TRUE HERE 
WHERE THE PROCESS IS SOUGHT TO 
BE IMPOSED BY ONE 
PARTY ON THE OTHER.  
SECOND, ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN 
THE CLINTON TRIAL WERE TURNED 
OVER AS PART OF THE 
TRIAL.  
ALL 90,000 PAGES OF THEM SO 
THEY CAN BE USE 
IN THE HOUSE'S CASE.  
NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE 
BEEN TURNED OVER BY THE 
PRESIDENTS IN THIS CASE AND 
UNDER LEADER MACCONNELL'S' 
PROPOSAL NONE MAY EVER 
BE.  
THEY CERTAINLY WON'T BE 
AVAILABLE TO YOU OR TO 
US DURING MOST OR ALL OF THE 
TRIAL.  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 ONE OF CALLING 
WITNESSES, BUT OF RECALLING 
WITNESSES.  
ALL THE KEY WITNESES IN THE 
CLINTON 
TRIAL HAD TESTIFIED BEFORE THE 
GRAND JURY OR HAD 
BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI.  
ONE OF THEM, DOZENS OF 
TIMES.  
AND THEIR TESTIMONY WAS ALREADY 
KNOWN.  
PRESIDENT CLINTON HIMSELF 
TESTIFIED ON CAMERA AND 
UNDER OATH BEFORE THE SENATE 
TRIAL.  
HE ALLOWED 
MULTIPLE CHIEFS OF STAFF AND 
OTHER KEY OFFICIALS TO 
TESTIFY.  
AGAIN, BEFORE THE SENATE TRIAL 
TOOK PLACE 
HERE, NONE OF THE WITNESSES WE 
SEEK TO CALL, NONE OF 
THEM HAVE TESTIFIED OR BEEN 
INTERVIEWED BY THE 
HOUSE.  
AND AS I SAID, THE PRESIDENT 
CANNOT COMPLAIN 
THAT WE DID NOT CALL THESE 
WITNESSES BEFORE THE 
HOUSE WHEN THERE UNAVAILABILITY 
WAS CAUSED BY THE 
PRESIDENT HIMSELF.  
LAST, AS YOU WILL REMEMBER, 
THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE HERE, 
THE TESTIMONY IN THE 
CLINTON TRIAL INVOLVED ISSUES 
THAT ARE NOT PRESENT 
HERE.  
HE MAY REST ASSURED WHATEVER 
ELSE THE CASE 
MAY BE, SUCH ISSUES WILL NOT BE 
PRESENT HERE.  IN 
SUM, THE CLINTON PRECIPITANTS, 
IF WE ARE VERY 
SERIOUS ABOUT MODELING THIS 
PROCEEDING AFTER THE 
CLINTON TRIAL, THE CLINTON 
PRECEDENT IS ONE WHERE 
ALL THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN 
PROVIDED UPFRONT.  
FOR 
ALL THE WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED 
UPFRONT.  
PRIOR TO 
THE TRIAL.  
THAT IS NOT BEING REPLICATED BY 
THE 
MACCONNELL RESOLUTION, NOT IN 
ANY WAY, NOT IN ANY 
SHAPE, NOT IN ANY FORM.  
FAR FROM IT.  
THE 
TRADITIONAL MODEL FOLLOWED IN 
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S 
CASE AND ALL THE OTHERS, IS 
REALLY THE ONE MOST 
APPROPRIATE TO THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES PICK THE SENATE 
SHOULD ADDRESS ALL THE 
DOCUMENTARY ISSUES AND MOST 
OF THE WITNESSES NOW, NOT 
LATER.  
AND NEED TO 
SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS AND 
TESTIMONY NOW HAS ONLY 
INCREASED DUE TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION FOR 
SEVERAL REASONS.  
FIRST, HIS OBSTRUCTION HAS MADE 
HIM UNIQUELY AND PERSONALLY 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 
ABSENCES OF THE WITNESSES 
BEFORE THE HOUSE HAVING 
ORDERED THEM NOT TO APPEAR.  
HE MAY NOT BE HEARD TO 
COMPLAIN NOW THAT THEY FOLLOWED 
HIS ORDERS AND 
REFUSED TO TESTIFY.  TO DO 
OTHERWISE ONLY REWARDS 
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION AND 
ENCOURAGES HIS 
FURTHER, FUTURE PRESENCE TO 
DEFY LAWFUL PROCESS IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS. 
SECOND, IF THE 
PRESIDENT WISHES TO CONTEST THE 
FACTS AND HIS ANSWER 
AND TRIAL BRIEF INDICATE THAT 
HE WILL TRY, HE MUST 
NOT CONTINUE TO DENY THE SENATE 
ACCESS TO THE 
RELEVANT WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS THAT SHED LIGHT ON 
THE VERY FACTUAL MATTERS HE 
WISHES TO CHALLENGE.  
THE SENATE TRIAL IS NOT WORTHY  
--  THERE IS NO 
RECORD BELOW.  
THERE IS NO BELOW.  
THIS IS THE 
TRIAL.  
THIRD.  
THE PRESIDENT MUST NOT BE 
ALLOWED TO 
MISLEAD THE SENATE BY 
SELECTIVELY INTRODUCING 
DOCUMENTS WHILE WITHHOLDING THE 
VAST BODY OF 
DOCUMENTS THAT MAY CONTRADICT.  
THIS IS VERY 
IMPORTANT.  
THE PRESIDENT MUST NOT BE 
ALLOWED TO 
MISLEAD YOU BY INTRODUCING 
DOCUMENTS SELECTIVELY AND 
WITHHOLDING ALL THE REST.  ALL 
THE RELEVANT 
DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE PRODUCED SO 
THERE IS FULL 
DISCLOSURE OF THE TRUTH.  
OTHERWISE THERE IS A CLEAR 
RISK OF THE PRESIDENT CONTINUE 
TO HIDE ALL EVIDENCE 
HARMFUL TO HIS POSITION WHILE 
SELECTIVELY PRODUCING 
DOCUMENTS WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT 
OR OPPORTUNITY TO 
EXAMINE THEIR CREATORS.  
AND FINALLY, YOU MAY INFER 
THE PRESIDENT'S GILTS FROM HIS 
CONTINUING EFFORTS TO 
OBSTRUCT PRODUCTION OF 
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES.  
THE 
PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE WANTS 
WITNESSES LIKE MICK 
MULVANEY AND MIKE POMPEO AND 
OTHERS TO TESTIFY THAT 
HIS IN ACTIONS WITH UKRAINE 
HAVE BEEN PERFECT.  
COUNSEL HAS AFFIRMED TODAY THAT 
THAT WILL BE THE 
PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.  
HIS CONDUCT IS PERFECT.  
PERFECTLY FINE TO COARSE AND 
ALLY.  THAT WILL BE 
PART OF HIS DEFENSE ALBEIT NOT 
WORDED IN THAT WAY.  
NOW HE HAS CHANGED COURSE AND 
DOES NOT WANT THESE 
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. 
>>  THAT LAWFUL SUBPOENAS MAY 
BE CONSTRUED AS 
EVIDENCE OF GUILT.  
LET ME CONCLUDE.  
THE FACTS WILL 
COME OUT IN THE END.  
THE DOCUMENTS, WHICH THE 
PRESIDENT IS HIDING WILL BE 
RELEASED THROUGH THE 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OR 
THROUGH OTHER MEANS 
OVER TIME.  
WITNESSES WILL TELL THEIR 
STORIES AND 
BOOKS AND FILM.  
THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT.  
THE 
QUESTION IS, WILL IT COME OUT 
IN TIME?  
AND WHAT 
ANSWERS SHOULD WE GIVE IF WE 
DID NOT PURSUE THE 
TRUTH NOW?  
LET IT REMAIN HIDDEN UNTIL IT 
WAS TOO 
LATE TO CONSIDER ON THE 
PROFOUND ISSUE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE? 
THERE ARE MANY 
OVERLAPPING REASONS FOR VOTING 
AGAINST THIS 
RESOLUTION BUT THEY ALL 
CONVERGE ON A SINGLE IDEA.  
FAIRNESS.  
THE TRIAL SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE 
HOUSE 
WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY DEPRIVED 
OF EVIDENCE BY A 
PRESIDENT WHO WISHES TO CONCEAL 
IT.  
IT SHOULD BE 
FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT WHO WILL 
NOT BENEFIT FROM AN 
ACQUITTAL OR DISMISSAL IF THE 
TRIAL IS NOT VIEWED AS 
FAIR, IF IT IS NOT VIEWED AS 
IMPARTIAL.  
AND FAIR TO 
THE SENATORS WHO ARE TASKED 
WITH THE GRAVE 
RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING 
WHETHER TO CONVICT OR 
ACQUIT AND SHOULD DO SO WITH 
THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF 
THE FACTS.  
AND FAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
WHO 
DESERVE THE FULL TRUTH AND WHO 
DESERVE 
REPRESENTATIVES WHO WILL SEEK 
IT ON THEIR BEHALF.  
AND WITH THAT, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE, I YIELD BACK. 
>>  MR. SUE BALONEY, MR. SUP 
BELOW, YOU HAVE 57 
MINUTES AVAILABLE. 
>>  THANK YOU MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE.  
MEMBERS OF THE 
SENATE.  
LEADER MACCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC 
LEADER 
SCHUMER.  
IT IS MY PRIVILEGE TO REPRESENT 
THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
BEFORE THIS CHAMBER.  
SENATOR SCHUMER SAID EARLIER 
TODAY THAT THE EYES OF 
THE FOUNDERS ARE ON THESE 
PROCEEDINGS.  
INDEED, THAT 
IS TRUE.  
THAT IS THE HEART OF THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT 
GOVERNS THESE PROCEEDINGS.  
WHAT WE JUST HEARD FROM 
ADAM SCHIFF THAT COURTS HAVE NO 
ROLE, PRIVILEGES 
DON'T APPLY.  
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PAST, WE 
SHOULD 
JUST IGNORE.  
IN FACT, MANAGER SCHIFF JUST 
SAID, TRY 
TO SUMMARIZE MY COLLEAGUES, THE 
DEFENSE OF THE 
PRESIDENT.  
NOT IN THOSE WORDS OF COURSE 
WHICH IS 
NOT THE FIRST TIME MR. SCHIFF 
HAS PUT WORS INTO 
TRANSCRIPTS THAT DID NOT EXIST. 
MR. SCHIFF ALSO 
TALKED ABOUT THE TRIFECTA.  
I WILL GIVE YOU A 
TRIFECTA.  
DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THAT 
TOOK PLACE 
BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 
DENIED THE RIGHT TO CROSS-
EXAMINE WITNESSES.  
THE 
PRESIDENT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT 
TO ACCESS EVIDENCE.  
AND THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED 
THE RIGHT TO HAVE 
COUNSEL PRESENT AT HEARINGS.  
THAT IS A TRIFECTA.  
A 
TRIFECTA THAT VIOLATES THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES.  MR. SCHIFF DID 
SAY THE COURTS REALLY 
DON'T HAVE A ROLE IN THIS.  
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, WHY 
WOULD THAT MATTER?  
IT MATTERS BECAUSE IT IS BASED 
IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES.  ONE 
MANAGER SAID THAT IT IS YOU 
THAT ARE ON TRIAL, THE 
SENATE HE ALSO SAID THAT AND 
OTHERS DID, THAT YOU 
ARE NOT CAPABLE OF ABIDING BY 
YOUR OATH.  
AND THEN 
WE HAD THE INVOCATION OF THE 
GHOST OF THE MUELLER 
REPORT.  
I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THAT 
REPORT.  
IT 
CAME UP EMPTY ON THE ISSUE OF 
COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA.  
THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION.  
IN FACT, TO THE CONTRARY 
TO WHAT THESE MANAGERS SAY 
TODAY.  
IT CAME TO THE 
EXACT OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS OF 
WHAT THEY SAY.  
LET ME 
QUOTE FROM THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT REPORT ON PAGE 16.  
ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
ENZYMES INVOKED IN 
NOTION OF DUE PROCESS, AND 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS NOT A 
CRIMINAL TRIAL AND 
SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH IT 
BELIEVE ME, WHAT HAS 
TAKEN PLACE IN THESE 
PROCEEDINGS IS NOT TO BE 
CONFUSED WITH DUE PROCESS.  
BECAUSE DUE PROCESS 
DEMANDS AND THE CONSTITUTION 
REQUIRES THAT 
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND DUE 
PROCESS, DUE PROCESS IS 
DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PERSON 
ACCUSED.  
WHEN THE 
RUSSIA INVESTIGATION FAILED, IT 
EVOLVED INTO THE 
UKRAINE.  
A QUID PRO QUO.  WHEN THAT DID 
NOT PROVE 
OUT, IT WAS BRIBERY OR MAYBE 
EXTORTION OR SOMEBODY 
SAID ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE 
HOUSE, TREASON.  
BUT 
INSTEAD WE GET TWO ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT TWO 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT 
HAVE A VAGUE ALLEGATION 
ABOUT A NONPRIME ALLEGATION OF 
ABUSE OF POWER AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.  
MEMBERS, MANAGERS RIGHT 
HRE BEFORE YOU TODAY WHO HAVE 
SAID THAT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND CONSTITUTIONAL 
PRIVILEGE HAVE NO PLACE 
IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, ON JUNE 
28th, 2012, ATTORNEY 
GENERAL ERIC HOLDER BECAME THE 
FIRST UNITED STATES 
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE HELD IN 
BOTH CIVIL AND 
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  
WHY?  
BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA 
ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.  
WITH RESPECT TO THE 
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, MANAGER 
SCHIFF WROTE, THE 
WHITE HOUSE ASSERTION, A 
PRIVILEGE IS BACKED BY 
DECADES OF PRECEDENT WHICH HAS 
RECOGNIZED THE NEED 
FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
SENIOR ADVISERS TO RECEIVE 
CANDID ADVICE AND INFORMATION 
FROM THEIR TOP AIDES.  
NEED, THAT IS CORRECT.  
NOT BECAUSE MANAGER SCHIFF 
SAID IT.  
BUT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION 
REQUIRES IT.  
MR. MANAGER NADLER SAID THE 
EFFORT TO HOLD ERIC 
HOLDER IN CONTEMPT FOR REFUSING 
TO COMPLY WITH 
VARIOUS SUBPOENAS WAS 
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND 
SPEAKER PELOSI CALLED THE WHOLE 
MATTER A LITTLE MORE 
THAN A WITCHHUNT.  
WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH HERE?  
WHY ARE WE HERE?  
ARE WE HERE BECAUSE OF A PHONE 
CALL?  OR ARE WE HERE BEFORE 
THIS GREAT BODY BECAUSE 
SINCE THE PRESIDENT WAS SWORN 
INTO OFFICE, THERE WAS 
A DESIRE TO SEE HIM REMOVED?  
I REMEMBER IN THE 
MUELLER REPORT, THERE WERE 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT 
INSURANCE POLICIES.  
INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT WORK 
OUT SO WELL.  SO THEN WE MOVED 
TO OTHER 
INVESTIGATIONS.  
I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL IT 
REINSURANCE OR AN UMBRELLA 
POLICY.  
AND THAT DID NOT 
WORK OUT SO WELL.  
AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.  MANAGER 
SCHIFF QUOTED THE SUPREME COURT 
AND I WOULD LIKE TO 
MAKE REFERENCE TO THE SUPREME 
COURT AS WELL.  
IT WAS 
THEN JUSTICE REHNQUIST LATER TO 
BE CHIEF JUSTICE 
REHNQUIST THAT WROTE FOR THE 
MAJORITY OF THE UNITED 
STATES VERSUS RUSSELL IN 197 .  
THESE ARE THE 
WORDS. 
"WE MAY SOME DAY BE PRESENTED 
IN A SITUATION 
IN WHICH THE CONDUCT OF LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AGENTS ARE 
SO OUTRAGEOUS THAT DUE PROCESS 
PRINCIPLES WOULD BAR 
THE GOVERNMENT FROM INVOKING 
JUDICIAL PROCESS TO 
OBTAIN A CONVICTION.  
THAT DAY IS TODAY ."  THAT DAY 
WAS A YEAR AGO.  
THAT DAY WAS IN JULY.  
WHEN SPECIAL 
COUNSEL MUELLER TESTIFIED.  I 
AM NOT, TODAY, GOING 
TO TAKE THE TIME TO REVIEW BUT 
I WILL DO IT LATER, 
THE PATTERN AND PRACTICES OF 
IRREGULARITIES THAT 
HAVE GONE ON IN THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS FROM THE 
OUTSET.  
BUT TO SAY THAT THE COURTS HAVE 
NO ROLE IN 
THE RUSH TO IMPEACHMENT, DO NOT 
WAIT FOR A DECISION 
FROM A COURT ON AN ISSUE AS 
IMPORTANT AS EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.  
AS IF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HAS 
NOT BEEN 
UTILIZED BY PRESIDENTS SINCE 
OUR SOUNDING.  
THIS IS 
NOT SOME NEW CONCEPT.  
WE DON'T WAIVE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.  
AND THERE IS A REASON WE KEEP 
EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE AND WE ASSERT IT WHEN 
NECESSARY.  
AND THAT 
IS TO PROTECT, TO PROTECT THE 
CONSTITUTION AND THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS.  
THE PRESIDENT'S OPPONENTS IN 
THEIR RUSH TO IMPEACH HAVE 
REFUSED TO WAIT FOR A 
COMPLETE JUDICIAL REVIEW.  
THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE.  
SPEAKER PELOSI CLEARLY 
EXPRESSED HER IMPATIENCE AND 
CONTEMPT WHEN SHE SAID, 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 ARE AN 
IMPROPER VENUE TO DETERMINE 
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF 
THIS MAGNITUDE.  THAT IS WHY WE 
HAVE COURTS.  
THAT 
IS WHY WE HAVE A FEDERAL 
JUDICIARY.  
IT WAS 
INTERESTING WHEN PROFESSOR 
TURLEY TESTIFIED BEFORE 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
IN FRONT OF 
MR. NADLER'S COMMITTEE.  
HE SAID WE HAVE THREE 
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, NOT 
TWO.  
IF YOU IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT AND YOU MAKE HIGH 
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, 
IT IS YOUR ABUSE OF POWER.  
IT IS MORE THAN THAT.  
A 
LOT MORE THAN THAT.  
THERE IS A LOT MORE THAN ABUSE 
OF POWER IF YOU SAY THE COURTS 
DON'T APPLY.  
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES DON'T 
APPLY.  
LET'S START 
WITH A CLEAN SLATE AS IF 
NOTHING HAPPENED.  
A LOT 
HAS HAPPENED.  
AS WE PROCEED IN THE DAYS 
AHEAD, WE 
WILL LAY OUT THE CASE.  
WE ARE GOING TO  --  FOR THE 
CONSTITUTION SAY, WHAT HAS 
TAKEN PLACE HERE, THIS 
IDEA THAT WE SHOULD IGNORE WHAT 
HAS TAKEN PLACE OVER 
THE LAST THREE YEARS IS 
OUTRAGEOUS.  
WE BELIEVE THAT 
WHAT SENATOR MCCONNELL HAS PUT 
FORWARD PROVIDES DUE 
PROCESS, ALLOWS THE PROCEEDINGS 
TO MOVE FORWARD IN 
EARLY FASHION.  
33 DAYS, 33 DAYS THEY HELD ON 
TO THE 
IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES.  
33 DAYS.  
IT WAS SUCH A RUSH 
OF NATIONAL SECURITY TO IMPEACH 
THIS PRESIDENT 
BEFORE CHRISTMAS THAT THEY THEN 
HELD THEM FOR 33 
DAYS.  
TO DO WHAT?  
TO ACT AS IF THEY NEGOTIATE.  
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
SHOULD NEGOTIATE THE 
RULES OF THE UNITED STATES 
SENATE.  
THEY DID NOT 
HIDE THIS.  
THIS WAS THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE. 
THIS 
WAS THE REASON THEY DID IT.  
WE ARE PREPARED TO 
PROCEED.  
MAJORITY LEADER.  
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY 
LEADER.  
WE ARE PREPARED TO PROCEED.  
IN OUR VIEW 
WILL COME PROCEEDINGS SHOULD 
BEGIN.  
I WILL GIVE THE 
REST OF MY TIME TO MY 
COLLEAGUE, WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL.
>>  THANK YOU MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE.  
I WANT TO MAKE A 
COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL POINTS.  
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT 
TO SIT THERE AND LISTEN TO MR. 
SCHIFF TELL THE TALE 
HE JUST TOLD.  
LET'S REMEMBER HOW WE ALL GOT 
HERE.  
THEY MADE FALSE ALLEGATIONS 
ABOUT A TELEPHONE CALL.  
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES DECLASSIFIED THE 
TELEPHONE CALL AND RELEASED IT 
TO THE PUBLIC.  
HOW 
IS THAT FOR TRANSPARENCY?  
WHEN MR. SCHIFF FOUND OUT 
THERE WAS NOTHING TO HIS 
ALLEGATIONS, HE FOCUSED ON 
THE SECOND TELEPHONE CALL.  
HE MADE FALSE AND HIS 
COLLEAGUES MADE FALSE 
ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THAT SECOND 
TELEPHONE CALL.  
THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE ONE HE 
HAD 
DEMANDED.  
SO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES 
DECLASSIFIED AND RELEASED THAT 
TELEPHONE CALL.  
STILL NOTHING.  
AGAIN.  
COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY AND A 
WAY THAT FRANKLY I AM 
UNFAMILIAR WITH ANY PRECEDENTS 
COME OF ANY PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES RELEASING 
A CLASSIFIED TELEPHONE CALL 
WITH A FOREIGN LEADER.  
WHEN MR. SCHIFF SAW THAT HIS 
ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE 
AND HE KNEW IT ANYWAY, WHAT DID 
HE DO?  
HE WENT TO 
THE HOUSE.  
AND HE MANUFACTURED A 
FRAUDULENT VERSION 
OF THAT CALL.  
HE MANUFACTURED A FALSE VERSION 
OF 
THE CALL HE READ IT TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.  
AND HE 
DID NOT TELL THEM IT WAS A 
COMPLETE FAKE.  
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 
BEEN CONFRONTED WITH 
THIS KIND OF IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING IN THE HOUSE.  
NOW MR. NADLER, WHEN HE APPLIED 
FOR THAT JOB, TOLD 
HIS COLLEAGUES WHEN THEY TOOK 
OVER THE HOUSE, THAT 
HE WAS REALLY GOOD AT 
IMPEACHMENT.  BUT WHAT 
HAPPENED WAS, THE PROCEEDINGS 
TOOK PLACE IN A 
BASEMENT OF THE HOUSE.  
OF REPRESENTATIVES.  
THE 
PRESIDENT WAS FORBIDDEN FROM 
ATTENDING.  
THE 
PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO 
HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT.  
AND EVERY OTHER IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING, THE 
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN GIVEN A 
MINIMAL DUE PROCESS.  
NOTHING HERE.  
NOT EVEN MR. SCHIFF'S 
REPUBLICAN 
COLLEAGUES WERE ALLOWED INTO 
THIS.  
INFORMATION WAS 
SELECTIVELY LEAKED OUT.  
WITNESSES WERE THREATENED.  
GOOD PUBLIC SERVANTS WERE TOLD 
THAT THEY WOULD BE 
HELD IN CONTEMPT.  THEY WERE 
TOLD THAT THEY WERE 
OBSTRUCTING.  
WHAT DOES MR. SCHIFF MEAN BY 
OBSTRUCTING?  
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 IN THE SKIFF 
THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN 
ALLOWED TO SEE.  
I WONDER WHY.  
SNOW WITNESSES.  
LET'S THINK ABOUT SOMETHING 
ELSE FOR A SECOND.  
LET'S THINK ABOUT SOMETHING 
ELSE.  
THEY HELD THESE 
ARTICLES FOR 33 DAYS.  WE HEAR 
ALL THIS TALK ABOUT 
AN OVERWHELMING CASE.  
AN OVERWHELMING CASE THAT 
THEY ARE NOT EVEN PREPARED 
TODAY TO STAND UP AND 
MAKE AN OPENING ARGUMENT ABOUT. 
THAT IS BECAUSE 
THEY HAVE NO CASE.  
FRANKLY, THEY HAVE NO CHARGE.  
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY 
ARE NOT ONLY RIDICULOUS, BUT 
THEY ARE DANGEROUS TO 
OUR OR PUBLIC.  
AND WHY?  
FIRST OF ALL, THE NOTION 
THAT INVOKING YOUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO 
PROTECT 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THAT HAS 
BEEN DONE BY JUST 
ABOUT EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE 
GEORGE WASHINGTON.  
AND 
THAT THAT IS OBSTRUCTION.  
THAT IS OUR PATRIOTIC 
DUTY, MR. SCHIFF, PARTICULARLY 
WHEN CONFRONTED WITH 
A WHOLESALE TRAMPLING OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT 
I'M UNFAMILIAR WITH IN THIS 
COUNTRY.  
FRANKLY, IT IS 
THE KIND OF THING THAT OUR 
STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD 
CRITICIZE IF WE SEE IT IN 
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  
WE 
HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE 
IT.  
AND MR. SCHIFF 
SAID, HAVE I GOT A DEAL FOR 
YOU.  
ABANDON ALL YOUR 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  
FORGET ABOUT YOUR LAWYERS.  
AND COME IN AND DO EXACTLY WHAT 
I SAY.  
NO THANK 
YOU.  
NO THANK YOU.  
AND THEN HE SAYS THAT HE HAS 
THE TEMERITY TO COME INTO THE 
SENATE AND SAY, WE 
HAVE NO USE FOR COURTS.  
IT IS OUTRAGEOUS.  
LET ME 
TELL YOU ANOTHER STORY.  THERE 
IS A MAN NAMED 
CHARLIE KUPPER MEN HE IS THE 
DEPUTY NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR.  
HE IS THE NUMBER TWO TO JOHN 
BOLTON.  
YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, MR. 
SCHIFF WANTS YOU 
TO FORGET.  
BUT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER HOW WE 
GOT 
HERE.  
THEY THREATENED HIM.  
THEY SENT HIM A 
SUBPOENA.  
MR. KUPPER DID WHATEVER HE 
AMERICAN USED 
TO BE ALLOWED TO DO.  
HE WAS FORCED TO GET A LAWYER.  
HE WAS FORCED TO PAY FOR THAT 
LAWYER.  
AND HE WENT 
TO COURT.  MR. SCHIFF DOES NOT 
LIKE 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 THE AREA OF 
NATIONAL SECURITY.  
AND 
THEN I HAVE A SUBPOENA FROM MR. 
SCHIFF.  
WHAT DO I 
DO?  
DO YOU KNOW WHAT MR. SHIFTED?  
MR. KUPPERMAN 
WENT TO THE JUDGE AND THE HOUSE 
SAID, NEVERMIND.  
WE 
WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA.  
WE PROMISE NOT TO ISSUE IT 
AGAIN.  
AND THEN THEY COME HERE AND 
THEY ASK YOU TO 
DO THE WORK THAT THEY REFUSED 
TO DO FOR THEMSELVES.  
THEY ASK YOU TO TRAMPLE ON 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.  
WOULD THEY EVER SUGGEST THAT 
THE EXECUTIVE COULD 
DETERMINE ON ITS OWN WHAT THIS 
SPEECH OR DEBATE 
CLAUSE MEANS?  
OF COURSE NOT.  
WOULD THEY EVER 
SUGGESTED THAT THE HOUSE COULD 
INVADE THE 
DISCUSSIONS THAT THE SUPREME 
COURT HAS BEHIND CLOSED 
DOORS?  
I HOPE NOT.  
BUT THEY COME HERE AND THEY ASK 
YOU TO DO WHAT THEY REFUSED TO 
DO FOR THEMSELVES.  
THEY HAD A COURT DATE.  AND 
THEY WITHDREW THE 
SUBPOENA.  
THEY EVADED A DECISION.  
THEY ARE ASKING 
YOU TO BECOME COMPLICIT IN THAT 
EVASION OF THE 
COURTS.  
IT IS RIDICULOUS.  
AND WE SHOULD CALL IT 
OUT 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 
PRESIDENCY, 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 
HE DIDN'T TELL YOU 
THAT IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT, HE SAID, IT IS 
DANGEROUS TO SUGGEST THAT 
INVOKING CONSTITUTIONAL 
RIGHTS IS IMPEACHABLE.  
IT IS DANGEROUS.  
AND YOU 
KNOW WHAT, IT IS DANGEROUS MR. 
SCHIFF.  
SO WHAT ARE 
WE DOING HERE?  
WE HAVE THE HOUSE THAT 
COMPLETELY 
CONCOCTED A PROCESS THAT WE 
HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE.  
THEY LOCKED THE PRESIDENT OUT.  
AND BY THE WAY, WILL 
MR. SCHIFF GIVE DOCUMENTS?  
WE ASKED HIM FOR 
DOCUMENTS.  
WE ASKED HIM FOR DOCUMENTS WHEN 
CONTRARY 
TO HIS PRIOR STATEMENTS, IT 
TURNED OUT THAT HIS 
STAFF WAS WORKING WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER.  
WE SAID, 
LET US 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, 
YOU ARE ON TRIAL.  
MR. NADLER IS PUTTING YOU ON 
TRIAL.  
EVERYBODY IS ON TRIAL EXCEPT 
FOR THEM.  
IT 
IS RIDICULOUS.  
IT IS RIDICULOUS.  
THEY SAID IN 
THEIR BRIEF, WE HAVE 
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.  
AND 
THEY ARE AFRAID TO MAKE THEIR 
CASE.  
THINK ABOUT IT.  
IT IS COMMON SENSE.  
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.  
AND 
THEN THEY COME HERE ON THE 
FIRST DAY AND THEY SAY, 
YOU KNOW WHAT, WE NEED MORE 
EVIDENCE.  
LET ME TELL 
YOU SOMETHING.  
IF I SHOWED UP IN ANY COURT IN 
THIS 
COUNTRY AND I SAID, JUDGE, MY 
CASE IS OVERWHELMING 
BUT I'M NOT READY TO GO YET.  
I NEED MORE EVIDENCE 
BEFORE I CAN MAKE MY CASE.  
I WOULD GET THROWN OUT 
IN TWO SECONDS.  
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD 
HAPPEN 
HERE.  
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD 
HAPPEN HERE.  
IT 
IS TOO MUCH TO LISTEN TO 
ALMOST.  
THE HYPOCRISY OF 
THE WHOLE THING.  
AND WHAT ARE THE STAKES.  
WHAT ARE 
THE STAKES?  
THERE IS AN ELECTION IN ALMOST 
NINE 
MONTHS.  
MONTHS FROM NOW, THERE WILL BE 
AN ELECTION.  
SENATORS IN THIS BODY, THE LAST 
TIME, HAD VERY WISE 
WORDS.  
THEY ECHOED THE WORDS OF OUR 
FOUNDERS.  
A 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IS LIKE 
STEALING AN ELECTION.  
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE 
HAVE.  
WE HAVE  --  TALK 
ABOUT THE FRAMER'S WORST 
NIGHTMARE.  
IT IS A 
PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY 
HAVE DELIVERED TO 
YOUR DOORSTEP.  
IN AN ELECTION YEAR.  
SOME OF YOU 
ARE UPSET.  
WE ARE HERE.  
AND THEY ARE NOT READY TO 
GO.  
AND IT IS OUTRAGEOUS.  
IT IS OUTRAGEOUS.  
AND 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T STAND 
FOR IT.  
I WILL TELL 
YOU THAT RIGHT NOW.  
THEY ARE NOT HERE TO STEAL ONE 
ELECTION.  
THEY ARE HERE TO STEAL TWO 
ELECTIONS.  
IT 
IS BURIED IN THE SMALL PRINT OF 
THE RIDICULOUS 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.  
THEY WANT TO REMOVE THE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THE 
BALLOT.  
THEY WON'T TELL 
YOU THAT.  
THEY DON'T HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY 
IT 
DIRECTLY BUT THAT IS 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 SHOULDN'T BE DONE.  
NOW, THE REASON IT HAS NEVER 
BEEN DONE IS BECAUSE NO 
ONE EVER THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD 
BE A GOOD IDEA FOR 
OUR COUNTRY COME OUR CHILDREN 
COME OUR GRANDCHILDREN 
TO TRY TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT 
TRUMP A BALLOT.  
TO 
DENY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE 
RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON 
A FRAUDULENT INVESTIGATION 
CONDUCTED IN SECRET WITH 
NO RIGHTS.  I COULD GO ON AND 
ON.  
BUT MY POINT IS 
VERY SIMPLE.  
IT IS LONG PASSED TIME THAT WE 
START 
THIS SO THAT WE CAN END THIS 
RIDICULOUS CHARADE AND 
GO HAVE AN ELECTION.  
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE.
>>  DOES THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL YIELD BACK THE 
REMAINDER OF THEIR TIME? 
>>  WE DO. 
>>  THANK YOU. 
>>  THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED.
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND 
AN AMENDMENT TO THE 
DESK TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN 
DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS FROM 
THE WHITE HOUSE AND I ASKED 
THAT IT BE READ. 
>>  THE CLERK WILL READ THE 
DOCUMENT.
>>  THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, 
MR. SCHUMER, 
PROPOSES AMENDMENT NUMBER 1284. 
AT THE APPROPRIATE 
PLACE IN THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE, 
INSERT THE FOLLOWING.  
SECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY 
OTHER PROVISION OF THIS 
RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULES 
FIVE AND SIX OF THE 
RULES COME PROCEDURE AND 
PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN 
SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS 
PICK ONE, THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES 
THROUGH THE SECRETARY 
OF THE SENATE SHALL ISSE A 
SUBPOENA TO THE ACTING 
CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE COMMANDING HIM TO 
PRODUCE FOR THE TIME PERIOD 
FROM JANUARY 1st 2019 
TO THE PRESENT, ALL DOCUMENTS, 
COMMUNICATION AND 
OTHER RECORDS WITHIN THE 
POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR 
CONTROL OF THE WHITE HOUSE, 
INCLUDING THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL, REFERRING OR 
RELATING TO A, ALL 
MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE INCLUDING 
DOCUMENTS, KEY 
MEDICATIONS AND OTHER RECORDS 
RELATED TO THE 
SCHEDULING OF PREPARATION FOUR 
AND FOLLOW-UP FROM 
THE PRESIDENT'S APRIL 21st, 
JULY 25th 2019 
TELEPHONE CALLS AS WELL AS THE 
SEPTEMBER 25TH 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE IN NEW YORK.  
ALL INVESTIGATIONS, INQUIRIES 
AND OTHER PROBES 
RELATED TO UKRAINE INCLUDING 
ANY THAT RELATE IN ANY 
WAY TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT 
JOSEPH BIDEN, NUMBER 
TWO, HUNTER BIDEN AND ANY OF 
HIS ASSOCIATES.  THREE, 
BREEZE AND HOLDINGS LIMITED 
ALSO KNOWN AS BREEZE 
MAMA.  
FOUR, INTERFERENCE OR 
INVOLVEMENT BY UKRAINE 
IN THE 2016 UNITED STATES 
ELECTION.  
FIVE, THE 
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 
OR SIX, ROAD STRIKE.  
THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL 
SUSPENSION WITHHOLDING, 
DELAYING, FREEZING OR RELEASING 
OF UNITED STATES 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND TO 
UKRAINE INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO THE UKRAINE SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE 
INITIATIVE, U.S. AI AND FOREIGN 
MILITARY FINANCING 
MFF.  
D, ALL DOCUMENTS, 
COMMUNICATION, 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 
RELATING TO EFFORTS TO SOLICIT, 
REQUEST INDUCE, 
PERSUADE OR COERCE UKRAINE TO 
CONDUCT OR ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS.  AN OFFER, 
SCHEDULE, OR WITHHOLD A 
WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR 
UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT OR 
THREE, HOLD OR RELEASE MILITARY 
INFORMATION OR 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.  
E, MEETINGS AT OR INVOLVING 
THE WHITE HOUSE THAT RELATED TO 
UKRAINE INCLUDING 
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ONE, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S 
INAUGURATION IN 2019 AND 
UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
DECISION NOT TO ATTEND.  
TO ASK VICE PRESIDENT MIKE 
TENDS TO LEAD THE 
DELEGATION, DIRECTING VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE NOT 
TO ATTEND AND SUBSEQUENT 
DECISION ABOUT THE 
COMPOSITION OF THE DELEGATION 
OF THE UNITED STATES.  
TWO, A MEETING AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE ON OR AROUND  
MAY 23rd, 2019.  
INVOLVING AMONG OTHERS, 
PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND SPECIAL 
REPRESENTATIVE FOR UKRAINE 
NEGOTIATIONS AMBASSADOR COLD 
VOELKER AND ENERGY 
SECRETARY RICK PERRY AND UNITED 
STATES AMBASSADOR TO 
THE EUROPEAN UNION, GORDAN 
SONDLAND.  
AS WELL AS ANY 
PRIVATE MEETINGS OR 
CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE 
INDIVIDUALS BEFORE OR AFTER THE 
LARGER MEETING.  
THREE, MEETINGS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE ON OR ABOUT  
JULY 10th, 2019 INVOLVING 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS AND 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
OFFICIALS INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN 
BOLTON, SECRETARY PERRY, 
AMBASSADOR KURT VOELKER, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO INCLUDE 
AT LEAST A MEETING IN 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON BECCA'S 
OFFICE AND SUBSEQUENT 
MEETING.  
AND FOUR, A MEETING AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE ON 
OR AROUND AUGUST 30S 2019 
INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO 
AND SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE MARK ESPER.  
FIVE, A PLANNED MEETING LATER 
CANCELED AT WARSAW, POLAND ON 
OR AROUND 
SEPTEMBER 1st 2019 BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND 
SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED BY VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE.  
AND SIX, A MEETING AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND 
SEPTEMBER 11th 2019 
INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, VICE 
PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE 
AND MICK MULVANEY CONCERNING 
THE LIFTING OF THE HOLD 
ON THE 30 ASSISTANCE FOR 
UKRAINE.  
F, MEETINGS, 
TELEPHONE CALLS OR 
CONVERSATIONS RELATED TO ANY 
OCCASIONS IN WHICH THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL 
OFFICIALS REPORTED CONCERNS TO 
NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL LAWYERS INCLUDING BUT 
NOT LIMITED TO 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEGAL 
ADVISOR JOHN 
EISENBERG REGARDING MATTERS 
RELATED TO UKRAINE 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
ONE, THE DECISION TO 
DELAY MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE.  
TWO, THE JULY 10th 2019 MEETINGS
AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PICK THREE, 
THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25TH 2019 
CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE.  
FOUR, A SEPTEMBER 1st, 2019 
MEETING BETWEEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL.  
AND 
FIVE, THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 
7th 2019 CALL WITH 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.  
ANY INTERNAL REVIEW OR 
ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE WHITE 
HOUSE REGARDING UKRAINE 
MATTERS FOLLOWING THE SEPTEMBER 
9th, 2019 REQUEST 
FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE HOUSE 
PERMANENT SELECT 
COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.  
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM AND THE 
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  INCLUDING BUT 
NOT LIMITED TO 
DOCUMENTS COLLECTED THAT 
PERTAIN TO THE HOLD ON 
MILITARY AND OTHER SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
AND THE SCHEDULING OF A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING FOR THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND ANY 
REQUESTS FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS BY UKRAINE.  
H, THE COMPLAINT 
SUBMITTED 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 FOR OR 
RECORDINGS OF MEETINGS OR 
TELEPHONE CALLS SCHEDULING 
ITEMS, CALENDAR ENTRIES, WHITE 
HOUSE VISITOR RECORDS
RECORDS, OR E-MAIL OR TEXT 
MESSAGES USING PERSONAL 
OR WORK-RELATED DEVICES BETWEEN 
OR AMONG.  
ONE, 
CURRENT OR FORMER WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALS 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
UKRAINE, MARIE YOVANOVITCH, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO THE DECISION TO END 
HER TOUR OR RECALL 
HER FROM THE UNITED STATES 
EMBASSY IN KIEV.  AND 
TWO, THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS IS 
AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE 
THE SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY 
SERGEANT-AT-ARMS OR ANY 
OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED 
STATES SENATE AND 
SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED 
TO BE ISSUED BY THIS 
SECTION.
>>  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>>  MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>>  I ASK FOR A BRIEF 15 MINUTE 
RECESS BEFORE THE 
PARTIES ARE RECOGNIZED TO 
DEBATE THE SCHUMER 
AMENDMENT.  
THEREFORE I ASK CONSENT THAT 
THE SENATE 
STAND IN RECESS SUBJECT TO THE 
CALL OF THE CHAIR. 
>>  WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO 
AWARDED.
>>  ALREADY, WE ARE OFF TO THE 
RACES ON CAPITOL 
HILL.  
WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A BORING 
BACK AND 
FORTH DISCUSSING OF RULES.  
IT HAS SET FORWARD AN 
ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION 
ALREADY.  
LET'S BREAK 
IT DOWN WITH OUR GUESTS HERE.  
FIRST, WE JUST HEARD 
THE MINORITY LEADER, SENATOR 
SCHUMER, INTRODUCED AN 
AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED RULES 
THAT WOULD REQUIRE 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO ISSUE A 
SUBPOENA TO THE ACTING CHIEF OF 
STAFF, MICK 
MULVANEY, RELATING TO 
EVERYTHING THAT THE MEETING 
WAS OF FIVE PAGES OF WHAT THEY 
WANTED.  
THE 
LIKELIHOOD, MAJOR GARRETT, THAT 
THE DEMOCRATS WILL 
GET WHAT THEY WANT ON THIS JOE 
FLACCO ZERO.  
REPUBLICANS WILL NOT ACCEPT 
THIS AMENDMENT.  
THEY 
WILL MOVE TO TABLE.  
THAT WILL BE A PROCEDURAL 
EFFORT UNDERTAKEN BY THE 
MAJORITY LEADER AND WHEN 
THAT VOTE IS HELD, REPUBLICANS 
WILL HOLD THE LINE 
AND DEFEAT THE AMENDMENT. 
>>  THE OTHER BIG HEADLINE THIS 
MORNING AS WE 
THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GO 
INTO THIS WITH EACH SIDE 
GETTING 24 HOURS APIECE TO MAKE 
THEIR ARGUMENT.  
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL 
SAYING THAT WOULD 
HAVE TO BE DONE OVER TWO DAYS.  
LOW AND BEHOLD, HE 
MADE THIS ABOUT 6:00 LAST 
NIGHT.  
REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS WENT INTO THE WEEKLY 
LUNCHEON AND THERE 
WERE A NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN 
SENATORS WE WERE TOLD, 
INCLUDING SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS 
OF MAINE, EDITOR ROB 
PORTMAN OF OHIO, WHO ASKED FOR 
CHANGES TO THOSE 
RULES AND SO HERE, IN 
HANDWRITTEN FORM AND WE HAVE 
BEEN IN A GRAPHIC YOU CAN SEE, 
THE MAJORITY LEADER'S 
RESOLUTION WAS AMENDED.  
IN FACT, NOW WHAT YOU HAVE 
IS THIS SET OF PRESENTATIONS 
THAT WILL STRETCH OVER 
THREE DAYS.  
THERE WERE CRITICS OF MITCH 
MCCONNELL 
THAT WE WERE CALLING MIDNIGHT 
MITCH, MEANING THERE 
WOULD BE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT 
MIDNIGHT OR 1:00 OR 
2:00 IN THE MORNING.  
THIS WOULD BE OVER THREE DAYS.  
SO THAT IS ABOUT EIGHT HOURS A 
DAY. 
>>  ANOTHER IMPORTANT CHANGE 
PICK THE HOUSE 
EVIDENTIARY RECORD WILL BE 
SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE 
RECORD.  
THAT WAS NOT PART OF SENATOR 
MCCONNELL'S 
ORIGINAL ORGANIZING RESOLUTION. 
THAT ALSO WRANGLED 
SOME SENATE REPUBLICANS WHO 
THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A 
MOVE THAT, TO PUT AT ARMS 
LENGTH, IF THERE IS GOING 
TO BE A TRIAL, HOW CAN YOU NOT 
ACCEPT AT LEAST THE 
EVIDENCE?  
IT DOES GIVE THEN THE 
OPPORTUNITY AT A 
LATER DATE TO HAVE A VOTE TO 
STRIKE CERTAIN PARTS OF 
THE EVIDENCE THEY WANT TO 
DISREGARD OR FIND NOT 
RELEVANT.  
WHAT THIS STRIKES ME AS 
SOMETHING I HAVE 
SEEN FROM MITCH MCCONNELL ON 
NUMEROUS CASES WHERE 
THE GOAL IS TO PRESERVE MOST OF 
HIS PROCEDURAL 
ARCHITECTURE.  
AND HE STILL HAS.  
ALL THE THINGS 
THAT PROTECT THE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAVING WITNESSES 
AND DOCUMENTS ADDED TO THIS 
RECORD HAVE BEEN 
PRESERVED.  
HE HAS GIVEN A TEENY BIT OF 
GROUND IT TO 
SOME SENATE REPUBLICANS WHO 
NEEDED TO SEE THAT 
GROUND GIVEN IN ORDER TO MAKE A 
CASE THAT THIS IS A 
MORE FAIR PROCESS. 
>>  I THINK WHY TODAY WAS 
PARTICULARLY INTERESTING 
WAS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CHARGED 
A COVER-UP BY THE 
REPUBLICAN LEADER.  
HE IS NOW RELAXED THE TIMETABLE 
A BIT.  
AND WE HAVE ROUND ONE IN THIS 
PREVIEW OF THE 
HOUSE DEMOCRATIC MANAGERS 
VERSUS THE WHITE HOUSE.  
WE HAD ADAM SCHIFF UP THERE FOR 
MORE THAN 40 
SOMETHING MINUTES ACCORDING TO 
MY NOTES.  
17 FULL 
SCREENS LAYING OUT DETAILS.  
PRESIDENT VIDEO OF THE 
PRESIDENT IS SAYING HE WOULD BE 
HAPPY TO HAVE 
EVERYONE TESTIFY AND THE WHITE 
HOUSE MAKING THEIR 
CASE.  
HOW WOULD YOU RATE HOW EACH 
SIDE THAT? 
>>  IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY ARE 
TRYING TO ACHIEVE.  
MOST OF SCHIFF'S ARGUMENT WAS 
NOT PERTINENT TO THE 
ACTUAL MOTION ON THE FLOOR.  
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR 
WAS PROCEDURAL.  
HE GAME AND GAVE AN OPENING 
ARGUMENT WHICH IS POLITICALLY 
SMART IN THE SENSE 
THAT THEY VIEW THIS AS THE 
BIGGEST AUDIENCE. 
>>  HE WAS ALSO, TO BE FAIR, 
MAKING THE CASE THAT 
IN EVERY SINGLE OTHER 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE 
SENATE, THERE HAVE BEEN 
WITNESSES CALLED. 
>>  RIGHT. 
ALTHOUGH IN THE LAST ONE, IT 
WAS OVER 
THE OBJECTIONS OF THE DEMOCRATS 
THAT THEY GOT THOSE 
WITNESSES.  
I THOUGHT SCHIFF WAS QUITE 
EFFECTIVE.  
IT WAS INTERESTING THAT THE 
TONE CHANGED WHEN JAY 
CYCLO CAME UP AND HE WAS MORE 
ANIMATED.  
IT REFLECTS 
MORE I THINK OF WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WOULD LIKE TO 
SEE IN THIS AFFAIR.  
OR IN THIS TRIAL.  
BUT THE 
INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE 
LAST 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 FLEX ITS MUSCLE.  
IT IS GOING TO BASICALLY SAY, 
WE WANT CERTAIN 
CHANGES AND THEY GOT THEM. 
>>  SMALL CHANGES THOUGH AND 
WHEN ADAM SCHIFF 
ARGUED NEAR THE END  --  YOU 
ARE RIGHT, NORA.  
HE 
LET OFF WITH HIS OPENING 
ARGUMENT.  
BUT WHEN HE GOT 
TO THE RULES AND THIS 
UNDERLYING ORGANIZING 
RESOLUTION, HE SAID THIS IS THE 
VOTE.  
IF YOU BUILD 
IT OUT THIS WAY, THE OPENING 
ARGUMENTS ARE THE 
TRIAL.  
THERE WON'T BE ANY WITNESSES.  
THERE WON'T 
BE ANY MORE DOCUMENTS.  
AND HE ZEROED IN ON THIS.  
BECAUSE THIS VOTE, THE WAY THIS 
STARTS, HE SAYS IS 
THE WAY IT WILL FINISH AND IT 
WILL FINISH QUICK. 
>>  LIKE MOVING THE CHAIRS 
AROUND ON THE TITANIC 
BUT CHANGING THE DIRECTION. 
>>  THAT IS WHY THE RESOLUTION 
IS SO IMPORTANT, THE 
ONE THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE 
DEMOCRATS.  
IT WOULD 
INCLUDE DOCUMENTS BY 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 
SUBPOENAED IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.  
THEY HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.  
THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T.  
I THINK THEY LEGITIMATELY 
SHOULD TAKE SOME CRITICISM FOR 
THAT.  
THE ISSUE IS, 
WHAT SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
HEAR?  
AND ANY GOOD 
DECISION-MAKING INVOLVES 
GETTING ALL THE FACTS ON 
THE TABLE.  
ANY PROSECUTOR OR ANY GOOD 
LAWYER WILL 
TELL YOU THAT THERE EVEN IN A 
CIVIL TRIAL, IT IS 
IMPORTANT TO GATHER THE FACTS.  
AND REPUBLICANS, 
THAT WILL BE TOUGH FOR. 
>>  I WANT TO BRING INTO CHIP 
REID WHO HAPPENS TO 
BE A LAWYER HIMSELF AND COVERED 
THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT.  
LET ME ASK YOU.  
CHAIRMANSHIP'S 
PRESENTATION.  
THE FULL SCREEN THAT SAID THAT 
ZERO 
DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN PRESENTED BY 
THE WHITE HOUSE.  
THEY HAD FULL SCREENS WITH 
PICTURES OF EVERY WHITE 
HOUSE OFFICIAL THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTED NOT TO 
TESTIFY, HE WAS TRYING TO PUT 
HIS ARGUMENT 
ESSENTIALLY ON FULL-SCREEN AND 
GRAPHICS WERE NOT 
ONLY THE SENATORS BUT FOR THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
>>  THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE 
CLEAR THAT THEY ARE 
ALL READY TO MEET THEM, STEP 
FOR STEP, WITH GRAPHICS 
AND FULL SCREENS TOO.  
IN THIS MODERN AGE, YOU HAVE 
TO DO THAT.  
THE TRUTH IS, MOST OF THE 
PEOPLE IN THE 
ROOM THERE, THE 100 SENATORS, 
ALREADY KNOW IF NOT 
ALL OF THIS, MOST OF THIS.  
THEIR AUDIENCES THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE.  
I FORGET WHO IT WAS ON YOUR 
PANEL 
WHO JUST SAID THAT ONE REASON 
THAT SCHIFF WENT RIGHT 
TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE 
ARGUMENTS IS THAT TODAY IS 
THE FIRST DAY REALLY.  
THIS IS WHEN YOU HAVE A BIG 
AUDIENCE. 
AT SOME POINT, PROBABLY, 
IMPEACHMENT 
FATIGUE IS GOING TO SET IN AND 
YOU WILL HAVE 
PEOPLE'S EYES GLAZING OVER 
AFTER THEY HAVE HEARD 
THESE ARGUMENTS AGAIN AND 
AGAIN.  
SO YOU NEED THOSE 
GRAPHICS.  
YOU NEED SOMETHING TO GRAB 
PEOPLE'S 
ATTENTION AND YOU NEED TO MAKE 
YOUR CASE RIGHT UP 
FRONT.  
YOU CANNOT GET MIRED AT A TIME 
LIKE THIS.  
YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR STRONGEST 
ARGUMENT RIGHT AT 
THE TOP. 
>>  BEN TRACY IS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND JOINS US AS 
WELL.  
WE SAW THE PRESIDENT'S FULL 
TEAM GATHERED 
THERE AS WELL.  
HIS LEGAL TEAM.  
THE WHITE HOUSE 
LAWYER MAKING THE ARGUMENTS 
TODAY. 
>>  AND A GOOD CHANCE THE 
PRESIDENT CALLED THE LAST 
PART OF THAT.  
THE PRESIDENT WAS AT A DINNER 
AND 
DAVOS, SWITZERLAND WHERE HE IS 
ATTENDING THE 
ECONOMIC FORUM.  
AFTER HE LEFT THE DINNER, THE 
PRESIDENT WAS TWEETING, 
ASSUMING FROM THE MOTORCADE, 
TWEETING OUT IN ALL CAPS "READ 
THE TRANSCRIPTS ."  
SOMETHING WE HAVE HEARD HIM 
TWEET BEFORE.  
A 
REFERENCE TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
HIS CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.  
IT IS POSSIBLE THE PRESIDENT IS 
SITTING IN HIS HOTEL ROOM IN 
SWITZERLAND AND 
WATCHING THIS.  
WE KNOW FROM WHITE HOUSE AIDES 
AT 
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN GETTING 
BRIEFINGS ON THIS 
THROUGHOUT THE DAY.  
NOW HE HAS SOME FREE TIME 
TONIGHT TO WATCH THIS HIMSELF 
IF HE CHOOSES TO DO 
THAT.  
HE HAS MEETINGS TOMORROW IN 
SWITZERLAND AND 
WILL QUICKLY RETURN TO 
WASHINGTON DC BY EARLY 
EVENING TOMORROW TO BE IN PLACE 
FOR THIS.  
THE REAL 
QUESTION FOR THE WHITE HOUSE 
AND FOR THE WHITE HOUSE 
LEGAL TEAM IS, NOW THAT THIS 
WILL STRETCH OVER THREE 
DAYS, YOU COULD HAVE A SCENARIO 
WHERE IF THIS BEGINS 
AS PLANNED TOMORROW AND YOU 
HAVE THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
GO WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY AND 
FRIDAY, THE PRESIDENT MAY 
HAVE TO START SATURDAY AND PICK 
THIS BACK UP MONDAY 
AND TUESDAY.  
WE ARE GETTING SOME SENSE FROM 
THE 
WHITE HOUSE LEGAL TEAM ON 
BACKGROUND CALLS THAT 
THEY ARE ALLUDING TO THE FACT 
THAT THEY MAY NOT NEED 
24 HOURS.  3
THAT THEIR CASES PRETTY 
STRAIGHTFORWARD 
AND THEY 
>> HE WANTED CAVANAUGH 
CONFIRMED.  
THE PROCESS GAVE A LITTLE BIT 
AND HE KEPT THE PROCESS 
TOGETHER.  
WE SEE SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR 
HERE.  
>> THERE WAS A LOT OF SHAKING 
HANDS AND PATS ON THE BACK 
THERE.  
AS THE SENATE TAKES A BREAK WE 
ARE GOING TO STEP AWAY THEY'RE 
GOING TO BE VOTING ON A SERIES 
OF AMENDMENTS AND THEN A FINAL 
VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE 
RULES FOR THIS IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL.  
OUR COVERAGE OF THE SENATE 
TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL 
CONTINUE ON CBSN. 
YOU CAN ALSO WATCH IT AT  
CBSNEWS.COM OR ON THE  CBS NEWS 
APP.  
I WILL BE BACK WITH UPDATES AS 
NEWS WARRANTS.>> I AM REENA 
NINAN IN NEW YORK .CONTINUING 
THE CBSN SPECIAL REPORT, THE  
PEACH MINT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS IN A RECESS.  
MITCH McCONNELL KICKED OFF 
PROCEEDINGS TO INTRODUCE A 
RESOLUTION CONTAINING GROUND 
RULES FOR THE TRIAL BUT BEFORE 
DEMOCRATS EVEN GOT A CHANCE TO 
SPEAK HE SAID HE WOULD REJECT 
MOTIONS FROM ACROSS THE AISLE 
INCLUDING CALLING WITNESSES.  
>> IF ANY AMENDMENTS ARE 
BROUGHT FORWARD TO FORCE 
PREMATURE DECISIONS ON MID-
TRIAL QUESTIONS, I WILL MOVE TO 
TABLE SUCH AMENDMENTS AND 
PROTECT OUR BIPARTISAN 
PRESIDENT.  
IF A SENATOR MOVES TO ORDER 
SPECIFICÃSUBPOENA SPECIFIC 
WITNESSES I WILL MOVE TO TABLE 
SUCH MOTIONS BECAUSE THE SENATE 
WILL DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS 
LATER IN THE TRIAL JUST LIKE WE 
DID BACK IN 1999.  
>> CHUCK SCHUMER SPOKE SHORTLY 
AFTER McCONNELL AND HE SAID HIS 
CONGRESSIONAL COUNTERPARTS 
RESOLUTION IS NOTHING SHORT OF 
A NATIONAL DISGRACE.  
>> THE McCONNELL RULES SEEM TO 
BE DESIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP  
FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP .  IT ASKS 
THE SENATE TO RUSH THROUGH, AS 
FAST AS POSSIBLE, AND MAKES 
GETTING EVIDENCE AS HARD AS 
POSSIBLE.  
IT COULD FORCE PRESENTATIONS TO 
TAKE PLACE AT TWO OR THREE IN 
THE MORNING, SO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WILL NOT SEE THEM.  
>> TODAY, THE ORIGINAL RULES 
CHANGED JUST A SHORT WHILE 
AFTER McCONNELL SPOKE ON THE 
SENATE FLOOR.  
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
PROPOSING TO ALLOW EACH SIDE TO 
PRESENT OPENING ARGUMENTS FOR 
24 HOURS OVER THE COURSE OF 
THREE DAYS.  
AN ADDITIONAL DAY FOR EACH 
SIDE.  
SENATORS WILL HAVE 16 HOURS TO 
SUBMIT WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO 
BOTH SIDES.  
EVIDENCE FROM THE HOUSE WILL BE 
ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.  
THAT IS A CHANGE FROM THE 
ACTUAL INITIAL RULES WHICH 
WOULD NOT HAVE AUTOMATICALLY 
ENTERED THOSE DOCUMENTS.  
ONCE BOTH SIDES HEAR OPENING 
ARGUMENTS SENATORS CAN DECIDE 
WHETHER TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES 
OR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE 
TRIAL.  
WE ALSO HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL,  PAT CIPOLLONE. 
HE SAID IT IS A TACTIC TO DELAY 
THE TRIAL.  
AND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR 
IT.  
>> WE WILL PROCEED TO THE 
QUESTION OF WITNESSES IN SOME 
OF THE MORE 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 
IMPEACHMENT DO NOT BEGIN TO 
APPROACH THE STANDARD REQUIRED 
BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND IN 
FACT THEY THEMSELVES WILL 
ESTABLISH NOTHING BEYOND THOSE 
ARTICLES IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE 
ARTICLES ALONE YOU WILL 
DETERMINE THAT THERE IS 
ABSOLUTELY NO CASE.  
>>
>> YOU WILL RECALL THE TWO 
ATICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST 
THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY'RE 
LOOKING AT IS ABUSE OF POWER 
AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.  
THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST 
THOSE ARTICLES ARE LIKELY TO 
START TOMORROW ASSUMING THE 
SENATE COMES TO TERMS WITH THE 
RULES THIS AFTERNOON.  
I WANT TO BRING IN OUR PANEL.
THEN TRACY IS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND MOLLY IS A CBSN 
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR. 
I WANT TO START AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
HAVE WE HEARD REACTION FROM THE 
WHITE HOUSE AT THIS  POINT? 
>> ABOUT AN HOUR AGO THE 
PRESIDENT LEFT A DINNER IN 
SWITZERLAND ATTENDING THE WORLD 
ECONOMIC FORUM.  
SIX MINUTES AFTER HE LEFT THAT 
DINNER HE TWEETED READ THE 
TRANSCRIPTS.  
THAT IS A FAMILIAR TWEET FROM 
THE PRESIDENT REFERRING PEOPLE 
TO GO BACK AND READ THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL BETWEEN 
HIM AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF 
UKRAINE.  
WE ARE TOLD BY WHITE HOUSE 
AIDES THAT HE IS GETTING 
BRIEFINGS.  
THE PRESIDENT IS BACK AT HIS 
HOTEL.  
IF HE WANTS HE CAN TURN ON CNN 
INTERNATIONAL OR CBSN  AND 
FOLLOW ALONG WITH THIS.  
THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE THAT HE 
CAUGHT THE LAST PART OF JAY 
SEKULOW'S PRESENTATION. 
HE WILL BE ABLE TO CATCH  THE 
BULK OF THIS TRIAL HERE IN THE 
U.S..   
>> MOLLY, THERE WERE 
CONCESSIONS THAT McCONNELL MADE 
TODAY.  
WALK US THROUGH THESE AND ARE 
YU SURPRISED? 
>> I AM NOT THAT SURPRISED, 
BECAUSE WHEN I READ THE FIRST 
RESOLUTION I THOUGHT THIS DOES 
VARY FROM THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT RULES IN SEVERAL 
WAYS.  
NUMBER ONE, THERE WERE ONLY TWO 
DAYS FOR BOTH SIDES TO MAKE 
THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS AND 
THAT WAS GOING TO BE A LONG DAY 
FOR EITHER SIDE AND I WAS 
SURPRISED THAT THERE WOULD ONLY 
BE FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE ON THE 
WITNESSES.  
THERE WERE JUST A FEW CHANGES 
THAT SEEMED MORE FAVORABLE TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE.  
I THOUGHT MITCH McCONNELL LIKES 
TO DO THIS.  
HE LIKES TO COME IN WITH THE 
FIRST OFFER, BECAUSE HE KNOWS 
THAT HE HAS TO CONTEND WITH THE 
MODERATE REPUBLICANS THAT ARE 
ALWAYS ASKING FOR MORE, WHICH 
IN THIS CASE WAS AN EXTRA DAY 
FOR ARGUMENTS.  
THAT WAS THE SAME AS THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.  
BOTH SIDES HAD THREE DAYS EACH 
TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENTS.  
NOW, THEY HAVE THREE DAYS A 
PIECE TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENTS 
AND ALSO THIS ISSUE.  I HAD A 
FEELING, I WAS NOT SURE HOW IT 
WOULD WORK, BUT IT MAKES SENSE 
THAT MITCH McCONNELL IS 
ALLOWING THAT TO COME IN.  
AND, REALLY AGAIN, WITH THESE 
FOUR MODERATES, THEY TEND TO 
PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN LANDMARK 
LEGISLATION.  
>> SUSAN COLLINS, LaMARR 
ALEXANDER -- 
>> EXACTLY.  
MITCH ROMNEY STARTED PLAYING 
THE ROLE OF JEFF FLAKE BUT MITT 
ROMNEY BASICALLY CAME IN A 
DIFFERENT STATE OF COURSE, BUT 
THEY WERE CLOSE PHILOSOPHICALLY 
AND IT IS A MAVERICK WHEN IT 
COMES TO THIS PRESIDENT.AND 
DURING THE KAVANAUGH, AS  MAJOR 
GARRETT WAS SAYING, DURING THE 
KAVANAUGH NOMINATION , IT WAS 
THOSE FOR REPUBLICANS WHO 
PRESSED McCONNELL TO HEAR FROM 
A WITNESS ON GETTING ANOTHER 
DAY OF INTERVIEWS.  
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT MADE THAT 
PUSH AND IN THE END SUSAN 
COLLINS DID VOTE FOR KAVANAUGH. 
JEFF FLAKE VOTED FOR KAVANAUGH. 
SO AGAIN, MITCH McCONNELL NEEDS 
TO GO IN HARD THIS FIRST OFFER, 
KNOWING THAT HE WILL HAVE TO 
TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT BEFORE HE 
GETS TO THE FINAL RESOLUTION.  
>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.  
YOU KNOW, MITCH McCONNELL 
ADDRESSED THE SENATE AND SAID 
HE IS WILLING TO TABLE ANYTHING 
BEFORE WE GET TO THE PROPER 
STEPS, INCLUDING WITNESSES AT 
THIS JUNCTURE.  
HOW CAN THERE BE A TRIAL IF 
THERE ARE NOT WITNESSES OR 
EVIDENCE IN PLACE? 
>> THIS QUESTION IS REMARKABLE. 
MOLLY GOT AT EXACTLY WHAT THE 
DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN WHAT 
HAPPENED 21 YEARS AGO AND NOW.  
21 YEARS AGO 100 SENATORS 
AGREED TO THE PROCEDURES.  
AND THERE WAS AN EFFORT BY THE 
SENATE MAJORITY AND MINORITY 
LEADERS TO FIND CONSENSUS.  
HERE, THE APPROACH WITH MITCH 
McCONNELL IS LET ME 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 JUST A LITTLE TOO 
HARD BY NOT ALLOWING ANY 
EVIDENCE TO COME INTO THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AT THE OUTSET 
AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO BALKED 
AND SAID THE TRIAL WE ARE 
ACCUSTOMED TO AS AMERICANS AS 
SEEING ANY KIND OF TRIAL, WOULD 
HAVE EVIDENCE.  
>> NOW, WE ARE PUSHING TO HAVE 
THIS RESEMBLE THE RULES OF THE 
ROAD FOR CLINTON, AND THAT WAS 
TO HAVE THREE DAYS TO HEAR 
THESE ARGUMENTS.  
KEEP THIS IN MIND.  
WE ARE WATCHING THIS AS OUR 
AUDIENCE IS AND SO ARE 
SENATORS.  
BUT, I CAN LOOK AT MY PHONE AND 
I CAN GET UP TO POWDER MY NOSE. 
THE SENATORS CANNOT.  
THEY HAVE TO SIT THERE.  
AND MITCH McCONNELL SAID GUESS 
WHAT? 
SO, I'M GOING TO GIVE BOTH 
SIDES TWO DAYS APIECE, THAT 
MIGHT MEAN 12 HOUR DAYS FOR YOU 
TO HAVE TO SIT IN YOUR SEAT AND 
BASICALLY ONLY HAVE A GLASS OF 
WATER AND YOU CANNOT GET UP TO 
TAKE A BATHROOM BREAK AND I 
THINK THEY KIND OF WENT COME 
ON, MITCH.>> I WANT TO PLAY FOR 
YOU A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT ADAM 
SCHIFF HAD TO SAY IN REFERENCE  
TO HIS ASSESSMENT AS TO WHY 
THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM 
WITNESSES.  
>> WHAT IS THE HARM OF WAITING 
UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL? 
OF KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE 
ROAD ON THE QUESTION OF 
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES? 
BESIDES THE FACT IT IS 
COMPLETELY BACKWARDS, TRIAL 
FIRST, THEN EVIDENCE, BESIDES 
THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS 
WOULD INFORM THE QUESTIONS ON 
THE WITNESSES AND HELP WITH 
QUESTIONING.  
THE HARM IS THIS.  
YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY OF THE 
EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT 
CONTINUES TO CONCEAL THROUGHOUT 
MOST, OR ALL OF THE TRIAL.  
AND ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT IS 
ALREADY OVERWHELMING, YOU MAY 
NEVER KNOW THE FULL SCOPE OF 
THE MISCONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT 
OR THOSE AROUND HIM.  
>> WE JUST HEARD FROM ADAM 
SCHIFF, YOU KNOW, THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL  WALKED IN TODAY 
AND WE HEARD FROM PAT CIPOLLONE 
AND JAY SEKULOW AND THEY WALKED 
IN PRETTY CONFIDENT TODAY. 
>> Reporter: THEY FEEL LIKE 
THEY HAVE THE VOTES. 
SO, I THINK THAT WHEN YOU TALK 
ABOUT THESE CHANGES TO THE 
RULES FROM 2-3  DAYS, THE WHITE 
HOUSE IS NOT GOING TO CARE, 
WHAT THEY CARE ABOUT IS KEEPING 
THESE REPUBLICANS ON BOARD.  
SO, IF SMALL CHANGES TO THE 
RULES MEANS THAT THERE IS NOT A 
FACTION OF SENATORS SAYING NO, 
WE DON'T THINK THIS IS FAIR, 
THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD RATHER 
SEE A UNITED FRONT.  
IF THIS KEEPS EVERYBODY IN 
LOCKSTEP AND THEY ALL VOTE WITH 
McCONNELL AND THEY PUSH THESE 
RULES FORWARD, THE WHITE HOUSE 
FEELS THAT MEANS THERE IS LESS 
LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE WILL 
EVENTUALLY BE WITNESSES OR 
SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS DOWN 
THE ROAD.  
THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS HOW 
MUCH TIME DOES EACH SIDE 
ACTUALLY TAKE RID THE 
PRESIDENTS LEGAL TEAM IS 
SIGNALING THAT THEY DO NOT NEED 
24 HOURS TO MAKE THEIR CASE.  
SO, YOU COULD SEE, IF YOU HAVE 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS START 
TOMORROW, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, 
FRIDAY IF THEY TAKE ALL OF 
THEIR TIME THAT COULD PRESS THE 
TEAM TO START ON SATURDAY AND 
FINISH EARLY NEXT WEEK.  
BY THE ACCOUNT, THIS IS A 
SPEEDY TRIAL AND THAT IS WHAT 
THEY WANT.  
THEY WANT THIS OVER AS QUICKLY 
AS POSSIBLE.  
>> WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, WE 
DO TALK ABOUT THE 4 MODERATE 
REPUBLICANS WHO HAD INFLUENCE.  
BUT, WHAT REALLY MATTERSIS 
WHETHER THOSE WITNESSES GET IN, 
WHETHER THERE IS MORE 
TESTIMONY.  
WILL THAT HAPPEN BASED ON THE 
VOTE COUNT YOU ARE HEARING AT 
THIS POINT? 
>> WHAT IS TRICKY ABOUT THIS 
RESOLUTION THAT MITCH McCONNELL 
WROTE GOES TO THE POINT OF 
EVIDENCE.  
AND I MISSPOKE EARLIER BECAUSE 
BASED ON WHAT I HAVE READ 
INITIALLY, I THOUGHT THE ENTIRE 
EVIDENTIARY RECORD WOULD NOT BE 
ALLOWED IN.  
BUT, WHAT THIS SAYS IS ALL 
THOSE MATERIALS THAT THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE GATHERED 
NEED TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE 
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, SO 
THAT AT A POINT IN THIS TRIAL 
WHEN A MOTION IS MADE TO SEE 
THOSE DOCUMENTS, THEY ARE 
PRODUCED.  
SO, MITCH McCONNELL ESSENTIALLY 
SETS UP A SITUATION WHERE HE IS 
GOING TO HAVE THE SENATE VOTE 
ON A MOTION TO SEE EVIDENCE.  
SO, THAT GIVES THOSE MORE 
VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS A YES 
VOTE ON SEEING MORE EVIDENCE 
BUT THE EVIDENCE THEY SAW WAS 
ALREADY PRODUCED ON THE HOUSE 
SIDE.  
SO, THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURAL 
TRICKS AROUND HERE AND IT IS 
MORE SO TO APPEAL TO THE 
REPUBLICANS IN THOSE PURPLE 
STATES LIKE CORY GARDNER WHO 
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE TOUGH 
VOTES IN THE NEXT FEW HOURS.  
WHEN CHUCK SCHUMER, WE WILL SEE 
THIS VOTE ON THE VARIOUS 
EVIDENCE HE WANTS TO SEE 
ADMITTED, BUT ALSO HE IS GOING 
TO FORCE A VOTE ON WHETHER TO 
HEAR FROM CERTAIN WITNESSES AND 
ESSENTIALLY WHAT MITCH 
McCONNELL IS GOING TO DO IS SAY 
I WANT TO TABLE THAT AMENDMENT 
OR I WANT TO MOVE TO TABLE YOUR 
MOTION WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS A 
BACKWARDS VOTE.  
REPUBLICANS WILL BE VOTING IN 
FAVOR OF KILLING SCHUMER'S 
AMENDMENT AND DEMOCRATS VOTING 
AGAINST IT BUT THE VOTE WILL 
LOOK LIKE REPUBLICANS VOTED IN 
FAVOR OF WITNESSES WHEN REALLY 
THEY WERE NOT.  
IT GIVES EVERYONE A LITTLE 
PROCEDURAL COVER BECAUSE THIS 
IS NOT JUST THE PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION.  
A LOT OF THESE SENATORS ARE UP 
FOR REELECTION 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 UNDER A SPOTLIGHT 
AS WELL BECAUSE ONE OF THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS IS FROM DENVER, 
-- 
>> AND THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN 
THE MAJORITY.  
SO YOU KNOW, WE HEARD FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYSLAYING 
OUT THE FOUNDATION.  
WHAT YOU MAKE OF THE ARGUMENT 
THEY ARE CRAFTING AT THIS 
POINT? 
>> I THINK THEY ARE DOING WHAT 
THEY NEED TO DO TO PRESERVE 
THEIR DEFENSE.  
THE TOP LINE TAKEAWAYS WERE 
COMPLAINTS ABOUT DUE PROCESS 
VIOLATIONS, ALLEGING THAT THEY 
CLAIM IT HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE 
AS A PROSECUTOR, A FORMER 
PROSECUTOR, IF YOU ANALOGIZE TO 
THE GRAND JURY, I CAN TELL YOU 
THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO DUE 
PROCESS RIGHTS THAT THEY WOULD 
HAVE WITH A GRAND JURY BUT WE 
ARE IN A DIFFERENT BALLGAME IN 
AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.  
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD 
THAT WENT BY WEEKLY, THE CLAIM 
THAT THE ARTICLES DO NOT ALLEGE 
CRIMES.  
THIS IS AN ARGUMENT I EXPECT TO 
BE BROUGHT FORTH MUCH MORE 
STRONGLY AND IN MUCH MORE 
DETAIL.  
IT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT WOULD 
LEAD TO A MOTION TO DISMISS THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE 
ANYTHING ELSE EVEN HAPPENS.  
SO, THE THEORY WOULD BE THE 
ARTICLES ARE DEFECTIVE, THERE 
SHOULD NOT BE ANY MORE 
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE.  
AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER 
OR NOT THAT WOULD BE A WELL-
FOUNDED MOTION.  
AND THEN ON THE FINAL ARTICLE, 
RELATING TO OBSTRUCTION, THEY 
MADE THE CASE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO 
ASSERT CONSTITUTIONAL 
PRIVILEGES AND HAVE THEM 
LITIGATED IN THE COURSE.  
>> AND JAY SEKULOW SAID THIS 
SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE 
COURTS  AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
DETERMINED THERE.  
>> I EXPECT THIS TO BE A KEY 
POINT OF CONTENTION AS IT GOES 
FORWARD.  
DEMOCRATS ARE IN A DIFFICULT 
POSITION STANDING IN FRONT OF 
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND 
SAYING THAT THEY COULD NOT WAIT 
TO GO TO THE COURTS AND IT IS A 
FACT OF LIFE.  
FEDERAL LITIGATION TAKES A LONG 
TIME AND THERE IS AN ELECTION 
COMING UP IN 10-11 MONTHS.  
SO, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE TO MAKE HERE IS 
THAT THEY COULD NOT WAIT.ADAM 
SCHIFF CANNOT TURN AROUND AND 
SAY  CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, YOU 
GUYS SHOULD MOVE.  
BUT, THAT IS THE REAL POLITIC 
THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ROOM.  
>> DEMOCRATS ARGUE THAT PAT 
CIPOLLONE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED 
TO  REPRESENT THE PRESIDENT 
BECAUSE HE IS A WITNESS.>> 
Reporter: LET'S GIVE PEOPLE 
CONTEXT ON THIS. 
THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT  
PAT CIPOLLONE WHO IS 
REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT AT 
THIS TRIAL,  THEY SAY BASED ON 
THE OCTOBER 8 LETTER THAT PAT 
CIPOLLONE SENT TO CONGRESS 
SAYING WE ARE NOT GOING TO 
PARTICIPATE IN YOUR IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE WE THINK  
THIS IS A SHAM.  
THAT IS PART OF THE BASIS OF 
THE SECOND ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT, OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS.  
THEY SAY 27 PLAYED A ROLE IN 
THAT BECAUSE HE SENT THE 
LETTER.  
SO, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR 
DOCUMENTS THAT MIGHT SHED LIGHT 
AS TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S  
INTERACTION WAS WITH PAT 
CIPOLLONE.  
WAS IT TO THE PRESIDENT WHO 
DIRECTED HIM TO SAY I DO NOT 
WANT TO BE A PART OF THIS 
PROCESS? 
SO, THEY WANT PAT CIPOLLONE TO 
PRODUCE THAT. 
THE WHITE HOUSE FIRED BACK WITH 
A STRONG STATEMENT .  HE SAYS 
THE DEMOCRATS ARE AN UTTER 
JOKE.  
THEY HAVE NO CASE AND THIS -- 
LATEST CRITICAL STUNNED PROVES 
IT.  
THE FACT HE HAS NOT TURNED OVER 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IS 
LUDICROUS 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 GO ALONG WITH WHAT 
THE DEMOCRATS ARE ASKING FOR.  
>> WE ARE STANDING BY AND THE 
SENATE IS IN RECESS.  
IT HAS BEEN ABOUT 15 OR SO.  
THEY ARE EXPECTED TO RESUME TO 
TAKE UP THE AMENDMENTS.  
AND ALSO THE TRIAL, THE RULES 
FOR THE TRIAL.  
THERE IS JOHN ROBERTS.  
LET'S LISTEN IN.  
>> MR. ADAM SCHIFF, YOU HAVE 
ONE HOUR. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE.  
IN A MOMENT I WILL INTRODUCE 
THE HOUSE MANAGER FROM 
CALIFORNIA TO RESPOND ON THE 
AMENDMENT BUT I DID WANT TO 
TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY BEFORE 
REPRESENTATIONS BECAME 
CONGEALED TO RESPOND TO MY 
COLLEAGUES ARGUMENT ON THE 
RESOLUTION AT LARGE.  
FIRST, IT IS WORTH NOTING 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 PROCEEDING.  
THEY MADE NO ARGUMENT THAT THIS 
IS DIFFERENT HERE BECAUSE OF 
THIS OR THAT.  
THEY MADE NO ARGUMENT ABOUT 
THAT WHATSOEVER.  
THEY MADE NO ARGUMENT THAT IT 
MAKES SENSE TO TRY THE CASE AND 
THEN CONSIDER DOCUMENTS.  
THEY MADE NO ARGUMENT ABOUT WHY 
IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES BECAUSE IT IS 
INDEFENSIBLE.  
IT IS INDEFENSIBLE.  
NO TRIAL IN AMERICA HAS EVER 
BEEN CONDUCTED LIKE THAT.  
AND SO, YOU HEARD NOTHING ABOUT 
IT.  
AND THAT SHOULD BE THE MOST 
TELLING THING ABOUT COUNSEL'S 
ARGUMENT.  
THEY HAD NO DEFENSE OF THE 
McCONNELL RESOLUTION BECAUSE 
THERE IS NONE.  
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 TO THE 
REPRESENTATION THAT THE HOUSE 
IS CLAIMING THERE IS NO SUCH 
THING AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.  
THAT IS NONSENSE.  
NO ONE HERE HAS EVER SUGGESTED 
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BUT THE 
INTERESTING THING HERE IS THEY 
HAVE NEVER CLAIMED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.  
NOT ONCE DURING THE HOUSE 
INVESTIGATION DID THEY EVER SAY 
A SINGLE DOCUMENT WAS 
PRIVILEGED OR A SINGLE WITNESS 
HAD SOMETHING PRIVILEGED TO 
SAY.  
WHY ONLY NOW AND EVEN NOW THEY 
HAVE NOT WHITE INVOKED IT, WHY 
ONLY NOW, WHY NOT IN THE HOUSE? 
BECAUSE IN ORDER TO CLAIM 
PRIVILEGE, AS THEY KNOW, 
BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD LAWYERS, 
YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY WHICH 
DOCUMENT, WHICH LINE, WHICH 
CONVERSATION AND THEY DO NOT 
WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE, TO DO 
THAT, THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE 
TO REVEAL THE EVIDENCE OF HIS 
GUILT THAT IS WHY THEY MADE NO 
INVOCATION OF PRIVILEGE NOW, 
THEY MAKE THE FURTHER ARGUMENT 
THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD ONLY BE 
ABLE TO IMPEACH AFTER THEY 
EXHAUST ALL LEGAL REMEDIES AS 
IF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE 
HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER 
OF IMPEACHMENTá, BUT ONLY AFTER 
IT GOES TO COURT IN THE 
DISTRICT COURT AND THEN THE 
COURT OF APPEALS AND THEN THE 
SUPREME COURT AND IT IS 
REMANDED AND IN SIX YEARS.  
WHY DIDN'T THE FOUNDERS REQUIRE 
THE EXHAUSTION OF LEGAL 
REMEDIES? 
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO 
PUT THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN 
THE COURTS.  
AND WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT 
WHILE THESE LAWYERS FOR THE 
PRESIDENT ARE HERE TODAY SAYING 
THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO 
COURT, THEY ARE IN COURT SAYING 
THE HOUSE MAY NOT GO TO IN 
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 TELL 
YOU TODAY.  
THEY SAY YOU CANNOT ENFORCE 
CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.  
THAT IS NON-JUDICIAL.  
YOU CANNOT DO IT.  
THE COUNCIL BRINGS UP A CASE 
INVOLVING A DEPUTY TO JOHN 
BOLTON, THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL, AND THE SAYS HE DID 
WHAT HE SHOULD DO.  
HE WENT TO COURT TO FIGHT US.  
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TOOK THE 
POSITION HE CANNOT DO THAT.  
SO, THESE LAWYERS SAY HE SHOULD 
AND THESE SAY HE SHOULD NOT.  
THEY CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.  
INTERESTINGLY, WHILE DR. 
GOVERNMENT WENT TO COURT, AND 
THEY APPLAUD HIM FOR DOING 
THAT, HIS BOSS, JOHN BOLTON, 
NOW SAYS THAT THERE IS NO 
NECESSITY FOR HIM TO GO TO 
COURT, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO DO 
THAT.  
HE IS WILLING TO COME AND TALK 
TO YOU.  
HE IS WILLING TO COME AND 
TESTIFY AND TELL YOU WHAT HE 
KNOWS.  
THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT TO 
HEAR IT? 
DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM 
SOMEONE WHO WAS IN THE 
MEETINGS, SOMEONE WHO DESCRIBED 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID? 
THIS DEAL BETWEEN MULVANEY.
AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.  
YOU WANT TO ASK THEM WHY IT WAS 
A DRUG DEAL OR WHY PEOPLE TOLD 
HIM TO TALK TO THE LAWYERS? 
YOU SHOULD WANT TO KNOW.  
THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW.  
THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW.  
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT YOU 
TO KNOW.  
CAN YOU LIVE UP TO THE OATH YOU 
HAVE TAKEN TO BE IMPARTIAL AND 
NOT KNOW? 
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN.  
NOW, THEY ALSO MADE AN ARGUMENT 
AND YOU WILL HEAR MORE LATER ON 
FROM THE PROFESSOR THAT WELL, 
ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT IN 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.  
IT IS INTERESTING THEY HAD TO 
GO OUTSIDE THE REALM OF 
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS TO A 
CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER TO MAKE 
THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE NO 
REPUTABLE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 
EXPERT WOULD DO THAT.  
INDEED, THE ONE THEY CALLED IN 
THE HOUSE HAS SAID THE 
OPPOSITE.  
THERE IS A REASON THAT JONATHAN 
TURLEY IS NOT SITTING AT THE 
TABLE, AND THAT IS BECAUSE HE 
DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR 
ARGUMENT.  
SO, THEY WILL CITE HIM FOR ONE 
THING BUT IGNORE HIM FOR THE 
OTHER.  
NOW, THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT WAS 
TRANSPARENT AND HE MAY HAVE 
REFUSED EVERY REQUEST BUT HE 
RELEASED TO DOCUMENTS.  
THE DOCUMENT ON THE JULY 25 AND 
APRIL 21 CALLS.  
LET'S FACE IT, HE WAS FORCED TO 
RELEASE THE RECORD OF THE JULY 
25 CALL WHEN HE GOT CAUGHT.  
WHEN A WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A 
COMPLAINT AND WE OPENED AN 
INVESTIGATION HE WAS FORCED 
BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT.  
YOU DON'T GET CREDIT FOR 
TRANSPARENCY WHEN YOU GET 
CAUGHT.  
AND WHAT'S MORE, WHAT IS 
REVEALED AND THAT OF COURSE IS 
DAMNING.  
NOW, THEY POINT TO THE ONLY 
OTHER RECORD HE HAS RELEASED 
AND THAT IS INTERESTING.  
THAT IS JUST A CONGRATULATORY 
CALL, BUT WHAT IS INTERESTING 
ABOUT IT IS THE PRESIDENT WAS 
URGED TO BRING UP THE ISSUE OF 
CORRUPTION.  
INDEED, IN THE READOUT OF THAT 
CALL THE WHITE HOUSE 
MISLEADINGLY SAID HE DID.  
BUT, NOW THAT WE HAVE SEEN THE 
RECORD WE SEE HE DID NOT.  
AND, NOTWITHSTANDING COUNSEL'S 
CLAIM IN THE TRIAL BRIEF THAT 
HE RAISED THE ISSUE OF 
CORRUPTION ON THE JULY 25 CALL, 
THAT DOES NOT APPEAR IN EITHER 
CONVERSATION.  
AND WHY? 
BECAUSE THE ONLY CORRUPTION HE 
CARED ABOUT WAS THE CORRUPTION 
THAT HE COULD HELP BRING ABOUT. 
NOW, MR. PAT CIPOLLONE MADE THE 
REPRESENTATION THAT REPUBLICANS 
WERE NOT EVEN ALLOWED IN THE 
DEPOSITIONS CONDUCTED IN THE 
HOUSE.  
NOW, I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST 
TO YOU THAT PAT CIPOLLONE WOULD 
MAKE  A FALSE STATEMENT.  
I WOULD LEAVE IT TO HIM TO MAKE 
THAT ALLEGATION AGAINST OTHERS. 
BUT, I WILL TELL YOU THIS, HE 
IS MISTAKEN.  
HE IS MISTAKEN.  
EVERY REPUBLICAN ON THE THREE 
INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES WAS 
ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 
DEPOSITIONS.  
MORE THAN THAT, THEY GOT THE 
SAME TIME WE DID.  
YOU SHOW ME ANOTHER PROCEEDING, 
ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL 
IMPEACHMENT OR OTHER THAT HAD 
THAT KIND OF ACCESS FOR THE 
OPPOSITE PARTY.  
THERE WERE DEPOSITIONS IN THE 
CLINTON AND NIXON IMPEACHMENTS. 
SO, THEY WOULD SAY SECRET 
PROCESS BUT THEY WERE THE SAME 
PRIVATE DEPOSITIONS IN THESE 
OTHER IMPEACHMENTS AS WELL.  
FINALLY A COUPLE LAST POINTS.  
THEY MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS NOT ALLOWED IN 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRED 
BY MY COLLEAGUE, CHAIRMAN 
NADLER, TO HAVE HIS COUNSEL 
PRESENT.  
THAT IS ALSO JUST PLAIN WRONG.  
I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST THEY 
ARE BEING DELIBERATELY 
MISLEADING HERE, BUT IT IS 
WRONG.  
YOU HAVE ALSO HEARD MY FRIENDS 
AT THE OTHER TABLE MAKE ATTACKS 
ON ME AND CHAIRMAN NADLER.  
I WILL NOT RESPOND TO THEM BUT 
I WILL SAY THIS, THEY MAKE AN 
IMPORTANT POINT ALTHOUGH IT IS 
NOT THE POINT I THINK THEY ARE 
TRYING TO MAKE.  
WHEN YOU HEAR THEM ATTACK THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS, WHAT YOU ARE 
REALLY HEARING IS WE DO NOT 
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENTS GUILT.  
WE DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
THE McCONNELL RESOLUTION AND 
HOW PATENTLY UNFAIR IT IS.  
WE DON'T WANT TO TALK 
ABOUTBACKWARDS IT IS TO  HAVE A 
TRIAL AND THEN ASK FOR 
WITNESSES.  
WE WILL ATTACK THE MANAGERS 
BECAUSE MAYBE WE CAN DISTRACT 
YOU FOR A MOMENT FROM WHAT IS 
BEFORE YOU.  
MAYBE IF WE ATTACK THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS YOU WILL THINK ABOUT 
THEM INSTEAD OF THE GUILT OF 
THE PRESIDENT.  
YOU WILL HEAR MORE OF THAT AND 
EVERY TIME YOU HEAR THEM ATTACK 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS I WANT YOU 
TO ASK YOURSELVES AWAY FROM 
WHAT ISSUE ARE THEY TRYING TO 
DISTRACT ME? 
WHAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT CAME UP 
FROM BEFORE THIS? 
WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO DEFLECT 
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, 
USE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO 
WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID THAT 
YOU APPROPRIATED AND WE 
APPROPRIATED TO DEFEND AN ALLY 
AND DEFEND OURSELVES, BECAUSE 
IT IS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AS 
WELL.  
AND, WHY? 
TO FIGHT CORRUPTION? 
THAT IS NONSENSE, AND YOU KNOW 
IT.  
HE WITHHELD THAT MONEY, AND HE 
WITHHELD EVEN MEETING WITH HIM 
IN THE OVAL OFFICE, THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE, 
BECAUSE HE WANTED TO COERCE 
UKRAINE INTO THESE SHAM 
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS OPPONENT 
THAT HE WAS TERRIFIED WOULD 
BEAT HIM IN THE NEXT ELECTION.  
THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.  
YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IS OKAY? 
THEIR BRIEF SAYS IT IS OKAY.  
IN ARTICLE 2 WE HEARD, THE 
PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE 
WANTS.  
YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IS OKAY? 
THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY EVERY 
FUTURE PRESIDENT CAN COME INTO 
OFFICE AND DO THE SAME THING.  
ARE WE PREPARED TO SAY THAT YOU 
MARK THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE.  
I NOW YIELD TO REPRESENTATIVE 
LOFGREN.  
>>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, 
SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE 
PRESIDENT.  
THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY 
SUPPORT SENATOR SCHUMER'S 
AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD ENSURE A 
FAIR, LEGITIMATE TRIAL BASED ON 
A FULL EVIDENTIARY RECORD.  
THE SENATE CAN REMEDY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S UNPRECEDENTED COVER UP  
BY TAKING A STRAIGHTFORWARD 
STEP.  
IT CAN ASK FOR THE KEY EVIDENCE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
IMPROPERLY BLOCKED.  
SENATOR SCHUMER'S AMENDMENT 
DOES JUST THAT.  
THE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES A 
SUBPOENA FOR WHITE HOUSE 
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY 
RELEVANT TO THIS CASE.  
THESE DOCUMENTS FOCUS ON THE 
PRESIDENTS SCHEME TO STRONG ARM 
UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS 
POLITICAL OPPONENT AND TO 
INTERFERE WITH THE 2020 
ELECTION.  
THE DOCUMENTS WILL REVEAL THE 
EXTENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE'S 
COORDINATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENTS AGENTS SUCH AS 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND RUDY 
GIULIANI.  
WHO PUSHED THE PRESIDENTS SO-
CALLED DRUG DEAL ON UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS.  
THE DOCUMENTS WILL ALSO SHOW US 
HOW KEY PLAYERS IN THE SIDE THE 
WHITE HOUSE, SUCH AS THE WHITE 
HOUSE IS ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF 
AND HIS DEPUTY HELPED SET UP 
THE DEAL BY EXECUTING THE 
FREEZE ON ALL MILITARY AID AND 
WITHHOLDING A PROMISED VISIT TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE.  
THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE RECORDS 
OF THE PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE 
OBJECTED TO THIS SCHEME SUCH AS 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON.  
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT 
IMPEACHMENT CASE AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT.  
THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS 
WILL BE AT THE WHITE HOUSE.  
THE DOCUMENTS SENATOR SCHUMER'S 
AMENDMENT TARGETS WILL PROVIDE 
MORE CLARITY AND CONTEXT ABOUT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME.  
THE AMENDMENT PREVENTS THE 
PRESIDENT FROM A HIDING 
EVIDENCE AS HE HASÃPREVIOUSLY 
TRIED TO DO.  
THE HOUSE SUBPOENAED THESE 
DOCUMENTS AS PART OF THE 
INQUIRY, BUT TO THE PRESIDENT 
COMPLETELY REJECTED BUS AND 
EVERY DOCUMENT SUBPOENA 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 THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY 
INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE 
ITSELF.  
RECENT REVELATIONS FROM PRESS 
REPORTS AND ADDITIONAL 
WITNESSES SUCH 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 ACTING AS JUDGES TO BE 
DEPRIVED OF RELATIVE EVIDENCE 
OF THE PRESIDENTS OFFENSES WHEN 
YOU ARE JUDGING THESE MOST 
SERIOUS CHARGES.  
IT WOULD ALSO BE UNFAIR TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHO 
OVERWHELMINGLY BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD PRODUCE ALL 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND 
EVIDENCE.  
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS USED IN 
ALL TRIALS, FOR A SIMPLE 
REASON.  
AS THE STORY GOES, THE 
DOCUMENTS DON'T LIE.  
DOCUMENTS GIVE OBJECTIVE REAL-
TIME INSIGHT INTO THE EVENTS 
UNDER INVESTIGATION.  
THE NEED FOR SUCH EVIDENCE IS 
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS.  
MORE THAN 200 YEARS OF SENATE 
PRACTICE MADE CLEAR THAT 
DOCUMENTS ARE GENERALLY THE 
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.  
THEY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE 
SENATE BEFORE WITNESSES TAKE 
STAND IN GREAT VOLUME, TO 
ENSURE THE SENATE HAS THE 
EVIDENCE IT NEEDS TO EVALUATE 
THE CASE.  
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SENATE 
TRIALS HAS NEVER BEEN LIMITED 
TO THE DOCUMENTS SENT BY THE 
HOUSE.  
THE SENATE, THROUGHOUT ITS 
EXISTENCE HAS EXERCISED ITS 
AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO ITS CLEAR 
RULES OF PROCEDURE TO SUBPOENA 
DOCUMENTS AT THE OUTSET OF A 
TRIAL.  
WE DON'T KNOW WITH CERTAINTY 
WHAT THE DOCUMENTS WILL SAY.  
WE SIMPLY WANT THE TRUTH.  
WHATEVER THAT TRUTH MAY BE.  
SO, SO TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  
THEY WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, 
AND SO SHOULD EVERYBODY IN THE 
CHAMBER REGARDLESS OF PARTY 
AFFILIATION.  
THERE ARE KEY REASONS WHY THIS 
AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY.  
WE WILL BEGIN BY WALKING 
THROUGH THE HISTORY AND 
PRECEDENT OF SENATE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIALS AND I WILL LET YOU KNOW 
ABOUT THE HOUSE'S EFFORTS TO 
GET THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE 
MET BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
ADMINISTRATION'S CATEGORICAL 
COMMITMENT TO HIDE ALL THE 
EVIDENCE AT ALL COSTS AND WE 
WILL ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC NEED 
FOR THESE SUBPOENAED WHITE 
HOUSE DOCUMENTS.  
I WILL TELL YOU WHY THEY ARE 
NEEDED NOW, NOT AT THE END OF 
THE TRIAL IN ORDER TO ENSURE A 
FULL, FAIR TRIAL BASED ON A 
COMPLETE EVIDENTIARY RECORD.  
SOME HAVE SUGGESTED INCORRECTLY 
THAT THE SENATE IS LIMITED ONLY 
TO EVIDENCE GATHERED BEFORE THE 
HOUSE APPROVED ITS RADICALS OF 
IMPEACHMENT.  
OTHERS HAVE SUGGESTED, ALSO 
INCORRECTLY, THAT IT WOULD BE 
STRANGE FOR THE SENATE TO ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS.  
THESE CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT ANY 
HISTORICAL LEGAL SUPPORT.  
OVER THE PAST TWO CENTURIES THE 
SENATE HAS ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD 
THAT ITS SOLE POWER UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION TO TRY ALL 
IMPEACHMENTS REQUIRES THE 
SENATE TO SIT AS A COURT OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND HOLD A TRIAL.  
IN FACT, THE FOUNDERS ASSIGNED 
SOLE AUTHORITY ONLY TWICE IN 
THE CONSTITUTION.  
FIRST, GIVING THE HOUSE SOLE 
AUTHORITY TO IMPEACH AND 
SECOND, GIVING THE SENATE SOUL 
AUTHORITY TO TRY THAT 
IMPEACHMENT.  
IF THE FOUNDERS HAD INTENDED 
FOR THE SENATE TO SERVE AS SOME 
SORT OF APPELLATE BODY THEY 
WOULD HAVE SAID THAT.  
BUT, NO.  
INSTEAD THEY WROTE THIS.  
ARTICLE 1 SECTION 3, THE SENATE 
SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO 
TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS.  
THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS RECEIVED 
THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS AND INDEED, 
THE SENATE'S OWN RULE OF 
PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE MAKE 
CLEAR THAT NEW EVIDENCE WILL BE 
CONSIDERED.  
ALL 15 FULL SENATE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIALS CONSIDERED NEW EVIDENCE. 
LET'S LOOK AT EXAMPLES THAT 
SHOW THE SENATE TAKES NEW 
EVIDENCE IN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. 
THE FIRST EVER IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL IN 1868 AGAINST ANDREW 
JOHNSON ALLOWED THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS TO SPEND THE FIRST TWO 
DAYS OF THE TRIAL INTRODUCING 
NEW DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.  
IT WAS THE SAME IN JOHN 
PICKERING'S TRIAL IN 1804, NEW 
DOCUMENTS WERE PRESENTED NEARLY 
A WEEK BEFORE HOUSE MANAGERS 
MADE THEIR OPENING STATEMENT 
AND LATER THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. 
AND, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER 
BY MR. ADAM SCHIFF, IN 2010  
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL INCLUDED 
SEVEN MONTHS OF PRETRIAL 
DISCOVERY AND 6000 PAGES OF 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADMITTED 
AT TRIAL AFTER THAT EVIDENCE 
WAS ADMITTED THE SENATE HELD 
ITS TRIAL.  
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE DID 
NOT INVOLVE SUBPOENAS FOR 
DOCUMENTS.  
WHY WAS THAT? 
BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY PRODUCED 
A HUGE TROVE OF DOCUMENTS.  
THE COUNCIL TURNED OVER TO 
CONGRESS SOME 90,000 PAGES OF 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS GATHERED 
DURING THE COURSE OF HIS YEARS 
LONG INVESTIGATION AND I 
REMEMBER AS A MEMBER OF THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE GOING OVER 
TO THE FORD BUILDING AND 
LOOKING AT THE BOXES OF THE 
DOCUMENT.  
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 IMPEACHMENT ALSO 
SHOWS HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
REFUSAL TO PRODUCE  ANY 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE 
TO CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS IS 
DIFFERENT THAN THE PAST 
PRESIDENTS.  
DIFFERENT FROM PRESIDENT 
CLINTON AND JOHNSON AND EVEN 
NIXON. 
IN SHORT, NOT A SINGLE 
PRESIDENT HAS CATEGORICALLY 
REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH AN 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.  
NOT A SINGLE PRESIDENT HAS 
ISSUED A BLANKET DIRECTION TO 
HIS ADMINISTRATION TO PRODUCE 
NO DOCUMENTS AND NO WITNESSES.  
THESE ARE THE PRECEDENTS A 
SENATE MUST RELY ON.  
THEY SHOULD ISSUE A SUBPOENA 
FOR DOCUMENTS AT THE OUTSET OF 
THE PROCEEDINGS SO THAT THIS 
BODY, THE HOUSE MANAGERS, THE 
PRESIDENT CAN ALL ACCOUNT FOR 
THOSE DOCUMENTS IN THE 
PRESENTATIONS AND 
DELIBERATIONS.  
IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO 
REQUEST AND RECEIVE DOCUMENTS 
AFTER THE PARTIES RESENT THEIR 
CASES.  
THE TIME IS NOW TO DO THAT.  
SO, WHY IS THE AMENDMENT NEEDED 
TO PREVENT PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM 
CONTINUING HIS CATEGORICAL 
COMMITMENT TO HIDE THE 
EVIDENCE? 
IN THIS CASE THE HOUSE SOUGHT 
WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS.  
WHY DO WE HAVE THEM? 
IT IS NOT BECAUSE WE DID NOT 
TRY, IT IS BECAUSE THE WHITE 
HOUSE REFUSED TO GIVE THEM TO 
US.  
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM 
SEEMS TO BELIEVE THE WHITE 
HOUSE IS PERMITTED TO REFUSE TO 
PROVIDE DOCUMENTS WITHOUT 
REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT IT IS 
PRIVILEGED.  
THEY APPARENTLY BELIEVE THAT 
CONGRESS HAS AUTHORITY SUBJECT 
TO APPROVAL FROM THE PRESIDENT, 
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE 
CONSTITUTION SAYS.  
OUR CONSTITUTION SETS FORTH 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 
MORE THAN 30 TRANSCRIPTS OF 
WHITE HOUSE RECORDINGS AND 
KNOWS FROM MEETINGS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT.  
HERE, EVEN BEFORE THE HOUSE 
LAUNCHED THE INVESTIGATION THAT 
LED TO THIS TRIAL, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP  REJECTED CONGRESS'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 
TO USE ITS LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO 
INVESTIGATE HIS ACTIONS.  
HE ASSERTED THAT HIS 
ADMINISTRATION WAS FIGHTING ALL 
THE SUBPOENAS, PROCLAIMING I 
HAVE AN ARTICLE TOO, OR I HAVE 
THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT 
AS PRESIDENT.  
HERE IS WHAT HE SAID.  
>> THEN I HAVE AN ARTICLE TOO, 
WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO 
WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.  
>> EVEN AFTER THE HOUSE 
FORMERLY ANNOUNCED THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN UKRAINE 
HE CONTINUED HIS OBSTRUCTION, 
BEGINNING ON SEPTEMBER 9 2019 
THE HOUSE INVESTIGATIVE 
COMMITTEES MADE 2 ATTEMPTS TO 
VOLUNTARILY OBTAIN DOCUMENTS 
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.  
THE WHITE HOUSE REFUSED TO 
ENGAGE WITH FRANKLY, OR EVEN 
RESPOND, TO THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEES.  
ON OCTOBER 4 THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT REFORM 
SENT A SUBPOENA TO WHITE HOUSE 
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK 
MULVANEY, THIS TIME COMPELLING 
THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE BY OCTOBER 
18.  
ON OCTOBER 8 BEFORE THE WHITE 
HOUSE DOCUMENTS WERE DUE THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SENT A 
LETTER TO SPEAKER PELOSI 
STATING THE PRESIDENT'S 
POSITION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND HIS ADMINISTRATION CANNOT  
PARTICIPATE IN THIS PARTISAN 
INQUIRY UNDER THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES.  
THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY DECLARED 
HE WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN AN 
INVESTIGATION HE DID NOT LIKE.  
10 DAYS LATER, ON OCTOBER 18, 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SENT A 
LETTER TO THE HOUSE CONFIRMING 
THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO 
STONEWALL.  
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AGAIN 
STATED THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO 
PARTICIPATE.  
THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1 
SECTION 2 SAYS THAT THE HOUSE 
SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT, JUST AS ARTICLE 1 
SECTION 3, THE SENATE HAS A 
SOLE POWER TO TRY.  
PARTICIPATION IN A DULY 
AUTHORIZED CONGRESSIONAL 
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 OF 
IMPEACHMENT AND GIVES THE 
SENATE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY 
ALL IMPEACHMENTS.  
THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT LIKE 
BEING IMPEACHED.  
BUT, IT IS THE PRESIDENT, NOT 
THE CONGRESS DECIDED WHEN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE 
APPROPRIATE, THEN THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER HAS NO POWER 
AT ALL.  
IF YOU LET HIM BLOCK FROM 
CONGRESS AND FROM THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE THE EVIDENCE TO COVER UP 
HIS OFFENSES, THEN THE 
IMPEACHMENT POWER TRULY WILL BE 
MEANINGLESS.  
WITH ALL THE BACK-AND-FORTH 
ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE 
HEARD THE PHRASE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.  
THE RESIDENCE LAWYERS KEEP 
SAYING IT.  
THEY TALK ABOUT JUSTIFYING 
HIDING THE TRUTH AND 
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION.  
BUT, THAT IS A DISTRACTION.  
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE 
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES AND THE 
TRUTH IS AS MENTIONED BY ADAM 
SCHIFF, DURING THE COURSE OF 
THE ENTIRE INQUIRY,  PRESIDENT 
TRUMP HAS NOT ONCE  ASSERTED 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.  
NOT A SINGLE TIME.  
IT WAS NOT THE REASON PROVIDED 
BY MR. PAT CIPOLLONE FOR 
REFUSING TO COMPLY  WITH THE 
SUBPOENA. 
INDEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP  DID 
NOT OFFER LEGAL JUSTIFICATION 
FOR WITHHOLDING THE EVIDENCE.  
HERE IS THE TRUTH.  
PRESIDENTS, MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS, JUDGES, AND THE 
SUPREME COURT HAVE RECOGNIZED 
THROUGHOUT OUR NATION'S HISTORY 
THAT CONGRESS IS INVESTIGATIVE 
POWER IS AT PEAK DURING 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.  
YOUR POWERS, EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE A BARRIER 
TO GIVE ABSOLUTE SECRECY TO 
COVER UP WRONGDOING IF IT DID, 
THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WOULD 
SEE THEIR POWER DISAPPEAR.  
WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON TRIED THAT 
ARGUMENT BY REFUSING TO PRODUCE 
TAPE RECORDINGS TO PROSECUTORS 
AND TO CONGRESS, HE WAS SOUNDLY 
REBUKED BY THE OTHER TWO 
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.  
THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY 
RULED AGAINST HIM.  
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
VOTED THAT HE BE IMPEACHED FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.  
IT WOULD BE REMARKABLE FOR THE 
UNITED STATES SENATE TO DECLARE 
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR 
NATIONS 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 
SEEK IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY 
EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT HAS YET TO ASSERT ANY 
PRIVILEGE TO JUSTIFY 
WITHHOLDING DOCUMENTS.  
THERE IS ANOTHER REASON THIS 
AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT.  
THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT ARE 
DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE 
PRESIDENTS MISCONDUCT.  
THE WHITE HOUSE IS CONCEALING 
DOCUMENTS INVOLVING OFFICIALS 
WHO HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF 
KEY EVENTS AT THE HEART OF THIS 
TRIAL.  
THIS IS NOT JUST A GUESS.  
WE KNOW THESE DOCUMENTS EXIST 
FROM THE WITNESSES WHO 
TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE, AND 
FROM OTHER PUBLIC RELEASE OF 
DOCUMENTS.  
LET'S WALK THROUGH THOSE 
DOCUMENTS THAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
SHOULD 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 
UNLAWFUL HOLD  OF THE $391 
MILLION OF MILITARY AID.  
CONCERNS THAT WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALS REPORTED TO LEGAL 
COUNSEL IN REAL TIME.  
THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO 
RECALL AMBASSADOR MARIE 
YOVANOVITCH FROM UKRAINE.  
THE FIRST SET OF DOCUMENTS, 
THEY SHOULD GET ABOUT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S  MEDICATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, IT 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 OF BOTH CALLS WITH 
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.  
THEY WERE ABOUT AMERICAN POLICY 
AS 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'S A CLIP OF LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL EXPLAINING HOW THE 
PRESIDENT IGNORED THE POINTS 
ABOUT AMERICAN POLICY 
REFLECTING THE VIEWS OF BOTH 
THE CONGRESS AND THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION.  
>>
>> IF I COULD TURN YOUR 
ATTENTION TO THE APRIL 21 CALL, 
THAT IS THE FIRST CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP  AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY.  
DID YOU PREPARE A, THE TALKING 
POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT DURING 
THAT CALL? 
>> YES, I DID.  
>> DID THAT INCLUDE THE TALKING 
POINTS WITH UKRAINE? 
>> YES.  
>> THAT WAS SOMETHING HE WAS 
SUPPOSED TO RAISE WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY? 
>> THEY WERE CLEARED THROUGH 
THE STAFF OR THE PRESIDENT, 
YES.  
>> THE MATERIALS PROVIDED FOR 
THE JULY 25 CALL THAT HE 
MENTIONED ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT.  
>> THEY WERE UNRELATED TO THE 
FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES OF 
HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION.  
AND THEY SHOW THAT HE SERVED 
HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST AT 
THE EXPENSE OF AMERICA'S 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.  
THESE DOCUMENTS ALSO INCLUDE 
HANDWRITTEN NOTES AND OTHER 
DOCUMENTS THAT WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALS GENERATED DURING THE 
CALLS AND MEETINGS.  
WE KNOW FOR EXAMPLE THAT MR. 
MORRISON, JENNIFER WILLIAMS, 
THEY ALL TESTIFIED TO TAKING 
CONTEMPORANEOUS HANDWRITTEN 
NTES DURING THE JULY 25 CALL.  
MISS WILLIAMS AND LIEUTENANT 
COLONEL DENMAN BOTH TESTIFIED 
THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MADE AN 
EXPLICIT  REFERENCE THAT WAS 
NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEMORANDUM 
THAT THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED 
TO THE PUBLIC.  
HERE'S A CLIP OF THEIR 
TESTIMONY.  
>> BOTH OF YOU RECALL PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY IN THAT CONVERSATION  
RAISING THE ISSUE, OR 
MENTIONING VERISMO, DO YOU NOT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT.  
CORREC.  
>> AND YET IT APPEARS NOWHERE 
IN THE CALL RECORD THAT HAS 
BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, IS 
THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS RIGHT.  
>> CORRECT.  
>> WHY DO YOU NEED DOCUMENTS 
GENERATED AFTER THE CALLS AND 
MEETINGS? 
THEY WOULD SHED LIGHT ON HOW 
THESE WERE PERCEIVED IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE AND FOR EXAMPLE, 
JOHN BOLTON WAS NOT ON THE 25th 
CALL, BUT HE WAS APPARENTLY 
INFORMED OF THE CONTENTS 
AFTERWARDS.  
HIS REACTION ONCE HE WAS 
INFORMED WOULD BE HELPFUL TO 
UNDERSTANDING THE EXTENT TO 
WHICH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTION 
DEVIATED FROM  AMERICAN POLICY 
AND AMERICAN SECURITY 
INTERESTS.  
THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF 
DOCUMENTS THAT THE SENATE 
SHOULD GET AND THEY RELATE TO 
THE CRITICAL INVESTIGATIONS 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS 
AGENTS REPEATEDLY ASKED  
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO 
ANNOUNCE.  
THESE DOCUMENTS ABOUT EFFORTS 
TO PRESSURE UKRAINE, TO 
ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS, AND 
THE DECISION TO PLACE A HOLD ON 
A MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.  
THEY WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT 
FOR YOU TO EVALUATE THE 
PRESIDENTS CONDUCT.  
FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
IS A FIRST-HAND WITNESS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF 
POWER.  
HE REPORTED DIRECTLY TO THE 
PRESIDENT.  
HE SUPERVISED THE ENTIRE STAFF 
OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL.  
PUBLIC REPORTS INDICATE THAT 
JOHN BOLTON IS A VORACIOUS 
NOTETAKER IN EVERY MEETING.  
FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY WE KNOW 
THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON HOSTED 
THE JULY 10, 2019 MEETING WHERE 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT THE 
PROMISED MEETING WOULD BE 
SCHEDULED IF THEY ANNOUNCED THE 
INVESTIGATIONS.  
WE KNOW THAT BOLTON WAS BRIEFED 
ABOUT THIS MEETING IMMEDIATELY 
FOLLOWING THAT WHEN AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND SAID HE HAD A DEAL 
WITH MICK MULVANEY TO SCHEDULE 
THE PROMISED WHITE HOUSE 
MEETING IF UKRAINE ANNOUNCED 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS. 
WE ALSO KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON WAS INVOLVED IN REAPING 
THE PRESIDENT ON A PRESIDENTIAL 
DECISION MEMORANDUM IN AUGUST, 
REFLECTING THE CONSENSUS 
INTERAGENCY OPINION THAT 
UKRAINIAN SECURITY ASSESSMENTS 
WERE VITAL TO AMERICA'S 
NATIONAL SECURITY, SOMETHING 
THE CONGRESS HAD APPROVED, 
APPROPRIATED.  
SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD SIGNED.  
PRESS REPORTS INDICATE THAT HE 
TOO WAS INVOLVED IN A LATE 
AUGUST OVAL OFFICE MEETING 
WHERE HE, SECRETARY POMPEO AND 
SECRETARY ESPER ALL TRIED TO 
CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT TO 
RELEASE THE AIDE.  
AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAS COME 
FORWARD AND PUBLICLY CONFIRMED 
THAT HE WAS A WITNESS TO 
IMPORTANT EVENTS.  
BUT, ALSO THAT HE HAS NEW 
EVIDENCE THAT NO ONE HAS SEEN 
YET.  
IF WE KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE 
THAT HAS NOT YET COME OUT, ALL 
OF US SHOULD WANT TO HEAR IT 
NOW BEFORE AMBASSADOR BOLTON 
TESTIFIES.  
WE SHOULD GET DOCUMENTS AND 
RECORDS RELATING TO HIS 
TESTIMONY INCLUDING HIS NOTES, 
WHICH WOULD PROVIDE 
CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE ABOUT 
WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN MEETINGS 
RELATED TO UKRAINE WHICH WOULD 
HELP TO EVALUATE HIS TESTIMONY. 
THE EVIDENCE IS NOT JUST 
RESTRICTED TO AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON.  
DURING HIS TESTIMONY, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATED I 
HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF 
MY PHONE RECORDS.  úHE ALSO SAI 
LAWYERS HAD ASKED REPEATEDLY 
FOR THESE MATERIALS.  
HE SAID THE MATERIALS WOULD 
HELP REFRESH HIS MEMORY.  
WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT 
MATERIAL.  
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO 
TESTIFIED THAT HE EXCHANGED A 
NUMBER OF EMAILS WITH TOP 
OFFICIALS LIKE MICK MULVANEY 
ABOUT HIS EFFORTS TO PRESSURE 
UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS PRESIDENT TRUMP  
DEMANDED.  
HERE IS HIS TESTIMONY.  
>> THIRD, LET ME SAY PRECISELY 
BECAUSE WE DID NOT THINK THAT 
WE WERE ENGAGING IN IMPROPER 
BEHAVIOR, WE MADE EVERY EFFORT 
TO ENSURE THAT THE RELEVANT 
DECISION-MAKERS AT THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT KNEW THE IMPORTANT 
DETAILS OF OUR EFFORTS.  
THE SUGGESTION THAT WE WERE 
ENGAGED IN THE SUM IRREGULAR OR 
ROGUE DIPLOMACY IS ABSOLUTELY 
FALSE.  
>> I HAVE NOW IDENTIFIED 
CERTAIN STATE DEPARTMENT EMAILS 
AND MESSAGES THAT PROVIDE 
CONTEMPORANEOUS SUPPORT FOR MY 
VIEW.  
THESE EMAILS SHOW THAT THE 
LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE WHITE 
HOUSE, WERE ALL INFORMED ABOUT 
THE UKRAINE EFFORTS FROM MAY 23 
2019 UNTIL THE SECURITY AID WAS 
RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11 2019.  
>> THESE EMAILS, AMONG OTHERS, 
ARE IN POSSESSION -- 
>> THESE EMAILS REFERENCED IN 
THIS TESTIMONY ARE IN THE 
POSSESSION OF THE WHITE HOUSE, 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND EVEN 
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SINCE 
OFFICIALS FROM ALL THREE 
ENTITIES COMMUNICATED TOGETHER. 
DURING HIS TESTIMONY, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DESCRIBED 
IT THIS WAY.  
EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP, IT 
WAS NO SECRET.  
THESE EMAILS ARE THEREFORE 
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE 
FULL SCOPE OF THE SCHEME.  
THE REQUEST FOR RELEVANT 
EVIDENCE IS NOT CONFINED TO 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS. 
THE SENATE SHOULD ALSO GET 
WHITE HOUSE RECORDS RELATING TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE IS PRIVATE 
AGENTS WHO ACTED ON HIS BEHALF 
IN UKRAINE INCLUDING RUDY 
GIULIANI, -- WITNESS TESTIMONY 
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 PRESS UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS TO ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD 
PERSONALLY AND CLINICALLY 
BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT.  
FOR EXAMPLE, THE MAY 10 LETTER 
FROM MR. GIULIANI TO PRESIDENT-
ELECT ZELENSKY  AS SHOWN ON 
THIS SLIDE SHOWS THAT HE WAS 
ACTING AS PERSONAL COUNSEL TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HIS 
KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.  
HE REQUESTED A MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT-ELECT AND TO BE 
JOINED BY MISS TENZING, WHO WAS 
VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS MATTER. 
THE EVIDENCE INDICATES HE WAS 
COLLABORATING WITH THEM IN THIS 
EFFORT.  
THE SENATE SHOULD GET THE WHITE 
HOUSE RECORDS OF MEETINGS, OF 
CALLS INVOLVING MR. GIULIANI OR 
MISS TENZING OR MR. DE GENOVA.  
THIS IS IMPORTANT TO HELP YOU 
UNDERSTAND THE EXTENT THAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE WAS INVOLVED IN MR. 
GIULIANI'S EFFORTS TO COURSE 
UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED.  
THE RECORDS WOULD SHOW HOW THE 
PRESIDENTS PERSONAL POLITICAL 
AGENDA BECAME MORE IMPORTANT 
THAN THE POLICIES TO HELP 
AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTERESTS.  
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL MAY, 
CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR ATTEMPTS 
TO HIDE EVIDENCE, ASSERT THAT 
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WOULD 
COVER THESE DOCUMENTS BUT THE 
PRESIDENTS PERSONAL ATTORNEY 
CLIENT PRIVILEGE CANNOT SHIELD 
EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT IN 
OFFICE OR THAT OF HIS AIDES OR 
HIS LAWYERS PARTICIPATION IN 
CORRUPT SCHEMES.  
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR DOCUMENTS 
REFLECTING LEGITIMATE LEGAL 
ADVICE.  
YOU NEED DOCUMENTS ABOUT THEIR 
ACTIONS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL 
OPPONEN. 
THERE IS A SET OF WHITE HOUSE 
DOCUMENTS THAT RELATE  DIRECTLY 
TO THE PRESIDENTS UNLAWFUL 
DECISION TO WITHHOLD $391 
MILLION APPROPRIATED 
BIPARTISAN, TO HELP UKRAINE.  
WITNESSES HAVE TESTIFIED THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP  ORDERED A HOLD 
ON THE ASSISTANCE 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 WATCHDOG, ISSUED A 
LEGAL OPINION FINDING THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATED THE 
LAW WHEN HE HELD  UP SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.  
THEY SAID FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF 
LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THE 
PRESIDENT TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN 
POLICY PRIORITIES FOR THOSE 
THAT CONGRESS ENACTED INTO LAW. 
OMB WITHHELD FUNDS FOR A POLICY 
REASON THAT IS NOT PERMITTED 
UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL 
ACT.  
THE WITHHOLDING WAS NOT A 
PROGRAMMATIC DELAY, THEREFORE, 
WE CONCLUDE THAT OMB VIOLATED 
THE ICA.  
THE FACT THAT THE ACTION TO 
FREEZE THE AIDE WHICH HE USED 
TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE 
THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS HE 
WANTED WAS AGAINST NOT ONLY BE 
OFFICIAL CONSENSUS OF HIS OWN 
ADMINISTRATION, BUT ALSO 
AGAINST THE LAW AND IT WAS TO 
HELP HIMSELF.  
THAT HELPS DEMONSTRATE THESE 
ACTIONS WERE TAKEN FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL AND 
POLITICAL BENEFIT. 
WHEN THIS TESTIMONY IN PUBLIC 
REPORTING MADE CLEAR  THAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE HAS A SIGNIFICANT 
BODY OF DOCUMENTS THAT RELATE 
TO THESE KEY ASPECTS OF THE 
PRESIDENTS SCHEME.  
SOME OF THESE DOCUMENTS OUTLINE 
THE PLANNING OF THE PRESIDENTS 
FREEZE.  
FOR EXAMPLE, THE NEW YORK TIMES 
REPORTED IN JUNE THAT MR. 
MULVANEY EMAILED HIS SENIOR 
ADVISOR, MR. BLAIR.  
DID WE EVER FIND OUT ABOUT THE 
MONEY FOR UKRAINE AND WHETHER 
WE CAN HOLD IT BACK? 
THIS SHOWS THAT MR. MULVANEY 
WAS IN EMAIL CONTACT WITH HIS 
AIDES ABOUT THE VERY ISSUES 
UNDER INVESTIGATION AS PART OF 
THIS IMPEACHMENT.  
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 AMERICAS 
INTEREST. 
THE SENATE SHOULD REVIEW THE 
HIGHLY RELEVANT DOCUMENT, WHICH 
REFLECTS REAL-TIME ASSERTIONS 
BY PRESIDENT TRUMP SENIOR AIDES
, THE UKRAINIAN AID WAS IN THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND THAT 
THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON 
TO HOLD UP THE AID. 
THERE DOCUMENT THAT INCLUDE 
AFTER-THE-FACT JUSTIFICATIONS 
TO TRY TO OVERCOME LEGAL 
PROBLEMS IN THE ANONYMOUS 
OBJECTIONS TO FREEZING 
ASSISTANCE TO CRANE. 
WE KNOW THAT THESE DOCUMENTS 
EXIST. 
FOR EXAMPLE, ON JANUARY THIRD, 
2020, OMB STATED IN A LETTER TO 
THE NEW YORK TIMES, THAT IT HAD 
DISCOVERED 20 RESPONSIVE 
DOCUMENTS, CONSISTING OF 40 
PAGES. 
REFLECTING E-MAILS BETWEEN 
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL, ROBERT 
BLAIR AND OMB OFFICIAL, UNCLE 
DUFFY, THE RELATE DIRECTLY TO 
THE FREEZING OF THE UKRAINE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE. 
OMB WOULD NOT RELEASE THEM IN 
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 
LAWSUIT. 
THEY HAVE REFUSED TO PRODUCE 
THESE DOCUMENTS AT THE 
DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, IN 
RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE. 
THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTED, 
THAT A CONFIDENTIAL WHITE HOUSE 
REVIEW OF PRESIDENT ROUHANI'S 
DECISION TO HOLD UP HUNDREDS OF 
DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL EXTENSIVE 
EFFORTS TO GENERATE AN AFTER-
THE-FACT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 
DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE DELAY 
WAS LEGAL. IT IS KNOWN AS A 
COVER-UP ACTUALLY. 
THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS HAD 
APPARENTLY UNCOVERED AND EARLY 
AUGUST EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN 
ACTE CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK 
MULVANEY AND WHAT HOUSE BUDGET 
OFFICIALS SEEKING TO PROVIDE 
INSULATION FOR WITHHOLDING THE 
FUNDS THE PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY 
ORDERED ON HOLD. 
THE DOCUMENTS ALSO REPORTEDLY 
INCLUDE TEAM INDICATIONS 
BETWEEN WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS 
AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES. 
NOT ONLY DOES CONGRESS HAVE A 
RIGHT TO SEE THEM, THE PUBLIC 
DOES ALSO. 
UNDER THE FREEDOM OF 
INFORMATION LAWS. 
AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
AUTHORITY, THE SENATE HAS THE 
GREATEST INTEREST IN AND RIGHT 
TO COMPEL THOSE DOCUMENTS. 
INDEED, AS THE NEWS ARTICLE 
EXPLAINS, WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS 
WORRIED ABOUT UNFLATTERING 
EXCHANGES AND FAX TO AT A 
MINIMUM, BEARS THE PRESIDENT. 
PERHAPS THEY SHOULD BE WORRIED 
ABOUT THAT. 
AT THE RISK OF EMBARRASSMENT 
CANNOT OUTWEIGH THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS IN 
THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. 
ANY EVIDENCE OF GUILT, 
INCLUDING FURTHER PROOF OF THE 
REAL REASON THE PRESIDENT 
ORDERED THAT FUNDS SHOULD BE 
WITHHELD, OR AFTER-THE-FACT 
ATTEMPT TO PAPER OVER KNOWINGLY 
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, THEY MUST BE 
PROVIDED, TO ENSURE A FULL AND 
FAIR TRIAL. 
NO PRIVILEGE OR NATIONAL 
SECURITY RATIONAL CAN BE USED 
AS A SHIELD FROM DISCLOSING 
MISCONDUCT. 
THE KEY WHITE HOUSE DOCUMENTS 
RELATED TO MULTIPLE INSTANCES, 
BUT WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS 
REPORTED THEIR CONCERNS TO 
WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENTS GAME TO PRESS 
UKRAINE TO DO THE PRESIDENT A 
DOMESTIC POLITICAL FAVOR. 
FOR EXAMPLE, LT. 
COL. 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN  AND MR. HILL 
INFORMED LAWYERS ABOUT THE 
JOINT MEETING IN WHICH 
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND 
REVEALED HE HAD A DEAL  WITH 
MR. MULVANEY. 
I WILL GO DIRECTLY TO THE CLIP 
IN MATT HILL. 
APPLETON'S DIRECTION, HE 
REPORTED THE MEETING TO 
EISENBERG, AS YOU CLINICAL HER 
TESTIMONY. 
>> I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE 
AMBASSADOR AFTER THE MEETING IN 
HIS OFFICE. 
A BRIEF ONE. 
AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE 
SUBSEQUENT MEETING. 
>> THE SUBSEQUENT MEETING, 
AFTER BOTH MEETINGS, WHEN YOU 
SPOKE TO HIM, AND RELATE TO HIM 
WHAT AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND 
SAID,  WHAT DID AMBASSADOR 
ALTON SAY TO YOU?>> I WANT TO 
HIGHLIGHT THAT JOHN BOLTON 
WANTED ME TO HOLD BACK IN THE 
ROOM. 
AFTER THE MEETING. 
I WAS SITTING ON A SOFA. 
>> WHAT DID HE SAY. 
>> HE MADE A STRONG POINT THAT 
HE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS 
BEING SAID. 
AND WHEN I CAME BACK TO HIM, HE 
HAD SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION FOR 
ME. 
AND I PRESUME THAT 
>> 
>> WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC 
INSTRUCTION? 
>> I HAD TO GO TO THE LAWYERS 
TO JOHN EISENBERG. 
I WAS WITH THE NATIONAL 
>> OR TO COUNSEL. 
TO SAY THAT YOU TELL EISENBERG, 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON TELL ME, I AM 
NOT PART OF THIS DRUG DEAL  
THAT MICK MULVANEY AND 
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND ARE 
PICKING UP. 
>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT 
TO ME. 
THE DRUG DEAL  THAT MICK 
MULVANEY AND AMBASSADOR GORDON 
SONDLAND OR COOKING UP ? 
>> I TOOK IT TO MEAN 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR A MEETING. 
>> DID YOU SPEAK TO THE 
LAWYERS? 
>> I DID. 
>> YOU RELAYED EVERYTHING THAT 
YOU JUST TOLD US?
>> PRECISELY. 
>> AND THE DETAILS OF HOW THE 
MEETING HAD GONE. 
I GIVE A FULL DESCRIPTION OF 
THIS IN MY OCTOBER 14 
DEPOSITION. 
>> THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG 
DOING ON HERE. 
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WERE TOLD 
REPEATEDLY, GO TELL THE LAWYERS 
ABOUT IT. 
AND  DR. HILL,  LT. 
COL. 
ALEXANDER VINDMAN , MR. MORRISON
, WHO REPORTED TO MR. 
EISENBERG, AT LEAST TWO 
CONVERSATIONS. 
WE NEED THE NOTES OF THOSE 
DOCUMENTS. 
TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS SAID. AND 
AGAIN, ATTORNEY-CLIENT 
PRIVILEGE CANNOT SHIELD 
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 NEEDED TO PREVENT THE 
PRESIDENT FROM CONTINUING TO 
HIDE THE EVIDENCE. 
THAT HIS WIFE THE SPECIFIC 
DOCUMENT REQUESTED IS REPORTING 
FOR THIS CASE. 
IT IS FAITHFUL TO THE 
CONSTITUTION'S PROVISION THAT 
THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE 
POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS. 
THE FINAL POINT I WILL MAKE 
TODAY CONCERNS URGENCY. 
THE SENATE SHOULD ACT ON THE 
SUBPOENA NOW. 
AT THE OUTSET OF THE TRIAL. 
IN 14 OF THE SENATE 15 FULL 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, THE 
THRESHOLD EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, 
INCLUDING THE TIMING, NATURE 
AND SCOPE OF WITNESS TESTIMONY, 
AND THE GATHERING OF ALL 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE 
ADDRESSED AT THE VERY OUTSET OF 
THE TRIAL. 
THERE ARE PRACTICAL 
CONSIDERATIONS, AS TO WHY THE 
SUBPOENAS NEED TO BE ISSUED 
NOW. 
RESOLVING WHETHER A SUBPOENA 
SHOULD BE ISSUED NOW, WOULD 
LIKE US IMMEDIATELY ENGAGE WITH 
THE WHITE HOUSE, TO RESOLVE AND 
ASSERT LEGITIMATE PRIVILEGES, 
IF ANY EXIST. 
AND ENSURE THAT YOU GET THE 
DOCUMENTS, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
SO THAT THEY CAN BE PRESENTED 
TO THE SENATORS, IN ADVANCE OF 
WITNESS TESTIMONY. 
WAITING TO RESOLVE THE 
THRESHOLD MANNERS UNTIL AFTER 
THE PARTIES HAVE PRESENTED 
THEIR CASE, WOULD UNDERCUT THE 
PROCESS OF A GENUINE, CREDIBLE 
TRIAL. SAUCE, COMMON SENSE, 
TRADITION AND FAIRNESS ALL 
COMPEL THAT THE AMENDMENT 
SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND SHOULD BE 
ADOPTED NOW. 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, FOR ALL 
THE MEMBERS I'VE AUTHORED 
TODAY, I URGE YOU, TO SUPPORT 
THE AMENDMENT TO ISSUE A 
SUBPOENA FOR WHITE HOUSE 
DOCUMENTS. 
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY 
RELEVANT TO EVALUATING THE 
PRESIDENT SCHEME. 
THE HOUSE DID ITS JOB. 
IN THE FACE OF THE PRESENCE OF 
OBSTRUCTION AND CATEGORICAL 
COMMITMENT TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE,
WE STILL GATHER DIRECT EVIDENCE 
OF MISCONDUCT. 
AND DETERMINES THAT HIS CONDUCT 
REQUIRED IMPEACHMENT. 
THE PRESIDENT COMPLAINED ABOUT 
DUE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE 
INVESTIGATION. 
BUT HE IS NOT ONLY PERMITTED TO 
PARTICIPATE, HE WAS REQUIRED TO 
PARTICIPATE. YET, HE REFUSED TO 
DO SO. 
HE REFUSED TO PROVIDE THE 
DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD TELL HIS 
SIDE OF THE STORY. 
NOW, IT IS UP TO YOU. 
WITH THE BACKING OF THE SUBPOENA
, AUTHORIZED BY THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
YOU CAN END PRESIDENT TRUMPS 
OBSTRUCTION. 
IF THE SENATE FAILS TO TAKE THE 
STEP AND WILL NOT ASK FOR THE 
EVIDENCE, THIS TRIAL IN YOUR 
VERDICT WILL BE QUESTIONED. 
CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE DESERVE THE FULL TRUTH. 
THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE REASON 
WHY ANYONE WOULD NOT WANT TO 
HEAR ALL OF THE AVAILABLE 
EVIDENCE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT. 
IT IS UP TO THIS BODY, TO MAKE 
SURE THAT HAPPENS. 
IT IS UP TO YOU, TO DECIDE 
WHETHER THE SENATE WILL AFFIRM 
THE SOLE POWER AND 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, TO TRY 
IMPEACHMENT. 
WHETHER AND WHEN IT WILL GET 
THE EVIDENCE THAT IT NEEDS, TO 
RENDER A VERDICT. 
DO NOT SURRENDER TO THE 
PRESIDENT STONEWALLING. 
IT WILL ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO 
BE ABOVE THE LAW AND DEPRIVE 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF TRUTH IN 
THE PROCESS. 
A FAIR TRIAL, IS ESSENTIAL IN 
EVERY WAY. 
IMPORTANT FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
WHO HOPES TO BE EXONERATED, NOT 
MERELY ACQUITTED, BY A TRIAL 
SEEN AS UNFAIR. 
IMPORTANT FOR THE SENATE, WHOSE 
VITAL ROLE IS TO CONTINUE TO 
PROTECT AND DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
WHICH IS PRESERVED OUR AMERICAN 
LIBERTY FOR CENTURIES. 
FINALLY, IMPORTANT FOR THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
WHO EXPECT THE QUEST FOR TRUTH, 
FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE. 
HISTORY IS WATCHING AND THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS URGE THAT YOU 
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. 
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME. 
>> THANK YOU COUNSEL. 
>> PATRICK PHILBIN WILL PRESENT 
OUR ARGUMENT. 
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, MR. 
SCHUMER AND SENATORS. 
IT IS REMARKABLE, AND AFTER 
TAKING THE ACTION OF THE 
BREATHTAKING GRAVITY OF VOTING 
TO IMPEACH THE DULY 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 UPON ARRIVING FINALLY 
IN THIS CHAMBER, AFTER WAITING 
FOR 33 DAYS, IS TO SAY, ACTUALLY
, THE MORE EVIDENCE. 
WE NOT READY TO PRESENT OUR 
CASE. 
WE NEED TO HAVE SUBPOENAS WE 
NEED TO DO MORE DISCOVERY, 
BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE 
EVIDENCE WE NEED TO SUPPORT HER 
CASE. 
THIS IS STUNNING. 
IT IS A STUNNING OMISSION OF AN 
ADEQUATE AND BROKEN PROCESS. 
THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS RAN IN 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THEY 
FAILED TO COMPEL THE RECORD TO 
SUPPORT THE CHARGES. 
IT IS STUNNING THEY DO NOT HAVE 
THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED TO 
SUPPORT THEIR CASE. 
AND THAT THEY DO NOT REALLY 
HAVE A CASE. 
IF A LITIGANT SHOWED UP IN ANY 
COURT IN THIS COUNTRY, ON THE 
DAY OF TRIAL AND SAID TO THE 
JUDGE, ACTUALLY YOUR HONOR, WE 
ARE NOT READY TO GO. 
WE MORE DISCOVERY. 
WE NEED TO DO MORE SUBPOENAS. 
WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK. 
THEY WOULD BE THROWN OUT OF 
COURT AND THE LAWYERS WOULD 
PROBABLY BE SANCTIONED. 
THIS IS NOT THE SORT OF 
PROCEEDING THAT THIS BODY 
SHOULD CONDONE. 
NOW, WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT 
IS AT ISSUE IN A RESOLUTION 
HERE AND THE AMENDMENT. 
IT IS A MATTER OF TIMING. IT IS 
A MATTER OF WHEN THE BODY WILL 
CONSIDER, WHETHER THEY SHOULD 
BE WITNESSES. 
OR SUBPOENAS FOR DOCTORS. 
WHY IS IT THE MANAGERS, THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS ARE SO AFRAID TO 
HAVE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. 
REMEMBER, THEY HAVE HAD WEEKS 
OF THE PROCESS THEY ENTIRELY 
CONTROL. 
THEY HAD 17 WITNESSES WHO 
TESTIFIED FIRST IN SECRET AND 
THAT IN PUBLIC. 
THEY HAVE COMPILED A RECORD 
WITH THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF 
REPORTS. 
AND THEY ARE APPARENTLY AFRAID, 
TO JUST MAKE A PRESENTATION, 
BASED ON THE RECORD THEY 
COMPILED, AND THEN HAVE YOU 
DECIDE WHETHER THERE IS ANY 
THERE, THERE. 
WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING 
WORTH, TRYING TO TALK TO MORE 
WITNESSES ABOUT. 
WHY IS IT THEY CANNOT WAIT A 
FEW DAYS TO MAKE A PRESENTATION 
ON EVERYTHING THEY HAVE BEEN 
PREPARING FOR WEEKS? 
AND THEN HAVE THE ISSUE 
CONSIDERED. 
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT THINK THERE 
IS ANY THERE, THERE. 
AND THEY WANT TO RAM IT THROUGH 
NOW. 
THEY WANT TO RAM IT THROUGH 
NOW, BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING 
THEY THEMSELVES FAILED TO DO. 
I WANT TO IMPACT A COUPLE OF 
THE ASPECTS OF WHAT THEY ARE 
ASKING THIS BODY TO DO. 
PART OF IT RELATES TO THE 
BROKEN PROCESS IN THE HOUSE. 
AND HOW THE PROCESS WAS 
INADEQUATE AND INVALID. 
AND COMPILED AND AND INCLUDED 
RECORD. 
AND PART HAS TO DO WITH 
ACCEPTING WITH THE REQUEST HAVE 
THIS BODY DO THEIR JOB FOR THEM,
WOULD YOU TO THIS INSTITUTION, 
GOING FORWARD. 
AND HOW IT WOULD ALTER FOREVER, 
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. 
FIRST, AS TO THE PROCESS IN THE 
HOUSE. 
WHAT THEY ARE ASKING THE HOUSE 
MANAGER, WHAT THEY ARE ASKING 
THE BOY TO DO NOW, IS TO DO 
THEIR JOB FOR THEM. 
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT TAKE THE 
MEASURES TO PURSUE THESE 
DOCUMENTS. 
IN THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS. 
THERE BEEN A NUMBER OF 
STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT HOW THEY 
TRY T GET THE DOCUMENTS. 
NO EXEC A PRIVILEGE WAS 
ASSERTED AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
WHAT TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 
THEY ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
AND THE WHITE HOUSE EXPLAINED, 
AND WE WERE TOLD A FEW MINUTES 
AGO, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
PROVIDED NO RESPONSE. 
THEY PROVIDED NO RATIONA THAT 
IS NOT TRUE. 
IN A LETTER OCTOBER 18, WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL, MR. CIPOLLONE, 
EXCITED THREE PAGES, WHERE THE 
SUBPOENA WAS INVALID . THE 
SUBPOENA WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT 
WAS ISSUED WITHOUT 
AUTHORIZATION. 
WE HEARD A LOT TODAY ABOUT HOW 
THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS THE 
SOUL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO 
THE HOUSE. 
THAT IS WHAT ARTICLE 1 SECTION 
2 SAYS. 
IT IS IS THE SOLE POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE. 
NOT TO ANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE. 
AND A COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE 
CAN EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY TO 
ISSUE SUBPOENAS UNTIL IT HAS 
BEEN DELEGATED THAT AUTHORITY 
BY A VOTE OF THE HOUSE. 
THERE WAS NO VOTE FROM THE 
HOUSE. 
INSTEAD, SPEAKER PELOSI HELD A 
PRESS CONFERENCE. 
AND SHE HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE 
ON SATURDAY 24. 
TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY OF 
THE HOUSE TO ADAM SCHIFF AND 
OTHER COMMITTEES TO HAVE THEM 
ISSUE SUBPOENAS. 
ALL SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID. 
AND THAT WAS INCLINED TO THE 
HOUSE TO ADAM SCHIFF AT THE TIME
IN THE OCTOBER 18 LETTER. 
TO THE HOUSE TAKE ANY STEPS TO 
REMEDY 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 WITH ISSUE A SUBPOENA AND 
MOVE ON. 
THEY WANTED TO GET THROUGH THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AS QUICKLY 
AS POSSIBLE AND GET IT DONE FOR 
CHRISTMAS. 
THAT WAS HER GOAL. 
THOUGH SUBPOENAS WERE 
UNAUTHORIZED. 
WHAT ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER 
THINGS THAT THEY BROUGHT UP? 
THE WITNESSES. 
WITNESSES, WHO WERE DIRECTED 
NOT TO TESTIFY. 
WE HEARD ADAM SCHIFF THEY 
SEVERAL TIMES, THE WHITE HOUSE 
NEVER EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
THAT IS A LAWYER TRICK. 
IT IS TECHNICALLY TRUE THAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE DID NOT ASSERT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
THERE IS A PARTICULAR SITUATION 
IN WHICH YOU DO THAT AT A 
PARTICULAR WE DO THAT. 
THERE IS ANOTHER DOCTRINE OF 
IMMUNITY OF SENIOR ADVISORS TO 
THE PRESIDENT. 
THAT IS BASED ON THE SAME 
PRINCIPLES AS EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. 
IT HAS BEEN ASSERTED BY 
PRESIDENTS OF BOTH POLITICAL 
PARTIES. 
SINCE THE 19 SEVENTIES, AT 
LEAST. 
THIS IS WHAT ONE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL IS WIND ABOUT THAT. "
THE IMMUNITY SUCH ADVISORS 
ENJOY FROM TESTIMONIAL 
COMPULSION BY CONGRESSIONAL 
COMMITTEE IS ABSOLUTE AND MAY 
NOT BE OVERBOARD BY COMPETING 
CONGRESSIONAL INTERESTS. " 
THAT WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET 
RENO AND THE CLINTON 
ADMINISTRATION. 
EXPLAINING THAT SENIOR ADVISORS 
TO THE PRESIDENT ARMING FROM 
CONGRESSIONAL COMPULSION. 
AND THAT DOCTRINE, IMMUNITY IS 
ROOTED IN THE SAME PRINCIPLES 
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
IT IS NOT ASSERTED BY ALL 
PRESIDENTS SINCE THE 19 
SEVENTIES. 
AND THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH 
A NUMBER OF THE ADVISORS, WHOSE 
PICTURES THEY PUT UP, WERE 
DIRECTED NOT TO TESTIFY. 
THAT THEY TRY TO CHALLENGE THAT 
IN COURT? 
DID THEY GO TO COURT ON THAT 
ONE? 
DID THEY TRY TO GO THROUGH THE 
CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED 
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS? 
TO SEE IF THERE WAS A WAY TO 
COME UP WITH SOME ASPECT OF 
TESTIMONY? 
NO, NONE OF THAT. 
THEY JUST WANTED TO FORGE AHEAD 
AND RUSH TO THE PROCESS. 
AND I HAVE THE EVIDENCE. 
AND USE THAT AS ANOTHER CHARGE 
IN THEIR CHARGING SHE. 
FOR THE IMPEACHMENT, CALLING IT 
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. 
THAT IS PROFESSOR TURLEY 
EXPLAINED THE IDEA THAT WHEN 
THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE HOUSE, 
IN SEEKING INFORMATION, ON THE 
PRESIDENT IS ASSERTING 
CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED 
PRIVILEGES, IS PART OF THE 
OPERATION OF SEPARATION OF 
POWERS. 
THAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. 
TO DEFEND THE PREROGATIVE OF 
THE OFFICE. 
FOR THE FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE 
OFFICE. 
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE 
CHARGED AS AN IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSE. 
AS HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE TRIED 
TO DO. 
TO DO THAT, AS AN ABUSE OF 
POWER. 
THAT IS WHAT PROFESSOR TURLEY 
IS LIKE. 
IT IS HOUSE DEMOCRATS ABUSE OF 
POWER. 
WE JUST HEARD MANAGER LAUGHLIN 
REFER TO SECULAR PRIVILEGE AS A 
DISTRACTION. 
SHE WAS ASSERTING THESE ISSUES 
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ARE A 
DISTRACTION. 
ADDITIONAL HOLD THINGS UP. 
THIS IS WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID 
ABOUT A SECOND A PRIVILEGE. 
AND NIXON VERSUS UNITED STATES. 
THAT THE PROTECTIONS FOR 
CONFIDENTIALITY EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE ARE "FUNDAMENTAL TO T 
INEXTRICABLY ROOTED IN 
SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER THE 
CONSTITUTION. 
". INEXTRICABLY ROOTED IN THE 
SEPARATION OF POWERS. 
THAT IS WHY IT IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S DUTY TO DEFEND 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS. THAT 
IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING 
HERE. 
NOW, THE PROCESS THAT THEY 
PURSUED IN THE HOUSE ABANDONED 
ANY EFFORT BEYOND ISSUING THE 
FIRST SUBPOENA THAT WAS INVALID 
TO WORK OUT AN ACCOMMODATION 
WITH THE WHITE HOUSE. 
AND INSTEAD, TRY TO RUSH AHEAD 
TOUGH IMPEACHMENT ON BY 
CHRISTMAS. 
WHAT DOES NOT LEAD TO NOW? 
COMING TO THIS BODY, AFTER 
PROCESS WAS HALF-BAKED, THAT 
DID NOT COMPILE A RECORD 
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE 
CHARGES. 
AND ASKING THIS BODY TO DO 
THEIR JOB FOR THEM. 
AS MITCH McCONNELL POINTED OUT, 
TO ALLOW THAT EXCEPT THE IDEA, 
BUT THE HOUSE CAN BRING IN 
IMPEACHMENT HERE THAT IS NOT 
ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE HAS 
NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED, THAT HAS 
NOT HAD A RECORD TO SUPPORT IT, 
AND TO TURN THIS BODY INTO THE 
INVESTIGATORY BODY, WOULD 
PERMANENTLY ALTER THE 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE 
AND THE SENATE IN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDINGS. 
IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE SENATE 
TO HAVE TO DO THE HOUSE HIS JOB 
FOR THEM. 
IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE SENATE
TO BE DOING AN INVESTIGATION 
AND TO BE DOING DISCOVERY IN A 
MATTER LIKE THE IMPEACHMENT FOR 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
IF THE HOUSE IS NOT ON THE 
INVESTIGATION AND CANNOT 
SUPPORT ITS CASE, IT IS NOT THE 
TIME, ONCE IT ARRIVES HERE, TO 
START DOING THE WORK. 
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS THE 
HOUSES ROLE. 
THIS IS SOMETHING, THAT IS 
IMPORTANT FOR THIS INSTITUTION, 
I BELIEVE, NOT TO ALLOW THE 
HOUSE TO TURN IT INTO A 
SITUATION WHERE THIS BODY WOULD 
HAVE TO BE DOING THE HOUSES 
WORK FOR IT. 
IF THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE TO 
SUPPORT THE CASE, IF THEY ABOUT 
THE UNDER INVESTIGATION, THEY 
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE 
CASE. 
AGAIN, WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE, 
AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
CALL, ON THE ISSUE OF THIS 
AMENDMENT, IT IS NOT WHETHER 
THIS BODY, THE SENATE, WILL BE 
CONSIDERING 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 DONE 
IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. 
100 SENATORS AGREED THEN THAT 
IT MADE SENSE, TO HEAR FROM 
BOTH SIDES. 
BEFORE MAKING A DETERMINATION 
ON IT. 
TO HEAR FROM BOTH SIDES, TO SEE 
WHAT SORT OF CASE THE HOUSE 
COULD PRESENT. 
IN THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE. 
AND THAT MAKE SENSE. 
IN EVERY TRIAL SYSTEM, THERE IS 
A MECHANISM FOR DETERMINING 
WHETHER THE PARTIES HAVE 
ACTUALLY PRESENTED A TRIAL 
ISSUE. 
WHETHER THERE IS REALLY SOME 
THERE, THERE. 
THAT REQUIRES THE FURTHER 
PROCEEDINGS. 
AND THIS BODY SHOULD TAKE THE 
COMMON SENSE APPROACH AND HEAR 
WHAT IT IS THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
HAVE TO SAY. 
WHERE THEY ARE FREE TO PRESENT 
THEIR CASE? 
THEY HAD WEEKS IN A PROCESS 
THAT THEY CONTROLLED, TO 
COMPILE THE RECORD. 
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE 
PRESENTATION NOW. 
THE ONE POINT I WILL CLOSE ON 
AND I HEARD ADAM SCHIFF STATE 
SEVERAL TIMES, WE HAVE TO HAVE 
A PROCESS HERE. 
I'M STRUCK BY IT. 
I ONE POINT, HE SAID, IF YOU 
ALLOW ONLY ONE SIDE TO PRESENT 
EVIDENCE, THE OUTCOME WILL BE 
PREDETERMINED. 
THE OUTCOME WILL BE 
PREDETERMINED. 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED 
IN THE HOUSE. 
LET'S CALL THAT THE PROCESS 
THEY HAD IN THE HOUSE WAS ONE-
SIDED. 
THEY LOCKED 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. 
HE CANNOT PRESENT EVIDENCE. 
HE CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE 
WITNESSES. 
THERE WAS A SECOND ROUND IN 
PUBLIC. 
THEY LOCKED THE PRESIDENT OUT. 
WE HAVE HEARD, THEY JUST SAID 
THE PRESIDENT HAD AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE. 
IN THE THIRD ROUND, OF HEARINGS 
THAT THEY HELD, FOR THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AFTER ONE 
HEARING ON DECEMBER 4, SPEAKER, 
NANCY PELOSI ON THE MORNING OF 
DECEMBER 5, SHE ANNOUNCED THE 
CONCLUSION OF THE DAY IN 
HISTORY  COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS. 
SHE ANNOUNCED SHE WAS HAVING 
JERRY NADLER COMPILE THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
IT WAS BEFORE THE DAY THEY 
WOULD TELL THE PRESIDENT TO 
ANNOUNCE WHAT RIGHTS HE WOULD 
LIKE TO HELP. 
IT WAS ALREADY PREDETERMINED. 
THE OUTCOME HAVE BEEN 
PREDETERMINED. 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAD 
DECIDED IT WOULD NOT HAVE 
PACKED HEARINGS. 
THE PRESIDENT WAS NEVER ALLOWED 
TO PURCHASE PATE. 
WHEN CHAIRMANSHIPS SAYS IF YOU 
ONLY ALLOW ONE SIDE TO PRESENT 
EVIDENCE THAT PREDETERMINED 
OUTCOME, THAT IS WHAT THEY DID 
IN THE HOUSE. 
THEY HAD A PREDETERMINED 
OUTCOME. 
IT WAS ALL ONE-SIDED. 
FOR HIM TO LECTURE THIS BODY 
NOW, I WHATEVER PROCESS WOULD BE
TAKE SOME GOAL. A PROCESS WOULD 
BE WHEN YOU COME TO THE DAY OF 
TRIAL, BE READY TO START THE 
TRIAL AND PRESENT YOUR CASE. 
NOT ASK FOR MORE DISCOVERY. 
THE PRESIDENT IS READY TO 
PROCEED. THE HOUSE MANAGER 
SHOULD BE READY TO PROCEED. 
AND THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE 
REJECTED. 
THANK YOU. 
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 
EIGHT MINUTES REMAINING. 
>> THE HOUSE IS CERTAINLY NOT 
ASKING THE SENATE TO DO THE 
HOUSE HIS JOB. 
WE ARE ASKING THE SENATE TO DO 
ITS JOB. 
TO HOLD A TRIAL. 
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A TRIAL? 
ONE THAT DOES NOT HAVE 
EVIDENCE. 
WHEN THAT DOES NOT HAVE 
WITNESSES? 
THAT IS WHAT THIS AMENDMENT IS 
ALL ABOUT. 
JUST A MOMENT ABOUT THE 
SUBPOENAS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO 
PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION TO THE 
HOUSE. 
HE ORDERED ALL OF HIS PEOPLE TO 
STONEWALL US. 
NOW, IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, 
THAT WE SHOULD SPEND TWO OR 
THREE YEARS LITIGATING THE 
QUESTION. 
I WAS A YOUNG LAW STUDENT, 
WORKING ON THE NEXT 
IMPEACHMENT, MANY YEARS AGO. 
I REMEMBER THE DAY, THE SUPREME 
COURT ISSUED ITS UNANIMOUS 
DECISION, THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD TO RELEASE THE TAPES. 
I THINK U. S. VERSUS NEXT AND 
STILL GOVERNS THE PRESIDENT. 
THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE SHOULD 
NOT BE REQUIRED TO LITIGATE U. 
S. VERSUS NIXON BACK TO THE 
SUPREME COURT AND DOWN AGAIN, 
FOR IT TO BE GOOD LAW. 
IT IS GOOD LAW. 
THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT COMPLIED 
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS. 
TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE TRUTH. 
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HELPING THE 
HOUSE. 
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HELPING THE 
SENATE. 
THIS IS ABOUT GETTING TO THE 
TRUTH. 
AND MAKING SURE THAT IMPARTIAL 
JUSTICE IS DONE. 
AND THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
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 IS THE SOMETHING YOU HEARD 
FROM ANY OF THE MANAGERS. 
WE ARE READY. 
THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. 
THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. 
HOUSE CALLS NICK MULVANEY. 
LET'S GET THE TRIAL STARTED, 
SHALL WE? 
WE ARE READY TO PRESENT OUR 
CASE. 
WE ARE READY TO ARE WITNESSES. 
THE QUESTION IS, WILL YOU LET 
US? 
THAT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US. 
MR. PHILBIN SAYS, IF I WAS IN 
COURT AND I WAS NOT READY, I 
WILL GET THROWN OUT OF COURT. 
WE ARE NOT SAYING WE ARE NOT 
READY. 
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 DEFENDANT 
CALL ANY WITNESSES. 
WILL NOT LET THEM PRESENT A 
DOCUMENTS. 
YOU KNOW WHO GETS THROWN OUT OF 
COURT? 
THE JUDGE. 
THEY WOULD BE TAKEN OUT IN 
HANDCUFFS. 
LET'S STEP OUT OF THE BODY FOR 
A MOMENT. 
IMAGINE WHAT IT WILL TRIAL 
WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
IT WOULD BEGIN WITH THE 
GOVERNMENT RECEIVING DOCUMENTS. 
BEEN ABLE TO INTRODUCE 
ARGUMENTS. 
BEING ABLE TO WITNESSES. 
THIS TRIAL SHOULD BE NO 
DIFFERENT. 
MR. PHILBIN MAKES REFERENCE TO 
THE LETTER FROM MR. CIPOLLONE  
ON OCTOBER 18. 
ON OCTOBER 8. WE WILL NOT DO 
ANYTHING. 
PART LAW, PART DIATRIBE. 
MOSTLY DIATRIBE. 
YOU SHOULD READ IT. 
IT IS A LETTER THAT SAYS, WHAT 
THE PRESIDENT SET ON THE TV 
SCREEN. 
WHICH IS, WE WILL FIGHT ALL 
SUBPOENAS. 
THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY THAT THE COUNSELOR 
PREFERS TO. 
IT IS BEEN INVOKED OR ATTEMPTED 
BY BOTH PARTIES. 
AND REJECTED UNIFORMLY BY THE 
COURTS. 
INCLUDING A MOST RECENT DECISION
INVOLVING DON McGANN, THE 
PRESIDENT'S FORMER WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL. 
FOR THE COURT SAID, THAT WOULD 
MAKE HIM A KING. 
HE IS NO KING. THIS TRIAL HAS 
DETERMINED THAT HE SHOULD NOT 
BECOME THE KING ACCOUNTABLE TO 
NO ONE AND ANSWERABLE TO NO 
ONE. 
AND ONCE MORE, THE IDEA OF 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. 
THE FEVERED DREAM OF PRESIDENTS 
OF BOTH PARTIES. IT IS NOT 
APPLICATION TO DOCUMENTS. 
AGAIN, THE AMENDMENT IS ON 
DOCUMENTS. 
THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 
TO PROVIDING DOCTORATES. 
AS REPRESENTATIVE LAUGHLIN 
DEMONSTRATE IT, WHEN THE CASE 
IS GOT TO THE SUPREME COURT IN 
THE NIXON CASE, THE COURT HELD 
THAT THE INTEREST IN 
CONFIDENTIALITY IN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING MUST GIVE WAY TO THE 
INTERESTS OF THE TRUTH AND THE 
SENATE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
YOU CANNOT INVOKE PRIVILEGE TO 
PROTECT WRONGDOING. 
YOU CANNOT INVOKE PRIVILEGE TO 
PROTECT EVIDENCE OF A 
CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME, LIKE WE 
HAVE HERE. 
AND FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO 
SECRET HEARINGS THAT COUNSEL 
REFERS TO. 
THE SECRET DEPOSITIONS IN THE 
HOUSE. 
THEY ARE SO SECRET THAT ONLY 
100 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE 
ABLE TO BE THERE TO 
PARTICIPATE. 
ONLY 100. 
THAT IS HOW SECRET THE CHAMBER 
WAS. 
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 IN 
ON THOSE. 
IMAGINE AS THE PRESIDENT LIKE 
HERE, INSISTING ON HAVING HIS 
LAWYER ON THE GRAND JURY. 
BECAUSE THE CASE WAS BEING 
INVESTIGATED AGAINST HIM. 
WE HAVE NO GRAND JURY HERE. 
WHY IS THAT? 
WHY WAS THERE NO SPECIAL 
PROSECUTOR HERE? 
BECAUSE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
SAID, THEY WILL NOT LOOK INTO 
THIS. 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAID, 
THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. 
IF IT WERE UP TO THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT, YOU WILL NOT KNOW 
ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. 
THAT IS WHY THERE WAS NO GRAND 
JURY. 
THAT IS LIKELY IN THE HOUSE HAD 
TO DO THE INVESTIGATIVE WORK 
OURSELVES. 
YES, JUST LIKE IN THE NIXON 
CASE, JUST LIKE THE CLINTON 
CASE, WE USED DEPOSITIONS. 
YOU KNOW WHAT DEPOSITION RULES 
WE USED, THAT WAS TERRIBLY 
UNFAIR, THEY WERE WRITTEN BY 
THE REPUBLICANS. 
WE USED THE SAME RULES THAT THE 
GOP HOUSE MEMBERS USED. 
THAT IS HOW TERRIBLY UNFAIR 
THEY WERE. 
MY GOSH, THE USE OUR RULES, HOW 
DARE THEY? 
HOW DARE THEY. 
WHY DO WE DO DEPOSITIONS? 
BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT ONE 
WITNESS TO HEAR WHAT ANOTHER 
WITNESS WAS SINGING. 
SO THAT THEY COULD TAILOR THEIR 
STORIES AND KNOW THAT THEY JUST 
HAD TO ADMIT SO MUCH. 
IN EVERY CREDIBLE INVESTIGATION 
WORKS. 
COUNSEL CAN REPEAT ALL THAT 
THEY LIKE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO 
PARTICIPATE. 
HE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO 
HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT IN THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OR OFFER 
EVIDENCE. 
THEY CAN SAY AS MUCH AS THEY 
LIKE. 
IT DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY MORE 
TRUE WHEN YOU MAKE THE SAME 
FALSE REPRESENTATION TIME AND 
TIME AGAIN. 
AND MIX IT A MUCH MORE 
DELIBERATE AND ONEROUS. 
THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE 
PRESENTED EVIDENCE IN THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 
HE CHOSE NOT TO. 
AND THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT. 
THERE IS A REASON WHY THE 
WITNESSES THEY HAVE TALKED 
ABOUT IN MATERIAL WITNESSES. 
IT IS NOT GO TO THE QUESTION OF 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD 
THE AID FOR THIS CORRUPT 
PURPOSE. 
IT IS NOT GO TO THE. 
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO WITNESSES 
TO HIMSELF THE PRESIDENT ON THE 
FACTS. 
USED WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS. 
YOU SHOULD WANT TO SEE IT. 
YOU SHOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT 
THE PRIVATE E-MAILS AND TEXT 
MESSAGES HAVE TO SAY. 
IF YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE A 
DECISION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
GUILT OR INNOCENCE, IF YOU MAKE 
A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER HE 
SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, 
YOU SHOULD WANT TO SEE WHAT 
THESE DOCUMENTS SAY. NOW, IF 
YOU DO NOT CARE, IF YOU HAVE 
MADE UP YOUR MIND THAT HE IS 
THE PRESIDENT OF MY PARTY, FOR 
WHATEVER REASON, I AM NOT 
INTERESTED. 
I DON'T REALLY WANT THE COUNTRY 
TO SEE THIS. 
IT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE OATH 
REQUIRES. 
IS NOT WHAT YOUR OATH REQUIRES. 
YOUR OATH REQUIRES YOU TO DO 
IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. 
WHICH MEANS TO SEE THE 
EVIDENCE. 
TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. 
THAT IS ALL THAT WE ARE ASKING 
DO NOT BLIND YOURSELF TO THE 
EVIDENCE. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> AND MAJORITY LEADER MITCH 
McCONNELL IS RECKONIZE. 
>> I SENT A MOTION TO TABLE THE 
AMENDMENT . 
>> THE QUESTION IS ON THE 
MOTION TO TABLE. 
IS THERE IS SUFFICIENT SECONDS? 
THERE IS. THE CARR FIRE CALL 
THE ROLE. 
>> MR. ALEXANDER,  YEA. 
>> MISS  BALDWIN
>> YEA. 
>> MR. BROSSEAU. 
>>  YEA . 
>> MR. BENNETT. 
'S BUCK NO. 
>> MISSED HER LITTLE.  
>>> THEY ARE DEBATING THE RULES 
FOR THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
I WANT TO BRING IN RAIN THAT 
NORMAN. 
AND KAREN DUGAN. 
I LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR AND FORMER 
FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. 
MOLLY COOPER IS A CBSN 
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR. 
MOLLY, WE HAD A LOT OF DEBATE. 
WALK US THROUGH EXACTLY WHAT IS 
BEING VOTED ON. 
>> WHAT IS BEING VOTED ON, 
OSTENSIBLY WHAT SHOULD BE VOTED 
ON, IS CHUCK SCHUMER'S A MINUTE 
TO REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FROM THE 
ADMINISTRATION. 
BUT, WHAT'S MAJORITY LEADER, 
McCONNELL HAS DONE IS MOVED TO 
TABLE THE AMENDMENT . EVEN 
úTHOUGH IT SEEMS CONTRADICTORY, 
THE SENATORS WHO ARE VOTING IN 
FAVOR OF THE MOTION WOULD VOTE 
TO NOT DEMAND THE FALL DOCUMENTS
. ESSENTIALLY, THE TIME ONE 
VOTE WILL KILL CHUCK SCHUMER'S 
A MINUTE. 
IT SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE. 
IT IS THE PROCEDURAL TRICKERY 
THAT KEEPS REPORTERS ON CAPITOL 
HILL ON OUR TOES. 
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING. 
AS TO WHETHER WE WILL SEE 
REPUBLICANS VOTING AGAINST 
TABLING THE MOTION, BUT WITH 
THE DEMOCRATS, IT IS UNCLEAR. 
SEVERAL OF THE MODERATE 
REPUBLICANS ARE THE REPUBLICANS 
WHO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS ON HOW  
WITH UKRAINE, I'M NOT SURE THEY 
WILL VOTE WITH DEMOCRATS ON 
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. 
WHAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING THEM 
SAY, AS THEY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL 
BOTH SIDES HAVE MADE THEIR 
ARGUMENTS. 24 HOURS APIECE FOR 
THE WHITE HOUSE. 
24 HOURS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
OVER THREE DAYS. 
SENATORS GET TO SUBMIT THEIR 
QUESTIONS. 
AND THEN DECIDE IF THE SENATE 
SHOULD COMPEL THE WHITE HOUSE 
TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS RELATED 
TO UKRAINE AND INDIVIDUALS AND 
CONVERSATIONS HAVE WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, OVER WITHHOLDING OF 
A MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT IN 
EXCHANGE FOR POLITICAL DIRT ON 
AN APPOINTMENT. 
>> WE HAD ONE OF THE MANAGERS 
PRESENT HER SIDE OF THE CASE AS 
TO WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE 
PRESENTED. 
WHAT DID YOU MAKE IT ARGUMENTS 
YOU CONSTRUCTED?>> 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. 
ON ITS FACE IT IS A COLLOCATED 
QUESTION. 
ADAM SCHIFF ANSWERED. LOOK, FOR 
THE HOUSE TO RELITIGATE U. S. 
VERSUS NIXON FOR COUPLE OF 
YEARS UP-AND-DOWN TO DO WITH 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS, AND 
TO POTENTIALLY DEAL WITH 
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY CLAIMS, IT 
PUSHES THE HOUSES PROCESS BEYOND
THE 2020 ELECTION. 
IF YOU ARE THE DEMOCRATS AND 
YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT WAS IMPROPER AND THAT 
HE IS TRYING TO GET AN 
ADVANTAGE IN THE UPCOMING 
ELECTION, YOU CAN WITH A LONG. 
THE ARGUMENT ON ITS FACE, AND 
HAS A NICE SOUND BITE FOR THE 
PUBLICANS. 
THE ARGUMENT FOR THE DEMOCRATS 
IS A LITTLE MORE COLLOCATED. 
THEY ARE ADVANCING GOOD 
REASONS. 
>> I WANT TO PLAY A SOUNDBITE. 
ADAM SCHIFF TALKING ABOUT THE 
PROCESS. 
>> MR. PHILBIN SAYS, THE HOUSE 
IS NOT READY TO PRESENT ITS 
CASE. 
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU HEARD 
FROM ANY OF THE MANAGERS. 
WE ARE READY. 
THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. 
THE HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. 
THE HOUSE CALLS MICK MULVANEY. 
LET'S GET THE TRIAL STARTED, 
SHELLEY WE ARE READY TO PRESENT 
OUR CASE. 
WE ARE READY TO ARE WITNESSES. 
THE QUESTION IS, WILL YOU LET 
US. 
THAT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US. 
>> YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE VOTES. 
NO MATTER WHAT. 
TO GO 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 IT. 
IN ORDER TO DO SO, THEY WOULD 
HAVE TO POINT OUT, WHICH  >>> A 
PRIVILEGED? 
WHICH POINTS TO THE MEDICATIONS 
OVER THE VACATION WAS HAD. 
IT WAS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT 
THAT ADAM SCHIFF MADE. 
I THINK A SAID SOMETHING TO THE 
EFFECT OF, IT WOULD BE AN 
ADMISSION OF GUILT ON THE PART 
OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO SHOW THAT 
THERE WERE IN FACT, DR. METZ 
RELATED TO UKRAINE. 
AS THIS PLAYS OUT, WE WILL SEE 
WHAT THEY CLAIMED EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE ON. 
IF YOU CLAIM AS A CAN OF 
PRIVILEGE, IF THE SPECIFY WHICH 
DOCUMENT. 
WHICH INDIVIDUAL AND WHY. 
>> YOU ARE CORRECT. 
GETTING BACK TO WHAT WE JUST 
HEARD ADAM SCHIFF SAY, THE 
HOUSE CALLS JOHN BOLTON. 
THAT IS THE KIND OF DRAMATIC 
MOMENT THAT AMERICANS EXPECT IN 
A TRIAL. 
THAT HAS EVIDENCE. 
THAT IS DESIGNED AS A TRUTH 
SEEKING PROCESS. 
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A 
PARTICULARLY POWERFUL 
ADMINISTRATION BY ADAM SCHIFF, 
OF WHAT IS AT STAKE. 
YOU ARE CORRECT. 
TO POINT OUT THAT ADAM SCHIFF 
IS SAYING, LOOK, IF YOU HAVE TO 
GO THROUGH DOZENS OF PAGES OF 
RECORDS AND IDENTIFY WHICH ONES 
YOU WILL OR WILL NOT A 
PRIVILEGE TO, THAT IS GOING TO 
CONVEY INFORMATION. 
BY GIVING A BLANK REFUSAL, 
SOMEWHAT COUCHED IN IMMUNITY 
THAT CHECK HERE IS CHIEF 
JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS. 
>> AYE 53-47 NAY. 
THE LIMIT IS TABLED . 
DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECKONIZE. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND AN 
AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO 
SUBPOENA CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND 
RECORDS FROM THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT. 
AND ASK THAT IT BE READ. 
>> THE CLERK WILL READ THE 
AMENDMENT. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, 
CHUCK SCHUMER PROPOSES AN 
AMENDMENT 1285. 
AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE AND 
RESOLVING CLAUSE, INSERT 
FILING, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY 
PROVISION OF THE RESOLUTION, 
PURSUANT TO RULES FIVE AND SIX 
OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES OF 
PRACTICE IN THE SENATE, WAS 
SITTING IN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS. 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED 
STATES, THROUGH THE SECRETARY 
OF THE SENATE, SHALL ISSUE A 
SUBPOENA TO THE SECRETARY OF 
SENATE COMMANDING HIM TO 
PRODUCE, FOR THE TIME PERIOD OF 
JANUARY ONE, 2019 TO THE 
PRESENT, ALL DOCUMENTS, 
COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER 
RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION, 
CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE 
DEPARTMENT ESTATE, REFERRING OR 
RELATING TO LETTER A, ALL 
MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. 
INCLUDING DOCUMENTS, 
COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER 
RECORDS, RELATED TO THE 
SCHEDULING OF, PREPARATION FOR, 
AND FOLLOW-UP FROM THE 
PRESIDENT APRIL 21 AND JULY 25, 
2019 TELEPHONE CALLS. AS WELL 
AS THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 
2005 -- 2005, TO THE NINETEENTH 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE, IN NEW YORK. 
AND THE POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, 
WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, FREEZING 
OR RELEASING OF UNITED STATES 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND 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 SHOULD'S WITH THE 
WHITE HOUSE, THE PART OF 
DEFENSE, AND OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. AS WELL 
AS THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT'S 
KNOWLEDGE, PART TO AUGUST 28, 
2019, OF ANY ACTUAL OR 
POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, 
WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, FREEZING 
OR RELEASING OF UNITED STATES 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 
INCLUDING ALL MEETINGS, CALLS 
ARE OTHER ENGAGEMENTS WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, REGARDING 
POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL 
SUSPENSIONS, HOLDS 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 FOR UKRAINE 
LOGICIANS, AMBASSADOR KURT 
VOLKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY GEORGE KENT, WILLIAM 
E TAYLOR AND AMBASSADOR TO THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, AMBASSADOR 
GORDON SONDLAND AND OTHER STATE 
DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS RELATED TO 
EFFORTS TO SOLICIT REQUEST, 
DEMAND, INDUCE, PERSUADE OR 
COERCE UKRAINE TO CONDUCT OR 
NOT INVESTIGATIONS. 
TWO, SCHEDULE, COUNSEL WITHHOLD 
A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR 
UKRAINE'S PRESIDENT. OR THREE, 
HOLD AND THEN RELEASE MILITARY 
AND OTHER SECRETARY SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. D 
ANY MEANS OR PROPOSED MEANS AT 
OR INVOLVING THE WHITE HOUSE 
THAT RELATE TO UKRAINE, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
NUMBER ONE, THE INAUGURATION OF 
PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY  
IN 2018 IN KIEV, UKRAINE. 
INCLUDING AND NOT LIMITED TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMPS DECISION NOT 
TO ATTEND. 
TO ASK AND 
>> TO LEAVE THE DELEGATION. 
DIRECTING IN SAC TO NOT ATTEND. 
AND THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION 
ABOUT THE COMPENSATION OF THE 
NINE STATES. 
NUMBER TO A MEETING AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE ON OR AROUND MAY 
23, 2019, INVOLVING AMONG 
OTHERS, PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEN 
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR 
UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS, 
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, RICK 
PERRY, UNITED AMBASSADOR TO THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, AMBASSADOR 
GORDON SONDLAND, AS WELL AS 
PRIVATE MEETINGS OR 
CONVERSATIONS WITH THESE 
INDIVIDUALS BEFORE AFTER THE 
LARGER MEETING. 
NUMBER THREE, MEETINGS AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE, ON OR ABOUT JULY 
10, 2019. 
INVOLVING 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. 
SUBSEQUENTLY ATTENDED  BY MIKE 
PENCE. 
AND A MEETING AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE ON OR AROUND SEPTEMBER 
11, 2019. 
INVOLVING PRESIDENT TRUMP, MIKE 
PENCE AND MICK MULVANEY. 
CONSIDERING LETTING THE HOLD ON 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR 
UKRAINE. 
E, ALL COMING OCCASIONS 
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
WHAT'S OUT OR TEXT MESSAGES ON 
PRIVATE DEVICES BETWEEN CURRENT 
OR FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES, 
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE 
POMPEO, AND LASSITER VOLKER, 
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT  AND 
THE FOLLOWING, PRESIDENT 
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, ALDRICH 
YOUR MAKE OR INDIVIDUALS 
ASSOCIATED WITH OR ACTING IN  
ANY CAPACITY AS REPRESENTATIVE, 
AGENT OR PROXY FOR PRESIDENT 
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY, BEFORE AND 
AFTER HIS ELECTION. 
ALL RECORDS SPECIFICALLY 
IDENTIFIED BY WITNESSES IN THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
IMPEACHMENT A GREAT, TO 
MEMORIALIZE KEY EVENTS OR 
CONCERNS AT ANY RECORDS 
REFLECTING AN OFFICIAL RESPONSE 
THERETO, INCLUDING, BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO NUMBER ONE, ON 
AUGUST 20 NINTH 2019, A CABLE 
SENT BY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TO 
SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE 
POMPEO. 
NUMBER TWO, ON AUGUST 16, 2019, 
A MEMORANDUM TO FOLLOW WRITTEN 
BY DEPUTY SECRETARY KENT. 
NUMBER THREE, A TIMBER 15, 2019 
MEMORANDUM TO FILE, WRITTEN BY 
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY. 
G, ALL MEETINGS ARE CALLS 
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
ALL REQUESTS OR RECORDS OF 
MEETINGS OR TELEPHONE CALLS 
SCHEDULING ITEMS, CALENDAR 
ENTRIES, STATE DEPARTMENT 
VISITOR RECORDS AND EMAIL OR 
TEXT MESSAGES, USING PERSONAL 
OR WORK-RELATED DEVICES BETWEEN 
OR AMONG NUMBER ONE CURRENT OR 
FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO'S 
SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE POMPEO,
INVESTOR VOLKER, AMBASSADOR 
AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND OR  
NUMBER TWO, RUDY GIULIANI, 
VICTORIA TENSING OR JOSEPH DIJ 
IN ABOUT OR CONTAINMENT OR 
RECALL OF FORMER AMBASSADOR 
MARIE YOVANOVITCH  FOR THE 
UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN KIEV. 
INCLUDING CREDIBLE THREAT 
REPORTS AGAINST HER OR 
PROTECTIVE SECURITY MEASURES 
TAKEN IN RESPONSE. 
AND NUMBER TWO, THE SURGICAL 
ARMS IS UTILIZED THE SERVICES 
OF DEPUTY SURGICAL ARMS OR ANY 
OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE IN 
SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED 
TO BE ISSUED BY THE SECTION. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE. 
SPENT THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
AUTHORIZED. 
>> I NOW SERVE A BRIEF 10 
MINUTE RECESS BEFORE PARTIES 
ARE RECKONIZE TO DEBATE THE 
SCHUMER AND MINUTE. 
AT THE END OF THE DEBATE TIME, 
I WILL AGAIN MOVED TO TABLE THE 
AMENDMENT, AS THE TIMING OF 
THESE VOTES ARE SPECIFIED IN 
THE UNDERLYING RESOLUTION. 
I CAN SEND THAT WE STAND IN 
RECESS. 
>> WITH OBJECTION, THE SENATE 
IS IN RECESS. 
>> THE SENATE TAKES A RECESS. 
WE WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE 
DAYS EVENTS TODAY. 
AS THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
HAS BEGUN. 
THE FOCUS WAS ON THE RULES. 
TO BRING IN MY PANEL. 
CBSN CONSERVATORS, POLITICAL 
AND LEGAL. 
MOLLY HOOPER, WALK US THROUGH 
THIS. 
I WAS LOOKING AT THE SUBPOENA 
THAT CHUCK SCHUMER PUT FORTH. 
LOOKING AT THE SUBPOENA 
DOCUMENTS, AS WELL AS WITNESS 
TESTIMONY FROM THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT. 
>> ESSENTIALLY, WHICH IS ASKING 
FOR, AS THE SAME DOCUMENTS AS 
THE PRIOR AMENDMENT. 
THIS TIME, HE WAS ASKING THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT FOR THE 
DOCUMENTS. 
THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS FOR 
DOCUMENT AT THE WHITE HOUSE. 
THIS AMENDMENT, DOCUMENT OF THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT AS WE WERE 
DISCUSSING OFF-CAMERA, THEY 
WILL PROBABLY GO FOR THE 
DEFENSE APARTMENT AS WELL. 
JL'S CONGRESSIONAL AGENCY. 
THEY TURN EVERY THING OVER TO 
CONGRESS. 
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SCHUMER 
CAN DO TO DELAY THE WHOLE 
PROCESS. 
AND MAKE EVERYBODY'S LIFE VERY 
FRUSTRATING ON THE FLOOR. 
AND ALSO PUT THE VULNERABLE 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS ON RECORD, 
AS VOTING AGAINST HAVING 
CERTAIN WITNESSES. 
WHEN IT COMES TO THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
IT IS SOMETHING THAT DEMOCRATS 
CAN USE IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS 
FOR SENATE RACES. 
>> WE ARE OFFICIALLY ON RECORD. 
WE LOOK AT THE LEGAL STRATEGY, 
WE HAVE SEEN THIS GO BACK AND 
FORTH THIS AFTERNOON. 
WITH CHUCK SCHUMER PRESENTED 
COMMITMENTS TO 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'LL BE SURPRISED IF YOU SEE 
ANYTHING DIFFERENT NOW. 
WHAT WE WILL HEAR IS ANOTHER 
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TWO SIDES 
TO MAKE THE CASE. 
TO THE SENATE AND ULTIMATELY TO 
THE PUBLIC. 
AS FAR AS THE LEGAL STRATEGY, I 
WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING 
THAT I SAW IN THE LAST 
ARGUMENT. 
WE MAY SEE IT AGAIN. 
MR. PHILBIN MADE ONE OF THE 
LAWYERS IN THE ALTERNATIVE 
ARGUMENTS. 
>> THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYER. 
>> CORRECT. 
AND THE BULK OF HIS TIME, HE 
ARGUED THEIR SHOPPING ANY 
DISCOVERY AT ALL. 
ANYMORE EVIDENCE BROUGHT FORTH. 
MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT IF 
THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, 
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY, 
WHAT ANYMORE ANYWAYS. 
AT THE END, HE SLIPPED IN 
ANYWAYS, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT 
SURE ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW, YOU 
SHOULD DELETE THE DECISION. 
HE SAID IN THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU 
DO NOT NEED ANYTHING. 
IF YOU ARE NOT SO SURE, WE 
SHOULD DELAY IT. 
AND RAISE THE QUESTION AFTER 
THAT MANAGERS AND PRESIDENTS 
LAWYERS MAKE ARGUMENTS ABOUT 
IT. 
>> THIS IS SOMETHING MITCH 
McCONNELL SAID, I WILL TABLE 
ANYTHING UNTIL WE GET TO THAT 
POINT. 
WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO COME 
FORWARD. 
>> AS WE SAW ON THE PRIOR VOTE, 
53 VOTES TO TABLE. 
53 REPUBLICANS SAY WE DO NOT 
WANT THE DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW 
>> MAKES AN IMPORTANT POINT. 
LATER IN THE PROCESS, WAS THE 
OVERARCHING RESOLUTION IS 
ADOPTED, WHO KNOWS SOMEONE THEY 
WANT TO GO. 
IT DOES SET FORTH THE PROCEDURE 
BY WHICH, AT THE END OF THE 
QUESTION TIME FROM SENATORS, 
THE SENATORS WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS
FOR AND AGAINST HAVING 
ARGUMENTS. 
2 HOURS APIECE. 
THE SENATE WILL VOTE ON HEARING 
FROM THE WITNESSES. 
AS SPECIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION, 
THEY WILL FIRST HEAR ABOUT IT 
AS A THE POSITION BEHIND CLOSED 
DOORS. 
AFTER THAT, WITH A SENATOR CAN 
SEE WHAT WAS SAID IN THE 
DEPOSITION, THEN THE SENATE 
WOULD VOTE. 
IN FRONT OF THE LIFE SENATE. 
>> WE ARE LOOKING THROUGH THE 
LENS OF THE ELECTION THIS 
NOVEMBER. 
WANT TO HOLD ONTO THE SENATE 
MAJORITY WILL PASS NOVEMBER. 
WALK US THROUGH WHEN THE VOTE 
TAKES PLACE. 
ON WITNESSES. 
ON IF HEADING MORE WITNESSES. 
ON EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED. 
OR THE REPUBLICANS YOU ARE 
WATCHING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. 
>> FIRST OF ALL, I WATCHING 
SUSAN COLLINS, WHO IS UP FOR 
REELECTION IN MAINE. 
PURPLE MAINE. 
SUSAN COLLINS TO A BIG HIT LAST 
YEAR WHEN SHE VOTED IN FAVOR OF 
BRETT KAVANAUGH TO BE THE SEVEN 
COURT JUSTICE. 
THE MOMENT SHE DID THAT, 
DEMOCRATS FLOODED OUR STATE 
WITH MONEY. 
THEY DO NOT HAVE A CANDIDATE. 
THEY FLOODED MONEY TO MAINE, TO 
OUST SUSAN COLLINS FROM HER 
SEAT IN THE SENATE. 
THAT IS WHAT SENATOR I WILL 
WATCH. 
I DO RECOGNIZE, THAT AFTER SHE 
TOOK THE VOTE, MITCH McCONNELL 
MADE A POINT IN SAYING, WE WILL 
SPEND MONEY TO MAKE SURE SHE 
GETS REELECTED. 
FOR A PASS ON FUTURE TOUGH 
VOTES. 
YOU COULD READ BETWEEN THE 
LINES. 
CORY GARDNER IS UP FOR 
REELECTION IN A PURPLE STATE, 
COLORADO. 
AND LISA MURKOWSKI OF ALASKA. 
NOT NECESSARILY SHE IS UP FOR 
REELECTION. 
THIS IS A REPUBLICAN SENATOR 
WHO LOST THE GOP PRIMARY HER 
LAST GO AROUND. 
SHE RAN AS AN INDEPENDENT. 
AND SHE WON. 
WHEN IT COMES TO HER PARTY, 
LISA MURKOWSKI IS BEHOLDEN TO 
ALASKA SHE MAKES A POINT OF 
LETTING THEM KNOW. 
NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU ABOUT 
HER PARTY, BUT MORE SO THAT SHE 
IS THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE 
DECISIONS THAT SHE MAKES. 
ALSO, I'M LOOKING AT MITT 
ROMNEY. 
IT DOES REPRESENT UTAH. 
HE IS A FRESHMAN. 
A TRUE FRESHMAN IN THE SENATE. 
HE WAS JUST ELECTED. 
THIS PAST GO AROUND. 
IN 2018. 
HE IS HAD SKIRMISHES WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE PAST. 
THEY HAVE WORKED TOGETHER. 
EVER SINCE HIS CALL WITH 
PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY. 
MITT ROMNEY HAS TAKEN  A STEP 
BACK. 
WE DID A MORE ABOUT THIS. 
HE IS BEEN ONE OF THE 
REPUBLICANS WHO IS NOT BEEN 
AFRAID TO SAY THIS IS NOT 
RIGHT. 
NOT NECESSARILY IMPEACHABLE. 
WANTED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS. 
I WATCHING THOSE REPUBLICANS. 
LAMAR ALEXANDER FROM TENNESSEE. 
NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION AND 
VERY MUCH AN ARTICLE 1 KIND OF 
GUY. 
ARTICLE 1 BEING THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH OF APARTMENT. 
GOVERNMENT. 
AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, THE 
PRESIDENT HAS TRIED TO EXERT 
HIS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, FOR 
EXAMPLE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY 
ON THE BORDER. 
TO REMOVE MONEY FROM THE BORDER 
WALL. 
LAMAR ALEXANDER IS NOT AFRAID 
TO STAND UP. 
>> MOLLY HOOPER I WANT TO THANK 
YOU. 
I 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 WAS TUNED IN TO CBSN ON 
ANY PLATFORM OR DEVICE. 
SIMPLY DOWNLOAD THE CBS NEWS 
OUT. 
THIS IS BEEN A SPECIAL REPORT 
FOR CBSN. 
I REENA NINAN IN NEW YORK. 
>>> HELLO EVERYONE, I'M TANYA 
RIVERO. 
WE'RE WAITING FOR THE SENATE TO 
RESUME DAY 1 OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
SO FAR THE DEBATE HAS BEEN 
FOCUSED ON THE RULES FOR THE 
TRIAL, AND THE MAIN QUESTION AT 
HAND IS WHETHER WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE 
CONSIDERED. 
KEIR AND MOLLY ARE JOINING ME 
NOW, AND SO FAR WE'VE SEEN A 
LOT OF CHUCK SCHUMER OFFERING 
SUGGESTIONS OF THINGS HE'D LIKE 
TO SEE AND MITCH MCCONNELL 
TABLING THEM. 
IS THAT GOING TO BE WHAT WE CAN 
EXPECT FOR THE REST OF THE DAY? 
>> YES BECAUSE IN AN 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, SENATORS 
AREN'T ALLOWED TO SPEAK. 
IN FACT, IF THEY'RE GOING TO 
SPEAK AND DELIBERATE, THEY HAVE 
TO GO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO DO 
IT. 
WE WON'T HEAR WHAT THEY'RE 
SAYING, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S A 
MOTION THAT CARRIES AT ANY 
POINT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS 
TONIGHT. 
SO IF A SENATOR, OH, LOOKS LIKE 
PERHAPS CHUCK SCHUMER IS GOING 
TO SAY SOMETHING. 
>> YES, LET'S LISTEN. 
>> REALIZING HOW UNFAIR LEADER 
MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION IS, AND 
THEY ARE REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO 
CHANGE IT. 
WE'RE GLAD THEY MOVED TO 3 DAYS 
INSTEAD OF 2 SO WE WON'T BE 
HEARING ARGUMENTS AT 2:00 IN 
THE MORNING. 
BUT THE REAL TEST WILL BE 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. 
WILL OUR REPUBLICAN SENATORS 
PUT PRESSURE ON MCCONNELL SO WE 
REALLY HAVE WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED? 
EITHER NOW OR AFTER THE 
ARGUMENTS ARE MADE. 
I'M NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 
ONE OTHER POINT, WHICH IS THIS, 
úWE HEAR A LOT OF ARGUMENTS FRO 
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL. 
NONE OF THEM DIRECTLY ADDRESS 
WHY THERE SHOULDN'T BE 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. 
THEY TALK ABOUT HOW BAD THE 
HOUSE IS. 
I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT AT ALL. 
BUT THEY DON'T ARGUE ONE, THEY 
DON'T MAKE A SINGLE ARGUMENT 
WHY THERE SHOULDN'T BE 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS. 
THANK YOU. 
>> ALL RIGHT, CHUCK SCHUMER 
THERE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE 
FACT THAT THE ONE THING 
DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT SEEMS TO 
BE ELUDING THEM, SEEMS TO BE 
OUT OF THEIR GRASP. 
AND IT DOESN'T REALLY APPEAR AT 
LEAST TO ME AS IF AT THIS POINT 
SENATORS ARE FEELING THE 
PRESSURE THAT DEMOCRATS WERE 
HOPING AT LEAST SOME MODERATE 
SENATORS MIGHT FEEL, WHICH IS 
TO SAY ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE 
SOME WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS 
PRESENTED IN THIS TRIAL, 
CORRECT? 
>> WELL, RIGHT. 
AND THAT'S BECAUSE, UM, THERE 
ARE KIND OF 2 THINGS ON THE 
TABLE. 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS RIGHT 
NOW OR DO WE MAKE THE DECISION 
LATER. 
AND SO WE JUST HEARD IN THE, 
SORT OF IN THE PRIOR AMENDMENT, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COUNSEL 
MR. PHILBIN ARGUED YOU 
SHOULDN'T HAVE DOCUMENTS AT 
ALL, BUT IF YOU WANT THEM, YOU 
CAN DELAY THE DECISION UNTIL 
LATER. 
>> AND WHY IS THAT ADVANTAGEOUS 
TO REPUBLICANS? úWHY DOES IT MA 
DECIDE DEFINITIVELY NOW OR 
LATER TO SEE DOCUMENTS AND 
WITNESSES? 
>> BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THEY 
WANT TO DRAG THIS OUT AND SEE 
IF ANY MINDS ARE CHANGED BACK 
HOME BY THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE, 
THAT BOTH SIDES ARE GOING TO 
PRESENT.  
TO 
PRESENT.  
AND REALLY, IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME 
IF YOU ASK ME, I DON'T KNOW HOW 
MUCH IT'S GOING TO CHANGE 
BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT WEEK. 
BUT IN THE ISSUE OF FAIRNESS, 
REPUBLICANS WOULD ARGUE LET'S 
HEAR BOTH SIDES PRESENT THEIR 
ARGUMENTS, LET'S AS A SENATE 
ASK OUR QUESTIONS, HAVE BOTH 
SIDES ANSWER THOSE. 
WE CAN DELIBERATE BEHIND CLOSED 
DOORS IF WE NEED WITNESSES, IF 
WE NEED MORE TO GO ON. 
AND ALSO, AND THEN TAKE THAT 
VOTE. 
BUT AT LEAST UNDER THIS 
RESOLUTION, THE SENATE WILL 
VOTE ON WHETHER TO HAVE 
WITNESSES. 
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, 
THAT WASN'T A FOREGONE 
CONCLUSION BECAUSE THE WAY IT 
WAS STRUCTURED, ESSENTIALLY THE 
SENATE WOULD GET TO THAT POINT, 
ASK THEIR QUESTIONS, THEN THEY 
WOULD DEBATE A MOTION TO 
DISMISS. 
UM, THEN TALK ABOUT WITNESSES, 
BUT THAT VOTE ON A MOTION TO 
DISMISS HAPPENED BEFORE THE 
BODY DECIDED ON WHETHER OR NOT 
TO HAVE WITNESSES. 
THAT SCENARIO IS NOT HAPPENING 
IN THIS CURRENT RESOLUTION AS 
IT'S WRITTEN. 
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE 
AMENDED ANY OTHER WAY. 
BUT IT GUARANTEES FOR THOSE 
REPUBLICANS WHO ARE ON THE 
FENCE, THERE WILL BE A TIME FOR 
US TO VOTE ON THESE WITNESSES. 
>> THERE WILL BE. 
SO HELP US UNPACK THE ARGUMENTS 
WE'VE BEEN HEARING SO FAR TODAY 
FROM BOTH SIDES. 
>> RIGHT, SO, UM, I THINK THE 
MOST DIFFICULT ARGUMENT RIGHT 
NOW FOR THE DEMOCRATS IS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS DEMOCRATS 
CLAIM THEIR CASE IS 
OVERWHELMING, BUT THEY'RE IN 
THE SENATE ASKING FOR MORE 
EVIDENCE NOW. 
THAT ON ITS FACE IS A DIFFICULT 
ARGUMENT TO OVERCOME. 
AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, I THINK 
THE KEY ARGUMENT IS TRIALS ARE 
ABOUT TRUTH SEEKING. 
TRIALS AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM 
GENERALLY AS AMERICANS. 
AND WHEN WE MAKE IMPORTANT 
DECISIONS IN OUR LIVES, REALLY 
IMPORTANT DECISIONS, THIS IS 
ONE OF THEM. 
POTENTIALLY CONSIDERING 
REMOVING A PRESIDENT, THAT'S A 
VERY IMPORTANT DECISION. 
YOU WANT TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS. 
YOU WANT TO HAVE AS MUCH 
INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE TO YOU 
CAN MAKE THE BEST DECISION 
POSSIBLE. 
THOSE ARE THE SORT OF REALLY 
CORE COMPETING ARGUMENTS THAT 
WE'RE WATCHING PLAY OUT ON THIS 
AMENDMENT NOW. 
>> SO YOU THINK REPUBLICANS 
HAVE HIT ON A GOOD STRATEGY 
SAYING LOOK, DEMOCRATS CLAIMED 
THEY HAD ALL THE EVIDENCE IN 
THE WORLD ALREADY, NOW THEY SAY 
THEY NEED MORE. 
>> GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION 
ABOUT WHY WAIT, I'VE THOUGHT 
ABOUT IT FOR A FEW MINUTES, AND 
REALLY I THINK IT GOES DOWN TO 
THAT OATH THAT THE SENATE TAKES 
ON, YOU KNOW, I AFFIRM I'LL BE 
A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUROR IN A 
SENSE. 
AND REPUBLICAN SENATORS LIKE A 
SUSAN COLLINS IN A TOUGH 
RE-ELECTION RACE, SHE WOULD 
ARGUE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY 
WHY SHE'S BEING FAIR AND 
IMPARTIAL, BUT OTHER 
INDIVIDUALS LIKE MITT ROMNEY, 
THEY DO WANT TO HEAR IF THE 
HOUSE, YOU KNOW, MADE, TREATED 
THE WHOLE PROCESS OF 
IMPEACHMENT IN A FAIR WAY. 
BECAUSE IF AFTER BOTH SIDES 
MAKE THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS 
AND ANSWER SENATOR QUESTIONS, 
REPUBLICANS LIKE SENATOR 
COLLINS, LISA MURKOWSKI, MITT 
ROMNEY, FEEL LIKE THE HOUSE 
DID, YOU KNOW, DID VIOLATE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S, YOU KNOW, 
THIS WAS SOME SORT OF QUOTE 
UNQUOTE WITCH HUNT OR PARTISAN 
HIT JOB AS SOME REPUBLICANS 
WOULD LIKE TO SAY, THEN THEY 
WON'T VOTE FOR WITNESSES. 
BUT AGAIN, THEY REALLY, THE 
BURDEN IS ON, I THINK THE 
DEMOCRATS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS, 
TO MAKE THAT CASE. 
AND IF IT'S COMPELLING ENOUGH, 
I THINK THAT YOU'LL SEE A SUSAN 
COLLINS AND LISA MURKOWSKI VOTE 
IN FAVOR OF MORE WITNESSES. 
>> SO LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW IT'S 
COMPARING TO BILL CLINTON'S 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
I MEAN, HE WAS IMPEACHED ON 
PERJURY, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO HOW DOES THOSE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT COMPARE LEGALLY 
TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
FACING PRESIDENT TRUMP NOW? 
>> SO THIS IS ONE OF THE OTHER 
ARGUMENTS THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD A 
CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT YET, BUT 
THE, UM, I EXPECT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S COUNSEL TO MAKE THIS 
ARGUMENT MORE FULLY AS THEY GO 
FORWARD THAT THESE PARTICULAR 
ARTICLES AGAINST PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AREN'T CAST IN THE FORM 
OF ALLEGING A CRIME. 
SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 
PERJURY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THOSE 
IN ADDITION TO BEING 
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, THOSE ARE 
ALSO FEDERAL CRIMES. 
THEY'RE CRIMES UNDER THE 
CRIMINAL LAW.  
AND SO ANOTHER AREA THAT I 
EXPECT PERHAPS LATER IN THE 
ARGUMENTS TO BE MORE DEVELOPED 
AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
COUNSEL DISCUSS THIS IS THIS 
CLAIM BY BY  I THINK ALAN 
DERSHOWITZ, THAT BECAUSE THE 
ARTICLES DON'T ALLEGE A CRIME, 
THEY'RE DEFECTIVE -- 
>> SO THEY DON'T ALLEGE A CRIME 
OR MISUSE OF FUNDS THAT DIDN'T 
THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 
OFFICE SAY IS A CRIME? 
>> WELL, THEY'RE CAST IN THE 
FORM, ON THAT ONE, AS ABUSE OF 
POWER. 
>> OKAY. 
>> SO LOOK, THE FACTS 
UNDERNEATH THEM COULD ESTABLISH 
A BRIBERY. 
THEY COULD ESTABLISH, UM, THEY 
COULD ESTABLISH A CRIME. 
BUT THE WAY THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
CHOSE TO CAST THAT CLAIM, THEY 
CALLED IT AN ABUSE OF POWER. 
>> OKAY. 
>> AND EVEN THE DEMOCRATS, I 
MEAN EVEN REPUBLICANS, SEKULOW 
I THINK GOT UP AND SAID OKAY, 
WE HEARD QUID QUO PRO, WE HEARD 
EXTORTION, HE HEARD BRIBERY, 
BUT NONE ARE MENTIONED IN THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
RIGHT? 
THAT WAS SORT OF HIS ARGUMENT. 
IF THIS WAS AN IMPEACHABLE 
CRIME, WHY DIDN'T YOU LIST IT? 
THAT'S WHAT I HEARD HIM SAYING 
IN RESPONSE TO THAT. 
>> WAS THAT A LITTLE MISSTEP 
THEN ON PART OF THE DEMOCRATS? 
SHOULD THEY HAVE NAMED BRIBERY 
AS AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT? 
>> I THINK IT'S MORE, AND MOLLY 
MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THIS 
BETTER, BUT I THINK IT'S A 
POLITICAL ISSUE MORE. 
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND HAS 
THE WORD CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR 
IN IT. 
THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE IS A 
TERM OF ART UNDER OUR LONG 
HISTORY WE BROUGHT WITH US FROM 
ENGLAND, AND IN FACT MOST 
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS WOULD 
TELL YOU THAT AN ABUSE OF POWER 
THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THIS 
ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT IS 
ABSOLUTELY IMPEACHABLE, AND 
THAT MR. DERSHOWITZ'S VIEW IS 
AN OUT LIER. 
>> AND I THINK MOST REPUBLICANS 
WOULD AGREE TOO IF IT WAS A 
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT. 
IT'S ALWAYS YOUR POINT OF VIEW 
BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER WHEN IT 
COMES TO THE PRESIDENT IS 
SOMETHING BOTH PARTIES WOULD 
ARGUE COULD BE IMPEACHABLE 
DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 
>> RIGHT, IF A DEMOCRATIC 
PRESIDENT DECIDED TO MOVE TO 
FIJI AND STOP DOING THEIR WORK, 
THAT SHOULD BE IMPEACHABLE IF 
IT WASN'T A CRIME. 
>> I THINK IF A REPUBLICAN 
PRESIDENT DID THAT IT WOULD 
STILL BE A CRIME! 
[ LAUGHTER ] 
>> AND WE HAVE POLITICAL 
CORRESPONDENT ANITA KUMAR 
JOINING US NOW. 
WELCOME ANITA. 
CAN YOU TELL US WHERE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS DURING ALL THIS TODAY? 
>> REPORTER: WELL, AS YOU KNOW 
HE'S IN SWITZERLAND FOR THE 
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM. 
WE'VE HEARD HIM TALK A LITTLE 
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT TODAY. 
HE WAS ASKED BY SOME REPORTERS 
SOME QUESTIONS. 
HE CALLED IT A HOAX AGAIN. 
DIDN'T GO INTO A LOT OF 
DETAILS. 
BUT OBVIOUSLY HE'S ON A 
DIFFERENT TIME, SO HIS DAY HAS 
ALREADY ENDED. 
NOW THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY 
MEAN HE'S ASLEEP. 
HE COULD WELL BE WATCHING 
WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT HIS 
SPOKESPERSON SAYS THAT HE'LL BE 
BRIEFED PERIODICALLY, BUT THAT 
HE'S NOT HAVING TIME TO WATCH. 
HE'S BEEN MEETING WITH WORLD 
LEADERS ALL TODAY, AND WILL BE 
THERE TOMORROW AS WELL. 
>> WE KNOW INITIALLY THE 
PRESIDENT EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO 
SEE WITNESSES AND SEE A FULL 
TRIAL. 
HE REALLY WANTED THIS, YOU 
KNOW, A ROBUST DEFENSE. 
WHY NOW HAS THE WHITE HOUSE 
CHANGED ITS VIEW ON THIS SENATE 
TRIAL? 
I MEAN THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM 
CLEARLY DOESN'T WANT TO SEE 
WITNESSES CALLED? 
>> YOU'RE DEFINITELY RIGHT 
ABOUT THAT. 
THEY'VE BEEN HAVING BRIEFINGS 
WITH REPORTERS THE LAST FEW 
DAYS AND DEFINITELY DON'T WANT 
THE WITNESSES. 
YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT. 
EVEN WHEN ALL HIS ALLIES AND 
SUPPORTERS AND FRIENDS WERE 
SAYING NO, YOU DON'T WANT 
WITNESSES, HE STILL WANTED 
THEM. 
BUT I THINK THE REASON HE 
REALLY CHANGED HIS MIND IS 
REALLY CONFERRING WITH SENATE 
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH 
MCCONNELL. 
HE HAS GROWN TO TRUST MITCH 
MCCONNELL OVER THE LAST 3 
YEARS. 
HE HAS SEEN HOW HE'S PUSHED 
THROUGH THE TAX BILL BACK THAT 
FIRST YEAR AND PUSHED THROUGH 
ALL THE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS 
AND REALLY GOTTEN PIECES OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 
THROUGH. 
SO MITCH MCCONNELL WAS SAYING 
TRUST ME, THE PRESIDENT KNOWS, 
MITCH MCCONNELL KNOWS HOW THE 
SENATE WORKS AND IS TRUSTING 
HIM A LITTLE BIT. 
SO THIS IS ISN'T EXACTLY AS THE 
PRESIDENT WOULD WANT IT, BUT HE 
TRUSTS THIS IS THE BEST WAY 
OUT. 
THE QUICKEST WAY FOR HIM TO GET 
BACK TO EVERYTHING ELSE, GET 
BACK TO THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND 
BACK TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
SO HE'S SORT OF TRUSTING 
MR. MCCONNELL ON IT. 
>> ALL RIGHT, SO MOLLY, I WANT 
TO TALK ABOUT THE LARGER SORT 
OF REPUBLICAN SENATE FEEL. 
WE KEEP GOING BACK TO THE SAME 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS, MURKOWSKI, 
ROMNEY, COLLINS TALKING ABOUT 
WHICH WAY THEY'LL VOTE, BUT IF 
WE REALLY SURE THAT MCCONNELL 
HAS A LOCK ON ALL OTHER 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS? 
>> I THINK IN TERMS OF 
WITNESSES, BECAUSE THAT'S 
REALLY THE KEY HERE, WHETHER OR 
NOT WE'LL HEAR FROM THE 
WITNESSES. 
THAT'S WHERE A REPUBLICAN VOTE 
WILL MATTER. 
BECAUSE IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF 
THINGS IT TAKES 67 SENATORS TO 
VOTE TO IMPEACH. 
SO EVEN IF THEY LOST A HANDFUL 
OF VULNERABLE REPUBLICANS, THE 
PRESIDENT WOULDN'T BE REMOVED 
FROM OFFICE. 
SO THE WITNESSES IS WHERE THE 
VOTES COUNT. 
AND WE DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY 
HOW MARTHA MCSALLY WHO'S 
RUNNING IN ARIZONA AGAINST MARK 
KELLY, WE DON'T KNOW 
NECESSARILY HOW SHE'LL VOTE ON 
WITNESSES. 
SHE'S A STAUNCH SUPPORTERS AND 
HAS A LARGE TRUMP CONSTITUENCY, 
BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, 
IT'S A PURPLE STATE, AND IT'S 
UNCLEAR HOW SHE WILL VOTE. 
>> AND SOME SENATORS HAVE VERY 
VOCIFEROUSLY REMAINED SILENT ON 
THIS ISSUE. 
>> YES, THEIR SILENCE HAS BEEN 
DEAFENING. 
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU! 
>> RIGHT! 
BECAUSE LET'S JUST STEP BACK 
FROM THIS. 
THIS IS, WHAT THE DID IF YOU 
LOOK AT THE REPORT, THEY BROKE 
THE LAW IN NOT SPENDING THE 
MONEY THAT CONGRESS HAVE 
APPROPRIATED SPECIFICALLY FOR 
GIVING AID TO UKRAINE. 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DECIDED TO 
SPEND IT FOR WHATEVER REASON, 
AND THE ARTICLE 1 BRANCH OF 
GOVERNMENT IS CONGRESS WHEN IT 
COMES DOWN TO IT. 
THE POWER OF THE PURSE, THAT'S 
CONGRESS. 
THEY TAX YOU. 
BUT THAT'S CONGRESS' JOB. 
AND WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION 
DECIDES NOT TO ENACT OR CARRY 
OUT ESSENTIALLY THE LAW THAT 
CONGRESS CREATED, THAT'S A 
PROBLEM. 
SO IF YOU HAVE 
INSTITUTIONALISTS, INDIVIDUALS 
WHO FEEL A STRONG SENSE OF 
ARTICLE 1'S AUTHORITY, JUST ON 
THE BASE OF IT, THAT'S A 
PROBLEM. 
SO YOU COULD SEE MEMBERS AGAIN, 
SAY LIKE LAMAR ALEXANDER WHO'S 
A LONG TIME SENATOR FROM 
TENNESSEE, REPUBLICAN, HE'S 
RETIRING, BUT THIS JUST DOESN'T 
SIT RIGHT. 
AND WE COULD SEE HIM VOTING FOR 
WITNESSES TO SAY OKAY, WHY DID 
YOU BLOCK THE MONEY WE DIRECTED 
BE SPENT FOR UKRAINE? 
>> RIGHT. 
YOU DO THINK CONGRESS KNOWING 
IT'S IN THEIR POWER TO DO SO 
WOULD BE CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. 
BECAUSE THIS IS LIKE YOU SAID A 
DIRECT POWER OF CONGRESS. 
>> RIGHT. 
AND BY THE PRESIDENT SAYING YOU 
CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO, WELL 
CONGRESS CAN TELL HIM WHAT TO 
DO, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WORKING 
TOGETHER TO RISE UP AND 
OVERTURN PIECES OF LEGISLATION 
HE VETOES. 
SO IN THE MIDST OF THIS OR THE 
BACKGROUND, TIM KAINE HAS 
GARNERED 51 VOTES FOR HIS WAR 
POWERS RESOLUTION THAT 
ESSENTIALLY SAYS CONGRESS WILL 
NOT SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT GOING 
TO WORK, TAKING, YOU KNOW, 
ACTION AGAINST IRAN FOR MORE 
THAN 30 DAYS. 
BUT BASICALLY IT ASSERTS 
CONGRESS' ROLE WHEN IT COMES TO 
WAR POWERS. 
AND YOU KNOW WE'LL SEE HOW IT 
PLAYS OUT. 
>> RIGHT. 
ALL RIGHT, ANITA, CAN YOU GIVE 
US SOME INSIGHT INTO WHAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE'S LEGAL STRATEGY 
WILL BE TOMORROW? 
>> REPORTER: YEAH, I MEAN WE 
GOT A HINT REALLY FROM WHAT THE 
WHITE HOUSE'S, YOU KNOW THE 
TRUMP DEFENSE PUT OUT THIS 
WEEKEND IN THE 2 DOCUMENTS THEY 
SENT OVER TO CAPITOL HILL. 
FAIRLY LENGTHY DOCUMENTS. 
THEY REALLY DIDN'T GO THROUGH 
THE DETAILS OF THE UKRAINE 
SITUATION AS MUCH AS THEY 
TALKED ABOUT THE 
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS. 
CAN THIS PRESIDENT BE BROUGHT 
UP ON IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, CAN 
HE GO THROUGH THE TRIAL. 
THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT 
PROCESS THAT THE HOUSE DIDN'T 
ENGAGE IN A FAIR PROCESS -- 
>> ANITA, I'M SO SORRY TO 
INTERRUPT YOU, BUT THE SENATE 
IS BACK IN ORDER AND WE'LL 
LISTEN IN. 
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IS 
SPEAKING. 
>> THANK YOU, AND 
MR. CIPOLLONE. 
MR. SCHIFF, YOU HAVE AN HOUR 
AND WILL BE ABLE TO RESERVE 
TIME FOR REBUTTAL.  
>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, 
SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
I AM VAL DEMINGS FROM THE STATE 
OF FLORIDA. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY 
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO ISSUE 
SUBPOENAS  
SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS TO THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT. 
THE FIRST ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT CHARGES THE 
PRESIDENT WITH USING THE POWER 
OF HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT AND 
PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT EVERYONE IN 
THIS CHAMBER KNOWS TO BE BOGUS. 
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T EVEN CARE 
IF AN INVESTIGATION WAS 
ACTUALLY CONDUCTED, JUST THAT 
IT WAS ANNOUNCED. 
WHY? 
BECAUSE THIS WAS FOR HIS OWN 
PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT. 
THE FIRST ARTICLE FURTHER 
CHARGES THAT THE PRESIDENT DID 
SO WITH CORRUPT MOTIVE, AND 
THAT HIS USE OF POWER FOR 
PERSONAL GAIN HARMED THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
AS THE SECOND ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, THE 
PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO CONCEAL 
EVIDENCE OF THIS CONDUCT. 
HE DID SO BY ORDERING HIS 
ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION, EVERY 
OFFICE, EVERY AGENCY, EVERY 
OFFICIAL TO DEFY EVERY SUBPOENA 
SERVED IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY. 
NO PRESIDENT IN HISTORY HAS 
EVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE THIS. 
MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSLY 
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY COULDN'T 
DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT TAKE 
THESE EXTREME STEPS TO HIDE 
EVIDENCE OF HIS INNOCENCE OR TO 
PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF THE 
PRESIDENCY AS A CAREER LAW 
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, I HAVE 
NEVER SEEN ANYONE TAKE SUCH 
EXTREME STEPS TO HIDE EVIDENCE 
ALLEGEDLY PROVING HIS 
INNOCENCE. 
AND I DO NOT FIND THAT HERE 
TODAY. 
THE PRESIDENT IS ENGAGED IN 
THIS COVER UP BECAUSE HE'S 
GUILTY, AND HE KNOWS IT, AND HE 
KNOWS THE EVIDENCE HE'S 
CONCEALS WILL ONLY FURTHER 
DEMONSTRATE HIS CULPABILITY. 
NOT WITHSTANDING THIS EFFORT TO 
STONEWALL OUR INQUIRY, THE 
HOUSE AMASSED POWERFUL EVIDENCE 
OF THE PRESIDENT'S HIGH CRIMES 
AND MISDEMEANORS. 
CONFIRMED AND CORROBORATED BY 
HUNDREDS OF TEXTS, E-MAILS, AND 
DOCUMENTS. 
MUCH OF THAT EVIDENCE CAME FROM 
PATRIOTIC, NON-PARTISAN 
OFFICIALS IN THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT. 
THEY'RE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO 
HONORED THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER 
THE LAW AND GAVE TESTIMONY 
REQUIRED BY CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENA IN THE FACE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S TAUNTS AND INSULTS. 
THESE OFFICIALS DESCRIBE THE 
PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN TO INDUCE 
AND PRESSURE UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
HIS USE OF $391 MILLION OF 
VITAL MILITARY AID TAXPAYER 
MONEY APPROPRIATED ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS BY CONGRESS IS 
LEVERAGED TO FORCE UKRAINE TO 
COMPLY AND IS WITHHOLDING OF A 
MEETING DESPERATELY SOUGHT BY 
THE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE. 
THIS TESTIMONY WAS PARTICULARLY 
COMPELLING BECAUSE THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT IS AT THE VERY 
CENTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
WRONG DOING. 
WE HEARD FIRSTHAND FROM 
DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS WHO SAW UP 
CLOSE AND PERSONAL WHAT WAS 
HAPPENING AND WHO IMMEDIATELY, 
IMMEDIATELY SOUNDED THE ALARMS. 
AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR WHO 
RETURNED TO UKRAINE LAST YEAR 
AS ACTING AMBASSADOR TEXTED 
OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIALS, I THINK IT'S CRAZY 
TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGN. 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION GORDON SONDLAND WHO WAS 
DELEGATED AUTHORITY OVER 
UKRAINE MATTER THAN NONE OTHER 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TESTIFIED WE 
KNEW THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE 
IMPORTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, AND 
WE FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT'S 
ORDERS. 
AND DAVID HOLMES, A SENIOR 
OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN 
KIEV SAID IT WAS MADE CLEAR 
THAT SOME ACTION ON A BIDEN 
INVESTIGATION WAS A CONDITION 
FOR AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING. 
DURING THEIR TESTIMONY, MANY OF 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS 
DESCRIBE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS 
INCLUDING TEXT MESSAGES, 
E-MAILS, FORMER DIPLOMATIC 
CABLES, AND NOTES THAT WOULD 
CORROBORATE THEIR TESTIMONY AND 
SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT 
SCHEME. 
FOR INSTANCE, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
WHO RAISED CONCERNS THAT 
MILITARY AID HAD BEEN 
CONDITIONED ON THE PRESIDENT'S 
DEMAND FOR POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS DESCRIBED A 
LITTLE NOTEBOOK IN WHICH HE 
WOULD TAKE NOTES ON CONFERSES 
HE HAD WITH KEY OFFICIALS. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THE 
REFERRED TO E-MAILS OVER THE 
PRESIDENT'S DEMAND THAT UKRAINE 
ANNOUNCE POLITICAL QUESTIONS. 
AS WE WILL SEE THROUGH E-MAILS 
SENT TO SOME OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S TOP ADVISORS, INCLUDING 
ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF 
STAFF MICK MULVANEY, SECRETARY 
OF STATE MICHAEL POMPEO, AND 
SECRETARY OF ENERGY RICK PERRY. 
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
STATE GEORGE KENT WHO OVERSAW 
UKRAINE POLICY MATTERS IN 
WASHINGTON FOR THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT WROTE AT LEAST 4 
MEMOS TO DOCUMENT CONCERNING 
CONDUCT HE WITNESSED OR HEARD. 
AND AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER 
PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT HE AND 
OTHER AMERICAN OFFICIALS 
COMMUNICATED WITH HIGH LEVEL 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, INCLUDING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF VIA 
TEXT MESSAGE AND WHAT'S APP 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S IMPROPER 
DEMANDS AND HOW UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS WOULD RESPOND TO 
THEM. 
BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE 
RECEIVED AND ON EVIDENCE THAT 
HAS SENSE EMERGED, ALL OF THESE 
DOCUMENTS AND OTHERS THAT WE 
WILL DESCRIBE BEAR DIRECTLY ON 
THE ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH IN 
THE FIRST ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THEY WOULD HELP COMPLETE OUR 
UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE 
PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNFOLDED IN 
REAL TIME. 
THEY'D SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION 
THAT SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS 
UNDERSTOOD THE CORRUPT NATURE 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND. 
AND THEY WOULD FURTHER EXPOSE 
THE EXTENT TO WHICH SECRETARY 
POMPEO, ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF 
MICK MULVANEY, AND OTHER SENIOR 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS 
OFFICIALS 
WERE AWARE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
PLOT AND HELPED CARRY IT OUT. 
WE'RE NOT TALKING A BURDENSOME 
NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS. 
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC 
SET OF MATERIALS HELD BY THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT. 
DOCUMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
HAS ALREADY COLLECTED IN 
RESPONSE TO OUR SUBPOENA BUT 
HAS NEVER PRODUCED. 
WE KNOW THESE MATERIALS EXIST. 
WE KNOW THEY ARE RELEVANT AND 
WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS 
DESPERATELY TRYING TO CONCEAL 
THEM. 
AS I WILL DESCRIBE, THE SENATE 
SHOULD SUBPOENA THE FOLLOWING. 
NUMBER 1, WHAT'S APP AND OTHER 
TEXT MESSAGE COMMUNICATIONS. 
2, E-MAILS. 
3 DIPLOMATIC CABLES, AND 4 
NOTES. 
GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 
DOCUMENTS, THE HOUSE REQUESTED 
THEY BE PROVIDED. 
WHEN THESE REQUESTS WERE 
DENIED, WHEN OUR REQUESTS WERE 
DENIED, THE HOUSE ISSUED 
SUBPOENAS DEMANDING THE 
DOCUMENTS BE TURNED OVER. 
BUT AT THE PRESIDENT'S 
DIRECTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE UNLAWFULLY DEFIED THAT 
SUBPOENA, AND I STAND HERE NOW, 
AS I STAND HERE NOW, THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT HAS ALL THESE 
DOCUMENTS IN ITS POSSESSION, 
BUT REFUSES BASED ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO LET THEM 
SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY. 
THIS IS AN AFFRONT TO THE HOUSE 
WHICH HAS FULL POWER TO SEE 
THESE DOCUMENTS. 
IT'S AN AFFRONT TO THE SENATE 
WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED A FULL 
RECORD ON WHICH TO JUDGE THE 
PRESIDENT'S GUILTY OR 
INNOCENCE, AND IT'S AN AFFRONT 
TO THE CONSTITUTION WHICH 
STATES CLEARLY THAT NOBODY, NOT 
EVEN THE PRESIDENT, IS ABOVE 
THE LAW. 
AND IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO HAVE A 
RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES ARE 
HIDING FROM THEM AND WHY IT IS 
BEING HIDDEN. 
IN PRIOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, 
THIS BODY HAS ISSUED SUBPOENAS 
REQUIRING THE RECIPIENT TO HAND 
OVER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. 
IT MUST DO SO AGAIN HERE, AND 
IT MUST DO SO NOW AT THE 
BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL, NOT THE 
END. 
OF COURSE THE NEED FOR A SENATE 
SUBPOENA ARISES BECAUSE AS I'VE 
OTED, THE PRESIDENT ORDERED 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DEFY A 
SUBPOENA FROM THE HOUSE. 
AT THIS POINT I'D LIKE TO 
BRIEFLY DESCRIBE OUR OWN 
EFFORTS TO GET THOSE MATERIALS 
AND THEN ADDRESS IN A DETAILED 
FASHION EXACTLY WHAT DOCUMENTS 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS HIDDEN 
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND 
WHY THE SENATE SHOULD REQUIRE 
IT TO TURN THEM OVER. 
ON SEPTEMBER 9th, EXERCISING 
THEIR ARTICLE 1 OVERSIGHT 
AUTHORITY, THE HOUSE 
INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE SENT A 
DOCUMENT REQUEST TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT. 
THE COMMITTEE SOUGHT MATERIALS 
RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
EFFORT TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO 
ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO 
HIS POLITICAL RIVAL AS WELL AS 
HIS DANGEROUS, UNEXPLAINED 
WITHHOLDING OF MILLIONS OF 
DOLLARS IN VITAL MILITARY AID. 
AFTER THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY 
DOCUMENTS, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE 
ON FOREIGN AFIRS ISSUED A 
SUBPOENA TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 27th. 
IN A LETTER ON OCTOBER 1st, 
SECRETARY POMPEO ACKNOWLEDGED 
RECEIPT OF THE SUBPOENA. 
AT THAT TIME HE STATED THAT HE 
WOULD RESPOND TO THE 
COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA FOR 
DOCUMENTS BY THE RETURN DATE, 
OCTOBER 4th. 
BUT HIS RESPONSE NEVER CAME. 
INSTEAD ON OCTOBER 8th, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER 
WRITING ON THE PRESIDENT'S 
BEHALF, ISSUED A DIRECTION 
CONFIRMING THAT THE 
ADMINISTRATION WOULD STONE WALL 
THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
TODAY THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS 
NOT PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT. 
NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT IN 
RESPONSE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENA. 
BUT WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED 
INDICATED THAT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT HAD GATHERED ALL OF 
THE RECORDS AND WAS PREPARED TO 
PROVIDE THEM BEFORE THE WHITE 
HOUSE DIRECTED IT TO DEFY THE 
SUBPOENA. 
NOT WITHSTANDING THIS UNLAWFUL 
OBSTRUCTION THROUGH THE 
TESTIMONY OF BRAVE STATE 
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, THE HOUSE 
WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY WITH 
REMARKABLE RESCISSION SEVERAL 
CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS 
RELEVANT TO THE FIRST ARTICLE 
OF IMPEACHMENT THAT ARE SITTING 
RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW THOSE 
DOCUMENTS ARE SITTING RIGHT NOW 
AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT. 
I'D LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH 4 
KEY CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS 
THAT SHOULD BE SUBPOENAED AND 
WHICH ILLUSTRATE THE HIGHLY 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT COULD PRODUCE 
IMMEDIATELY. 
THEY COULD PRODUCE THEM 
IMMEDIATELY FOR THIS TRIAL. 
THE FIRST CATEGORY CONSISTS OF 
WHAT'S APPS AND TEXT MESSAGES 
FROM OFFICIALS CAUGHT UP IN THE 
EVENTS, INCLUDING AMBASSADORS 
SONDLAND AND TAYLOR AND ALSO 
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
GEORGE KENT. 
ALL 3 OF WHOM CONFIRM IN THEIR 
TESTIMONY THEY REGULARLY USE 
WHAT'S APP TO COMMUNICATE WITH 
EACH OTHER AND FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. 
AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRARY 
KENT EXPLAINED, WHAT'S APP IS A 
DOMINANT FORM OF ELECTRONIC 
COMMUNICATION IN CERTAIN PARTS 
OF THE WORLD. 
WE KNOW THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
POSSESSES THE RECORDS OF WHAT'S 
APP AND TEXT MESSAGES FROM 
CRITICAL EYEWITNESSES TO THESE 
PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING FROM 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND TAYLOR 
AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
KENT. 
WE KNOW THE DEPARTMENT IS 
DELIBERATELY, DELIBERATELY 
CONCEALING THESE RECORDS AT THE 
DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, AND 
WE KNOW THEY COULD CONTAIN 
HIGHLY RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN TO 
CONDITION OFFICIAL PRESIDENTIAL 
ACTS ON THE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF 
INVESTIGATIONS FOR HIS OWN 
PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN. 
WE KNOW THIS NOT ONLY FROM 
TESTIMONY, BUT ALSO BECAUSE 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS ABLE TO 
PROVIDE US WITH A SMALL BUT 
TELLING SELECTION OF HIS WHAT'S 
APP MESSAGES. 
THOSE RECORDS CONFIRM WITH A 
FULL REVIEW OF THESE TEXTS AND 
WHAT'S APP MESSAGES WOULD HELP 
TO PAINT A VIVID FIRSTHAND 
PICTURE OF STATEMENTS AND 
BELIEFS HELD BY IMPORTANT 
PLAYERS OF EVENTS UNFOLDING IN 
REAL TIME. 
FOR EXAMPLE, THANKS TO 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S MESSAGES, 
WE KNOW THAT AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND, A KEY PLAYER IN THE 
PRESIDENT'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN, 
WHO TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE 
ABOUT A QUID PRO QUO 
ARRANGEMENT TEXTED DIRECTLY 
WITH THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
THIS IMAGE PRODUCED BY 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER APPEARS TO BE 
A SCREEN SHOT OF A TEXT MESSAGE 
SONDLAND EXCHANGED WITH 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ABOUT PLANS 
FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT. 
THE VERY SAME VISIT THAT 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BADLY 
NEEDED. 
AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP LATER 
WITHHELD AS PART OF THE QUID 
QUO PRO DESCRIBED BY AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND IN HIS TESTIMONY. 
THIS BODY AND THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW 
WHAT ELSE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND 
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID IN 
THIS AND WHAT OTHER EXCHANGES 
ABOUT THE MILITARY AID AND THE 
PRESIDENT'S DEMAND. 
BUT WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT 
WAS CONVEYED AND WHEN. 
WE DON'T KNOW IF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DIRECTED THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT TO CONCEAL THE VITAL 
RECORDS. 
THESE ARE RECORDS THAT THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE 
OTHERWISE TURNED OVER IF NOT 
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO 
COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING. 
TO GET A SENSE OF WHY TEXTS AND 
WHAT'S APP MESSAGES ARE SO 
VITAL, JUST CONSIDER WHETHER 
ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE WE'VE 
GLEANED FROM AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER'S PARTIAL PRODUCTION. 
ON JULY 10th AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
MEETINGS, A UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TEXTED 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, I FEEL THAT 
THE KEY FOR MANY THINGS IS 
RUDY, AND I AM READY TO TALK 
WITH HIM AT ANY TIME. 
THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT THAT 
REALIZED THEY NEEDED TO APPEASE 
RUDY GIULIANI BY CARRYING OUT 
THE INVESTIGATIONS. 
OF COURSE MR. GIULIANI HAD 
PUBLICLY CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS 
NOT ENGAGED IN FOREIGN POLICY, 
BUT WAS INSTEAD ADVANCING HIS 
CLIENT'S, THE PRESIDENT'S OWN 
PERSONAL INTEREST. 
IN ANOTHER EXCHANGE WE SAW 
UKRAINE UNDERSTOOD PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S DEMANDS LOUD AND CLEAR. 
ON THE MORNING OF JULY 25th, 
HALF AN HOUR BEFORE THE 
INFAMOUS CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER WROTE TO A 
SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL, 
HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE. 
ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES 
TRUMP, HE'LL INVESTIGATE, GET 
TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED 
IN 2016. 
WE WILL NAIL DOWN DATE FOR 
VISIT TO WASHINGTON, GOOD LUCK. 
SEE YOU TOMORROW. 
KURT. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CONFIRMED 
THAT TEXT ACCURATELY SUMMARIZED 
THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE TO 
HIM EARLIER THAT MORNING. 
AFTER THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, THE UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIAL RESPONDED POINTEDLY. 
PHONE CALL WENT WELL. 
THE NEXT DAY AMBASSADOR VOLKER 
WROTE TO RUDY GIULIANI. 
THESE MESSAGES CONFIRM 
MR. GIULIANI'S CENTRAL ROLE, 
THE PREMEDITATED NATURE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SOLICITATION 
OF POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AND 
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN WAGED ON 
UKRAINE BY MR. GIULIANI AND 
SENIOR OFFICIALS AT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S DIRECTION. 
AGAIN THIS IS JUST SOME OF WHAT 
WE LEARNED FROM AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER'S RECORDS. 
THERE WERE NUMEROUS WHAT'S APPS 
MESSAGES IN AUGUST WHILE 
AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND 
AND MR. GIULIANI WERE 
PRESSURING THEM TO ANNOUNCE THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP WANTED, AND AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR'S TEXTS FURTHER REVEALS 
HOW MUCH MORE MATERIAL THERE 
LIKELY IS THAT RELATES TO THE 
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
THERE'S NO DOUBT MESSAGES FROM 
OTHER OFFICIALS INVOLVED AND IN 
TOUCH WITH UKRAINIAN  OFFICIALS 
INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, 
TAYLOR, AND KENT WOULD FURTHER 
ILLUMINATE THE MALFEASANCE 
ADDRESSED IN OUR FIRST ARTICLE. 
FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 19th, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE 
DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ABOUT THE UPCOMING 
JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THEN SENT 
AN E-MAIL UPDATING KEY 
OFFICIALS, INCLUDING SECRETARY 
POMPEO, ACTING WHITE HOUSE 
CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, AND 
HIS SENIOR ADVISOR ROBERT 
BLAIR. 
IN THIS E-MAIL HE NOTED THAT HE 
PREPARED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO 
WAS WILLING TO MAKE THE 
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DESIRED. 
SECRETARY PERRY AND MICK 
MULVANEY THEN RESPONDED TO 
SONDLAND ACKNOWLEDGING THEY 
RECEIVED THE E-MAIL AND 
RECOMMENDED TO MOVE FORWARD 
WITH THE PHONE CALL THAT BECAME 
THE JULY 25th CALL BETWEEN 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND UKRAINE. 
WE KNOW ALL OF THIS, NOT 
BECAUSE THE STATE DEPARTMENT 
PROVIDED US WITH CRITICAL 
DOCUMENTS. 
BUT INSTEAD BECAUSE AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND PROVIDED US A 
REPRODUCTION OF THE E-MAIL. 
IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY, 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND QUITE 
DIRECTLY EXPLAINED THAT THIS 
E-MAIL DEMONSTRATED QUOTE 
EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP. 
>> EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP. 
IT WAS NO SECRET. 
EVERYONE WAS INVOLVED VIA 
E-MAIL ON JULY 19th, DAYS 
BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL CALL. 
AS I COMMUNICATED TO THE TEAM, 
I TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN 
ADVANCE THAT ASSURANCES TO RUN 
A FULLY TRANSPARENT 
INVESTIGATION AND TURN OVER 
EVERY STONE WERE NECESSARY IN 
HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
>> EVEN VIEWED ALONE, THIS 
REPRODUCED E-MAIL IS DAMNING. 
IT WAS SENT AFTER SONDLAND 
PERSONALLY CONVEYED THE 
PRESIDENT'S WISH FOR 
INVESTIGATIONS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
LEADING SEVERAL OFFICIALS TO 
SOUND ALARMS. 
IT WAS SENT JUST A FEW DAYS 
BEFORE THE JULY 25 CALL WHERE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR 
FAVOR, AND BY ITSELF THIS 
E-MAIL SHOWS WHO WAS EMBROILED 
IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PLAN TO 
PRESSURE THE UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL 
GAIN. 
BUT IT'S EVIDENCE THE FULL 
E-MAIL CHAIN AND OTHER RELATED 
E-MAILS TO THIS KEY TIME PERIOD 
WOULD ALSO BE HIGH WILL I 
RELEVANT. 
WE DON'T HAVE THE E-MAILS 
BECAUSE THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS 
HIDING THEM. 
AT THE DIRECTION OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THE SENATE SHOULD ISSUE THE 
PROPOSED SUBPOENA TO ENSURE A 
OMPLETE RECORD OF THESE AND 
OTHER RELEVANT E-MAILS. 
ANY DOUBT THAT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT IS CONCEALING 
CRITICAL EVIDENCE FROM THIS 
BODY WAS RESOLVED WHEN THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT WAS  RECENTLY 
ORDERED TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS, 
INCLUDING E-MAILS PURSUANT TO A 
LAWSUIT UNDER THE FREEDOM OF 
INFORMATION ACT. 
THESE DOCUMENTS ARE HEAVILY 
REDACTED AND LIMITED TO A VERY 
NARROW TIME PERIOD, BUT 
NEVERTHELESS, DESPITE THE HEAVY 
REDACTIONS, THESE HIGHLY 
LIMITED GLIMPSES INTO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT'S SECRET RECORD 
DEMONSTRATES THAT THOSE RECORDS 
ARE FULL OF INFORMATION 
RELEVANT TO THIS TRIAL. 
FOR EXAMPLE, SEVERAL OF THE 
NEWLY RELEASED E-MAILS SHOW 
MULTIPLE CONTACTS BETWEEN THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING 
SECRETARY POMPEO AND 
MR. GIULIANI. 
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FACT. 
MR. GIULIANI SERVED AS THE 
PRESIDENT'S POINT PERSON IN 
EXECUTING HIS CORRUPT SCHEME. 
MR. GIULIANI REPEATEDLY 
EMPHASIZED HE WAS FURTHERING 
THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AGENDA 
AND POLITICAL INTERESTS, NOT TO 
PROMOTE THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY WAS IN 
CONTACT WITH THE SECRETARY OF 
STATE AND SENIOR OFFICIALS 
DIRECTED TO SUPPORT GIULIANI'S 
EFFORTS IN UKRAINE IS RELEVANT, 
DISTURBING, AND TELLING. 
FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW THAT ON 
MARCH 26th AS MR. GIULIANI 
WAS PURSUING THE PRESIDENT'S 
PRIVATE AGENDA IN UKRAINE, AND 
JUST A DAY AFTER THE HILL 
PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE OF 
GIULIANI'S UKRAINE CONSPIRACY 
THEORY, SECRETARY POMPEO AND 
MR. GIULIANI SPOKE DIRECTLY ON 
THE PHONE. 
THAT SAME WEEK PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S FORMER PERSONAL 
SECRETARY WAS ASKED BY 
MR. GIULIANI'S ASSISTANT FOR A 
DIRECT CONNECTION TO SECRETARY 
POMPEO. 
BASED ON THESE RECORDS, IT IS 
IT ALSO CLEAR THAT SECRETARY 
POMPEO WAS ALREADY ACTIVITY 
ENGAGED WITH MR. GIULIANI IN 
EARLY SPRING OF 2019, AND IT 
ALSO APPEARS THESE EFFORTS WERE 
BACKED BY THE WHITE HOUSE GIVEN 
THE INVOLVEMENT OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S PERSONAL SECRETARY. 
THIS BODY AND THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THESE 
E-MAILS AND OTHER FILES AT THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT, FLUSHING OUT 
THE DETAILS AND EXCHANGES WITH 
GIULIANI AND SECRETARY POMPEO. 
MOREOVER, BASED ON CALL RECORDS 
LAWFULLY OBTAINED BY THE HOUSE 
FROM THIS PERIOD WE KNOW FROM 
MARCH 24th TO MARCH 30th, 
MR. GIULIANI CALLED THE WHITE 
HOUSE SEVERAL TIMES AND ALSO 
CONNECTED WITH AN UNIDENTIFIED 
NUMBER NUMEROUS TIMES. 
THESE RECORDS SHOW THAT ON 
MARCH 27th, MR. GIULIANI 
PLACED A SERIES OF CALLS TO THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT SWITCHBOARD. 
SECRETARY POMPEO'S ASSISTANT 
AND THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD 
IN QUICK SUCCESS, ALL WITHIN 
LESS THAN 30 MINUTES. 
OBTAINING E-MAILS AND OTHER 
DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT'S LEADERSHIP'S 
INTERACTION WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S PRIVATE LAWYER IN THIS 
PERIOD WHEN MR. GIULIANI WAS 
ACTIVITY ORCHESTRATING THE 
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN IN UKRAINE 
RELATED TO THE SHAM 
INVESTIGATION INTO VICE 
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE 2016 
ELECTION WOULD FURTHER CLARIFY 
THE PRESIDENT'S INVOLVEMENT AND 
DIRECTION AT THIS KEY JUNCTURE 
IN THE FORMATION OF A PLOT TO 
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE 
INTO OUR ELECTION. 
WE ALSO KNOW BASED ON RECENTLY 
OBTAINED DOCUMENTS, EXCUSE ME, 
THAT LEV PARNAS, AN ASSOCIATE 
OF RUDY GIULIANI, HAS ASSISTED 
HIM IN HIS REPRESENTATION OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
THAT GIULIANI LIKELY SPOKE WITH 
SECRETARY POMPEO ABOUT UKRAINE 
MATTERS 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 THE U.S. AMBASSADOR 
IN UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH. 
MR. GIULIANI VIEWED HER AS AN 
IMPEDIMENT TO IMPLEMENTING THE 
PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME AND 
ORCHESTRATED A LONG RUNNING 
SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST HER. 
HERE'S WHAT MR. PARNAS SAID 
ABOUT THIS JUST LAST WEEK. 
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PART OF 
THE MOTIVATION TO GET RID OF 
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TO GET 
HER OUT OF POST WAS BECAUSE SHE 
WAS IN THE WAY OF HIS EFFORT TO 
GET THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE 
TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS OF 
JOE BIDEN? 
>> THAT WAS THE ONLY 
MOTIVATION. 
>> THAT WAS THE ONLY 
MOTIVATION? 
>> THERE WAS NO OTHER 
MOTIVATION. 
>> THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE 
E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE 
KNOW. 
THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE 
E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS WE KNOW 
TO EXIST, BUT THERE ARE 
UNDOUBTEDLY MORE, INCLUDING FOR 
EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR 
YOVANOVITCH'S REQUEST FOR THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A 
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT OF HER 
AROUND THE TIME THAT 
MR. GIULIANI WAS SPEAKING 
DIRECTLY, DIRECTLY WITH 
SECRETARY POMPEO. 
BUT THAT STATEMENT NEVER CAME. 
THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS 
GATHERED THESE RECORDS, AND 
THEY'RE READY TO BE TURNED OVER 
PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA FROM THE 
SENATE. 
IT WOULD NOT BE A TIME 
CONSUMING OR LENGTHY PROCESS TO 
OBTAIN THEM, AND THERE ARE 
CLEARLY RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT 
DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
SCHEME. 
IF WE WANT THE FULL AND 
COMPLETE TRUTH, THEY WE NEED TO 
SEE THESE E-MAILS. 
THE SENATE SHOULD ALSO SEEK A 
THIRD ITEM THAT THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT HAS REFUSED TO 
PROVIDE, AND THAT'S AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR'S EXTRAORDINARY FIRST 
PERSON DIPLOMATIC CABLE TO 
SECRETARY POMPEO DATED 
AUGUST 29 AND SENT AT THE 
RECOMMENDATION OF THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON IN 
WHICH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR 
OBJECTED TO THE WITHHOLDING OF 
MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE AS 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECOUNTED IN 
HIS DEPOSITION. 
>> NEAR THE END OF AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON'S VISIT, I ASKED TO MEET 
IN PRIVATE, AND I EXPRESSED TO 
HIM MY SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT 
THE WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WHILE THE 
UKRAINIANS WERE DEFENDING THEIR 
COUNTRY FROM RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION. 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON RECOMMENDED A 
SEND A FIRST PERSON CABLE TO 
SECRETARY POMPEO RELAYING MY 
CONCERNS. 
I DID SO ON AUGUST 29th, 
DESCRIBING THE FOLLY 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 I COULD 
NOT AND WOULD NOT DEFEND SUCH A 
POLICY.
ALTHOUGH I RECEIVED NO SPECIFIC 
RESPONSE, I HEARD THAT SOON 
THEREAFTER THE SECRETARY 
CARRIED THE CABLE WITH HIM TO A 
MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE 
FOCUSED ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
TO UKRAINE. 
>> WHILE WE KNOW FROM 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND GEORGE 
KENT, WE KNOW THE CABLE WAS 
RECEIVED, WE DON'T KNOW HOW OR 
ARE WHETHER THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT RESPONDED. 
NOR DO WE KNOW IF THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT POSSESSES ANY OTHER 
PERSONAL RECORDS RELATING TO 
THIS CABLE. 
THIS CABLE FIRST DEMONSTRATES 
THE HARM THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DID TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BY 
USING FOREIGN POLICY AN AS 
INSTRUMENT OF HIS OWN PERSONAL, 
SECOND ON THE SAME DAY THE 
CABLE WAS SENT, PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S SENIOR AID TOLD 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT HE WAS 
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOLD 
ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE. 
HE ADDED THE UKRAINIANS WERE 
JUST DESPERATE FOR IT TO BE 
LEASED. 
IN OTHER WORDS, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S EMPLOY TO APPLY 
PRESSURE ON UKRAINE WAS 
WORKING. 
AND FINALLY BASED ON RECORDING 
BY THE NEW YORK TIMES, WE NOW 
KNOW THAT WITHIN DAYS OF 
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SENDING THE 
CABLE, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
DISCUSSED THE ASSISTANCE WITH 
SECRETARY P.M. 
AND JOHN BOLTON. 
YOU PERHAPS IT WAS DURING THIS 
MEETING, THERE PERHAPS PRODDED 
BY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S CABLE, 
ALL 3 OF THEM PLEADED, PLEADED 
WITH THE PRESIDENT TO RESUME 
THE CRUCIAL MILITARY AID. 
YET THE PRESIDENT REFUSED. 
THIS BODY HAS A 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 CAN NO LODGER 
CLAIM THE TOPIC OF SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE REMAINS CLASSIFIED 
TODAY IN LIGHT OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO 
DECLASSIFY HIS 2 TELEPHONE 
CALLS WITH PRESIDET ZELENSKY 
AND MR. MULVANEY'S PUBLIC 
STATEMENTS ABOUT SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE. 
THE FOURTH CATEGORY OF 
DOCUMENTS THAT THE SENATE 
SHOULD SUBPOENA ARE 
CONTEMPORANEOUS FIRST PERSON 
ACCOUNTS FROM STATE DEPARTMENT 
OFFICIALS WHO WERE CAUGHT UP IN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEMES. 
THESE WOULD HELP COMPLETE THE 
RECORD AND CLARIFY HOW THE 
PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNFOLDED IN 
REAL TIME AND HOW THE 
UKRAINIANS REACTED. 
MR. KENT WROTE NOTES OR MEMOS 
TO FILE AT LEAST 4 TIMES 
ACCORDING TO HIS TESTIMONY AND 
DAVID HOLMES, THE EMBASSY 
OFFICIAL IN UKRAINE WAS A 
CONSISTENT NOTE TAKER OF 
IMPORTANT MEETINGS WITH 
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS. 
>> DID YOU TAKE NOTES OF THIS 
CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 1st 
WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND? 
>> I DID. 
>> AND DID YOU TAKE NOTES 
RELATED TO MOST OF THE 
CONVERSATIONS WITH NOT ALL OF 
THEM THAT YOU RECITED IN YOUR 
OPENING STATEMENT? 
>> ALL OF THEM. 
>> AND YOU ARE AWARE, I PRESUME 
TAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS 
NOT PROVIDED THE NOTES. 
>> I AM AWARE. 
I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MAY BE 
COMING SOONER OR LATER. 
>> WELL, WE WOULD WELCOME THAT. 
>> THE STATE DEPARTMENT NEVER 
PRODUCED THE NOTES. 
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT 
TESTIFIED ABOUT A KEY DOCUMENT 
HE DRAFTED ON AUGUST 16th 
DESCRIBING HIS CONCERNS THAT 
THE PRESIDENT, THAT THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION WAS ATTEMPTING 
TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO OPENING 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. 
>> I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOU 
MR. KENT. 
IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID 
THAT, UM, YOU HAD IN MID-AUGUST 
IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME THAT 
GIULIANI'S EFFORTS TO GIN UP 
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOW 
INFECTING U.S. ENGAGEMENT WITH 
UKRAINE, LEVERAGING PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S DESIRE FOR A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING. 
UM, MR. KENT, DID YOU ACTUALLY 
WRITE A MEMO 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 MEMO 
TO THE FILE ON AUGUST 16th. 
>> BUT WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO 
THAT, MEMO DO WE? 
>> I SUBMITTED IT TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT SUBJECT TO THE 
SEPTEMBER 27th SUBPOENA. 
>> AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE 
PIECE OF PAPER FROM THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT RELATIVE TO THIS 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
KENT ALSO MEMORIALED A 
CONVERSATION WHERE AMBASSADOR 
TAYLOR DESCRIBED A UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIAL ACCUSING AMERICA OF 
HYPOCRISY FOR ADVISING 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGAINST 
INVESTIGATING A PRIOR UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT. 
MR. KENT SAID VOLKER MADE THE 
POINT THAT THE UKRAINIANS, WHO 
HAD OPENED THEIR AUTHORITIES 
UNDER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD 
OPENED INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 
FORMER PRESIDENT. 
HE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS 
APPROPRIATE. 
AND THEN DOUBTED AMERICAN 
CREDIBILITY ON ANTICORRUPTION 
MEASURES. 
RECORDS OF THESE CONVERSATIONS 
AND OTHER NOTES BY SENIOR 
OFFICIALS IN UKRAINE WOULD 
FLESH OUT AND HELP COMPLETE THE 
RECORD FOR THE 
FIRST ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
E-MAILS, DIPLOMATIC CABLES, AND 
NOTES.  
THESE DOCUMENTS BEAR DIRECTLY 
ON THE TRIAL OF THIS BODY, THE 
TRIAL THAT THIS BODY IS 
REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO 
HOLD. 
THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY RELEVANT 
TO THE FIRST ARTICLE OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THEIR EXISTENCE HAS BEEN 
ATTESTED TO BY CREDIBLE 
WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE. 
AND THE ONLY REASON WE DON'T 
ALREADY HAVE THEM IS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ORDERED HIS 
ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING 
SECRETARY POMPEO TO HIDE THEM. 
THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS MAY 
SUGGEST THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD 
HAVE SOUGHT THESE MATERIALS IN 
COURT OR AWAITED FURTHER 
LAWSUITS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF 
INFORMATION ACT. 
ANY SUCH SESSION IS MERITLESS. 
TO START THE CONSTITUTION HAS 
NEVER BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO 
REQUIRE SUCH LAWSUITS, WHICH 
HAS NEVER OCCURRED, IT'S NEVER 
OCCURRED IN ANY PREVIOUS 
IMPEACHMENT. 
MOREOVER THE PRESIDENT HAS 
REPEATEDLY ARGUMENTED THE HOUSE 
IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO FILE A 
SUIT TO ENFORCE ITS SUBPOENAS. 
AND IN THE FREEDOM OF 
ADMINISTRATION ACT CASES, 
THEY'VE ONLY GRUDGINGLY AND 
SLOWLY PRODUCED AN EXTREMELY 
SMALL SET OF MATERIALS BUT HAS 
INSISTED ON APPLYING HEAVY AND 
DUBIOUS REDACTIONS. 
LAWSUITS FILED BY THIRD PARTIES 
CANNOT SERVE AS A CREDIBLE 
ALTERNATIVE TO CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT. 
IN FACT, IT IS STILL ALARMING 
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS 
PRODUCED MORE DOCUMENTS 
PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL OFFICE 
OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUITS BY 
PRIVATE CITIZENS AND ENTITIES 
THAN CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS. 
FINALLY, AS WE ALL KNOW, 
LITIGATION WOULD TAKE AN 
EXTREMELY LONG TIME. 
LIKELY YEARS. 
NOT WEEKS OR MONTHS. 
WHILE THE MISCONDUCT OF THIS 
PRESIDENT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE 
ATTENTION. 
THE MISCONDUCT OF THIS 
PRESIDENT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE 
ATTENTION. 
IF THIS BODY IS TRULY COMMITTED 
TO A FAIR TRIAL. 
IT CAN NOT LET THE PRESIDENT 
PLAY A GAME OF KEEP AWAY AND 
DICTATE WHAT EVIDENCE THE 
SENATORS CAN AND CANNOT SEE 
BURIED ON HIS GUILTY OR 
INNOCENCE. 
THIS BODY CANNOT PERMIT HIM TO 
HIDE ALL EVIDENCE WHILE 
INSISTING ON LAWSUITS HE 
DOESN'T ACTUALLY THINK WE CAN 
FILE. 
ONES HE KNOWINGS WON'T BE 
RESOLVED UNTIL AFTER THE 
ELECTION HE IS TRYING TO CHEAT 
TO WIN. 
INSTEAD, TO HONOR YOUR OATHS TO 
DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE WE EARN 
EACH SENATOR TO REPORT A 
SUBPOENA TO THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, AND THAT SUBPOENA 
SHOULD BE ISSUED NOW AT THE 
BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL RATHER 
THAN AT THE END SO THESE 
DOCUMENTS CAN BE REVIEWED AND 
THEIR IMPORTANCE WEIGHED BY THE 
PARTIES, THE SENATE, AND BY THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
THAT IS HOW THINGS WORK IN 
EVERY COURTROOM IN THE NATION 
AND HOW THEY SHOULD WORK HERE. 
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE STAKES, 
AS YOU ALL KNOW, ARE SO HIGH. 
THE TRUTH IS THERE. 
FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS. 
THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO HIDE 
IT. 
THIS BODY SHOULD NOT SURRENDER 
TO HIS OBSTRUCTION BY REFUSING 
TO DEMAND A FULL RECORD. 
THAT IS WHY THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, AND 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF 
OUR TIME.  
>> MR. CIPOLLONE?  
>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I WON'T 
REPEAT ALL THE ARGUMENTS WE'VE 
MADE ALREADY WITH RESPECT TO 
THESE MOTIONS. 
I WOULD SAY ONE THING BEFORE I 
TURN IT OVER TO MY CO-COUNSEL. 
MR. SCHIFF CAME HERE AND SAID 
HE'S NOT ASKING YOU THE DO 
SOMETHING HE WOULDN'T DO FOR 
HIMSELF, AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
SAID WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO DO 
OUR JOBS FOR US. 
AND MR. SCHIFF CAME UP HERE AND 
SAID I CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON. 
REMEMBER PAUL HARVEY? 
IT'S TIME FOR THE REST OF THE 
STORY. 
HE DIDN'T CALL HIM IN THE 
HOUSE. 
HE DIDN'T SUBPOENA AMBASSADOR 
BOLTON IN THE HOUSE. 
I HAVE A LETTER HERE FROM 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S LAWYER. 
HE'S THE SAME LAWYER CHARLIE 
KUPPERMAN HIRED. 
HE SAID IN RESPONSE TO ONE, TO 
THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 5th 
FROM CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, AND THE 
HOUSE CHAIRS, WITHDRAWING THE 
SUBPOENA TO DR. KUPPERMAN, AND 
TO RECENT PUBLISHED REPORTS 
ANNOUNCING THAT THE HOUSE 
CHAIRS DO NOT INTEND TO ISSUE A 
SUBPOENA TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON. 
HE GOES ON AND SAYS WE'RE 
DISMAYED THAT COMMITTEES HAVE 
DECIDED NOT TO SEEK RESOLUTION 
FROM THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ON 
THIS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 
AND ENDS THE LETTER BY SAYING 
IF THE HOUSE CHOOSES NOT TO 
PURSUE THROUGH SUBPOENA THE 
TESTIMONY OF DR. KUPPERMAN AND 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, LET THE 
RECORD BE CLEAR, THAT'S THE 
HOUSE'S DECISION, AND THEY MADE 
THAT DECISION. 
THEY NEVER SUBPOENAED 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, NEVER CALLED 
HIM IN THE HOUSE, AND WITHDREW 
THE SUBPOENA FOR KUPPERMAN 
BEFORE THE JUDGE COULD RULE AND 
ASKED THE CASE BE MOOTED. 
THEN THEY CAME HERE AND ASK YOU 
TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR JOHN 
BOLTON. 
IT'S NOT RIGHT. 
I YIELD THE REMINDER OF MY TIME 
TO MR. SEKULOW. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS 
OF THE SENATE, MANAGERS SAID 
FACTS ARE A STUBBORN THING. 
LET ME GIVE YOU SOME FACTS. 
IT'S FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ACTUALLY 
TESTIFIED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT 
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT TIE AID 
TO INVESTIGATIONS AND 
ACKNOWLEDGED ANY LEAK HE 
SUGGESTED WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON 
HIS OWN SPECULATION. 
UNCONNECTED TO ANY CONVERSATION 
WITH THE PRESIDENT. 
HERE'S THE QUESTION, WHAT ABOUT 
THE AID? 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAID THE AID 
WAS NOT TIED. 
ANSWER, I DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE 
CONCLUSIVELY TIED EITHER. 
I SAID I WAS PRESUMING IT. 
QUESTION, OKAY. 
SO THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD YOU 
THEY WERE TIED? 
ANSWER, THAT'S CORRECT. 
QUESTION, SO YOUR TESTIMONY AND 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S TESTIMONY 
IS CONSISTENT, AND THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT TIE 
INVESTIGATIONS, AID TO 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
ANSWER, THAT'S CORRECT. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO 
TESTIFIED HE ASKED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP DIRECTLY ABOUT THE ISSUES 
AND THE PRESIDENT EXPLICITLY 
TOLD HIM HE DIDN'T WANT 
ANYTHING FROM UKRAINE. 
I WANT NOTHING. 
I WANT NOTHING. 
I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO. 
TELL ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT 
THING. 
SIMILAR COMMENTS WERE MADE TO 
JOHNSON. 
THAT'S THE FACTS. 
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
HERE'S THE LAW. 
AS EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 
KNOWS, UNDOUBTEDLY AWARE, 
SEPARATE FROM PRIVILEGES IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S COMMUNICATIONS 
PRIVILEGES. 
THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION 
PRIVILEGE HAS CONSTITUTIONAL 
ORIGINS. 
COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED A GREAT 
PUBLIC INTEREST IN PROTECTING 
THE CONVERSATIONS THAT TAKE 
PLACE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S OFFICIAL DUTIES 
BECAUSE SUCH IS NODED TO 
PROTECT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF 
THE EXECUTIVE DECISION MAKING 
PROCESS. 
IT WAS DECIDED IN THE DISTRICT 
OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. 
THE SUPREME COURT FOUND SUCH A 
PRIVILEGE NECESSARY TO 
GUARANTEE THE CANDOR OF 
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS AND 
PROVIDE A PRESIDENT AND THOSE 
THAT ASSIST HIM WITH FREEDOM TO 
EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES IN THE 
PROCESS OF ULTIMATELY SHAPING 
POLICIES AND DECISIONS AND TO 
DO SO IN A WAY MANY WOULD BE 
UNWILLING TO EXPRESS EXCEPT IN 
PRIVATE. 
FOR THIS REASON PRESIDENTIAL 
CONVERSATIONS WITH PRIVILEGED. 
THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT 
THIS PRIVILEGE. 
COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY 
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS, AND BY 
THE WAY, LAWYER LAWSUITS, 
LAWYER LAWSUITS? 
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES, DUALLY 
ELECTED, AND THE MANAGERS ARE 
COMPLAINING ABOUT LAWYER 
LAWSUITS? 
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS LAWYER 
LAWSUITS. 
IT'S DISRESPECTING THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO EVEN SAY THAT IN THIS 
CHAMBER. 
HERE'S THE LAW. 
COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY 
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS IN THE 
COURSE OF PREPARING ADVICE COME 
UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS 
PRIVILEGE, EVEN WHEN THE 
COMMUNICATIONS ARE NOT MADE 
DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT. 
EVEN WHEN THEY'RE NOT MADE 
DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT. 
ADVISOR TO ADVISOR. 
GIVEN THE NEED TO PROVIDE 
SUFFICIENT ELBOW ROOM FOR 
ADVISORS TO OBTAIN INFORMATION 
FROM ALL KNOWLEDGEABLE SOURCES, 
THE PRIVILEGE MOST APPLY BOTH 
TO COMMUNICATIONS WHICH THESE 
ADVISORS SOLICIT AND RECEIVE 
FROM OTHERS AS WELL AS THOSE 
THEY AUTHORIZE THEMSELVES. 
THE PRIVILEGE ALSO EXTENDS TO 
THOSE MEMBERS OF THE 
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORS STAFF 
BECAUSE OFTEN THE STAFF HAVE TO 
FORMULATE ADVICE GIVEN TO THE 
PRESIDENT. 
LAWSUITS. 
THE CONSTITUTION. 
A DANGEROUS MOMENT FOR AMERICA 
WHEN AN IMPEACHMENT OF A 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
IS BEING RUSHED THROUGH BECAUSE 
OF LAWYER LAWSUITS. 
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS IT, IF 
NECESSARY THE CONSTITUTION 
DEMANDS IT IF NECESSARY. 
THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.  
>> MS. DEMINGS, YOU HAVE 13 
MINUTES OF REBUTTAL. 
MR. SCHIFF? 
>> THANK YOU, LET ME JUST 
RESPOND TO SOME OF MY 
COLLEAGUE'S POINTS IF I CAN. 
FIRST COUNSEL SAID WELL THE 
HOUSE WOULD LIKE TO CALL JOHN 
BOLTON, BUT THE HOUSE DID NOT 
SEEK HIS TESTIMONY DURING THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
FIRST OF ALL WE DID. 
SITED JOHN BOLTON TO 
TESTIFY, AND HE TOLD US I'M NOT 
COMING AND IF YOU SUBPOENA ME I 
WILL SUE YOU. 
THAT WAS HIS ANSWER. 
I WILL SUE YOU. 
HE'S REPRESENTED BY THE SAME 
LAWYER THAT REPRESENTS 
DR. KUPPERMAN WHO ACTUALLY DID 
SUE US WHEN HE WAS SUBPOENAED 
SO WE KNOW JOHN BOLTON WOULD 
MAKE GOOD ON THAT THREAT. 
NOW MR. SEKULOW SAYS SOMETHING 
ABOUT LAWYER LAWSUITS, AND I 
HAVE TO CONFESS I WASN'T 
COMPLETELY FOLLOWING THE 
ARGUMENT, BUT SOMETHING ABOUT 
LAWYER LAWSUITS, THAT WE'RE 
AGAINST LAWYER LAWSUITS. 
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, 
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS. 
THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS 
IN COURT IN THAT CASE AND OTHER 
CASES ARGUING CONGRESS CAN'T GO 
TO COURT TO ENFORCE ITS 
SUBPOENAS, SO WHEN THEY SAY 
SOMETHING ABOUT LAWYER 
LAWSUITS, AND THEY SAY THERE'S 
NOTHING WRONG WITH THE HOUSE 
SUING TO GET THE WITNESSES TO 
SHOW UP, THEIR OWN OTHER 
LAWYERS ARE IN COURT SAYING THE 
HOUSE HAS NO SUCH RIGHT. 
THEY'RE IN COURT SAYING YOU 
CAN'T HAVE LAWYER LAWSUITS. 
SO THAT ARGUMENT CAN'T BE MADE 
IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. 
WHAT'S MORE, IN THE MCGAHN 
LITIGATION THAT TESTED THE SAME 
BOGUS THEORY OF ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY, IN THE LAWSUIT 
INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYER DON MCGAHN. 
THE ONE TOLD TO FIRE THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN TO LIE 
ABOUT IT, THAT LAWSUIT TO GET 
HIS TESTIMONY. 
JUDGE 
JACKSON RULED ON THAT RECENTLY, 
ON THAT BOGUS CLAIM, THE JUDGE 
SAID THAT'S NONSENSE. 
BUT THE JUDGE SAID SOMETHING 
MORE THAT WAS VERY INTERESTING. 
BECAUSE WHAT WE URGED JOHN 
BOLTON'S LAWYER IS YOU DON'T 
NEED TO FILE A LAWSUIT. 
IT'S ONE ALREADY FILED 
INVOLVING DON MCGAHN. 
THAT'S ABOUT TO BE DECIDED. 
SO UNLESS YOUR REAL PURPOSE 
HERE IS DELAY, TO AVOID 
TESTIMONY, WERE ASK YOU JUST 
WISH TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION OF 
A WILLINGNESS TO COME FORWARD, 
TO HAVE THE COURT'S BLESSING, 
IF THAT'S REALLY TRUE, AGREE TO 
BE BOUND BY THE MCGAHN 
DECISION. 
OF COURSE THEY WERE NOT 
WILLING. 
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO 
TESTIFY. 
NOW FOR WHATEVER REASON, JOHN 
BOLTON IS NOW WILLING TO 
TESTIFY. 
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS. 
MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE HE HAS A 
BOOK COMING OUT. 
MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE IT WILL BE 
VERY HARD TO EXPLAIN WHY HE'D 
BE UNWILLING TO SHARE 
INFORMATION WITH A SENATE, HE 
COULDN'T SHOW UP FOR AN 
INTERVIEW, BUT HE COULD PUT IT 
IN A BOOK. 
I DON'T KNOW. 
I CAN'T SPEAK TO HIS 
MOTIVATION. 
BUT I CAN TELL YOU HE'S WILLING 
TO COME NOW IF YOU'RE WILLING 
TO HEAR HIM. 
BUT OF COURSE THEY WEREN'T 
WILLING TO BE BOUND BY THAT 
COURT DECISION WITH MCGAHN. 
BUT THE COURT SAID SOMETHING 
VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE ONE OF 
THE BOLTON'S LAWYERS MADE THE 
ARGUMENT THAT THEY'RE NATIONAL 
SECURITY PEOPLE AND DON MCGAHN 
IS JUST THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL, NO OFFENSE TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, BUT 
APPARENTLY YOU HAVE NOTHING TO 
DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. 
SO THEY COULDN'T BE BOUND BY 
WHAT THE COURT IN THAT CASE 
SAID. 
WELL THE JUDGE IN THE MCGAHN 
CASE SAID THIS APPLIES TO 
NATIONAL SECURITY STUFF TOO. 
SO WE HAVE A DECISION. 
AND THE HARRIET MYERS CASE, THE 
COURT MADE CLEAR THERE WAS NO 
ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE IMMUNITY. 
THERE WERE ALSO COMMENTS ABOUT 
AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S TESTIMONY, 
AND IT WAS ALONG THESE LINES. 
VOLKER SAID THE PRESIDENT NEVER 
TOLD HIM THE AID WAS 
CONDITIONED OR THE MEETING WAS 
CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE DOING 
THE SHAM INVESTIGATION, SO I 
GUESS THAT'S CASE CLOSED. 
UNLESS THE PRESIDENT TOLD 
EVERYONE, CALLED THEM INTO HIS 
OFFICE AND SAID I'LL TELL YOU 
NOW AND YOU KNOW, IF HE DIDN'T 
TELL EVERYONE, I GUESS CASE 
CLOSED. 
WELL YOU KNOW WHO THE PRESIDENT 
DID TELL, AMONG OTHERS? 
HE TOLD MICK MULVANEY. 
MICK MULVANEY WENT OUT ON 
NATIONAL TELEVISION AND SAID 
YES, THEY DISCUSSED IT. 
THIS INVESTIGATION, THIS 
RUSSIAN NARRATIVE THAT IT 
WASN'T UKRAINE THAT INTERVENED 
IN 2016, IT WAS RUSSIA! 
I'M SORRY IT WASN'T RUSSIA, IT 
WAS UKRAINE! 
YES, THAT BOGUS 2016 THEORY, 
YES THEY DISCUSSED IT, IT'S 
PART OF WHY THEY WITHHELD THE 
MONEY. 
AND WHEN REPORTERS SAID THEY'RE 
DESCRIBING A QUID QUO PRO, HE 
SAID YEAH, GET OVER IT. 
WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. 
NOW THEY HAVEN'T SAID THEY WANT 
TO HEAR FROM MICK MULVANEY. 
I WONDER WHY. 
THE PRESIDENT DID TALK TO MICK 
MULVANEY ABOUT IT. 
WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO HEAR WHAT 
MICK MULVANEY HAS TO SAY? 
AND IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET 
TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS, IF 
THEY'RE REALLY CHALLENGING THE 
FACT THE PRESIDENT CONDITIONED 
$400 MILLION IN MILITARY AID TO 
AN ALLY AT WAR, IF MICK 
MULVANEY HAS ALREADY SAID 
PUBLICLY HE TALKED TO THE 
PRESIDENT ABOUT IT AND THIS IS 
PART OF THE REASON WHY, DON'T 
YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HEAR FROM 
HIM? 
DON'T YOU THINK IMPARTIAL 
JUSTICE REQUIRES YOU TO HEAR 
FROM HIM? 
NOW COUNCIL ALSO REFERRED TO 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AND 
SONDLAND SAYING WELL THE 
PRESIDENT TOLD ME THERE WAS NO 
QUID PRO QUO. 
OF COURSE AT THE TIME HE BECAME 
AWARE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT. 
PRESUMABLY BY MR. CIPOLLONE. 
SO THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT THIS 
WAS GOING TO COME TO LIGHT ON 
THE ADVICE APPARENTLY OF 
MR. CIPOLLONE OR OTHERS. 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WAS 
WITHHELD FROM CONGRESS, THE 
INTENDED RECIPIENT. 
BUT NONETHELESS, THE WHITE 
HOUSE WAS AWARE OF THE 
COMPLAINT. 
WE LAUNCHED OUR OWN 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
YES, THEY GOT CAUGHT, AND WHAT 
DOES HE SAY? 
IT'S CALLED FALSE EXCULPATORY, 
THAT'S A FANCY WAY OF SAYING 
IT'S A FALSE, PHONY ALIBI. 
NO QUID PRO QUO. 
HE WASN'T CAN EVEN ASKED THE 
QUESTION, HE JUST BLURTED IT 
OUT. 
THAT'S THE DEFENSE? 
AND HE DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT 
THE OTHER HALF OF THE 
CONVERSATION WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT SAYS NO QUID PRO QUO. 
BUT ZELENSKY NEEDS TO GO TO THE 
MIC, AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO 
IT. 
SO THAT'S LIKE SAYING NO QUID 
PRO QUO EXCEPT QUID PRO QUO. 
THAT'S THEIR ALIBI? 
THEY DIDN'T ALSO MENTION, AND 
YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THIS OF 
COURSE IN THE REAL TRIAL IF WE 
HAVE A REAL TRIAL. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID WHEN 
ASKED IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO 
QUO, THE ANSWER IS YES. 
AND WHAT'S MORE WHEN IT CAME TO 
MILITARY AID IT WAS AS SIMPLE 
AS 2 PLUS 2. 
WE'RE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT 
CAN ADD 2 PLUS 2. 
THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE 
WATCHING THAT CAN ADD 2 PLUS 2 
ALSO. 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT TELLS HIS 
CHIEF OF STAFF WE'RE HOLDING UP 
THE AID BECAUSE OF THIS AS THE 
CHIEF OF STAFF ADMITTED, WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT GIVES NO 
PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR 
HOLDING UP AID THAT WE ALL 
SUPPORTED AND VOTED ON IN A 
VERY BIPARTISAN WAY HAS NO 
EXPLANATION FOR IT. 
IN THE CALL HE NEVER BRINGS UP 
CORRUPTION EXCEPT THE 
CORRUPTION HE WANTS TO BRING 
ABOUT. 
IT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIUS TO ADD 
2 PLUS 2. 
IT EQUALS 4 OR THIS IN CASE IT 
EQUALS GUILT. 
NOW YOU'LL HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK 
QUESTIONS. 
THAT'S A LONG TIME TO ASK 
QUESTIONS. 
WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO 
ASK ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS IN THAT 
16 HOURS? 
WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO 
SAY COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, 
WHAT DID MICK MULVANEY MEAN 
WHEN HE E-MAILED SO AND SO AND 
SAID SUCH AND SUCH? 
WHAT'S YOUR EXPLANATION FOR 
THAT BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE 
PRETTY DAMNING EVIDENCE OF 
EXACTLY WHAT THE HOUSE IS 
SAYING HERE. 
WHAT'S YOUR EXPLANATION 
MR. SEKULOW? 
WHAT'S YOUR EXPLANATION? 
WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO ASK ABOUT 
THE DOCUMENTS? 
OR THE HOUSE, MR. SCHIFF, WHAT 
ABOUT THIS TEXT MESSAGE? 
WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO 
ASK ME THAT QUESTION OR MY 
COLLEAGUES? 
I THINK YOU WOULD, I THINK YOU 
SHOULD, BUT THE BACKWARDS WAY 
THE RESOLUTION IS DRAFTED, YOU 
GET 16 HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS 
ABOUT DOCUMENTS YOU'VE NEVER 
SEEN. 
AND IF YOU DO DECIDE AT THAT 
POINT ONCE THE TRIAL IS 
ESSENTIALLY OVER, THAT YOU DO 
WANT TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS AFTER 
ALL, AND THE DOCUMENTS ARE 
PRODUCED, YOU DON'T GET ANOTHER 
16 HOURS. 
YOU DON'T GET 16 MINUTES. 
YOU DON'T GET 16 SECONDS TO ASK 
ABOUT THOSE DOCUMENTS. 
DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO 
YOU? 
ANY SENSE AT ALL? 
I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING I'D 
LIKE TO KNOW THAT MAY BE IN THE 
DOCUMENTS. 
YOU HEARD ABOUT THE THREE 
AMIGOS. 
AMIGO VOLKER AND AMIGO SONDLAND 
ARE 2 OF THE 3 PEOPLE THE 
PRESIDENT PUT IN CHARGE OF 
UKRAINE POLICY. 
THE THIRD AMIGO IS SECRETARY 
RICK PERRY, THE FORMER 
SECRETARY OF ENERGY. 
BUT WE KNOW FROM AMIGO 
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY THAT HE 
WAS CERTAINLY IN THE LOOP AND 
KNEW ALL ABOUT THIS SCHEME. 
AND WE KNOW FROM AMBASSADOR 
VOLKER'S TESTIMONY AND HIS TEXT 
MESSAGES AND WHAT'S APPS THAT 
THAT AMIGO WAS IN THE LOOP. 
WHAT ABOUT THE THIRD AMIGO? 
WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO KNOW IF 
THE THIRD AMIGO WAS IN THE 
LOOP? 
WELL SURPRISINGLY WE DIDN'T GET 
THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY 
RECORDS EITHER. 
BUT ANY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN 
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IS COVERED 
BY THIS AMENDMENT. 
WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO KNOW? 
DON'T THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE 
A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE THIRD 
AMIGO KNEW ABOUT THIS SCHEME? 
I'D LIKE TO KNOW. 
I THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO 
ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT IN YOUR 
16 HOURS. 
AT THE END OF THE DAY I GUESS 
I'LL FINISH WITH SOMETHING 
MR. SEKULOW SAID. 
HE SAID THIS WAS A DANGEROUS 
MOMENT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO 
RUSH THROUGH THIS SOMEHOW. 
IT IS A DANGEROUS MOMENT. 
BUT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO RUSH 
THROUGH THIS TRIAL. 
WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO HAVE A 
REAL TRIAL HERE. 
IT'S THE PRESIDENT THAT'S 
TRYING TO RUSH THROUGH THIS. 
AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT 
WHATEVER YOU DECIDE HERE, MAYBE 
A WASTE OF BREATH AND ALREADY 
DECIDED, BUT WHATEVER YOU 
DECIDE HERE, I DON'T KNOW WHO 
THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE. 
MAYBE IT WILL BE SOMEONE IN 
THIS CHAMBER. 
BUT I GUARANTEE YOU THIS, 
WHOEVER THAT NEXT PRESIDENT IS, 
WHETHER THEY DID SOMETHING 
RIGHT OR WRONG, THERE WILL COME 
A TIME THAT YOU IN THIS BODY 
WILL WANT TO SUBPOENA THAT 
PRESIDENT AND THAT 
ADMINISTRATION. 
YOU'LL WANT TO GET TO THE 
BOTTOM OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS. 
ARE YOU PREPARED TO SAY THAT 
PRESIDENT CAN SIMPLY SAY I'M 
GOING TO FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS. 
ARE YOU PREPARED TO SAY AND 
ACCEPT THAT PRESIDENT SAYING I 
HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, YOU 
WANT ME TO COME TESTIFY, 
SENATOR? 
YOU WANT ME TO COME TESTIFY? 
NO, NO, I HAVE ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY. 
YOU CAN SUBPOENA ME ALL YOU 
LIKE. 
I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT. 
AND WHEN YOU GET TO COURT I'M 
GOING TO TELL YOU, YOU CAN'T 
SEE ME IN COURT. 
ARE YOU PREPARED FOR THAT? 
THAT'S WHAT THE FUTURE LOOKS 
LIKE. 
DON'T THINK THIS IS THE LAST 
PRESIDENT IF YOU ALLOW THIS -- 
>> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED. 
>> I YIELD BACK, THANK YOU.  
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> MOTION TO TABLE THE 
AMENDMENT. 
>> THE QUESTION IS ON THE 
MOTION TO TABLE.  
IS THERE A 
SUFFICIENT SECOND? 
>> THERE IS. 
>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE 
ROLL. 
>> MR. ALEXANDER. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. BENNETT. 
>> NO. 
>> MRS. BLACKBURN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BOOKER. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BOSEMAN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BROWN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BURR. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. CANTWELL. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. CASEY. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. CASSIDY. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. COLLINS 
[ INAUDIBLE ] 
>> MR. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. COTTON. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. KRAMER. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. CRUZ. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. DANES. 
>> AYE. 
>> MISS DUCKWORTH. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. ERNST. 
>> NO. 
>> MRS. FEINSTEIN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. GARDNER AYE. 
>> MR. GRASSLEY. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. HARRIS. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. HOLLY. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. HOVEN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. ENHOFF. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JOHNSON. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JONES. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. KAINE. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. KENNEDY. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. KING. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. KLOBUCHAR. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. LANGFORD. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. LEHI. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. LEE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MRS. LEFLER. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. MANCHIN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. MARKEY. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. MCCONNELL. 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. MCSALLY. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. MERKLEY. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. MORAN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. MURKOWSKI. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. MURPHY. 
>> NO. 
>> MRS. MURRAY. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. PAUL. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. PURDUE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. PETTERS. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. PORTMAN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. REID. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. ROBERTS. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. ROMNEY. 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. ROSEN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. ROUNDS. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. RUBIO. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SANDERS. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SASSE. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SCHUMER. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SHELBY. 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. SMITH. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SULLIVAN. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. TESTER. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. THOONE. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. TILLIS. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. TOOMEY. 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. UDAL. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. WARNER. 
>> NO. 
>> MS. WARREN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. WHITEHOUSE. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. WICKER. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. WIDEN. 
>> NO. 
>> MR. YOUNG. 
>> AYE.  
>> IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO 
CHANGE THEIR VOTE? 
IF NOT THE MOTION TO TABLE IS 
AGREED TO. 
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK 
TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN OFFICE AND 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
DOCUMENTED AND ASK THAT IT BE 
READ. 
>> THE CLERK WILL READ THE 
AMENDMENT.  
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 
MR. SCHUMER PROPOSES AN 
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1286. 
AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE 
RESOLVING CLAUSE, INSERT THE 
FOLLOWING. 
SECTION NOT WITHSTANDING ANY 
OTHER PROVISION OF THIS 
RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO RULES 5 
AND 6 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE 
AND PRACTICE, IN THE SENATE 
WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT 
TRIALS, 1, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF 
THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE 
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE SHALL 
ISSUE A SUBPOENA TO THE ACTING 
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
COMMANDING HIM TO PRODUCE FOR 
THE TIME PERIOD FROM 
JANUARY 1st 2019 TO THE 
PRESIDENT ALL DOCUMENTS, 
COMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER 
RECORDS WITHIN THE POSSESSION, 
CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE 
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
REFERRING OR RELATING TO A, THE 
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION 
WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, 
FREEZING, OR RELEASING OF THE 
UNITED STATES FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND 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 AMONG, 
BETWEEN, OR REFERRING TO 
DIRECTOR MICHAEL JOHN MICK 
MULVANEY, ASSIST  ASSISTANT TO 
THE 
PRESIDENT ROBERT BLAIR, ACTING 
DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 
MICHAEL DUFFEY OR ANY OTHER 
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
EMPLOYEE. 
2, COMMUNIQUESES  RELATED TO 
REQUESTS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR 
UKRAINE MILITARY ASSISTANCES 
AND RESPONSE TO THOSE REQUESTS. 
3, COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO 
CONCERNS RAISED BY ANY OFFICE 
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
EMPLOYEE RELATED TO THE 
LEGALITY OF ANY HOLD ON FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 
4, COMMUNICATIONS SENT TO THE 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE REGARDING A 
HOLD OR BLOCK ON CONGRESSIONAL 
NOTIFICATIONS REGARDING THE 
RELEASE OF FMF FUNDS TO 
UKRAINE. 
5, COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN 
OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE INCLUDED BUT NOT 
LIMITED IN THE UNDERSECRETARY 
OF DEFENSE AND ASSOCIATE 
DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFEY, MARK 
úSANDY OR ANY OTHER OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET EMPLOYEE. 
6, ALL DRAFT AND FINAL VERSIONS 
OF THE AUGUST 7th, 2019 
MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, 
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, 
AND OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNCIL 
OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGET ABOUT THE RELEASE OF 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 
7, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT'S 
KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO 
AUGUST 28th, 2019 OF ANY 
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL SUSPENSION, 
WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, 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 ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE. 
COMMUNICATIONS, OPINIONS, 
ADVICE, COUNCIL, APPROVALS, OR 
CONCURRENCES PROVIDED BY ANY 
EMPLOYEE IN THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET REGARDING 
THE ACTUAL SUSPENSION, HOLDING, 
DELAYING, OR FREEZING OF 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE 
INCLUDING LEGALITY UNDER THE 
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT. 
C, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL 
DUFFEY TAKING OVER DUTIES 
RELATED TO APPORTIONMENTS OF 
AID FROM MARK SANDY OR ANY 
OTHER OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGET EMPLOYEE. 
ALL MEETINGS RELATED TO THE 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
INTERAGENCY MEETINGS ON 
JULY19th, JULY 23rd, 
JULY 26th, AND JULY 31st, 
2019 INCLUDING ANY DIRECTIONS 
TO STAFF PARTICIPATING IN THE 
MEETINGS AND ANY READ OUTS FROM 
THE MEETINGS. 
E, THE DECISION ANNOUNCED ON OR 
ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11th, 2019 TO 
RELEASE APPROPRIATED FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
NOTES, DOCUMENTS, OR MORE 
RELATED TO IT. 
TALKING POINTS RELATED TO THE 
WITHHOLDING OR RELEASE OF 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE INCLUDING 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RELATED 
TO CONCERNS ABOUT THE ACCURACY 
OF THE TALKING POINTS AND G, 
ALL MEETINGS AND CALLS BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE INCLUDING 
DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 
OTHER RECORDS RELATED TO THE 
SCHEDULING OF PREPARATION FOR, 
AND FOLLOW UP FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S APRIL 21st AND 
JULY 25th, 2019 PHONE CALLS, 
AS WELL AS HIS 
SEPTEMBER 25th, 2019 MEETING 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UKRAINE IN NEW YORK, AND 2, THE 
SERGEANT AT ARMS IS AUTHORIZED 
TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF THE 
DEPUTY SERGEANT AT ARMS OR ANY 
OTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE IN 
SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED 
TO BE ISSUED BY THIS SECTION. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> FIRST A SCHEDULING NOTE AS 
THE PARTIES ARE READY TO DEBATE 
THIS AMENDMENT, I SUGGEST WE GO 
AHEAD, GET THROUGH THE DEBATE, 
AND VOTE BEFORE WE TAKE A 30 
MINUTE RECESS FOR DINNER, AND I 
WOULD REMIND EVERYONE THAT I'LL 
BE MOVING TO TABLE THE 
AMENDMENT, AND IT'S ALSO 
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT BOTH 
EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES ARE 
ADDRESSED IN THE UNDERLYING 
RESOLUTION. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY 
THE PARTIES FOR 2 HOURS, 
EQUALLY DIVIDED. 
MR. MANAGER SCHIFF, ARE YOU A 
PROPONENT OR OPPONENT OF THE 
MOTION? 
>> PROPONENT. 
>> MR. CIPOLLONE, ARE YOU A 
PROPONENT OR OPPONENT? 
>> OPPONENT. 
>> THEN MR. SCHIFF, YOUR SIDE 
WILL PROCEED FIRST AND YOU'LL 
BE ABLE TO RESERVE TIME FOR 
REBUTTAL. 
THANK YOU.  
>> BEFORE I BEGIN, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE, THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
RESERVE THE BALL  BALANCE OF 
OUR 
TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
I'M JASON CROW FROM THE GREAT 
STATE OF COLORADO. 
THE HOUSE MANAGERS STRONGLY 
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO 
SUBPOENA KEY DOCUMENTS  
DOCUMENTS FROM THE 
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
OR OMB. 
THESE GO DIRECTLY TO ONE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSES OF 
POWER. 
HIS DECISION TO WITHHOLD VITAL 
MILITARY AID FROM A STRATEGIC 
PARTNER THAT'S AT WAR TO 
BENEFIT HIS OWN RE-ELECTION 
RAIN. 
BUT WHY SHOULD THAT MATTER? 
WHY SHOULD ANYBODY CARE? 
WHY SHOULD I CARE? 
BEFORE I WAS A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS, I WAS AN AMERICAN 
SOLDIER SERVING IN IRAQ AND 
AFGHANISTAN. 
AND ALTHOUGH SOME YEARS HAVE 
PASSED SINCE THAT TIME, THERE 
ARE STILL SOME MEMORIES THAT 
ARE SEARED IN MY BRAIN. 
ONE OF THESE MEMORIES WAS 
SCAVENGING SCRAP METAL ON THE 
STREETS OF BAGHDAD IN 2003 THAT 
WE HAD TO BOLT ON THE SIDE OF 
OUR TRUCKS BECAUSE WE HAD NO 
ARMOR TO PROTECT AGAINST ROAD 
SIDE BOMBS. 
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TROOPS 
NOT GETTING THE EQUIPMENT THAT 
THEY NEED WHEN THEY NEED IT, 
IT'S PERSONAL TO ME. 
TO BE CLEAR WE'RE TALKING OF 
$391 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY 
INTENDED 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 OUTER THIS SCHEME ALONE. 
HE NEEDED A LOT OF PEOPLE TO 
HELP HIM. 
AND THAT'S WHY WE KNOW AS MUCH 
ABOUT IT AS DO TODAY. 
BUT THERE IS MUCH MORE TO KNOW. 
>> INCLUDING LAWYERS THAT THE 
HOLD. 
VIOLATING THE LAW. 
THEY EXPOSE THE LENGTHS THE OMB 
WENT THROUGH TO JUSTIFY THE 
PRESIDENT'S HOLD. 
THEY WOULD SHOW THAT SENIOR 
OFFICIALS REPEATEDLY TRIED TO 
CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO 
RELEASE THE HOLD. 
IN SHORT THEY'D SHOW EXACTLY 
HOW THE PRESIDENT CARRIED OUT 
THE SCHEME TO USE OUR NATIONAL 
DEFENSE FUNDS TO BENEFIT HIS 
PERSONAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. 
WE ARE NOT SPECULATING ABOUT 
THE EXISTENCE OF THE DOCK 
UNITED  -- 
DOCUMENTS OR GUESSING WHAT THEY 
MIGHT SHOW. 
WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE 
THE COMMITTEES IN THE HOUSE 
TALKED ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS OMB 
CONTINUES TO HOLD TO THIS DAY. 
WE KNOW THE DOCUMENTS EXIST AND 
KNOW THE ONLY REASON WE DO NOT 
HAVE THEM IS BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTED OMB NOT TO 
PRODUCE THEM. 
BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT THEY 
WOULD SHOW. 
TO DEMONSTRATE THE SIGNIFICANCE 
OF THE OMB DOCUMENTS AND VALUE 
TH'D PROVIDE IN THE TRIAL, I 
WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH WHAT 
WE KNOW EXISTS BUT THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO TURN 
OVER. 
AS WE DISCUSSED, THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO TURN 
OVER ANY DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE 
IN RESPONSE TO MULTIPLE 
SUBPOENAS AND REQUESTS. 
BASED ON WHAT'S KNOWN FROM THE 
TESTIMONY AND THE FEW DOCUMENTS 
OBTAINED FROM PUBLIC REPORTING 
AND LAWSUITS, IT'S CLEAR THE 
PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO HIDE THE 
EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE'S AFRAID OF 
WHAT IT WOULD SHOW. 
THE DOCUMENTS OFFER STARK 
EXAMPLES OF THE CHAOS AND 
CONFUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
SCHEME SET OFF ACROSS OUR 
GOVERNMENT AND MAKE CLEAR THE 
DOCUMENTS STILL CONCEALED BY 
THE PRESIDENT. 
WE KNOW THE OMB HAS DOCUMENTS 
THAT REVEAL AS EARLY AS JUNE 
THE PRESIDENT WAS CONSIDERING 
HOLDING MILITARY AID FOR 
UKRAINE. 
THE PRESIDENT BEGAN QUESTIONING 
MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE AFTER 
CONGRESS APPROPRIATED AND 
AUTHORIZED THE MONEY. 
THIS FUNDING HAD WIDE 
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BECAUSE AS 
MANY WITNESSES TESTIFIED, 
PROVIDING MILITARY AID TO 
UKRAINE ALSO BENEFITS OUR OWN 
NATIONAL SECURITY. 
IMPORTANTLY THE PRESIDENT'S 
QUESTIONS CAME WEEKS AFTER THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ALREADY 
CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE HAD 
TAKEN THE ANTICORRUPTION 
REFORMS AND OTHER MEASURES 
MANDATED BY CONGRESS AS A 
CONDITION FOR RECEIVING THAT 
AID. 
SO THERE IS A PROCESS FOR 
MAKING SURE THAT THE FUNDS MAKE 
IT TO THE RIGHT PLACE AND TO 
THE RIGHT PEOPLE, A PROCESS 
THAT'S BEEN FOLLOWED EVERY YEAR 
THAT WE'VE PROVIDED THAT 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, 
INCLUDING THE FIRST 2 YEARS 
UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. 
NONETHELESS THE PRESIDENT'S 
QUESTIONS CAME DAYS AFTER DOD 
ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE ON 
JUNE 1st ANNOUNCING THEY'D 
PROVIDE THEIR 250 MILLION 
PORTION OF THE AID TO UKRAINE. 
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTING, 
THE DAY AFTER DOD'S PRESS 
RELEASE, A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL 
NAMED ROBERT BLAIR CALLED THE 
OMB ACTING DIRECTOR TO TALK 
ABOUT THE MILITARY AID TO 
UKRAINE. 
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS 
MR. BLAIR SAID QUOTE WE NEED TO 
HOLD IT UP. 
OMB HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE MY 
DOCUMENTED RELATED TO THIS 
CONVERSATION. 
THE SENATE CAN GET THEM BY 
PASSING THE AMENDMENT AND 
ISSUES A SUBPOENA. 
BUT THERE'S MORE. 
THE SAME DAY BLAIR SAID TO HOLD 
UP THE AID,  MICHAEL DUFFEY 
E-MAILED THE DEPUTY 
UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND 
TOLD HER THE PRESIDENT HAD 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AID. 
HE COPIED MARK SANDY, A CAREER 
OFFICIAL AT OMB WHO TOLD US 
ABOUT THE E-MAIL IN HIS 
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE. 
LIKE ALL OTHERS THAT E-MAIL WAS 
NOT PRODUCED BE  BY THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION IN THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. 
WE KNOW THE E-MAIL EXISTS 
HOWEVER BECAUSE IN RESPONSE TO 
A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 
LAWSUIT, THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION WAS FORCED TO 
RELEASE A REDACTED E-MAIL 
CONSISTENT WITH SANDY'S 
DESCRIPTION. 
BUT OMB'S PROVIDED NONE OF THE 
DOCK CAN YULES  YULES ENTS TO 
THE HOUSE. 
ON JULY 3rd THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT TOLD VARIOUS 
OFFICIALS THAT OMB BLOCKED IT 
FROM DISPENSING $141 MILLION IN 
AID. 
OMB HAD DIRECTED THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT NOT TO SEND A 
NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS ABOUT 
SPENDING THE MONEY. 
AND WITHOUT THAT NOTIFICATION 
THE AID WAS EFFECTIVELY 
BLOCKED. 
WHY DID OMB BLOCK THE 
CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION? 
WHO TOLD THEM TO DO IT? 
WHAT WAS THE REASON? 
THE SENATE WOULD GET THOSE 
ANSWERS IF THEY ISSUED THE 
SUBPOENA. 
PICKUP 
BUT THERE'S MORE. 
THEN BLAIR E-MAILED DUFFEY 
SAYING QUOTE THE PRESIDENT IS 
DIRECTING A HOLD ON MILITARY 
SUPPORT FUNDING FOR UKRAINE. 
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS, YOU KNOW. 
THE ONLY REASON WE KNOW ABOUT 
IT IS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF 
MARK SANDY, THE CAREER OMB 
OFFICIAL WHO FOLLOWED THE LAW 
AND COMPLIED WITH HIS SUBPOENA. 
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE 
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT IN FRONT OF 
YOU, SANDY TESTIFIED THE 
JULY 12th E-MAIL DIDN'T 
MENTION CONCERNS ABOUT ANY 
OTHER COUNTRY OR AID PACKAGES. 
JUST UKRAINE. 
SO THE DOZENS OF COUNTRIES THAT 
WE PROVIDE AID IN SUPPORT, THE 
PRESIDENT WAS ONLY CONCERNED 
ABOUT ONE OF THEM. 
UKRAINE. 
WHY? 
WELL, WE KNOW WHY. 
BUT OMB HAS STILL REFUSED TO 
PROVIDE A COPY OF THE 
JULY 12th E-MAIL AND REFUSED 
TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS 
SURROUNDING IT BECAUSE BECAUSE 
OMB WAS TOLD TO  HIDE THE TRUTH 
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY THE 
PRESIDENT. 
WHAT WAS HE AFRAID OF? 
A SUBPOENA ISSUED BY THE SENATE 
WOULD SHOW US. 
OMB ALSO HAS DOCUMENTS ABOUT A 
KEY SERIES OF MEETINGS 
TRIGGERED BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
ORDERS TO HOLD THE MILITARY 
AID. 
IN THE SECOND HALF OF JULY, THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
CONVENED A SERIES OF MEETINGS 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON 
MILITARY AID. 
OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHOW WHAT 
HAPPENED DURING THE MEETINGS. 
FOR EXAMPLE, ON JULY 18th, 
THE 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 
PLACED A HOLD ON ALL MILITARY 
AID TO UKRAINE. 
AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, OUR 
MOST SENIOR DIPLOMAT TO UKRAINE 
PARTICIPATED IN THE MEETING, 
AND HE DESCRIBED HIS REACTION 
AT HIS OPEN HEARING. 
>> IN A REGULAR NSC SECURE 
VIDEO CONFERENCE CALL ON 
JULY 18th, I HEARD A STAFF 
PERSON FROM THE OFFICE OF 
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET SAY THERE 
WAS A HOLD ON SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BUT COULD 
NOT SAY WHY. 
FOR THE END OF THE AN OTHERWISE 
NORMAL MEETING, THE PERSON OFF 
SCREEN SAID SHE WAS FROM OMB 
AND HER BOSS INSTRUCTED HER NOT 
TO IMPROVE ADDITIONAL SECURITY 
SPENDING FOR UKRAINE UNTIL 
FURTHER NOTICE. 
I AND OTHERS SAT IN 
ASTONISHMENT. 
THE UKRAINIANS WERE FIGHTING 
RUSSIANS AND COUNTED NOT ONLY 
ON THE TRAINING AND WEAPONS, 
BUT ALSO THE ASSURANCE OF U.S. 
SUPPORT. 
ALL THAT THE OMB STAFF PERSON 
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 THAT 
OMB WOULDN'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS 
FOLLOWING THIS BOMBSHELL 
ANNOUNCEMENT. 
IT SURELY DOES. 
IT WAS THE AGENCY THAT 
DELIVERED THE SHOCKING NEWS TO 
THE REST OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
WITHHOLDING THE VITAL MILITARY 
AID FROM OUR PARTNER. 
AND WE WOULD SEE THESE 
DOCUMENTS IF THE SENATE ISSUED 
A SUBPOENA. 
THE JULY 18th MEETING WAS 
JUST THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF 
MEETINGS WHERE OMB HELD THE 
LINE AND ENFORCED THE 
PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON THE AID. 
BUT THERE WAS A SECOND MEETING 
ON JULY 23rd WHERE WE 
UNDERSTAND AGENCIES RAISED 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF 
OMB'S HOLD ON THE AID. 
AND THEN A THIRD MEETING AT A 
MORE SENIOR LEVEL ON 
JULY 26th. 
WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT AT 
THAT MEETING, OMB STRUGGLED TO 
OFFER AN EXPLANATION FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON THE AID. 
AND THEN A FOURTH MEETING ON 
JULY 31st WHERE THE LEGAL 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE HOLD WERE 
RAISED. 
AT EACH OF THESE MEETINGS, 
THERE WAS CONFUSION ABOUT THE 
SCOPE AND THE REASONS FOR THE 
HOLD. 
NOBODY SEEMED TO KNOW WHAT WAS 
GOING ON. 
BUT THAT WAS EXACTLY THE POINT. 
ALL OF THE AGENCIES EXCEPT OMB 
WHICH WAS SIMPLY CONVEYING THE 
PRESIDENT'S ORDER SUPPORTED THE 
MILITARY AID AND ARGUED FOR 
LIFTING THE HOLD. 
OMB DID NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE 
DOCUMENT PROVIDING FOLLOW UP 
FROM 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 E-MAILS ABOUT 
WHAT WAS GOING ON? 
DID OMB DISCUSS WHAT REASONS 
THEY COULD GIVE EVERYONE 
ELSE 
FOR THE HOLD? 
BY ISSUING THIS SUBPOENA, THE 
SENATE CAN FIND OUT THE ANSWERS 
TO THOSE QUESTIONS AND OTHERS 
LIKE THEM. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE 
ANSWERS. 
OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD ALSO REVEAL 
KEY FACTS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED 
ON JULY 25th. 
ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
CONDUCTED 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 HUNG UP THE PHONE, 
DUFFEY, THE POLITICAL APPOINTEE 
AT OMB IN CHARGE OF NATIONAL 
SECURITY PROGRAMS E-MAILED DOD 
TO QUOTE FORMALIZE END QUOTE 
THE HOLD ON THE 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 
E-MAIL BECAUSE IT WAS RECENTLY 
RELEASED THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF 
INFORMATION ACT. 
IT WAS NOT RELEASED BY THE 
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN 
RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE'S 
SUBPOENA. 
IN THIS E-MAIL, DUFFEY TOLD THE 
DOD OFFICIALS THAT BASED UPON 
THE GUIDANCE HE RECEIVED, THEY 
SHOULD HOLD OFF ON ANY 
ADDITIONAL DOD OBLIGATIONS OF 
THESE FUND. 
HE ADDED THE REQUESTS WERE 
SENSITIVE AND THEY SHOULD KEEP 
THE INFORMATION CLOSELY HELD, 
MEANING DON'T TELL ANYBODY 
ABOUT IT. 
WHY DID HE CONSIDER THE 
INFORMATION SENSITIVE? 
WHY DIDN'T HE WANT ANYONE TO 
LEARN ABOUT IT? 
ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS MAY 
BE FOUND IN OMB E-MAILS, 
E-MAILS WE COULD ALL SEE IF YOU 
ISSUE A SUBPOENA. 
BUT THERE'S MORE. 
REMEMBER THE ADMINISTRATION 
NEEDED TO CREATE A WAY TO STOP 
FUNDING THAT WAS ALREADY 
UNDERWAY. 
THE TRAIN HAD ALREADY LEFT THE 
STATION AND SOMETHING LIKE THIS 
HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. 
LATER IN THE EVENING OF 
JULY 25th, OMB FOUND A WAY, 
EVEN THOUGH DOD HAD ALREADY 
NOTIFIED CONGRESS THAT THE 
FUNDS WOULD BE RELEASED , HERE 
IS HOW THE SCHEME WORKED. 
THEY SENT A DOCUMENT INCLUDING 
A CAREFULLY DIRECTED FOOTNOTE 
DIRECTING DOD TO HOLD OFF ON 
SPENDING THE FUNDS TO AQUOTE 
ALLOW FOR AN INTERAGENCY 
PROCESS TO  DETERMINE THE BEST 
USE. 
LET ME EXPLAIN THAT. 
THE FOOTNOTE STATED THAT THIS 
QUOTE BRIEF PAUSE WOULD NOT 
PREVENT DOD FROM SPENDING THE 
MONEY BY THE END OF THE FISCAL 
YEAR COMING UP ON 
SEPTEMBER 30th. 
OMB HAD TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT 
KNEW THAT NOT SPENDING THE 
MONEY WAS ILLEGAL AND THEY KNEW 
THAT DOD WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT 
THAT. 
AND THEY WERE RIGHT. 
DOD WAS WORRIED ABOUT IT. 
MR. SANDY TESTIFIED THAT IN HIS 
12 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AT OMB, 
HE COULD RECALL, HE CAN NOT 
RECALL ANYTHING LIKE THIS EVER 
HAPPENING BEFORE. 
THE DRAFTING OF THIS UNUSUAL 
FUNDING DOCUMENT AND ISSUANCE 
OF THE DOCUMENT MUST HAVE 
GENERATED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT 
OF E-MAIL TRAFFIC AND DOCUMENTS 
AT OMB. 
MEMOS, E-MAIL TRAFFIC, AND 
DOCUMENTATION THAT WE WOULD ALL 
SEE IF THE SENATE ISSUED A 
SUBPOENA. 
SO IT WAS THE RESULT FROM THE 
EVENTS ON JULY 25th? 
WHERE WAS MR. DUFFEY'S GUIDANCE 
TO IMPLEMENT THE HOLD COMING 
FROM? 
WHY WAS THE REQUEST SENSITIVE? 
WHAT WAS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN 
OMB'S DIRECTION TO THE DOD AND 
THE CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD 
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY JUST 90 
MINUTES BEFORE? 
DID AGENCY OFFICIALS 
COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE QUESTIONS 
COMING FROM UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS? 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE 
ANSWERS. 
A SUBPOENA WOULD PROVIDE THOSE 
ANSWERS. 
OMB DOCUMENTS ALSO WOULD REVEAL 
INFORMATION ABOUT THE DECISION 
TO HAVE A POLITICAL APPOINTEE 
TAKE OVER UKRAINE FUNDING 
RESPONSIBILITY. 
IS TENSIONS AND CHAOS 
SURROUNDING THE FREEZE 
ESCALATED AT THE END OF THE 
JULY WHEN DUFFEY, A POLITICAL 
APPOINTEE AT OMB WITH NO 
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE IN FUNDING 
APPROVALS TOOK AUTHORITY FOR 
RELEASING MILITARY AID TO 
UKRAINE AWAY FROM SANDY, A 
CAREER OMB OFFICIAL. 
SANDY COULD THINK OF NO OTHER 
EXPLANATION OF A POLITICAL, NO 
OTHER EXAMPLE OF A POLITICAL 
APPOINTEE TAKING ON THIS 
RESPONSIBILITY. 
SANDY WAS GIVEN 
CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS REMOVED 
FROM THE FUNDING APPROVAL 
PROCESS AFTER HE HAD RAISED 
CONCERNS TO DUFFEY ABOUT 
WHETHER THE HOLD WAS LEGAL 
UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL 
ACT. 
NEEDLESS TO SAY, OMB HAS 
REFUSED TO TURN OVER ANY 
DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS 
INVOLVING THAT DECISION TO 
REPLACE MR. SANDY. 
WHY DID DUFFEY, A POLITICAL 
APPOINTEE, WAS THE WHITE HOUSE 
INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION? 
WAS SANDY REMOVED BECAUSE HE 
HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT 
THE LEGALITY OF THE HOLD? 
BY AUGUST 7, PEOPLE IN OUR 
GOVERNMENT WERE WORRIED. 
AND WHEN PEOPLE IN THE 
GOVERNMENT GET WORRIED, 
SOMETIMES WHAT THEY DO IS THEY 
DRAFT MEMOS. 
BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE CONCERNED 
ABOUT GETTING CAUGHT UP IN 
SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SEEM 
RIGHT, THEY DON'T WANT TO BE A 
PART OF IT.
SO ON THAT DAY, MARK SANDY AND 
OTHER COLLEAGUES AT OMB DRAFTED 
AND SENT A MEMO ABOUT UKRAINE 
MILITARY AID TO ACTING DIRECTOR 
WROUGHT. 
ACCORDING TO SANDY, THE MEMO 
ADVOCATED FOR THE RELEASE OF 
THE FUNDS. 
IT SAID THAT THE MILITARY AID 
WAS CONSISTENT WITH AMERICAN 
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS. 
IT WOULD HELP TO OPPOSE RUSSIAN 
AGGRESSION, AND IT WAS BACKED 
BY STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. 
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT 
LIFT THE HOLD. 
OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS, 
OMB CONTINUED TO ISSUE FUNDING 
DOCUMENTS THAT KEPT KICKING THE 
CAN DOWN THE ROAD. 
SUPPOSEDLY TO ALLOW FOR MORE OF 
THIS INTERAGENCY PROCESS. 
INSERTING THOSE FOOTNOTES, 
THROUGHOUT THE APPORTIONMENT 
DOCUMENTS STATING THAT THE 
DELAY WOULDN'T AFFECT THE 
FUNDING, BUT HERE'S THE REALLY 
SHOCKING PART. 
THERE WAS NO INTERAGENCY 
PROCESS. 
THEY MADE IT UP. 
IT HAD ENDED MONTHS BEFORE. 
THEY MADE IT UP BECAUSE NOBODY 
COULD SAY THE REAL REASON FOR 
THE HOLD. 
IN TOTAL, OMB ISSUED NINE OF 
THESE DOCUMENTS BETWEEN JULY 25 
AND SEPTEMBER 10. 
DID THE WHITE HOUSE RESPOND TO 
OMB'S CONCERNS AND 
RECOMMENDATION TO RELEASE THE 
AID? 
DID THE WHITE HOUSE INSTRUCT 
OMB TO CONTINUE CREATING A 
PAPER TRAIL IN AN EFFORT TO 
JUSTIFY THE HOLD? 
WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN? 
OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHED LIGHT 
ON OMB'S ACTIONS AS THE 
PRESIDENT'S SCHEME UNRAVELED. 
DID THE WHITE HOUSE DIRECT OMB 
TO CONTINUE ISSUING THE HOLD?
WHAT WAS OMB TOLD ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S REASONS FOR 
RELEASING THE HOLD? 
WHAT COMMUNICATIONS DID OMB 
OFFICIALS HAVE WITH THE WHITE 
HOUSE AROUND THE TIME OF THE 
RELEASE? 
AS THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME 
UNRAVELED, DID ANYONE AT OMB 
CONNECT THE DOTS ABOUT THE REAL 
REASON FOR THE HOLD? 
THE OMB DOCUMENTS WOULD SHED 
LIGHT ON ALL OF THESE 
QUESTIONS, AND THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS. 
I REMEMBER WHAT IT FEELS LIKE 
TO NOT HAVE THE EQUIPMENT YOU 
NEED. 
WHEN YOU NEED IT. 
REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT 
STAKE. 
THAT'S WHY THIS MATTERS. 
WE NEED THIS INFORMATION SO WE 
CAN ENSURE THAT THIS NEVER 
HAPPENS AGAIN. 
EVENTUALLY THIS WILL ALL COME 
OUT. 
WE WILL HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE 
QUESTIONS, THE QUESTION NOW IS 
WHETHER WE WILL HAVE THEM IN 
TIME AND WHO HEAR WILL BE ON 
THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY.
>> MR. SEKULOW? 
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS RESERVE 
THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME FOR AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
MR. SEKULOW? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
MANAGER CROW, YOU SHOULD BE 
HAPPY TO KNOW THAT THE EGG THAT 
WAS PROVIDED TO UKRAINE OVER 
THE COURSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
ADMINISTRATION INCLUDED LETHAL 
WEAPONS. 
THOSE WERE NOT PROVIDED BY THE 
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. 
THE SUGGESTION THAT THE UKRAINE 
FAILED TO GET ANY EQUIPMENT IS 
FALSE. 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT 
FOR FUNDING UKRAINE OVER THE 
SUMMER OF 2019. 
THERE WAS NO LACK OF EQUIPMENT 
DUE TO THE TEMPORARY PAUSE. 
IT WAS FUTURE FUNDING. 
THE UKRAINE, THE DEPUTY 
MINISTER OF DEFENSE WHO OVERSAW 
USAID SHIPMENTS SAID THE HOLD 
CAME AND WENT SO QUICKLY, THEY 
DID NOT NOTICE ANY CHANGE. 
UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE DAVID 
HALE, EXPLAINED THE PAUSE DATE 
WAS FUTURE ASSISTANCE, NOT TO 
KEEP THE ARMY GOING NOW. 
SO THE MADE-UP NARRATIVE THAT 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS 
CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE TAKING 
SOME ACTION ON INVESTIGATIONS 
IS FURTHER DISPROVED BY THE 
STRAIGHTFORWARD FACT THAT THE 
AIDE WAS DELIVERED ON SEPTEMBER 
11, 2019, WITHOUT UKRAINE 
TAKING ANY ACTION ON ANY 
INVESTIGATION. 
IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT 
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 
WITHHELD $585 MILLION OF 
PROMISED AID TO EGYPT IN 2013 
BUT THE ADMINISTRATION'S PUBLIC 
MESSAGE WAS THAT THE MONEY WAS 
NOT OFFICIALLY ON HOLD, AS 
TECHNICALLY IT WAS NOT DUE 
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30. 
THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR. 
SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE 
THE HALT TO ANYONE. 
SOUNDS LIKE THIS MAY BE A 
PRACTICE OF A NUMBER OF 
ADMINISTRATIONS. 
IN FACT, TO THE PRESIDENT, THIS 
PRESIDENT, HAS BEEN CONCERNED 
ABOUT HOW AID IS BEING PUT 
FORWARD.
SO THERE HAVE BEEN PAUSES ON 
FOREIGN AID IN A VARIETY OF 
CONTEXTS. 
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019, THE 
ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED IT WAS 
WITHHOLDING OVER $100 MILLION 
IN AID TO AFGHANISTAN OVER 
CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT 
CORRUPTION. 
IN AUGUST OF 2019, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ANNOUNCED THAT THE 
ADMINISTRATION AND SEOUL WERE 
IN TALKS TO SUBSTANTIALLY 
INCREASE SOUTH KOREA'S SHARE OF 
THE EXPENSE OF U.S. MILITARY 
SUPPORT FOR SOUTH KOREA. 
IN JUNE, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAUGHT 
OR CUT OR PAUSED OVER $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 
HERSELF TESTIFIED THAT OUR 
POLICY ACTUALLY GOT STRONGER 
UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
LARGELY BECAUSE UNLIKE THE 
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, QUOTE, 
THIS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE 
DECISION TO PROVIDE LETHAL 
WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. 
TO HELP UKRAINE FEND OFF 
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. 
SHE TESTIFIED IN A DEPOSITION 
BEFORE YOUR VARIOUS COMMITTEES 
THAT IT ACTUALLY FELT THAT IN 
THE THREE YEARS THAT I WAS 
THERE, PARTLY BECAUSE OF MY 
EFFORTS, BUT ALSO THE 
INTERAGENCY TEAM AND PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S DECISION TO PROVIDE 
LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE THAT 
OUR POLICY ACTUALLY GOT 
STRONGER.
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT 
WHOSE NAME HAS COME UP A COUPLE 
TIMES AGREED THAT JAVELINS ARE 
INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE WEAPONS AT 
STOPPING ARMORED ADVANCE, AND 
THE RUSSIANS ARE SCARED THEM. 
AMBASSADOR VOELKER EXPLAINED 
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROVED 
EACH OF THE DECISIONS MADE 
ALONG THE WAY AND AS A RESULT, 
AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE 
STRENGTHENED. 
WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT FACTS, GO 
TO YOUR OWN DISCOVERY AND YOUR 
OWN WITNESSES THAT YOU CALLED. 
THIS ALL SUPPOSEDLY STARTED 
BECAUSE OF A WHISTLEBLOWER. 
WHERE IS THAT WHISTLEBLOWER?
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE 35 
MINUTES REMAINING. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AT WAR, 
TIME MATTERS. 
MINUTES AND HOURS CAN SEEM LIKE 
YEARS. 
SO THE IDEA THAT WELL, IT MADE 
IT THERE EVENTUALLY, JUST 
DOESN'T  WORK. 
AND YES, THE AIDE WAS PROVIDED. 
IT WAS PROVIDED BY CONGRESS. 
THIS SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WITH THE 
PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE, THE 
CONGRESS IS THE ONE THAT SENDS 
THE AIDE. 
AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF THIS 
AID WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST 
BECAUSE OF THE DELAY HAD 
CONGRESS NOT ACTUALLY PASSED 
ANOTHER LAW THAT EXTENDED THAT 
DEADLINE TO ALLOW THE FUNDS TO 
BE SPENT. 
LET ME REPEAT THAT. 
THE DELAY HAD JEOPARDIZED THE 
EXPENDITURE OF THE MONEY TO 
SUCH AN EXTENT THAT CONGRESS 
HAD TO PASS ANOTHER LAW TO 
EXTEND THE DEADLINE SO THAT THE 
MONEY AND THE EQUIPMENT GOT TO 
THE PEOPLE ON THE FRONT LINES. 
NEED I ALSO REITERATE, THE 
SUPPOSED INTERAGENCY PROCESS? 
THE CONCERNS THAT THE PRESIDENT 
AND HIS COUNSEL CONTINUE TO 
RAISE ABOUT CORRUPTION AND 
MAKING SURE THAT THE PROCESS 
WENT RIGHT, THERE WAS NO 
INTERAGENCY PROCESS. 
THE WHOLE THING WAS MADE UP. 
IT WAS A PHANTOM. 
THERE WAS A DELAY. 
AND DELAYS MATTER. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I RESERVE 
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME FOR MR. 
SCHIFF. 
>> MR. SCHIFF? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
JUST A FEW ADDITIONAL POINTS 
I'D LIKE TO MAKE ON THIS 
AMENDMENT AND ON MY COLLEAGUES' 
ARGUMENTS. 
FIRST OF ALL, MR. SEKULOW MAKES 
THE POINT THAT THE AIDE 
ULTIMATELY GOT RELEASED. 
THEY ULTIMATELY GOT THE MONEY. 
RIGHT? 
ES. 
THEY GOT THE MONEY AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT. 
AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED 
TO RELIEVE THE HOLD ON THE 
AIDE. 
AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT, YES. 
BUT EVEN THEN, EVEN THEN THEY 
HAD HELD ONTO THE AIDE SO LONG 
THAT IT TOOK A SUBSEQUENT ACT 
OF CONGRESS TO MAKE SURE IT 
COULD ALL GO OUT THE DOOR. 
SO WHAT, IS THE PRESIDENT 
úSUPPOSED TO GET CREDIT FOR 
THAT, THAT WE HAD TO INTERVENE 
BECAUSE HE WITHHELD THE AIDE SO 
LONG AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON 
UKRAINE GOT ALL OF THE AIDE 
THAT WE HAD APPROVED IN THE 
FIRST PLACE? 
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE GLOSSED OVER 
THE FACT THAT WHAT THEY DID WAS 
ILLEGAL. 
THAT THE GAO AND INDEPENDENT 
WATCHDOG AGENCY FOUND THAT THAT 
HOLD WAS ILLEGAL. 
SO IT'S NOT ONLY VIOLATED THE 
LAW, IT NOT ONLY TOOK AN ACT OF 
CONGRESS TO MAKE SURE THEY 
ULTIMATELY GOT THE AIDE, THIS 
IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE DEFENSE 
TO WHY YOU SHOULDN'T SEE THE 
DOCUMENTS? 
IS THAT WHAT WE ARE TO BELIEVE? 
COUNSEL ALSO SAYS, HE'S NOT THE 
FIRST PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD 
AID. 
AND THAT'S TRUE. 
AFTER ALL, COUNSEL SAYS, 
PRESIDENT OBAMA WITHHELD AID TO 
EGYPT. 
YES. 
AT THE URGING OF MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS.
SENATORS McCAIN AND GRAHAM URGE 
THAT THAT AIDE BE WITHHELD AND 
WHY? 
BECAUSE THERE WAS A REVOLUTION 
IN EGYPT AFTER IT WAS 
APPROPRIATED.
THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS 
HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS. 
THAT WAS A PRETTY DARN GOOD 
REASON TO THINK DO WE STILL 
WANT TO GIVE AID TO THIS 
GOVERNMENT AFTER THIS 
REVOLUTION? 
WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT AIDE HAS 
NEVER BEEN WITHHELD. 
THAT'S ABSURD. 
BUT I WOULD HOPE AND EXPECT 
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME AIDE HAS 
BEEN WITHHELD BY A PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES TO COERCE AND 
ALLY AT WAR TO HELP HIM SHEET 
IN THE NEXT ELECTION. 
I THINK THAT'S A FIRST. 
BUT WHAT WE DO HERE MAY 
DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S THE 
LAST. 
AND ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS 
PAUSE IN AID. 
RIGHT? 
THE ARGUMENT, NO HARM, NO FOUL. 
OKAY, YOU GOT CAUGHT, THEY GOT 
THE AID, WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? 
WELL, AS WE HEARD DURING THE 
TRIAL IT'S NOT JUST THE AID. 
I MEAN, THE AID IS OBVIOUSLY 
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. 
AS MR. CROW MENTIONED, WITHOUT 
IT YOU CAN'T DEFEND YOURSELF 
AND WE'LL HAVE TESTIMONY ABOUT 
JUST WHAT KIND OF MILITARY AID 
THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING. 
BUT WE ALSO HAD TESTIMONY THAT 
IT WAS THE FACT OF THE AID 
ITSELF THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO 
UKRAINE. 
THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES 
HAD UKRAINE'S BACK. 
AND WHY? 
BECAUSE THIS NEW PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE, THIS NEW UNTESTED 
FORMER COMEDIAN, PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE, AT WAR WITH RUSSIA, 
WAS GOING TO BE GOING INTO A 
NEGOTIATION WITH VLADIMIR 
PUTIN. 
WITH AN EYE TO ENDING THAT  
CONFLICT. 
AND WHETHER HE WENT INTO THAT 
NEGOTIATION FROM A POSITION OF 
STRENGTH OR A POSITION OF 
WEAKNESS WOULD DEPEND ON 
WHETHER WE HAD HIS BACK. 
AND SO WHEN THE UKRAINIANS 
LEARNED AND THE RUSSIANS 
LEARNED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT HAVE 
HIS BACK, WAS WITHHOLDING THIS 
AID, WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK 
THAT SENT TO VLADIMIR PUTIN? 
WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK IT 
SENT TO VLADIMIR PUTIN WHEN 
DONALD TRUMP WOULDN'T LET 
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY OUR ALLY IN 
THE DOOR AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT 
WOULD LET 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 
OF THE AID IS DELIVERED, IT'S 
ALSO WHAT MESSAGE DOES THE 
FREEZE SEND TO OUR FRIEND AND 
EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY TO OUR 
FOE? 
AND THE MESSAGE IT SENT WAS A 
DISASTER. 
IT WAS A DISASTER. 
NOW, YOU MIGHT ASK YOURSELF, 
BECAUSE COUNSEL HAS SAID 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GIVEN 
LETHAL WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. 
YOU MIGHT ASK YOURSELF, IF THE 
PRESIDENT WAS SO CONCERNED 
ABOUT CORRUPTION, WHY DID HE DO 
THAT IN 2017 AND WHY DID HE DO 
THAT IN 2018? 
WHY WAS IT ONLY 2019 THAT THERE 
WAS A PROBLEM? 
WAS THERE NO CORRUPTION UKRAINE 
IN 2017? 
WAS THERE NO CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE IN 2018? 
NO. 
UKRAINE HAS ALWAYS BATTLED 
CORRUPTION. 
IT WASN'T THE PRESIDENT, LACK 
OF CORRUPTION IN ONE YEAR TO 
ANOTHER. 
IT WAS THE PRESENCE OF JOE 
BIDEN AS A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE 
FOR  PRESIDENT. 
THAT WAS THE KEY CHANGE IN 
2019. 
THAT MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE. 
IT GETS BACK TO ONE OF THE KEY 
MOMENTS IN THIS SAGA. 
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF YOU ARE 
ATTORNEYS, YOU'RE PROBABLY MUCH 
BETTER ATTORNEYS THAN I AM AND 
I'M SURE YOU HAD THE EXPERIENCE 
IN CASES YOU TRIED WHERE THERE 
WAS SOME VIGNETTE, SOME 
CONVERSATION, SOME DOCUMENT 
THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE MOST 
IMPORTANT ON ITS FACE, BUT IT 
TOLD YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE 
CASE. 
THAT WAS MUCH LARGER 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 VERY NEXT DAY. 
NOW, YOU MAY HAVE WATCHED SOME 
OF THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS OR YOU 
MAY HAVE AND PEOPLE MAY HAVE 
SEEN IT, MAYBE THEY DIDN'T. 
BUT THERE'S THE SCENE IN A 
UKRAINIAN RESTAURANT IN KIEV 
WITH GORDON SONDLAND, BEAR IN 
MIND GORDON SONDLAND WHO SAID 
THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY A QUID PRO 
QUO, WHEN TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS 
FOUR THIS IS NOT SOME NEVER-
TRUMPER. 
THIS IS A MILLION-DOLLAR DONOR 
TO THE TRUMP INAUGURATION. 
OKAY? 
IF THERE'S A BIAS THERE IT'S 
CLEARLY A MILLION-DOLLAR BIAS 
IN FAVOR OF THIS PRESIDENT NOT 
AGAINST HIM. 
SO THERE IS A SCENE IN KIEV IN 
THIS RESTAURANT, AND SONDLAND 
HAS A CELL PHONE AND HE'S 
SITTING WITH DAVID HOLMES WHO 
IS A CAREER DIPLOMAT. 
U.S. DIPLOMAT IN THE UKRAINE 
EMBASSY.
AND GORDON SONDLAND TAKES OUT 
HIS PHONE AND HE CALLS THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING FOR THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
GORDON SONDLAND HOLDING FOR THE 
PRESIDENT. 
AND IT TAKES A WHILE TO BE 
CONNECTED BUT HE'S CONNECTED TO 
THE PRESIDENT. 
THAT'S PRETTY IMPRESSIVE. 
THIS ISN'T SOME GUY WITH NO 
RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESIDENT. 
THE PRESIDENT MAY SAY GORDON 
SONDLAND I BARINEAU HIM OR 
SOMETHING TO THAT 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 KIEV AND 
HE DOES. 
AND THE PRESIDENT IS SO LOUD 
THAT DAVID HOLMES THIS DIPLOMAT 
CAN HEAR IT. 
AND WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT 
SAY? 
DOES HE SAY, HOW IS THAT REFORM 
COMING IN THE RODMAN? 
HOW IS THE ATTACK ON CORRUPTION 
GOING? 
NO. 
HE JUST SAYS, IS HE GOING TO DO 
THE INVESTIGATION? 
IS ZELENSKY GOING TO DO THE 
INVESTIGATION? 
AND SONDLAND SAYS, YES. 
HE WILL DO ANYTHING YOU WANT. 
HE LOVES YOUR -- AND THEY GO ON 
TO TALK ABOUT OTHER THINGS AND 
THEN THEY HANG UP. 
AND DAVID HOLMES TURNS TO THE 
AMBASSADOR AND SAYS, IN 
LANGUAGE WHICH I WILL HAVE TO 
MODIFY. 
TO REMOVE AN EXPLETIVE. 
SAYS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES 
OF, DOES THE PRESIDENT GIVE A 
BLANK ABOUT UKRAINE? 
AND SONDLAND SAYS NO. 
HE DOESN'T GIVE A BLANK ABOUT 
UKRAINE. 
HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG 
STUFF. 
LIKE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE 
BIDENS THAT GIULIANI WANTS. 
THIS IS A MILLION-DOLLAR DONOR 
TO THE TRUMP INAUGURATION 
ADMITTING THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T 
CARE ABOUT UKRAINE. 
HE DOESN'T CARE WHETHER THEY 
GET MILITARY DOLLARS TO DEFEND 
THEMSELVES, HE DOESN'T CARE 
ABOUT WHAT POSITION ZELENSKY 
GOES INTO IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS 
WITH PUTIN. 
HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THAT. 
ISN'T THAT CLEAR? 
IT'S WHY HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT 
CORRUPTION IN 2017 OR 2018 AND 
HE CERTAINLY DIDN'T CARE ABOUT 
IT IN 2019. 
ALL HE CARED ABOUT WAS THE BIG 
STUFF THAT AFFECTED HIM 
PERSONALLY. 
LIKE THIS INVESTIGATION THAT HE 
WANTED OF 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 FULLY 
EXPECT THEY WILL THAT THE ONLY 
THING HE CARED ABOUT WAS THE 
BIG STUFF THAT AFFECTED HIM? 
DAVID HOLMES' RESPONSE WAS, YOU 
KNOW, THERE'S SOME BIG STUFF 
GOING ON HERE LIKE A WAR WITH 
RUSSIA. 
THIS ISN'T WITHHOLDING AID 
BECAUSE OF A REVOLUTION IN 
EGYPT. 
THIS IS WITHHOLDING AID FROM A 
COUNTRY IN WHICH 15,000 PEOPLE 
HAVE DIED FIGHTING THE 
RUSSIANS. 
AND AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID 
AND OTHERS, YOU KNOW, RUSSIA IS 
FIGHTING TO REMAKE THE MAP OF 
EUROPE BY DINT OF MILITARY 
FORCE. 
WE THINK THAT'S JUST ABOUT 
UKRAINE'S SECURITY. 
WE ARE VERY DECEIVED. 
IT'S ABOUT OUR SECURITY. 
IT'S ABOUT THE TENS OF 
THOUSANDS OF TROOPS THAT WE 
HAVE IN EUROPE. 
AND IF WE UNDERCUT OUR OWN 
ALLY, IF WE GIVE RUSSIA REASON 
TO BELIEVE WE WILL HAVE THEIR 
BACK, THAT WILL USE UKRAINE AS 
A PLAYTHING OR WORSE, TO GET 
THEM TO HELP US CHEAT IN AN 
ELECTION, THAT WILL ONLY 
EMBOLDEN PUTIN TO DO MORE. YOU 
SAID IT AS OFTEN AS I HAVE, THE 
ONLY THING HE RESPECTS IS 
STRENGTH. 
DO YOU THINK THAT LOOKS LIKE 
STRENGTH TO VLADIMIR PUTIN? 
I THINK THAT LOOKS LIKE 
SOMETHING THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN 
IS ONLY TOO ACCUSTOMED TO AND 
HAT IS THE KIND OF CORR 
THAT HE FINDS AND HE 
PERPETUATES THROUGH HIS OWN 
REGIME AND HE PUSHES ALL AROUND 
THE WORLD. 
MY COLLEAGUE VAL DEMINGS MADE 
REFERENCE TO A CONVERSATION 
WHICH I THINK IS ONE OF THE 
OTHER KEY VIGNETTES IN THIS 
WHOLE SAD SAGA. 
AND THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT 
AMBASSADOR VOELKER HAS WITH 
ANDRIY YERMAK, ONE OF THE TOP 
AIDES TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY. 
AND THIS IS A CONVERSATION IN 
WHICH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, SORRY, 
AMBASSADOR VOELKER IS DOING 
WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. 
WHICH IS HE IS TELLING YERMAK, 
YOU GUYS SHOULDN'T REALLY DO 
THIS INVESTIGATION OF YOUR 
FORMER PRESIDENT POROSHENKO. 
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FOR A 
POLITICAL REASON. 
YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T ENGAGE IN 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. 
AND AS REPRESENTATIVE DEMINGS 
SAID, WHAT'S THE RESPONSE OF 
UKRAINE? 
OH, YOU MEAN LIKE THE ONE YOU 
WANT US TO DO OF THE BIDENS AND 
THE CLINTONS? 
THROUGH IT RIGHT BACK IN HIS 
FACE. 
UKRAINE'S NOT OBLIVIOUS TO THAT 
HYPOCRISY. 
MR. SEKULOW SAYS WHAT ARE WE 
HERE FOR?
PART OF OUR STRENGTH IS NOT 
ONLY OUR SUPPORT FOR OUR 
ALLIES, NOT ONLY OUR MILITARY 
MIGHT IT'S WHAT WE STAND FOR. 
WE USED IT TO STAND FOR THE 
RULE OF LAW. 
WE USED TO CHAMPION THE RULE OF 
LAW AROUND THE WORLD. 
PART OF THE RULE OF LAW IS OF 
COURSE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE 
LAW. 
BUT TO BE OUT IN UKRAINE OR 
ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD 
CHAMPION NIANG THE RULE OF LAW 
AND SAYING DON'T ENGAGE IN 
POLITICAL PROSECUTIONS AND 
HAVING THEM THROW IT RIGHT BACK 
IN OUR FACE, YOU MEAN LIKE THE 
ONE YOU WANT US TO DO? 
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. 
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. 
THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I SEND A MOTION TO THE DESK 
TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT AND I 
ASK THAT YEAS AND NAYS. 
>> IS THERE A SUFFICIENT 
SECOND? 
THERE IS. 
THE CLERK WILL CONDUCT OR CALL 
THE ROLL. 
>> MR. ALEXANDER? 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. BALDWIN? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BRAZEAU? 
>> AYE MR. BENNETT? 
>> MRS. BLACKBURN? 
MR. BLUMENTHAL? 
MR. BLUNT? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. BOOKER? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. BOZEMAN? 
MR. BRAUN? 
MR. BROWN? 
MR. BURR? 
MS. CANTWELL? 
MRS. CAPTEL? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. CARDIN? 
MR. CARPER? 
MR. CASEY? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. CASSIDY? 
>> AYE. 
>> MS. COLLINS? 
MR. KUNZ? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. CORN AND? 
>> NO. 
>> MS. CORTEZ MASTO? 
MR. COTTON? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. KRAMER? 
MR. CRAPO? 
MR. CRUZ MR. DAINES? 
>> HEIGHT. 
>> MS. DUCKWORTH? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. DURBIN?
MS. ERNST? 
MRS. FEINSTEIN? 
>> NO. 
>> THIS IS FISHER? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. GARDNER? 
>> AYE 
>> THIS IS GILLIBRAND? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. GRAHAM? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. GRASSLEY? 
MS. HARRIS? 
>> NO. 
>> MS. HASSAN? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. HOLLY? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. HEINRICH? 
MS. HIRONO? 
MR. HOVEN? 
MRS. HYDE-SMITH? 
>> AYE. 
>> ESTHER INHOFE? 
MR. JOHNSON? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. JONES? 
MR. KANE? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. KENNEDY? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. KING? 
>> NO. 
>> MS. KLOBUCHAR? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. LANGFORD? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. LEAHY? 
MR. LEE? 
MRS. LEFFLER? 
MR. MANSION? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. MARKEY? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. McCONNELL? 
MS. McSALLY? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. MENDEZ? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. MERKLEY? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. MORAN? 
MS. MURKOWSKI?
MR. MURPHY? 
MRS. MURRAY?
MR. PAUL? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. PURDUE? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. PETERS? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. PORTLAND FLEA MR. REED? 
MR. RAICHE? 
>> HEIGHT. 
>> MR. ROBERTS? 
>> MR. ROMNEY? 
MS. ROSEN? 
MR. ROUNDS? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. RUBIO? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SANDERS? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SASS? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SHOTS? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. SCHUMER? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA? 
MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA? 
MRS. SHAHEEN? 
MR. SHELBY? 
MRS. CINEMA? 
>> NO. 
>> THIS IS SMITH? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. SULLIVAN? 
>> AYE. 
>> MR. TESTER? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. THUNE? 
>> AYE MR. TELLIS? 
MR. TOOMEY? 
MR. UDALL? 
MR. VAN HOLLEN? 
MR. WARNER? 
MS. WARREN? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. WHITE HOUSE? 
MR. WICKER? 
MR. WYDEN? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. YOUNG? 
>> AYE.
>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT AN 
AMENDMENT TO THE DESK TO ISSUE 
A SUBPOENA TO JOHN MICHAEL, 
MICK MULVANEY. 
AND I ASK THAT IT BE READ. 
>> THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 
MR. SCHUMER POSES AN AMENDMENT, 
NUMBER 1287, AT THE APPROPRIATE 
PLACE IN THE RESOLVING CLAUSE 
INSERT THE FOLLOWING. 
SECTION NOTWITHSTANDING ANY 
OTHER PROVISION OF THIS 
RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO RULES 
FIVE AND SIX OF THE RULES OF 
PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE 
SENATE, WHEN SITTING ON 
IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES 
THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE 
SENATE SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA 
FOR THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY OF 
JOHN MICHAEL MICK MULVANEY, AND 
THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS IS 
AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE THE 
SERVICES OF THE DEPUTY SERGEANT-
AT-ARMS, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE 
OF THE SENATE IN SERVING THE 
SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED TO BE 
ISSUED BY THE SECTION. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE? 
>> MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I ASK FOR A 30-MINUTE RECESS 
BEFORE THE PARTIES ARE 
RECOGNIZED TO DEBATE THE 
SCHUMER AMENDMENT. 
FOLLOWING THE DEBATE TIME I 
WILL ONCE AGAIN MOVE TO BECAUSE 
VOTE ON WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE 
AS I'VE REPEATEDLY SAID ARE 
ADDRESSED IN THE UNDERLYING 
RESOLUTION. 
SO I ASK THAT THE SENATE STAND 
IN RECESS UNTIL 8:00 P.M. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.
>>> THE SENATE IS NOW TAKING A 
30-MINUTE DINNER BREAK IN THE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
AFTER VOTING TO TABLE THREE 
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY 
SENATOR SCHUMER TO SUBPOENA 
DOCUMENTS. 
ARGUING THE CASE FOR A SUBPOENA 
FROM THE OFFICE OF BUDGET MEANT 
AND MANAGEMENT WAS IMPEACHMENT 
MANAGER JASON CROW OF COLORADO. 
THE FRESHMAN SENATOR ARGUING 
THE OMB HAS KEY DOCUMENTS 
SHOWING EXACTLY HOW AND WHY THE 
PRESIDENT WITHHELD MILITARY AID 
FROM UKRAINE. 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL JAY SEKULOW 
THEN COUNTERED BY SAYING THE 
AID WAS DELIVERED WITHOUT 
UKRAINE TAKING ANY ACTION AT 
ALL SO, NO WRONGDOING. 
ADAM SCHIFF THEN ARGUED YES, 
BUT THE AID WAS ONLY RELEASED 
AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS CAUGHT 
IN HIS MISDEED. 
WE ALSO HEARD EARLIER FROM 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGER VAL 
DEMINGS, SECOND TERM SENATOR, 
SORRY, CONGRESSWOMAN VAL 
DEMINGS, SECOND TERM MEMBER 
FROM FLORIDA. 
WHO DISCUSSED THE SIGNIFICANCE 
OF THE LEV PARNAS TEXT MESSAGES 
WHICH HAVE RECENTLY COME TO 
LIGHT. 
AS WELL AS PARNAS' INTERVIEW ON 
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW. 
ALL RIGHT. 
SO KIM WHALEY AND MOLLY HOOPER 
JOINED ME NOW. 
CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST AND LAW 
PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF 
BALTIMORE, MOLLY IS A CBSN 
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR AND 
VETERAN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER. 
WELCOME TO BOTH OF YOU. 
KIM, LET ME START WITH YOU, ARE 
DEMOCRATS SUCCEEDING IN GETTING 
SOME OF THE NEW EVIDENCE THEY 
WANT INCLUDED IN THIS TRIAL BY 
SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT IT AS THEY 
ARGUE FOR THESE SUBPOENAS? 
>> WELL, IT'S ALREADY OUT IN 
THE PUBLIC SECTOR. 
SO TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY 
ARE REPEATING NEWS REPORTS AND 
HIGHLIGHTING HOW IMPORTANT IT 
IS, ARGUABLY YES. 
IT'S HARD TO UNTHINKABLY WHEN 
SOMEONE SAYS THE COLOR BLUE. 
THAT'S HOW OUR BRAINS WORK. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE NOTION 
THAT THIS INFORMATION SHOULD 
NOT BE BROUGHT TO BEAR IN A 
FORMAL WAY TO THIS TRIAL IS 
REALLY INDEFENSIBLE AS A MATTER 
OF JUST LOGIC.
THIS IS A REALLY GRAVE, 
IMPORTANT MOMENT IN AMERICAN 
HISTORY, ONE THAT SHOULDN'T BE 
MADE WITH HALF-BAKED INCOMPLETE 
INFORMATION. 
THERE'S NOT REALLY AN ARGUMENT 
THAT THIS IS NOT RELEVANT, THE 
KINDS OF THINGS YOU'D HEAR IN A 
COURTROOM TO KEEP EVIDENCE OUT 
IF IT IS JUST NOT PERTINENT OR 
BEARING ON THE ISSUE. 
IT COULD BE CONFUSING. 
WE ARE NOT HEARING THOSE 
ARGUMENTS. 
THIS REALLY IS AN ATTEMPT TO 
SORT OF BASICALLY KEEP 
INFORMATION FROM THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE, THAT COULD UNDERMINE 
THE REPUBLICANS DECISION THIS 
PRESIDENT IN OFFICE WHICH 
POLITICALLY THAT'S FINE BUT THE 
ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH WHAT ARE 
WE TALKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT 
TO A PRESIDENCY GOING FORWARD? 
WE ARE NOW SEEING IN REAL TIME 
THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF BEING 
BASICALLY AMENDED TO ALLOW THIS 
KIND OF BEHAVIOR GOING FORWARD 
FOR ANY PRESIDENT AND IT'S 
REALLY IN A WAY CHILLING TO 
WATCH THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE 
SUPREME COURT PASSIVELY PRESIDE 
OVER A TRIAL THAT BY ALL 
ACCOUNTS IS NOT REALLY A TRIAL, 
BUT AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT AS 
DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE TO GET 
ALL THE FACTS OUT INTO THE 
RECORD. 
>> WHEN YOU SAY CHILLING, WHAT 
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE CHIEF 
JUSTICE BE DOING INSTEAD? 
>> WELL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DOES 
HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE 
RULES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE 
SINCE ANDREW JOHNSON IN THE 
18th CENTURY, TO ACTUALLY RULE 
ON RELEVANCE SO HE COULD, 
THERE'S NOTHING FORBIDDING HIM 
FROM TAKING A MORE ACTIVE ROLE 
IN DECIDING AFFIRMATIVELY HOW 
THIS TRIAL WILL GO AND I THINK 
SOME OF US WERE WONDERING IF HE 
WOULD DO THAT SORT OF IN THE 
SPIRIT OF EXERTING THE 
INDEPENDENCE AND LEGITIMACY OF 
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 
AS THE THIRD BRANCH OF 
GOVERNMENT. 
WHICH FRANKLY THE DEMOCRATS 
COULD HAVE BROUGHT INTO, 
BROUGHT TO BEAR IN THE HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS. 
WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT. 
I AGREE WITH THAT CRITICISM. 
HOWEVER, IN THIS MOMENT THE 
ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER 
AMERICANS ARE GOING TO SEE THE 
FULL PANEL PLEAD THE FACTS AND 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE THAT APPEARS 
SO FAR TO HAVE TAKEN A PAGE 
FROM CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S 
PLAYBOOK IN THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT WHERE HIS ROLE IS 
REALLY MINISTERIAL. 
HE IS REALLY A FIGUREHEAD THAT 
SITS THERE AND READS THE NOTES 
THAT ARE PUT BEFORE HIM AND IS 
HANDING OFF THE AUTHORITY 
COMPLETELY TO THE SENATE IN 
THIS MOMENT. 
THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE A 
MAJORITY WHEN I THINK ARGUABLY 
AT THE TIME IMPEACHMENT WAS 
INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION, 
THE FRAMERS DIDN'T ANTICIPATE 
IT TO BE THIS KIND OF PARTISAN 
FIGHT. 
REALLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A 
LEGITIMATE TRIAL BECAUSE 
REMEMBER AT THE TIME, THE 
CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED, 
THERE WAS NOT A REPUBLICAN 
PARTY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 
THAT'S CERTAINLY A MORE MODERN 
INVENTION. 
AND I THINK IN THIS MOMENT MORE 
PARTISAN THAN WE'VE SEEN IN A 
LONG TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY. 
>> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE IS SHOWING NO 
INDICATION HE IS GOING TO 
ASSERT HIMSELF IN THIS TRIAL. 
JEFF MASON JOINS US NOW, JEFF 
IS A WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT 
FOR REUTERS. 
DO WE KNOW HOW THE WHITE HOUSE 
IS FEELING ABOUT TODAY'S 
PROCEEDINGS? 
>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
PART OF MY ANSWER TO THAT WILL 
BE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT 
HERE. 
THE PRESIDENT OF COURSE IS IN 
DAVOS, SWITZERLAND, WHERE HE'S 
BEEN ATTENDING THE WORLD 
ECONOMIC FORUM. 
HE'S BEEN UNCHARACTERISTICALLY 
QUIET ON TWITTER SO WE OFTEN 
HAVE A WINDOW DON'T RIGHT NOW 
BECAUSE HE HASN'T REALLY 
WEIGHED IN. 
THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF, PEOPLE 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF HAVE 
BEEN LISTENING, AND WATCHING 
BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU A GOOD 
SENSE OF WHETHER THEY FEEL LIKE 
THE DAY HAS GONE WELL OR IF THE 
DAY HAS NOT GONE WELL. 
SO FAR I THINK THE STRATEGY 
THEY HAVE ARTICULATED THAT THEY 
WANTED TO EMPLOY IS EXACTLY 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS 
HAVE BEEN DOING AND SO I 
SUSPECT THEY ARE FEELING GOOD 
ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE GOING SO 
FAR. 
>> MOLLY, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
HOW THINGS ARE GOING BECAUSE IT 
SEEMS EVERY TIME A RESOLUTION 
COMES UP TO SUBPOENA A DOCUMENT 
FROM A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THE 
VOTE IS NOT BUDGING. 
>> AND IT WON'T BUDGE BECAUSE 
REPUBLICANS HAD SAID EVEN, THE 
REPUBLICAN MODERATES THAT 
EVERYBODY ZOOMING IN ON, HAVE 
SAID LISTEN, WE ARE NOT GOING 
TO VOTE TO HAVE THESE WITNESSES 
RIGHT NOW. 
WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE TO 
SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS. 
WE WANT TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF 
THE CASE. 
WE WILL VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION 
THAT MITCH McCONNELL HAS PUT 
FORWARD AND HAS BEEN REVISED 
SINCE HE INTRODUCED IT LAST 
NIGHT BUT ULTIMATELY THAT GIVES 
BOTH SIDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR AND 
AGAINST WITNESSES AT THE END 
AFTER THE SENATORS HAVE 
SUBMITTED THEIR QUESTIONS, 16 
HOURS' WORTH. 
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE STICKING 
TO. 
>> SINCE DEMOCRATS KNOW THAT, 
WHAT IS THEIR STRATEGY OF GOING 
THROUGH EACH SEPARATE SUBPOENA 
THIS WAY? 
>> IT'S ALMOST LIKE PROCEDURAL 
FILIBUSTER PARLIAMENTARY úFILIB 
AGE. 
WHICH IS ACTUALLY KIND OF 
INTERESTING TO WATCH UNFOLD 
BECAUSE I'VE COVERED CAPITOL 
HILL A LONG TIME AND HONESTLY 
-- 
>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT. 
TED CRUZ IS SPEAKING. 
>> WE'VE SEEN THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS AND SENATE DEMOCRATS 
MAKING REDUNDANT MOTIONS OVER 
AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THE 
SAME MOTIONS. 
MOTIONS THAT ARE BEING 
REJECTED. 
AND FUNDAMENTALLY, IT IS CLEAR 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS VIEW THIS AS AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THEIR 
PARTISAN ATTACKS ON THE 
PRESIDENT, INSTEAD OF FOCUSING 
ON THE PRIORITIES OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
THE SENATE AT THE END OF THE 
DAY WILL GO FORWARD ON AND 
ORGANIZING RESOLUTION THAT IS 
VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE 
RESOLUTION THAT BEGAN THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
IT IS COPIED ALMOST WORD FOR 
WORD FROM THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
ACCEPT IN THAT INSTANCE, THE 
ORGANIZING RESOLUTION WAS 
BIPARTISAN. 
IT WAS 100-0. EVERY REPUBLICAN, 
EVERY DEMOCRAT AGREED. 
IN THIS INSTANCE, SENATE 
DEMOCRATS ARE OBJECTING TO THE 
VERY REASONABLE PROPOSAL THAT 
WAS DONE DURING THE CLINTON 
TRIAL, OF STARTING WITH OPENING 
ARGUMENTS, THEN HAVING 
ARGUMENTS, QUESTIONS FROM THE 
SENATORS, AND THEN HAVING THE 
SENATE CHOOSE WHETHER 
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES ARE 
NECESSARY. 
WE'VE SEEN ONE MOTION AFTER THE 
OTHER AFTER THE OTHER. 
THEY'VE BEEN REDUNDANT, THEY'VE 
BEEN MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENTS. 
THIS SEEMS TO BE A TIME FOR 
ADAM SCHIFF AND THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS TO LECTURE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO ATTACK 
THE PRESIDENT BUT THERE'S AN 
OLD SAYING THAT IF YOU HAVE THE 
FACTS, YOU BANG THE FACTS. 
IF YOU HAVE THE LAW, YOU BANGED 
THE LAW. 
IF YOU DON'T HAVE EITHER, YOU 
BANGED THE TABLE. 
THIS AFTERNOON WE'VE SEEN A 
WHOLE LOT OF TABLE BANGING AND 
TODAY IN THE SAME SPOT WE WERE 
IN WHEN WE BEGAN THE DAY.
WHICH IS THE HOUSE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT WERE PASSED ON 
A PARTISAN BASIS, THEY DON'T 
MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL 
STANDARD AND THAT'S WHY THE END 
OF THIS PROCESS AFTER A FAIR 
PROCEEDING, AFTER HEARING THE 
ARGUMENTS OF THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, AFTER HEARING THE 
ARGUMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT, THE 
END OF THIS PROCEEDING IS GOING 
TO BE AN ACQUITTAL BECAUSE THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS STILL CAN'T MEET 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD. 
>> THERE WERE SOME CHANGES MADE 
TO THE INITIAL McCONNELL 
RESOLUTION BASED ON CONCERNS 
FROM SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES. 
ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THERE 
MIGHT NOT BE UNITY AS YOU GET 
TO THE WITNESSES? 
>> NO. 
I ACTUALLY DON'T AT ALL. 
FOR EXAMPLE ONE OF THE ELEMENTS 
OF THE ORIGINAL ORGANIZING 
RESOLUTIONS FOR THE CLINTON 
TRIAL WAS EACH SIDE WOULD HAVE 
24 HOURS.
THE RESOLUTION THAT WE ARE 
GOING TO VOTE ON LATER TONIGHT 
PROVIDES EACH SIDE HAS 24 HOURS 
FOR THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS. 
THIS PARTICULAR VERSION SAID 
THOSE 24 HOURS WOULD BE OVER 
TWO DAYS. 
AND SO WE SAW DEMOCRATS 
LIGHTING THEIR HAIR ON FIRE 
THAT THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS 
EFFORT, A COVER-UP, TO HAVE 24 
HOURS OF ARGUMENTS OVER TWO 
DAYS. 
GOD HELP US IF WE HAVE TO 
LISTEN TO ADAM SCHIFF AND THE 
HOUSE DEMOCRATS PRATTLE ON FOR 
24 HOURS NONSTOP. 
BUT I THINK SENATE REPUBLICANS 
DID SOMETHING-WISE AND RIGHT 
WHICH IS SAY OKAY, WE'LL MAKE A 
CONCESSION. 
INSTEAD OF OVER TWO DAYS NOW 
IT'S OVER THREE DAYS. 
SO YOU CAN PRESENT YOUR OPENING 
ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF UP TO 12 
HOURS A DAY FOR TWO DAYS. 
YOU CAN DO IT PRESUMABLY FOR UP 
TO EIGHT HOURS A DAY OVER THREE 
DAYS. 
I PROMISE YOU IF WE ARE AT OUR 
23, AND THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE 
STILL REPEATING THE SAME 
PARTISAN ATTACKS AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS 
STRIKING WITHIN ABOUT THREE 
HOURS OF THIS, THESE 
PROCEEDINGS BEGINNING, I LOOKED 
UP, THE PRESS CORPS, WAS ABOUT 
HALF EMPTY. 
AND THE GALLERY WAS ALMOST 
ENTIRELY EMPTY. 
I HAVE TO ADMIT, A ROUTINE 
PRACTICALLY, A ROUTINE MOTION 
NAMING A POST OFFICE TYPICALLY 
HAS MORE PEOPLE IN THE GALLERY 
THAN WE HAD TODAY AND I THINK 
THAT'S, THIS IS INDICATIVE OF 
SENATE REPUBLICANS GIVING THE 
HOUSE REPUBLICANS, THE HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS ALL THE OPPORTUNITY 
THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT 
THEIR CASE.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S 
STILL NOT GOING TO MEET THE 
STANDARD. 
>> GIVEN THE REDUNDANCY YOU 
TALKED ABOUT, DO YOU ANTICIPATE 
-- 
>> WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO 
OUR CHAT NOW WHILE SENATOR CRUZ 
CONTINUES TO TALK THERE. 
SO I WANT TO ASK YOU, 
REPUBLICAN SENATORS KEEP 
POINTING TO THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL SAYING WE ARE 
FOLLOWING EXACTLY THE SAME 
ORDER AS THE CLINTON 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL BUT THERE'S A 
MAJOR DIFFERENCE. 
>> THERE IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE 
AND KIM OBVIOUSLY CAN SPEAK TO 
THIS BETTER THAN I 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 MANAGERS 
TOOK THEIR CASE TO THE SENATE, 
THE REPORT HAD ALREADY COME OUT 
AND THERE REALLY WAS NO 
QUESTION AS TO THE FACTS. 
BILL CLINTON, EVERYTHING WAS 
PRETTY MUCH CUT AND DRIED. 
HAD THE BLUE DRESS, AND 
PRESIDENT CLINTON ON TAPE, 
WHEREAS IN THE SITUATION WE 
DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ALL THE 
EVIDENCE. 
AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HEARING 
SOMEBODY LIKE I BELIEVE PATRICK 
PHILBIN THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT 
ON BEHALF OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
THAT IT'S A STUNNING ADMISSION 
THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE 
COMING HERE AND SAYING THEY 
NEED MORE EVIDENCE AND DOES 
THAT MEAN THEY DON'T HAVE A 
CASE AND THEY WANT THE SENATE 
TO DO THE HOUSE'S JOB? 
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF 
CONFUSION BECAUSE THE HOUSE 
DIDN'T HAVE ALL THAT EVIDENCE 
IN THEIR BACK POCKET. 
THIS WAS DONE VERY QUICKLY AND 
IT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU'RE 
HEARING THE WHITE HOUSE MAKE 
THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS NEEDS TO 
BE LITIGATED. 
THESE SUBPOENAS NEED TO BE 
ENFORCED AND LITIGATED THROUGH 
THE COURTS AND TWO HAVE 
ULTIMATELY THE SUPREME COURT 
DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT -- 
>> BUT TO MOLLY'S POINT, THE 
PRESIDENT IS ALSO SAYING THAT 
THE HOUSE IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED 
TO SEEK JUDICIAL REMEDY. 
THAT HIS PERSPECTIVE IS THE 
COURTS CAN'T RULE ON THIS 
BECAUSE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
ISN'T THAT WHAT HE'S SAYING? 
>> YES. 
THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION HAS 
BEEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE 
CONSTITUTION, HEADS I WIN, 
TAILS YOU LOSE. 
THAT HIS POSITION WITH RESPECT 
TO THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION 
THAT THAT WAS AN 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT 
ON HIS EXECUTIVE POWER, THAT 
WENT NOWHERE. 
BUT WE CAN IMAGINE IF THIS WERE 
AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS 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 IF YOU'RE GOING TO 
HOLD A PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE, 
YOU HAVE TO DO IT THROUGH 
IMPEACHMENT THEN WE GET TO 
IMPEACHMENT AND THEN THE 
PRESIDENT'S POSITION IS 
IMPEACHMENT UNDER, UNDERMINES 
AN ELECTION. 
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
I DON'T NEED TO COMPLY WITH 
ANYTHING FROM CONGRESS AND 
THAT'S JUST WRONG AS A MATTER 
OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
THERE IS AN OBLIGATION AT EVERY 
PRESIDENT TO DATE THAT'S BEEN, 
HAD TO DEAL WITH AN IMPEACHMENT 
PROCESS HAS COMPLIED TO SOME 
DEGREE. 
THE WAY PRIVILEGE WORKS IS 
HERE'S MY MARKED UP DOCUMENTS 
WITH A BUNCH OF BLACK CROSSED 
OUT. 
YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS BUT I'M 
GOING TO KEEP THE GOOD STUFF 
AND THEN YOU GO TO COURT AND 
YOU FIGHT ABOUT THE STUFF 
THAT'S BEEN BLACKED OUT. 
YOU DON'T SAY NO ONE SHOWS UP 
AT ALL. 
AND SO THIS IS WHY I SAID 
EARLIER WE ARE SEEING THE 
CONSTITUTION REALLY CHANGE, WE 
ARE WITNESSING CHANGES TO THE 
ACTUAL DOCUMENT. 
IF THE PRESIDENT CAN'T BE HELD 
ACCOUNTABLE IN THE JUDICIAL 
BRANCH BECAUSE YOU CAN'T INDICT 
A SITTING PRESIDENT UNDER AN 
INTERNAL DOJ POLICY THAT HE'S 
IN CHARGE OF, AND THEN YOU 
CAN'T ACTUALLY REMOVE A 
PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF OFFICE 
AND PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THERE'S 
NO CRIME BUT OF COURSE THE 
SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT 
IS  
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WHICH 
IS A CRIME AND LAWYERS DON'T 
ALWAYS CITE THE STATUTE WHEN 
THEY CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A 
CRIME OR CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A 
CIVIL VIOLATION IF YOU CAN'T DO 
IT THROUGH CONGRESS YOU CAN'T 
DO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, THE 
ONLY BRANCH THAT'S LEFT TO 
ACTUALLY HOLD THE PRESIDENT 
ACCOUNTABLE IS THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH THAT THE PRESIDENT IS IN 
CHARGE OF. 
AND THAT'S NOT ACCOUNTABILITY. 
THAT'S CONCENTRATION OF POWER 
IN ONE PLACE. 
AND IT'S SO HIGHLY PARTISAN BUT 
AS AMERICANS WE HAVE TO THINK 
ABOUT THIS MANTLE OF POWER IF 
YOU LIKE THIS PRESIDENT, COULD 
GO ONE DAY TO A DEMOCRAT. 
IT COULD GO ONE DAY TO SOMEONE 
THAT YOU DON'T LIKE AND WE ARE 
NOW WITNESSING THE REPUBLICANS 
ESSENTIALLY SAYING THERE'S NO 
REAL CHECKS ON THE PRESIDENCY. 
AND IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO 
BITE EVERYONE IN ONE WAY OR THE 
OTHER. 
BECAUSE THROUGHOUT OUR 
LIFETIMES IF WE CAN LIVE A LONG 
LIFE WE ARE GOING TO SEE MORE 
THAN ONE PERSON IN OFFICE. 
>> LOOKS LIKE SENATOR AMY 
KLOBUCHAR IS ABOUT TO SPEAK SO 
LET'S LISTEN IN. 
>> I'VE MADE CLEAR FROM THE 
VERY BEGINNING THAT I'VE GOT TO 
DO MY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. 
AND IT FELT LIKE HEY, I KNOW 
YOU GUYS WANT TO BE SOMEWHERE 
ELSE IS WHAT HE WAS SAYING. 
AND I LITERALLY COULDN'T 
BELIEVE HE DID IT ONLY BECAUSE 
I THINK THAT THIS ISN'T THE 
PLACE TO PLAY THOSE KIND OF 
POLITICS. 
AND WE ARE ALL THERE TO DO OUR 
DUTY. 
WE ARE GOING TO SIT THERE TILL 
THE VERY END. 
WE ARE GOING TO LISTEN TO THE 
EVIDENCE AND AS I NOTED I CAN 
DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE. 
I'M A 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'D SAY 
THAT REALLY STRUCK ME TODAY, AS 
A FORMER PROSECUTOR IS NUMBER 
1, YOU DON'T PUT
THE EVIDENCE AND THE WITNESSES 
ON AT THE END. 
YOU TEND TO DUDETTE AT THE 
BEGINNING. 
AND YOUR QUESTIONS SHOULD BE OF 
WITNESSES. 
NOT OF TRYING TO GET WITNESSES. 
AND THEN THE SECOND THING IS 
THIS IS ABOUT THE TRUTH. 
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MY 
COLLEAGUES, MANY OF WHOM I GET 
ALONG WITH AND KNOW WELL AND 
HAVE WORKED WITH, I KEEP 
LOOKING OVER AT THEM THINKING 
COME ON, NOW. 
YOU KNOW WE SHOULD AT LEAST 
HEAR FROM MICK MULVANEY, YOU 
KNOW WE SHOULD AT LEAST HEAR 
FROM JOHN BOLTON. 
YOU CAN'T HAVE ALL THESE 
SMOKING GUN E-MAILS 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? 
>> VERY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO 
THIS. 
I SAW YOU AS A PROSECUTOR. 
WHAT DID YOU PICK UP ON THAT 
MIGHT'VE BEEN DIFFERENT FROM 
PAST DAYS FROM EITHER SIDE 
PARTICULARLY ON THE NOTES? 
>> WELL, I THOUGHT THAT ADAM 
SCHIFF'S ARGUMENT AT THE END 
AND I'VE MADE SOME OF THESE 
ARGUMENTS MYSELF, BUT HE PUT IT 
IN 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 
ACTUALLY ALONG WITH SENATOR 
McCAIN AND SENATOR GRAHAM, AND 
STOOD ON THAT FRONT LINE NEW 
YEAR'S EVE, RIGHT AFTER DONALD 
TRUMP GOT ELECTED, WHERE 
SENATOR McCAIN MADE THE POINT 
OF BRINGING US THERE, BECAUSE 
HE WANTED TO SEND A CLEAR 
MESSAGE TO RUSSIA, THAT AMERICA 
STOOD WITH OUR ALLIES AND 
AMERICA STOOD WITH UKRAINE, AND 
THEN TO THINK ABOUT THE FACT 
THAT THEY ARE WATCHING AS THIS 
PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
HOLDS BACK THE AID, AND MESSES 
AROUND WITH IT, WHILE THEY'RE 
WATCHING TO SEE THIS IS A 
COUNTRY THEY'VE LITERALLY 
INVADED IN CRIMEA. 
THAT THEY LITERALLY HAVE THEIR 
EYES ON. 
AND THEN HE DOESN'T EVEN HELP 
THEM OUT WITH THE AID. 
I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY 
EFFECTIVE, WHAT ADAM SCHIFF 
SAID AT THE END. 
>> ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE IT 
BACK TO IOWA BEFORE FEBRUARY 
3rd? 
BERNIE SANDERS IS CHARTERING A 
PLANE. 
DO YOU HAVE PLANS IN PLACE? 
>> I ACTUALLY HAVE MY FAMILY 
THERE RIGHT NOW. 
THEIR REAL FOOD. 
AND THEY'RE OUT THERE. 
WE JUST ANNOUNCED THREE NEW 
ENDORSEMENTS TODAY FROM STATE 
LEGISLATORS. 
I HAD THE MOST LEGISLATORS AND 
FORMER LEGISLATORS THAT HAVE 
ENDORSED ME IN IOWA OF ANY 
CANDIDATE IN THE RACE. 
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? 
IT MEANS I HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE 
OUT THERE SPEAKING FOR ME AND 
úIT'S NOT JUST WINDOW DRESSING. 
THEY WERE OUT TODAY IN FORCE AT 
THE IOWA STATE CAPITAL SPEAKING 
ABOUT THE SUPPORT FOR ME. 
THAT'S GOING TO MATTER AND THEN 
I'M GOING TO DO EVERYTHING I 
CAN WHETHER IT'S TOWN HALLS, 
WHETHER IT'S SCRAPING IN, AND 
GETTING THERE WHEN WE HAVE 
SUNDAY OFF, THAT'S BEEN MY 
PLAN. 
WE WERE PREPARED FOR THIS. 
THAT'S WHY MY HUSBAND AND 
DAUGHTER ARE THERE RIGHT NOW 
BUT I HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL 
DUTY. 
AND SO WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT'S 
LAWYERS WANT TO SAY AND POKE AT 
US, FOR SIMPLY DOING OUR JOBS 
AND BEING HERE,
AND ACT LIKE IT'S SOME SORT OF 
POLITICAL DISADVANTAGE I THINK 
THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY 
UNDERSTAND IT. 
SOMETHING LIKE A RECENT POLL 
SHOWED NEARLY 70% OF AMERICANS 
THINK THERE SHOULD BE 
WITNESSES, THINK THERE SHOULD 
BE EVIDENCE. 
SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO ME? 
THAT THE PEOPLE IN THESE EARLY 
STATES ARE GOING TO UNDERSTAND 
THAT I HAVE TO DO MY JOB. 
>> ARE YOU FEELING DISCOURAGED 
THAT YOU WILL EVER GET -- 
>> DISCOURAGED? 
OKAY, -- 
>> AFTER THREE VOTES HOW ARE 
YOU FEELING? 
ARE YOU FEELING DISCOURAGED 
ABOUT THE WITNESSES? 
>> I'M SOMEONE THAT ALWAYS KEEP 
LOOKING AT MY COLLEAGUES TO SEE 
IF THEY LOOK GUILTY. 
AND SOME OF THEM ARE KIND OF 
LOOKING DOWN. 
I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAN DENY 
ALL WITNESSES AND LET'S SEE 
WHAT THEY DO AFTER A FEW DAYS 
OF THIS BUT I THINK THAT THE 
HOUSE MANAGERS MADE A VERY 
EFFECTIVE CASE FOR THE FACT 
THAT WE HAVE EVIDENCE AND WE 
NEED TO LISTEN TO EVIDENCE AND 
WE NEED TO LISTEN TO WITNESSES. 
YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL WITH 
ZERO WITNESSES AND ZERO 
DOCUMENTS. 
THAT IS NOT HOW THIS WORKS. 
>> AND THAT WAS SENATOR AMY 
KLOBUCHAR. 
THERE IS A CLIP I'D LIKE TO 
PLAY FROM NORAH O'DONNELL'S 
INTERVIEWS WITH SEVERAL HOUSE 
IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS AND THIS 
CLIP FOCUSES ON THAT IDEA THAT 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS COULD 
PERHAPS SWAP WITNESSES. 
LET'S LISTEN.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE 
QUESTION OF WITNESSES 
PRESUMABLY. 
YOU WOULD WANT TO CALL JOHN 
BOLTON BUT ARE YOU PREPARED FOR 
WHO THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO 
CALL AS WITNESSES, WOULD THAT 
BE FAIR? 
>> FAIR FOR THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS TEAM TO BE ABLE TO CALL 
WITNESSES THAT CAN PROVIDE 
MATERIAL INFORMATION ON THE 
CHARGES. 
IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR 
THE PRESIDENT TO SEEK TO CALL 
WITNESSES MERELY TO TRY TO 
PERPETUATE THE SAME SMEAR 
CAMPAIGN THAT WAS FOILED WHEN 
HIS PLOT WAS DISCOVERED. 
HUNTER BIDEN FOR EXAMPLE CAN'T 
TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER 
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD MILITARY 
AID, WHETHER HE WITHHELD THAT 
AID TO COERCE UKRAINE TO 
CONDUCT POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS OR WHY HE 
WOULDN'T MEET WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. 
THE ONLY PURPOSE IN PUTTING HIM 
ON THEIR LIST IS THEY WISH TO 
TRADE MATERIAL WITNESSES LIKE 
MR. BOLTON AND MULVANEY AND 
OTHERS FOR IMMATERIAL ONES THAT 
WILL ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE TO 
ATTACK POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
THAT'S AN ILLEGITIMATE ABUSE OF 
THE TRIAL AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
WHO MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
RULE ON THE MATERIALITY OF 
WITNESSES AS WELL AS THE 
SENATORS SHOULD NOT PERMIT THAT 
KIND OF ABUSE. 
>> WOULD YOU ACKNOWLEDGE EVEN 
IF YOU WERE TO SUCCEED IN 
CALLING JOHN BOLTON AND MICK 
MULVANEY THAT THE PRESIDENT 
COULD CLAIM EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE? 
>> THAT PRIVILEGE EVEN IF ONE 
COULD BE ASSERTED WOULD HAVE TO 
BE ASSERTED NARROWLY. 
>> SO, MOLLY, OVER THE WEEKEND 
OHIO DEMOCRATIC SENATOR SHERROD 
BROWN SUGGESTED THAT OKAY, IF 
IT TAKES, IF THAT'S WHAT IT 
TAKES, HUNTER BIDEN, FINE. 
ADAM SCHIFF DOES NOT SEEM TO 
AGREE WITH THAT. 
DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANY CHANCE 
THAT DEMOCRATS AS A WHOLE WILL 
EMBRACE 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 THAT ALL OF 
THE REPUBLICANS WOULD GET ON 
BOARD WITH 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 BEING LONG TIME 
SENATOR JOE BIDEN. 
WHO HAS SERVED AS THE CHAIRMAN 
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 
FOREIGN RELATIONS AND EVEN 
THOUGH HE IS A DEMOCRAT RUNNING 
FOR PRESIDENT, HE HAS 
RELATIONSHIPS WITH MEMBERS OF 
THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE 
AISLE. 
AND I JUST DON'T SEE ALL THE 
REPUBLICANS LIKE SUSAN COLLINS 
OR LISA MURKOWSKI GOING ALONG 
WITH THAT. 
JUST BECAUSE THIS IS A FORMER 
COLLEAGUES SON AND GOING TO 
ADAM SCHIFF'S POINT, WHAT IS 
THE POINT? 
I COULD SEE REPUBLICANS WANTING 
TO HEAR FROM ADAM SCHIFF 
HIMSELF MORE SO THAN HUNTER 
BIDEN BECAUSE ADAM SCHIFF, OF 
COURSE, REPUBLICANS WILL MAKE 
THE ARGUMENT IT WAS HIS OFFICE 
THAT MET WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
BACK IN THE BEGINNING BEFORE 
THIS WHOLE QUOTE/UNQUOTE SAGA 
AS ADAM SCHIFF HAS DESCRIBED IT 
CAME TO LIGHT. 
>> SO, JEFF, COULD YOU SEE THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL GETTING ON 
BOARD FOR ANY SORT OF WITNESS 
RECIPROCITY? 
RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T WANT ANY 
WITNESSES THEY SAY BUT IF THERE 
WAS AN EXCHANGE LIKE THAT DO 
YOU THINK THEY WOULD GET ON 
BOARD? 
>> WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT I 
WOULD FRAME IT THAT WAY. 
I WOULD FRAME IT SLIGHTLY 
DIFFERENTLY WHICH IS IF THE 
DEMOCRATS SUCCEED IN GETTING 
SOME REPUBLICANS SUPPORT FROM 
SENATORS LIKE MITT ROMNEY, AND 
SUSAN COLLINS AND LISA 
MURKOWSKI, TO CALL WITNESSES 
SUCH AS JOHN BOLTON, OR MICK 
MULVANEY, THEN REPUBLICANS AND 
THE WHITE HOUSE ARE ABSOLUTELY 
GOING TO INSIST ON GETTING 
WITNESSES AS WELL. 
AND THEY WILL CALL HUNTER 
BIDEN. 
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'LL 
SEE IT AS A RECIPROCITY THING 
IN TERMS OF LET'S MAKE A DEAL. 
YOU GUYS CAN HAVE BOLTON IF WE 
CAN HAVE HUNTER. 
BUT I DO THINK THEY WILL 
ABSOLUTELY SAY IF YOU GUYS ARE 
GETTING WITNESSES THEN SO ARE 
WE AND THERE WILL BE NO 
DICTATING WHO AND WHAT AND WHY 
AND I HEARD CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF'S
JUSTIFICATION OR NOT 
JUSTIFICATION BUT EXPLANATION 
OF WHAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT AND 
WHAT THEY WOULDN'T. 
THE REPUBLICANS  REPUBLICANS 
AND THE WHITE HOUSE WILL 
DISMISS THAT BECAUSE THEY SAY 
HUNTER BIDEN FOR EXAMPLE WOULD 
BE AN EXAMPLE OR BE ABLE TO BE 
A GOOD WITNESS INSOFAR AS 
DESCRIBING CORRUPTION IN 
UKRAINE. 
AND THEIR ARGUMENT, THE WHITE 
HOUSE'S ARGUMENT IS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG 
WITH THAT CALL BECAUSE HE JUST 
WANTED TO CLAMP DOWN ON 
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE. 
>> SO THEN, IF THIS IS A LOT OF 
SPECULATION HERE OF COURSE BUT 
IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE SUCCESSFUL 
IN GETTING SOME SENATORS TO 
VOTE FOR SOME OF THESE 
WITNESSES, WOULD THE PRESIDENT 
THEN BE ABLE TO ASSERT 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 ABOUT THE 
FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE 
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. 
THAT IS, I'M NOT SHOWING UP AT 
ALL. 
THAT'S REALLY NARROW AND THAT'S 
THE PLACE I THINK WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT WAS REALLY UNLAWFUL 
IN DIRECTING PEOPLE TO NOT 
RESPOND AT ALL TO SUBPOENAS. 
PRIVILEGE IS NARROWER AS ADAM 
SCHIFF MENTIONED, THE IDEA IS 
THERE'S SOME COMMUNICATIONS 
THAT ARE SO CENTRAL TO MY 
ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS 
PRESIDENT THAT THAT CAN'T BE IN 
THE PUBLIC SECTOR BUT IT WOULD 
BE DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT. 
IT WOULD BE QUESTION BY 
QUESTION WITH PARTICULAR 
WITNESSES. 
AND PRIVILEGES CAN BE WAIVED SO 
I THINK THE ARGUMENT IN PART 
WOULD BE TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH 
THE PRESIDENT HAS TALKED ABOUT 
WHAT WENT ON HERE HIMSELF, 
INCLUDING IN THE JULY, 
RELEASING THE JULY 25 CALL, 
SUMMARY, IS THAT HE WAIVED IT. 
YOU CAN'T USE A PRIVILEGE AS A 
SWORD AND A SHIELD. 
YOU CAN'T SAY I'M GOING TO GIVE 
UP INFORMATION THAT I COULD SAY 
IS PRIVILEGED BUT THEN I'M 
GOING TO HOLD BACK PIECES OF 
IT. 
THE WAY THE LAW WORKS IS IT'S 
SORT OF ALL OR NOTHING SO I 
THINK AT THIS POINT, THERE 
COULD BE AN ARGUMENT AROUND 
THAT. 
AGAIN, WE HAVE TO SEE IF THE 
CHIEF JUSTICE WOULD ACCEPT HIS 
POWER UNDER THE RULES TO RULE 
ON IT IN THE MOMENT. 
OR WHETHER HE WOULD SAY, THAT 
HAS TO GO TO THE UNDERLINGS, 
PEOPLE BELOW ME IN THE LOWER 
FEDERAL COURTS, STOP THE TRIAL. 
I THINK THAT'S WHAT 
IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE 
WHITE HOUSE AT THIS POINT. 
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING, 
EARLIER ON THE PROCEEDINGS, WE 
HEARD JAY SEKULOW RAILING 
AGAINST DEMOCRATS, IN WHAT HE 
CALLED LAWSUITS AGAINST 
LAWYERS. 
AND THEN WE HEARD ADAM SCHIFF 
ADDRESSING THAT, AND SCRATCHING 
HIS HEAD A LITTLE BIT. 
NOT QUITE SURE EXACTLY WHAT 
SEKULOW WAS REFERRING TO. 
>> WELL, LAWSUITS AGAINST 
LARCENY, THEIR ARGUMENT APPEARS 
TO BE -- FOR THE CONGRESS STO, 
BASICALLY, CHALLENGE'S ABILITY 
TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN COURT 
IS ITSELF UNCONSTITUTION. 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
BUT WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE 
IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER. 
BOTH SIDES CAN USE THE COURTS. 
AS FAR AS WHAT PARTICULAR 
LAWYER IS BEING SCRUTINIZED 
HERE, IT'S HARD TO SAY. 
EMPLOYEES WHO HAD TO HIRE 
PRIVATE CRIMINAL DEFENSE 
LAWYERS, VERY EXPENSIVE, 
SDWROUFT MAKE SURE THEY DIDN'T 
SAY SOMETHING WRONG IN THE 
GRAND JURY. 
AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE THE 
PROCESS IS MESSY. 
ANYONE WHO'S BEEN IN A CIVIL 
ACTION. 
THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE LAW 
WORKS. 
BUT I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE AS A 
LAW PROFESSOR AND A LAWYER THAT 
THE LAW IS IS A WAY THAT WE SEE 
JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY. 
AND WE SEE POSITIVE CHANGE. 
AND WE SEE FAIRNESS HAPPENING. 
AND I THINK AS AMY KLOBUCHAR 
SUGGESTED, A TRIAL WITH NO 
WITNESSES ISN'T REALLY FAIR TO 
EITHER SIDE. 
>> RIGHT. 
AND SPEAKING OF AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
SHE'S BEING ASKED BY REPORTER, 
LOOK, HOW ARE YOU GONNA KEEP 
YOUR CAMPAIGN GOING WITH THIS 
TRAIL, AND SHE SAID MY FIRST 
RESPONSIBILITY IS AS A SENATOR. 
BUT CLEARLY THERE ARE SEVERAL 
CANDIDATES WHOSE CAMPAIGN IS ON 
HOLD RIGHT NOW. 
ARE THEY 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 ONCE. 
AND WITH THE IOWA CAUCUS JUST A 
COUPLE WEEKS AWAY, IT WOULD BE 
VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THEM TO BE 
ON THE GROUND. 
AS WE ALL KNOW, ONE OF THE MOST 
IMPORTANT THINGS IN POLITICS, 
AND IN PARTICULAR AT A CAUCUS 
LIKE IOWA, IS JUST TO GET 
PEOPLE MOTIVATED TO GET OUT OF 
THEIR HOUSES AND APARTMENTS TO 
GO SHOW UP ON CAUCUS DAY. 
THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TO 
HAVE A CANDIDATE THERE. 
AND SHE CAN'T DO THAT. 
THAT SAID, SHE WAS MAKING AN 
ARGUMENT, AND IT'S PROBABLY A 
REASONABLE ONE, THAT EVEN 
PEOPLE IN IOWA WOULD EXPECT 
THAT SHE AND THE OTHER SENATORS 
WHO ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT 
WOULD DO THEIR JOBS. 
>> RIGHT. 
>> AND THERE'S REALLY NOT 
ANOTHER ANSWER FOR HER OR FOR 
BERNIE SANDERS OR ELIZABETH 
WARREN OR ANYONE WHO IS RUNNING 
FOR PRESIDENT WHO HAPPENS TO BE 
A SENATOR. 
>> MOLLY, DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH 
IN ON THAT? 
>> I'D LOVE TO BE SITTING NEXT 
TO AMY KLOBUCHAR VERSUS 
ACTUALLY AMY KLOBUCHAR, NEXT TO 
HER, PENNSYLVANIA, SOME KEY 
STATES ON THE SENATE FLOOR. 
WARREN BETWEEN NEVADA, CORTEZ. 
SANDERS HAS MARYLAND AND 
WISCONSIN. 
SO THESE PEOPLE ARE SITTING AT 
THEIR SEATS ALL DAY. 
YOU GOTTA TALK TO YOUR 
NEIGHBORS. 
AND OH, TO BE A FLY ON THE 
WALL. 
>> MAKING FRIENDS. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> MOLLY HOOPER, KIM WAILY, AND 
JEFF MASON, THANK YOU SO MUCH.  
>>> WE'RE GONNA TAKE A QUIT 
BREAK AS THE SENATORS TAKE 
THEIR OWN BREAK. 
MUCH MORE AHEAD ON THIS DAY.  
>> AND WE'RE BACK WITH MOLLY 
HOOPER AND KIM WEHLE. 
ASSOCIATE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL 
IN THE WHITEWATER 
INVESTIGATION. 
MOLLY IS A CBSN POLITICAL 
CONTRIBUTOR, CAPITOL HILL 
REPORTER. 
MOLLY, I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT 
THIS QUESTION OF WITNESSES. 
IF WITNESSES ARE CALLED, WHAT 
WOULD THAT PORTION OF THE TRIAL 
LOOK LIKE? 
IT WOULD LOOK VERY DIFFERENT 
FROM WHAT WE'RE SEEING SO FAR, 
CORRECT? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
AND THE WAY THAT MITCH 
MCCONNELL STRUCTURED THIS 
RESOLUTION, IT ACTUALLY 
SPECIFIED THAT IF THE SENATE 
DOES AGREE TO ALLOW THE HOUSE 
OR THE PRESIDENT TO SUBPOENA 
WITNESSES, THOSE WITNESSES 
SHALL BE DEPOSED FIRST. 
AND THAT WOULD HAPPEN BEHIND 
CLOSED DOOR. 
DEPENDING ON WHO WAS ALLOWED TO 
BE IN THE ROOM, YOU GET A 
MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE AND THE 
PROSECUTION TO ASK QUESTIONS OF 
THIS WITNESS. 
SO WE MIGHT NOT EVEN SEE, 
NECESSARILY, WHAT IS SAID 
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. 
BUT WE MAY. 
AND AFTER THAT POINT, THE 
SENATE COULD VOTE TO SEE THIS 
PERSON LIVE ON THE SENATE FLOOR 
OR NOT. 
FIRST THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH 
THAT DEPOSITION PERIOD. 
AND MAYBE KIM COULD SPEAK TO 
THIS ASPECT WHEN IT COMES TO 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
BECAUSE IF THE WHITE HOUSE 
MAKES THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE 
IS -- THAT THEY'RE INVOKING 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IT'S MY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 
DEPOSITIONS COULD START BEHIND 
CLOSED DOORS, AND SENATORS IN 
THE PAST HAVE AGREED TO GO, NOT 
NECESSARILY OFF THE RECORD, BUT 
TO HAVE MORE OF A CLASSIFIED 
SESSION.  
SO THAT THEY DON'T WANT 
NECESSARILY REVEAL THOSE 
ASPECTS THAT ARE COVERED IN 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
>> KIM, CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON 
THAT? 
ESPECIALLY IF, FOR INSTANCE THE 
REPUBLICANS SAY HEY, OKAY WE'LL 
HAVE WITNESSES. 
WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER. 
WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE?  
>> WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME IS 
WE'RE HEARING FROM REPUBLICANS 
THAT THIS SPADE-WORK SHOULD 
HAVE HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE. 
BUT AS MOLLY SUGGESTS, THE FACT 
THAT THE RULES ALLOW FOR 
DEPOSITIONS MEANS THE RULES 
KONLT PLATE THERE WILL BE 
WITNESSES CONTEMPLATE THERE 
WILL BE WITNESSES THAT HAVE NOT 
BEEN DEPOSED BEFORE IN. 
A CIVIL CONTEXT, THE DEPOSITION 
IS WHERE THE LAWYER WITHOUT A 
JUDGE SITS DOWN AND HEARS WHAT 
A WITNESS HAS TO SAY. 
AND THEN THEY DECIDE WHETHER TO 
USE THEM IN THE TRIAL LATER. 
LIKE THE CRIMINAL CONTEXT, 
WITNESSES SHOW UP AT THE GRAND 
JURY, THE PROSECUTORS GET TO 
HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. 
THEN THEY DECIDE WHETHER TO USE 
THEM AT TRIAL. 
AND IT'S AT THAT POINT THAT 
PRIVILEGE COULD COME UP. 
I DO THINK THAT -- TO THE 
EXTENT TO WHICH THERE WERE EVER 
TO BE REPUBLICANS -- ENOUGH FOR 
REPUBLICANS THAT WOULD AGREE TO 
HAVE WITNESSES, WE WOULD SEE 
WITNESSES FOR BOTH SIDES, 
PRESUMABLY. 
AS WE'RE HEARING PUBLICLY, THE 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'S 
COMING UP FROM LEV PARNAS, FROM 
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 
REQUESTS, THE OFFICE OF THE GOA 
ISSUED A REPORT SAYING THE 
WITHHOLDING OF AID WAS ILLEGAL. 
LOTS OF SOMETHING IS HAPPENING 
SINCE THE DECEMBER 20th VOTE. 
AND MOST OF IT IS REALLY 
DAMAGING TO THE PRESIDENT. 
IF WE START OPENING THAT UP, WE 
WILL SEE A REQUEST FOR 
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER MIGHT BE ONE 
OF THEM. 
AND THEN THE QUESTION WOULD BE 
WOULD CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS 
MAKE A RULING THAT, LISTEN, THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WAS JUST HANDING 
THE BATON OFF. 
KIND OF LIKE SOMEONE CALLING A 
TIP LINE. 
LISTEN, I THINK I KNOW WHERE 
THE MURDER WEAPON MIGHT BE. 
ONCE THAT PERSON CALMS THE TIP 
LINE, NO ONE REALLY CARES WHO 
THE PERSON IS BECAUSE THEY'RE 
JUST PASSING IT ON. 
BUT THAT COULD REALLY 
COMPLICATE THE PROCESS AND MAKE 
IT MORE COMPLICATED FOR BOTH 
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. 
BUT IT WOULD BENEFIT, I THINK, 
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. 
BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE MORE 
FACTS TO MAKE THIS SERIOUS 
DECISION. 
WHETHER IT IS TO ACQUIT OR 
WHETHER IT IS TO REMOVE WHICH 
IS QUITE UNUSUAL, I THINK 
UNTHINKABLE IN THIS MOMENT, 
PROBABLY. 
BUT AT LEAST WE COULD SEE, 
LISTEN, IT WAS A FAIR PROCESS. 
ALL THE CARDS WERE ON THE 
TABLE. 
AND WE KNOW WHAT WE WERE IT 
DEALING WITH. 
>> RIGHT. 
IT IS INTERESTING CONSIDERING 
THE MAJORITY THAT THE 
REPUBLICANS HAVE IN THE SENATE 
THAT THEY ARE SO WARY OF 
WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY STILL 
CLEARLY HAVE THE UPPER HAND.  
>> YEAH, THERE ARE SO MANY 
MOVING PIECES GOING ON HERE. 
I THINK THE WAY LAWYERS DEFEND 
CASES. 
YOU MAKE A DEFENSE ON THE 
FACTS. 
THE STORY IS NOT WHAT IS BEING 
PUT FORTH, FOR EXAMPLE. 
THAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT. 
WE HAVEN'T HEARD A WHOLE LOT 
ABOUT THAT. 
THE ARGUMENT ESPECIALLY AFTER 
MR. PARNAS'S PUBLIC TESTIMONY 
THAT THIS WAS TO ROOT OUT 
CORRUPTION. 
FIONA HILL UNDERMINED THAT. 
THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, THAT 
DOESN'T HOLD UP. 
THE SECOND ARGUMENT IS THAT AS 
A LEGAL ARGUMENT, THIS ISN'T 
JUSTIFIABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW. 
MOST CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS 
INCLUDING OUR COLLEAGUE HERE AT 
CBS, JONATHAN TURLEY, AGREE 
THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS A BASIS 
FOR IMPEACHMENT. 
SO THEIR BEST STRATEGY, REALLY, 
IS TO KEEP A LID ON IT AND TO 
MAKE IT GO AS QUICKLY AS 
POSSIBLE. 
BECAUSE THE FACTS OF THE LAW 
ARE NOT ON THEIR SIDE. 
THE OTHER ARGUMENT, I THINK, IS 
QUITE IRONIC THAT WE'RE 
HEARING. 
WELL, THIS IS UNDERMINING AN 
ELECTION. 
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD 
BE ABLE TO DECIDE. 
OF COURSE, IMPEACHMENT IS 
MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION 
SIX TIMES. 
SO IT CAN'T BE 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
BUT ALSO THE BIGGER, I THINK, 
THREAD THAT IS BEING LOST IN 
THE DETAILS IS RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE. 
>> YES. 
>> MR. MUELLER SAID THAT THERE 
IS ONGOING -- THAT'S WHAT THE 
MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS 
ABOUT. 
WE SAW THAT THE RUSSIANS TAPPED 
BARIZMA, THE COMPANY THAT 
HUNTER BIDEN WORKED FOR. 
SO IT'S STILL ONGOING. 
AND AMERICANS HAVE TO ASK 
OURSELVES, WOULD WE RATHER HAVE 
RUSSIANS MAKE THE DECISIONS? 
OR WOULD WE RATHER HAVE A 
REPRESENT IN THE SENATE MAKE 
THE DECISION? 
THE SENATE DOES ANSWER, IN 
THEORY, TO AMERICANS. 
THE RUSSIANS DO NOT. 
SO IT'S KIND OF TWO SIDES OF 
THE SAME COIN. 
NATIONAL SECURITY IS FRONT AND 
CENTER FOR THIS TRIAL. 
AND WE'RE NOT HEARING ENOUGH 
ABOUT IT, I DON'T THINK FOR 
PEOPLE TO HAVE THE TIME TO 
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S AT THE HEART 
OF THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. 
>> KIM WEHLE, THANK YOU SO 
MUCH. 
MOLLY HOOPER, THANK YOU SO 
MUCH. 
WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON NOW. 
>>> MORE THAN A DOZEN SENATORS 
PARTICIPATING IN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WERE 
ALSO THERE WHEN PRESIDENT 
CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED. 
MITCH MCCONNELL IS ONE OF THEM. 
AND HERE'S WHAT HE SAID ABOUT 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGER 
REQUEST TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES 
BACK THEN.  
>> I SAY THIS NOT REALLY JUST 
TO PLAY COCKY BUT TO MAKE THE 
POINT THAT THE ARGUMENT THE 
WHITE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE MAKING 
FOR A MERE THREE WITNESSES IS 
CERTAINLY NOT AN UNREASONABLE 
REQUEST.  
>> AND HERE IS WHAT SENATOR 
MCCONNELL SAID ABOUT WITNESSES 
TODAY.  
>> IF ANY AMENDMENTS ARE 
BROUGHT FORWARD TO FORCE 
PREMATURE DECISIONS ON MID-
TRIAL QUESTIONS, I WILL MOVE TO 
TABLE SUCH AMENDMENTS AND 
PROTECT OUR BIPARTISAN 
PRECEDENT. 
IF A SENATOR MOVES TO AMEND THE 
RESOLUTION IN ORDER TO SUBPOENA 
SPECIFIC WITNESSES OR 
DOCUMENTS, I WILL MOVE TO TABLE 
SUCH MOTIONS BECAUSE THE SENATE 
WILL DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS 
LATER IN THE TRIAL JUST LIKE WE 
DID BACK IN 1999.  
>> SO THE QUESTION IS NOW JUST 
HOW CLOSE IS SENATOR MCCONNELL 
STICKING TO THOSE 1999 SENATE 
TRIAL RULES? 
AND JUST HOW REASONABLE WILL HE 
FIND DEMOCRATS' REQUESTS TO 
HEAR FROM WITNESSES MORE THAN 
TWO DECADES LATER? 
FOR MORE ON, THIS LET'S BRING 
IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN, 
THOMAS WAY LAN. 
WAYLAN. 
WE JUST HEARD IN THIS CLIP, 
SENATOR MCCONNELL SAYING THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS' 
REQUEST FOR WITNESSES IN THE 
SENATE TRIAL IS NOT 
UNREASONABLE. 
OOINL SO SORRY. 
WE'RE GONNA HAVE THIS 
CONVERSATION WITH YOU IN JUST A 
BIT. 
WE JUST HEARD THAT THE SENATE 
TRIAL HAS JUST RESUMED.  
>> THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL 
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND 
BROOKLYN AND QUEEN QUEENS. 
FURZ SOME FOLKS HAVE SAID, IS 
THAT COMPLICATED?  
AS MY FRIEND, LEON GOLDENBERG 
SAYS BACK AT HOME, HAKEEM, 
YOU'VE GOT 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 
PINEDS US TOGETHER, ALL OF US 
AS AMERICANS, BINDS US 
TOGETHER, ALL OF US AS 
AMERICAN, 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 
SUBPOENA WITNESSES, INCLUDING 
WITH RESPECT TO MICK MULVANEY. 
WHO HAS EVER HEARD OF A TRIAL 
WITH NO WITNESSES? 
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SOME 
ARE CONTEMPLATING HERE TODAY. 
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADDRESS 
THAT FUNDAMENTAL FLAW. 
IT WOULD INSURE THAT THE TRIAL 
INCLUDES TESTIMONY FROM A KEY 
WITNESS, THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING 
CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD OF THE 
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGETS. 
MICK MULVANEY. 
AND IT WOULD ENSURE THAT THE 
SENATE CAN CONSIDER HIS 
TESTIMONY IMMEDIATELY. 
LET'S DISCUSS WHY THE NEED TO 
HEAR FROM MICK MULVANEY IS SO 
CRITICAL. 
FIRST LEADER MCCONNELL'S 
RESOLUTION UNDERCUTS MORE THAN 
200 YEARS OF SENATE IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL PRACTICE. 
IT DEPARTS FROM EVERY 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL CONDUCTED TO 
DATE. 
AND GOES ALONG THE SENATE'S OWN 
LONGSTANDING IMPEACHMENT RULE 
RULES. 
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 TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD?  
SECOND, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT 
FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY IS 
NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S DETERMINED EFFORT 
TO BURY THE EVIDENCE AND COVER 
UP HIS CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER. 
THE HOUSE TRIED TO GET MR. 
MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY. 
WE SUBPOENAED HIM. 
MR. MULVANEY TOGETHER WITH 
OTHER KEY WITNESSES, NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, 
SENIOR WHITE HOUSE AIDE ROBERT 
BLAIRE, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT 
AND BUDGET OFFICIAL MICHAEL 
DUFFEY, AND NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL LAWYER JOHN EISENBERG, 
WERE CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE 
THE HOUSE AS PART OF THIS 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE 
DETERMINED TO HIDE FROM THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT THEY HAD 
TO SAY. 
THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED THE 
ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND ALL 
OF HIS TOP AIDES AND ADVISORS 
TO DEFY ALL REQUESTS. 
FOR THEIR TESTIMONY. 
THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO 
STAND. 
THIRD, MR. MULVANEY IS A HIGHLY 
RELEVANT WITNESS TO THE EVENTS 
AT ISSUE IN THIS TRIAL. 
MR. MULVANEY WAS AT THE CENTER 
OF EVERY STAGE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S SUBSTANTIAL 
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AGAINST 
UKRAINE. 
BASED ON THE EXPENSE INCH 
EVIDENCE THE HOUSE DID OBTAIN, 
IT IS CLEAR THAT MULVANEY WAS 
CRUCIAL IN PLANNING THE SCHEME, 
EXECUTING ITS IMPLEMENTATION 
AND CARRYING OUT THE COVERUP.  
E-MAILS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY 
SHOW THAT MR. MULVANEY WAS IN 
THE LOOP. 
ON THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO 
EXPLICITLY CONDITION A WHITE 
HOUSE MEETING ON UKRAINE'S 
ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATION 
BENEFICIAL TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
REELECTION PROSPECTS. 
HE WAS CLOSELY INVOLVED IN 
IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT'S 
HOLD ON THE SECURITY 
ASSISTANTS. 
AND SUBSEQUENTLY ADMITTED THAT 
THE FUNDS OTHER THANKING 
WITHHELD TO PUT PRESSURE ON 
UKRAINE. 
TO CONDUCT ONE OF THE PHONY 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WANTED. 
PHONY. 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
A TRIAL WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE 
WITHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF MICK 
MULVANEY. 
MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE 
EVIDENTIARY RECORD THAT WE HAVE 
BUILT IS POWERFUL AND IT 
CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE 
PRESIDENT'S GUILT ON BOTH OF 
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
BUT IT IS HARDLY COMPLETE. 
THE RECORD COMES TO YOU WITHOUT 
THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MULVANEY 
AND OTHER IMPORTANT WITNESSES. 
AND THAT BRINGS ME TO ONE FINAL 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION. 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGREE THAT 
THERE CANNOT BE A FAIR TRIAL 
WITHOUT HEARING FROM WITNESSES 
WHO HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION 
TO PROVIDE. 
THE CONSTITUTION, OUR 
DEMOCRACY, THE SENATE, THE 
PRESIDENT, AND MOSTLY 
IMPORTANTLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
DESERVE A FAIR TRIAL. 
A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES 
WITNESSES. 
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE TRUTH, 
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND, AND 
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. 
THAT IS WHY THIS AMENDMENT 
SHOULD BE ADOPTED.  
BEFORE WE DISCUSS MR. 
MULVANEY'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S GEOPOLITICAL 
SHAKEDOWN, IT IS IMPORTANT TO 
NOTE THAT AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
WITHOUT WITNESSES WOULD BE A 
STUNNING DEPARTURE FROM THIS 
INSTITUTION'S PAST PRACTICE.  
THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY HAS 
CONDUCTED 15 IMPEACHMENT 
TRIALS. 
ALL HAVE INCLUDED WITNESSES. 
SOMETIMES THOSE TRIALS INCLUDED 
JUST A HANDFUL OF WITNESSES AS 
INDICATED ON THE SCREEN. 
AS OTHER TIMES, THEY INCLUDED 
DOZENS. 
IN ONE CASE, THERE WERE OVER A 
HUNDRED DIFFERENT WITNESSES. 
AT THE SLIDE SHOWS, THE AVERAGE 
NUMBER OF WITNESSES TO APPEAR 
AT A SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
IS 33. 
AND IN AT LEAST THREE OF THOSE 
INSTANCES, INCLUDING THE 
IMPEACHMENT OF BILL CLINTON, 
WITNESSES APPEARED BEFORE THE 
SENATE WHO HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY 
APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE. 
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 WITNESS TESTIMONY, 
SERIOUSLY. 
THE SENATE HAS ALWAYS TAKEN ITS 
OBLIGATION TO EVALUATE THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT BASED ON A 
FULL BODY OF AVAILABLE 
INFORMATION SERIOUSLY. 
THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE 
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS FOR 
EVERYONE 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 MIGHT BE 
SAY CAN INFORM THIS 
DISTINGUISHED BODY OF 
AMERICANS.  
THIS AMENDMENT IS ALSO 
IMPORTANT TO COUNTER THE 
PRESIDENT'S DETERMINATION TO 
BURY THE EVIDENCE OF HIS HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
AS WE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL 
TODAY, DESPITE CONSIDERABLE 
EFFORTS BY THE HOUSE TO OBTAIN 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND 
TESTIMONY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
DIRECTED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH TO EXECUTIVE A COVERUP. 
HE HAS ORDERED THE ENTIRE 
ADMINISTRATION TO IGNORE THE 
POWERS OF CONGRESS, A SEPARATE 
AND COEQUAL BRANCH OF 
GOVERNMENT, TO IN A MANNER 
WHICH IS UNPRECEDENTED IN 
AMERICAN HISTORY. 
THE WHITE HOUSE PRODUCED ZERO 
DOCUMENTS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY. 
71 REQUESTS. 
ZERO DOCUMENTS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS PERSONALLY 
RESPONSIBLE FOR DEPRIVING THE 
SENATE OF INFORMATION IMPORTANT 
TO CONSIDER IN THIS TRIAL. 
THIS POINT CANNOT BE 
OVERSTATED. 
WHEN FACED WITH A CONGRESSIONAL 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, A PROCESS 
EXPRESSLY SET FORTH BY THE 
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 
ARTICLE 1, THE PRESIDENT 
REFUSED TO COMPLY IN ANY 
RESPECT. 
AND HE ORDERED HIS SENIOR AIDES 
TO FALL IN LINE.  
AS SHOWN ON THE SLIDES, AS A 
RESULT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
OBSTRUCTION, 12 KEY WITNESSES, 
INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY, REFUSED 
TO APPEAR FOR TESTIMONY IN THE 
HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
NO ONE HAS HEARD WHAT THEY HAVE 
TO SAY. 
THESE WITNESSES INCLUDE CENTRAL 
FIGURES IN THE ABUSE OF POWER 
CHARGED IN ARTICLE 1. WHAT IS 
THE PRESIDENT HIDING?  
EQUALLY TROUBLEAM, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND HIS ADMINISTRATION 
DID NOT MAKE ANY LEGITIMATE 
ATTEMPTS TO REACH A REASONABLE 
ACCOMMODATION WITH THE HOUSE OR 
COMPROMISE REGARDING ANY 
DOCUMENT REQUEST OR WITNESS 
SUBPOENAS. 
WHY? 
BECAUSE PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN 
TRUMP WASN'T INTERESTED IN 
COOPERATING. 
HE WAS PLOTTING A COVERUP. 
IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE A STEP 
BACK AND THINK ABOUT WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DOING. 
COMPLETE AND TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL 
OBSTRUCTION IS UNPRECEDENTED IN 
AMERICAN HISTORY. 
EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON, WHOSE 
RTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT 
INCLUDED OBSTRUCTION OF 
CONGRESS, DID NOT BLOCK KEY 
WHITE HOUSE AIDES FROM 
TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS 
DURING THE SENATE WATERGATE 
HEARINGS. 
IN FACT, HE PUBLICLY URGED 
WHITE HOUSE AIDES TO TESTIFY. 
REMEMBER ALL OF THOSE WITNESSES 
WHO CAME IN FRONT OF THIS BODY? 
CAME A LOOK AT THE SCREEN.  
JOHN DEAN, THE FORMER WHITE 
HOUSE KOURNL, TESTIFIED FOR 
MULTIPLE DAYS PURSUANT TO A 
SUBPOENA. 
H. R. HALEDERMAN, PRESIDENT 
NIXON'S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, 
WAS SUBPOENAED AND TESTIFIED. 
ALEXANDER BUTTERFIELD, THE 
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL WHO 
REVEALED THE EXISTENCE OF THE 
TAPES TESTIFIED PUBLICLY BEFORE 
THE SENATE. 
AND SO DID SEVERAL OTHERS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COMPLETE AND 
TOTAL OBSTRUCTION MAKES RICHARD 
NIXON LOOK LIKE A CHOIR BOY. 
TWO OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN 
TRIED BEFORE THE SENATE. 
HOW DID THEY CONDUCT 
THEMSELVES? 
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON AND 
ANDREW JOHNSON DID NOT BLOCK 
ANY WITNESSES FROM PARCHING IN 
THE SENATE TRIAL. 
PLUMP  PRESIDENT TRUMP BY 
CONTRAST REFUSES TO ALLOW 
RELEVANT WITNESSES FROM 
TESTIFYING TO THIS VERY DAY. 
MANY OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S 
WHITE HOUSE AIDES TESTIFIED IN 
FRONT OF CONGRESS. 
EVEN BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF 
FORMAL IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. 
DURING INVESTIGATIONS IN THE 
MID-19-90s, THE HOUSE AND 
SENATE HEARD FROM MORE THAN TWO 
DOZEN WHITE HOUSE AIDES. 
INCLUDING THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL. 
THE FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF.  
AND MULTIPLE SENIOR ADVISORS TO 
PRESIDENT CLINTON.  
PRESIDENT CLINTON HIMSELF GAVE 
TESTIMONY ON CAMERA AND UNDER 
OATH. 
AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE 
CHART, THE TESTIMONY WAS 
PACKAGED AND DELIVERED TO THE 
SENATE.  
HERE WE ARE SEEKING WITNESSES 
THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED FROM 
TESTIFYING BEFORE THE HOUSE. 
APPARENTLY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
THINKS HE CAN DO WHAT NO OTHER 
PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM HAS 
ATTEMPTED TO DO IN SUCH A 
BRAZEN FASHION. 
FLOAT ABOVE THE LAW AND HIDE 
THE TRUTH. 
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO 
STABBED. 
TO STAND. 
LET ME NOW ADDRESS SOME BEDROCK 
PRINCIPLES ABOUT CONGRESS' 
AUTHORITY. 
TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS. 
OUR BROAD POWER WAS INQUIRY AT 
THEIR STRONGEST DURING AN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING. 
WHEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE 
CUSTOMERS RESPONSIBILITY 
EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 
1. OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
NEARLY 140 YEARS AGO, THE 
SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT 
WHEN THE HOUSE OR SENATE IS 
DETERMINING A QUESTION OF 
IMPEACHMENT, THERE IS NO REASON 
TO DOUBT THE RIGHT TO COMPEL 
THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES. 
AND THAT SWRPS TO PROPER 
QUESTIONS IN THE SAME MANNER 
AND BY THE USE OF THE SAME 
MEANS THAT COURTS OF JUSTICE 
CAN IN LIKE CASES. 
OUR NATION'S FOUNDERS AND 
GREATEST LEGAL MINDS RECOGNIZED 
THESE PRINCIPLES EARLY ON. 
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, JOSEPH 
STORY, EXPLAINED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE 
POWER OF PREVENTING A THOROUGH 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS CONDUCT. 
OR OF SECURING HIMSELF AGAINST 
THE DISGRACE OF A PUBLIC 
CONVICTION BY IMPEACHMENT IF HE 
SHOULD DESERVE IT.  
PRESIDENT TRUMP CANNOT FUNCTION 
AS JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER 
OF OUR DEMOCRACY. 
AND IT WASN'T JUST THE COURTS 
WHO CONFIRMED THIS FOR US. 
SOME OF OUR NATION'S LEADING 
PUBLIC SERVANTS. 
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN QUINCY 
ADAMS, SPEAKING ON THE FLOOR OF 
THE HOUSE, ASKED THAT HE HAD 
SERVED AS PRESIDENT ONCE 
EXCLAIMED "WHAT MOCKERY 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 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES HIMSELF, AND YET TO SAY 
THAT THE HOUSE HAD NOT THE 
POWER TO OBTAIN THE EVIDENCE 
AND PROOF ON WHICH THEIR 
IMPEACHMENT WAS BASED?" 
HAMILTON, STORY, ADAMS AND 
OTHERS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT INSULATE 
HIMSELF FROM CONGRESS' 
INVESTIGATION OF HIS 
WRONGDOING. 
THE PRESIDENT COULD DECIDE WHAT 
EVIDENCE GETS TO BE PRESENTED 
IN HIS OWN TRIAL THAT WOULD 
FUNDAMENTALLY NULLIFY. 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF 
IMPEACHMENT.  
THIS AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT 
BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP SIMPLY 
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 TURN TO A THIRD 
JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS 
AMENDMENT. 
MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY IS 
CRITICAL TO CONSIDERING THE 
CASE FOR REMOVAL. 
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE HEAR 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S CLOSEST 
AIDE. 
A MAN INTIMATELY INVOLVED AT 
KEY STAGES OF THIS 
EXTRAORDINARY ABUSE OF POWER. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWS THIS. 
WHY ELSE WOULD HE BE TRYING SO 
HARD TO PREVENT MICK MULVANEY 
FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE YOU?  
THERE ARE AT LEAST FOUR REASONS 
WHY MR. MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY IS 
CRITICAL. 
TO BEGIN WITH, AS ACTING WHITE 
HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF AND HEAD 
OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGET, MICK MUM HAS FIRSTHAND 
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MULVANEY HAS 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO 
SHAKE DOWN UKRAINE AND PRESSURE 
ITS NEW PRESIDENT INTO 
ANNOUNCING PHONY INVESTIGATION 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
MR. MULVANEY WAS IN THE LOOP AT 
EACH CRITICAL STAGE OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME. 
HE WAS IN THE LOOP IN THE 
PLANNING OF THE SCHEME. 
HE WAS IN THE LOOP OF ITS 
IMPLEMENTATION. 
AND HE WAS IN THE LOOP WHEN THE 
SCHEME FELL APART. 
HE EVEN ADMITTED PUBLICLY THAT 
THE AID WAS WITHHELD IN ORDER 
TO PRESSURE UKRAINE INTO 
NOUNSING AN INVESTIGATION 
ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION 
DESIGNED TO ELEVATE THE 
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL STANDING. 
MR. MULVANEY, PERHAPS MORE THAN 
ANY HER ADMINISTRATION 
WITNESS EXCEPTING THE 
PRESIDENT, HAS FIRSTHAND 
INSIGHT INTO THE DECISION TO 
WITHHELD $391 MILLION IN 
MILITARY AND SECURITY AID TO A 
VULNERABLE UKRAINE WITHOUT 
JUSTIFICATION.  
INDEED, OUR INVESTIGATION 
REVEALS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
PERSONALLY ORDERED MR. MULVANEY 
TO EXECUTE THE FREEZE IN JULY 
OF 2019. 
MR. MULVANEY HOLDS THE SENIOR-
MOST STAFF POSITION AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE. 
HE IS A MEMBER OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CABINET. 
AND HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TEAM AT 1600 
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. 
HE REMAINS AS THE DIRECTOR OF 
THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGET. 
WHICH IMPLEMENTED THE HOLD ON 
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN 
VIOLATION OF THE LAW.  
AS THE GOVERNMENT 
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RECENTLY 
CONCLUDED. 
IN SHORT, RESPECTFULLY, THE 
SENATE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO 
CONDUCT A COMPLETE AND FAIR 
TRIAL DEMANDS THAT MR. MULVANEY 
TESTIFY. 
SECOND, MR. MULVANEY'S 
TESTIMONY IS CRITICAL BECAUSE 
OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
PLANNING OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
ABUSE OF POWER. 
AMBASSADOR GORDON, THE U.S. 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION, TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS 
A QUID PRO QUO. 
MR. ON SUNDAY LAND.ED $1 
MILLION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
INAUGURATION. 
HE CERTIFIED THAT EVERYBODY WAS 
IN THE LOOP. 
AND THAT IT WAS NO SECRET WHAT 
WAS CAN GOING ON. 
IN FACT, AS EARLY AS MAY OF 
2019, AMBASSADOR SONDLANDMADE ú 
ON UKRAINE MASTERS WITH MR. 
MULVANEY. 
HERE IS WHAT DAVID HOLD, AN 
OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN 
UKRAINE, HAD TO SAY ON THAT 
MATTER. 
>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S 
MANDATE AS THE ACCREDITED 
AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN 
UNION DID NOT COVER INDIVIDUAL 
MEMBER STATES, LET ALONE 
NONUNION MEMBERS LIKE UKRAINE. 
HE MADE CLEAR THAT HE HAD 
DIRECT AND FREQUENT ACCESS TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MICK 
MULVANEY AND PORTRAYED HIMSELF 
AS THE CONDUIT TO THE PRESIDENT 
AND MR. MULVANEY FOR THIS 
GROUP.  
>> AFTER THE U.S. DELEGATION 
RETURNED FROM THE INAUGURATION 
OF THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT 
IN APRIL, THEY WERE ABLE TO 
SECURE AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
TO GREET HIM ON THEIR TRIP, IN 
PART, BECAUSE OF AMBASSADOR 
SONDLAND'S CONNECTION TO MICK 
MULVANEY. 
THEN DURING A JUNE 18th, 2019, 
MEETING. 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INFORMED 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 
SENIOR DIRECTOR, DOCTOR FIONA 
HILL, THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE OF 
UKRAINE. 
AND THAT HE HAD BEEN BRIEFING 
SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, 
INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY. 
ABOUT HIS EFFORTS TO UNDERTAKE, 
AS DR. HILL PUT IT, A DOMESTIC 
POLITICAL ERRAND IN UKRAINE. 
HERE IS DR. HILL EXPLAINING 
THIS HERSELF.  
>> SO I WAS UPSET WITH HIM THAT 
HE WASN'T FULLY TELLING US 
ABOUT ALL OF THE MEETINGS THAT 
HE WAS HAVING. 
AND HE SAID TO ME THAT I'M 
BRIEFING THE PRESIDENT. 
I'M BRIEFING CHIEF OF STAFF 
MULVANEY. 
I'M BRIEFING SECRETARY POMPEO, 
AND I'VE TALKED TO BOLTON, WHO 
ELSE DO I HAVE TO DEAL WITH? 
AND THE POINT IS WE HAVE AN 
AGENCY PROCESS THAT DEALS WITH 
ARBITRATION CRANE. 
IT INCLUDES MR. HOLMES. 
IT INCLUDES A WHOLE LOAD OF 
OTHER PEOPLE. 
BUT IT STRUCK ME YESTERDAY WHEN 
YOU PUT UP ON THE SCREEN 
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S E-MAIL, 
AND WHO WAS ON THEM, AND HE HAD 
THESE ARE PEOPLE I NEED TO 
KNOW, BUT HE WAS ABSOLUTELY 
RIGHT. 
BECAUSE HE WAS BEING INVOLVED 
IN A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND. 
AND WE WERE BEING INVOLVED IN 
NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN 
POLICY. 
AND THOSE TWO THINGS HAD JUST 
DIVERGED.  
>> AND THERE'S 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'S LAWYER THAT HE WAS 
NOT PART OF WHATEVER 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 TO 
SCHEDULE A WHITE HOUSE VISIT 
FOR PRESIDENT ZEZENSKI, IF 
UKRAINE ANNOUNCED TWO PHONY 
INVESTIGATIONS, INVOLVING THE 
BIDENS AND 2016 ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE. 
HERE WAS TESTIMONY ABOUT 
SONDLAND DESCRIBING THIS DRUG 
DEAL HE HAD WITH MULVANEY.  
>> WHEN I CAME IN, THERE WILL 
BE A DEAL HERE, I'LL HAVE A 
MEETING WITH MULVANEY. 
THERE WILL BE A MEETING IF THE 
UKRAINIANS OPEN UP 
INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016. 
BY THIS POINT, HAVING HEARD MR. 
GIULIANI OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON 
THE TELEVISION AND ALL OF THE 
ISSUES THAT HE WAS ACERTEDING, 
BY 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'RE THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL. 
WE CAN'T BE INVOLVED IN THIS. 
>> THE REFERENCED AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND 
MICK MULVANEY WAS SO UPSETTING 
THAT DR. HILL REPORTED IT TO 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEGAL 
ADVISOR. 
>> WHEN I CAME BACK AND RELATED 
IT TO HIM, HE HAD SOME VERY 
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR ME. 
AND I'M PRESUMING THAT THAT'S 
SFLOORS WHAT WAS THAT 
INSTRUCTION? 
>> SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION WAS 
THAT I HAD TO GO TO THE 
LAWYERS, JOHN EISENBERG, OUR 
SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNSEL, TO BASICALLY 
SAY YOU TELL EISENBERG 
AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLD ME THAT 
I AM NOT PART OF THIS WHATEVER 
DRUG DEAL THAT MULVANEY AND 
SONDLAND ARE COOKING UP. 
>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM 
TO MEAN BY THE DRUG DEAL THAT 
MULVANEY AND SONDLAND WERE 
COOKING UP? 
>> I TOOK IT TO MEAN 
INVESTIGATIONS OR A MEETING.  
>> DID YOU GO SPEAK TO THE 
LAWYERS?  
>> I CERTAINLY DID.  
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY, NOT ONLY 
CORROBORATES DR. HILL'S 
ACCOUNT, HE ACTUALLY SAYS THAT 
MICK MULVANEY, THE SUBJECT OF 
AMENDMENT, WHO SHOULD APPEAR 
BEFORE THE SENATE, IF WE'RE 
GOING TO HAVE A FREE AND FAIR 
TRIAL. 
>> A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE AWARE 
OF IT. 
>> INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY? 
>> CORRECT.  
>> THE DOCUMENTS ALSO HIGHLIGHT 
THE EXTENSIVE INVOLVEMENT OF 
MICK MULVANEY. 
IN THIS GEOPOLITICAL SHAKEDOWN 
SCHEME. 
E-MAIL MESSAGES SWORN BY 
SONDLAND DURING HIS SWORN 
TESTIMONY SHOWED THAT HE 
INFORMED MR. MULVANEY AS WELL 
AS SECRETARY POMPEO AND 
SECRETARY KERRY OF HIS EFFORTS 
TO PERSUADEPRESIDENT ZELENSKY 
TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION 
DESIRED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
FOR EXAMPLE AS SHOWN ON THE 
SCREEN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND E-
MAILED SEVERAL TOP 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, 
INCLUDING MR. MULVANEY, STATING 
THAT HE HAD TALKED TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY TO HELP PREPARE HIM 
FOR A PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
AND HE REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY PLANNED TO ASSURE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE INTENDS 
TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT 
INVESTIGATION AND WILL TURN 
OVER 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 25th PHONE CALL. 
MR. MULVANEY WROTE IN RESPONSE 
"I ASKED NSC TO SET IT UP. 
WHAT EXACTLY DID MR. MULVANEY 
KNOW ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN 
COMMITMENT TO TURN OVER EVERY 
STONE?  
THESE REQUIRE ANSWERS UNDER 
OATH FROM MR. MULVANEY. 
MR. MULVANEY IS ALSO. 
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS AND 
WITNESS TESTIMONY, MR. MULVANEY 
WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH 
IMPLEMENTING THE SCHEME, 
INCLUDING THE UNLAWFUL WHITE 
HOUSE FREEZE ON $391 MILLION IN 
AID TO UKRAINE.  
>> I WAS INVOLVED WITH THE 
PROCESS BY WHICH THE MONEY WAS 
HELD UP TEMPORARILY. 
>> THE PUBLIC REPORTS CONFIRM 
MR. MULVANEY'S OWN ACCOUNT THAT 
HE HAD INFORMATION THAT GOES TO 
THE HEART OF THIS INQUIRY. 
SPECIFICALLY RELATED WHY THE 
PRESIDENT ORDERED A HOLD ON AID 
TO UKRAINE AND KEPT IT IN PLACE.
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. 
MULVANEY AND ROBERT BLAIR. 
A STATION ADVISOR ON JUNE 27th. 
WHEN MR. MULVANEY ASKED DID WE 
EVER FIND OUT ABOUT THE MONEY 
FOR UKRAINE AND WHETHER HE CAN 
HOLD IT BACK? 
WHAT PROMPTED THAT E-MAIL? 
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS, 
MR. MUM WAS ON AFRGS 1 MULVANEY 
WAS ON AIR FORCE 1. AIR FORCE 
1.  WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
WHEN HE SENT IT. 
WHAT OTHER CONVERSATIONS DID 
MR. MULVANEY HAVE WITH THE 
PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALS ABOUT THIS UNLAWFUL 
FREEZE? 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO 
KNOW THERE IS OTHER SIGNIFICANT 
EVIDENCE CONCERNING MR. 
MULVANEY'S ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING 
THE SCHEME. 
ACCORDING TO MULTIPLE 
WITNESSES, THE DIRECTION TO 
FREEZE THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
TO UKRAINE WAS DELIVERED BY 
MICK MULVANEY HIMSELF. 
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
OFFICIAL, MARK SANDY, TESTIFIED 
ABOUT A JULY 12th E-MAIL FROM 
MR. BLAIRE STATING THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DIRECTING A 
HOLD ON MILITARY SUPPORT 
FUNDING FOR UKRAINE. 
WAS MR. BLAIRE ACTING AT MR. 
MULVANEY'S EXPRESS DIRECTION? 
THE MEMBERS OF THIS 
DISTINGUISHED BODY DESERVE TO 
KNOW. 
ON JULY 18th, A HOLD WAS 
ANNOUNCED TO THE AGENCIES IN 
THE ADMINISTRATION OVERSEEING 
UKRAINE POLICY MATTERS. 
THOSE PRESENT WERE BLIND 
SIGHTED BY THE ANNOUNCEMENT. 
THAT THE SECURITY AID 
APPROPRIATED BY THIS CONGRESS 
ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO 
UKRAINE WHICH IS STILL AT WAR 
WITH RUSSIAN-BACKED SEPARATISTS 
IN THE EAST. 
THEY WERE ALARMED THAT THAT AID 
HAD INEX POLITICABLY BEEN PUT 
ON HOLD. 
MEANWHILE, OFFICIALS AT THE 
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND WITHIN 
THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGET BECAME INCREASINGLY 
CONCERNED.
MEANWHILE, OFFICIALS AT THE 
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND WITHIN 
THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
BUDGET BECAME INCREASINGLY 
CONCERNED. 
THEIR CONCERN TURNED OUT TO BE 
ACCURATE. 
PUBLIC REPORTS HAVE INDICATED 
THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS IN 
POSSESSION OF ALL THESE E-
MAILS. 
EXCHANGES BETWEEN ACTING CHIEF 
OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, AND 
WHITE HOUSE BUDGET OFFICIALS 
SEEKING TO PROVIDE AN 
EXPLANATION FOR THE FUNDS.  
AN SPLAVENGZ, I SHOULD NOTE, 
THAT EXPLANATION, I SHOULD 
NOTE, THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO 
PROVIDE AFTER THE PRESIDENT 
ALREADY ORDERED THE HOLD. 
MR. MULVANEY PRESUMABLY HAS 
ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTION 
QUESTIONS. 
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE 
ANSWERS ARE, BUT HE SHOULD 
PROVIDE THEM TO THIS SENATE AND 
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
FINALLY ON OCTOBER 17th, 2019, 
AT A PRESS BRIEFING AT THE 
WHITE HOUSE, MR. MULVANEY LEFT 
NO DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WITHHELD THE ESSENTIAL MILITARY 
AID AS LEVERAGE TO TRY TO 
EXTRACT PHONY POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF HIS 
EFFORT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN A 2020 
ELECTION. 
THIS WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY PRESS 
CONFERENCE. 
MR. MULVANEY MADE CLEAR THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WAS, IN FACT, 
PRESSURING UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE THE CONSPIRACY 
THEORY THAT UKRAINE, RATHER 
THAN RUSSIA, HAD INTERFERED IN 
THE 2016 ELECTIONS. 
A CONSPIRACY THEORY PROMOTED BY 
NONE OTHER THAN THE GREAT 
PURVEYOR OF DEMOCRACY, VLAD MIR 
PUTIN HIMSELF. 
WHEN WHITE HOUSE REPORTERS 
ATTEMPTED TO CLARIFY THIS 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A QUID PRO 
PRO RELATED TO SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE, MR. MULVANEY 
REPLIED "WE DO THAT ALL THE 
TIME" WITH FOREIGN POLICY.  
>> THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO 
THE DNC SERVEER? 
ABSOLUTE. 
NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. 
BUT THAT'S IT. 
AND THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE 
MONEY. 
>> SO THE DEMAND FOR AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
DEMOCRATS WAS PART OF THE 
REASON THAT HE WANTED TO 
WITHHELD FUNDING TO UKRAINE? 
>> WE LOOKED BACK TO WHAT 
HAPPENED IN 2016. 
WHICH WAS PART OF THE THING 
THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IN 
CORRUPTION WITH THAT NATION. 
AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY 
APPROPRIATE. 
>> WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS A 
QUID PRO QUO. 
IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW 
UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION INTO 
THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER HAPPENED 
AS WELL.  
>> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME. 
WITH FOREIGN POLICY. 
WE WERE HOLDING MONEY AT THE 
SAME TIME FOR WHAT WAS IT? 
THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE 
COUNTRIES. 
WE WERE HOLDING UP THE NORTHERN 
TRIANGLE COUNTRIES SO THAT THEY 
WOULD CHANGE THEIR POLICIES ON 
IMMIGRATION. 
BY THE WAY, IN THIS SPEECH TO 
-- 
>> I'M SORRY? 
>> THIS SPEAKS TO AN IMPORTANT 
POINT. 
BECAUSE I HEARD THIS YESTERDAY. 
AND I CAN NEVER REMEMBER THE 
GENTLEMAN. 
MCKINNEY? 
HE TESTIFIED YESTERDAY. 
IF YOU BELIEVE THE NEWS 
REPORTS, BECAUSE WE'VE NOT SEEN 
ANY TRANSCRIPTS OF, THIS THE 
ONLY TRANSCRIPT I'VE SEEN WAS 
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY THIS 
MORNING. 
IF YOU READ THE NEWS REPORTS 
AND YOU BELIEVE THEM, WHAT DID 
MCKINNEY SAID YESTERDAY? 
MCKINNEY SAID YESTERDAY THAT HE 
WAS LITERALLY UPSET WITH THE 
POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN 
POLICY. 
THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE 
WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS. 
AND I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY, 
GET OVER IT. 
THERE'S GOING TO BE POLITICAL 
INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.  
>> IN THIS EXTRAORDINARY PRESS 
CONFERENCE, MR. MULVANEY SPOKE 
WITH AUTHORITY. 
AND CONVICTION. 
ABOUT WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP 
WITHHELD THE AID. 
HE DID NOT MINCE HIS WORDS. 
BUT THEN FOLLOWING THE PRESS 
CONFERENCE, HE TRIED TO WALK 
BACK HIS STATEMENT. 
AS IF HE HAD NOT SAID THEM. 
OR HAD NOT MENTIONED. 
WE NEED TO HEAR FROM MICK 
MULVANEY DIRECTLY SO HE CAN 
CLARIFY HIS TRUE INTENTIONS. 
HAVING GONE THROUGH THE NEED 
FOR THE EVIDENCE, LET'S BRIEFLY 
ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S 
ARGUMENTS THAT HE CAN BLOCK 
THIS TESTIMONY. 
THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT ONLY 
WRONG, IT IS IT FUNDAMENTALLY 
UNDERMINES OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS 
AND BALANCES. 
STEP BACK AND CONSIDER THE 
EXTRAORDINARY POSITION THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRYING TO 
MANUFACTURE FOR HIMSELF. 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS 
ALREADY SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT 
CANNOT BE INDICTED OR 
PROSECUTED IN OFFICE. 
AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, THE 
PRESIDENT HAS ACTUALLY FILED A 
BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT 
SAYING HE CANNOT BE CRIMINALLY 
INVESTIGATED AS WELL. 
WHILE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. 
SO THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE ARE 
THE ONLY CHECKS THAT ARE LEFT.  
WHEN THE PRESIDENT ABUDZS HIS 
POWER. 
TRIES TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT 
ELECTION. 
UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY. 
BREAKS THE LAW IN DOING SO. 
AND THEN TRY TRYS TO COVER IT 
UP. 
THIS IS AMERICA. 
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
IF THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO 
DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS EVEN 
INVESTIGATED BY CONGRESS, IF HE 
IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHETHER HE 
SHOULD COMPLY WITH LAWFUL 
SUBPOENAS. 
IN CONNECTION WITH AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OR TRIAL, 
THEN HE IS THE ULTIMATELY 
ARBITER OF WHETHER HE DID 
ANYTHING WRONG. 
THAT CANNOT STAND. 
IF HE CAN'T BE INDICTED, AND HE 
CAN'T BE IMPEACHED, AND HE 
CAN'T BE REMOVED, THEN HE CAN'T 
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. 
THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE 
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
YOU WOULD'LL INHIBIT HEAR THAT 
THE REASON NO DOUBT HEAR THAT 
THE REASON THE PRESIDENT 
BLOCKED THESE WITNESSES FROM 
TESTIFYING, INCLUDING MR. 
MULVANEY, IS BECAUSE OF SOME 
LOFTY CONCERN FOR THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY AND THE 
PRESERVATION OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. 
LET'S GET REAL. 
HOW CAN BLOCKING WITNESSES FROM 
TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT HELP 
PRESERVE THE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENCY? 
THIS TYPE OF BLANKET 
OBSTRUCTION UNDERMINES THE 
CREDIBILITY OF THE OFFICE OF 
THE PRESIDENCY AND DEEMS THE 
CONSTITUTION A POTENTIALLY 
MORTAL DEATH BLOW. 
TO BE CLEAR, EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PROVIDE A 
LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE BASIS FOR 
HIS COMPLETE AND TOTAL BLOCKAGE 
OF EVIDENCE. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER EVEN 
INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, 
NOT ONCE. 
AND WITHOUT EVER ASSERTING THIS 
PRIVILEGE, HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER 
HIS ARGUMENT IN A SERIOUS 
FASHION? 
INSTEAD, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. 
CIPOLLONE, THE DISTINGUISHED 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, IN A 
LETTER DATED OCTOBER 18th, 
2019. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SIMPLY DECIDED 
THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO 
PARTICIPATE. 
IN THE INVESTIGATION INTO HIS 
OWN WRONGDOING. 
IT WAS A CATEGORICAL DECISION 
NOT TO COOPERATE WITHOUT 
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIC FACTS 
OR LEGAL ARGUMENTS. 
IN FACT, EVEN THE WORDS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THROUGH 
HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WERE 
MADE UP. 
IN A LETTER, MR. KIP LONEY 
REFERRED TO SO-CALLED EXECUTIVE 
CIPOLLONE REFERRED TO SO-CALLED 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS. 
THAT IS NOT A RECOGNIZED JURIS 
PRUSHL SHIELD.  
PRUDENTIAL SHIELD. 
THOSE CAN BE RESOLVED DURING 
THIS TESTIMONY. 
AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES. 
AND FINALLY, THE PRESIDENT 
CLAIMED THAT MR. MULVANEY COULD 
NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY 
BECAUSE OF SO-CALLED ABSOLUTE 
IMMUNITY. 
EVERY COURT WHO ADDRESSED THIS 
LEGAL FICTION HAS REJECTED IT. 
AS THE SUPREME COURT 
EMPHATICALLY STATED IN 
UNANIMOUS FASHION ON ITS 
DECISION ON THE NIXON TAPES, 
CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS OF 
THE PRESIDENT MUST YIELD TO AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
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 SITUATED TO PROVIDE 
THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY WITH 
RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT 
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHARGES 
IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. 
THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION HAS 
NO BASIS IN LAW AND SHOULD 
YIELD TO THIS BODY COEQUAL 
AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE 
IMPEACHABLE AND CORRUPT 
CONDUCT. 
ONE FINAL POINT BEARS MENTION. 
IF THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO MAKE 
WITNESSES AVAILABLE, EVEN WHILE 
PRESERVING THE LIMITED 
PROTECTIONS OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE, HE CAN DO SO. 
IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE FOR 
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN THE 
SENATE JUST LAST MONTH.  
LET'S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE.  
>> SO WHEN IT'S FAIR, IT WILL 
BE FAIR IN THE SENATE, I WOULD 
LOVE TO HAVE MIKE POMPEO. 
I'D LOVE TO HAVE MICK. 
I'D LOVE TO HAVE RICK PERRY. 
AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE. 
TESTIFY.  
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOTHING 
TO HIDE, AS HE AND HIS ADVISORS 
REPEATEDLY CLAIM. 
THEY SHOULD ALL SIMPLY TESTIFY 
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.  
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS RESERVE THE BALANCE OF 
OUR TIME. 
>> MR. SUBLIMITY, 
>>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. 
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
GOOD EVENING. 
MY NAME IS MICHAEL, I SERVE AS 
DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.
WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT
AND SUPPORTS THE RESOLUTION. 
THERE IS SIMPLY NO NEED TO 
ALTER THE PROCESS ON WITNESS -- 
WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, FROM 
THAT OF THE CLINTON TRIAL. 
WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THIS 
BODY 102 ZERO. 
AT ITS CORE, THIS CASE IS VERY 
SIMPLE AND THE KEY FACTS ARE 
UNDISPUTED. 
FIRST. 
YOU SEE IN THE TRANSCRIPTS. 
WHICH THE PRESIDENT RELEASED 
TRANSPARENTLY, UNPRECEDENTEDLY. 
THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO FOR 
ANYTHING. 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS ARE 
NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE CALL. 
SECOND, PRESIDENT ZELINSKI AND 
THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICIALS 
IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT 
REPEATEDLY HAVE SAID THERE WAS 
NO QUID PRO QUO AND THERE WAS 
NO PRESSURE. 
TIRD. 
THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT EVEN 
AWARE OF THE PAUSE IN THE AID 
AT THE TIME OF THE CALL, AND 
WERE NOT AWARE OF IT, DID NOT 
BECOME AWARE OF IT, UNTIL MORE 
THAN A MONTH LATER. 
FOURTH, THE ONLY WITNESSES IN 
THE HOUSE RECORD WHO ACTUALLY 
SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT 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. 
THE AID FLOWED AND PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENTS ON SCHEME 
AT WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATIONS, 
STARTED OR ANNOUNCED. FINALLY, 
AND I ASK THAT YOU NOT LOSE 
SIGHT OF THE BIG PICTURE HERE. 
BY PROVIDING LETHAL AID TO 
UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS 
PROVEN HIMSELF TO BE A BETTER 
FRIEND AND ALLY TO UKRAINE THAN 
HIS PREDECESSOR. 
THE TIME FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
TO BRING THEIR CASE IS NOW. 
THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE. 
TO DEVELOP THEIR EVIDENCE, 
BEFORE THEY SENT THE ARTICLES 
OF IMPEACHMENT TO THIS CHAMBER. 
THIS CHAMBER'S ROLE IS NOT TO 
DO THE HOUSE IS JOB FOR IT. 
WITH THAT, OF THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME TO MR. CIPOLLONE.  
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
JUST A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS. 
FIRST OF ALL, AS HE SAID, ALL 
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN 
THIS QUESTION IS ADDRESSED. 
UNDER THE RESOLUTION, THAT WILL 
BE NEXT WEEK. 
THIS RESOLUTION WAS ACCEPTED 
100-0, SOME OF YOU WERE HERE 
THEN. 
THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT. 
IF WE KEEP GOING LIKE THIS, IT 
WILL BE NEXT WEEK. 
FOR THOSE OF YOU KEEPING SCORE 
AT HOME, THEY HAVE NOT EVEN 
STARTED YET. 
WE ARE HERE TODAY, WE CAME 
HOPING TO HAVE A TRIAL. 
THEY SPENT THE ENTIRE DAY 
TELLING OU AND THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE THAT THEY CANNOT PROVE 
THEIR CASE. 
I COULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT IN 
FIVE MINUTES AND SAVED US ALL 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? 
DO NOT TAKE IT FROM ME. 
THEY DO. 
THEY SENT YOU ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT THAT MAKES NO CLAIM 
OF ANY VIOLATION OF ANY LAW. 
BY THE WAY, YOU KNOW WHAT ALSO 
DOESN'T -- YOU CAN SEARCH HIGH 
AND LOW IN THE ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT US MAC YOU KNOW 
WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY? 
QUID PRO QUO. 
BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY. 
ONLY IN WASHINGTON WOULD 
SOMEONE SAY THAT IT IS WRONG 
WHEN YOU DO NOT SPEND TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS FAST ENOUGH, EVEN IF 
YOU SPEND THEM ON TIME. 
NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR A 
SECOND. 
TWO DAYS IN THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE, TWO DAYS, THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS SUPPOSED 
TO BE IN CHARGE OF IMPEACHMENTS.
THE DELIVERY TIME FOR THE 
ARTICLES THEY PRODUCED WAS 33 
DAYS. 
I THINK THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST 
IMPEACHMENT AND HISTORY WHERE 
THE DELIVERY TIME WAS LONGER 
THAN THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. úTHEY COME 
ACCUSE PEOPLE -- BY THE WAY, 
THEY FALSELY ACCUSED YOU. 
YOU ARE ON TRIAL NOW. 
THEY FALSELY ACCUSE PEOPLE OF 
PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. 
REALLY? 
SINCE THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TOOK 
OVER, THAT IS ALL WE HAVE HAD 
FROM THEM. 
THEY HAVE USED THEIR OFFICE, 
ALL THE MONEY THAT THE TAXPAYERS
SEND TO WASHINGTON TO PAY THEM, 
TO CONDUCT PHONY POLITICAL 
INVESTIGATIONS, AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT, AGAINST HIS FAMILY, 
AGAINST ANYONE WHO KNEW HIM, 
THEY STARTED IMPEACHING HIM THE 
MINUTE HE WAS ELECTED. 
THEY HAVE ORGANIZED THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES TO 
INVESTIGATE INCESSANTLY THEIR 
POLITICAL OPPONENT. 
AND THEY COME HERE AND MAKE 
FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF PHONY 
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS. 
I THINK THE DOCTORS CALL THAT 
PROJECTION. 
IT IS TIME FOR IT TO END. 
IT IS TIME FOR SOMEONE, FOR THE 
SENATE, TO HOLD THEM 
ACCOUNTABLE. 
THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE 
ASKING. 
I SAID IT, THEY DID NOT DENY 
IT. 
THEY ARE TRYING TO REMOVE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NAME FROM THE 
BALLOT. 
AND THEY CAN'T PROVE THEIR CASE.
THEY HAVE TOLD YOU THAT ALL DAY 
LONG. 
THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING
SOME OF YOU SENATORS TO DO. 
SOME OF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR 
PRESIDENT. 
THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO USE YOUR 
OFFICE TO REMOVE YOUR POLITICAL 
OPPONENT FROM THE BALLOT. 
THAT IS WRONG. 
THAT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF 
OUR COUNTRY. 
AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IT 
IS NOT REALLY A SHOW OF 
CONFIDENCE. 
SO, WE WILL, I SUPPOSE, HAVE 
THIS DEBATE AGAIN NEXT WEEK. 
IF WE EVER GET THERE. 
IT IS GETTING LATE. 
I WOULD ASK YOU, RESPECTFULLY, 
IF WE COULD SIMPLY START, MAYBE 
TOMORROW, WE CAN START. 
AND THEY CAN MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT
, AND THEY CAN I GUESS MAKE A 
CASE THAT THEY ONCE CALLED 
OVERWHELMING. 
WE WILL SEE. 
BUT THIS RESOLUTION IS RIGHT, 
AND IT IS FAIR, AND IT MAKES 
SENSE. 
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR WHAT 
THEY HAVE TO SAY, BEFORE YOU 
HAVE TO DECIDE THESE CRITICAL 
ISSUES. 
THAT IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT. 
IS IT NOW, OR IS IT A WEEK FROM 
NOW? 
SERIOUSLY. 
CAN WE PLEASE START? THANK YOU. 
>> MR. CIPOLLONE,  IS YOUR SIDE 
COMPLETE? 
>> YES WE ARE, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
>> THANK YOU, THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS HAVE 14 MINUTES 
REMAINING. 
>> COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
INDICATED THAT WE HAVE NOT 
CHARGED PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH A 
CRIME. 
WE HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH CRIMES 
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES 
CONSTITUTION. 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
ABUSE OF POWER. 
STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF 
WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE 
CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED 
ABOUT. 
BETRAYAL OF ONE'S OATH OF 
OFFICE. 
FOR PERSONAL GAIN. 
D, THE CORRUPTION OF OUR 
DEMOCRACY. 
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, 
THAT IS WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ALL 
ABOUT. 
NOW, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
AGAIN, HAS DECLINED TO ADDRESS 
THE SUBSTANTIVE MERITS OF THE 
AMENDMENT THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED.
TRIED TO SUGGEST THAT HOUSE 
DEMOCRATS HAVE ONLY BEEN 
FOCUSED ON TRYING TO OUST 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
NOTHING CAN BE FURTHER FROM THE 
TRUTH. 
IN THE LAST YEAR, WE PASSED 400 
BILLS TO THIS CHAMBER, 275 OF 
THOSE BILLS ARE BIPARTISAN IN 
NATURE. 
ADDRESSING ISSUES LIKE LOWERING 
HEALTHCARE COSTS AND 
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES. 
TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE GUN 
VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC. 
WE HAVE WORKED WITH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
REFORM. 
I PERSONALLY WORKED WITH HIM 
ALONG WITH ALL OF YOU ON THE 
FIRST STEP BACK. 
WE WORKED WITH HIM ON THE 
U.S./MEXICO/CANADA TRADE 
AGREEMENT. 
WE WORKED WITH HIM TO FUND THE 
GOVERNMENT. 
WE DO NOT HATE THIS PRESIDENT, 
BUT WE LOVE THE CONSTITUTION, 
WE LOVE AMERICA. 
WE LOVE OUR DEMOCRACY. 
THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. 
THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, BY MR. 
SACK HELLO, AS HE OPENED, 
BEFORE THIS. WHY ARE WE HERE? 
LET ME SEE IF I CAN POSIT AND 
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. 
WE ARE HERE SIR, BECAUSE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN 
AMERICAN CITIZENFOR POLITICAL 
AND PERSONAL GAIN. 
WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED 
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2020 ELECTION AND CORRUPTD OUR 
DEMOCRACY. 
WE ARE HERE, SIR, BECAUSE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD 391 
MILLION DOLLARS IN MILITARY AID 
FROM A VULNERABLE UKRAINE, 
WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, IN A 
MANNER THAT HAS BEEN DEEMED 
UNLAWFUL. 
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 OF 
USED HIS POWER AND THEN HE 
TRIED TO COVER IT 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 IS WHY WE ARE HERE, MR. 
SEKULOW.  
AND IF YOU DO NOT KNOW, NOW YOU 
KNOW. 
I YIELD TO MY DISTINGUISHED 
COLLEAGUE, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. 
>> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING, AND JUST WANT TO 
PROVIDE A COUPLE QUICK FACTS 
CHECKS ON MY COLLEAGUES AT THE 
OTHER TABLE. 
FIRST, MR. SAID THAT SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE FUNDS WERE NOT 
MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE JULY 
25th CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
TRUMP AND PRESIDENTS ONE SKI. 
LET'S THINK BACK TO WHAT WAS 
DISCUSSED IN A CALL. 
YOU MIGHT REMEMBER FROM THE 
CALL THAT PRESIDENTS ONE SKI 
THINGS PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR THE 
JAVELIN ANTITANK WEAPONS AND 
SAID THEY WERE READY TO ORDER 
SOME MORE. 
AND WHAT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMPS 
IMMEDIATE RESPONSE? 
I HAVE A FAVOR TO ASK, THOUGH. 
WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE BRINGING UP MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE THAT TRIGGERED THE 
PRESIDENT TO GO IMMEDIATELY TO 
THE FAVOR THAT HE WANTED? 
I THINK THAT IS TELLING. 
THAT IT TAKES PLACE IN THAT 
PART OF THE CONVERSATION. 
SO, YES, SECURITY ASSISTANCE, 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE, DID, BUT 
NOT CALL, IT CAME UP 
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASK. 
WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DO YOU 
THINK THAT SINCE TWO UKRAINE? 
THEY ARE NOT STUPID. 
THE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS OR NOT 
STUPID. 
NOW, MR. PURPURA  SAID THEY 
NEVER FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, THEY 
NEVER FOUND ABOUT THE FREEZE IN 
THE AID UNTIL A COUPLE MONTHS 
AFTER. 
HE NEEDS TO BE MORE ACCURATE IN 
HIS FACTS. 
LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF 
THE TESTIMONY WILL HEAR AND YOU 
WILL ONLY HEAR IT BECAUSE IT 
TOOK PLACE IN THE HOUSE, THESE 
ARE OTHER WITNESSES YOU WOULD 
NOT BE ABLE TO HEAR. 
YOU HAD CATHERINE CROFT, A 
WITNESS FROM THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT, A CAREER OFFICIAL 
WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, WHO 
TALKED ABOUT HOW QUICKLY, 
ACTUALLY, AFTER THE FREEZE WENT 
INTO PLACE, UKRAINIANS FOUND 
OUT ABOUT IT AND SHE STARTED 
GETTING CONTEXT FROM THE 
UKRAINIAN EMBASSY HERE IN 
WASHINGTON. 
SHE SAID SHE WAS REALLY 
IMPRESSED WITH THEIR DIPLOMATIC 
TRADE CRAP. 
NOW WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? 
IT MEANS SHE WAS REALLY 
IMPRESSED WITH HOW QUICKLY THE 
UKRAINIANS FOUND OUT ABOUT 
SOMETHING THAT ADMINISTRATION 
WAS TRYING TO HIDE FROM THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
UKRAINE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, IN 
FACT, LAURA COOPER, A CAREER 
OFFICIAL AT THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT SAID THAT HER OFFICE 
STARTED GETTING INQUIRIES FROM 
UKRAINE ABOUT THE ISSUES WITH 
THE AID ON JULY 25th. 
THE VERY DAY OF THE CALL. 
SO MUCH FOR UKRAINE NOT FINDING 
OUT ABOUT THIS FOR A MONTH 
LATER. 
BUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS VERY 
TELLING, TOO. 
THE NEW YORK TIMES DISCLOSED 
THAT BY JULY 30th, SO WITHIN A 
WEEK OF THE CALL, BETWEEN 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENTS 
ONE SKI, UKRAINE'S FOREIGN 
MINISTRY RECEIVED A DIPLOMATIC 
CABLE FROM ITS INDUSTRY 
INDICATING THAT TRUMP HAD 
FROZEN THE MILITARY AID WITHIN 
A WEEK. 
THAT CABLE IS REPORTED TO HAVE 
GONE FROM THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY 
TO THE UKRAINIAN FOREIGN 
MINISTRY. 
AND, THE FORMER UKRAINIAN 
DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER, LENA 
SAID, QUOTE, "WE HAVE THIS 
INFORMATION. 
IT WAS DEFINITELY MENTIONED 
THAT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES." 
SHE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE 
CABLE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY 
PROVIDED TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY'S OFFICE.  
BUT, YOU LEARN MORE ABOUT 
LATER, UNDER THE TOP AID TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, REPORTEDLY 
DIRECTED HER TO KEEP SILENT AND 
NOT DISCUSS THE HOLD WITH  
REPORTERS OR CONGRESS. 
NOW, WE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT 
THE WHY THE UKRAINIANS WANTED 
TO KEEP IT SECRET, THAT THEY 
KNEW ABOUT IT. 
YOU CAN IMAGINE WHY. 
ZELENSKY DID NOT WANT HIS OWN 
PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
IS HOLDING BACK AID FROM HIM. 
WHAT IS THAT LOOK LIKE FOR A 
NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WHO IS 
TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THAT 
HE'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND 
HIS OWN COUNTRY BECAUSE HE HAS 
SUCH A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH 
A GREAT PATRON OF THE UNITED 
STATES? 
HE DID NOT WANT UKRAINIANS TO 
KNOW ABOUT IT BUT YOU KNOW EVEN 
MORE THAN THAT, HE DID NOT WANT 
THE RUSSIANS TO KNOW ABOUT IT 
FOR THE REASONS WE TALKED ABOUT 
EARLIER. 
SO, YES, THE UKRAINIANS KEPT IT 
CLOSE TO THE VEST. 
NOW, MR. PURPURA  ALSO WENT ON 
TO SAY, WELL, THE UKRAINIANS 
SAY THEY DID NOT FEEL ANY 
PRESSURE. 
THAT IS WHAT THEY SAY NOW. 
OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT IS NOT 
TRUE. 
WE HAVE HAD TESTIMONY THAT THEY 
DID NOT WANT TO BE USED AS A 
POLITICAL PAWN. 
IN U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS. 
THEY RESISTED IT. 
YOU WILL HEAR MORE TESTIMONY 
ABOUT THAT, BUT THE EFFORTS TO 
PUSH BACK ON THIS PUBLIC 
STATEMENT, HOW THEY TRIED TO, 
WATERTOWN, HOW THEY TRIED TO 
LEAVE OUT THE SPECIFICS AND HOW 
GIULIANI AT THE PRESIDENT'S 
BEHEST, FORCE THEM IN A NOTE, 
NOPE, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE 
CREDIBLE IF YOU DON'T ADD 
BURISMA  AND YOU DO NOT ADD 
2016. 
YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THE úPRESSU 
SO, WHY ISN'T PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY NOW SAYING HE WAS 
PRESSURED? 
WELL, CAN YOU IMAGINE THE 
IMPACT OF THAT? 
CAN YOU IMAGINE THE IMPACT OF 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IF YOU ARE 
ACKNOWLEDGED TODAY,  YES WE 
FELT PRESSURE. 
YOU WOULD TOO! 
WE ARE AT WAR WITH RUSSIA, FOR 
CRYING OUT LOUD. 
YEAH, WE FELT PRESSURE. 
WE NEEDED THOSE HUNDREDS OF 
MILLIONS OF MILITARY AID BUT 
YOU THINK I'M GOING TO SAY THAT 
NOW? 
I STILL CANNOT GET IN THE WHITE 
HOUSE DOOR. 
THEY LET THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN 
MINISTER IN. 
I CAN'T EVEN GET IN WHITE HOUSE 
DOOR. 
THINK I'M GOING TO GO OUT NOW 
AND ADMIT TO THIS SCHEME? 
ANYONE WHO HAS WATCHED THIS 
PRESIDENT THE LAST THREE YEARS 
KNOWS HOW VINDICTIVE HE CAN BE. 
TO YOU AND THINK IT WOULD BE 
SMART FOR THE PRESIDENT FOR 
UKRAINE TO CONTRADICT THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
SO DIRECTLY ON AN ISSUE HE IS 
BEING IMPEACHED FOR? 
THAT WOULD BE THE WORST FORM OF 
MALPRACTICE FOR THE NEW 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE. 
WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED HE 
WOULD DENY IT. 
WE SHOULD BE SURPRISED IF YOU 
WERE TO ADMIT IT. 
NOW, LET ME JUST END WITH A 
COUPLE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT MR. 
CIPOLLONE'S COMMENTS. 
HE SAYS , THIS IS NO BIG DEAL. 
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHEN 
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE WITNESSES 
OR IF ARE GOING TO WITNESSES, 
WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHEN. 
AS IF, LATER, THEY ARE GOING TO 
SAY, OH, YES, WE ARE HAPPY TO 
HAVE THE WITNESSES NOW. 
IT IS JUST A QUESTION OF WHEN. 
OKAY. 
AS MY COLLEAGUE SAID, LET'S BE 
REAL. 
THERE WILL BE NO WIND. 
THERE WILL BE NO WIND. 
DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO 
HAVE AN EPIPHANY A FEW DAYS 
FROM NOW AND SAY OKAY, WE ARE 
READY FOR WITNESSES. 
NO, NO. 
THEIR GOAL IS, GET YOU TO SAY 
NO NOW. 
GET YOU TO HAVE THE TRIAL, AND 
THEN ARGUE, MAKE IT GO AWAY. 
LET'S DISMISS THE WHOLE THING. 
THAT IS THE PLAN. 
A VOTE TO DELAY IS A VOTE TO 
DENY, LET'S MAKE NO MISTAKE 
ABOUT THAT. 
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN 
EPIPHANY A FEW DAYS FROM NOW 
AND SUDDENLY SAY, OKAY, THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE DO DESERVE THE 
ANSWERS. 
THEIR HAW ROAD GOAL IS THAT YOU 
WILL NEVER GET TO THAT POINT. 
YOU WILL NEVER GET TO THAT 
POINT. 
WHEN THEY SAY WHEN, THEY MEAN 
NEVER. 
I YELLED BACK. 
>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE 
AMENDMENT, AND ASK FOR THE YEAS 
AND NAYS. 
>> IS THERE A SUFFICIENT 
SECOND? 
THERE IS. 
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. 
>> MR. ALEXANDER. 
MISS BALDWIN. 
MR. BARRASSO. 
MR. BENNETT. 
MRS. BLACKBURN. 
MR. BLUMENTHAL. 
MR. BLUNT. 
MR. BOOKER. 
MR. BOZEMAN. 
MR. BRAUN. 
MR. BROWN. 
MR. BURR. 
MS. CANTWELL. 
MRS. O. MR. CARDIN. 
MR. CARPER. 
MR. CASEY. 
MR. CASSIDY. 
MS. COLLINS. 
MR. .  MR. CORNYN. 
MISS CORTEZ MANIFESTO. 
MR. COTTON. 
MR. KRAMER. 
MR. CRAPO. 
MR. CRUZ. 
MR. DAINES. 
MS. DUCKWORTH. 
MR. DURBIN. 
MR. NZ. 
MS. ERNST. 
MRS. FEINSTEIN. 
MRS. FISHER. 
MR. GARDNER. 
MRS. JILL A BRAND. 
MR. GRAHAM. 
MR. GRASSLEY. 
MS. HARRIS. 
MS. HASSAN. 
MR. HOLLY. 
MR. HEINRICH. 
MS. SERONO. 
MR. HOVEN. 
MRS. HYDE SMITH. 
MR. IN HALF. 
MR. JOHNSON. 
MR. JONES. 
MR. KANE. 
MR. KENNEDY. 
MR. KING. 
MS. KLOBUCHAR. 
MR. LANGFORD. 
MR. LEAHY. 
MR. LEE. 
MRS. LEFFLER. 
MR. MANSION. 
MRS. MARQUIS. 
MR. McCONNELL. 
MS. MIX SALLY. 
MR. MENENDEZ. 
MR. MERKLEY. 
MR. MORAN. 
MS. MARKOWSKI. 
MR. MURPHY. 
MRS. MURRAY. 
MR. PAUL. 
MR. PERDUE. 
MR. PETERS. 
MR. PORTMAN. 
MR. REED. 
MR. RISH. 
MR. ROBERTS. 
MR. ROMNEY. 
MS. ROSEN IN. 
MR. ROUSE. 
MR. RUBIO. 
MR. SANDERS. 
MR. SASS. 
MR. SHOTS. 
MR. SCHUMER. 
MR. SCOTT OF FLORIDA. 
MR. SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 
MRS. SHAHEEN. 
MR. SHELBY. 
MS. CINEMA. 
MS. SMITH. 
MS. STABBING NOW. 
MR. SULLIVAN. 
MR. TESTER. 
MR. SOON. 
MR. TELL US. 
MR. TOOMEY. 
MR. UDALL. 
MR. VAN HOLLAND. 
MR. WARNER. 
MS. WARREN. 
MR. WHITEHOUSE. 
MR. WHITAKER. 
MR. WYDEN. 
MR. YOUNG. 
>>> ARE THERE ANY SENATORS IN 
THE CHAMBER WISHING TO CHANGE 
HIS OR HER VOTE? 
IF NOT, THE YEAS ARE 53 AND THE 
NAYS ARE 47. 
THE AMENDMENT IS TABLED. 
>> CHIEF JUSTICE. 
>> MR. MAJORITY LEADER IS 
RECOGNIZED. 
>> I WOULD ASK CONSENT TO ASK 
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER, SINCE 
THERE IS A CERTAIN SIMILARITY 
TO ALL THESE AMENDMENTS, 
WHETHER HE MIGHT BE WILLING TO 
ENTER INTO A CONSENT AGREEMENT 
TO STACK THESE VOTES. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE 
INQUIRY IS PERMITTED. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF 
JUSTICE. 
THE BOTTOM LINE IS VERY SIMPLE. 
AS HAS BEEN CLEAR TO EVERY 
SENATOR AND THE COUNTRY, WE 
BELIEVE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS 
ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND A 
COMPELLING CASE HAS BEEN MADE 
FOR THEM. 
WE WILL HAVE VOTES ON ALL OF 
THOSE, WE WILL ALSO, THE 
LEADER, WITHOUT CONSULTING US, 
MAY CHANGE, MAKE A NUMBER OF 
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THE 
SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATED FROM THE 
1999 CLINTON RESOLUTION, WE 
WANT TO CHANGE THOSE. 
SO, THERE WILL BE A GOOD NUMBER 
OF VOTES. 
WE ARE WILLING TO DO SOME OF 
THOSE VOTES TOMORROW, THERE IS 
NO REASON WE HAVE TO DO THEM 
ALL TONIGHT. 
AND INCONVENIENCE, THE SENATE 
AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE, BUT WE 
WILL NOT BACK OFF ON GETTING 
VOTES ON ALL OF THESE 
AMENDMENTS, WHICH WE REGARD AS 
EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT AND 
IMPORTANT TO THE COUNTRY. 
>> AS I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY, 
ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS, UNDER 
THE RESOLUTION, COULD BE DEALT 
WITH AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF ROOM. 
>> THE CLERK WILL CALL THE 
ROLL. 
>> MR. ALEXANDER. 
>>> ALL RIGHT, THE SENATE IS 
TAKING A LITTLE BREAK AND A 
LITTLE VOTE, WHICH MOLLY IS 
GOING TO EXPLAIN TO US THE 
PROCESS THAT IS GOING ON RIGHT 
NOW. 
>> SO, WHAT HAPPENS IS, WE JUST 
SAW IN THE LEAD UP TO THIS 
FORUM CALL, QUOTE UNQUOTE 
MITCH McCONNELL SAYING HEY, 
LET'S JUST STACK THESE VOTES 
BECAUSE CHUCK SCHUMER HAS A 
NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS HE WANTS 
TO OFFER, AS OPPOSED TO 
CONTINUING TO GO WITH THIS PACE 
WHICH COULD LAST ALL NIGHT. 
LET'S JUST STACK THESE VOTES, 
WE WILL HAVE THEM ALL AT THE 
SAME TIME ESSENTIALLY, AND 
CONDENSE THE SCHEDULE. 
AND, CHUCK SCHUMER CAME UP AND 
SAID NO, I WANT TO HAVE A DEBATE
AND A VOTE ON EACH OF MY 
AMENDMENS, HOWEVER, I AM 
WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU IN 
TERMS OF THE SCHEDULE, BECAUSE, 
BEAR IN MIND, THE CHIEF JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT IS 
PRESIDING OVER THIS IMPEACHMENT 
TRIAL. 
>> AND HE HAS A DAY JOB. 
>> HE HAS A DAY JOB. 
WHICH INCIDENTALLY, DECIDES A 
LOT FOR THIS COUNTRY. 
HAS TO DO WITH THE LAW. 
AND, SO SCHUMER SAID OKAY, WELL 
WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU 
ON THAT, ON THE TIMING AND 
TERMS OF WHEN WE WILL COME 
BACK, ESSENTIALLY. 
AND SO, WHAT HAPPENED IS, WHEN 
YOU HEAR McCONNELL SAYING I 
SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A 
QUORUM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING 
YEARS OF C-SPAN AND SENATE.COM 
ARE VERY FAMILIAR. 
IT BASICALLY IS A PLACEHOLDER 
THAT ALLOWS THE CLOCK TO RUN 
WHILE THE SENATE IS WAITING FOR 
A SENATOR TO COME AND SPEAK, 
AND OR SAY WHAT IS HAPPENING 
NOW. 
WHAT I BELIEVE IS HAPPENING, WE 
CANNOT SEE THEM BECAUSE OF 
COURSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE 
ENTIRE CHAMBER, BUT I IMAGINE 
THAT MITCH McCONNELL AND CHUCK 
SCHUMER ARCHONS HAVING ABOUT, 
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? 
LET'S DO ONE MORE AMENDMENT 
TONIGHT, TAKE A VOTE, WE WILL 
RECONVENE TOMORROW, SO RIGHT 
NOW THEY ARE JUST WORKING OUT 
THESE SORT OF YOU KNOW, 
HOUSEKEEPING DETAILS, BUT NOT 
THE HOUSEKEEPING DETAILS 
RELATED TO IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 
OVERALL. 
>> SO DOES IT LOOK LIKE PERHAPS 
THEY'RE PLANNING ON WRAPPING UP 
SOON? 
>> I WOULD SAY PROBABLY THEY 
ARE. 
AGAIN, SCHUMER WAS VERY MINDFUL 
OF CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS 
IS SCHEDULE. 
AND, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT WE 
HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE 
AMENDMENTS THAT CHUCK SCHUMER 
WANTS TO ADD, ONE OF WHICH, 
BEING A SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS 
FROM THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, 
THAT DEBATE WOULD GO PROBABLY 
VERY MUCH LIKE THE DEBATE HAS 
BEEN GOING THIS FAR THIS 
AFTERNOON, RELATED TO THE 
DEMAND FOR DOCUMENTS FROM THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT, FROM OMB, 
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THE 
NEXT ONE WOULD BE THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT AND EARLIER TODAY, I 
BELIEVE IT WAS ONE OF THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS, AB ADAM SCHIFF, 
MENTIONED THAT THE ENERGY 
DEPARTMENT COULD EXPECT TO, YOU 
KNOW -- SO SCHUMER HAS A NUMBER 
OF THESE UP HIS SLEEVE. 
BUT SO, MOLLY, IT IS PRETTY 
CLEAR THEN AT THIS POINT, THAT 
THE DEMOCRAT STRATEGY IS TO 
PAINSTAKINGLY GO THROUGH EACH 
SINGLE ONE OF THESE POTENTIAL 
SUBPOENAS, OR EVIDENCE, FOR 
WITNESSES, AND NOT RUSH THROUGH 
THEM? 
>> EXACTLY. 
AND REMEMBER, WHAT WE JUST SAW 
UNFOLD, I BELIEVE IT WAS ADAM 
SCHIFF CAME UP AND RESPONDED TO 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL POP 
CIPOLLONE'S OBSERVATION,  BUT 
REALLY, THE DEMOCRATS,  THIS IS 
CIPOLLONE, DEMOCRATS ARE JUST 
DRYING OUT THIS PROCESS BECAUSE 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, THEY 
ARE NOT -- AND THIS IS PER 
CIPOLLONE,  THEY DON'T SAY THAT 
THEY ARE CAMPAIGNING WITNESSES, 
THEY JUST SAY WHY ARE WE HAVING 
THIS DEBATE NOW? 
AND ADAM SCHIFF CAME UP AND 
SAID THAT IS A LITTLE 
DISINGENUOUS BECAUSE BASICALLY, 
WE WILL NOT GET THE EVIDENCE, 
WE CANNOT HAVE THIS 
CONVERSATION, WE CANNOT 
INTRODUCE THIS INFORMATION 
UNTIL AFTER THE SENATORS HAVE 
ALREADY ASKED QUESTIONS. 
AND BY THE WAY, IN THIS 
RESOLUTION, THERE IS ONLY  FOUR 
HOURS ALLOWED UNDER THIS 
RESOLUTION FOR BOTH SIDES TO 
PROPOSE AND DEBATE HAVING 
WITNESSES. 
>> SO THERE'S NO WAY THEY COULD 
QUESTION THESE WITNESSES, 
INCLUDE ALL THE EVIDENCE I WANT 
TO INCLUDE. 
>> EVEN JUST MAKE THE CASE FOR 
THEM. 
BECAUSE LOOK AT YOUR CLOCK, HOW 
LONG HAVE YOU BEEN THERE? 
THAT IS LOT LONGER THAN FOUR 
HOURS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
HAVE BEEN MAKING A CASE FOR THE 
USE KEY DOCUMENTS. 
AND, MOST RECENT VOTE WAS ON 
MICK MULVANEY COMPELLING MICK 
MULVANEY TO COME BEFORE THE 
CONGRESS. 
AND SO REALLY WHAT IT IS DOING, 
IS BUYING DEMOCRATS TIME TO 
MAKE THEIR CASE FOR THESE 
WITNESSES UP FRONT, AS OPPOSED 
TO WAITING UNTIL THE END OF THE 
PROCESS WHEN, AGAIN, YOU ONLY 
GET TO OURS A PIECE. 
>> RIGHT, BECAUSE EACH SINGLE 
TIME THEY ARE MAKING THE CASE 
FOR THE RESOLUTION, WE ARE 
ACTUALLY HEARING SOME OF THE 
EVIDENCE. 
>> EXACTLY. 
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, THESE 
DEMOCRATS, IF YOU HAVE BEEN 
WATCHING, OF COURSE GREAT CBSN 
BEERS HAVE BEEN WATCHING, THE 
EXHIBITS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED, 
THE VIDEO PRESENTATIONS, IT IS 
WELL PREPARED. 
AND OBVIOUSLY THESE HOUSE 
MANAGERS CAME PREPARED TO PLAY, 
AND TO MAKE THESE AMENDMENTS 
AGAIN, BEFORE THE SENATE VOTES 
ON McCONNELL'S RESOLUTION. 
>> RIGHT, SO THIS REQUEST THAT 
McCONNELL HAS, CAN'T YOU JUST 
PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER IN ONE 
LITTLE BUNDLE AND WE CAN VOTE 
ON THEM AT ONCE? 
>> SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS IS, THE 
SENATE AND THE HOUSE, THEY WILL 
QUOTE UNQUOTE STUCK VOTES. 
SO ESSENTIALLY THAT LOOKS LIKE 
OKAY, WE ARE VOTING ON -- WE 
ARE GOING TO DEBATE A RESOLUTION
, HOLD THAT VOTE, WE WILL 
DEBATE THE NEXT RESOLUTION, 
THAT FOOT, AND WEIGHED INTO THE 
VERY AND WHEN THEY CAN JUST GO 
BOOM BOOM BOOM, VOTE ON EACH 
ONE. 
BUT SCHUMER IS BASICALLY 
SAYING, NO. 
WE DO NOT WANT THAT. 
AND, HE INTIMATED THAT THESE 
CHANGES THAT WE LEARNED OF 
EARLIER TODAY, WHEREBY BOTH 
SIDES, THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, WOULD 
HAVE THREE DAYS TO MAKE THEIR 
CASE AS OPPOSED TO CONDENSING 
IT INTO TWO. 
THESE CHANGES THAT McCONNELL 
MADE AT THE BEHEST OF THE MORE 
MODERATE MEMBERS OF THIS CAUCUS,
CHARLES SCHUMER SAID, YOU KNOW, 
THESE ARE A LOT MORE, HE DID 
NOT USE THE WORD NEFARIOUS, BUT 
TRICKY THAN THEY SEEM. 
IT IS NOT SO CLEAR-CUT. 
IT IS NOT JUST THREE DAYS AND 
YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE BEING 
ALLOWED IN. 
>> THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. 
>> THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. 
AND I HAVE A FEELING HE WANTS 
TO AMEND A LOT OF THOSE 
DETAILS. 
>> SO IS THAT WHAT THEY ARE 
DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW? 
>> ESSENTIALLY, AGAIN HOW I 
ENVISION IT, WHAT HAS NORMALLY 
HAPPENED IN THE PAST, IS THE 
LEADERS WOULD BE DISCUSSING THE 
AMENDMENTS THAT CHUCK SCHUMER 
WAS GOINGTO BRING UP. 
AGAIN, I HAVE A FEELING THAT IT 
IS IN RELATION TO THE TIME AND 
THE TIMING OF WHEN -- OF HOW 
LONG THE SENATE WILL GO 
TONIGHT. 
WEATHER THE SENATE WILL IN FACT 
WAIT AND LISTEN TO DEBATE OVER 
THIS AMENDMENT TO COMPEL 
DOCUMENTS FROM THE DEFENSE 
DEPARTMENT. 
>> MOLLY, SORRY TO INTERRUPT 
BUT I AM HEARING THAT A SENATOR 
IS SPEAKING, LET'S LISTEN IN. 
>> JUST A LOT OF ARGUMENTS 
INCLUDING, WE CONTINUE TO THINK 
ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS GETTING 
RID OF THE PRESIDENT. 
THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID. 
SO, IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY 
DID NOT PREPARE VERY WELL FOR 
THIS TRIAL AND I FIGURE THAT 
THAT IS HOW IT'S GOING TO BE. 
YOU KNOW? 
THEY ARE DEFENDING A PRESIDENT 
WHO HAS SAID UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF 
THE CONSTITUTION, I CAN DO 
ANYTHING I WANT. 
I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT, AND 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS 
DOING. 
>> RIGHT, WE JUST HEARD A 
SENATOR THERE COMBINING THAT 
REPUBLICANS KEEP SAYING THIS IS 
ALL ABOUT TRYING TO GET RID OF 
A DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT AND 
THE SENATOR THERE JUST SAID NO, 
THAT IS NOT OUR POINT. 
OUR POINT IS, HE DID WRONG. 
HE DID WRONG. 
AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. 
DO YOU THINK, THOUGH, THERE IS 
SOME TASTE THAT REPUBLICAN 
ARGUMENT THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE 
FROM THE BEGINNING BEEN 
TARGETING THIS PRESIDENT? 
>> OH, SURE. 
AND WANTS THIS TRIAL GETS 
STARTED, YOU KNOW PAT CIPOLLONE 
EMPLOYED THE SENATE, LET'S JUST 
GET THIS TRIAL STARTED ALREADY. 
THE WHITE HOUSE WILL MAKE THAT 
POINT AND HOLD UP THAT 
WASHINGTON POST HEADLINE , YOU 
KNOW, THE RACE TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT HAS BEGUN. 
AND THAT HEADLINE CAME THE DAY 
OF THE INAUGURATION, OR THE DAY 
AFTER THE INAUGURATION OF 
DONALD TRUMP. 
>> AT THE SAME TIME AS A 
SENATOR POINTED OUT, THEY 
CANNOT JUST HIDE BEHIND THAT, 
IF THE PRESIDENT DOES DO 
SOMETHING WRONG. 
>> OF COURSE. 
AND YOU KNOW, I AM NOT 
NECESSARILY ENDORSING THAT IS A 
STRATEGY, BUT IT IS SOMETHING 
THAT WE DID HEAR A LOT FROM THE 
HOUSE REPUBLICANS, AND THOSE 
DEFENDERS OF THE PRESIDENT, 
LIKE DOUG COLLINS, JOHN 
RADCLIFFE, JIM JORDAN, 
INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE PLAYING A 
ROLE BEHIND THE SCENES, IN 
TERMS OF MESSAGING MESS. 
THEY HAVE PUSH THAT MESSAGE, 
THAT THIS WAS OUT FROM THE -- 
YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS DALTON 
BECAME THE PRESIDENT, DEMOCRATS 
INTRODUCED RESOLUTIONS TO 
IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT FOR ONE 
THING OR ANOTHER. 
COMMENTS HE MADE REGARDING 
CHARLOTTESVILLE, YOU KNOW, WHAT 
IS GOING ON AT THE BORDER, 
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF 
RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED IN THE 
HOUSE AIMED AT IMPEACHING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
AND YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO OF 
COURSE, THE OFFICIAL 
IMPEACHMENT ANGRY. 
AND, REPUBLICANS WILL POINT TO 
THAT AND SAY, LOOK, THEY HAVE 
BEEN WANTING TO DO THIS THE 
WHOLE TIME, AND AFTER THE 
MUELLER REPORT CAME OUT, AND IT 
DID NOT PROVIDE, IT DID NOT SAY 
THAT THERE WAS RUSSIAN 
COLLUSION AND THE OBSTRUCTION 
OF JUSTICE, THE 10 ITEMS OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LISTED. 
THEY MAY HAVE BEEN LISTED BUT 
BOB MUELLER DID NOT RECOMMEND 
IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT. 
HE DIDN'T RECOMMEND NOT 
IMPEACHING HIM EITHER. 
HE REALLY LEFT THAT INTO THE 
HANDS OF CONGRESS. 
AND REALLY, THAT ADDED SUCH A 
WRINKLE FOR BOTH SIDES, REALLY. 
BECAUSE TALKING TO REPUBLICANS 
IN THE HOUSE LEADING UP TO THE 
MUELLER REPORT, A NUMBER OF 
THEM SAID TO ME, WE ANTICIPATE 
THAT BOB MUELLER WILL RECOMMEND 
IMPEACHMENT. 
THAT WAS A DIFFERENT MANDATE. 
BUT KEN WENT TO CONGRESS WITH 
HIS, I MEAN, BANKERS BOXES. 
LIKE MASSIVE NUMBERS OF BANKERS 
BOXES FULL OF EVIDENCE AND 
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE HOUSE 
IMPEACH THAN IN PRESIDENT 
CLINTON, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN 
WITH BUBBLER, WHICH LEFT THE 
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SORT 
OF IN THIS NO MAN'S LAND OF 
WHERE TO GO, BECAUSE IF YOU 
LOOK AT THE MUELLER REPORT, BOB 
MUELLER DID LIST 10 ITEMS OF 
POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, BUT, HOW DO YOU ARGUE 
THAT? 
YOU KNOW? 
AND THEN, THIS CALL COMES OUT 
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT IS LIKE 
OH BOY, HERE WE GO. 
AND BECAUSE IT HAS GONE SO 
QUICKLY, THE HOUSE 
INVESTIGATION FROM START TO 
FINISH WENT SO QUICKLY, 
COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, TO THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND ANDREW 
JOHNSON, YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE 
DAY, THAT REPUBLICANS ARE 
PRINTED AT THE FACT THIS IS 
SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
PUSHING FROM THE BEGINNING. 
THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A REASON 
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. 
FAIR OR NOT, THAT IS WHAT 
REPUBLICANS I THINK WILL BE 
ARGUING. 
>> RIGHT, MOLLY HOOPER IS. 
THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK IN A FEW 
MOMENTS WITH MORE OF THE SENATE 
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. 
YOU ARE STREAMING "RED & BLUE," 
ON CBSN. 
>>> WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU 
BACK TO THE SENATE FLOOR WHERE 
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER IS 
SPEAKING. 
LET'S LISTEN IN. 
>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK, 
MR. SCHUMER, PROPOSES AN 
AMENDMENT. 
NUMBER 1288. 
AT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE 
RESOLVING CLAUSE, ANSWER THE 
FOLLOWING. 
SECTION. 
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER 
PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION, 
PURSUANT TO RULES FIVE AND SIX 
OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES AND 
PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN 
SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, 
ONE. 
THIS CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE 
UNITED STATES, THE SECRETARY OF 
THE SENATE, SHALL ISSUE A 
SUBPOENA TO THE SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE, COMMANDING HIM TO 
PRODUCE FOR THE TIME 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 OR RELATING TO LETTER 
A, THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL 
SUSPENSION OF HOLDING, 
DELAYING, FREEZING, OR 
RELEASING OF UNITED STATES 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND TO 
UKRAINE. 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
THE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 
INITIATIVE, USA I, AND FOREIGN 
MILITARY FINANCING, FMF, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
ONE, COMMUNICATIONS AMONG 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 THE 
SECRETARY MARK ESPER, DEPUTY 
SECRETARY DAVID NORQUIST, 
UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
ELAINE McCUSKER, AND DEPUTY 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 
LAURA COOPER, OR MR. ERIC 
SHOOTING. 
THREE. 
DRAFT OR FINAL LETTERS FROM 
DEPUTY 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 FOR 
PUBLIC INTEGRITY TRACKING 
NUMBER 19 DASH F DASH 1934. 
B, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT'S 
KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO AUGUST 28th, 
2019 OF ANY ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL 
SUSPENSION WITHHOLDING, 
DELAYING, FREEZING, OR 
RELEASING OF UNITED STATES FOR 
INSISTENCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, OR SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
ALL MEETINGS, CALLS, OR OTHER 
ENGAGEMENTS WITH UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS, REGARDING POTENTIAL 
OR ACTUAL SUSPENSIONS, HOLDS, 
OR DELAYS IN UNITED STATES 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
ONE, COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED 
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
CONCERNING THE UKRAINIAN 
EMBASSY'S INQUIRIES ABOUT 
UNITED STATES FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, AND SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, AND TWO, 
COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED 
DIRECTLY FROM THE UKRAINIAN 
EMBASSY ABOUT UNITED STATES 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE. 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 
C, COMMUNICATIONS, OPINIONS, 
ADVICE, COUNSEL, APPROVALS, OR 
CONCURRENCES PROVIDED BY THE 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFFICE 
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OR 
THE WHITE HOUSE, ON THE 
LEGALITY OF ANY SUSPENSION, 
WITHHOLDING, DELAYING, 
FREEZING, OR RELEASING OF 
UNITED STATES FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, AND SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE. 
D, PLANNED OR ACTUAL MEETINGS 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP RELATED TO 
UNITED STATES FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE, MILITARY ASSISTANCE,
OR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO ANY TALKING POINTS 
AND NOTES FOR SECRETARY MARK 
ESPER'S PLAN OR ACTUAL MEETINGS 
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON AUGUST 
16th, AUGUST 19, OR AUGUST 
30th, 2019. 
E, THE DECISION ANNOUNCED ON OR 
ABOUT TO SEPTEMBER 11th, 2019, 
TO RELEASE APPROPRIATED FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE, MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, AND SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, 
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 
ANY NOTES, MEMORANDA, 
DOCUMENTATION, OR 
CORRESPONDENCE, RELATED 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 OF, PREPARATION FOR, 
AND FOLLOW-UP FROM THE 
PRESIDENT'S APRIL 21 AND JULY 
25 2019 TELEPHONE CALLS AS WELL 
AS THE PRESIDENT'S SEPTEMBER 
25, 2019 MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE IN NEW 
YORK, AND LETTER TO, ANY OTHER 
EMPLOYEE OF THE SENATE, AND 
SERVING THE SUBPOENA AUTHORIZED 
TO BE ISSUED BY THIS ACTION. 
>> THE AMENDMENT IS ARGUABLE BY 
THE PARTIES FOR TWO HOURS, 
EQUALLY DIVIDED. 
MR. MANAGER SHIFT, ARE YOU A 
PROPONENT OR OPPONENT? 
MR. CIPOLLONE?  
MR. SCHIFF, THE HOUSE MANAGERS 
CAN PROCEED FIRST AND RESERVE 
TIME FOR REBUTTAL. 
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE HOUSE 
MANAGERS WILL BE RESERVING THE 
BALANCE OF OUR TIME TO RESPOND 
TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE COUNSEL 
FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, AND 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY 
GETTING SOMETHING OFF MY CHEST. 
SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN 
BOTHERING ME FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND 
SOME OTHER FOLKS IN THIS ROOM 
HAVE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT 
HOW LATE IT IS GETTING. 
HOW LONG THIS DEBATE IS TAKING. 
IT IS ALMOST 10:00 P.M. 
IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THEY SAY, 
LET'S GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD, 
LET'S GET MOVING. 
AND THE WHOLE TIME, THE ONLY 
THING I CAN THINK ABOUT IS HOW 
LATE IT IS IN OTHER PLACES. 
