THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE WILL CONVENE AS A COURT
OF IMPEACHMENT.
THE CHAPLAIN WILL LEAD US IN
PRAYER.
THE CHAPLAIN:  LET US PRAY.
DIVINE SHEPHERD,
HONOR, GLORY, AND POWER
BELONG TO YOU.
REFRESH OUR SENATORS
AS THEY ENTER
A NEW PHASE OF
THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.
MAY THEY REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE
APPOINTED THEM FOR THIS
GREAT SERVICE, AND THEY ARE
ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU.
EMPOWER THEM TO LABOR TODAY WITH
THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF PLEASING
YOU, KNOWING THAT IT IS NEVER
WRONG TO DO RIGHT.
GIVE THEM RESILIENCY IN THEIR
TOIL, AS THEY REMEMBER YOUR
PROMISE THAT THEY WILL REAP A
BOUNTIFUL HARVEST IF THEY DON'T
GIVE UP.
HELP THEM TO FOLLOW THE ROAD OF
HUMILITY THAT LEADS TO HONOR, AS
THEY FIND THEIR SAFETY IN
TRUSTING YOU.
WE PRAY IN YOUR MAJESTIC NAME.
AMEN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: PLEASE
JOIN ME IN RECITING
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
TO OUR FLAG.
 I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE
TO THE FLAG
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AND TO THE REPUBLIC
FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE,
WITH LIBERTY
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IF
THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE
TRIAL BE APPROVED TO DATE.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL MAKE
THE PROCLAMATION.
THE SERGEANT AT ARMS:
HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE!
ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO
KEEP SILENT, ON PAIN OF
IMPRISONMENT, WHILE THE SENATE
OF THE  UNITED STATES IS SITTING
FOR THE TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. McCONNELL: TODAY THE
SENATE WILL CONDUCT UP TO EIGHT
HOURS OF QUESTIONS TO THE
PARTIES, DELIVERED IN WRITING TO
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
AS A REMINDER, THE TWO SIDES
WILL ALTERNATE AND ANSWERS
SHOULD BE KEPT TO FIVE MINUTES
OR LESS.
THE MAJORITY SIDE WILL LEAD OFF
WITH A QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR
FROM MAINE.
MS. COLLINS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.
MS. COLLINS: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK.
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR
MURKOWSKI, AND SENATOR ROMNEY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THIS IS A
QUESTION FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE THAN
ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS ALLEGED
CONDUCT, SUCH AS THE PURSUIT OF
PERSONAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE,
ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION, AND THE
PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INTERESTS,
HOW SHOULD THE SENATE CONSIDER
MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE IN ITS
ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLE 1?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, IN RESPONSE TO THAT
QUESTION, THERE ARE REALLY TWO
LAYERS TO MY ANSWER, BECAUSE I'D
LIKE TO POINT OUT FIRST THAT
EVEN IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE
MOTIVE, THE THEORY OF ABUSE OF
POWER THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE PRESENTED IS SUBJECTIVE
MOTIVE ALONE CAN BECOME THE
BASIS FOR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE
WE BELIEVE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
DEFECTIVE.
IT IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE WAY TO
FRAME A CLAIM OF AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
SO -- BUT I WILL PUT THAT TO ONE
SIDE AND ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF
MIXED MOTIVE.
IF THERE WERE A MOTIVE THAT WAS
IN PUBLIC INTEREST BUT ALSO SOME
PERSONAL INTEREST, WE THINK IT
FOLLOWS EVEN MORE CLEARLY THAT
THAT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THE
BASIS FOR AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
AND EVEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS, AS
THEY HAVE FRAMED THEIR CASE,
THEY HAVE EXPLAINED -- AND THIS
IS POINTED OUT IN OUR TRIAL
MEMORANDUM, THAT IN THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT, THEY
SPECIFY THAT THE STANDARD THEY
HAVE TO MEET IS TO SHOW THAT
THIS IS A SHAM INVESTIGATION.
IT'S A BOGUS INVESTIGATION.
THESE INVESTIGATIONS HAVE --
THERE IS NOT ANY LEGITIMATE
PUBLIC PURPOSE.
THAT'S THE LANGUAGE.
ANY LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE.
THAT'S THE STANDARD THEY HAVE
SET FOR THEMSELVES IN BEING ABLE
TO MAKE THIS CLAIM UNDER THEIR
THEORY OF WHAT AN ABUSE OF POWER
OFFENSE CAN BE.
SO IT'S A VERY DEMANDING
STANDARD THAT THEY HAVE SET FOR
THEMSELVES TO MEET, AND THEY
HAVE EVEN SAID THEY CAME UP AND
THEY TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE
BIDENS.
THEY TALKED A LOT ABOUT THESE
ISSUES IN 2016 ELECTION
INTERFERENCE, BECAUSE THEY WERE
SAYING THERE WAS NOT EVEN A
SCINTILLA, A SCINTILLA OF ANY
EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING WORTH
LOOKING INTO THERE.
AND THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT
THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET, SHOWING
THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC
INTEREST, AND THE PRESIDENT
COULDN'T HAVE HAD ANY SMIDGEN
EVEN OF A PUBLIC INTEREST
MOTIVE, BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZE
THAT ONCE YOU GET INTO A MIXED
MOTIVE SITUATION, IF THERE IS
BOTH SOME PERSONAL MOTIVE BUT
ALSO A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC
INTEREST MOTIVE, YOU CAN'T
POSSIBLY BE -- IT CAN'T POSSIBLY
BE AN OFFENSE, BECAUSE IT WOULD
BE ABSURD TO HAVE THE SENATE
TRYING TO CONSIDER, WELL, WAS IT
48% LEGITIMATE INTEREST AND 52%
PERSONAL INTEREST, OR WAS IT THE
OTHER WAY?
WAS IT 53% AND 47%?
YOU CAN'T DIVIDE IT THAT WAY.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY RECOGNIZE
THAT TO HAVE EVEN A REMOTELY
COHERENT THEORY, THE STANDARD
THEY HAVE TO SET FOR THEMSELVES
IS ESTABLISHING THERE IS NO
POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST AT ALL
FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS.
AND IF THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY,
IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT SHOWS
A POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE THAT
POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE,
THAT DESTROYS THEIR CASE.
SO ONCE YOU'RE INTO MIXED MOTIVE
LAND, IT'S CLEAR THAT THEIR CASE
FAILS.
THERE CAN'T POSSIBLY BE AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AT ALL.
AND THINK ABOUT IT.
ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, TO SOME
EXTENT, HAVE IN MIND HOW THEIR
CONDUCT, HOW THEIR DECISIONS,
THEIR POLICY DECISIONS WILL
AFFECT THE NEXT ELECTION.
THERE IS ALWAYS SOME PERSONAL
INTEREST IN THE ELECTORAL
OUTCOME OF POLICY DECISIONS, AND
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
THAT'S PART OF REPRESENTATIVE
DEMOCRACY.
AND TO GO START SAYING NOW THAT,
WELL, IF YOU HAVE GOT A PART
MOTIVE THAT'S FOR YOUR PERSONAL
ELECTORAL GAIN, THAT THAT'S
SOMEHOW GOING TO BECOME AN
OFFENSE, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE, AND IT'S TOTALLY
UNWORKABLE, AND IT CAN'T BE A
BASIS FOR REMOVING A PRESIDENT
FROM OFFICE.
SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS ONCE
YOU'RE INTO ANY MIXED MOTIVE
SITUATION, ONCE IT IS
ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS A
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT
COULD JUSTIFY LOOKING INTO
SOMETHING, JUST ASKING A
QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING, THE
MANAGERS' CASE FAILS, AND IT
FAILS UNDER THEIR OWN TERMS.
THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAVE TO
SHOW NO POSSIBLE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
THERE ISN'T ANY LEGITIMATE
PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND THEY HAVE TOTALLY FAILED TO
MAKE THAT CASE.
I THINK WE HAVE SHOWN VERY
CLEARLY THAT BOTH OF THE THINGS
THAT WERE MENTIONED, 2016
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND THE
BIDEN BURISMA SITUATION, ARE
THINGS THAT RAISE AT LEAST SOME
PUBLIC INTEREST, THERE IS
SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING AT
THERE.
IT'S NEVER BEEN INVESTIGATED IN
THE BIDEN SITUATION.
LOTS OF THEIR OWN WITNESSES FROM
THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAID THAT
ON ITS FACE, IT APPEARS TO BE A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IT'S AT LEAST WORTH RAISING A
QUESTION ABOUT, ASKING A
QUESTION ABOUT IT.
AND THERE IS THAT PUBLIC
INTEREST, AND THAT MEANS THEIR
CASE ABSOLUTELY FAILS.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
DEMOCRATIC LEADER ASKS OF THE
HOUSE MANAGERS, JOHN R. BOLTON'S
FORTHCOMING BOOK STATES THAT THE
PRESIDENT WANTED TO CONTINUE
WITHHOLDING $391 MILLION IN
MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE UNTIL
UKRAINE ANNOUNCED INVESTIGATIONS
INTO HIS TOP POLITICAL RIVAL AND
THE DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY
ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION.
IS THERE ANY WAY FOR THE SENATE
TO RENDER A FULLY INFORMED
VERDICT IN THIS CASE WITHOUT
HEARING THE TESTIMONY OF BOLTON,
MULVANEY, AND THE OTHER KEY
EYEWITNESSES OR WITHOUT SEEING
THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE?
MR. SCHIFF: THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE.
THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION IS NO.
THERE'S NO WAY TO HAVE A FAIR
TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES, AND
WHEN YOU HAVE A WITNESS WHO IS
AS PLAINLY RELEVANT AS JOHN
BOLTON WHO GOES TO THE HEART OF
THE MOST SERIOUS AND EGREGIOUS
OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT,
WHO HAS VOLUNTEERED TO COME AND
TESTIFY, TO TURN HIM AWAY TO
LOOK THE OTHER WAY, I THINK IS
DEEPLY AT ODDS WITH BEING AN
IMPARTIAL JUROR.
I WOULD ALSO ADD IN RESPONSE TO
THE LAST QUESTION THAT IF ANY
PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S
MOTIVATION WAS A CORRUPT MOTIVE,
IF IT WAS A CAUSAL FACTOR IN THE
ACTION TO FREEZE THE AID OR
WITHHOLD THE MEETING, THAT IS
ENOUGH TO CONVICT.
IT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO CONVICT
UNDER CRIMINAL LAW.
BUT HERE THERE IS NO QUESTION
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
MOTIVATION.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
MOTIVATION, IT MAKES IT ALL THE
MORE ESSENTIAL TO CALL THE MAN
WHO SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH THE
PRESIDENT, THAT THE PRESIDENT
CONFIDED IN AND SAID HE WAS
HOLDING UP THIS AID BECAUSE HE
WANTED UKRAINE TO CONDUCT THESE
POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT
WOULD HELP HIM IN THE NEXT
ELECTION.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT
WHETHER IT WAS A FACTOR, THE
FACTOR, A QUARTER OF THE FACTOR,
ALL OF THE FACTOR, THERE IS A
WITNESS A SUBPOENA AWAY WHO CAN
ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
BUT THE OVERWHELMING BODY OF THE
EVIDENCE MAKES IT VERY CLEAR.
ON JULY 26, THE DAY AFTER THAT
PHONE CALL, DONALD TRUMP SPEAKS
TO GORDON SONDLAND.
THAT'S THAT CONVERSATION AT THAT
UKRAINE RESTAURANT.
AND WHAT DOES GORDON SONDLAND --
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTION
OF GORDON SONDLAND THE DAY AFTER
THAT CALL?
IS HE GOING TO DO THE
INVESTIGATIONS?
NOW, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT
WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THE
PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
BURDEN SHARING.
WELL, HE MAY HAVE HAD A GENERIC
CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING IN
OTHER CONTEXTS, BUT HERE THE
MOTIVATION WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.
ON THAT PHONE WITH GORDON
SONDLAND, THE ONLY QUESTION HE
WANTED AN ANSWER TO WAS IS HE
GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION?
NOW, BEAR IN MIND, HE'S TALKING
TO THE AMBASSADOR TO THE
EUROPEAN UNION.
WHAT BETTER PERSON TO TALK TO IF
HIS REAL CONCERN WAS ABOUT
BURDEN SHARING THAN THE GUY
RESPONSIBLE FOR EUROPE'S BURDEN
SHARING?
BUT DID THE PRESIDENT RAISE THIS
AT ALL?
OF COURSE NOT.
OF COURSE NOT.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION
ABOUT IT, AT ALL, YOU NEED TO
HEAR FROM HIS FORMER NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR.
DON'T WAIT FOR THE BOOK.
DON'T WAIT UNTIL MARCH 17 WHEN
IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE TO FIND
OUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
WAS IT ALL THE MOTIVE, SOME OF
THE MOTIVE, OR NONE OF THE
MOTIVE?
NOW, WE THINK, AS I MENTIONED,
THE CASE IS OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR
WITHOUT JOHN BOLTON, BUT IF YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT, YOU
CAN ERASE ALL DOUBT.
NOW, LET ME SHOW A VIDEO TO
UNDERSCORE NUMBER TWO, SLIDE
TWO, HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS, REALLY,
THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO GIVE YOU
ALL OF THE FACTS, BECAUSE
THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO
SOMETHING VERY, VERY
CONSEQUENTIAL, AND ASK YOURSELF,
ASK YOURSELF, GIVEN THE FACTS
YOU HEARD TODAY THAT THEY DIDN'T
TELL YOU, WHO DOESN'T WANT TO
TALK ABOUT THE FACTS?
WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT
THE FACTS?
IMPEACHMENT SHOULDN'T BE A SHELL
GAME.
THEY SHOULD GIVE YOU THE FACTS.
MR. SCHIFF: THE LAST VIDEO,
WHICH IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT AND
ON POINT FOR MR. BOLTON, NUMBER
THREE.
>> AND ONCE AGAIN, NOT A SINGLE
WITNESS IN THE HOUSE RECORD THAT
THEY COMPILED AND DEVELOPED
UNDER THEIR PROCEDURES THAT
WE'VE DISCUSSED AND WILL
CONTINUE TO DISCUSS PROVIDED ANY
FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE THAT THE
PRESIDENT EVER LINKED THE
PRESIDENTIAL MEETING TO ANY
INVESTIGATIONS.
ANYONE WHO SPOKE WITH THE
PRESIDENT SAID THAT THE
PRESIDENT MADE CLEAR THAT THERE
WAS NO LINKAGE BETWEEN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS.
MR. SCHIFF: NOW, THAT'S NOT
CORRECT, RIGHT, BECAUSE, OF
COURSE, MICK MULVANEY SAID THAT
THE MONEY WAS LINKED TO THESE
INVESTIGATIONS.
HE SAID IN ACKNOWLEDGING A QUID
PRO QUO THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME,
AND WE SHOULD JUST GET OVER IT.
GORDON SONDLAND ALSO SAID THE
PRESIDENT SAID ON THE ONE HAND
NO QUID PRO QUO, BUT ALSO MADE
IT CLEAR THAT ZELENSKY HAD TO GO
TO THE MIKE AND ANNOUNCE THESE
INVESTIGATIONS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: YOUR TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
MR. SCHIFF: THANK YOU, CHIEF
JUSTICE.
MR. THUNE: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: TO THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, WOULD YOU
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS
OR ASSERTIONS THE HOUSE MANAGERS
JUST MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE
PREVIOUS QUESTION?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, A COUPLE OF POINTS
THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE.
MANAGER SCHIFF SUGGESTED THAT
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE
PRESIDENT WAS ACTUALLY
INTERESTED IN BURDEN SHARING
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T APPARENTLY,
ACCORDING TO DAVID HALE, RAISE
IT IN THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
THAT HE HAD WITH GORDON SONDLAND
THAT HALE CLAIMS TO HAVE
OVERHEARD AT A RESTAURANT IN
KIEV, BUT LET'S LOOK AT THE REAL
EVIDENCE.
AS WE EXPLAINED ON JUNE 24,
THERE IS AN E-MAIL IN THE RECORD
SHOWING -- IT'S AN E-MAIL FROM
ONE PERSON AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE TO ANOTHER WITH A
SUBJECT LINE OF POTUS FOLLOW-UP,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOLLOW-UP, ASKING SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.
IT SAYS, QUOTE, WHAT DO OTHER
NATO MEMBERS SPEND TO SUPPORT
UKRAINE, END QUOTE.
THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE
FOLLOWING UP ON FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
AND IN THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF --
EXCUSE ME.
IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25
JULY ITSELF, THE PRESIDENT ASKED
-- HE SAID, WE SPEND A LOT OF
EFFORT AND A LOT OF TIME FOR
UKRAINE, MUCH MORE THAN THE
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE DOING,
AND THEY SHOULD BE HELPING YOU
MORE THAN WE ARE.
GERMANY DOES ALMOST NOTHING FOR
YOU.
ALL THEY DO IS TALK, AND I THINK
IT'S SOMETHING YOU SHOULD REALLY
ASK THEM ABOUT.
AND HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT HE
TALKS TO ANGELA MERKEL ABOUT IT
AND THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY
DOING AS MUCH AS THE UNITED
STATES IS DOING.
HE'S RAISING BURDEN SHARING.
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREED
WITH HIM.
NOW, MANAGER SCHIFF ALSO
SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE
OF SOME CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND
INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016
ELECTION INTERFERENCE BECAUSE OF
A STATEMENT THAT ACTING CHIEF OF
STAFF MULVANEY MADE AT A PRESS
CONFERENCE.
BUT THAT HAS BEEN -- IT'S BEEN
CLEAR IN THE RECORD SINCE THE
THAT PRESS CONFERENCE THAT WHAT
HE WAS SAYING WAS GARBLED OR
MISUNDERSTOOD, AND HE
IMMEDIATELY CONFIRMED AND SAID
ON THAT DAY, QUOTE, THE
PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD ME TO
WITHHOLD ANY MONEY UNTIL THE
INDIANIANS DID ANYTHING --
UKRAINIANS DID ANYTHING RELATED
TO THE SERVER.
END QUOTE.
AND SIMILARLY HE ISSUED A
STATEMENT JUST THE OTHER DAY
MAKING CLEAR AGAIN -- HE SAID --
THIS IS FROM HIS COUNSEL, SO
IT'S PHRASED IN THE THIRD PERSON
-- NOR DID MR. MULVANEY EVER
HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE
PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE
INDICATING THAT UKRAINIAN
MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD IN
EXCHANGE FOR UKRAINIAN
INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA, THE
BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTION.
THAT IS MR. MULVANEY'S
STATEMENT.
LASTLY, ON TO THE POINT OF
WHETHER THIS CHAMBER SHOULD HEAR
FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AND I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER
WHAT THAT MEANS, BECAUSE IT'S
NOT JUST A QUESTION OF, WELL,
SHOULD WE JUST HEAR ONE WITNESS?
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE REAL
QUESTION IS GOING TO BE.
FOR THIS INSTITUTION, THE REAL
QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE
PRECEDENT THAT IS GOING TO BE
SET FOR WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE
WAY FOR THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO BRING AN
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO THIS
CHAMBER?
AND CAN IT BE DONE IN A HURRIED,
HALF-BAKED, PARTISAN FASHION --
THEY DIDN'T EVEN SUBPOENA JOHN
BOLTON.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO GET HIS
TESTIMONY.
AND TO INSIST NOW THAT THIS BODY
WILL BECOME THE INVESTIGATIVE
BODY, THAT THIS BODY WILL HAVE
TO DO ALL THE DISCOVERY, AND
THAT THIS INSTITUTION WILL BE
EFFECTIVELY PARALYZED FOR MONTHS
ON END BECAUSE IT HAS TO SIT AS
A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT WHILE NOW
DISCOVERY IS DONE BECAUSE IT
WOULD BE AMBASSADOR BOLTON, AND
IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE
WITNESSES, THEN THE PRESIDENT
WOULD HAVE TO, IN ORDER -- THEY
SAID, FAIR TRIAL, FAIR
ADJUDICATION.
THEN THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE TO
HAVE HIS OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS
WITNESSES AND THERE WOULD BE
DEPOSITIONS AND THIS WOULD DRAG
ON FOR MONTHS.
AND THIS IS THE NEW PRECEDENT.
THAT'S THE WAY ALL IMPEACHMENTS
OPERATE IN THE FUTURE.
THE HOUSE DOESN'T HAVED TO H. TO
DO THE -- THE HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE
TO DO THE WORK.
THEY THROW IT OVER AND THIS
INSTITUTION HAS TO DO THE WORK.
THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE PRECEDENT
THAT IS SET HERE FOR THE WAY
THIS BODY WILL HAVE TO HANDLE
ALL IMPEACHMENTS IN THE FUTURE
IF -- BECAUSE IF IT BECOMES THAT
EASE ICY FOR THE HOUSE TO DO IT,
THEY'LL BE DOING IT A LOT.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. MARKEY: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
QUESTION FROM SENATOR MARK
ECONOMY ECONOMY TO THE HOUSE --
MARKEY TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
ON MONDAY, THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE
NEVER EVEN ASKED JOHN BOLTON TO
TESTIFY, END QUOTE.
SO THAT THE RECORD IS ACCURATE,
DID HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATORS ASK MR. BOLTON TO
TESTIFY?
MR. SCHIFF: SENATORS, THE
ANSWER IS YES, OF COURSE WE
ASKED JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY IN
THE HOUSE, AND HE REFUSED.
WE ASKED HIS DEPUTY,
DR. KUPPERMAN, TO TESTIFY, AND
HE REFUSED.
FORTUNATELY, WE ASKED THEIR
DEPUTY, DR. FIONA MILL TO
TESTIFY, AND SHE D REASKED
COLONEL VINDMAN TO TESTIFY AND
HE DID.
BUT WE DID SEEK THE TESTIFY OF
JOHN BOLTON AS WELL AS
DR. KUPPERMAN AND THEY REFUSED.
WHEN WE SUBPOENAED
DR. KUPPERMAN, HE SUED US, TOOK
US TO COURT.
WHEN WE RAISED A SUBPOENA WITH
JOHN BOLTON'S COUNSEL, THE SAME
COUNSEL FOR DR. KUPPERMAN, THE
ANSWER WAS, SENATOR, YOU SERVE
US WITH A SUBPOENA, AND WE WILL
SUE YOU, TOO.
WE KNEW, BASED ON THE McGAHN
LITIGATION, IT WOULD TAKE
MONTHS, IF NOT YEARS, TO FORCE
JOHN BOLTON TO COME TESTIFY.
AND I SHOULD POINT OUT BECAUSE I
THINK THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL THE
POINT TO UNDERSCORE, AS THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS SAY, THEY
DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH TO GET
JOHN BOLTON.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU.
BUT LET ME SHOW WHAT YOU THEY'RE
TELLING THE COURT IN THE
McGAHN LITIGATION.
IF WE COULD PULL UP SLIDE 39.
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS
IN COURT IN THE McGAHN
LITIGATION.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS RIGHT
NOW, QUOTE, THE COMMITTEE --
MEANING OUR COMMITTEE -- LACKS
ARTICLE 3 STANDING TO SUE TO
ENFORCE A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA
DEMANDING TESTIMONY FROM AN
INDIVIDUAL ON MATTERS RELATED TO
DUTIES AS AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH
OFFICIAL.
I MEAN, IT TAKES YOUR BREATH
AWAY THE DUPLICITY OF THAT
ARGUMENT.
THEY'RE BEFORE SAYING THEY
SHOULD HAVE TRIED GETTING
THESENS WITH AS, THEY SHOULD
HAVE SUBPOENAED, LITIGATED FOR
YEARS AND DOWN THE STREET IN THE
FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, THEY'RE
ARGUING, JUDGE, YOU NEED TO
THROW THEM OUT.
THEY HAVE NO STANDING TO SUE TO
FORCE A WITNESS TO TESTIFY.
ARE WE REALLY PREPARED TO ACCEPT
THAT?
NOW, COUNSEL SAYS, THINK ABOUT
THE PRECEDENT THAT WE WOULD BE
SETTING IF YOU ALLOW A HOUSE TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND YOU
PERMIT THEM TO CALL WITNESSES.
WELL, I WOULD SUBMIT, THINK
ABOUT THE PRECEDENT YOU WILL BE
SETTING IF YOU DON'T ALLOW
WITNESSES IN A TRIAL.
THAT TO ME IS A MUCH MORE
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT HERE.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU THERE'S
SOMETHING EVEN MORE DANGEROUS,
AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE
ANTICIPATED FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING, WHICH IS WE
UNDERSTOOD WHEN WE GOT TO THIS
POINT THEY COULD NO LONGER
CONTEST THE FACTS THAT THE
PRESIDENT WITHHELD MILITARY AID
FROM AN ALLY AT WAR TO COERCE
THAT ALLY TO DO THE PRESIDENT'S
DIRT WHEN I WORK.
SO NOW THEY HAVE FALLEN BACK ON
YOU SHOULDN'T HEAR ANY FURTHER
EVIDENCE, ANY FURTHER WITNESSES
ON THIS SUBJECT.
WHAT'S MORE, WE'RE GOING TO USE
THE END-ALL ARGUMENT, SO WHAT?
A PRESIDENT IS FREE TO ABUSE
THEIR POWER.
WE'RE GOING TO RELY ON A
CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY, A FRINGE
THEORY THAT EVEN THE ADVOCATE OF
WHICH SAYS IS OUTSIDE OF THE
CONSENSUS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
TO SAY THAT A PRESIDENT CAN
ABUSE HIS POWER WITH IMPUNITY.
IMAGINE WHERE THAT LEADS.
A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS POWER
WITH IMPUNITY.
NOW, THAT ARGUMENT MADE BY
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ IS AT ODES
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OWN
EXPRESSED OPINION ON THE
SUBJECT, WITH KEN STARR'S
OPINION ON THE S JONATHAN TURLEY
SAYS THAT THEORY IS
CONSTITUTIONAL -- EFFECTIVELY
NONSENSE.
BUT EVEN 60-YEAR-OLD ALAN
DERSHOWITZ DOESN'T AGREE WITH
81-YEAR-OLD ALAN DERSHOWITZ AND
FOR A REASON.
BECAUSE WHERE THAT CONCLUSION
LEADS US IS THAT A PRESIDENT CAN
ABUSE HIS POWER IN ANY KIND OF
WAY AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN
DO ABOUT IT.
NOW, ARE WE REALLY READY TO
ACCEPT THE POSITION THAT THIS
PRESIDENT OR THE NEXT CAN
WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID TO AN
ALLY AT WAR UNLESS THEY GET HELP
IN THEIR REELECTION?
WOULD WE SAY THAT YOU COULD, AS
PRESIDENT, WITHHOLD DISASTER
RELIEF FROM A GOVERNOR UNLESS
THAT GOVERNOR GOT HIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE THE
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL?
TO ME IS THE MOST DANGEROUS
ARGUMENT OF ALL.
IT IS A DANGER FOR A PRESIDENT
WHO WOULD ENGAGE IN THIS
CONDUCT.
T A DANGER TO HAVE A TRIAL WITH
NO WITNESSES AND SET THAT
PRECEDENT BUT THE BIGGEST DANGER
IS THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE
HIS OFFICE IN THIS WAY AND THE
CONGRESS IS POWERLESS TO DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
IT IS CERTAINLY NOT WHAT THE
FOUNDERS INTENDED.
>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
ON MY BEHALF AND ALSO JOINED BY
SENATORS LOEFFLER, LEE, KEVIN
CRAMER AND McSALLY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATORS ASK OF COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT, IS THE STANDARD FOR
IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE A LOWER
THRESHOLD TO MEET THAN THE
STANDARD FOR CONVICTION IN THE
SENATE AND HAVE THE HOUSE
MANAGERS MET THEIR
EVIDENCEDENTIALRY BURDEN TO
SUPPORT A VOTE OF REMOVAL?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, SENATORS, THE STANDARD
IN THE HOUSE -- OF COURSE THE
HOUSE IS NOT MAKING A FINAL
DETERMINATION IN THE STRUCTURE
OF THE CONSTITUTION.
AND IMPEACHMENT IS SIMPLY AN
ACCUSATION.
AS IN MOST SYSTEMS WHERE THERE
IS SIMPLY AN ACCUSATION BEING
MADE, THE HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE TO
ADHERE TO THE SAME STANDARD THAT
IS USED IN THE SENATE.
IN MOST INSTANCES, HOUSE MEMBERS
HAVE SUGGESTED IN DEBATES ON
ARTICLES OF WHETHER OR NOT TO
APPROVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
THAT THEY SHOULD BE -- HAVE
CLEAR AN CONVINCING EVIDENCE IN
THE VIEW OF THE MEMBERS VOTING
ON IT THAT THERE WAS SOME
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND THAT IS
ALL.
SOME NOT EVEN THAT STANDARD.
AND SO IT IS SIMPLY ENOUGH
EVIDENCE THAT AN ACCUSATION CAN
BE MADE.
IT IS DEFINITELY A LOWER
STANDARD THAN A STANDARD THAT
HAS TO BE MET HERE ON A TRIAL
FOR AN ULTIMATE VERDICT.
THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS IN TERMS
OF A CONVICTION IN THE SENATE.
AND AS BOTH PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ
AND JUDGE STARR POINTED OUT IN
THEIR COMMENTS, EVERYWHERE IN
THE CONSTITUTION THAT THERE'S
ANY MENTION OF IMPEACHMENT, IT
IS SPOKEN OF IN TERMS OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW.
THE OFFENSES THAT DEFINE THE
JURISDICTION FOR THE SENATE BY
SITTING AS A COURT OF
IMPEACHMENT ARE TREASON,
BRIBERY, AND HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS OF A
CONVICTION UPON BEING CONVICTED
IN THE SENATE.
IT SPEAKS OF ALL CRIMES BEING
TRIED BY JURY EXCEPT IN CASES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
AGAIN SUGGESTING NOTIONS OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW.
AND AS WE POINTED OUT IN OUR
TRIAL MEMORANDUM, ALL OF THESE
TEXTUAL REFERENCES MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT THE STANDARDS OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD APPLY IN THE
TRIAL CERTAINLY TO THE EXTENT OF
THE BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
TO BE CARRIED BY THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, WHICH MEANS PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
AND IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE
IS NOT ANY REQUIREMENT FOR PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT SIMPLY
FOR THE HOUSE TO VOTE UPON
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
THERE'S A VERY MUCH HIGHER
STANDARD AT STAKE HERE, AS WE
POINTED OUT IN OUR TRIAL
MEMORANDUM.
THE MERE ACCUSATION MADE BY THE
HOUSE COMES HERE WITH NO
PRESUMPTION OF REGULATORY AT ALL
IN ITS FAVOR.
THE SENATE SITS AS TRIER OF BOTH
FACT AND LAW REVIEWING BOTH
FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES DE NOVO
AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE HELD
TO A STANDARD OF PROVING PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF
EVERY ELEMENT OF WHAT WOULD BE
RECOGNIZABLE IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
HERE THEY HAVE FAILED IN THEIR
BURDEN.
THEY HAVE ALSO FAILED ON THE
LAW.
THEY HAVE NOT STATED IN THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ANYTHING
ON ITS FACE AMOUNTS TO AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND ON THE
FACTS I THINK WE HAVE
DEMONSTRATED VERY CLEARLY THAT
THEY HAVE NOT PRESENTED FACTS
THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO ANIMISMABLE
OFFENSE.
EVEN UNDER THEIR OWN -- AMOUNT
TO AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
EVEN UNDER THEIR OWN THEORIES,
THEY HAVE PRESENTED ONLY PART OF
THE FACTS AND LEFT OUT THE KEY
FACTS.
AND, MR. PURPURA I THINK WENT
THROUGH EFFECTIVELY SHOWING THAT
THERE ARE SOME FACTS THAT DON'T
CHANGE.
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25
CALL SHOWS THE PRESIDENT DONE
NOTHING WRONG.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID HE NEVER
FELT ANY PRESSURE.
HIS OTHER ADVISORS HAVE SAID THE
UKRAINIANS NEVER FELT ANY
PRESSURE, THEY DIDN'T THINK
THERE WAS ANY QUID PRO QUO.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE
MILITARY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN
HELD UP UNTIL THE "POLITICO"
ARTICLE AT THE END OF THE
AUGUST.
THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE WITH
STATEMENTS ON RECORD WHO SPOKE
TO THE PRESIDENT, WHO ARE
SONDLAND AND SENATOR RON
JOHNSON, REPORT THAT THE
PRESIDENT SAID TO THEM THERE WAS
NO QUID PRO QUO.
AND THE AID FLOWED WITHOUT
ANYTHING EVER BEING DONE RELATED
TO INVESTIGATIONS.
THAT'S WHAT IS IN THE RECORD.
THAT IS WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE TO RELY ON TO MAKE THEIR
CASE.
AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO PROVE
THEIR CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT, FAILED EVEN TO PROVE IT
BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE, FAILED TO PROVE IT AT
ALL IN MY OPINION.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED.
MRS. FEINSTEIN: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
FEINSTEIN ASKS THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL STATED THAT, QUOTE,
THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE
ANYWHERE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
EVER LINKED SECURITY ASSISTANCE
TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS.
END QUOTE.
IS THAT TRUE?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
AND THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR THAT
QUESTION.
MR. CROW: THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL IS NOT CORRECT.
THERE IS IN FACT OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT
WITHHELD THE MILITARY AID
DIRECTLY TO GET A PERSONAL
POLITICAL BENEFIT TO HELP HIS
INDIVIDUAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
THERE'S A FEW POINTS THAT I'D
LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION.
FIRST, LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE
WORDS OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTING
CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY WHO
ON OCTOBER 17, 2019, DURING A
NATIONAL PRESS CONFERENCE
MENTIONED, QUOTE, -- HE WAS
ASKED ABOUT THE DIRECT
CONNECTION BETWEEN AID.
HE SAID QUOTE, DID HE?
MEANING PRESIDENT TRUMP
REFERRING TO HE, QUOTE, ALSO
MENTIONED TO ME IN PASSING THE
CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE D.N.C.
SERVER?
ABSOLUTELY.
NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
THAT'S IT.
THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY.
END QUOTE.
HE WAS REPEATING THE PRESIDENT'S
OWN EXPLANATION RELAYED DIRECTLY
TO HIM.
SECOND, GORDON SONDLAND
TESTIFIED HE SPOKE BY PHONE WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP ON SEPTEMBER 7.
THE PRESIDENT DENIED THERE WAS A
QUID PRO QUO BUT THEN OUTLINED
THE VERY QUID PRO QUO THAT HE
WANTED FROM UKRAINE.
THEN HE TOLD PRESIDENT : TO,
QUOTE, THAT -- PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY SHOULD, QUOTE, GO TO
THE MICROPHONE AND ANNOUNCE THE
INVESTIGATIONS.
HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT.
THIRD, THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
ADVISORS, INCLUDING THE VICE
PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY POMPEO
WERE ALSO AWARE OF THE DIRECT
CONNECTION AND WARSAW ON
SEPTEMBER 1, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
TOLD VICE PRESIDENT PENCE THAT
HE WAS CONCERNED THE DELAY IN
SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BECOME,
QUOTE, TIED TO THE ISSUE OF
INVESTIGATIONS.
THE VICE PRESIDENT SIMPLY
NODDED, TACITLY ACKNOWLEDGING
THE CONDITIONALITY OF THE AID.
FOURTH, WE HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR
TAYLOR WHO IN DIRECT E-MAILS AND
TEXTS SAID IT WAS CRAZY TO TIE
THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE
INVESTIGATIONS.
FIVE, WE ALSO KNOW THERE'S NO
OTHER REASON.
THE ENTIRE APPARATUS AND
STRUCTURE OF THE DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT, THE STATE DEPARTMENT
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALING
WITH THE OTHER LEGITIMATE
REASONS, THE POLICY DEBATE THAT
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WANTS
YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS
ABOUT, THEY WERE ALL KEPT IN THE
DARK.
AND THE SUPPOSED INTERAGENCY
PROCESS THAT THEY MADE UP
SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE FACT
HAD ENDED MONTHS BEFORE DURING
THE LAST INTERAGENCY MEETINGS.
I MAKE ONE FINAL POINT.
AGAIN IF YOU HAVE ANY LINGERING
QUESTIONS ABOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE,
ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT ANYTHING WE
JUST TALKED ABOUT, ANYTHING I
JUST RELAYED OR THAT WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT THE LAST WEEK,
THERE IS A WAY TO SHED
ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON IT.
YOU CAN SUBPOENA AMBASSADOR
BOLTON AND ASK HIM THAT QUESTION
DIRECTLY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM UTAH.
MR. LEE: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
LEE ASKS OF COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT, THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE ARGUED AGGRESSIVELY THAT
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS
CONTRAVENE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.
ISN'T IT THE PRESIDENT'S PLACE
CERTAINLY MORE THAN THE PLACE OF
CAREER CIVIL SERVANTS TO CONDUCT
FOREIGN POLICY?
MR. PHILBIN: THANK YOU PLRKS
CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, AND
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
IT IS DEFINITELY THE PRESIDENT'S
PLACE TO SET U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
AND THE CONSTITUTION MAKES THIS
CLEAR, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1,
VESTS THE ENTIRETY OF THE
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IN
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
THAT THAT AUTHORITY IS VESTED
SOLELY IN THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE
THE PRESIDENT IS ELECTED BY THE
PEOPLE EVERY FOUR YEARS.
THAT'S WHAT GIVES THE PRESIDENT
DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY TO HAVE
THE POWERS THAT HE IS GIVEN
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
OUR SYSTEM IS SOMEWHAT UNIQUE IN
THE VERY BROAD POWERS THAT ARE
ASSIGNED TO THE EXECUTIVE, BUT
IT WORKS AND IT MAKES SENSE IN A
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM PRECISELY
BECAUSE HE IS DIRECTLY
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE FOR
THE POLICIES THAT HE SETS.
THOSE WHO ARE STAFFERS IN THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH BUREAUCRACY ARE
NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY AND
THEY HAVE NO LEGITIMACY OR
AUTHORITY THAT COMES FROM AN
ELECTION BY THE PEOPLE.
AND SO IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
TO RECOGNIZE THE PRESIDENT SETS
FOREIGN POLICY.
OF COURSE, WITHIN SOME
CONSTRAINTS THERE'S ROLES FOR
CONGRESS IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO
SOME EXTENT.
THE STATUTES CAN BE PASSED,
FUNDING ISSUES CAN BE PASSED
THAT RELATE TO IT.
BUT THE SUPREME COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED TIME AND AGAIN THAT
THE PRESIDENT IS, AS THE COURT
SAID IN CURTIS WRIGHT, THE SOLE
ORGAN OF THE NATION IN FOREIGN
AFFAIRS.
SO HE SETS FOREIGN POLICY.
IF STAFFERS DISAGREE WITH HIM,
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE PRESIDENT
IS DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
AND THIS IS A CRITICAL POINT
BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE
CENTERPIECES OF THE ABUSE OF
POWER THEORY THAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS WOULD LIKE THIS BODY TO
ADOPT.
AND THAT IS THAT THEY ARE GOING
TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BASED
SOLELY ON HIS SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE,
THE PREMISE OF THEIR CASE IS THE
OBJECT OF ACTIONS THAT WERE
TAKEN WERE PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE
AND WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, BUT IF
HIS REAL REASON, IF WE GET
INSIDE HIS HEAD AND FIGURE IT
OUT, THEN WE CAN IMPEACH HIM.
AND THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE TRIED
TO EXPLAIN THAT THEY CAN PROVE
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A BAD
MOTIVE IS THEY SAY, WELL, WE
COMPARE WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT
WANT TO DO WITH WHAT THE
INTERAGENCY CONSENSUS WAS.
AND I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER
DAY.
THEY SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT
DEFIED AND CONFOUNDED EVERY
AGENCY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONALLY
INCOHERENT STATEMENT.
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DEFY THE
AGENCIES WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH THAT ARE SUBORDINATE TO
HIM.
IT IS ONLY THEY WHO CAN DEFY THE
PRESIDENT'S DETERMINATIONS OF
POLICY.
AND WHAT THIS ALL BOILS DOWN TO
REALLY IT SHOWS THAT THIS CASE
IS BUILT ON A POLICY DIFFERENCE,
AND A POLICY DIFFERENCE WHERE
THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE WHO
GETS TO DETERMINE POLICY BECAUSE
HE'S BEEN ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE
TO DO THAT.
AND WE'RE RIGHT NOW ONLY A FEW
MONTHS AWAY FROM ANOTHER
ELECTION WHERE THE PEOPLE CAN
DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER
THEY LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
DONE WITH THAT AUTHORITY OR NOT.
AND THAT'S THE WAY DISPUTES
ABOUT POLICY LIKE THAT SHOULD BE
RESOLVED.
IT'S NOT LEGITIMATE TO SAY THAT
THERE'S SOME INTERAGENCY
CONSENSUS THAT DISAGREES WITH
THE PRESIDENT AND THEREFORE WE
CAN SHOW HE DID SOMETHING WRONG
AND THEREFORE HE COULD BE
IMPEACHED.
THAT'S AN EXTRAORDINARILY
DANGEROUS PROPOSITION.
BECAUSE IT LACKS ANY DEMOCRATIC
LEGITIMACY WHATSOEVER.
IT'S CONTRARY TO THE
CONSTITUTION.
AND IT SHOULD BE REJECTED BY
THIS BODY.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE WHO
GETS TO SET FOREIGN POLICY
BECAUSE THAT'S THE ROLE ASSIGNED
TO HIM IN THE CONSTITUTION.
AND IT WAS EVEN LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN WHO HAD
COMPLAINED ABOUT THE JULY 25
CALL HIMSELF ULTIMATELY AGREED
THAT IT WAS ONLY A POLICY
DIFFERENCE.
IT WAS A POLICY CONCERN THAT HE
RAISED ABOUT THE CALL.
THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TO IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
MRS. SHAHEEN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR -- SENATOR SHAHEEN ASKS
THE HOUSE MANAGERS, THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS ARGUED
THAT THE ALLEGED CONDUCT SET OUT
IN THE ARTICLES DOES NOT VIOLATE
A CRIMINAL STATUTE AND THUS MAY
NOT CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR
IMPEACHMENT AS HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS.
DOES THIS REASONING IMPLY THAT
IF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT
VIOLATE A CRIMINAL STATUTE, HE
COULD NOT BE IMPEACHED FOR
ABOWSES OF POWER SUCH AS
ORDERING TAX AUDITS OF POLITICAL
OPPONENTS, SUSPENDING HABEAS
CORPUS RIGHTS, INDISCRIMINATELY
INVESTIGATING POLITICAL
OPPONENTS OR ASKING FOREIGN
POWERS TO INVESTIGATE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS?
MS. GARCIA: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION.
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT A
PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED
WITHOUT A STATUTORY CRIME BEING
COMMITTED.
THAT WAS THE POSITION AND THE
QUESTION WAS REJECTED IN
PRESIDENT NIXON'S CASE AND
REJECTED AGAIN IN PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S CASE.
IT SHOULD BE REJECTED HERE IN
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CASE.
THE GREAT PREPONDERANCE OF LEGAL
AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THAT
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES OF LEGAL
AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THAT IT IS --
CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
THIS AUTHORITY INCLUDES NEARLY
EVERY LEGAL SCHOLAR TO HAVE
STUDIED THE ISSUE, MULTIPLE
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO
ADDRESSED IT IN PUBLIC REMARKS
AND PRIOR IMPEACHMENTS IN THE
HOUSE.
THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, TEXT AND
STRUCTURE AND REFLECTS THE
ABSURDITIES AND PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD RESULT
WHERE THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
CONFINED TO INDICTABLE CRIMES.
AS SLIDE 35 SHOWS, FIRST THE
PLAIN TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT AN OFFENSE
BE A CRIME IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE
IMPEACHABLE.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON EXPLAINED
THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, ARE
DEFINED FUNDAMENTALLY BY THE
ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME
PUBLIC TRUST.
SOME PUBLIC TRUST.
THEY ARE POLITICAL AS THEY
RELATE CHIEFLY TO INJURIES DONE
IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOCIETY
ITSELF.
OFFENSES AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTION ARE DIFFERENT THAN
OFFENSES AGAINST THE CRIMINAL
CODE.
SOME CRIMES LIKE JAYWALKING ARE
NOT IMPEACHABLE AND SOME FORMS
OF MISCONDUCT OFTEN OFFEND THE
-- BOTH OFFEND THE CONSTITUTION
AND THE CRIMINAL LAW.
IMPEACHMENT AND CRIMINALITY
MUST, THEREFORE, BE ASSESSED
SEPARATELY EVEN THOUGH THE
COMMISSION OF INDICTABLE CRIMES
MY FURTHER SUPPORT A CASE OF
IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.
THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE WITH
IMPEACHMENT CONFIRMS THIS.
A STRONG MAJORITY OF
IMPEACHMENTS VOTED BY THE HOUSE
SINCE 1789 HAVE INCLUDED ONE OR
MORE ALLEGATIONS THAT DID NOT
CHARGE A VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL
LAW.
ALTHOUGH PRESIDENT NIXON
RESIGNED BEFORE THE HOUSE COULD
CONSIDER THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM, THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S
ALLEGATIONS ENCOMPASSED MANY,
MANY NONCRIMINAL ACTS.
AND IN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE,
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT
ACCOMPANYING THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE FLOOR
STATED THAT, QUOTE, THE ACTIONS
OF PRESIDENT CLINTON DID NOT
HAVE TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
VIOLATING THE FEDERAL STATUTE
REGARDING ARTICLES OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY
IMPEACHMENT.
THE FRAMERS INTENDED IMPEACHMENT
TO REACH THE FULL SPECTRUM OF
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT THAT
THREATENED THE CONSTITUTION.
THEY ALSO INTENDED THAT OUR
CONSTITUTION ENDURE THROUGHOUT
THE AGES.
IN OTHER WORDS, ONE, TWO, THREE
BUT NEW ONES CAME UP, THAT YOU
HAD TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES SO
IT WAS BETTER TO HAVE THE FULL
SPECTRUM OF PRESIDENTIAL
MISCONDUCT.
BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT
ANTICIPATE AND SPECIFICALLY
PROHIBIT EVERY SINGLE THREAT A
PRESIDENT MIGHT SOME DAY POSE,
THE FRAMERS ADOPTED A STANDARD
SUFFICIENTLY GENERAL AND
FLEXIBLE TO MEET UNKNOWN FUTURE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIS STANDARD WAS MEANT, AS
MASON PUT IT, TO CAPTURE ALL
MANNER OF GREAT AND DANGEROUS
OFFENSES, AND COMPATIBLE WITH
THE CONSTITUTION.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES THE
POWERS OF HIS HIGH OFFICE TO
BENEFIT HIMSELF WHILE INJURING
OR IGNORING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
HE IS DUTY BOUND TO SERVE, HE
HAS COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
THE RECORDS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OFFER
FURTHER CLARITY.
AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
ITSELF, NO DELEGATE, NO DELEGATE
LINKED IMPEACHMENT TO THE
TECHNICALITIES OF CRIMINAL LAW.
INSTEAD, THE FRAMERS PRINCIPALLY
INTENDED IMPEACHMENT FOR THREE
FORMS OF PRESIDENTIAL WRONGDOINS
OF IMPEACHMENT.
A., ABUSE OF POWER.
B., BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL
INTERESTS THROUGH FOREIGN
ENTANGLEMENTS.
AND C., CORRUPTION OF OFFICE AND
ELECTIONS.
WHEN A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS
POWER TO OBTAIN ILLICIT HELP IN
HIS ELECTION FROM A FOREIGN
POWER, IT UNDERMINES OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY AND ELECTION
INTEGRITY, IT IS A TRIFECTA --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
MS. GARCIA: THANK YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
MR. KENNEDY: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
ALONG WITH SENATOR BLACKBURN AND
SENATOR CORNYN, I SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGERS AND FOR COUNSEL
FROM THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IN THE
CASE OF SUCH A QUESTION
ADDRESSED TO BOTH SIDES, THEY
WILL SPLIT THE FIVE MINUTES
EQUALLY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR HAS ASKED WHY DOES THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NOT
CHALLENGE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
AND/OR IMMUNITY DURING THE HOUSE
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS?
WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
MR. JEFFRIES: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
DISTINGUISHED SENATORS, THANK
YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE.
WE DID NOT CHALLENGE ANY CLAIMS
RELATED TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
BECAUSE, AS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
COUNSEL ADMITTED DURING THIS
TRIAL, THE PRESIDENT NEVER
RAISED THE QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID RAISE WAS
THIS NOTION OF BLANKETDEFIANCE,
THIS NOTION THAT THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH, DIRECTED BY THE
PRESIDENT, COULD COMPLETELY DEFY
ANY AND ALL SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
NOT TURN OVER DOCUMENTS.
NOT TURN OVER WITNESSES.
NOT PRODUCE A SINGLE SHRED OF
INFORMATION.
IN ORDER TO ALLOW US TO PRESENT
THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
IN THE OCTOBER 8 LETTER THAT WAS
SENT TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, THERE WAS NO
JURISPRUDENCE THAT WAS CITED TO
JUSTIFY THE NOTION OF BLANKET
DEFIANCE.
THERE HAS BEEN NO CASE LAW CITED
TO JUSTIFY THE DOCTRINE OF
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
IN FACT, EVERY SINGLE COURT THAT
HAS CONSIDERED ANY PRESIDENTIAL
CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY SUCH
AS THE ONE ASSERTED BY THE WHITE
HOUSE HAS REJECTED IT OUT OF
HAND.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION.
LET ME FRAME THIS PARTLY IN
RESPONSE TO WHAT MANAGER
JEFFRIES SAID, AND I WENT
THROUGH THIS BEFORE.
THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS BLANKET
DEFIANCE AND NO EXPLANATION AND
NO CASE LAW FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
IS SIMPLY INCORRECT.
I PUT UP SLIDES SHOWING THE
LETTERS, A LETTER FROM OCTOBER
OCTOBER 18 THAT EXPLAINED
SPECIFICALLY THAT THE SUBPOENA
THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE
HOUSE, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT
AUTHORIZED BY A VOTE FROM THE
HOUSE, WERE INVALID, AND THERE
WAS A LETTER FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL SAYING THAT.
THERE WAS A LETTER FROM O.M.B.
SAYING THAT.
THERE WAS A LETTER FROM THE
STATE DEPARTMENT SAYING THAT.
THERE WERE SPECIFIC RASH
ANALYSIS GIVEN CITING THE CASES,
WATKINS, RUMLEY, AND OTHERS
EXPLAINING THAT DEFECT.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS -- THE HOUSE,
MANAGER SCHIFF, CHOSE NOT TO
TAKE ANY STEPS TO CORRECT THAT.
WE ALSO POINTED OUT OTHER
DEFECTS.
WE ASSERTED THE DOCTRINE OF
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR SENIOR
ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT WHICH
HAS BEEN ASSERTED BY EVERY
PRESIDENT SINCE THE 1970'S.
THEY CHOSE NOT TO CHALLENGE THAT
IN COURT.
WE ALSO EXPLAINED THE PROBLEM
THAT THEY DIDN'T ALLOW AGENCY
COUNSEL TO BE PRESENT AT
DEPOSITIONS.
THEY CHOSE NOT TO CHALLENGE THAT
IN COURT.
THESE WERE SPECIFIC LEGAL
REASONS, NOT BLANKET DEFIANCE,
RIGHT.
THAT'S JUST A MISREPRESENTATION
OF THE RECORD.
AN THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO HAVE
THAT ADJUDICATED IN COURT.
AND THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO
ATTEMPT IS THAT THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS WERE JUST IN A HURRY.
THEY HAD A TIMETABLE.
ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAID
ON THE FLOOR HERE, THEY HAD NO
TIME FOR COURTS, THEY HAD TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE THE
ELECTION, SO THEY HAD TO HAVE
THAT DONE BY CHRISTMAS.
THAT'S WHY THE PROPER PROCESS
WASN'T FOLLOWED HERE, BECAUSE IT
WAS A PARTISAN AND POLITICAL
IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY WANTED TO
GET DONE ALL AROUND TIMING FOR
THE ELECTION.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
LEAHY ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ARGUES
THAT THERE WAS NO HARM DONE,
THAT THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY
RELEASED TO UKRAINE, THE
PRESIDENT MET WITH ZELENSKY AT
THE U.N. IN SEPTEMBER, AND THAT
THIS PRESIDENT HAS TREATED
UKRAINE MORE FAVORABLY THAN HIS
PREDECESSORS.
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?
MRS. DEMINGS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND SENATOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR QUESTION.
CONTRARY TO WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL HAS SAID OR HAS CLAIMED,
THAT THERE WAS NO HARM, NO FOUL,
THAT THE AID EVENTUALLY GOT
THERE, WE PROMISED UKRAINE IN
2014 THAT IF THEY GAVE UP THEIR
NUCLEAR ARSENAL, THAT WE WOULD
BE THERE FOR THEM, THAT WE WOULD
DEFEND THEM, THAT WE WOULD FIGHT
ALONG BESIDE THEM.
15,000 UKRAINIANS HAVE DIED.
IT WAS INTERESTING THE OTHER DAY
WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
SAID THAT NO AMERICAN LIFE WAS
LOST, AND WE ARE ALWAYS GRATEFUL
AND THANKFUL FOR THAT, BUT WHAT
ABOUT OUR FRIENDS?
WHAT ABOUT OUR ALLIES IN
UKRAINE?
ACCORDING TO DIPLOMAT HOLMES AND
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THAT OUR
UKRAINIAN FRIENDS CONTINUE TO
DIE ON THE FRONT LINES, THOSE
WHO WERE FIGHTING FOR US,
FIGHTING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
WHEN YOU FIGHT RUSSIAN
AGGRESSION, WHEN THE UKRAINIANS
HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND
THEMSELVES, THEY HAVE THE
ABILITY TO DEFEND US.
THE AID, ALTHOUGH IT DID A--
ARRIVE, IT TOOK THE WORK OF SOME
SENATORS IN THIS ROOM WHO HAD TO
PASS ADDITIONAL LAWS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT
LOSE OUT ON $35 MILLION
ADDITIONAL, AND CONTRARY TO THE
PRESIDENT'S TWEET THAT ALL OF
THE AID ARRIVED AND THAT IT
ARRIVED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, THAT
IS NOT TRUE.
ALL OF THE AID HAS NOT ARRIVED.
AND LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND
OF SIGNAL WITHHOLDING THE AID
FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON.
THE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT
BURDEN SHARING, BUT NOTHING HAD
CHANGED ON THE GROUND.
HOLDING AID FOR NO LEGITIMATE
REASON SENT A STRONG MESSAGE
THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT TO SEND
TO RUSSIA THAT THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
UKRAINE WAS ON SHAKY GROUND.
IT ACTUALLY UNDERCUT UKRAINE'S
ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH
RUSSIA, WITH WHOM, AS EVERYBODY
IN THIS ROOM KNOWS, IS IN AN
ACTIVE WAR AND A HOT WAR.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE AID
EVENTUALLY GOT THERE, NO HARM,
NO FOUL, THAT IS NOT TRUE,
SENATORS, AND I KNOW THAT YOU
KNOW THAT.
THERE WAS HARM, AND THERE WAS
FOUL, AND LET US NOT FORGET THAT
UKRAINE IS NOT AN ENEMY, THEY'RE
NOT AN ADVERSARY, THEY ARE OUR
FRIENDS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
CRUZ.
MR. CRUZ: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
AS A MATTER OF LAW, DOES IT
MATTER IF THERE WAS A QUID PRO
QUO?
IS IT TRUE THAT QUID PRO QUOS
ARE OFTEN USED IN FOREIGN
POLICY?
MR. DERSHOWITZ: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR QUESTION.
YESTERDAY, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE
OF ATTENDING THE ROLLING OUT OF
A PEACE PLAN BY THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE
ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT, AND
I OFFERED YOU A HYPOTHETICAL THE
OTHER DAY.
WHAT IF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT
WERE TO BE ELECTED AND CONGRESS
WERE TO AUTHORIZE MUCH MONEY TO
EITHER ISRAEL OR THE
PALESTINIANS AND THE DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT WERE TO SAY TO ISRAEL
NO, I'M GOING TO WITHHOLD THIS
MONEY UNLESS YOU STOP ALL
SETTLEMENT GROWTH, OR TO THE
PALESTINIANS I WILL WITHHOLD THE
MONEY CONGRESS AUTHORIZED TO YOU
UNLESS YOU STOP SAYING
TERRORISTS, AND THE PRESIDENT
SAID QUID PRO QUO.
IF YOU DON'T DO IT, YOU DON'T
GET THE MONEY.
IF YOU DO IT, YOU GET THE MONEY.
THERE'S NO ONE IN THIS CHAMBER
THAT WOULD REGARD THAT AS IN ANY
WAY UNLAWFUL.
THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE A
QUID PRO QUO UNLAWFUL IS IF THE
QUO WERE, IN SOME WAY, ILLEGAL.
NOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
MOTIVE.
THERE WAS THREE POSSIBLE MOTIVES
THAT A POLITICAL FIGURE CAN
HAVE.
ONE, A MOTIVE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
THEN THE ISRAEL ARGUMENT WOULD
BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
THE SECOND IS IN HIS OWN
POLITICAL INTEREST.
AND THE THIRD, WHICH HASN'T BEEN
MENTIONED, WOULD BE IN HIS OWN
FINANCIAL INTEREST, HIS OWN PURE
FINANCIAL INTEREST.
JUST PUTTING MONEY IN THE BANK.
I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND
ONE FOR JUST ONE MOMENT.
EVERY PUBLIC OFFICIAL THAT I
KNOW BELIEVES THAT HIS ELECTION
IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
AND MOSTLY YOU'RE RIGHT.
YOUR ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
AND IF A PRESIDENT DOES
SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL
HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT CANNOT BE
THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT
RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT.
I QUOTED PRESIDENT LINCOLN.
WHEN PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOLD
GENERAL SHERMAN TO LET THE
TROOPS GO TO INDIANA SO THAT
THEY CAN VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY, LET'S ASSUME THE
PRESIDENT WAS RUNNING AT THAT
POINT AND IT WAS IN HIS
ELECTORAL INTEREST TO HAVE THESE
SOLDIERS PUT AT RISK THE LIVES
OF MANY, MANY OTHER SOLDIERS WHO
WOULD BE LEFT WITHOUT THEIR
COMPANY, WOULD THAT BE AN
UNLAWFUL QUID PRO QUO?
NO, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT, A,
BELIEVED IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST, BUT B, HE BELIEVED
THAT HIS OWN ELECTION WAS
ESSENTIAL TO VICTORY IN THE
CIVIL WAR.
EVERY PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT.
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO DANGEROUS TO
TRY TO PSYCHO ANALYZE A
PRESIDENT TO TRY TO GET INTO THE
INTRICACIES OF THE HUMAN MIND.
EVERYBODY HAS MIXED MOTIVES.
AND FOR THERE TO BE A
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT BASED
ON MIXED MOTIVES WOULD PERMIT
ALMOST ANY PRESIDENT TO BE
IMPEACHED.
HOW MANY PRESIDENTS HAVE MADE
FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS AFTER
CHECKING WITH THEIR POLITICAL
ADVISORS AND THEIR POLLSTERS?
IF YOU ARE JUST ACTING IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST, WHY DO YOU
NEED POLLSTERS?
WHY DO YOU NEED POLITICAL
ADVISORS?
JUST DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE
COUNTRY.
BUT IF YOU WANT TO BALANCE
WHAT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
WITH WHAT'S IN YOUR PARTY'S
ELECTORAL INTERESTS AND YOUR OWN
ELECTRIC ELECTORAL INTERESTS,
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN HOW
MUCH WEIGHT IS GIVEN ONE TO THE
OTHER.
NOW,
COLLOQUY MAY ARGUE THAT IT IS
NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR
A PARTICULAR PRESIDENT TO GET
ELECTED OR FOR A PARTICULAR
SENATOR OR MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
AND MAYBE WE'RE RIGHT.
BUT FOR IT TO BE IMPEACHABLE,
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISCERN THAT
HE OR SHE MADE A DECISION SOLELY
ON THE BASIS OF, AS THE HOUSE
MANAGERS PUT IT, CORRUPT
MOTIVES.
AND IT CANNOT BE A CORRUPT
MOTIVE IF YOU HAVE A MIXED
MOTIVE THAT PARTIALLY INVOLVES
NATIONAL INTEREST, PARTIALLY
INVOLVES ELECTORAL AND DOES NOT
INVOLVE PERSONAL PECUNIARY
INTERESTS.
AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT
ALLEGE THAT THIS DECISION, THIS
QUID PRO QUO, AS THEY CALL IT --
AND I QUESTION IS BASED ON THE
HYPOTHESIS THERE WAS A QUID PRO
QUO -- THEY NEVER ALLEGE THAT IT
WAS BASED ON PURE FINANCIAL
REASONS.
IT WOULD BE A MUCH HARDER CASE
IF A HYPOTHETICAL PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES SAID TO A
HYPOTHETICAL LEADER OF A FOREIGN
COUNTRY, UNLESS YOU BUILD A
HOTEL WITH MY NAME ON IT AND
UNLESS YOU GIVE ME A
MILLION-DOLLAR KICKBACK, I WILL
WITHHOLD THE FUNDS.
THAT'S AN EASY CASE.
THAT'S PURELY CORRUPT AND IN THE
PURELY PRIVATE INTEREST.
BUT A COMPLEX MIDDLE CASE IS, I
WANT TO BE ELECTED.
I THINK I'M A GREAT PRESIDENT.
I THINK I'M THE GREATEST
PRESIDENT THERE EVER WAS.
AND IF I'M NOT ELECTED, THE
NATIONAL INTEREST WILL SUFFER
GREATLY.
THAT CANNOT BE AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE DEMOCRATIC
LEADER.
MR. SCHUMER: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS, FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, WOULD YOU PLEASE
RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT WAS
JUST GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL.
MR. SCHIFF: I WOULD BE
DELIGHTED.
THERE ARE TWO ARGUMENTS THAT
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ MAKES, ONE
THAT IS, I HAVE TO SAY, A VERY
ODD ARGUMENT FOR A CRIMINAL
DEFENSE LAWYER TO MAKE, AND THAT
IS IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL TO HAVE
A DISCUSSION IN TRIAL ABOUT THE
DEFENDANT'S STATE OF MIND,
INTENT, OR MENS REA.
IN EVERY COURTROOM IN EARTHQUAKE
IN, IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE OR
ALMOST EVERY CRIMINAL CASE
EXCEPT FOR A VERY SMALL IS
SLIVER, THE QUESTION OF THE
DEFENDANT'S INTENT AND STATE OF
MIND IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE.
SO THIS IS NOTHING NOVEL HERE.
YOU DON'T REQUIRE A MIND READER.
IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE -- AND I
WOULD ASSUME IN EVERY
IMPEACHMENT CASE -- YES, YOU
HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE PRESIDENT
WAS OPERATING FROM A CORRUPT
MOTIVE AND WE HAVE.
BUT HE ALSO MAKES AN ARGUMENT
THAT ALL QUID PRO QUOS ARE THE
SAME AND ALL ARE PERFECTLY
COPACETIC.
NOW, SOME OF YOU SAID EARLIER,
WELL, IF THEY COULD PROVE A QUID
PRO QUO OVER THE MILITARY, THAT
WOULD BE SOMETHING.
WELL, WE HAVE.
SO NOW THE ARGUMENT SHIFTS TO
ALL QUID PRO QUOS ARE JUST FINE,
THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.
WELL, I'M GOING TO APPLY
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ'S OWN TEST.
HE TALKED ABOUT THE STEP TEST,
JOHN RAWLS, THE PHILOSOPHER.
LET'S PUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER
FOOT AND SEE HOW THAT CHANGES
OUR PERCEPTION OF THINGS.
BUT I WANT TO MERGE THAT
ARGUMENT WITH ONE OF THE OTHER
PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT WHEN THEY
RESORTED TO THE WHAT ABOUTISM
ABOUT BARACK OBAMA'S OPEN MIKE.
NOW, THAT WAS A VERY POOR
ANALOGY, I THINK YOU'LL AGREE.
BUT LET'S USE THAT AND MAKE IT
MORE COMPARABLE TO SAID AND SEE
HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS
SCENARIO.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SAYS SON AN OPEN
MIKE TO MED YESTERDAY VERY, I
KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO USE THIS
-- BECAUSE THEY'RE KILLING YOUR
PEOPLE.
I WANT YOU TO DO AN
INVESTIGATION MITT ROMNEY AND I
WANT YOU TO ANNOUNCE THAT YOU
FOUND DIRT ON MITT ROMNEY.
IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THAT,
QUID PRO QUO, I WON'T GIVE
UKRAINE THE MONEY THEY NEED TO
FIGHT YOU ON THE FRONT LINE.
DO ANY OF US HAVE ANY QUESTION
THAT BARACK OBAMA WOULD BE
IMPEACHED FOR THAT KIND OF
MISCONDUCT?
ARE WE REALLY READY TO SAY THAT
THAT WOULD BE OKAY, IF BARACK
OBAMA ASKED MEDVEDEV TO WITHHOLD
MONEY TO GET AN INVESTIGATION OF
MITT ROMNEY?
THAT'S THAT'S THE PARALLEL HERE.
AND TO SAY, WELL, YES, WE
CONDITION AID ALL THE TIME FOR
LEGITIMATE REASONS, YES -- FOR
LEGITIMATE REASONS, YOU MIGHT
SAY TO A GOVERNOR OF A STATE,
HEY, GOVERNOR OF A STATE, YOU
SHOULD CHIP IN MORE TOWARDS YOUR
OWN DISASTER RELIEF.
BUT IF THE PRESIDENT'S REAL
MOTIVE IN DEPRIVING A STATE OF
DISASTER RELIEF IS BECAUSE THAT
GOVERNOR WON'T GET HIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE THE
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL, ARE
WE READY TO SAY THAT THE
PRESIDENT CAN SACRIFICE THE
INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THAT
STATE OR IN THE CASE OF
MEDVEDEV, THE PEOPLE OF OUR
COUNTRY BECAUSE ALL QUID
REQUESTS ARE FINE, IT'S CART
BRANCH?
THAT REALLY WHAT WE'RE PREPARED
TO SAY?
BECAUSE IF WE ARE, THEN THE NEXT
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CAN ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF
YOU.
THEY CAN ASK FOR HELP IN THEIR
ALEXANDER FROM ANY -- IN THEIR
NEXT ELECTION FROM ANY FOREIGN
POWER.
THE ARGUMENT WILL BE MADE,
DONALD TRUMP WAS ACQUITTED FOR
DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.
THEREFORE, IT MUST NOT BE
IMPEACHABLE.
NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT EFFORTS
TO CHEAT AN ELECTION ARE ALWAYS
GOING TO BE IN PROTECTION I WANT
TO AN ELECTION -- IN PROXIMITY
TO AN ELECTION.
IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T HOLD A
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE IN AN
ELECTION YEAR WHERE THEY'RE
TRYING TO CHEAT IN THAT
ELECTION, THEN YOU ARE GIVING
THEM CARTE BLANCHE.
SO ALL QUID PRO QUOS ARE NOT THE
SAME.
SOME ARE LEGITIMATE AND SOME ARE
CORRUPT.
AND YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A MIND
READER TO FIGURE OUT WHICH IS
WHICH.
FOR ONE THING, YOU CAN ASK JOHN
BOLTON.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
MR. GRASSLEY: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM IOWA.
MR. GRASSLEY: I SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
GRASSLEY ASKS THE COUNSEL FOR
THE PRESIDENT, DOES THE HOUSE'S
FAILURE TO ENFORCE ITS SUBPOENAS
RENDER ITS, QUOTE, OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS, UNQUOTE, THEORY
UNPRECEDENTED?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, SENATORS, THE ANSWER IS
YES.
AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, THERE HAS
NEVER BEEN A PRIOR INSTANCE IN
WHICH THERE'S BEEN AN ATTEMPT
EVEN IN THE HOUSE, AS IN THE
NIXON PROCEEDING -- NEVER MIND
IN THE CLINTON PROCEEDING, WHICH
ACTUALLY LEFT THE HOUSE AND CAME
TO THE SENATE -- TO SUGGEST THAT
THERE CAN BE OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS WHEN THERE HASN'T BEEN
ANYTHING BEYOND SIMPLY ISSUES A
SUBPOENA, GETTING RESISTANCE,
AND THEN THROWING UP YOUR HANDS
AND GIVING UP AND SAYING, OH,
WELL THAT'S OBSTRUCTION.
IN THE CLINTON SITUATION, MOST
OF THE LITIGATION WAS WITH THE
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.
THERE WERE PRIVILEGES ASSERTED
AND LITIGATION AND LITIGATION
AGAIN AND AGAIN.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT THE ISSUES
ABOUT THE PRIVILEGES WERE ALL
LITIGATED AND THEY WERE RESOLVED
BEFORE THINGS CAME TO THIS BODY.
SIMILARLY IN THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WITHIN
THE HOUSE, A LOT OF
INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN DONE BY
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND THERE
WAS LITIGATION OVER ASSERTIONS
OF PRIVILEGES THERE IN ORDER TO
GET AT THE TAPES AND SOME TAPES
OR TRANSCRIPTS HAD ALREADY BEEN
TURNED OVER.
BUT, AGAIN, THERE WAS LITIGATION
ABOUT THE ASSERTION OF THE
PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO THE
GRAND JURY SUBPOENA BUT THEN FED
INTO THE HOUSE'S PROCEEDINGS.
SO IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY
UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE HOUSE TO
ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY BRING A
CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION INTO THE
SENATE WHERE ALL THEY CAN
PRESENT IS, WELL, WE ISSUED A
SUBPOENA AND THERE WERE LEGAL
GROUNDS ASSERTED FOR THE
INVALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENA AND
THERE WERE DIFFERENT GROUNDS, AS
I'VE GONE THROUGH -- I WON'T
REPEAT THEM ALL IN DETAIL HERE
-- BUT SOME WERE BECAUSE THE
SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID WHEN
ISSUED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
VOTE.
SOME WAS THAT THE SUBPOENAS FOR
WITNESSES WERE INVALID BECAUSE
SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT
HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
SOME WERE THAT THEY WERE FORCING
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS TO
TESTIFY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF
COUNSEL WITH THEM.
SO VER US ARE REASONS ASSERTED
FOR THE -- SO VER US ARE -- SO
VARIOUS REASONS ASSERTED.
BUT JUST BRING IT HERE AS AN
OBSTRUCTION CHARGE IS
UNPRECEDENTED.
I'LL NOTE THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE SAID -- AND I'M SURE THEY
WILL SAY AGAIN TODAY -- THAT,
WELL, IF WE HAD GONE TO COURT,
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WOULD
HAVE SAID THAT THE COURTS DON'T
HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THOSE
CLAIMS.
NOW, THAT IS TRUE.
IN SOME CASES -- THERE'S ONE
BEING LITIGATED RIGHT NOW
RELATED TO THE FORMER COUNSEL TO
THE PRESIDENT, DON McGAHN --
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
POSITION, JUST LIKE THE POSITION
OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, IS
THAT AN EFFORT BY THE HOUSE TO
ENFORCE A SUBPOENA IN ARTICLE 3
COURT IS A NONJUDICIAL
CONTROVERSY.
THAT IS OUR POSITION AND WE
WOULD ARGUE THAT IN COURT.
BUT THAT IS PART OF WHAT WOULD
HAVE TO BE LITIGATED.
THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT
THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS CAN'T
HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
I WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO SAY
THAT THEY HAVE AN AVENUE FOR
GOING TO COURT.
THEY'RE USING THAT AVENUE FOR
GOING TO COURT.
THEY ACTUALLY TOLD THE COURT IN
McGAHN THAT ONCE THEY REACHED
AN IMPASSE WITH THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH, THE COURTS WERE THE ONLY
WAY TO RESOLVE THE IMPASSE.
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY,
THERE ARE MECHANISMS FOR DEALING
WITH THESE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE
EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESS.
THE FIRST IS AN ACCOMMODATIONS
PROCESS.
THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.
WE OFFERED TO DO THAT IN THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OCTOBER 8
LETTER.
THEY DIDN'T A CCOMMODATIONS.
IF THEY THINK THEY CAN SUE, THEY
HAVE TO TAKE THAT STEP BECAUSE
THE CONSTITUTION, THE COURTS
HAVE MADE CLEAR, REQUIRE
INCREMENTALISM IN DISPUTES
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
SO IF THEY THINK THAT THE COURTS
CAN RESOLVE THAT DISPUTE, THAT'S
THE NEXT STEP.
THEY SHOULD DO THAT AND HAVE
THAT LITIGATED.
AND THEN THINGS CAN PROCEED ON
TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF
CONFRONTATION BUT TO JUMP
STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT TO THE
ULTIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONFRONTATION DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE.
IT'S NOT THE SYSTEM THAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, AND IT IS
UNPRESS -- UNPRECEDENTED IN THIS
CASE.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MS. STABENOW: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
STABENOW ASKS THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, WOULD THE HOUSE
MANAGERS CARE TO CORRECT THE
RECORD ON ANY FALSEHOODS OR
MISCHARACTERIZATIONS IN THE
WHITE HOUSE'S OPENING ARGUMENTS?
MS. LOFGREN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
TEAM HAS CLAIMED BASICALLY THERE
WERE SIX FACTS THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN MET AND WILL NOT CHANGE AND
ALL SIX OF THOSE SO-CALLED FACTS
ARE INCORRECT.
LET'S BE CLEAR.
ON JULY 25 -- THAT'S NOT THE
WHOLE EVIDENCE BEFORE US, EVEN
THOUGH IT INCLUDES DEVASTATING
EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S
SCHEME.
PRESIDENT OF THE INTENT WAS MADE
CLEAR ON THE JULY 25 CALL, BUT
WE HAD EVIDENCE OF INFORMATION
BEFORE THE MEETINGS WITH
MR. BOLTON, THE TEXT MESSAGE TO
MR. ZELENSKY'S PEOPLE TELLING
HIM HE HAD TO DO THE
INVESTIGATIONS TO GET WHEN HE
WANTED, ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE
THAT MAKES US UNDERSTAND THAT
PHONE CALL EVEN MORE CLEARLY.
NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM
CLAIMED THAT MR. ZELENSKY AND
OTHER UKRAINIANS SAID THEY NEVER
FELT PRESSURED TO OPEN
INVESTIGATIONS.
NOW, OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T SAY
THAT PUBLICLY.
THEY WERE AFRAID OF THE RUSSIANS
FINDING OUT.
BUT ZELENSKY SAID PRIVATELY THAT
HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN
U.S. DOMESTIC POLITICS.
HE RESISTED ANNOUNCING THE
INVESTIGATIONS.
HE ONLY RELENTED AND SCHEDULED
THE CNN MEETING AFTER IT BECAME
CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO
RECEIVE THE SUPPORT THAT HE
NEEDED AND THAT CONGRESS HAD
PROVIDED IN OUR APPROPRIATIONS.
THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF
PRESSURE.
NOW, UKRAINE -- THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYERS SAY -- DIDN'T KNOW THAT
TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE UNTIL IT WAS
PUBLIC.
MANY WITNESSES HAVE CONTESTED
THAT, INCLUDING THE OPEN
STATEMENT BY OLENA ZIRKLE, THE
THEN-DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER OF
UKRAINE, THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT
THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON THE
SECURITY MATTERS AND IN THE END
EVERYONE KNEW.
IT WAS PUBLIC.
AND AFTERWARDS UKRAINE DID
RELENT AND SCHEDULE THAT
TESTIMONY.
FOURTH, THEY SAID NO WITNESSES,
SAID SECURITY WAS CONDITIONED ON
THE INVESTIGATIONS.
NOT SO.
MULVANEY -- WE HAD OTHER
WITNESSES TALKING ABOUT THE
SHAKEDOWN FOR THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE.
BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT
YOU CAN GET A WITNESS WHO TALKED
TO THE PRESIDENT FIRSTHAND ABOUT
WHAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT HE
WAS DOING.
ULTIMATELY, OF COURSE, THE FUNDS
OR AT LEAST SOME OF THEM WERE
RELEASED, BUT THE WHITE HOUSE
MEETING THAT THE PRESIDENT
PROMISED THREE DIFFERENT TIMES
STILL HAS NOT OCCURRED.
AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.
GETTING CAUGHT DOESN'T MITIGATE
THE WRONGDOING.
THE PRESIDENT'S UNREPEN -- THE
PRESIDENT IS UNREPENTANT AND WE
FEAR HE WILL DO IT AGAIN.
THE INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE CONCLUDED
THAT THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED
FEDERAL LAW WHEN HE WITHHELD
THAT AID, THAT MISCONDUCT IS
STILL GOING ON.
ALL THE AID IS NOT YET BEEN
RELEASED.
AND FINALLY, I'D JUST LIKE TO
SAY THERE'S BEEN SOME CONFUSION,
I THINK -- I'M SURE NOT
INTENTIONAL BUT THE PRESIDENT
SURELY DOES NOT NEED THE
PERMISSION OF HIS STAFF ABOUT
FOREIGN POLICY.
THAT INFORMATION IS OFFERED TO
YOU AS EVIDENCE OF WHAT HE
THOUGHT HE WAS DOING.
AND HE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE
PURSUING A POLICY AGENDA.
HE APPEARED FROM ALL THE
EVIDENCE TO BE PURSUING A
CORRUPTION, A CORRUPTION OF OUR
ELECTION THAT'S UPCOMING, A HIGH
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR THAT
REQUIRES CONVICTION AND REMOVAL.
I YIELD BACK.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS.
MR. COTTON: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF MYSELF,
SENATORS BOOZMAN, McSALLY,
BLACKBURN, KENNEDY, AND TOOMEY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATORS ASK THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL, DID THE HOUSE BOTHER TO
SEEK TESTIMONY OR LITIGATE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ISSUES
DURING THE MONTH DURING WHICH IT
HELD UP THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES
BEFORE SENDING THEM TO THE
SENATE?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, NO, THE HOUSE DID NOT
SEEK TO LITIGATE ANY OF THE
PRIVILEGE ISSUES DURING THAT
TIME.
IN FACT, THEY FILED NO LAWSUITS
ARISING FROM THIS IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY TO SEEK TO CONTEST THE
BASES THE PRESIDENT TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION GAVE FOR
RESISTING THE SUBPOENAS, THE
BASIS FOR WHY THOSE SUBPOENAS
WERE INVALID.
AND WHEN LITIGATION WAS FILED BY
ONE OF THE SUBPOENAED
RECIPIENTS, THAT WAS DR. CHARLES
KUPPERMAN, THE DEPUTY NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR, HE WENT TO THE
COURT AND SOUGHT A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT SAYING THE PRESIDENT
TOLD ME I SHOULDN'T GO.
I HAVE A SUBPOENA FROM THE HOUSE
SAYING I SHOULD GO.
PLEASE, COURT, TELL ME WHAT ARE
MY OP -- MY OBLIGATIONS.
THAT WAS FILED, I BELIEVE,
AROUND OCTOBER 25.
IT WAS TOWARDS THE END OF
OCTOBER, VERY SHORTLY WITHIN A
FEW DAYS THE COURT HAD SET AN
EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
SET A -- SCHEDULED A HEARING FOR
SEPTEMBER 10 THAT WAS SUPPOSED
TO HEAR BOTH PRELIMINARY MOTIONS
TO DISMISS BUT ALSO THE MERITS
ISSUE.
SO THEY WERE GOING TO GET A
DECISION AFTER A HEARING ON
DECEMBER 10 THAT WOULD GO TO THE
MERITS OF THE ISSUE.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS WITHDREW THE
SUBPOENA.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DECIDED THEY WANTED TO MOOT OUT
THE CASE SO THEY WOULDN'T GET A
DECISION.
SO, NO, THE HOUSE HAS NOT
PURSUED LITIGATION TO GET ANY OF
THESE ISSUES RESOLVED.
IT'S AFFIRMATIVELY AVOIDED
GETTING ANY LITIGATION.
THAT SEEMS TO BE AT LEAST IN
PART BASED ON -- IF YOU LOOK AT
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
REPORT, THEIR ASSERTION THAT
UNDER THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT ASSIGNED TO THE
HOUSE, THE HOUSE BELIEVES THAT
THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS -- I
BELIEVE THE EXACT WORDS ARE IT
GIVES THE HOUSE THE LAST WORD,
SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
AND I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER
DAY.
THIS IS THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL
THEORY THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE
THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT,
IN THEIR VIEW IT'S ACTUALLY THE
PARAMOUNT POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
AND ALL OTHER
CONSTITUTIONALLY-BASED
PRIVILEGES OR RIGHTS OR
IMMUNITIES OR ROLES EVEN OF THE
OTHER BRANCHES, BOTH THE
JUDICIARY AND THE EXECUTIVE,
FALL AWAY.
AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN
STAND IN THE WAY OF THE HOUSE'S
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.
IF THEY ISSUE A SUBPOENA, THE
EXECUTIVE HAS TO RESPOND AND IT
CAN'T RAISE ANY
CONSTITUTIONALLY-BASED
SEPARATION OF POWERS CONCERNS.
IF YOU DO, THAT'S OBSTRUCTION.
THE COURTS, THE COURTS HAVE NO
ROLE.
THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S A VERY DANGEROUS
CONSTRUCT FOR OUR CONSTITUTION.
IT SUGGESTS THAT ONCE THEY FLIP
THE SWITCH ON TO IMPEACHMENT,
THERE'S NO CHECK ON THEIR POWER
ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE
CONSTITUTION IS STRUCTURED.
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES WHEN
THERE ARE INTERBRANCH CONFLICTS,
THAT THERE BE AN ACCOMMODATION
PROCESS, THAT THERE BE ATTEMPTS
TO ADDRESS THE INTERESTS OF BOTH
BRANCHES, AND THE HOUSE HAS
TAKEN THE POSITION IN OTHER
LITIGATION, THE McGAHN
LITIGATION, THEY'RE TELLING THE
COURTS THE COURTS ARE THE ONLY
WAY TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES.
AND THEY BROUGHT THAT CASE IN
AUGUST.
THEY ALREADY HAVE A DECISION
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.
THEY HAVE AN APPEAL IN THE D.C.
CIRCUIT.
IT WAS ARGUED ON JANUARY 3.
A DECISION COULD COME ANY DAY.
THAT'S PRETTY FAST FOR
LITIGATION.
BUT THEY'VE DECIDED IN THIS
IMPEACHMENT THEY DON'T WANT TO
DO LITIGATION.
AND AGAIN, IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAD
A TIMETABLE.
ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS
ADMITTED ON THIS FLOOR THEY HAD
TO GET THE PRESIDENT IMPEACHED
BEFORE THE ELECTION.
THEY HAD NO TIME FOR THE COURTS
FOR ANYONE TELLING THEM WHAT THE
RULES WERE.
AND THEY HAD TO GET IT DONE BY
CHRISTMAS.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY D. AND THEN
THEY WAITED AROUND FOR THE MONTH
BEFORE BRINGING IT HERE.
AND I THINK THAT SHOWS YOU
WHAT'S REALLY BEHIND THE CLAIMS
OF OH, IT'S URGENT.
THEN IT'S NOT OUR JENLTS.
IT'S URGENT WHEN IT'S OUR
TIMETABLE TO GET IT DONE BY
CHRISTMAS.
IT'S NOT SO URGENT WHEN WE WAIT
FOR A MONTH BECAUSE WE WANT TO
TELL THE SENATE HOW TO RUN
THINGS.
IT'S ALL A POLITICAL CHARADE.
AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON, A
MAJOR REASON THAT THE SENATE
SHOULD REJECT THESE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
A SENATOR: CHIEF JUSTICE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
A SENATOR: THANK YOU FOR THE
RECOGNITION, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
PLEASE ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL'S ARGUMENTS THAT HOUSE
MANAGERS SEEK TO OVERTURN THE
RESULTS OF THE 2016 ELECTION AND
THAT THE DECISION TO REMOVE THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE
VOTERS IN NOVEMBER.
MR. SCHIFF: THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
AND FIRST I JUST WANT TO RESPOND
TO SOMETHING COUNSEL JUST SAID.
NINE MONTHS IS PRETTY FAST FOR
LITIGATION IN THE COURTS.
SADLY, I AGREE WITH THAT.
NINE MONTHS IS PRETTY FAST IN
THE McGAHN CASE AND WE STILL
DON'T HAVE A DECISION YET.
WHAT'S MORE, THAT'S THE VERY
CASE IN WHICH THEY'RE ARGUING,
AS I QUOTED EARLIER, THAT
CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO COME TO
THE COURTS TO FORCE A WITNESS TO
TESTIFY.
SO HERE WE ARE NINE MONTHS LATER
AND THAT LITIGATION THEY SAID
WE'RE COMPELLED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION TO BRING AND
THEY'RE SAYING IN COURT YOU
CAN'T BRING THIS AND IT'S NINE
MONTHS AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE A
DECISION.
I THINK THAT TELLS YOU JUST
WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM.
IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE
PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE FIGHT ALL
SUBPOENAS AND THEY ARE.
NIXON WAS GOING TO BE IMPEACHED
FOR FAR LESS OBSTRUCTION THAN
ANYTHING THAT DONALD TRUMP DID.
NOW, THE ARGUMENT, WELL, IF YOU
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT YOU ARE
OVERTURNING THE RESULTS OF THE
LAST ELECTION, AND YOU'RE
TEARING UP THE BALLOTS IN THE
NEXT ELECTION.
OKAY, IF THAT WERE THE CASE,
THERE WOULD BE NO IMPEACHMENT
CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION,
BECAUSE BY DEFINITION IF YOU'RE
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT, THAT
PRESIDENT IN OFFICE HAS WON AN
ELECTION.
CLEARLY THAT'S NOT WHAT THE
FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND.
WHAT THEY HAD IN MIND IS IF THE
PRESIDENT COMMITS HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANOR, YOU MUST REMOVE
HIM FROM OFFICE.
IT IS NOT VOIDING THE LAST
ELECTION.
IT IS PROTECTING THE NEXT
ELECTION.
INDEED, THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
WAS PUT IN THE CONSTITUTION NOT
AS A PUNISHMENT.
THAT'S WHAT THE CRIMINAL LAWS
ARE FOR.
BUT TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY.
NOW, IF YOU SAY YOU CAN'T
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT BEFORE THE
NEXT ELECTION, WHAT YOU'RE
REALLY SAYING IS YOU CAN ONLY
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT IF THEIR
SECOND TERM.
OKAY.
IF THAT WERE GOING TO BE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT, THE
FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE PUT IN THE
CONSTITUTION A PRESIDENT MAY
COMMIT WHATEVER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS THAT HE WANTS AS
LONG AS IT'S IN THE FIRST TERM.
THAT IS CLEARLY NOT WHAT ANY
RATIONAL FRAMER WOULD HAVE
WRITTEN AND INDEED THEY DIDN'T.
AND THEY DIDN'T FOR A REASON.
THE FOUNDERS WERE CONCERNED THAT
IN FACT THE OBJECT OF A
PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME MIGHT
BE TO TREAT IN THE VERY FORM OF
ACCOUNTABILITY THAT THEY HAD
PRESCRIBED, THE ELECTION.
SO COUNSEL HAS CONTINUED TO
MISCHARACTERIZE WHAT THE
MANAGERS HAVE SAID.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT WE HAD TO
HURRY TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT
BEFORE THE ELECTION.
WE HAD TO HURRY BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO CHEAT IN
THAT ELECTION.
AND THE POSITION OF THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS WELL,
YES, IT'S TRUE THAT IF A
PRESIDENT IS GOING TO TRY TO
CHEAT IN A DEFINITION BY
DEFINITION, THAT'S PART OF THEIR
REELECTION.
BY DEFINITION THAT'S GOING TO BE
APPROXIMATE TO AN ELECTION BUT,
YOU KNOW, LET THE VOTERS DECIDE
EVEN THOUGH THE OBJECT IS TO
CORRUPT THAT VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.
THAT CANNOT BE WHAT THE FOUNDERS
HAD IN MIND.
ONE OF THE THINGS I SAID AT THE
VERY OPEN OF THIS PROCEEDING IS
YES, WE'RE TO LOOK TO HISTORY.
YES, WE'RE TO TRY TO DIVINE THE
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS BUT WE'RE
NOT TO LEAVE OUR COMMON SENSE AT
THE DOOR.
THE ISSUE ISN'T WHETHER THIS IS
FIRST TERM OR HIS SECOND.
IT ISN'T WHETHER THE ELECTION I■
A YEAR AWAY OR THREE YEARS AWAY.
THE ISSUE IS, DID HE COMMIT A
HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR?
IS IT A HIGH CRIME AND
MISDEMEANOR FOR THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO WITHHOLD
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF AID TO
AN ALLY AT WAR TO GET HELP,
ELICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, IT DOESN'T
MATTER WHAT TERM IT IS, HOW FAR
THE ELECTION IS BECAUSE THAT
PRESIDENT REPRESENTS A THREAT TO
THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS
AND MORE THAN THAT A THREAT TO
OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
AS WE HAVE SHOWN BY WITHHOLDING
THAT AID -- AND I KNOW THE
ARGUMENT NO HARM, NO FOUL -- WE
WITHHELD AID FROM AN ALLY AT
WAR.
WE SENT A MESSAGE TO THE
RUSSIANS WHEN THEY LEARNED OF
THIS HOLD THAT WE DID NOT HAVE
UKRAINE'S BACK.
WE SENT A MESSAGE TO THE
RUSSIANS AS ZELENSKY WAS GOING
INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH PUTIN TO
TRY TO END THAT WAR THAT
ZELENSKY WAS OPERATING FROM A
POSITION OF WEAKNESS BECAUSE
THERE WAS A DIVISION BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND UKRAINE.
THAT'S IMMEDIATE DAMAGE.
THAT'S DAMAGE DONE EVERY DAY.
THAT DAMAGE CONTINUES TO THIS
DAY.
THE DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT DOES IN
PUSHING OUT THE RUSSIAN
CONSPIRACY THEORIES WERE
IDENTIFIED DURING THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS AND YOU'VE HEARD IT
IN THE SENATE AS RUSSIAN
INTELLIGENCE PROPAGANDA, THE
DANGER THE PRESIDENT POSES BY
TAKING VLADIMIR PUTIN'S SIDE
OVER HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES, THAT'S A DANGER TODAY.
THAT'S A DANGER THAT CONTINUES
EVERY DAY HE PUSHES OUT THIS
RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.
THE FRAMERS, IF THEY MEANT
IMPEACHMENT ONLY TO IMPLY IN HIS
SECOND TERM WOULD HAVE SAID SO
BUT THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THE
CONSTITUTION A -- THE
CONSTITUTION A SUICIDE PACT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS AND NOT
HOW YOU SHOULD INTERPRET IT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM OHIO.
A SENATOR: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
GIVEN THAT IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS ARE PRIVILEGED IN
THE SENATE AND LARGELY PREVENT
OTHER WORK FROM TAKING PLACE
WHILE THEY ARE ONGOING, PLEASE
ADDRESS THE IMPLICATIONS OF
ALLOWING THE HOUSE TO PRESENT AN
INCOMPLETE CASE TO THE SENATE
AND REQUEST THE SENATE TO SEEK
TESTIMONY FROM ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES.
MR. PHILBIN: THANK YOU.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, I
THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT THIS BODY
FACES GIVEN THESE CALLS TO HAVE
WITNESSES.
BECAUSE THE HOUSE MANAGERS TRY
TO PRESENT IT AS IF IT'S JUST A
SIMPLE QUESTION.
HOW CAN YOU HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT
WITNESSES.
BUT IN REAL LITIGATION, NO ONE
GOES TO TRIAL WITHOUT DOING
DISCOVERY.
NO ONE GOES TO TRIAL WITHOUT
HAVING HEARD FROM THE WITNESSES
FIRST.
YOU DON'T SHOW UP AT TRIAL AND
THEN START TRYING TO CALL
WITNESSES FOR THE FIRST TIME.
AND THE IMPLICATIONS HERE IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR
TRYING TO RUN THINGS IN SUCH AN
UPSIDE DOWN WAY WOULD BE VERY
GRAVE FOR THIS BODY AS AN
INSTITUTION.
BECAUSE AS THE SENATOR'S
QUESTION POINTS OUT, IT LARGELY
PREVENTS THIS CHAMBER FROM
GETTING OTHER BUSINESS DONE AS
LONG AS THERE IS A TRIAL
PENDING.
AND THE IDEA
THAT THE HOUSE CAN DO AN
INCOMPLETE JOB IN TRYING TO FIND
OUT WHAT WITNESSES THERE ARE,
HAVING THEM COME TESTIFY, TRYING
TO FIND OUT THE FACTS, JUST RUSH
SOMETHING THROUGH AND BRING IT
HERE AS AN IMPEACHMENT AND THEN
START TRYING TO CALL ALL THE
WITNESSES MEANS THAT THIS BODY
WILL END UP TAKING OVER THAT
INVESTIGATORY TASK, AND ALL OF
THE REGULAR BUSINESS OF THIS
BODY WILL BE SLOWED DOWN,
HINDERED, PREVENTED, WHILE THAT
GOES ON.
AND IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF JUST
ONE WITNESS.
IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF A LOT OF
PEOPLE TALK RIGHT NOW ABOUT JOHN
BOLTON, BUT THE PRESIDENT WOULD
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS
WITNESSES, JUST AS A MATTER OF
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
AND THERE WOULD BE A LONG LIST
OF WITNESSES IF THE BODY WERE TO
GO IN THAT DIRECTION.
IT WOULD MEAN THIS WOULD DRAG ON
FOR MONTHS AND PREVENT THIS
CHAMBER FROM GETTING ITS
BUSINESS DONE.
THERE IS A PROPER WAY TO DO
THINGS AND AN UPSIDE DOWN WAY OF
DOING THINGS, AND TO HAVE THE
HOUSE NOT GO THROUGH A PROCESS
THAT IS THOROUGH AND COMPLETE
AND TO JUST RUSH THINGS THROUGH
IN A PARTISAN AND POLITICAL
MANNER AND THEN DUMP IT ON TO
THIS CHAMBER TO CLEAN EVERYTHING
UP IS A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
TO BE SET.
AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY,
WHATEVER IS ACCEPTED IN THIS
CASE BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL.
IF THIS CHAMBER PUTS ITS
IMPRIMATUR ON THIS PROCESS, THEN
THAT'S THE SEAL OF APPROVAL FOR
ALL TIME IN THE FUTURE.
AND IF IT BECOMES THAT EASY FOR
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, DON'T ATTEMPT TO
SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES, NEVER
MIND LITIGATION, IT TAKES TOO
LONG, BUT THEN LEAVE IT ALL TO
THIS CHAMBER.
AND AS I SAID THE OTHER DAY,
REMEMBER WHAT DO WE THINK WILL
HAPPEN IF SOME OF THESE
WITNESSES ARE SUBPOENAED NOW,
THAT THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO
LITIGATE ABOUT?
THEN THEY WILL BE THE LITIGATION
NOW, MOST LIKELY.
THEN THAT WILL TAKE TIME WHILE
THIS CHAMBER IS STILL STUCK
SITTING AS A COURT OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO DO THINGS,
AND IT WOULD FOREVER CHANGE THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE
SENATE IN TERMS OF THE WAY
IMPEACHMENTS OPERATE.
SO I THINK IT'S VITALLY
IMPORTANT FOR THIS CHAMBER TO
CONSIDER WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO
START HAVING THIS CHAMBER DO ALL
THIS INVESTIGATORY WORK, HOW
THIS CHAMBER WOULD BE PARALYZED
BY THAT, AND IS THAT REALLY THE
PRECEDENT?
IS THAT THE WAY THIS CHAMBER
WANTS EVERYTHING TO OPERATE IN
THE FUTURE?
ONCE YOU MAKE IT THAT MUCH
EASIER -- AND WE'VE SAID THIS ON
A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT POINTS,
BOTH IN TERMS OF THE STANDARDS
FOR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, BUT
ALSO IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS
THAT'S USED IN THE HOUSE.
YOU MAKE IT REALLY WAY TOO EASY
TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT, THEN
THIS CHAMBER IS GOING TO BE
DEALING WITH THAT ALL THE TIME.
AND AS MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER
HAD POINTED OUT, AT THE TIME OF
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, HE WAS
PROPHETIC.
AS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL POINTED
OUT THE OTHER DAY, ONCE YOU
START DOWN THE PATH OF PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENTS, THEY WILL BE
COMING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND
AGAIN.
AND IF YOU MAKE IT EASIER, THEY
WILL COME EVEN MORE FREQUENTLY.
AND THIS CHAMBER IS GOING TO
HAVE TO BE SPENDING A LOT OF
TIME DEALING WITH IMPEACHMENT
TRIALS AND CLEANING UP
INCOMPLETE HALF-BAKED
PROCEDURES, RUSHED PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENTS FROM THE HOUSE IF
THAT'S THE SORT OF SYSTEM THAT'S
GIVEN YOUR IMPRIMATUR HERE.
AND THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT
REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THAT
PROCEDURE AND NOT TRYING TO OPEN
THINGS UP NOW WHEN THINGS
HAVEN'T BEEN DONE PROPERLY IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.
MR. CARPER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
SOME HAVE CLAIMED THAT
SUBPOENAING WITNESSES OR
DOCUMENTS WOULD UNNECESSARILY
PROLONG THIS TRIAL.
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT DEPOSITIONS
OF THE THREE WITNESSES IN THE
CLINTON TRIAL WERE COMPLETED IN
ONLY ONE DAY EACH, AND ISN'T IT
TRUE THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE, AS
PRESIDING OFFICER IN THIS TRIAL,
HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE ANY
CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE OR OTHER
WITNESS ISSUES WITHOUT ANY
DELAY?
MR. JEFFRIES: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
THE ANSWER IS YES.
WHAT IS CLEAR, BASED ON THE
RECORD THAT WAS COMPILED BY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHERE
UP TO FIVE DEPOSITIONS PER WEEK
WERE COMPLETED, THAT THIS CAN BE
DONE IN AN EXPEDITIOUS FASHION.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
RECORD THAT EXISTS BEFORE YOU
RIGHT NOW CONTAINS STRONG AND
UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESSURED A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL
AND PERSONAL GAIN AS PART OF A
SCHEME TO CHEAT IN THE 2020
ELECTION AND SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE.
THAT IS EVIDENCE FROM WITNESSES
WHO CAME FORWARD FROM THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING
INDIVIDUALS LIKE AMBASSADOR BILL
TAYLOR, WEST POINT GRADUATE,
VIETNAM WAR HERO.
INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS LIKE
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHO GAVE
$1 MILLION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
INAUGURATION.
RESPECTED NATIONAL SECURITY
PROFESSIONALS LIKE LIEUTENANT
COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN, AS
WELL AS DR. FIONA HILL.
17 DIFFERENT WITNESSES.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES.
TROUBLED BY THE CORRUPT CONDUCT
THAT TOOK PLACE AS ALLEGED AND
PROVEN BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE
AMBIGUITIIES IN YOUR MIND, THIS
IS A TRIAL, A TRIAL INVOLVES
WITNESSES.
A TRIAL INVOLVES DOCUMENTS.
A TRIAL INVOLVES EVIDENCE.
THAT IS NOT A NEW PHENOMENON FOR
THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY.
THE SENATE IN ITS HTORY HAS
HAD 15 DIFFERENT IMPEACHMENT
TRIALS.
IN EVERY SINGLE TRIAL, THERE
WERE WITNESSES.
EVERY SINGLE TRIAL.
WHY SHOULD THIS PRESIDENT BE
TREATED DIFFERENTLY, HELD TO A
LOWER STANDARD?
AT THIS MOMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY?
AND, IN FACT, IN MANY OF THOSE
TRIALS, THERE WERE WITNESSES WHO
TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE WHO HAD
NOT TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE.
THAT WAS THE CASE MOST RECENTLY
IN THE BILL CLINTON TRIAL.
IT CERTAINLY WAS THE CASE IN THE
TRIAL OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON.
37 OUT OF THE 40 WITNESSES WHO
TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE WERE
NEW.
37 OUT OF 40.
WHY CAN'T WE DO IT IN THIS
INSTANCE, WHEN YOU HAVE SUCH
HIGHLY RELEVANT WITNESSES LIKE
JOHN BOLTON WHO HAD A DIRECT
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT
TRUMP, INDICATING THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING THE AID
BECAUSE HE WANTED THE PHONY
INVESTIGATIONS.
COUNSEL HAS SAID THE GREATEST
INVENTION IN THE HISTORY OF
JURISPRUDENCE FOR ASCERTAINING
THE TRUTH HAS BEEN THE VEHICLE
OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.
LET'S CALL JOHN BOLTON.
LET'S CALL MICK MULVANEY.
LET'S CALL OTHER WITNESSES,
SUBJECT THEM TO
CROSS-EXAMINATION AND PRESENT
THE TRUTH TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, II
ASK TO SEND A QUESTION TO THE
DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
CORNYN ASKS COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT WHAT ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES TO THE PRESIDENCY
IF THE PRESIDENT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE AS THE HEAD
OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE
ADVICE THE PRESIDENT CAN EXPECT
FROM HIS SENIOR ADVISORS IF THE
SENATE SEEKS TO RESOLVE CLAIMS
FOR EXECUTIVE SUBPOENAS IN THIS
TRIAL WITHOUT ANY DETERMINATION
BY AN ARTICLE 3 COURT?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR THE
QUESTION.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT IS ESSENTIAL, KEEPING
THOSE COMMUNICATIONS
CONFIDENTIAL IS ESSENTIAL FOR
THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF
GOVERNMENT.
IN NIXON VERSUS UNITED STATES,
THE COURT EXPLAINED THAT THIS
PRIVILEGE IS GROUNDED IN THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND
ESSENTIAL FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF
THE EXECUTIVE FOR THIS REASON --
IN ORDER TO RECEIVE CANDID
ADVICE, THE PRESIDENT HAS TO BE
ABLE TO BE SURE THAT THOSE WHO
ARE SPEAKING WITH HIM HAVE THE
CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT THEY SAY IS
NOT GOING TO BE REVEALED, THAT
THEIR ADVICE CAN REMAIN
CONFIDENTIAL.
IF IT'S NOT CONFIDENTIAL, THEY
WOULD TEMPER WHAT THEY'RE
SAYING.
THEY WOULDN'T BE CANDID WITH THE
PRESIDENT, AND THEY WOULDN'T BE
ABLE -- THE PRESIDENT THEN WOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE BEST
ADVICE.
AND IT'S THE SAME CONCERN THAT
UNDERPINS THE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESS ASPECT OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
EVEN IF IT'S NOT A COMMUNICATION
DIRECTLY WITH THE PRESIDENT, IF
IT'S THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH,
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ABLE BEFORE
COMING UP WITH A DECISION TO
DISCUSS ALTERNATIVES, TO PROBE
WHAT OTHER WAYS MIGHT WORK TO
ADDRESS A PROBLEM, AND TO
DISCUSS THEM CANDIDLY AND
OPENLY, NOT WITH THE FEELING
THAT THE FIRST THING THEY SAY IS
GOING TO BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF
"THE WASHINGTON POST" THE NEXT
DAY.
BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE
CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING IS GOING TO BE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL, YOU WON'T BE
CANDID, YOU WON'T GIVE YOUR BEST
ADVICE, AND THAT DAMAGES
DECISION-MAKING.
THAT'S BAD FOR THE GOVERNMENT,
AND IT'S BAD FOR THE PEOPLE OF
THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE IT
MEANS THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH CAN'T FUNCTION
EFFICIENTLY.
SO THERE IS A CRITICAL NEED FOR
THE EXECUTIVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
THESE PRIVILEGES AND TO PROTECT
THEM, AND THAT'S WHY THE SUPREME
COURT RECOGNIZED THAT IN NIXON
VERSUS UNITED STATES AND POINTED
OUT THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME
VERY HIGH SHOWING OF NEED FROM
ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IF
THERE IS GOING TO BE ANY BREACH
OF THAT PRIVILEGE.
AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS AN
ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS.
WHILE THE COURTS HAVE SAID THAT
WHEN THE CONGRESS, WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE SEEKS INFORMATION
FROM THE EXECUTIVE AND THE
EXECUTIVE HAS CONFIDENTIALITY
INTERESTS, BOTH BRANCHES ARE
UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO TRY TO
COME TO SOME ACCOMMODATION TO
ADDRESS THE INTERESTS OF BOTH
BRANCHES.
BUT IT'S NOT A SITUATION OF
SIMPLY THE CONGRESS IS SUPREME
AND CAN DEMAND INFORMATION FROM
THE EXECUTIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE
MUST PRESENT EVERYTHING.
AND THE COURTS HAVE MADE THAT
CLEAR, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE
DAMAGING TO THE FUNCTIONING OF
GOVERNMENT.
AND SO HERE IN THIS CASE, THERE
ARE VITAL INTERESTS AT STAKE.
AND, YOU KNOW, IN ONE OF THE
POTENTIAL WITNESSES THAT THE
HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE RAISED AGAIN
AND AGAIN IS JOHN BOLTON.
JOHN BOLTON WAS THE NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT.
HE HAS ALL OF THE NATION'S
SECRETS FROM THE TIME THAT HE IS
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.
THAT IS PRECISELY THE AREA, THE
FIELD IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT
SUGGESTED IN NIXON VERSUS UNITED
STATES THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING
APPROACHING AN ABSOLUTE
PRIVILEGE OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE
PRESIDENT.
THE FIELD OF NATIONAL SECURITY
AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
THAT'S THE CROWN JEWELS OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
AND SO TO SUGGEST THAT THE
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, WELL,
WE'LL JUST SUBPOENA HIM, HE'LL
COME IN AND THAT WILL BE EASY,
THERE WON'T BE A PROBLEM, THAT'S
NOT THE WAY IT WOULD WORK
BECAUSE THERE IS A VITAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AT
STAKE THERE.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE
INSTITUTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENCY FOR EVERY PRESIDENT
TO PROTECT THAT PRIVILEGE,
BECAUSE ONCE PRECEDENTS START TO
BE SET, IF ONE PRESIDENT SAYS
WELL, I WON'T INSIST ON THE
PRIVILEGE THEN, I WILL LET
PEOPLE INTERVIEW THIS PERSON, I
WON'T INSIST ON THE IMMUNITY,
THAT'S PRECEDENT.
AND THE NEXT TIME WHEN IT'S
IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE THE
PRIVILEGE, THE PRECEDENT IS
RAISED AND THE PRIVILEGE HAS
BEEN WEAKENED, AND IT'S FOREVER
WEAKENED, AND THAT DAMAGES THE
FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT.
SO THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE
TO CONSIDER.
IT'S IMPORTANT THE SUPREME COURT
HAS MADE CLEAR FOR THE PROPER
FUNCTIONING OF THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH, FOR THE PROPER
FUNCTIONING OF OUR GOVERNMENT,
AND THERE WOULD BE GRAVE ISSUES
RAISED ATTEMPTING TO HAVE A
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT COME UNDER SUBPOENA TO
TESTIFY.
AND THAT WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE
DEALT WITH, AND THAT WOULD TAKE
SOME TIME BEFORE THINGS WOULD
CONTINUE.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII.
MR. SCHATZ: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR SCHATZ IS
DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE QUESTION IS ALSO FROM
SENATOR FEINSTEIN.
IF THE PRESIDENT WERE ACTING IN
THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL
SECURITY, AS HE ALLEGES, WOULD
THERE BE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR
TESTIMONY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS
CLAIM?
IF YES, HAS ANY EVIDENCE LIKE
THAT BEEN PRESENTED BY THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL?
MR. CROW: THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE.
THANK YOU, SENATORS, FOR THE
QUESTION.
THE ANSWER IS YES.
ALL RIGHT, THERE ARE
WELL-ESTABLISHED PROCESSES AND
AGENCIES IN PLACE TO PURSUE
VALUELAND LEGITIMATE NATIONAL
SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES, LIKE THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNSEL, LIKE THE
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, AS IN
AMBASSADOR JOHN BOLTON.
AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER FOLKS
WITHIN THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
AND AS WE HAVE WELL-ESTABLISHED
OVER THE LAST WEEK, NONE OF
THOSE FOLKS -- NONE OF THOSE
AGENCIES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED IN HAVING THAT
DELIBERATION, REVIEWING THAT
EVIDENCE, HAVING THAT DISCUSSION
WERE INCORPORATED INTO ANY TYPE
OF AGENCY REVIEW PROCESS DURING
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
FROM THE TIME OF THE PRESIDENT'S
CALL ON JULY 25 TO THE TIME THE
-- THE HOLD WAS LIFTED, THOSE
INDIVIDUALS, THOSE AGENCIES WERE
IN THE DARK.
THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS
HAPPENING.
AND MORE SO NOT ONLY WERE THEY
IN THE DARK, BUT THE PRESIDENT
VIOLATED THE LAW BY VIOLATING
THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT TO
EXECUTE HIS SCHEME.
NONE OF THAT SUGGESTS A VALID,
LEGITIMATE POLICY OBJECTIVE.
MORE SO, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF
AND HIS COUNSEL IS BRINGING AT
ISSUE THE QUESTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND WITNESSES.
IF OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AS WE'VE
HEARD IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, THAT
THE PRESIDENT WAS SIMPLY
PURSUING A VALID, LEGITIMATE
POLICY OBJECTIVE, IF THIS WAS A
SPECIFIC DEBATE ABOUT POLICY, A
DEBATE ABOUT CORRUPTION, A
DEBATE ABOUT BURDEN SHARING,
THEN LET'S HAVE THE DOCUMENTS
THAT WOULD SHOW THAT.
LET'S HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES
THAT WOULD SHOW THAT, BECAUSE
THE DOCUMENTS AND THE WITNESSES
THAT WE HAVE FORWARDED, THAT WE
HAVE TALKED ABOUT, SHOW THE
EXACT OPPOSITE.
SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THIS
CHAMBER DESERVE TO HAVE A FAIR
TRIAL.
THE PRESIDENT DESERVES TO HAVE A
FAIR TRIAL.
IN FACT, IF HE IS ARGUING THAT
THERE IS EVIDENCE, THAT THERE
WAS A POLICY DEBATE, THEN I
THINK EVERYBODY WOULD LOVE TO
SEE THOSE DOCUMENTS, WOULD LOVE
TO SEE THE WITNESSES AND HEAR
FROM THEM DIRECTLY ABOUT WHAT
EXACTLY WAS BEING DEBATED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
MR. GRAHAM: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR MYSELF AND SENATOR CRUZ.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
SENATOR GRAHAM AND SENATOR CRUZ
POSE THIS QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
IN MR. SCHIFF'S HYPOTHETICAL, IF
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD EVIDENCE
THAT MITT ROMNEY'S SON WAS BEING
PAID $1 MILLION PER YEAR BY A
CORRUPT RUSSIAN COMPANY AND MITT
ROMNEY HAD ACTED TO BENEFIT THAT
COMPANY, WOULD OBAMA HAVE
AUTHORITY TO ASK THAT THAT
POTENTIAL CORRUPTION BE
INVESTIGATED?
MR. SCHIFF: WELL, FIRST OF
ALL, THE HYPOTHETICAL IS A BIT
OFF, BECAUSE IT PRESUMES THAT,
IN THAT HYPOTHETICAL, THAT
PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS ACTING
CORRUPTLY OR THERE WAS EVIDENCE
HE WAS ACTING CORRUPTLY WITH
RESPECT TO HIS SON.
BUT NONETHELESS LET'S TAKE YOUR
HYPOTHETICAL ON ITS TERMS.
WOULD IT HAVE BEEN IMPEACHABLE
THAT BARACK OBAMA -- IF BARACK
OBAMA HAD TRIED TO GET MEDVEDEV
TO DO AN INVESTIGATION OF MITT
ROMNEY, WHETHER IT WAS JUSTIFIED
OR UNJUSTIFIED?
THE REALITY IS, FOR A PRESIDENT
TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FROM AN
ALLY OR IN THE HYPOTHETICAL TO
WITHHOLD IT TO BENEFIT AN
ADVERSARY, TO TARGET THEIR
POLITICAL OPPONENT IS WRONG AND
CORRUPT, PERIOD.
END OF STORY.
AND IF YOU ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO
RATIONALIZE THAT CONDUCT,
RATIONALIZE JEOPARDIZING THE
NATION'S SECURITY TO BENEFIT
HIMSELF BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT
HIS OPPONENT SHOULD BE
INVESTIGATED BY A FOREIGN POWER,
THAT IS IMPEACHABLE.
NOW, IF YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE
REASON TO THINK THAT ANY U.S.
PERSON HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENSE,
THERE ARE LEGITIMATE WAYS TO
HAVE AN INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED.
THERE ARE LEGITIMATE WAYS TO
HAVE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT FOR
A PRESIDENT TO TURN TO HIS
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND SAY, I
WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE MY
POLITICAL RIVAL TAINTS WHATEVER
INVESTIGATION THEY DO.
PRESIDENTS SHOULD NOT BE IN THE
BUSINESS OF ASKING EVEN THEIR
OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO
INVESTIGATE THEIRRRIVALS.
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OUGHT TO
HAVE SOME INDEPENDENTS FROM THE
POLITICAL DESIRES OF THE
PRESIDENT, AND ONE OF THE DEEPLY
TROUBLING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CURRENT PRESIDENCY IF YOU DO
HAVE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES SPEAKING QUITE OPENLY
URGING HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO
INVESTIGATE HIS PERCEIVED
ENEMIES.
THAT SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE
EITHER.
BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DO
YOU GO OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN
LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER
TO INVESTIGATE YOUR RIVAL,
WHETHER YOU THINK THERE'S CAUSE
OR YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S
CAUSE.
AND YOU CERTAINLY DON'T INVITE
THAT FOREIGN POWER TO TRY TO
INFLUENCE AN ELECTION TO YOUR
BENEFIT.
IT'S REMARKABLE TO ME THAT WE
EVEN HAVE TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION.
I MEAN, OUR OWN F.B.I. DIRECTOR
HAS MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND
IT SHOULDN'T REQUIRE AN F.B.I.
DIRECTOR TO SAY THIS, THAT IF WE
WERE APPROACHED WITH AN OFFER OF
FOREIGN HELP, WE SHOULD TURN IT
DOWN.
WE SHOULD OF COURSE CERTAINLY
NOT SOLICIT A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO
INTERVENE OUR ELECTION.
AND WHETHER WE THINK THERE'S
GROUNDS OR WE DON'T, THE IDEA
THAT WE WOULD HOLD OUR OWN
COUNTRY'S SECURITY HOSTAGE BY
WITHHOLDING AIDED TO A NATION AT
WAR, TO EITHER DAMAGE OUR ALLY
OR HELP OUR ADVERSARY BECAUSE
THEY WILL CONDUCT AN
INVESTIGATION INTO OUR OPPONENT,
I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY CIRCUMSTANCE
WHERE THAT'S JUSTIFIED.
AND I CAN'T IMAGINE -- AND I
CAN'T IMAGINE ANY CIRCUMSTANCE
WHERE WE WOULD WANT TO SAY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CAN TARGETED HIS RIVAL, CAN
SOLICIT, ELICIT FOREIGN HELP IN
AN ELECTION, CAN HELP HIM CHEAT
AND THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE THAT
WILL DRAMATICALLY LOWER THE BAR
FOR WHAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO
EXPECT IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND THAT IS
THEY'RE ACTING IN OUR INTERESTS.
SO I WOULD SAY IT'S WRONG FOR A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO BE ASKING FOR POLITICAL
PROSECUTIONS BY HIS OWN JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT.
I WOULD SAY IT'S WRONG FOR A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER TO ENGAGE
AN INVESTIGATION OF HIS
POLITICAL RIVAL.
BUT PARTICULARLY WHERE, AS WE
HAVE SHOWN HERE, THERE IS NO
MERIT TO THAT INVESTIGATION IS
EVEN MORE EGREGIOUS, AND YOU
KNOW THERE'S NO MERIT TO IT
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T EVEN WANT THE
INVESTIGATION.
AND THE MORE ACCURATE PARALLEL,
SENATOR, WOULD BE IF BARACK
OBAMA SAID, I DON'T EVEN NEED
YOU, RUSSIA, TO DO THE
INVESTIGATION.
I JUST WANT YOU TO ANNOUNCE IT.
BECAUSE THAT BETRAYS THE FACT
THAT THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE
BASIS, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
DIDN'T EVEN NEED THE
INVESTIGATION DONE.
HE JUST WANTED IT ANNOUNCED.
AND THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE
EXPLANATION FOR THAT EXCEPT HE
WANTED THEIR HELP IN CHEATING
THE NEXT ELECTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MR. PETERS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR PETERS IS
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
DOES THE PHRASE OR OTHER HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS FROM
ARTICLE 2, SECTION 4, OF THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRE A VIOLATION
OF THE U.S. CRIMINAL CODE OR IS
A BREACH OF TRUST SUFFICIENT?
PLEASE EXPLAIN.
MS. LOFGREN: THE FRAMERS WERE
VERY CLEAR THAT ABUSE OF POWER
IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
IN EXPLAINING WHY THE
CONSTITUTION MUST ALLOW
IMPEACHMENT, EDMUND RANDOLPH
WARNED THAT, QUOTE, THE
EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE GREAT
OPPORTUNITIES OF ABUSING HIS
POWER.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON DESCRIBED
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AS
OFFENSES WHICH PROCEED FROM THE
ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME
PUBLIC TRUST.
THE FRAMERS ALSO DESCRIBED WHAT
IT MEANT.
IT WAS IMPEACHABLE FOR A
PRESIDENT TO ABUSE HIS PARDON
POWER, TO SHELTER PEOPLE HE WAS
CONNECTED WITH IN A SUSPICIOUS
MANNER, FUTURE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE JAMES IRADELL SAID THE
PRESIDENT WOULD BE LIABLE TO
IMPEACHMENT IF HE ACTED FROM
SOME CORRUPT MOTIVE OR OTHER OR
IF HE WAS WILLFULLY ABUSING HIS
TRUST.
AS WAS LATER STATED IN A
TREATISE, SUMMARIZING CENTURIES
OF COMMON LAW, ABUSE OF POWER
OCCURS IF A PUBLIC OFFICER
ENTRUSTED WITH DEFINITE POWERS
TO BE EXERCISED FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE COMMUNITY WICKEDLY ABUSED
OR FRAUDULENTLY EXCEEDS THEM.
SO WHEN THE FRAMERS SAID THIS,
THAT ABUSE OF POWER WAS
IMPEACHABLE, IT WASN'T JUST AN
EMPTY, MEANINGLESS STATEMENT.
REMEMBER, THE FOUNDERS HAD BEEN
PARTICIPATING WITH OVERTHROWING
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, A KING
WHO WAS NOT ACCOUNTABLE.
THEY INCORPORATED THE
IMPEACHMENT POWER INTO THE
CONSTITUTION LATE ACTUALLY IN
THE DRAFTING OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE GIVING
THE PRESIDENT MANY POWERS, AND
THEY SPECIFIED IF HE ABUSED
THEM, THAT THOSE POWERS COULD BE
TAKEN AWAY.
NOW, THE PRIOR ARTICLES THAT THE
CONGRESS HAS HAD ON IMPEACHMENT
DID NOT INCLUDE SPECIFIC CRIMES.
PRESIDENT NIXON WAS CHARGED WITH
ABUSING HIS POWER, TARGETING
POLITICAL OPPONENTS, ENGAGING IN
A COVER-UP.
NOW, THERE WAS CONDUCT
SPECIFIED, SOME OF IT WAS
CLEARLY CRIMINAL, SOME OF IT WAS
NOT.
BUT IT WAS ALL IMPEACHABLE
BECAUSE IT WAS CORRUPT AND IT
WAS ABUSING HIS POWER.
IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, WE HAD WITNESSES
CALLED BY BOTH REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS, AND THE
REPUBLICAN-INVITED IS
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT
JONATHAN TURLEY TESTIFIED
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A CASE
FOR IMPEACHMENT BASED ON A
NONCRIMINAL ALLEGATION OF ABUSE
OF POWER.
EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT,
INCLUDING THIS ONE, HAS INCLUDED
CONDUCT THAT VIOLATED THE LAW,
BUT EACH PRESIDENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT HAS INCLUDED THE
CHARGES DIRECTLY UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT A
SPECIFIC CRIMINAL LAW VIOLATION
WAS NOT IN THE MINDS OF THE
FOUNDERS, AND IT WOULDN'T MAKE
ANY SENSE TODAY.
YOU COULD HAVE A CRIMINAL LAW
VIOLATION -- YOU COULD DEFACE A
POST OFFICE BOX.
THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL LAW.
WE WOULD LAUGH AT THE IDEA THAT
THAT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT IS NOT ABUSE OF
PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.
IT MIGHT BE A CRIME.
AND YET YOU COULD HAVE
ACTIVITIES THAT ARE SO DANGEROUS
TO OUR CONSTITUTION THAT ARE NOT
A CRIME THAT WOULD BE CHARGED AS
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BECAUSE
THEY ARE AN ABUSE OF POWER.
THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS WORRIED
ABOUT.
THAT'S WHY THEY PUT THE
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
AND, FRANKLY, THEY OPINE THAT
BECAUSE OF THE IMPEACHMENT
CLAUSE, NO EXECUTIVE WOULD DARE
EXCEED THEIR POWERS.
REGRETTABLY, THAT PREDICTION DID
NOT PROVE TRUE, WHICH IS WHY WE
ARE HERE TODAY WITH PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAVING ABUSED HIS BROAD
POWERS TO THE DETRIMENT OF OUR
NATIONAL INTEREST FOR A CORRUPT
PURPOSE -- HIS OWN PERSONAL
INTEREST.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
SENATOR?
A SENATOR: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR
MURKOWSKI.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, SENATOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATORS ASK COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT DESCRIBE IN FURTHER
DETAIL YOUR CONTENTION THAT ALL
SUBPOENAS ISSUED PRIOR TO THE
PASSAGE OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660
ARE AN EXERCISE OF INVALID
SUBPOENA AUTHORITY BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEES.
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
THANK YOU, SENATORS, FOR THAT
QUESTION.
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY,
THIS CONTENTION IS BASED ON A
PRINCIPLE THAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT
IN SEVERAL SUPREME COURT CASES
EXPLAINING THAT THE CONSTITUTION
ASSIGNS POWERS TO EACH HOUSE OF
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR TO
THE SENATE, AND IN PARTICULAR
THE LANGUAGE OF THE INSTITUTION
IS CLEAR IN ARTICLE 1 THAT THE
SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS
ASSIGNED TO THE HOUSE.
THAT'S TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AS A BODY.
IT'S NOT ASSIGNED TO ANY
COMMITTEE, TO A SUBCOMMITTEE, OR
TO ANY PARTICULAR MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE.
AND IN CASES SUCH AS RUMELY
VERSUS UNITED STATES AND THE
UNITED STATES VERSUS WATKINS,
THE COURT HAS BEEN CALLED THERE
ARE DISPUTES ABOUT SUBPOENAS.
THEY ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THE
IMPEACHMENT CONTEXT, BUT THEY
ESTABLISH A GENERAL RULE, A
PRINCIPLE THAT WHENEVER A
COMMITTEE OF EITHER BODY OF
CONGRESS ISSUES A SUBPOENA TO
SOMEONE AND THAT PERSON RESISTS
A SUBPOENA, THE COURTS WILL ASK
WHAT WAS THE AUTHORITY OF THAT
COMMITTEE OR SUBCOMMITTEE TO
ISSUE THAT SUBPOENA, AND IT HAS
TO BE TRACED BACK TO SOME
AUTHORIZING RULE OR RESOLUTION
FROM THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ITSELF.
FOR EXAMPLE, A HOUSE
SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND THE COURTS WILL EXAMINE, THE
SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR
THAT THAT IS THE CHARTER OF THE
COMMITTEE'S AUTHORITY.
IT GETS ITS AUTHORITY SOLELY
FROM AN ACTION BY THE HOUSE
ITSELF.
THAT REQUIRES A VOTE OF THE
HOUSE, EITHER TO ESTABLISH THE
COMMITTEE BY RESOLUTION OR TO
ESTABLISH BY RULE THE STANDING
AUTHORITY OF THAT COMMITTEE.
AND IF THE COMMITTEE CANNOT
TRACE ITS AUTHORITY TO A RULE OR
A RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE,
THEN ITS SUBPOENA IS INVALID,
AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE
CLEAR IN THOSE CASES SUCH
SUBPOENAS ARE NULL AND VOID
BECAUSE THEY ARE BEYOND THE
POWER OF THE COMMITTEE TO ISSUE,
THEY CAN'T BE ENFORCED.
AND OUR POINT HERE IS VERY
SIMPLE -- THERE IS NO STANDING
RULE IN THE HOUSE THAT PROVIDES
THE COMMITTEES THAT WERE ISSUING
SUBPOENAS HERE UNDER THE
LEADERSHIP OF MANAGER SCHIFF THE
AUTHORITY TO USE THE IMPEACHMENT
POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.
RULE 10 OF THE HOUSE DEFINES THE
LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMITTEE.
IT DOESN'T MENTION THE WORD
IMPEACHMENT EVEN ONCE.
AND SO NO COMMITTEE UNDER RULE
10 WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE SUBPOENAS FOR IMPEACHMENT
PURPOSES.
AND THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
CASE IN EVERY PRESIDENTIAL
IMPEACHMENT IN THE HISTORY OF
THE NATION.
THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A
RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE FIRST
TO AUTHORIZE A COMMITTEE TO USE
THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT BEFORE
AN ATTEMPT TO ISSUE COMPULSORY
PROCESS.
SO IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO
RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE SOLE POWER
AND IMPEACHMENT REMAINED WITH
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ITSELF, AND SPEAKER PELOSI BY
HERSELF DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY
MERELY BY TALKING TO A GROUP OF
REPORTERS ON SEPTEMBER 24 TO
GIVE THE POWERS OF THE HOUSE TO
ANY PARTICULAR COMMITTEE TO
START ISSUING SUBPOENAS.
SO THE SUBPOENAS THAT WERE
ISSUED WERE INVALID WHEN THEY
WERE ISSUED, AND THEN FIVE WEEKS
LATER ON OCTOBER 31 WHEN THE
HOUSE FINALLY ADOPTED HOUSE
RESOLUTION 660 THAT AUTHORIZED
FROM THAT POINT -- PURPORTED TO
AUTHORIZE AT LEAST FROM THAT
POINT THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS,
NOTHING IN THAT RESOLUTION
ADDRESSED THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAD
ALREADY BEEN ISSUED.
IT DIDN'T EVEN ATTEMPT, DIDN'T
PURPORT TO SAY THE ONES THAT
HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED WERE
GOING TO TRY TO RETROACTIVELY
GIVE AUTHORITY FOR THAT.
IT'S A SEPARATE QUESTION WHETHER
THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE
LEGALLY.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO DO
IT.
AND THIS IS ALL EXPLAINED IN THE
OPINION FROM THE OFFICE OF LEGAL
COUNSEL WHICH IS IN OUR TRIAL
MEMORANDUM ATTACHED AS APPENDIX
C.
IT'S A VERY DETAILED AND
THOROUGH OPINION, 37 PAGES OF
LEGAL REASONING, BUT IT EXPLAINS
ALL OF THIS.
THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT APPLIES
GENERALLY, THE HISTORY THAT IT
HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE THIS WAY,
THERE IS ALWAYS IN EVERY
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT BEEN AN
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION FROM THE
HOUSE, AND THE FACT THAT THERE
WAS NONE HERE, SO THERE WAS NO
AUTHORITY FOR THOSE SUBPOENAS.
AND THAT MEANS THAT 23 SUBPOENAS
THAT WERE ISSUED WERE INVALID.
AND THIS WAS EXPLAINED, AS I
POINTED OUT THE OTHER DAY, IN
LETTERS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
TO THE COMMITTEE, A LETTER FROM
THE WHITE HOUSE, FROM O.M.B.,
THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND IN
VERY SPECIFIC TERMS SET OUT THIS
RATIONALE.
SO THAT IS THE BASIS ON WHICH
THOSE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID AND
THEY WERE PROPERLY RESISTED BY
THE ADMINISTRATION.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA.
MR. CASEY: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.
IN FEDERALIST 65, ALEXANDER
HAMILTON WRITES THAT THE
SUBJECTS OF IMPEACHMENT ARE,
QUOTE, THOSE OFFENSES WHICH
PROCEED FROM THE MISS CONDUCT OF
PUBLIC MEN OR IN OTHER WORDS
FROM THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF
SOME PUBLIC TRUST, END QUOTE.
COULD YOU SPEAK BROADLY TO THE
DUTIES OF BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT
AND HOW YOU BELIEVE THE
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS VIOLATED HIS
TRUST?
MR. NADLER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE POWERS
OF HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT A
FOREIGN NATION TO INTERFERE IN
OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS OWN
BENEFIT.
THEN HE ACTIVELY OBSTRUCTED
CONGRESS IN HIS ATTEMPTS TO
INVESTIGATE HIS ABUSES OF POWER.
THESE ACTIONS ARE CLEARLY
IMPEACHABLE.
THE KEY PURPOSE OF THE
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IS TO CONTROL
ABUSES OF POWER BY PUBLIC
OFFICIALS.
THAT IS TO SAY, CONDUCT THAT
VIOLATES THE PUBLIC TRUST.
SINCE THE FOUNDING OF THE
REPUBLIC, ALL IMPEACHMENTS HAVE
BEEN BASED ON ACCUSATIONS OF
CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES THE PUBLIC
TRUST.
WHEN THE FRAMERS WROTE THE
PHRASE HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS, THEY INTENDED TO
CAPTURE THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP
WHO SHOWED NO RESPECT FOR THEIR
OATH OF OFFICE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IGNORED THE LAW
AND THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO
GAIN A POLITICAL FAVOR.
THE CONSTITUTION AND HIS OATH OF
OFFICE PROHIBITED HIM FROM USING
HIS OFFICIAL FAVOR TO CORRUPTLY
BENEFIT HIMSELF RATHER THAN THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE
PRESIDENT DID, ILLEGALLY
WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID AND A
WHITE HOUSE MEETING UNTIL THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE COMMITTED
TO ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OPPONENT.
IN THE WORDS OF ONE
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, QUOTE,
WHAT WE'RE TALKING -- IF WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS
IMPEACHABLE.
THAT IS PRECISELY THE MISCONDUCT
THAT THE FRAMERS CREATED IN THE
CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING
IMPEACHMENT, TO PROTECT AGAINST.
I WANT TO ADD IN REFERENCE TO
SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE
MADE BY SOME OF THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL A FEW MINUTES AGO, THEY
TALK ABOUT THE SUBPOENA POWER,
ABOUT THE FAILURE OF THE HOUSE
TO ACT PROPERLY IN THE SUBPOENA
POWER BECAUSE, THEY SAID, THE
HOUSE DID NOT DELEGATE BY
RULE -- HAVE A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEES TO
OFFER SUBPOENA POWER.
THEY APPARENTLY HAVEN'T READ THE
FACT THAT THE HOUSE HAS
GENERALLY DELEGATED ALL SUBPOENA
POWER TO THE COMMITTEES.
THAT WASN'T TRUE AT THE TIME OF
THE WATKINS CASE, IT WASN'T TRUE
15 YEARS AGO, BUT IT IS TRUE
NOW.
SECOND, THE HOUSE HAS THE SOLE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, AND THE
MANNER OF ITS EXERCISE MAY NOT
BE CHALLENGED FROM OUTSIDE,
WHETHER WE DO IT -- WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD BE CONVICTED
UPON OUR ACCUSATIONS IS A
QUESTION FOR THE SENATE, BUT HOW
WE REACHED OUR ACCUSATION IS A
MATTER SOLELY FOR THE HOUSE.
THIRDLY, THEY TALK ABOUT
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THEY POINT TO THE NIXON CASE
THAT ESTABLISHED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE, THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS A RIGHT TO PRIVATE -- TO
CANDID ADVICE AND THEREFORE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS
ESTABLISHED.
BUT THE SAME CASE SAYS THAT
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE
USED TO HIDE WRONGDOING, AND IN
FACT PRESIDENT NIXON WAS ORDERED
IN THAT CASE TO TURN OVER ALL
THE MATERIAL.
THIRDLY, THERE IS THE DOCTRINE
OF WAIVERS.
YOU CANNOT USE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE OR ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE
IF YOU WAIVE IT.
THE MOMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID
THAT JOHN BOLTON WAS NOT TELLING
THE TRUTH WHEN HE SAID THAT THE
PRESIDENT TOLD HIM OF THE
IMPROPER QUID PRO QUO, HE WAIVED
ANY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THAT
MIGHT HAVE EXISTED.
HE CHARACTERIZED THE
CONVERSATION AND PUT IT INTO THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN AND CLAIM
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AGAINST IT.
THE PRESIDENT, BY THE WAY, NEVER
CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE,
EVER.
HE HAS CLAIMED INSTEAD ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY, A RIDICULOUS DOCTRINE
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY FROM ANY QUESTIONING BY
THE CONGRESS OR ANYBODY ELSE, A
CLAIM REJECTED BY EVERY COURT
THAT HAS EVER CONSIDERED IT.
AND FINALLY, THE DIFFERENCE FROM
THIS PRESIDENT AND ANY OTHER
PRESIDENT CLAIMING PRIVILEGE OF
ANY SORT IS THAT THIS PRESIDENT
TOLD US IN ADVANCE, I WILL DEFY
ALL SUBPOENAS.
WHATEVER THE NATURE, I WILL MAKE
SURE THAT THE CONGRESS GETS NO
INFORMATION.
IN OTHER WORDS, I AM ABSOLUTE
AND CONGRESS CANNOT QUESTION
WHAT I DO BECAUSE I WILL DEFY
ALL SUBPOENAS, I WILL MAKE SURE
THEY GET NO INFORMATION, NO
MATTER WHAT THEIR RIGHTS, NO
MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION.
THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF ARTICLE 2
OF THE IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE THAT
IS A CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE MONARCH
MONARCHICAL POWER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. McCONNELL: I WOULD SUGGEST
AFTER TWO MORE QUESTIONS ON EACH
SIDE -- I HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.
AS I FREQUENTLY AM.
ONE MORE QUESTION ON EACH SIDE,
WE TAKE A 15-MINUTE BREAK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS.
MR. ROBERTS: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK FOR THE COUNSEL FOR
THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
ROBERTS ASKS WOULD YOU PLEASE
RESPOND TO THE ARGUMENTS OR
ASSERTIONS THE HOUSE MANAGERS
MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS
QUESTIONS.
THAT IS DIRECTED TO THE COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
MR. SEKULOW: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I WANT TO
RESPOND TO A COUPLE.
FIRST WITH REGARD TO THE
QUESTION OR THE ISSUES THAT HAVE
BEEN RAISED AS IT RELATES TO
WITNESSES.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDING, THE WITNESSES THAT
ACTUALLY GAVE DEPOSITION
TESTIMONY WERE WITNESSES THAT
HAD EITHER BEEN INTERVIEWED BY
DEPOSITION IN THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS, GRAND JURY
PROCEEDINGS, AND SPECIFICALLY IT
WAS SID BLUMENTHAL, VERNON
JORDAN, AND MONICA LEWINSKY.
NEW WITNESSES WERE NOT BEING
CALLED.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE HOUSE, IN
THEIR PROCESS, MOVED FORWARD
WITH A FULL INVESTIGATION.
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN HERE.
THERE WAS ANOTHER THING THAT WAS
RAISED BY CHAIRMAN SCHIFF,
MANAGER SCHIFF REGARDING THE
CHIEF JUSTICE CAN MAKE THE
DETERMINATION ON EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
AND AGAIN, WITH NO DISRESPECT TO
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE IDEA THAT
THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THIS
PROCEEDING COULD DETERMINE A
WAIVER OR THE APPLICABILITY OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WOULD BE
QUITE A STEP.
THERE'S NOTHING -- THERE IS NO
HISTORIC PRECEDENT THAT WOULD
JUSTIFY IT.
BUT THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE.
IF WE GET TO THE POINT OF
WITNESSES, THEN, FOR INSTANCE,
IF ONE OF THE WITNESSES TO BE
CALLED WERE BY THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYERS WAS ADAM SCHIFF AND THE
ROLE BASICALLY OF KEN STARR.
KEN STARR PRESENTED THE REPORT,
MADE THE PRESENTATION BEFORE THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HAD
ABOUT 12 HOURS OF QUESTIONING, I
BELIEVE, IS WHAT JUDGE STARR
HAD.
IF REPRESENTATIVE SCHIFF WAS
CALLED AS A WITNESS, WOULD, IN
FACT, THEN ISSUES OF SPEECH AND
DEBATE CLAUSE PRIVILEGE BE
LITIGATED AND DECIDED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER OR WOULD IT GO
TO COURT OR MAYBE THEY WOULD
WAIVE IT?
BUT THOSE WOULD BE THE KIND OF
ISSUES THAT WOULD BE VERY, VERY
SIGNIFICANT.
SENATOR GRAHAM PRESENTED A
HYPOTHETICAL WHICH MANAGER
SCHIFF SAID WELL THAT'S NOT
REALLY THE HYPOTHETICAL, BUT
HYPOTHETICALS ARE ACTUALLY THAT,
THEY ARE HYPOTHETICALS.
TO USE ADAM -- MANAGER SCHIFF'S
WORDS, HE TALKED ABOUT IT WOULD
BE WRONG IF THE F.B.I. OR THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS
STARTING A POLITICAL
INVESTIGATION OF SOMEONE'S
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
AND I'M THINKING TO MYSELF BUT
ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT
HAPPENED?
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
THE F.B.I. ENGAGED IN AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE CANDIDATE
FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES WHEN THEY STARTED THEIR
OPERATION CALLED CROSSFIRE
HURRICANE.
HE SAID IT WOULD BE TARGETING A
RIVAL.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT THAT DID.
HE SAID IT WOULD BE CALLING FOR
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN THAT.
WELL, IN THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF
CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, IT HAS BEEN
WELL ESTABLISHED NOW THAT, IN
FACT, G.P.S. UTILIZED THE
SERVICES OF A FORMER FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
CHRISTOPHER STEELE, TO PUT
TOGETHER A DOSSIER, AND THAT
CORONAVIRUS STEELE RELIED ON HIS
NETWORK OF RESOURCES AROUND THE
GLOBE INCLUDING RUSSIA AND OTHER
PLACES TO PUT TOGETHER THIS
DOSSIER, WHICH THEN JAMES COMEY
SAID WAS UNVERIFIED AND
SALACIOUS, BUT YET IT WAS THE
BASIS UPON WHICH THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE AND THE F.B.I.
OBTAINED FISA WARRANTS.
THIS WAS IN 2016.
AGAINST A RIVAL CAMPAIGN.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO
HYPOTHETICALS.
THAT'S PRECISELY THE SITUATION.
BUT TO TAKE IT AN ADDITIONAL
STEP, THIS IDEA THAT A WITNESS
WILL BE CALLED, IF THIS BODY
DECIDES TO GO TO WITNESSES,
THAT A WITNESS WILL BE CALLED
WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
OF COURSE IF WITNESSES ARE
CALLED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS
THROUGH THAT MOTION, THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WOULD HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL
WITNESSES AS WELL, WHICH WE
WOULD.
THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
SENATOR.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR HARRIS IS
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
PRESIDENT NIXON SAID, QUOTE,
WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT,
THAT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT
ILLEGAL, END QUOTE.
BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED,
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, QUOTE,
WHEN YOU'RE A STAR, THEY LET
YOU DO IT.
YOU CAN DO ANYTHING, END QUOTE.
AFTER HE WAS ELECTED, PRESIDENT
TRUMP SAID THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE
CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM, QUOTE,
THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER HE
WANTS AS PRESIDENT, END QUOTE.
THESE STATEMENTS SUGGEST THAT
EACH OF THEM BELIEVED THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, A
BELIEF REFLECTED IN THE IMPROPER
ACTIONS THAT BOTH PRESIDENTS
TOOK TO EFFECT THEIR REELECTION
CAMPAIGNS.
IF THE SENATE FAILS TO HOLD THE
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR
MISCONDUCT, HOW WOULD THAT
UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE?
MR. SCHIFF: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, I THINK THIS IS
EXACTLY THE FEAR.
I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE
PATTERN IN THIS PRESIDENT'S
CONDUCT AND HIS WORDS, WHAT YOU
SEE IS A PRESIDENT WHO
IDENTIFIES THE STATE AS BEING
HIMSELF.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT
PEOPLE THAT REPORT HIS
WRONGDOING, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN
HE DESCRIBES A WHISTLE-BLOWER AS
A TRADER OR A SPY, THE ONLY WAY
YOU CAN CONCEIVE OF SOMEONE WHO
REPORTS WRONGDOING AS COMMITTING
A CRIME AGAINST THE COUNTRY IS
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE
SYNONYMOUS WITH THE COUNTRY,
THAT ANY REPORT OF WRONGDOING
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, THE
PERSON OF THE PRESIDENT IS A
TREASONOUS ACT.
IT IS THE KIND OF MENTALITY THAT
SAYS UNDER ARTICLE 2, I CAN DO
WHATEVER I WANT, THAT I'M
ALLOWED TO FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS.
NOW COUNSEL HAS GIVEN A VARIETY
OF EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FIGHTING
OF ALL SUBPOENAS.
THEY MIGHT HAVE A PLAUSIBLE
ARGUMENT IF THE ADMINISTRATION
HAD GIVEN HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS
BUT RESERVED SOME AND MADE A
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE, OR THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID WE'LL
ALLOW THESE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY
BUT WITH THESE WITNESSES, WITH
THESE PARTICULAR QUESTIONS, WE
WANT TO ASSERT A PRIVILEGE.
BUT OF COURSE THAT'S NOT WHAT
WAS DONE HERE.
WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD IS A
SHIFTING SERIES OF RATIONALES
AND EXPLANATIONS AND DUPLICITOUS
ARGUMENTS, SOME MADE IN COURT
AND SOME MADE HERE.
YOU HAVE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
SUBPOENAS AREN'T VALID BEFORE
THE HOUSE RESOLUTION, AND THEN
WITH RESPECT TO SUBPOENAS ISSUED
AFTER THE HOUSE RESOLUTION,
LIKE TO MULVANEY, WELL, THOSE
ARE NO GOOD EITHER.
YOU HAVE THE ARGUMENT MADE THAT
WE HAVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND A
COURT THAT ADDRESSES THIS SAYS,
NO, YOU DON'T.
YOU'RE NOT A KING.
THAT ARGUMENT MAY BE THOUGHT OF
WITH FAVOR BY VARIOUS PRESIDENTS
OVER HISTORY.
IT HAS NEVER BEEN SUPPORTED BID
ANY COURT IN THE LAND.
THERE'S NO CONSTITUTIONAL
SUPPORT FOR THAT EITHER.
DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEING
RELEASED RIGHT NOW AS WE SIT
HERE, AND IT'S A MYSTERY TO THE
COUNTRY AND IT'S A MYSTERY TO
SOME OF US HOW ARE PRIVATE
LITIGANTS ABLE TO GET DOCUMENTS
THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS WITHHELD FROM
CONGRESS.
IF THEY WERE OPERATING IN ANY
GOOD FAITH, WOULD THAT BE THE
CASE?
AND OF COURSE THE ANSWER IS NO.
WHAT WE HAVE INSTEAD IS WE'RE
GOING TO CLAIM ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
EVEN THOUGH THE COURT SAYS THAT
DOESN'T EXIST.
NOW THEY SAID, WELL, WE, YOU
KNOW, THE HOUSE WITHDREW THE
SUBPOENA ON DR. KUPPERMAN.
WHY WOULD THEY WITHDRAW THE
SUBPOENA ON DR. KUPPERMAN WHEN
HE WAS ONLY THREATENING TO TIE
YOU UPENDLESSLY IN COURT?
NOW WE SUGGESTED TO COUNSEL FOR
DR. KUPPERMAN THAT IF THEY HAD A
GOOD-FAITH CONCERN ABOUT
TESTIFYING, IF THIS WAS REALLY
GOOD FAITH AND IT WASN'T JUST A
STRATEGY TO DELAY, IF IT WASN'T
JUST PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S
WHOLESALE FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS,
THEY DIDN'T NEED TO FILE
SEPARATE LITIGATION BECAUSE
THERE WAS ACTUALLY A CASE
ALREADY IN COURT INVOLVING DON
McGAHN ON THAT VERY SUBJECT
THAT WAS RIPE FOR DECISION.
INDEED THE DECISION WOULD COME
OUT VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
AND WE SAID LET'S JUST AGREE TO
BE BOUND BY WHAT THE McGAHN
COURT DECIDES.
WELL, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO
THAT.
IT BECAME OBVIOUS ONCE THE
McGAHN COURT DECISION CAME OUT
BECAUSE THE McGAHN COURT SAID
THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY,
YOU MUST TESTIFY.
BY THE WAY IF YOU THINK PEOPLE
INVOLVED IN NATIONAL SECURITY,
KUPPERMAN, IF YOU'RE
LISTENING, YOU'RE NOT.
DR. KUPPERMAN SAID NOW I HAVE
THE COMFORT I NEED IT BECAUSE
THE COURT HAS WEIGHED?
THE ANSWER IS OF COURSE NOT.
COUNSEL SAID WE MIGHT HAVE
GOTTEN A QUICK JUDGMENT IN
KUPPERMAN.
IN THE LOWER COURT.
DO ANY OF YOU BELIEVE FOR A
SINGLE MINUTE THEY WOULDN'T
APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE
SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ARGUMENT,
THEY WOULDN'T BE BACK IN THE
DISTRICT COURT SAYING IT'S NOT
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY BUT WE'RE
GOING TO CLAIM EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGES OVER SPECIFIC
CONVERSATIONS THAT GO TO THE
PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING.
THAT IS THE SIGN OF A PRESIDENT
WHO BELIEVES HE IS ABOVE THE
LAW, THAT ARTICLE 2 EMPOWERS
HIM TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS.
AND I'LL SAY THIS, IF YOU
ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT, IF YOU
ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CAN TELL YOU TO POUND SAND WHEN
YOU TRY TO INVESTIGATE HIS
WRONGDOING, THERE WILL BE NO
FORCE BEHIND ANY SENATE SUBPOENA
IN THE FUTURE.
THE FIGHTING ALL SUBPOENAS
STARTED BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT.
IF YOU ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO
OBSTRUCT CONGRESS SO COMPLETELY
IN A WAY THAT NIXON COULD NEVER
HAVE CONTEMPLATED NOR WOULD THE
CONGRESS OF THAT DAY HAVE
ALLOWED, YOU WILL EVISCERATE
YOUR OWN OVERSIGHT CAPABILITY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. McCONNELL: I SUGGEST THAT WE
RESUME AT 4:00.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
RECESS:
RECESS:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, AND IT'S
COSPONSORED BY SENATORS ROUNDS,
WICKER, ERNST, AND ALL MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATORS ASK THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
MR. CIPOLLONE, AS MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE, WE LISTENED INTENTLY
WHEN MANAGER CROW WAS DEFENDING
ONE OF SENATOR SCHUMER'S
AMENDMENTS TO THE ORGANIZING
RESOLUTION LAST WEEK AS HE
EXPLAINED HOW HE HAD FIRSTHAND
EXPERIENCE BEING DENIED MILITARY
AID WHEN HE NEEDED IT DURING HIS
SERVICE.
AS YOU KNOW, DAVID HALE, UNDER
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL
AFFAIRS, CONFIRMED THAT THE
LETHAL AID PROVIDED TO UKRAINE
LAST YEAR WAS FUTURE AID.
WHICH WOULD YOU SAY HAD THE
GREATER MILITARY IMPACT,
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TEMPORARY
PAUSE OF 48 DAYS ON FUTURE AID
THAT WILL NOW BE DELIVERED TO
UKRAINE OR PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
STEADFAST RUE FUSAL TO PROVIDE
LETHAL AID FOR THREE YEARS,
MORE THAN 1,000 DAYS, WHILE
UKRAINE ATTEMPTED TO HOLD BACK
RUSSIA'S INVASION AND PRESERVE
ITS SOVEREIGNTY?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
THANK YOU, SENATORS, FOR THAT
QUESTION.
AND I THINK IT WAS FAR MORE
SERIOUS AND FAR MORE JEOPARDY
FOR THE UKRANIANS, THE DECISION
OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO
NOT USE THE AUTHORITY THAT WAS
GIVEN BY CONGRESS THAT MANY OF
YOU AND MANY MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTED
FOR, GIVING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LETHAL
AID TO THE UKRANIANS AND THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DECIDED NOT
TO PROVIDE THAT AID.
AND MULTIPLE WITNESSES WHO WERE
CALLED IN THE HOUSE BY THE HOUSE
DEMOCRATS TESTIFIED THAT THE
UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS
UKRAINE GOT STRONGER UNDER THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, IN PART
LARGELY BECAUSE OF THAT LETHAL
AID.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH,
AMBASSADOR VOLKER, OTHERS ALSO
TESTIFIED THAT U.S. POLICY IN
PROVIDING THAT AID WAS GREATER
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE THAN WAS
PROVIDED IN THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, PARTICULARLY
THE PROVISION OF JAVELIN AND
ANTITANK MISSILES WHICH THEY
EXPLAINED WERE LETHAL AND WOULD
KILL RUSSIAN TANKS AND CHANGE
THE CALCULUS FOR AGGRESSION FOR
THE RUSSIANS IN THE DONBASS
REGION IN THE EASTERN PORTION OF
UKRAINE WHERE THAT CONFLICT IS
STILL ONGOING.
IN TERMS OF THE PAUSE, THE
TEMPORARY PAUSE ON AID HERE,
THE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD --
PUT ASIDE WHAT THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE SAID ABOUT THEIR
SPECULATION AND THEY KNOW WHAT
IT'S LIKE TO BE DENIED AID.
THE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD IS
THAT THIS TEMPORARY PAUSE WAS
NOT SIGNIFICANT.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT
THE BRIEF PAUSE ON RELEASING THE
AID WAS, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, NOT
SIGNIFICANT.
UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
POLITICAL AFFAIRS DAVID HALE
EXPLAINED THIS WAS FUTURE
ASSISTANCE, NOT TO KEEP THE
ARMY GOING NOW.
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS WASN'T
MONEY THAT HAD TO FLOW EVERY
MONTH IN ORDER TO FUND CURRENT
PURCHASES OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
IT WAS MONEY, IT'S FIVE-YEAR
MONEY.
ONCE IT'S OBLIGATED IT'S THERE
FOR FIVE YEARS AND IT USUALLY
TAKES QUITE A BIT OF TIME TO
SPEND ALL OF IT.
THE IDEA SOMEHOW THAT DURING THE
COUPLE OF MONTHS IN JULY,
AUGUST, AND UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER
11, 55 TO 48 DAYS, DEPENDING
ON HOW YOU COUNT IT, THAT THIS
WAS SOMEHOW DENYING CRITICAL
ASSISTANCE TO THE UKRANIANS ON
THE FRONT LINES RIGHT THEN IS
SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
NOW THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
TRIED TO PIVOT AWAY FROM THAT
BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S NOT TRUE.
AND TO SAY NO IT WAS THE SIGNAL
TO THE RUSSIANS.
IT WAS THE SIGNAL OF LACK OF
SUPPORT THAT THE RUSSIANS WOULD
PICK UP ON.
HERE AGAIN, IT'S CRITICAL,
EVEN UKRANIANS DIDN'T KNOW THAT
THE AID HAD BEEN PAUSED.
AND PART OF THE REASON WAS THEY
NEVER BROUGHT IT UP IN ANY
CONVERSATIONS WITH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT.
AND AS AMBASSADOR VOLKER
TESTIFIED, REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DIDN'T BRING
IT UP TO THEM BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T WANT ANYONE TO KNOW.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PUT OUT ANY
SIGNAL THAT MIGHT BE PERCEIVED
BY THE RUSSIANS OR BY THE
UKRANIANS AS ANY SIGN OF LACK OF
SUPPORT.
IT WAS KEPT INTERNAL TO THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT.
THEY'VE POINTED TO SOME E-MAILS
THAT SOMEONE AT THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE OR DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, LAURA COOPER RECEIVED
FROM UNNAMED EMBASSY STAFFERS
SUGGESTING THERE WAS A QUESTION
ABOUT THE AID.
BUT HER TESTIMONY WAS SHE
COULDN'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT THE
QUESTION REALLY WAS AND SHE
DIDN'T WANT TO SPECULATE.
THERE'S NOT EVIDENCE THAT ANY
DECISION-MAKERS IN THE UKRAINE
GOVERNMENT KNEW ABOUT THE PAUSE.
AND JUST THE OTHER DAY ANOTHER
ARTICLE CAME OUT, I BELIEVE IT
WAS FROM THE, AT THE TIME THE
FOREIGN MINISTER DANYLIUK
EXPLAINING WHEN THE POLITICAL OF
ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED THERE WAS
PANIC IN KIEV BECAUSE IT WAS THE
FIRST TIME THEY REALIZED THERE
WAS ANY PAUSE ON THE AID.
THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS
PROVIDED ANY SIGNAL EITHER TO
THE UKRANIANS OR THE RUSSIANS
BECAUSE IT WASN'T KNOWN.
IT WAS TWO WEEKS LATER AFTER IT
BECAME PUBLIC THAT THE AID WAS
RELEASED.
THE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD IS
THAT THE PAUSE WAS NOT
SIGNIFICANT.
IT WAS FUTURE MONEY, NOT FOR
CURRENT PURCHASES.
AND IT WAS RELEASED BEFORE THE
END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
THEY POINT OUT THAT SOME OF IT
WAS NOT OUT THE DOOR BY THE END
OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
THAT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR.
THERE'S SOME PERCENTAGE THAT
DOESN'T MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR BY
THE END OF THE YEAR.
AND AGAIN, IT'S FIVE-YEAR
MONEY.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S ALL GOING TO
BE SPENT IN THE NEXT 30, 60,
90 DAYS ANYWAY.
SO THE FACT THERE WAS A LITTLE
FIX, CONGRESS PASSED A FIX TO
ALLOW THAT $35 MILLION TO BE
SPENT, SOMETHING SIMILAR
HAPPENS FOR SOME AMOUNT EVERY
YEAR.
AND IT WAS NOT AFFECTING CURRENT
PURCHASES.
IT WASN'T JEOPARDIZING ANYTHING
AT THE FRONT LINES.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT
IN THE RECORD.
THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK YOU
COUNSEL.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MAINE.
A SENATOR: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR
BOTH SETS OF COUNSEL WHICH I'M
SENDING TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR KING IS
FOR BOTH COUNSEL TO THE
PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER CHIEF
OF STAFF, GENERAL JOHN KELLY,
HAS REPORTEDLY SAID, QUOTE, I
BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON, END
QUOTE, AND SUGGESTS BOLTON
SHOULD TESTIFY SAYING, QUOTE, IF
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT COULD
CONTRIBUTE TO THIS EITHER
INNOCENCE OR GUILT, I THINK
THEY SHOULD BE HEARD, END
QUOTE.
DO YOU AGREE WITH GENERAL KELLY
THAT THEY SHOULD BE HEARD?
I THINK COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT, IT'S YOUR TURN TO GO
FIRST.
MR. SEKULOW: THANK YOU MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE.
THIS WAS A BIT OF A TOPIC THAT I
DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, AND THAT
WAS THE INFORMATION THAT CAME
OUT IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
PIECE ABOUT WHAT IS PURPORTEDLY
IN A BOOK BY AMBASSADOR BOLTON.
NOW AS I SAID, THE IDEA THAT A
MANUSCRIPT IS NOT IN THE BOOK,
THERE'S NOT A QUOTE FROM THE
MANUSCRIPT IN THE BOOK.
THIS IS A PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE
STATEMENT MIGHT BE,
THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FORCEFUL
STATEMENTS, NOT JUST FROM THE
PRESIDENT, BUT FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE STATED THAT WHILE THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS NOT
REVIEWED MR. BOLTON'S
MANUSCRIPT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES"
ACCOUNT OF THIS CONVERSATION
GROSSLY MISCHARACTERIZES IT.
THERE WAS NO PERSONAL FAVORS OR
UNDUE INFLUENCE NOR DID ATTORNEY
GENERAL BARR STATE THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S CONVERSATIONS WITH
FOREIGN LEADERS WERE IMPROPER.
THAT GOES TO SOME OF THE
ALLEGATIONS THAT'S WERE IN THE
ARTICLE.
THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID THE SAME
THING.
HE SAID IN EVERY CONVERSATION
WITH THE PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT IN
PERHAPS FOR OUR TRIP TO POLAND,
THE PRESIDENT CONSISTENTLY
DISPRESSED HIS FRUSTRATION --
EXPRESSED HIS FRUTION TRAITION.
 -- FRUSTRATION.
THERE WAS AN INTERVIEW THAT
AMBASSADOR BOLTON GAVE AND I
THINK THAT IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
NOW.
AGAIN, TO MOVE THAT INTO A -- A
CHANGE IN PROCEEDING, SO TO
SPEAK, I THINK, IS NOT CORRECT.
THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS ALREADY
BEEN PRESENTED, AN ACCUSATION
THAT IF YOU GET INTO WITNESSES,
WILL DO -- I WILL DO THIS
BRIEFLY, IF WE GET DOWN THE ROAD
ON WITNESSES, IT WILL BE
CLEAR -- IT SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT
BE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS GET
JOHN BOLTON AND THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYERS GET NO WITNESSES.
IF THEY GET WITNESSES, WE WILL
GET WITNESSES AND THOSE
WITNESSES WOULD THEN -- ALL
THAT, JUST TO BE CLEAR, CHANGES
THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR
IT BEFORE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. SCHIFF: SENATORS, JUSTICE,
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
PRESIDENT'S FORMER CHIEF OF
STAFF SAYING THAT HE BELIEVES
JOHN BOLTON AND IMPLICITLY
DOESN'T BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT,
THAT BOLTON SHOULD TESTIFY.
IT'S REALLY, AT THE END OF THE
DAY, NOT WHETHER I BELIEVE JOHN
BOLTON OR WHETHER JOHN KELLY
BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON, BUT
WHETHER YOU BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON.
WHETHER YOU WILL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR DIRECTLY
FROM JOHN BOLTON AND EVALUATE
HIS CREDIBILITY FOR YOURSELF.
THERE ARE SOME ARGUMENTS MADE
AGAINST THIS.
SOME ARE RATHER EXTRAORDINARY.
IT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED, I
THINK THE SUGGESTION IS, TO HAVE
WITNESSES IN A TRIAL.
WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY IDEA.
BUT AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID,
IT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY NOT
TO.
THIS HAD BE THE FIRST
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN HISTORY
THAT INVOLVES NO WITNESSES IF
YOU DECIDE THAT YOU DON'T WANT
TO HEAR FROM ANY.
THAT YOU WILL RELY ON WHAT WAS
INVESTIGATED IN THE HOUSE.
THAT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED.
YES, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CALL
WITNESSES AND, YES, SO SHOULD
THE PRESIDENT -- RELEVANT
WITNESSES.
NOW, THE PRESIDENT SAYS YOU
CAN'T BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON AND
MICK MULVANEY SAYS, YOU CAN'T
BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON.
LET THE PRESIDENT CALL MICK
MULVANEY.
IF HE'S WILLING TO SAY PUBLICLY,
NOT UNDER OATH, THAT BOLTON IS
WRONG, LET HIM COME AND SAY THAT
UNDER OATH MANY WE'RE NOT SAYING
ONE SIDE GETS TO CALL WITNESSES,
BOTH SIDES GET TO CALL RELEVANT
WITNESSES.
THEY ALSO MAKE THE ARGUMENT
IMPLICITLY, THIS IS GOING TO
TAKE LONG.
THE SENATORS WARN YOU, IF YOU GO
TO A REAL TRIAL, IT'S GOING TO
TAKE TIME.
I THINK THE UNDERLYING THREAT,
AND I DON'T MEAN THIS IN A HARSH
WAY, IS WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS
REALLY TIME CONSUMING.
THE DISPOSITION TOOK PLACE VERY
QUICKLY IN THE HOUSE.
WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD CHIEF
JUSTICE BEHIND ME THAT CAN RULE
ON EVIDENTIARY ISSUES.
THE PRESIDENT WAS WAIVED ANY
RULES ON NATIONAL SECURITY BY
DECLASSIFYING HIMSELF.
WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN ASKING
JOHN BOLTON ABOUT VENEZUELA OR
OTHER PLACES OR OTHER COUNTRIES,
JUST UKRAINE.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT
IT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN
RESOLVE, THESE ARE RELEVANT
QUESTIONS TO THE MATTER AT HAND.
YOU CANNOT USE PRIVILEGE TO HIDE
WRONGDOING OF AN IMPEACHABLE
KIND AND CHARACTER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM UTAH.
MR. LEE: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF,
SENATOR CRUZ, AND SENATOR
HAWLEY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
IS IT TRUE THAT SEAN MISCOW, AND
BE A GALE -- ABIGAIL GRACE WERE
DETAILED TO THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNSEL DURING
JANUARY 20, 2017 TO THE PRESENT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO
BELIEVE THEY KNEW EACH OTHER AND
DO YOU BELIEVE THE ALLEGED
WHISTLE-BLOWER FULFILLED THEIR
COMMITMENT TO DO EVERYTHING WE
CAN TO TAKE OUT THE PRESIDENT?
END QUOTE.
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS.
THE ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE
THAT I HAVE OF THIS COMES FROM
PUBLIC REPORTS.
I GATHER THAT THERE IS A NEWS
REPORT IN SOME PUBLICATION THAT
SUGGESTS A NAME FOR THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER, SUGGESTS WHERE
HE WORKED, THAT HE WORKED AT
THAT TIME WHILE A DETAILEE AT
THE N.F.C. STAFF FOR VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THERE WERE
OTHERS THAT WORKED THERE.
WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
OTHER THAN WHAT'S IN THE PUBLIC
REPORTS, AND I DON'T WANT TO GET
INTO SPECULATING ABOUT THAT.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT TO -- TO AN
UNKNOWN EXTENT MAY HAVE BEEN
ADDRESSED IN THE TESTIMONY OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BEFORE
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S COMMITTEES,
BUT THAT TESTIMONY, CONTACTS
WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER,
CONTACTS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF
MANAGER SCHIFF'S STAFF AND THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER ARE SHROUDED IN
SECRECY TO THIS DAY.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TESTIMONY
OF THE ICIG WAS.
IT HAS REMAINED SECRET.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MANAGER
SCHIFF'S CONTACT WITH THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER HAS BEEN.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD SEEM
TO BE RELEVANT SINCE THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER STARTED THIS
ENTIRE INQUIRY.
BUT I CAN'T MAKE ANY REPUTATIONS
THAT WE HAVE ANY PARTICULAR
KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS SUGGESTED
IN THE QUESTION.
WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PUBLIC
REPORT SUGGESTING SECTIONS
AND -- CONNECTIONS AND PRIOR
WORKING RIPS BETWEEN CERTAIN
PEOPLE.
NOT SOMETHING I CAN COMMENT ON
OTHER THAN TO SAY THERE WAS A
REPORT THERE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ICIG
DISCUSSED OR WHAT THE ICIG WAS
TOLD BY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER OR
THE TESTIMONY ON THE REPORTS.
WE DON'T KNOW THE SITUATION OF
THE CONTACTS, COORDINATION,
ADVICE PROVIDED BY MANAGER
SCHIFF'S STAFF TO THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
THAT ALL REMAINS UNKNOWN, BUT
SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY, TO GET
TO THE BOTTOM OF MOTIVATIONS,
BIAS, HOW THIS WAS ALL -- THIS
INQUIRY WAS ALL CREATED COULD
POTENTIALLY BE RELEVANT.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WHEN DID
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL FIRST
LEARN THAT THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPT
HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE WHITE
HOUSE FOR REVIEW AND HAS THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL OR ANYONE
ELSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE
ATTEMPTED IN ANY WAY TO
PROHIBIT, BLOCK, DISAPPROVE, OR
DISCOURAGE JOHN BOLTON OR HIS
PUBLISHER FROM PUBLISHING HIS
BOOK?
MR. PHILBIN: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR THE QUESTION.
AT SOME POINT I DON'T -- I DON'T
KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THE
EXACT DATE.
THE MANUSCRIPT HAD BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE N.S.C. FOR
REVIEW, IT IS WITH CAREER N.S.C.
STAFF FOR REVIEW, THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE WAS
NOTIFIED IT WAS THERE.
THE N.S.C. HAS RELEASED A
STATEMENT EXPLAINING IT HAS NOT
BEEN REVIEWED BY ANYONE OUTSIDE
OF N.S.C. STAFF.
IN TERMS OF THE SECOND PART OF
THE QUESTION, HAS THERE BEEN ANY
ATTEMPT TO BLOCK ITS PUBLICATION
OR PREVENT IT?
I THINK THERE WAS SOME
MISINFORMATION PUT OUT INTO THE
PUBLIC REALM TODAY AND I CAN
READ A RELATIVELY SHORT LETTER
SENT FROM N.S.C. STAFF TO
CHARLES COOPER, WHO IS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR MR. BOLTON,
ON JANUARY 23, WHICH WAS LAST
WEEK.
IT SAYS, DEAR MR. COOPER, THANK
YOU FOR SPEAKING BY TELEPHONE
YESTERDAY.
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL,
ACCESS DIRECTRATE, HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED TO JOHN BOLTON FOR
PREPUBLICATION REVIEW.
BASED ON THE REVIEW, THE
MANUSCRIPT APPEARS TO CONTAIN
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION AND IT APPEARS IT IS
AT THE TOP SECRET LEVEL WHICH IS
DEFINED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
13526, WHICH WOULD CAUSE
EXCEPTIONALLY GRAVE HARM TO THE
NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED
STATES IF DISCLOSED OUT
AUTHORIZATION.
UNDER FEDERAL LAW, AND THE
NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS,
THERE'S A CONDITION FOR GAINING
ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION, IT MAY NOT BE
DISCLOSED.
THE MANUSCRIPT REMAINS UNDER
REVIEW IN ORDER FOR OUR US TO DO
OUR BEST TO ASSIST YOUR CLIENT
BY IDENTIFYING THE CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION IN THE MANUSCRIPT
WHILE ENSURING THAT THE
PUBLICATION DOES NOT HARM THE
NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED
STATES.
WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO WORK WITH
YOU TO ENSURE YOUR CLIENT'S
ABILITY TO TELL HIS STORY IN A
MANNER THAT PROTECTS U.S.
SECURITY.
WE WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
REGARDING NEXT STEPS TO ENABLE
YOU TO MOVE FORWARD AS
EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
SINCERELY AND THE SIGNIFICANT OF
THE CAREER OFFICIAL -- OF THE
SIGNATURE OF THE CAREER
OFFICIAL.
AMBASSADOR BOMENT WAS NOTIFIED
THAT THE MANUSCRIPT HE SUBMITTED
INCLUDES CLASSIFIED INFORMATION,
INCLUDING AT THE TOP SECRET
LEVEL, SO IN THE CURRENT FORM IT
CAN'T BE PUBLISHED BUT THEY WILL
WORK WITH HIM AS EXPEDITIOUSLY
AS POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE
SO IT CAN BE REVISED AND HE CAN
TELL HIS STORY.
THAT IS THE LETTER THAT WENT OUT
FROM THE N.S.C.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM IOWA.
MS. ERNST: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK ON BHIEF OF MYSELF, OF
DAINES AND SASSE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S QUESTION IS DIRECTED
TO COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
IS IT TRUE THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION APPROVED
SUPPLYING JAVELIN ANTITANK MISMS
TO UKRAINE.
IS IT ALSO TRUE THIS DECISION
CAME ON THE HEELS OF A NEARLY
THREE-YEAR DEBATE IN WASHINGTON
OVER WHETHER THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD PROVIDE LETHAL DEFENSE
WEAPONS TO COUNTER FURTHER
RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN EUROPE.
BY COMPARISON, DID PRESIDENT
OBAMA REFUSE TO SEND WEAPONS OR
OTHER LETHAL MILITARY GEAR TO
UKRAINE.
WAS THIS DECISION AGAINST THE
ADVICE OF HIS DEFENSE SECRETARY
AND OTHER KEY OFFICIALS IN HIS
ADMINISTRATION?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THANK YOU, SENATORS FORK THE
QUESTION.
YES -- FOR THE QUESTION.
YES, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE
JAVELIN ANTITANK MISSILES.
AUTHORIZATION HAD BEEN GRANTED
BY CONGRESS AND MANY OF YOU
VOTED FOR THAT STATUTORY
AUTHORIZATION DURING THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE LETHAL
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
BUT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
DECIDED NOT TO PROVIDE THAT.
IT WAS ONLY THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION THAT MADE THAT
LETHAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE.
AND THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY IN THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE
WAS ACTUALLY STRONGER.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER EXPLAINED THAT
AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE
HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED UNDER
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND EACH STEP
ALONG THE WAY IN THE DECISIONS
THAT GOT TO THE JAVELIN MISSILES
BEING PROVIDED WAS MADE BY
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS
SUBSTANTIALLY STRENGTHENED OUR
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE AND
STRENGTHENED THEIR ABILITY TO
RESIST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH SAID THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO
PROVIDE LETHAL WEAPONS MEANT
THAT OUR POLICY ACTUALLY GOT
STRONGER OVER THE LAST THREE
YEARS.
AND SHE CALLED IT VERY
SIGNIFICANT.
ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE IN
RELATION TO THIS IS AGAIN THAT
THE PAUSE, THE TEMPORARY PAUSE
THAT TOOK PLACE OVER THE SUMMER
IS SOMETHING THAT THE UKRANIAN
DEPUTY DEFENSE MINISTER
DESCRIBED AS BEING SO SHORT THAT
THEY DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE IT.
SO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICIES
ACROSS THE BOARD HAVE BEEN
STRONGER THAN THE PRIOR
ADMINISTRATION'S IN PROVIDING
DEFENSE -- LETHAL DEFENSE
CAPABILITY TO THE UKRANIANS.
I THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANT.
THE SPECIFIC PART OF THE
QUESTION, SENATORS, WHETHER IT
WAS CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE
SECRETARY AND OTHERS, I BELIEVE
THAT THAT IS ACCURATE.
IT WAS AGAINST THE ADVICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
IT WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
DECISION TO PROVIDE THIS LETHAL
ASSISTANCE.
THAT HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC IN THE
PAST.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN.
MRS. FEINSTEIN: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR CARPER,
SENATOR COONS, SENATOR HIRONO,
LEAHY, TESTER, UDALL TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS AND ON BEHALF OF
MYSELF.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
FEINSTEIN AND THE OTHER SENATORS
QUESTION IS TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDENT HAS TAKEN THE
POSITION THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO
WITNESSES AND NO DOCUMENTS
PROVIDED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
IN RESPONSE TO THESE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS.
IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT FOR THIS
BLANKET REFUSAL TO COOPERATE AND
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF THE
SENATE ACCEPTS THIS POSITION
HERE?
MS. LOFGREN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND SENATORS, PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAS TAKEN REALLY AN EXTREME
MEASURE TO HIDE THIS EVIDENCE
FROM CONGRESS.
NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER ISSUED AN
ORDER TO DIRECT A WITNESS TO
REFUSE TO COOPERATE IN AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BEFORE THIS.
DESPITE HIS FAMOUS ATTEMPTS TO
CONCEAL THE MOST DAMAGING
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, EVEN
PRESIDENT NIXON ALLOWED SENIOR
OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH.
NOT ONLY DID HE ALLOW THEM, HE
TOLD THEM TO GO TO CONGRESS
VOLUNTARILY AND ANSWER ALL
RELEVANT QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY.
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED A
BLANKET ORDER DIRECTING THE
ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO
WITHHOLD ALL DOCUMENTS AND
TESTIMONY FROM THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
IT WAS -- THIS ORDER WAS
CATEGORICAL, IT WAS
INDISCRIMINATE, UNPRECEDENTED.
ITS PURPOSE WAS CLEAR TO PREVENT
CONGRESS FROM DOING ITS DUTY
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO HOLD
THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
TELLING EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS
IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND EVERY
PERSON WHO WORKS IN EVERY
DEPARTMENT AGENCY AND OFFICE OF
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS JUST NOT
PRECEDENTED.
IT WASN'T ABOUT SPECIFIC
NARROWLY DEFINED PRIVILEGES.
HE NEVER ASSERTED PRIVILEGES.
AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
MENTIONED OVER AND OVER THAT HE
HAD SOME REASON BECAUSE OF THE
SUBPOENAS.
WELL, I'LL TELL YOU WE ADOPT
RULES ABOUT SUBPOENAS IN THE
HOUSE.
THE SENATE IS A CONTINUING BODY,
BUT THE HOUSE ISN'T.
AND IN JANUARY WE ADOPTED OUR
RULES AND IT ALLOWS THE
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN TO ISSUE
SUBPOENAS.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.
HE REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE
SUBPOENAS, NOT BECAUSE HE
EXERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LIKE WHAT WE
WERE DOING.
HE TRIED TO SAY IT WAS INVALID
BUT IT WAS VALID AND ACTUALLY HE
DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BE
THE ARBITER OF THE RULES OF THE
HOUSE.
THE HOUSE IS THE SOLE ARBITER OF
ITS RULES WHEN IT COMES TO
IMPEACHMENT.
NOW, THIS REFUSAL TOLL GIVE
TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENT, IT'S
STILL GOING ON.
WE STILL HAVE FORMER OR CURRENT
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO ARE
REFUSING TO TESTIFY.
HE WOULDN'T -- YOU KNOW, WE
WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS IN ANY
OTHER CONTEXT.
YOU KNOW, IF A MAYOR SAID I'M
NOT GOING TO ANSWER YOUR
SUBPOENAS, THEY'D BE DEALT WITH
HARSHLY, IF IT WAS TO COVER UP
MISDEEDS AND CRIMES AS WE HAVE
HERE.
SO MAYORS HAVE ACTUALLY GONE TO
JAIL FOR DOING THAT.
IF WE ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO
AVOID ACCOUNTABILITY BY SIMPLY
REFUSING TO PROVIDE ANY
DOCUMENTS, ANY WITNESSES UNLIKE
EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT WHO
PRECEDED HIM, WE'RE OPENING THE
DOOR NOT JUST TO ELIMINATING THE
IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
TRY DOING OVERSIGHT.
TRY DOING OVERSIGHT, SENATORS.
WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT IN THE
HOUSE.
IF THE PRESIDENT CAN JUST SAY
WE'RE NOT SENDING ANY WITNESSES,
WE'RE NOT SENDING ANY DOCUMENTS,
WE DON'T HAVE TO, WE DON'T LIKE
YOUR PROCESSES, WE HAVE A
WHOLESALE REJECTION OF WHAT
YOU'RE DOING, THAT'S NOT THE WAY
OUR CONSTITUTION WAS CREATED.
WE'RE EACH -- WHERE EACH BODY
HAS A RESPONSIBILITY.
THERE'S A SHARING OF POWER.
I AND I KNOW YOU CHERISH THE
RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE.
THAT WILL BE EVISCERATED IF THE
PRESIDENT'S COMPLETE STALLING IS
ALLOWED TO PERSIST AND BE
ACCEPTED BY THIS BODY.
YOU HAVE TO ACT NOW IN THIS
MOMENT OF HISTORY.
I YIELD BACK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA.
A SENATOR: THANK YOU.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR'S QUESTION IS FOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
YOU SAID THAT UKRANIAN OFFICIALS
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE ON
AID UNTIL AUGUST 28, 2019, WHEN
IT WAS REPORTED IN "POLITICO."
BUT DIDN'T LAURA COOPER, THE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR RUSSIA SAY THAT
MEMBERS OF HER STAFF RECEIVED
QUERIES ABOUT THE AID FROM THE
UKRANIAN EMBASSY ON JULY 25?
DOES THAT MEAN THAT UKRANIAN
OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT THE HOLD ON
AID EARLIER THAN THE "POLITICO"
ARTICLE?
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, SENATOR, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR QUESTION.
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT.
MR. PURPURA: AS WE EXPLAINED ON
SATURDAY, THE OVERWHELMING BODY
OF EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE
UKRANIANS AT THE VERY HIGHEST
LEVELS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
HIS TOP ADVISORS, ONLY BECAME
AWARE OF THE PAUSE IN THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE
AUGUST 28 "POLITICO" ARTICLE.
I ADDRESSED ON SATURDAY AND SO
THOSE COMMENTS WILL STAND, THE
E-MAILS FROM -- THE DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
LAURA COOPER TESTIFIED ABOUT
PREVIOUSLY.
WHAT SHE HAD SAID WAS SHE, HER
STAFF HAD GOTTEN E-MAILS FROM
SOMEONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
WHO HAD HAD SOME SORT OF
CONVERSATION WITH UKRANIAN
OFFICIALS HERE THAT SOMEHOW
RELATED TO THE AID AT A TIME
PRIOR TO AUGUST 28.
SHE DID NOT KNOW THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE E-MAILS NOR WHETHER THEY
MENTIONED HOLD, PAUSE, REVIEW,
ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
AND SHE EVEN SAID HERSELF THAT
SHE DIDN'T WANT TO SPECULATE AS
TO WHAT THE E-MAILS MEAN AND
CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN WHAT THEY
WERE ABOUT.
I PRESENTED ON SATURDAY THE
EVIDENCE WHICH AGAIN REFERENCING
THE COMMON SENSE THAT WOULD BE
IN PLAY HERE.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT ON
AUGUST 28 CAUSED A FLURRY OF
ACTIVITY AMONG THE HIGHEST
RANKING UKRANIAN OFFICIALS.
NEVER BEFORE DID THEY RAISE ANY
QUESTIONS AT ANY OF THE MEETINGS
THEY HAD WITH THE HIGH-RANKING
U.S. OFFICIALS THROUGH JULY AND
AUGUST.
THERE WERE MEETINGS ON JULY 9,
JULY 10, JULY 25 CALL, JULY 26,
AND AUGUST 27.
AT NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS WAS
THE PAUSE ON AID REVEALED OR
INQUIRED ABOUT.
HOWEVER, AS SOON AS THE
"POLITICO" ARTICLE CAME OUT ON
AUGUST 28, WITHIN HOURS OF THAT
"POLITICO" ARTICLE COMING OUT,
MR. YERMAK TEXTED THE ARTICLE TO
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND ASKED TO
SPEAK WITH HIM.
THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE
FINDING OUT ABOUT IT FOR THE
FIRST TIME.
THE UKRANIANS HAVE ALSO MADE
STATEMENTS THAT THEY LEARNED
ABOUT IT FOR THE FIRST TIME AND
THEN MR. PHILBIN JUST REFERENCED
AN ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT
YESTERDAY IN THE "DAILY BEAST"
WHICH WAS AN INTERVIEW WITH
MR. DANYLIUK WHO AT THE TIME WAS
A HIGH RANKING DEFENSE OFFICIAL
WITH THE UKRANIANS.
THIS IS INTERESTING.
I'M GOING TO READ THIS ARTICLE
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
AND I SUGGEST TO THE SENATE IF
THEY WISH TO HAVE SOMETHING TO
CONSIDER FURTHER ON THIS.
DANYLIUK SAID HE FIRST FOUND OUT
THAT THE U.S. WAS WITHHOLDING
AID TO UKRAINE BY READING
"POLITICO"'S ARTICLE PUBLISHED
AUGUST 28.
U.S. OFFICIALS AND UKRANIAN
DIPLOMATS INCLUDING THE
COUNTRY'S FOREIGN MINISTER OLENA
KIRKLE -- ZIRKLE HAVE SAID
PUBLICLY KIEV WAS AWARE THAT
THERE WERE PROBLEMS AS EARLY AS
JULY.
HERE'S MR. DANYLIUK.
I WAS REALLY SURPRISED AND
SHOCKED BECAUSE JUST A COUPLE OF
DAYS PRIOR TO THAT I ACTUALLY
HAD A MEETING WITH JOHN BOLTON,
ACTUALLY I HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS
WITH HIM AND WE HAD EXTENSIVE
DISCUSSIONS.
THE LAST THING I'D EXPECTED TO
READ WAS AN ARTICLE ABOUT
MILITARY AID BEING FROZEN,
DANYLIUK SAID.
AFTER THAT, I WAS TRYING TO GET
THE TRUTH.
WAS IT TRUE OR NOT TRUE?
DANYLIUK SAID THAT IT WAS A
PANIC INSIDE THE ZELENSKY
ADMINISTRATION AFTER THE INITIAL
NEWS BROKE SAYING ZELENSKY WAS
CONVINCED THERE HAD BEEN SOME
SORT OF MISTAKE.
THAT'S PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
DANYLIUK PUT IN CALLS TO THE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL,
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND
ASKED OTHER OFFICIALS IN
WASHINGTON WHAT TO MAKE OF THE
NEWS.
AGAIN, ON AUGUST 28.
OR RIGHT AFTER AUGUST 28.
THE NEXT TIME WE MET IN
SEPTEMBER, IT WAS IN POLAND FOR
THE COMMEMORATION OF THE
BEGINNING OF THE SECOND WORLD
WAR.
THE WARSAW MEETING WE'VE
DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY.
DANYLIUK SAID, ADDING THAT HE
MET WITH BOLTON ON THE SIDE
LINES OF THE COMMEMORATION.
I HAD MY SUSPICIONS.
THERE WAS A SPECIAL SITUATION
WITH ONE OF OUR DEFENSE
COMPANIES THAT WERE ACQUIRED BY
THE CHINESE.
AND THE U.S. WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS.
BOLTON ACTUALLY MADE THE PUBLIC
COMMENTS ABOUT THIS AS WELL SO
SOMEHOW I LINKED THIS TWO THINGS
AND TRIED TO UNDERSTAND, OKAY,
MAYBE THIS COULD BE RELATED TO
THIS.
SO NOT ONLY DID THEY NOT KNOW
UNTIL AUGUST 28 WHEN THEY DID
FIND OUT, THEY DIDN'T LINK IT TO
ANY INVESTIGATIONS.
WHERE IS THE QUID PRO QUO?
IF IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF THEIR
MINDS, SUCH PRESSURE ON THEM
THAT THE UKRANIANS HAVE TO DO
THESE INVESTIGATIONS TO GET THE
AID WHEN THE AID WAS HELD UP,
THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS
CONNECTED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON --
A SENATOR: I HAVE A QUESTION ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR BALDWIN AND
MYSELF.
I SEND IT TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.
IS THE WHITE HOUSE CORRECT IN
ITS TRIAL MEMORANDUM AND IN
PRESENTATIONS OF ITS CASE THAT,
QUOTE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
OTHER SENIOR UKRANIAN OFFICIALS
DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN
PAUSED, END QUOTE, BEFORE SEEING
PRESS REPORTS ON AUGUST 28, 2019
WHICH WAS MORE THAN A MONTH
AFTER THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL
BETWEEN PRESIDENTS ZELENSKY AND
TRUMP?
MR. CROW: THANK YOU, CHIEF
JUSTICE AND SENATORS FOR THE
QUESTION.
THE ANSWER IS NO.
THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW THAT.
WE KNOW THAT DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL LAURA COOPER TESTIFIED
THAT HER STAFF RECEIVED TWO
E-MAILS FROM THE STATE
DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25 REVEALING
THAT THE UKRANIAN EMBASSY WAS,
QUOTE, ASKING ABOUT SECURITY
ASSISTANCE.
AND IN FACT, COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THESE
E-MAILS JUST NOW.
SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE
SENATE SUBPOENA THOSE E-MAILS SO
WE CAN ALL SEE FOR OURSELVES
WHAT EXACTLY WAS HAPPENING.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT CATHERINE
CROFT STATED THAT SHE WAS,
QUOTE, VERY SURPRISED AT THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR
COUNTERPARTS DIPLOMATIC CRAFT AS
IF THEY -- IF TO SAY THEY FOUND
ON MUCH EARLIER ON THAN I
EXPECTED THEM.
END QUOTE.
AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VIND■
-- ALEXANDER VINDMAN TESTIFIED
MID AUGUST THAT HE WAS GETTING
QUESTIONS FROM UKRAINIANS ABOUT
THE STATUS OF SECURITY
ASSISTANCE.
SO THE EVIDENCE SHOWS OVER AND
OVER AGAIN FROM THE HOUSE
INQUIRY THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF
DISCUSSION, AND THERE SHOULD BE.
BECAUSE WE ALSO KNOW THAT DELAYS
MATTER.
THEY MATTER A LOT.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY
WORD FOR IT.
THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT A 48-DAY
DELAY.
THE UKRAINIANS WERE CONSISTENTLY
ASKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WAS
URGENT.
THEY NEEDED IT.
THEY NEEDED IT.
YOU KNOW WHO ELSE WAS ASKING FOR
IT WAS AMERICAN BUSINESSES.
THE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE GOING TO
BE PROVIDING THIS WERE ALSO
MAKING INQUIRIES ABOUT IT
BECAUSE IT WAS A PIPELINE.
NOW, AS MY ESTEEMED SENATE ARMED
SERVICES COLLEAGUES KNOW VERY
WELL, THAT PROVIDING AID IS NOT
LIKE TURNING ON AND OFF A LIGHT
SWITCH.
YOU HAVE TO HIRE EMPLOYEES.
YOU HAVE TO GET EQUIPMENT.
YOU'VE GOT TO SHIP IT.
IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR THAT
PIPELINE TO GO.
IN FACT, WE HAD TO COME TOGETHER
AS A CONGRESS TO PASS A LAW TO
EXTEND THAT TIMELINE BECAUSE WE
WERE AT RISK OF LOSING IT.
AND TO THIS DAY, $18 MILLION OF
THAT AID HAS STILL NOT BEEN
SPENT.
WELL, LET'S JUST ASSUME FOR A
MINUTE, ALSO BROADLY SPEAKING,
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL'S
ARGUMENT THAT SUPPORT FOR
UKRAINE HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER
THAN IT IS TODAY, THAT UNDER THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THEY ARE
THE STRONGEST ALLY UKRAINE HAS
SEEN IN YEARS.
SO JUST ASSUMING FOR A MINUTE
THAT ARGUMENT TO BE TRUE, IT
KIND OF MAKES OUR OWN ARGUMENT.
IT KIND OF MAKES OUR ARGUMENT.
THEN WHY HOLD THE AID?
WHY HOLD THE AID?
BECAUSE NOTHING HAD CHANGED IN
2016, NOTHING THIS CHANGED IN
2017, NOTHING HAD CHANGED IN
2018.
ONE THING HAD CHANGED IN 2019,
AND THAT WAS VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
LASTLY, THE QUESTION BEFORE --
BY MY SENATE ARMED SERVICES
COLLEAGUES FRAMES THIS IN TERMS
OF THE MILITARY IMPACT, AND THEY
ASKED WHAT WAS GREATER IN TERMS
OF MILITARY IMPACT.
NOT PROVIDING LETHAL AID OR A
48-DAY DELAY.
LET'S NOT FORGET THE REASON FOR
THE DELAY BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT
OF DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT THE
TECHNICALITIES OF THE DELAY AND
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S MENTALITY,
HIS MIND-SET DOESN'T MATTER.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE
INTENDED TO DO.
BUT I WOULD POSIT THAT'S EXACTLY
WHY WE'RE HERE.
THAT IT DOES MATTER WHAT THE
PRESIDENT INTENDED TO DO BECAUSE
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN MATTERS
OF NATIONAL SECURITY DESERVE TO
GO TO BED EVERY NIGHT KNOWING
THAT THE PRESIDENT, THE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, THE PERSON
WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF
OUR NATION EVERY NIGHT HAS THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THEM AND THEIR
FAMILIES AND THIS COUNTRY IN
MIND, NOT THE BEST INTERESTS OF
HIS POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE.
MS. COLLINS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR
MURKOWSKI.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS TO COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
WITNESSES TESTIFIED BEFORE THE
HOUSE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED THE VIEW
THAT UKRAINE WAS A CORRUPT
COUNTRY.
BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
FORMALLY ENTERED THE 2020
PRESIDENTIAL RACE IN APRIL,
2019, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER
MENTION JOE OR HUNTER BIDEN IN
CONNECTION WITH CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE TO FORMER UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO OR OTHER
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S CABINET MEMBERS, OR TOP
AIDES OR OTHERS?
IF SO, WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT
SAY TO WHOM AND WHEN?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION.
OF COURSE, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT AT THE OUTSET TO FRAME
THE ANSWER BY I'M LIMITED TO
WHAT'S IN THE RECORD AND WHAT'S
IN THE RECORD IS DETERMINED BY
WHAT THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SOUGHT.
IT WAS THEIR PROCEEDINGS.
THEY WERE THE ONES WHO RAN IT.
THEY WERE THE ONES WHO CALLED
THE WITNESSES.
SO PART OF THE QUESTION REFERS
TO CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OTHER
CABINET MEMBERS AND OTHERS LIKE
THAT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING IN
THE RECORD ON THAT.
IT WASN'T THOROUGHLY PURSUED IN
THE RECORD.
SO I CAN'T POINT TO SOMETHING IN
THE RECORD THAT SHOWS PRESIDENT
TRUMP AT AN EARLIER TIME
MENTIONING SPECIFICALLY
SOMETHING RELATED TO JOE OR
HUNTER BIDEN.
IT IS IN THE RECORD THAT HE
SPOKE TO PRESIDENT POROSHENKO
TWICE ABOUT CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE, BOTH IN JUNE OF 2017
AND AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017.
BUT THERE IS OTHER INFORMATION
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND IN THE
RECORD THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT
FOR UNDERSTANDING THE TIMELINE
AND UNDERSTANDING WHY IT WAS
THAT THE INFORMATION RELATED TO
THE BIDENS AND THE BURISMA
AFFAIR CAME UP WHEN IT DID.
SO ONE IMPORTANT PIECE OF
INFORMATION TO BEAR IN MIND IS
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO WAS THE
PERSON THAT JOE BIDEN HIMSELF,
IN THE TAPES WE HAVE SEEN, WENT
TO TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR FIRED,
SO AS LONG AS PRESIDENT
POROSHENKO WAS STILL IN CHARGE
IN UKRAINE, HE WAS THE PERSON
THAT JOE BIDEN HAD SPOKEN TO TO
GET THE PROSECUTOR SHOKIN FIRED
WHEN SHOKIN WAS LOOKING INTO,
ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS,
LOOKING INTO BURISMA.
AS LONG AS HE WAS STILL THE
PRESIDENT IN UKRAINE, QUESTION
THE UTILITY OF RAISING AN
INCIDENT IN WHICH HE WAS THE ONE
WHO WAS TAKING THE DIRECTION
FROM VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN TO
FIRE THE PROSECUTOR.
SO WHEN YOU HAVE AN ELECTION IN
APRIL OF 2019 AND YOU HAVE A NEW
PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
WHO HAS RUN ON AN ANTICORRUPTION
PLATFORM AND THERE IS A QUESTION
IS HE REALLY GOING TO CHANGE
THINGS, IS THERE GOING TO BE
SOMETHING NEW IN THE UKRAINE, IT
OPENS UP AN OPPORTUNITY TO START
LOOKING REALLY AT ANTICORRUPTION
ISSUES AND RAISING QUESTIONS.
NOW, THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING
TO UNDERSTAND IN THE TIMELINE IS
THAT WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT
RUDOLPH GIULIANI, THE
PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE LAWYER, AND
WHAT WAS HE INTERESTED IN IN
UKRAINE AND WHAT WAS HIS ROLE?
WELL, AS WE KNOW, IT'S BEEN MADE
PUBLIC, MR. GIULIANI, THE
PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE LAWYER, HAD
BEEN ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS
IN UKRAINE DATING BACK TO THE
FALL OF 2018, AND IN NOVEMBER,
2018, HE SAID PUBLICLY HE WAS
GIVEN SOME TIPS ABOUT THINGS TO
LOOK INTO.
HE GAVE A DOSSIER TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT IN MARCH OF THIS
YEAR.
REMEMBER, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
ANNOUNCE HIS CANDIDACY IN APRIL,
APRIL 25.
IN MARCH, RUDOLPH GIULIANI GAVE
DOCUMENTS TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING INTERVIEW
NOTES FROM INTERVIEWS HE
CONDUCTED, BOTH WITH SHOKIN AND
WITH YESHENKO, ANOTHER
PROSECUTOR IN UKRAINE.
THOSE INTERVIEW NOTES ARE FROM
JANUARY, JANUARY 23 AND
JANUARY 25, 2019, SO MONTHS
BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
ANNOUNCED ANY CANDIDACY, AND IT
GOES THROUGH IN THESE INTERVIEW
NOTES, SHOKIN EXPLAINING THAT HE
WAS REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF
MR. JOSEPH BIDEN, THE VICE
PRESIDENT, AND IT EXPLAINS THAT
HE HAD BEEN INVESTIGATING
BURISMA AND THAT HUNTER WAS ON
THE BOARD, AND IT RAISES ALL THE
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.
SO IT WAS MR. GIULIANI WHO HAD
BEEN, AS JANE RASKIN EXPLAINED
THE OTHER DAY AS PRESIDENT FOR
THE PRESIDENT HERE, MR. GIULIANI
ACCOUNTS FOR THE PRESIDENT, IS
LOOKING INTO WHAT WENT ON IN
UKRAINE, IS THERE ANYTHING
RELATED TO 2016, ARE THERE OTHER
THINGS RELATED THERE, AND HE'S
GIVEN THIS INFORMATION, TIPS
ABOUT THIS AND STARTS PURSUING
THAT AS WELL.
AND HE'S DIGGING INTO THAT IN
JANUARY OF 2019.
WE KNOW THAT MR. GIULIANI IS THE
PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE COUNSEL.
I CAN'T REPRESENT SPECIFIC
CONVERSATIONS THEY HAD.
THEY WOULD BE PRIVILEGED.
BUT WE DO KNOW FROM TESTIMONY
THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IN A MAY
23 OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH
RESPECT TO UKRAINE TALK TO RUDY,
RUDY KNOWS ABOUT UKRAINE.
SO THE PRESIDENT, IT SEEMS, FROM
THAT GETS INFORMATION FROM
MR. GIULIANI.
MONTHS BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY,
MR. GIULIANI IS LOOKING INTO
THIS ISSUE, INTERVIEWING PEOPLE
AND GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT
IT.
IN ADDITION, IN MARCH OF 2019,
ARTICLES BEGAN TO BE PUBLISHED.
THEN THREE ARTICLES WERE
PUBLISHED BY ABC, BY THE NEW
YORKER, AND BY "THE WASHINGTON
POST" BEFORE THE JULY 25 CALL.
"WASHINGTON POST" ON JULY 22,
THREE DAYS BEFORE THE CALL, HAS
AN ARTICLE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT
THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.
THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SUDDENLY
CURRENT, RELEVANT, PROBABLY TO
BE IN SOMEONE'S MIND.
SO THAT'S THE TIMELINE.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
MS. HARRIS: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
PATTY MURRAY AND MYSELF.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
HARRIS AND MURRAY ASK THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IS NOW IN
POSSESSION OF A TAPE OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING OF
AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH,
QUOTE, GET RID OF HER, GET HER
OUT TOMORROW.
I DON'T CARE.
GET HER OUT TOMORROW.
TAKE HER OUT, OKAY, DO IT, END
QUOTE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE THIS ORDER
TO LEV PARNAS AND IGOR FRUMAN,
TWO MEN WHO CARRIED OUT TRUMP'S
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN AT THE
DIRECTION OF RUDOLPH GIULIANI.
DOES THE DISCOVERY OF THIS TAPE
SUGGEST THAT IF THE SENATE DOES
NOT PURSUE ALL RELEVANT
EVIDENCE, INCLUDING WITNESSES
AND DOCUMENTS, THAT NEW EVIDENCE
WILL CONTINUE TO COME TO LIGHT
AFTER THE SENATE RENDERS A
VERDICT?
MR. SCHIFF: THE ANSWER IS YES.
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN REALLY OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS SINCE THE
PASSAGE OF THE ARTICLES IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS
EVERY WEEK, INDEED SOMETIMES
EVERY DAY, THERE IS NEW
INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT.
WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE NEW
INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT ON
MARCH 17 WHEN THE BOLTON BOOK
COMES OUT.
THAT IS, IF THE N.S.C. ISN'T
SUCCESSFUL IN REDACTING IT OR
PREVENTING MUCH OF ITS
PUBLICATION.
AND ON THAT ISSUE, I DO WANT TO
MENTION ONE OTHER THING IN
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT
THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPT AND WHAT
DID THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS
KNOW, BECAUSE I LISTENED VERY
CAREFULLY TO THE ANSWER TO THAT
QUESTION.
MAYBE YOU LISTENED MORE
CAREFULLY THAN I DID.
WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD THEM SAY
IN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WHAT
DID THEY KNOW ABOUT THE
MANUSCRIPT AND WHEN DID THEY
KNOW IT, THEIR STATEMENT WAS
VERY PRECISELY WORDED.
THE N.S.C. UNIT REVIEWING THE
BOOK DID NOT SHARE THE
MANUSCRIPT.
WELL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT
QUESTION THAN WHETHER THE WHITE
HOUSE LAWYERS FOUND OUT WHAT'S
IN IT.
BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO
CIRCULATE THE MANUSCRIPT TO HAVE
SOMEONE WALK OVER TO THE WHITE
HOUSE AND SAY YOU DO NOT WANT
JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY.
LET ME TELL YOU, YOU DO NOT WANT
JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY.
YOU DON'T NEED TO READ HIS
MANUSCRIPT BECAUSE I CAN TELL
YOU WHAT'S IN IT.
SO THE DENIAL WAS A VERY
CAREFULLY WORDED ONE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WHITE
HOUSE LAWYERS KNEW AND WHEN THEY
KNEW IT, BUT THEY DID REPRESENT
TO YOU REPEATEDLY THAT THE
PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD A WITNESS
THAT HE WAS FREEZING THE AID TO
GET UKRAINE TO DO HIS
INVESTIGATIONS.
AND WE KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE.
WE KNOW THAT FROM THE WITNESSES
WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM, BUT WE
ALSO KNOW AT LEAST IF THE
REPORTING IS CORRECT -- AND YOU
SHOULD FIND OUT IF IT IS -- THAT
JOHN BOLTON TELLS A VERY
DIFFERENT STORY.
SO THERE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE
TO BE REVELATIONS, AND MEMBERS
OF THIS BODY ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
ANSWER A QUESTION EACH TIME IT
DOES, WHY DIDN'T YOU WANT TO
KNOW THAT WHEN IT WOULD HAVE
HELPED INFORM YOUR DECISION?
AND EVERY OTHER TRIAL IN THE
LAND YOU CALL WITNESSES TO FIND
OUT WHAT YOU CAN.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT A COURT OF
APPEALS HERE.
WE ARE THE TRIAL COURT.
WE'RE NOT CONFINED TO THE RECORD
BELOW.
THERE IS NO BELOW.
COUNSEL SAYS, IN ANSWER TO THE
SENATOR'S QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER
DONALD TRUMP EVER BROUGHT UP THE
HUNTER BIDEN PROBLEM WITH
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO IN THE PAST
AND SAYS WELL, WE'RE CONFINED TO
THE RECORD BEFORE US, YOU'RE NOT
CONFINED TO THE RECORD IN THE
HOUSE, NOR IS THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT COULD CALL
WITNESSES IF THEY EXISTED.
THERE'S NOTHING TO PREVENT THEM
FROM SAYING AS A MATTER OF FACT,
TOMORROW WE'RE GOING TO CALL
SUCH AND SUCH AND THEY'RE GOING
TO TESTIFY THAT INDEED DONALD
TRUMP BROUGHT UP HUNTER BIDEN TO
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO.
THERE'S NOTHING PROHIBITING THEM
FROM DOING THAT.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE
ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE NEW
EVIDENCE COME OUT ALL THE TIME,
BUT AMONG THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
EVIDENCE, WE KNOW WHAT THAT'S
GOING TO BE, AND THE EFFORT TO
SUGGEST THAT, WELL, BECAUSE THIS
PRESIDENT WAS STRONGER ON
JAVELINS THAN HIS PREDECESSOR
WHEN WE KNOW FROM THE JULY 25
CALL THE MOMENT THAT ZELENSKY
BRINGS UP THE JAVELINS, WHAT'S
THE VERY NEXT THING THE
PRESIDENT SAYS?
HE WANTS A FAVOR.
THE QUESTION IS W
-- THE QUESTION IS WHY DID HE
STOP THE AID?
WHY DID HE STOP THE AID THIS
YEAR AND NO PRIOR YEAR?
WAS IT MERELY A COINCIDENCE?
ARE WE TO BELIEVE IT WAS MERELY
A COINCIDENCE THAT IT WAS THE
YEAR THAT JOE BIDEN WAS RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT?
ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT OF ALL
THE COMPANIES IN ALL THE LAND,
IN ALL THE GIN JOINTS IN ALL THE
LAND IN UKRAINE, THAT IT WAS
JUST THIS ONE COMPANY.
IT WAS JUST A COINCIDENCE THAT
INVOLVED THE SON OF HIS
OPPONENT?
BUT, LOOK, MORE AND MORE IS
COMING OUT.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT YOU LEARN
WHATEVER YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO
KNOW TO RENDER A JUDGMENT NOW,
WHEN IT CAN INFORM YOUR
DECISION, AND NOT LATER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MANNER.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA.
MRS. FISCHER: I SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF
OF MYSELF AND SENATOR ARE RISCH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE SENATORS ASK COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL HAS UNDERSCORED THE
ADMINISTRATION'S ONGOING
ANTICORRUPTION FOCUS WITH OUR
ALLIES.
AT WHAT POINT DID THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT DEVELOP
CONCERNS ABOUT BURISMA IN
RELATION TO CORRUPTION AND
CONCERNS WITH RUSSIA?
MR. PHILBIN: [INAUDIBLE] I
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
AND I THINK IT BEARS ON THE
ANSWER THAT I WAS LAST GIVING TO
THE LAST QUESTION.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BECAME,
OF COURSE -- OF COURSE,
PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS
CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IN THE JULY 25 CALL, AS
THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS US, BROUGHT
UP A COUPLE OF THINGS.
HE BROUGHT UP BURDEN SHARING
SPECIFICALLY AND IT RAISED THE
ISSUE OF TWO SPECIFICS.
THE SPECIFIC CASE OF POTENTIAL
UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
ELECTION, WHICH HE HAD HEARD
ABOUT AND ASKED ABOUT, AND THE
INCIDENT INVOLVING THE FIRING OF
A PROSECUTOR WHO, ACCORDING TO
PUBLIC REPORTS, HAD BEEN LOOKING
INTO BURISMA, THE COMPANY THAT
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON WAS ON
THE BOARD OF.
AND IT WAS -- THAT WAS THE
PRESIDENT'S WAY OF PINPOINTING
SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATED TO
CORRUPTION.
SO WHEN DID IT BECOME PART OF
THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN, THOSE
ISSUES RELATED TO CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE?
OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE
THAT EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT
-- FIONA HILL TESTIFIED TO THIS
-- THOUGHT THAT ANTICORRUPTION
WAS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR U.S.
POLICY WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE.
WHEN THERE WAS A NEW PRESIDENT
ELECTED IN APRIL, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, THAT BROUGHT THE
POSSIBILITY OF REFORM TO THE
FOREFRONT.
THEN WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT
WAS RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM
HIS PRIVATE ATTORNEY, RUDY
GIULIANI, AND HE SPOKE IN THE
OVAL OFFICE OF RUDY KNOWS ABOUT
THE UKRAINE.
YOU GUYS GO TALK TO HIM, BECAUSE
HE WAS EXPLAINING TO THE
DELEGATION THAT HAD JUST
RETURNED FROM THE INAUGURATION
FOR THE PRESIDENT, FOR PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, THAT HE HAS CONCERNS
ABOUT UKRAINE BECAUSE THEY'RE
ALL CORRUPT.
HE KEPT SAYING, IT'S A CORRUPT
COMPANY.
I DON'T KNOW.
THEY TRIED TO GET ME IN THE
ELECTION.
THERE'S HIS SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
WITH UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION,
BECAUSE HE KNEW FROM THE PUBLIC
REPORTS, AS IN THE "POLITICO"
ARTICLE THAT'S BEEN REFERENCED
MANY TIMES, THE "POLITICO"
ARTICLE IN JANUARY OF 2017
EXPLAINED A LAUNDRY LIST OF
OFFICIALS WHO HAD BEEN OUT THERE
ATTEMPTING TO ASSIST THE HILLARY
CLINTON COMPLAIN AND SPREAD
INFORMATION ON THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN.
MR. GIULIANI HAD BEEN
INVESTIGATING THINGS RELATED TO
UKRAINE IN 2016 AND WAS LED TO
THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
BURISMA SITUATION AND VICE
PRESIDENT HAVING THE PROSECUTOR
FIRED.
SO THAT WAS IN JANUARY THAT HE
HAD THESE INTERVIEWS.
HE TURNED OVER TO THE STATE
DEPARTMENT IN MARCH.
AND THEN THERE WERE A SERIES
ALSO OF PUBLIC ARTICLES
PUBLISHED.
JOHN SOLOMAN PUBLISHED AN
ARTICLE.
THERE WAS A TWO-PART "NEW
YORKER" STORY ABOUT THE BIDENS
AND BURISMA IN JULY.
THEN JULY 22.
"WASHINGTON POST" HAD AN ARTICLE
AND EXPLAINED SPECIFICALLY --
JULY 22, THREE DAYS BEFORE THE
JULY 25 CALL, "THE WASHINGTON
POST" REPORTED THAT MR. SHOKIN,
THE PROSECUTOR, QUOTE, BELIEVED
HIS OUSTER WAS BECAUSE OF HIS
INTEREST IN THE COMPANY, END
QUOTE, REFERRING TO BURISMA, AND
HE SAID THAT, QUOTE, HAD HE
REMAINED IN HIS POST, HE WOULD
HAVE QUESTIONED HUNTER BIDEN,
END QUOTE.
SO I THINK IT IS A REASONABLE
INFERENCE THAT AS THERE WERE
THESE ARTICLES BEING PUBLISHED
IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE TIME,
THIS WAS INFORMATION THAT WAS
AVAILABLE TO THE PRESIDENT AND
IT BECAME AVAILABLE TO HIM AS
SOMETHING THAT WAS A SPECIFIC
EXAMPLE OF POTENTIALLY SERIOUS
CORRUPTION.
AND, REMEMBER, EVERYONE WHO
TESTIFIED, WHO WAS ASKED ABOUT
IT, DOES IT SEEM LIKE THERE'S AN
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST?
DOES IT SEEM LIKE THAT'S FISHY?
EVERYONE TESTIFIED BELOW, YES.
THERE'S AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE.
I THINK AFTER THE INFORMATION
HAD COME TO GIULIANI, LONG
BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD
ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY, THAT IT
CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
PRESIDENT AND BECAME SOMETHING
WORTH RAISING BECAUSE, AGAIN,
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO IS THE ONE
WHO FIRED THE PROSECUTOR.
WHILE HE'S STILL THE PRESIDENT,
IT'S NOT REALLY AS MUCH OF AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR POSSIBILITY OF
RAISING THAT.
SO I THINK IT WAS IN THAT TIME
FRAME, ALONG THAT ARC OF THE
TIMING, THAT THIS CAME TO THE
PRESIDENT'S ATTENTION AND THAT'S
WHY IT WAS RAISED IN THAT
TIMING.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.
MR. BLUMENTHAL: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
BLUMENTHAL ASKS, DID ANYONE IN
THE WHITE HOUSE OR OUTSIDE THE
WHITE HOUSE TELL ANYONE IN THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE
THAT PUBLICATION OF THE BOLTON
BOOK WOULD BE POLITICALLY
PROBLEMATIC FOR THE PRESIDENT?
MR. PHILBIN: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR THE QUESTION.
BUT NO ONE FROM INSIDE THE WHITE
HOUSE OR OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE
TOLD US THAT THE PUBLICATION OF
THE BOOK WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
I THINK WE ASSUMED THAT
MR. BOLTON WAS DISGRANTLED AND
WE DIDN'T EXPECT HE WAS GOING TO
BE SAYING A LOT OF NICE THINGS
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.
BUT NO ONE TOLD US ANYTHING LIKE
THAT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM FROM TEXAS.
MR. CRUZ: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND
SENATORS MORAN AND HAWLEY.
IT AS QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATORS
TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS --
AN AUGUST 26, 2019, LETTER FROM
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
INSPECTOR GENERAL TO THE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE DISCUSSING THE
SO-CALLED WHISTLE-BLOWER STATED
THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
IDENTIFIED SOME INDICIA OF AN
ARGUABLE POLITICAL BIAS ON THE
PART OF THE COMPLAINANT IN FAVOR
OF A RIVAL POLITICAL CANDIDATE.
MULTIPLE MEDIA OUTLETS REPORTED
THAT THIS LIKELY REFERRED TO THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S WORK WITH JOE
BIDEN.
DID THE SO-CALLED WHISTLE-BLOWER
WORK AT ANY POINT FOR OR WITH
JOE BIDEN?
IF SO, DID HE WORK FOR OR WITH
JOE BIDEN ON ISSUES INVOLVING
UKRAINE AND DID HE ASSIST IN ANY
MATERIAL WAY WITH THE QUID PRO
QUO IN WHICH THEN-VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN AS ADMITTED TO
CONDITIONING LOAN GUARANTEES TO
UKRAINE ON THE FIRING OF THE
PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING
BURISMA?
MR. SCHIFF: I THANK THE
SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION, AND I
WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL HOW I
ANSWER IT SO AS NOT TO GIVE ANY
INDICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW
OTHERS TO IDENTIFY THE IDENTITY
OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
BUT FIRST I WANT TO TALK ABOUT
WHY WE'RE MAKING SUCH AN EFFORT
TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
IF YOU COULD PUT UP SLIDE 48.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS -- IT MAY BE
DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF YOU TO
READ, SO LET ME TRY TO -- IF YOU
COULD HAND ME A COPY OF THAT AS
WELL.
I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO
DISTRIBUTE A COPY OF THAT TO
EVERYONE.
IT'S NOT JUST THAT WE VIEW THE
PROTECTION OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS AS
IMPORTANT, MEMBERS OF THIS BODY
HAVE ALSO MADE STRONG STATEMENTS
ABOUT JUST HOW IMPORTANT IT IS
TO PROTECT WHISTLE-BLOWERS.
SENATOR GRASSLEY SAID, THIS
PERSON APPEARS TO HAVE FOLLOWED
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTION
LAWS AND OUGHT TO BE HEARD OUT
AND PROTECTED.
WE SHOULD ALWAYS WORK TO RESPECT
WHISTLE-BLOWERS' REQUESTS FOR
CONFIDENTIALITY.
SENATOR ROMNEY, WHISTLE-BLOWERS
SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY,
BECAUSE THEY PLAY A VITAL
FUNCTION IN OUR DEMOCRACY.
SENATOR BURR, WE PROTECT
WHISTLE-BLOWERS.
WE PROTECT WITNESSES IN OUR
COMMITTEE.
EVEN MY COLLEAGUE, THE RANKING
MEMBER, MR. NUNES, WE WANT
PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD AND WE
WILL PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF
THOSE AT ALL COST.
THIS HAS BEEN A BIPARTISAN
PRIORITY AND ONE THAT WE HAVE
DONE OUR BEST TO MAINTAIN.
SO I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL.
BUT LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT
SEVERAL THINGS ABOUT THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW WHO
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER S I HAVEN'T
MET THEM OR COMMUNICATED WITH
THEM IN ANY WAY.
THE COMMUNITY -- THE COMMITTEE
STAFF DID NOT WRITE THE
COMPLAINT OR COACH THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER WHAT TO PUT IN
THE COMPLAINT.
THE COMMITTEE STAFF DID NOT SEE
THE COMPLAINT BEFORE IT WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL.
THE COMMITTEE, INCLUDING ITS
STAFF, DID NOT RECEIVE THE
COMPLAINT UNTIL THE NIGHT BEFORE
ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE -- WE HAD AN OPEN
HEARING WITH THE ACTING
CONTRACTOR ON SEPTEMBER 26, MORE
THAN THREE WEEKS AFTER THE LEGAL
DEADLINE BY WHICH THE COMMITTEE
SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE
COMPLAINT.
IN SHORT, THE CONSPIRACY THEORY,
WHICH I THINK WAS OUTLINED
EARLIER, THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
COLLUDED WITH THE INTEL
COMMITTEE STAFF TO HATCH AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS A
COMPLETE AND THE TOTAL FICTION.
THIS WAS I THINK CONFIRMED BY
THE REMARKABLE ACCURACY OF THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT, WHICH
HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE
EVIDENCE WE SUBSEQUENTLY
GATHERED IN ALL MATERIAL
RESPECTS.
SO I AM NOT GOING TO GO INTO
ANYTHING THAT COULD REVEAL OR
LEAD TO THE REVELATION OF THE
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU, BECAUSE MY
STAFF'S NAMES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
INTO THIS PROCEEDING, THAT MY
STAFF ACTING AT ALL TIMES WITH
THE MOST COMPLETE
PROFESSIONALISM.
I AM VERY PROTECTIVE OF MY
STAFF, AS I KNOW YOU ARE.
AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE
SUCH BRIGHT, HARDWORKING PEOPLE
WORKING AROUND THE ROCK TO
PROTECT THIS COUNTRY AND WHO
HAVE SERVED OUR COMMITTEE SO
WELL.
AND IT REALLY GRIEVES ME TO SEE
THEM SMEARED AND SOME OF THEM
MENTIONED HERE TODAY HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR SAFETY AND
THERE ARE ONLINE THREATS TO
MEMBERS OF MY STAFF AS A RESULT
OF SOME OF THE SMEARS THAT HAVE
BEEN LAUNCHED AGAINST THEM.
I CAN TELL YOU THERE'S NO ONE
WHO COULD UNDERSTAND THE PLIGHT
OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH MORE
THAN SOME OF MY STAFF, WHO HAVE
BEEN TREATED TO THE SAME KIND OF
SMEARS AND NOW HAVE CONCERNS
OVER THEIR OWN SAFETY.
THEY ACTED AT ALL TIMES WITH THE
UTMOST PROPRIETY AND INTEGRITY.
YOUR SENATE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE AND YOUR CHAIRMAN AND
VICE CHAIRMAN CAN TELL YOU,
ENCOURAGE WHISTLE-BLOWERS TO
COME TO YOUR COMMITTEE.
AND SO DO WE.
WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT?
A COMPLAINT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE?
AND IF THERE IS, WE SUGGEST THEY
GET A LAWYER.
WE SUGGEST THEY TALK TO THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL.
WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER DID EXACTLY
WHAT THEY SHOULD.
EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT, THAT'S
UNFORGIVABLE BECAUSE THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER EXPOSED THE
WRONGDOING OF THE PRESIDENT AND
IN THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW, THAT
MAKES HIM OR HER A TRAITOR OR A
SPY.
AS THE PRESIDENT TELLS US, THERE
IS A WAY WE USED TO TREAT
TRAITORRERS AND SPIES.
YOU WONDER WHY WE DON'T WANT TO
CALL THE WHISTLE-BLOWER?
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE KNOW
FIRSTHAND WHAT THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER WROTE SECONDHAND
IN THAT COMPLAINT.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR THAT
WHISTLE-BLOWER ANYMORE EXCEPT TO
FURTHER ENDANGER THAT PERSON'S
LIFE.
THAT
TO ME DOES NOT SEEM A WORTHWHILE
OBJECT FOR ANYONE IN THIS
CHAMBER, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THIS BUILDING, IN THE OVAL
OFFICE OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE ON MY OWN BEHALF AND ON
BEHALF OF SENATORS BLUMENTHAL
BOOKER, CLOB CHAR, LEAHY --
KLOBUCHAR AND LEAHY, I SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR WHITEHOUSE
AND THE OTHER SENATORS TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS, THE MISSING
WITNESS RULE WHICH DATES BACK TO
1893 SUPREME COURT CASE GRAVES
VS. UNITED STATES ALLOWS ONE
PARTY TO OBTAIN AN ADVERSE
INFERENCE AGAINST THE OTHER FOR
FAILURE TO PRODUCE A WITNESS
UNDER THAT PARTY'S CONTROL WITH
MATERIAL INFORMATION.
HERE ONE PARTY -- THE PRESIDENTD
WITNESSES WITHIN HIS CONTROL
FROM TESTIFYING OR PROVIDING
DOCUMENTS.
DO THE HOUSE MANAGERS BELIEVE
SENATORS SHOULD APPLY THE
MISSING WITNESS RULE HERE?
AND IF SO, WHAT ADVERSE
INFERENCES SHOULD WE DRAW ABOUT
THE MISSING TESTIMONY AND
DOCUMENTS?
MR. SCHIFF: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, WE DO BELIEVE THAT
YOU SHOULD DRAW AN ADVERSE
INFERENCE AGAINST THE PARTY
RESISTING THE TESTIMONY OF THESE
WITNESSES, LIKE JOABILITY.
COURTS HAVE -- LIKE JOHN
BOLTON.
COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED WHEN A
PARTY HAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE
WITHIN HIS CONTROL WHICH HE
FAILS TO PRODUCE, THAT FAILURE
GIVES RISE TO AN INFERENCE THAT
THAT EVIDENCE IS UNFAVORABLE TO
HIM.
COURTS HAVE FREQUENTLY DRAWN
ADVERSE INFERENCES WHERE A PARTY
ACTS IN BAD FAITH TO CONCEAL
EVIDENCE OR PRECLUDE WITNESSES
FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT IS
BAD FAITH WHEN SOME, WHEN
COUNSEL COMES BEFORE YOU AND
SAYS THAT IF YOU REALLY WANTED
THESE WITNESSES, YOU SHOULD
HAVE SUED TO GET THEM IN THE
HOUSE, AND GOES INTO THE
COURTROOM DOWN THE STREET AND
SAYS YOU CAN'T SUE TO GET
WITNESSES BEFORE THE HOUSE.
BUT THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE.
AND YOU OR I THINK NOT ONLY
PERMITTED, BUT ABSOLUTELY
SHOULD DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE
THAT WHEN A PARTY IS MAKING THAT
ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
COURTHOUSE, THAT THE EVIDENCE,
THOSE WITNESSES WOULD PROVIDE
RUNS AGAINST THEM.
NOW THE ADMINISTRATION HASN'T
PRODUCED A SINGLE DOCUMENT, NOT
ONE, A SINGLE DOCUMENT.
THAT'S EXTRAORDINARY.
THEY CAN ARGUE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
MOST OF THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
OF THESE DOCUMENTS.
NOT A WIT.
THERE'S NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
FROM PROVIDING DOCUMENTS.
THE VAST, VAST MAJORITY DON'T
HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH
PRIVILEGE, AND IF THEY DID THEY
WOULD BE REDACTIONS, VERY
SPECIFIC REDACTIONS.
NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.
ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW AN
ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT THE
REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM
WHICH HAS POSSESSION OF THOSE
E-MAILS REGARDING INQUIRIES BY
UKRAINE INTO WHY THE AID WAS
FROZEN, ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW
AN INFERENCE IF THEY WON'T SHOW
YOU THOSE E-MAILS, THAT THOSE
E-MAILS WOULD CONFIRM THAT
UKRAINE KNEW THE AID WAS
WITHHELD, JUST LIKE THE FORMER
DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER OF
UKRAINE SAID PUBLICLY WHEN SHE
TOLD "THE NEW YORK TIMES," YES,
WE KNEW.
BY THE END OF JULY WE KNEW.
THIS IS THE DEPUTY FOREIGN
MINISTER AT THE TIME.
WE KNEW THE AID WAS FROZEN, BUT
I WAS INSTRUCTED BY ANDRIY
YERMAK NOT TO MENTION IT.
I HAD A TRIP PLANNED TO
WASHINGTON TO TALK TO CONGRESS.
I WAS TOLD NOT TO GO.
WHY?
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT IT
PUBLIC.
ARE YOU ENTITLED TO DRAW AN
INFERENCE THAT THOSE RECORDS
THEY REFUSED TO TURN OVER,
THOSE STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS,
THE FACT THEY WON'T ALLOW JOHN
BOLTON'S NOTES TO BE TURNED
OVER, WON'T LET AMBASSADOR
TAYLOR'S NOTES TO BE TURNED
OVER, SHOULD YOU DRAW AN
ADVERSE INFERENCE?
YOU'RE DARNED RIGHT YOU SHOULD.
THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT ONLY TOLD
SONDLAND NO QUID PRO QUO.
THEY LEAVE OUT THE THE OTHER
HALF WHERE SONDLAND TOLD
TAYLOR, BUT HE SAID NO QUID PRO
QUO, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO GO TO
THE MIC AND ANNOUNCE THESE
INVESTIGATIONS.
WELL, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WROTE
DOWN THE NOTES OF THAT
CONVERSATION.
THAT TOOK PLACE RIGHT AFTER THAT
CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT.
ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW AN
ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM THE FACT
THAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S NOTES, THE
FACT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
AMBASSADORIAL TAYLOR'S CABLE?
YOU'RE DARNED RIGHT YOU SHOULD
DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE.
AND FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO
THE, WHO HAS BECOME A CENTRAL
WITNESS HERE, I THINK THE
ADVERSE INFERENCE SCREAMS AT YOU
AS TO WHY THEY DON'T WANT JOHN
BOLTON.
BUT YOU SHOULDN'T RELY ON AN
INFERENCE HERE, NOT WHEN YOU
HAVE A WITNESS WHO'S WILLING TO
COME FORWARD.
THERE IS NO NEED FOR INFERENCE
HERE.
THERE'S JUST A NEED FOR A
SUBPOENA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.
MR. THUNE: I HAVE A QUESTION TO
SEND TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THAT --
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
THUNE'S QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE
ARGUMENTS OR ASSERTIONS THE
HOUSE MANAGERS JUST MADE IN
RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS
QUESTIONS.
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR THE
QUESTION.
I HAVEN'T READ RECENTLY THE CASE
THAT WAS CITED ABOUT THE MISSING
WITNESS RULE, SO I CAN'T SAY
SPECIFICALLY WHAT'S IN IT.
BUT I AM WILLING TO BET THAT THE
MISSING WITNESS RULE DOES NOT
APPLY WHEN THERE'S BEEN A VALID
ACCESSION OF A PRIVILEGE OR
OTHER IMMUNITY FOR A WITNESS TO
KEEP OUT OF COURT.
IF THEY TRIED TO SUBPOENA THE
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER AND THE
DEFENDANT SAYS I HAVE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
YOU CAN'T SUBPOENA HIM, THEY
ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET
AN ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM THAT.
AND THAT'S CRITICAL.
BECAUSE AS I'VE GONE THROUGH
MULTIPLE TIMES -- AND WE KEEP
GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS --
THEY KEEP REPRESENTING THERE WAS
A BLANKET DEFIANCE AND NO
EXPLANATION AND NO LEGAL BASIS
FOR WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
DOING, AND IT'S JUST NOT TRUE.
THERE WERE LETTERS BACK AND
FORTH.
I PUT THEM UP ON THE ROSENSTEIN.
THERE WERE SPECIFIC -- ON THE
SCREEN.
THERE WERE SPECIFIC IMMUNITIES
ASSERTED, SPECIFIC LEGAL
DEFICIENCIES IN THE SUBPOENAS
THAT WERE SENT.
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF
YOU'RE GOING TO IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
TURNING SQUARE CORNERS AND
PROCEEDING BY THE LAW MATTERS.
AND FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO
COME HERE AND SAY IT WAS BLANKET
DEFIANCE, IT WAS
UNPRECEDENTED, YOU HAVE TO DRAW
AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST
THEM BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T RESPOND
TO ANY OF OUR DOCUMENT
SUBPOENAS, ALL THE DOCUMENT
SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION.
MAYBE THEY DISAGREE WITH US,
BUT THEY CAN'T JUST SAY WE
PROVIDED NO RATIONALE AND YOU
HAVE TO DRAW AN ADVERSE
INFERENCE.
THERE WAS A SPECIFIC LEGAL
RATIONALE PROVIDED, AND THEY
DIDN'T TRY TO ENGAGE IN THE
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS AND THEY
DIDN'T TRY TO GO TO COURT.
AND YES, IT'S TRUE OUR POSITION
IS THAT WHEN THEY GO TO THE
COURT, ARTICLE 3 COURTS DON'T
HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT.
THEIR POSITION IS ARTICLE 3
COURTS DO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER
THAT.
THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN GET A
COURT ORDER TO REQUIRE US TO
COMPLY WITH A VALID SUBPOENA.
BUT THEY NEVER TRIED TO
ESTABLISH IN COURT THAT THEIR
SUBPOENAS WERE VALID.
WE HAVE AN ASSERTION OF A LEGAL
DEFICIENCY ON ONE SIDE.
THEY THINK IT'S DIFFERENT.
THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO COURT
TO GET IT RESOLVED.
WE HAVE THE ASSERTION OF
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM
CONGRESSIONAL COMPULSION FOR
SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE
PRESIDENT.
IT'S BEEN ASSERTED BY VIRTUALLY
EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON.
THEY TRY TO SAY IT'S
PREPOSTEROUS, IRRELEVANT, WE
DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.
EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON HAS
ASSERTED THAT.
IT'S ONLY BEEN ADDRESSED BY TWO
DISTRICT COURTS, TRIAL LEVEL
COURTS.
THE FIRST ONE REJECTED IT, AND
ITS DECISION WAS STAYED BY THE
APPELLATE COURT WHICH MEANS THE
APPELLATE COURT THOUGHT PROBABLY
YOU GOT IT WRONG OR AT A MINIMUM
IT'S A REALLY DIFFICULT
QUESTION, WE'RE NOT SURE ABOUT
THAT.
AND THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT
DECISION IS BEING LITIGATED
RIGHT NOW.
THEY'RE LITIGATING IT.
AND WHEN THEY SAY THAT WHEN
CHARLIE KUPPERMAN WANT TO
COURT, THEY WERE TRYING TO DO
SOMETHING REASONABLE TO SAY, OH
WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO LITIGATE
THIS WITH YOU.
YOU SHOULD JUST AGREE TO BE
BOUND BY THE McGAHN DECISION.
WHAT'S THE SAYING, EVERY
LITIGANT GETS HIS DAY IN COURT?
WHY SHOULDN'T CHARLIE KUPPERMAN
GET TO HAVE HIS COUNSEL ARGUE
THAT ISSUE ON HIS BEHALF?
THAT'S WHAT HE WANTED.
HE DIDN'T WANT TO SAY I'M GOING
TO TRUST IT TO THE OTHER PEOPLE
LITIGATING THE OTHER CASE.
I'VE GOT MY CASE.
I WANT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENTS.
BUT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THAT.
SO THEY MOOTED OUT THE CASE.
THEY WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA TO
MOOT OUT THE CASE BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO THE HEARING
IN FRONT OF JUDGE LEON ON
SEPTEMBER 10.
THEY HAVE ALSO POINTED OUT AS IF
IT'S SOME OUTRAGE THAT DOCUMENTS
HAVE BEEN MORE READILY PRODUCED
UNDER FOIA THAN IN RESPONSE TO
THEIR SUBPOENAS.
BUT WHAT THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS IS
THAT WHEN YOU TURN SQUARE
CORNERS AND FOLLOW THE LAW AND
MAKE A REQUEST TO THE
ADMINISTRATION THAT FOLLOWS THE
LAW, THE ADMINISTRATION FOLLOWS
THE LAW AND RESPONDS.
AND THAT'S RIGHT, THE DOCUMENTS
WERE PRODUCED.
INFORMATION CAME OUT.
BUT THEY DIDN'T GET IT BECAUSE
THEY ISSUED INVALID SUBPOENAS
AND THEY DIDN'T TRY TO DO
ANYTHING TO ESTABLISH THE
VALIDITY OF THEIR SUBPOENAS.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SLOPPY AND
ISSUE INVALID SUBPOENAS, YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO GET A RESPONSE.
BUT IF SOME PRIVATE LITIGANT
FOLLOWS FOIA AND SUBMITS A FOIA
REQUEST, THEY GET A RESPONSE.
SO TO ACT LIKE THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE SOME
BLANKET DENIAL OF EVERYTHING
SIMPLY IS INAK RATS AND
THERE'S -- INACCURATE AND THERE
IS NO BASIS FOR ADVERSE
INFERENCE BECAUSE THERE IS A
SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE OR BASIS FOR
EVERY REASON NOT TO DO
SOMETHING.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
MS. HASSAN: THANK YOU.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
DID ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK
MULVANEY WAIVE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE IN HIS PRESS
CONFERENCE IN WHICH HE STATED
THERE WAS, QUOTE, POLITICAL
INFLUENCE END QUOTE IN THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO
WITHHOLD AID TO UKRAINE?
MR. JEFFRIES: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE, I THANK YOU FOR
THAT QUESTION.
MICK MULVANEY HAS ABSOLUTELY
WAIVED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
HE HAS NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
IN FACT, AS PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, THEY HAVE NOT
ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
ONCE.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS SAID
WHEN WE MADE THAT POINT DURING
OUR OPENING ARGUMENTS THAT THAT
WAS TECHNICALLY TRUE.
NO, IT'S TRUE.
IT'S NOT AN ALTERNATE FACT.
IT'S A FACT.
YOU HAVE NEVER ASSERTED
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
 IN CONNECTION WITH MICK
MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY OR ANYONE
ELSE.
IT WAS NOT ASSERTED AS IT
RELATES TO ANY OF THE 17
WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED, 12 OF
WHOM TESTIFIED PUBLICLY.
THE OTHER PHONY ARGUMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED
RESPECTFULLY ARE THAT THE HOUSE
NEEDED TO VOTE IN ORDER FOR THE
SUBPOENAS TO BE VALID.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRED THE
FULL HOUSE TO VOTE, NOTHING IN
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT,
NOTHING UNDER FEDERAL LAW,
NOTHING UNDER THE HOUSE RULES.
IT WAS A PHONY ARGUMENT.
YET THE HOUSE, AFTER THE
INITIAL STAGES OF THE
INVESTIGATION, DID FULLY VOTE
AND FULLY VOTED ON OCTOBER 31.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, MICK
MULVANEY WAS SUBPOENAED
THEREAFTER.
NOT BEFORE.
THEREAFTER.
AFTER THE HOUSE HAD VOTED.
SUBPOENAED ON NOVEMBER 7, HERE
IT IS.
THE NEXT DAY THE WHITE HOUSE
RESPONDED.
IT RESPONDED WITH A TWO-PAGE
LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 8.
THERE'S NO MENTION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE IN THE NOVEMBER 8
LETTER, BUT HERE'S WHAT IT DOES
SAY.
THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE ADVISED ME THAT
MR. MULVANEY IS ABSOLUTELY
IMMUNE FROM COMPELLED
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY WITH
RESPECT TO MATTERS RELATED AS A
SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THIS
LETTER TO MR. CIPOLLONE IS THAT
IT DOESN'T CITE A SINGLE CASE
FOR THAT OUTRAGEOUS PROPOSITION,
A SINGLE LEGAL CASE FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT MICK MULVANEY
IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE.
WHY?
BECAUSE THERE'S NO LAW TO
SUPPORT IT.
THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO CHEAT.
HE GOT CAUGHT AND THEN HE WORKED
HARD TO COVER IT UP.
THE SENATE CAN GET TO THE TRUTH.
YOU CAN GET TO THE TRUTH BY
CALLING WITNESSES WHO CAN
TESTIFY, AND ANY PRIVILEGED
ISSUES CAN BE WORKED OUT BY THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A
FAIR TRIAL.
THE PRESIDENT DESERVES A FAIR
TRIAL.
THE CONSTITUTION DESERVES A FAIR
TRIAL.
THAT INCLUDES MULVANEY, THAT
INCLUDES BOLTON.
THAT INCLUDES OTHER DEVELOPMENT
WITNESSES -- RELEVANT WITNESSES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MANAGER.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
MS. MURKOWSKI: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND
SENATOR YOUNG AND SENATOR CRAPO.
THE QUESTION IS TO BE DIRECTED
TO BOTH PARTIES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE QUESTION DIRECTED TO
PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT S. FIE
THE STANDARD OF -- SPECIFY THE
STANDARD OF PROOF TO BE USED IN
THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENT AND
THERE IS NOT A UNIFORM RULE,
THUS THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS
ARGUABLY A QUESTION FOR EACH
INDIVIDUAL SENATOR.
IN THE CLINTON TRIAL, AND NOW
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, IT APPEARS
THAT DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
APPLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
WHAT STANDARD OF PROOF SHOULD BE
USED IN TRIALS OF IMPEACHMENT,
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,
CLEAR AND CONVINCING, BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT, AND WHY?
I THINK IT'S THE TURN OF THE
HOUSE MANAGERS TO GO FIRST.
MS. LOFGREN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THERE IS NO COURT CASE
ON THIS.
THE HOUSE NEEDS STRONG EVIDENCE
BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN DECIDED
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AS THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
SUGGESTED.
AND AS THE QUESTION NOTES, THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPECIFY
EITHER THE HOUSE'S EVIDENTIARY
BURDEN OF PROOF OR THE SENATE'S.
I WOULD NOTE THAT THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HELD ITSELF
TO A CLEAR AND CONVINCING
STANDARD OF PROOF IN THE NIXON
MATTER WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE
EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING MUST BE
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PROBABLE TO
BE TRUE THAN NOT AND THAT THE
TRIER OF FACT MUST HAVE A FIRM
BELIEF IN ITS FACTUALITY.
IN THE CLINTON CASE, THE HOUSE
DID NOT COMMIT TO ANY PARTICULAR
BURDEN OF PROOF AND I WOULD
RECOMMEND AGAINST INCLUDING AN
EXPRESS STANDARD.
INSTEAD, LIKE IN THE CLINTONS,
SIMPLY FINDING THE FACTS AND ANY
INFERENCES FROM THOSE FACTS
WITHOUT LEGAL TECHNICALITIES, IT
HAS BEEN OPINED THAT IN THE END
IT IS UP TO EACH SENATOR TO MAKE
A JUDGMENT.
AND I THINK THERE IS MUCH TRUTH
TO THAT.
YOUR OATH HOLDS YOU TO A FINDING
OF IMPARTIAL JUSTICE, AND I
TRUST THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF
YOU IS HOLDING THAT OATH VERY
DEAR TO YOUR HEART AND WILL FIND
THE FACTS AND LEAD TO A JUST
RESULT FOR OUR COUNTRY, THE
CONSTITUTION, AND FOR A FUTURE
THAT HOPEFULLY IS AS FREE AS OUR
PAST HAS BEEN.
I YIELD BACK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
I THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION
MAKES IT CLEAR IN THE TERMS THAT
IT SPEAKS OF IMPEACHMENT ARE ALL
RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL LAW.
IT SPEAKS OF AN OFFENSE, IT
SPEAKS OF CONVICTION, IT SPEAKS
OF A TRIAL IN SAYING THAT CRIMES
SHALL BE TRIED BY A JURY, EXCEPT
IN THE CASE OF IMPEACHMENT.
IN BOTH THAT AND THE GRAVITY OF
A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT,
WHICH IS AN ISSUE OF
BREATHTAKING SPORNS FOR THE
COUNTRY -- IMPORTANCE FOR THE
COUNTRY AND COULD CAUSE
TREMENDOUS DISRUPTION TO OUR
GOVERNMENT.
BOTH COUNSEL ARE IN FAVOR OF THE
CRIMINAL STANDARD OF PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
IN THE KRIN IMPEACHMENT --
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, BOTH
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
REPEATEDLY ADVOCATED FOR THAT
STANDARD.
RUSS FEINGOLD SAID IN MAKING A
DECISION OF THIS MAGNITUDE IT IS
BEST NOT TO ERR AT ALL.
IF WE MUST ERR, WE SHOULD ERR ON
THE SIDE OF THE PEOPLE.
SENATOR MU MIKULSKI, SAID THE
STRENGTH OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND
THE STRENGTH OF OUR NATION
DICTATE THAT THE SENATE BE SURE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
THE PREPONDERANCE STANDARD IS
WHOLLY INSUFFICIENT THAT MEANS
51.1%, YOU THINK IT'S A LITTLE
MORE LIKELY THAN NOT.
THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE
THE PRESIDENT.
EVEN CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE IS NOT.
IT HAS TO BE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT.
AS SENATOR ROCKEFELLER EXPLAINED
AT THE TIME OF THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT.
THAT MEANS, QUOTE, IT IS PROVEN
TO A MORAL CERTAINTY THE CASE IS
CLEAR.
THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT THE
SENATORS SHOULD APPLY BECAUSE
THE GRAVITY OF THE ISSUE BEFORE
YOU WOULD NOT PERMIT APPLYING
ANY LESSER STANDARD.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: COUNSEL.
 -- THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. BOOKER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGER.
EVEN IF A COMMUNICATION OR A
DOCUMENT IS COVERED BY EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE, THAT PRIVILEGE CAN BE
OVERCOME BY SHOWING THE EVIDENCE
IS IMPORTANT AND UNAVAILABLE
ELSEWHERE.
ON JANUARY 22, WHILE THIS TRIAL
WAS UNDER WAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP
SAID, QUOTE, I THOUGHT OUR TEAM
DID A VERY GOOD JOB, BUT
HONESTLY, THEY DON'T HAVE ALL OF
THE MATERIAL.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON WHETHER
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CAN ALLOW A
PRESIDENT TO CONCEAL INFORMATION
FROM CONGRESS IF THE EVIDENCE
CANNOT BE OBTAINED ELSEWHERE?
MR. JEFFRIES: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND I THANK
THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM
NEW JERSEY FOR HIS QUESTION.
PRESIDENT TRUMP ALONE HAS THE
POWER TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
AND AS THE COUNSEL ADMITTED ON
SATURDAY THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT
FORMALLY INVOKED IT OVER ANY
DOCUMENT REQUESTED IN THIS
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IT HAS NOT BEEN ASSERTED AS IT
RELATES TO ANY SINGLE DOCUMENT.
NOW, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE GIVES
PRESIDENT TRUMP A QUALIFIED FORM
OF CONFIDENTIALITY WHEN HE DOES
GET ADVICE FROM HIS AIDES IN
ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES OF
HIS OFFICE.
AND, AS I KNOW YOU ARE ALL
AWARE, IT IS OFTEN THE CASE IN
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
THAT A PRESIDENT WILL CLAIM
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER VERY
SMALL -- A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF
MATERIALS.
IN THAT CASE, WHAT THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH USUALLY DOES AND SHOULD
DO IS TO PRODUCE EVERYTHING THAT
IT CAN AND THEN PROVIDE A LOG OF
DOCUMENTS IN DISPUTE OR PERMIT A
PRIVATE REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS
THAT HAVE BEEN CONTESTED.
THAT'S NOT WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN
THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
HAS ORDERED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH TO DEFY OUR
CONSTITUTIONALLY INSPIRED
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, BLANKET
DEFIANCE IS WHAT HAS TAKEN
PLACE.
AND THERE'S NO RIGHT TO DO THAT.
EVERY COURT THAT HAS CONSIDERED
THE MATTER HAS ASSERTED THAT THE
PRESIDENT CANNOT ASSERT A
PRIVILEGE TO PROTECT HIS OWN
MISCONDUCT, TO PROTECT
WRONGDOING, TO PROTECT EVIDENCE
THAT THE CONSTITUTION MAY HAVE
BEEN VIOLATED.
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT DO IT.
IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE
CONGRESSIONAL NEED FOR
INFORMATION AND ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, OF
COURSE, ARE AT ITS GREATEST.
IT'S IMPERATIVE TO INVESTIGATE
SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF
MISCONDUCT THAT MIGHT CONSTITUTE
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
AND THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU
RIGHT NOW.
LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE SUPREME
COURT SAID IN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
ARE CLOSEST TO WHAT WE FACE
TODAY IN U.S. VERSUS NIXON IN
THE CONTEXT OF A GRAND JURY
SUBPOENA.
THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT
PRESIDENT NIXON'S GENERALIZED
ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE MUST
YIELD TO THE DEMONSTRATED NEED
FOR EVIDENCE IN THE PENDING
TRIAL.
AND THE FEDERAL COURT HERE IN
D.C. HAS RECOGNIZED THAT
CONGRESS'S NEED FOR INFORMATION
AND FOR DOCUMENTS DURING AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS
PARTICULARLY COMPELLING.
TURNING TO THE FACTS OF THIS
MATTER BRIEFLY, EVERY SINGLE
DOCUMENT REQUESTED BY CONGRESS
IS SUBJECT TO PRIVILEGE OR SOME
FORM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IS
ABSURD.
THERE ARE CALENDAR INVITATIONS,
SCHEDULING E-MAILS, PHOTOGRAPHS,
CORRESPONDENCE WITH OUTSIDE
PARTIES LIKE RUDOLPH GIULIANI.
THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT PIECES
OF EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
AND ARE NOT THE TYPE OF
MATERIALS SUBJECT TO ANY
REASONABLE CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
IF YOU WANT A FAIR TRIAL, IT
SHOULD INVOLVE DOCUMENTS.
GIVEN THE NATURE OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS DOCUMENTS LIKE
AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S NOTES,
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S
MEMO SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED TO
YOU SO YOU CAN SEEK THE TRUTH --
THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT
THE TRUTH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
MR. KENNEDY: SENATOR MORAN, MY
COLLEAGUE FROM KANSAS, AND I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT IS, WHAT DID HUNTER
BIDEN DO FOR THE MONEY THAT
BURISMA HOLDINGS PAID HIM?
MS. BONDI: THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION, CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS.
AS FAR AS WE KNOW HUNTER BIDEN
HAD, QUOTE, ATTENDED A COUPLE OF
BOARD MEETINGS A YEAR, END
QUOTE.
HERE'S WHAT WE DO KNOW, HURND
BIDEN -- HUNTER BIDEN DID ATTEND
ONE BOARD MEETING IN MONACO, AND
WE ALSO HEARD WHEN ZLOCHEVSKY,
THE OWNER OF BURISMA, PLED
UKRAINE, HE WAS LIVING IN
MONACCO.
SO HUNTER BIDEN DID ATTEND A
BOARD MEETING IN MONACCO.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT HUNTER BIDEN
WENT TO NORWAY ON A FISHING TRIP
AND HE TOOK HIS DAUGHTER AND HIS
NEPHEW.
SO HE TOOK TWO OF JOE BIDEN'S
CHILDREN WITH HIM ON A FISHING
TRIP TO NORWAY WITH ZLOCHEVSKY,
AND THAT IS AS MUCH AS WE KNOW
OTHER THAN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE
ATTENDED ONE OR TWO BOARD
MEETINGS.
FACTUALLY THAT IS WHAT HE SAID
AND THE TIMELINE SHOWS THAT,
AGAIN, DEVON ARCHER WAS ON THE
BOARD WITH HIM AND THEN HUNTER
BIDEN REMAINED ON THE BOARD, BUT
FACTUALLY IN THE RECORD THAT IS
AS MUCH AS WE KNOW THAT HE DID
INVOLVING BURISMA AND
ZLOCHEVSKY.
THE NORWAY TRIP WAS JUNE OF
2015.
HE REMAINED ON THE BOARD UNTIL
APRIL OF 2019.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT PRIOR TO THEN,
UKRANIAN COURT IN SEPTEMBER OF
2016 CANCELED ZLOCHEVSKY'S
ARREST WARRANT.
WE ALSO KNOW DECEMBER 15 VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLED PRESIDENT
POROSHENKO AND THEN MID-JANUARY
2017, BURISMA ANNOUNCES ALL
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
COMPANY AND ZLOCHEVSKY HAD BEEN
CLOSED.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. SCHUMER: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK FOR BOTH THE COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION READS AS FOLLOWS:
THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THE
PRESIDENT DEMANDS ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL DISPUTES
THIS.
CAN EITHER OF YOU NAME A SINGLE
WITNESS OR DOCUMENT TO WHICH THE
PRESIDENT WAS GIVEN ACCESS --
HAS GIVEN ACCESS TO THE HOUSE
WHEN REQUESTED?
I BELIEVE IT'S TIME FOR COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GO FIRST.
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
THANK YOU, MINORITY LEADER
SCHUMER FOR THE QUESTION.
LET ME BE CLEAR AND DISTINGUISH
A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID
THERE WAS BLANKET DEFIANCE.
THAT'S THE WAY WHICH HE
CHARACTERIZE IT.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU
ANYTHING AND THAT'S ALL WE SAID.
IT WAS JUST BLANKET DEFIANCE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO RESPOND.
WHAT I'VE TRIED TO EXPLAIN
SEVERAL TIMES IS THAT THAT WAS
NOT THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE.
THERE WERE SPECIFICALLY
ARTICULATED RESPONSES TO
DIFFERENT REQUESTS BASED ON
DIFFERENT LEGAL RATIONALES
BECAUSE THERE WERE DIFFERENT
PROBLEMS WITH DIFFERENT
SUBPOENAS.
SO ONE PROBLEM IS ALL THE
SUBPOENAS UP UNTIL OCTOBER 31
WERE NOT VALIDLY AUTHORIZED.
THOSE SUBPOENAS WE SAID WE'RE
NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO THOSE
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T VALIDLY
ISSUED.
IT WASN'T AN ASSERTION OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY.
IT WASN'T ANYTHING ELSE.
IT WAS THE FACT THEY WEREN'T
VALIDLY AUTHORIZED.
THEY POINTED OUT THAT AHA, WE
SUBPOENAED -- I THINK IT WAS
THEY MENTIONED ACTING CHEF OF
STAFF MULVANEY AFTER OCTOBER 31.
THAT'S TRUE.
WE DIDN'T RELY ON THE FACT THAT
THE SUBPOENA WAS NOT AUTHORIZED.
WE POINTED OUT THE DOCTRINE OF
THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OF SENIOR
ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT.
THIS IS NOT SOME BLANKET
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR THE ENTIRE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ALL OF THE
SUBPOENAS THEY ISSUED.
AS WE EXPLAIN IN OUR BRIEF, IT
APPLIES TO THREE.
THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE THEY
SUBPOENAED AS WITNESSES THAT WAS
ON THIS BASIS ALONE THAT THE
PRESIDENT DECLINED TO MAKE THEM
AVAILABLE.
ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY,
THE LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL JOHN
EISENBERG AND THE DEPUTY
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
MR. KUPPERMAN I BELIEVE, BUT
IT'S IN OUR BRIEF.
IT WAS THOSE THREE WHO HAD UP
MINETY.
A DOCTRINE ASSERTED BY EVERY
PRESIDENT SINCE NEXT YONL.
THEN THERE WAS A DIFFERENT
PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE
SUBPOENAS.
SOME OF THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO
WERE NOT SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE
PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ASSERT
THAT THEY HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
INSTEAD, THOSE SUBPOENAS REFUSED
TO ALLOW THOSE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
PERSONNEL TO HAVE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH COUNSEL ACCOMPANY THEM.
AND THERE WERE -- THERE'S AN
OPINION.
IT'S BEEN PUBLISHED, ONLINE,
CITED THIS OUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM
SAYING IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO
REFUSE TO ALLOW THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH PERSONNEL TO HAVE THE
ASSISTANCE OF THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH COUNSEL TO PROTECT
PRIVILEGED INFORMATION DURING
THE QUESTIONING.
AND THEREFORE, IT'S NOT VALID TO
FORCE THEM TO APPEAR WITHOUT
THAT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. PHILBIN: THANK YOU.
MS. LOFGREN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND SENATORS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
RECEIVED NOTHING AS PART OF OUR
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT THE
HOUSE COMMITTEES THAT SUBPOENAED
BEFORE THE HOUSE VOTE HAD
STANDING AUTHORITY UNDER THE
HOUSE RULES.
AND THEY WERE THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE WHICH HAS UNDER ITS
STANDARD AUTHORITY TO
INVESTIGATE ANY MATTER AT ANY
TIME AS WELL AS THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE
RULES OF THE HOUSE ADOPTED
JANUARY 11 TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.
THEY DID AND THEY WERE DEFIED.
THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
HAS NEVER BEEN UPHELD BY ANY
COURT.
AND IT'S REALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE
TO THINK THAT SOMEHOW THIS
CONCEPT OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS
LURKED IN HIDING FOR CENTURIES
FOR PRESIDENTS TO USE IT IN THIS
DAY.
WHEN YOU THINK OF THE TWO CASES,
THE MIERS CASE AND McGAHN
CASE, COURTS COMPLETELY REJECTED
THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
ON SLIDE 38, IF YOU COULD, THERE
IS A DECISION RECENTLY MADE IN
THE McGAHN CASE.
HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS.
STATED SIMPLY, THE PRIMARY TAKE
AWAY FROM THE PAST 250 YEARS OF
RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS
THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS.
THAT'S THE JUDGE'S WORDS, NOT
MINE.
COMPULSORY APPEARANCE BY DINT OF
A SUBPOENA IS A LEGAL CONSTRUCT,
NOT A POLITICAL ONE, AND PER THE
CONSTITUTION NO ONE IS ABOVE THE
LAW.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT PERMITTED
BY THE CONSTITUTION OR BY THE
LAW TO ASSERT ANY KIND OF
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN AMERICA.
AND AS THE JUDGES POINTED OUT,
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT A
KING WOULD ASSERT.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT.
BUT I WILL SAY THIS.
IT'S SOMETHING OUR FOUNDERS SET
UP, OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES TO
PREVENT.
NOBODY HAS ABSOLUTE POWER IN OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, NOT THE
SENATE AND HOUSE, NOT THE
PRESIDENT, NOT THE JUDICIARY.
THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED AND JUST
WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AS
A MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
A SENATOR: CHIEF JUSTICE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.
A SENATOR: THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR BOTH THE COUNSEL OF THE
PRESIDENT AND HOUSE MANAGERS ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR CRUZ AND
MYSELF.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS, YOU REFUSE TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION ON POLITICAL
BIAS.
ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS REFUSING
TO TELL THE SENATE WHETHER OR
NOT THE SO-CALLED WHISTLE-BLOWER
HAD AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST?
THERE ARE SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE
ON PLANET EARTH.
ALMOST ALL HAD NO INVOLVEMENT IN
BIDEN'S QUID PRO QUO.
ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS UNWILLING
TO SAY WHETHER THE SO-CALLED
WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS A FACT
WITNESS WHO DIRECTLY
PARTICIPATED IN AND COULD FACE
CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITY FOR
DISWROA BIDEN'S -- JOE BIDEN'S
DEMANDING THEY FIRE THE
PROSECUTOR WHO WAS INVESTIGATING
BURISMA AND WHY DID YOU REFUSE
TO TRANSMIT TO THE SENATE THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL TRANSCRIPT?
WHICH SIDE IS -- IT'S ADDRESSED
TO BOTH SIDES.
I THINK PERHAPS THE HOUSE
MANAGERS COULD GO FIRST.
MR. SCHIFF: WITH RESPECT TO THE
ICIG, THE PRESIDENT AND HIS
ALLIES HAVE TRIED TO FIX FOCUS
TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, A HIGHLY
RESPECTED VETERAN OF THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT AND HIS HANDLING OF
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT.
THERE IS AN EFFORT TO INSINUATE
WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER AND THERE'S BEEN
AN EFFORT TO INSINUATE
WRONGDOING ON BEHALF OF THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL.
THE BRIEFINGS THAT WE HAD WITH
THE ICIG RELATED TO THE UNUSUAL
AND PROBLEMATIC HANDLING OF THIS
PARTICULAR WHISTLE-BLOWER
COMPLAINT WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH WHICH DI VEERNLGED
SHARPLY FROM ANY PRIOR
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT BY
ANYONE WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY.
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS
CONTINUING ITS ONGOING OVERSIGHT
TO DETERMINE WHY AND HOW THIS
COMPLAINT WAS INITIALLY
CONCEALED FROM THE COMMITTEE IN
VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
ICIG MICHAEL ATKINSON CONTINUES
TO SERVE ADMIRABLY AND
INDEPENDENTLY AS HE IS SUPPOSED
TO DO.
LIKE THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE DOES NOT
RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF ITS
ENGAGEMENTS WITH INSPECTOR
GENERALS ON SENSITIVE MATTERS
BECAUSE DOING SO RISKS
UNDERCUTTING AN IMPORTANT
MECHANISM FOR THE COMMITTEE TO
CONDUCT OVERSIGHT.
THE TRANSCRIPTS REMAIN PROPERLY
CLASSIFIED IN CONFIRMTY WITH
I.C. REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT
SENSITIVE INFORMATION.
THE ICIG MADE EVERY EFFORT TO
PROTECT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S
IDENTITY AND BRIEFED US WITH
EXPEDITION -- WITH THE
EXPECTATION, RATHER, THAT IT
WOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC AND
WE'RE TRYING TO HONOR THAT
EXPECTATION.
WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGATIONS OF
BIAS ON THE PART OF THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER, LET ME JUST
REFER YOU TO THE CONCLUSION OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHICH IS
AFTER EXAMINING THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER, THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S BACKGROUND, ANY
POTENTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF ANY
BIAS, THE WHISTLE-BLOWER DREW
TWO CONCLUSIONS.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS CREDIBLE,
MEANING THAT WHATEVER ISSUE
PERCEIVED OR REAL, THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL FOUND THAT
WHISTLE-BLOWER CREDIBLE.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ALSO FOUND
THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S
COMPLAINT WAS URGENT AND THAT IT
NEEDED TO BE PROVIDED TO
CONGRESS.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FURTHER
FOUND THAT IT WAS WITHHELD FROM
CONGRESS IN VIOLATION OF THE
LAW, IN VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTE.
FOR THAT HE IS BEING ATTACKED.
NOW, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT
RELY ON AN OPINION OF THE OFFICE
OF LEGAL COUNSEL AS ITS
JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLATING THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTION ACT
AND NOT TRANSMITTING THE
COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
MR. SEKULOW: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, ON PAGE 5
OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S
REPORT IT STATES, ALTHOUGH THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S PRELIMINARY
REVIEW IDENTIFIED SOME INDICIA
OF ARGUABLE POLITICAL BIAS ON
THE PART OF THE COMPLAINANT.
THAT'S IN THE ACTUAL STATEMENT.
HE GOES ON TO SAY, INVOLVING A
RIVAL POLITICAL CANDIDATE SUCH
EVIDENCE DID NOT CHANGE HIS VIEW
ABOUT THE CREDIBLE NATURE OF THE
CONCERN OR WHAT APPEARS TO BE
CREDIBLE.
BUT TO ARGUE THAT IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE AN ISSUE OF POLITICAL
BIAS, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
HIMSELF SAYS THAT THAT'S IN FACT
AT LEAST THAT THEY SAID THEIR
PRELIMINARY REVIEWS INDICATE
SOME POLITICAL BIAS.
THERE'S BEEN REPORTS IN THE
MEDIA THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MAY
HAVE WORKED FOR JOE BIDEN WHEN
HE WAS VICE PRESIDENT.
HE MAY HAVE HAD SOME AREA OF --
UNDER HIS WATCH INVOLVING
UKRAINE.
BUT I ALSO THOUGHT IT WAS JUST
INTERESTING THAT MANAGER SCHIFF
JUST TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE
OF HOW THEY CONTROL THE PROCESS
AS IT RELATES TO A
WHISTLE-BLOWER REPORT BECAUSE OF
THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THOSE.
DO WE NOT THINK THAT THE
SENSITIVE NATURE OF INFORMATION
SHARED BY THE PRESIDENT'S MOST
SENIOR ADVISORS SHOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE SAME TYPE OF
PROTECTIONS?
OF COURSE.
IT HAS TO BE.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR
BOTH THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND
THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR MANCHIN
READS AS FOLLOWS:
THE FRAMERS TOOK THE WORDS HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS STRAIGHT
OUT OF ENGLISH LAW WHERE IT HAD
BEEN APPLIED TO IMPEACHMENTS FOR
400 YEARS BEFORE OUR
CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.
THE FRAMERS WERE WELL AWARE WHEN
THEY CHOSE THOSE WORDS THAT
PARLIAMENT HAD IMPEACHED
OFFICIALS FOR HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS THAT WERE NOT
INDICTABLE AS CRIMES.
THE HOUSE HAS REPEATEDLY
IMPEACHED AND THE SENATE HAS
CONVICTED OFFICERS FOR HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT
WERE NOT INDICTABLE CRIMES.
EVEN MR. DERSHOWITZ SAID IN 1998
THAT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE,
QUOTE, CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE TO
BE A CRIME.
END QUOTE.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST 22
YEARS TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL
INTENT OF THE FRAMERS AND THE
HISTORIC MEANING OF THE TERM
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS?
IT'S COUNSEL -- IT'S THE
PRESIDENT'S TURN.
MR. DERSHOWITZ: WHAT HAPPENED
SINCE 1998 IS THAT I STUDIED
MORE, DID MORE RESEARCH, READ
MORE DOCUMENTS, AND LIKE ANY
ACADEMIC, ALTERED MY VIEWS.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS.
THAT'S WHAT PROFESSORS OUGHT TO
DO, AND I KEEP READING MORE, AND
I KEEP WRITING MORE, AND I KEEP
REFINING MY VIEWS.
IN 1998, THE ISSUE BEFORE THIS
SENATE WAS NOT WHETHER A CRIME
WAS REQUIRED.
IT WAS WHETHER THE CRIME THAT
CLINTON WAS CHARGED WITH WAS A
HIGH CRIME.
WHEN THIS IMPEACHMENT BEGAN, THE
ISSUE WAS WHETHER A CRIME WAS
REQUIRED.
ACTUALLY, TWO YEARS EARLIER IN A
BOOK AND THEN IN AN OP-ED, I
CONCLUDED, NOT ON PARTISAN
GROUNDS, ON COMPLETELY ACADEMIC
GROUNDS, THAT YOU COULD NOT
IMPEACH FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND
THAT TECHNICAL CRIME WAS NOT
REQUIRED BUT CRIMINAL-LIKE
BEHAVIOR WAS REQUIRED.
I STAND BY THAT VIEW.
THE FRAMERS REJECTED
MALADMINISTRATION.
THAT WAS A PRIME CRITERIA FOR
IMPEACHMENT UNDER BRITISH LAW.
REMEMBER, TOO, THE BRITISH NEVER
IMPEACHED PRIME MINISTERS.
THEY ONLY IMPEACHED MIDDLE LEVEL
AND LOW LEVEL PEOPLE.
SO THE FRAMERS DIDN'T WANT TO
ADOPT THE BRITISH APPROACH.
THEY REJECTED IT BY REJECTING
MALADMINISTRATION.
AND WHAT'S A METAPHOR OR WHAT'S
A SNYONYM FOR MALADMINISTRATION?
ABUSE OF POWER.
AND WHEN THEY REJECTED
MALADMINISTRATION, THEY REJECTED
ABUSE OF POWER.
MR. CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF ASKED A
RHETORICAL QUESTION CAN THE
PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN ABUSE OF
POWER WITH IMMUNITY?
I WOULD THROW THE QUESTION BACK.
CAN A PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN
MALADMINISTRATION WITH IMPUNITY?
THAT'S A QUESTION YOU MIGHT HAVE
ASKED JAMES MADISON HAD YOU BEEN
AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION.
HE WOULD SAY NO, A PRESIDENT
CAN'T ENGAGE IN THAT WITH
IMPUNITY, BUT IT'S NOT AN
IMPEACHABLE CRIME.
MALADMINISTRATION IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE, AND ABUSE OF POWER
IS NOT IMPEACHABLE.
THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER A CRIME
IS REQUIRED.
THE ISSUE IS WHETHER ABUSE OF
POWER IS A PERMISSIBLE
CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA, AND THE
ANSWER FROM THE HISTORY IS
CLEARLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY NO.
IF THAT HAD EVER BEEN PUT TO THE
FRAMERS, THEY WOULD HAVE
REJECTED IT WITH THE SAME
CERTAINTY THEY REJECTED
MALADMINISTRATION.
MR. NADLER: TO POWER.
THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION SAYS
TREASON OR BRIBERY.
THAT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT
WASN'T CLUE SIEVE ENOUGH.
MASON PROPOSED
MALADMINISTRATION, FOUND TOO
VAGUE, SO THEY SAID HIGH CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS.
THAT WAS A WELL-UNDERSTOOD TERM
IN ENGLISH LAW.
IT WAS A WELL-UNDERSTOOD TERM IN
THE WARREN HASTINGS IMPEACHMENT
GOING ON IN ENGLAND RIGHT THEN.
IT MEANT PRIMARILY ABUSE OF
POWER.
THAT IS THE MAIN MEANING OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.
CHARLES PINKNEY SAID THOSE WHO
BEHAVE THEIR PUBLIC TRUST --
MISBEHAVES.
I QUOTED JUSTICE STORY THE OTHER
DAY.
EVERY IMPEACHMENT IN AMERICAN
HISTORY HAS BEEN FOR ABUSE OF
POWER IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.
THE IDEA THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
CRIME.
BRIBERY IS RIGHT THERE IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
TREASON, BRIBERY.
BRIBERY WAS NOT MADE A STATUTORY
CRIME UNTIL 1837, SO IT COULDN'T
HAVE BEEN IMPEACHMENT.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT
CRIMES AND IMPEACHMENT ARE TWO
DIFFERENT THINGS.
IMPEACHMENTS ARE NOT PUNISHMENTS
FOR CRIMES.
IMPEACHMENTS ARE PROTECTIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT WHO HAD ABUSED HIS
POWER, WHO HAD AGGRANDIZED
POWER, WHO WOULD THREATEN
LIBERTY, WHO WOULD THREATEN
SEPARATION OF POWERS, THREATEN
THE POWERS OF CONGRESS AND TRY
TO ARROGATE POWER TO HIMSELF.
THAT IS WHY PUNISHMENT UPON
CONVICTION FOR IMPEACHMENT ONLY
GOES TO REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
CAN'T PUT HIM IN JAIL AS YOU
COULD FOR A CRIME.
YOU CAN'T FIND HIM AS YOU COULD
FOR A CRIME.
YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE NEED NOT
BE A CRIME, AND A CRIME NEED NOT
BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TESTS,
UNDERSTOOD THAT WAY THROUGHOUT
AMERICAN HISTORY.
AND BY ALL SCHOLARS, ALL
SCHOLARS IN OUR HISTORY EXCEPT
FOR MR. DERSHOWITZ.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
THE SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR
COUNSEL OF PRESIDENT.
-- OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
BURR ASKS WE'VE SEEN THE HOUSE
MANAGERS REPEATEDLY PLAY VIDEO
CLIPS OF ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF
MICK MULVANEY'S PRESS CONFERENCE
IN WHICH THEY CLAIM HE SAID
THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS' ALLEGATION THAT MR.
MR. MULVANEY SUPPORTED THEIR
CLAIMS IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE?
MR. PURPURA: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, SENATOR,
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
WE RESPOND, AS MR. PHILBIN DID
EARLIER TODAY WITH THAT, WHICH
IS MR. MULVANEY HAS ISSUED TWO
STATEMENTS, ONE AFTER HIS PRESS
CONFERENCE AND THEN ONE MONDAY
AFTER THE "NEW YORK TIMES"
ARTICLE CONCERNING MR. BOLTON'S
ALLEGED MANUSCRIPT -- ALLEGED
STATEMENTS IN HIS MANUSCRIPT.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO READ THEM
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE SAID AND
TO PUT IT INTO CONTEXT FOR
EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBER.
THIS IS FROM -- THIS IS THE DAY
OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE.
ONCE AGAIN, THE MEDIA HAS
DECIDED TO MISS CONSTRUE MY
COMMENTS TO ADVANCE A BIASED AND
POLITICAL WITCH HUNT AGAINST
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
LET ME BE CLEAR.
THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO QUID PRO
QUO BETWEEN UKRAINIAN MILITARY
AID AND ANY INVESTIGATION INTO
THE 2016 ELECTION.
THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD ME TO
WITHHOLD ANY MONEY UNTIL THE
UKRAINIANS DID ANYTHING RELATED
TO THE SERVER.
THE ONLY REASONS WE WERE HOLDING
THE MONEY WAS BECAUSE OF CONCERN
ABOUT LACK OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER
NATIONS AND CONCERNS OVER
CORRUPTION.
MULTIPLE TIMES DURING THE MORE
THAN 30-MINUTE BRIEFING WHERE I
TOOK OVER 25 QUESTIONS, I
REFERRED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
INTEREST IN ROOTING OUT
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND
ENSURING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE
SPENT RESPONSIBLY AND
APPROPRIATELY.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE FUNDS AND THE
UKRAINIANS DOING ANYTHING WITH
THE SERVER.
THIS WAS MADE EXPLICITLY OBVIOUS
BY THE FACT THAT THE AID MONEY
WAS DELIVERED WITHOUT ANY ACTION
ON THE PART OF THE UKRAINIANS
REGARDING THE SERVER.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONDITION ON
THE FLOW OF THE AID RELATED TO
THE MATTER OF THE D.N.C. SERVER.
THEN ON JANUARY 27, WHICH WAS
MONDAY, THERE WAS A STATEMENT
FROM BOB DRISCOLL, WHO IS
MR. MULVANEY'S ATTORNEY.
NOW, I WILL READ IT IN ITS FULL.
THE LATEST STORY FROM THE "NEW
YORK TIMES" COORDINATED WITH A
BOOK LAUNCH HAS MORE TO DO WITH
PUBLICITY THAN THE TRUTH.
JOHN BOLTON NEVER INFORMED MICK
MULVANEY OF ANY CONCERNS
SURROUNDING BOLTON'S PURPORTED
AUGUST CONVERSATION WITH THE
PRESIDENT, NOR DID MR. MULVANEY
EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH
THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE
INDICATING THAT UKRAINIAN
MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD IN
EXCHANGE FOR A UKRAINIAN
INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA, THE
BIDENS, OR THE 2016 ELECTION.
FURTHERMORE, MR. MULVANEY HAS NO
RECOLLECTION OF ANY CONVERSATION
WITH MR. GIULIANI RESEMBLING
THAT REPORTEDLY DESCRIBED IN MRT
WAS MR. MULVANEY'S PRACTICE TO
EXCUSE HIMSELF FROM
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS PERSONAL
COUNSEL TO PRESERVE ANY
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
SO I WANTED TO READ THOSE
STATEMENTS IN FULL SO THAT
EVERYONE HAD THE FULL CONTEXT.
EVEN AFTER MR. PHILBIN
REFERENCED THE STATEMENT AFTER
THE PRESS CONFERENCE, THE HOUSE
MANAGERS AGAIN CAME BACK AND
SAID MR. MULVANEY INDICATED OR
ADMITTED THERE WAS A QUID PRO
QUO.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
IF MR. MULVANEY MISSPOKE OR IF
THE WORDS WERE GARBLED, HE
CORRECTED IT THAT DAY AND HAS
BEEN VERY CLEAR.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION TO BOTH PARTIES -- THE
HOUSE MANAGERS WILL GO FIRST --
WHAT DID NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON MEAN WHEN HE
REFERENCED WHATEVER DRUG DEAL
SONDLAND AND MULVANEY ARE
COOKING UP ON THIS, END QUOTE,
AND DID HE EVER RAISE THAT ISSUE
AT ANY MEETING WITH PRESIDENT
TRUMP?
MR. SCHIFF: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, WHEN JOHN BOLTON --
AND THIS IS ACCORDING TO
DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY -- BROUGHT
UP THE DRUG DEAL, IT WAS IN THE
CONTEXT OF A JULY 10 MEETING AT
THE WHITE HOUSE.
THERE WERE TWO MEETINGS THAT
DAY.
THERE WAS A MEETING THAT
AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS PRESENT
FOR AND THEN THERE WAS A
FOLLOW-ON MEETING AFTER
AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY ENDED
THE FIRST MEETING.
IN THE FIRST MEETING, THE
UKRAINIANS NATURALLY WANTED TO
RAISE THE TOPIC OF GETTING THE
WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SO
DESPERATELY WANTED, AND AFTER
RAISING THE ISSUE, AT SOME POINT
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID NO, NO,
WE'VE GOT A DEAL.
THEY'LL GET THE MEETING ONCE
THEY ANNOUNCE THE
INVESTIGATIONS.
AND THIS IS THE POINT WHERE
AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFENED.
YOU CAN LOOK UP DR. HILL'S EXACT
WORDS.
I'M PARAPHRASING HERE.
BUT THIS IS THE POINT WHERE
AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFENS AND
HE ENDS THE MEETING.
HE HILL THEN FOLLOWS SONDLAND AD
THE DELEGATION INTO ANOTHER PART
OF THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE THE
MEETING CONTINUES BETWEEN THE
AMERICAN DELEGATION AND THE
UKRAINIAN DELEGATION, AND THERE
IT'S EVEN MORE EXPLICIT BECAUSE
IN THAT SECOND MEETING, SONDLAND
SAYS -- BRINGS UP THE BIDENS
SPECIFICALLY.
HILL THEN GOES TO TALK TO BOLTON
AND INFORMS HIM WHAT'S TAKEN
PLACE IN THE FOLLOW-ON MEETING.
AND BOLTON'S RESPONSE IS GO TALK
TO THE LAWYERS AND LET THEM
KNOW.
I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THIS
DRUG DEAL THAT SONDLAND AND
MULVANEY HAVE GOT COOKING UP.
SO AT THAT POINT, THAT SPECIFIC
CONVERSATION IS A REFERENCE TO
THE QUID PRO QUO OVER THE WHITE
HOUSE MEETING.
AND WE KNOW, OF COURSE, FROM
OTHER DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY
ABOUT THE QUID PRO QUO, ABOUT
THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND ALL
THE EFFORTS BY GIULIANI TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE SPECIFIC
INVESTIGATIONS ARE MENTIONED IN
ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
WE CAN BRING IN JOHN BOLTON AND
ASK HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS
REFERRING TO WHEN HE DESCRIBED
THE DRUG DEAL.
NOW, DID BOLTON DESCRIBE AND
DISCUSS THIS DRUG DEAL WITH THE
PRESIDENT?
WELL, IT CERTAINLY APPEARS FROM
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS
MANUSCRIPT THAT THEY DID TALK
ABOUT THE FREEZE ON AID.
AND WHETHER JOHN BOLTON
UNDERSTOOD AND AT WHAT POINT HE
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DRUG DEAL
WAS EVEN BIGGER AND MORE
PERNICIOUS THAN HE THOUGHT, THAT
INVOLVED NOT JUST THE MEETING
BUT INVOLVED THE MILITARY AID,
THERE IS ONE WAY TO FIND OUT.
AND I WOULD ADD THIS IN TERMS OF
MR. MULVANEY.
MAYBE I'LL ADD IT LATER.
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS TWO AND
A HALF MINUTES.
MR. PHILBIN: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THANK YOU, SENATORS, FOR YOUR
QUESTION.
THE QUESTION ASKS ABOUT WHAT
AMBASSADOR BOLTON MEANT IN A
COMMENT THAT IS REPORTED AS
HEARSAY BY SOMEONE ELSE SAYING
WHAT HE SUPPOSEDLY SAID.
WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT THERE ARE
CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF THE JULE
HOUSE.
DR. HILL SAYS THAT SHE HEARD
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY ONE
THING.
HE DENIES THAT HE SAID THAT.
DR. HILL SAYS SHE WENT AND
TALKED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND
BOLTON SAID SOMETHING TO HER
ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID IN THE
MEETING WHERE HE WASN'T THERE
BUT HE WAS SAYING SOMETHING
ABOUT IT CALLING IT A DRUG DEAL,
AND WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT I'M
NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ABOUT IT.
IT'S A HEARSAY REPORT OF
SOMETHING THAT HE SAID ABOUT A
MEETING THAT HE WASN'T IN,
CHARACTERIZING IT SOME WAY, AND
I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ABOUT
WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA.
MR. HOEVEN: THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE.
I HAVE A QUESTION FROM MYSELF
AND ALSO SENATOR PORTMAN AND
SENATOR BOOZMAN FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, AND I'M
SENDING IT TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM THE SENATORS IS AS
FOLLOWS --
SEPTEMBER OF 2019, THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AID WAS RELEASED TO
UKRAINE.
YET THE HOUSE MANAGERS CONTINUE
TO ARGUE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
CONDITIONED THE AID ON AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.
DID THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT OR
HIS GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY MEET
ANY OF THE ALLEGED REQUIREMENTS
IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE AID?
MR. PURPURA: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE.
THANKS, SENATOR, FOR THE
QUESTION.
THE VERY SHORT ANSWER IS, NO.
BUT I WILL EXPLAIN.
AND I THINK THAT'S CLEAR.
AND I THINK WE DEMONSTRATED IN
OUR PRESENTATIONS ON FRIDAY AND
MONDAY THAT THE AID WAS
RELEASED, THE AID FLOWED, THERE
WAS A MEETING AT THE U.N.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
THERE WAS A MEETING PREVIOUSLY
ASSEMBLED IN WARSAW, PRECISELY
AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD
SUGGESTED, AND THERE WAS NEVER
ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY
INVESTIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN
REGARDING THE BIDENS, BURISMA,
THE 2016 ELECTION, NO STATEMENTS
MADE, NO INVESTIGATIONS
ANNOUNCED BEGAN BY THE UKRAINIAN
GOVERNMENT.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
MR. WARNER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM FROM VIRGINIA.
MR. WARNER: MR. CHEAT JUSTICE,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE --
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED
TO RUSSIA DISSEMINATING
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OR RUDY
GIULIANI'S CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
SHOULD THE SENATE HAVE THIS
INFORMATION BEFORE WE DELIBERATE
ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT?
MR. SCHIFF: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, I THINK THERE ARE
THREE CATEGORIES OF RELEVANT
MATERIAL HERE.
THE FIRST, YOU DO HAVE ACCESS
TO.
THAT IS THE SUPPLEMENTAL
TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER WILLIAMS,
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO
READ IT.
I THINK IT SHEDS LIGHT VERY
SPECIFICALLY ON THE VICE
PRESIDENT AND WHAT HE MAY OR MAY
NOT KNOW VIS-A-VIS THIS SCHEME.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ
THAT SUBMISSION.
THERE IS A SECOND BODY OF
INTELLIGENCE THAT THE COMMITTEES
HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THAT IS
RELEVANT TO THIS TRIAL THAT YOU
SHOULD ALSO READ.
AND WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT THE
MECHANISM THAT WOULD PERMIT YOU
TO DO SO.
BECAUSE IT IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT
TO THE ISSUES WE ARE DISCUSSING
AND PERTINENT.
THERE IS A THIRD CATEGORY OF
INTELLIGENCE, TOO, WHICH RAISES
A VERY DIFFERENT PROBLEM, AND
THAT IS THAT THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITIES ARE FOR THE FIRST
TIME REFUSING TO PROVIDE TO THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
AND THAT MATERIAL HAS BEEN
GATHERED.
WE KNOW THAT IT EXISTS, BUT THE
N.S.A. HAS BEEN ADVISED NOT TO
PROVIDE IT.
NOW, THE DIRECTOR SAYS THAT THIS
IS THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION, BUT
NONETHELESS THERE IS A BODY OF
INTELLIGENCE THAT IS RELEVANT TO
REQUEST THAT WE HAVE MADE -- TO
REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE MADE THAT
IS NOT BEING PROVIDED.
AND THAT RAISES A VERY DIFFERENT
CONCERN THAN THE ONE BEFORE THIS
BODY, AND THAT IS, ARE NOW OTHER
AGENCIES LIKE THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY THAT WE REQUIRE TO
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER, THAT WE
REQUIRE TO PROVIDE US THE BEST
INTELLIGENCE, NOW ALSO
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION AT THE
URGING OF THE ADMINISTRATION?
AND THAT IS I THINK A DEEPLY
CONCERNING AND NEW PHENOMENON
THAT WE'VE HAD WITH OTHER
DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PART
OF THE WHOLESALE OBSTRUCTION,
BUT IT NOW IS REARING ITS UGLY
HEAD WITH RESPECT TO THE I.C.
BUT THE SHORTER ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION OF APART FROM JENNIFER
WILLIAMS, ARE THERE OTHER
RELEVANT MATERIALS?
THE ANSWER IS YES.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT YOU AND
WE WORK TOGETHER TO FIND OUT HOW
YOU MIGHT ACCESS THEM.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MANAGER.
MR. McCONNELL.
MR. McCONNELL: THE NEXT TWO
QUESTIONS, ONE FROM EACH SIDE,
WILL BE THE LAST BEFORE WE BREAK
FOR DINNER.
I WOULD ASK THAT FOLLOWING THE
NEXT TWO QUESTIONS, THE SENATE
STAND IN RECESS FOR 45 MINUTES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.
MR. SHELBY: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
HOW DOES THE NONCRIMINAL ABUSE
OF POWERS STANDARD ADVANCED BY
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIFFER FROM
MALADMINISTRATION, AN
IMPEACHMENT STANDARD REJECTED BY
THE FRAMERS?
WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN SUCH
AN ABUSE OF POWER AND A POLICY
DISAGREEMENT?
MR. DERSHOWITZ: THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION BECAUSE
THAT QUESTION, I THINK, HITS THE
KEY OF THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU
TODAY.
WHEN THE FRAMERS REJECTED
MALADMINISTRATION AND RECALL
THAT IT WAS INTRODUCED BY MASON
AND REJECTED BY MADISON ON THE
GROUND AT THAT IT WOULD TURN OUR
NEW REPUBLIC INTO A
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY WHERE A
PRIME MINISTER, IN THIS CASE A
PRESIDENT, CAN BE REMOVED AT THE
PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE.
REMEMBER, TOO, THAT IN BRITAIN
IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT USED AGAINST
THE PRIME MINISTER.
ALL YOU NEEDED WAS A VOTE OF NO
CONFIDENCE.
IT WAS USED AGAINST LOWER-LEVEL
PEOPLE.
AND SO MALADMINISTRATION WAS
INTRODUCED BY MASON AND MADISON
SAID, NO, IT WILL TURN US -- IT
WAS JUST TOO VAGUE AND TOO
GENERAL.
NOW, WHAT IS MALADMINISTRATION?
IF YOU LOOK IT UP IN THE
DICTIONARY AND YOU LOOK UP SIN
NOMINEES, IT INCLUDES
DISHONESTY, MISUSE OF OFFICE,
AND MISBEHAVIOR.
EVEN PROFESSOR NICHOLAS BOWIE, A
HARVARD PROFESSOR IN FAVOR OF
IMPEACHMENT, SO THIS IS AN
ADMISSION IN INTEREST, HE SAYS
IT IS THE SAME AS MISCONDUCT IN
OFFICE.
HE SAYS THAT HIS RESEARCH LEADS
HIM TO CONCLUDE THAT A CRIME IS
REQUIRED.
BY THE WAY, THE CONGRESSMAN WAS
JUST COMPLETELY WRONG WHEN HE
SAID I'M THE ONLY SCHOLAR WHO
SUPPORTS THIS POSITION.
IN THE 19th CENTURY, WHICH IS
MUCH CLOSER IN TIME TO WHEN THE
FRAMERS WROTE, DEAN DWIGHT OF
THE COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL WROTE
THAT THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY BY
WHICH HE MEANT THE WEIGHT OF
SCHOLARLY AUTHORITY AND THE
WEIGHT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY --
THIS IS 1867 -- THE WEIGHT OF
AUTHORITY IS IN FAVOR OF
REQUIRING A CRIME.
JUSTICE CURTIS CAME TO THE SAME
CONCLUSION.
OTHERS HAVE COME TO A SIMILAR
CONCLUSION.
YOU ASKED WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN
1998 AND THE CURRENT TO CHANGE
MY MIND?
WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE 19th
CENTURY AND THE 20th CENTURY
TO CHANGE THE MIND OF SO MANY
SCHOLARS?
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED.
WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT THE
CURRENT PRESIDENT WAS IMPEACHED.
IF IN FACT PRESIDENT OBAMA OR
PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON HAD
BEEN IMPEACHED, THE WEIGHT OF
CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP WOULD BE
CLEARLY IN FAVOR OF MY POSITION
BECAUSE THESE SCHOLARS DO NOT
PASS THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT
TEST.
THESE SCHOLARS ARE INFLUENCED BY
THEIR OWN BIAS, BY THEIR OWN
POLITICS, AND THEIR VIEWS SHOULD
BE TAKEN WITH THAT IN MIND.
THEY SIMPLY DO NOT GIVE
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
PROFESSOR TRIBE SUDDENLY HAD A
REVELATION HIMSELF AT THE TIME
WHEN CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED, HE
SAID, OH, THE LAW IS CLEAR.
YOU CANNOT -- YOU CANNOT CHARGE
A PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME WHILE
HE'S A SITTING PRESIDENT.
NOW WE HAVE A CURRENT PRESIDENT.
PROFESSOR TRIBE GOT WOKE AND
WITH NO APPARENT NEW RESEARCH HE
CAME TO THE CONCLUSION, OH, BUT
THIS PRESIDENT CAN BE CHARGED
WHILE SITTING IN OFFICE.
THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF
SCHOLARSHIP THAT SHOULD
INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION.
YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS,
GO BACK AND READ THE DEBATES AND
YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM RIGHT,
THAT THE FRAMERS REJECTED VAGUE,
OPEN-ENDED CRITERIA, ABUSE OF
POWER AND WHAT WE HAD AS THE
MANAGER MADE A FUNDAMENTAL
MISTAKE AGAIN.
SHE GAVE REASONS WHY WE HAVE
IMPEACHMENT.
YES, WE FEARED ABUSE OF POWER.
YES, WE FEARED CRITERIA LIKE
MALADMINISTRATION.
THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON.
WE FEARED INCAPACITY.
BUT NONE OF THOSE MADE IT INTO
THE CRITERIA BECAUSE THE FRAMERS
HAD TO STRIKE A BALANCE.
HERE ARE THE REASONS WE NEED
IMPEACHMENT.
YES.
NOW, HERE ARE THE REASONS WE
FEAR GIVING CONGRESS TOO MANY
POWER.
SO WE STRIKE A BALANCE.
HOW DID THEY STRIKE IT?
TREASON, A SERIOUS CRIME.
BRIBERY, A SERIOUS TIME.
OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS, HIGH CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS AGAIN TO TREASON
AND BRIBERY.
THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS
INTENDED.
THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO GIVE
CONGRESS A LICENSE TO DECIDE WHO
TO IMPEACH AND WHO NOT TO
IMPEACH ON PARTISAN GROUNDS.
I READ YOU THE LIST OF 40
AMERICAN PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE
BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER.
SHOULD EVERY ONE OF THEM BE
IMPEACHED?
SHOULD EVERY ONE OF THEM HAVE
BEEN REMOVED FROM OFFICE?
IT'S TOO VAGUE A TERM.
REJECT MY ARGUMENT ABOUT CRIME.
REJECT IT IF YOU CHOOSE TO.
DO NOT REJECT MY ARGUMENT THAT
ABUSE OF POWER WOULD DESTROY --
DESTROY -- THE IMPEACHMENT
CRITERIA OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
TURN IT, IN THE WORDS OF ONE OF
THE SENATORS IN THE JOHNSON
TRIAL, TO MAKE EVERY PRESIDENT,
EVERY MEMBER OF THE SENATE,
EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS BE ABLE
TO DEFINE ITSELF FROM WITHIN
THEIR OWN BOSOM.
WE HEARD THAT EVERY SENATOR
SHOULD DECIDE WHETHER YOU NEED
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
OR PROOF BY A PREPONDERANCE.
NOW WE HEAR --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THANK YOU.
MR. CARDIN: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM FROM MARYLAND.
MR. CARDIN: I HAVE A QUESTION
ON BEHALF OF SENATOR MARKEY AND
MYSELF THAT I SEND TO THE DESK
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER:
QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS --
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BYRON
WHITE IN A CONCURRING OPINION IN
NIXON V. UNITED STATES 1993
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE SENATE,
QUOTE, HAS VERY WIDE DISCRETION
IN SPECIFYING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
PROCEDURES, END QUOTE, BUT
STATED THAT THE SENATE, QUOTE,
WOULD ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, END
QUOTE, IF IT WERE TO, QUOTE,
INSIST SON A PROCEDURE THAT
COULD NOT BE DEEMED A TRIAL BY
REASONABLE JUDGES, END QUOTE.
IF THE SENATE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE
TESTIMONY OF KEY WITNESSES WITH
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S ACTIONS AND INTENTIONS,
WOULD A REASONABLE JUDGE
CONCLUDE THESE PROCEEDINGS
CONSTITUTE A CONSTITUTIONALLY
FAIR TRIAL?
MR. SCHIFF: I THINK THE ANSWER
IS YES.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO
LOOK TO THE WORD OF A PRIOR
JUSTICE TO TELL US THAT A TRIAL
WITHOUT WITNESSES IS NOT REALLY
A TRIAL.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A FAIR TRIAL
IF THE HOUSE MOVES FORWARD WITH
IMPEACHMENT AND COMES BEFORE THE
SENATE AND WANTS TO CALL
WITNESSES AND WANTS TO MAKE ITS
CASE AND IS TOLD, THOU SHALT NOT
CALL WITNESSES.
THAT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL.
I THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND THAT WITHOUT READING
THE CASE LAW.
THEY GO INTO JURY DUTY
THEMSELVES EVERY YEAR, AND THEY
SEE THE FIRST THING THAT TAKES
PLACE AFTER THE JURY IS SWORN IN
IS THE GOVERNMENT MAKES ITS
OPENING STATEMENT, THE DEFENSE
MAKES THEIRS, AND THEN BEGINS
THE CALLING OF WITNESSES.
I DO WANT TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY, THOUGH, TO RESPOND
TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ'S
ARGUMENT WHILE THEY'RE FRESH.
YOU CAN SAY A LOT OF THINGS
ABOUT ALAN DERSHOWITZ.
YOU CANNOT SAY HE'S UNPREPARED.
HE'S NOT UNPREPARED TODAY.
HE WASN'T UNPREPARED 21 YEARS
AGO.
AND TO BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD NOT
HAVE READ 21 YEARS AGO WHAT
MASON HAD TO SAY OR MADISON HAD
TO SAY OR HAMILTON HAD TO SAY,
I'M SORRY, I DON'T BUY THAT.
I THINK 21 YEARS AGO HE
UNDERSTOOD THAT
MALADMINISTRATION WAS REJECTED
BUT SO WAS A PROVISION THAT
CONFINED THE IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSES TO TREASON AND BRIBERY
ALONE WAS REJECTED I THINK THE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ FROM 21 YEARS
AGO UNDERSTOOD THAT, YES, WHILE
YOU CAN'T IMPEACH FOR A POLICY
DIFFERENCE, YOU CAN IMPEACH A
PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER.
THAT'S WHAT HE SAID 21 YEARS
AGO.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN.
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN WRITE OFF
THE CONSENSUS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
OPINION BY SAYING, THEY'RE ALL
NEVER TRUMPERS.
ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
PROFESSORS -- IN FACT, LET'S
PLAY A SNIPPET FROM THE
PROFESSOR TURLEY, WHO WAS IN THE
HOUSE DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT
AND SEE WHAT HE HAD TO SAY
RECENTLY.
>> ON ABUSE OF POWER, IN MY
VIEW, IT'S CLEAR.
YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR
ABUSE OF POWER.
YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR
NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT.
MR. SCHIFF: OKAY.
NOW WE CAN'T ARGUE PLAUSIBLY
THAT HIS POSITION IS OWING TO
SOME POLITICAL BIAS.
RIGHT?
I MEAN, JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO HE
WAS IN THE HOUSE ARGUING THE
CASE FOR MY G.O.P. COLLEAGUES
THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULDN'T BE
IMPEACHED.
NOW, HE DID SAY, WELL, IF YOU
COULD ACTUALLY PROVE THESE
THINGS AND YOU COULD PROVE, AS
INDEED WE HAVE, THAT THE
PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY
CONDITIONING MILITARY AID TO
HELP HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN,
YES, THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.
YOU CAN IMPEACH FOR THAT KIND OF
ABUSE OF POWER.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE
HERE.
WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO LEAVE OUR
COMMON SENSE AT THE DOOR.
IF WE'RE TO INTERPRET THE
CONSTITUTION NOW ASSAYING THAT A
PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE THEIR
POWER -- AND I THINK THE
PROFESSOR SUGGESTED BEFORE THE
BREAK THAT HE CAN ABUSE HIS
POWER IN A CORRUPT WAY TO HELP
HIS REELECTION, AND YOU CAN'T
DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT
BECAUSE IF HE VIEWS IT AS IN HIS
PERSONAL INTEREST, THAT'S JUST
FINE.
HE'S ALLOWED TO DO IT.
NONE OF THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE
ACCEPTED THAT KIND OF REASONING.
IN FACT, THE IDEA THAT THE CORE
OFFENSE THAT THE FOUNDERS
PROTECTED AGAINST, THAT CORE
OFFENSE IS ABUSE OF POWER, IS
BEYOND THE REACH OF CONGRESS TO
IMPEACHMENT, WOULD HAVE
TERRIFIED THE FOUNDERS.
I MEAN, YOU CAN IMAGINE ANY
NUMBER OF ABUSES OF POWER, A
PRESIDENT WHO WITHHOLDS AID FROM
ANOTHER COUNTRY AT WAR AS A
THANK YOU FOR THAT ADVERSARY,
ALLOWING HIM TO BUILD A TRUMP
TOWER IN THAT COUNTRY.
THAT MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL, BUT
ARE WE REALLY GOING TO SAY THAT
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PERMIT A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID AS A
THANK YOU FOR A BUSINESS
PROPOSITION?
NOW, COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
A CRIME IS NOT NECESSARY, BUT
SOMETHING AKIN TO A CRIME.
WELL, WE THINK THERE'S A CRIME
HERE OF BRIBERY OR EXTORTION,
CONDITIONING OFFICIAL ACTS FOR
PERSONAL FAVORS, THAT IS
BRIBERY.
IT'S ALSO WHAT THE FOUNDERS
UNDERSTOOD AS EXTORTION.
AND YOU CANNOT ARGUE, EVEN IF
YOU ARGUE UNDER THE MODERN
DEFINITION OF BRIBERY YOU'VE GOT
TO SHOW SUCH AND SUCH, YOU
CANNOT PLAUSIBLY ARGUE IT IS NOT
AKIN TO BRIBERY.
IT IS BRIBERY BUT IT'S CERTAINLY
AKIN TO BRIBERY.
THAT'S THE IMPORT OF WHAT THEY
WOULD ARGUE, THAT, NO, THE
PRESIDENT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT, UNDER ARTICLE 2, HE CAN
DO ANYTHING HE WANT.
HE CAN ABUSE HIS OFFICE AND DO
SO, SACRIFICE INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY, UNDERMINING THE
INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTIONS AND
THERE'S NOTHING CONGRESS CAN DO
ABOUT IT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
WE'RE IN RECESS.
RECESS:
RECESS:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MS. McSALLY: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF,
SENATOR HAWLEY AND HOEVEN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT FROM SENATOR
McSALLY, SENATOR SCOTT FROM
FLORIDA, SENATOR HAWLEY, AND
SENATOR HOEVEN.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF JUST ARGUED
THAT, QUOTE, WE THINK THERE IS A
CRIME HERE OF BRIBERY OR
EXPORTION OR, QUOTE, SOMETHING
AKIN TO BRIBERY, END QUOTE.
DO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH
BRIBERY, EXTORTION, OR ANYTHING
AKIN TO IT?
DO THEY ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT
TO PROVE EITHER CRIME?
IF NOT, ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS'
DISCUSSION OF CRIMES THEY
NEITHER ALLEGED NOR PROVED
APPROPRIATE IN THIS PROCEEDING?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION.
AND NO, THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT DO NOT CHARGE THE
CRIME OF BRIBERY, EXTORTION, OR
ANY OTHER CRIME, AND THAT'S A
CRITICAL POINT BECAUSE, AS THE
SUPREME COURT HAS EXPLAINED, NO
PRINCIPLE OF PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS IS MORE CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED THAN THAT OF NOTICE
OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGE AND A
CHANCE TO BE HEARD IN A TRIAL OF
THE ISSUES RAISED BY THAT CHARGE
ARE AMONG THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF EVERY ACCUSED.
THAT IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT
IN COLE VERSUS ARKANSAS.
AND THE COURT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED
THAT FOR OVER 130 YEARS, A COURT
CANNOT PERMIT -- IT HAS BEEN THE
RULE THAT A COURT CANNOT PERMIT
A DEFENDANT TO BE TRIED ON
CHARGES THAT ARE NOT MADE IN THE
INDICTMENT AGAINST HIM.
THAT IS THE RULE IN CRIMINAL LAW
AND IT IS ALSO THE CASE FOR
IMPEACHMENTS.
THAT IT IS THE HOUSE'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE AN
ACCUSATION AND A SPECIFIC
ACCUSATION IN ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
THE HOUSE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DO THAT, AND THEY DID THAT, AND
THE CHARGES THIS THEY HAVE PUT
IN THE ARTICLES WERE ABUSE OF
POWER ON A FAKE STANDARD THAT
THEY MADE UP AND OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS.
THEY PUT SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT
OTHER THINGS IN A HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT, BUT
THEY DID NOT PUT THAT IN THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
AND IF THIS WERE A CRIMINAL
TRIAL IN AN ORDINARY COURT AND
MR. SCHIFF HAD DONE WHAT HE JUST
DID ON THE FLOOR HERE AND
STARTED TALKING ABOUT CRIMES OF
BRIBERY AND EXTORTION THAT WERE
NOT IN THE INDICTMENT, IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN AN AUTOMATIC MISTRIAL.
WE WOULD ALL BE DONE NOW, AND WE
COULD GO HOME.
AND MR. SCHIFF KNOWS THAT
BECAUSE HE'S A FORMER
PROSECUTOR.
IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE
HOUSE TO COME HERE FAILING TO
HAVE CHARGED -- FAILING TO HAVE
PUT IN ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
ANY CRIME AT ALL AND THEN TO
START ARGUING THAT ACTUALLY, OH,
WE THINK THERE IS SOME CRIME
INVOLVED AND ACTUALLY WE THINK
WE ACTUALLY PROVED IT EVEN
THOUGH WE PROVIDED NO NOTICE WE
WERE GOING TO TRY TO PROVE THAT.
IT'S TOTALLY IMPERMISSIBLE.
IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF
DUE PROCESS.
AND SCHOLARS HAVE POINTED OUT
THOSE RULES APPLY EQUALLY IN
CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.
CHARLES BLACK AND PHILLIP
BOBBITT EXPLAINED IN THEIR WORK
"IMPEACHMENT, A HANDBOOK" THAT
IS REGARDED AS ONE OF THE
AUTHORITIES COLLECTING SOURCES
OF -- OF AUTHORITY ON
IMPEACHMENTS, THEY SAID, QUOTE,
THE SENATOR'S ROLE IS SOLELY ONE
OF ACTING ON THE ACCUSATIONS,
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
VOTED BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
THE SENATE CANNOT LAWFULLY FIND
THE PRESIDENT GUILTY OF
SOMETHING NOT CHARGED BY THE
HOUSE ANY MORE THAN A TRIAL JURY
CAN FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF
SOMETHING NOT CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT, END QUOTE.
SO WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF JUST
ATTEMPTED HERE WAS TOTALLY
IMPROPER THAT WOULD HAVE
RESULTED IN A MISTRIAL IN ANY
COURT IN THIS COUNTRY.
AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT HAS
BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE FACTS
THAT WOULD SATISFY THE ELEMENTS
OF A CRIME OF EXTORTION OR
BRIBERY EITHER.
AND TO ATTEMPT AFTER MAKING
THEIR OPENING, AFTER NOT
CHARGING ANYTHING IN THE
ARTICLES THAT IS A CRIME, AFTER
NOT SPECIFYING ANY CRIME, AFTER
PROVIDING NO NOTICE THAT THEY
WERE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO ARGUE A
CRIME, IN THE QUESTION AND
ANSWER SESSION TO TRY TO CHANGE
THE CHARGES THAT THEY'VE MADE
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND TO SAY THAT
ACTUALLY THERE'S BRIBERY AND
EXTORTION IS TOTALLY
UNACCEPTABLE.
IT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE.
AND THIS BODY SHOULD NOT
CONSIDER THOSE ARGUMENTS.
THEY'RE NOT PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS
FOR ARGUMENT, NOT INCLUDED IN
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT,
AND THEY SHOULD BE IGNORED.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
MR. UDALL: THANK YOU FOR THE
RECOGNITION, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE SENT
A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
I'M JOINED IN THIS QUESTION BY
SENATORS BLUMENTHAL, LEAHY,
AND WHITEHOUSE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR UDALL
JOINED BY SENATORS BLUMENTHAL,
LEAHY, AND WHITEHOUSE IS TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
ARGUED THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S
INVOLVEMENT WITH BURISMA CREATED
A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR HIS
FATHER, JOE BIDEN.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE TRUMP
ORGANIZATION, AND HIS FAMILY,
INCLUDING THOSE WHO SERVE IN THE
WHITE HOUSE, MAINTAIN
SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS INTERESTS
IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BENEFIT
FROM FOREIGN PAYMENTS AND
INVESTMENTS.
BY THE STANDARD THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL HAS APPLIED TO HUNTER
BIDEN, SHOULD MR. KUSHNER AND
MS. TRUMP'S CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST WITH FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS ALSO COME UNDER
INVESTIGATION?
MRS. DEMINGS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND TO THE SENATORS, THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION.
LET ME JUST PREFACE WHAT I'M GO
TO SAY WITH THIS STATEMENT.
THIS HAS BEEN A TOUGH FEW DAYS.
IT'S BEEN A TRYING TIME FOR EACH
OF US AND FOR OUR NATION.
BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS IN
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION THAT
HAS BEEN POSED.
I STAND BEFORE YOU AS THE MOTHER
OF THREE SONS.
I'M SURE THAT MANY OF YOU IN
THIS CHAMBER HAVE CHILDREN,
SONS AND DAUGHTERS, AND
GRANDCHILDREN THAT YOU THINK THE
WORLD OF.
MY CHILDREN'S LAST NAME IS
DEMINGS, AND SO WHEN THEY GO
OUT TO GET A JOB, I WONDER IF
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ASSOCIATE
MY SONS WITH THEIR MOTHER AND
THEIR FATHER.
I JUST BELIEVE AS WE GO THROUGH
THIS VERY TOUGH, VERY DIFFICULT
DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER TO IMPEACH
AND REMOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THAT WE STAY
FOCUSED.
THE LAST FEW DAYS WE'VE SEEN
MANY DISTRACTIONS.
MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID TO
TAKE OUR MINDS OFF OF THE
TRUTH, OFF OF WHY WE'RE REALLY
HERE.
IN MY FORMER LINE OF WORK, I
USED TO CALL IT WORKING WITH
SMOKE AND MIRRORS, ANYTHING
THAT WILL TAKE YOUR ATTENTION
OFF OF WHAT'S PAINFULLY
OBVIOUS, WHAT'S THERE IN PLAIN
VIEW.
THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYBODY'S
CHILDREN, AS WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT.
THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE IS
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE 45th
PRESIDENT, USED THE POWER OF
HIS OFFICE TO TRY TO SHAKE
DOWN -- I'LL USE THAT TERM
BECAUSE I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT --
A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE
INTO THIS YEAR'S ELECTION.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES TRIED TO
CHEAT AND THEN TRIED TO GET THIS
FOREIGN POWER, THIS NEWLY
ELECTED PRESIDENT TO SPREAD A
FALSE NARRATIVE THAT WE KNOW IS
UNTRUE ABOUT INTERFERENCE IN OUR
ELECTION.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE.
AND IT REALLY WOULD HELP, I
BELIEVE THE SITUATION, IF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, PERHAPS THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHO HAS
BEEN PRETTY SILENT, WOULD ISSUE
A RULING OR AN OPINION ABOUT ANY
PERSON OF AUTHORITY, ESPECIALLY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, USING OR ABUSING THAT
AUTHORITY TO INVITE OTHER POWERS
INTO INTERFERING IN OUR
ELECTION.
AND SO, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
WILL JUST CLOSE MY REMARKS AS I
BEGAN THEM.
LET US STAY FOCUSED.
THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN OR
THE BIDENS' CHILDREN.
THIS IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
WRONGDOING.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO.
MR. CRAPO: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR
RISCH, SENATOR CRUZ, BRAUN AND
BOOZMAN, I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: QUESTION
FROM SENATOR CRAPO AND THE OTHER
SENATORS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT, DOES THE EVIDENCE IN
THE RECORD SHOW THAT AN
INVESTIGATION IN THE BURISMA
BIDEN MATTER IS IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
AND ITS EFFORTS TO STOP
CORRUPTION?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION.
THE STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER IS,
YES, THE EVIDENCE DOES SHOW
THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST
OF THE UNITED STATES.
IN FACT, THE EVIDENCE ON THAT
POINT IS ABUNDANT.
HERE'S WHAT WE KNOW.
HUNTER BIDEN WAS APPOINTED TO
THE BOARD OF AN ENERGY COMPANY
IN UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY APPARENT
EXPERIENCE THAT WOULD QUALIFY
HIM FOR THAT POSITION.
HE WAS APPOINTED SHORTLY AFTER
HIS FATHER, THE VICE
PRESIDENT, BECAME THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION'S POINT MAN FOR
POLICY ON UKRAINE.
WE KNOW THAT HIS APPOINTMENT
RAISED SEVERAL RED FLAGS AT THE
TIME.
CHRIS HEINZ, THE STEPSON OF
THEN-SECRETARY OF STATE,
SEVERED HIS BUSINESS
RELATIONSHIP WITH HUNTER,
CITING HUNTER'S LACK OF JUDGMENT
IN JOINING THE BOARD OF THAT
COMPANY BURISMA BECAUSE BURISMA
WAS OWNED BY AN OLIGARCH WHO WAS
REPEATEDLY UNDER INVESTIGATION
FOR MONEY LAUNDERING AND OTHER
OFFENSES.
CONTEMPORANEOUS PRESS REPORTS
UNDERSCORED HUNTER BIDEN MIGHT
UNDERMINE U.S. EFFORTS LED BY
HIS FATHER AT THE TIME TO
PROMOTE THE U.S. A
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE.
"THE WASHINGTON POST" SAID THE
APPOINTMENT H LOOKS NEPOTISTIC
AT BEST, NEFARIOUS AT WORST.
END QUOTE.
THERE WERE OTHER ARTICLES.
THERE WAS ONE THAT REPORTED,
QUOTE, THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
UNITED STATES WAS NOT HELPED BY
THE NEWS THAT HUNTER HAD BEEN ON
THE BOARD OF THE DIRECTORS OF
BURISMA.
THERE WAS ANOTHER ARTICLE SAYING
SADLY THE CREDIBILITY OF
MR. BIDEN'S MESSAGE MAY BE
UNDERMINED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF
HIS SON WITH THE UKRANIAN
NATURAL GAS COMPANY BURISMA
HOLDINGS WHICH IS OWNED BY A
FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
SUSPECTED OF CORRUPT PRACTICES.
AND IT WENT ON.
REPORTS FROM THE "WALL STREET
JOURNAL" SAID THAT ACTIVISTS
HERE -- THAT IS IN THE
UKRAINE -- SAY THAT THE U.S.'S
ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE IS BEING
UNDERMINED AS HIS SON RECEIVES
MONEY FROM A FORMER UKRANIAN
OFFICIAL WHO IS BEING
INVESTIGATED FOR GRAFT.
AT THE SAME TIME WITHIN THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
RAISED QUESTIONS.
THE SPECIAL ENVOY FOR ENERGY
POLICY, AMOS HOCHSTEIN RAISED
THE MATTER WITH THE VICE
PRESIDENT.
SIMILARLY DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE KENT
TESTIFIED THAT HE TOO VOICED
CONCERNS WITH VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN'S OFFICE.
EVERYONE WHO WAS ASKED IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AGREED THAT
THERE WAS AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE
OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHEN
MR. BIDEN'S SON WAS APPOINTED TO
THE BOARD OF THIS COMPANY.
THAT INCLUDED AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY KENT, LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN, JENNIFER
WILLIAMS, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND,
DR. FIONA HILL AND AMBASSADOR
TAYLOR.
THEY ALL AGREED THERE WAS AN
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST.
EVEN IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
JULY 25 TELEPHONE CALL,
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF
ACKNOWLEDGED THE CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE BIDEN AND BURISMA
INCIDENT.
THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR WHO
REPORTEDLY HAD BEEN LOOKING INTO
BURISMA WHEN VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED HE
LEVERAGED $1 BILLION IN U.S.
LOAN GUARANTEES TO MAKE SURE
THAT THAT PARTICULAR PROSECUTOR
WAS FIRED.
HE OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED.
THERE WAS AN EXPLICIT QUID PRO
QUO.
YOU DON'T GET $1 BILLION IN LOAN
GUARANTEES UNLESS AND UNTIL THAT
PROSECUTOR IS FIRED.
MY PLANE IS LEAVING IN SIX HOURS
HE SAID ON THE TAPE.
AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT,
PRESIDENT TRUMP, RAISED THIS IN
THE JULY 25 CALL, PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY RECOGNIZED THAT THIS
RELATED TO CORRUPTION, AND HE
SAID THE ISSUE OF THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE --
AND HE'S REFERRING TO THE CASE
OF BURISMA -- IS ACTUALLY THE
ISSUE OF MAKING SURE TO RESTORE
THE HONESTY SO WE WILL TAKE CARE
OF THAT.
AND HE LATER SAID IN AN
INTERVIEW THAT HE RECOGNIZED
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD BEEN
SAYING TO HIM THINGS ARE CORRUPT
IN UKRAINE, AND HE WAS TRYING
TO EXPLAIN, NO, WE'RE GOING TO
CHANGE THAT.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE
CORRUPTION.
SO THAT EXPLICIT EXCHANGE IN THE
JULY 25 CALL SHOWS THAT
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RECOGNIZED
THAT THAT BIDEN BURISMA INCIDENT
HAD AN IMPACT ON CORRUPTION AND
ANTICORRUPTION.
AND SO IT WAS DEFINITELY
UNDERMINING THE U.S. MESSAGE ON
ANTICORRUPTION.
AND IT WAS A PERFECTLY
LEGITIMATE ISSUE FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO RAISE WITH
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MAKE CLEAR
THAT THE UNITED STATES DID NOT
CONDONE ANYTHING THAT WOULD SEEM
TO INTERFERE WITH LEGITIMATE
INVESTIGATIONS AND TO ENFORCE
THE PROPER ANTICORRUPTION
MESSAGE.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
DURBIN'S QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO
THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE
ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN BY
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
MS. GARCIA: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT
UKRAINE'S HELP IN INVESTIGATING
THE BIDENS ONLY AFTER REPORTS
SUGGESTED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
MIGHT ENTER THE 2020
PRESIDENTIAL RACE AND WOULD
SERIOUSLY CHALLENGE PRESIDENT
TRUMP IN THE POLLS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO INTEREST
IN BIDENS OBAMA-ERA UKRAINE WORK
IN 2017 OR 2018 WHEN BIDEN WAS
NOT RUNNING AGAINST HIM FOR
PRESIDENT.
NONE OF THE 17 WITNESSES IN THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROVIDED ANY
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, NO CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
ALLEGATION THAT FORMER VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED
INAPPROPRIATELY IN ANY WAY IN
UKRAINE.
INSTEAD WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT
THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT WAS
CARRYING OUT OFFICIAL U.S.
POLICY IN COORDINATION WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WHEN HE
ADVOCATED FOR THE OUSTER OF A
CORRUPT UKRANIAN OFFICIAL.
IN SHORT, THE ALLEGATIONS ARE
SIMPLY UNFOUNDED.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN HANDPICKED
SPECIAL ENVOY TO UKRAINE
AMBASSADOR VOLKER KNEW THEY WERE
UNFOUNDED TOO.
HE TESTIFIED THAT HE CONFRONTED
THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY
MR. GIULIANI ABOUT THIS
CONSPIRACY THEORY AND TOLD HIM
THAT, QUOTE, IT IS SIMPLY NOT
CREDIBLE TO ME THAT JOE BIDEN
WOULD BE INFLUENCED IN HIS
DUTIES AS VICE PRESIDENT BY
MONEY OR THINGS FOR HIS SON OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME.
HE'S A PERSON OF INTEGRITY, AND
THAT'S NOT CREDIBLE.
GIULIANI ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE
DID NOT FIND ONE OF THE SOURCES
OF THESE ALLEGATIONS.
THE FORMER UKRANIAN PROSECUTOR
TO BE CREDIBLE.
SO EVEN GIULIANI KNEW THE
ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE.
OUR OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
CONFIRMED THAT THE PRESIDENT
NEVER SPOKE TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ABOUT UKRAINE OR ANY
INVESTIGATION INTO VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN.
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP GENUINELY
BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS A
LEGITIMATE BASIS TO REQUEST
UKRAINE'S ASSISTANCE IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS,
THERE ARE SPECIFIC FORMAL
PROCESSES THAT HE SHOULD HAVE
FOLLOWED.
SPECIFICALLY, HE COULD HAVE
ASKED THE D.O.J. TO MAKE AN
OFFICIAL REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
TO THE MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
TREATY.
IT'S WORTH NOTING, THE PRESIDENT
ONLY CARES ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN TO
THE EXTENT THAT HE IS THE VICE
PRESIDENT'S SON, AND THEREFORE,
A MEANS THROUGH WHICH TO SMEAR A
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP SPECIFICALLY
MENTIONED VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
IN ASKING FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE
FORMER PROSECUTOR ON THAT
JULY 25 CALL.
THAT IS WHAT HE WANTED, NOT AN
INVESTIGATION INTO HUNTER BIDEN.
THIS IS YET ANOTHER REASON YOU
KNOW THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN.
CAN WE GET SLIDE 52 UP?
THE TIMING SHOWS CLEARLY THAT
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS
CONDUCT OCCURRED IN 2015, IT
WASN'T UNTIL VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN BEGAN CONSISTENTLY BEATING
TRUMP IN NATIONAL POLLS IN THE
SPRING OF 2019 BY SIGNIFICANT
MARGINS THAT THE PRESIDENT
TARGETED BIDEN.
HE WAS SCARED OF LOSING.
THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO CAST A
CLOUD OVER A FORMIDABLE
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
THIS WASN'T ABOUT ANY GENERAL
CONCERN OF WRONGDOING.
THE EVIDENCE PROVES THAT.
THIS IS SOLELY ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT WANTING TO MAKE SURE
THAT HE COULD DO WHATEVER IT
TOOK TO MAKE SURE THAT HE COULD
WIN.
SO HE PRESIDENT TO THE CRITICAL
MONEY TO UKRAINE TO COERCE
UKRAINE TO HELP HIM ATTACK HIS
POLITICAL OPPONENT AND SECURE
HIS REELECTION.
WELL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES CANNOT USE OUR
TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PRESSURE A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO HIS
PERSONAL BIDDING.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
MS. GARCIA: I YIELD BACK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
MR. SCOTT: THANK YOU, SIR.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF SENATORS CRAPO
AND GRAHAM FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR SCOTT
TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
HOUSE MANAGERS CLAIM THAT THE
BIDEN-BURISMA AFFAIR HAS BEEN
DEBUNKED.
WHAT AGENCY WITHIN THE
GOVERNMENT OR INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION LED TO THE
DEBUNKING?
MR. CIPOLLONE: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD ABOUT ANY INVESTIGATION.
MR. HERSCHMANN: LET ALONE
DEBUNKED OR SHAM OR PHONY.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVEN'T CITED
ANY IN THE RECORD BECAUSE NONE
EXIST.
A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO I READ TO
YOU A QUOTE AND STATEMENTS FROM
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DEALING
WITH CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.
WHAT I DIDN'T TELL YOU IS HE
MADE THOSE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE
UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT DIRECTLY.
HE SPOKE ABOUT THE HISTORIC
BATTLE OF CORRUPTION.
HE SPOKE ABOUT FIGHTING
CORRUPTION SPECIFICALLY IN THE
ENERGY SECTOR.
HE SPOKE ABOUT NO SWEETHEART
DEALS.
HE SAID OLIGARCHS AND
NONOLIGARCHS MUST PLAY BY THE
SAME RULES.
CORRUPTION SIPHONS AWAY RESOURCE
FROM THE PEOPLE AND AFFRONTS THE
HUMAN DIGNITY.
THOSE WERE VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN'S WORDS.
SO THE REAL QUESTION IS THIS.
IS CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE
ENERGY SECTOR IN UKRAINE RUN BY
A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH WHO
WAS PAYING OUR VICE PRESIDENT'S
SON AND HIS SON'S BUSINESS
PARTNER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR
NO APPARENT LEGITIMATE REASON
WHILE HIS FATHER WAS OVERSEEING
OUR COUNTRY'S RELATIONSHIP WITH
UKRAINE MERIT ANY PUBLIC
INQUIRY, INVESTIGATION, OR
INTEREST?
THE ANSWER IS YES, AND SIMPLY BY
SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IS
RIDICULOUS.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO OUR
HOUSE MANAGERS, AND CITING TO
OUR CHILDREN, THE MESSAGE TO OUR
CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU
LOOK AT CORRUPTION AND IT
HAPPENING IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS
MAKING HAD SURE THAT YOUR
CHILDREN ARE NOT BENEFITING FROM
IT.
THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING.
NOT TO SIT THERE AND SAY IT'S
OKAY.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DON'T DENY
THERE'S A LEGITIMATE REASON TO
DO AN INVESTIGATION.
THEY JUST SAY IT WAS DEBUNKED.
IT'S A SHAM, IT'S DELEGITIMATE,
BUT THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHEN IT
HAPPENED.
WE ALL REMEMBER THE E-MAIL THAT
CHRIS HEINZ SENT.
KEEP THIS IN MIND, HE IS THE
STEPSON OF THE TEN-SECRETARY OF
STATE JOHN KERRY.
HE SENT AN OFFICIAL E-MAIL TO
THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO THE
CHIEF OF STAFF, TO JOHN KERRY
AND THE SUBJECT IS UKRAINE.
THERE'S NO QUESTION WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THAT E-MAIL THAT IT'S A
WARNING SHOT TO SAY, I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, BUT
WE'RE NOT INVESTED IN IT.
HE'S TAKING A GIANT STEP BACK.
THINK ABOUT THE WORDS, AND
REMEMBER THE VIDEO THAT WE SAW
ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN.
WHAT DID HE SAY?
I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN MY KIMONO.
I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN MY KIMONO
WHEN HE WAS ASKED HOW MUCH MONEY
HE WAS MAKING.
IN ONE MONTH -- IN ONE MONTH
ALONE, HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS
PARTNER MADE ALMOST AS MUCH AS
EVERY SENATOR AND CONGRESS MAN,
IN ONE MONTH ALONE MADE WHAT YOU
MAKE IN A YEAR.
YOU DON'T THINK THAT MERITS
INQUIRY.
DOES ANYONE HERE THINK WHEN THEY
SAY IT WAS A DEBUNKED
INVESTIGATION THAT DENY HAPPEN
THAT WE WOULDN'T REMEMBER IF
THERE WAS TESTIMONY OF HUNTER
BIDEN, JOE BIDEN, SECRETARY OF
STATE JOHN KERRY, HIS STEPSON,
THEIR BUSINESS PARTNER, HIS
CHIEF OF STAFF AND SPECIAL
ASSISTANT?
HOW CAN YOU TELL THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE IT DOESN'T MERIT INQUIRY
WHEN OUR VICE PRESIDENT'S SON IS
SUPPOSEDLY DOING THIS FOR
CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY IN
UKRAINE?
HE'S GOING TO OVERSEE THE LEGAL
DEPARTMENT OF A UKRAINIAN
COMPANY, HE'S GOING TO HELP
THEM -- AND IF YOU LOOK AT HIS
STATEMENT THAT I READ TO YOU
BEFOREHAND, THERE'S ANOTHER PART
OF IT FROM OCTOBER OF 2019.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW IF IT DEALT
WITH OUTSIDE OF UKRAINE IN JUST
BURISMA, HE SAYS, HE WAS
ADVISING BURISMA ON ITS
CORPORATE REFORM INITIATIVES, AN
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF FUELING
BURISMA'S INTERNATIONAL GROWTH
AN DIVERSITY.
LISTEN TO THIS STATEMENT BY
HUNTER BIDEN'S ATTORNEY.
VIBRANT ENERGY PRODUCTION,
PARTICULARLY NATURAL GAS WAS
CENTRAL TO UKRAINE'S
INDEPENDENCE AND TO STEMMING THE
TIDE OF VLADIMIR PUTIN'S ATTACK
ON THE PRINCIPLES OF AN
INDEPENDENT EUROPE.
DO YOU THINK HE UNDERSTOOD WHEN
HE WAS GETTING THE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS WHAT HIS FATHER WAS
DOING, THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT
STATEMENT DIDN'T COME OUT UNTIL
OCTOBER OF 2019.
ONLY WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS
RAISE THESE ISSUES DID ANYONE
START TO TALK ABOUT IT.
TELL US WHERE WE SAW JOE BIDEN,
HUNTER VIDA, AND JOHN KERRY
TESTIFY ABOUT IT.
TELL US WHEN YOU DID YOUR
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.
I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THAT
TESTIMONY OR THE BANK RECORDS
MANY WE PUT THE BANK RECORDS IN
FRONT OF, AND THE PEOPLE NEED TO
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM OREGON.
MR. MERKLEY: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, ON BEHALF OF
THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO,
MARTIN HEINRICH, AND MYSELF, I
HAVE A QUESTION TO SEND TO THE
DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR MERKLEY
AND OTHER SENATORS IS FOR
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.
PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR PREVIOUS
ANSWER ABOUT THE BOLTON
MANUSCRIPT.
WHAT EXACTLY DID THE FIRST
PERSON ON THE PRESIDENT'S
DEFENSE TEAM FIRST LEARN OF THE
ALLEGATIONS AND THE MANUSCRIPT?
SECRETARILY, MR. BOLTON'S LAWYER
PUBLICLY DISPUTES ANY
INFORMATION IN THE MANUSCRIPT
COULD REASONABLY BE CONSIDERED
CLASSIFIED.
WHAT THE DETERMINATION TO BLOCK
ITS PUBLICATION ON THE BASIS
THAT IT CONTAINS CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION MADE SOLELY BY
CAREER OFFICIALS OR WERE
POLITICAL APPOINTEES IN THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE OR
ELSEWHERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE
INVOLVED?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
AND SENATORS, TO ADDRESS YOUR
QUESTION SPECIFICALLY.
THE ALLEGATION THAT CAME OUT IN
THE NEW YORK TIMES CART -- "NEW
YORK TIMES" ARTICLE ABOUT WHAT
WAS IN THE MANUSCRIPT BETWEEN
THE PRESIDENT AND AMBASSADOR
BOLTON AND OFFICIALS LEARNED
ABOUT THAT ALLEGATION FOR THE
FIRST TIME WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS CONTACTED BY "THE NEW YORK
TIMES."
IN TERMS OF THE CLASSIFICATION
REVIEW, IT IS CONDUCTED AT THE
N.S.C., THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL'S OFFICE IS NOT INVOLVED
IN CLASSIFICATION REVIEW,
DETERMINING WHAT'S CLASSIFIED OR
NOT CLASSIFIED.
I -- I CAN'T STATE THE
SPECIFICS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S
CONDUCTED BY CAREER OFFICIALS AT
THE N.S.C., BUT IT'S HANDLED BY
THE N.S.C. SO I'M NOT IN A
POSITION TO GIVE YOU FULL
INFORMATION ON THAT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S
BEING DONE BY CAREER OFFICIALS
BUT IT'S NOT BEING DONE BY
LAWYERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL'S OFFICE.
I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR
QUESTION, SENATORS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM ALASKA.
MR. SULLIVAN: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF
AND SENATOR LANKFORD FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
SULLIVAN AND LANKFORD TO THE
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THERE HAS BEEN CONFLICTING
TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW LONG THE
SENATE MIGHT BE TIED UP IN
OBTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS TRIAL
THE MINORITY LEADER OFFERED 11
AMENDMENTS TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF
DOCUMENTS AND DISPOSITIONS
FROM -- DEPOSITIONS FROM SEVERAL
FEDERAL AGENCIES.
IF THE SENATE ADOPTED ALL OF
THESE AMENDMENTS, HOW LONG DO
YOU THINK THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
WOULD TAKE?
MR. SEKULOW: IT WOULD TAKE A
LONG TIME.
IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME JUST
TO GET THROUGH THE MOTIONS.
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN 17
WITNESSES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES THAT THE
MANAGERS HAVE PUT FORWARD AND
THAT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER
SCHUMER DISCUSSED.
HE DISCUSSED FOUR WITNESSES IN
PARTICULAR.
IT'S AS IF THIS BODY IF IT WERE
TO GRANT WITNESSES, IT WOULD
SAY, YES, YOU GET THOSE FOUR
WITNESSES AND THE WHITE HOUSE
AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GETS
WHAT?
WHATEVER I WANT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID,
MR. SCHUMER?
WHATEVER I WANT.
HERE'S WHAT I WANT.
I WANT ADAM SCHIFF, I WANT
HUNTER BIDEN, I WANT JOE BIDEN,
I WANT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, I
WANT TO ALSO UNDERSTAND THERE
MAY BE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE WITHIN
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
THAT HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH
THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER.
I GET ANYBODY WE WANT -- BY THE
WAY, IF WE GET ANYBODY WE WANT,
WE'LL BE HERE FOR A LONG TIME.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO ARGUE
WITNESSES TONIGHT, WHICH IS
OBVIOUSLY AN UNDERCURRENT, BUT
TO SAY THIS IS NOT GOING TO
EXTEND THIS PROCEEDING?
MONTHS.
BECAUSE UNDERSTAND SOMETHING
ELSE.
DESPITE THE YOU KNOW EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE, I
SUSPECT THAT MANAGER SCHIFF,
SMART GUY, HE'S GOING TO SAY
WAIT A MINUTE, I HAVE SPEECH AND
DEBATE PRIVILEGES THAT MAY BE
APPLICABLE TO THIS.
I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE.
IT WOULD BE LEGITIMATE TO RAISE
IT.
THIS IS A PROCESS THAT -- THIS
WOULD BE THE FIRST OF MANY
WEEKS.
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO BE CLEAR.
THEY PUT THIS FORWARD IN AN
AGGRESSIVE AND FAST-PACED WAY,
AND NOW THEY ARE SAYING, NOW WE
NEED WITNESSES.
AFTER 31 OR 32 TIMES YOU SAID
YOU PROVED EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR
CASE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.
WELL -- HE JUST SAID HE DID.
THEN I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY
WITNESSES.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.
THE QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR
MENENDEZ TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MAINTAINED
THAT HE WITHHELD U.S. SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BECAUSE HE
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION.
YET, HIS PURPORTED CONCERN ABOUT
CORRUPTION DID NOT PREVENT HIS
ADMINISTRATION FROM SENDING
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE MORE THAN
45 TIMES BETWEEN JANUARY 2017
AND JUNE 2019, TOTALING MORE
THAN $1.5 BILLION.
SO WHY DID THE PRESIDENT
SUDDENLY BECOME CONCERNED ABOUT
CORRUPTION IN EARLY 2019?
MR. CROW: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
HE BECAME CONCERNED ABOUT
CORRUPTION, SUPPOSEDLY, IN EARLY
2019 BECAUSE VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR ELECTION
FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
THAT IS WHAT THE OVERWHELMING
AMOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS,
BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER
LEGITIMATE REASON.
AS YOUR QUESTION POINTS OUT.
FIRST, THE PUBLICLY RELEASED
RECORDS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
APRIL 21 AND 25 CALLS TO
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEVER
MENTIONED THE WORD CORRUPTION.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
TALKING POINTS FOR THESE CALLS
PREPARED BY HIS OWN STAFF LISTED
CORRUPTION.
SECOND, IN MAY, 2019, THE STATE
AND DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CERTIFIED
UKRAINE HAD, QUOTE, TAKEN
SUBSTANTIAL EFFORTS FOR PURPOSES
OF CORRUPTION, AND MET THE
ANTICORRUPTION BENCHMARKS THIS
VERY BODY HAD ESTABLISHED AND
APPROPRIATED $250 MILLION FOR
THOSE FUNDS.
THIRD, BY THE TIME OF THE
JULY 25 CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP
HAD ALREADY REDUCED THE NUMBER
OF REFORM BILLS IN UKRAINE.
FOURTH, ON JULY 26, THE DAY
AFTER HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE
TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO WAS
IN UKRAINE.
THE ONE QUESTION THE PRESIDENT
ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS
NOT ABOUT CORRUPTION BUT ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WAS GOING TO DO THE
INVESTIGATIONS.
FIFTH, THE RELEASED AID -- AS
YOUR QUESTION POINTS OUT,
SENATOR, THE PRESIDENT RELEASED
THE AID IN 2017, AND IN 2018,
AND HE RELEASED IT IN 2019 ONLY
AFTER HAVING GOTTEN CAUGHT.
IN THE WORDS OF LIEUTENANT
COLONEL VINDMAN AND OTHER
WITNESSES, THE CONDITIONS ON THE
GROUND HAD NOT CHANGED.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HEARING A
LOT TONIGHT ABOUT THE CONCERNS
ABOUT CORRUPTION, BURISMA,
RUSSIA, BUT THE FACTS STILL
MATTER HERE.
WE ARE HERE FOR ONE REASON AND
ONE REASON ONLY.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES WITHHELD FOREIGN AID THAT
HE WAS HAPPY TO GIVE IN THE TWO
PRIOR YEARS, THAT SUDDENLY WE
ARE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING
CHANGED, THE CONDITIONS ON THE
GROUND CHANGED, AND HE HAD AN
EPIPHANY ABOUT CORRUPTION WITHIN
A WEEK OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
ANNOUNCING HIS CANDIDACY.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
AND ONE OTHER THING I WILL SAY
WITH REGARD TO THE AID.
IS THIS ASSERTION THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS BEEN THE STRONGEST
SUPPORTER OF UKRAINE.
I TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER.
LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT TO BE THE
CASE.
AND IF IT IS THE CASE, AS THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
CONTENDED OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
THEN THERE IS, OF COURSE, NO
REASON TO WITHHOLD THE AID
BECAUSE NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
THIS LEADS US INEVITABLY ONLY TO
ONE CONCLUSION, AND THAT IS THAT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES USED TAXPAYER DOLLARS,
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S MONEY, TO
WITHHOLD AID FROM AN ALLY AT WAR
TO BENEFIT HIS POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN.
DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY RUSSIAN
PROPAGANDA, BY CONSPIRACY
THEORIES, BY PEOPLE ASKING YOU
TO LOOK IN OTHER DIRECTIONS.
THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
THAT WILL NOT CHANGE.
THE FACTS WILL CONTINUE TO COME
OUT, WHETHER THIS BODY SUBPOENAS
THEM OR NOT.
THE FACTS WILL COME OUT.
THE QUESTION NOW IS WILL THEY
COME OUT IN TIME AND WILL YOU BE
THE ONES ASKING FOR THEM WHEN
YOU ARE GOING TO BE MAKING THE
DECISION IN A COUPLE OF DAYS TO
SIT IN JUDGMENT?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN.
MR. JOHNSON: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: A
QUESTION FROM SENATOR JOHNSON
FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
IF HOUSE MANAGERS WERE CERTAIN
IT WOULD TAKE MONTHS TO LITIGATE
A SUBPOENA FOR JOHN BOLTON, WHY
SHOULDN'T THE SENATE ASSUME
LENGTHY LITIGATION AND MAKE THE
SAME DECISION AS THE HOUSE MADE,
REJECT A SUBPOENA FOR JOHN
BOLTON?
MR. SEKULOW: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I THINK
THAT'S PRECISELY THE POINT.
THE FACT IS THAT IF, IN FACT, WE
ARE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD OF A
WITNESS OR WITNESSES THAT HAD
NATIONAL -- IN CASE OF
AMBASSADOR BOLTON, HIGH-RANKING
N.S.A., THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL
THAT IS GIVING THE PRESIDENT
ADVICE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
THE SUPREME COURT IS VERY
CONSISTENT ON THAT.
THAT'S WHERE PRIVILEGES ARE AT
THEIR HIGHEST LEVEL.
THE PRESUMED PRIVILEGE,
ACTUALLY, IS WHAT THE SUPREME
COURT HAS SAID.
AND IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, I
THINK WE'RE GOING DOWN A ROAD,
IF THE SENATE GOES THIS ROAD, OF
A LENGTHY PROCEEDING WITH A LOT
MORE WITNESSES, AND THEN I WANT
TO ASK THIS QUESTION, AND JUST
PLANT IT AS A THOUGHT.
IS THAT GOING TO BE THE NEW NORM
FOR IMPEACHMENT?
YOU PUT AN IMPEACHMENT TOGETHER
IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE DON'T
LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID, WE
GET IT THROUGH IN A TWO-DAY
PROCEEDING IN FRONT OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE WRAP IT
UP AND WE SEND IT UP HERE AND WE
SAY NOW GO FIGURE IT OUT,
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS IS
REALLY BECOMING.
THAT'S WHAT THIS ACTUALLY IS.
SO I THINK IF WE'RE LOOKING AT
THE INSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS THAT
ARE AT STAKE HERE, IT'S A VERY
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, BECAUSE
WHAT THEY'RE DOING, WHAT THEY'RE
SAYING IS BASICALLY, WELL, WE
HAVE ENOUGH TO PROVE OUR CASE.
THAT'S WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF SAID,
BUT NOT REALLY.
SO WE REALLY NEED MORE EVIDENCE,
NOT BECAUSE WE NEED IT.
BECAUSE WE WANT IT.
BUT WE DIDN'T WANT IT BAD ENOUGH
WHEN WE WERE IN THE HOUSE, SO WE
DIDN'T GET IT.
SO NOW YOU ISSUE THE SUBPOENA
AND THEN LET'S DUKE IT OUT IN
COURT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THAT THIS
IS -- THEY'RE ACTING LIKE THIS
IS SOME MUNICIPAL TRAFFIC COURT
PROCEEDING.
I REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT UNDER THEIR
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY
ARE REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
SO, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE ALREADY
SAYING IN THE MEDIA THAT THEIR
ONGOING INVESTIGATION, THEY ARE
GOING TO CONTINUE TO
INVESTIGATE.
SO ARE WE GOING TO BE DOING THIS
EVERY THREE WEEKS?
EVERY MONTH EXCEPT IN THE
SUMMER?
THERE'S AN ELECTION MONTHS AWAY.
THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT
TO VOTE.
MY COLLEAGUE, PAT CIPOLLONE, THE
WHITE HOUSE SAID THAT.
WHEN I LOOK AT ALL OF THIS,
WHETHER IT'S THE LATE NEED OF
WITNESSES AFTER YOU SAID YOU
HAVE PROVED YOUR CASE, IF IT'S
DO PRIVILEGES APPLY OR NOT
APPLY?
SENATOR SCHUMER SAID WE GET
ANYBODY WE WANT.
WE WOULD BE HERE FOR A VERY,
VERY LONG TIME.
AND THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE
UNITED STATES.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. SCHUMER: I HAVE A QUESTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE
ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN BY
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL?
MR. SCHIFF: I THINK WE CAN ALL
SEE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, AND
THAT IS IF THE HOUSE WANTS TO
CALL WITNESSES, IF YOU WANT TO
HEAR FROM A SINGLE WITNESS, IF
YOU WANT TO HEAR WHAT JOHN
BOLTON HAS TO SAY, WE ARE GOING
TO MAKE THIS ENDLESS.
WE, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS, ARE
GOING TO MAKE THIS ENDLESS.
WE PROMISE YOU WE'RE GOING TO
WANT ADAM SCHIFF TO TESTIFY,
WE'RE GOING TO WANT JOE BIDEN TO
TESTIFY, HUNTER BIDEN, THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
WE'RE GOING TO WANT EVERYONE IN
THE WORLD IF YOU DARE, IF YOU
HAVE THE UNMITIGATED TEMERITY TO
WANT WITNESSES IN A TRIAL, WE
WILL MAKE YOU PAY FOR IT WITH
ENDLESS DELAY.
THE SENATE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO
GO BACK TO ITS BUSINESS.
THAT'S THEIR ARGUMENT.
HOW DARE THE HOUSE ASSUME THERE
WILL BE WITNESSES IN A TRIAL.
SHOULDN'T THE HOUSE HAVE KNOWN
WHEN THEY UNDERTOOK ITS
INVESTIGATION THAT THE SENATE
WAS NEVER GOING TO ALLOW
WITNESSES?
THAT THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE HISTORY
OF THE REPUBLIC WITH NO
WITNESSES.
SO MR. SEKULOW WANTS ME TO
TESTIFY.
I WOULD LIKE MR. SEKULOW TO
TESTIFY ABOUT HIS CONTACTS WITH
MR. PARNAS OR MR. CIPOLLONE
ABOUT THE EFFORTS TO IMPLEMENT
THE PRESIDENT'S FIGHT ON ALL
SUBPOENAS.
I'D LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS
ABOUT -- WELL, I'D LIKE TO ASK
QUESTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT TO
PIT HIM UNDER OATH.
BUT WE'RE NOT HERE TO INDULGE IN
FANTASY OR DISTRACTION.
WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT PEOPLE
WITH PERTINENT AND PROBATIVE
EVIDENCE.
AND DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING?
I TRUST THE MAN BEHIND ME
SITTING WAY UP -- I CAN'T SEE
RIGHT NOW, BUT I TRUST HIM TO
MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WITNESSES
IS MATERIAL OR NOT, WHETHER IT'S
APPROPRIATE TO OUT A
WHISTLE-BLOWER OR NOT, WHETHER A
PARTICULAR PASSAGE IN A DOCUMENT
IS PRIVILEGED OR NOT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE MONTHS OF
LITIGATION, ALTHOUGH THAT'S WHAT
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS
THREATENING.
THEY'RE DOING THE SAME THING TO
THE SENATE THEY DID TO THE
HOUSE, WHICH IS YOU TRY TO
INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT, YOU
TRY TO TRY THE PRESIDENT, WE
WILL TIE YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE
CHAMBER UP IN KNOTS FOR WEEKS
AND MONTHS.
AND DO YOU KNOW SOMETHING?
THEY WILL IF YOU LET THEM.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET THEM.
YOU CAN SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON.
YOU CAN ALLOW THE CHIEF JUSTICE
TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IN
CAMERA WHETHER SOMETHING IS
RELEVANT, WHETHER IT DEALS WITH
UKRAINE OR VENEZUELA, WHETHER
IT'S PRIVILEGED OR IT ISN'T,
WHETHER THE PRIVILEGE IS BEING
MISAPPLIED TO HIGH CRIMINALITY
OR WRONGDOING.
WE DON'T HAVE TO GO UP AND DOWN
THE COURTS.
WE'VE GOT A PERFECTLY GOOD CHIEF
JUSTICE SITTING RIGHT BEHIND ME
WHO CAN MAKE THESE DECISIONS IN
REAL TIME.
SO DON'T BE THROWN OFF BY THIS
CLAIM, OH, IF YOU EVEN THINK
ABOUT IT, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE
YOU PAY WITH DELAYS LIKE YOU
HAVE NEVER SEEN.
WE'RE GOING TO CALL WITNESSES
THAT WILL TURN THIS INTO A
CIRCUS.
IT SHOULDN'T BE A CIRCUS.
IT SHOULD BE A FAIR TRIAL.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL
WITHOUT WITNESSES.
I THINK WHEN I WAS ASKED THAT
QUESTION BEFORE, I ANSWERED IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND IN THE
NEGATIVE, YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR
TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES, AND YOU
SHOULDN'T PRESUME THAT WHEN A
HOUSE IMPEACHES THE SENATE
TRIALS FROM NOW ON WILL BE
WITNESS FREE, WILL BE EVIDENCE
FREE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS
INTENDED.
IF IT WAS, THEY WOULD HAVE MADE
YOU THE COURT OF APPEALS, BUT
THEY DIDN'T.
THEY MADE YOU THE TRIERS OF
FACT.
THEY EXPECTED YOU TO HEAR FROM
WITNESSES, THEY EXPECTED YOU TO
EVALUATE THEIR CREDIBILITY.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT ABOUT
JOHN BOLTON.
LOOK, I'M NO FAN OF JOHN BOLTON,
ALTHOUGH I LIKE HIM A LITTLE
MORE THAN I USED TO.
BUT YOU SHOULD HEAR FROM HIM.
YOU SHOULD WANT TO.
DON'T TAKE GENERAL KELLY'S VIEW
FOR IT.
MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND, WHETHER
YOU BELIEVE HIM OR MICK
MULVANEY, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE
JOHN BOLTON OR THE PRESIDENT.
MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.
YES, WE PROVED OUR CASE,
COUNSEL.
WE PROVED IT OVERWHELMINGLY.
BUT YOU CHOSE TO CONTEST THE
FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD
MILITARY AID TO COERCE AN ALLY.
YOU CHOSE TO CONTEST IT.
YOU CHOSE TO MAKE JOHN BOLTON'S
TESTIMONY RELEVANT AND
PERTINENT.
IF YOU HAD STIPULATED THE
PRESIDENT DID AS HE IS CHARGED,
THEN YOU MIGHT MAKE THE ARGUMENT
THAT YOU'RE MAKING HERE, BUT YOU
HAVEN'T.
YOU'VE CONTESTED IT.
AND NOW YOU WANT TO SAY BUT THE
SENATE SHALL NOT HEAR FROM THIS
WITNESS.
THAT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL.
IT'S NOT EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF
FAIRNESS.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL
WITHOUT BASIC FAIRNESS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
MR. CASSIDY: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF
AND SENATOR RISCH.
MR. CASSIDY: TO BE BOTH TO THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR CASSIDY
AND SENATOR RISCH FOR BOTH
PARTIES, BEGINNING WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL FIRST.
WE SAW VIDEO OF MR. NADLER
SAYING, QUOTE, THERE MUST NEVER
BE A NARROWLY VOTED IMPEACHMENT
OR AN IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY
ONE OF OUR MAJOR POLITICAL
PARTIES AND OPPOSED BY THE
OTHER.
SUCH AN IMPEACHMENT WILL LACK
LEGITIMACY, WILL PRODUCE
DIVISIVENESS AND BITTERNESS IN
OUR POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME,
AND WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE
VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONS, END QUOTE.
GIVEN THE WELL-KNOWN DISLIKE OF
SOME HOUSE DEMOCRATS FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE STATED
DESIRE OF SOME TO IMPEACH BEFORE
THE PRESIDENT WAS INAUGURATED
AND THE STRICTLY PARTISAN VOTE
IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT, DO THE
CURRENT PROCEEDINGS TYPIFY THAT
WHICH MR. NADLER WARNED AGAINST
20 YEARS AGO?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS YES, THESE
ARE EXACTLY THE SORT OF
PROCEEDINGS THAT MANAGER NADLER
WARNED AGAINST 20 YEARS AGO.
IT IS A PURELY PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN
CLEAR THAT AT LEAST SOME
FACTIONS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE, ON THE DEMOCRATIC
SIDE OF THE AISLE, HAVE BEEN
INTENT ON FINDING SOME WAY TO
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT FROM THE
DAY HE WAS SWORN IN AND EVEN
BEFORE THE DAY HE WAS SWORN IN.
AND THAT'S DANGEROUS FOR OUR
COUNTRY.
TO ALLOW PARTISAN VENOM AND
ENMITY LIKE THAT TO TAKE HOLD
AND BECOME THE -- THE NORM FOR
DRIVING IMPEACHMENTS IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE FRAMERS WARNED AGAINST.
IT'S IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65,
HAMILTON WARNED AGAINST IT.
HE
WARNED AGAINST PERSECUTION BY AN
INTEMPERATE AND DESIGNING
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS
DID NOT WANT IMPEACHMENT TO TURN
INTO AND YET THAT IS CLEARLY
WHAT IT IS TURNING INTO HERE.
AND BOTH MANAGER NADLER AND
DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER IN THE
VIDEO WE SAW WERE FOREWARNING IF
WE START TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD,
ONE THING IN WASHINGTON WHAT
GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.
IF IT GOES TO ONE PARTY, THE
OTHER PARTY ONCE THE PRESIDENCY
CHANGES HANDS.
THEN WE'LL BE IN A CYCLE.
IT WILL BE WORSE AND WORSE AND
WE'LL GET MORE AND MORE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS
INTENDED AND THIS BODY SHOULDN'T
ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN HERE.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: COUNSEL.
MR. JEFFRIES: THE EVIDENCE IS
OVERWHELMING THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP PRESSURED A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT TO TARGET AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN FOR PERSONAL AND
POLITICAL GAIN.
AS PART OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
CORRUPT EFFORT TO CHEAT AND
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN
THE 2020 ELECTION.
THERE IS A REMEDY FOR THAT TYPE
OF STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER, AND
THAT REMEDY IS IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
THAT REMEDY IS IMPEACHMENT AND
THE CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL,
WHICH IS WHAT THIS DISTINGUISHED
BODY IS DOING RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S NOT PARTISAN.
THAT'S NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
PLAYBOOK.
THAT'S NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
PLAYBOOK.
THAT IS THE PLAYBOOK IN A
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC GIVEN TO US
IN A PRECIOUS FASHION BY THE
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THE IMPEACHMENT IN THIS INSTANCE
OF COURSE AND THE CONSIDERATION
OF REMOVAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT
STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF OUR
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
AS NORTH CAROLINA DELEGATE
WILLIAM DAVIE NOTED AT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION,
QUOTE, IF HE BE NOT IMPEACHABLE
WHILE IN OFFICE, HE WILL SPARE
NO EFFORTS OR MEANS WHATSOEVER
TO GET HIMSELF REELECTED.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
UNDERSTOOD THAT PERHAPS THIS
REMEDY WOULD ONE DAY BE
NECESSARY.
THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE RIGHT
NOW.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD
DECIDE AN AMERICAN ELECTION,
NOS -- NOT THE UKRANIANS, NOT
THE RUSSIANS, NOT THE CHINESE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS WHY THIS PRESIDENT WAS
IMPEACHED.
THAT IS WHY IT IS APPROPRIATE
FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS,
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE, NOT AS
PARTISANS, AS AMERICANS, TO
HOLD THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE
FOR HIS STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
MR. SANDERS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM VERMONT.
MR. SANDERS: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
SANDERS ASKS THE HOUSE
MANAGERS, REPUBLICAN LAWYERS
HAVE STATED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS
THAT TWO PEOPLE -- SENATOR
JOHNSON AND AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND -- WERE TOLD DIRECTLY
BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THERE
WAS NO QUID PRO QUO IN TERMS OF
HOLDING BACK UKRAINE AID IN
EXCHANGE FOR AN INVESTIGATION
INTO THE BIDENS.
GIVEN THE MEDIA HAS DOCUMENTED
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S THOUSANDS OF
LIES WHILE IN OFFICE, MORE THAN
16,2000 AS OF JANUARY 20, WHY
SHOULD WE BE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE
THAT ANYTHING PRESIDENT TRUMP
SAYS HAS CREDIBILITY.
MR. SCHIFF: WELL, I'M NOT QUITE
SURE WHERE TO BEGIN WITH THAT
QUESTION EXCEPT TO SAY THAT IF
EVERY DEFENDANT IN A TRIAL COULD
BE EXONERATED JUST BY DENYING
THE CRIME, THERE WOULD BE NO
TRIAL.
IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
I THINK IT'S TELLING THAT WHEN
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE FIRST
WORDS OUT OF HIS MOUTH ACCORDING
TO SONDLAND WERE NO QUID PRO
QUO.
THAT'S THE KIND OF THING YOU
DO, YOU BLURT OUT WHEN YOU'VE
BEEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT AND YOU
SAY IT WASN'T ME, I DIDN'T DO
IT.
BUT EVEN THEN THE PRESIDENT
COULDN'T HELP HIMSELF BECAUSE
THE OTHER HALF OF THAT
CONVERSATION WAS NO QUID PRO QUO
P BUT ZELENSKY NEEDS TO GO TO
THE MIC AND WHAT'S MORE, HE
SHOULD WANT TO.
NO QUID PRO QUO BUT QUID PRO
QUO.
THIS REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING
THAT CAME UP EARLIER.
WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT, WHEN
HE'S ON THE CALL ON JULY 25,
KNOWING THAT THERE ARE OTHER
PEOPLE LISTENING, WHY ON EARTH
WOULD THE PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN
THIS KIND OF SHAKEDOWN WITH
OTHERS WITHIN EARSHOT?
I THINK THIS QUESTION COMES UP
IN ALMOST EVERY CRIMINAL TRIAL.
WHY WOULD THE DEFENDANT DO THAT?
AND SOMETIMES IT'S VERY HARD TO
FATHOM.
SOMETIMES JUST PEOPLE MAKE
MISTAKES.
BUT I THINK IN THE CASE OF THIS
PRESIDENT, HE TRULY BELIEVES
THAT HE'S ABOVE THE LAW.
HE TRULY BELIEVES THAT HE'S
ABOVE THE LAW.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S
LISTENING.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S
LISTENING.
IF IT'S GOOD FOR HIM, A VERSION
OF THE DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT, IF
IT'S GOOD FOR HIM, IT'S GOOD
FOR THE STATE BECAUSE HE IS THE
STATE.
IF IT HELPS HIS REELECTION,
IT'S GOOD FOR AMERICA.
AND WHATEVER MEANS HE NEEDS TO
EFFECTUATE HIS ELECTION,
WHETHER IT'S WITHHOLDING
MILITARY AID OR WHAT HAVE YOU,
AS LONG AS IT HELPS HIM GET
ELECTED, WELL, IT'S GOOD FOR
AMERICA BECAUSE HE IS THE STATE.
THIS IS WHY I THINK HE IS SO
IRATE WHEN PEOPLE COME FORWARD
AND BLOW THE WHISTLE.
NOT JUST THE WHISTLE-BLOWER BUT
PEOPLE LIKE JOHN BOLTON OR
GENERAL KELLY.
YOU MIGHT ASK THE QUESTION, WHY
DO SO MANY PEOPLE WHO LEAVE THIS
ADMINISTRATION, WHY DO THEY
WALK AWAY FROM THIS PRESIDENT
WITH SUCH A CONVICTION THAT HE'S
UNDERMINING OUR SECURITY, THAT
YOU CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS?
I MEAN THINK ABOUT ABOUT THIS.
THE PRESIDENT'S NOW FORMER CHIEF
OF STAFF, GENERAL KELLY,
DOESN'T BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.
HE BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON.
CAN EVERYBODY BE DISGRUNTLED?
CAN IT ALL BE A MATTER OF BIAS?
I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER.
I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER.
I MEAN, HOW DO YOU BELIEVE A
PRESIDENT THAT "THE WASHINGTON
POST" HAS DOCUMENTED SO MANY
FALSE STATEMENTS?
THE SHORT ANSWER IS YOU CAN'T.
AND I REMEMBER EARLY IN THIS
PRESIDENCY, MANY OF US TALKED
ABOUT HOW ONCE AS PRESIDENT YOU
LOSE YOUR CREDIBILITY.
ONCE AS PRESIDENT YOUR COUNTRY
OR YOUR FRIENDS OR H LEAS -- OR
ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD CANNOT
RELY ON YOUR WORD.
JUST HOW DESTRUCTIVE AND
DANGEROUS IT IS TO THE COUNTRY.
AND SO WE CAN'T ACCEPT THE
DENIAL.
IT'S A FALSE DENIAL.
AND INDEED IF YOU LOOK AT THAT
"WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLE
THAT SENATOR JOHNSON WAS
INTERVIEWED IN WHEN HE HAD THAT
CONVERSATION WITH SONDLAND AND
HAD THAT SINKING FEELING BECAUSE
HE DIDN'T WANT THOSE TWO THINGS
TIED TOGETHER, EVERYONE
UNDERSTOOD THEY WERE TIED
TOGETHER.
IT WAS AS SIMPLE AS TWO PLUS TWO
EQUALS FOUR.
SO CAN YOU RELY ON A FALSE
EXCULPATORY?
YOU CAN'T WITH THIS PRESIDENT
ANY MORE THAN YOU CAN WITH ANY
OTHER ACCUSED.
AND PROBABLY GIVEN THE
PRESIDENT'S TRACK RECORD, A LOT
LESS THAN OTHER ACCUSED.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE
HAVE PEOPLE WITH FIRSTHAND
KNOWLEDGE, WHO DON'T HAVE TO
RELY ON HIS FALSE EXCULPATORY.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON MICK
MULVANEY RECANTING WHAT YOU ALL
SAW SO GRAPHICALLY ON TV.
HOW DOES SOMEONE WHO SAYS
WITHOUT A DOUBT, THIS WAS A
FACTOR, THIS IS WHY HE DID IT.
AND BY THE WAY, HE ARGUED A
CORRUPT MOTIVE WAS ONLY A PART
OF THE MOTIVE YOU CAN'T CONVICT
AND THE COURT SAID YES, YOU
CAN.
IF A CORRUPT MOTIVE IS ANY PART
OF IT, YOU CAN CONVICT.
HE LOST THAT ARGUMENT BEFORE.
HE MAKES THAT ARGUMENT AGAIN
BEFORE THIS COURT.
IT SHOULDN'T BE ANY MORE
AVAILING HERE THAN IT WAS THERE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THOUGH,
THERE'S NO MORE INTERESTED PARTY
HERE THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
AND I THINK WE HAVE SEEN HE WILL
SAY WHATEVER HE BELIEVES SUITS
HIS INTEREST.
LET'S INSTEAD RELY ON THE
EVIDENCE AND RELY ON OTHERS.
AND ONE IS JUST A SUBPOENA AWAY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM COLORADO.
MR. GARDNER: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: QUESTION
FROM SENATOR GARDNER IS FOR
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.
ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT
ANY ASSERTION OF PROTECTION FROM
DISCLOSURE IS INDICATIVE OF
GUILT AND THAT THE HOUSE'S
ASSERTION OF IMPEACHMENT POWER
CANNOT BE QUESTIONED BY THE
EXECUTIVE.
IS THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE
HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT POWER
CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION?
AND WHAT PROTECTS THE EXECUTIVE
FROM THE HOUSE ABUSING THE
IMPEACHMENT POWER IN THE FUTURE?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR
THAT QUESTION.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS' ASSERTION
THAT ANY EFFORT TO ASSERT A
PRIVILEGE, ASSERT ILLEGAL
IMMUNITY TO DECLINE DISPOSING
INFORMATION IS SOMEHOW A SIGN OF
GUILT IS NOT THE LAW.
IT IS ACTUALLY FUNDAMENTALLY
CONTRARY TO THE LAW.
LEGAL PRIVILEGES EXIST FOR A
REASON.
WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO ASSERT THEIR
RIGHTS.
IT'S A BASIC PART OF THE
AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM.
AND ASSERTING YOUR RIGHTS,
ASSERTING PRIVILEGES,
IMMUNITIES, DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS, EVEN IF IT MEANS
LIMITING THE INFORMATION THAT
MIGHT BE TURNED OVER TO A
TRIBUNAL IS NOT AND CANNOT BE
TREATED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT.
TO THE SECOND PART OF THE
QUESTION AS TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS' THEORY THAT THE POWER
OF IMPEACHMENT MEANS THAT THE
PRESIDENT CAN'T RESIST ANY
SUBPOENA THAT THEY ISSUE
PURSUANT TO THE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT, IT'S NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE
THE SOLE POWER OF BEACH WHICH
MEANS ONLY THAT THE HOUSE IS THE
ONLY PLACE, THE ONLY PART OF
THE GOVERNMENT THAT HAS THAT
POWER.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THEY HAVE A
PARAMOUNT POWER OF IMPEACHMENT
THAT DESTROYS ALL OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES.
IT DO MEAN THAT EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGES DISAPPEARS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS CITED A
NUMBER OF TIMES NIXON VS. UNITED
STATES.
I MIGHT GET IT REVERSED NOW,
THE UNITED STATES VS. NIXON,
THE CASE INVOLVING PRESIDENT
NIXON IN 1974, THE SUPREME
COURT DETERMINED THAT AFTER THAT
PARTICULAR CASE, AFTER A
BALANCING OF INTERESTS,
ASSERTIONS OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE
WAY.
IT DID NOT SAY THERE IS A
BLANKET RULE THAT ANY TIME THERE
IS AN ALLEGATION OF WRONGDOING
OR THERE IS AN IMPEACHMENT GOING
ON IN THE BACKGROUND EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE DISAPPEARS.
THAT IS NOT THE RULE FROM THAT
CASE.
EVEN IN THAT CONTEXT, THE COURT
POINTED OUT THAT THERE MIGHT BE
AN ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR
PRIVILEGE IN THE FIELD OF
FOREIGN RELATIONS AND NATIONAL
SECURITY WHICH IS THE FIELD THAT
WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.
THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED THAT
THERE COULD BE PARTISAN AND
ILLEGITIMATE IMPEACHMENTS.
THEY RECOGNIZED THAT THE HOUSE
COULD IMPEACH FOR THE WRONG
REASONS.
THEY DIDN'T LEAVE THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH TOTALLY DEFENSELESS TO
THAT.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IMMUNITIES
ROOTED IN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
SUCH AS THE IMMUNITY FOR SENIOR
ADVISORS STILL APPLIES EVEN IN
THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT.
THAT'S PART OF THE CHECKS AND
BALANCES IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THEY DON'T FALL AWAY SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE HOUSE SAYS NOW WE
WANT TO PROCEED ON IMPEACHMENT.
IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER
FUNCTIONING OF THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS FOR
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO RETAIN
THAT ABILITY TO PROTECT
CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS, TO
PROTECT THE PREROGATIVES OF THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.
AND FOR ANY PRESIDENT TO FAIL TO
ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS AND TO
PROTECT THEM WOULD DO LASTING
DAMAGE TO THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENCY FOR THE FUTURE.
AND I THINK THAT'S A CRITICAL
POINT TO UNDERSTAND, THAT THERE
IS A DANGER IN THE LEGAL THEORY
THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE
PROPOSING HERE BECAUSE IT WOULD
DO LASTING DAMAGE TO THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS TO THE
STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO
HAVE THE IDEA BE THAT AS SOON AS
THE HOUSE FLIPS THE SWITCH,
THAT THEY WANT TO START
PROCEEDING ON IMPEACHMENT, THE
EXECUTIVE HAS NO DEFENSES AND
HAS TO OPEN EVERY FILE AND
DISPLAY EVERYTHING.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE FRAMERS
HAD IT IN MIND BECAUSE THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS TO HAVE
STILL ITS DEFENSES FOR ITS
SPHERE OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AS PART OF THE
KREBS.
 -- PART OF THE CHECKS AND
BALANCES.
GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION WHO
ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE
REVIEW PROCESS AND THE BOLTON
BOOK, I WANT TO MAKE 100%
SURE, TO THE EXTENT THE SENATOR
WAS ASKING FOR ASSURANCE THAT
ONLY THOSE IN THE N.S.C. REVIEW
IT FOR CLASSIFICATION REVIEW, I
CAN'T MAKE THAT ASSURANCE
BECAUSE IT IS AN N.S.C. PROCESS
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THE LEVELS
OF THE PROCESS THERE MIGHT BE
OTHER REVIEWS.
I DIDN'T I
 -- I DIDN'T INTEND TO GIVE THAT
ASSURANCE TO YOU.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
MS. WARREN: I SEND A DESK TO THE
HOUSE MANAGERS AND TO THE
COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT.
 -- FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE HOUSE
MANAGERS WILL RESPOND FIRST TO
THIS QUESTION FROM SENATOR
WARREN.
IF UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
CALLED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
OFFERED DIRT ON PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVALS IN
EXCHANGE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP
HANDING OVER HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS FOR MILITARY AID THAT
WOULD BE BRIBERY AND AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, WHY WOULD
IT NOT BE IMPEACHABLE FOR THE
REVERSE THAT IS FOR PRESIDENT
TRUMP TO PROPOSE THE SAME
CORRUPT BARGAIN?
ROOL BRIBERY IS AN --
MR. NADLER: BRIBERY IS AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
WE EXPLAINED IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE THAT THE PRACTICE OF
IMPEACHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
HASENVELOPED IT IN OTHER HIGH
CRIMES OF THE ELEMENTS OF
BRIBERY ARE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED.
THE ABUSE OF POWER IS CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED WHEN THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OFFERS
SOMETHING OF -- EXTORTS A
FOREIGN POWER TO GET A BENEFIT
FOR HIMSELF, WITHHOLDS MILITARY
AID IN ORDER TO GET THAT FOREIGN
POWER TO DO SOMETHING FOR HIM
POLITICALLY, IT IS BRIBERY AND
ABUSE OF POWER.
THE QUESTION WAS RAISED EARLIER
AS TO WHAT THE PROPER STANDARD
OF PROOF IS.
AND PEOPLE POINTED OUT THE
CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SAY.
BUT THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF
PROOF IS BEYOND A RESONABLE
DOUBT AND THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN
PROVEN NOT BEYOND A RESONABLE
DOUBT, BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
MR. PHILBIN: THE QUESTION, I
THINK WITH THE HYPOTHETICAL THAT
HOUSE MANAGER NADLER SHOWS IS TO
SMUGGLE IN IMPEACHMENT, THE IDEA
THAT THERE IS SOME CRIME ALLEGED
HERE.
THERE IS NOT.
IT WANT THROUGH THAT EARLIER.
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
SPECIFY A THEORY OF THE CHARGE
HERE THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER.
THEY DID DO NOT MENTION BRIBERY
OR EXTORTION.
IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD WANTED
TO BRING THOSE CHARGES, THEY
THIS TO PUT THEM IN THE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT.
JUST THE WAY THE PROSECUTOR, IF
HE BANTS TO PUT SOMEONE ON --
WANTS TO PUT SOMEONE ON TRIAL
FOR BRIBERY, YOU HAVE TO PUT IT
IN THE INDICTMENT.
IF YOU DON'T AND COME TO TRIAL
AND START TO ARGUE ACTUALLY WE
THINK THERE IS BRIBERY HERE,
THAT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
A HYPOTHETICAL CONTRARY TO WHAT
THE FACTS WERE HERE TO TRY TO
SUGGEST THERE IS MAYBE SOME
ELEMENT OF BRAIBRY, THAT'S --
BRIBERY, THAT IS ALL BESIDE THE
POINT.
WE HAVE SPECIFIC FACTS, WE HAVE
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, WE HAVE
A SPECIFIC ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IT DOESN'T SAY BRIBERY.
IT DOESN'T SAY EXTORTION.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET THAT INTO
THIS CASE AT THIS POINT.
BECAUSE THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO FRAME THEIR
CASE.
THEY HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO
FRAME IT ANYWAY THEY WANTED,
THEY CONTROLLED THE PROCESS,
THEY CONTROLLED THE EVIDENCE
THAT WENT IN, THEY CONTROLLED
THE WITNESSES THAT WERE CALLED
AND THEY COULD FRAME IT ANY WAY
THEY WANTED.
THEY DIDN'T PUT IN ANY CRIME.
THERE'S NO CRIME ASSERTED HERE.
THERE'S NONE IN THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT AND IT CAN'T BE
CONSIDERED NOW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM KANSAS.
A SENATOR: I SUBMIT TO THE DESK
A QUESTION ON MY BEHALF AND ON
BEHALF OF SENATOR CORNYN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR MORAN AND
SENATOR CORNYN IS FOR COUNSEL TO
THE PRESIDENT.
IS IT TRUE THAT IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CHIEF
JUSTICE CAN RULE ON THE ISSUE OF
PRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AND THE
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES OVER THE
OBJECTION OF EITHER THE MANAGERS
OR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL?
WOULD A DETERMINATION BY THE
CHIEF JUSTICE BE SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW?
MR. PHILBIN: THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION AND LET ME ANSWER IT
THIS WAY.
IF WE'RE GOING TO START TALKING
ABOUT SUBPOENAING WITNESSES,
SUBPOENAING DOCUMENTS, HAVING
THINGS COME INTO EVIDENCE THAT
WAY, THE FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE
SUBPOENAS WOULD HAVE TO BE ISSUE
TO THE WITNESSES OR FOR THE
DOCUMENTS.
AND IF THEY SUBPOENAS WERE
RESISTED ON THE GROUNDS OF SOME
PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY, THEY
WOULD HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT.
IF THEY HAD AN EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE OVER CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS, THEN THE SENATE WOULD
HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS
GOING TO FIGHT THAT ASSERTION
AND HOW, THROUGH SOME
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS AND
NEGOTIATION OR IF THE SENATE
WERE GOING TO GO TO COURT TO
LITIGATE THAT.
AND THAT WHOLE PROCESS WOULD
HAVE TO PLAY OUT.
THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST STAGE,
BE AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
GONE THROUGH ANY TIME THE
PRESIDENT RESISTED THIS SUBPOENA
ON THE WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS.
THAT WOULD TAKE A WAY.
 -- A WHILE.
THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS
DECIDED NOT TO DO IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THEN ONCE THERE HAD BEEN
EVERYTHING RESOLVED ON A
SUBPOENA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE QUESTION ASKS
FURTHER IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS
HERE IN THE TRIAL ADD MISS
ABILITY OF -- ADMISSIBILITY OF
PARTICULAR EVIDENCE, THE CHIEF
JUSTICE COULD MAKE A
DETERMINATION IF THERE WERE
OBJECTIONS TO INITIAL EVIDENCE,
BUT ALL SUCH DETERMINATIONS
COULD BE CHALLENGED BY THE
CHALLENGE OF THE SENATE AND
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A VOTE.
SO IT WOULD NOT BE -- I THINK
THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTIONS
EARLIER, WE DON'T NEED ANY OTHER
COURTS.
WE DON'T NEED INVOLVEMENT OF
ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE IS HERE.
THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
ON THE SUBPOENAS AT THE FRONT
END, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE
SOMETHING THAT'S DETERMINED WITH
ALL RESPECT SERVE BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WOULD HAVE TO BE ARE SORTED OUT
IN THE COURTS OR BY NEGOTIATION
WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
THEN ONCE WE'RE HERE ON SPECIFIC
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IF WE
HAVE A WITNESS AND THERE ARE
OBJECTIONS DURING DISPOSITIONS
THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED OR BY A
WITNESS ON THE STAND.
IF THERE ARE OBJECTIONS TO
PARTICULAR DOCUMENTS,
AUTHENTICATION, THE CHIEF
JUSTICE COULD MAKE AN INITIAL
RULING BUT EVERYONE OF THOSE
RULINGS COULD BE APPEALED TO
THIS BODY BY A MAJORITY VOTE ON
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WOULD COME
IN OR NOT.
AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO CONSIDER
RULES WHETHER YOU WILL HAVE THE
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLY
OR SOME MODIFIED RULES OF
EVIDENCE AND ALL OF THAT WOULD
HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD GET
TO THE STAGE THEN OF ANY
DETERMINATION OF EVIDENCE HERE
BEING ANYWAY APPEALED OUT TO THE
COURTS, BUT THAT WOULD BE A
PROCESS THAT THIS BODY WOULD
HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT WOULD BE
ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN THE
TRIAL.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A
QUESTION --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: EXCUSE
ME.
YES, THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
A SENATOR: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SMITH
IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDENT STATED THAT HIS --
TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH.
IF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE
SO PERFECT, WHY WOULDN'T HE
ALLOW FACT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY
UNDER OATH ABOUT WHAT HE HAS
SAID PUBLICLY?
MR. SCHIFF: WELL, THE SHORT
ANSWER IS, IF THE PRESIDENT WERE
SO CONFIDENT THAT THIS WAS A
PERFECT CALL AND THOSE AROUND
HIM WOULD AGREE THERE WAS
NOTHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON, HE
WOULD WANT WITNESSES TO COME AND
TESTIFY.
BUT, OF COURSE, HE DOESN'T.
HE DOESN'T WANT HIS FORMER
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO
TESTIFY, HE DOESN'T WANT HIS
CURRENT CHIEF OF STAFF TO
TESTIFY, HE DOESN'T WANT THOSE
WHO WERE WITH O.M.B. TO TESTIFY.
HE DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR FROM ANY
OF THEM.
I THINK THAT'S PRETTY INDICATIVE
THAT HE KNOWS WHAT THEY HAVE TO
SAY AND HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO
HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.
HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE ANY
OF THE MYRIAD OF DOCUMENTS THAT
HE'S BEEN WITH HOLD WILLING FROM
THIS BODY AND FROM THE HOUSE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE LAST
PART OF THE QUESTION.
IS THE CHIEF JUSTICE EMPOWERED
UNDER THE SENATE RULES TO
ADJUDICATE QUESTIONS OF
WITNESSES AND PRIVILEGE, AND THE
ANSWER IS YES.
CAN THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE THOSE
DETERMINATIONS QUICKLY?
THE ANSWER IS YES.
IS THE SENATE EMPOWERED TO
OVERTURN THE CHIEF JUSTICE UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, IS THE 50
OR IS THE VOTE TWO-THIRDS, THAT
WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD
HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE
PARLIAMENTARIAN AND THE CHIEF
JUSTICE.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS THE POWER
TO DO IT.
ONCE MORE, UNDER THE SENATE
RULES, YOU WANT EXPEDITED
PROCESS, WE ARE HERE TO TELL YOU
THAT WE WILL AGREE WITH THE
CHIEF JUSTICE'S RULING ON
WITNESSES, ON MATERIALITY, ON
THE APPLICATION OR
NONAPPLICATION OF PRIVILEGE.
WE AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE
CHIEF JUSTICE.
WE WILL NOT SEEK TO LITIGATE AN
ADVERSE RULING.
WE WILL NOT SEEK TO APPEAL AN
ADVERSE RULING.
WILL THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL DO
THE SAME?
AND IF NOT, JUST AS THE
PRESIDENT DOESN'T TRUST WHAT
THESE WITNESSES HAVE TO SAY, THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS DON'T WANT
TO RELY ON WHAT THE CHIEF
JUSTICE'S RULINGS MIGHT BE.
NOW, WHY IS THAT?
THEY, AS WE, UNDERSTAND THE
CHIEF JUSTICE WILL BE FAIR.
I DON'T -- I'M NOT FOR A MOMENT
SUGGESTING THEY DON'T THINK THE
CHIEF JUSTICE IS FAIR.
QUITE THE CONTRARY.
THEY ARE AFRAID HE'LL BE FAIR.
THEY ARE AFRAID HE'LL MAKE A
FAIR RULING.
THAT SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING
ABOUT THE WEAKNESS OF THEIR
POSITION.
THEY DON'T WANT A FAIR TRIAL
WITH WITNESSES, THEY DON'T WANT
A FAIR JUSTICE TO ADJUDICATE
THESE QUESTIONS.
THEY WANT TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT
THEY WILL DELAY AND DELAY.
I THINK IT WAS THOMAS PAYNE WHO
SAID, THOSE WHO WOULD ENJOY THE
BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY MUST
UNDERGO THE RIGORS OF DEFENDING
IT, THE FATIGUES OF DEFENDING
IT.
IS IT TOO MUCH FATIGUE FOR US TO
HEAR FROM A WITNESS?
IS THAT HOW LITTLE EFFORT WE'RE
WILLING TO PUT INTO THE
BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM AND
LIBERTY?
IS THAT HOW LITTLE FATIGUE WE
ARE WILLING TO INCUR?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA.
A SENATOR: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF,
TIM SCOTT, AND MARCO RUBIO.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SASSE
AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
SCOTT FROM SOUTH CAROLINA AND
MR. RUBIO IS DIRECTED TO COUNSEL
FOR THE PRESIDENT.
MR. CIPOLLONE POINTED SENATORS
TO THE, QUOTE, GOLDEN RULE OF
IMPEACHMENT, END QUOTE, IN RELAB
RATING ON THAT RULE, CAN YOU
OFFER YOUR VIEWS ON THE ON THE
PROXIMITY TO ELECTIONS TO FUTURE
IMPEACHMENTS TOWARD THE END OF
SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC TRUST BY
PUTTING GUARDRAILS ON BOTH
PARTIES?
MR. CIPOLLONE: IN ELABORATING ON
THE GOLDEN RULE, I WOULD SAY IF
WE LISTENED TO WHAT THE
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS SAID IN THE
PAST AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, THAT
SHOULD GUIDE US, AND THAT
PRINCIPLE IS -- AND IT'S A
PRINCIPLE BASED IN PRECEDENT.
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT.
IF YOU HAVE A PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT THAT IS A DANGER
SIGN.
BECAUSE THAT MEANS THAT THERE IS
NOT THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT
EVEN THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
HAS SAID YOU WOULD NEED TO EVEN
BEGIN TO CONSIDER THE
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT,
BECAUSE IT IS THE OVERTURNING OF
AN ELECTION.
THEY DON'T DISPUTE THAT.
IT IS THE OVERTURNING OF AN
ELECTION.
IN ADDITION, IT IS THE REMOVAL
OF THIS PRESIDENT FROM AN
ELECTION THAT'S OCCURRING IN
JUST MONTHS FROM NOW, WHICH I
THINK IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT
PRINCIPLE.
I THINK THE OTHER IMPORTANT FACT
HERE IS THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY
BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO THIS
IMPEACHMENT.
DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST IT IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE.
THE OTHER -- THE OTHER PRINCIPLE
WOULD BE THAT IF YOU -- IF YOU
HAVE A PROCESS THAT'S
UNPRECEDENTED, IF YOU HAVE A
PROCESS THAT'S UNPRECEDENTED,
THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT
OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED.
ALWAYS IN THE PAST, THERE HAS
BEEN A VOTE AUTHORIZING AN
IMPEACHMENT.
WHY?
BECAUSE THEY SAY THE HOUSE IS
THE SOLE AUTHORITY OF AN
IMPEACHMENT -- AN IMPEACHMENT,
BUT THAT'S THE HOUSE, NOT THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AT A PRESS
CONFERENCE.
THAT'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATION.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION
IS ALL OF THE HISTORICAL
PRECEDENTS RELATED TO RIGHTS
GIVEN TO A PRESIDENT IN A
PROCESS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE
THAT IN OUR HISTORY.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WASN'T
ABLE TO ATTEND, WASN'T ALLOWED
TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES,
WASN'T ALLOWED TO CALL
WITNESSES, AND THEY'RE COMING
HERE AND BASICALLY ASKING YOU,
NUMBER ONE, TO CALL WITNESSES
THAT THEY HAVE REFUSED TO
PURSUE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I
THINK WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS DO
WHAT THEY DID.
ONLY CALL WITNESSES THAT THEY
WANT.
DON'T ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO
CALL WITNESSES THAT THE
PRESIDENT WANTS.
THAT DOESN'T WORK.
THAT'S NOT DUE PROCESS.
THE OTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE
THERE IS WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT
FAIRNESS, BUT IN THE AMERICAN
JUSTICE SYSTEM, FAIRNESS IS
ABOUT FAIRNESS TO THE ACCUSED.
FAIRNESS IS ABOUT FAIRNESS TO
THE ACCUSED.
SO HOW YOU COULD SUGGEST THAT
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE A TRIAL, WE'LL GET
THE WITNESSES AS PROSECUTORS
THAT WE WANT, EVEN THOUGH YOU
GOT THE CALL, NO WITNESSES IN
THE HOUSE.
YOU GOT TO CROSS-EXAMINE NONE OF
THE WITNESSES THAT WE CALLED.
AND HAVE WE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU.
LET US CALL ANOTHER WITNESS, BUT
YOU CALL NONE.
THAT'S ANOTHER PRINCIPLE.
AND I THINK THE REALITY IS THAT
WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID
IS TRUE.
I THINK WHEN YOU'RE THINKING
ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, AS MUCH AS WE
CAN AS HUMAN BEINGS, WE SHOULD
THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF THE
PRESIDENT IS THE PRESIDENT
REGARDLESS OF PARTY, AND HOW
WOULD WE TREAT A PRESIDENT OF
OUR OWN PARTY IN SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I THINK -- I
THINK THAT'S THE GOLDEN RULE OF
IMPEACHMENT.
AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO
GUESS HERE, BECAUSE I THINK WE
HAVE LOTS OF STATEMENTS FROM
DEMOCRATS WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST
TIME AROUND.
ON PRINCIPLES, AND I SAID I
AGREE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES.
I JUST ASK THAT THEY BE APPLIED
HERE.
SO THAT'S MY ANSWER.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
DURBIN ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS
IF PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE TO
ACTUALLY INVOKE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
WOULDN'T HE BE REQUIRED TO
IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS
OR COMMUNICATIONS CONTAINING
SENSITIVE MATERIAL THAT HE SEEKS
TO PROTECT?
MR. NADLER: AS STATED BEFORE,
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS A VERY
LIMITED PRIVILEGE THAT MUST BE
CLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT.
HE HAS AT NO TIME CLAIMED
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
RATHER, HE HAS CLAIMED ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY, THE NONEXISTENT
CONCEPT THAT EVERY COURT THAT
HAS EVER CONSIDERED IT HAS
REJECTED IT.
INSTEAD, HE HAS SIMPLY SAID WE
WILL OPPOSE ALL SUBPOENAS, WE
WILL DENY TO THE HOUSE ALL
INFORMATION, ALL INFORMATION,
WHATEVER THEY WANT, THEY CAN'T
HAVE.
THIS IS WAY BEYOND THE PALE.
AND IT IS INTENDED BECAUSE HE
FEARS THE FACTS.
AND THE FACTS ARE HE TRIED TO
EXTORT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO
WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID THAT
THIS CONGRESS HAD VOTED HE BROKE
THE LAW TO WITHHOLD THE AID THAT
THIS CONGRESS HAD MANDATED BE
SENT TO THEM IN ORDER TO
PRESSURE THEM INTO ANNOUNCING AN
INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENT.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
THOSE FACTS ARE PROVEN BEYOND
ANY DOUBT AT ALL.
SO WHAT DO WE HAVE?
WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A DIVERSION
AFTER DIVERSION.
DIVERSIONS ABOUT WHAT HUNTER
BIDEN MAY HAVE DONE IN UKRAINE.
IRRELEVANT.
WHATEVER HE DID IN UKRAINE, THE
QUESTION IS DID THE PRESIDENT
WITHHOLD FOREIGN MILITARY AID IN
ORDER TO EXTORT A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT INTO HELPING HIM RIG
AN AMERICAN ELECTION?
WE HEAR DIVERSIONS ABOUT
PRIVILEGE.
WE HEAR QUESTIONS ABOUT
WITNESSES.
WE KNOW HE'S TELLING THE
SENATORS DON'T ALLOW WITNESSES.
WHY?
BECAUSE HE KNOWS WHAT THE
WITNESSES WILL SAY.
WE HEAR ARGUMENTS FROM HIS
COUNSEL.
WELL, WE HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH TIME
WITH WITNESSES.
THE HOUSE SHOULDN'T HAVE VOTED
IF IT DIDN'T HAVE PROOF
POSITIVE.
WE HAD PROOF POSITIVE.
WE VOTED IT.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULDN'T
HAVE MORE PROOF IF IT COMES
FORWARD.
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT
MR. BOLTON SHOULDN'T BE
PERMITTED TO TESTIFY, AND HE'S
NOT GOING TO WASTE OUR TIME.
HE HAS TOLD US HE WILL TESTIFY
WITH A SUBPOENA.
SO ALL OF THESE, THE QUESTIONS
ARE DIVERSIONS.
THEY ARE DIVERSIONS BY A
PRESIDENT WHO IS DESPERATE
BECAUSE WE HAVE PROVEN THE FACTS
THAT HE THREATENED A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT -- NOT JUST
THREATENED THEM.
DID, IN FACT, WITHHOLD MANDATED
AMERICAN MILITARY AID FROM THEM
IN ORDER TO BLACKMAIL THEM INTO
SERVING HIS POLITICAL PURPOSES
FOR PRIVATE POLITICAL PURPOSES.
WE KNOW THAT.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS A DIVERSION.
NO WITNESSES BECAUSE MAYBE THOSE
WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY IN A WAY
HE DOESN'T WANT.
PRIVILEGE.
WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH
ACCUSATIONS OF WRONGDOING
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, THE
SUPREME COURT TOLD US IN THE
NIXON CASE, PRIVILEGE YIELDS.
SO ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS ARE
DIVERSIONS.
KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE FACTS.
THE FACTS WE HAVE PROVEN, AND
LET'S SEE THE ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES, AND AS THE -- AS
MR. SCHIFF SAID, WITNESSES
SHOULD NOT BE A THREAT.
NOT TO THE SENATE, NOT TO
ANYBODY ELSE.
AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO WASTE
TOO MUCH TIME BECAUSE THE CHIEF
JUSTICE CAN RULE ON RELEVANT
QUESTIONS OF RELEVANCY OR
PRIVILEGE OR ANYTHING ELSE.
BUT THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS.
THE PRESIDENT IS A DANGER TO THE
UNITED STATES.
HE'S TRIED TO RIG THE NEXT
ELECTION.
HE'S ABUSED HIS POWER.
AND HE MUST BE BROUGHT TO HEEL
AND THE COUNTRY MUST BE SAVED
FROM HIS CONTINUING EFFORTS TO
RIG OUR ELECTIONS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
MR. ROMNEY: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR ROMNEY IS
FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE
PRESIDENT.
ON WHAT SPECIFIC DATE DID TRUMP
FIRST ORDER THE HOLD ON SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE, AND DID
HE EXPLAIN THE REASON AT THAT
TIME?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF A
SPECIFIC DATE, THE SPECIFIC
DATE, BUT THERE IS TESTIMONY IN
THE RECORD THAT INDIVIDUALS AT
O.M.B. AND ELSEWHERE WERE AWARE
OF A HOLD AS OF JULY 3, AND
THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
OF THE PRESIDENT'S RATIONALES
FROM EVEN EARLIER THAN THAT
TIME.
THERE IS AN E-MAIL FROM JUNE 24
THAT HAS BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED.
IT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED IN
RESPONSE TO A FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT REQUEST THAT IS
FROM ONE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STAFFER UP TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
IN -- SORRY.
FROM THE CHIEF OF STAFF DOWN TO
A STAFFER IN D.O.D. RELATING ON
THE SUBJECT LINE POTUS
FOLLOW-UP, A FOLLOW-UP FROM A
MEETING WITH PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, CONCERNING A
QUESTION THAT HAD BEEN ASKED
ABOUT UKRAINE ASSISTANCE.
QUOTE, WHAT WAS THE FUNDING USED
FOR, DID IT GO TO U.S. FIRMS,
WHO FUNDED IT, AND WHAT DID
OTHER NATO MEMBERS SPEND TO
SUPPORT UKRAINE?
SO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN
JUNE, THE PRESIDENT HAD
EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN ABOUT
BURDEN SHARING, WHAT THE OTHER
NATO MEMBERS DO.
SIMILARLY, IN THE JULY 25
TRANSCRIPT, THERE WAS -- THE
PRESIDENT ASKED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY SPECIFICALLY, HE RAISED
THE ISSUE OF BURDEN SHARING,
AGAIN SHOWING THAT WAS HIS
CONCERN.
IN ADDITION, IT WAS, I BELIEVE,
MR. MORRISON WHO TESTIFIED THAT
HE WAS AWARE FROM O.M.B. THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD EXPRESSED
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION AND
THAT THERE WAS A REVIEW PROCESS
TO CONSIDER CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE.
SO THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT RAISED
CONCERNS AT LEAST AS OF JUNE 24,
THAT PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE
HOLD AS OF JULY 3, THE
PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT
BURDEN SHARING WERE IN THE
E-MAIL ON JUNE 24, THEY ARE
REFLECTED IN THE JULY 25 CALL.
SIMILARLY, THERE IS TESTIMONY
FROM LATER IN THE SUMMER THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD RAISED
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE, AND SO THAT IS THE
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT
REFLECTS THE PRESIDENT'S
CONCERN.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM NEVADA.
A SENATOR: THANK YOU.
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM NOR CORTEZ MASTO
IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS CLAIMED
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS UNFAIRLY
EXCLUDED FROM HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
PROCESSES.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE DUE PROCESS
PRESIDENT TRUMP RECEIVED DURING
HOUSE PROCEEDINGS COMPARED TO
PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS?
DID PRESIDENT TRUMP TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF ANY OPPORTUNITIES
TO HAVE HIS COUNSEL PARTICIPATE?
MRS. DEMINGS: MR. CHIEF COUNSEL,
AND TO THE SENATOR, THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION.
LET ME MAKE THIS CLAIM.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE VICTIM
HERE.
THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE IS THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS INVITED TO
ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN ALL OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HEARINGS.
HE COULD HAVE HAD MR. CIPOLLONE,
MR. SEKULOW, OR ANY OF THE OTHER
ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE JOINED AT THE
COUNSEL'S TABLE PARTICIPATE
THROUGHOUT THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE'S PROCEEDINGS IN THE
HOUSE.
THEY COULD HAVE ATTENDED ALL OF
THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS -- AND
IMAGINE THIS -- CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES, RAISED OBJECTIONS,
PRESENT EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO
THE PRESIDENT IF THEY HAD ANY TO
PRESENT.
AND THEY COULD HAVE REQUESTED TO
HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN
WITNESSES CALLED.
BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO
PARTICIPATE.
HE WROTE TO THE HOUSE, AND I
QUOTE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO
IMPEACH ME, DO IT NOW FAST SO WE
CAN HAVE A FAIR TRIAL IN THE
SENATE.
AT EVERY EVENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP
WAS ASKED AND INDEED LEGALLY
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE
DURING THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION, BUT HE
REFUSED, AS WE'VE ALREADY SAID,
OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO PRODUCE
ANY DOCUMENTS OR ALLOW WITNESSES
TO TESTIFY.
WE THANK GOD FOR THE 17 PUBLIC
SERVANTS WHO CAME FORWARD IN
SPITE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS
TO OBSTRUCT.
IN ADDITION, REPUBLICAN MEMBERS
IN CONGRESS HAD AN EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS
DURING THE DEPOSITIONS AND THE
HEARINGS, AND BOTH THE
INTELLIGENCE AND THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE HEARINGS.
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS CALLED THREE
WITNESSES DURING THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S
HEARINGS AND AN ADDITIONAL
WITNESS DURING THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE'S HEARINGS.
OF COURSE, A HOUSE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY IS NOT A FULL-BLOWN
CRIMINAL TRIAL.
WE DO KNOW THAT.
BUT THIS IS A TRIAL, AND
OBVIOUSLY THE PRESIDENT IS BEING
AFFORDED EVERY DUE PROCESS RIGHT
DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM ALASKA.
MS. MURKOWSKI: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: SENATOR
MURKOWSKI'S QUESTION IS FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.
IN EARLY OCTOBER MR. CIPOLLONE
SENT A LETTER SAYING NONE OF THE
SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE
WERE APPROPRIATELY AUTHORIZED
AND THUS INVALID.
WHEN THE HOUSE PASSED THE
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND GRANTING
SUBPOENA POWER TO THE
INTELLIGENCE AND JUDICIARY
COMMITTEES, THE BODY COULD HAVE
ADDRESSED THE DEFICIENCY THE
WHITE HOUSE POINTED OUT AND
PROCLAIMED THOSE SUBPOENAS AS
VALID EXERCISES OF THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
ALTERNATIVELY, THE HOUSE COULD
HAVE REISSUED THE SUBPOENAS
AFTER THE RESOLUTION WAS
ADOPTED.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NEITHER OF
THOSE ACTIONS TOOK PLACE.
MS. GARCIA: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATOR, I APPRECIATE YOUR
QUESTION.
THESE ARGUMENTS, PLAIN AND
SIMPLE, ARE A RED HERRING.
THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
AND ITS SUBPOENA WERE FULLY
AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
HOUSE RULES, AND PRESIDENT.
IT IS FOR THE HOUSE, NOT THE
PRESIDENT, TO DECIDE HOW TO
CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
THE HOUSE'S AUTONOMY TO
STRUCTURE ITS OWN PROCEEDINGS
FOR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS
ROOTED IN TWO PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
FIRST, ARTICLE 1 VESTS THE
HOUSE WITH THE SOLE POWER OF
IMPEACHMENT.
IT CONTAINS NO REQUIREMENTS, NO
REQUIREMENTS AS TO HOW THE HOUSE
MUST CARRY OUT THAT
RESPONSIBILITY.
SECOND, ARTICLE 1 STATES THAT
THE HOUSE IS EMPOWERED TO
DETERMINE THE RULES OF
PROCEEDINGS.
TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE
PROVISIONS GIVE THE HOUSE SOLE
DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE
INVESTIGATE, DELIBERATE, AND
VOTE FOR GROUNDS OF IMPEACHMENT.
IN EXERCISING ITS RESPONSIBILITY
TO INVESTIGATE AND CONSIDER THE
IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, THE HOUSE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO
RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH CONCERNING THE
PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.
THE FRAMERS, THE COURTS, AND
PAST PRESIDENTS HAVE RECOGNIZED
AND HONORS CONGRESS' RIGHT TO
INFORMATION IN AN IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATION AND IS CRITICAL TO
OUR SAFEGUARD TO THE DIVIDED
POWERS.
OTHERWISE A PRESIDENT COULD HIDE
HIS OWN WRONGDOING TO PREVENT
CONGRESS FROM DISCOVERING
IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT
EFFECTIVELY NULLIFYING,
NULLIFYING CONGRESS' IMPEACHMENT
POWER.
THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS TRIED TO ACHIEVE HERE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS ASSERTED THE
POWER TO DETERMINE FOR HIMSELF
WHICH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS HE
WILL RESPOND TO AND THOSE THAT
HE WILL NOT.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WOULD
HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT EACH TIME
ANYONE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
GETS A SUBPOENA, IT'S OPEN
SEASON FOR CREATIVE LAWYERS IN
THE WHITE HOUSE AND D.O.J. TO
START INVENTING THEORIES ABOUT
HOUSE RULES AND PARLIAMENTARY
PRESIDENT.
THIS IS NOT HOW THE SEPARATION
OF POWERS WORKS, AND TO ACCEPT
THAT ARGUMENT WOULD WHOLLY
UNDERMINE THE HOUSE AND SENATE'S
ABILITY TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
IT WOULD ALSO MAKE IMPEACHMENT A
NULLITY.
THE PRESIDENT ARGUES THAT THERE
WAS NO RESOLUTION FULLY
AUTHORIZING THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
BUT AGAIN, THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT FOR THE FULL HOUSE
TO TAKE A VOTE BEFORE CONDUCTING
AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS LAWYERS
INVENTED THIS THEORY, AS CHIEF
JUST HOWELL OF THE U.S. DISTRICT
COURT IN D.C. HAS STATED, AND
THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE, THIS
CLAIM HAS NO TEXT WALL SUPPORT
IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR
GOVERNING RULES IN THE HOUSE.
THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF SAYS
NOTHING ABOUT HOW THE HOUSE MAY
EXERCISE ITS SOLE IMPEACHMENT,
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, BUT
INSTEAD CONFIRMS THE HOUSE SHALL
HAVE THE ROLE, THE SOLE POWER
TO DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS
OWN PROCEEDINGS.
THIS CONCLUSION IS ALSO
CONFIRMED BY PRESIDENT.
NUMEROUS JUDGES HAVE BEEN
SUBJECTED TO IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATIONS IN THE HOUSE,
AND EVEN IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE
AND CONVICTED BY THE SENATE
WITHOUT ANY PREVIOUS VOTE OF THE
HOUSE AUTHORIZING AN IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
AS RECENTLY AS THE 114th
CONGRESS, THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE CONSIDERED IMPEACHING
THE I.R.S. COMMISSIONER
FOLLOWING A REFERRAL FROM
ANOTHER COMMITTEE AND ABSENT A
FULL HOUSE VOTE.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BEGAN AN
INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT
NIXON'S MISCONDUCT FOR FOUR
MONTHS BEFORE APPROVAL OF A FULL
HOUSE RESOLUTION.
THE HOUSE RULES ALSO DO NOT
PRECLUDE COMMITTEES FROM
INQUIRING INTO POTENTIAL GROUNDS
FOR IMPEACHMENT.
THOSE RULES PASS THE RELEVANT
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE WITH
ROBUST INVESTIGATE POWERS
INCLUDING THE POWER TO ISSUE
SUBPOENAS.
EACH OF THE COMMITTEES THAT
CONDUCT THE INITIAL
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S CONDUCT IN UKRAINE,
INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT AND
FOREIGN AFFAIRS INDISPUTABLY HAD
OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OVER
THESE MATTERS.
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS
POINTED TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT
WITH A FULL HOUSE --.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
MS. GARCIA: THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
MR. WHITEHOUSE: MR. PRESIDENT,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.
AND BECAUSE MY QUESTION
REFERENCES AN EARLIER QUESTION,
I HAVE ATTACHED THAT EARLIER
QUESTION AS A REFERENCE TO THE
PRESIDING OFFICER AND THE
PARLIAMENTARIAN IN CASE IT
SHOULD BE OF INTEREST.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: QUESTION
FROM SENATOR WHITEHOUSE IS TO
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL REFUSED TO
ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION FROM
SENATOR COLLINS AND SENATOR
MURKOWSKI SAYING HE COULD ONLY
CITE TO THE RECORD.
FIVE MINUTES AFTERWARD HOUSE
COUNSEL READ RECENT NEWSPAPER
STORIES TO THE SENATE FROM
OUTSIDE THE HOUSE RECORD.
COULD YOU PLEASE GIVE AN AK RATS
AND TRUTHFUL ANSWER TO THE
SENATOR'S QUESTION.
DID THE PRESIDENT EVER MENTION
THE BIDENS IN CONNECTION TO
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE BEFORE
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED
HIS CANDIDACY IN APRIL 2019?
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT SAY, TO
WHOM, AND WHEN?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
I DON'T THINK THAT I REFUSED TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION AT ALL.
WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE
HOUSE MANAGERS THAT THEY WERE
GOING TO OBJECT IF WE ATTEMPTED
TO INTRODUCE ANYTHING THAT WAS
NOT EITHER IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
SO THINGS THAT ARE NEWSPAPER
ARTICLES, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT
ARE OUT THERE WE COULD REFER
TO, OR THINGS THAT ARE IN THE
RECORD.
SO I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO GO
BACK INTO THINGS THAT THE
PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE SAID IN
PRIVATE.
THERE'S BEEN NO DISCOVERY INTO
THAT.
IT'S NOT PART OF THIS INQUIRY,
SO I CAN'T GO TELLING ABOUT
THINGS THE PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE
SAID TO CABINET MEMBERS.
I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY
THAT.
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT'S IN THE
PUBLIC AND I CAN TELL YOU WHAT'S
IN THE RECORD, AND I ANSWERED
THE QUESTION FULLY TO THE BEST
OF MY ABILITY BASED ON WHAT IS
IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND WHAT IS
IN THE RECORD.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
ALSO RESPOND TO THE LAST
QUESTION THAT WAS POSED BY
SENATOR MURKOWSKI WITH RESPECT
TO THE VOTE AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS, BECAUSE
THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A VOTE
FROM THE FULL HOUSE TO AUTHORIZE
ANY IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO A
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.
IT WAS THAT WAY IN THE JOHNSON
IMPEACHMENT.
IT WAS THAT WAY IN THE NIXON
IMPEACHMENT.
THERE HAVE BEEN REFERENCES TO
THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BEGAN SOME
INVESTIGATIVE WORK BEFORE THE
HOUSE VOTED ON THE RESOLUTION.
I THINK IT WAS RESOLUTION 803 TO
AUTHORIZE THE IMPEACHMENT
INQUIRY.
BUT ALL OF THAT WORK WAS SIMPLY
GATHERING THINGS THAT WERE IN
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OR THAT HAD
ALREADY BEEN GATHERED BY OTHER
COMMITTEES, AND THERE WAS NO
COMPULSORY PROCESS ISSUED.
AND INCOME TAX, CHAIRMAN RODINO
OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SPECIFICALLY DETERMINED WHEN
THERE WAS A MOVE TO HAVE THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ISSUE
SUBPOENAS AFTER THE SATURDAY
NIGHT MASSACRE THAT THE
COMMITTEE LACKED THE AUTHORITY
TO ISSUE ANY COMPULSORY PROCESS
UNTIL THERE HAD BEEN A VOTE BY
THE FULL HOUSE TO AUTHORIZE THE
COMMITTEE TO DO THAT.
AND THIS IS NOT SOME ESOTERIC
SPECIAL RULE ABOUT IMPEACHMENTS.
AS I'VE TRIED TO EXPLAIN, THIS
IS A FUNDAMENTAL RULE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION ABOUT HOW AUTHORITY
THAT HAS BEEN GIMB BY WE THE
PEOPLE TO CHAMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATURE, EITHER THE HOUSE
OR THE SENATE, ONCE IT'S GIVEN
THERE TO THE HOUSE, HOW DOES IT
GET TO A COMMITTEE?
IT CAN ONLY GET DOWN TO A
COMMITTEE IN IT'S DELEGATED BY
THE HOUSE.
THAT CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THE
HOUSE VOTES.
AND THERE IS NO STANDING RULES
THAT GIVES THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AUTHORITY TO USE THE
POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AS OPPOSED
TO THE AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE.
THERE IS NO RULE THAT GIVES TO
YOU THE POUTER TO USE THE
AUTHORITY OF IMPEACHMENT TO
ISSUE COMPULSORY PROCESS.
RULE 10 DOESN'T INTERVENTION
IMPEACHMENT AT ALL.
-- DOESN'T MENTION IMPEACHMENT
AT ALL.
THE WORD DOESN'T APPEAR IN IT.
THAT'S WHY THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE
MUST BE A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE TO
AUTHORIZE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, OR IN THIS CASE IT
WAS CONTRARY TO ALL PRIOR
PRACTICE.
IT WAS GIVEN TO MANAGER SCHIFF'S
COMMITTEE AND OTHER COMMITTEES
THE AUTHORITY TO USE THE POWER
OF IMPEACHMENT TO ISSUE
SUBPOENAS.
IT WAS VERY CLEAR TO THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE
POSITION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
WAS THAT ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS
ISSUED BEFORE HOUSE RESOLUTION
660 WERE INVALID ON THEIR FACE
AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI'S QUESTION
IS CORRECT, THERE WAS NO EFFORT
IN HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 TO
EITHER TO ATTEMPT TO
RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZE THOSE
SUBPOENAS OR TO SAY THAT THOSE
SUBPOENAS, TO RETROACTIVELY
AUTHORIZE THOSE SUBPOENAS OR
REISSUE THEM UNDER HOUSE
RESOLUTION 660.
THE SUBPOENAS REMAINED INVALID
AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE
HOUSE TO THAT.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
A SENATOR: I SEND TO THE DESK A
QUESTION FOR BOTH COUNSEL ON MY
BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
CRUZ, SENATOR DAINES AND
SENATOR BRAUN.
POIP THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WILL RESPOND
FIRST TO THE QUESTION FROM
SENATOR HAWLEY AND THE OTHER
SENATORS.
WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE, VIKTOR
SHOKIN, UKRAINE'S PROSECUTOR
GENERAL, VOWED TO INVESTIGATE
BURISMA BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT
JOE BIDEN PRESSED UKRANIAN
OFFICIALS ON CORRUPTION,
INCLUDING PUSHING FOR THE
REMOVAL OF SHOKIN, DID THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE OR
THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
LEGAL COUNSEL ISSUE ETHICS
ADVICE APPROVING MR. BIDEN'S
INVOLVEMENT IN MATTERS INVOLVING
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE OR
SHOKIN, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF
HUNTER BIDEN ON THE BOARD OF
BURISMA, A COMPANY WIDELY
CONSIDERED TO BE CORRUPT.
DID VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN EVER
ASK HUNTER BIDEN TO STEP DOWN
FROM THE BOARD OF BURISMA?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE
THAT THEN-VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN
SOUGHT ANY ETHICS OPINION.
WE ARE AWARE THAT BOTH AMOS
HOCHSTEIN AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE KENT
TESTIFIED -- EXCUSE ME.
AMOS HOCHSTEIN IS IN THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN.
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT
TESTIFIED IN THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HOUSE THAT THEY EACH
RAISED THE ISSUE WITH VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN OF THE POTENTIAL
APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST WITH HIS SON HUNTER
BEING ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA.
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY KENT
TESTIFIED THAT ALTHOUGH HE
RAISED THAT ISSUE WITH THE VICE
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, THE
RESPONSE WAS THAT THE VICE
PRESIDENT, THE VICE PRESIDENT
WAS BUSY DEALING WITH THE
ILLNESS OF HIS OTHER SON AND
THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKE TAKEN.
WE'RE NOT AWARE OF AN ETHICS
OPINION HAVING BEEN ISSUED,
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS FLAGGED
FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE,
WE'RE NOT AWARE THAT VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN ASKED HIS SON TO
STEP DOWN OR ANY OTHER ACTION
WAS TAKEN AND I BELIEVE THAT
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS SAID
THAT HE NEVER DISCUSSED, HE SAID
PUBLICLY, HE NEVER DISCUSSED HIS
SON'S OVERSEAS BUSINESS DEALINGS
WITH HIM.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
MRS. DEMINGS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND SENATORS, I APPRECIATE YOUR
QUESTION.
THE FACTS ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT
BIDEN'S CONDUCT ARE CLEAR AND DO
NOT CHANGE.
LET'S GO THROUGH THEM.
FIRST, EVERY WITNESS ASKED ABOUT
THIS TOPIC TESTIFIED THAT
MR. SHOKIN WAS WIDELY CONSIDERED
TO BE A CORRUPT AND INEFFECTIVE
PROSECUTOR WHO DID NOT PROSECUTE
CORRUPTION.
SHOW CON. WAS -- SEW KIN WAS SO
COUNTRY THAT THE INTERNATIONAL
MONETARY FUND PRESSED FOR HIS
OFFICE TO BE CLEANED UP.
SO I WOULD CAUTION YOU TO BE
SKEPTICAL OF ANYTHING THAT
MR. SHOKIN CLAIMED.
SECOND, WITNESSES AND OUR OWN
ANTICORRUPTION ADVOCATE,
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED
THAT SHOKIN'S REMOVAL MADE IT
MORE LIKELY THAT INVESTIGATIONS
OF CORRUPT EUROPEAN -- UKRAINIAN
COMPANIES WOULD MOVE FORWARD.
LET ME REPEAT THAT.
THE DISMISSAL OF SHOKIN MADE IT
MORE LIKELY THAT BURISMA WOULD
BE INVESTIGATED.
THIRD, BURISMA WAS NOT UNDER
SCRUTINY AT THE TIME JOE BIDEN
CALLED FOR SHOKIN'S OUSTER.
ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL
ANTICORRUPTION IN UKRAINE,
SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFIED IS
EFFECTIVE AT FIGHTING
CORRUPTION.
SHOKIN'S OFFICE INVESTIGATED
BURISMA BUT THE PROBE FOCUSED ON
A PERIOD BEFORE HUNTER BIDEN
JOINED THE COMPANY.
BUT, AGAIN, IN ANOTHER
INVESTIGATION WAS WARRANTED
DISMISSING SHOKIN WOULD HAVE
MADE THAT MORE LIKELY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE SENATOR FROM MAINE.
MR. KING: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS I WILL SEND TO THE
DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
SENATOR KING'S QUESTION FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGERS READS AS FOLLOWS,
MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS IN
UKRAINE ON A POLITICAL ERRAND SO
DOESN'T THE PRESIDENT'S MENTION
OF GIULIANI BY NAME IN THE
JULY 25 CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH
THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE CALL?
MR. NADLER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
MR. GIULIANI PLAYED A KEY ROLE
IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MONTHS-LONG
SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO
ANNOUNCE POLITICAL COMPLAINTS TO
BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT'S
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.
HE IS WRAPPING ITSELF IN UKRAINE
WHILE TRYING TO MINIMIZE HIS
ROLE.
THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE,
NOT JUST TESTIMONY BUT TEXT,
QUOTES, AND OTHER CORROBORATING
DOCUMENTS ESTABLISHING
MR. GIULIANI'S KEY ROLE IN
EXECUTING THE PRESIDENT'S
PRESSURE CAMPAIGN BEGINNING IN
EARLY SPRING 2019 WITH THE SMEAR
CAMPAIGN AGAINST AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH AND THEN THROUGHOUT
THE SUMMER.
EVERYONE KNEW THAT RUDOLPH
GIULIANI WAS THE GATEKEEPER TO
THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE.
ON MAY 10, MR. GIULIANI CANCELED
THE TRIP TO UKRAINE DURING WHICH
HE PLANNED TO DIG UP DIRT ON
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND
ON THE DISCREDIT CARD CONSPIRACY
THEORY.
HE SAID THAT WE'RE NOT MEDDLING
IN AN ELECTION, WE ARE MEDDLING
IN AN INVESTIGATION.
SOMEONE COULD SAY IT'S IMPROPER
AND THIS ISN'T FOREIGN POLICY.
I'M ASKING THEM TO DO AN
INVESTIGATION THEY ARE ALREADY
DOING AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE
TELLING THEM TO STOP.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.
DURING A MAY 10 APPEARANCE ON
FOX NEWS, HE SAID HE CANCELED
HIS TRIP BECAUSE THERE ARE
ENEMIES OF TRUMP AROUND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
PARNAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS THAT
INCLUDED A LETTER, AND I BELIEVE
WE HAVE SLIDE 50 HERE.
MR. GIULIANI SENT TO
PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY DURING
THIS TIME PERIOD IN THE LETTER
DATED MAY 10, MR. GIULIANI
INFORMED ZELENSKY HE REPRESENTED
MR. TRUMP AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN,
NOT AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
HE ALSO REQUESTED A MEETING WITH
ZELENSKY ON MAY 13 AND 14, ALONG
WITH VICTORIA TOENSING WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S KNOWLEDGE AND
CONSENT.
HE CONFIRMED HIS ACTIONS WITH
REGARD TO UKRAINE STATING, HE
KNOWS WHAT I'M DOING.
AS MU MY LAWYER, HE HAD IS
THE -- HE IS THE ONE I HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO.
PRESIDENT TRUMP INSTRUCTED
SENIOR AMERICAN AND UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS TO TALK TO GIULIANI.
DEMONSTRATING HE WAS A PLAYER IN
THE CORRUPT SCREEN.
IN AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING,
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED HIS
HAND PICKED THREE AMIGOS TO TALK
TO RUDY.
IN RESPONSE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
TESTIFIED THAT SECRETARY PERRY,
AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND I WORKED
WITH MR. GIULIANI ON UKRAINE
MATTERS AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
AFTER TWO EXPLOSIVE MEETINGS IN
WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
CONVEYED THE DEMANDS OF THE
PRESIDENT TO THE UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS, TOP UKRAINIAN AIDE
YERMAK TEXTED VOLKER SAYING I
FEAR THE KEY TO MANY THINGS IS
RUDY AND HE ASKED FOR
INVESTIGATIONS OF TWO AMERICAN
CITIZENS.
IN FACT HE WASN'T ASKING FOR AN
INVESTIGATION.
HE WAS ASKING FOR AN
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION
SO THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS TO
THE -- AND THE BIDEN COULD BE
SMEARED.
UNDER THE QUOTE WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP
MENTIONED RUDOLPH GIULIANI BY
NAME NO LESS THAN FOUR TIMES AN
INFORMED ZELENSKY THAT RUDY
KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING.
HE DOLLED MR. -- TOLD
MR. ZELENSKY AND HE ADDED RUDY
KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING.
IN AUGUST HE CONVEYED THAT
UKRAINE MUST ISSUE A PUBLIC
STATEMENT ANNOUNCING
INVESTIGATIONS, AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND AND VOLKER WORKED
CLOSELY WITH GIULIANI AND
UKRAINIANS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PLANNED STATEMENT WOULD MEET MR.
SPECIFICALLY MR. GIULIANI
INSISTED THAT THE STATEMENT
INCLUDE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO
BURMINGS AND THE 2016 ELECTION
AND BIDEN.
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS SONDLAND
STATED THAT HE KNEW THEY NEEDED
THE APPROVAL OF GIULIANI FOR THE
PRESS STATEMENT AND THAT THEY
KNEW THAT GIULIANI REPRESENTED
THE INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT.
RUDOLPH GIULIANI ADMITTED ON
LIVE TELEVISION TO PRESSURE
UKRAINE INTO LOOKING INTO JOE
BIDEN, NOT CORRUPTION.
CHRIS CUOMO ASKED GIULIANI YOU
DID ASK UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO JOE
BIDEN.
GIULIANI INSISTED, OF COURSE I
DID.
HE INSISTED THAT UKRAINE LOOK
INTO AN AMERICAN ON BEHALF OF
HIS CLIENT PRESIDENT TRUMP.
FINALLY, DURING THE PENDENCY OF
THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, MRN
HIS EFFORT TO DIG UP DIRT TO
BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT.
IN DECEMBER HE AGAIN TRAVELED TO
UKRAINE TO MEET WITH OFFICIALS
WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS A SECRET
ASSIGNMENT AND AFTER WHICH THE
PRESIDENT CALLED HIM UPON
LANDING AND ASKED HIM WHAT DID
YOU GET, TO WHICH MR. GIULIANI
RESPONDED MORE THAN YOU CAN
IMAGINE.
IN MS. RASKIN'S PRESENTATION OF
GIULIANI, HE HAD REPEATED
REQUESTS FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO
BIDEN, NO INTO CORRUPTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR IN FLORIDA.
MR. RUBIO: I SEND A QUESTION ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF, McSALLY,
RISCH, AND HOEVEN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR RUBIO
AND THE OTHER SENATORS IS FOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
HOW WOULD THE FRAMERS VIEW
REMOVEING A PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN
OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ON THE
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
SUPPORTED BY ONE POLITICAL PARTY
AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHER?
MR. DERSHOWITZ: ALEXANDER
HAMILTON ADDRESSED THAT.
HE SAID THE GREATEST DANGER OF
IMPEACHMENT IS IF IT TURNS ON
THE VOTES OF ONE PARTY BEING
GREATER THAN THE VOTES OF
ANOTHER PARTY IN EITHER HOUSE.
SO I THINK THEY WOULD BE
APPALLED TO SEE AN IMPEACHMENT
GOING FORWARD IN VIOLATION OF
THE SCHUMER RULE AND THE RULES
OF OTHER CONGRESSMEN THAT WERE
GOOD ENOUGH FOR US DURING THE
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT BUT SEEM TO
HAVE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN THE
CURRENT SITUATION.
THE CRITERIA THAT HAVE BEEN SET
OUT ARE SO LAWLESS THEY
BASICALLY PARAPHRASE CONGRESSMAN
MAXINE WATERS WHO SAID THERE IS
NO LAW.
ANYTHING THAT THE HOUSE WANTS TO
DO TO IMPEACH IS IMPEACHABLE.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TODAY.
THAT PLACES THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ABOVE THE LAW.
WE'VE HEARD MUCH ABOUT NO ONE'S
ABOVE THE LAW.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS
NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
THEY MAY NOT USE THE MAXINE
WATTERS -- PRESIDENT FORD MADE
THE SAME SUGGESTION.
THERE IS ONLY ONE PRESIDENT.
BUT TO USE THAT CRITERIA THAT IT
IS WHATEVER THE HOUSE SAYS IT
IS, IT IS WHATEVER THE SENATE
SAYS IT IS, TURNS THOSE BODIES
INTO LAWLESS BODIES AS FAR AS
THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS.
MANAGER SCHIFF CONFUSED MY
ARGUMENT WHEN HE TALK ABOUT
INTENT AND MOTIVE.
YOU SAID I'M NOT A
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER BUT I'M A
CRIMINAL LAWYER AND I TAUGHT FOR
50 YEARS AT HARVARD AND THERE IS
A DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND
MOTIVE.
SOMEBODY SHOOTS SOMEBODY, THE
INTENT IS WHEN YOU PULL A
TRIGGER, THE BULLET WILL LEAVE
AND IT WILL KILL THE PERSON.
MOTIVE COULD BE REVENGE, IT
COULD BE MONEY.
IT IS ALMOST NEVER TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION EXCEPT IN STREAM
CASES.
THERE ARE CASES WHERE MOTIVE
COUNTS.
LET'S CONSIDER A HYPOTHETICAL
GROWING OUT OF THE SITUATION
THAT WE DISCUSSED.
LET'S ASSUME THAT PRESIDENT
OBAMA HAD BEEN TOLD BY HIS
VICORS THAT -- ADVISORS THAT IT
IS IMPORTANT TO SEND LETHAL
WEAPONS TO THE UKRAINE, BUT THEN
HE GETS A CALL FROM HIS
POLITICAL ADVISOR WHO SAYS WE
KNOW IT'S IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST TO SEND LETHAL WEAPONS
TO UKRAINE, BUT WE'RE TELLING
YOU THAT THE LEFT WING OF PARTY
IS REALLY GOING TO GIVE YOU A
HARD TIME IF YOU START SELLING
LETHAL WEAPONS AND GETTING INTO
A LETHAL WAR POTENTIALLY WITH
RUSSIA.
WOULD ANYBODY HERE SUGGEST THAT
WAS IMPEACHABLE.
LET'S ASSUME PRESIDENT OBAMA■■
SAID, I PROMISE TO BOMB SYRIA IF
THEY HAVE CHEMICAL WEAPONS BUT
I'M NOW TOLD BY MY POLLSTERS
THAT BOMBING SYRIA WOULD HURT MY
ELECTABLE CHANCES.
CERTAINLY NOT IMPEACHABLE AT
ALL.
LET ME APPLY THAT TO THE CURRENT
SITUATION.
THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF
POSSIBLE MOTIVE.
ONE IS -- THE MOTIVE IS PURE.
ONLY INTEREST IS IN THE WAY OF
WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.
IN THE REAL WORLD THAT RARELY
HAPPENS.
THE OTHER ONE IS THE MOTIVE IS
COMPLETELY CORRUPT.
I WANT MONEY, KICKBACK, BUT THEN
THERE'S THE THIRD ONE THAT'S SO
COMPLICATED AND THAT'S OFTEN
MISUNDERSTOOD.
WHEN YOU HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE, A
MOTIVE IN WHICH YOU THINK YOU'RE
DOING GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY BUT
YOU'RE ALSO DOING GOOD FOR
YOURSELF, YOU DOING GOOD FOR ME,
YOU'RE DOING GOOD FORT -- FOR
THEE AND YOU PUT IT IN A BUNDLE
THAT YOU'RE DOING THE RIGHT
THING.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE THAT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES BECAME INTERESTED IN
CORRUPTION WHEN HE LEARNED THAT
JOE BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT.
LET'S ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT
THE PRESIDENT WAS IN HIS SECOND
TERM AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, JOE
BIDEN IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
I REALLY SHOULD NOW GET
CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER HIS SON
IS CORRUPT BECAUSE HE'S NOT ONLY
A CANDIDATE AND HE'S NOT RUNNING
AGAINST ME, I'M FINISHED WITH MY
TERM, BUT HE COULD BE THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND IF HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND HE HAS A
CORRUPT SON, THE FACT THAT HE
ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY IS A
GOOD REASON FOR UPPING THE
INTEREST OF HIS SON.
IF HE WASN'T RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT, HE'S A HAS BEEN, HE'S
A FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, BIG DEAL.
IF HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT,
THAT'S AN ENORMOUS BIG DEAL.
SO THE DIFFERENCE THE HOUSE
MANAGERS WOULD MAKE IS WHETHER
THE PRESIDENT IS IN HIS FIRST
TERM OR SECOND TERM, WHETHER
HE'S RUNNING FOR REELECTION OR
NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONCEDE IF HE
WAS RUNNING FOR RE -- NOT
RUNNING FOR REELECTION, THIS
WOULD NOT BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE.
IF HE IS
RUNNING FOR REELECTION, SUDDENLY
THAT TURNS IT INTO AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
MS. KLOBUCHAR: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, I SUBMIT A QUESTION TO
THE DESK, DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR
KLOBUCHAR TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
I WAS ON THE TRIAL COMMITTEE FOR
THE LAST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN
THE SENATE.
WHICH INVOLVED JUDGE THOMAS
PORTEOUS WHO WAS ULTIMATELY
REMOVED.
DURING THAT TIME, THE SENATE
TRIAL COMMITTEE HEARD FROM 26
WITNESSES, 17 OF WHOM HAD NOT
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED IN THE
HOUSE.
WHAT POSSIBLE REASON COULD THERE
BE FOR ALLOWING 26 WITNESSES IN
A JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND
HEARING NONE FOR A PRESIDENT'S
TRIAL?
MR. SCHIFF: CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATOR, AS YOU KNOW, I AM QUITE
FAMILIAR WITH THE PORTEOUS
IMPEACHMENT.
SOMEONE ASKED ME THE LAST TIME I
TRIED A CASE.
THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY 30 YEARS
AGO, EXCEPT FOR THE IMPEACHMENT
OF THOMAS PORTEOUS WHEN I LAST
SPENT SOME QUALITY TIME WITH
YOU.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TERMS
OF THE CONSTITUTION.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE NEED FOR
WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT
TRIAL OF A PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES IS A FAR MORE
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCE THAN THE
IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE.
NOW, YOU MIGHT SAY WELL, IN AN
IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE, HOW IS
IT POSSIBLE THAT THE TIME OF THE
SENATE COULD BE OCCUPIED BY
CALLING WITNESSES THAT, AS
PRECIOUS AS YOUR TIME IS, WE
WOULD OCCUPY YOUR TIME CALLING
DOSES OF -- DOZENS OF WITNESSES,
BUT IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF A
PRESIDENT, IT'S NOT WORTH THE
TIME?
IT'S TOO MUCH OF AN IMPOSITION.
AGAIN, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE
IMPERATIVE CALLING OF JUDGES AND
HAVING A FAIR TRIAL WHEN WE ARE
ADJUDICATING THE GUILT OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
IS PARAMOUNT.
NOW, WE HAVE AAYS ARGUED THAT
THE TRIAL SHOULD BE FAIR TO THE
PRESIDENT AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
AND YES, IT'S A BIG DEAL TO
IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND REMOVE
THAT PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.
IT'S ALSO A BIG DEAL IF YOU
LEAVE IN PLACE A PRESIDENT WHEN
THE HOUSE HAS PROVEN THAT
PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED
IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT AND IS
LIKELY TO CONTINUE COMMITTING.
BECAUSE THERE'S NO DOUBT, I
THINK FROM THE RECORD, THAT NOT
ONLY DID THE PRESIDENT SOLICIT
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016,
BUT SOLICITED UKRAINE'S
INTERFERENCE IN THE UPCOMING
ELECTION, SOLICITED CHINA'S
INTERFERENCE, AS MY COLLEAGUE
JUST SAID, HAD RUDOLPH GIULIANI,
HIS PERSONAL AGENT, IN UKRAINE
DOING THE SAME KIND OF THING
JUST LAST MONTH, AND, SENATOR,
IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION, IS
IT DISPOSITIVE THAT GIULIANI,
THE PERSONAL AGENT TO THE
PRESIDENT, IS RUNNING THIS BIDEN
OPERATION RATHER THAN A
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT?
ISN'T THAT DISPOSITIVE OF
WHETHER THIS WAS POLICY OR
POLITICS?
AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES.
GIULIANI'S MADE IT ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR, I'M NOT HERE DOING
FOREIGN POLICY.
THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
LAWYER.
I'M NOT HERE TO DO FOREIGN
POLICY.
NOW, PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ JUST
MADE A RATHER ASTOUNDING
ARGUMENT THAT AN INVESTIGATION
OF JOE BIDEN THAT IS
UNWARRANTED, UNMERITED SUDDENLY
BECOMES WARRANTED IF HE RUNS FOR
PRESIDENT.
HE POSITED THAT IN THE
PRESIDENT'S SECOND TERM, BUT IT
DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER HE IS IN
HIS FIRST TERM OR SECOND TERM.
AN ILLEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION OF
JOE BIDEN DOESN'T HOW BECOME
LEGITIMATE BECAUSE HE IS RUNNING
FOR PRESIDENT UNLESS YOU VIEW
YOUR INTERESTS AS SYNONYMOUS
WITH THE NATION'S INTERESTS.
I THINK IT'S THE MOST PROFOUND
CONFLICT FOR A PRESIDENT OF ONE
PARTY WHETHER HE IS RUNNING FOR
REELECTION OR NOT TO SUGGEST
THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN AN
INVESTIGATION OF A LEADING
CANDIDATE IN THE OPPOSITE PARTY
IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE NOW THEY
ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
YOU REALLY HAVE TO STEP ASIDE
FROM WHAT'S GOING ON TO IMAGINE
THAT ANYONE COULD MAKE THAT
ARGUMENT, THAT -- THAT RUNNING
FOR OFFICE, RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT NOW MEANS THAT YOU ARE
A MORE JUSTIFIED TARGET OF AN
INVESTIGATION THAN WHEN YOU
WEREN'T.
THAT CANNOT BE.
THAT CANNOT BE.
BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S
BEING ARGUED HERE.
TO GET -- TO CONCLUDE, SENATOR,
THE CASE FOR WITNESSES IN A
PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT WHERE
EITHER ON THE ONE SIDE YOU
REMOVE A PRESIDENT OR ON THE
OTHER SIDE YOU LEAVE AND PLACE A
PRESIDENT WHO MAY POSE A
CONTINUING RISK TO THE COUNTRY
IS FAR MORE COMPELLING TO TAKE
THE TIME TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES
THAN A CORRUPT LOUISIANA JUDGE
WHO ONLY IMPACTS THOSE WHO COME
BEFORE HIS COURT.
ALL OF US COME BEFORE THE COURT
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MONTANA.
MR. DAINES: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND
SENATORS LANKFORD AND HAWLEY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR DAINES,
LANKFORD, AND HAWLEY IS FOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
OVER THE PAST 244 YEARS, EIGHT
JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM
OFFICE BY THE U.S. SENATE, BUT
NEVER A PRESIDENT.
THE EIGHT JUDGES HAVE BEEN
REMOVED FOR BRIBERY, PERJURY,
TAX EVASION, WAGING WAR AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, AND OTHER
UNLAWFUL ACTIONS.
HOW DO THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT
ARTICLES DIFFER FROM PREVIOUS
CONVICTIONS AND REMOVALS BY THE
SENATE?
MR. DERSHOWITZ: THERE IS AN
ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
IMPEACHING AND REMOVING, EVEN A
JUSTICE, AND IMPEACHING AND
REMOVING A PRESIDENT.
NO JUDGE, NOT EVEN THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, IS THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
YOU ARE THE HEAD OF THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH, BUT THERE IS A JUDICIAL
BRANCH.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH.
HE IS IRREPLACEABLE.
THERE ISN'T ALWAYS A VICE
PRESIDENT.
REMEMBER, WE HAD A PERIOD OF
TIME WHEN THERE WAS NO VICE
PRESIDENT.
WE NEEDED A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT.
SO THERE IS NO COMPARISON
BETWEEN IMPEACHING A JUDGE AND
IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.
MOREOVER, THERE IS A TEXTUAL
DIFFERENCE.
THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT
JUDGES SERVE DURING GOOD
BEHAVIOR.
THAT'S THE CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF
STANDARD, AND IT'S A GREAT
STANDARD.
WE WISH EVERYBODY SERVED ONLY
DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.
BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SAY
THAT THE PRESIDENT SHALL SERVE
DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.
THE DIFFERENCE IS THE PRESIDENT
RUNS EVERY FOUR YEARS.
AND THE PUBLIC GETS TO JUDGE HIS
GOOD BEHAVIOR.
JUDGES DON'T RUN.
SO THERE IS ONLY ONE JUDGE OF A
GOOD BEHAVIOR, NAMELY THE
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
AND SO TO MAKE A COMPARISON IS
TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THAT
WHEN PEOPLE COMPARE THE BRITISH
SYSTEM TO THE AMERICAN SYSTEM.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUMENT
THAT WE ADOPTED THE BRITISH
SYSTEM BY ADOPTING FIVE WORDS,
AND HIGH CRIMES AND OTHER CRIMES
AND MISDEMEANORS.
THOSE WORDS MAY HAVE BEEN
BORROWED FROM GREAT BRITAIN, BUT
THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF IMPEACHMENT
DOES NOT.
FIRST OF ALL, IMPEACHMENT NO
LONGER EXISTS IN GREAT BRITAIN,
BUT WHEN IT DID, IT ONLY
OPERATED FOR LOW LEVEL AND
MIDDLE LEVEL PEOPLE.
ALL THE IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THAT
HAVE BEEN CITED INVOLVE THIS GUY
IN INDIA, THIS GUY IN COMMERCE,
THIS GUY HERE, THERE, UTTERLY
REPLACEABLE PEOPLE.
THE BRITISH SYSTEM, ON THE OTHER
HAND, YOU CAN GET RID OF THE
HEAD OF STATE, THE HEAD OF
GOVERNMENT, RATHER, BY A SIMPLE
VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.
THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS
REJECTED.
THE FRAMERS REJECTED THAT FOR A
PRESIDENT.
AND SO THE NOTION THAT WE
BORROWED THE BRITISH SYSTEM HAS
IT EXACTLY BACKWARDS.
WE REJECTED THE BRITISH SYSTEM.
WE DID NOT WANT THE PRESIDENT TO
SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
WE WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO SERVE
AT THE PLEASURE OF THE VOTERS.
JUDGES DON'T SERVE AT THE
PLEASURE OF THE VOTERS, SO THERE
NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT CRITERIA
AND BROADER CRITERIA, AND THOSE
CRITERIA HAVE BEEN USED IN
PRACTICE.
FOR THE MOST PART, JUDGES HAVE
BEEN IMPEACHED FOR CRIMINAL AND
REMOVED FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
BUT TAKE AN EXAMPLE THAT WAS
GIVEN.
IF A JUDGE IS COMPLETELY DRUNK
AND INCAPACITATED AND CANNOT --
CANNOT DO HIS JOB, IT'S -- IT'S
EASY TO IMAGINE HOW A JUDGE
MIGHT HAVE TO BE REMOVED FOR
THAT.
BUT THE PRESIDENT, THERE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION,
THE 25th AMENDMENT
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING BECAUSE
THERE WAS A GAP IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
AND PLEASE, MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND YOUR ROLE IS NOT TO
FILL GAPS THAT THE FRAMERS
DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN.
GOOD ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE,
WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE DON'T ABUSE THEIR POWER,
PEOPLE DON'T COMMIT MALL
ADMINISTRATION, BUT THE FRAMERS
LEFT OPEN, LEFT THOSE GAPS.
YOUR JOB IS NOT TO FILL IN THE
GAPS.
YOUR JOB IS TO APPLY THE
CONSTITUTION AS THE FRAMERS
WROTE IT, AND THAT DOESN'T
INCLUDE ABUSE OF POWER AND
OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.
MR. COONS: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR COONS TO
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS
THIS -- THE PRESIDENT'S BRIEF
STATES, QUOTE, CONGRESS HAS
FORBIDDEN FOREIGNERS'
INVOLVEMENT IN AMERICAN
ELECTIONS, END QUOTE.
HOWEVER, IN JUNE, 2019,
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT IF
RUSSIA OR CHINA OFFERED
INFORMATION ON HIS OPPONENT,
QUOTE, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG
WITH LISTENING, END QUOTE, AND
HE MIGHT NOT ALERT THE F.B.I.
BECAUSE, QUOTE, GIVE ME A BREAK,
LIVE DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, END
QUOTE.
DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP AGREE WITH
YOUR STATEMENT THAT FOREIGNERS'
INVOLVEMENT IN AMERICAN
ELECTIONS IS ILLEGAL?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
I THINK CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED
SPECIFIC WAYS IN WHICH
FOREIGNERS CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN
ELECTIONS.
FOREIGNERS CAN'T VOTE IN
ELECTIONS.
THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON
FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CAMPAIGNS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
WHEN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
ORIGINALLY MADE A COMPLAINT
ABOUT THIS JULY 25 CALL AND THAT
WAS REVIEWED BY THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY, HE FRAMED THAT
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S COMPLAINT AND
WROTE A COVER LETTER IN FRONT OF
THAT CONTAINING THOSE LAWS.
HE SAID THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE
HERE RELATING TO SOLICITING
FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION TO A
CAMPAIGN, FOREIGN CAMPAIGN
INTERFERENCE.
THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY REVIEWED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH
VIOLATION HERE.
SO THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S -- THE
INTERVIEW WITH ABC THAT YOU
CITED DOES NOT INVOLVE SOMETHING
THAT IS A FOREIGN CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION, SOMETHING THAT IS
ADDRESSED BY THE LAWS PASSED BY
CONGRESS.
HE WAS REFERRING TO THE
POSSIBILITY THAT INFORMATION
COULD COME FROM A SOURCE.
AND I THINK HE POINTED OUT IN
THAT INTERVIEW THAT HE MIGHT
CONTACT THE F.B.I., HE MIGHT
LISTEN TO SOMETHING, BUT MERE
INFORMATION IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE CAMPAIGN
FINANCE LAWS, AND IF THERE IS
CREDIBLE INFORMATION, CREDIBLE
INFORMATION OF WRONGDOING BY
SOMEONE WHO IS RUNNING FOR A
PUBLIC OFFICE, IT'S NOT CAMPAIGN
INTERFERENCE FOR CREDIBLE
INFORMATION ABOUT WRONGDOING TO
BE BROUGHT TO LIGHT, IF IT'S
CREDIBLE INFORMATION.
SO I THINK THAT THE IDEA THAT
ANY INFORMATION THAT HAPPENS TO
COME FROM OVERSEAS IS
NECESSARILY CAMPAIGN
INTERFERENCE IS A MISTAKE.
THAT'S A NON SEQUITUR.
INFORMATION THAT IS CREDIBLE
THAT POTENTIALLY SHOWS
WRONGDOING BY SOMEONE WHO
HAPPENS TO BE RUNNING FOR
OFFICE, IF IT'S CREDIBLE
INFORMATION, IS RELEVANT
INFORMATION FOR THE VOTERS TO
KNOW ABOUT, FOR PEOPLE TO BE
ABLE TO DECIDE ON WHO IS THE
BEST CANDIDATE FOR AN OFFICE.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. McCONNELL: CHIEF JUSTICE,
I RECOMMEND WE TAKE A BREAK
UNTIL 10:00 P.M., AND THEN
FINISH UP FOR THE EVENING.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
RECESS:
TESTING TESTING TESTING TESTING
TESTING ONE TWO THREE FOUR TEST.
RECESS:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
MR. McCONNELL: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, MY UNDERSTANDING,
WE'LL FINISH UP ABOUT 11:00.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.
MRS. LOEFFLER: I SEND A QUESTION
TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF
AND SENATORS COTTON, BARRASSO,
PURDUE, FISCHER AND CORNYN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR LOEFFLER
AND THE OTHER SENATORS IS FOR
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
AS A FACT WITNESS WHO WAS
COORDINATING WITH THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER, DID MANAGER
SCHIFF'S HANDLING OF THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY CREATE
MATERIAL DUE PROCESS ISSUES FOR
THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE A FAIR
TRIAL?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THE SHORT ANSWER IS,
YES, IT DID CREATE A MATERIAL
DUE PROCESS ISSUE.
AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY IN
A PORTION OF MY ARGUMENT, THERE
WERE THREE MAJOR DUE PROCESS
VIOLATIONS, THE LACK OF AN
AUTHORIZATION SO THAT THE WHOLE
PROCEEDING STARTED IN AN
ILLEGITIMATE AND
CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID MANNER.
SECOND, THE LACK OF BASIC DUE
PROCESS PROTECTIONS RELATED TO
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES, PRESENT WITNESSES.
THEN THE FINAL ONE IS THAT
MANAGER SCHIFF OR HIS STAFF HAD
SOME ROLE IN CONSULTING WITH THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER THAT REMAINS
SECRET TO THIS DAY.
AND ALL ATTEMPTS TO FIND OUT
ABOUT THAT, TO ASK QUESTIONS
ABOUT THAT WERE SHUT DOWN.
MANAGER SCHIFF HAS SAID TODAY
THAT HE HAD NO CONTACT WITH THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
IT WAS ONLY HIS STAFF.
BUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THERE
WAS SOME CONSULTATION THERE
HASN'T ACTUALLY BEEN PROBED BY
ANY QUESTIONING.
ALL THE QUESTIONS IN A
REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF HOUSE
TRIED TO ASK ABOUT THAT WERE
SHUT DOWN.
AND ANY QUESTIONS -- AS A
RESULT, ANY QUESTIONS INTO
DETERMINING WHO THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS AND WHAT HIS
MOTIVATIONS AND HIS BIAS WAS
WERE ALSO SHUT DOWN.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY NOTED,
WE HEARD THAT EARLIER THIS
EVENING IN HIS LETTER TO THE
ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE D.N.I.
THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAD THE
INDICIA OF POLITICAL BIAS
BECAUSE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAD
CONNECTIONS TO A CANDIDATE OF
THE OTHER PARTY.
THE QUESTION OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL BEING TOLD REMAINS
SECRET.
IT HASN'T BEEN FORWARDED TO
HPSCI AND IS NOT PART OF THE
RECORD.
THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY ABILITY TO
PROBE INTO THE RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND
OTHERS WHO ARE MATERIALLY
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THIS
INQUIRY.
IF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AS IS
ALLEGED IN SOME PUBLIC REPORTS,
ACTUALLY DID WORK FOR THEN-VICE
PRESIDENT BIDEN ON UKRAINE
ISSUES, EXACTLY WHAT WAS HIS
ROLE?
WHAT WAS HIS INVOLVEMENT WHEN
ISSUES WERE RAISED?
WE KNOW FROM TESTIMONY THE
QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT THEN HAD
WHEN HIS SON WAS SITTING ON THE
BOARD OF BURISMA WAS THE ALLEGED
WHISTLE-BLOWER INVOLVED IN ANY
OF THAT AND IN MAKING DECISIONS
TO NOT DO ANYTHING RELATED TO
THAT?
DID HE HAVE SOME REASON TO WANT
TO PUT THE DEEP SIX ON ANY
QUESTION RAISING ANY ISSUE ABOUT
WHAT WENT ON WITH THE BIDENS AND
BURISMA AND FIRING SHOKIN AND
WITHHOLDING $1 BILLION IN LOAN
GUARANTEES AND IN FORCING A VERY
EXPLICIT QUID PRO QUO.
YOU WON'T GET THIS $1 BILLION
UNTIL YOU FIRE HIM.
WE DON'T KNOW.
AND BECAUSE MANAGER SCHIFF WAS
GUIDING THIS WHOLE PROCESS
BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHAIRMAN IN
CHARGE OF DIRECTING THE INQUIRY
AND DIRECTING IT AWAY FROM ANY
OF THOSE QUESTIONS, THAT
CREATES A REAL DUE PROCESS
DEFECT IN THE RECORD THAT HAS
BEEN PRESENTED HERE.
SO, YES, THAT IS A MAJOR
PROBLEM AND MAJOR DEFECT IN THE
WAY THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS
OCCURRED THAT INFECTS THIS
RECORD.
IT MEANS IT IS NOT A RECORD THAT
COULD BE RELIED UPON TO REACH
ANY CONCLUSION OTHER THAN AN
ACQUITTAL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MR. PETERS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS THAT I WILL SEND TO THE
DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM PETERS ASKS THE
HOUSE MANAGERS DOES AN
IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER
REQUIRE THAT A PRESIDENT'S
CORRUPT PLAN ACTUALLY SUCCEED?
MS. LOFGREN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
AND SENATORS, THE ANSWER IS NO.
JUST AS -- ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT
A CRIMINAL OFFENSE -- IF YOU
ATTEMPTED MURDER BUT DIDN'T
SUCCEED, YOU WOULD NOT BE
INNOCENT.
THE PRESIDENT HAS ATTEMPTED TO
UPEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER
FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.
HE USED THE POWERS OF -- AND
LET'S PUT SLIDE 11 UP IF WE
COULD.
HE HAS USED THE POWERS OF HIS
OFFICE TO SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE.
AND WE KNOW THIS BY THE
PRESIDENT'S OWN STATEMENTS.
THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF
CONFESSION, SUBSTANTIAL
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND WITNESS
TESTIMONY.
AND THIS HAS GRAVE CONSEQUENCES
FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, FOR
THREATENED ELECTION SECURITY AS
WELL AS UNDERMINING U.S.
CREDIBILITY AND OUR VALUES
ABROAD.
NOW BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
CONTINUES TO ACT IN THIS
MANNER, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS
AN ONGOING THREAT.
WHILE THE IMPEACHMENT WAS GOING
ON, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL
LAWYER, MR. GIULIANI, WAS IN
UKRAINE CONTINUING THIS SCHEME.
AND WHEN HE LANDED, HE WAS STILL
TAXIING, THE PRESIDENT AND HE
WERE ON THE FIEND THE PRESIDENT
ASKED HIM, WHAT DID YOU GET?
WHAT DID YOU GET IN THIS IS AN
ONGOING MATTER.
THE FACT THAT HE HAD TO RELEASE
THE AID AFTER HIS SCHEME WAS
REVEALED DOES NOT END THE
PROBLEM.
NOW, I HAVE LISTENED WITH GREAT
INTEREST TO THE BACK AND FORTH
AND THE QUESTIONS.
IT'S HARD BECAUSE I WANT TO
STAND UP AND ANSWER ALL THE
QUESTIONS THAT I CAN.
BUT I DO THINK THAT -- THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT HE
BELIEVES HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE
WANTS -- WHATEVER HE WANTS AND
THERE'S NO CONSTRAINT THAT IS
BEING RECOGNIZED BY THE
CONGRESS.
MR. MULVANEY, AS WE HAVE NOTED,
HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE
PRESIDENT DIRECTLY TIED HIS HOLD
ON MILITARY AID TO HIS DESIRE TO
GET UKRAINE TO CONDUCT A
POLITICAL INVESTIGATION, AND HE
TOLD US TO JUST GET OVER IT.
NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS
HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD
NOT BELIEVE OUR EYES WHEN
MR. MULVANEY -- WHEN I WAS A
KID, THEY WOULD SAY, DON'T
BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES BECAUSE
HE WALKED THAT BACK LATER.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY,
ACTUALLY, TO HEAR FROM A WITNESS
WHO DIRECTLY SPOKE TO THE
PRESIDENT WHO APPARENTLY CAN
TELL US THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD
HIM THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY
THIS AID WAS HELD UP WAS TO GET
DIRT ON THE DEMOCRATS.
NOW, IF WE JUST THINK ABOUT IT,
PUT UKRAINE TO ONE SIDE.
IF A CHIEF EXECUTIVE CALLED THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND SAID,
I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE MY
POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
I WANT YOU TO ANNOUNCE AN
INVESTIGATION, THERE WOULDN'T BE
ANY QUESTION THAT THAT WOULD BE
AN IMPROPER USE OF PRESIDENTIAL
POWER.
AND IT'S REALLY NO DIFFERENT
WHEN YOU INVOLVE A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT, EXCEPT THAT IT'S
WORSE BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT THE FOUNDERS WORRIED ABOUT
WAS INVOLVEMENT OF FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS IN OUR MATTERS, IN
OUR ELECTION.
SO, YES, THE FACT THAT HE DIDN'T
SUCCEED IN THAT PARTICULAR
INSTANCE DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE
ARE SAFE.
AND THE IDEA -- AND I WAS
STUNNED TO HEAR THAT NOW
APPARENTLY IT'S OKAY FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO GET INFORMATION
FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS IN AN
ELECTION.
THAT'S NEWS TO ME.
YOU KNOW, THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN
LAWS PROHIBIT ACCEPTING A THING
OF VALUE.
A THING OF VALUE IS INFORMATION.
IF YOU OR I ACCEPTED MATERIAL
INFORMATION FROM A SOURCE,
E-MAIL, DATABASES AND ALIKE
WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT OR FROM A
FOREIGN NATION, THAT WOULD BE
ILLEGAL.
THE THOUGHT THAT THIS -- AS WE
GO FORWARD IN THIS TRIAL ITSELF,
WE ARE CREATING ADDITIONAL
DANGERS TO THE NATION BY
SUGGESTING THAT THINGS THAT HAVE
LONG BEEN PROHIBITED ARE NOW
SUDDENLY GOING TO BE OKAY
BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ASSERTED IN
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.
I YIELD BACK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM WYOMING.
MR. BARRASSO: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS
RISCH, HAWLEY, AND MORAN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
BARRASSO AND THE OTHER SENATORS
FOR COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.
CAN THE SENATE CONVICT A SITTING
U.S. PRESIDENT OF OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS FOR EXERCISING THE
PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITIES OR RIGHTS?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION, AND I THINK THE SHORT
ANSWER IS CONSTITUTIONALLY, NO,
THE SENATE MAY NOT CONVICT THE
PRESIDENT FOR EXERCISING HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES.
THE THEORY THAT THE HOUSE
MEARNTION -- MANAGERS HAVE
PRESENTED, I THINK TURLY HAS
ASKED IF IT IS DANGERRIES FOR
THE STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION
CHARGED THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE BROUGHT IS THAT THE HOUSE
CAN SIMPLY DEMAND INFORMATION
AND IF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
RESISTS, EVEN IF IT PROVIDES
LAWFUL RATIONALES, PERHAPS ONES
THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DISAGREE
WITH, BUT ARE CONSISTENT WITH
LONGSTANDING PRECEDENCE AND
PRINCIPLES PLIED BY THE --
APPLIED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH,
IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS DISAGREE
WITH THEM, THEY JUMP IMMEDIATELY
TO IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT.
WE HAVE FAILURE OF THE HOUSE TO
PROCEED LAWFULLY.
WE HEARD ABOUT HOW THE PRESIDENT
IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
BUT AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ
POINTED OUT, THE HOUSE IS NOT
ABOVE THE LAW THE THEY HAVE TO
PROCEED BY PROPER MEASURES.
IF THE HOUSE ATTEMPTS TO
SUBPOENA A SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE
PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT
ASSERTS THE IMMUNITY OF THE
SENIOR ADVISORS, A DOCTRINE
ASSERTED BY VIRTUALLY EVERY
PERSON SINCE PRESIDENT NIXON AND
GOES BACK EARLIER THAN THAT,
THEN THERE IS A CONFRONTATION
BETWEEN THE BRANCHES THAT
DOESN'T SUGGEST AN IMPEACHABLE
OFFENSE, WHAT IT SHOWS IS THE
POWERS OF OPERATION, THAT
FRICTION BETWEEN THE BRANCHES IS
PART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DESIGN AND AS JUSTICE LOUIS
BRANDEIS EXPLAINED, IT WAS
ENSHRIND IN THE CONSTITUTION NOT
BECAUSE IT WAS THE MOST OFFICIAL
WAY TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT BUT
BECAUSE THE INTERACTION BETWEEN
THE BRANCHES WAS A PART OF A WAY
OF GUARANTEEING LIBERTY BY
ASSURING THAT NO ONE BRANCH
COULD AGRANDIZE POWER ITSELF.
AND THAT IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE
PRINCIPLE.
THEY DECIDE ONCE THEY WANT TO
PURSUE IMPEACHMENT, THE
EXECUTIVE HAS NO DEFENSES.
IT CAN HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITIES OR PREROGATIVES TO
RAISE IN RESPONSE TO THOSE
SUBPOENAS.
IT HAS TO JUST TURN OVER
EVERYTHING OR IT'S AN
IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
WHAT THAT WOULD LEAD TO AS
PROFESSOR TURLY EXPLAINED, IS
TRANSFORMING OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT BY MAKING IT A PARL
MEN TRISYSTEM AS PROFESSOR DEREK
EXPLAINED.
IN A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM THE
PRESIDENT COULD BE REMOVED BY A
VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.
ALL THE HOUSE HAS DO IS DEMAND
INFORMATION, GO TO RESPONSE FROM
THE PRESIDENT AND SAY THIS IS
CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES THAT
ALL PRESIDENTS BEFORE ME HAVE
ASSERTED.
I'M GOING TO STICK BY THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH PREROGATIVES
AND THE HOUSE CAN SAY, THAT'S
IT, YOU CAN BE IMPEACHED AND IF
THE VOTES ARE THERE, REMOVE THE
PRESIDENT AND YOU MAKE IT
DEPENDENT ON THE LEGISLATOR AND
THAT'S WHAT GOVERNOR MORRIS
WARNED OF.
HE WARNED THE FRAMERS WHEN WE
MAKE A METHOD, WE MUD MAKE SURE
HE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE
LEGISLATOR.
IT WAS THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
MAKING IT EASY TO REMOVE THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE THAT THE FRAMERS
WANTED TO REJECT, AND THIS
THEORY OF OBSTRUCTION OF
CONGRESS WOULD CREATE EXACTLY
THAT SYSTEM OF EASY REMOVAL
EFFECTIVELY A PARLIAMENTARY
SYSTEM THAT IS NOT THE STRUCTURE
OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE
FRAMERS ENSHRINED IN THE
CONSTITUTION FOR US.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.
MR. BLUMENTHAL: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND
SENATORS WARNER, HEINRICH, AND
HARRIS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR
BLUMENTHAL AND OTHER SENATORS IS
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
IT READS AS FOLLOWS, BEFORE THE
BREAK, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
STATED THAT ACCEPTING MERE
INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN
SOURCE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
WOULD VIOLATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE
LAW AND THAT IT IS NOT CAMPAIGN
INTERFERENCE TO ACCEPT CREDIBLE
INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN
SOURCE ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS
RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
UNDER THIS VIEW, ACCEPTANCE OF
THE KINDS OF PROPAGANDA DES SEM
NAITD BY RUSSIA -- DISSEMINATED
BY RUSSIA IN 2016 ON FACEBOOK
AND OTHER PLATFORMS USING BOTS
AND FAKE ACCOUNTS AND OTHER
TECHNIQUES TO SPREAD
DISINFORMATION WOULD BE LEGAL
AND APPROPRIATE.
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT ACCEPTING
SUCH A THING OF VALUE IS, IN
FACT, A VIOLATION OF LAW AND
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IT IS ONE OF
THE HIGHEST PRIORITIES OF OUR
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY,
INCLUDING THE C.I.A. N.S.A. AND
F.B.I. TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE
TO PREVENT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
AND INTERVENTION IN OUR
ELECTIONS?
MR. SCHIFF: IT IS WITHOUT
QUESTION AMONG THE VERY HIGHEST
PRIORITIES OF OUR INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES, OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
PREVENT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE OF
OUR ELECTION OF THE TYPE AND
CHARACTER THAT WE SAW IN 2016
WHEN RUSSIA HACKED THE DATABASES
OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMIT, THE D-TRIPLE C, WHEN
THEY BEGAN A CAMPAIGN OF LEAKING
THOSE DOCUMENTS WHEN IT ENGAGED
IN A MASSIVE AND SYSTEMATIC
SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN.
OUR INTEL AGENCIES AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAVE BEEN DEVOTING
THEMSELVES TO PREVENTING AN
OCCURRENCE OF THAT TYPE OF
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
IF I UNDERSTAND COUNSEL FOR THE
PRESIDENT CORRECTLY, AND I THINK
I AM, THEY ARE SAYING, NOT ONLY
IS THAT OKAY TO WILLINGLY ACCEPT
THAT, BUT THE VERY ALLEGATION
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT THAT BOB
MUELLER SPENT TWO YEARS
INVESTIGATING DIDN'T AMOUNT TO
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, THAT IS,
COULD HE PROVE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THE CRIME OF
CONSPIRACY.
WE ARE TALK ABOUT CONSPIRACY.
HE ASKED IF THEY COULD PROVE THE
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
AND FOUND HE COULD NOT.
WHAT COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT
IS NOW SAYING IS THAT EVEN IF HE
COULD HAVE, THAT'S OKAY.
IT'S NOW OKAY TO CRIMINALLY
CONSPIRE WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY TO
GET HELP IN A PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION.
 AS LONG AS THE PRESIDENT
BELIEVES IT WOULD HELP HIS
CAMPAIGN AND THEREFORE IT WOULD
HELP OUR COUNTRY.
THAT'S NOW OKAY.
IT'S OKAY TO ASK FOR THAT HELP.
IT'S OKAY TO WORK WITH THAT
POWER TO GET THAT HELP.
IT'S BEEN A REMARKABLE EVOLUTION
OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DEFENSE.
IT BEGAN WITH NONE OF THAT STUFF
HAPPENED HERE.
IT BEGAN WITH NOTHING TO SEE
HERE.
IT MIGRATED TO, OKAY, THEY DID
SEEK INVESTIGATIONS OF THE
PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL AND
THEN IT BECAME, OKAY, THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT SOUGHT
BY OFFICIAL CHANNELS THROUGH
OFFICIAL POLICY.
THEY WERE SOUGHT BY THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER THROUGH HIS
PERSONAL CAPACITY AND THEN IT
MIGRATED TO, WE ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT, WOW, THE PRESIDENT'S
LAWYER WAS CONDUCTING THIS
PERSONAL POLITICAL ERRAND, THE
PRESIDENT WITHHELD THE MONEY,
BUT WE THINK THAT'S OKAY.
WE'VE WITNESSED OVER THE COURSE
OF THE LAST FEW DAYS AND THE
LONG DAY TODAY A REMARKABLE
LOWERING OF THE BAR TO THE POINT
NOW WHERE EVERYTHING'S OKAY AS
LONG AS THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES
IT'S IN HIS REELECTION INTEREST.
YOU COULD CONSPIRE WITH ANOTHER
COUNTRY TO GET THEIR HELP IN
YOUR ELECTION EITHER BY
INTERVENING ON YOUR BEHALF TO
HELP YOU OR BY INTERVENING TO
HURT YOUR OPPONENT AND NOW WE'RE
TOLD THAT'S NOT ONLY OKAY BUT
IT'S BEYOND THE REACH OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND WHY?
BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT
IMPEACHABLE.
IF YOU SAY ABUSE OF POWER IS
IMPEACHABLE, YOU ARE IMPEACHING
PRESIDENTS FOR MERE POLICY.
THAT'S NONSENSE.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
THEY ARE TO THE THE SAME THING.
I ASK -- PROFESSOR TIEWRLY
HAS -- TURLY HAS ARGUED, THEY
ARE NOT THE SAME THING, AS BILL
BARR ARGUED, THEY ARE NOT THE
SAME THING, AS PROFESSOR
DERSHOWITZ ARGUED 21 YEARS AGO,
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
YOU CAN'T SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE, AND THE FACT THAT
YOU'RE UNSUCCESSFUL IN GETTING
IT DOESN'T EXONERATE YOU.
A FAILED SCHEME DOESN'T MAKE YOU
INNOCENT.
IF YOU TAKE A HOSTAGE AND YOU
DEMAND A RANSOM AND THE POLICE
ARE AFTER YOU AND YOU RELEASE
THE HOSTAGE BEFORE YOU GET THE
MONEY, IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU
INNOCENT.
IT JUST MAKE YOU UNSUCCESSFUL.
AN UNSUCCESSFUL CROOK.
BUT IT DOESN'T MITIGATE THE
HARMFUL CONDUCT.
AND THIS BODY SHOULD NOT ACCEPT
NOR SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
ACCEPT THE IDEA PUT OUT BY THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS TODAY THAT
IT IS PERFECTLY FINE,
UNIMPEACHABLE FOR A PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO SAY HEY,
RUSSIA, OR HEY, UKRAINE, OR HEY,
CHINA, I WANT YOUR HELP IN MY
ELECTION BECAUSE THAT'S THE
POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT.
WE'RE CALLING THAT POLICY NOW.
IT'S THE POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT
TO DEMAND FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
AND WITHHOLD MONEY FROM AN ALLY
AT WAR UNLESS THEY GET IT.
THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL POLICY.
I'M SORRY.
THAT'S WHAT I CALL CORRUPTION.
AND THEY CAN DRESS IT UP IN FINE
LEGALESE, BUT CORRUPTION IS
STILL CORRUPTION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
MS. COLLINS: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MAINE.
MS. COLLINS: I WOULD SEND A
QUESTION TO THE DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR COLLINS IS
FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE ARTICLES
OF IMPEACHMENT ASSERTED THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED CRIMINAL
BRIBERY AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 201 AND HONEST SERVICES
FRAUD AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1346, BUT THESE OFFENSES
ARE NOT CITED IN THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT.
DID THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AS
ALLEGED IN THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT CONSTITUTE
VIOLATIONS OF THESE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL LAWS, AND IF SO, WHY
WERE THEY NOT INCLUDED IN THE
ARTICLES?
MR. JEFFRIES: THANK YOU,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, AND THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR YOUR QUESTION.
ARTICLE 1 ALLEGES CORRUPT ABUSE
OF POWER.
CORRUPT ABUSE OF POWER CONNECTED
TO THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO TRY
TO CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTION BY
PRESSURING UKRAINE TO TARGET AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN, JOE BIDEN,
SOLELY FOR PERSONAL AND
POLITICAL GAIN.
AND TO SOLICIT FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020
ELECTION.
AND THE SCHEME WAS EXECUTED IN A
VARIETY OF WAYS.
NOW, PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HAS
INDICATED, BASED ON HIS THEORY
OF WHAT IS IMPEACHABLE, THAT IT
HAS TO EITHER BE A TECHNICAL
CRIMINAL VIOLATION, ALTHOUGH THE
WEIGHT OF CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY SAYS THE CONTRARY, BUT
HE SAID THAT IT SHOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT IS EITHER A
CRIMINAL VIOLATION OR SOMETHING
AKIN TO A CRIMINAL VIOLATION,
AKIN TO A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.
AND WHAT WE ALLEGE IN ARTICLE 1
FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY.
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED A
THING OF VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR
AN OFFICIAL ACT.
THE THING OF VALUE WAS PHONY
POLITICAL DIRT IN THE FORM OF AN
INVESTIGATION SOUGHT AGAINST JOE
BIDEN, HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.
AND HE ASKED FOR IT EXPLICITLY
ON THAT JULY 25 CALL AND THROUGH
HIS INTERMEDIARIES REPEATEDLY IN
THE SPRING THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER
INTO THE FALL.
SOLICITED A THING OF VALUE IN
EXCHANGE FOR TWO OFFICIAL ACTS.
ONE OFFICIAL ACT WAS THE RELEASE
OF $391 MILLION IN SECURITY AID
THAT WAS PASSED BY THIS SENATE
AND BY THE HOUSE ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS.
AND THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD IT
WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.
WITNESSES WHO SAID THERE WAS NO
LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY REASON,
NO LEGITIMATE SUBSTANTIVE
REASON, NO LEGITIMATE FOREIGN
POLICY ON NATIONAL SECURITY
REASON FOR WITHHOLDING THE AID.
IT WAS WITHHELD TO SOLICIT
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.
YES, THAT IS AKIN TO A CRIME.
THAT'S YOUR STANDARD, SIR.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO SOLICITED
THAT POLITICAL DIRT IN EXCHANGE
FOR A SECOND OFFICIAL ACT, THE
WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT THE
UKRAINIAN LEADER DESPERATELY
WANTED, SO MUCH SO THAT HE
MENTIONED IT ON THE JULY 25 CALL
AND EVEN WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP
MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT
THE SIDELINES OF THE U.N. IN
LATE SEPTEMBER, THE PRESIDENT OF
UKRAINE BROUGHT UP THE OVAL
OFFICE MEETING AGAIN BECAUSE IT
WAS VALUABLE TO HIM.
THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD IT,
WITHHELD THAT OFFICIAL ACT TO
SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN
A 2020 ELECTION.
THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN
AMERICA.
THAT UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRACY.
THAT'S A STUNNING CORRUPT ABUSE
OF POWER.
AND YES, SIR, IT'S AKIN TO A
CRIME.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF SENATORS CASEY, ROSEN,
AND MYSELF, FOR THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, SENATOR FROM NEW YORK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATORS
GILLIBRAND, CASEY, MURPHY, AND
ROSEN IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
HOW DO THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS
DIFFER FROM OTHER HOLDS ON
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND HOW IS
THE HOLD AND RELEASE OF
CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED
ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
SUPPOSED TO WORK?
MR. CROW: CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK
YOU, SENATORS, FOR THE QUESTION.
TO BE VERY CLEAR, WHAT THE
PRESIDENT DID IS NOT THE SAME AS
A ROUTINE WITHHOLDING OR
REVIEWING OF FOREIGN AID TO
ENSURE THAT IT ALIGNS WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S POLICY PRIORITIES OR
TO ADJUST THE GEOPOLITICAL
DEVELOPMENTS, BECAUSE INDEED IF
THAT WERE THE CASE, IF THE
PRESIDENT HAD ENGAGED THAT
PROCESS, HAD GONE THROUGH THE
INTERAGENCY REVIEW PROCESS, HAD
GONE THROUGH THE ROUTINE
CONGRESSIONAL CERTIFICATION
PROCESS, WE WOULD HAVE THE
DOCUMENTS, WE WOULD HAVE THE
TESTIMONY, WE WOULD HAVE THE
FACTS TO BACK THAT UP.
BUT INDEED, WHAT WE HAVE ARE
NONE OF THOSE FACTS, NONE OF
THOSE DOCUMENTS AND AN ALMOST
TWO-MONTH PERIOD WHERE NONE OF
THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD
NORMALLY BE INVOLVED IN THAT
PROCESS WERE AWARE OF THE REASON
FOR THE HOLD.
NOW, LET'S LOOK AT SOME PRIOR
HOLDS.
IN THE CASES OF OBAMA'S --
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TEMPORARY
HOLDS, CONGRESS WAS NOTIFIED FOR
THE REASONS FOR THOSE HOLDS, AND
IT WAS ALWAYS DONE IN THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS, WHETHER IT
BE CORRUPTION, NATIONAL
SECURITY, IN SUPPORT OF OUR
ALLIANCES.
NEVER THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
PERSONAL INTERESTS.
BUT LET'S LOOK AT EVEN PRESIDENT
TRUMP'S OTHER HOLDS.
IN AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE OF
CONCERNS ABOUT TERRORISTS, OR IN
CENTRAL AMERICA BECAUSE OF
IMMIGRATION CONCERNS.
WERE DONE FOR REASONS RELATED TO
OFFICIAL U.S. POLICIES, THEY
WEREN'T CONCEALED.
THEY WERE PUBLIC, WIDELY
PUBLICIZED.
AND HAD ENGAGED NOT ONLY
CONGRESS BUT THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN
THE ENTIRE APPARATUS THAT'S
INVOLVED IN CONDUCTING THOSE
HOLDS.
AGAIN, NONE OF WHICH HAPPENED
HERE.
SO ALL OF THIS GOES TO SHOW THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO
LEGITIMATE POLICY REASON.
WHY VIOLATE THE EMPOWERMENT
CONTROL ACT?
WHY KEEP ALL OF THE PEOPLE
INVOLVED IN THESE HOLDS IN THE
DARK?
THE PRESIDENT'S AGENCIES AND
ADVISORS CONFIRMED REPEATEDLY
THAT THE AID WAS IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY'S
NATIONAL SECURITY, INCLUDING
SECRETARY ESPER, SECRETARY
POMPEO, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE,
AMBASSADOR BOLTON OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, EVERYBODY WAS IMPLORING
THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE
HOLD.
TO NO AVAIL.
THE EVIDENCE EVEN THOSE THAT
EVEN THE CROSS WAS UNUSUAL, AND
YOU HEARD A CAREER O.M.B.
OFFICIAL MR. SANDY EXPLAIN THAT
MR. DUFFEY, THE PRESIDENT'S
HAND-PICKED POLITICAL APPOINTEE,
WHO HAS REFUSED TO TESTIFY AT
THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION, TOOK
OVER RESPONSIBILITY TO AUTHORIZE
THE AID.
MR. SANDY CONFIRMED THAT IN HIS
ENTIRE CAREER AT O.M.B., HE HAD
NEVER SEEN OR EXPERIENCED CAREER
OFFICIALS HAVING THEIR
APPORTIONMENT AUTHORITY REMOVED
BY A POLITICAL APPOINTEE.
SENATORS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
DISCUSSION.
YOU HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ME IN A
LITTLE WHILE, AND I SUSPECT
THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT.
I SUSPECT IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T
WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BIG
ISSUE.
WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED HERE.
THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS
AUTHORITY, PUT THE INTERESTS OF
HIMSELF OVER THE INTERESTS OF
THE COUNTRY, OVER THE INTERESTS
OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, OVER
THE INTERESTS OF OUR FREE AND
FAIR ELECTIONS.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HERE TO TALK
ABOUT.
THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.
THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS
A LEGITIMATE ENGAGEMENT OF U.S.
POLICY PROCESSES TO FORWARD
LEGITIMATE ENDS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
MR. BLUNT: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I
SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS
McSALLY -- McCASKILL --
McSALLY, RATHER, LANKFORD --
IT WAS A TERRIFYING MOMENT.
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR
McSALLY, SENATOR LANKFORD,
SENATOR GARDNER, SENATOR CAPITO,
AND SENATOR WICKER.
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: A
QUESTION FROM SENATOR BLUNT AND
OTHER SENATORS IS FOR THE
COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.
WHAT DOES THE SUPERMAJORITY
THRESHOLD FOR CONVICTION IN THE
SENATE CREATED BY THE FRAMERS
SAY ABOUT THE TYPE OF CASE THAT
SHOULD BE BROUGHT BY THE HOUSE
AND THE STANDARD OF PROOF THAT
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE
SENATE?
MR. DERSHOWITZ: THERE WERE
SEVERAL DEBATES AMONG THE
FRAMERS.
OF COURSE, SHOULD YOU HAVE
IMPEACHMENT AT ALL.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
WHAT THE CRITERIA FOR
IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE.
BUT THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER
DEBATE.
WHO SHOULD HAVE THE ULTIMATE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECIDING
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE
REMOVED?
JAMES MADISON SUGGESTED THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES AS A COMPLETELY
NONPARTISAN INSTITUTION.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT ISSUE AS WELL, BUT HE
SAID THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH SHOULD NOT
BECOME INVOLVED DIRECTLY AS A
BRANCH, OKAY TO PRESIDE OVER THE
TRIAL, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY AN
IMPEACHED PRESIDENT CAN BE PUT
ON TRIAL FOR CRIMES IF HE
COMMITTED CRIMES, AND HAMILTON
SAID THAT IF HE WERE TO BE PUT
ON TRIAL, HE WOULD THEN BE PUT
ON TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE SAME
INSTITUTION, THE JUDICIARY THAT
HAD ALREADY IMPEACHED HIM, AND
THEY MIGHT HAVE A
PREDISPOSITION.
SO IN THE COURSE OF THE DEBATE,
IT WAS FINALLY RESOLVED THAT THE
SENATE, WHICH IT WAS A VERY
DIFFERENT INSTITUTION BACK AT
THE FOUNDING.
OBVIOUSLY, SENATORS WERE NOT
DIRECTLY ELECTED.
THEY WERE APPOINTED BY THE
LEGISLATURE.
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SERVE AS
AN INSTITUTION THAT CHECKED ON
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
MORE MATURE, MORE SOBER, ELECTED
FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME, WITH
AN EYE TO THE FUTURE, NOT SO
CONCERNED ABOUT PLEASING THE
POPULAR MASSES.
REMEMBER, THE FRAMERS WERE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT DEMOCRACY.
NOBODY EVER CALLED THE UNITED
STATES A DEMOCRACY, A REPUBLIC
IF YOU CAN KEEP IT, NOT A
DEMOCRACY.
VERY GREAT CONCERN ABOUT THAT.
AND THEN WHEN IT CAME TIME TO
ASSIGN IT TO THE SENATE, THERE
WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE
CRITERIA AND WHAT THE OBVIOUSLY
VOTE SHOULD BE, AND THE
SELECTION OF A TWO-THIRDS
SUPERMAJORITY WAS PLAINLY
DESIGNED, PLAINLY DESIGNED TO
AVOID PARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS.
PLAINLY DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE
THE VERY WISE PHILOSOPHY
ESPOUSED BY THE CONGRESSMAN AND
THE SENATOR DURING THE CLINTON
CAMPAIGN.
THAT IS, DURING THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT.
NEVER, EVER HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT
OR REMOVAL THAT IS PARTISAN.
ALWAYS DEMAND THAT THERE BE A
WIDESPREAD CONSENSUS, A
WIDESPREAD NATIONAL AGREEMENT
AND BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.
WHAT BETTER WAY OF ASSURING
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAN
REQUIRING A TWO-THIRDS VOTE.
BECAUSE ALMOST IN EVERY INSTANCE
IN ORDER TO GET A TWO-THIRDS
VOTE, YOU NEED MEMBERS OF BOTH
PARTIES.
JOHNSON CASE WAS A PERFECT
EXAMPLE.
IN ORDER TO GET THAT VOTE, YOU
NEEDED NOT ONLY THE PARTY THAT
WAS BEHIND THE IMPEACHMENT, BUT
YOU NEEDED PEOPLE FROM THE OTHER
SIDE AS WELL.
AND WHEN SEVEN REPUBLICANS
DISSENTED BASED, I BELIEVE,
LARGELY ON THE ARGUMENTS OF
JUSTICE CURTIS AND OTHERS,
ARGUMENTS THAT I PARAPHRASED
HERE THE OTHER DAY, IT LOST BY
MERELY ONE VOTE.
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, IF I
REMEMBER CORRECTLY, ACHIEVED A
50-50 SPLIT.
AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT?
I THINK I'M RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
AND IT ONLY LOST -- I MEAN IT
COULD HAVE BEEN 51-49.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ENOUGH.
AND SO I THINK IT'S PLAIN THAT
NOT ONLY DOES THE TWO-THIRDS
REQUIREMENT SERVE AS A CHECK ON
THE HOUSE, BUT I THINK IT SENDS
A MESSAGE TO EVERY SENATOR.
IT SENDS A MESSAGE EVEN TO THOSE
SENATORS WHO WOULD BE IN THE
ONE-THIRD.
RECONSIDER BECAUSE IF YOU'RE
VOTING FOR A PARTISAN
IMPEACHMENT, YOU'RE VIOLATING
THE SPIRIT OF THE TWO-THIRDS
REQUIREMENT.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MANY
INSTITUTIONS WHERE AT THE END OF
THE DAY, FOR EXAMPLE,
POLITICAL CONVENTIONS, THEY
SEEK A UNANIMOUS VOTE JUST TO
SHOW UNITY.
AND I WOULD URGE SOME SENATORS
WHO FAVOR IMPEACHMENT TO LOOK AT
THE TWO-THIRDS AND SAY IF
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A
TWO-THIRDS, THERE SHOULDN'T BE
AN IMPEACHMENT, AND,
THEREFORE, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE
AGAINST IMPEACHMENT, EVEN
THOUGH WE MIGHT THINK THAT THE
CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT HAVE
BEEN SATISFIED.
DO NOT VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT.
DO NOT VOTE FOR REMOVAL UNLESS
YOU THINK THAT THE CRITERIA
ARTICULATED BY THE SENATOR AND
THE CONGRESSMEN AND I BELIEVE BY
THE CONSTITUTION AND BY HAMILTON
ARE MET, NAMELY, BIPARTISAN,
ALMOST UNIVERSAL CONCERN BY THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
THAT CRITERIA IS NOT MET, AND
THE TWO-THIRDS REQUIREMENT
REALLY ILLUSTRATES THE
IMPORTANCE THE FRAMERS GAVE TO
THAT CRITERIA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.
MR. MURPHY: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I RISE TO SEND A QUESTION TO THE
DESK.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
MR. McCONNELL: MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE, WHILE THE QUESTION IS
COMING UP, I UNDERSTAND THERE
ARE TWO MORE DEMOCRATIC
QUESTIONS AND TWO MORE
REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
QUESTION FROM SENATOR MURPHY IS
TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE
COMMITTED TO ABIDE BY RULINGS BY
THE CHIEF JUSTICE REGARDING
WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AND
THAT THEY WILL NOT APPEAL SUCH
RULINGS.
WILL THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL
MAKE THE SAME COMMITMENT,
THUS, OBJECT EDUCATING ANY --
OBVIATING ANY CONCERNS ABOUT AN
EXTENDED TRIAL?
MR. SEKULOW: MEMBERS OF SENATE,
WE HAD THIS QUESTION.
LET ME SAY THIS CLEARLY, WE ARE
NOT WILLING TO DO THAT, AND WE
ARE NOT WILLING TO DO THAT
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK ON WHICH IMPEACHMENT
IS BASED AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGES THAT ARE AT STAKE,
WITH NO DISRESPECT AT ALL TO THE
CHIEF JUSTICE, THAT'S NOT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN.
IT'S THE SAME THING THEY'RE
DOING AGAIN.
SURRENDER CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVES YOU HAVE AND THEN
WE WILL PROCEED IN THIS WAY.
GIVE US DOCUMENTS, GIVE US
WITNESSES.
AND IF YOU DON'T, WE'RE GOING
TO CHARGE YOU WITH OBSTRUCTION
OF CONGRESS.
IN THIS CASE IT'S WE ARE WILLING
TO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE
MANAGERS, BY WHATEVER THE CHIEF
JUSTICE DECIDES.
BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IS SET
UP.
AND IT'S PUTTING US IN EXACTLY
THE SAME SPOT AGAIN.
GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE
AND SUBPOENA IN COURT.
RELY ONLY ON WHO IS HERE -- BY
THE WAY, AGAIN, WITH NO
DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS
HERE AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF
THIS PROCEEDING.
SO THE PRESIDENT IS NOT WILLING
TO FOREGO THOSE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES THAT HE POSSESSES
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, UNDER
ARTICLE 2, FOR EXPEDIENCY.
THEY TRIED THAT BELOW, IN THE
HOUSE.
I TRUST THAT WILL NOT BE THE
DECISION HERE IN THE SENATE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI.
MR. WICKER: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK
FOR PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ ON
BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS
McSALLY AND MORAN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: QUESTION
FOR COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
DIRECTED TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ
BY SENATOR WICKER IS THIS.
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ, YOU
STATED DURING YOUR PRESENTATION
THAT THE HOUSE GROUNDS FOR
IMPEACHMENT AMOUNT TO THE,
QUOTE, MOST DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT, END QUOTE.
WHAT SPECIFIC DANGER DOES THIS
IMPEACHMENT POSE TO OUR
REPUBLIC, TO ITS CITIZENS?
MR. DERSHOWITZ: THANK YOU,
SENATORS.
I CAME OF AGE DURING THE PERIOD
OF McCARTHYISM.
I THEN BECAME A YOUNG PROFESSOR
DURING THE DIVISIVE TIME OF THE
VIETNAM WAR.
ALL OF LIVED THROUGH THE
DIVISION OF THE IRAQ WAR AND
9/11 AND FOLLOWING 9/11.
I HAVE NEVER LIVED AT A MORE
DIVISIVE TIME IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA THAN TODAY.
FAMILIES ARE BROKEN UP.
FRIENDS DON'T SPEAK TO EACH
OTHER.
DIALOGUE HAS DISAPPEARED ON
UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES.
WE LIVE IN EXTRAORDINARILY
DANGEROUS TIMES.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE
IMPEACHMENT DECISION BY THE
HOUSE HAS BROUGHT THAT ON US.
PERHAPS IT'S MERELY A SYMPTOM OF
A TERRIFIC PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE
FACING US AND LIKELY TO FACE UP
IN THE FUTURE.
I THINK IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THIS MATURE SENATE WHOSE JOB
IT IS TO LOOK FORWARD, WHOSE
JOB IT IS TO ASSURE OUR FUTURE,
TO MAKE SURE THE DIVISIONS DON'T
GROW EVEN GREATER.
WERE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO BE REMOVED TODAY, IT
WOULD POSE EXISTENTIAL DANGERS
TO OUR ABILITY TO LIVE TOGETHER
AS A PEOPLE.
THE DECISION WOULD NOT BE
ACCEPTED BY MANY AMERICANS.
NIXON'S DECISION WAS ACCEPTED,
EASILY ACCEPTED.
I THINK THAT DECISIONS THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN OTHER
CASES WOULD BE ACCEPTED.
THIS ONE WOULD NOT BE EASILY
ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A
DIVIDED COUNTRY, SUCH A DIVIDED
TIME.
AND IF THE PRECEDENT IS
ESTABLISHED THAT A PRESIDENT CAN
BE REMOVED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH
VAGUE AND RECURRING AND
OPEN-ENDED AND TARGETED TERMS AS
ABUSE OF POWER, 40 PRESIDENTS
HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF
POWER -- I BET YOU ALL OF THEM
HAVE.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW SOME OF THE
CHARGES AGAINST SOME OF THEM.
BUT WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION ON SO
MANY.
IF THAT CRITERIA WERE TO BE
USED, THIS WILL JUST BE THE
BEGINNING OF A RECURRING
WEAPONIZATION OF IMPEACHMENT
WHENEVER ONE HOUSE IS CONTROLLED
BY ONE PARTY AND THE PRESIDENCY
IS CONTROLLED BY ANOTHER PARTY.
NOW THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THERE
ARE DANGERS OF NOT IMPEACHING,
BUT THOSE DANGERS CAN BE
ELIMINATED IN EIGHT MONTHS.
IF YOU REALLY FEEL THERE'S A
STRONG CASE, THEN CAMPAIGN
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
BUT THE DANGER OF IMPEACHMENT
WILL LAST MY LIFETIME, YOUR
LIFETIME AND THE LIFETIME OUR
CHILDREN.
SO I URGE YOU RESPECTFULLY, YOU
ARE THE GUARDIANS.
FOLLOW THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
DO NOT ALLOW IMPEACHMENT TO
BECOME A NORMALIZED WEAPON IN
THE WORD OF ONE OF THE FRAMERS.
MAKE SURE THAT IT'S RESERVED
ONLY FOR THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY
OF CASES LIKE THAT OF RICHARD
NIXON.
THIS CASE DOES NOT MEET THOSE
CRITERIA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MS. SINEMA: I SEND A PRESIDENT
TO THE DESK FOR PRESIDENT'S
COUNSEL, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: QUESTION
FROM SENATOR SINEMA TO THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS THIS,
THE ADMINISTRATION NOTIFIED
CONGRESS OF THE HOLD OF NORTHERN
TRIANGLE COUNTRIES' FUNDS IN
MARCH 2019, ANNOUNCED ITS
DECISION TO WITHHOLD AID TO
AFGHANISTAN IN SEPTEMBER OF
2019, AND WORKED WITH CONGRESS
FOR MONTHS IN 2018 REGARDING
FUNDS BEING WITHHELD DUE TO
PAKISTAN'S LACK OF PROGRESS
MEETING ITS COUNTERTERRORISM
RESPONSIBILITIES.
IN THESE INSTANCES, THE
RECEIVING COUNTRIES KNEW THE
FUNDS WERE BEING WITHHELD TO
CHANGE BEHAVIOR AND FURTHER
PUBLICLY STATED AMERICAN POLICY.
WHY WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION
WITHHELD THE UKRANIAN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE DID IT NOT NOTIFY
CONGRESS OR MAKE UKRAINE OR
PARTNER COUNTRIES PUBLICLY AWARE
OF THE HOLD AND THE STEPS NEEDED
TO RESOLVE THE HOLD?
MR. PHILBIN: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
I THINK THAT IN ALL OF THOSE
INSTANCES THAT WERE LISTED IN
THE QUESTION, IT WAS CLEAR THAT
WITHHOLDING THE AID WAS MEANT TO
SEND A SIGNAL.
IT WAS DONE PUBLICLY AND IT WAS
MEANT TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THE
COUNTRY.
I THINK THAT IN THE TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE HOUSE, HERE
AMBASSADOR VOLKER MADE CLEAR
THAT HE AND OTHERS HOPED THAT
THE HOLD WOULD NOT BECOME PUBLIC
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT THERE
TO BE ANY SIGNAL TO THE
UKRANIANS OR TO OTHERS.
AND PEOPLE HAVE TALKED HERE,
THE MANAGERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT
HOW, WELL, EVEN IF THE AID
WHEN IT WAS WITHHELD, IT DIDN'T
LEAD TO ANYTHING NOT BEING
PURCHASED OVER THE SUMMER.
IT WAS STILL DANGEROUS BECAUSE
IT WOULD SEND A SIGNAL TO THE
RUSSIANS.
THE WHOLE POINT WAS IT WASN'T
PUBLIC.
THE UKRANIANS DIDN'T KNOW.
THE RUSSIANS DIDN'T KNOW.
IT WASN'T BEING DONE TO SEND A
SIGNAL.
IT WAS TO ADDRESS CONCERNS, THE
PRESIDENT HAD RAISED CONCERNS
AND HE WANTED TIME TO HAVE THOSE
CONCERNS ADDRESSED.
HE WANTED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER
BURDEN SHARING, THE ISSUE THAT
IS REFLECTED IN THE JUNE 24
E-MAIL THAT I REFERRED TO
EARLIER THAT'S REFERRED TO IN
THE JULY 25 CALL TRANSCRIPT.
AND HE WANTED TO UNDERSTAND
CORRUPTION ISSUES.
HE RAISED CORRUPTION ISSUES.
AND OVER THE COURSE OF THE
SUMMER THE TESTIMONY
MR. MORRISON IN PARTICULAR BELOW
EXPLAINED THAT THERE WERE
DEVELOPMENTS ON CORRUPTION OVER
THE SUMMER.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD JUST BEEN
ELECTED IN APRIL.
AT THAT TIME MULTIPLE WITNESSES
TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS UNCLEAR.
HE HAD RUN ON A REFORM AGENDA,
BUT IT WAS UNCLEAR WHAT HE WOULD
BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH BECAUSE IT
WAS UNCLEAR WHETHER OR NOT HE
WOULD SECURE A MAJORITY IN THE
UKRANIAN PARLIAMENT.
THOSE ELECTIONS DIDN'T OCCUR
UNTIL JULY, WHEN THE JULY 25
CALL OCCURRED.
RIGHT AFTER THOSE ELECTIONS HE
WON THE MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT.
THE PARLIAMENT STILL WASN'T
GOING TO ACTUALLY BE SEATED
UNTIL LATER IN AUGUST.
AND MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT
WHEN HE AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON
WERE IN KIEV AT THE END OF
AUGUST, I THINK AROUND AUGUST
27, THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAD
JUST BEEN SEATED AND ZELENSKY
AND HIS MINISTERS WERE TIRED
BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN UP ALL
NIGHT.
THEY KEPT THE PARLIAMENT UP LATE
IN SESSION TO PASS THE REFORM
AGENDA RIGHT THEN INCLUDING
THINGS LIKE EMUSLIM NATEING --
LIKE ELIMINATING IMMUNITY FROM
MEMBERS OF THE PARLIAMENT AND
THE ELECTION TO SET UP THE NEW
ANTICOURT.
THESE WERE POSITIVE
DEVELOPMENTS.
IT WAS TESTIFIED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WHEN HE SPOKE TO VICE
PRESIDENT PENCE IN WARSAW, THEY
DISCUSSED THESE AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY WENT THROUGH THE THINGS
THAT HE WAS DOING AND THAT
INFORMATION WAS RELAYED BACK TO
THE PRESIDENT.
THE HOLD HAD BEEN IN PLACE SO
THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD,
WITHIN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT,
PRIVATELY CONSIDER THIS
INFORMATION NOT TO SEND A SIGNAL
TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD.
THIS PLAYS INTO SOME OF THE
IDEAS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAVE PRESENTED, THAT SOMEHOW
THIS WAS TERRIBLE.
IT SENT A SIGNAL TO THE
RUSSIANS.
PART OF THE WHOLE POINT
AMBASSADOR VOLKER EXPLAINED WAS
THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT IT NOT
BECOME PUBLIC BECAUSE IT WOULD
THEN NOT SEND A SIGNAL AND THAT
IS WHAT HAPPENED UNTIL THE
"POLITICO" ARTICLE CAME OUT ON
AUGUST 28.
I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO
UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE IN
APPROACH THERE.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
A SENATOR: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM INDIANA.
A SENATOR: I SEND A QUESTION TO
THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND
SENATOR BRAUN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATORS FROM INDIANA ASK BOTH
PARTIES THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.
WE WERE PROMISED BY HOUSE
MANAGERS THAT THE EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING EACH ARTICLE OF
IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE
OVERWHELMING AND UNCONTESTED.
VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE INSISTED THAT THE
SENATE CANNOT HAVE A TRIELT
WITHOUT WITNESSES -- TRIAL
WITHOUT WITNESSES.
DO BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE
SENATE HAS INCLUDED EVIDENCE IN
TRIAL FROM EVERY SINGLE WITNESS
BEFORE THE VOTE EXCEPT FOR THE
I.G. REPORT THAT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF
KEPT SECRET?
WE BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
MR. SCHIFF: LET ME TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY, IF I CAN, TO ANSWER
A FEW QUESTIONS.
BUT, FIRST IS THE FACT THAT THE
TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES
BEFORE THE HOUSE SUFFICIENT TO
RELIEVE THE SENATE OF AN
OBLIGATION TO HAVE A TRIAL.
AND THE ANSWER IS NO.
THERE'S NO REASON AND, INDEED,
EVERY OTHER SENATE TRIAL,
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN HISTORY HAS
INVOLVED WITNESSES WHO DID NOT
TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE.
THIS WILL BE THE FIRST
DEPARTURE.
IT SHOULDN'T BE IF IT'S TO BE A
FAIR TRIAL.
I WANT TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF
OTHER POINTS.
THE QUESTION IS, WHY DIDN'T WE
CHARGE BRIBERY?
WE COULD HAVE AND WE OUTLINED
BRIBERY IN THE ARTICLE.
BUT ABUSE OF POWER IS THE
HIGHEST CRIME.
THE FRAMERS HAD IT IN MIND AS
THE HIGHEST CRIME.
THE FACTS IN THAT CONSTITUTE
BRIBERY.
HAD WE CHARGED BRIBERY IN THE
ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE, COUNSEL
WOULD HAVE SAID WE HAVE TWO
OFFENSES CHARGED.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ALAN
DERSHOWITZ MAKING THAT ARGUMENT,
THEY WOULD HAVE JONATHAN TURLEY
MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.
IF WE SEPARATED THEM, ONE FOR
ABUSE OF POWER AND ONE FOR
BRIBERY THEY WOULD HAVE ARGUED
YOU HAVE TAKEN ONE CRIME AND
MADE IT INTO TWO.
THE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL
POIRCHT HERE IS NOT THAT THE
ACTS WITHIN ABUSE OF POWER
CONSTITUTE BRIBERY, ALTHOUGH
THEY DO.
THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT WE
CHARGED A CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME,
THE MOST SERIOUS CRIME.
THE FOUNDERS GAVE THE PRESIDENT
ENORMOUS POWERS AND THEIR MOST
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WAS THE
PRESIDENT NOT ABUSE THAT POWER
AND THEY PROVIDED A REMEDY AND
THAT REMEDY IS IMPEACHMENT.
ONE FINAL POINT.
MR. SEKULOW SAID THAT IS NOT HOW
THE CONSTITUTION WORKS.
HE DIDN'T SAY THE CONSTITUTION
PROHIBITS TVMENT THE
CONSTITUTION PERMITS IT.
IF THEY WILL AGREE.
BUT THEY WON'T.
AND HE SAID IT'S THE SAME AS IN
THE HOUSE.
AND IT IS THE SAME AS IN THE
HOUSE.
AND IT'S THE SAME IN THIS WAY.
IF THEY WERE OPERATING IN GOOD
FAITH.
IF THEY REALLY WANTED A FAIR
RESOLUTION.
IF THEY WEREN'T JUST SHOOTING
FOR A DELAY, THEY WOULD ALLOW
THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE THE
DECISIONS.
BUT WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT IS
THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO HEAR
JOHN BOLTON.
WHY?
BECAUSE WHEN YOU HEAR
GRAPHICALLY A MAN SAY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TOLD ME TO HOLD AID FROM OUR
ALLY, WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
HEAR THAT FIRST HAND, NOT
FILTERED THROUGH OUR STATEMENTS,
THEY WILL RECOGNIZE IMPEACHABLE
CONDUCT WHEN THEY SEE IT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, MR. MANAGER.
MR. SEKULOW: WITH REGARD TO THE
LAST STATEMENT, I WILL SAY,
ASKED AND ANSWERED.
I HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION
ABOUT THE ISSUE OF MOVING
FORWARD IF THERE WERE WITNESSES
AND OUR VIEW ON THEM.
I DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING
ELSE.
WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION THAT
WAS ACTUALLY PRESENTED.
29 TIMES -- 29 TIMES THE HOUSE
MANAGERS HAVE USED THE PHRASE
OVERWHELMING, UNCONTESTED,
SUFFICIENT.
PROVED THEY SAID 31 TIMES.
NOW, THAT'S JUST WHAT THE RECORD
SAYS.
IT IS TRUE THAT THE RECORD FROM
THE HOUSE WAS ACCEPTED
PROVISIONALLY SUBJECT TO
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS.
BUT THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE
SAID OVERWHELMINGLY AND PROVED.
NOW, WE, OF COURSE, DISAGREE
WITH THEIR CONCLUSIONS AS A
MATTER OF FACT AND AS A MATTER
OF LAW.
BUT FOR THEM TO COME UP HERE AND
ARGUE PROVED AND OVERWHELMINGLY
A TOTAL OF, I GUESS, 64 TIMES IN
A COUPLE OF DAYS, TELLS ME A LOT
ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THIS
PROCEEDING TO CONTINUE, AND,
WITH THAT, WE'RE DONE.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THANK
YOU, COUNSEL.
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. McCONNELL: JUSTICE, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE TRIAL
ADJOURN UNTIL 1:00 P.M.
THURSDAY, TOMORROW, JANUARY 30,
AND THIS ORDER ALSO CONSTITUTE
THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT T
OBJECTION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
ADJOURN:
