[MUSIC PLAYING] >> JUDY WOODRUFF: GOOD AFTERNOON I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, WELCOME TO THE PBS NEWSHOUR'S LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.

BOTH THE HOUSE MANAGERS WHO WERE PROSECUTING TPROSECUTINGHE CASE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEFENSE TEAM WILL BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED IN WRITING BY THE SENATORS AND QUESTIONS WILL BE READ OUTLOUD BY THE SUPREME CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS.

A NEW PATTERN TODAY TO THE TRIAL AND WE WILL ALL BE WATCHING VERY CLOSELY.

WE HAVE WITH US AGAIN OUR OWN LISA DESJARDINS AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR, THEY'RE BOTH AT THE CAPITOL.

LISA, YOU HAVE BEEN DOING REPORTING ON WHAT THE ORDER IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE THIS AFTERNOON.

ALSO WHAT ARE YOU LEARNING ABOUT WITNESSES?

>> LISA DESJARDINS: THE QUESTIONS WILL GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN SIDES.

JUDY, JUST OVER AN HOUR AGO, I WAS TALKING TO McCONNELL'S OFFICE THEY WEREN'T SURE WHO GOES FIRST.

WE CAN CONFIRM AS OTHERS REPORTED SENATOR McCONNELL TOLD REPUBLICANS YESTERDAY THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH TO BLOCK WITNESSES, THOUGH HE GOT SOME HELP TODAY.

PAT TOOMEY TOLD ME HE IS SKEPTICAL SKEPTICAL, AND I HAVE SOMEONE ELSE WHO WILL REMAIN NAMELESS WHO IS A NO AND THAT IS A SWING VOTE THAT McCONNELL PICKED UP TODAY FOR BLOCKING ANY WITNESSES.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: WE'RE KEEPING ONE EYE ON THE SENATE CHAMBER WHERE THE TRIAL IS TAKING PLACE.

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS TEAM IS JUST COMING INTO THE ROOM, YOU SEE THEM IN THE LEFT FOREGROUND THERE, JUST ENTERING.

IT'S NOT CLEAR HOW MANY MINUTES WE ARE AWAY FROM STARTING.

YAMICHE, LET ME COME TO YOU.

I DID SEE A REPORT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE THIS MORNING THAT THEY ARE SAYING THEY ARE CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL -- THERE WILL NOT BE THE VOTES TO SUPPORT WITNESSES.

WHAT ARE YOU HEARING ABOUT THAT?

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR: EARLIER THE WHITE HOUSE SAID THEY THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE WITNESSES IN THAT TRIAL NOW THAT HAS CHANGED BUT THEY ARE WATCHING FOR SPECIFIC SENATORS, THEY ARE LOOKING AT SENATOR ROMNEY, MURKOWSKI AND SENATOR GARDNER AND THERE IS SOME PRESSURE TO ADD WITNESSES, ACTUALLY WITH PEOPLE BEING IN THE SENATE CHAMBER.

I SPENT PART OF MY MORNING WITH LEV PARNASS AND HE WANTS TO BE CALLED AS A WITNESS.

HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE IN THE CHAMBER BECAUSE HE IS OWE A GPS MONITORING, HE IS ON AN ANKLE BRACELET AND THEY HAVE A LOT TO SAY AND LEV TOLD ME HE THINKS THE PRESIDENT DID KNOW EVERYBODY AND HE CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE QUID PRO QUO, NOT JUST JULY 205th AND WE SHOULD REMIND PEOPLE LEV HAS BEEN DO IT AND HE HAS HIS OWN AGENDA THERE BUT IN SOME WAYS THE SIDE SHOW OR SIDE PRESSURING OF LEV BEING HERE ALONG WITH THE WHITE HOUSE CHECKING IN WITH SENATORS TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE AND HOW THIS IS GOING TO GO.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: WE'RE WATCHING THE HOUSE MANAGERS TEAM IN THE SENATE CHAMBER, AND THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM, THEY DO ALL APPEAR TO BE THERE SO WE'RE WAITING FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO ARRIVE, BUT YAMICHE WHILE WE WAIT, PARNASS WAS THE ASSOCIATE OF RUDY GIULIANI JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT'S LOSCH NOT SOMEONE WHO DIRECTLY HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT, BUT WHO DOES HAVE INFORMATION TO PROVIDE JUST TO PUT THIS -- JUST TO SET THE TABLE MORE WIDELY HERE.

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR: THAT'S RIGHT HE IS NOT SOMEONE WHO EVER SAID HE HEARD THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY SAY HE WANTED TO TIE THIS AID TO UKRAINE TO THE BIDENS AND DEMOCRATS BUT HE HAS PROVIDED PAGES TO THE HOUSE INTELLIGENT COMMITTEE AND HAS AN HOUR-LONG TAPE WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TALKING ABOUT MAREIE YOVANOVITCH SAYING SHE WAS SOMEONE HE WANTED GONE.

THIS MORNING HE TOLD ME HE HAS OTHER REPORTINGS OF THE PRESIDENT ONE AS LONG AS 38 MINUTES, REPORTING BOTH IN D.C. AND FLORIDA AND THE PRESIDENT SAID HE DOES NOT KNOW LEV PARNASS VERY WELL AND LEV SAYS HE HAS THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT AND RUDY GIULIANI SAYS HE IS A BACK STABBER, AND PARNASS IS SAYING LOOK, I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW WE WERE TRYING TO PRESSURE UKRAINE AND THERE IS EVIDENCE TO TIE HIM TO THAT.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: A LOT TO KEEP TRACK OF, YAMICHE THANK YOU FOR KEEPING IN TOUCH WITH THE LEGAL TEAM AROUND MR. PARNASS.

LISA IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ORDER AND THE PROCEDURE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY, JUST TO REMIND OUR AUDIENCE, THE QUESTIONS WE ARE GOING TO BE HEARING ARE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OUT EITHER BY INDIVIDUAL SENATORS OR GROUPS OF SENATORS, THEY ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE OR THE HOUSE MANAGERS, AND THEY WILL BE READ BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE WHO WILL BE LOOK AT THE QUESTIONS PRINTED OUT ON CARDS.

>> LISA DESJARDINS: I'M AFRAID I HAVE LOST COMMUNICATION.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: MY APOLOGIES, LET'S LOOK AT THE SENATE CHAMBER AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE HERE, BARRY BLACK IS THE GENTLEMAN STANDING NEAR THE FAR WALL, HE IS THE SENATE CHAPLAIN AND HE HAS BEEN THE PERSON TO BEGIN THE CEREMONY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAME IN FROM THE LEFT, HE HAS TAKEN A SEAT OR STOOD IN THE MIDDLE AND THEN CALLED ON BARRY BLACK TO OPEN THE SESSION WITH A PRAYER, THEN THERE HAS BEEN A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THEN THE SERGEANT OF ARMS ADDRESSES THE CHAMBER AND THEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE LOOKS TO SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL ABOUT WHAT'S TO COME.

WE DON'T SEE THE CHIEF JUSTICE YET SO WE ASSUME THERE IS BUSINESS BEING CONNECTED OFF CAMERA, OUT OF THE CHAMBER RIGHT NOW BUT WE DO SEE THE MANAGERS IN PLACE, ADAM SCHIFF, REPRESENTATIVE NADLER AND THE OTHER TEAM MEMBERS AND ON THE RIGHT SIDE YOU SEE THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM, JAY SEKULOW AND OTHERS STANDING IN A GROUP WAITING FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

LET ME COME BACK TO YOU, YAMICHE, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS IS GOING TO START.

THEY TRY TO START ON TIME, THEY HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO STARTING ON TIME, TODAY MAY BE DIFFERENT.

IN TALKING TO THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL TEAM, YAMICHE, HOW CONFIDENT ARE THEY FEELING OVER ALL ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS THAT THEY'VE MADE?

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR: THEY ARE FEELING VERY CONFIDENT ABOUT THE FACTED THAT THEY SAID THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG AND THEY THINK THEY HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO FOR SURE ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT.

IT'S STILL A QUESTION OF THE WITNESSES.

I WAS TALKING TO A SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL AND THAT PERSON TOLD ME WE'RE GOING TO SEE EIGHT HOURS OF SENATORS' QUESTIONS, SEE THEM HAND IN CARDS, SENATORS HAVE BEEN HANDING IN CARDS THAT ARE WRITTEN QUESTIONS, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IS GOING TO REED THOSE CARDS WITH THE SENATORS NAMES.

I'M TOLD THAT THIS WILL GO FOR EIGHT HOURS, SO IF WE START ON TIME 1, TO 1:15 TO 9 P.M. AND THAT'S A LONGER DAY THAN WE HAD YESTERDAY AND TOMORROW ANOTHER EIGHT HOURS OF QUESTIONS, SO 16 HOURS TOTAL OF SENATORS' QUESTIONS AND THAT, OF COURSE, IS A PRETTY LONG PERIOD FOR SENATORS TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS AND TO HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS BEING READ.

I'M TOLD FROM THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN COORDINATING CLOSELY WITH REPUBLICANS, THERE HAVE BEEN MEETINGS NOT JUST IN THE SENATE BUT IN THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE THAT OUR DAN BUSH, POLITICAL WRITER HERE AT NEWSHOUR GOT THAT INFORMATION TODAY, AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE PUSH BACK, ARE THERE GOING TO BE FACT CHECKS, WE IMAGINE THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO BE TAKING ISSUE WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THEY'RE SAYING.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: VERY INTERESTING TO TRY TON UNDERSTAND AS MUCH AS WE CAN WHAT THE STRATEGY IS ON THE PART OF BOTH SIDES HERE, THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR STRATEGY IS, LISA, I THINK YOU'RE BACK NOW WITH A WORKING EAR PIECE SO THAT YOU CAN HEAR WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

>> LISA DESJARDINS: YES.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: WHAT DO WE KNOW, LISA, ABOUT HOW MUCH COORDINATION HAS GONE INTO ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE?

CLEARLY THEY'RE NOT JUST DOING THIS WILLY-NILLY, THEY MUST HAVE GIVEN IT A LOT OF THOUGHT >> LISA DESJARDINS: THAT'S RIGHT, THERE IS VERY LITTLE FORMAL COORDINATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO GROUPS BUT AMG THE SENATE DEMOCRATS THEY HAVE BEEN COORDINATING QUESTIONS, IN FACT, TWO DAYS AGO THEY WERE ASKING THE SENATORS TO TURN IN ALL QUESTIONS SO THEY COULD ELIMINATE DUPLICATIONS, GROUP THEM TOGETHER BASED ON THEME.

I DO THINK WE WILL SEE QUESTIONS ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE FOR CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF ABOUT HIM PERSONALLY.

REPUBLICANS SEE HIM AS A FACT WITNESS AND SOMEONE WHO IS COMPROMISED IN THIS INVESTIGATION.

I THINK THERE COULD BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE ATTACKS IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION FOR CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, RAISING HIS OWN KIND OF ROLE IN ALL OF THIS.

LIKEWISE, DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE THE SAME QUESTIONS FOR PAT CIPOLLONE ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.

ANOTHER THING THAT HAPPENED TODAY THAT IS WORTH NOTING, SUSAN COLLINS STRESSED SHE IS THINKING A ONE FOR ONE WITNESS DEAL IS SOMETHING SHE COULD BE INTERESTED IN AND IN THE SENATE GALLERY, THANKS FOR BEARING WITH US, THIS IS NOT A TECHNOLOGICAL FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT, ELECTRONICS DON'T SEEM TO BE GOING WELL IN THE SENATE.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: SO LISA WHEN SENATOR COLLINS SAYS ONE FOR ONE WHO WOULD BE THE WITH WITNESS THAT REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO CALL?

>> LISA DESJARDINS: HUNTER BIDEN.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE POLLING, THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, REPUBLICANS WHO SAY THEY WANT WITNESSES A VERY LARGE PORTION OF THAT WOULD LIKE A CONSERVATIVE WITNESS, HUNTER BIDEN.

SO THIS IS PART OF THAT POLLING NUMBER, MANY AMERICANS WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HUNTER BIDEN AND JB.

JOHN BOLTON.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMIND PEOPLE WHEN IT DOES COME TIME FOR SENATORS TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO HAVE WITNESSES OR NOT THE FIRST VOTE WILL BE ON THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF WITNESSES BEFORE THEY GET TO VOTING ONE BY ONE ON THE WITNESSES THEY WOULD CALL.

SO IT WON'T BE AN UP AND DOWN PROCESS BUT SENATORS COULD SAY THEY LOVE THE IDEA OF WITNESSES BUT IF THEY DON'T VOTE FOR INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES THERE MAY NOT BE ANY >> LISA DESJARDINS: THAT'S RIGHT THERE IS A MOTION TO PROCEED, THE MOTION TO GET TO A SPECIFIC TOPIC OR RESOLUTION, ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

A DEBATE ON WHETHER TO PROCEED TO THE TOPIC OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ALL TOGETHER.

THAT IS GOING TO BE THE KEY VOTE.

WE DO EXPECT THAT FRIDAY AND THAT'S WHAT ALL OF THE BEHIND THE SCENES TENSION IS ABOUT RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY IN THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE.

>> JUDY WOODRUFF: WE ARE KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON THE SENATE CHAMBER.

AS YOU CAN SEE, EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE WAITING.

THERE APPEARS TO BE CONVERSATION AT THE FRONT OF THE SENATE AND HERE NOW DOES COME THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, JOHN ROBERTS TO BEGIN THE PROCEEDING.

>> SENATE WILL CONVENE.

THE CHAPLAIN WILL LEAD US IN PRAYER.

>> LET US PRAY.

DEVINE SHEPHERD, HONOR, GLORY AND POWER BELONG TO YOU.

REFRESH OUR SENATORS, AS THEY INTERFERE A NEW PHASE OF THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

MAY THEY REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE APPOINTED THEM FOR THIS JET SERVICE.

AND THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU.

LORD, EMPOWER THEM TODAY WITH THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF PLEASING YOU AND KNOWING THAT IT IS NEVER WRONG TO DO RIGHT.

GIVE THEM RESILIENCY IN THEIR TOIL AS THEY REMEMBER YOUR PROMISE THAT THEY WILL REA BOUNTIFUL HARVEST IF THEY DON'T GIVE UP.

HELP THEM TO FOLLOW THE ROAD OF HUMILITY THAT LEADS TO HO THEY FIND THEIR SAFETY IN TRUSTING YOU.

WE PRAY IN YOUR MAJESTIC NAME.

AMEN.

A >> JOIN ME IN RECITING THE MREVENLG PREJUDICE /-+* PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

[PLEDGE RECITED] >> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION THE JOURNAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE.

WITHOUT JOCKS SO ORDERED THE SERGEANT OF ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.

>> HERE YE ALL PARENTS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON THE PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT, FOR THE SITTING OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT PRESENTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> TODAY THE SENATE WILL CONDUCT UP TO EIGHT HOURS 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 5 MINUTES OR LESS.

THE MAJORITY SIDE WILL LEAD OFF WITH A QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR FROM MAINE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR MURKOWSKI AND SENATOR ROMNEY.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 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 VARNGS ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION AND THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INTEREST HOW YOU SHOULD THE SENATE CONSIDER MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE IN ITS ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLE I?

>> IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION THERE ARE TWO LAYERS TO MY ANSWER BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT FIRST EVEN IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE MOTIVE, THE THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PRINTED, SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE ALONE CAN BECOME THE BASIS FOR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, WE BELIEVE IT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.

IT IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE WAY TO FRAME A CLAIM OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT I WILL PUT THAT TO ONE SIDE AND ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF MIXED MOTIVE.

IF THERE WAS A MOTIVE THAT WAS OF PUBLIC INTEREST BUT ALSO 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 APPOINTED OUT IN THE 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 PURPOSES.

THAT'S THE STANDARD THEY SET FOR THEMSELVES IN BEING ABLE TO MAKE THIS CLAIM UNDER THEIR THEORY OF WHAT AN ABUSE OF POWER DEFENSE CAN BE.

SO IT'S A DEMANDING STANDARD THEY SET FOR THEMSELVES TO MEET AND THEY EVEN SAID -- THEY CAME UP AND TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE BIDENS, A LOT ABOUT THESE ISSUES IN 2016, ELECTION INFERENCE BECAUSE THEY WERE SAYING THERE NOTS A SCINTILLA, A SCINTILLA OF ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING WORTH LOOKING INTO THERE.

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 SMUDGEIGIN OF PERSONAL MOTIVE OR MIXED INTEREST, 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?

53% AND -- YOU CAN'T DIVIDE IT THAT WAY.

THAT'S WHY THEY RECOGNIZE TO HAVE EVEN A REMOTELILY 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 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 POLICY DECISIONS WILL AFFECT THE NEXT ELECTION, THERE IS ALWAYS SOME PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE ELECTORAL OUTCOME OF POLICY DECISIONS AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

THAT'S PART OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

TO START SAYING NOW IF YOU'VE GOT A PART MOTIVE THAT'S FOR YOUR PERSONAL ELECTORAL GAIN, THAT'S GOING TO BECOME AN OFFENSE, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AND IT'S UNWORKABLE AND IT CAN'T BE A BASIS FOR REMOVING A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS ONCE YOU ARE 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'VE TOTALLY FAILED TO MAKE THAT CASE.

I THINK WE'VE SHOWN CLEARLY THAT BOTH OF THE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED, 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND THE BIDEN BURISMA SITUATION ARE THINGS THAT RAISE AT LISA 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 LISA 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.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

SEDIMENT LEADER JOHN BOLTON'S 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 A WAY NOR THE SENATE TO INFORM A VERDICT IN THIS CASE WITHOUT HEARING FROM BOLTON, MULVANEY OR OTHER WITNESSES WITHOUT SEEING THE KEY DOCUMENTS AND THEIR RELEVANCE?

>> ADAM SCHIFF: THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS NO AND WHEN YOU HAVE JOHN BOLTON, WHO'S TESTIMONY COULD GO TOWARD THE HEART OF THE GRIEVOUS MISCONDUCT, WHO HAS VOLUNTEERED TO COME AND TESTIFY TO TURN HIM AWAY, LOOK THE OTHER WAY IS DEEPLY AT ODDS WITH BEING AN IMPARTIAL JUROR.

I WOULD ADD IN RESPONSE TO THE LAST QUESTION THAT IF ANY PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVATION WAS A CORRUPT MOTIVE, 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 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 26TH, THE DAY AFTER THAT PONE CALL, DONALD TRUMP SPEAKS TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AND WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S QUESTION OF GORDON SONDLAND THE DAY AFTER THAT CALL?

IS HE GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS?

COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.

HE MAY HAVE HAD A GENERIC CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING AND OTHER CONTEXT, BUT HERE THE MOTIVATION WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THE ONLY QUESTION HE WANTED AN ANSWER TO WAS IS HE GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION?

BEAR IN MIND HE'S TALKING TO THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION, WHO BETTER TO ASK THAT ABOUT BURDEN SHARING THAN THE AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN OF COURSE NOT.

BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM HIS FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.

DON'T WAIT FOR THE BOOK.

DON'T WAIT UNTIL MARCH 1 BE 7 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?

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 UNDERSCORE NO.

2, SLIDE 2, HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.

>> AS 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.

>> ADAM SCHIFF: THE LAST VIDEO IS EVEN MORE ON POINT FOR MR. BOLTON.

NO.

3.

>> ONCE AGAIN, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS IN THE HOUSE RECORD THAT THEY COMPILED AND DEVELOPED UNDER THEIR PROCEDURES THAT WE 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.

>> ADAM SCHIFF: THAT'S NOT CORRECT, RIGHT?

BECAUSE, OF COURSE, McCONNELL 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 GORDON BE SONDLAND MADE IT CLEAR.SONDLAND MADE IT CLEAR.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 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.

[LAUGHTER] >> PAT CIPOLLONE: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, MANAGER SCHIFF SUGGESTIONED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT 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 SOND LAND THAT DAVID HALE OVERHEARD IN A RESTAURANT IN KIEV.

BUT IF WE LOOK AT AN EMAIL, FROM ONE PERSON AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO ANOTHER WITH THE SUBJECT LINE OF "POTUS FOLLOW-UP" ASKING ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.

IT SAYS "WHAT DO OTHER NATURE NOTICE MEMBERS SPEND TO SUPPORT UKRAINE?"

THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE FOLLOWING UP ON, FOR THE PRESIDENT.

AND IN THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th CALL 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 TALKED TO ANGELA MERKLE ABOUT IT AND THEY'RE NOT DOING AS MUCH AS THE UNITED STATES IS DOING AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREED WITH HIM.

MANAGER SCHIFF SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS INTO BE 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE BECAUSE OF A STATEMENT THAT ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY MADE AT A PRESS CONFERENCE BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS GARBLED AND HE IMMEDIATELY CLARIFIED THE PRESIDENT NEVER TOLD ME TO WITHHOLD ANY MONEY UNTIL THE UKRANIANS DID ANYTHING RELATED TO THE SERVER.

SIMILARLY HE ISSUED ANOTHER STATEMENT THE OTHER DAY MAKING CLEAR AGAIN THAT THIS IS FROM HIS COUNSEL SO IT'S RAISED IN THE THIRD PERSON, "NOR DID MR. MULVANEY EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE INDICATING THAT MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD IN EXCHANGE FOR BURISMA, THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTION" THAT IS MR.

MANY MULVANEY'S STATEMENT.

LASTLY, WHETHER THIS CHAMBER SHOULD HEAR FROM AMBASSADOR BOLTON, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF SHOULD WE HEAR ONE WITNESS, THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE REAL QUESTION.

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 WITHOUT -- THEY DIDN'T SEEN 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 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 HAVE HIS OPPORTUNITY TO CALL HIS WITNESSES AND THERE WOULD BE DEPOSITIONS AND THIS WOULD DRAG ON FOR MONTHS.

THAT'S THE NEW PRECEDENT.

THAT'S THE WAY ALL IMPEACHMENTS OPERATE IN THE FUTURE.

THE HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THE WORK, THEY DO IT QUICK, THEY THROW IT OVER THE TRANSUM AND THIS INSTITUTION HAS TO DEAL WITH IT.

THAT SHE HAD NOT BE THE PRESS PRECEDENT SET HERE FOR HOW THIS BODY WILL HAVE TO HANDLE ALL IMPEACHMENTS IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IF IT BECOMES THAT EASY FOR THE HOUSE TO DO IT, THEY WILL BE DOING IT A LOT.

THANK YOU.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS?

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: QUESTION FROM SENATOR MARKEY TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

ON MONDAY PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE NEVER ASKED JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY.

SO THAT THE RECORD IS ACCURATE DID HOUSE COMBOOEMENT INVESTIGATORS ASK MR. BOLTON TO TESTIFY?

>> ADAM 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. DR. KUPPERMAN TO TESTIFY AND HE REFUSED.

FORTUNATELY WE ASKED THEIR DEPUTY, DR. FIONA HILL TO TESTIFY AND SHE DID, WE ASKED HER DEPUTY TO TESTIFY, COLONEL VINDMAN AND HE DID.

BUT WE DID ASK JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY.

WHEN WE SUBPOENAED DR. DR. KUPPERMAN, HE SUED US, WHEN WE RAISED THE QUESTION FOR JOHN BOLTON 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 AND TESTIFY AND I SHOULD POINT OUT BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL POINT TO UNDERSCORE AS THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS SAY THEY DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH TO JET JOHN BOLTON, THEY SHOULD HAVE SUBPOENAED JOHN BOLTON.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU, BUT LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT THEY'RE TELLING THE COURT IN THE McGAHN LITIGATION.

SLIDE NO.

39.

THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS IN COURT IN THE McGAHN LITIGATION, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS RIGHT NOW "THE COMMITTEE, MEANING OUR COMMITTEE, LACKS ARTICLE I II STANDING TO SUE TO ENFORCE A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA DEMANDING TESTIMONY FROM INDIVIDUALS RELATED TO MATTERS AS RELATED TO DUTIES AS AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIAL.

IT TAKES YOUR BREATH AWAY, THEREFORE THEY'RE SAYING THEY SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER TO GET THESE WITNESSES, THEY SHOULD HAVE LITIGATED FOR YEARS AND DOWN THE STREET IN THE FEDERAL COURT HOUSE 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 PRESIDENTCEDENT WE WOULD BE SETTING IF YOU ALLOW THE HOUSE TO CALL WITNESSES.

THINK ABOUT THE PRECEDENT YOU WILL BE SETTING IF YOU DON'T ALLOW WITNESSES IN A TRIAL.

THAT TO ME IS THE MUCH MORE DANGEROUS PRECEDENT HERE.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU 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 CO EARSERCE THE ALLY TO DOING THE PRESIDENT'S DIRTY WORK.

NOW THEY HAVE FALLEN BACK ON YOU SHOULD NOT HEAR FROM WITNESSES.

WHAT'S MORE WE'RE GOING TO HEAR 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 IMPUGNITY.

IMAGINE WHERE THAT LEADS.

A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS POWER WITH IMPUGNITY.

THAT ARGUMENT MADE BY PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ IS AT ODDS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S EXPRESSED OPINION ON THE SUBJECT, WITH KEN STARR'S EXPRESSED OPINION ON THE SUBJECT, JONATHAN TURLEY WHO TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE SAYS THAT IS NONSENSE AND EVEN 60 YEAR OLD ALAN DERSHOWITZ DOESN'T AGREED WITH 81 YEAR OLD ALAN DERSHOWITZ AND FOR A REASON.

BECAUSE WHERE THAT CONCLUSION LEADS US IS A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS POWER IN ANY KIND OF WAY AND THERE IS 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 IN MILITARY AID TO AN ALLY AT WAR UNLESS THEY GET HELP IN THEIR RE-ELECTION?

WOULD WE SAY THAT YOU CAN WITHHOLD DISASTER RELIEF FROM A GOVERNOR UNLESS THE GOVERNOR GOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL?

THAT TO ME IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ARGUMENT OF ALL.

IT'S A DANGER GUERRE TO HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO WOULD ENGAGE IN THIS CONDUCT, IT'S A DANGER TO HAVE A TRIAL WITH NO WITNESSES AND SET THAT PRECEDENT BUT THE BIGGEST DANGER OF ALL IS TO ACCEPT THE IDEA 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.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON MY BEHALF JOINED BY SENATORS LOEFFLER, LEE, CRAMER AND McSALLY.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: 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?

HAVE THE HOUSE MANAGERS MET THEIR EVIDENTIARY BURDEN TO SUPPORT A VOTE OF REMOVAL?

>> PAT CIPOLLONE: 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 AN IMPEACHMENT IS SIMPLY AN ANNINGIZATION AND IN MOST SYSTEMS WHERE THERE IS SIMPLY AN ANNINGIZATION 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 HAVE CLEAR AND 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.

SO IT IS SIMPLY ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT AN ANNINGIZATION CAN BE MADE.

IT IS DEFINITELY A LOWER STANDARD THAN THE STANDARD THAT HAS TO BE MET HERE IN A TRIAL FOR AN ULTIMATE VERDICT.

THE CONSTITUTION SPEAKS IN TERMS OF A CONVICTION IN THE SENATE.

AS BOTH PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND JUDGE STARR BE POINTED OUT IN THEIR COMMENTS, EVERYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THERE IS ANY MENTION OF IMPEACHMENT IT IS SPOKEN OF IN TERMS OF 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.

PRAIRIE 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.

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 IS A HIGHER STANDARD AT STAKE HERE AS WE POINTED OUT IN OUR TRIAL MUM DUMB, THE ANNINGIZATION OF THE HOUSE COMES WITH NO PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AT ALL IN ITS FAVOR.

THE SENATE SITS AS TRIER OF FACT AND LAW REVIEWING BOTH FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES DE NOVO AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE HELD TO A STANDARD OF PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BEYOND WHAT WOULD BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

HERE THEY HAVE FAILED IN THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF AND THEY HAVE FAILED ON THE LAW.

THEY HAVE NOT STATED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ANYTHING ON ITS FACE THAT AMOUNTS TOE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND, IN FACT, WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED CLEARLY THAT THEY HAVE NOT PRESENTED FACTS THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN UM PEACHABLE OFFENSE EVEN UNDER THEIR OWN THEORYS.

THEY HAVE PRESENTED ONLY PART OF THE FACTS AND LEFT OUT THE KEY FACTS.

MR. PURPURA EFFECTIVELY SHOWED THAT THERE ARE SOME FACTS THAT DON'T CHANGE.

THE TRANSCRIPT IN THE JULY 25th CALL SHOWS THE PRESIDENT DOING NOTHING WRONG, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID HE NEVER FELT PRESSURE, HIS OWN ADVISORS SAID THE UKRANIANS DIDN'T FEEL KNOW MILITARY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN HELD UP UNTIL THE POLITICO ARTICLE AT THE END OF 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 IS WHAT'S 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.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> 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.

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 CMPAIGN.

THERE'S A FEW POINTS THAT I WOULD 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, 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 DNC SERVER, ABSOLUTELY, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S IT.

THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY, END QUOTE.

HE WAS REPEATING THE PRESIDENT'S OWN EXPLANATION RELATED DIRECTLY, RELAYED DIRECTLY TO HIM.

SECOND, GORDON SONDLAND SPOKE BY PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON SEPTEMBER 7.

THE PRESIDENT DENIED THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, BUT THEN OUTLINES A VERY QUID PRO QUO THAT HE WANTED FROM UKRAINE.

THEN HE TOLD PRESIDENT SONDLAND, 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, IN WARSAW SEPTEMBER 1, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD VICE PRESIDENT PENCE HE WAS CONCERNED THE DELAY IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BECOME TIED TO THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS, THE VICE PRESIDENT SIMPLY NODDED, ACKNOWLEDGING CONDITIONALITY OF THE AID.

FOURTH, WE HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN DIRECT E-MAILS AND TEXTS SAID IT WAS CRAZY TO TIE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

FIVE, WE 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.

THE SUPPOSED INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT THEY MADE UP SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE FACT HAD ENDED MONTHS BEFORE DURING THE LAST INTERAGENCY MEETINGS.

I'LL 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 HAVE 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.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> SENATOR FROM UTAH.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK DESK.

>> 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?

>> THANK YOU, MR. 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 II, SECTION 1, VEST IT IS ENTIRETY OF THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

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 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, STATUTES CAN BE PASSED, FUNDING PROVISIONS 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 KURT INDUSTRIES WRIGHT, THE SOLE ORGAN OF THE NATION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

SO HE SETS FOREIGN POLICY.

AND IF STAFFERS DISAGREE WITH HIM, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING SOMETHING WRONG.

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.

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 CONDITION 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 THE 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 SO WHAT THIS ALL BOILS DOWN TO REALLY IS IT SHOWS 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, IS 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 AS SIGNED TO HIM IN THE CONSTITUTION.

AND IT WAS EVEN LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT THE JULY 25th 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.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> 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 ABUSE OF POWER, SUSPENDING HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS, INDISCRIMINATELY INVESTIGATING POLITICAL OPPONENTS OR ASKING FOREIGN POWERS TO INVESTIGATE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?

CONGRESS?

>> 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 IN 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 IN, LEGAL AUTHORITY CONFIRMS THAT IT IS NOT DEFINED IN CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

THIS AUTHORITY INCLUDES NEARLY EVERY LEGAL SCHOLARLY STUDIED ISSUE, MULTIPLE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO ADDRESSED IN IT IN PUBLIC REMARKS AND PRIOR IMPEACHMENTS IN THE HOUSE.

THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS THAT CONSTITUTIONALIST HISTORY, TEXT AND STRUCTURE, AND REFLECTS THE ABSURDITIES AND PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT WOULD RESULT WERE THE IMPEACHMENT POWER CNFINED TO INDICTABLE CRIMES.

AS SLIDE 35<H@v 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 JAY WALKING 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 PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION OF INDICTABLE CRIMES MAY FURTHER SUPPORT A CASE OF IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.

THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE OF 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, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ALLEGATIONS ENCOMPASS MANY, MANY NON-CRIMINAL ACTS.

AND IN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE, A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANIED 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, IF 1, 2 AND 3 BUT NEW ONES CAME UP IF YOU HAD TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES, 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 USE IT IS 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 WRONGDOING: THE ABCs OF IMPEACHMENT.

A, ABUSE OF POWER.

B, BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST THROUGH FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS.

AND C, CORRUPTION OF OFFICE AND ELECTIONS.

WHEN A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER TO OBTAIN ILLICIT HELP IN HIS ELECTIONS FROM A FOREIGN POWER, AND UNDERMINE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND ELECTION INTEGRITY, IT IS A TRIFECTA.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, ALONG WITH SENATOR BLACKBURN AND SENATOR CORNYN, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> IN THE CASE OF SUCH A QUESTION ADDRESSED TO BOTH SIDE, THEY WILL SPLIT THE FIVE MINUTES EQUAL LY EQUALLY.

THE SENATORS ASK: WHY DID 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 MANAGERS.

>> 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 BLANKET DEFIANCE.

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 REPRESENTATIVES, THERE WAS NO JURIS PRUDENCE 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.

>> COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

LET ME FRAME THIS PARTLY IN RESPONSE TO WHAT MANAGER JEFFRIES SAID.

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 18 THAT EXPLAINS SPECIFICALLY THAT THE SUBPOENAS 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 OMB SAYING THAT, A LETTER FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAYING THAT, THERE WERE SPECIFIC RATIONALES CITING CASES WATT TINS, ROOMILY, OTHER, EXPLAINING THAT DEFECT.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS, THE HOUSE, MANAGER SCHIFF, CHOSE NOT TO TAKE ANY STEPS TO CORRECT THAT.

WE ALSO POINTED OUT OTHER DEFECT.

WE ASSERTED DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT, WHICH HAD BEEN ASSERTED BY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE 1970s.

THEY CHOSE NOT TO CHALLENGE IN THAT COURT.

WE ALSO EXPLAINED THE PROT PROBLEM THEY DIDN'T ALLOW AGENCY COUNSEL TO BE PRESENT AT DEPOSITIONS.

THEY CHOSE NOT TO CHALLENGE THAT IN COURT.

THESE ARE SPECIFIC LEGAL REASONS, NOT BLANKET DEFIANCE.

THAT'S A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE RECORD.

THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO HAVE THAT ADJUDICATED IN COURT.

THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT IS IT'S A HOUSE DEMOCRATS WERE JUST IN A HURRY.

THEY HAD A TIMETABLE.

ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS SO IED ON THE FLOOR HERE, THEY, THEY HAD NO TIME FOR COURTS, THEY HAD TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE THE ELECTION SO THEY HAD TO HAVE THAT DONE BEFORE CHRISTMAS, WHY THE PROPER PROCESS WASN'T FOLLOWED BECAUSE IT WAS A PARTISAN AND POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY WANTED TO GET DONE ALL AROUND TIMING FOR THE ELECTION.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM VERMONT SENATOR LEAHY ASKS THE O]SE 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?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS, 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 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 CONTINUED TO DIE ON THE FRONT LINES, THOSE WHO WERE FIGHTING FOR US, FIGHTING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

WHEN YOU FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, WHEN UKRAINE HAS ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND US US.

THE AID, ALTHOUGH IT DID 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 DOLLARS 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.

LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF SIGNAL WITHHOLDING THE AID FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON, AS PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING, BUT NOTHING HAD CHANGED ON THE GROUND.

HOLDING THE 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, IN 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.

>> SENATOR CRUZ.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THE QUESTION WITH 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 POLICY.

>> 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-PALESTINE 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 PAYING 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 TALKED ABOUT MOTIVE.

THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE MOTIVES THAT A POLITICAL FIGURE CAN HAVE.

ONE, A MOTIVE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE ISRAEL ARGUMENT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE SECOND IS IN HIS OWN POLITICAL INTEREST.

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 BELIEFS THAT HIS ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, BELIEVES THAT HIS ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND MOSTLY YOU'RE RIGHT, YOUR ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

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 LINK SKON.

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 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 IN TO 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 Zji ADVISORS AND THEIR POLLSTERS?

IF YOU'RE 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.

IF YOU WANT TO BALANCE WHAT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH WHAT'S IN YOUR PARTY'S ELECTORAL INTEREST AND YOUR OWN ELECTORAL INTEREST, IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCERN HOW MUCH WEIGHT IS GIVEN TO ONE TO THE OTHER.

NOW, WE MAY ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR A PARTICULAR PRESIDENT TO GET RE-ELECTED OR FOR A PARTICULAR SENATOR, MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND MAYBE WE'RE RIGHT.

IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR EVERYBODY WHO IS RUNNING TO BE ELECTED.

BUT FOR IT TO BE IMPEACHABLE, YOU WOULD OF TO DISCERN THAT HE OR SHE MADE A DECISION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF, AS THE HOUSE MANAGE 3ERS PUT IT, CORRUPT MOTIVES.

AND IT CANNOT BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE IF YOU HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE THAT PARTIALLY INVOLVES THE NATIONAL INTEREST, PARTIALLY INVOLVES ELECTORAL AND DOES NOT INVOLVE PERSONAL, PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS DO NOT ALLEGE THAT THIS DECISION, THIS QUID PRO QUO AS THEY CALL IT, THE QUESTION IS BASED ON THE HYPOTHESIS THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

I'M NOT -- THEY NEVER ALLEGE 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 KICK-BACK, 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 WAS EVER.

IF I'VES NOT' LSHTHELECTED THE NATIONAL INTEREST WILL SUFFER GREATLY.

THAT CANNOT BE.

>> RECOGNIZE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> I WOULD BE DELIGHTED.

THERE ARE TWO ARGUMENTS THAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ MAKES.

ONE, IT 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 MENSREA.

IN ALMOST EVERY CASE, EXCEPT FOR SMALL SLIVER, STRICT LIABILITY, THE DEFENDANT'S STATE OF MIND IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE.

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 OPEN RATING 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 OWN TEST.

HE TALKED ABOUT THE STEP TEST, JOHN RAULS, PHILOSOPHER, PUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT AND SEE HOW THAT CHANGES OUR PERCEPTION OF THINGS.

I WANT TO MERGE THAT ARGUMENT WITH ONE OF THE OTHER PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ARGUMENT WHEN THEY RESORTED TO THE WHAT ABOUTISM ABOUT BARACK OBAMA'S OPEN MIC.

THAT WAS A VERY POOR ANALOGY, I THINK YOU'LL AGREE.

LET'S USE THAT ANALOGY AND MAKE IT MORE COMPARABLE TO TODAY AND SEE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS SCENARIO.

PRESIDENT OBAMA, ON AN OPEN MIC, SAYS TO MEDVEDEV, HEY, I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT ME TO SEND THIS MILITARY MONEY TO UKRAINE BECAUSE THEY'RE FIGHTING AND KILLING YOUR PEOPLE.

I WANT YOU TO DO ME A FAVOR, THOUGH.

I WANT YOU TO DO AN INVESTIGATION OF MITT ROMNEY AND I WANT YOU TO ANNOUNCE YOU FOUND DIRT ON MITT ROMNEY AND 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 INVESTIGATE HIS OPPONENT AND WITH WITHHOLD MONEY FROM AN ALLY THAT IT NEEDED TO DEFEND ITSELF TO GET AN INVESTIGATION OF MITT ROMNEY?

TO SAY YES, WE CONDITION AID ALL THE TIME FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS, YES, 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 INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE OR IN THE CASE OF MEDVEDEV, THE PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE ALL QUID PRO QUOS ARE FINE, IT'S CARTE BLANCH?

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE PREPARED TO SAY WITH THIS PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT OR THE NEXT?

BECAUSE IF WE ARE, THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF YOU.

THEY CAN ASK FOR HELP IN THEIR NEXT ELECTION FROM ANY FOREIGN POWER.

AND THE ARGUMENT WILL BE MADE, NO, DONALD TRUMP WAS' QUITTED FOR DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

THEREFORE, IT MUST NOT BE IMPEACHABLE.

NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT EFFORTS TO CHEAT IN ALEX ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE 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 ARE YOU GIVING THEM CARTE BLANCH.

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.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR FROM IOWA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK DESK.

>> SENATOR GRASSLEY ASKS COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT: DOES THE HOUSE'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE ITS SUBPOENAS RENDER ITS, QUOTE, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, END QUOTE THEORY UNPRECEDENTED?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, THE ANSWER IS YES, AS FAR AS I AM AWARE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PRIOR INSTANCE IN WHICH THERE HAS 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 ISSUING A SUBPOENA, GETTING RESISTANCE AND THEN THROWING UP YOUR HAND AND GIVING UP AND SAYING OH, THAT'S OBSTRUCTION.

IN THE CLINTON SITUATION MOST OF THE LITIGATION WAS WITH THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, AND 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.

AGAIN, THERE WAS LITIGATION ABOUT THE ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, THAT THEN FED IN TO THE HOUSE'S PROCEEDINGS.

SO IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE HOUSE TO ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY BRING A CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION IN TO THE SENATE WHERE ALL THEY CAN PRESENT IS WELL, WE ISSUED A SUBPOENA AND THERE WERE LEGAL GROUND ASSERTED FOR THE INVALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENA AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT GROUNDS I HAVE GONE THROUGH, I ONE REPEAT THEM ALL IN DETAIL HERE.

SOME WERE BECAUSE THE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID WHEN ISSUED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO VOTE.

SOME, SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES WERE INVALID BECAUSE SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM COMPULSION.

SOME WERE THAT THEY WERE FORCING EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AGENCY COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNSEL WITH THEM.

SO VARIOUS REASONS ASSERTED FOR THE INVALIDITY AND DEFECTS IN VARIOUS SUBPOENAS AND NO ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THEM NO, ATTEMPT TO LITIGATE OUT WHAT THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY MIGHT BE BUT BRING IT HERE AS OBSTRUCTION CHARGE IS UNPRECEDENTED.

I'LL NOTE THE HOUSE MANAGERSES HAVE SAID AND I'M SURE THEY WILL SAY AGAIN TODAY, THAT WELL, BUT IF WE HAD GONE TO COURT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE SAID THAT THE COURTS DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THOSE CLAIMS.

THAT IS TRUE IN SOME CASES, THERE'S ONE BEING LITIGATED RIGHT NOW RELATED TO THE FORMER ERER COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT, DON McGAHN, JUST LIKE POSITION OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS THAT AN EFFORT BY THE HOUSE TO ENFORCE A SUBPOENA IN ARTICLE III COURT IS A CONTROVERSY, THAT IS OUR POSITION AND WE WOULD ARGUE THAT IN COURT.

THAT'S PART OF WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE LITIGATED.

THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT 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 AND THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OCTOBER 8 LETTER.

THEY DIDN'T DO ACCOMMODATIONS.

IF THEY THINK THEY CAN SUE, THEY HAVE TO TAKE THAT STEP BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION, THE COURTS 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 UNPRECEDENTED IN THIS CASE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> 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?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM HAS CLAIM 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 B CLEAR.

ON JULY 25th, THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE EVIDENCE BEFORE US, EVEN THOUGH IT INCLUDES DEVASTATING EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENT WAS MADE CLEAR ON THE JULY 25th 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 DO THE INVESTIGATIONS TO GET WHAT HE WANTED, ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE THAT MAKES US UNDERSTAND THAT PHONE CALL EVEN MORE CLEARLY.

NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM CLAIMS THAT MR. ZELENSKY AND OTHER UKRAINIANS SAID THEY NEVER FELT PRESSURED TO HOLD AN INVESTIGATION.

THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT PUBLICLIMENT THEY WERE AGRADE -- AFRAID OF THE RUSSIANS FINDING OUT BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID PRIVATELY HE RESISTED ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION, 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 ZIRKLE, WHO HAS BEEN THE 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 AFTER WAS UKRAINE DID RELENT AND SCHEDULE THAT TESTIMONY.

FOUR, THEY SAID NO WITNESSES SAID SECURITY WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS.

NOT SO.

MULVANEY, WE HAD OTHER WITNESSES, TALKING ABOUT THE SHAKE DOWN 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, AT LEAST SOME OF THEM, WERE RELEASED.

BUT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT THE PRESIDENT PROMISED THREE DIFFERENT TIMES STILL HAS NOT OCCURRED.

SO WE STILL DON'T HAVE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.

GETTING CAUGHT DOESN'T MITIGATE THE WRONGDOING.

THE PRESIDENT'S UNREPENTANT AND WE FEEL HE WILL, WE FEAR HE WILL DO IT AGAIN.

THE ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE CONCLUDED THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW WHEN HE WITHHELD THAT AID.

THAT MISCONDUCT IS STILL GOING ON ALL THE AID HAS NOT YET BEEN RELEASED AND FINALLY, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS, THERE'S BEEN SOME CONFUSION I THINK, I'M SURE NOT INTENTIONAL BURKS 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] PURSUING A POLICY AGENDA.

I 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.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS BOOZMAN, McSALLY, BLACKBURN, KENNEDY AND TOOMEY.

>> THE SENATORS ASK THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL: DID THE HOUSE BOTHER TO SEEK TESTIMONY OR LITIGATE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ISSUES DURING THE MONTHS DURING WHICH IT HELD UP THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES BEFORE SENDING THEM TO THE SENATE?

>> 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 BASIS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION GAVE FOR RESISTING THE SUBPOENAS, THE BASIS FOR WHY THOSE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID.

WHEN LITIGATION WAS FILED BY ONE OF THE SUBPOENA RECIPIENTS, DR. CHARLES KUPPERMAN, SOUGHT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, SAYING THE PRESIDENT TOLD ME I SHOULDN'T GO, SUBPOENA FROM THE HOUSE SAYING I SHOULD GO, PLEASE, COURTS, TELL ME MY OBLIGATION.

THAT WAS FILED I BELIEVE AROUND OCTOBER 25th, TOWARDS THE END OF OCTOBER, VERY SHORTLY WITHIN A FEW DAYS THE COURT SET AN EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND SCHEDULED A HEARING FOR DECEMBER 10 THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HEAR BOTH PRELIMINARY MOTIONS TO DISMISS BUT ALSO THE MERIT ISSUE.

THEY WERE GOING TO GET A DECISION AFTER HEARING ON DECEMBER 10 THAT WOULD GO TO MERITS OF THE ISSUE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DECIDED THEY WANT MOOT OUT THE CASE SO THEY WOULDN'T GET A DECISION.

THE HOUSE HAS NOT PURSUED LITIGATION TO GET ANY OF THESE ISSUES RESOLVED.

IT'S AFFIRMATIVELY AVOIDED GETTING ANY LITIGATION.

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 THE CONSTITUTION AS SIGNS, I BELIEVE THE EXACT WORDS ARE, IT GIVES THE HOUSE THE LAST WORD, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER DAY.

THIS IS THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND 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 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 DO YOU, THAT'S OBSTRUCTION.

THE COURTS, 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.

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 AND 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, ARGUED ON JANUARY 3, A DECISION COULD COME ANY DAY.

THAT'S PRETTY FAST FOR LITIGATION.

BUT THEY HAVE DECIDED IN THIS IMPEACHMENT THEY DON'T, THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO DO LITIGATION.

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 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 DID.

AND THEN THEY WAITED AROUND FOR THE MONTH BEFORE BRINGING IT HERE.

I THINK THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT'S REALLY BEHIND THE CLAIMS OF OH, IT'S URGENT, THEN IT'S NOT URGENT.

IT WAS URGENT WHEN IT'S OUR TIMETABLE TO GET DONE BY CHRISTMAS.

IT'S NOT SO URGENT WHEN WE CAN 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.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE RECOGNITION, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

PLEASE ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT THAT HOUSE 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 NOVEMBER6 >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

FIRST, I WANT TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING COUNSEL JUST SAIDS NINE MONTHS IS PRETTY FAST FOR LITIGATION IN THE COURTS.

SADLY I AGREE WITH THAT, NINE MONTH IS PRETTY FAST IN THE McGAHN CASE AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE A DECISION YET.

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, SAYING TO THE COURT YOU CAN'T BRING THIS, NINE MONTHS AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE A DECISION.

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 IS 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 MISDEMEANORS, YOU MUST REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE.

IT IS NOT VOIDING THE LAST ELECTION.

IT IS PROTECTING THE NEXT ELECTION.

INDEED IMPEACHMENT POWER PUT IN THE CONSTITUTION NOT AS A PUNISHMENT.

THAT'S WHAT THE CRIMINALS 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 IN 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 RATIONALE FRAMER WOULD HAVE WRITTEN AND INDEED THEY DIDN'T.

THEY DIDN'T FOR A REASON.

THE FOUNDERS WERE CONCERNED THAT IN FACT THE OBJECT OF A PRESIDENT'S CORRUPTION SCHEME MIGHT BE TO CHEAT IN A VERY FORM OF ACCOUNTABILITY THAT THEY HAD PRESCRIBED THE ELECT.

SO COUNSEL CONTINUED TO MISRATE, RISE WHAT THE MANAGERS HAVE SAID.

WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT WE HAD TO HURRY TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

WITH HE 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 AN ELECTION BY DEFINITION THAT'S PRIOR TO THEIR REELECTION, BY DIDN'T INITIAL 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 ARE NOT TO LEAVE OUR COMMON SENSE AT THE DOOR.

THE ISSUE ISN'T WHETHER THIS IS HIS FIRST TERM OR HIS SECOND.

IT ISN'T WHETHER THE ELECTION IS 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 A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AID TO AN ALLY AT WAR TO GET HELP ILLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION?

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT TERM IT IS.

DOESN'T MATTER HOW FAR AWAY 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 WITHHOLD, WITHHELD AID FROM ALLY AT WARMENT 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 RUSSIANS AS ZELENSKY WAS GOING IN TO 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 THE EVERY DAY THAT.

DAMAGE CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.

THE DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT DOES IN PUSHING OUT THE RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY THEORYS, IDENTIFIED DURING THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS AND YOU HAVE HEARD 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 APPLY IN THE SECOND TERM WOULD HAVE SAID SO.

BUT THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THE CONSTITUTION A SUICIDE PACT.

THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS AND THAT'S NOT HOW YOU SHOULD INTERPRET IT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR FROM OHIO.

>> YES, THANK YOU.

>> 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 WITNESSES.

>> 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 IMPLICATION 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 SENATORS 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'S 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 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 USES THIS PROCESS, THAT'S THE SEAL OF APPROVAL FOR ALL TIME IN THE FUTURE.

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 TH 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 THERE WILL BE LITIGATION NOW, MOST LIKELY.

AND THEN THAT WILL TAKE TIME WHILE THIS CHAMBER IS STILL STUCK SITTING AS THE COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

IT'S NOT THE WAY TO DO THINGS.

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 THAT 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 HAVE SAID THIS ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT POINTS, 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 WILL BE DEALING WITH THAT ALL THE TIME.

AND AS MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER 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 IMPEACHMENT, THEY WILL BE COMING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

IF YOU MAKE IT EASIER THEY WILL COME MORE FREQUENTLY.

THIS CHAMBER WILL HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME DEALING WITH IMPEACHMENT TRIALS AND CLEANING UP INCOMPLETE PROCEDURES RUSHED PARTISAN IMPEACHMENTS FROM THE HOUSE IF THAT'S THE SORT OF SYSTEM THAT'S GIVEN 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.

>> SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> 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. 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 PERSONAL AND POLITICAL 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 AMADOR BILL TAYLOR, WEST POINT GRADUATE.

INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS LIKE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHO GAVE ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INAUGURATION.

RESPECTED NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS LIKE LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINEDMAN.

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 THERE ARE AMBIGUITIES 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 HISTORY 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 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 INVESTIGATION.

COUNSEL HAS SAID THE GREATEST INVENTION IN THE HISTORY OF JURIS PRUDENCE 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.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A QUESTION SENT TO THE DESK.

>> SENATOR CORNYN ASKS COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PRESIDENCY, 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 OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR SUBPOENAS IN THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WITHOUT ANY DETERMINATION BY AN ARTICLE III COURT?

>> 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 THE 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 WITH BE ABLE, THE PRESIDENT 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.

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 THAT.

DAMAGES DECISION MAKING.

THAT'S BAD FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT'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.

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'S GOING TO BE ANY BREACH OF THAT PRIVILEGE.

AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS AN ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS WHILE THE COURTS HAVE SAID THAT WHEN A CONGRESS, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE SEEKS INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE, THE EXECUTIVE HAS CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS, BOTH BRANCHES ARE UNDERSTAND AN OBLIGATION TO TRY TO COME TO SOME ACCOMMODATION, ARE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO ON TRY TO COME TO SOME ACCOMMODATION IN THE INTEREST OF BOTH BRANCHES.

IT'S NOT A SITUATION OF SIMPLY CONGRESS IS SUPREME AND CAN DEMAND INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE MUST PRESENT EVERYTHING.

THE COURTS HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT.

SO HERE, IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE VITAL INTERESTS AT STAKE.

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 WAS THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND THAT'S 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, NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

THAT'S THE CROWN JEWEL OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

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'S 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 PRECEDENT STARTS TO BE SET, IF ONE PRESIDENT SAYS WELL, I WON'T INSIST ON THE PRIVILEGE THEN, I'LL LET PEOPLE INTERVIEW THIS PERSON, I WON'T INSIST ON IMMUNITY, THAT SETS PRECEDENT.

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 DAMAGE IS THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT.

SO THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE TO CONSIDER, IT'S IMPORTANT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE COMPLAER 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 UNDERSTAND SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY.

THAT WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH AND THAT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME BEFORE THINGS WOULD CONTINUE.

THANK YOU.

>> COUNSEL.

>> THE SENATOR FROM HAWAII.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SCHATZ IS DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS, ALSO FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN.

IF THE PRESIDENT WERE ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY AS HE ALLEGES, WOULD A ALLEGES WOULDN'T THERE BE DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM?

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION, THE ANSWER IS YES.

THERE ARE WELL ESTABLISH PROCESSES, MECHANISMS, AND AGENCIES IN PLACE TO PURSUE LEGITIMATE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST IN THE UNITED STATES.

AMBASSADOR BOLTTON.

AS WE HAVE WELL-ESTABLISHED OVER THE LAST WEEK NONE OF THOSE FOLKS, NONE OF THOSE AGENCIES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN HAVING THE INFORMATION, REVIEWING THE INFORMATION.

WERE INCOME RATED INTO ANY REVIEW PROCESS MOST OF THE TIME WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE.

THE TIME THE CALL CLAIM IN.

THE AGENCIES WERE IN THE DARK.

THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

NOT ONLY WERE THEY IN THE DARK.

IT'S A VALID POLICY OBJECTIVE.

MORE SO, THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF AND COUNCIL IS BRINGING THAT ISSUE, THE QUESTION OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES.

IT'S OVER AND OVER AGAIN AS WE HEARD IN THE LAST FEW DAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SIMPLY PURSUING A VALID REAL POLICY OBJECTIVE.

IF THIS WAS A SPECIFIC DEBATE ABOUT POLICY AND CORRUPTION.

A DEBATE ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.

LET'S HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES THAT WILL SHOW THAT.

THE WITNESSES SAY THE OPPOSITE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER DESERVES TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL.

THE PRESIDENT DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL.

IF THERE WAS A POLICY DEBATE EVERYONE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THOSE DOCUMENTS.

THEY WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT UNDIRECTLY.

THANK YOU MANAGER.

>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

SENATOR GRAHAM AND CRUZ QUESTIONS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> MR. MR. SCHIFF'S HYPOTHETICAL.

IF ROMNEY'S SON WAS PAID $1 MILLION PER YEAR BY A CORRUPT RUSSIAN COMPANY AND MITT ROMNEY ACTED TO BENEFIT THE COMPANY WOULD OBAMA HAVE AUTHORITY TO ASK THAT THAT POTENTIAL CORRUPTION BE INVESTIGATED?

>> FIRST OF ALL THE HYPOTHETICAL IS A BIT OFF.

THIS RESUMES THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS ACTING CORRUPTLY WITH RESPECT TO HIS SON.

LET'S TAKE YOUR HYPOTHETICAL OUT OF TERMS.

WOULD IT HAVE BEEN IMPEACHABLE IF OBAMA TRIED TO GET THEM TO INVESTIGATE MITT ROMNEY WHETHER IT WAS JUSTIFIED OR UNJUST PHID.

THE REALTY IS FOR A PRESIDENT TO A FULL MILITARY AID WITH THE HYPOTHETICAL IS AN ADD ADD HAVE A CERTIFY RE.

END UP STORY.

IF YOU ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO RATIONALIZE THAT CONDUCT RATIONALIZE JEOPARDIZING THE NATIONS SECURITY TO BENEFIT HIMSELF.

HE BELIEVES THAT HIS OPPONENT SHOULD BE A FOREIGN POWER.

IF YOU HAVE A REAL REASON TO THINK THAT THIS PERSON COMMITTED AN OFFENSENS THE I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD SAY I WOULD LIKE YOU TO INVESTIGATE.

THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN THE BUSINESS OF THEIR ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

THEY OUGHT TO HAVE SOME INDEPENDENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT.

THIS IS TROUBLING CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOU DO HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

URGING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS PRESERVED ENEMIES.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN LEGITIMATE PROCESS TO ASK A FOREIGN PROCESS YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CAUSE.

YOU DON'T INVITE THEM TO KEEP IT UP WITH THE ELECTIONS.

IT'S REMARKABLE IF WE WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

THE FBI DIRECTOR MADE IT CLEAR IF WE WERE APPROACHED WITH AN OFFER WE SHOULD TURN IT DOWN.

WE SHOULDN'T ASK A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTION.

WHETHER WE THINK THERE ARE GROUNDS OR WE DON'T THE IDEA WE WOULD HOLD OUR OWN COUNTRY'S SECURITY HOSTAGE BY HOLDING AID TO A NATION AT WAR TO DAMAGE OUR ALLY I CAN'T IMAGE ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THAT'S JUSTIFIED.

I CAN'T IMAGE ANY CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE WOULD WANT TO SAY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN TARGET HIS RIVAL TO SO LIST ID FORTH HEALTH IN AN ELECTION.

THAT'S OKAY.

THAT WILL DRAMATICALLY LOWER THE BAR.

I WOULD ASK FOR POLITICAL PROSECUTION FOR THE ONUSTIES DEPARTMENT.

I WOULD SAY IT'S WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER.

PARTICULARLY WHERE IT'S SHOWN HERE.

THERE IS NO MERIT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT THE INVESTIGATION.

IF OBAMA SAID I DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THE INVESTIGATION I WANT YOU TO ANNOUNCE IT.

THAT BETRAYS THE FACT THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE BASES.

THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T NEED THE INVESTIGATION DONE.

THERE NO LEGITIMATE EXPLANATION EXCEPT HE WANTED THEIR HELP.

>> THANK YOU MR.

MANAGER.

CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

DOES THE PHRASE FOR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS OF THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRE A VIOLATION.

PLEASE EXPLAIN.

>> WE WERE CLEAR ABUSE OF POWER IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

IN EXPLAINING WHY THE CONSTITUTION MUST ALLOW IMPEACHMENT EDMOND WARNED THE EXECUTIVE WILL HAVE GREAT OPPORTUNITY IN HIS POWER.

THEY DESCRIBED HIGH CRIMES AND EXCEED FROM THE ABUSE OF THE VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST.

IT ALSO DESCRIBED WHAT IT MEANT.

IT'S IMPEACHABLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ABUSE HIS PARDON POWER TO SHELTER PEOPLE THAT WERE CONNECTED IN A STRANGE MANNER.

JAMES SAID, THE PRESIDENT WILL BE LIABLE TO IMPEACHMENT IF HE ACTED FROM SOME CORRUPT MOTIVE OR WILLFULLY ABUSING HIS TRUST.

AS WAS LATER STATED.

CENTURIES OF COMMONWEALTH AND ABUSE OF POWER WITH PUBLIC OFFERINGS.

THEY FRAUDULENTLY EXCEEDS THEM.

SO, WHEN THE FRAMERS SAID THIS.

THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE IT WASN'T AN EMPTY MEANINGLESS STATEMENT.

REMEMBER THE FOUNDERS HAD BEEN PARTICIPATING WITH OVER FLOWING THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, A KING THAT WASN'T ACCOUNTABLE.

THEY INCORPORATED THE IMPEACHMENT POWER INTO THE CONSTITUTION RIGHT ACTUALLY IN THE DRAFTING OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THEY KNEW THEY WERE GIVING THE PRESIDENT MANY POWERS AND THEY SPECIFIED IF HE ABUSED THEM THOSE POWERS COULD BE TAKEN AWAY.

NOW, THE PRIOR ARTICLES THAT THE CONGRESS HAS HAD ON IMPEACHMENT DIDN'T INCLUDE SPECIFIC CRIMES.

PRESIDENT NIXON WAS CHARGED WITH A I BECAUSING HIS POWER, TARGETING POLITICAL OPPONENTS, ENGAGING IN A COVER UP.

THERE WAS CONDUCT SPECIFIED.

SOME OF IT WAS CRIMINAL AND SOME WAS NOT.

IT WAS ALL IMPEACHABLE BECAUSE IT WAS CORRUPT AND ABUSING HIS POWER.

IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WE HAD WITNESSES CALLED BY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.

THE REPUBLICAN INVITED CONTUSIONAL LAW EXPECT JONATHAN TESTIFIED.

HE STATED IT'S POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A CASE 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 WASN'T IN THE MINDS OF THE FOUNDERS.

IT WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TODAY.

YOU 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 BASES FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S NOT A BECAUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.

IT MIGHT BE A CRIME BUT YET YOU HAD ACTIVITIES THAT ARE SO DANGEROUS.

THIS IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT.

IN THE CONSTITUTION AND FRANKLY LETTERS BECAUSE OF THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE CONTRADICT NO EXECUTIVE WOULD DEAR EXCEED THEIR POWERS.

REGRETTABLY THAT PREDICTION DIDN'T PROVE THROUGH WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSING HIS POWER TO THE DETRIMENT.

>> I SENT A QUESTION ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR MOSTLY CLOUDY SKIES SENATE MURKOWSKI.

>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.

DESCRIBE IN FARTHER DETAIL YOUR CONTENTION ISSUED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE RESOLUTION OF AN EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY FOR THE HOUSE VARIETIES.

>> THANK YOU SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION.

I EXPLAINED THE CONTENTION IS BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN LAID OUT IN SEVERAL SUPREME COURT AREAS.

THE CONSTITUTION THAT ASSIGNS POWER TO HIS EACH OF THE LEGISLATURE BRANCH.

THE SOUL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS DESIGNED TO THE HOUSE.

THIS IS FOR ANY PARTICULAR MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

THE CASE IS SUCH AS ROOMILY VERSES UNITED STATES.

ALSO UNITED STATES VERSES WATKINS.

THAT THERE ARE DISPUTES ABOUT SUBPOENAS.

THEY ARE NOT IN THE IMPEACHMENT CONTEXT BUT ESTABLISH A GENERAL RULE.

THE COURTS WILL EXAMINE WHAT WAS THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMITTEE TO ISSUE THAT SUBPOENA.

IT HAS TO BE TRACED BACK TO SOME AUTHORIZING RULE OR RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR EXAMPLE IN THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE.

THEY WILL EXAMINE THOSE.

THAT'S THE CHARTER OF THE COMMITTEES AUTHORITY.

THIS IS FROM AN ACTION BUT THE HOUSE.

YOU CAN ESTABLISH THE COMMITTEE BY RESOLUTION.

THE COMMITTEE CANNOT CHASE THE AUTHORITY.

THE SUBPOENA IS INVALID.

THEY ARE NULL AND VOID AND BEYOND THE POWERS OF THE COMMITTEES ISSUE.

>> THERE IS NO STANDING RULE IN THE HOUSE THAT PROVIDES.

THE LEADERSHIP AND THEY USE THE IMPEACHMENT POWERS.

THEY DEFINE IT FOR LEGISLATURE JURISDICTION.

SO, NO COMMITTEE UNDER RULE TEN.

THIS IS ALL THE CASE IN EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATION.

THEY AUTHORIZE THE COMMITTEE FOR THE PROCESS.

IN THIS CASE THERE IS NONE IN THE HOUSE.

THEY REMAIN WITH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE.

SPEAKER PELOSI DIDN'T HAVE AUTHORITY AND TALKED TO A GROUP OF REPORTERS.

ANY PARTICULAR CASE TO START ISSUING SUBPOENAS.

THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED WERE INVALID.

ON OCTOBER APPROXIMATE 31st WHEN THE HOUSE FINALLY ADOPTED THAT AUTHORIZED FROM THE POINT THE ISSUING OF SUBPOENAS.

NOTHING IN THE RESOLUTION ADDRESSED THE SUBPOENAS.

THEY COULD HAVE BEEN DONE LEGALLY.

THEY DIDN'T ATTEMPT TO DO IT.

THIS IS IN THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNCIL.

IT'S ATTACHED AS APPENDIX C. IT EXPLAINS ALL OF THIS.

THE BASIC PEN PRINCIPAL THAT APPLIES GENERALLIMENT THE HISTORY THAT'S BUN BEEN DONE THIS WAY.

THEY HAVE BEEN IN AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION FROM THE HOUSE.

THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY FOR SUBPOENAS.

AS I POINTED OUT THE OTHER DAY IN LETTERS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.

LETTERS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND STATE DEPARTMENT AND THEN IN VERY SPECIFIC TERMS.

THEY WERE PROPERLY RESISTED.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

E SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA.

>> THANK YOU.

ALEXANDER ALEX AN -- ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID IMPEACHMENT IS THE ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST.

COULD YOU SPEAK BROADLY TO DID DUTY OF BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT AND HOW THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION VIOLATED THE TRUST?

>> THIS IS CHIEF JUSTICE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE OFFICE TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT.

HE OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS IN HIS ATTEMPTS TO INVESTIGATE THE ABUSE OF POWER.

THESE ACTIONS ARE IMPEACHABLE.

THE KEY PURPOSE IS TO CONTROL THE ABUSE OF POWER BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES THE PUBLIC TRUST.

SINCE THE FOUNDING OF THE REPUBLICAN ALL IMPEACHMENTS ARE BASED ON ACCUSATIONS OF MISCONDUCT.

WHEN THAT WROTE THE FACE THEY CAPTURED THE CONTUCKET OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IGNORED THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION TO GAIN A POLITICAL FAVOR.

THE CONSTITUTION AND OUST OF OFFICE PROHIBITED HIM TO USING HIS FAVOR TO CORRUPTLY BENEFIT HIMSELF RATHER THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.

HE ILLEGALLY WITHHELD MILITARY AIDE.

AND ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OPPONENT.

IN THE WORDS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR KNOT.

THIS IS THE MISCONDUCT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THE PRESIDENT'S THEY HAVE TO ACT PROPERLY WITHIN THE SUBPOENA POWER.

THERE IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THEM TO OFFER SUBPOENA POWER.

IT HAS GENERALLY DELEGATED ALL SUBPOENA POWER.

IT WASN'T TRUE 15 YEARS AGO.

THE MANNER OF THE EXERCISE MIGHT BE CHALLENGED OUTSIDE.

HOW THEY REACH THE ACCUSATION IS A MATTER SOULLY FOR THE HOUSE.

THIS IS A PART OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THIS IS THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE TO CANDIDATE.

THEY SAY THE EXECUTIVE PROCESS CANNOT BE USED TO HIDE WRONGDOING.

YOU CANNOT THE MOMENT THE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID JOHN BOLTON WASN'T TELLING THE TRUTH.

THEY TOLD HIM OF THE IMPROPER QUID PRO QUO.

HE WAVED ANY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THAT MIGHT HAVE EXISTED.

HE CHARACTERIZED THE CONVERSATION AND PUT IT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND PUT IT INTO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

HE CLAIMED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

A RIDICULOUS DOCTRINE.

HE HAS ABSOLUTE IMPUNITY FOR ANY QUESTION.

FINALLY THE DIFFERENCE IS THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT CLAIMING PRIVILEGE OF ANY SORT.

HE TOLD US IN ADVANCE.

WHATEVER THE NATURE.

IN OTHER WORDS CONGRESS CANNOT QUESTION QUESTION WHAT I DO.

THAT'S THE SUBJECT TO IMPROVE THE IMPEACHMENT.

THAT'S THE CLAIM OF POWER.

>> THE, THE MAJORITY LEADER, WE HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS ON EACH SIDE.

>> ONE MORE, I HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.

[LAUGHTER] >> I FREQUENTLY AM.

ONE MORE QUESTION THEN WE'LL TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR IT COUNCIL.

>> WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND OPINION TO THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGER MADE.

>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE COUPLE REGARDS TO THE QUESTION AS IT RELATES TO WITNESSES.

WITNESSES THAT GAVE TELESCOPING TESTIMONY AND WITNESSES THAT HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED BY DEPOSITION.

THAT'S BECAUSE THE HOUSE IN THEIR PROCESS HE SAYS MOVE FORWARD WITH A FULL INVESTIGATION.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE.

THERE WAS ANOTHER THING THAT WAS RAISED.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION AND NO DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

THE IDEA PRESIDING.

THEY DO QUIET A STEP.

IT'S SOMETHING ELSE.

WE DEBT APPROXIMATE TO THE POINT OF WITNESSES AND ONE OF THE WITNESSES TO BE CALLED BY THE LAWYERS WITH WAS ADAM SCHIFF AND KEN STARR.

THE REPORT MADE A PRESENTATION FOR QUESTIONING.

WHEN SCHIFF WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS.

YOU HAVE LITIGATED AND DECIDED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICE WOULD IT GO TO COURT OR MAYBE THEY WOULD WAVE IT.

THOSE WOULD BE THE KIND OF ISSUES THAT WOULD BE VERY SIGNIFICANT.

SENATOR GRAHAM PRESENTED A HYPOTHETICAL.

THE HYPOTHETICAL I'LL GIVE YOU ADAM.

YOU WILL TALK ABOUT IT BEING WRONG IF THE FBI OR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS STARTING A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION OF SOMEONES POLITICAL OPPONENT.

I'M THINKING TO MYSELF, ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED?

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI ENGAGED IN AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN THEY STARTED THEIR OPERATION CALLED CROSSFIRE HURRICANE.

THEY SAID IT WOULD BE TARGETING A RIVAL.

THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

THEY WILL CALL FOR FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN THAT.

WELL, IN THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF CROSSFIRE HURRICANE.

IT'S BEEN WELL-ESTABLISHED NOW THAT IN FACT FUSION GPS UTILIZED THE SERVICES OF A FORMER FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, CHRISTOPHER STEEL TO PUT TOGETHER A DOSSIER AND CHRISTOPHER STEEL RELIED ON HIS NETWORK OF RESOURCES AROUND THE GLOBE INCLUDING RUSSIA AND OTHER PLACES.

THEY PUT TOGETHER THE DOSSIER THAT JAMES COMBY SAID WAS UNVERIFIED.

IT WAS ON THE BASES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI OBTAINED WARRANTS.

THIS WAS IN 2016, AGAINST A RIVAL CAMPAIGN.

SO, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO HYPOTHETICALS, THAT'S PRECISELY THE SITUATION.

TO TAKE IT AN ADDITIONAL STEP THE IDEA THAT A WITNESS WILL BE CALLED.

IF THE BODY DECIDES TO PUT A WITNESS.

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 COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL WITNESSES AS WELL WHICH WE WOULD.

THANK YOU IF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FOR SENATOR HARRIS IS FOR THE HOUSE HOUSE MANAGERS.

PRESIDENT NIXON SAID WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT IT'S NOT ILLEGAL END QUOTE.

BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID WHEN YOU ARE A STAR, THEY LET YOU DO IT.

YOU CAN DO ANYTHING.

END QUOTE.

AFTER ELECTED HE SAID ARTICLE TWO GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AS PRESIDENT, END QUOTE.

THESE STATE.

THES SUGGEST THAT EACH OF THEM BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW.

A BELIEF REFLECTED IN THE IMPROPER ACTIONS THEY TOOK TO EFFECT THEIR REELECTION CAMPAIGNS.

IF THE SENATE FAILS TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR MISCONDUCT HOW WOULD THAT UNDERMINED THE INTEGRITY OF OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.

>> I THINK THIS IS THE FEAR.

IF YOU LOOK LO AT THE PATTERNS OF MISCONDUCT AND HIS WORDS AND WHAT WE SEE IS IDENTIFYING THE STATE AS BEING SELF.

THIS IS THE WRONGDOING.

THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD SEE IF SOMEONE REPORTS THE WRONGDOING AS COMMITTING A CRIME AGAINST THE COUNTRY.

ANY REPORT OF WRONGDOINGS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THIS WAS A TREASONNIST ACT.

I'M ALLOWED TO FIGHT ALSO SUBPOENAS.

NOW, COUNCIL HAS GIVEN A VARIETY OF EXPLANATIONS.

THEY MIGHT HAVE A PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT IF THE ADMINISTRATION HAD GIVEN HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS ABOUT RESERVED SOME CLIMB OR PRIVILEGE.

THE ADD MENSTRUATION SAID THE WITNESSES WERE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO ASSERT PRIVILEGE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS DONE HERE.

SOME ARGUMENT WERE MADE AND COURT AND SOME MADE IT HERE.

THE HOUSE RESOLUTION WOULD EXPECT THE SUBPOENAS AFTER THE HOUSE RESOLUTION.

THOSE ARE NO GOOD EITHER.

THE COURT THAT ADDRESSES THIS, NO, YOU DON'T.

YOU ARE NOT A KING.

IT'S NEVER BE SUPPORTED BY ANY COURT IN THE LAND AND NO CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT EITHER.

>> DOCUMENTS BEING RELEASED RIGHT NOW WHERE HOW A PRIVATE LITIGANT GET DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE INFORMATION ACT.

IF THEY WERE OPERATING IN ANY GOOD FAITH WOULD THAT BE THE CASE AND THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO.

LET WHAT WE HAVEN'T SAID SAID YOU CLAIM ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

WHY WOULD THEY WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA ON DR. CUPPERMAN WHEN HE WAS THREATENING TO TIE YOU UP IN COURT.

NOW, WE SUGGESTED TO COUNCIL THAT DOCTOR CUPPERMAN.

IT WAS REALLY GOOD FAITH TO DELAY.

IT WASN'T PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S WHOLESALE.

THERE WAS A CASE IN COURT INVOLVING DON ON THAT VERY SUBJECT.

THAT WAS RIGHT FOR DECISION AND THE DECISION WOULD COME OUT VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

WE WOULD SAY LET'S AGREE TO BE BOUND BY WHAT THE COURT DECIDES.

IT'S OBVIOUS THE COURTS CAME UP TODAY THERE WAS NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

JOHN BOLTTON IF YOU ARE LISTENING YOU ARE NOT.

SO, DR. CUPPERMAN SAID NOW I HAVE THE COMFORT I NEEDED.

THE ANSWER WAS OF COURSE NOT.

THE COUNCIL SAID WE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN A QUICK JUDGMENT.

NOW IN THE LOWER COURT.

DO YOU BELIEVE FOR A SINGLE MINUTE FOR THE COURT OFtç= APPEAL.

THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN THE ARGUMENT AND WOULDN'T BE BACK IN THE DISINSTRUCT COURT.

WE WILL CLAIM THE NEW CONVERSATIONS AND THE WRONGDOING.

THAT'S A SIGN TO BELIEVE WHAT'S ABOVE THE LAW.

YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT.

I'LL SAY THIS IF YOU STEP THAT ARGUMENT.

YOU ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN TELL YOU TO POUND SAND WHEN YOU TRY TO INVESTIGATE.

THERE WILL BE NO FORCE BEHIND ANY SENATE SUBPOENA.

WE FIGHT THE SUBPOENA AND STARTED BEFORE THE IMPEACHMENT.

YOU ARE ALLOWED TO OBSTRUCT CONGRESS SO.

COPLEATLY.

NIXON NEVER CONTEMPLATED NOR WOULD THE CONGRESS HAVE ALLOWED.

>> I SUGGEST WE RESUME.

WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.

>>> WITH THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS SAID THIS SESSION OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL BE TAKING A 20 MINUTE BREAK BEFORE THEY COME BACK THEY HAVE BEEN HERE AND THE TRIAL HAS BEEN UNDERWAY FOR TWO AND HALF HOURS.

THE CONVERSATION OF THE REVIEW OF THE LAW.

THE FOUNDERS AND WHAT THEY INTENDED.

CLEARLY A DISCUSSION CAST OF THE IMPEACHMENT CHARGES ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP WHETHER THERE WAS A COMBINATION OF MOTIVES IN WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.

THE DEFENSE OR PROSECUTION HAS SUBMITTED.

WHETHER JOHN BOLTON AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.

A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED AND RERAISED.

LET ME QUICKLY REMIND YOU THAT JOINING ME IS LISA DESJARDINS.

ALSO JOINING ME IS JUDY WOODRUFF.

ALSO JOE BIDENS CHIEF COUNCIL FROM 2015 AND 2016.

MARTIN PAONE WORKED FOR THE DEMOCRATIC SENATESHIP.

HE ALSO WAS THE WHITE HOUSE LIAISON DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

BILL McCOLUMN OF FLORIDA WAS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE.

HE WAS ONE OF THE 13 HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.

JOHN HART FOR CONGRESSMAN IS THE REPUBLICAN OF OKLAHOMA DURING THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.

HE MOVED TO THE UPPER CHAMBER.

WELCOME AGAIN TO ALL OF YOU.

DO THESE QUESTIONS BRING US CLOSER TO ANY ON WHERE THE SENATE WILL COME DOWN.

>> IT'S LIGHTNING TO GO THROUGH THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PROCESS.

THERE IS A MOMENT IN TIME WHEN THEY ALL HAVE TO MAKE THEIR FINAL JUDGMENT.

THIS IS IN LIGHT AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS IT BRINGS ABOUT THE FIRST QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED.

WHAT ABOUT THE MIXED QUESTION WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE HARDEST.

>> MIXED MOTIVES.

IS THE PRESIDENT LOOKING FOR SOMETHING LIKE DIRT AS CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF SAID ON HIS OPPONENT OR WAS HE INTERESTED IN MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

THAT GOT TO WHERE CONGRESSMAN SHIFT WAS TOO MUCH.

BACK WHEN WE SPOKE ABOUT RUSSIA.

IF YOU GET ME SOME DIRT ON THIS MITT ROMNEY IT WAS THE UKRAINE.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS PRESIDENT WAS SEEKING DIRT.

HE WAS SEEKING AN INVESTIGATION WITH BURISMA.

I THINK THAT'S A PLACE WHERE THE SENATORS WHERE I CAN SEE DIFFERENCES.

>> VICTORIA, THE HYPOTHETICAL THAT ASSUMED SOMETHING THAT WASN'T THE CASE.

WE ARE DEALING FOR HYPOTHETICALS AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL CALL.

THE QUESTION IS ABOUT MIXED MOTIVE.

THAT WAS THE FIRST MOTIVE.

THAT IS A CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS MINNESOTA MAKING OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

I WOULD SAY A CRIME IS NOT REQUIRED BUT IF YOU TALK ABOUT THE CRIMINAL LAW MIXED MOTIVE AS ADAM SHIFT NOTED IT'S NEVER A DEFENSE.

IF I WOULD LIKE TO KILL SOMEONE AND I THINK IT'S FOR A GOOD REASON THAT'S NOT A DEFENSE, RIGHT.

HE WAS WRONG ABOUT ONE THING.

HE FORGOT HIS CRIMINAL LAW.

THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT MONTHIVE.

IT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT.

IF YOU INTEND TO KILL SOMEONE THAT'S THE KEY.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER REASONS YOU MIGHT DO SOMETHING RELEVANT IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL.

IT'S WHETHER YOU DID THE ACT AND INFER FROM THE ACTION.

YOU CAN'T LOOK IN ANYONES HEAD.

YOU CAN INFER FROM THEIR ACTIONS.

THAT'S WHY THE EMPHASIS ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID AND WHEN HE DID IT.

>> ONE OF YOUR POINTS IS THAT CHAIRMAN SHIFT GOT IT WRONG ABOUT MOTIVES AND CRIMINAL LAW.

>> YES.

JOHN HART, ANOTHER QUESTION THAT CAME UP IS CALLING JOHN BOLTON A WITNESS.

WHETHER IT WHITE HOUSE WAS JUSTIFIED IN INITIALLY IN TELLING HIM HE COULDN'T TESTIFY.

>> RIGHT, JUDY A KEY POINT LISA POINTED OUT THIS MORNING WITH YOU COLLINS WAS OKAY WITH HAVING BOLTON.

IF THEY CHOSE A WITNESS IT WOULD BE BIDEN.

THEY SAID WE WON'T TRADE WITNESSES LIKE BASEBALL CARDS.

THAT TELLS ME THERE IS DRAMA ABOUT WITNESSES AND NOT AS MUCH DRAMA.

EVEN IF IT'S A DISAGREEMENT THE QUESTION IS UP FOR SEPARATE DID US CUSHION.

IT'S NOT LIKELY.

SENATORS ARE RUNNING IN SWING STATE.

I THINK IT WAS REAL DELIBERATION.

THAT WAS POLITICAL FEAR AND ASKING THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM.

THEY PROVIDE THE INTERACTION WE GIVE FOR CONSTITUENTS.

>> MARTIN, WHAT WE ARE WITNESSES SENATORS ARE ACCUSTOM THAT SUBMIT IT BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

THEY READ THE QUESTIONS AND HOW DOES THE PROCESS FIELD.

WHO KNOWS THE SENATE VERY WELL.

>> THIS IS THE EXCHANGE.

WE HAVE EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND WHITE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THIS IS IS AS AS CHOSE AS WE GET TO APART OF IT.

>> THE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ABOUT THERE IS SPONTANEITY.

I ASSUME THERE ARE QUESTIONS AHEAD OF TIME.

THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL INTERESTS ON ONE SIDE OF THE OTHER.

>> WE ARE GETTING SOME REALTIME BACK AND FORTH.

>> THIS IS ONE PART OF THE OTHER FOR THE OTHER SIDE.

>> I WOULD LIKE ONE OF THE SENATORS WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE CHAMBERS LISTENING TO THIS WAS JEFF FROM OREGON.

SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> ITS I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY VALUABLE EXCHANGE.

THIS IS FOR EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS IF THE HOUSE.

WE COMPROMISE THE COMPLETE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

THIS IS A PARTICULAR SET OF TERMS.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP TEAM PUT A BLANKET BARRICADE ON THE WITNESSES AND DOCK.S.

THE WITNESSES ARE AT THE CENTER OF THE TRIAL.

THE RESPONSIBILITY AND WHAT WE ARE REALLY IN THIS CASE ARE PART OF THE HUSTLE.

MY CONGRESSMAN WOULD LIKE TO HONOR.

THEY DO NOT ALLOW WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

IF THAT HAPPENS WE WILL EXPOSE SO MUCH ACTIVITY.

>> DO YOU THINK WILL PERSUADE REPUBLICAN SENATORS THAT ARE LOOKING AT WITNESSES WHAT WOULD GET THEM TO VOTE FOR WITNESSES AND GET THEM TO VOTE FOR JOHN BOLTON.

>> WE HAVE AN ISSUE COMING UP.

I DIDN'T GET ALL OF THE INFORMATION.

EVERYTHING AT THE TEAM.

THE HOUSE WAS A GRAND JURY AND INDICTMENT.

YOU REALIZE THE STANDARD FOR THE HOUSE IS DIFFERENT FOR THE SENATE.

THE FULL ACCESS TO WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THE ONES YOU COULDN'T GET IN THE HOUSE AND THAT'S THE TRADITION TO THE PRESIDENT SET BY IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

I'LL TELL YOU ONE MORE THING.

THERE WAS ONE ARGUE THAT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH MY REPUBLICAN COAL LEAGUES.

EVEN IF A PRESIDENT DID USE THE POWER OF THE STATE IN THE FUTURE ELECTION.

IT'S ALL OKAY.

IT'S ALL OKAY AND CORRUPT THE POWER OF THE STATE IN THAT MATTER.

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS A POINT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT MIXED MOTIVES AND INTENTION.

EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT DID IT.

THERE IS ALSO A PUBLIC MOTIVE.

YOU CAN TAKE TROOPS OFF THE FRONT LINE.

THEY VOTED FOR HIM AND THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OKAY.

THAT'S TALKING ABOUT A KING AND NOT A PRESIDENT.

>> SENATOR, WHAT ABOUT ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT.

THE HOUSE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WE TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF IT.

>> THE HOUSE HAS TO SAY IS THERE SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION OF OFFICE OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT MAR MERITS A TRIAL.

THE HOUSE TRIED TO GET MORE INFORMATION.

THEY ASKED FOR A TON OF CRITICAL DOCUMENTS AND THEY WERE BARRICADED BY THE PRESIDENT ON AN ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ARGUMENT.

IT WAS GUARANTEED TO STALL THINGS FOR A YEAR OR TWO.

WE DO HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO BE THE EQUIVALENT OF AN INDICTMENT AND WE WILL SEND IT TO THE SENATE FOR A FULL TRIAL AND WITH THE WEIGHT OF THE SENATE CHIEF JUSTICE SITTING THERE THEY WILL GET INFORMATION WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET.

>> SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY, YOU ARE ABOUT TO GO BACK TO THE CHAMBER.

>> THANK YOU.

YAMICHE, WE HEARD THE WHITE HOUSE USING THE DETERMINE BLANKET EFFORT TO DENY EVERYTHING.

ANY AND EVERYTHING THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WAS ASKING FOR.

>> WELL, THE HOUSE, OF COURSE, HAS TRIED FOR A LONG TIME TO GET THOSE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID IT'S IN MY PROACTIVATOR HOLD THE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES BECAUSE IT'S EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE AMBASSADOR BOLTON BEING BLOCKED BY THE WHITE HOUSE FROM TESTIFYING BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TELLING HIM YOU ARE SOMEONE THAT KNOWS THE NATIONS SECRETS.

YOU CAN'T GO UP THERE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE SOME INFORMATION.

THEY SENT A LETTER TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S.

THIS IS ON JANUARY 23.

THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

THE MANAGER MIGHT OTHERWISE DISCLOSE.

HE WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL HIS STORY.

THIS LETTER WAS SENT FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY CAME OUT DETAILING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PART OF THE UKRAINE.

THIS IS CLOSE TO BOLTON LIKELY.

THIS IS A THREAT BY THE WHITE HOUSE.

IT MIGHT BE CALLED FOR A WITNESS.

>> SO, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ALLOWING SENATORS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

WE ARE NOT GOING ALONG WITH IT.

BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING THERE IS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

THERE IS TOP SECRET INFORMATION.

THEY DON'T WANT THIS TO BE ON THE HILL.

THERE ARE A LOT OF FACES.

I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT WITH THE SENATOR THAT'S THE IDEA ALLEN IS THE OX.

ANY KIND OF NATIONAL INTEREST CAN BE TIED TO REELECTION.

WHEN ALLEN SAID YOU ASK POLITICIANS ABOUT THEIR ELECTION AND I SAW SENATOR SCOTT START LAUGHING.

THEY ARE MAKING THE CASE AND I AGREE WITH THAT.

THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY WORTH VIOLATING THE LAW AND MITT ROMNEY AND PRESIDENT OBAMA EXAMPLE.

THEY SAID IF THEY WOULD HAVE HEARD IT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE.

THAT WAS A DEMOCRAT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT.

WE ARE MAKING THE CASE NO MATTER WHAT HE DID.

NONE OF THIS SHOULD BE PART OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> THE REACTIONS WERE AS IT ARGUMENT WAS BEING MADE MADE I BELIEVE YOU ARE LISTENING TO ALL OF THIS AND WATCHING.

WHAT ELSE ARE YOU PICKING UP, LISA, IN TERMS OF THE SENATORS REACTION TO THE BACK AND FORTH PROCESS.

>> THE LOCATION IN THE GALLERY LIKE THE SENATOR.

I'M IN THE ROOM RIGHT NOW ALSO MAKE AN APPEARANCE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AND THERE WERE 26 QUESTIONS.

OF IT ONLY THREE WERE OPEN-MINDED QUESTIONS.

THE REST OF THEM WERE FRIENDLY.

ONE OF THEM WAS WITH TED CRUZ.

MOSTOVER THE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW ARE FRIENDLY.

WHAT THAT TELLS ME IS THE OPENING STRATEGY IS TO PLAY IT SAFE.

BUILD-UP THE ARGUMENTS FOR YOUR SIDET AND LIDCY GRAHAM STEP BACK AND CAME OUT THEY CHALLENGED THE HOUSE IDEAS.

THIS IS FROM THE SENATORS OFFICE AND SCHUMER FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE.

WHO IS DETERMINING THE ORDER OF THE QUESTIONS.

IT'S THE LEADERSHIP ON BOTH SIDES.

THEY ARE ORGANIZING STAFF ON THE SENATE FLOOR.

IT'S A COMBINATION HYBRID PROCESS.

EACH LEADER HAS THE GREATEST POWER AND INTERVENE.

>> WE PICKED THAT UP AND IT'S CLEAR THERE IS AN OH TRA.

THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN A FOLLOW UP IN THE MOMENT.

LISA, IS IT YOUR SENSE THAT THEY HAVE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS ON THEIR MIND.

WE KNOW EIGHT HOURS TODAY AND TOMORROW WHAT WAS TWO AND HALF HOURS.

THEY DID HAVE A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF QUESTIONS.

I'M CURIOUS TO ASK THEM AND WILL ASK THEM OFFICES.

THIS IS AROUND THE SAME THEME.

I TOOK NOTE BY THEME AND TOOK FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVES.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT THEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S OR HOUSE CASE.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOUSE PROCESS AND WAS IT FLOOD.

WE ARE CIRCLING AROUND THE SAME TERRITORY.

I WONDER IF THEY AREN'T RETHINKING HOW MANY QUESTIONS THEY MIGHT HAVE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT BUT IT WAS TERRITORY THAT WAS KEPT REPEATED.

>> WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE SPREADSHEET.

WE WOULD LIKE TO WISH YOU A HAPPY BIRTHDAY ON AN UPLIFTING NOTE.

IT'S LISA'S BIRTHDAY TODAY.

WHAT BETTER WAY TO SPEND YOUR BIRTHDAY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, EXACTLY.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL LET YOU GO BACK TO WORK TO CELEBRATE.

WE ARE COMING BACK TO THE TABLE HERE.

I WANT TO COME BACK TO SENATOR MERKLEY'S POINT.

>> IT CAN BE COMFORTED FOR BOTH.

HE'S ALSO KNOWN FOR HIS POLITICAL BENEFIT.

HE ARGUED THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN NEVER BE IMPEACHED.

>> I DON'T THINK HE'S DOING THAT.

LET ME STATE UP-FRONT I DON'T AGREE WITH HIM ON THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ABUSE OF POWER THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN UNDERLINE CRIMINAL ACT.

HE WAS TRYING TO POINT OUT WITH THE SHERMAN EXAMPLE.

THAT'S REALLY INTERARE INTERESTING.

HE LET HIS TROOPS GO HOME FOR WHATEVER REASON.

POLITICAL IS PART OF WHAT HAPPENS AND WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S DO IN FOREIGN POLICY.

IT'S VERY HARD AND ENVISION A TIME.

MOTIVES ARE IMPORTANT HERE.

THAT MIGHT NO BE THE CASE.

IT'S THE CASE HERE BECAUSE IF THEY WERE INTENDING TO LOOK INTO A BURISMA.

THAT WASN'T LOOKING UP DIRT ON THE BIDENS.

HOW IS THAT INTERFERENCE WHEN ASKING FOR CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE WHEN IT INVOLVED A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

IT COULD BE ANY OTHER PERSON NOMINATED.

THAT'S THE POINT HE WAS MAKING.

THAT'S THE POINT THE DEFENSE FOR TRUMP WAS MAKING.

THAT'S AT THE HEART OF A LOT OF THIS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE THAT.

SINCE YOU ARE THE ONE PERSON THAT'S HELD I ELECTED OFFICE.

WHAT ABOUT HIM SAYING EVERY PERSON ELECTED TO OFFICE.

>> IT'S NOT EVERY PERSON.

THERE ARE SOME THAT DO THINK THAT WAY AND YOU HAVE TO THINK POLITICS TO BE IN POLITICAL OFFICE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF REALLY GOOD PEOPLE.

I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW YES, THERE IS A BAD APPLE IN THE BARREL.

WHETHER IT CONGRESSMAN OR SCHOOLTEACHER.

I'M TRYING TO DO THE BEST JOB THEY CAN.

>> THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE AS WELL FOR SOMEONE THAT CALLED WASHINGTON.

>> I HAD TO ASK YOU THAT.

THIS CERTAINLY GOT MY ATTENTION.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CALL IT.

>> WE DID A LOT OF WORK IN THE SENATE.

I WOULD TO DISASSOCIATE HIMSELF.

COMING BACKSEAT OF THE CAR TO MIXED MOTIVE.

>> HOW DO YOU TEASE THE PART.

THIS IS A TELLING ELEMENT AND IF THEY WERE GUILTY OF SOMETHING HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED ABOUT OR NOT.

>> GOOD LAWYERS KNOW THIS IS A FICTION.

THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WAS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THEY TRY TO LOOK INTO THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD.

I THINK THE FOCUS IS, IF YOU GO FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LOOK AT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID, OKAY.

LOOK AT WHAT HERE EDID WHEN HE DID IT AND IT'S MYTHICAL.

IT COULD BE THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE.

>> WELL, I DON'T THEY HAVE BEEN WATCHING.

THAT ALONG WITH THE SUCCESS YOU HAVE IS A NOTE.

THIS IS WHY FOLKS ARE GOING BACK TO THE WITNESSES.

IF REPUBLICANS THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY.

SOMEONE ONCE SAID ON THE HOUSE FLOOR DO DURING THE DEBATE.

I NEVER UNDER ESTIMATED LOCKING ARMS.

75% OF AMERICA YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

IT'S THE APPLICABLE THINGS.

>> THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IS COMING BACK-UP, IT'S A FEW MINUTES AFTER FOUR.

THEY EXPECTED TO COME BACK AROUND 4:00.

>> THE HONORABLE SENATOR, YOU WORKED FOR HIM IN THE HOUSE ABDOMEN SENATE.

YOU HAVE SEEN WHAT IT'S LIKE.

WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

YOU PUT HEADS TOGETHER.

>> JUST HAD DI, I THINK THEY ARE MAKING POLITICAL CALCULATIONS.

THERE IS A IMPORT TAN DEBATE.

A LOT OF SIN NAT SENATES ARE NOT JUST ASKING QUESTIONS TO HELP THEM IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

THE EXCHANGE WITH ADAM SHIFT AND THE QUESTION PUT BACK TO HIM BY GRAHAM AND CRUZ GETS TO THE ESSENCE.

WHAT IF OBAMA DID THIS TO MITT ROMNEY.

IS THERE IS A PATTERN OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.

HE CARED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.kf4Q THAT'S THE ESSENCE.

IT LOOKED INAPPROPRIATE AND IT WASN'T IMPEACHABLE.

>> MARTIN, IT SEEMS SOME OF THIS IS COMING DOWN TO HOW MUCH OF THE MOTIVE WAS POLITICAL.

DEMOCRATS SAY IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THE EXEXTENT THERE WAS ANY PUBLIC MOTIVE.

THE FACT THAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT.

THAT'S THE REASON TO IMPEACHMENT.

>> THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT AND THEY SHOULD ALLOW IT.

I THINK NONE OF THEM MADE A GOOD POINT.

THE PRESIDENT TWEETED ABOUT BOLTON.

IT TOOK IT AWAY.

THE LAWYERS AND WITNESSES WILL TAKE A LONG TIME AFTER THEY JUST CRITICIZED PELOSI FOR MANY TIMES ON HOW SHE DELAYED BY 33 DAYS.

IT WILL TAKE TIME IF WE HAVE WITNESSES.

IN JOHNSON'S THEY TOOK 235 POINTS.

I DON'T THINK IT WILL.

THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

>> NEAR THE SENATE CHAMBERS IN THE MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

CONGRESSMAN MEADOWS GOT A SOUND CHECK.

WE ARE LISTENING IN THE CHAMBERS.

AT THIS POINT IN A QUESTION AND ANSWER PROCESS WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF WHAT YOU ARE HEARING.

>> WE GO BACK AND FORTH.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SENATE COLLEAGUES AND LETS YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE FOCUSING IN ON.

THIS IS A FACE NATEING THING FOR ME.

IT'S WATCHING THE TRUMP DEFENSE TEAM AND CERTAINLY HE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS AND TOOK MORE OF A JACK WEBB APPROACH.

IT SEEMS TO BE BODING WELL WITH MY SENATE COLLEAGUES AS YOU ARE IN THE CHAMBERS.

AT THE SAME TIME THIS IS A QUESTION OF WILL WE HAVE WITNESSES AND WILL THEY BE CALLED ON FRIDAY OR SATURDAY.

>> I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

THEY ARE BACK IN SESSION.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS READING A QUESTION.

>> DID A DID A -- DID YOU KNOW DAVID HALE WAS PROVIDING AID FOR UKRAINE WAS FUTURE AID WHICH HAD THE GREATER IMPACT?

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PAUSE ON FUTURE AID?

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE AID TO UKRAINE FOR THREE YEARS MORE THAN 1,000 DAYS WHILE THEY ATTEMPTED TO HOLD BACK RUSSIA'S INVASION.

>> IT WAS FAR MORE SERIOUS.

THIS IS TO NOT USE THE AUTHORITY.

MANY OF YOU ALL AND MANY MEMBERS AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

GIVEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LETHAL AID AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE THE AID.

MULTIPLE WITNESSES.

THIS HAS DEMOCRATS.

THIS IS ON THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

OTHERS TESTIFIED THE U.S. POLICY PROVIDING THE AID WITH GREATER SUPPORT AND PROVIDED IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

THIS MAY EXPLAIN THAT THEY WOULD KILL TANKS AND CHANGE CALCULUS INTO THE EASTERN PORTION OF UKRAINE WHERE THAT CONFLICT IS STILL ONGOING.

IN TERMS OF THE PAUSE ON AID.

CRITICIZE WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THEY STARTED THE SPECULATION.

THE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD IS A TEMPORARY PAUSE.

AM BAG DOOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THE BRIEF POLICY IN RELEASING THE AID WAS QUOTE-UNQUOTE NOT SIGNIFICANT.

UNDER THE SECTARY OF STATE THEY CLAIMED QUOTE NOT TO KEEP THE ARMY NOW.

IN OTHER WORDS THEY FLOW EVERY MONTH.

IT WAS MONEY AND FIVE YEAR MONEY AND IT USUALLY TAKES QUIET A BIT OF TIME TO HIM.

THERE ARE A FEW MONTHS IN JULY AND AUGUST.

535 TO 48 DAYS DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNTED.

THEY DENIED CRITICAL ASSISTANCE.

IT SIMPLY WASN'T TRUE.

YOU KNOW THE SIGNAL IS HAPPENING WITH THE RUSSIANS.

IT'S LACK OF SUPPORT THE RUSSIANS WILL PICK UP ON IT.

IT'S CRITICAL THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE AID PAUSED.

PART OF THE REASON WAS THEY NEVER BROUGHT IT UP IN IN ANY CONVERSATION.

IT'S THE AMBASSADOR THAT TESTIFIED AND REPRESENTED THE UNITED STATES OPEN.

>> THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PUT-OUT THERE.

THERE IS NO SIGN OF LACK UP SUPPORT.

THEY POINTED TO THE CITY OF E-MAILS.

COOPER RECEIVED UNNAMED EMBASSY STAFFERS AND THERE WAS QUESTION ABOUT THE AID.

THE TESTIMONY SHE COULDN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS AND DIDN'T WANT TO SPECULATE.

JUST THE OTHER SOMEDAY ANOTHER AIRICAL AIR TICK -- ANOTHER ARTICLE CAME OUT EXPLAINING THAT WHEN THE POLITICAL ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED ON AUGUST 28th THERE WAS PANIC BECAUSE IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THEY REALIZED THERE WAS POLICY THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING PROVIDING ANY SIGNIFICANCAL.

IT BECAME PUBLIC THE AID WAS RELEASED.

THE TESTIMONY WITH THE RECORD THE PAUSE IS WASN'T SIGNIFICANT AND RELEASED BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

THAT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR.

THERE IS SOME PERCENTAGE THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

IT'S FIVE YEAR MONEY.

IT'S NOT LIKE IT WILL BE SPENT IN THE 30, 60, 90 DAYS.

THERE IS A FIXICS AND CONGRESS PASSED THE FIX.

SOMETHING SIMILAR AMOUNT EVERY YEAR AND NOT EFFECTING PURCHASES.

IT WASN'T JEOPARDIZING ANYTHING AT THE FRONT LINE.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL AND MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BOTH SETS OF COUNCIL.

THE QUESTION FOR SENATOR KING AND THE PRESIDENT FROM THE HOUSE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE FORMER CHIEF OF A STAFF JOHN KELLY SAID ONE OF YOU WILL SUGGEST BOLTON TESTIFY.

THERE ARE INNOCENCE OR GUILTY.

DO YOU AGREE WITH GENERAL KELLY THAT THEY SHOULD BE HEARD?

I THINK COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT IT'S YOUR TURN TO GO IF FIRST.

THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

THIS WAS A BIT OF A TOPIC I BROUGHT UP YESTERDAY.

THE INFORMATION CAME OUT ON APIECE ABOUT.

THIS IS IN A BOOK.

AS I'VE SAID THE IDEA THAT A MANUSCRIPT.

STATED THAT WHILE THE JUSTICE HAS NOT REVIEWED HIS MANUSCRIPT, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" ACCOUNTS OF THIS CONVERSATION WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

THERE'S NO DISCUSSION AND PERSONAL FAVORS AND UNDUE INFLUENCE ON INVESTIGATIONS, NOR DID ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR STATE THE CONVERSATIONS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS WERE IMPROPER.

THAT GOES TO THE SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE IN THE ARTICLE.

THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID THE SAME THING.

HE SAID IN EVERY CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT IN PREPARATION FOR OUR TRIP TO POLAND, THE PRESIDENT CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED HIS FRUSTRATION THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS BEARING THE LION'S SHARE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY.

AND THERE WAS AN INTERVIEW WHERE BOLTON SAID IT WAS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE CONVERSATION.

THAT INFORMATION IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE NOW.

SO TO MOVE THAT INTO A CHANGE IN PROCEEDING, SO TO SPEAK IS NOT CORRECT.

THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED, AN ACCUSATION THAT IF WE GET DOWN THE ROAD ON THE WITNESS ISSUES, LET'S BE CLEAR.

I CAN'T DICTATE TO THIS BODY THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE HOUSE MANAGERS GET JOHN BOLTON AND THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS GET NO WITNESSES.

WE EXPECT IF THEY GET WITNESSES, WE'LL GET WITNESSES AND THOSE WITNESSES WOULD THEN -- ALL OF THAT, JUST TO BE CLEAR, CHANGES THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR IT BEFORE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR JUSTICE, WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF SAYING HE BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON AND DOES NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT?

THAT BOLTON SHOULD TESTIFY?

IT'S REALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY NOT WHETHER I BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON OR WHETHER GENERAL KELLY BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON BUT WHETHER YOU BELIEVE JOHN BOLTON.

WHETHER YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM JOHN BOLTON AND EVALUATE HIS CREDIBILITY FOR YOURSELF.

THERE'S A FEW ARGUMENTS MADE AGAINST THIS.

ME ARE EXTRAORDINARY.

IT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE WITNESSES IN A TRIAL.

WHAT AN EXTRAORDINARY IDEA.

AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, IT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY NOT TO.

THIS WILL BE THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN HISTORY THAT INVOLVES NO WITNESSES IF YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM ANY.

THAT YOU WANT TO RELY WHAT WAS INVESTIGATED IN THE HOUSE.

THAT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED.

YES, WE SHOULD CALL WITNESSES AND YES, SO SHOULD THE PRESIDENT.

RELEVANT WITNESSES.

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.

ANOTHER WITNESS WITH FIRST-HAND INFORMATION IF HE'S WILLING TO SAY PUBLICLY, NOT UNDER OATH, THAT BOLTON IS WRONG.

LET HIM SAY THAT UNDER OATH.

YES, WE'RE NOT SAYING JUST ONE SIDE GETS TO CALL WITNESSES.

BOTH SIDES GET TO CALL RELEVANT WITNESSES.

THEY ALSO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE -- THIS IS GOING TO TAKE LONG.

IF WE GO ON A REAL TRIAL, IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME.

AND 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 DEPOSITION TOOK PLACE VERY QUICKLY IN THE HOUSE.

WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD CHIEF JUSTICE BEHIND ME THAT CAN RULE ON EVIDENTIARY ISSUES.

THE PRESIDENT HAS WAIVED ANY CLAIM ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY HERE BY TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF, DECLASSIFYING THE CALL RECORD.

WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN ASKING JOHN BOLTON ABOUT VENEZUELA OR OTHER PLAYS OR OTHER COUNTRIES, JUST UKRAINE.

IF THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT IT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RESOLVE THESE RELEVANT QUESTIONS TO THE MATTER AT HAND.

WHAT YOU CANNOT DO IS USE PRIVILEGE TO HIDE WRONG DOING OF AN IMPEACHABLE KIND OF CHARACTER.

>> SENATOR FROM UTAH.

SENDS A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF SENATORS CRUZE AND HAWLEY.

>> THE QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

IS IT TRUE THAT ABIGAIL GRACE AND THE ALLEGED WHISTLE-BLOWER WERE PLOYED BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD 2017 AND THE PRESENT?

DO YOU REASON TO BELIEVE THEY KNEW EACH OTHER OR THE ALLEGED WHISTLE-BLOWER AND MISGOW FULFILLED THEIR REPORTED COMMITMENTS TO DO EVERYTHING THAT THEY COULD TO TAKE OUT THE PRESIDENT?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, THE ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE, THAT I HAVE OF THIS COMES FROM PUBLIC REPORTS.

I GATHER THERE'S A NEWS REPORT IN SOME PUBLICATION THAT SUGGESTED A NAME FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, SUGGESTED WHERE HE WORKED, THAT HE WORKED AT THAT TIME WHILE DETAILED AT THE NSC STAFF FOR THEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THERE WERE OTHERS THAT WORKED THERE.

WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT OTHER THAN WHAT IS IN THE PUBLIC REPORTS.

I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO SPECULATING ABOUT THAT.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT TO AN UNKNOWN NAME MAY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BEFORE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF'S COMMITTEES, BUT THAT TESTIMONY CONTEXT WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, CONTACTS OF MANAGER SCHIFF'S CONTACTS WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER ARE SHROUDED IN SECRECY TODAY.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF'S STAFF CONTACT WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAVE BEEN AND WHAT CONNECTIONS THERE ARE THERE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE RELEVANT SINCE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER STARTED THIS ENTIRE INQUIRY.

BUT I CAN'T MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE HAVE PARTICULAR KNOWLEDGE.

WE KNOW THERE WAS A PUBLIC REPORT SUGGESTING CONNECTIONS AND PRIOR WORKING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CERTAIN PEOPLE, NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN COMMENT ON OTHER THAN TO SAY THERE'S A REPORT THERE.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ICIG DISCUSSED.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ICIG WAS TOLD BY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

OTHER PUBLIC REPORTS ABOUT INACCURACIES IN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S REPORT TO THE ICIG.

WE DON'T KNOW THE TESTIMONY ON THAT.

WE DON'T KNOW THE SITUATION OF THE CONTACTS COORDINATION, ADVICE PROVIDED BY MANAGER SCHIFF'S STAFF TO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

IT ALL REMAINS UNKNOWN.

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.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> 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 ANYBODY IN THE WHITE HOUSE ATTEMPTED IN ANY WAY TO PROHIBIT, BLOCK, DISAPPROVE JOHN BOLTON OR HIS PUBLISHER FROM PUBLISHING HIS BOOK?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

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 NSC FOR REVIEW.

IT IS WITH CAREER NSC STAFF FOR REVIEW.

THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE WAS NOTIFIED THAT IT WAS THERE.

THE NSC HAS RELEASED A STATEMENT EXPLAINING IT'S NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ANYONE OUTSIDE NSC STAFF.

IN TERMS OF THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, HAS THERE BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO BLOCK ITS PUBLICATION?

I THINK THERE WERE SOME MISINFORMATION PUT OUT IN TO THE PUBLIC REALM EARLIER TODAY.

I CAN READ FOR YOU RELATIVELY SHORT LETTER THAT WAS SENT FROM NSC STAFF TO CHARLES COOPER WHO IS THE ATTORNEY FOR MR. BOLTON ON JANUARY 23, WHICH WAS LAST WEEK.

IT SAYS "DEAR MR. COOPER, THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING YESTERDAY BY TELEPHONE.

AS WE DISCUSSED, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL HAS BEEN PROVIDED THE MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED BY YOUR CLIENT, FORMER ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT JOHN BOLTON FOR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW.

BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW, THE MANUSCRIPT APPEARS TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

SOME OF THIS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS AT THE TOP SECRET LEVEL, WHICH IS DEFINED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 13526 AS INFORMATION THAT REASONABLY COULD BE EXPECTED TO CAUSE EXCEPTIONALLY GRAVE HARM TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES IF DISCLOSED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.

UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND THE NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS YOUR CLIENT SIGNED FOR GAINING ACCESS TO INFORMATION, THE MAN YOU SCRIPT MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE DELETION OF THIS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

THE MANUSCRIPT REMAINS UNDER REVIEW IN ORDER FOR US TO DO OUR BEST TO ASSIST YOUR CLIENT WHILE ENSURING 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. NATIONAL SECURITY.

WE WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH YOU SHORTLY WITH ADDITIONAL MORE DETAILED GUIDANCE REGARDING NEXT STEPS THAT SHOULD ENABLE YOU TO REVISE THE MANUSCRIPT AND MOVE FORWARD AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.

SINCERELY, WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE CAREER OFFICIAL.

SO IT IS WITH THE NSC DOING THEIR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW THROUGH HIS LAWYER, AMBASSADOR BOLTON SHOWED THE MANUSCRIPT HAD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION SO IN ITS CURRENT FORM IT CAN'T BE PUBLISHED BUT THEY'LL WORK WITH HIM TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE SO IT CAN BE REVISED AND SO THAT HE CAN TELL HIS STORY.

THAT WAS THE LETTER FROM THE NSC THAT WENT OUT.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM IOWA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS BURR, McSALLY, DAINES AND SASSE.

>> THE SENATOR'S QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT IS IT TRUE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPROVED SUPPLYING JAVELIN ANTI-TANK MISSILES 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 MILITARY LEADERS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU, SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION.

YES, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE JAVELIN ANTI-TANK MISSILES.

THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DEBATE ABOUT THAT FOR SOME TIME.

AUTHORIZATION HAD BEEN GRANTED BY CONGRESS AND MANY OF YOU VOTED FOR THAT, STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE LETHAL EXISTENCE TO UKRAINE.

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DECIDED NOT TO PROVIDE THAT.

IT WAS ONLY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT MADE THAT LETHAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE.

AND THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY IN THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE WAS ACTUALLY STRONGER.

AMBASSADOR VOLCKER EXPLAINED THAT AMERICA'S POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND EACH STEP ALONG THE WAY THE DECISIONS THAT GOT TO THE JAVELINS BEING PROVIDED WAS MADE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS STRENGTHENED THE RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH SAID THIS MEANT OUR POLICY GOT STRONGER OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS.

SHE CALLED IT VERY SIGNIFICANT.

ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE IN RELATION TO THIS IS AGAIN THE PAUSE, THE TEMPORARY PAUSE THAT TOOK PLACE OVER THE SUMMER IS SOMETHING THAT THE UKRAINIAN 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 AND PROVIDING DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY, LETHAL DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY TO THE UKRAINIANS.

AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SIGNIFICANT.

THE SPECIFIC PART OF THE QUESTION, 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.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FEINSTEIN.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

THE SENATORS ARE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE WITH THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR SEVERAL MORE HOURS.

MY COLLEAGUES AND I ARE GOING TO STEP BACK AND FOCUS ON PREPARING FOR TONIGHT'S NEWS HOUR BROADCAST.

NOT TO WORRY.

OUR COVERAGE OF THE LIVE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WILL CONTINUE RIGHT HERE AND ONLINE AT PBS.ORG/NEWSHOUR AS WELL AS YOUTUBE YOUTUBE.

WE THANK OUR EXPERTS HERE, VICTORIA NOURSE, JOHN HART AND BILL McCULLOUGH.

WE'LL BE BACK AT 8:00 P.M. EASTERN ALONG WITH OUR CORRESPONDENTS AND GUESTS.

FOR NOW, WE RETURN YOU TO THE LIVE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ON CAPITOL HILL.

>> IF THE SENATE ACCEPTS THIS POSITION HERE.

>> 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 ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL THE MOST DAMAGING EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, PRESIDENT NIXON ALLOWED SENIOR OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

HE TOLD THEM TO GO TO CONGRESS VOLUNTARILY AND ANSWER ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED A BLANKET ORDER DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO WITHHOLD ALL DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THIS ORDER WAS CATEGORY, INDISCRIMINATE, UNPRECEDENTED.

ITS PURPOSE WAS CLEAR TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM DOING ITS DUTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION 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 NOT PRECEDENTED.

IT WASN'T ABOUT SPECIFIC NARROWLY DEFINED PRIVILEGES.

HE NEVER ASSERTED PRIVILEGES.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS MENTIONED OVER AND OVER THAT HE HAD SOME REASON BECAUSE OF THE SUBPOENAS.

I'LL TELL YOU, WE ADOPT RULES ABOUT SUBPOENAS AND THE HOUSE SENATE IS A CONTINUING BODY.

THE HOUSE ISN'T.

IN JANUARY, WE ADOPTED OUR RULES AND IT ALLOWS THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.

AND THAT IS 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 TO GIVE TESTIMONY, IT'S STILL GOING ON.

WE STILL HAVE FORMER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS THAT ARE REFUSING TO TESTIFY.

YEAH, WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THIS IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT.

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 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.

ONE THING 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 IS NOT THE WAY OUR CONSTITUTION WAS CREATED WHERE EACH BODY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY.

THERE'S A SHARING OF POWER.

AND I KNOW YOU CHERISH THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE.

THAT BE EVISCERATED IF THE PRESIDENT'S COMPLETE STONE WALLING IS ALLOWED TO PERSIST AND BE ACCEPTED BY THIS BODY.

YOU HAVE TO ACT NOW IN THIS MOMENT OF HISTORY.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA.

>> THANK YOU.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> SENATOR'S QUESTION IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

YOU SAID THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE ON AID UNTIL AUGUST 28, 2019 WHEN IT WAS REPORTED IN POLITCO.

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 UKRAINIAN EMBASSY ON JULY 25?

DOES THAT MEAN THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT THE HOLD ON AID EARLIER THAN THE POLITCO ARTICLE?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT.

AS WE EXPLAINED ON SATURDAY, THE OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE UKRAINIANS AT THE VERY HIGHEST LEVELS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TOP ADVISERS ONLY BECAME AWARE OF THE PAUSE IN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE AUGUST 28 POLITCO 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 IS THAT SHE, HER STAFF, HAD GOTTEN E-MAILS FROM SOMEONE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHO HAD HAD SOME SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HERE SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE AID AT A TIME PRIOR TO AUGUST 28th.

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 UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

NEVER BEFORE DID THEY RAISE ANY QUESTIONS AT ANY OF THE MEETINGS THAT THEY HAD WITH THE HIGH RANKING U.S. OFFICIALS THROUGH JULY AND AUGUST.

THERE WERE MEETINGS ON JULY 9, JULY 10, JULY 25, JULY 26 AND AUGUST 27.

AT NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS WAS THE PAUSE ON AID REVEALED OR INQUIRED ABOUT.

HOWEVER IS AS SOON AS THE POLITCO ARTICLE CAME OUT, ON AUGUST 28 WITHIN HOURS OF THAT POLITCO ARTICLE COMING OUT, MR. YURMAC TEXTED THE ARTICLE TO AMBASSADOR VOLCKER AND ASKED TO SPEAK WITH HIM THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH SOMEBODY FINDING OUT ABOUT IT FOR THE FIRST TIME.

THEY HAVE -- THE UKRAINIANS MADE STATEMENTS THAT THEY LEARNED ABOUT IT FOR THE FIRST TIME AND MR. PHILBIN JUST REFERENCED AN ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT YESTERDAY IN THE DAILY BEAST WHICH WAS AN INTERVIEW WITH A HIGH-RANKING DEFENSE OFFICIAL WITH THE UKRAINIANS.

THIS IS INTERESTING.

AND I'M GOING TO READ THIS ARTICLES BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND I SUGGESTED TO THE SENATE IF THEY WISH TO HAVE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FURTHER ON THIS.

HE SAID HE FIRST FOUND OUT THAT THE U.S. WAS WITHHOLDING AID TO THE UKRAINE BY READING POLITCO'S ARTICLE PUBLISHED AUGUST 28.

U.S. OFFICIALS AND DIPLOMATS AND THE COUNTRY'S FOREIGN MINISTER HAVE SAID PUBLICLY THAT KYIV WAS AWARE THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS AS EARLY AS JULY.

THAT'S THE ARTICLE THAT THEY MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT THAT THE HOUSE MEMBERS HAVE MENTIONED.

I WAS REALLY SURPRISED AND SHOCKED BECAUSE JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS PRIOR TO THAT, I ACTUALLY HAD A MEETING WITH JOHN BOLTON.

I HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH HIM.

WE HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS.

THE LAST THING I EXPECTED TO READ IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT MILITARY AID BEING FROZEN.

AFTER THAT, I WAS TRYING TO GET THE TRUTH.

WAS IT TRUE OR NOT TRUE?

HE 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.

THEN HE PUT IN CALLS TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL AND ASKED OTHER OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON WHAT TO MAKE OF THE NEWS.

AGAIN, ON ALL 28.

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 DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY.

THEN HE SAID, HE MET WITH BOLTON ON THE SIDELINES OF THE COMMEMORATION.

I HAD MY SUSPICIONS THAT THERE WAS A SPECIAL SITUATION WITH ONE OF OUR DEFENSE COMPANIES THAT WERE ACQUIRED BY THE CHINESE.

THE U.S. WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.

BOLTON MADE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THIS AS WELL.

SO SOMEHOW I LINKED THIS TO 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 THIS IS THE FOREFRONT OF THEIR MENDS, SUCH PRESSURE THAT THE UKRAINIANS 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?

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A QUESTION ON BEHALF OF SENATOR BALDWIN AND MYSELF I SEND TO THE DESK.

>> THE QUESTION IS ADDRESSED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

IS THE WHITE HOUSE CORRECT IN ITS TRIAL MEMORANDUM AND PRESENTATIONS OF ITS CASE THAT "PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND OTHER SENIOR UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN PAUSED" BEFORE SEEING PRESS REPORTS ON AUGUST 28, 2019, WHICH IS MORE THAN A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENTS ZELENSKY AND TRUMP.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE.

THE ANSWER IS NO.

THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW THAT.

WE KNOW THAT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL LAURA COOPER TESTIFIED HER STAFF RECEIVED TWO E-MAILS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25 REVIEWING THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WAS ASKING ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

IN FACT, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THESE E-MAILS JUST NOW.

SO I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE SENATE SUBPOENA THOSE E-MAILS SO WE CAN SEE FOR OURSELVES WHAT EXACTLY WAS HAPPENING.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT KATHRYN CROSS STATED THAT SHE WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MY UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART'S DIPLOMATIC TRADE CRAFT AS TO SAY THEY FOUND OUT EARLY ON OR EARLIER THAN I EXPECTED THEM TO.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEX VINDMAN TESTIFIED BY AUGUST HE WAS GETTING QUESTIONS 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.

UKRAINIANS WERE CONSISTENTLY ASKING ABOUT IT.

IT WAS URGENT.

THEY NEEDED IT.

THEY NEEDED IT AND YOU KNOW WHO ELSE WAS ASKING FOR IT?

AMERICAN BUSINESSES.

THE CONTRACTORS THAT WERE GOING TO BE PROVIDING THIS WERE ALSO MAKING INQUIRIES ABOUT IT.

THERE'S A PIPELINE.

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 HAVE 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 TIME LINE BECAUSE WE WERE AT RISK OF LOSING IT.

AND TO THIS DAY $18 MILLION OF THAT AID HAS STILL NOT BEEN SPENT.

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 THE UKRAINE HAS SEEN IN YEARS.

SO JUST ASSUMING FOR A MINUTE THAT ARGUMENT TO BE TRUE, KIND OF MAKES OUR OWN ARGUMENT.

MAKES OUR ARGUMENT.

THEN WHY HOLD THE AID?

WHY HOLD THE AID?

BECAUSE NOTHING HAD CHANGED IN 16.

NOTHING CHANGED IN 17.

NOTHING HAD CHANGED IN 18.

ONE THING HAD CHANGED IN 19.

THAT IS THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

LASTLY, THE QUESTION BEFORE BY MY SENATE ARMED SERVICES COLLEAGUES FRAMED THIS IN TERMS OF THE MILITARY IMPACT.

THEY ASKED WHAT WAS GREATER IN TERMS OF MILITARY IMPACT.

NOT PROVIDING LETHAL AID FOR 48-DAY DELAY.

LET'S NOT FORGET THE REASON FOR THE DELAY.

THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE DELAY AND THAT THE PRESIDENT'S MENTALITY'S MINDSET DOESN'T MATTER.

DOESN'T MATTER WHAT HE INTENDED TO DO.

BY THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

IT DOES MATTER WHAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO DO.

BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY DESERVE TO GO TO BED EVERY NIGHT KNOWING THE PRESIDENT, THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, THE PERSON THAT 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.

THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR?

>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI.

>> 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 PORESHENKO, THE TOP AIDES OR OTHERS?

IF SO, WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT SAY TO WHOM AND WHEN?

>> SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

IT'S IMPORTANT AT THE OUTSET TO FRAME THE ANSWER BY BEARING IN MIND, I'M LIMITED TO WHAT IS IN THE RECORD AND WHAT IS IN THE RECORD IS DETERMINED BY WHAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SOUGHT.

IT WAS THEIR PROCEEDINGS.

THEY WERE THE ONES THAT RAN IT, THEY CALLED THE WITNESSES.

SO PART OF THE QUESTION REFERS TO CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OTHER CABINET MEMBERS AND OTHERS LIKE THAT.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD ON THAT.

IT WASN'T PURSUED IN THE RECORD.

I CAN'T POINT TO SOMEBODY 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 POROSHENKO TWICE ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE, BOTH IN JUNE OF 2017 AND AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER -- THERE'S 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 ON THE TAPES WE'VE 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 HE WAS LOOKING TO ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS LOOKING TO BURISMA.

AS LONG AS HE WAS STILL THE PRESIDENT IN UKRAINE, QUESTION THE UTILITY OF RAISING AN INCIDENT IN WHICH HE WAS THE ONE THAT 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 ANTI CORRUPTION PLATFORM AND 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 ANTI-CORRUPTION ISSUES AND RAISING QUESTIONS.

NOW, THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING TO UNDERSTAND IN THE TIMELINE IS THAT WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT RUDY GULIANI, 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. GULIANI AS 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 ANNOUNCES HIS CANDIDACY IN APRIL, APRIL 25.

IN MARCH RUDY GULIANI GAVE DOCUMENTS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING INTERVIEW NOTES FROM INTERVIEWS HE CONDUCTED WITH SHOKIN AND WITH LITSENKO, WHO IS ALSO A PROSECUTOR IN THE UKRAINE.

THOSE INTERVIEW NOTES ARE JANUARY 23 AND 25, SO MONTHS BEFORE HE ANNOUNCED A CANADADIDACYCANDIDACY.

IT GOES THROUGH, SHOKIN EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF MR. JOSEPH BIDEN, THE VICE PRESIDENT AND EXPLAINS THAT HE HAD BEEN INVESTIGATING BURISMA AND THAT HUNTER WAS ON THE BOARD AND IT RAISES ALL OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

SO IT WAS MR. GULIANI WHO HAD JANE RASKIN EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, MR. GULIANI'S COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT LOOKED TO 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.

HE'S DIGGING INTO THAT IN JANUARY OF 2019.

WE KNOW THAT MR. GULIANI IS THE PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE COUNSEL.

I CAN'T REPRESENT SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS THEY HAD.

THEY WOULD BE PRIVILEGED.

WE KNOW FROM TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IN 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. GULIANI.

MONTHS BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY, MR. GULIANI IS LOOKING INTO THIS ISSUE INTERVIEWING PEOPLE AND GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT IT.

IN ADDITION NO MARCH OF 2019, ARTICLES BEGAN TO BE PUBLISHED AND THEN THREE ARTICLES WERE PUBLIC BRITISHED BY ABC, 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 ARTICLES ABOUT THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SUDDENLY CURRENT, RELEVANT, PROBABLY TO BE IN SOMEONE'S MIND.

THAT'S THE TIMELINE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALL.

>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF PATTY MURRAY AND MYSELF.

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 MARIA YOVANOVITCH "GET RID OF HER, GET HER OUT TOMORROW, I DON'T CARE, GET HER OUT TOMORROW.

TAKE HER OUT.

OKAY.

DO IT."

PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE THIS ORDER TO LEV PARNAS AND IGOR FRUMAN, TWO MEN THAT CARRIED OUT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN IN THE UKRAINE AT THE DIRECTION OF RUDY GULIANI.

DOES THE DISCOVERY OF THIS TAPE SUGGEST THAT IF THE SENATE DOESN'T PURSUE ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE INCLUDING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, THAT NEW EVIDENCE WILL CONTINUE TO COME TO LIGHT AFTER THE SENATE RENDERED A VERDICT?

>> THE ANSWER IS YES.

WHAT WE HAVE SEEN REALLY THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE ARTICLES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS EVERY WEEK INDEED SOMETIMES EVERY DAY THERE'S NEW INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT.

WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE NEW INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT MARCH 17 WHEN THE BOLTON BOOK COMES OUT, THAT IF THE NSC ISN'T SUCCESSFUL IN REDACTING IT OR PREVENTING MUCH OF ITS PUBLICATION.

ON THAT ISSUE, I WANT TO MENTION ONE OTHER THING IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE BOLTON MANUSCRIPT AND WHAT DID THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS KNOW.

I LISTENED TO THE ANSWER OF THAT QUESTION.

MAYBE YOU LISTENED MORE CAREFULLY THAN I DID.

WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD THEM SAY, WHAT DID THEY KNOW ABOUT THE MANUSCRIPT AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT?

THEIR STATEMENT WAS PRECISELY WORD.

THE NSC UNIT REVIEWING THE BOOK DID NOT SHARE THE MANUSCRIPT.

WELL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION THAN WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS FOUND OUT WHAT IS IN IT.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO CIRCULATE THE MANUSCRIPT AND HAVE SOMEONE WALK OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND SAY, YOU DO NOT WANT JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY.

LET ME TELL YOU, YOU DON'T WANT JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY.

YOU DON'T NEED TO READ HIS MANUSCRIPT BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU WHAT'S IN IT.

THAT 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 THE INVESTIGATIONS.

WE KNOW THAT IS NOT TRUE.

WE KNOW THAT FROM THE WITNESSES WE HEARD FROM AND WE KNOW AT LEAST IF THE REPORTING IS CORRECT AND YOU SHOULD FIND OUT IF IT IS, THAT JOHN BOLTON TELLS A DIFFERENT STORY.

SO THERE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE REVELATIONS AND MEMBERS OF THIS BODY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE 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?

EVERY OTHER TRIAL IN LAND YOU CALL WITNESSES TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU CAN WE ARE NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS.

WE ARE THE TRIAL COURT.

THERE'S NO RECORD BELOW.

COUNSEL SAYS IN ANSWER TO THE SENATORS, QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER DONALD TRUMP EVER BROUGHT UP THE HUNTER BIDEN PROBLEM WITH PRESIDENT POROSHENKO IN THE PAST AND SAYS, 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 THE END OF THE DAY, WE'LL CONTINUE TO SEE NEW EVIDENCE COME OUT ALL THE TIME.

AMONG THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE, WE KNOW WHAT THAT WILL BE.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE EFFORT TO SUGGEST THAT, WELL, BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENT STRONGER IN JAVELINS THAN HIS PREDECESSOR WHEN WE KNOW FROM THE JULY 25th CALL, THE MOMENT THAT ZELENSKY BRINGS UP THE JAVELINS, WHAT IS THE VERY NEXT THING THE PRESIDENT SAYS?

HE WANTS A FAVOR.

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 MERELY BELIEVE IT WAS A COINCIDENCE THAT JOE BIDEN WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?

IS IT TO BELIEVE THAT ALL THE COMPANIES IN ALL THE LAND, ALL THE GIN JOINTS IN THE UKRAINE THAT IT WAS JUST HUNTER BIDEN WALKING INTO THIS ONE?

THAT WAS THE REASON WHY THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN BURISMA, JUST A COINCIDENCE THAT INVOLVED A SON OF HIS OPPONENT.

MORE AND MORE IS COMING OUT.

LET'S MAKE SURE THAT YOU LEARN WHATEVER YOU FEEL YOU NEED TO TO RENDER A JUDGMENT NOW, YOU CAN INFORM YOUR DECISION AND NOT LATER.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS CRAPO AND SENATOR RISCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE SENATORS ASK COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS UNDERSCORED THE ADMINISTRATION'S ON GOING ANTI-CORRUPTION FOCUS WITH OUR ALLIES.

AT WHAT POINT DID THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DEVELOP CONCERNS ABOUT BURISMA IN RELATION TO CORRUPTION AND CONCERNS WITH RUSSIA?

>> THAT QUESTION -- I THINK IT BEARS ON THE ANSWER THAT I WAS LAST GIVEN TO THE LAST QUESTION.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BECAME -- OF COURSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE JULY 25 CALL, THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS US, BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF THINGS.

HE BROUGHT UP BURDEN SHARING SPECIFICALLY AND HE RAISED THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION IN TWO SPECIFICS.

SPECIFIC CASE OF POTENTIAL UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, WHICH HE HEARD ABOUT AND ASKED ABOUT AND THE INCIDENT INVOLVING THE FIRING OF A PROSECUTOR WHO ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS HAD BEEN LOOKING TO BURISMA, THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON WAS ON THE BOARD OF.

IT WAS -- THAT WAS THE PRESIDENT'S WAY OF PINPOINTING SPECIFIC ISSUES TO CORRUPTION.

WHEN DID IT BECOME PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN, THE ISSUES RELATED TO CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?

WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT EVERYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT, FIONA HILL TESTIFIED TO THIS, THOSE THAT ANTI-CORRUPTION WAS A MAJOR ISSUE.

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 GULIANI AND HE SPOKE IN THE OVAL OFFICE OF RUDY KNOWS ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS.

YOU GUYS TALK TO HIM.

HE WAS EXPLAINING TO THE DELEGATION THAT HAD JUST RETURNED FROM THE INAUGURATION NOR THE PRESIDENT, FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THAT HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINE BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL CORRUPT.

HE SAID IT'S A CORRUPT COUNTRY.

I DON'T KNOW.

THEY TRIED TO GET ME IN THE ELECTION.

SO I DRAWS AGAIN, THERE'S HIS SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WITH UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION BECAUSE HE KNEW FROM THE PUBLIC REPORTS AS IN THE POLITCO ARTICLE THAT HAS BEEN REFERENCED MANY TERMS, THE POLITCO ARTICLE IN JANUARY OF 2017 EXPLAINED A LAUNDRY LIST OF UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO HAD BEEN OUT THERE ATTEMPTING TO ASSIST THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND SPREAD MISINFORMATION OR BAD INFORMATION OR ASSIST IN DIGGING UP DIRT ON MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

MR. GULIANI HAD BEEN INVESTIGATING UKRAINE AND WAS LED TO INFORMATION ABOUT THE BURISMA SITUATION AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAVING THE PROSECUTOR FIRED.

SO THAT WAS IN JANUARY THAT HE HAD HE'S INTERVIEWS, HE TURNED OVER TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN MARCH.

AND THEN THERE WERE A SERIES OF PUBLIC ARTICLES PUBLISHED.

JOHN SOLOMON IN THE HILL PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE IN MARCH.

RUDY GULIANI TWEETED ABOUT IT.

AN ABC STORY IN JUNE.

A TWO-PART NEW YORKER STORY ABOUT BIDENS AND BURISMA IN JULY.

JULY 22, "THE WASHINGTON POST" HAD AN ARTICLE AND EXPLAINS SPECIFICALLY IN JUST JULY 22, THREE DAYS BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL, "THE WASHINGTON POST" REPORTED THAT MR. SHOKIN, THE PROSECUTOR, "BELIEVED HIS OUSTER WAS BECAUSE OF HIS INTEREST IN THE COMPANY" REFERRING TO BURISMA "AND HE SAID THAT HAD HE REMAINED IN HIS POST, HE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED HUNTER BIDEN."

SO I THINK IT'S 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.

REMEMBER, EVERYONE WHO TESTIFIED WHO WAS ASKED ABOUT IT, DID IT SEEM LIKE THERE'S AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN DOES IT SEEM LIKE THAT IS FISHY?

EVERYBODY TESTIFIED BELOW, YES, THERE'S AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE.

IT WAS AFTER THE INFORMATION HAD COME TO MR. GULIANI LONG BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD ANNOUNCED HIS CAN DO SEE THAT IT CAME TO THE ATTENTION HOFF THE PRESIDENT AND BECAME SOMETHING WORTH RAISING.

PRESIDENT POROSHENKO IS THE ONE THAT FIRED THE PROSECUTOR.

WHILE HE'S STILL THE PRESIDENT, IT'S NOT AS MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY OR POSSIBILITY OF RAISING THAT.

SO I THINK IT WAS IN THAT TIME FRAME ALONG THAT ARC OF THE TIMING THAT IT CAME TO THE PRESIDENT'S ATTENTION AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS RAISED IN THAT TIMING.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE?

>> SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> 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?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

SENATE YOU, SENATOR, FOR THE QUESTION.

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 DISGRUNTLED AND WE DIDN'T EXPECT HE WAS GOING TO BE SAYING A LOT OF NICE THINGS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.

NO ONE TOLD US ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS MORAN AND HOLLY AND A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATORS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

IN 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 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 HAS ADMITTED TO CONDITIONING LOAN GUARANTEES TO UKRAINE ON THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING BURISMA?

>> I THANK THE SENATORS FOR THE QUESTION.

I WANT TO BE CAREFUL TO ANSWER IT SO I DON'T DISCLOSE OR GIVE AN INDICATION THAT MAY 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 -- MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME OF YOU TO READ.

LET ME -- IF YOU COULD HAND ME A COPY OF THAT AS WELL.

I'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO DISTRIBUTE 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 AND WE SHOULD WORK TO RESPECT WHISTLE-BLOWERS REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY.

SENATOR ROMNEY, SENATORS SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY BECAUSE THEY PLAY A VITAL FUNCTION I OUR DEMOCRACY.

SENATOR BURR, WE PROTECT WHISTLE-BLOWERS AND WITNESSES IN OUR COMMUNITY.

MY COLLEAGUE, MR. NUNES, WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD AND WE WILL PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF THOSE AT ALL COSTS.

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 IS.

I HAVEN'T MET THEM OR COMMUNICATED WITH THEM IN ANY WAY.

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 ACTIVE DIRECTOR 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 IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FICTION.

THIS WAS I THINK CONFIRMED BY THE REMARKABLE ACCURACY OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT, WHICH HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE EVIDENCE AND GATHERED IN ALL MATERIAL SUSPECTS.

I'M NOT GOING TO ANYTHING THAT COULD REVEAL OR LEAD TO 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 ACTED 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 HARD-WORKING PEOPLE WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY.

AND WHO HAVE SERVED OUR COMMITTEE SO WELL.

IT REALLY GRIEVES ME TO SEE THEM SMEARED AND SOME OF THEM MENTION MENTIONED HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR SAFETY.

AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE SMEARS THAT HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED AGAINST THEM.

I CAN TELL YOU THERE'S NO ONE THAT CAN UNDERSTAND THE PLIGHT OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH MORE THAN SOME OF MY STAFF HAVE BEEN TREATED TO THE SAME KIND OF SMEARS AND HAVE CONCERNS OVER THEIR OWN SAFETY.

THEY ACTED AT ALL TIMES WITH THE UTMOST PROPRIETY AND INTEGRITY.

YOUR SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND VICE CHAIRMAN CAN TELL YOU, ENCOURAGE WHISTLE-BLOWERS TO COME TO THEIR COMMITTEE AND SO DO WE.

WHEN THEY DO, WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT IS THEIR COMPLAINT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND IF IT IS, WE SUGGEST THEY GET A LAWYER AND TALK TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

THE WHISTLE-BLOWER DID EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD.

EXCEPT FOR THE PRESIDENT THAT IS UNFORGIVEABLE.

BECAUSE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER EXPOSED THE WRONG DOING OF THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW THAT MAKES HIM OR HER A TRAITOR OR A SPY.

AS THE PRESIDENT TELLS US, THERE'S A WAY WE USED TO TREAT TRAITORS AND SPIES.

YOU WONDER WHY WE DON'T WANT TO CALL THE WHISTLE-BLOWER?

FIRST OF ALL, WE KNOW FIRST HAND THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WROTE SECONDHAND IN THAT COMPLAINT.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER ANYMORE EXCEPT TO FURTHER IN DANGER THAT PERSON'S LIFE.

THAT TO MEADOWS NOT SEEM A WORTH WHILE OBJECT FOR ANYONE.

IN THIS CHAMBER, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS BUILDING, IN THE OVAL OFFICE OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, ON MY OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SENATORS BLUMENTHAL, BOOKER, KOONCE, KLOBUCHAR, LEAHY, PETERS AND EUDAHL, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR WHITE HOUSE AND THE OTHER SENATORS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE MISSING WITNESS RULE WHICH STATES BACK TO 1893 SUPREME COURT CASE GRAVES VERSUS UNITED STATES ALLOWS ONE PARTY TO OBTAIN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE FOR THE OTHER FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE A WITNESS UNDER THAT PARTY'S CONTROL WITH MATERIAL INFORMATION.

HERE ONE PARTY, THE PRESIDENT, HAS PREVENTED 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. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE PARTY AGAINST THESE TESTIFIES LIKE JOHN BOLTON.

COURTS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED WHEN A PARTY HAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE WITHIN HIS CONTROL WHICH HE FAILS TO PRODUCE, THAT FAILURE THAT EVIDENCE IS UNFAVORABLE TO HIM.

COURTS HAVE DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE WHERE A PARTY ACTS IN BAD FAITH TO CONCEAL A WITNESS FROM OFFERING TESTIMONY.

I WOULD SUGGEST IT'S BAD FAITH 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 HAS HAPPENED HERE.

AND YOU ARE I THINK NOT ONLY PERMITTED BUT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE 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, 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.

IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD BE REDACTIONS, VERY SPECIFIC.

NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT 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 THE E-MAILS THAT THE E-MAILS WOULD CONFIRM UKRAINE KNEW THE AID WAS HELD LIKE THE FORMER DEPUTY SAID PUBLICLY WHEN SHE TOLD "THE NEW YORK TIMES" YES, WE KNEW, BY THE END OF JULY WE KNEW THE AID WAS FROZEN BUT I WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO MENTION IT.

IT HAD A TRIP PLANNED TO CONGRESS AND TOLD NOT TO GO.

THEY DIDN'T WANT IT PUBLIC.

ARE YOU ENTITLED TO DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT THOSE RECORDS, THEY REFUSE TO TURN OVER THOSE STATE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, THE FACT THAT THEY WON'T ALLOW JOHN BOLTON'S NOTES TO BE TURNED OVER, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S NOTES TO BE TURNED OVER, SHOULD YOU DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE?

YOU'RE DARN RIGHT YOU SHOULD.

THEY SAY, WELL, THE PRESIDENT OLD TOLD SONDLAND NO QUID PRO QUO.

THEY LEAVE OUT THE OTHER HALF WHERE SONDLAND TOLD TAYLOR, BUT HE SAID NO QUID PRO QUO, BUT YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE MIC ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

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 OR HIS CABLE?

YOU'RE DARN RIGHT YOU SHOULD DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE.

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 THAT IS WILLING TO COME FORWARD.

THERE'S NO NEED FOR INFERENCE HERE.

JUST A NEED FOR A SUBPOENA.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION TO SEND TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> 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. 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 IS IN IT.

BUT I AM WELLING TO BET THAT THE MISSING RULE DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THERE'S A VALID ASSERTION OF A PRIVILEGE.

IF THEY TRIED TO SUBPOENA THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER AND THE DEFENDANT SAID WAIT, I HAVE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, YOU CAN'T SUBPOENA THEM, THEY CAN'T GET AN ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM THAT.

THAT IS CRITICAL.

BECAUSE AS I HAVE 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 THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS DOING.

IT'S JUST NOT TRUE.

THERE WERE LETTERS BACK AND FORTH.

I PUT THEM ON THE SCREEN.

THIS WERE SPECIFIC IMMUNITIES ASSERTED.

THERE WAS 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.

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 AND ADVERSE INFERENCE.

THERE WAS A RATIONALE PROVIDED.

AND THEY DIDN'T TRY TO ENGAGE IN THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS.

THEY DIDN'T TRY TO GO TO COURT.

NOW 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.

BT THEY NEVER TRIED TO ESTABLISH IN COURT THAT THEIR SUBPOENAS WERE VALID.

WE HAVE AN ASSERTION OF R 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 ADVISERS TO THE PRESIDENT.

IT BEEN ASSERTED BY VIRTUAL EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON.

THEY SAY IT'S IRRELEVANT.

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 COURTS THOUGHT PROBLEM 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.

WHEN THEY SAY THAT CHARLIE CUPPERMAN WENT TO COURT, THEY WERE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING REASONABLE WE DON'T WANT TO LET GAIT WITH YOU.

YOU SHOULD BE BOUND BY THE McGANN DECISION.

WHAT IS THE SAYING?

EVERY LITIGANT GETS HIS DAY IN COURT?

WHY SHOULDN'T CHARLIE CUPPERMAN 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 HAVE MY CASE.

I WANT THE ARGUMENTS.

BUT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THAT.

SO THEY MOVED IT OUT.

THEY WITH WITH DREW THE SUBPOENA BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO THE HEARING IN FRONT OF JUDGE LEON ON DECEMBER 10.

THEY ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IT'S AN OUTRAGE THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED UNDER FOYA THAN UNDER THEIR SUBPOENAS.

WHAT IT ALSO SHOWS WHEN YOU TURN SQUARE CORNERS AND FOLLOW THE LAW, THE ADMINISTRATION FOLLOWS THE LAW AND RESPONDS.

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 FLOP IF I AND ISSUE INVALID SUBPOENAS, YOU WON'T GET A RESPONSE.

IF SOME PRIVATE LITIGANT FILE AS FOYA REQUEST -- SO TO ACT LIKE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE A BLANKET DENIAL IS INACCURATE AND THERE'S NO BASIS FOR ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE BECAUSE THERE'S A SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE OR BASIS FOR EVERY REASON NOT TO PRODUCE SOMETHING.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.

>> THANK YOU.

I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

DID ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN HIS OCTOBER 17 PRESS CONFERENCE WHEN HE SAID THERE WAS POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S DECISION TO WITHHOLD AID FROM UKRAINE?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

MICK MULVANEY HAS ABSOLUTELY WAIVED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

HE'S 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.

HAVE NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN CONNECTION WITH MICK MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY OR ANYONE ELSE.

IT WAS NOT ASSERTED AS 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'S 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.

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.

THEY RESPONDED WITH A TWO-PAGE LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 8.

THERE'S NO MENTION OF MR. CIPOLLONE, IT DOESN'T CITE A SINGLE LEGAL 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 PRIVILEGE 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 RELEVANT WITNESSES.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM ALASKA.

>> 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.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE STANDARD OF PROOF TO BE USED IN THE TRIALS OF A 'IMPEACHMENT.

THE SEN FORS HAVE NOT ADOPTED ONE BY RULE THUS STANDARD OF PROOF IS ARGUABLY A QUESTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL SENATOR.

IN THE CLINTON TRIAL AND NOW WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, IT APPEARS THAT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS APPLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS A MEMBER OF THEIR PARTY.

WHAT STANDARD OF PROOF SHOULD BE USED IN TRIALS OF IMPEACHMENT, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, CLEAR AND VIPSING, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND WHY.

I THINK IT'S THE TURN OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO GO FIRST.

>> 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 EVIDENCE REAR BUD OF PROOF OR THE SENATE'S.

I WOULD NOTE THAT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HELD ITS 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 FACTUALALITY.

IN THE CLINTON HOUSE THE HOUSE DID NOT COMMIT TO ANY PARTICULAR BURDEN OF PROOF.

AND I WOULD RECOMMEND AGAINST INCLUDING AN EXPRESS STANDARD, INSTEAD LIKE IN THE CLINTON, 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.

HOLDS TO YOU A FINDING OF IMPARTIAL JUSTICE AND I TRUST THAT EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU IS HOLDING THAT OATH VERY DEAR TO YOUR HEART.

IT WILL FIND THE FACTS AND LEAD TO A JUST RESULT FOR OUR COUNTRY, THE CONSTITUTION AND FOR A FUTURE THAT HOPEFUL IS AS FREE AS OUR PAST HAS BEEN.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> 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 LAWS, SPEAKS OF AN ASSENT, IT SPEAKS OF CONVICTION, IT SPEAKS OF A TRIAL IN SAYING THAT CRIME SHALL BE TRIED BY JURY, SEPTEMBER IN THE CASE OF IMPEACHMENT.

BOTH THAT AND THE GRAVITY OF A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

WHICH IS AN ISSUE OF BREATHTAKING IMPORTANCE FOR THE COUNTRY AND COULD CAUSE TREMENDOUS DISRUPTION TO OUR GOVERNMENT.

BOTH COUNSEL IN FAVOR OF TRADITIONAL CRIMINAL STANDARD OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

AND IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, SENATORS BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS REPEATEDLY ADVOCATED IN FAVOR OF THAT STANDARD.

SEN RUSS FEINGOLD SAID, QUOTE, IN MAKING A DECISION OF THIS MAGNITUDE IT IS BEST NOT TO ERR AT ALL.

IF WE MUST ERR, HOWEVER, WE SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

SIMILARLY, SENATOR BARBARA McCULSKY SAID, QUOTE, THE U.S. SENATE MUST KNOT MAKE THE DECISION TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT BASED ON A HUNCH THAT THE CHARGES MAY BE TRUE.

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 WHOLELY INEFFICIENT.

THAT MEANS JUST 50.1% YOU THINK IT'S A LITTLE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT.

THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT.

EVEN CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS NOT.

IT HAS TO BE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

HATS 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.

ISSUE BEFORE YOU WOULD NOT PERMIT APPLYING ANY LESSER STANDARD.

THANK YOU.

>> COUNSEL.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> 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 22nd, WHILE THIS TRIAL WAS UNDERWAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, QUOTE, I THOUGHT OUR TEAM DID A VERY GOOD JOB.

BUT HONESTLY WE HAVE ALL THE MATERIAL, THEY DON'T HAVE THE MATERIAL, END QUOTE.

CAN YOU COMMENT ON WHETHER EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ALLOWS A PRESIDENT TO CONCEAL INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY IF THE EVIDENCE CANNOT BE OBTAINED ELSEWHERE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I THANK THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY FOR THIS QUESTION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ALONE HAS THE POWER TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

AND AS COUNSEL ADMITTED ON SATURDAY, THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT FORMALLY INVOKED IT, OVER ANY DOCUMENT REQUESTED IN THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, HAS NOT BEEN ASSERTED AS IT RELATES TO ANY SINGLE DOCUMENT.

NOW EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE GIVES PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN HE DOES GET HIS ADVICE TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE.

AND AS I KNOW YOU ARE ALL AWARE, IT IS OFTEN THE CASE IN CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION THAT A PRESIDENT WILL CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, OVER 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 PROVIDE A LOG OF DOCK 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, BLANK ELODEA FINES IS WHAT HAS PLACE.

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.

AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE CONGRESSIONAL NEED FOR INFORMATION AND 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 HAS SAID IN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE CLOSEST TO WHAT WE FACE TODAY IN U.S.

VERSUS NIXON.

IN THE CONTEXT OF A GRAND JURY SUBPOENA.

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 COURTS HERE IN D.C. HAS RECOGNIZED THAT CONGRESS' NEED FOR INFORMATION AND FOR DOCUMENTS DURING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS PARTICULARLY COMPELLING.

TURNING TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER, EVERY ARGUMENT THAT EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT 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 GUILIANI.

THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.

AND 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 PICK AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S NOTES, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN PRESIDENTIAL DECISION MEMO SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED TO YOU.

SO YOU CAN SEEK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

>> THANK YOU.

MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.

>> SEPTOR MORAN ASK A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FOR CUP FOR THE PRESIDENT IS, WHAT DID HUNTER BIDEN DO FOR THE MONEY THAT BURR REES MA HOLDINGS PAID HIM?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS.

AS FAR AS WE KNOW HUNTER BIDEN HAS SAID HE, QUOTE, ATTENDED A COUPLE OF BOARD MEETINGS A YEAR, END QUOTE.

HERE IS WHAT WE DO KNOW.

HUNTER BIDEN DID ATTEND ONE BOARD MEETING IN MONACO.

NOW WE ALSO HEARD THAT WHEN THE OWNER OF BEEN RUSS MA FLED THE UKRAINE HE WAS LIVING IN MONACO.

SO HUNTER BIDEN DID ATTEND A BOARD MEETING IN MONACO.

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 THE OWNER, OTHER THAN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE ATTENDED ONE OR TWO BOARD MEETINGS.

FACTUALLY THAT IS WHAT HE SAID AND THE TIMELINE SHOWS THAT AGAIN DEVIN ARCHER WAS ON THE BOARD WITH HIM AND HUNTER VIED ENREMAINED ON THE BOARD BUT FACTUALLY IN THE RECORD THAT IS AS MUCH AS WE KNOW THAT HE DID INVOLVING BURISMA AND VOLTEVSK.

THE NORWAY TRIP WAS 2015, REMAINED ON THE BOARD UNTIL APRIL OF 2019.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT PRIOR TO THEN UKRAINIAN COURT IN 2016 CANCELS THE ARREST ANT.

AND DECEMBER 15th, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLED PRESIDENT POROSHENKO THEN MID JANUARY, 2017, BURISMA ANNOUNCES ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE COMPANY HAVE BEEN CLOSED.

>> DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> A DESK FOR BOTH COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE MANAGERS.

>> THE QUESTION RIDES AS FOLLOWS: THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THE PRESIDENT DEMANDS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, CAN EITHER OF YOU NAME A SINGLE WITNESS OR DOCUMENT FOR 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. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER FOR THE QUESTION.

LET ME TRY TO BE CLEAR AND DISTINGUISH COUPLE OF THINGS.

HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID THERE WAS A BLANKET DEFIANCE, THAT'S THE WAY THEY -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING THAT'S ALL SAID 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 WAS SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATED RESPONSES TO DIFFERENT REQUESTS BASED ON DIFFERENT LEGAL RATIONAL.

BECAUSE THERE WERE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS WITH DIFFERENT SUBPOENAS.

SO ONE PROBLEM IS, ALL THE SUBPOENAS UP UNTIL OCTOBER 3 31st 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 ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY OR ANYTHING ELSE THE FACT THAT THEY WEREN'T VALIDLY AUTHORIZED.

THEY POINTED OUT THAT, A-HA, WE SUBPOENAED I THINK IT WAS THEY MENTIONED ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, AFTER OCTOBER 31st 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, 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 EXPLAINED 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 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, JOHN EISENBERG AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MR. KUPPERMAN, I BELIEVE.

BUT IT'S IN OUR BRIEF.

IT WAS THOUGH THREE WHO HAD IMMUNITY.

A DOCTRINE ASSERTED BY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON.

THEN THERE WAS A DIFFERENT PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE SUBPOENAS.

SOME OF THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO ARE NOT SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ASSERT THAT THEY HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

INSTEAD THOSE SUBPOENAS REVIEWED TO ALLOW THOSE EXECUTIVE BRANCH PERSONNEL TO HAVE EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNSEL ACCOMPANY THEM.

AND THERE WERE -- IT'S BEEN PUBLISHED, IT'S ONLINE, CITED IN OUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO ALLOW EXECUTIVE BRANCH PERSONNEL TO HAVE ASSISTANCE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH COUNSEL TO PROTECT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION DURING THE QUESTIONING.

AND THERE FOR IT'S NOT VALID TO FORCE THEM TO APPEAR WITHOUT THAT -- >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> 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 COMMITTEE SUBPOENAED BEFORE THE HOUSE VOTE HAS STANDING AUTHORITY UNDER THE HOUSE RULE.

AND THEY WERE THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS STANDARD AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE ANY MATTER AT ANY TIME.

AS WELL AS THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE ADOPTED JANUARY 11th 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 MUCH ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS LURKED IN HIDING FOR CENTURIES, FOR PRESIDENTS TO USE IT IN THIS DAY.

WHEN YOU THINK OF THE TWO CASES, THE MEYERS CASE AND McGAHN CASE PUT COMPLETELY REJECTED THE IDEA OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

THERE IS A DECISION RECENTLY MADE IN THE McGAHN CASE.

HERE IS WHAT IT SAYS.

STATED SIMPLY THE PRIMARY TAKE AWAY FROM THE PAST 2350 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY, IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS, THAT'S THE JUDGE'S WORDS NOT MINE, COMPULSORY APPEARANCE, 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 JUDICIARY.

THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED AND JUST WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW AND AS A MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR HOUSE MANAGERS AND FOR PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR CRUZ.

>> THANK YOU.

>> 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 QUID PRO QUO.

ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILLING TO SAY WHETHER THE SO-CALLED WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS A FACT WITNESS WHO DIRECTLY PARTICIPATED IN AND COULD FACE CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITY FOR JOE BIDEN'S DEMANDING FIRE THE PROSECUTE WHO ARE WAS INVESTIGATING BBURISMA AND WHY DID ARE YOU NOT TRANSMIT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TRANSCRIPT.

>> WHICH SIDE IS -- IT'S ADDRESSED TO BOTH SIDES.

HOUSE MANAGERS COULD GO FIRST.

>> WITH RESPECT TO THE ICIG, PRESIDENT AND ALLIES HAVE TRIED TO FIX FOCUS TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, HIGHLY RESPECTED VETERAN OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IS HANDLING OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLIANT.

THERE IS AN EFFORT TO INSINUATE WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND INSINUATE ON BEHALF OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

THE BRIEFINGS THAT WE HAD WITH THE ICID RELATED TO THE UNUSUAL AND PROBLEMATIC HANDLING OF THIS PARTICULAR WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHICH DIVERTS SHARP LAY FROM ANY BLOWER COMPLAINT WITHIN ANYONE IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

INTELLIGENT COMMITTEE IS CONTINUING ITS ONGOING OVERSIGHT TO DETERMINE WHY AND HOW THIS COMPLAINT WAS INITIALLY CONCEALED FROM THE COMMITTEE IN VIOLATION.

LAW.

THE ICIG CONTINUES TO SERVE ADMIRABLY AND INDEPENDENTLY AS IS HE SUPPOSED TO DO.

LIKE THE SENATE IN TELL BEGINS COMMITTEE, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE DOES NOT RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF ITS ENGAGEMENTS WITH INSPECTOR GENERALS ON SENSITIVE MATTERS, BECAUSE DOING SO RINGS UNDERCUTTING AN IMPORTANT MECHANISM FOR THE COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT.

THE TRANSCRIPTS REMAIN PROPERLY CLASSIFIED AND WITH IC REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

THE ICGIG MADE EVERY EFFORT TO PROTECT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S IDENTITY AND BRIEFED US WITH EXPEDITION -- WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC.

WE ARE TRYING TO HONOR THAT EXPECTATION.

WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGATIONS BIAS ON PART OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, LET ME JUST REFER TO YOU 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.

INSPECTOR GENERAL FURTHER FOUND THAT IT WAS WITHHELD FROM CONGRESS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND 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 IS JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLATING THE WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTION ACT AND NOT TRANSMITTING THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE PAGE FIVE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT STATES, ALTHOUGH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S PRELIMINARY REVIEW IDENTIFIED SOME INDICIA OF ARGUABLE POLITICAL BIAS ON THE PART OF THE COMPLAINANT.

THAT IS 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 THE -- WHAT APPEARS TO BE CREDIBLE.

TO ARGUE THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ISSUE OF POLITICAL BIAS, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HIMSELF SETS THAT THAT IS IN FACT AT LEAST THAT THEY SAID THAT PRELIMINARY VIEWS INDICATE SOME POLITICAL BIAS.

NOW 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 PROTECTION?

IT HAS TO BE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> SEND QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR BOTH PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR MANCHIN, THE FRAMERS TOOK THE WORDS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS TO APPLIED TO IMPEACHMENT 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 INVITABLE AS CRIMES.

THE HOUSE HAS REPEATEDLY IMPEACHED AND 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 2 YEARS TO CHANGE THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FRAMERS AND HISTORIC MEANING OF THE TERM, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

COUNSEL ARE -- PRESIDENT'S TURN.

>> 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 HAPPENED.

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 WHETHER A CRIME WAS REQUIRED.

ACTUALLY TWO YEARS EARLIER IN A BOOK, THEN AN OP ED I CONCLUDED NOT -- 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 REQUIRE.

I STAND BY THAT VIEW.

THE FRAMERS REJECTED MALADMINISTRATION, THAT WAS A PRIME CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT UNDER BRITISH LAW.

REMEMBER, TOO, BRITISH NEVER IMPEACHED PRIME MINISTERS, ONLY MIDDLE LEVEL AND LOW LEVEL PEOPLE.

SO THE FRAMERS DIDN'T WANT TO ADOPT THE BRITISH APPROACH.

THEY REJECTED IT BY REJECTING MALADMINISTRATION, WHAT IS METAPHOR OR WHAT SYNONYM, ABUSE OF POWER.

WHEN THEY REJECTED MAL MALADMINISTRATION.

MR.

CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF ASKED RHETORICAL QUESTION, CAN A PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN ABUSE OF POWER WITH IMPUNITY.

IN MY TRADITION WE ANSWER QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS I WOULD THROW THE QUESTION BACK.

CAN THE PRESIDENT ENGAGE IN MALLADMINISTRATION WITH IMPUNITY, THAT IS A QUESTION YOU MIGHT HAVE ASKED JAMES MADISON HAD YOU BEEN AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

HE WOULD SAY, NO, A PRESIDENT CAN'T ENGAGE WITH IMPUNITY, BUT NOT AN IMPEACHABLE CRIME.

ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT IMPEACHABLE.

THE MESH U 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 UNEQUIVOCABLY NO.

IF THAT HAD BEEN PUT TO THE FRAMERS THEY WOULD HAVE REJECTED IT WITH THE SAME CERTAINTY THAT THEY REJECTED MALADMINISTERING.

>> THANK YOU.

>> -- THE FIRST OF THE DASH TREE ON OR BRIBERY THAT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WASN'T INCLUSIVE ENOUGH.

SOMEBODY PROPOSED MALADMINISTRATION, FOUND TOO VAGUE SO THEY SAID, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS THAT WAS A WELL UNDERSTOOD TERM IN ENGLISH LAW, WELL UNDERSTOOD TERM IN THE WARREN HASTINGS GOING ON IN ENGLAND.

IT MEANT ABUSE OF POWER, THAT IS THE MAIN MEANING OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THOSE WHO BEHAVE BETRAY THEIR PUBLIC TRUST, BUT I QUOTED JUSTICE 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 WAS NOT MADE A CRIME UNTIL 1837.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THAT CRIMES AND IMPEACHMENT ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

IMPEACHMENTS ARE NOT PUNISHMENTS FOR CRIMES.

IMPEACHMENT ARE PROTECTIONS OF THE REPUBLIC AGAINST THE PRESIDENT WHO ABUSED HIS POWER, WHO WOULD THREATEN LIBERTY, WHO WOULD THREATEN SEPARATION OF POWER, WOULD THREATEN THE POWERS OF THE CONGRESS.

THAT IS WHY PUNISHMENT UPON CONVICTION FROM IMPEACHMENT ONLY GOES TO REMOVAL OF OFFICE.

CAPTAIN PUT HIM IN JAIL AS YOU COULD FOR A CRIME.

CAN'T FINE HIM, AS YOU COULD FOR A CRIME.

YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

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.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT.

>> SENATOR BURR ASK, WE HAVE SEEN THEM PLAY ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY'S PRESS CONFERENCE WHICH THEY CLAIM HE SAID THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS' ALLEGATION THAT MR. MULVANEY SUPPORTED HIRE CLAIMS IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

SENATOR THANKS 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, STATEMENTS IN HIS MANUSCRIPT.

I THINK EASIEST THING TO JUST TO READ THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE SAID AND TO PUT IT INTO CONTEXT FOR EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBER.

THIS IS FROM -- THE DAY OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE.

ONCE AGAIN, THE MEDIA HAS DECIDED TO MISCONSTRUE MY COMMENTS TO ADD VANS BIASED AND POLITICAL WITCH HUNT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

LET ME BE CLEAR, THERE WAS ABSOLUTE 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 WHY I TOOK OVER 25 QUESTIONS, I REFERRED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTEREST IN ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND ENSURING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE SENT 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 UKRAINIANS REGARDING THE SERVER.

THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONDITION ON THE FLOW OF THE AID RELATED TO THE MATTER OF THE DNC SERVER.

THEN ON JANUARY 27th, WHICH WAS MONDAY, THERE WAS A STATEMENT FROM BOB DRISCOLL WHO IS MR. MULVANEY'S ATTORNEY.

NOW, I'LL 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 UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION OF BEER RUSE MA, THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTION FURTHERMORE, MR. MULVANEY HAS NO RECOLLECTION OF ANY CONVERSATION WITH MR. GUILIANI RESEMBLEING THAT IS DESCRIBED AS MR. MULVANEY'S PRACTICE TO EXCUSE HIMSELF BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PERSONAL COUNSEL TO PRESERVE ANY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

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 HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR.

THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> QUESTION TO BOTH PARTIES, 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 IN ANY MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> 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 10th MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

THERE WERE TWO MEETINGS THAT DAY.

THERE WAS A MEETING THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS PRESENT FOR THEN THERE WAS A FOLLOW-ON MEETING AFTER AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABRUPTLY ENDED THE FIRST MEETING.

IN THE FIRST MEETING, UKRAINIAN NATIONALLY WANTED TO RAISE THE 20 I CAN OF GETTING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SO DESPERATELY WANTED.

AND AFTER RAISING THE ISSUE AT SOME POINT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, NO, NO WE'VE GOT A DEAL.

THEY WILL GET THE MEETING ONE THEY ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION.

THAT IS THE POINT WHERE AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFENED.

YOU CAN LOOK UP DR. HILL'S EXACT WORDS I'M PARAPHRASING HERE, BUT THIS IS A POINT WHERE HE STIFFENS AND END THE MEETING.

HILL THEN GOES -- FOLLOWS SONDLAND HAND DELEGATIONINTO ANOTHER PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE THE MEETING CONTINUES BETWEEN THE AMERICAN DELEGATION AND THE UKRAINIAN DELEGATION.

THERE IS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT 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.

NOW WE KNOW OF COURSE FROM OTHER DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY ABOUT THE QUID PRO QUO, ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

AND ALL THE EFFORTS BY GUILIANI 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?

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 THAT HE THOUGHT THAT INVOLVED NOT JUST THE MEETING BUT THE MILITARY AID.

ONE WAY TO FIND OUT.

I WOULD ASK THIS IN TERMS OF MR. MULVANEY, MAYBE I'LL ADD IT LATER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS TWO AND A HALF MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR THE 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 JULY 10th MEETING AT THE WHITE 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, BOLTON SAID SOMETHING TO HER ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE MEETING WHETHER HE WASN'T THERE BUT SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT IT CALLING IT A DRUG DEAL.

AND WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ABOUT.

IT'S A HEARSAY REPORT OF SOMETHING HE SAID ABOUT A MEETING THAT HE WASN'T IN CHARACTERIZING IT SOME WAY.

I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MYSELF ALSO FOR SENATOR PORTMAN AND SENATOR BOOZMAN.

I'M SENDING IT TO THE DESK.

>> THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATORS IS AS FOLLOWS: IN 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. CHIEF JUSTICE.

THANKS SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION.

VERY SHORT ANSWER IS, NO.

BUT I'LL EXPLAIN.

I THINK THAT'S CLEAR.

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 SCHEDULED IN WARSAW PRECISELY AS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD SUGGESTED.

AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY INVESTIGATION UNDERTAKEN REGARDING THE BIDENS, BURISMA, THE 2016 ELECTION, NO STATEMENTS MADE, NO INVESTIGATIONS ANNOUNCED BY UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO RUSSIA DISSEMINATING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S AS OR RUDOLPH GUILIANI CONSPIRACY THEORIES, SHOULD THE SENATE HAVE THIS INFORMATION BEFORE WE DELIBERATE ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> 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.

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 TO YOU READ THAT SUBMISSION.

THERE WAS 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'RE DISCUSSING AND PERTINENT.

THERE'S 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 NSA HAS BEEN ADVISED NOT TO PROVIDE IT.

NOW, THE DIRECTOR SAYS THAT THIS IS THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION BUT NONETHELESS THERE IS BODY OF INTELLIGENCE THAT IS RELEVANT TO REQUEST THAT WE HAVE MADE THAT IS NOT BEING PROVIDED.

AND THAT RAISES A VERY DIFFERENT CONCERN THAN THE ONE BEFORE THIS BODY, THAT IS ARE NOW OTHER AGENCIES LIKE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT WE REQUIRE TO SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER, THAT WE REQUIRE TO PROVIDE US THE BEST INTELLIGENCE NOW ALSO WITHHOLD WITHHOLDING INFORMATION AT THE URGING OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

AND THAT IS I THINK DEEPLY CONCERNING AND NEW PHENOMENON, THAT PROBLEM WE HAVE HAD WITH OTHER D. THAT HAVE BEEN HEART OF THE -- PART OF THE WHOLESALE, BUT NOW REARING ITS UGLY HEAD.

BUT THE SHORTER ANSWER ON APART FROM JENNIFER WILLIAMS ARE THERE OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS, THE ANSWER IS, YES.

AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT YOU AND WE WORK TOGETHER TO FIND OUT HOW YOU MIGHT ACCESS THEM.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR.

MAJORITY LEADER.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, THE NEXT TWO QUESTIONS, ONE FROM EACH SIDE WILL BE THE LAST BEFORE WE BREAK FOR DINNER.

I WOULD ASK FOLLOWING NEXT TWO QUESTIONS THE SENATE STAND IN RECESS FOR 45 MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

HOW DOES THE NONCRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER STANDARD ADVANCE BY HOUSE MANAGERS DIFFER FROM MALADMINISTRATION, AN IMPEACHMENT STANDARD REJECTED BY THE FRAMERS.

WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN SUCH AN ABUSE OF POWER AND POLICY DISAGREEMENT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THAT QUESTION I THINK HITS THE KEY TO THE ISSUE THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.

WHEN THE FRAMERS REJECTED MALLADMINISTRATION WERE RECALLED THAT IT WAS INTRODUCED BY MASON, REJECTED BY MADISON ON THE GROUND 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 WOULD -- JUST TOO VAGUE AND TOO GENERAL.

NOW WHAT IS MALADMINISTRATION?

IF YOU LOOK IT UP IN THE DICTIONARY YOU LOOK OF SYNONYMS THEY INCLUDE, ABUSE, CORRUPTION, DISHONEST TEE, MISUSE OF OFFICE AND HIS BEHAVIOR.

EVEN A HARVARD PROFESSOR WHO WAS IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO THIS IS AN ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST BY HIM.

HE'S IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT.

HE SAYS ABUSE OF POWER IS THE SAME AS MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.

AND 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, IN THE 19th CENTURY, WHICH IS MUCH CLOSER IN TIME TO WHEN THE FRAMERS WROTE, DEAN WHITE OF THE COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL WROTE THAT THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY BY WHICH HE MEANT THE WEIGHT OF SCHOLARLY AUTHORITY AND WEIGHT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, 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 19th CENTURY AND 20th CENTURY THAT CHANGED 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 HAD 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, 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 DECISION, 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 THE MANAGER MADE A FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AGAIN, SHE GAVE REASONS WHY 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 FRAMERS HAD TO TRIKE A BALANCE, HERE ARE THE REASONS WE NEED IMPEACHMENT, QUESTION.

NOW, HERE ARE THE REASONS WE FEAR GIVING CONGRESS TOO MUCH POWER.

SO WE STRIKE A BALANCE.

HOW DID THEY STRIKE IT?

TREASON, A SERIOUS TIME.

BRIBERYA SRIOUS CRIME.

OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAIN THE TREASON AND BRIBERY.

THAT'S WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED 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 EVERYONE OF THEM BE IMPEACHED.

SHOULD EVERYONE 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 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 BOOSUM.

EVERY SENATOR SHOULD DECIDE WHETHER YOU NEED PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OR PROOF BY A PREPONDERANCE, NOW WE HEAR THAT EVERY SEN -- >> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. PRESIDENT.

>> SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A QUESTION ON BEHALF OF SENATOR MARKEY AND MYSELF TO SEND TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS: SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BYRON WHITE IN CONCURRING OPINION IN NIXON VERSUS 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 DIGS CORRECTION, END QUOTE, IF IT WERE TO, QUOTE, INSIST ON 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 FIRST LAND KNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS AND INTENTIONS, WOULD A REASONABLE JUDGE CONCLUDE THESE PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTE A CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR TRIAL.

>> I THINK THE ANSWER IS, YES.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO LOOK TO THE WORDS 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, IS TOLD THOU SHALL NOT CALL WITNESSES.

THAT'S NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT WITHOUT READING THE CASE LAW.

THEY GO TO 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 THEIR'S THEN BEGINS THE CALLING OF WITNESSES.

I DO WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT WHILE THEY'RE FRESH.

YOU CAN SAY A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT ALAN DERSHOWITZ YOU CANNOT SAY HE'S UNPREPARED.

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 OF CONFINE 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 POLICY DIFFERENCE, YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

THAT IS 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.

AM THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSORS, LET'S SAY A SNIP FROM PROFESSOR TURLEY WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE DEFENDING THE PRESIDENCY WHAT HE HAD TO SAY RECENTLY.

>> ABUSE OF POWER IN MY VIEW IS CLEAR, YOU CAN IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER,ISM PEACH A PRESIDENT FOR NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT.

>> OKAY, NOW, WE CAN'T ARGUE PLAUSIBLY THAT HIS POSITION IS OWING TO SOME POLITICAL BIAS.

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.

HE DID SAY, IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY PROVE THESE THINGS I COULD PROVE AS INDEED WE HAVE THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BY CONDITIONING MILITARY AID TO HELP HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN, YES, THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER, YOU CAN'T ABUSE -- 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 AS SAYING 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 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 BEYOND THE REACH OF CONGRESS THROUGH IMPEACHMENT.

WOULD HAVE TERRIFIED THE FOUNDERS.

YOU CAN IMAGINE ANY NUMBER OF ABUSES OF POWER A PRESIDENT WHO WITH HOLDS 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 CRIME IS NOT NECESSARY.

BUT SOMETHING AKIN TO A CRIME.

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 THAT IT'S NOT AKIN TO BRIBERY.

IT IS BRIBERY.

BUT IT'S CERTAINLY AKIN TO BRIBERY.

BUT THAT'S THE IMPORT OF WHAT THEY WOULD ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, ARTICLE 2 HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS.

HE CAN ABUSE HIS OFFICE AND DO SO SACRIFICE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY UNDERMINING INTEGRITY AND NOTHING CONGRESS CAN DO ABOUT IT.

>> MR.

MANAGER.

WE'RE IN RECESS.

>> NOW YESTERDAY AS YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ENDED THEIR DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT UP UNTIL THE VERY END MR. SEKULOW KEPT MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT LACKED EYE WITNESSES.

KNOWING FULL WELL THAT HIS CLIENT, PRESIDENT, WAS BLOCKING THE VERY EYE WITNESSES HE SAID THE TRIAL LACKED.

KNOWING FULL WELL HE KNEW FULL WELL THAT ONE OF THE EYE WITNESSES, JOHN BOLTON, WROTE THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM HE WANTED A CONTINUE THE DELAY IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE UNTIL ANNOUNCED POLITICAL INVESTIGATION THAT HE WAS SEEKING.

PRECISELY THE CONDUCT CHARGED.

IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

MR. SEKULOW HAD THE TEMERITY TO STAND ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND SAY, YOU MUST ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THERE ARE NO EYE WITNESSES TO THE CONDUCT ALLEGED BY THE HOUSE AND ALSO THAT SENATORS MUST NOT CALL EYE WITNESSES WHO COULD CONFIRM IT.

OF COURSE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS AN EYEWITNESS.

MR. MULVANEY ADMITTED THE PRESIDENT HELD UP THE AID AT A PRESS CONFERENCE.

NONETHELESS, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAID, YOU MUST HAVE ADDITIONAL EYE WITNESSES BUT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM.

MR. SEKULOW'S VIEW OF THE TRIAL IS DOWN RIGHT CHAPTER-ESQUE.

OKAY, I THINK -- IT'S A NOVEL.

IT'S A SHORT NOVEL.

NOT A LONG STORY.

NOW, FRANKLY, HYPOCRISY OF MR. SEKULOW'S ARGUMENT WAS NOT LOST.

I'M SURE EVEN REPUBLICANS SORT OF ADD UNDERSTAND UP, THE HYPOCRISY.

IF ANYTHING, SEKULOW'S ARGUMENT MADE THE CASE FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS EVEN STRONGER.

SO INADVERTENTLY HE HELPED.

I REMAIN HOPEFUL THAT FOUR REPUBLICAN SENATORS WILL SUPPORT US IN SUPPORTING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL.

IT'S AN UPHILL FIGHT AS I'VE ALWAYS SAID, BUT THE PUBLIC IS ON OUR SIDE AND TRUTH ABOVE ALL IS ON OUR SIDE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE STILL IN THE FIGHT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE STILL IN THE BALLPARK.

NOW I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THREE LINES OF PUSHBACK THAT THEY'RE USING TREMENDOUS PRESSURE, IS USING ON REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO TRY TO GET THEM TO AVOID THE CRUCIAL FRIDAY VOTE ON WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

THE FIRST IS, WELL, IT WILL TAKE TOO LONG.

THERE'S THAT ONE, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE USING, NUMBER ONE IN THEIR OWN CAUCUS.

THIS DEBATE OVER WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS BEGAN A WEEK AGO WITH REPUBLICANS SAYING, WE'RE NOT AGAINST NEW EVIDENCE, WE JUST WANT TO CONSIDER IT LATER.

NOW THAT THE LATER IS ABOUT TO ARRIVE, THE ARGUMENT HAS BECOMEF WE VOTE FOR WITNESSES THE TRIAL WILL DRAG ON TOO LONG.

I PREDICTED THIS.

WE SAID YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS, A WEEK AND A HALF AGO, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, LEGALS WAIT AND THEN WHEN WE WAIT THEY'RE GO NOTHING SAY IT TOOK TOO LONG WE SHOULDN'T HAVE WAITED.

AGAIN, JUST DOUBLE TALK TO AVOID THE TRUTH.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING, THEY'RE TYING THEMSELVES IN ALL KINDS OF PRETZEL KNOTS TO AVOID THE TRUTH THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THE TRUTH.

SO, AS I SAID WEEKS AGO I SAID, DEMOCRATS WANT AN AGREEMENT ON WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS UP FRONT BECAUSE IF REPUBLICANS PUNTED THE DECISION UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL THEY WOULD CLAIM IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG AND DEMOCRATS WERE TRYING TO DRAG IT OUT AND LO AND BEHOLD THAT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENED.

BUT THE REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT IS WRONG, IT WON'T TAKE TOO LONG.

IF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES VOTE WITH US TO SUBPOENA RELEVANT WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THERE'S NO REASON FOR PRO TRACKED TRIAL.

THE FOUR SETS OF DOCUMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED.

THEY'RE SITTING IN BOXES AT THE WHITE HOUSE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, OMB AND THE PENTAGON, THEY ARE OURS FOR THE ASKING.

MR. BOLTON HAS ALREADY SAID HE WOULD TESTIFY.

THERE'S NO REASON FOR DELAY IF THE SENATE SUMMONS BOLTON, MULVANEY, BLAIR AND DUFFEY IN THE CLINTON TRIAL THE THREE WITNESSES WERE DEPOSED -- WERE EACH DEPOSED IN ONE DAY.

IF THE U.S. SENATE ISSUES A BIPARTISAN SUBPOENA SIGNED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, ANY LAWYER WOULD SIDES THEIR CLIENT TO COMPLY.

IF SOMEONE LIKE MR. MULVANEY STILL REFUSED, WE'D MAKE A MOTION ASKING THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO ORDER MULVANEY TO COMPLY.

WE COULD SETTLE ANY AND ALL POTENTIAL CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE RIGHT ON THE SENATE FLOOR.

SO, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LENGTHY DELAY HERE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DILATORY IN ANY WAY.

WE HAVE ONLY ASKED FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE.

IT COULD BE REVIEWED EXPEDITIOUS EXPEDITIOUSLY.

FOUR WITNESSES, FOUR SETS OF DOCUMENTS, THE MEN WHO WERE IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED.

NO MORE, NO LESS.

THAT'S REASONABLE.

THAT'S WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SO STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

EVERY DAY THE NUMBER GETS HIGHER, THERE'S ANOTHER NUMBER THAT I SAW ON TV TODAY, 75%.

MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ONLY HAVE TO -- ONLY HAVE TO ANSWER IS THIS, THE QUESTION MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE TO ANSWER.

IS PRESIDENT TRUMP SO INSISTENT ON IMMEDIATE ACQUITTAL THAT THE SENATE TRIAL CANNOT TAKE ONE SECOND LONGER TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL.

NOW THE SECOND LINE THAT'S COMING NOW FROM SENATE REPUBLICANS IS, THERE'S NO REASON TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES BECAUSE EVEN IF THEY PROVE THE PRESIDENT DID WHAT HE WAS ACCUSED OF, IT WOULD NOT BE IMPEACHABLE AS IT'S NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

MENT DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT.

BUT THE TRUTH IS, THE ARGUMENT MADE BY MR. DERSHOWITZ COMPLETELY PHONY.

JUST ABOUT EVERY LEGAL EXPERT DISAGREES WITH HIM COMPLETELY.

IT'S BEEN WIDELY DISCREDITED EVEN BY THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS IN THE HOUSE TRIAL, MR. TURLEY, THE CRIMINAL CODE WAS NOT WRITTEN TO BE THE ONLY CHECK ON PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.

NO CITIZEN CAN ORDER THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE THEIR NEIGHBOR OR ASK A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

ONLY THE PRESIDENT CAN EXERCISE THESE POWERS.

IF PEOPLE CAN'T HOLD A PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR ABUSES ONLY HE CAN COMMIT, THEN THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IS MEANINGLESS.

BEAR IN MIND THAT FOLKS LIKE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT DID COMMIT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

BY THIS LINE OF THINKING, IF THE PRESIDENT CAN'T BE INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT, CAN'T BE IMPEACH FOR NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT, THAT WOULD SURELY PUT THE PRESIDENT ABOVE THE LAW.

AND WE WOULD CEASE BEING A DEMOCRACY.

AND WANTED TO GIVE THE CONGRESS A POWER TO STOP IT.

THERE IS SO MANY EXAMPLES YOU CAN THINK OF THEN AND SO MANY EXAMPLES NOW.

THAT'S THE CLEAR FACT, THAT IS THE CLEAR EVIDENCE, MR. DERSHOWITZ IS AN OUTLIER.

A TOTAL OUTLIER.

I MEAN, OUTLIER.

FINALLY, THE THIRD ARGUMENT WE HEAR FROM REPUBLICANS AGAINST WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS GOES LIKE THIS.

THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ACQUITTED NO MATTER WHAT.

WE KNOW THE RESULTS, NOTHING COULD CHANGE OUR MINDS, WHY EVEN BOTHER WITH A FAIR TRIAL.

TALK ABOUT BEING POLITICAL.

TALK ABOUT BEING CYNICAL.

I UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURE MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE FOUND WRAP THIS UP AS FAST AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDS IT.

BUT WE, THE SENATE, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SEEK THE TRUTH, A FAIR TRIAL MATTERS WHATEVER THE OUTCOME.

SENATOR MURRAY.

>> THANK YOU.

I HAVE A FRONT ROW SEAT SO TO SPEAK, I'M RIGHT ON THE FLOOR BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

I HAVE SAT IN MY SEAT UNLIKE OTHER MEMBERS, THIS WHOLE PERIOD OF TIME.

I'VE LISTENED INTENTLY.

I USE THE SKILLS THAT I HAD WHEN I WAS AN ATTORNEY.

28 YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN IN COMING GUESS AND ASKING QUESTIONS AT HEARINGS.

AND I'VE LISTENED CAREFULLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM.

AND THE ONE THING I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM IS A DEFENSE OF THE FACTS, OF THE FACTS.

WHAT I HAVEN'T HEARD IS WHY THE PRESIDENT GREEN LIGHTED AID TO UKRAINE 45 TIMES BETWEEN JANUARY OF 2017 AND JUNE OF 2019 TO THE TUNE OF $1.5 BILLION.

AND AS THE RANKING MEMBER ON THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE THERE HAVE TO BE CERTIFICATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT SAYS THAT UKRAINE IS MEETING ITS RESPONSIBILITIES AND GOALS AS IT RELATES TO DEALING WITH ITS FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION.

45 TIMES, 1 $1.5 BILLION BETWEEN JANUARY OF 2017 AND JUNE OF 2019 THAT MONEY FLOWED, THOSE CERTIFICATIONS WERE MADE.

NOW THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE ESIDENT'S TEAM WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT SUDDENLY HAD AN INTEREST IN CORRUPTION, THE ISSUES WHICH THEY RAISE, BURISMA AND BIDEN, PRECEDED THE $1.5 BILLION, PRECEDED IT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S HARD TO LOOK AT THE FACTS, FACTS ARE PRETTY STUBBORN, IT'S HARD TO LOOK AT THE FACTS AND RECONCILE IT WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.

OR WHAT I HAVEN'T HEARD HIS OWN NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS THOUGHT THAT WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS JUST FINE, NO.

OR THAT HE WASN'T SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS OWN BENEFITS.

SO WHEN WE START THE QUESTIONING PERIOD TODAY, I WANT TO HEAR FACTS NOT SPIN.

I'VE BEEN IN ENOUGH TRIALS TO UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT DO YOU IS YOU HAVE A FLASH OVER HERE SO YOU'RE KNOTTED LOOKING WHAT THE OTHER HAND IS DOING OVER HERE.

AND THAT LARGELY WHAT I HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM TO.

CREATE FLASHES OVER HERE SO YOU WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT THE ESSENCE, THE CORE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS' CASE WHICH IS RATHER COMPELLING.

I WANT TO HEAR THIS ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT GENERALLY CARED ABOUT ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION.

I WANT TO -- SHOW ME THE FACTS.

CONFLICT AGAINST WHAT I JUST TOLD YOU ABOUT THE 45 TIMES AND $1.5 BILLION.

THAT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY.

AND THROUGH ALL THE HEARINGS WE'VE EVER HAD ON UKRAINE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT I NEVER HEARD THAT WAS OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND LASTLY TWO, LAST POINTS, YOU KNOW, IT IS AMAZING THAT YOU HAVE A WITNESS WHO PROVIDES ESSENTIAL INFORMATION TO THE CORE OF ARTICLE 1, ABUSE OF POWER, WHAT SAYS, I AM WILLING TO COME FORWARD AND WHO ULTIMATELY WE WOULD HAVE OUR COLLEAGUES NOT CALL FOR THEM TO -- THAT PERSON IS COME FORWARD.

NOW I'VE HEARD MY COLLEAGUES SEVERAL OF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE WITNESSES.

SOMETIMES IN THIS INSTITUTION YOU DON'T GET WHAT YOU LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN, HAPPEN.

THEY CAN'T CAN BY SIMPLY CASTING A VOTE FOR WITNESSES.

THAT WOULD BE A HONEST AND FAIR, TRANSPARENT TRIAL.

THEY CAN MAKE JOHN BOLTON AND MULVANEY, A SMALL UNIVERSE BY THE WAY, THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR THAT WE BELIEVE ARE CRITICAL AT THE END OF THE DAY.

THEY CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

THEN THE RESULTS OF THE TRIAL WILL BE FAIR, HONEST AND TRANSPARENT.

LASTLY AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN AN ARDENT BELIEVER IN THE CHECK AND BALANCES, SEPARATE CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

HAVE DONE IT WITH MY OWN PARTY.

IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN DEN I'LL ALL WITNESSES, ALL DOCUMENTS AS I CONSISTENTLY SEE OUTSIDE OF IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT PERSONIFY WHAT'S THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE.

IF THEY CAN DRIVE TO HAVE NO ABILITY FOR CONGRESS TO DO OVER SIGHT, NO DOCUMENTS FOR CONGRESS TO DO OVERSIGHT.

THIS ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THEY CAN GO TO WAR WITHOUT APPROVAL OF CONGRESS.

THEN TO TRANSFER MONEY FROM DEFENSE TO A WALL.

NOW, GUESS WHAT THE ESSENCE OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

THE ESSENCE OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THEY'RE EVISCERATED, THEY'RE GONE.

OUR GOVERNMENT HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED.

TO ME ARTICLE TWO IS AS COMPELLING AT ARTICLE ONE.

FINALLY ONLY AMERICANS, ONLY AMERICANS SHOULD DECIDE AMERICAN ELECTIONS.

WHEN YOU HAVE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT EITHER BECAUSE THEY WANT TO OR YOUY I ELICIT THEM, GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTIONS.

WHEN PUTIN DECIDES TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTIONS HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT AMERICA.

HE CARES ABOUT HIS BUSINESS IN RUSSIA.

WHEN UKRAINE UNWILLING GET INVOLVED IT'S NOT ABOUT DOING WHAT IT IS RIGHT, IT'S ABOUT TAKING CARE OF THEIR NEEDS.

WHEN A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTERFERES IN OUR ELECTIONS IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU, AMERICA, IT'S ABOUT THEM.

ONLY AMERICANS SHOULD DECIDE AMERICAN ELECTIONS.

(SPEAKING SPANISH) >> WELL, THANK YOU.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE A MINUTE AND STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THE PIVOTAL MOMENT WE'RE NOW IN.

HOUSE MANAGERS PROVIDED AN IRONCLAD CASE.

IT WAS THOROUGH, DRIVEN BY THE FACTS, AND IT WAS VERY COMPELLING.

IT PAINTED A CHILLING PICTURE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DEEPLY FEARED.

A PRESIDENT COMMANDING TAX PAYER DOLLARS TO BE HELD FROM A CRITICAL ALLY UNTIL HE PERSUADE THAT ALLY TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION TO BENEFIT HIS CAMPAIGN.

PUTTING HIS INTERESTS AHEAD OF AMERICA'S IT'S.

THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO PAINT A DIFFERENT PICTURE.

INSTEAD THEY OFFERED A DEBUNK CONSPIRACY THEORY.

COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PROCESS, THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO ENGAGE IN, AND IRRELEVANT LECTURES.

IN SHORT THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE ONLY MADE IT HARDER TO SEE HOW THIS PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS COULD BE DEFENDED AT ALL.

MEANWHILE MORE INFORMATION CONTINUED TO COME OUT FURTHER IMPLICATING THE PRESIDENT AND MAKING IT ALL THE MORE URGENT WE HEAR NOT JUST FROM JOHN BOLTON BUT OTHER KEY ADVISORS FROM THE PRESIDENT INVOLVED IN HIS ACTIONS IN UKRAINE, CONGRESS BE ABLE TO REVIEW KEY MATERIALS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S OWN AIDES PREPARED.

WE ALL SAT IN THE SAME ROOM.

IN A FEW DAYS WE WILL VOTE WHETHER THE SENATE WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK THE PROOF OR HELP THE PRESIDENT HIDE IT.

WE WILL VOTE WHETHER THE SENATE WILL HAVE A TRIAL CREDITING KEY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

THE TRIAL AMERICANS WANT AND DESERVE OR WHETHER WE WILL HAVE A COVER UP.

FOR THOSE ON THE FENCE, IT'S A QUESTION NOT IF MORE INFORMATION INFORMATION COMES OUT ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS.

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS.

WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO GET CLOSER TO THE TRUTH REGARDLESS WHAT IT IS.

AS SENATORS WE LIKE TO KNOW AS MUCH AS WE CAN BEFORE WE CAST A VOTE.

I DON'T SEE WHY THIS IS DIFFERENT.

ESPECIALLY WITH THIS BEING SO CRITICAL TO OUR NATION'S SECURITY, OUR AUTONOMY, AND OUR FUTURE.

>> THANK YOU SENATOR MURRAY.

SENATOR KAINE.

>> BEFORE THERE IS A VOTE ON CONVICTION OR AN ACQUIT AL THERE WILL BE A VOTE ON A TRIAL OR A SHAM.

THAT'S WHAT FRIDAY'S VOTE WILL BE LIKELY.

IS THIS A TRIAL OR A SHAM?

FOR 17 YEARS BEFORE I WAS IN STATE POLITICS I TRIED CASES.

I TRIED FROM THE TRAFFIC DIVISION IN RICHMOND, I HAD CASES IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND BETWEEN.

I HAD TRIAL THAT'S LASTED AN HOUR, I HAD TRIALS THAT LASTED WEEKS.

NEVER ONCE DID I NOT HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTS, NOT ONCE.

WHAT I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES WILL DO IS ACCORD THIS TRIAL ON A SUBJECT SO IMPORTANT THE SAME LEVEL OF GRAVITY AS THE TRAFFIC DIVISION OF THE RICHMOND COURT.

IT'S NOT JUST LAWYERS THAT KNOW THIS.

AMERICANS ARE OFTEN IN COURT.

AMERICANS WATCH "LAW & ORDER," "A FEW GOOD MEN," "JUDGE JUDY."

IF YOU DON'T ALLOW DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES IT'S NOT A TRIAL.

IT'S A IMPORTANT VOTE IS.

IT A TRIAL OR A SHAM.

WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE TO THE COUNTRY IF OUR COLLEAGUES VOTE IT SHOULD BE A SHAM?

OBVIOUSLY FIRST BY NOT HOLDING THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABILITY, YOU'RE GIVING THE GREEN LIGHT TO THE PRESIDENT TO DO WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS.

IN THIS CASE THE EVIDENCE IS THE PRESIDENT SO WANTED TO HIDE THE UKRAINE -- FROM CONGRESS, THEY PUT IT IN A SECRET SERVER AND VIOLATED THE WHISTLE BLOWER ACT BY NOT TIMELY SENDING TO EVIDENCE THE EVIDENCE OF THE WHISTLE BLOWER.

THEY WANTED TO HIDE IT.

THE FIRST CONSEQUENCE OF A SHAM VOTE WOULD BE TO SAY THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT WANTS.

THE SECOND CONSEQUENCE IS NOT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.

IT'S ABOUT THE SENATE.

IT'S ABOUT, IT WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC YOU CAN'T TRUST THE SENATE.

THEY SAY THEY WOULD DELIVER IMPARTIAL JUDGMENT AND THEY DIDN'T.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY WHO HAVE QUESTIONS WHETHER OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM DELIVERS IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

YOU SEE DEEP ANXIETY ABOUT THAT ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

DOES OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM DELIVER IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.

IS IT CAPABLE OF DELIVERING IMPARTIAL JUSTICE OR ARE THERE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS.

IS THERE A SYSTEM FOR LIKE REGULAR EVERY DAY FOLKS, IS THERE A DIFFERENT SYSTEM FOR RICH AND POWERFUL FOLKS?

A HOT OF PEOPLE HAVE DEEP DEEP CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.

IF THEY WATCH A TRIAL IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE PRESIDED OVER BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, A TRIAL REGARDING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY.

THEY COME TO BELIEVE OH, THERE IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR RICH AND POWERFUL PERSON.

A RICH AND POWERFUL PERSON GETS TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE AND WIT NECESSARY.

ARE NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR FACTS.

IT WILL CONFIRM IN MANY PEOPLE THE DEEP ANXIETY THEY HAVE ABOUT OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.

LET'S STAND FOR THE PROPOSITIONS WE CAN STILL DO JUST TPHEUS THIS COUNTRY.

LET'S REJECT AN EFFORT TO TURN THIS SIGH LET PROCEEDING INTO A SHAM.

>> THANK YOU FROM MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR ELOQUENT STATEMENTS.

>> LOOK OUR GOAL.

WE WANT WITNESSES, DOCUMENTS IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENS TO QUOTE THE HAMILTON PLAY AND BOLTON'S BOOK.

THE FOUR WITNESSES WE HAVE SUGGESTED ARE EYE WITNESS TO WHAT HAPPENED.

THE DOCUMENTS ARE EYE WITNESS.

HUNTER BIDEN IS IRRELEVANT AND A DISTRACTION.

IT'S NOT UP TO US.

THE REPUBLICANS COULD CALL HUNTER BIDEN TODAY.

THEY HAVE THE VOTES.

THEY DON'T WANT TO.

THEY KNOW IT WOULD TURN THINGS INTO A CIRCUS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD HAVE THE VOTES IN THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS FOR IT IT'S A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE PRESIDENT.

HERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE ARGUED THE PRESIDENT WAS WILLING TO RISK OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE SANK TEE SANCITY OF OUR ELECTIONS TO GO AFTER JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON.

NOW THEY SAY WE WANT TO RISK THE TRIAL IN THE SENATE TO GO AFTER JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON.

IT'S A DISTRACTION AND RUN AGO WAY FROM THE TRUTH.

IT'S UP TO THE REPUBLICANS TO DO IT, WE'RE NOT FOR IT.

YES.

>> IS WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FOUR WITNESSES WE HAVE ASKED FOR.

THOSE WERE THE ONES IN THE ROOM WHEN IT HANDS.

PARNIS WASN'T IN THE ROOM WHEN IT HAPPENED.

HIS LAWYER CALLED US UP AND ASKED FOR TICKETS LIKE MANY NEW YORK CONSTITUENTS.

YOU CAN GET TICKETS WE HAVE GIVEN THEM OUT TO NEW YORKERS THAT SK-FPLT I'M NOT SURE PARNIS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN BECAUSE OF THE ELECTRONICS AROUND HIS ANKLE.

>> LOOK THAT WAS A CON CONTRIVANCE OF MITCH MCCONNELL AND COLLEAGUES.

WE WANTED WITNESS IMMEDIATELY.

THAT WOULD OF MOVED THINGS ALONG QUICKLY.

THEY HAD THIS KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD THEORY.

IF WE GET FOUR VOTES WE THEN HAVE TO DECIDE.

WE WILL HAVE VOTES ON WHICH WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS ARE DECIDED.

THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE BY MAJORITY VOTE.

THE FIRST IS TO GET FOUR VOTES TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

WE'RE WORKING AS HARD AS WE CAN TO GET THAT TO HAPPEN.

>> THERE IS A PROVISION IN MCCONNELL'S RESOLUTION THAT IS CALLED DELIBERATIONS.

IT IS CLOSED.

THEY CAN BE IN THE SENATE CHAMBER WE MEET IN, NOT THE OLD SENATE CHAMBER.

WE HAVE TO SEE OUR VIEW IS WE WANT THINGS AS OPEN AS POSSIBLE.

IS THERE A MOMENT WHERE COMING TOGETHER IN CLOSED SESSION MAY HELP?

WHO KNOWS.

OUR STRONG PRESUMPTION IS TO KEEP THINGS OPEN.

YES.

>> TWO WORDS, I GET YOUR QUESTION.

TWO WORDS, FAIR TRIAL.

REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME THERE SHOULD BE A FAIR TRIAL.

AS TIMAS ELUDED TO -- FAIR TRIAL WHATEVER THE OUTCOME.

THEY VOTE NO THEY'RE SAYING THIS IS A SHAM.

THEY SAY WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH.

WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO AMERICA ABOUT THIS BODY?

YES.

>> WE HAVEN'T.

WE ARE LOOKING AT THE TRUTH AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.

>> WE HAVE HAD TOTAL UNIT.

IT'S UP TO JOE TO CAST A VOTE ON WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

WE'RE TOTALLY UNITED HAVE HAVE BEEN FOR A MONTH AND CONTINUE TO BE.

YES.

>> IN HE IS ESPANOL.

POLICEMEN(SPEAKING IN SPANISH) >> JUST LEARNED TWO NEW SPANISH WORDS.

CONVICTION.

YYEQUITAL.

YOU GET THE LAST QUESTION.

>> KNOT ONLY MESSAGE I HAVE IS LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS CAREFULLY, MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION OF CONSCIENCE.

AS I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY I THINK THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL.

THE COUNCILS TO THE HOUSE COUNCILS HAVE MADE VERY STRONG ARGUMENTS.

I DON'T THINK THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAVE REBUTTED THEM.

EACH WILL MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

THAT'S HOW IMPORTANT IT IS IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

>> I THINK HUNTER BIDEN IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

WE OUGHT NOT TO ENGAGE IN A QUID PRO QUO ON WITNESSES WHEN WE ARE IN EFFECT PROSECUTING THE PRESIDENT FOR QUID PRO QUO THAT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THE REPUBLICANS COULD CALL HUNTER BIDEN.

LITERALLY TODAY, IF THEY HAD THE VOTES AND WANTED TO DO IT.

EITHER THEY LACK THE VOTES OR THEY AGREE HE'S IRRELEVANT.

WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON JOHN BOLTON, WHOSE BOOK REL VATIONS HAVE BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM AS UNSOURCED MANUSCRIPT, HEARSAY LEEKS.

IF THEY DON'T WANT HEARSAY LESS GETS JOHN BOLTON AND HIS NOTES.

NOT THE MANUSCRIPT THAT CAN'T BE CROSS EXAMINED OR QUESTIONED UNDER OATH.

LET'S HEAR WHAT HAPPENED IN THE ROOM WHEN JOHN BOLTON TRIED TO TALK THE PRESIDENT -- >> HE SHOULD BE A WITNESS ALONG WITH ROBERT BLAIR AND MICHAEL DUFFY.

ALL FOUR OF THEM SHOULD BE WITNESSES.

INCLUDING THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE SOUGHT.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BY 75%, AND THE NUMBER IS GROWING WANT THESE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

THERE WILL BE MORE TRUTH COMING OUT IN THE NEXT DAYS AND WEEKS.

OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL BE HAUNTED BY THIS.

THEY WILL BE PERCEIVED AND UNDERSTANDABLY BY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AS AIDERS AND ABETTORS IN THE TRUMP COVER UP IF THEY REFUSE TO CALL WITNESSES.

>> WILL YOU STILL CALL FOR JOHN BOLTON AS A WITNESS IF THE REPUBLICANS DECIDE TO BRING HUNTER BIDEN AS A ONE FOR ONE TRADE.

>> I WILL CALL JOHN BOLTON AS A WITNESS BECAUSE OUR OBLIGATION, WE HAVE TAKEN THE OATH, IS TO SEEK THE TRUTH.

WHATEVER THEY DO TO TURN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS INTO A CIRCUS OR CAMPAIGN AD FOR DONALD TRUMP, WE SHOULD SEEK THE TRUTH THROUGH JOHN BOLTON AND MULVANEY WHO SAID THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

THE DEFENSE'S TEAM ARGUMENT FROM THE PAST THREE DAYS, WHAT IS YOUR TAKE AWAY?

HAVE THEY DONE A GOOD JOB?

>> THE DEFENSE TEAM MANAGED TO PRESENT A FACT-FREE LINE BASED ON INSINUATION AND INNUENDO.

PART OF THE BUBBLE OF REALITY DENIAL.

RELYING ON LEGAL -- THAT NO LEGAL SCHOLAR HAS ACCEPTED.

AT THE END OF THE DAY THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.

JOHN BOLTON CORROBORATED DRAMATICALLY.

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, NONE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

URGES WELL YOU KNOW THE AGENDA MOVING FORWARD.

WE WILL SPEND TODAY AND TOMORROW DOING QUESTIONS.

I THINK IT WILL BE CON SRUBG TIFF.

AND YOU KNOW I INTEND TO ASK QUESTIONS I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TOO.

>> WHAT QUESTIONS?

>> LOOK THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF ISSUES BROUGHT UP.

SOME BROUGHT UP, EACH ONE OF THE PRESENTERS.

THE ONE THAT PARTICULARLY CAUGHT MY EYE THAT SAID IF SOMEONE DID THIS IT WOULDN'T BE TREATED THE SAME WEIGH.

I WILL ASK THE SENATOR, IF A SENATOR ASKS A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO GET INVOLVED IN AN ELECTION WOULD WE NOT BE PUNISHED FOR IT?

I BELIEVE WE WOULD BE.

>> I DO KNOW U.S.

SENATORS, I WILL BE SURPRISED IF WE DON'T.

>> ARE YOU PERSUADABLE AT THIS POINT, SIR?

>> YES.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE LAID OUT A CONVINCING ARGUMENT.

LOOK I THINK THE FOLKS ON THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM DID A FINE JOB.

WE NEED MORE WITNESSES OTHERWISE, I HAVEN'T MADE UP THE DECISION WE HAVE QUESTIONS.

I THINKER THE SCALE IS TILTED TOWARDS CONVICTION MORE THAN ACQUITTAL.

>> APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

>> CAN YOU SHARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE?

>> I THINK THE QUESTIONS WILL GO FORWARD, NO DOUBT WE WON'T KEEP LAWYERS FROM TALKING FOR 16 HOURS.

NOT GOING TO MISS THAT OPPORTUNITY.

I DON'T EXPECT THE QUESTIONS WILL ANSWER A LOT, HONESTLY PROVIDE THE INFORMATION WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW BUT A OPPORTUNITY FOR CLAIRE IF CLARIFICATION.

I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTIONS WILL BE.

CAN YOU FURTHER CLARIFY THESE THINGS.

WHY YOU DIDN'T PURSUE JOHN BOLTON MORE VIGOROUSLY IN THE HOUSE.

YOU KNOW, PERHAPS SOMEONE COULD EXPLAIN, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE IF THERE WAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IF IT WAS TRIED HERE IN THE SENATE DOES IT MATTER WOULD IT BE A MONTH LONG PROCESS?

THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS.

WHAT I EXPECT IS TWO SIDES WILL ASK QUESTIONS THAT WILL ALLOW THE ATTORNEYS TO REPEAT THE SAME ARGUMENTS THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE OVER THE COURSE OF A COUPLE OF DAYS OF TESTIMONY.

AT THE END OF IT I DON'T EXPECT THERE TO BE NEW INFORMATION TO CHANGE MINDS AT THIS POINT.

>> HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THE MAJORITY LEADER -- >> QUESTION OF WITNESSES.

>> WERE YOU GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION?

>> YES.

>> OKAY.

I'M QUITE CONFIDENT.

YOU KNOW THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS HAS BEEN UNITED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.

I'M QUITE CONFIDENT THAT LEADER MCCONNELL WILL BE ABLE TO ENGINEER THAT AGAIN.

HOWEVER, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE THERE OR NOT.

I THINK WE WILL CALL WITNESSES.

WHY NOT?

EVEN THOUGH DEMOCRATS THINK JOHN BOLTON IS A SUPER STAR WITNESS FOR THEM.

A WITNESS THEY REPEALED IN THE HOUSE, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.

I'M QUITE CONFIDENT WE WON'T HAVE WITNESSES.

>> SENATOR ... >> I THINK HE'S COMFORTABLE.

I HAVEN'T TALKED TO HIM SINCE SATURDAY NIGHT.

SATURDAY HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS HAD TWO HOURS.

IT WAS THE BEST TWO HOURS OF THE WHOLE CASE IN MY VIEW.

THAT'S WHAT I TOLD HIM.

HE SHOULD BE OPTIMISTIC.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I WANT WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.

THERE SHOULD BE AN ADULT IN THE ROOM, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS.

WE SHOULD VOTE AGAIN ON CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS DETERMINING WHO IS PERTENT TO THE TRIAL AND THE CHARGES BROUGHT.

IF HUNTER BIDEN IS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE JUSTICE ROBERTS SAYS IS PERTINENT TO THE EVIDENCE OR THE TRIAL, THEN ABSOLUTELY.

>> IF HUNTER BIDEN CAME UP FOR A VOTE, YOU WOULD VOTE YES?

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW EXPLAINS WE DIDN'T WANT WITNESSES.

YOU'RE SUPPOSE TO MAKE THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION OF OUR CAREER, MOST DIFFICULT DECISION.

ANYONE IN POLITICAL OFFICE, PUBLIC LIFE TO BE IN THIS POSITION AND SAY WE DID IT WITHOUT WITNESSES AND WITHOUT PERTINENT EVIDENCE -- >> ARE YOU TALKING TO YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ABOUT WITNESSES?

>> THANK YOU.

>> CERTAINLY PEOPLE ARE PUSHING TO NOT HAVE WITNESSES.

THIS IS A PERSONAL DECISION, EVERYONE RESPECTS THAT.

WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT DIFFERENT STATES.

DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

I THINK EVERYONE RESPECTS THAT.

THIS IS A PERSONAL DECISION.

I COULDN'T TELL YOU TO BE HONEST NOW.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> I WILL DECIDE AFTER TWO DAYS OF QUESTIONING.

WE WILL SEE.

WE ARE CALLING WITNESSES.

IT'S NOT IMPORTANT.

IT SEEMS SOMETHING MATERIAL THAT MIGHT BE ADDED.

>> WHAT WAS THE FEELING IN THE CONFERENCE MEETING YESTERDAY.

>> YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO ADD SOMETHING.

IT CAN'T JUST BE WE WON'T HEAR FROM THE WITNESS.

IT HAS TO ADD SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW.

IT SEEMS THOROUGHLY VETTED THAT A REASONABLE PERSON COULD SAY THE PRESIDENT DID OR NOT ABOUT HAVE A SENSE OF WITH HOLDING AIDE FOR WHAT THEY'RE ALLEGING.

YOU COULD THINK REASONABLY EITHER WAY.

I'M NOT SURE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WILL BENEFIT ANYBODY FROM MOVING OFF TO ONE OF THOSE TWO POSITIONS.

>> CHEERLY NOT.

SEPTEMBER THE 11th IT WAS SENT.

>> IN THE PERIOD BEFORE THAT -- >> THAT IS WHAT IS AT DEBATE.

WE HAVE THIS OTHER STUFF FROM BOLTON THAT SAYS HE WOULD.

>> COULD THAT BE CHAIR TIDE.

>> NO, YOU STILL HAVE PEOPLE REASONABLE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES SAYING DIFFERENT THINGS.

FRANKLY PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS THEY WOULD SAY.

PEOPLE SAY DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT THE SAME ISSUE.

SO MAYBE DIFFERENT PEOPLE HEARD DIFFERENT THINGS.

THERE WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY MORE THAN ONE MOTIVATION FOR WHAT IS GOING ON.

YOU CAN HAVE ALL DIFFERENT MOTIVATIONS, RIGHT.

>> DON'T YOU THINK HIS MAGS AL SECURITY ADVISER -- >> YOU'RE ASKING ME TO GET IN PEOPLES MINDS.

WE NEED TO RESIST THAT.

PEOPLE ARE WRITING IN THE SCRIPT THEY THINK IS MORE HAUS I BELIEVE.

WE MUST HAVE THE SELF-DISCIPLINE TO NOT DO THAT AND ONLY LOOK AT THE FACTS PRESENTED.

>> THE POOR PEOPLE LOOKING AT THE NOTES FROM THE PAST WEEK THEY REALIZE WE HAVE A LOT OF WITNESSES.

WE HAVE 12 OF THOSE PRESENTED.

THIS WOULD BE A VOTE FOR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO NOT NEED.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE READY TO VOTE.

TENNESSEENS ARE READY TO GET OVER THIS.

THEY FEEL THE HOUSE OVER REACHED AND DIDN'T DO THEIR WORK.

IF THEY WANT TO GO BACK AND CALL WITNESSES AND START OVER THEY CAN DO THAT.

I'M READY TO VOTE TO ACQUIT.

>> ANY I'D KWAF QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE ASKED.

>> YES.

AS YOU CAN IMAGINE I DO HAVE QUESTIONS.

AS I HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY, I HAVE WORKED ON QUESTIONS AND STARTED AT 36 AND DOWN TO ABOUT 12.

WE SHOULD HEAR FROM ADAM SCHIFF.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF HIM AND HIS STAFF TO THE WHISTLE BLOWER AND THOSE THAT WORKED WITH THE WHISTLE BLOWER TO FILE THE COMPLAINT.

WHY DID THE CIA CHANGE THEIR RULES FROM DIRECT KNOWLEDGE TO HEARSAY.

WHEN I TALKING TO PEOPLE IN TENNESSEE THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THEY ASK ME.

>> I'M A VETERAN OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY.

I TOOK THE SAME OATH YOU TOOK -- THANK YOU >> IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DATE.

WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.

THE SERGEANT IN ARMS WILL MACH THE PROCLAMATION.

>> HERE YEE, HERE YEE, HERE YEE.

ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT.

THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ARE SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EX EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> TODAY THE SENATE WILL CONDUCT UP TO EIGHT HOURS.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES DELIVERED IN WRITING TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AS A REMINDER THAT TWO SIDES WILL ALTERNATE AND ANSWERS SHOULD BE KEPT TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS.

THE MAJORITY SIDE WILL LEAD OFF WITH A FROM THE SENATOR FROM MAINE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK DESK.

>> ON BE HALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR MIR COULDKOWSKY AND SENATOR ROMNEY.

>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT.

IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE FOR HIS ALLEGED CONDUCT SUCH AS THE PURSUIT OF POLITICAL PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION, AND PROMOTION OF NATIONAL INTEREST HOW SHOULD THE SENATE CONSIDER MORE THAN ONE MOTIVE IN IT'S ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLE ONE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS.

IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION THERE ARE TWO LAYERS TO MY ANSWER.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT FIRST THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE MOTIVE THE THIEFY OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED SUBJECT OF MATTERS ALONE COULD BE THE BASIS OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WE BELIEVE IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTIVE.

IT'S NOT PAPER MISSABLE WAY TO FRAME A IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

I WILL PUT THAT ASIDE.

>> IF THERE WAS A MIXED MOTIVE.

PUBLIC AND PERSONAL INTEREST.

WE THINK IT FOLLOWS MORE CLEARLY THAT CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

EVEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEY HAVE FRAMED THEIR CASE.

THEY HAVE EXPLAINED THIS IS POINTED OUT IN OUR TRIAL MEMBER MEMORANDUM THEY HAVE SPECIFIED THEY HAVE TO MEET THIS IS A SHAM INVESTIGATION, BOGUS INVESTIGATION.

THIS IS NO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE.

THAT'S THE STANDARD THEY HAVE SET FOR THEMSELVES TO MAKE THIS CLAIM UNDER THEIR THEORY OF WHAT AN ABUSE OF POWER A BEAUS CAN BE.

IT'S A STANDARD THEY HAVE SET TO MEET.

THEY HAVE EVEN SAID THEY CAME UP TO TALK ABOUT THE BIDENS.

THEY TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUES IN 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

THEY SAID THERE ISN'T A SINTILLA OF ANY EVIDENCE TO LOOK INTO THERE.

THAT'S THE STANDARD THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET.

SHOWING THIS IS NO PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE PRESIDENT COULDN'T HAVE EVEN A BIT OF PUBLIC MOTIVE.

THEY RECOGNIZE ONCE YOU GET NO A MIXED MOTIVE SITUATION.

IF THERE IS BOTH SOME PERSONAL MOTIVE BUT ALSO LEGITIMATE PERSONAL MOTIVE IT CAN'T BE AN OFFENSE.

IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO HAVE THE SENATE TRYING TO CONSIDER WAS IS 48% LEGITIMATE INTEREST AND 52% PERSONAL INTEREST.

OR WAS IT THE OTHER WAY?

YOU CAN'T DIVIDE IN THAT WAY.

THEY RECOGNIZE, 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.

IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, SOMETHING THAT SHOWS A INTEREST AND THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE THAT PUBLIC INTEREST MOTIVE THAT DESTROYS THEIR CASE.

SO ONCE YOU'RE INTO MIXED MOTIVE LAND IT'S CLEAR THE CASE FAILS.

THERE CAN'T BE A IMPEACHMENT OFFENSE AT ALL.

ALL ELECTED ELECTED OFFICIALS TO SOME EXTENT HAVE IN MIND, HOW THE POLICY DECISIONS AFFECT THE NEXT DECISION.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

THAT IS PART OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

START SAYING NOW IF YOU HAVE A PART MOTIVE FOR YOUR PERSONAL ELECTORAL GAIN THAT WILL BE AN OFFENSE.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

IT'S NOT THE BASIS TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

ONCE YOU'RE IN LINE FOR A MIXED MOTIVE SITUATION.

ONCE THERE IS ESTABLISHMENT OF POLITICAL PUBLIC INTEREST THAT JUSTIFIES LOOKING INTO SOMETHING, ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING THE MANAGER'S CASE FAILS.

IT FAILS UNDER THEIR OWN TERMS.

THERE ISN'T ANY A CHANCES TO MAKE THIS CASE.

THE BARD EN BARISMA RAISE SOME PUBLIC INTEREST.

SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING AT THERE.

IT'S NEVER BEEN INVESTIGATED IN THE BIDEN SITUATION.

LOTS OF THEIR OWN WITNESSES FROM STATE DEPARTMENTS SAY ON FACE IT APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

T'S WORTH RAISING A QUESTION ABOUT.

ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT IT.

THERE IS THAT PUBLIC INTEREST.

THAT MEANS THE CASE ABSOLUTELY FAILS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.

>> HE SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BE HALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR SCOTT, HOLLY AND HOVAN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION IS FROM COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT.

SENATOR McSALLY, SENATOR HOLLY, SENATOR SCOTT, SENATOR HOVAN.

SENATOR SCHIFF ARGUED "WE THINK THIS IS A CRIME OF PWRAOEUFERY AND EXTORTION OR AKIN TO BRIBERY."

DO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGE OF THIS, DO THEY SUPPLY FACTS SUCH KWR-PBT FOR EITHER CRIME.

-- >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

NO, THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DO NOT CHARGE THE CRIME OF BRIBERY, EXTORTION OR ANY OTHER CRIME.

THAT'S A CRITICAL POINT.

BECAUSE AS A SUPREME COURT HAS EXPLAINED NO PRINCIPLE OF PROCEDURE DO PROCESS IS MORE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THEN THAT OF NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGE AND A CHANCES TO BE HEARD AND ISSUES BE RAISED BY THAT CHARGE ARE AMONG THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EVERY ACCUSED.

THAT WAS SUPREME COURT VERSUS COAL IN ARKANSAS.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPLAINED OVER 130 YEARS A COURT CONDITION PERMIT A DEFENDANT TO BE TRIED ON CHARGES NOT MADE IN THE INDICTMENT AGAINST HIM.

THAT IS THE RULE OF CRIMINAL LAW.

IT'S ALSO THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

IT'S THE HOUSE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE A ACCUSATION.

A SPECIFIC ACCUSATION IN ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE HOUSE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

THEY DID THAT.

THE CHARGES THEY PUT THIS IN THE ARTICLES WERE ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THEY DIDN'T PUT THAT IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

IF THIS WAS A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN A ORDINARY COURT AND MR. SCHIFF DID WHAT HE HAS DONE HERE, TALKING ABOUT CRIMES OF BRIBERY AND EX TORSION, IT WOULD BE A AUTOMATIC MISS TRIAL AND WE COULD GO HOME.

MR. SCHIFF KNOWS THAT.

HE'S A FORMER PROSECUTOR.

IT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE HOUSE TO COME HERE, FAILING TO CHARGE, ANY CRIME AT ALL AND THEN START ARGUE THAT ACTUALLY WE THINK THERE IS A CRIME INVOLVED AND WE PROVED IT EVEN THOUGH WE PROVIDE NO NOTICE TO TRY TO PROVE THAT.

IT'S TOTALLY I AM PERMISSIBLE.

IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.

SCHOLARS HAVE POINTED OUT THE RULES APPLY EQUALLY IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.

CHARLES BLACK AND PHILIP BOBIT EXPLAINED IN THEIR BOOK, IMPEACHMENT A HANDBOOK.

REGARDED A AUTHORITY, COLLECTING SOURCES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY SAY "THE SENATOR'S ROLL IS SOLELY ACTING ON THE ACCUSATIONS VOTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE SENATE CONDITION LAW FULLY FIND THE PRESIDENT GUILTY NOT CHARGED BY THE HOUSE ANYMORE THAN A TRIAL JURY CAN FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY NOT CHARGED OF SOMETHING NOT IN THE INDICTMENT. ""

WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF ATTEMPTED HERE WAS IMPROPER AND WOULD OF BEEN A MISS TRIAL IN ANY COURT OF THE COUNTRY.

THERE IS NOTHING HEREOF EXTORTION OR BRIBERY EITHER.

TO ATTEMPT AFTER THE OPENING, NOT CHARGING IN THE ARTICLES THAT IS A CRIME, NOT SPECIFYING A CRIME, A NOTICE TO ARGUE A CRIME, IN THE QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION TO TRY TO CHANGE THE CHARGES THEY MADE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO SAY THIS IS ACTUALLY BRIBERY AND EXTORTION, IT'S UNACCEPTABLE.

IT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE.

THE BODY SHOULDN'T CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS.

THEY'RE NOT PERMISSIBLE AND SHOULD BE IGNORED.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.

>> 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 PWHRAO BLOOMENTHAUL, LEAHEY AND WHITEHOUSE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL HAS ARGUED THAT HUNTER BIDEN'S INVOLVEMENT WITH BARISMA CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH HIS FATHER JOE BIDEN.

THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND THOSE SERVING IN THE WHITE HOUSE MAINTAIN SIGNIFICANT INTERESTS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BENEFIT FROM FOREIGN BUSINESS.

-- SHOULD MR. KUSHNER AND MS. TRUMP'S CONFLICTS OF BUSINESS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ALSO BE UNDER INVESTIGATION?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SO THE SENATORS.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

LET ME JUST PREFACE WHAT I'M ABOUT 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.

I WANT TO SAY THIS TO THE QUESTION POSED.

I STAND BEFORE YOU THE MOTHER OF THREE SONS.

I'M SURE MANY IN THE CHAMBER HAVE CHILDREN.

SONS, DAUGHTERS, GRAND CHILDREN THAT YOU THINK OF WORLD OF.

MY CHILDRENS LAST NAME IS DEMINGS.

WHEN THEY GO OUT TO GET A JOB I WONDER IF PEOPLE ASSOCIATE MY SONS WITH THEIR MOTHER AND THEIR FATHER.

I JUST BELIEVE AS WE GO THROUGH IT'S VERY TOUGH.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER TO IMPEACH AND REMOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT WE STAY FOCUSED.

THE LAST FEW DAYS WE HAVE HAD DISTRACTIONS TO TAKE OUR MINDS OFF THE TRUTH, OFF OF WHY WE'RE HERE.

IN MY FORMER WORK I CALLED IT WORKING WITH SMOKE AND MIRRORS.

ANYTHING TO TAKE YOUR ATTENTION OFF OF WHAT IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, WHAT IS IN PLANE VIEW.

PLAIN VIEW.

THE REASON WE'RE HERE ISN'T ABOUT PEOPLES CHILDREN WHAT WEE TALKS ABOUT.

THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE PRESIDENT USED HIS OFFICE TO TRY TO SHAKEDOWN.

I WILL USE THAT TERM I'M FAMILIAR WITH T A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE IN THIS YEAR'S ELECTIONS.

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 WE KNOW IS UNTRUE ABOUT INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

IT WOULD HELP, I BELIEVE THE SITUATION IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, PERHAPS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WOULD ISSUE A RULING ON A OPINION ABOUT ANY PERSON OF AUTHORITY.

ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES USING OR ABUSING TO INVITE OTHER POWERS INTO INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTION.

I WILL CLOSE MY REMARKS AS I BEGAN THEM.

LET US STAY FOCUSED THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PRESIDENT'S CHILDREN OR THE BIDEN'S CHILDREN.

THIS IS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S WRONG DOING.

THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR FROM IDAHO.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ON BE HALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS ...

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> THE SENATOR FROM SENATOR CRAPO AND THE OTHER SENATORS FOR THE COUNCIL OF THE EVIDENCE.

DOES THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SHOW AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BARISMA/BIDEN MATTER IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND EFFORTS TO STOP CORRUPTION?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

THE STRAIGHT FORWARD ANSWER IS YES.

THE EVIDENCE DOES SHOW IT'S IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE EVIDENCE ON THAT POINT IS ABUNDANT.

HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW.

HUNTER BIDEN WAS APPOINTED TO THE BOARD OF AN ENERGY COMPANY IN THE UKRAINE WITHOUT ANY APPARENT EXPERIENCE TO TKWAUL PHI HIM FOR THAT POSITION.

HE WAS APPOINTED SHORTLY AFTER HIS FATHER THE VICE PRESIDENT, BECAME THE OBAMA'S IMPORTANT MAN FOR POLICY ON UKRAINE.

WE KNOW HIS APPOINTMENT RAISED SEVERAL RED FLAGS AT THE TIME.

CHRIS HIENZ SERVED HIS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH HUNTER FOR HIS LACK OF JUDGMENT JOIN THE BOARD OF BARISMA.

IT'S RAN BY A OLAGARK FOR OFFENSES.

IT WAS SPECULATED THAT HUNTER'S ROLL WITH BARISMA MAY UNDER MIND U.S. EFFORTS LEAD BY HIS FATHER TO PROMOTE THE ANTICORRUPTION MESSAGE IN UKRAINE.

THE WASHINGTON POST SAID ...

THERE WERE OTHER ARTICLES.

THERE WAS ONE THAT REPORTED "THE CREDIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT HELPED BY THE NEWS THAT HUNTER WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE DIRECTOR'S OF BARISMA."

THERE WAS ANOTHER ARTICLE SAYING SADLY THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. BIDEN'S MESSAGE MAYBE UNDER NOTED WITH HIS SONS INVOLVEMENT.

IT WENT ON.

REPORTS OF THE WALLSTREET JOURNAL SAID ACTIVISTS HERE IN THE U UKRAINE THAT THE ANTICORRUPTION MOVE IS UNDER MINDED.

AT THE SAME TIME WITHIN THE OBAMA HAD MINISTRATION OFFICIALS RAISED QUESTIONS.

THE SPECIAL ENVOY FOR ENERGY POLICY RAISED THE MATTER WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT.

SIMILARLY ST. KENT VOICED CONCERNS WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S OFFICE.

EVERYONE ASKED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGREED 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 YOVONOVICH AND OTHERS.

THEY ALL AGREED THIS WAS AN APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

EVEN IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th TELEPHONE CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGED THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE BIDEN AND BARISMA INCIDENT.

THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR LOOKING INTO BARISMA WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACKNOWLEDGED THE LOAN GUARANTEES.

HE ACKNOWLEDGED.

YOU DON'T GET A BILLION DOLLARS OF LOAN GUARANTEES UNLESS THAT PROSECUTOR IS FIRED.

MY PLANE IS LEAVING IN SIX HOURS, HE SAID ON THE TAPE.

WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED THIS IN THE JULY 25th CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RECOGNIZES THIS RELATED TO CORRUPTION.

HE SAID THE ISSUE OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE HE'S REFERRING TO THE CASE OF BARISMA IS MAKING SURE TO RESTORE THE HONESTY.

WE WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT.

HE LATER SAID IN A INTERVIEW HE RECOGNIZED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SAYING TO HIM THINGS ARE CORRUPT IN UKRAINE.

HE EXPLAINED WE WILL CHANGE THAT.

THIS WON'T BE CORRUPTION.

THE EXCHANGE IN THE JULY 25th CALL SHOWS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RECOGNIZED THAT THE BIDEN/BARISMA WAS A IMPACT ON CORRUPTION.

IT UNDERLINED THE U.S.

MESSAGE ON CORRUPTION.

IT WAS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO RAISE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

TO MAKE SURE THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T CONDONE ANYONE THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCE THE PROPER ANTI- CORRUPTION MESSAGE.

THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR, YOUR QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL.

>> IN CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT UKRAINE'S HELP -- MAY ENTER THE 2020 PRESS DIDN'TIAL RACE SERIOUSLY CHALLENGING PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE POLLS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO INTEREST IN BIDEN'S WORK IN 2017 OR 201 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 ALLIGATION THAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ACTED IN APPROPRIATELY IN ANYWAY 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 UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL.

IN SHORT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE SIMPLY UNFOUNDED.

PRESIDENT'S OWN HAND PICKED ENVOY TO UKRAINE, KURT VOLKER KNEW IT WAS UNFOUNDED TO.

HE TESTIFIED HE CONFRONTED THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY MR. GUILIANI ABOUT THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND TOLD HIM "IT'S SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE TO ME THAT JOE BIDEN WOULD BE INFLUENCED IN HIS DUTIES AS VICE PRESIDENT BY MONEY, HIS SON, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME.

HE'S A PERSON OF INTEGRITY AND THAT'S NOT CREDIBLE. ""

GUILIANI ACKNOWLEDGED HE DID NOT FIND ONE OF THE SOURCES OF THESE ALLEGATIONS.

A FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR -- EVEN GUILIANI KNEW THE ALLIGATIONES WERE FALSE.

OUR OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMED THE PRESIDENT NEVER SPOKE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT UKRAINE OR ANY INVESTIGATION INTO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

IF PRESIDENT TRUMP GENUINELY BELIEVED THERE WAS LEGITIMATE BASIS TO REQUEST UKRAINE'S A SIS TENT IN A LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION THIS ARE SPECIFIC FORMAL PROCESSES HE SHOULD OF FOLLOWED.

SPECIFICALLY HE COULD OF ASKED THE DOJ 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 PRED'SVICEPRESIDENT'S SON.

THERE A MEANS TO SMEAR A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

IN ASKING FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE FORMER PROSECUTOR ON THE JULY 25 CALL.

THAT IS WHAT HE WANTED.

NOT A INVESTIGATION INTO HUNKER BIDEN.

THIS IS YET ANOTHER REASON, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR INVESTIGATING VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

CAN WE GET SLIDE 52 UP.

THE TIMING SHOWS CHEERLY DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS CONDUCT OCCURRED IN 2015 IT WASN'T UNTIL VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BEGAN CONSISTENTLY BEATING IN TRUMP IN NATIONAL POLES IN THE SPRING OF 2019 BY SIGNIFICANT MARGINS THAT THE PRESIDENT TARGETED BIDEN.

HE WAS SCARED OF LOSING.

THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO CAST A CHOWED OVER A FORMAL POLITICAL OPPONENT.

THIS WASN'T ABOUT ANY GENUINE CONCERN OF WRONG DOING.

THE EVIDENCE PROVES THAT.

THIS WAS SOLELY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT HE COULD DO WHATEVER IT TOOK TO MAKE SURE THAT HE COULD WIN.

SO HE TROUGH CRITICAL MONEY BY UKRAINE TO HELP HIM ATTACK THE POLITICAL OPPONENT AND SECURE THE REELECTIONS.

WELL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN NOT USE OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO HIS PERSONAL BIDDING.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BE HALF OF MYSELF, AND SENATORS TO THE WHITE HOUS COUNCIL.

QUESTION IS FROM SENATOR SCOTT TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL.

HOUSE PANNAGERS CLAIM THE BOYD EN/BARISMA IS DEPWUFRPGT.

WHAT LEAD TO THE DEBUNKING?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SENATE, HAD IS NO EVIDENCE, LET ALONE DEBUNK, SHAMMED OR DISCREDIT OR PHONY.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVEN'T SITED ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, NONE EXISTS.

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, HE MADE THE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT DIRECTLY.

HE SPOKE ABOUT THE HISTORIC BATTLE OF CORRUPTION, FIGHTING CORRUPTION SPECIFICALLY IN THE ENERGY SECTOR, NO SWEET STH-FPL HEART DEALS.

HE SAID OLE OLEGARKS AND NON OLEGARKS MUST PLAY BY THE SAME RULES.

SO THE REAL QUESTION IS THIS, IS CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE ENERGY SECTOR IN UKRAINE RUN BY A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN OLEGARK 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 PUBLIC INQUIRY INVESTIGATION OR INTEREST?

THE ANSWER IS YES.

SIMPLY SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IS RIDICULOUS.

ALL DO RESPECT TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN SIGHTING TO OUR CHILDREN.

THE MESSAGE TO OUR CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU OVERSEE A CORRUPTION AND TRY TO ROOT IT OUT IN ANOTHER COUNTRY ARE TO MAKE SURE YOUR CHILDREN DON'T BENEFIT FROM IT.

THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING.

NOT TO SIT AND SAY IT'S OKAY.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DON'T DENY THERE IS A REASON FOR A INVESTIGATION.

THEY SAY IT'S DEBUNK, A SHAM AND NOT LEGITIMATE.

BUT THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHEN IT HAPPENED.

WE REMEMBER THE E-MAIL CHRIS HIENZ SENT.

HE'S THE STEPSON OF THE THEN SECRETARY OF STATE, JOHN KERRY.

HE SENDS AN E-MAIL TO JOHN KERRY AND SPECIAL ASSISTANT.

THE SUBJECT IS UKRAINE.

THERE IS NO QUESTION WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT E-MAIL IT'S A WARNING SHOT TO SAY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING BUT WE'RE NOT INVESTED IN IT.

HE'S TAKING A GIANT STEP BACK.

THINK ABOUT THE WORDS.

REMEMBER THE VIDEO THAT WE SAW ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN.

WHAT DID HE SAY?

I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN MY KOMONO.

I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN MY KOMONO WHEN ASKED THE MONEY HE WAS MAKING.

IN ONE MONTH ALONE HUNTER BIDEN AND HIS PARTNER MADE AS MUCH, ALMOST AS EVERY SENATOR IN CONGRESS.

IN ONE MONTH ALONE WHEN WE MAKE IN A YEAR.

THEN HE -- >> 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 WILL OVERSEE THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF A UKRAINIAN COMPANY.

HE WILL HELP THEM.

IF YOU LOOK AT HIS STATEMENT THAT I READ BEFOREHAND.

THERE IS ANOTHER PART FROM OCTOBER OF 2019.

HE SAID HE WAS ADVISING BARISMA ON CORPORATE REFORM INITIATIVES.

AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF FUELING THE INTERNATIONAL GROWTH AND DIVERSITY.

LISTEN TO THIS STATEMENT BY HUNTER BIDEN'S ATTORNEY.

VIBE RENT ENERGY PRODUCTION, PARTICULARLY NATURAL GAS WAS CENTRAL TO UKRAINE'S INDEPENDENCE STEMMING THE TIDE OF VLADIMIR PUTIN'S ATTACK ON A DEMOCRATIC EUROPE.

DO YOU THINK HE UNDERSTAND WHAT HIS FATHER WAS DOING WHEN HE GOT THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

THAT STATEMENT DIDN'T COME OUT UNTIL OCTOBER 2019.

ONLY WHEN THE NEWS STORY STARTED TO BREAK.

ONLY WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS RAISED THE ISSUES DID PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IT.

TELL US, TELL US WHERE WE SAW JOE BIDEN, HUNTER BOYD EN, JOHN KERRY TESTIFY ABOUT IT.

TELL US WHERE DID IT IN YOUR IMPEACHMENT HEARING?

I DON'T REMEMBER HEARING THAT TESTIMONY OR SEEING THE BANK REPORTS.

WE PUT THE BANK REPORTS IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> SENATOR FROM OREGON.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

ON BE HALF OF THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO, MARTIN HEINRICH AND MYSELF HAVE A QUESTION TO SEND TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL TO THE PRESIDENT.

PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR ANSWER ABOUT THE POELT ON'S MANUSCRIPT.

WHEN DID THEY FIRST LEARN ABOUT THE AGGREGATIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPT.

SECONDLY MR. BOLTON'S LAWYER PUB LIKELY DISPUTES THAT ANY INFORMATION IN THE MANUSCRIPT COULD BE CONSIDERED CLASS FOR IDENTIFICATION.

WAS THE DETERMINE TO BLOCK THE PUBLICATION ON THE BASIS IT CONTAINS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION MADE SOLELY BY CAREER OFFICIALS OR WERE POLITICAL APPOINTEES IN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OFFICE OR ELSEWHERE IN THE WHITE HOUSE INVOLVED?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY.

THE ALLEGATION IN THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE ABOUT A CONVERSATION THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY REPORTED IN THE MANUSCRIPT BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

OFFICIALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS OFFICE LEARNED ABOUT THAT SUNDAY AFTER WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE WAS CONTACTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES.

IN TERMS OF THE HASIFICATION REVIEW IT IS CONDUCTED AT THE NSC.

THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OFFICE IS NOT INVOLVED IN CLASSIFICATION REVIEW, DETERMINING WHAT IS CLASSIFIED OR NOT CLASSIFIED.

I, I CAN'T STATE THE SPECIFICS.

MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S CAREER OFFICIALS AT THE NFC.

I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE YOU FULL INFORMATION ON.

THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS BEING DONE BY CAREER OFFICIALS.

IT'S NOT BEING DONE BY LAWYERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OFFICE.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, SENATOR.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> SENATOR FROM ALASKA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BE HALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR LANGFORD FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION TO THE COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT.

THERE HAS BEEN CONFLICTING TESTIMONY HOW LONG THE SENATE MAYBE TIED UP IN OBTAINING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL THE MINORITY LEADER OFFERED ELEVEN AMENDMENTS TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FROM SEVERAL FEDERAL AGENCIES.

IF THE SENATE ADOPTED ALL ELEVEN AMENDMENTS HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL WOULD TAKE?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME.

IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME TO JUST GET THROUGH THE MOTIONS.

THERE HAVE BEEN 1 WITNESSES.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES NOW.

THAT THE MANAGERS HAVE PUT FORWARD AND SCHUMER HAS DISCUSSED.

AS IF THIS BODY WAS TO GRANT WITNESSES.

YES, YOU GET THE FOUR WITNESSES.

AND THE WHITE HOUSE AND PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL AGAINST WHAT?

WHATEVER I WANT.

MR. SCHUMER, WHATEVER I WANT.

THIS IS WHO 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 MAYBE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE WITHIN THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WHISTLE BLOWER.

ANYBODY WE WANT, WE WILL BE HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER WE'RE NOT HERE TO ARGUE WITNESSES TONIGHT, TO SAY THIS WON'T EXTEND THE PROCEEDING.

MONTHS.

UNDERSTAND SOMETHING ELSE.

DESPITE, YOU KNOW, THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND OTHER NONSENSE I SUSPECT MANAGER SCHIFF, SMART GUY, HE WILL SAY I HAVE SPEECH AND DEBATE PRIVILEGES APPLICABLE TO THIS.

I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE BUT THEY MAYBE LEGITIMATE TO RAISE IT.

THIS IS A PROCESS.

THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST OF MANY WEEKS.

I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR.

THEY PUT THIS FORWARD IN AN AGGRESSIVE AND FAST PACED WAY.

NOW THEY'RE SAYING WE NOW NEED WITNESSES.

AFTER 31 OR 32 TIMES YOU SAID YOU PROVED EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR CASE.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED WITNESSES.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR MENENDEZ TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MAINTAINED HE WITH HELD U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION.

YET HIS PURPORTED CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION DIDN'T STOP HIS ADMINISTRATION FROM SENDING ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE MORE THAN 45 TIMES BETWEEN JANUARY 201 AND JUNE 2019 TOTALING MORE THAN $1.5 BILLION.

WHY DID THE PRESIDENT SUDDENLY BECOME CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN EARLY 2019?

>> THIS PROGRAM WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE CORPORATION BROADCASTING AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> Woodruff: GOOD EVENING, I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

AND WE ARE BACK WITH OUR COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE TEAM ARE ANSWERING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SENATORS.

THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO DAYS OF QUESTIONING, A PHASE THAT COULD BE FOLLOWED BY WITNESS TESTIMONY, IF A MAJORITY OF SENATORS WERE TO VOTE TO CALL WITNESSES.

WATCHING IT ALONG WITH ME, CORRESPONDENT LISA DESJARDINS AROUND JALDZ YAMICHE ALCINDOR ON ALCOHOL HILL.

ALONG WITH A LIST OF, SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ OF IN, HAVING TO DO WITH WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS INTERESTED IN WITHHOLDING AID FROM UKRAINE, INTERESTED IN CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, AFTER OF HE HAD BEEN GRANTING AID TO UKRAINE FOR PREVIOUSLY SEVERAL YEARS.

LET'S LISTEN.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO WAS IN UKRAINE.

THE ONE QUESTION PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS NOT ABOUT CORRUPTION BUT WHETHER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

SENATOR THE PRESIDENT RELEASED THE AID IN 2017 AND IN 2018.

AND HE IS RELEASED IT IN 2019 ONLY HAVING GOTTEN CAUGHT AND IN THE WORDS OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND OTHER WITNESSES, THE CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND HAD NOT CHANGED.

SO 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 FORM E-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 A 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 IS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN THE STRONGEST SUPPORTER OF UKRAINE.

AND 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 OF COURSE THERE IS 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 OPINION, TO WITHHOLD ADD IT FROM AN ALLY -- 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 SPEANS THEM OR NOT.

-- SUBPOENAS THEM OR NOT.

THE FACTS WILL COME OUT.

THE QUESTION 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?

>> MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

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 THE HOUSE MADE, REJECT THE SUBPOENA FOR JOHN BOLTON?

>> MR. JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

I THINK THAT'S PRECISELY THE POINT.

AND THE FACT IS THAT IF, IN FACT, WE WERE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD, OF A WITNESS OR WITNESSES, THAT HAD NATIONAL, IN CASE OF AMBASSADOR BOLTON, HIGH RANKING NSA, THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT'S GIVING THE PRESIDENT ADVICE OF THE HIGHEST LEVEL THE SUPREME COURT HAS HE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

THAT IS 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 PLAN 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 SEND IT UP HERE AND SAY NOW GO FIGURE IT OUT.

BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THIS IS REALLY BECOMING.

THIS IS WHAT THIS ACTUALLY IS.

SO I THINK IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE INSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS THAT ARE AT STAKE HERE, THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.

BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE DOING, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS BASICALLY WE HAVE ENOUGH TO PROVE OUR CASE, THAT'S WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF SAYS, 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.

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 ROOIVELT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OF THE -- REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SO THEY'RE ALREADY SAYING IN THE MEDIA, THAT THEIR ONGOING INVESTIGATION, THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THE 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 THE THE WAY COUNSEL SAID THAT.

WHEN I LOOK AT ALL OF THIS.

WHETHER IT'S THE LATE NEED OF WITNESSES AFTER YOU SAID YOU PROVED YOUR CASE, IF IT'S HOW THE PRIVILEGES APPLY OR NOT APPLY, SENATOR SCHUMER SAID, WE GET EVERYBODY WE WANT, WE'D BE HERE FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.

THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE UNITED STATES.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER THAT WAS JUST GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> 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 ARE GOING TO WANT JOE BIDEN TO TESTIFY, WE'RE GOING TO WANT HUNTER BIDEN, THE WHISTLEBLOWER, EVERYONE IN THE WORLD.

IFIF YOU HAVE THE UNMITIGATED TEMERITY TO WANT WITNESSES, 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 TEFER ABOUT HIS CONTEXT WITH MR. PARNAS, OR TO IMPLEMENT THE PRESIDENT'S FIGHT ON ALL SUBPOENAS.

I'D LIKE TO C ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, PUT HIM UNDER OATH, BUT WE'RE NOT HERE TO INDULGE IN FANTASY AND DISTRACTION, BUT PERTINENT AND PROBATIVE EVIDENCE.

YOU KNOW SOMETHING?

I TRUST THE MAN BEHIND ME, WHO I CANNOT SEE RIGHT NOW BUT I TRUST HIM TO MAKE DECISIONS WHETHER A WITNESS'S TESTIMONIAL IS MATERIAL OR NOT, WHETHER TO OUT A WITNESS 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 PRESIDENTIAL'S COUNSEL IS THREATENING.

THEY ARE DOING THE SAME THING TO THE SENATE AS THEY DID TO THE HOUSE.

WHICH IS YOU TRIED TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT, YOU TRY TO TRY THE PRESIDENT, WE WILL TIE YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE CHAMBER IT IN KNOTS FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS.

AND 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 HIDE 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 REALTIME.

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'VE NEVER SEEN.

WE'RE GOING TO CALL WITNESSES THAT WILL TURN THIS INTO A CIRCUS.

SHOULDN'T BE A CIRCUS.

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, OR IN THE NEGATIVE, YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES AND YOU SHOULDN'T PRESUME THAT WITH A HOUSE IMEECHES 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 FOR WHAT IS, THEY EXPECTED YOU TO EVALUATE THE 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 MIVEL.

WHETHER YOU -- MULVANEY?

WHETHER YOU BELIEVE HIM OR THE PRESIDENT.

YES WE PROVED OUR CASE COUNSEL, WE PROVED IT WHOLLY.

WITH OVER OVERWHELMINGLY.

IF YOU HAD STIPULATED THE WAY THE PRESIDENT DID AS HE WAS CHARGED, YOU COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE MAKING HERE.

YOU VICE PRESIDENT, YOU CONTESTED IT.

NOW YOU WANT TO SAY BUT THE SENATE SHALL NOT HEAR FROM THIS WITNESS.

THAT IS NOT A FAIR TRIAL.

IT'S NOT EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS.

YOU CAN'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WITHOUT BASIC FAIRNESS.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR RISCHE.

TO BE BOTH TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR SENATORIAL CASSIDY AND SENATOR RITCH, BEGINNING WITH THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL FIRST.

WE SAW A VIDEO FROM MR. NADLER, THERE SHOULD NOT BE A NARROWLY SUPPORTED IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE OF OUR POLITICAL PARTIES AND OPPOSED BY OTHERS.

DIVISIVENESS IN OUR POLITICS FOR YEARS TO COME AND WILL CALL INTO QUESTION THE VERY LEGITIMACY OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.

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 ON IMPEACHMENT, DO THE PROCEEDINGS TYPIFY THAT THAT MR. NADLER WARNED AGAINST 20 YEARS AGO?

>> 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 HAS 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 NORM FOR DRIVING IMPEACHMENT, IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS WARNED AGAINST.

IT IS IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65.

HAMILTON WARNED AGAINST IT.

HE WARNED AGAINST PERSECUTION BY AN INTEMPERATE AND DESIGNING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FRAMERS DIDN'T WANT THE FRAMERS TO TURN INTO.

BUT YET IT IS CLEARLY WHAT IT IS TURNING INTO HERE.

AND BOTH MANAGER NADLER AND DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, IN THE VIDEO THAT WE SAW, WERE FOREWARNING THAT IF WE CONTINUE TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD, WHAT CEMENTS TO BE SURE IN WASHINGTON, WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.

THE IT GOES FROM ONE PARTY, IT WILL HAPPEN FROM ANOTHER PARTY TO ANOTHER PARTY, AND THEN WE'LL G.E.

BE IN A CYCLE IT WILL GET WORSE AND WORSE AND THERE WILL BE MORE AND MORE AND EVERY PRESIDENT WILL BE IMPEACHED.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED.

AND THIS BODY SHOULDN'T ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN HERE.

THANK YOU.

>> COUNSEL.

>> 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.

BE THAT'S NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLAY BOOK.

THAT'S NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLAY BOOK.

THAT IS THE PLAY BOOK 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 CAROLINIAN DELEGATE WILLIAM DAVEY NOTED AT THE CONSTITUTION CONVENTION IF HE WILL BE NOT IMPEACHABLE 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.

NOT UKRAINIANS.

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.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM VERMONT.

>> I SEND THE QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR SANDERS ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

REPUBLICAN LAWYERS HAVE STATED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE HAD A 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 16,200 AS OF JANUARY 20th, WHY SHOULD WE BE EXPECTED TO BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS HAS CREDIBILITY?

>> 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 WERE CAUGHT IN THE ACT, IT WASN'T ME, I DIDN'T DO IT.

BUT EVEN THEN, THE PRESIDENT COULDN'T HELP HIMSELF.

BUT THE OTHER PART OF THE CONVERSATION WAS NO QUID PRO QUO, BUT ZELENSKY NEEDS TO GO TO THE MIC AND WHAT'S MORE, HE SHOULD WANT TO.

NO QUID PRO QUO, NO QUID PRO QUO.

SOMETHING THAT CAME UP EARLIER, WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE WAS ON THE CALL JULY 25th, KNOWING OTHER PEOPLE WERE 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?

SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO FATHOM, SOMETIMES PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES.

IN THE CASE OF THIS PRESIDENT, HE TRULY BELIEVES HE'S ABOVE THE LAW.

HE TRULY BELIEVES HE'S ABOVE THE LAW.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S LISTENING.

THE 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 REELECTION OR MILITARY AID OR WHAT HAVE YOU, AS LONG AS IT WHERE HELPS HIM GET REELECTED, IT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA BECAUSE HE IS THE STATE.

THIS IS WHY I THINK HE SO IRATE WHEN PEOPLE COME FORWARD AND BLOW THE WHISTLE.

NOT JUST THE WHISTLEBLOWER 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, BE WITH SUCH A CONVICTION THAT HE IS UNDERMINING OUR SECURITY?

THAT YOU CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS?

I MEAN THINK ABOUT THIS.

THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL KELLY DOES NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HE BELIEVES JOHN BOLTON.

I MEAN, 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 THE PRESIDENT THAT THE RUSSIAN POST HAS DOCUMENTED SO MANY FALSE STATEMENTS?

THE SHORT ANSWER IS YOU CAN'T.

I REMEMBER DURING EARLY IN THE PRESIDENCY, MANY OF US TALKED ABOUT ONCE YOU BECOME PRESIDENT YOU LOSE YOUR CREDIBILITY, ONCE YOU'RE PRESIDENT YOUR COUNTRY OR FRIENDS 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, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON HIS FALSE EXCULPATORY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON MICK MULVANEY RECAN'TING WHAT YOU ALL SAW SO GRAPHICALLY ON TV.

HOW DO SOMEONE SAY WITHOUT A DOUBT THIS IS A FACTOR, THIS IS WHY HE DID IT, BY THE WAY, ALLEN DENCHDERSHOWITZ LOST THE CASE, IF A CORRUPT MOTIVE, YOU CAN'T CONVICT.

IT SHOULDN'T BE ANY MORE AVAILING THAN IT IS HERE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THOUGH, THERE IS NO MORE INTERESTED PARTY THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

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.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

SENATOR FROM COLORADO.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR GARDNER IS QUESTION TO THE COUNSEL FROM THE PRESIDENT, 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 PROABLGHTS THE EXECUTIVE FROM THE HOUSE ABUSING THE IMPEACHMENT POWER IN THE FUTURE?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS' ASSERTION THAT ANY EFFORT TO ASSERT A PRIVILEGE, ASSERT A LEGAL IMMUNITY TO DECLINE DISCLOSING 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 THOUGH IT MIGHT BE LIMITING THE INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE TURNED OVER TO A TRY BOOURN IS NOT AND CANNOT BE VIEWED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

AND THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, HOUSE MANAGER'S THEORY THAT THE POWER OF PRIVILEGE CANNOT RESIST ANY SUBPOENA THEY ISSUE PURSUANT TO THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH MEANS THAT ONLY 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 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITY, DOESN'T MEAN THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE SUDDENLY DISAPPEARS.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SEARD ASSERTED, NIXON VS.

THE UNITED STATES OR UTLE VS. NIXON.

THE HOUSE DETERMINED THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE AFTER BALANCING OF ASSERTIONS, IT DID NOT SAY THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTELY BLANKET RULE THAT ANY TIME THERE IS AN ALLEGATION OF WRONGDOING, OR THAT THERE'S AN IMPEACHMENT GOING ON IN THE BACKGROUND, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE JUST DISAPPEARS.

THAT IS NOT THE RULE FROM THAT CASE.

AND IN FACT 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 DID NOT LEAVE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TOTALLY DEFENSELESS TO THAT.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IMMUNITY IS ROOTED IN EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE SUCH AS THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR SENIOR ADVISORS STILL APPLIES EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPEACHMENT.

THAT IS PART OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCE HE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THEY DON'T FALL AWAY SIMPLY BECAUSE THE HOUSE SAYS AH WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH IMPEACHMENT.

IT IS NECESSARY FOR PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO RETAIN THAT ABILITY TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST 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 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 DEECHESES FOR ITS SPHERE OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

THAT IS PART OF THE CHECKS AND BALANCES.

AND BEFORE I SIT DOWN I'D JUST LIKE TO CLOSE.

GOING BACK TO THE SENATOR WHO ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE REVIEW PROCESS AND THE BOLTON BOOK.

I BELIEVE I WAS CLEAR ON THIS I WANT TO MAKE 100% SURE.

TO THE EXTENT SENATOR WAS ASKING FOR AN INSURANCE THAT ONLY CAREER OFFICERS IN THE NSC REVIEW IT FOR CLASSIFIED REVIEW, I CAN'T MAKE THAT ASSERTION, IT'S AN NSC PROCESS.

THERE MIGHT BE OTHER REVIEWS.

I DIDN'T INTEND TO GIVE AND DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE ASSUMED THIS I GAVE THAT -- INSURANCE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR HOUSE MANAGERS AND COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> 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 IN MILITARY AID, THAT WOULD CLEARLY BE BRIBERY AND AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

SO WHY WOULD IT BE MORE ACCEPTABLE AND SOMEHOW NOT IMPEACHABLE FOR THE REVERSE, THAT IS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PROPOSE THIS SAME CORRUPT BARGAIN?

>> BRIBERY IS OBVIOUSLY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

BRIBERY IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE ACCUSATION AT THE HOUSE LEVEL OF ABUSE OF POWER.

WE EXPLAINED, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT, THE PRACTICE OF IMPEACHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES HAS TENDED TO ENVELOPE CHARGES OF BRIBERY WITHIN THE STANDARDS OF OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

HISTORICAL STANDARD.

THE ELEMENTS ARE BRIBERY ARE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED HERE.

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.

NORTH TO GET THAT FOREIGN POWER TO DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP HIM POLITICALLY, THAT IS CLEARLY BRIBERY, IT IS CLEARLY AN ABUSE OF HOUR AND THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

NOW BY THE WAY, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED EARLIER AS TO WHAT THE PROPER STANDARD OF PROOF IS.

THE PEOPLE POINTED OUT THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SAY.

BUT THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF PROOF IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN PROVEN NOT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BUT BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

>> THE QUESTION, I THINK WITH THE HADN'T HYPOTHETICAL SHOWS, MANAGER NADLER SHOWS, ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT DO NOT MENTION ANY CRIME, THE IDEA THAT THERE IS SOME CRIME ALLEGED HERE.

THERE IS NOT.

I WENT THROUGH THAT EARLIER.

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SPECIFY A THEORY OF THE CHARGE HERE THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER.

THEY DO NOT ALLEGE THE ELEMENTS OF BRIBERY OR EXTORTION.

THEY DON'T MENTION BRIBERY OR EXTORTION.

IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANTED TO BRING THOSE CHARGES THEY HAD TO PUT THEM IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

JUST LIKE A PROSECUTOR IF HE WANTS TO PUT SOMEONE ON TRIAL FOR BRIBERY HE'S GOT TO PUT IT IN THE INDICTMENT.

IF YOU DON'T AND YOU COME TO TRIAL AND THEN TRY THE START ARGUING THAT WELL, ACTUALLY WE THINK THERE IS BRIBERY GOING ON HERE THAT IS IMPERMISSIBLE HERE, IT IS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.

TO TRY THE SUGGEST THAT MAYBE THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF BRIBERY THAT IS ALL BESIDE THE POINT.

WE HAVE SPECIFIC FACTS, WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED IN THE RECORD, WE HAVE A SPECIFIC ACIAL OF IMPEACHMENT.

IT DOESN'T SAY BRIBERY, IT DOESN'T SAY EXTORTION AND THIS IS NO WAY TO GET THAT INTO THIS CASE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FRAME THEIR CASE.

THEY HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO FRAME IT THE WAY THEY WANTED BECAUSE THEY CONTROLLED THE WHOLE PROCESS, ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WENT IN, ALL THE WITNESSES THAT WERE CALLED AND THEY COULD FRAME IT ANY WAY THEY WANT IT AND THEY DIDN' PUT IN ANY CRIME.

THERE IS NO CRIME ASSERTED HERE.

IT IS NOT PART OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED NOW.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM KANSAS.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SUBMIT TO THE DESK A QUESTION ON MY BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SENATOR CORNING.

>> THE QUESTION FOR SENATOR MORAN AND SENATORS CORNYN, PRODUCTION OF EXHIBITS AND THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESS HE 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. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR QUESTION.

AND LET ME ANSWER IT THIS WAY, LAY OUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS.

IF WE WERE 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 ISSUED TO THE WITNESSES OR FOR DOCUMENTS3 AND IF THOSE SUBPOENAS WERE RESISTED ON THE GROUNDS OF SOME PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY THEN THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT.

BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT ASSERTED FOR EXAMPLE THE IMMUNITY OF A SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT OR 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.

THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE GONE THROUGH ANY TIME BE THE PRESIDENT RESISTED THE SUBPOENA OR DOCUMENTS, THAT WOULD TAKE A WHILE.

THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DECIDED NOT 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, ADMISSIBILITY OF PARTICULAR EVIDENCE.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THEN THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, COULD MAKE AN INITIAL DETERMINATION IF THERE WERE OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE, BUT THAT ALL SUCH DETERMINATIONS CAN BE CHALLENGED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, AND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A VOTE.

SO IT WOULD NOT BE -- I THINK THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTIONS EARLIER THAT WE DON'T NEED ANY OTHER COURTS.

WE DON'T NEED ANYTHING INVOLVING ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS HERE.

THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

ON THE SUBPOENAS ON THE FRONT END THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S DETERMINED JUST WITH ALL RESPECT SIR BIFF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT IN THE COURTS OR WITH NEGOTIATION WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THEN ON SPECIFIC EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS, IF THERE ARE OBJECTION HE DURING DEPOSITIONS THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED OR BY A WITNESS ON THE STAND, IF THERE ARE OBJECTIONS TO PARTICULAR DOCUMENTS AUTHENTICATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, EVERY ONE OF THOSE COULD BE APPEALED TO THIS BODY TO MAJORITY VOTE ON WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WOULD COME IN OR NOT.

AND YOU MIGHT HAVE TO CONSIDER RULES, WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLY OR SOME MODIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE AND ALL 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 ANY WAY APPEALED OUT TO THE COURTS.

BUT THAT WOULD BE A PROCESS THAT THIS BODY WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE, WHAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SMITH IS TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE PRESIDENT HAS STATED MULTIPLE TIMES IN PUBLIC THAT HIS ACTIONS WERE PERFECT.

YET HE REFUSES TO ALLOW BOLTON, MULVANEY AND OTHERS TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

IF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION HE ARE SO PERFECT, WHERE WOULDN'T HE ALLOW FACT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH, ABOUT WHAT HE HAS SAID PUBLICLY?

>> WELL, THE SHORT ANSWER IS, IF THE PRESIDENT WERE SO CONFIDENT THAT IN WAS A PERFECT CALL AND THAT THOSE AROUND HIM WOULD AGREE THAT 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 HEADING OMB TO TESTIFY.

HE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR FROM ANY OF THEM.

I THINK THAT'S PRETTY INDICATIVE THAT 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 HAS BEEN WITHHOLDING FROM THIS BODY AS HE DID FROM THE HOUSE.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE LAST QUESTION IF I COULD.

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 VOTE 50 OR IS THE VOTE TWO-THIRDS?

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE PARLIAMENTARIAN AND WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

BUT THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS THE POWER TO DO IT.

AND WHAT'S MORE, UNDER THE SENATE RULES YOU WANT EXPEDITEPROCESS?

WE ARE HERE TO TELL YOU WE WILL AGREE WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S RULING ON WITNESSES, ON THEIR MATERIALITYITY,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 PRESIDENTIAL 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 -- IM NOT FOR A MOMENT SUGGESTING THEY DON'T THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS FAIR.

QUITE THE CONTRARY.

THEY'RE AFRAID HE'LL BE FAIR.

THEY'RE 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 THE WITNESSES.

THEY DON'T WANT A FAIR JUSTICE TO ADJOOUTD CAIT THESE QUESTIONS.

THEY JUST WANT TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THINK WILL DELAY AND DELAY AND DELAY.

I THINK IT WAS THOMAS PAYNE WHO SAID, THOSE WHO WOULD ENJOY THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY MUST UNDERGO THE RIGORS OF DEFEND IT IT, THE FATIGUE OF DEFENDING IT, IS IT TOO MUCH FATIGUE OF US TO HEAR A WITNESS?

IS THAT SO LITTLE WE ARE WILLING TO PUT INTO THE BLESSINGS EVER LIBERTY, IS THAT THE FATIGUE THAT WE'RE WILLING TO ANY OCCUR.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEBRASKA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, TIM SCOTT AND MARCO RUBIO.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR SASSE AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF SENATOR SCOTT FROM SOUTH CAROLINA AND MR. RUBIO, DIRECTED TO COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

MR. CIPOLLONE POINTED SENATORS TO THE QUOTE GOLDEN RULE OF IMPEACHMENT END QUOTE, ON ELABORATING ON THAT RULE CAN YOU OFFER YOUR VIEWS ON THE LIMITING PRINCIPLES BOTH IN THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND IN THE PROXIMITY TO ELECTIONS FOR FUTURE IMPEACHMENTS TOWARDS THE END OF SAFEGUARDING PUBLIC TRUST BY PUTTING GUARDRAILS ON BOTH PARTIES?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

IN ELABORATING ON THE GOLDEN RULE OF IMPEACHMENT I WOULD SAY PRINCIPLE NUMBER 1 IF WE LISTEN TO WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR 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.

THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE -- YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.

IF YOU HAVE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF 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 HAVE TO EVEN BEGIN TO CONSIDER THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT.

IT IS THE OVERTURNING OF THE ELECTION.

THEY DON'T DISPUTE THAT, IT IS THE OVERTURK OF AFTERNOON ELECTION, IF REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENT THAT IS JUST OCCURRING A FEW MONTHS FROM NOW, I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE.

THE OTHER IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO THIS IMPEACHMENT.

DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST IT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE.

THE OTHER PRINCIPLE WOULD BE 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.

'S IN THE PAST, THERE'S BEEN AN -- ALWAYS IN THE PAST THERE'S BEEN A VOTE AUTHORIZING IMPEACHMENT.

WHY?

THEY SAY THE HOUSE IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY IN 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 THE PROCESS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN OUR HISTORY.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WASN'T HE BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND, CROSS EXAMINE WITNESS HE OR HE REQUEST WITNESSES, THEY ASK NUMBER ONE TO CALL WITNESSES THAT THEY REFUSE TO PURSUE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY I THINK WHAT THEY ARE 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.

YOU KNOW, 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 WITNESS HE 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 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 AND 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 THAT'S THE GOLDEN RULE OF IMPEACHMENT.

AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GUESS MERE.

BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE LOTS OF STATEMENTS FROM DEMOCRATS WHEN WE WERE HERE LAST TIME AROUND, AND PRINCIPLES I SEED, I AGREE WITH THEM, I AGREE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES, I JUST ASK THAT THEY BE REPLIED HERE SO THAT'S -- APPLIED HERE AND THAT'S MY ANSWER.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR DURBIN ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS IF PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE TO ACTUALLY INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THIS THIS PROCEEDING WOULDN'T HE BE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONS CONTAINING SENSITIVE MATERIAL THAT HE SEEKS TO PROTECT?

>> AS STATED BEFORE, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS A VERY PRELIMINARIED PRIVILEGE, THAT MUST BE CLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT.

HE IS AT NO TIME CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, RATHER HE HAS CLAIMED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, A NONEXISTENT CONCEPT THAT EVERY COURT WHO 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.

IT IS INTENDED BECAUSE HE FEARS THE FACTS.

AND THE FACTS ARE, HE TRIED TO EXTORT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, THROUGH 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 FACULTIES ARE PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT AT ALL.

SO WHAT DO 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 AFTERNOON AMERICAN ELECTION?

WE HEAR DIVERSIONS ABOUT PRIVILEGE.

WE HEAR QUESTIONS ABOUT WITNESSES, WE KNOW HE'S TELLING 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.

THERE IS NO ARGUMENT THAT MR. BOLTON SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TESTIFY.

HE HAS TOLD US HE WILL TESTIFY WITH A SUBPOENA.

SO ALL THE QUESTIONS ARE DIVERSIONS.

THEY'RE DIVERSIONS BY A PRESIDENT WHO IS DESPERATE BECAUSE WE HAVE PROVEN THE FACULTIES THAT HE -- FACTS THAT HE THREATENED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, NOT JUST THREATEN THEM, DID IN FACT WITHHOLD MANDATED MILITARY AID FROM THEM IN ORDER TO BLACKMAIL THEM INTO SERVING FOR HIS PRIVATE POLITICAL PURPOSES, WE KNOW THAT.

EVERYTHING IS A DIVERSION, NO WITNESSES BECAUSE MAYBE THOSE WITNESSES WILL TEFER IN A WAY HE DOESN'T WANT.

PRIVILEGE, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH ACCUSATIONS OF WRONGDOING AGAINST PRESIDENT, 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 MR. SCHIFF SAID, WITNESSES SHOULD NOT BE A THREAT.

NOT TO THE SENATE, NOT TO ANYBODY ELSE.

AND IT'S NOT GOING TO WASTE TOO MUCH TIME BECAUSE THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN RULE ON 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 HE'LL AND THE COUNTRY MUST BE -- TO HEEL AND THE COUNTRY MUST BE SAVED FROM HIS CONTINUING TO RIG ELECTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM UTAH.

>> I SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR ROMNEY IS FROM THE COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

DID HE EXPLAIN THE REASON AT THAT TIME.

ARE.

>> 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 OMB AND ELSEWHERE WERE AWARE OF A HOLD AS OF JULY 3rd.

AND THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF THE PRESIDENT'S RATIONALE FROM EVEN EARLIER THAN THAT TIME.

THERE IS AN E-MAIL FROM JUNE 24th, THAT'S BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED, IT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED IN RESPONSE TO A FOIA REQUEST THAT IS FROM ONE DOD STAFFER UP TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF IN DOD, EXCUSE ME, SORRY, FROM THE CHIEF OF STAFF DOWN TO A STAFFER IN DOD RELATING ON THE SUBJECT LINE POTUS FOLLOW-UP, A FOLLOW UP ON A MEETING WITH POTUS, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPLAINING QUESTIONS THAT HAD BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE UKRAINE ASSISTANCE WHICH WERE FIX WHAT WAS THE FUNDING USED FOR I.E.

DID IT GO TO U.S. FIRMS, WHO FUNDED IT AND WHAT DID OTHER NATO MEMBERS PHONED SUPPORT UKRAINE.

SO FE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN JUNE, THE PRESIDENT HAD EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN WITH BURDEN SHARING, WHAT OTHER NATO MEMBERS DO.

SIMILARLY, IN THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT, THERE WAS THE PRESIDENT ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPECIFICALLY, HE RAC RAISED THE ISSUE OF BURDEN-SHARING, SHOWING THAT THAT WAS HIS CONCERN.

IN ADDITION, IT WAS I BELIEVE MR. MORRISON WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS AWARE FROM OMB 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 24th, THAT PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE HOLD, AS OF JULY 3rd, THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT BURDEN-SHARING WERE IN THE E-MAIL ON JUNE 24th, THEY ARE REFLECTED IN THE JULY 25th CALL, SIMILARLY THERE'S 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 CONCERNS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA.

>> THANK YOU.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO IS FOR HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS UNFAIRLY EXCLUDE HE 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?

>> MR. CHIEF COUNSEL AND TO THE SENATOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION.

LET ME MAKE THIS PLAIN.

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT 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 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE.

THEY COULD HAVE ATTENDED ALL OF THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS, AND IMAGINE THIS, CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES, RAISE 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.

IN EVERY EVENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED AND INDEED LEGALLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE DURING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S 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 IN 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.

>> THANK YOU.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SNFER ALASKA.

SENATOR FROM ALASKA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

SENATOR MURKOWSKI'S QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

IN EARLY SEPTEMBER APPROPRIATELY AUTHORIZED AND THUS INVALID.

WHEN THE HOUSE PASSED THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE IMEEMPLET INQUIRY AND GRANTING SUBPOENA POWER TO THE INTELLIGENCE AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEES, THE BODY COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE DEFICIENT THE WAREHOUSE POINTED OUT AND CLAIMED THOSE SUBPOENAS AS VALID EXERCISES OF THE HOUSE INQUIRY.

ALTERNATIVELY, THE HOUSE COULD HAVE ISSUED THOSE SUBPOENAS AFTER THE HOUSE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY NEITHER OF THOSE ACTIONS TOOK PLACE.

>> MR. CHOOF CHIEF JUSTICE -- CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION.

THESE ARGUMENTS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, OAR RED HERRING.

THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND ITS SUBPOENA WERE FULLY AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, HOUSE RULES AND PRESIDENT.

IT IS FOR THE HOUSE, NOT IF PRESIDENT, TO DECIDE HOW TO CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE HOUSE'S HOUSE'S AUTONOMY IS ROOTED IN TWO PROVISIONS 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 TO 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 HONORED CONGRESS'S RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION, AND IS CRITICAL A SAFEGUARD OF OUR SYSTEM OF DIVIDED POWERS.

OTHERWISE, A PRESIDENT COULD HIDE HIS OWN WRONGDOING TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM DISCOVERING IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT EFFECTIVELY NULLIFYING, NULLIFYING, CONGRESS'S 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 DOJ TO START INVENTING THEORIES ABOUT HOUSE RULES AND PARLIAMENTARY PRECEDENT.

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 JUDGE HOWELL OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN D.C. HAS STATED AND THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE, THIS CLAIM HAS NO TEXTURAL 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 PRESIDENTS.

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 IRS COMMISSIONER, FOLLOWING 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 THE POTENTIAL GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

INSTEAD, THOSE RULES PASSED THE COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE WITH ROBUST INVESTIGATIVARY POWERS WITH THE POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.

EACH OF THE THREE COMMITTEES THAT CONDUCTED THE INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS 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 TO THE FULL HOUSE -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. PRESIDENT.

>> THE SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK AND BECAUSE MY QUESTION REFERENCES AN EARLIER QUESTION, I HAVE ATTACHED THAT EARLIER QUESTION AS A REFERENCE TOTE PRESIDING OFFICER AND THE PARLIAMENTARIAN IN CASE IT SHOULD BE OF INTEREST.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR WHITEHOUSE IS TO THE COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT.

THE WHROWS REFUSED TO ANSWER A QUESTION FROM SENATOR COLLINS AND SENATOR MURKOWSKI STATING HE CAN ONLY READ FROM THE RECORD.

OUTSIDE THE HOUSE RECORD.

COULD YOU PLEASE GIVE AN ACCURATE AND TRUTHFUL ANSWER TO THE SENATOR'S QUESTION, DID THE PRESIDENT EVER MENTION 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. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

I DON'T THINK I REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AT ALL.

WE HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO OBJECT IF WE ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE ANYTHING THAT WHEREAS NOT EITHER IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, SO THINGS THAT ARE IN NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE OUT THERE WE COULD REFER TO OR THINGS THAT WERE IN THE RECORD.

AND SO I CAN'T -- I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO GO BACK INTO THINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT HAVE SAID IN PRIVATE AND THERE'S BEEN NO DISCOVERY INTO THAT.

IT'S NOT PART OF THIS INQUIRY.

SO I CAN'T GO TELLING NOW ABOUT THINGS THAT 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.

I ANSWERED THE QUESTION FULLY TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY BASED ON WHAT'S IN THE PUBLIC DOUGH MAIN AND WHAT'S 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, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.

BECAUSE THERE IS'S BEEN A VOTE FROM THE FULT 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 HAS BEEN REFERENCE THAT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BEGAN SOME INVESTIGATIVARY WORK, ALL OF THAT WORK WAS SIMPLY GATHERING THINGS THAT WERE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OR THAT HAD BEEN ALREADY GATHERED BY OTHER COMMITTEES.

AND THERE WAS NO COMPULSORY PROCESS ISSUED, AND IN FACT, 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 DID THAT.

AND THIS IS NOT SOMES ESOTERIC RULE, THIS IS HOW AUTHORITY THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY WE THE PEOPLE TO CHAMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, TO EITHER THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE, ONCE IT'S GIVEN THERE TO THE HOUSE, HOW DOES IT GET TO A COMMITTEE?

IT CAN ONLY ONLY GET TO A COMMITTEE IF IT'S DELEGATED BY THE HOUSE, ONLY CAN HAPPEN IF THE HOUSE VOTES.

THERE IS NO STANDING RULE THAT GIVES HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO USE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AS OPPOSED TO THE AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE, THERE IS NO POWER THAT GIVES IT THE POWER TO ISSUE COMPULSORY PROCESS.

RULE 10 DOES NOT MENTION IMPEACHMENT AT ALL, THE WORD DOESN'T APPEAR IN IT.

THAT'S WHY IT'S 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 MANAGER SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE AND OTHER COMMITTEES, THE AUTHORITY OUSE 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 WAS EXACTLY CORRECT.

THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION IN HOUSE 660 EITHER TO ATTEMPT TO RETROACTIVELY ISSUE THOSE SUBPOENAS OR TO SAY THAT THOSE SUBPOENAS -- TO RECEIPT STROW ACTIVELY AUTHORIZE THOSE SUBPOENAS OR TO REISSUE THEM UNDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

SO THE SUBPOENAS REMAINED INVALID AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE TO THAT.

THANK YOU.

>> COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.

>> MONTH CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT TO THE DESK A QUESTION FOR BOTH COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS ON MY OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SENATOR CRUST, SENATOR DANES AND SENATOR BRAUN.

>> THANK YOU.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WILL RESPOND FIRST TO THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR HAWLEY AND THE OTHER SENATORS.

WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE, VICTOR SHOKUN, VOWED TO INVESTIGATE BURISMA.

WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN INCLUDED PUSHING FOR REMOVAL OF ARE PRESIDENT SHOKIN DID THE OFFICE OF THE LEGAL COUNSEL OFFER ETHICS ADVICE, 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 EVER STEP DOWN FROM THE BOARD OF BURNLZ?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR QUESTION.

WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SOUGHT ANY ETHICS OPINION.

WE ARE AWARE THAT BOTH AMOS HOCKSTEIN AND DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE KENT, AMOS IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE KENT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE, CONFLICT OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH HIS SON HUNTER BEING TON BOARD OF BURISMA.

DEPUTY SECRETARY BE KENT TESTIFIED THAT ALTHOUGH HE RAISED THE ISSUE WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, THE RESPONSE WAS THE VICE PRESIDENT WAS BUSY DEALING WITH THE ILLNESS OF HIS OTHER SON AND THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN.

SO FROM WHAT WE KNOW, THERE WASN'T ANY EFFORT TO SEEK AN ETHICS OPINION.

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 THE PRESIDENT BIDEN ASKED HIS SON TO STEP DOWN OR THAT ANY OTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN.

AND I BELIEVE THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID HE SAID PUBLICLY HE NEVER DISCUSSED HIS OVERSEAS BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH HIM.

THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR, I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION.

THE FACTS ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S CONDUCT ARE CLEAR AND DO NOT CHANGE.

LET'S GO THROUGH THEM.

AN ORGANIZATION 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.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR FROM MAYBERS.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

I WILL SEND TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR KING'S QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS READS AS FOLLOWS: MR. RUDOLPH GUILIANI WAS IN UKRAINE EXCLUSIVELY ON A POLITICAL ERRAND BY HIS OWN ADMISSION SO DOESN'T THE PRESIDENT'S MENTION OF GUILIANI CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE CALL?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

MR. GUILIANI PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MONTH LONG SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

REMARKABLY THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE IS WRAPPING IN THE INVOLVEMENT WHILE TRYING TO MINIMIZE HIS ROLE.

THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE NOT JUST TESTIMONY, BUT TEXTS, RECORDS AND OTHER CORROBORATING DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH MR. GUILIANI'S KEY ROLE IN EXECUTING THE PRESIDENT'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN BEGINNING IN EARLY SPRING 2019 WITH THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH THEN THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER.

EVERYONE KNEW THAT RUDY GUILIANI WAS THE GATEKEEPER TO THE PRESIDENT ON UKRAINE.

MAY 10th, MR. GUILIANI CANCELLED A TRIP DURING WHICH HE PLANNED TO DIG UP DIRT ON FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND ON DISCREDIT CONSPIRACY THEORY AFTER HIS CLAIMS BECAME PUBLIC.

HE ADMITTED WE'RE NOT MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION WE'RE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION.

HE EXPLAINED IF SOMEONE COULD SAY IT'S IMPROPER -- SOMEONE COULD SAY IT'S IMPROMMER I'M ASKING THEM TO DO INVESTIGATION THAT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE TELLING THEM TO STOP.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE INVEST OF GUIDE BIDEN.

MAY 10th APPEARANCE ON FOX NEWS, GUILIANI SAID THAT HE CANCELLED HIS TRIP BECAUSE THERE ARE ENEMIES OF TRUMP AROUND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

MR. GUILIANI'S ASSOCIATE PRODUCED SET OF DOCUMENTS TONIGHT HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THAT INCLUDE ADD LETTER I BELIEVE WE HAVE SLIDE 50 HERE.

MR. GUILIANI SENT TO PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY DURING THIS TIME PERIOD.

IN THE LETTER DATED MAY 10, MR. GUILIANI INFORMED ZELENSKY THAT HE REPRESENTED PRESIDENT TRUMP AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, NOT AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE ALSO REQUESTED MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON MAY 13 ALONG WITH VICTORIA IN CAPACITY AS PERSONAL COUNSEL WHERE THERE'S KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT, CLOSE QUOTE.

MR. GUILIANI CONFIRMED WITH THE STATING HE KNOWS WHAT I'M DOING, SURE, MY ONLY CLIENT THIS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE'S THE ONE I HAVE OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO, TELL HIM WHAT HAPPENED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY INSTRUCTED SENIOR AMERICAN AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TO TALK TO RUDY.

DEMONSTRATING MR. GUILIANI WAS A KEY PLAYER IN THE CORRUPT SCHEME.

IN THE MAY 23rd OVAL OFFICE MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED HIS HAND PICKED THREE AMIGOS TO TALK TO RUDY.

RESPONSE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED, SECRETARY PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER WORKED WITH MR. RUDY GUILIANI ON UKRAINE MATTERS AT THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AFTER TWO EXPLOSIVE WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS ON JULY 10 WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EXPRESSED THE DEMANDS FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATION, TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, TOP UKRAINIAN AID, ANDRIY YERMAK, I FEEL THAT THE KEY FOR MANY THINGS IS RUDY.

WHAT WAS RUDY ASKING?

INVESTIGATIONS OF TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS.

NOT CORRUPTION IN GENERAL, INVESTIGATIONS, IN FACT HE WASN'T ASKED FOR INVESTIGATION.

HE WAS JUST ASKING FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION SO THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS TO THE BIDENS COULD BE SMEARED.

ON JULY 25 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED RUDY GUILIANI BY NAME.

NO LESS THAN FOUR TIMES.

AND INFORMED ZELENSKY THAT RUDY VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING.

HE TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, MR. GUILIANI IS A HIGHLY RESPECTED MAN, HE ADDED RUDY VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING.

IN AUGUST MR. GUILIANI MET WITH THE TOP UKRAINIAN AID, MUST ISSUE PUBLIC STATEMENT ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER WORKED CLOSELY WITH GHOULIAN ME THAT THE PLANNED STATEMENT WHAT MR. MR. GUILIANI DEMANDS SPECIFICALLY MR. GUILIANI INSISTED THAT THE STATEMENT INCLUDE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO BURISMA AND THE 2016 ELECTION AND BIDEN.

THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, SONDLAND STATED THAT THEY NEEDED THE APPROVAL OF GUILIANI.

THAT THEY KNEW GUILIANI LEAPT REPRESENTED THE INTERESTS OF THE PRESIDENT.

RUDY GUILIANI ADMITTED ON LIVE TELEVISION TO PRESSURING UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN, NOT INTO CORRUPTION, INTO JOE BIDEN.

IN WAS ASKED, YOU DID ASK UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO JOE BIDEN, IN RESPONSE, OF COURSE I DID.

MR. GUILIANI INSISTED THAT UKRAINE LOOK INTO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

FINALLY DURING THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, MR. GUILIANI IS NOT CREASED IN HIS EFFORTS TO DIG UP DIRT.

IN DECEMBER HE AGAIN TRAVELED TO UKRAINE.

WHICH HE DESCRIBED AS SECRET ASSIGNMENT AND ASKED FOR WHICH PRESIDENT REPORTEDLY CALLED IMMEDIATE UPON LANDING, WHAT DID YOU GET.

MORE THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE.

IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT IN THE PRESENTATION ABOUT GUILIANI -- >> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> TO INVESTIGATIONS INTO BIDEN NOT INTO CORRUPTION.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM FLORIDA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR SASSE, McCALLIE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR RUBIO AND OTHER SENATORS, IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

HOW WOULD THE FRAMERS VIEW REMOVING A PRESIDENT WITHOUT AN OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SUPPORTED BY ONE POLITICAL PARTY AND OPPOSED BY THE OTHER.

>> ALEXANDER HAMILTON ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE VERY DIRECTLY.

IT 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 LONG THEY BASICALLY PARAPHRASE CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS WHO SAID, THERE IS NO LAW.

ANYTHING THE HOUSE WANTS TO DO TO IMPEACH IS IMPEACHABLE.

THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED TODAY.

THAT PLACES THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ABOVE THE LAW.

WE HEARD MUCH ABOUT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

THEY MAY NOT USE THE MAXINE WATERS, GERALD FORD MADE THE SAME POINT ABOUT IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE, JUDGES ARE DIFFERENT, THERE ARE MANY OTHERS.

THERE'S ONLY ONE PRESIDENT.

BUT 20 USE THAT CRITERIA THAT WHATEVER THE HOUSE SAYS IT IS, WHATEVER THE HOUSE SENATE IT IS TURNS THOSE BODIES INTO LAWLESS BODIES IN VIOLATION OF THE IN DIDN'T OF THE FRAMERS.

MANAGER SCHIFF CONFUSED MY ARGUMENT WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT INTENT AND MOTIVE.

HE SAID I'M NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -- ADMITTED I'M A CRIMINAL ATTORNEY.

THERE'S DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT AND MOTIVE.

SOMEBODY SHOOTS SOMEBODY, WHEN THE PULL THE TRIGGER YOU KNOW A BULLET WILL LEAVE AND WILL HIT SOMEBODY MAY KILL THEM.

THAT IS THE INTENT TO KILL.

MOTIVE CAN CAN REVENGE, IT COULD BE MONEY, IT ALMOST NEVER IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION EXCEPT IN EXTREME 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 ADVISORS THAT IT REALLY 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 THE UKRAINE BUT WE'RE TELLING YOU THAT THE LEFT WING OF YOUR PARTY IS REALLY GOING TO GIVE YOU A HARD TIME IF YOU START SELLING LETHAL WEAPONS AND GETTING INTO A LTHAL WAR POTENTIALLY WITH RUSSIA.

WOULD ANYBODY HERE SUGGEST THAT WAS PEACHABLE?

OR LET'S ASSUME PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID I PROMISE TO BOMB SYRIA IF THEY HAD CHEMICAL WEAPONS, I AM NOW TOLD THAT BOMBING SYRIA WOULD HURT MY ELECTORAL CHANCES.

CERTAINLY NOT IMPEACHABLE AT ALL.

LET ME APPLY THAT.

I SAID PREVIOUS THREE THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF POSSIBLE MOTIVE.

ONE IS -- MOTIVE IS PURE, ONLY INTEREST IS WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.

THE REAL WORLD THAT RARELY HAPPENS.

THE OTHER ONE IS THE MOTIVE IS COMPLETELY CORRUPT.

I WANT MONEY, KICKBACKS.

BUT THEN THERE'S THE THIRD ONE THAT SO COMPLICATED AND THAT'S OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD WHEN YOU HAVE A MIXED MOTIVE.

THE MOTIVE IN WHICH YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY BUT YOU'RE ALSO DOING GOOD FOR YOURSELF.

YOU ARE DOING GOOD FOR ME, YOU'RE DOING GOOD FOR THEE AND YOU ALTOGETHER PUT IT IN A BUNDLE IN WHICH YOU'RE SATISFIED SATISFIED.

THAT YOU'RE DOING ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT THING.

LET ME GIVE YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT FOR THE CASE.

THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE THAT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ONLY 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 TO HIMSELF, 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, 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 HE HAS A CORRUPT SON THE FACT THAT HE'S ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY IS A VERY GOOD REASON FOR UPPING THE INTEREST IN HIS SON.

IF HE WASN'T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, HE IS A HAS BEEN.

HE'S THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OKAY, BIG DEAL.

BUT IF HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THAT'S AN ENORMOUS BIG DEAL.

SO THE DIFFERENCE THE HOUSE MANAGERS WOULD MAKE IS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IN HIS FIRST TERM OR SECOND TERM.

WHETHER HE'S RUNNING FORE RELEX OR NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT HE WAS NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION THIS WOULD NOT BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE OR MIXED MOTIVE BUT LEANING ON THE SIDE OF NATIONAL INTEREST.

SUGGESTEDLY THAT TURNS IT INTO IMPEACHABLE -- >> THANK, COW COUNSEL.

>> SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SUBMIT A QUESTION TO THE DESK DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> 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.

THEY 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.

PORTOOUS.

-- PORTOOUS.

PORTEAUS.

LAST IS >> AS YOU KNOW I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE IMPEACHMENT.

SOMEONE ASKED ME THE LAST TIME I HAD TRIED A CASE THE ANSWER IS, PROBABLY 30 YEARS AGO EXCEPT FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THOMAS PORTOE,S WHEN I LAST SPENT QUALITY TIME WITH YOU THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE NEED FOR WITNESSES IN THE IMPEACHMENT TROWEL OF PRESIDENT 69 UNITED STATES IS A FAR MORE COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCE THAN IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE.

NOW, YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL, IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE TIME OF THE SENATE COULD BE OCCUPIED BY CALLING WITNESSES THAT IS PRECIOUS AS YOUR TIME IS, WE WOULD OCCUPY YOUR TIME CALLING DOZENS EVER WILTNESSES 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 HAVING A FAIR TRIAL WHEN WE'RE ADJUDICATING THE GUILT 69 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS PARAMOUNT.

WE'VE ALWAYS 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 HOUSE HAS PROVEN THAT PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED IMPEACHABLE MISCONDUCT AND IS LIKELY TO CONTINUE COMMITTING IT.

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 RUDY GUILIANI HIS PERSONAL AGENT IN UKRAINE DOING THE SAME KIND OF THING JUST LAST MONTH.

AND SENATOR RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION ISN'T IT DISPOSITIVE THAT GUILIANI THE PERSONAL AGENT OF THE PRESIDENT IS RUNNING THIS BIDEN OPERATION RATHER THAN DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT, ISN'T THAT DISPOSITIVE OF WHETHER THIS WAS POLICY OR POLITICS AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS, YES.

GUILIANI MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.

I'M NOT HERE DOING FOREIGN POLICY THAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN LAWYER.

I'M NOT HERE TO DO FOREIGN POLICY.

NOW, PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ MADE ASTOUNDING ARGUMENT, THAT AN INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN AND HIS UNWARRANTED, UNMERITED, SUDDENLY BECOMES WARRANTED IF HE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT.

IN THE PRESIDENT'S SECOND TERM.

BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S IN HIS FIRST TERM OR SECOND TERM AN ILLEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN DOESN'T SOMEHOW BECOME LEGITIMATE BECAUSE HE'S 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 THAT IS RUNNING FOR REELECTION OR NOT TO SUGGEST THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN AN INVESTIGATION OF A LEADING CANDIDATE IN THE POP SIT PARTY IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

I MEAN, YOU REALLY HAVE TO STEP ASIDE FROM WHAT IS GOING ON TO IMAGE IN THAT AGAIN WOULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

THAT THAT RUNNING FOR OFFICE, RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT NOW MEANS THAT YOU ARE A MORE JUSTIFIED TARGET OF INVESTIGATION THAN WHEN YOU WEREN'T.

THAT CANNOT BE.

THAT CANNOT BE.

BUT THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS BEING ARGUED HERE.

TO GET -- TO CONCLUDE, SENATOR A CASE FOR WITNESSES IN A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT WHERE EITHER ON THE ONE SIDE YOU REMOVE A PRESIDENT OR ON THE OTHER SIDE YOU LEAVE IN PLACE THE PRESIDENT WHO MAY POSE A CONTINUED RISK TO THE COUNTRY.

IS FAR MORE COMPELLING TO TAKE THE TIME TO HEAR FROM BITNESSES.

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.

>> MR.

MANAGER?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM MONTANA?

>> SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS LANK CORD AND HAWLEY.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR DAINES, LANK COURT AND HAWLEY FOR THE PRESIDENT.

IT JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM OFFICE BY THE U.S. SENATE BUT NEVER A PRESIDENT.

THE EIGHT JUDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FOR PRIBBLE, PERJURY, TAX EVASION, WAGING WAR AGAINST UNITED STATES AND OTHER UNLAWFUL ACTIONS.

HOW DO THE CURRENT IMPEACHMENT ARMS DIFFER.

>> ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMPEACHING AND REMOVING A JUDGE EVEN A JUSTICE AND PEACHING AND REMOVING A PRESIDENT.

NO JUDGE, NOT EVEN CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE, IS THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.

BUT THERE IS A JUDICIAL BRANCH.

THE PRESIDENT IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

HE IS IRREPLACEABLE.

THERE IS -- REMEMBER WE HAD PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THERE WAS NO VICE PRESIDENT.

WE NEEDED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

THERE'S NO COMPARISON BETWEEN IMPEACHING A JUDGE AND PRESIDENT.

MORE OVER THERE'S A TEXTUAL DIFFERENCE, CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT JUDGES SERVE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.

THAT IS THE CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF STANDARD.

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, BIG DIFFERENCE IS PRESIDENT RUNS EVERY FOUR YEARS THE JUDGES DON'T RUN.

SO THERE'S ONLY ONE JUDGE WITH GOOD BEHAVIOR NAMELY THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

AND SO, TO MAKE COMPARISON IS TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE THAT WHEN PEOPLE COMPARE THE BRITISH SYSTEM TO THE AMERICAN SYSTEM, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUE.

THAT WE ADOPTED THE BRITISH SYSTEM BY ADOPTING FIVE WORDS, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THOSE WORDS MAY HAVE BEEN BORROWED FROM GREAT BRITAIN BUT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT.

FIRST OF ALL, IMPEACHMENT NO LONGER EXISTS IN GREAT BRAT AN.

ONLY IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THAT HAVE BEEN CITED INVOLVED THIS GUY IN INDIA, THIS GUY HERE, THIS GUY 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 SIMPLE VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE, THAT'S WHAT THEY REJECTED.

THE FRAMERS REJECTED THAT FOR A PRESIDENT.

AND SO THE NOTION THAT WE BORROWED THE BRITISH SYSTEM HASN'T EXACTLY BACKWARDS.

WE REJECTED THE BRITISH SYSTEM.

WE DID NOT WANT PRESIDENT TO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE.

WE WANTED A 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 BEHAVIOR.

BUT TAKE AN EXAMPLE THAT WAS GIVENF A JUDGE IS COMPLETELY DRUNK AND INCAPACITATED AND CANNOT DO HIS JOB, IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE HOW A JUDGE MIGHT HAVE TO BE REMOVED FOR THAT.

BUT THE PRESIDENT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, 259th AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING, 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 LEFT OPEN.

GOOD ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, WHY IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T ABUSE THEIR POWER.

PEOPLE DON'T COMMIT MALADMINISTRATION BUT THE FRAMERS LEFT OPEN, LEFT THOSE GAPS.

YOU'RE NOT IS TO TO FILL IN THE GAPS YOUR JOB APPLY THE CON'TIS TALKS ACTION THE FRAMERS WROTE IT DO DOESN'T INCLUDE ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF POWER.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR COONS TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, 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 FBI BECAUSE, QUOTE, GIVE ME A BREAK, LIFE DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY, END QUOTE.

DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT FOREIGNERS INVOLVEMENT IN AMERICAN ELECTION IS ILLEGAL?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

I THINK CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED SPECIFIC WAYS IN WHICH FOREIGNERS CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN ELECTION, FOREIGNERS CAN'T VOTE, THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMPAIGNS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

WHEN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER ORIGINALLY MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE JULY 25th CALL THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUTE TEE, HE FRAMES THAT BLOWER'S COMPLAINT, WROTE A COVER LETTER FRAMING IT IN TERMS MUCH THOSE LAWS.

HE SAID THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE HERE RELATED TO ENLISTING FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAMPAIGN A THING OF VALUE.

THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY REVIEWED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

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 INTERVIEW WITH ABC THAT YOU CITED DOES NOT INVOLVE SOMETHING THAT IS A FOREIGN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, SNAG 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 FBI, HE MIGHT LISTEN TO SOMETHING.

BUT MERE INFORMATION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS AND IF THERE IS CREDITABLE 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 LIFE.

IF IT'S CREDIBLE INFORMATION.

I THINK THAT THE IDEA THAT ANY INFORMATION THAT HAPPENS 20 COME FROM OVERSEAS IS NECESSARILY CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE, IS A MISTAKE.

THAT IS A NON-SEC QUESTION TORE.

INFORMATION THAT IS THAT SHOWS WRONGDOING BY SOMEONE WHO HAPPENS TO BE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, IF IF IT'S CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS RELEVANT INFORMATION FOR THE VOTE TURNOVERS KNOW ABOUT FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE ON WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR AN OFFERS.

THANK YOU.

>> COUNSEL, MAJORITY LEAD SIR RECOGNIZED.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I RECOMMEND WE TAKE A BREAK UNTIL 10 P.M. THEN FINISH UP FOR THE EVENING.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

>> Woodruff: AS YOU HEAR THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAYS THAT THE SENATE WHICH HAS BEEN IN SESSION NOW SINCE 1:00 TODAY WITH A FEW BREAKS, CONSIDERING THE IMPEACHMENT CHARGES AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL TAKE A BREAK UNTIL 10:00, WHICH IS ABOUT 15 MINUTES FROM NOW.

WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THE FIRST FULL DAY OF QUESTIONS POSED BY SENATORS TO EITHER THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM OR TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

WITH ME HERE IN THE STUDIO FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED CLOSELY EITHER IN THE SENATE OR WITH PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS, MARGARET TAYLOR WORKED WITH THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE AS COUNSEL AND STAFF FROM 201313-2018 SHE WAS STATE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY FOR TEN YEARS CURRENTLY GOVERNANCE STUDY FELLOW AT THE BROOK INNINGS INSTITUTE.

MARTIN PAONE WHO WORKED FOR DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP ON THE SENATE FLOOR.

HE ALSO SERVED AS WITHOUT SENATELY SAY ON DURING LAST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

DAVID WORKED AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE IN THE REAGAN AND GEORGE H.W.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND JOAN HART WORKED FOR OKLAHOMA REPUBLICAN DURING IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.

WELCOME BACK TO ALL OF YOU OF COURSE OUR CORRESPONDENTS ON CAPITOL HILL, YAMICHE ALCINDOR AND LISA.

I DO WANT TO COME TO ALL OF US AROUND THE TABLE AND GET BACK FRANKLY TO BASIC QUESTIONS THAT KEPT ARISING DURING THIS QUESTION PERIOD AND ONE OF THEM HAD TO DO, MARGARET TAYLOR, WITH WHETHER WHAT THE HOUSE DID -- WAS AUTHORIZED, PERIOD, WHETHER THE SUBPOENAS, THAT THEY SUBMITTED TO INDIVIDUALS IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WERE ACTION, IS THAT HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FORMAL VOTE TAKEN.

THIS WAS RAISED IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, FIERCE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES OVER WHAT WAS RIGHT.

TAKE US BACK TO THE ELEMENTS OF WHAT THE HOUSE CAN AND CANNOT DO.

>> SURE, SO, THE FIRST LAYER IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF DEFERENCE GIVEN TO CONGRESS ABOUT HOW CONGRESS ORGANIZES ITSELF.

THAT DEFERENCE COMES FROM THE COURTS AND WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE ARGUING HERE IS THERE SHOULD BE DEFERENCE TO HOW THE HOUSE ORGANIZES ITSELF.

THE SECOND LAYER IS THAT DUE TO EVOLUTION OF TIME, MORE POWERS ARE DELEGATED TO MORE COMMITTEES AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE CONGRATULATIONS GUESS.

SO, WAY BACK WITH THESE OTHER IMPEACHMENTS IN PARTICULAR THE NIXON ERA, THESE COMMITTEES DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE THAT SUBPOENA POWER THEY NEEDED A FULL HOUSE VOTE TO START THAT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN ORDER TO GIVE THOSE COMMITTEES THE POWER OF SUBPOENA IN ORDER TO GET DOCUMENTS AND GET WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.

THAT'S NOT TRUE THESE DAYS.

THE HOUSE'S RULES HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME AND SUBPOENA POWER WAS ALREADY WITH THE COMMITTEES THAT WERE TASKED WITH PURSUING THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

>> Woodruff: YOUR POINT IS, THAT -- WELL, I'M TOLD THAT RIGHT NOW SENATOR ANGUS KING IS AT THE CAMERA, GO RIGHT TO YOU, SENATOR KING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU'VE BEEN AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT, YOU'VE SUBMITTED AT LEAST ONE QUESTION OF YOUR OWN TODAY.

HOW DO YOU READ WHAT YOU ARE HEARING FROM BOTH SIDES IN THE LAST SEVERAL HOURS?

>> WELL, THE VERY INTERESTING QUESTION AS YOU KNOW I THINK THE KEY VOTE WILL BE ON FRIDAY ON WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.

THAT HAS BEEN BANDIED ABOUT ALL DAY.

BUT THE PRINCIPLE ARGUMENT NOW SEEMS TO BE IT WILL TAKE TOO LONG.

AND AMY KLOBUCHAR ASKED ONE OF THE QUESTIONS OF THE DAY, SHE SAID I SAT ON AN IMPEACHMENT OF A JUDGE THERE WERE 26 WITNESSES YOU'RE TELLING US THAT WE HAVE ZERO WITNESSES FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT?

I MEAN JUST REALLY DOESN'T PASS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST.

WHERE I GOT TO TELL YOU, I ALMOST FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR BECAUSE ONE OF THE SENATORS SAID, IF WE HAVE TO TAKE TOO LONG HERE IT WILL THAT 'WITH FROM THE IMPORTANT BUSINESS OF THE SENATE.

THE BUSINESS -- SENATE HASN'T DONE MUCH BUSINESS.

WE VOTED ON TOTAL OF LIKE 23 AMENDMENTS IN WHOLE YEAR.

SO I MEAN, THAT WAS RIDICULOUS.

ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT IT'S COMING DOWN TO, I THINK THE KEY VOTE IS ON FRIDAY WHETHER THERE WILL BE ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES CALLED, PARTICULARLY WHEN JOHN BOLTON STANDING WITH HIS LAPPED UP SAYING I'M READY TO TALK ABOUT ISSUE AT THE HEART OF THE CASE.

>> Woodruff: WE HEARD, I BELIEVE IT WAS ALAN DERSHOWITZ WHO RESPONDED TO HER QUESTION, HE MAKES THE ARGUMENT AS HE HAS EARLIER IN THIS TRIAL, THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT, THAT JUDGES ARE SUBJECT TO VERY DIFFERENT, IN HIS INTERPRETATION A DIFFERENT STANDARD OR DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS THAN PRESIDENTS.

JUDGES ARE APPOINTED FOR LIFE, PRESIDENT THAT SHORTER TERM.

ALMOST AS IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT RULES THAT APPLY TO JUDGES THAN TO PRESIDENTS.

>> WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT BUT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU SAY, YOU NEED 26 WITNESSES FOR IMPEACHING A JUDGE AND SIRI FOR IMPEACHING A JUDGE.

HIS ANSWER WASMENT RESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTION, I DIDN'T THINK.

>> Woodruff: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT MINDS ARE BEING CHANGED AMONG YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES?

>> YELL RETELL.

I TALK WITH THEM ON THE WAY UP HIGHER.

MY -- ON THE WAY UP HERE JUST NOW.

MY SPENCE IS, THEY'RE BLINKING ARMS, IF YOU WILL.

I SORT OF GONE BACK AND FORTH.

I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE REALLY QUITE A STRONG VIEW THAT WE HAD TO CALL WITNESSES.

NOW I'M NOT SO SURE.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY CLOSE, MAYBE ONE OR TWO VOTES.

OR PROBABLY ONE VOTE, I GUESS, IF IT COMES DOWN TO IT.

WITHOUT THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE VERY INTERESTED IN CALLING WITNESSES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, HEAVEN FORBID WE SHOULD TAKE AN EXTRA WEEK OR TWO TO DECIDE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT WILL EVER COME BEFORE THE SENATE.

>> Woodruff: ONE QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH SOMETHING THAT SENATOR MURKOWSKI RAISED, A LOT OF INTERESTED HOW SHE'S GOING TO COME DOWN ON THIS QUESTION OF WITNESSES, HAD TO DO WHETHER THE HOUSE DID WAS RUTH RISED IN CALLING FOR SUBPOENAS.

WHETHER WHAT THE HOUSE DID WAS LEGAL.

IN YOUR MIND IS THAT A QUESTION THAT COULD END UP BEING DETERMINATIVE?

>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEANER IF THE HOUSE HAD DONE THEIR RESOLUTION RETROACTIVELY OR THE BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE HOUSE RULES IS THAT THE BEGINNING OF THE CONGRATULATIONS GUESS LAST JANUARY BEFORE THIS WAS EVEN THOUGHT OF THERE WAS A GENERAL RULE ADOPTED THAT GAVE INVESTIGATORY POWERS TO THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES.

AND REMEMBER, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE BASICALLY DOING A FACT FINDING INVESTIGATION AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT YOU SHOULD START AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRE PREBEFORE YOU HAVE THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

SO, I THINK THAT KIND OF -- THAT'S A KIND OF -- I WOULDN'T CALL IT -- I DON'T WANT DO CALL IT NITPICKING BUT LEGALISTIC ARGUMENT.

THE HOUSE IS SOLE JUDGE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY FOLLOW REASONABLE RULES, THEY SEPTEMBER THE INFORMATION OVER HERE.

BUT REGARD GOES OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE IT'S NOW BEFORE US.

AND WE SWORE AN EARTH TO DO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE, THE WORD JUSTICE TO ME INVOLVED GETTING THE FACTS AND TRYING TO MAKE A FAIR DETERMINATION OF WHAT HAPPENED.

AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE ARE IN THE SENATE F. WE JUST SAY, WELL THE HOUSE DIDN'T DO THEIR WORK SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT FOR THEM.

WE'RE ADVOCATING OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE A SERIOUS DECISION HEROON AN EXCEEDINGLY SERIOUS QUESTION.

>> Woodruff: ONE OTHER QUESTION I WANT TO ASK YOU, EXCUSE ME, ASK YOU THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TOLD SENATOR VAN HOLLEN A MOTION, A MOTION THAT WAS MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL THAT WOULD CALL OR ASK OR AUTHORIZE CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WITNESSES.

THAT CAME UP TONIGHT AT COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE TRIAL PROCEEDING.

DO YOU HAVE HA SENSE OF WHETHER THE CHIEF JUSTICE -- FIRST OF ALL, WHETHER THE VOTE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME IT WAS VOTED DOWN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL.

SECOND OF ALL WHAT THE ROLE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHOULD BE.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY FEEL ABOUT HOW THAT MOTION WILL GO.

THERE'S NO REASON TO THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS A WEEK AGO.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I THOUGHT -- I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT THAT WE'VE GOT A JUDGE SITTING IN THE COURTROOM, NORMALLY WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE THOSE KIND OF THINGS THE JUDGE TRYING TO THE THE CASE MAKES THOSE DECISIONS, SO IF THE WITNESS COME FORWARD AND THERE'S AN ALLEGATION OF PRIVILEGE, YOU GO IN CAMERA.

TAKE THE EVIDENCE THE JUDGE DECIDES WHETHER THAT'S HA GOOD OR BAD CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.

A JUSTICE ROBERTS CAN DO THAT.

JUST AS HE WOULD IF THIS WOULD BE A TRIAL ANYWHERE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS THAT THIS IDEA THAT IT'S GOING TO DRAG OUT FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS, I JUST DON'T THINK IS TRUE.

YOU CAN DO DEPOSITIONS IN A DAY.

AND THAT COULD BE PART OF THE PROCESS.

SO AGAIN I JUST QUICHE COMING BACK, OUR JOB IS -- THIS IS AN IN CREDITEDIBLY IMPORTANT DECISION TO THE COUNTRY.

AND IDEA THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT BECAUSE WE WANT THIS TRIAL OVER BY THE SUPER BOWL OR BY THE STATE 69 UNIONO JUST TIRED OF IT, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT 20 YEARS FROM NOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK BACK SAY, YEAH, I DIDN'T WANT TO HANG AROUND AN EXTRA WEEK THAT WAS A GOOD REASON TO VOTE.

I CAN'T ACCEPT THAT.

>> Woodruff: ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION I JUST REALIZED I WANTED TO ASK YOU.

THAT IS THIS IDEA THAT IF DEMOCRATS GET A WITNESS IN JOHN BOLTON THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING WE WANT TO HEAR FROM JOE BIDEN OR HEAR FROM ADAM SCHIFF.

WHAT IS YOUR THINKING ON THAT?

IS EACH SIDE, IF ONE SIDE AGREES TO WITNESSES ARE THEY THEN ENTITLED TO BE ABLE TO CALL WITNESSES ON THE OTHER SIDE?

>> I THINK ADAM SCHIFF HAS COMMITTED TO THAT.

HE SAID THAT OBVIOUSLY BOTH SIDES HAVE TO BE ABLE TO CALL WITNESSES.

NOW, THERE'S ALWAYS A QUESTION, THIS WOULD GO TO PROBABLY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS WHETHER A WITNESS SENSE RELEVANT.

WHETHER A WITNESS SENSE MATERIAL.

HAS INFORMATION THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE QUESTION AT HAND.

THAT'S ALWAYS A SAFEGUARD, BUT I DON'T THINK HOUSE MANAGERS CAN OBJECT TO WITNESSES THAT ARE CALLED BY THE PRESIDENT AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE STANDARD OF MATERIALITY AND RELEVANCE, THAT WOULD BE UP TO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS.

>> Woodruff: SENATOR ANGUS KING, INDEPENDENT OF MAINEE WE APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU, JUDY.

>> Woodruff: WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO SENATOR KING.

I WANT TO COME TO YOU QUICKLY.

DAVID, WE'RE HEARING THE SENATOR REMIND THUS IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO WITNESSES IN THE END.

A LOT OF PIECES OF THIS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED.

BUT ULTIMATELY, IT SOUNDS AS IF HE'S SAYING IF THE DEMOCRATS CAN'T GET WITNESSES ENESSES IT'S GOING TO BE HARDER TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

>> JUDY.

I DON'T THINK ANY PERSON IS SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT IT'S INHERENTLY WRONG TO GET WITNESSES.

A CASE OF JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT, PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

THE QUESTION IS HERE IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF TRYING TO GET ADDITIONAL WITNESS TESTIMONY, GIVEN THE NATURE OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH I BELIEVE IS A 3459ER OF LAW TOGETHER WITH ISSUES OF PRIVILEGE.

TO GIVE OF THE QUESTION OF, THE TIMELINES INVOLVED.

IT'S A BALANCING PROCESS.

BUT LOOK, ONE OF THE THING THAT'S IMPORTANT, GRIFFIN THE HANDLING OF THE PROCESS BY THE HOUSE WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION GOING FORWARD.

PRESUMPTION GOING FORWARD THE HOUSE CAN PUT TOGETHER AN ILL CONSIDERED CASE, THROW IT IN THE LAP EXCEPT THE SENATE TO CLEAN IT UP.

THAT STREET NOW HOW THINGS WORK.

IT'S OF IT ALSO CHANGES BALANCE OF POWER.

WHY SHOULD THEY CARE, ALL BE GOING TO BE CLEANED UP.

MANY THINGS IN LIFE, YOU PUT THE RULES AND PROCEDURES AHEAD OF RESOLUTION OF A SPECIFIC CASE.

IMPEACHMENT IS NO EXCEPTION TO THAT.

>> Woodruff: I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT IS WHAT THE ARGUMENT THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM IS MAKING.

MARTY, AT THE SAME TIME, THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE SAYING, THE HOUSE DID WHAT IT COULD HAVE DONE, SHOULD HAVE DONE.

YES, AS WE HEARD SENATOR KING SAY, PERHAPS THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANOTHER VOTE AT SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY TO AUTHORIZE SUBPOENA, TO AUTHORIZE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING ITSELF.

BUT IN HIS WORDS, WHAT IS DONE IS DONE.

AND WE MOVE FORWARD.

>> AS HE'S POINTED OUT THEY HAD -- HOUSE COULD NOT GET ANY COOPERATION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

THEY WERE STONEWALLED.

SO THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH WHAT THEY COULD GET THE 17 WHO DID SHOW UP TO TESTIFY.

IN LIGHT OF THAT, THEY DID THE BEST CASE THEY COULD BUT THEY NEVER THOUGHT FOR A MINUTE THAT THE SEBATE WOULD TRY THE CASE WITH NO WITNESSES.

WE'LL SEE.

UNFORTUNATELY IT DOES LOOK LIKE THEY'RE TRENDING TOWARDS NO VOTES, NOT ENOUGH VOTES FOR WITNESSES.

AND THAT -- SEE HOW THIS IS JUDGED GOING FORWARD.

>> Woodruff: WE WILL SEE.

TO YOU QUICKLY JOHN HART, THIS QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE, COULD HAVE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY THEY KEEP COMING BACK TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS STONEWALLING THEM IN AFFECT, THAT THEY WEREN'T GIVING THEM THE COOPERATION THAT THEY WERE DEMANDING ASKING FOR THAT THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO HAVE, TO RECEIVE.

>> I THINK WHAT A LOT OF REPUBLICANS ARE TELEGRAPHING, MARCO RUBIO THEY QUESTION THE GOLDEN RULE.

ON IMPEACHMENT.

ONE OF THE ANSWERS TO THAT QUESTION IS, WHY DIDN'T -- WHY DID THE PRESIDENT STOB WALL, QUOTE, UNQUOTE.

MANY PEOPLE ARE MAKING ENTIRE PROCESS ITSELF VIOLATED THAT PRINCIPLE OF BIPARTISANSHIP.

AND THAT WAS TRUE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE BEGINNING TO TELEGRAPH THEIR FINAL COMMENTS THEY WILL MAKE.

THAT THIS WAS A CHARADE, THIS WAS A PARTISAN EXERCISE THAT IS CONTINUATION OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING FOR MONTHS THIS IS A CIRCUS, QUOTE, UNQUOTE.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT THE END OF THIS PROCESS.

>> Woodruff: LISA, WHO ARE YOU PICK CANNING UP FROM TALKING WITH MEMBERS OF THE SENATE?

>> WELL, I TELL YOU LOOKING AT THESE QUESTIONS NOW WE'VE SHEEN THE SHAPE AND FORM OR SOLIDIFY AS TO THE TOPICS THEY'RE ASKING ABOUT, ROUGH LIE A QUARTER OF THESE QUESTIONS NOW ARE ABOUT WITNESSES.

BUT EVEN MORE QUESTIONS, THERE'S SOME OVERLAP THERE, ARE ABOUT EITHER JOHN BOLTON OR JOE BIDEN OR HIS SON, HUNTER BIDEN.

WE SAW A LOT OF NAME DROPPING ABOUT THESE CHARACTERS INVOLVED IN THE IMPEACHMENT FROM EITHER SIDE.

WE ALSO SAW SOME DEGREE QUESTIONS BECOME MORE SHARP, MORE DIRECT LIKE BERNIE SANDERS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, BELIEVE ANYTHING HE HAS TO SAY.

BUT YOU CAN HEAR SENATORS WRESTLING WITH BIGGER ISSUES, I WAS FASCINATED BY QUESTION I THINK IT WAS BY SENATOR PORTMAN AND OTHERS ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT THE STANDARD SHOULD BE.

HOUSE SIDE REF PRESENCED THEIR OWN STANDARD, BUT THERE REALLY WAS NO ANSWER IS TO WHAT THEY THINK THE SENATE STANDARD SHOULD BE.

THERE ISN'T A STANDARD IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT IS COLOR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, WHAT IS THE BURP OF PROOF.

THERE WASN'T AN ANSWER THERE.

SENATORS ARE CLEARLY WRESTLING WITH THAT.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE ALCINDOR ALSO AT THE CAPITOL OUR WITHOUT CORRESPONDENT.

>> ONE OF THOSE DAYS.

>> Woodruff: ONE OF THOSE DAYS.

YAMICHE, THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT, QUESTIONING HAS GOT SHARPER AT POINTS TONIGHT WE'VE HEARD JOE BIDEN, HELICOPTERRER BIDEN'S NAME RAISED A NUMBER OF TIMES AND THROWN ABOUT AS POSSIBLY WHO REPUBLICANS WOULD WANT TO SEE AS A WITNESS IF THE DEMOCRATS WERE TO GET JOHN BOWL DONE ON THE STAND.

MY QUESTION, DOES THE WHITE HOUSE WANT TO HEAR WHAT JOE BIDEN WOULD HAVE TO SAY.

IS THAT WHAT THEY REALLY WANT?

>> WHAT THEY REALLY WANT IS FOR ALL OF THIS IS END ON FRIDAY, FOR THERE TO BE VOTE TO ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT BEFORE TUESDAY THEN FOR TUESDAY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE STATE OF THE UNION AS ACQUITTED SAY DEMOCRATS TRIED TO TARGET ME, THEY TRIED TO REMOVE ME FROM OFFICE BUT I'M STILL HERE, I'M DOING THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE THEN TALK ABOUT HIS MIDDLE EAST PEACE PLAN OR TRADE DEAL.

THAT'S THE BEST CASE SCENARIO FOR THE WHITE HOUSE.

WORST CASE IS THAT JOHN BOLTON GETS CALLED AND THEN REPUBLICANS HAVE TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN WITNESSEDNESSES TO TRY TO COUNTER WHATEVER JOHN BOLTON SAYS.

OF COURSE SENATORS HAVE ALREADY BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT THAT'S WHY WE HEAR HELICOPTERRER BIDEN.

I TALKED TO SENATOR I CAN PROMISE THAT YOU HUNTER BIDEN WILL BE CALLED.

THE QUESTIONS HAVE GOTTEN SHARPER, I THINK WE STILL STILL SEE DEMOCRATS GIVING EASY QUESTIONS.

DON AND EASY QUESTIONS TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TRYING TO GIVEN THEM FODDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR CASES BECAUSE DEMOCRATS I SAYINGE NOT SOMEONE WHO SHOULD BE FELT -- FEELING BAD FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE FEARS TRUTH ON REPUBLICAN SIDE THE, THEY ARE SAYING DEMOCRATS ARE BEING UNFAIR, TARGETING PRESIDENT.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT STOOD OUT WITH ALL THAT GOING ON, MITT ROMNEY, HE SAID, WHEN DID THE PRESIDENT EXACTLY PUT THE HOLD ON THIS AID FOR UKRAINE AND DID HE GIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT AT THE TIME.

WHITE HOUSE LEGAL TEAM COULD NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

ALL THEY COULD SAY WAS, WHILE WE THINK IT'S AROUND JULY THAT THIS AID WAS FROZEN WE ALSO THINK PRESIDENT WAS INTERESTED IN BURDEN AND NATO BUT THEY DIDN'T DIRECTLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MITT PROM KNEE ONE OF THE SENATOR HASN'T SAID HE'LL VOTE FOR WITNESSES.

ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU MAD TO WATCH AND LISTEN CLOSELY THE WHITE HOUSE SEEMED TO TRUG I WILL.

>> Woodruff: YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE MADE NOTES ABOUT THAT.

IT'S INTERESTING THAT SOME OF THE SENATORS WHO ARE ON THE BUBBLE, IF YOU WILL, WAS NOT CLEAR HOW THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE ON WITNESSES.

SENATOR MURKOWSKI, SENATOR ROMNEY.

A NUMBER OF THE QUESTIONS THEY ASKED DID OFTEN GO TO THE OTHER SIDE, TO THE OTHER PARTY.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IN THE CASE OF SENATOR ROMNEY, IT WAS A REAL QUESTION, IT WASN'T JUST CONCERN MY SUSPICION, WAS WHAT I'M STATING HERE.

IT WAS GENUINELY SEEMING TO WANT TO KNOW WHEN DID THE PRESIDENT FIRST BRING UP UKRAINE AND THIS QUESTION OF WITHHOLDING AID.

LISA DESJARDINS, YOU'RE STILL THERE AT THE CAPITAL THEY TOLD THUS IS GOING TO BE ABOUT 20 MINUTE OR SO BREAK.

THEY'RE GOING A LITTLE BIT PAST 10:00.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THEIR TOLERANCE IS FOR STAYING UP REALLY LATE?

>> WHATEVER THE STANDARDS OF IMPEACHMENT OF BE.

STANDARDS OF TIMING IN THE U.S. SENATE CLEARLY ARE NOT DEFINED BY ANYONE.

BY ANY SCIENTIFIC MEASURE.

I THINK SPEAKING TO WHAT YAMICHE WAS TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THESE QUESTIONS THERE ARE ABOUT 86 THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED SO FAR ONLY 11 OF THOSE WERE WHAT I'M CATEGORIZING AS OPEN QUESTIONS, MEANING QUESTIONS THAT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE LEADING, DIDN'T SEEM TO BE FRIENDLY TO ONE SIDE.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT A NUMBER OF THOSE WERE IN FACT FROM SENATORS MURKOWSKI, SENATOR ROMNEY AND SENATOR PORTMAN ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

THERE IS NOTICE, VERY FEW -- WHAT YAMICHE IS SAYING, I ONLY COUNTED EIGHT TIMES THAT SENATORS HAVE ASKED THE MANAGERS FROM THE OTHER PARTY A CHALLENGING QUESTION, WHETHER THEY HAVE CHALLENGED THEM.

SOMEONE WATCHING THAT I'M MORE HUNGRY FOR THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID AND HIS MOTIVES I'M HEARING THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE DEFENDING THAT RATHER THAN THE HOUSE SIDE SORT OF AGAIN LAYOUT ITS CASE FOR WHY THEY THINK IT'S WRONG.

SENATORS ARE SORT OF STEERING AWAY FROM THAT STILL.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER FULL DAY TOMORROW WE'LL SEE, DEPENDING ON THE POM PARTICULARS OF THIS, IF THINGS BECOME MORE SHARP IF THE VOTE IS CLOSE.

WE COULD SEE THAT TENSION BUBBLE UP IN THE FORM OF SOME MORE KIND OF SHARP, GLASSY QUESTIONS IN THE SENATE.

>> Woodruff: POINTED QUESTIONS.

IN ADDITION WE DID SEE A NUMBER OR SEVERAL QUESTIONS, NOT A LARGE NUMBER BUT SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT WERE DIRECTED TO BOTH THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM.

LOOKING FOR BOTH TO COMMENT.

WE SAW THAT AS WELL.

SO, RIGHT NOW, THE EAST COAST IT'S FIVE MINUTES AFTER 10:00.

SENATE WE WERE TOLD BY THE SENATE, MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL THEY WOULD BE BACK IN SESSION AROUND 10:00.

WE FULLY EXPECT TO SEE A PICTURE OF THE SENATE ANY MINUTE NOW WITH THEM GAVELING IT BACK INTO SESSION.

BUT DAVID YOU'VE BEEN ANXIOUS TO MAKE A POINT.

>> MAKE ONE POINT.

TREMENDOUS INSTITUTIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL SALIENCE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT 6 SUGGESTIONS ABOUT LETTING THE CHIEF JUSTICE DISPOSE OF THOSE ISSUES WOULD BE HORRIBLE PRECEDENT, FRAMERS CONSIDERED ONE POINT IN TIME, GIVEN IMPEACHMENT POWER, CHIEF JUSTICE, I GREATLY RESPECT IS NOT THERE AS JUDICIAL OFFICER HE IS THERE AS PRESIDING OFFICER OF A SENATE.

TO GIVE IT -- TO DO THIS TO GIVE HIM THE PRECEDENT OF DISPOSING THOSE ISSUES, NO MATTER HOW HE RULES, LET'S SAY BENEFICIAL, WOULD BE HORRIBLE.

SHOWS YOU THERE ARE TWO STAGES HERE ONE IS POLITICAL STAGE WHICH WE ALL STRIVING TO TALK ABOUT.

MY FEAR IS FRANKLY THAT DEMOCRATS CARE VERY LITTLE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL STAGE AND SOME REPUBLICANS CARE VERY LITTLE.

THAT IS VERY REGRETTABLE.

>> Woodruff: MAY BE HARD FOR SOME PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE CHIEF JUSTICE IS THE THE -- BUT HE IS NOT IN HIS CAPACITY.

>> Woodruff: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT TO SEE HIM IN THIS EBOLA IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT ROLE FOR HIM.

BY THE WAY WE NOW SEE HIM BACK IN HIS CHAIR PRESIDING OVER THE SENATE TRIAL AS IT GOES NOW LATE INTO THE EVENING ON THIS WEDNESDAY NIGHT.

LET'S LISTEN.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS BLACKBURN, HYDE-SMITH, COTTON, HOLLY, FISHER AND CORNYN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FROM THE SENATORS SO 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. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

I BELIEVE SHORT ANSWER IS, YES, IT DID CREATE A MATERIAL DUE PROCESS ISSUE.

AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY IN PORTION OF MY ARGUMENT, THERE WERE THREE MAJOR DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, LACK OF AUTHORIZATION, A WHOLE PROCEEDING STARTED IN AN ILLEGITIMATE MANNER.

SECOND LACK OF BASIC DUE PROCESS PROTECTION RELATED TO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES.

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.

ALL ATTEMPTS TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, WERE SHUT DOWN.

MANAGER SCHIFF STATED 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 THAT REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF THE HOUSE TRIED TO ASK ABOUT THAT WERE SHUT DOWN.

ANY QUESTIONS AS RESULT ANY QUESTIONS INTO DETERMINING WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS WHAT HIS MOTIVATIONS WERE ALSO SHUT DOWN.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY NOTED, WE HEARD THAT EARLIER THIS EVENING IN HIS LET TORE THE ACTING DIRECTOR THE DNI THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAD RENDITION OF POLITICAL BIAS BECAUSE WHISTLE-BLOWER HAD CONNECTIONS TO A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OF ANOTHER PARTY.

BIT THE TESTIMONY FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REMAINS SECRET.

IT WAS EXECUTIVE SESSION, HASN'T BEEN FORWARDED TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS NOT PART OF THE RECORD HERE.

THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY ABILITY TO PROBE INTO THE RELATIONSHIP 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 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 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 ISSUES ABOUT WHAT WENT ON WITH THE BIDENS AND BURISMA AND FIRING SHOKIN AND WITHHOLDING BILLION DOLLARS IN GUARANTEES, AND AN EXPLICIT QUID PRO QUO.

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 RECORDS THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE.

SO, YES, THAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM AND MAJOR DEFECT IN THE WAY THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS OCCURRED THAT AFFECT THIS RECORDS, IT IS NOT A RECORD THAT COULD BE RELIED UPON TO REACH ANY CONCLUSION OTHER THAN AN ACQUITTAL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN?

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS THAT I WILL SEND TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR PETERS ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS DOES AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER REQUIRE THAT A PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT PLAN ACTUALLY SUCCEED?

>> 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 UP END THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.

HE USED THE POWERS OF -- LET'S PUT SLIDE 11 UP IF WE COULD.

HE HAS USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

WE KNOW THIS BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN STATEMENTS, THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF CONFESSION, SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WITNESS TESTIMONY 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. GUILIANI, WAS IN UKRAINE CONTINUING THIS SCHEME.

AND WHEN HE LANDED, HE WAS STILL TAXIING THE PRESIDENT ON THE PHONE, THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING HIM, WHAT DID YOU GET.

WHAT DID YOU GET.

SO THIS IS AN ONGOING MATTEDDER.

THE FACT THAT HE HAD TO RELEASE THE AID 56 TORE HIS SCHEME WAS REVEALED DOING 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 AND I CAN'T.

BUT I DO THINK 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'VE NOTED AS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY TIED HIS OLD ON MILITARY AID TO HIS DESIRE TO GET UKRAINE TO CONDUCT A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION.

HE TOLD US TO JUST GET OVER IT.

NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAVE SUGGESTED WE SHOULD NOT BELIEVE OUR EYES WHEN MR. MULVANEY -- 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 OPPONENT.

I WANT TO YOU 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 ITS WORST BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE FOUNDERS WORRIED ABOUT WAS INVOLVEMENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN OUR MATTERSERS, IN OUR ELECTION.

SO, YES, THE FACT THAT HE DIDN'T SUCCEED IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE SAFE.

ANDMENT IDEA, I WAS STUPED 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 SORT, E-MAIL, DATABASE AND THE LIKE 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 HAVE BEEN ASSERTED IN THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.

I YIELD BACK.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM WYOMING.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND TO QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS RISC, HA, PAUL AND MORAN.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR BARRASSO FOR COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT, CAN THE SENATE CONVICT A U.S.

SITTING PRESIDENT FOR EX ARE SIGHING THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES OR RIGHTS.

>> 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 AUTHORITY.

THE SERIES THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PRESENTED I THINK PROFESSOR TURLEY TESTIFYING BEFORE HOUSE MADE IT VERY CLEAR, IS ITSELF ABUSIVE POWER BY CONGRESS IS DANGEROUS 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 RATIONAL, PERHAPS ONES THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DISAGREE WITH, THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH LONG STANDING PRESS DEPARTMENT AND PRINCIPLE APPLIED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

HOUSE MANAGERS DISAGREE WITH THEM THEY JUMP IMMEDIATELY TO IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OF THE THAT'S DANGEROUS FOR OUR STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRINCIPLES HERE, ONE BASED ON SIMPLY THE FAILURE OF THE HOUSE TO PROCEED LAWFULLY.

WE'VE HEARD ABOUT A LOT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE LOU.

BUT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS NOT 'LOVE THE LAW IT HAS TO TURN SQUARE CORNERSA TO APPROVE BY PROPER METHODS TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

SO, HOUSE HAS AN ISSUE, IF THE HOUSE ATTEMPTS TO SUBPOENA SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ASSERTS IMMUNITY TO SENIOR ADVISORS, DOCTRINE THAT HAS BEEN ASSERTED BY EVERY PRESIDENT GOES BACK EARLIER THAN THAT, THEN THERE IS A CONFRONTATION BETWEEN THE BRANCHES.

IT DOESN'T SUGGEST AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, WHAT IT SHOWS SEPARATION OF POWERS AND OPERATION.

THAT FRICK SHONN BETWEEN IS BETWEEN -- JUST AS WAS EXPLAINED THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WAS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION NOT BECAUSE IT WAS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO HAVE GOVERNMENT BUT BECAUSE FRICTION THAT IT CAST UD AND INTERACTION BETWEEN THE BRANCHES WAS PART OF WAY OF GUARANTEEING LIBERTY BY INSURING THAT NO ONE BRANCH TO HAVE POWER TO ITSELF.

WHAT HOUSE MANAGERS ARE SUGGESTING HERE, IS DIRECTLY TO THAT FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPAL.

WHAT THEY'RE SUGGESTING IS, ONCE THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT WHEN THEY MAKE DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION TO THE EXECUTIVE, EXECUTIVE HAS NO DEFENSES.

IT CAN HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES OR PREROGATIVES TO RAISE IN RESPONSE TO THOSE SUBPOENAS HAS TO JUST TURN OVER EVERYTHING OR IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

WHAT THAT WOULD LEAD TO, AS PROFESSOR TURLEY EXPLAINED IS TRANSFORMING OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

BY ELEVATING THE HOUSE AND MAKING IT REALLY A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WAS EXPLAINING.

IN THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, THEY CAN BE REMOVED BY VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE.

IF YOU MAKE IT SO EASY TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENTS ALL THE HOUSE HAS TO DEMAND SOME INFORMATION, TO GO RESPONSE FROM THE PRESIDENT THAT THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE, IS THAT ALL PRESIDENTS BEFORE ME HAVE ASSERTED I'M GOING TO STICK BY THE PREROGATIVE, HOUSE CAN SAY, YOU'LL BE IMPEACHED.

IF THE VOTES ARE THERE, THEY REMOVE THE PRESIDENT.

YOU MAKE THE PRESIDENT DEPENDENT ON LEGISLATURE.

THAT IS WHAT WAS WARNED AGAINST SPECIFICALLY DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THAT HE WARNED FRAMERS, WHEN WE MAKE A METHOD FOR MAKING THE PRESIDENT AMENABLE TO JUSTICE MAKE SURE NOT DEPENDENT ON LEGISLATURE.

IT WAS PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM BAKING IT EASY TO REMOVE CHIEF EXECUTIVE THAT THE FRAMERS WANTED TO REJECT.

THAT THEORY OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS WOULD CREATE EXACTLY THAT SYSTEM OF EASY REMOVAL.

EFFECTIVELY PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM THAT IS NOT STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE FRAMERS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR US.

THANK YOU.

>> MR.

SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT?

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS WARNER, LINE RICK AND HARRIS.

CLEAR.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR BLOOM ENTHRALL AND THE OTHER SENATORS IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

IT READS AS FOLLOWS MUCH.

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 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 DISSEMINATED BY RUSSIA IN 2016 ON FACEBOOK AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS USING BOTS, FAKE ACCOUNTS AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO SPREAD THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE PERFECTLY LEGAL AND APPROPRIATE.

EXCUSE ME.

ISN'T IT TRUE THAT ACCEPTING SUCH A THING OF VALUE IS IN FACT A VIOLATION OF LAW AND ISN'T IT TUNA IT IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST PRIORITIES OF OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INCLUDING THE CIAND NS A, DNA AND FBI TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT SUCH FOREIGN INTERFERENCE OR INTERVENTION IN OUR ELECTIONS.

OF THE TYPE AND CHARACTER THAT BEE SAW IN 2016.

WHEN RUSSIA HACK THE DATABASES OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONALITY COMMITTEE, THE DCCC BEGAN CAMPAIGN OF LEAKING THOSE DOCUMENTS, WHEN IT ENGAGED EBB MASSIVE AND SYSTEMIC MOBILE MEDIA CAMPAIGN, HAVE BEEN DEVOLTING THEMSELVES TO PREVENTING RECURRENCE THAT WERE TYPE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

IF I'M UNDERSTANDING COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT CORRECTLY, I THINK THAT I AM, THEY'RE SAYING THAT NOT ONLY IS THAT OKAY TO WILLINGLY ACCEPT THAT, BUT THE VERY ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT THAT BOB MUELLER SPENT TWO YEARS INVESTIGATING, DIDN'T AMOUNT TO CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.

COULD I PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM COLLUSION, MY COLLEAGUES KEEP CONFUSING THE TWO.

BUT HE DID ADDRESS WHETHER HE CAN PROOF ELEMENTS EVER CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.

HE FOUND THAT 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 THERE FOR 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.

THAT'S NOT OKAY.

IT'S BEEN A REMARKABLE EVOLUTION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DEFENSE.

IT BEGAN WITH NONE THAT HAVE STUFF HAPPENED HERE, IT BEGAN WITH NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

IT MIGRATED TO, OKAY, THEY DID SEEK INVESTIGATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL, THEN IT BECAME, OKAY, THOSE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT SOUGHT BY OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO OFFICIAL POLICY SOUGHT BY THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER AND HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY.

THEN IT MIGRATED TO, OKAY, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHILE THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WAS CONDUCTING THIS PERSONAL, POLITICAL AIR RAND THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD THE MONEY.

BUT WE THINK THAT'S OKAY.

WE HAVE WITNESSED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FEW DAYS AND OF A LONG DAY TODAY, A REMARKABLE LOWERING OF THE BAR.

TO THE POINT NOW WHERE EVERYTHING'S OKAY.

AS LONG AS THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IN HIS RE-ELECTION INTEREST YOU COULD CONSPIRE WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY TO GET THEIR HELP IN YOUR ELECTION EITHER BY INTERVENING ON YOUR BEHALF TO HELP YOU OR INTERVENING TO HURT YOUR OPPONENT NOW WE'RE TOLD THAT'S NOT OKAY, BUILT IT'S BEYOND THE REACH OF THE CONSTITUTION.

BECAUSE ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT IMPEACHABLE.

BECAUSE IF YOU SAY ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE THEN YOU'RE IMPEACHING PEOPLE OR PRESIDENTS FOR MERE POLICY.

THAT'S NOT SAFE.

THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING.

THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING.

I ASK PROFESSOR TURLEY ARGUED THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING AS BILL BARR AS ARGUED.

NOT THE SAME THING AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ ARGUED 21 YEARS AGO.

THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING TODAY.

THEY'RE JUST NOT.

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 ASKED OF YOU RELEASE THE HOSTAGE BEFORE YOU GET THE MONEY IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU INNOCENT.

IT JUST MAKE YOU UNSUCCESSFUL.

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 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO SAY, HEY, RUSSIA OR HEY, UKRAINE, OR CHINA I WANT YOUR HELP IN MY ELECTION.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE POLICY OF THE PRESIDENT.

WE'RE CALLING THAT POLICY NOW.

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 POLL SIGH.

I'M SORRY, THAT'S WHAT I CALL CORRUPTION.

AND THEY CAN DRESS IT UP IN FINE LEGALES,E BUT CORRUPTION IS STILL CORRUPTION.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM MAINE?

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> 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 18US C SECTION 201, AND HONEST SERVICES FRAUD AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S. C SECTION.

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.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND THANK YOU SENATOR FOR HER 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.

TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN A 2020 ELECTION.

THE SCHEME WAS EXECUTED IN 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, THOUGH THE WEIGHT OF CONTAKE TALKSAL AUTHORITY SAYS TO THE CONTRARY.

BUT HE SAYS THAT IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS EITHER A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OR SOMETHING AKIN TO A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.

AKIN TO A CRIMINAL VIOLATION.

WHAT WE ALLEGED 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.

HE ASKED FOR EXPLICITLY ON THAT JULY 25th CALL, AND THROUGH HIS INTERMEDIARY 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 MIL YEN IN SECURITY AID THAT WAS PASSED BY THIS SENATE AND BY THE HOUSE ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.

AND PRESIDENT WITHHELD IT WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.

WITNESSES TO SAID THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY REASON, NO LEGITIMATE SUBSTANTIVE REASON REASON, NO 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 ACTED.

THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

THAT THE UKRAINIAN LEADER DESPERATELY WANTED.

SO MUCH SO THAT HE MENTIONED IT ON THE JULY 25th 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 789 PRESIDENT WITHHELD IT.

WITHHELD THAT OFFICIAL ACT.

TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 2020 ELECTION.

THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN AMERICA.

THAT UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRACY.

THAT IS A STUNNING CUPTIVE USE OF POWER AND HE YES, SIR, IT'S AKIN TO A CRIME.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTIONS TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF SENATORS CASEY, ROSEN AND MYSELF TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU SENATOR FROM NEW YORK.

>> QUESTION FROM SECTORS GILLIBRAND, CASEY, MURPHY AND ROSEN 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.

>> 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 THAT ALLIANCE WITH PRESIDENT'S POLICY PRIORITIES OR TO ADJUST 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.

ALMOST DO 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 OLDS IN THE CASES OF OBAMA'S TEMPORARY HOLDS.

CONCH GUESS WAS NOTIFIED.

FOR THE REASON FOR THOSE HOLDS.

IT WAS ALWAYS DONE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST WHETHER IT BE CORRUPTION, NATIONAL SECURITY, IN SUPPORT OF OUR ALLIANCES.

NEVER THE PRESIDENT'S OWN PERSONAL INTEREST.

LET'S LOOK AT EVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OTHER HOLDS.

IN AVERAGE BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT TERRORISTS OR IN CENTRAL AMERICA BECAUSE OF IMMIGRATION CONCERNS.

FOR REASONS RELATED TO OFFICIAL POLICY THEY WEREN'T CONCEALED, THEY WERE PUBLIC, WIDELY PUBLICIZED, AND HAD ENGAGED NOT ONLY CONGRESS BUT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND ENTIRE APPARATUS THAT'S INVOLVED IN CONDUCTING THOSE HOLDS.

AGAIN, NONE OF WHICH HAPPENED HERE.

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 AGENCY AND ADVISORS CONFIRMED THAT THE AID WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY'S NATIONAL SECURITY INCLUDING SECRETARY ESPER.

SECRETARY POMPEO.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.

AMBASSADOR BOLDEN.

OVER AND OVER AGAIN EVERYBODY WAS IMPLORING THE PRESIDENT TO RELEASE THE HOLD TO NO AVAIL.

THE EVIDENCE ALSO SHOWS THAT EVEN THE PROCESS WAS UNUSUAL AS I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER YOU'VE HEARD OVER THE LAST WEEK, A CAREER OMB OFFICIAL MR. SANDY EXPLAINED 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 HIS ENTIRE CAREER AT OLB HE'D NEVER SEEN OR EXPERIENCED CAREER OFFICIALS EVERYTHING THEIR APPORTIONMENT AUTHORITY REMOVED BY POLITICAL APPOINT SEE.

SENATORS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION YOU HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ME IN A LITTLE WHILE I SUSPECTED THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT.

I SUSPECT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE BIG ISSUE, WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

THE PRESIDENT ABUSE ABUSED HIS AUTHORITY, PUT THE SOME OF HIMSELF OVER THE INTEREST OF OF THE COUNTRY OVER THE INTEREST OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

OVER THE INTEREST 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 NEIGHBORHOODS SHOWS LEGITIMATE ENGAGEMENT OF U.S. POLICY POSITIVES SEES TO FORWARD LEGITIMATE ENDS.

>> THANK YOU MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM MISSOURI?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS McCAST CALL, McSALLY RATHER, LANKFORD -- TERRIFYING MOMENT.

ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR McSALLY, SENATOR GARDNER, AND SENATOR WICK THEY IS A QUESTION FOR PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR STAR THE SAWN I WILL STAR THESS WHAT DOES THE SUPER MAJORITY THRESHOLD FOR CONVICTION IN THE SENATE CREATED BY THE FRAMERS DEUTSCHE SPAY ABOUT THE TYPE OF CASE THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT BY THE HOUSE AND STANDARD OF PROOF THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE SENATE.

>> THERE WERE SEVERAL DEBATES AMONG THE FRAMERS, OF COURSE SHOULD YOU HAVE IMPEACHMENT AT ALL, WHAT THE CRITERIA SHOULD BE.

THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER THING.

WHO SHOULD HAVE THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECIDING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED.

JAMES MADISON SUGGESTED SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AS COMPLETELY NONPARTISAN INSTITUTION.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ISSUE AS WELL BUT HE SAID THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE 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 WE THEN BE PUT ON TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE SAME INSTITUTION.

THE JUDICIARY THAT HAD ALREADY IMPEACHED HIM THEY MIGHT HAVE PREDISPOSITION.

SO IN THE COURSE OF THE DEBATE IT WAS FINALLY RESOLVED THAT THE SENATE, WHICH WAS A VERY DIFFERENT INSTITUTION BACK AT THE FOUNDING OBVIOUSLY, SENATORS WERE NOT DIRECTLY ELECTED THEY WERE APPOINTED BY THE PLEDGE SLEIGH TOUR.

THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SERVE AS INSTITUTION THAT CHECKS ON 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.

THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT DEMOCRACY.

NOT A DEMOCRACY, VERY GREAT CONCERN ABOUT THAT.

THEN WHEN IT CAME TIME TO ASSIGN TO THE SENATE THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THE CRITERIA AND WHAT THE OBVIOUSLY VOTE SHOULD BE.

THE SELECTION OF A TWO-THIRD SUPER MAJORITY OF WAS PLAINLY DESIGNED TO AVOID PARTISAN PEACHS.

PLAINLY DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE VERY WISE PHILOSOPHY ESPOUSED BY CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR DURING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

THAT IS DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

NEVER EVER HAVE IMPEACHMENT OR REMOVAL.

ALWAYS DEMAND BE ABOTH 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 DISSENT, 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 AWE EXPHEAFD A 50/50 SPLIT.

AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT?

I THINK I'M RIGHT ABOUT THAT.

IT ONLY LOST, I MEAN IT COULD BE HAVE 51-49.

IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ENOUGH.

SO I THINK IT'S PLAIN 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 UNANIMOUS VOTE JUST TO SHOW UNITY.

I WOULD SURGE ONLY SENATORS WHO FAVOR IMPEACHMENT TO LOOK AT THE TWO THIRDS IF THERE ISN'T TWO THIRDS WE'RE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST I PEACHMENT EVEN THOUGH WE MIGHT THINK THAT THE CRITERIA FOR IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN SATISFIED.

TUNE VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

DO NOT VOTE FOR REMOVAL UNLESS YOU THINK THAT THE CRITERIA ARTICULATED BY THE SENATOR AND THE CONGRESSMAN 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.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I RISE TO SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WHILE THE QUESTION'S COMING UP, I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO MORE DEMOCRATIC QUESTIONS AND TWO MORE REPUBLICAN QUESTIONS.

>> 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 OBVIATING ANY CONCERNS ABOUT AN EXTENDED TRIAL?

>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, WE'VE HAD THIS QUESTION.

I'LL SAY IT VERY CLEARLY.

WE ARE NOT WILLING TO DO THAT.

AND WE ARE NOT WILLING TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK UPON WHICH AN IMPEACHMENT IS BASED AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROMISE THAT ARE AT STAKE WITH NO DUE 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 THE, WHO IS HERE, BY THE WAY, BETWEEN 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 PROMISE THAT HE POSSESSES UNDER THE, 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.

>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.

THE SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS MCSALLY AND MORAN.

>> THE 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 A TO THE, QUOTE, MOST DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, END QUOTE.

WHAT SPECIFIC DANGER DOES THIS IMPEACHMENT POSE TO OUR REPUBLIC TO ITS CITIZENS?

>> THANK YOU SENATORS.

I CAME OF AGE DURING THE PERIOD OF MCCARTHYISM.

I THEN BECAME A YOUNG PROFESSOR DURING THE TIME OF THE VIETNAM WAR.

YOU LIVED THROUGH THE DIVISION DURING THE IRAQ WAR AND 9/11 AND FOLLOWING 9/11.

I HAVE NEVER LIVED AT A MORE DEE VISIVE TIME IN AMERICA THAN TODAY.

FAMILIES HAVE 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 US 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 DECISIONS DON'T GREEGROW EVEN GREATER.

FOR 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 AITY PROVIDED COUNTRY, SUCH A DIVIDE -- DIVIDED COUNTRY, SUCH A DIVIDED TIME.

IF THE PRECEDENT IS STASHED THAT A PRESIDENT CAN BE -- HE ESTABLISHED THAT A PRESENT CAN BE REMOVED UNDER OPEN ENDED AND TARGETED TERMS AS ABUSE OF POWER.

40 PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSE OF POWER.

I'LL BET YOU SOME OF THEM WE DON'T KNOW 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 WEAPONNIZATION OF IMPEACHMENT.

WHENEVER ONE HOUSE IS CONTROLLED BY ONE PARTY AND THE PRESIDENCY IS CONTROLLED BY ANOTHER PARTY.

NOW, THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THERE WERE DANGERS OF NOT IMPEACHING BUT THOSE DANGERS CAN BE ELIMINATED IN EIGHT MONTHS.

IF YOU REALLY FEEL THESE A STRONG CASE THEN CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

BUT THE DANGER OF IMPERIMENT WILL LAST MY LIFETIME, YOUR LIFETIME AND THE LIFE TIME OF OUR CHILDREN.

SO I URGE YOU RESPECTFULLY, YOU ARE THE GUARDIANS OF OUR FUTURE.

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.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR CINEMA 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 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 WHEN THE UKRAINIANS HELD THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE DID IT NOTIFY CONGRESS OR MAKE UKRAINE OR PARTNER COUNTRIES PUBLICLY AWARE OF THE HOLD AND THE STEPS NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE HOLD?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

I THINK 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 PUBLISHALLY AND IT WAS MEANT TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THE COUNTRY.

I THINK 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 TEN WANT THERE TO BE ANY SIGNAL TO THE UKRAINIANS OR TO OTHERS.

AND PEOPLE HAVE TALKED HERE, THE HOUSE 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.

BUT THE WHOLE POINT WAS IT WASN'T PUBLIC.

THE UKRAINIANS 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 WANT TIME TO HAVE THOSE CONCERNS ADDRESSED.

HE WANT TO UNDERSTAND BETTER BURDEN SHARING, THE ISSUE THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE JUNE 24TH E-MAIL THAT I REFERRED TO EARLIER THAT'S REFERRED TO IN THE JULY 25TH CALL TRANSCRIPT.

AND HE WANTED TO UNDERSTAND CORRUPTION ISSUES.

HE RAISED CORRUPTION ISSUES.

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 REFORMAL 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 UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT.

THOSE ELECTIONS DIDN'T OCCUR UNTIL JULY.

THAT'S WHEN THE JULY 25TH CALL OCCURRED.

RIGHT AFTER THOSE ELECTIONS HE WON THE MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT BUT THE PARLIAMENT STILL WASN'T GOING TO ACTUALLY BE SEATED UNTIL LATER IN AUGUST.

MR. MORRISON TEFERRED THAT WHEN HE AND -- TESTIFIED THAT WHEN HE AND AMBASSADOR BOLTON WERE IN KYIV I THINK AROUND AUGUST 27TH, THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAD JUST BEEN TEAFTD AND SEATED AND SPLENS ZELENSKY AND HIS PARTNER WERE UP LATE TO PASTLES THE REFORM LEGISLATION AGENDA RIGHT THEN INCLUDING THINGS LIKE ELIMINATING IMMUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FOR CORRUPTION PROSECUTION.

THE LEGISLATION SET UP THE NEW ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT.

SO THESE DEVELOPMENTS WERE POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS BUT THEN MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHEN HE SPOKE TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE IN WARSAW, THEY DISCUSSED THIS AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WENT THROUGH THE THINGS HE WAS DOING.

THEN THAT INFORMATION WAS RELAYED BACK TO THE PRESIDENT.

SO THE HOLD HAD BEEN IN PLACE SO THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD WITHIN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PRIVATELY CONSIDER THIS INFORMATION NOT TO SEND THE SIGNAL TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD.

SO THIS MAZE INTO SOME OF THE IDEAS -- THIS PLAYS INTO SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT THE HOUSE MARGINS SAID THIS IS TERRIBLE AND SENDS SIGNALS TO THE RUSSIAN.

WHAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER EXPLAINED THERE WAS A CONCERN IT NOT BECOME PUBLIC BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT SEND A SIGNAL AND THAT'S 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.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM INDIANA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF MYSELF AND SENATOR BRUNT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE WERE PROMISED BY HOUSE MANAGERS THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WERE OVERWHELMING AND UNCONTESTED.

INDUSTRIALLY EVERY DAY HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE INSISTED THEY CANNOT HAVE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES.

DO BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE SENATE HAS INCLUDED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS TRIAL THE TESTIMONY OF EVERY SINGLE WITNESS FROM WHICH THE HOUSE HEARD BEFORE THEY VOTED EXCEPT FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, IG REPORT, THE CHAIRMANSHIP KEPT SECRET.

WE BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> I'LL TRY 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 QUICKLY RESPOND TO A COUPLE OTHER POINTS.

THE QUESTION WAS ASKED WHY DIDN'T WE CHARGE BRIBERY.

THE ANSWER IS WE COULD HAVE CHARGED BRIBERY.

IN FACT WE OUTLINED THE FACTS THAT CONSTITUTE BRIBERY IN THE ARTICLE.

BUT ABUSE OF POWER IS THE HIGHEST CRIME THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND AS THE HIGHEST CRIME.

THE FACTS WE ALLEGE WITHIN THAT DO CONSTITUTE BRIBE BE BUT HAD WE CHARGED BRIBERY WITHIN THE ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE I CAN ASSURE YOU THE COUNSEL HERE HAVE BEEN ARGUING YOU ARE CHARGING TWO OFFENSES WITHIN THE SAME ARTICLE.

I WOULDN'T HAVE ALAN DERSHOWITZ SAYING THAT BECAUSE HE SAYS ABUSE OF POWER IS NOT IMPEACHMENTMENT.

THEY WOULD HAVE TURLEY IN HERE.

WE HAVE ONE FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND ONE FOR BRIBERY THEY WOULD HAVE ARGUED YOU'VE TAKEN ONE CRIME AND MADE IT INTO TWO.

THE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL POINT HERE IS NOT THE ACTS WITHIN ABUSE OF POWER CONSTITUTE BRIBERY, ALTHOUGH THEY DO, THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THEY CHARGED A CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME.

THE MOST SERIOUS CRIME.

THE FOUNDERS GAVE THE PRESIDENT ENORMOUS POWERS AND THEIR MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT NOT ABUSE THAT POWER.

THEY PROVIDED A REMEDY AND THAT REMEDY IS EMME.

ONE FINAL POINT -- IMPEACHMENT.

ONE FINAL POINT.

MR. SOMETHING LOW SAYS THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

I DOESN'T ALLOW THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

BUT HE DOESN'T SAY THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS IT.

THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS IT IF THEY WILL AGREE BUT THEY WON'T.

THEY SAY 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 WANT A FAIR RESOLUTION, IF THEY WEREN'T JUST SHOOTING FOR DELAY THEY WOULD ALLOW THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.

BUT WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT IS THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO HEAR JOHN BOLTON.

WHY?

BECAUSE WHEN YOU HEAR GRAPHICALLY SAY A MAN SAY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TOLD ME TO HOLD AID FROM OUR ALLEY TO OWE KERS FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN HIS ELECTION.

WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEAR THAT FIRST HAND NOT FILTERED THROUGH OUR STATEMENTS THEY WILL RECOGNIZE IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT WHEN THEY SEE IT.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> MR. SOMETHING LOW YOU HAVE TWO AND-A-HALF MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

WITH REGARD TO THE LAST STATEMENT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY ASKED AND ANSWERED.

I HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ISSUE OF MOVING FORWARD IF THERE WERE WITNESSES AND ARGUE ON THAT.

I DON'T TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

NOW WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS 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 IMPROVED.

NOW WE OF COURSE DISAWE FORTY THREE WITH CONCLUSIONS AS A MATTER OF FACT AND AS A MATTER OF LAW.

FOR THEM TO COME UP HERE AND ARGUE PROVED AND OVERWHELMINGLY A TOTAL OF I GUESS 64 TIMES IN A COUPLE 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 MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.

THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE TRIAL ADJOURN UNTIL 1:00 P.M. THURSDAY, TOMORROW, JANUARY 30TH.

AND THIS ORDER ALSO CONSTITUTES THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

>> WITH THAT GAVEL BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE THAT CONCLUDES OUR COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR TODAY.

WE WILL BE BACK TOMORROW, THURSDAY AT 1:00 PM AS YOU JUST HEARD FOR ME QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATORS TO BOTH HOUSE MANAGERS AND TO THE BREAD'S TEAM OF LAWYERS.

IF YOU MISS ANY PORTION OF TODAY'S HEARING AND YOU WANT TO CATCH UP YOU CAN SEE IT ALL GAVEL TO GAVEL ON OUR WEBSITE.

THAT'S AT PBS.ORG SLASH NEW HOURS OR OUR YOUTUBE PAGES.

I WANT TO THANK LISA DESJARDINS AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR ALL DAY LONG ON CAPITOL HILL.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO LISA AGAIN AND TO OUR GUESTS HERE AT THE TABLE, MARGARET TAYLOR, MARTIN PAOENE.

THANK YOU ALL AND FROM ALL OF US AT THE NEWSHOUR, GOOD NIGHT.i