>> THIS PROGRAM WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU, THANK YOU.

♪ ♪ ♪ >> Woodruff: GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, WE ARE BACK TODAY WITH OUR WHRIF COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.

TODAY THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL MAKE THEIR FINAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS BEGIN TO MOUNT HIS DEFENSE ON SATURDAY, TOMORROW.

WATCHING IT ALL I'M JOINED BY OUR LISA DESJARDINS, ON CAPITOL HILL, AND BY YAMICHE ALCINDOR.

AND WE ARE LOOKING AT A LIVE PICTURE OF THE SENATE CHAMBER.

WHERE IF THEY GO THROUGH THE PATTERN THAT THEY HAVE SET IF PAST FEW DAYS, WE'LL SEE THE SENATE CHAPLAIN BARRY BLACK STEP UP AND GIVE THE MORNING PRAYER, FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE WILL TAKE THAT CHAIR IN THE CENTER AND WILL GAVEL THE PROCEEDINGS TO ORDER.

EID AS WE HEARD THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPRESENTING THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, ARGUED WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, ON THE GROUNDS OF ABUSE OF POWER, WHICH IS -- CONSTITUTES THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

TODAY THEY ARE EXPECTED TO SPEND THEIR TIME EXPLAINING WHY THEY BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, ON THE GROUNDS OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THAT'S THE SECOND ARTICLE.

OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO WE ARE WATCHING.

THEY'VE BEEN PRETTY MUCH ON TIME.

WE EXPECT THEM TO START MOMENTARILY.

WHILE WE WAIT, I'M GOING TO COME TO YOU LISA DESJARDINS.

IS THERE A GENERAL REACTION YOU ARE PICKING UP TO THE ARGUMENTS BEING MADE AT THIS POINT BY THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS?

>> THERE IS, I THINK THERE ARE TWO REACTIONS.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE BEING QUIET WHO ARE SAYING A LOT OF TIME IN THE WORDS OF ONE WITH THEIR OWN THOUGHTS IN THEIR OWN MIND GOING OVER THE EVIDENCE FROM YESTERDAY.

THERE IS ANOTHER GROUP THAT IS MORE VOCAL, MORE PUBLIC SUCH AS SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM WHO SAID DEMOCRATS WERE REPETITIVE, THE THEME WE HAVE HAD DURING OUR SPECIAL COVERAGE THAT THE PANEL HAS BEEN DISCUSSING AND HE FELT THEY DID NOT MAKE THEIR CASE.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE WILL HEAR FROM THE ALLIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP I THINK.

>> Woodruff: AND THERE'S ALSO BEEN SOME REPORTING LISA AND YOU'VE REPORTED THIS YOURSELF, VARYING DEGREES OF ATTENTION BEING PAID BY THE SENATORS AS THIS WEARS ON.

WE ARE NOW IN THE FOURTH DAY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.

THEY STARTED OUT DEBATING, DISCUSSING THE RULES, AND VOTING ON THOSE, AND WE'RE NOW IN THE THIRD DAY OF ARGUMENTS.

BY THE DEMOCRATS.

AND WHETHER THEY GO TO THE FULL 24 HOURS WE DON'T KNOW.

BUT IT'S A LOT OF SITTING FOR THESE 100 SENATORS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IT'S INTERESTING THOUGH JUDY, OFTEN ATTENTION SPANS GET SHORTER AS THE PROCESS GOES ON.

I'VE SEEN THE OPPOSITE IN THIS CASE.

THE FIRST FEW DAYS I SAW FEWER SENATORS BEING ENGAGED WITH THE LACK OF MATERIAL.

FRANKLY THAT WAS A LACK OF SLEEP ON DAY 2 I THOUGHT.

I FOUND FOCUSED MINDS OF SENATORS PAYING ATTENTION TAKING COPIOUS NOTES.

WE'LL SEE.

BUT YESTERDAY WAS IF BULK OF THE TIME LINE AND EVIDENCE COMING TOGETHER.

TODAY WE KNOW FROM THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS, THEY WANT TO COME TOGETHER, MAKING THEIR CASE, THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE PRESIDENT DID THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DOESN'T SHIELD HIM AND ALSO IT'S AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED BEFORE BY ANY DEMOCRATS.

>> Woodruff: NO QUESTION THIS IS THEIR CHANCE IN THE COMING HOURS TO MAKE THE CASE BECAUSE ONCE THE DEFENSE STARTS TO SPEAK WE DON'T HEAR FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS FOR SEVERAL DAYS.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE REPUBLICAN, THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE WILL GO.

THERE IS SOME REPORTING THAT IT WILL BE LESS THAN THE FULL TIME THEY ARE GIVEN.

WE'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT ANNOUNCEMENT COMES FROM THE MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH McCONNELL.

ONCE AGAIN WE ARE LOOKING AT LIVE PICTURES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER.

AS WE'RE WATCHING PROCEEDINGS TO GO AWAY.

GO AHEAD.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR -- DID I INTERRUPT YOU LISA?

>> HOW LONG THE REPUBLICANS OR THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL GO, I CAN PREDICT A SHORTER DAY TOMORROW ON SATURDAY, MAYBE AS SHORT AS TWO HOURS, IT IS IN FLUX, IT CAN CHANGE, BUT THE FIRST DAY OF THE PRESIDENT'S PRESENTATION MAY BE A SHORT ONE AND THEN IT WOULD CONTINUE NEXT WEEK.

>> Woodruff: AND THAT WOULD BE IN CONTRAST TO THE DEMOCRATS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS WHO SEEM TO BE TAKING THEIR FULL TIME.

WE'LL SEE HOW LONG THEY GO TODAY BUT FOR THE LAST TWO DAYS THEY HAVE STARTED AT 1:00 AND GONE WELL INTO THE EVENING.

AS YOU SAID THAT FIRST NIGHT OF ARGUMENTS THEY WENT TO ALMOST WHAT, 11th O'CLOCK IN THE NIGHT THEY WERE DEBATING THE RULES.

THEY WENT UNTIL ALMOST 2 A.M. YAMICHE ALCINDOR, FOLLOWING THIS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, YAMICHE I KNOW YOU WERE TALKING TO THE PEOPLE AT THE WHITE HOUSE, ON THE WHITE WHITE HOUSE'S LEGAL , WHAT ARE THEY SAYING TO YOU AS THE HOUSE ARGUMENT WEARS ON?

>> THE WHITE HOUSE'S LEGAL TEAM AND THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM IS FELLING VERY CONFIDENT.

THEY FEEL LIKE THE DEMOCRATS WERE GETTING TO A POINT WHERE THEY WERE REPEATING THEM, THAT DID NOT HEP THEIR CASE.

THEY WANT TO HAVE A SHORT PERIOD, THEY WANT TO HAVE JAY SEKULOW AND PAT CIPOLLONE SUPPORT -- PRESENT BEING THEIR CASES.

>> Woodruff: WE DO HAVE BARRY BLACK THE SENATE CHAPLAIN STATINGS.

>> ALMIGHTY GOD, AS WE PROCEED, LET YOUR WILL BE DONE.

ENLIGHTEN OUR SENATORS AS YOU SHOW THEM YOUR WILL.

LORD, GUIDE THEM WITH YOUR WISDOM.

SUPPORTING THEM, WITH YOUR POWER.

IN SPITE OF DISAGREEMENTS, MAY THEY STRIVE FOR CIVILITY AND RESPECT.

MAY THEY RESPECT THE RIGHT OF THE OPPOSING SIDE.

TO DIFFER, REGARDING CONVICTIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS.

GIVE THEM THE WISDOM TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FACTS AND OPINIONS WITHOUT LAMBASTING THE MESSENGERS.

WE PRAY IN YOUR STRONG NAME, AMEN.

>> IN RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.

[ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ] F >> THE SENATORS PLEASE BE SEATED.

IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TO DAILT.

HEARING NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.

>> HERE YE HERE YEAR HERE YE ALL PERSON ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON PAGE OF IMPRISONMENT WHILE THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS SITTING IN A RELY FOR THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> FOR ALL OF OUR COLLEAGUES, INFORMATION ABOUT SCHEDULING.

TODAY, WE'LL PLAN TO TAKE SHORT BREAKS EVERY TWO TO THREE HOURS.

AND WE'LL ACCOMMODATE A 30 MINUTE RECESS FOR DINNER, ASSUMING IT IS NEEDED.

UNTIL THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE FINISHED THEIR OPENING PRESENTATION.

FOR SCHEDULING PURPOSES WE'VE ORGANIZED TOMORROW'S SESSION TO CONVENE AT 10 A.M., AND RUN FOR SEVERAL HOURS, AS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL BEGINS THEIR PRESENTATION.

>> PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE RESOLUTION 483 THE MANAGERS FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAVE SEVEN HOURS AND 53 MINUTES REMAINING TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR CASE MANY THE SENATE WILL NOW HEAR YOU.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, DISTINGUISHED COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT.

I KEEP WANTING TO SAY GOOD MORNING BUT GOOD AFTERNOON.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A VERY BRIEF ORIENTATION TO THE ARGUMENT YOU'LL HEAR TODAY.

WE WILL BEGIN WITH JASON CROW WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT THE CONDITIONALITY OF THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

THIS IS THE LATTER PART, ALTHOUGH NOT THE END OF THE ARGUMENTATION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS IT RESPECTS ARTICLE 1 THE IMOOUS OF POWER.

I'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION AFTER MR. CROW, AND SOON THEREAFTER, WE'LL CONCLUDE THE PRESENTATION ON ARTICLE 1.

WE'LL THEN BEGIN THE PRESENTATION ON ARTICLE 2, ONCE AGAIN, APPLYING THE CONSTITUTION IN LAW TO THE FACTS ON THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

WE WILL THEN HAVE SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT FOR DAY AND WITHR THAT I WILL NOW YIELD TO MR. CROW OF COLORADO.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I WOKE UP THIS MORNING AND WALKED TO MY LOCAL COFFEE SHOP, WHERE UNLIKE MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE MR. JEFFRIES FROM NEW YORK, NOBODY COMPLAINED TO ME ABOUT COLORADO BASEBALL.

SO I COULD ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS ONLY A NEW YORK YANKEES PROBLEM.

>>> AS MR. SCHIFF MENTIONED WE TALKED LAST NIGHT ABOUT THE JULY 25th CALL.

AND THE MULTIPLE OFFICIALS WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE INTENT OF THE PRESIDENT IN WITHHOLDING THE AID.

SO NOW I'D LIKE TO TURN TO WHAT HAPPENED AROUND THE TIME THAT THE AID WAS LIFTED.

WE KNOW THAT THE AID WAS LIFTED ULTIMATELY ON SEPTEMBER 11th BUT IT WASN'T LIFTED FOR ANY LEGITIMATE REASON.

IT WAS ONLY LIFTED BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD GOTTEN CAUGHT.

NOW LET'S GO THROUGH HOW WE KNOW THAT.

OFTEN AUGUST 26th THE WHIFNL COMPLAINT HAD BEEN SENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

AND PUBLIC REPORTS INDICATE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TOLD ABOUT THE COMPLAINT BY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE.

ON SEPTEMBER 5th THOUGH, THE SCHEME BECAME PUBLIC.

AN EDITORIAL IN THE "WASHINGTON POST" OFTEN THAT DAY FOR THE FIRST TIME PUBLICLY EXPLICITLY LINKED THE MILITARY HOLD AND THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.

NOW KEEP IN MIND THAT PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY AFTER THIS BECAME PUBLIC.

AND THIS IS WHERE THINGS START MOVING REALLY FAST.

A FEW DAYS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 9th THE MOUSE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THEIR INVESTIGATION ON THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN UKRAINE.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT THOSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE LEARNED ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION WHEN IT WAS ANNOUNCED AND A COLLEAGUE OF HIS SAID IT MIGHT HAVE THE EFFECT OF RELEASING THE AID.

THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LEARNED THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER BE COMPLAINT FROM CONK, THE SCHEME WAS UNRAVELING.

WHAT HAPPENED TWO DAYS LATER?

THE PRESIDENT RELEASED THE MILITARY AID.

HE ONLY RELEASED IT AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT.

BUT THERE IS ANOTHER REASON WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT RELEASED THE AID AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT.

GAWTION THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION.

THE TESTIMONY OF ALL OF THE WITNESSES CONFIRMED THIS.

BOTH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS TESTIFIED THEY WERE NOT PROVIDED ANY REAP FOR LIFTING THE HOLD.

VINDMAN TESTIFY THAT NOTHING ON THE GROUND HAD CHANGED IN THE TWO MONTHS OF THE HOLD AND MARK SANDY OF THE OMB ALSO CONFIRMED THAT.

AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, TOO, TESTIFIED THAT QUOTE I WAS NOT TOLD THE REASON WHY THE HOLD HAD BEEN LIFTED.

NOW, LET ME TAKE A MOMENT TO ADDRESS ANOTHER DEFENSE I EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR.

THAT THE AID WAS RELEASED AND THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NEVER ANNOUNCED SO THEREFORE, NO HARM NO FOUL, RIGHT?

WELL IN DEFENSE WOULD BE LAUGHABLE IF THIS ISSUE WASN'T SO SERIOUS.

FIRST, I'VE SPOKEN OVER THE PAST THREE DAYS OVER THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSERTING POLITICIAN IN THE MATTERS OF WAR.

REAL PEOPLE, REAL LIVES ARE AT STAKE, EVERY DAY EVERY HOUR MATTERS.

SO NO, THE DELAY WASN'T MEANINGLESS.

JUST ASK THE UKRAINIANS SITTING IN TRENCHES RIGHT NOW.

AND TO THIS DAY THEY ARE STILL WAITING ON $18 MILLION OF AID THAT HASN'T REACHED THEM.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS WHO ATTENDED THE SAW MEETING WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE DESCRIBED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S DEMEANOR AT THAT TIME.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT IN THAT CONVERSATION PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EMPHASIZED THAT THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO ASSIST UKRAINE IN FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA, BUT THAT IT WAS ALSO SYMBOLIC IN NATURE.

WHAT DID YOU -- WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN BY THAT?

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EXPLAINED THAT MORE THAN -- OR JUST EQUALLY WITH THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL VALUE OF THE ASSISTANCE, THAT IT WAS THE SYMBOLIC NATURE OF THAT ASSISTANCE THAT REALLY WAS THE SHOW OF U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, AND FOR UKRAINE'S SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY.

AND I THINK HE WAS STRESSING THAT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT TO REALLY UNDERSCORE THE NEED FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED.

>> AND THAT IF THE UNITED STATES WAS HOLDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IS IT ALSO TRUE, THEN, THAT RUSSIA COULD SEE THAT AS A SIGN OF WEAKENING U.S. SUPPORT FOR EASTERN UKRAINE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS INDICATING THAT ANY SIGNAL OR SIGN THAT U.S. SUPPORT WAS WAVERING WOULD BE CONSTRUED BY RUSSIA AS POTENTIALLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO STRENGTHEN THEIR OWN HAND IN UKRAINE.

>> THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.

PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ATTORNEYS TRIED TO ARGUE, NO HARM, NO FOUL.

THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ITSELF WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO UKRAINE.

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

BUT THE AID WAS EQUALLY IMPORTANT AS A SIGNAL TO RUSSIA OF OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

AND REGARDLESS WHETHER THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED, THE FACT THAT THE HOLD BECAME PUBLIC SEENT VERY CLEAR SIGNAL TO RUSSIA THAT OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS WAVERING.

AND RUSSIA WAS WATCHING VERY CLOSELY FOR ANY SIGN OF WEAKNESS.

THE DAMAGE WAS DONE.

NOW SOME ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT ABOUT WHETHER THE LINK WAS TO THE INVESTIGATIONS, THERE IS A REALLY GOOD REASON FOR THIS.

IT IS A COMPLETE ADMISSION ON NATIONAL TV THAT THE MILITARY AID WAS CONDITIONED ON UKRAINE HELPING THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

HERE ONCE AGAIN IS WHAT MULVANEY SAID.

>> THAT HE ALSO MENTIONED TO ME IN THE PAST THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER, ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT BUT THAT'S IT, THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY.

>> AND WHEN PRESSED THAT HE WAS JUST CONFESSED TO THE VERY QUID PRO QUO THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD BEEN DENYING, MULVANEY DOUBLED DOWN.

>> LET'S BE CLEAR, WHAT WE DESCRIBED AS A QUID PRO QUO, IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION IS TO THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER HAPPENED AS WELL.

>> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FORM POLICY.

IF YOU READ THE NEWS REPORTS AND YOU BELIEVE THEM WHAT DID McKINNEY SAY YESTERDAY, McKINLEY ANY SAID HE WAS REALLY INTERESTED IN THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REERCHTION HE WAS SO UPSET WITH THIS.

I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY.

GET OVER IT.

THERE IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

>> REMEMBER AT THE TIME HE MADE THESE STATEMENTS MULVANEY WAS BOTH THE HEAD OF OMB AND THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE KNEW ABOUT ALL THE LEGAL CONCERNS.

HE ALSO KNEW ABOUT THE IF THE'S SO-CALLED DRUG DEAL AS AMBASSADOR BOLTON CALLED IT.

HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND HOW THE OMB IMPLEMENTED THE PRESIDENT'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO HOLD THE ADD IT.

MULVANEY CONFIRMED HOW THE PRESIDENT HELD THE AID, IT WASN'T TO COUNTER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND IT WAS NOT TO PRESSURE OUR ALLIES TO GIVE MORE TO UKRAINE.

NOW SINCE WE WON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S PRESENTATION I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT I EXPECT THEM TO MAKE.

YOU WILL NOTICE, I'M SURE, THAT THEY WILL IGNORE GASTON PORTIONS OF THE EVIDENCE WHILE TRYING TO CHERRY PICK INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS HERE AND THERE TO MANUFACTURE DEFENSES.

BUT DON'T BE FOOLED.

ONE DEFENSE YOU MAY HEAR IS THAT THE AID WAS HELD UP TO ALLOW FOR A POLICY REVIEW.

THIS IS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION TOLD THE GAO AT ONE POINT.

BUT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE OPPOSITE.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T CONDUCT A REVIEW, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD.

LAURA COOPER WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY REVIEW OF THE FUNDING CONDUCTED BY DOD IN JULY, AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER.

AND SIMILARLY, GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT DID NOT CONDUCT AND WAS NEVER ASKED TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF FUNDING ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

IN FACT ON MAY 23rd, THE REVIEW WAS COMPLETE AND CERTIFIED THAT THE REMAINING HALF OF THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED.

THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE JUNE 18th PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING THE FUNDING.

AND DO YOU REMEMBER THE FICTITIOUS QUOTE UNQUOTE INTERAGENCY REVIEW PROCESS?

WELL, THAT WAS MADE UP, TOO.

SO NO REVIEW WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE.

NEXT, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL KEEPS SAYING THIS IS ABOUT CRUNGS IN UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO EVEN SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.

THE PRESIDENT NEVER MENTIONED CORRUPTION ON EITHER CALL, WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

LET'S GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE.

AS WE JUST DISCUSSED, DOD HAD ALREADY COMPLETED A REVIEW, AND CONCLUDED THAT UKRAINE HAD, QUOTE, MADE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS IN MEETING DEFENSE REFORM AND ANTICORRUPTION GOALS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE FUNDS.

AND IN FACT MARK SANDY, WHO WAS NOT AT THAT MEETING BUT WHO WAS INITIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING THE HOLD SAID HE HAD NEVER HEARD CORRUPTION AS A REASON FOR THE HOLD IN ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS HE HAD GOOD IT.

SIMILAR TO THE 18th CORRUPTION ARGUMENT THERE IS -- ANTICORRUPTION ARGUMENT THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT AFTER THE FACT THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING, THAT IS OTHER COUNTRIES ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO UKRAINE.

I IMAGINE THE PRESIDENT MIGHT CITE THE E-MAILS IN JUNE ABOUT WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES PROVIDED TO UKRAINE, THE REFERENCE TO OTHER COUNTRIES CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE JULY 25th CALM, AND SANDY'S REQUEST ABOUT WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES GIVE TO UKRAINE.

BUT SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE THE THAT TIETION COLONEL TO HIS DECISION TO HOLD THE FUNDING.

FIRST, LET'S ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO UKRAINE.

THERE IS A SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU.

IT SHOWS THAT OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO UKRAINE SINCE 2014 AND THE EUROPEAN UNION IN TOTAL HAS GIVEN FAR MORE THAN THE U.S.

THE EU IS THE SINGLE LARGEST DONOR TO UKRAINE HAVING PROVIDED $16 BILLION IN GRANTS AND LOANS.

THE PRESIDENT'S ASSERTION THAT OTHER COUNTRIES DID NOT SUPPORT UKRAINE IS MERITLESS.

AND THERE ARE OTHER REASONS TOO.

AFTER DOD AND OMB RESPONDED TO THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST PRESUMABLY WITH SOME OF THE INFORMATION WE JUST PROVIDED YOU SHOWING EUROPE GIVES A LOT TO UKRAINE, NOBODY IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MENTIONED BURDEN SHARING AS A REASON FOR THE HOLD TO ANY OF THE 17 WITNESSES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

SONDLAND WHOSE ACTUAL PORTFOLIO IS THE EU NOT UKRAINE, TESTIFIED HE WAS NEVER ASKED TO SPEAK TO EU OR EU MEMBERS ABOUT PROVIDING MORE AID TO UKRAINE.

AND IF PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PERFECTLY GUY TO HANDLE THE BECAUSE HE WAS OUR AMBASSADOR TO THE EU BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED.

AND HOW COULD IT?

BECAUSE SONDLAND HIMSELF KNEW THE AID WAS LINKED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAD TOLD HIM.

IT WASN'T UNTIL THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME BEGAN TO UNRAVEL, AFTER PLIPOLITICO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED E HOLD, THAT THE ISSUE CAME UP AGAIN.

IF THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN WAS GENUINELY ABOUT BURDEN SHARING, NERVE ORDERED A REVIEW OF BURDEN SHARING AND NEVER ORDERED HIS OFFICIALS TO PUSH THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS.

THEN HE RELEASED THE AID WITHOUT ANY CHANGES IN EUROPE'S CONTRIBUTIONS.

THIS LAST POINT IS IMPORTANT.

YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT PURPORTED, THE PRESIDENT'S PURPORTED CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING RINGS HOLLOW BECAUSE THE AID WAS RELEASED AFTER THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT.

NOT BECAUSE THE EU OR ANY EUROPEAN COUNTRY MADE ANY NEW CONTRIBUTIONS.

AS LIEU TIND COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THE FACTS ON THE GROUND HAD NOT CHANGED.

FINALLY, YOU MAY HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAY THAT UKRAINE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE HOLD UNTIL AUGUST 28th.

LONG AFTER THE HOLD WAS IMPLEMENTED.

SO THEREFORE, THEY COULD NOT HAVE FELT PRESSURE.

BUT THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

FIRST, THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT LONG BEFORE AUGUST 28th.

MULTIPLE WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE UKRAINIANS SHOWED, QUOTE, IMPRESSIVE DIPLOMATIC TRADE CRAFT IN LEARNING QUICKLY ABOUT THE HOLD.

AND OF COURSE THEY WOULD KNOW.

THE DOD RELEASE WAS ANNOUNCED IN JUNE.

AND U.S.

AGENCIES KNEW ABOUT IT IN JULY.

SO IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE THAT THE FIRST INQUIRIES ABOUT THE AID WERE ON JULY 25th, THE SAME DAY AS THE CALL.

YOU SEE IT DOESN'T MATTER IF EXTORTION LASTS TWO WEEKS OR TWO MONTHS, IT'S STILL EXTORTION AND UKRAINE CERTAINLY FELT THE PRESSURE.

OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERNS THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WAS BEING SINGLED OUT AND PENALIZED FOR SOME REASON AND THEY WERE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AROUND YOU KNOW HOW ELSE YOU KNOW THEY FELT THE PRESSURE FROM THE HOLD?

BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FINALLY RELENTED AND WAS PLANNING TO DO THE CNN INTERVIEW.

ULTIMATELY RIGHT AROUND THE TIME OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S CONVERSATION WITH VICE PRESIDENT TRUMP WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT THAT I URGE ALL SENATORS TO LOOK AT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CANCELLED THE CNN INTERVIEW.

BUT THE DAMAGE WAS ALREADY DONE.

THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR: THE QUESTION FOR YOU IS WHETHER IT'S OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD TAXPAYER MONEY, AID FOR OUR ALLY OUR FRIEND AT WAR, FOR A PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.

WHETHER IT'S OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SACRIFICE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, FOR HIS OWN ELECTION.

IT'S NOT OKAY TO ME.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT OKAY WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND IT SHOULD NOT BE OKAY TO ANY OF YOU.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

ONCE AGAIN WE ARE GATHERED HERE, NOT AS DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS.

NOT AS THE LEFT, OR THE RIGHT, NOT AS PROGRESSIVES OR CONSERVATIVES BUT AS AMERICANS.

DOING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY DURING THIS MOMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND AS HOUSE MANAGERS WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY, YOUR ATTENTIVENESS AND YOUR HOSPITALITY.

AT THE HEART OF ARTICLE 2, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, IS A SIMPLE TROUBLING REALITY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO CHEAT, HE GOT CAUGHT, AND THEN HE WORKED HARD TO COVER IT UP.

THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO CHEAT.

HE GOT CAUGHT, AND THEN HE WORKED HARD TO COVER IT UP.

FRICKE HENRY, ONE OF THE NATION'S GREAT PATRIOTS, ONCE SAID THAT THE LIBERTIES OF A PEOPLE NEVER WERE NOR EVER WILL BE SECURE, WHEN THE TRANSACTIONS OF THEIR RULERS MAY BE CONCEALED FROM THEM.

LET'S NOW ADDRESS THE EMPT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS TEAM TO COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING.

BY JULY OF 2019, WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WERE AWARE OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP REGARDING UKRAINE.

BUT INSTEAD OF HALTING THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME, THEY WORKED OVERTIME TO CONCEAL IT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING MOWFNTED, WHOITION LAWYERS REDOUBLED THEIR EFFORTS TO PREVENT CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.

AT THE SAME TIME, TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS INCLUDING SEABLGHT POMPEO, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ESPER AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON TRIED TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO LIFT THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THEY FAILED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DETERMINED TO CARRY OUT HIS CORRUPT SCHEME.

THE MILITARY AND SECURITY AID WAS ONLY RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11th, AFTER THE HOLD BECAME PUBLIC.

AFTER THE HOUSE LAUNCHED ANNAL INVESTIGATION.

AND AFTER CONGRESS LEARNED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.

THE $391 MILLION IN SECURITY AID WAS ONLY RELEASED BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS CAUGHT RED HANDED.

THE ACTIONS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIGH LEVEL WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ALLOWED HIS ABUSE OF POWER TO CONTINUE BEYOND THE WATCHFUL EYE OF CONGRESS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, ON JULY 10th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD UKRAINIANS AND OTHER U.S. OFFICIALS THAT HE HAD A DEAL WITH ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY TO SCHEDULE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED.

IF THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADER COMMITTED TO THE PHONY INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT.

AS YOU'VE SEEN IN TESTIMONY SHOWN DURING THIS TRIAL, FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS, DR. FIONA HILL AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN, IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THIS INFORMATION TO JOHN EISENBERG, THE LEGAL ADVISOR FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND A DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.

ACCORDING TO DR. HILL, MR. EISENBERG TOLD HER THAT HE WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THAT JULY 10th MEETING.

ON THE SCREEN IS DR. HILL'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WHERE SHE EXPLAINS MR. EISENBERG REACTION.

SAYING, I MEAN, HE WASN'T AWARE THAT SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS KIND OF RUNNING AROUND DOING THESE MEETINGS INDEPENDENTLY, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE HAD BEEN MEETING WITH GIULIANI AND HE WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW UP ON THIS.SO EISENBERG WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

AND SAID THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW UP ON THIS.

DR. HILL FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT MR. EISENBERG TOLD HER THAT HE FOLLOWED UP WITH HIS BOSS, THE DISTINGUISHED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT BLOCKED MR. EISENBERG FROM TESTIFYING IN THE HOUSE, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HE OR MR. CIPOLLONE DID IN RESPONSE TO THIS DEEPLY TROUBLING INFORMATION.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO CHEAT CONTINUE WEDNESDAY RECKLESS ABANDON.

BY FAILING TO PUT THE BRAKES ON THE WRONGDOING AFTER THAT JULY 10th MEETING, EVEN AFTER THEY WERE NOTIFIED BY CONCERNED NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS, THE WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS ALLOWED IT TO CONTINUAL.

UNCHECKED.

RIGHT -- TO CONTINUE UNCHECKED.

RIGHT AROUND THE SAME TIME THAT THE JULY 10th MEETINGS AT THE WHITE HOUSE TOOK PLACE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BEGAN SECURITYING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO WITHHOLD ALL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE.

ON JULY 12th, ROBERT BLAIR, AN INSTINCT TO THE PRESIDENT COMMUNICATED THE HOLD TO THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, RUSSELL VOUGHT.

ON JULY 18th, OMB KNOB OFFICIAL COMMUNICATED THE HOLD TO OTHER -- OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET NOICIA COMCTD THE HOO OTHERS.

A WEEK LATER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD HIS IMPERFECT TELEPHONE CALL.

WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND DIRECTLY PRESSURED THE UKRAINIAN LEADER TO COMMENCE PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, AS PART OF HIS EFFORT TO CHEAT AND SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

THE JULY 25th CALL MARKED AN IMPORTANT TURNING POINT.

IF THERE WAS ANY QUESTION AMONG SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS AND ATTORNEYS, ABOUT WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE UKRAINE SCHEME, AS OPPOSED TO JUST A ROGUE OPERATION BEING LED BY RUDOLPH JGIULIANI OR SOME OTHER UNDERLINGS, AFTER JULY 25th THERE CAN BE NO MISTAKE.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS UNDOUBTEDLY CALLING THE SHOTS.

THEREAFTER, THE COMPLICITY OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WITH RESPECT TO THE COVERUP OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT INTENSIFIED.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL, BOTH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND HIS DIRECT SUPERVISOR, TIM MORRISON, REPORTED THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL TO MR. EISENBERG, AND HIS DEPUTY, MICHAEL ELLIS.

IN FACT, WITHIN AN HOUR AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN RETURNED AGAIN, A SECOND TIME, TO MR. EISENBERG, AND REPORTED HIS CONCERNS.

>> I WAS CONCERNED BY THE CALL.

WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND I FORWARDED MY CONCERNS TO MR. EISENBERG.

IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE U.S.

GOVERNMENTAL TO VECT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

I WAS CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PROCEEDED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS THE BIDENS AND BURISMA IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A PARTISAN PLAY, THIS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY RESULT IN LOSING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WHEN HE RECORD MY CONCERNS ON JULY 10th RELATING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND JULY 25th RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY.

I PROPERLY REPORTED MY CONCERNS IN OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THESE CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY.

I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I'D BE SITTING HERE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, ABOUT MY ACTIONS.

WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS MY ONLY THOUGHT WAS TO ACT PROPERLY AND TO CARRY OUT MY DUTY.

>> TIMOTHY MORRISON, THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA, ALSO REPORTED THE CALL TO MR. EISENBERG AND ASKED HIM TO REVIEW THE CALL WHICH HE FEESHED WOULD BE DAMAGING IF LEAKED.

>> MR. MORRISON, SHORTLY AFTER YOU HEARD THE JULY 25th CALL, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU ALERTED THE NSC LEGAL ADVISOR, JOHN EISENBERG PRETTY MUCH RIGHT AWAY, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND YOU INDICATED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, OR AT LEAST FROM YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU WENT TO MR. EISENBERG OUT OF CONCERN OVER THE POTENTIAL POLITICAL FALLOUT NOT BECAUSE YOU FELT IT WAS ILLEGAL, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU WOULD AGREE RIGHT THAT ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL RIVAL IS INAPPROPRIATE, WOULD YOU NOT?

>> IT'S NOT WHAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PRESIDENT DISCUSS.

>> THE JULY 25th CALL WAS AT LEAST THE SECOND TIME THAT NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS HAD REPORTED CONCERNS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN.

TO WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS.

THE SECOND TIME.

WHO NOW CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THE GRAVITY OF THE ONGOING MISCONDUCT.

BUT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT BLOCKED MR. EISENBERG FROM TESTIFYING, WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION, THE RECORD IS SILENT AS TO WHAT IF ANY ACTIONS HE OR THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TOOK TO ADDRESS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BRAZEN MISCONDUCT AND ABUSE OF POWER.

WE DO KNOW HOWEVER THAT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO HALT THE SCHEME, WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS FACILITATED IT.

BY TAKING AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MISCONDUCT.

FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MR. MORRISON REPORTED THEIR CONCERNS RELATED TO THE JULY 25th CALL, TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LAWYERS, THEY TRIED TO BURY THE CALM SUMMARY.

-- CALL SUMMARY.

THEY TRIED TO B BURY IT.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYERS BELIEVED IT WAS, QUOTE, APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE CALL SUMMARY.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LEAKS, AND TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRANSCRIPT.

ACCORDING TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, MR. EISENBERG GAVE THE GO-AHEAD TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE CALL SUMMARY.

MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT HE LEARNED IN LATELY AUGUST -- IN LATE AUGUST AFTER HE RAISE ED CONCERNS THAT THE CALL RECORD MIT LEAK AND POLITICALLY DAMAGE THE PRESIDENT, THAT THE CALL SUMMARY HAD BEEN PLACED ON A HIGHLY CAVED NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SERVER.

THE CALL RECORD WAS PLACED ON A SERVER THAT IS RESERVED FOR AMERICA'S MOST SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS.

AND COVERT OPERATIONS.

NOT ROUTINE CALLS WITH FOREIGN LEADERS.

FATHER-IN-LAW MR. EISENBERG CLAIMED AT THE TIME THAT BURYING THE CALL TRANSCRIPT ON A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SERVER WAS A MISTAKE.

>> NOW IN A SECOND MEETING WITH MR. EISENBERG, WHAT DID YOU RECOMMEND THAT HE DO, TO PREVENT THE CALL RECORD FROM LEAKING?

>> I RECOMMENDED WE RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE PACKAGE.

>> HAD YOU EVER ASKED THE NSC LEGAL ADVISOR TO RESTRICT ACCESS BEFORE?

>> NO.

>> DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR SUPERVISOR, DR. KUPPERMAN BEFORE YOU WENT TO SPEAK TO JOHN EISENBERG?

>> NO.

>> DID YOU SUBSEQUENTLY LEARN THAT THE CALL RECORD HAD BEEN PUT IN A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM?

>> I DID.

>> WHAT REASON DID MR. EISENBERG GIVE YOU FOR WHY THE RECORD WAS PURT IN THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM?

>> IT WAS A MISTAKE.

>> HE SAID IT WAS JUST A MISTAKE?

>> IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.

>> AND MR. MORNS'S VIEW -- MORNS VIEW, THE JULY 25th RECORD DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE PLACED ON A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SERVER.

AT HIS DEPOSITION, MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT THE CALL RECORD WAS PLACED ON THE SERVER BY MISTAKE.

HOWEVER EVEN AFTER THIS ALLEGED MISTAKE WAS UNCOVERED, THE JULY 25th CALL SUMMARY WAS NOT REMOVED FROM THE CLASSIFIED SYSTEM.

BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO HIDE IT.

IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE LAUNCH OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN LATE SEPTEMBER AFTER AFTER INTENSE PUBLIC PRESSURE THAT THE ROUGH TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 25th CALL WAS RELEASED.

AGAIN BECAUSE MR. EISENBERG AND MR. EMC REFUSED TO TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE.

WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE JULY 25th CALL RECORD ENDED UP ON THIS HIGHLY CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SERVER.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT MR. EISENBERG ORDERED ACCESS RESTRICTED AFTER MULTIPLE OFFICIALS LIKE DR. FIONA HILL, AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, ADVISED HIM OF THE SCHEME TO CONDITION A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

THIS STRONGLY SUGGESTS THERE WAS AN ACTIVE ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE ATTEMPT OF THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING.

INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT, MR. EISENBERG SEEMINGLY TRIED TO COVER IT UP.

WHY DID MR. EISENBERG PLACE THE JULY 25th CALL SUMMARY ON A SERVER FOR HIGHLY CLASSIFIED MATERIAL?

DID ANYONE SENIOR TO MR. EISENBERG DIRECT HIM TO HIDE THE CALL RECORD?

WHY DID THE CALL RECORD REMAIN ON THE CLASSIFIED SERVER EVEN AFTER THE SO-CALLED ERROR WAS DISCOVERED?

WHO ORDERED THE COVER UP OF THE CALL RECORD?

WHO ORDERED IF COVER UP OF THE CALL RECORD, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW.

FOLLOWING THE JULY 25th CALL THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES INTENSE FIED.

APPARENTLY UNCHECKED BY ANY EFFORT TO STOP IT, FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL'S OFFICE.

AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER WORKED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER, RUDOLPH GIULIANI TO PROCURE A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

TO ANNOUNCE PHONY INVESTIGATIONS INTO JOE BIDEN AND THE CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY BEING PEDDLED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AT THE SAME TIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUED TO WITHHOLD THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE.

IN A MANNER THAT BROKE THE LAW.

AS NIECE EFFORTS WERE ONGOING, WHITE HOUSE -- AS THESE EFFORTS WERE ONGOING WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS REPORTEDLY RECEIVED YET ANOTHER WARNING SIGN THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ABUSING HIS POWER.

ACCORDING TO A PUBLISHED REPORT IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WEEK AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL AN ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER REPORTED CONCERNS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ABUSING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT LANDED IN THE CIA GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE.

ALTHOUGH THE CONCERNS RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MISCONDUCT, THE CIA'S GENERAL COUNSEL, COURTNEY ELLWOOD ALERTED MR. EISENBERG.

OVER THE NEXT WEEK, MS. ELL WOOD, MR. EISENBERG AND THEIR IMOOUTS REPORTEDLY DISCUSSED THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S CONCERNS AND THEY DERND AS REQUIRED BY LAW THAT THE ALLEGATIONS HAD A REASONABLE BASIS.

SO BY EARLY AUGUST, WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS BEGAN WORKING ALONG WITH ATTORNEYS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO COVER UP THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING.

THEY WERE DETERMINED TO PREVENT CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING ANYTHING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT BEHAVIOR.

ALTHOUGH SENIOR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS INCLUDING ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR, WERE REPORTEDLY MADE AWARE OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPT ACTIVITY, NO INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WRONGDOING WAS EVEN OPENED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AS WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS WERE DISCUSSING HOW TO DEAL WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S CONCERNS, ON AUGUST 12th, ANOTHER IMPORTANTLY DATE, THE WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW, THE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TRANSFERRED COMPLAINT TO JOSEPH MAGUIRE, ALONG WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS BOTH CREDIBLE AND RELATED TO A MATTER OF URGENT CONCERN.

URGENT CONCERN.

BUT INSTEAD OF TRANSMITTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT TO THE HOUSE AND TO THIS SENATE'S DISTINGUISHED INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE NOTIFIED THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGY.

YOU FIRST WENT TO THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND THEN YOU WENT TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?

>> WE WENT TO -- REPEAT THAT PLEASE?

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGY.

YOU FIRST WENT TO NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNSEL AND THEN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?

>> NO, SIR, WE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL FIRST.

>> THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND IS THE CHRONOLOGY.

YOU WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE FIRST.

YOU WENT TO THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT FOR ADVICE FIRST ABOUT WHETHER YOU SHOULD PROVIDE THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS?

>> THERE WERE ISSUES WITHIN THIS, A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, IT DID APPEAR THAT IT HAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IF IT DOES HAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IT IS THE WHITE HOUSE THAT DETERMINES THAT.

I CANNOT DETERMINE THAT AS THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

>> UNDER FEDERAL LAW THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS REQUIRED TO SHARE THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WITH CONGRESS.

PERIOD.

FULL STOP.

IF THAT HAD OCCURRED, THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BEING SOUGHT BY THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADER TO PRESSURE UKRAINE FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

TO PREVENT THAT IN HAPPENING THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS AND TOP LEVEL ADVISORS ADOPTED A TWO PRONG COVER UP STRATEGY.

FIRST, BLOCK CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.

SECOND, TRY TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO LIFT THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, BEFORE ANYONE CAN FIND OUT ABOUT IT.

AND USE THAT EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.

AS TO THE FIRST PRONG, SOMETIME AFTER THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE ABOUT THE COMPLAINT ON AUGUST 26th, MR. CIPOLLONE AND MR. EISENBERG REPORTEDLY BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT THEY LIKELY DISCUSSED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WHETHER THEY WERE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO GIVE THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS.

THEY STATED THAT THEY WERE CONSULTING WITH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TESTIFIED THAT HE AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONSULTED WITH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, WHO OPINED WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE BASIS, THAT HE DID NOT HAVE TO TURN OVER THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS.

ON SEPTEMBER 3rd, THE DAY AFTER THE STATUTORY DEADLINE FOR THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TO PROVIDE THE COMPLAINT TO THIS BODY, AND TO THE HOUSE, THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNT ISSUED BE A SECRET OPINION.

CONCLUDING THAT CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER THE COMPLAINT.

THE COVER-UP WAS IN FULL SWING.

THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINED THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT DID NOT QUALIFY AS AN URGENT CONCERN.

AND THEREFORE, DID 92nd HAVE DID NOT HAVE TO BE TURNED OVER.

WHAT CAN BE MORE URGENT THAN A SITTING PRESIDENT TRYING TO CHEAT IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION, BY SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE?

WHAT CAN BE MORE URGENT THAN THAT?

THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME IN PROGRESS.

BUT THEY CONCLUDED IT WASN'T AN URGENT MATTER.

ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE MAGUIRE TESTIFIED THAT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION DIDN'T ACTUALLY PREVENT HIM FROM TURNING OVER THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS.

HE WITHHELD IT ON THE BASIS THAT THE COMPLAINT MIGHT DEAL WITH INFORMATION THAT HE BELIEVED COULD BE COVERED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER ACTUALLY INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

HE NEVER ACTUALLY INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

NOR DID HE INFORM CONGRESS THAT HE WAS DOING SO WITH RESPECT TO THIS COMPLAINT.

INSTEAD THE WHITE HOUSE SECRETLY INSTRUCTED THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TO WITHHOLD THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE MERE POSSIBILITY THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE COULD BE INVOKED.

BY DOING SO THE WHITE HOUSE WAS ABLE TO KEEP THE EXPLOSIVE COMPLAINT FROM CONGRESS, AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO DISCLOSE THE REASON WHY IT WAS WITHHOLDING THIS FORECAST.

-- THIS INFORMATION.

BUT TRUTH CRUSHED TO THE GROUND WILL RISE AGAIN.

THERE'S A TOXIC MESS AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.

AND I HUMBLY SUGGEST THAT IT'S OUR COLLECTIVE JOB ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO TRY TO CLEAN IT UP.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO CHEAT.

HE GOT CAUGHT.

AND THEN HE WORKED HARD TO COVER IT UP.

OF THE MANY GREAT PRESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC, GREAT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, AND GREAT DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS, PERHAPS ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS IS ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

HE ONCE SAID, THAT ANY MAN CAN HANDLE DIVERSITY.

ADVERSITY, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TEST THE MAN'S CHARACTER, GIVE HIM SOME POWER.

AMERICA IS A GREAT NATION.

WE CAN HANDLE ADVERSITY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

WHENEVER AMERICA HAS FOUND ITSELF IN A TOUGH SPOT WE ALWAYS MAKE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WERE IN A TOUGH SPOT, DURING THE CIVIL WAR, WHEN AMERICA WAS AT RISK OF TEARING ITSELF APART BUT WE MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

A TOUGH SPOT IN OCTOBER OF 1929 WHEN THE STOCK MARKET COLLAPSED, PLUNGING US INTO THE GREAT DEPRESSION, BUT WE MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WERE IN A TOUGH SPOT IN DECEMBER OF 1941 WHEN A FOREIGN POWER STRUCK PLUNGING US INTO A GREAT CONFLICT WITH THE EVIL EMPIRE OF THAT THE DISGERMANY, BUT -- NAZI GERMANY, BUT AMERICA MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WERE IN A TOUGH SPOT IN THE 1960S DEALING WITH THE INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS OF JIM CROW.

BUT WE MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WERE IN A TOUGH SPOT ON SEPTEMBER 11th, WHEN THE TOWERS WERE STRUCK.

AND YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN LIKE JASON CROW, WERE SENT TO AFGHANISTAN TO FIGHT THE TERRORISTS THERE, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO FIGHT THE TERRORISTS HERE.

AND WE MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

AMERICA IS A GREAT COUNTRY.

WE CAN HANDLE ADVERSITY BIRN ANY OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD.

BUTTER WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT OUR CHARACTER?

PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO CHEAT AND SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION.

THAT IS AN ATTACK ON OUR CHARACTER.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS POWER AND CORRUPTED THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND.

THAT IS AN ATTACK ON OUR CHARACTER.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO COVER IT ALL UP AND HIDE IT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND OBSTRUCT CONGRESS.

THAT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY ATTACK ON OUR CHARACTER.

AMERICA IS A GREAT NATION.

WE CAN HANDLE ADVERSITY, BETTER THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

BUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT OUR CHARACTER?

>> CRISIS AROUND THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD DEEPENED THROUGHOUT OUR GOVERNMENT.

THE PRESIDENT'S OWN TOP ADVISORS REDOUBLED THEIR EFERLTS TO LIFT THE HOLD ON MILITARY AID AND STEM THE FALLOUT IN CASE IT WENT PUBLIC.

AND IT DID GO PUBLIC.

ON AUGUST TWRAIT, POLITICO PUBLICLY REPORTED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WITHHOLDING THE NIM TRI AID.

AND AS YOU'VE HEARD THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD IN LATE AUGUST CAUSED DEEP ALARM AMONG UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

IT ALSO CAUSED U.S. OFFICIALS TO REDOUBLE THEIR EFFORTS ONCE AGAIN.

AT THE END OF AUGUST SECRETARIES SECRETARYOF STATE POMPEO AND TH.

THE PRESIDENT WANTED THE HOLD TO REMAIN.

THAT PROMPTEDY, THE PRELIMINARY APPOINTEE CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING THE HOLD, TO SEND AN E-MAIL ON AUGUST 30th TO THE DOD STATING AND I QUOTE, CLEAR DIRECTION FROM POTUS TO HOLD.

THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH LAURA COOPER'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WHEN SHE SAID THEY WERE QUOTE HOPEFUL THIS WHOLE TIME THAT SECRETARY ESPER AND SECRETARY POMPEO WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT AND JUST EXPLAIN TO HIM WHY THIS WAS SO IMPORTANT AND GET THE FUNDS RELEASED.

BUT INSTEAD, THE PRESIDENT HELD FIRM.

AND EVEN AS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN CABINET OFFICIALS WERE TRYING TO CONVINCE HIM TO LIFT THE HOLD, WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS WERE RECEIVING NEW REPORTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE.

ON SEPTEMBER 1st, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN WARSAW AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER SONDLAND HAD A SIDE CONVERSATION WITH THE TOP UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL AIDE.

MORRISON WAS PRIVY TO THESE CONVERSATIONS AND WHEN HE RETURNED FROM WARSAW HE REPORTED TO EISENBERG THE DETAILS.

>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY TO TELL YOU, THAT HE TOLD MR. YERMAK?

>> THAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR-GENERAL MAKE A STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS AS A CONDITION OF HAVING THE AID LIFTED.

>> AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD TOLD YOU.

WHY NOT?

>> WELL, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT I SAW AS ESSENTIALLY AN ADDITIONAL HURDLE TO ACCOMPLISHING WHAT I HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO HELP ACCOMPLISH, WHICH WAS BY GIVING THE PRESIDENT HE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THAT THE SECURITY SECTOR ASSISTANCE COULD GO FORWARD.

>> SO NOW THERE IS A WHOLE OTHER WRINKLE TO IT RIGHT?

>> THERE WAS AAPPEARANCE OF ONE BASED ON WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID.

I PROMPTLY SECURED A PHONE CALL.

>> OTHER THAN ONE SMALL DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS ACCURATE AS TO WHAT YOU TOLD HIM, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION, YES.

>> AND GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU CONFIRMED EVERYTHING THAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOLD YOU EXCEPT THAT ONE THING AND A SMALL MINISTERIAL MATTER RELATED TO THE LOCATION OF A MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION AS WELL?

>> I REACHED OUT TO HIM ABOUT HIS ABILITY FOR A SECURE PHONE CALL.

>> WHAT DID HE TELL YOU RELATED TO WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD SAID?

>> TELL THE LAWYERS.

>> GO TELL THE LAWYERS.

>> WHEN I RETURNED TO THE STATES YES.

>> DID HE EXPLAIN WHY HE WANTED YOU TO TELL THE LAWYERS?

>> HE DID NOT.

>> THIS WASN'T THE FULL TIME AND WOULDN'T BE THE LAST THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON, NOW LET'S BE CLEAR WHEN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER SOME IS LEGAL THEY OFTEN GO TO THEIR AGENCY'S LAWYERS AND IT WAS HAPPENING AN AWFUL LOT AROUND THIS TIME.

RECALL THAT BOLTON ALSO INSTRUCTED DR. HILL TO REPORT TO THE LAWYERS, SONDLAND'S STATEMENTS ABOUT REQUIRING AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

AS A CONDITION FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

WHAT BOLTON CALLED SONDLAND'S QUOTE DRUG DEAL WITH THE PRESIDENT'S TOP AIDE, MICK MULVANEY, AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S TESTIMONY WOULD OBVIOUSLY SHINE FURTHER LIGHT ON THESE CONCERNS AND WHAT OR WHO AT THE WHITE HOUSE DID TO TRY TO STOP THE PRESIDENT AT THIS TIME.

AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON MILITARY AID BECAME PUBLIC IN LATE AUGUST THERE WAS INCREASING PRESSURE ON THE PRESIDENT TO LIFT THE HOLD.

ON SEPTEMBER 3rd A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENATORS SENT A LETTER TO ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY.

AN EXCERPT FROM THAT LETTER IS IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE SENATORS EXPRESSED, QUOTE, DEEP CONCERNS, THAT THE QUOTE ADMINISTRATION IS CONSIDERING NOT OBLIGATE THE UKRAINE SECURITY INITIATIVE FUNDS FOR 2019.

THE SENATORS' LETTER ALSO URGED THAT THE VITAL FUNDS BE OBLIGATED IMMEDIATELY.

ON SEPTEMBER 5th, THE CHAIRMAN AND THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE SENT A JOINT LETTER TO MULVANEY, AND OMB DIRECTOR RUSSELL VOUGHT.

THAT LETTER ALSO EXPRESSED DEEP CONCERN ABOUT THE CONTINUING HOLD ON THE MILITARY AID.

THE SAME DAY, SENATORS MURPHY AND JOHNSON VISITED KIEV AND MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ALONG WITH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> ON SEPTEMBER 5th, I ACCOMPANIED SENATORS JOHNSON AND MURPHY DURING THEIR VISIT TO KIEV.

WHEN WE MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIS FIRST QUESTION TO THE SENATORS WAS ABOUT THE WITHHELD SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

MY RECOLLECTION OF THE MEETING IS THAT BOTH SENATORS STRESSED THAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN WASHINGTON WAS UKRAINE'S MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC ASSET.

AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE THAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT BY GETTING DRAWN INTO U.S.

DOMESTIC POLITICS.

I HAD BEEN MAKING AND CONTINUE TO MAKE THIS POINT TO ALL OF MY OFFICIAL UKRAINIAN CONTACTS.

BUTTER THE ODD PUSH TO MAKE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PUBLICLY COMMIT TO INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND ALLEGED INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION SHOWED HOW THE OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS UNDERCUT BY THE IRREGULAR EFFORTS LED BY MR. GIULIANI.

>> THE SENATORS SOUGHT TO REASSURE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT THERE WAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FOR PROVIDING THE MILITARY AID.

ALSO ON SEPTEMBER 5th, THE "WASHINGTON POST" EDITORIAL BOARD REPORTED CONCERNS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WITHHOLDING THE AID.

AND A MEETING TO FORCE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO NOWRNTION INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

EDITORS WROTE, QUOTE, WE'RE RELIABLY TOLD THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD A SECOND AND MORE VENAL AGENDA.

HE IS ATTEMPTING TO FORCE MR. ZELENSKY TO INTER15 IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BY LAUNCHING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE LEADING DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN.

MR. TRUMP IS NOT ONLY SOLICITING MR. ZELENSKY'S HELP WITH HIS CAMPAIGN, HE IS WITHHOLDING AID THE UKRAINIANS DISPRIPT NEED.

DESPITE THESE EFFORTS TO GET THE PRESIDENT TO LIFT THE HOLD IN THE NOW PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER THE SCHEME CONTINUED.

TWO DAYS LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 7th, MORRISON WENT BACK TO WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS TO REPORT ADDITIONAL DETAILS HE HAD LEARNED FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

AGAIN AT THE DIRECTION OF AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

>> NOW A FEW DAYS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 7th, YOU SPOKE AGAIN TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, WHO TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD JUST GOTTEN OFF THE PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, ISN'T THAT CORRECT IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT SOUNDED RIGHT, YES.

>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOU THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO HIM?

>> IF I RECALL THE CONVERSATION CORRECTLY THIS IS WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELATED THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO MAKE THE STATEMENT AND THAT HE HAD TO WANT TO DO IT.

>> AND BY THAT POINT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENT RELATED TO THE BIDEN AND 2016 INVESTIGATIONS?

>> I THINK I DID, YES.

>> AND THAT THAT WAS A -- ESSENTIALLY A CONDITION FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED?

>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT IS WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BELIEVED.

>> AFTER SPEAKING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP?

>> YES, THAT'S WHAT HE REPRESENTED.

>> NOW YOU TESTIFIED THAT HEARING THIS INFORMATION GAVE YOU A SINKING FEELING.

WHY WAS THAT?

>> WELL, I BELIEVE IF WE'RE ON SEPTEMBER 7, THE END OF FISCAL YEAR IS SEPTEMBER 30th.

THESE ARE ONE-YEAR DOLLARS.

THE DOD AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FUNDS, SO WE ONLY HAD SO MUCH TIME AND IN FACT, BECAUSE CONGRESS IMPOSED A 15-DAY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT FUNDS, SEPTEMBER 7th, SEPTEMBER 30th, THAT REALLY MEANS SEPTEMBER 15th IN ORDER TO SECURE A DISIRGS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO ALLOW THE FUNDS TO GO FORWARD.

>> DID YOU TELL AMBASSADOR BOLTON ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION AS WELL?

>> YES.

>> WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU?

>> HE SAID TO TELL THE LAWYERS.

>> WHY DID HE SAY TO TELL THE LAWYERS?

>> HE DID NOT EXPLAIN HIS DIRECTION.

>> AGAIN, TELL THE LAWYERS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON SEPTEMBER 7th ALSO PROMPTED DEEP CONCERN BY AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT.

ON SEPTEMBER 8th AND 9th, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR CHANGED WHATSAPP MESSAGES WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER DESCRIBING HIS NIGHTMARE SCENARIO THAT THEY GET THE INTERVIEW AND DON'T GET THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

AS HE THEN GOES ON TO SAY, QUOTE, THE RUSSIANS LOVE IT AND I QUIT.

AFTER THE HOLD AND THE MILITARY AID BECAME PUBLIC, THE WHITE HOUSE TOOK TWO ACTION HE IN EARLY SEPTEMBER.

FIRST, THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ENSURED THAT THE ACTING DNI CONTINUED TO WITHHOLD THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT FROM CONGRESS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

AND SECOND, THE WHITE HOUSE ATTEMPTED TO CREATE A COVER STORY FOR THE PRESIDENT'S WITHHOLDING OF THE ASSISTANCE.

APPROXIMATELY TWO MONTHS AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ORDERED THE FREEZE.

MARK SANDY RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM HIS BOSS, MICHAEL DUFFY THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME GAVE A REASON FOR THE HOLD.

SANDY TESTIFIED THAT IN EARLY SEPTEMBER HE RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM DUFFY QUOTE THAT ATTRIBUTED THE HOLD TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES NOT CONTRIBUTING MORE TO UKRAINE.

AGAIN, AFTER MONTHS OF SCRAMBLING, THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME ANY REASON HAD BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE HOLD.

AND ACCORDING TO SANDY, IT WAS ALSO ONLY IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, AGAIN AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE LEARNED OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AND THE HOLD BECAME PUBLIC, THAT THE WHITE HOUSE REQUESTED DATA FROM OMB ON OTHER COUNTRIES' ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

SO LET'S RECAP WHY WE KNOW THE CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING WAS BOGUS.

FIRST, FOR MONTHS, NO REASON WAS GIVEN TO THE VERY PEOPLE EXECUTING THE MILITARY AID.

WHO HAD BEEN ACTIVELY SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS ABOUT WHY THE AID WAS BEING HELD.

SECOND, REMEMBER THE SUPPOSED INTERAGENCY PROCESS PERFORMED BUSY OMB?

WELL, IT WAS FAKE.

AND THIRD, AFTER THE HOLD WENT PUBLIC AND THE WHITE HOUSE BECAME AWARE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER THEY STARTED SCRAMBLING TO DEVELOP ANOTHER EXCUSE.

PUBLIC REPORTS CONFIRM THIS.

ON NOVEMBER 24th, NEWS REPORT FOR INSTANCE REVEALED THAT IN SEPTEMBER MR. CIPOLLONE'S LAWYERS CONDUCTED AN INTERNAL RECORDS REVIEW.

THE REVIEW REPORTEDLY, QUOTE, TURNED UP HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS THAT REVEAL EXTENSIVE EFFORTS TO GENERATE AFTERNOON AFTER-THE-FACT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION IN A DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE DELAY WAS LEGAL.

THE PRESIDENT'S TOP AIDS WERE TRYING TO CONVINCE THE PRESIDENT TO LIFT THE HOLD IN LATE AUGUST AND EARLY SEPTEMBER.

AND WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WERE ACTIVELY WORKING TO DEVELOP AN EXCUSE FOR PRESIDENTIAL'S SCHEME AND DEVISE A COVER STORY IN THE EVENT THAT IT WAS EXPOSED AND SOON IT WOULD BE.

ON SEPTEMBER 9th THE CHAIRS OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THE JOINT INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IN AND MR. GIULIANI'S SCEEX.

AND THIS IS WHEN THE MUSIC STOPS, AND EVERYONE STARTS RUNNING TO FIND A CHAIR.

WORD OF THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION SPREAD QUICKLY THROUGH THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE NSC, MORRISON RECALLED SEEING AND DISCUSSING THE LAWYER WITH ]SC STAFF.

VINDMAN RECALLS DISCUSSIONS, ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION.

THE SAME DAY THERE WERE EFFORTS AT OMB TO CREATE A PAPER TRAIL TO TRY TO SHIFT THE BLAME FOR THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AWAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

DUFFY SENT AN E-MAIL TO ELAINE McCUSKER THAT CONTRADICTED MONTHS OF E-MAIL EXCHANGES.

IT STATED FALSELY THAT OMB HAD IN FACT AUTHORIZED DOD TO PROCEED WITH ALL PROCESS NECESSARY TO BL OBLIGATE FUNDS.

DUFFY WAS ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DELAY ON TO THE PENTAGON.

McCUSKER REPLIED AND I QUOTE, YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.

I AM SPEECHLESS.

NOW ALL OF THIS INCLUDING OMB'S EFFORTS TO SHIFT BLAME TO THE PENTAGON, THE WHITE HOUSE'S EFFORTS TO CREATE A COVER STORY FOR THE HOLD ON SECURITY INSASSISTANCE, WAS REPORTED TO THEM, CONTINUED WITH ATTEMPTS TO HIDE THE JULY 25th CALL SUMMARY, AND ESCALATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE'S ILLEGAL CONCEALMENT OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT FROM CONGRESS.

ON SEPTEMBER 10th, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REQUESTED THAT THE DNI PROVIDE A COPY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AS THE LAW REQUIRES.

BUT THE DNI CONTINUED TO WITHHOLD THE COMPLAINT FOR WEEKS.

THE DAY THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS RESIGNING OR HAD BEEN FIRED, IT WAS CLEAR WHETHER ARE AMBASSADOR BOLTON IS FAR CHUR FROM THE WHITE HOUSE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MILITARY AID BUT OF COURSE AMBASSADOR BOLTON COULD SHED LIGHT ON THAT HIMSELF IF HE WERE TO TESTIFY.

THE NEXT DAY ON SEPTEMBER 11th, PRESIDENT TRUMP MET WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, MULVANEY AND SENATOR PORTMAN TO DISCUSS THE HOLD.

LATER THAT DAY, THE PRESIDENT RELENTED AND LIFTED THE HOLD AFTER A SCHEME HAD BEEN EXPOSED.

THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO RELEASE THE AID JUST LIKE HIS DECISION TO IMPOSE THE HOLD WAS NEVER EXPLAINED.

COOPER TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LIFTING OF THE HOLD, QUOTE, REALLY CAME OUT OF THE BLUE.

IT WAS QUITE ABRUPT.

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION BASED ON ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT LIFTED THE HOLD ON SEPTEMBER 11th BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT.

THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO LIFT THE HOLD WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION IS ALSO VERY TELLING.

IF THE HOLD WAS PUT IN PLACE FOR LEGITIMATE POLICY REASONS, WHY LIFT IT ARBITRARILY WITH NO EXPLANATION?

BY LIFTING THE HOLD ONLY AFTER CONGRESS HAD LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION, WHEN AS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED, NONE OF THE FACTS ON THE GROUND HAD CHANGED SINCE THE HOLD HAD BEEN PUT IN PLACE, THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCEDING THAT THERE WAS NEVER A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE.

SINCE THE HOLD WAS LIFTED THE PRESIDENT HAS PAID LIP SERVICE TO REPORTED CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION AND BURDEN-SHARING.

BUT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN NO CONCRETE STEPS BEFORE OR SINCE THOSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE TO SHOWED THAT IT REALLY CARES.

THE RECORD IS CLEAR, BEFORE HE GOT CAUGHT THE PRESIDENT HAD NO INTEREST IN ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS IN UKRAINE.

AND AS YOU'VE ALREADY LEARNED, THOSE PEOPLE WHO REALLY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THESE ISSUES, LIKE CONGRESS, THIS SENATE, THE DOD, AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT, HAD ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS TO ADDRESS THEM.

AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED, AT NO POINT DID THE PRESIDENT ASK HIM TO DISCUSS ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO UKRAINE FROM EU COUNTRIES.

NOR DID PRESIDENT TRUMP PUSH UKRAINE TO UNDERTAKE ANY SPECIFIC ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS.

NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WILL LIKELY SAY THAT HIS LIFTING OF THE HOLD SHOWS HIS GOOD FAITH.

THEY WILL SAY THAT BECAUSE UKRAINE ULTIMATELY RECEIVED THE AID, WITHOUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAVING TO ANNOUNCE THE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS, THAT THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF POWER.

AS A LEGAL MATTER, THE FACT OF THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME WAS NOT FULLY SUCCESSFUL MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

TRUMP'S ABUSE OCCURRED AT THE MOMENT HE USED THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY TO ASSIST HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN, UNDERMINING OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

BUT IMPORTANTLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP ALMOST DID GET AWAY WITH IT.

AS DISCUSSED EARLIER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREED DURING HIS SEPTEMBER PHONE CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TO DO A CNN INTERVIEW DURING WHICH HE WOULD ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

ON SEPTEMBER 12th, IMOSHT PERSONALLY INFORMED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S HOLD ON MILITARY ASSISTANCE HAD BEEN LIFTED.

AND ON SEPTEMBER 13th, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND DAVID HOLMES MET WITH PRE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS ADVISORS AND URGED THEM TO NOT GO FORWARD WITH THE CNN INTERVIEW.

IT WAS NOT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18th AND 19th, AROUND THE TIME THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, THAT THE UKRAINIANS FINALLY CANCELED THE CNN INTERVIEW.

THE PRESIDENT HAS ALSO REPEATEDLY POINTED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HE DID NOT FEEL PRESSURED BY TRUMP.

NOT ONLY UNSURPRISING, IT'S ALSO IRRELEVANT.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY TO COERCE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY INTO HELPING HIM WIN A PLIPTICLE CAMPAIGN.

BUT WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PRESSURED.

HE KEPT DELAYING AND DELAYING BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO BE A PAWN IN U.S.

DOMESTIC POLITICS.

IN FACT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REMAINS UNDER PRESSURE TO THIS DAY.

AS HOLMES TESTIFIED, THERE ARE STILL THINGS UKRAINIANS WANT AND NEED FROM THE UNITED STATES, INDUDE AGO MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE, WHICH HAS STILL NOT WITHIN SCHEDULED.

AND, YES, UKRAINE REMAINS AT WAR AND NEEDS U.S. MILITARY AID, INCLUDING AID THAT IS STILL DELAYED FROM LAST YEAR.

FOR THESE REASONS, MR. HOLMES EXPLAINED, QUOTE, I THINK THE UKRAINIANS ARE BEING VERY CAREFUL, THEY STILL NEED US GOING FORWARD.

IN FACT, RIGHT NOW PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS TRYING TO ARRANGE A SUMMIT MEETING WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN IN THE COMING WEEKS.

HIS FIRST FACE-TO-FACE MEETING WITH HIM TO TRY TO ADVANCE THE PEACE PROCESS.

HE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT.

HE NEEDS PRESIDENT PUTIN TO UNDERSTAND THAT AMERICA SUPPORTS ZELENSKY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.

SO THIS DOESN'T END WITH THE LIFTING OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD.

UKRAINE STILL NEEDS US AND, AS I SAID, STILL FIGHTING THIS WAR THIS VERY DAY.

WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP, FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL, POLITICAL GAIN, ASKED FOR A FAVOR FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HE DID EXACTLYT WHAT THE FRAMERS FEARED MOST, HE INVITED THE INFLUENCE OF A FOREIGN POWER INTO OUR ELECTIONS.

HE USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO SECURE THAT ADVANTAGE AND JEOPARDIZED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

YET PRESIDENT TRUMP MAINTAINS THAT WANT HE WAS ALWAYS IN THE RIGHT IN HIS JULY -- AND THAT HIS JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PERFECT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE BELIEVES HE IS FREE TO USE HIS POWERS THE SAME WAY, TO THE SAME ENDS, WHENEVER AND WHEREVER HE PLEASES, AND EVEN MORE TROUBLING, HE'S EVEN DOUBLING DOWN ON HIS ABUSE, INVITING OTHER COUNTRIES TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS TELL YOU?

IT TELLS YOU THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CORRECT WHEN HE TOLD HOLMES AFTER HANGING UP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON JULY 26 THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT UKRAINE.

HE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE, QUOTE, BIG STUFF, MEANING STUFF THAT HELPS HIM PERSONALLY.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL, POLITICAL GAIN.

HE DID SO KNOWINGLY, DELIBERATELY AND REPEATEDLY, AND HIS MISCONDUCT DONT'S TO THIS DAY.

-- CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.

>> SENATORS, JUST FOR YOUR ORIENTATION, THIS WILL BE THE LAST PRESENTATION ON ARTICLE 1, AND, MR. LEADER, I THINK AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE A LOGICAL POINT TO TAKE A BREAK.

THIS LAST SECTION ON ARTICLE 1 DEALS WITH THE INJURY TO OUR NATIONAL INTEREST AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP USED UKRAINE'S LEADER FOR A POLITICAL FAVOR AND WITHHELD CRITICAL MILITARY AID TO AN ALLY IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT FAVOR, HE DID EXACTLY WHAT OUR FRAMERS FEARED MOST, HE INVITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS AND SOLD OUT OUR COUNTRY'S SECURITY FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT AND BETRAYED THE NATION'S TRUST TO A FOREIGN POWER.

THE PRESIDENT SCHEMED TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO DO HIS POLITICAL DIRTY WORK, HARMED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, UNDERMINED OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND, EVEN TODAY, EVEN TODAY, THREATENS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT ARGUES THAT HIS CALL WAS PERFECT, THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG, WHAT HE'S REALLY SAYING IS THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE PRESIDENT ASKING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO A PERSONAL FAVOR, THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE PRESIDENT PRESSURING THAT FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT, THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH WITHHOLDING CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED, TAXPAYER-FUNDED, MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO THAT FOREIGN COUNTRY TO EXTORT THAT COUNTRY TO HELP THE PRESIDENT CHEAT TO WIN AN ELECTION.

BUT THERE ARE A GREAT MANY THINGS WRONG WITH THAT.

MOST SIGNIFICANT FOR THE PURPOSES THAT BRING US HERE TODAY, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT IT.

AND THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT IT BECAUSE THAT CONDUCT IS THE QUINTESSENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER.

THE USE OF OFFICIAL POWER FOR PERSONAL GAIN, PUTTING PERSONAL INTERESTS OVER THE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND PLACING PERSONAL BENEFITS OVER OUR NATION'S SECURITY.

THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT THAT WE OUTLINED YESTERDAY HARMED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, THAT IS WITHOUT A DOUBT.

IT ENDANGERED OUR ELECTIONS AND IT SENT OUR COUNTRY ON A DANGEROUS PATH THAT, IF LEFT UNCHECKED, WILL CAUSE IRREVOCABLE DAMAGE TO THE BALANCE OF POWER CONTEMPLATED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

IF SOMEONE SACRIFICES THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN FAVOR OF HIS OWN AND IS NOT REMOVED FROM OFFICE, OUR DEMOCRACY IS IN JEOPARDY, IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

THE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MISCONDUCT DEMAND OUR ATTENTION.

LET ME TAKE THESE ISSUES IN TURN BEGINNING WITH THIS HARM TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

FIRST, THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER HAD IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR SECURITY.

UKRAINE IS A BURGEONING DEMOCRACY ENTANGLED IN A HOT WAR WITH RUSSIA.

BY WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID, PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT ONLY DENIED UKRAINE MUCH-NEEDED MILITARY EQUIPMENT BUT ALSO WEAKENED UKRAINE'S POSITION IN NEGOTIATIONS OVER THE END OF THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.

BECAUSE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT ACTIONS, VLADIMIR PUTIN WAS EMBOLDENED AT A PIVOTAL MOMENT AHEAD OF THOSE SENSITIVE NEGOTIATIONS TO ATTEMPT TO END THE WAR.

AN EMBOLDN'T RUSSIA IS A THREAT TO UNITED STATES AND THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY AROUND THE WORLD.

THE PRESIDENT'S WILL TO PUT HIMSELF OVER OUR COUNTRY UNDERCUT EUROPEAN ALLIES COMMITMENT TO DETERRING RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND SIGNALS TO ADVERSARIES AND FRIENDS ALIKE THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD, OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF COULD BE INFLUENCED BY MANIPULATING HIS PERCEPTION OF WHAT WAS BEST FOR HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS.

NOW, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE RUSSIANS AND PROBABLY EVERY OTHER NATION THAT HAS THE CAPACITY DOES A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS WE PROFILE OTHER LEADERS.

IF A PRESIDENT CAN BE SO EASILY MANIPULATED TO DISBELIEVE HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, TO ACCEPT THE PROPAGANDA OF THE KREMLIN, THAT IS A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND THAT IS JUST WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WILLINGNESS TO ENTANGLE OUR FOREIGN ALLIES IN A CORRUPT POLITICAL ERRAND ALSO UNDERMINED THE CREDIBILITY OF AMERICANS TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW AND FIGHT CORRUPTION ABROAD.

THIS IS TRUMP FIRST, NOT AMERICA FIRST, NOT AMERICAN IDEALS FIRST, AND THE RESULT HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE GRAVE HARM TO OUR NATION IF THIS CHAMBER DOES NOT STAND UP AND SAY IT IS WRONG.

IF YOU DO NOT STAND UP AND SAY THIS IS NOT ONLY WRONG, NOT ONLY UNACCEPTABLE, BUT CONDUCT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, AND IF IT REALLY IS IMCOMPATTABLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY, IF YOU CANNOT FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THAT RESPONSIBILITY, IF YOU CANNOT BRING YOURSELF TO PUT YOUR NATION'S INTEREST AHEAD OF YOUR OWN, IT MUST BE IMPEACHABLE, OR THE NATION REMAINS AT RISK.

LET'S CONSIDER THE BIG PICTURE HERE.

AND PROBABLY A QUESTION MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE ASKING, WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO THE UNITED STATES?

WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO THE UNITED STATES?

BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SMALL COUNTRY, MANY PEOPLE KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT.

WELL, THIS SMALL COUNTRY, THIS ALLY OF OURS IS A COUNTRY HUNGRY FOR REFORM AND EAGER FOR A STRONGER RELATION WITH ITS MOST AND POWERFUL, IMPORTANT ALLY, THE UNITED STATES, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OURSELVES AND WHAT IT MEANS TO THE STRENGTH OF OUR OWN DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACIES AROUND THE WORLD WITH COUNTRIES LIKE UKRAINE -- WHEN COUNTRIES LIKE UKRAINE ARE FIGHTING OUR FIGHT AGAINST AUTHORITARIANISM.

AT LEAST THAT USED TO BE OUR FIGHT, AND GOD HELP US IF IT'S NOT OUR FIGHT STILL.

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN DECLARED THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION YON TO BE THE GREATEST GEOPOLITICAL CATASTROPHE OF THE 20th CENTURY.

UKRAINE'S VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE IN DECEMBER 1991 WAS THE FINAL NAIL IN THE SOVIET UNION'S COFFIN.

THAT MADE UKRAINE'S GREATEST MOMENT PUTIN'S GREATEST TRAGEDY.

WHEN IT DECLARED INDEPENDENCE FROM SOVIET DOMINATION, UKRAINE INHERITED ROUGHLY 1900 SOVIET NUCLEAR WARHEADS, ENOUGH FIRE POWER TO LEVEL EVERY MAJOR AMERICAN CITY SEVERAL TIMES OVER.

1900 SOVIET NUCLEAR WARHEADS.

IN EXCHANGE FOR UKRAINE SURRENDERING THIS ARSENAL, THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM REACHED AN UNDERSTANDING CALLED THE BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM OF 1994.

THEY CONTINUED -- THEY COMMITTED, IN THIS MEMORANDUM, TO RESPECTING THE BORDERS OF AN INDEPENDENT UKRAINE AND ALSO TO REFRAIN FROM USING THE THREAT OR USE OF FORCE AGAINST UKRAINE.

THIS WAS AN EARLY SUCCESS OF THE POST-COLD WAR PERIOD.

DESPITE ITS COMMITMENT TO RESPECT UKRAINE'S INDEPENDENCE, OF COURSE, RUSSIA CONTINUED TO MEDDLE IN UKRAINE'S AFFAIRS.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RECOUNTED HOW EVENTS TOOK AN EVEN MORE SINISTER TURN IN 2013.

T>> THE WEST.

IN 2013 VLADIMIR PUTIN WAS TO THREATENED BY THE PROSPECT OF UKRAINE JOINING THEINE UNION THAT HE TRIED TO BRIBE THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

THIS TRIGGERED MASS PROTESTS IN 2013 THAT DROVE THAT PRESIDENT TO FLEE TO RUSSIA, IN FEBRUARY 2014, BUT NOT BEFORE HIS FORCES KILLED 100 UKRAINIAN PROTESTERS IN CENTRAL KIEV.

>> ANGERED BY THE FALL OF THE KREMLIN BACKED LEADER IN KIEV, PRESIDENT PUTIN ORDERED THE INVASION OF UKRAINE, SPECIFICALLY THE REGION KNOWN AS CRIMEA.

RUSSIAN'S AGGRESSION WAS MET WITH GLOBAL CONDEMNATION.

>> WE LACK THE SOUND THERE BUT YOU CAN SEE THE IMAGES OF THE CONFLICT ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LAURA COOPER TESTIFIED AS TO THE STAKES OF U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.

>> RUSSIA VIOLATED THE SOVEREIGNTY OF UKRAINE'S TERRITORY.

RUSSIA ILLEGALLY AN EXED TERRITORY THAT BELONGED TO UKRAINE.

THEY ALSO DENIED UKRAINE ACCESS TO ITS NAVAL FLEET AT THE TIME, AND, TO THIS DAY, RUSSIA IS BUILDING A CAPABILITY ON CRIMEA DESIGNED TO EXPAND RUSSIAN MILITARY POWER PROJECTION FAR BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE REGION.

>> IN 2014, WERE THERE CONCERNS IN WASHINGTON -- HERE IN WASHINGTON AND EUROPEAN CAPITALS THAT RUSSIA MIGHT NOT STOP IN UKRAINE?

>> I WAS NOT IN MY CURRENT POSITION IN 2014, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT FEAR ABOUT WHERE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION WOULD STOP.

>> ONE AMERICAN WAR HERO AND STATMAN WHO IS NO STRANGER TO THIS BODY RECOGNIZED THE THREAT POSED BY RUSSIA'S INVASION OF CRIMEA, SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN.

IN AN INTERVIEW HE DECLARED, QUOTE, WE ARE ALL UKRAINIANS.

SENATOR McCAIN ADVISED THAT THIS IS A CHESS MATCH REMINISCENT OF THE COLD WAR, AND WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT AND ACT ACCORDINGLY.

HE WAS, OF COURSE, ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMITMENTS MADE TO UKRAINE IN 1994, THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE RESPONDED TO RUSSIA'S INVASION BY IMPOSING SIGNIFICANT SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA.

WE JOINED EUROPE IN PROVIDING UKRAINE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ECONOMIC SUPPORT TO HELPT IT RESIST RUSSIAN INFLUENCE, AND THE SENATE APPROVED BY AN OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN MAJORITY VITAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO HELP REBUILD UKRAINE'S MILITARY, WHICH THE FORMER RUSSIAN-BACKED LEADER OF UKRAINE HAD STARVED OF RESOURCES.

THIS STRONG BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE REFLECTED WHAT SENATOR McCAIN SAID WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UNITED STATES TO UNDERMINE RUSSIAN LEVERAGE IN EASTERN EUROPE BY BUILDING, QUOTE, A SUCCESS IN UKRAINE.

SENATOR McCAIN OUTLINED THIS VISION.

>> PUTIN ALSO SEES -- HERE'S THIS BEAUTIFUL AND LARGE AND MAGNIFICENT COUNTRY CALLED UKRAINE, AND SUPPOSE UKRAINE FINALLY, AFTER FAILING IN 2004, GETS IT RIGHT, DEMOCRACY -- GETS RID OF CORRUPTION, ECONOMY'S REALLY IMPROVING, AND IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE BORDER OF RUSSIA, AND, SO, I THINK IT MAKES HIM VERY NERVOUS IF THERE WERE A SUCCESS IN UKRAINE IN BRINGING ABOUT A FREE AND OPEN SOCIETY AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN RUSSIA, AS YOU KNOW, WHICH IS PROPPED UP BY ENERGY.

>> ACHIEVING THE UKRAINIAN SUCCESS THAT SENATOR McCAIN AND MANY OF US HOPED FOR PROVED TO BE A DAUNTING TASK, BUT SEVERAL WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE SAID VLADIMIR ZELENSKY'S LAND SLIDE WAS A GAME CHANGE.

HERE'S HOW U.S.

DIPLOMAT DAVID HOLMES EXPLAINED THE HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY CREATED BY HIS ELECTION.

>> DESPITE THE RUSSIANA IMPRESSION OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, UKRAINIANS HAVE REBUILT A SHATTERED ECONOMY, ADHERED TO A PEACE PROCESS AND MOVED ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY CLOSER TO THE WEST, TOWARD OUR WAY OF LIFE.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, LARGE MAJORITIES OF UKRAINIANS, AGAIN, CHOSE A FRESH START BY VOTING FOR A POLITICAL NEWCOMER AS PRESIDENT, REPLACING 80% OF THEIR PARLIAMENT, ENDORSING A PLATFORM CONSISTENT WITH OUR DEMOCRATIC VALUES, OUR PRIORITIES AND OUR STRATEGIC INTERESTS.

THIS YEAR'S REVOLUTION AT THE BALLOT BOX UNDERSCORES THAT, DESPITE ITS IMPERFECTIONS, UKRAINE IS A GENUINE AND VIBRANT DEMOCRACY AND AN EXAMPLE TO ORTHOPOST-SOVIET COUNTRIES AND BEYOND FROM MOSCOW TO HONG KONG.

>> SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE'S SECURITY AND REFORM IS CRITICAL NOT ONLY TO OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY BUT TO OTHER ALLIES AND EMERGING DEMOCRACIES AROUND THE WORLD.

THE WIDELY ACCEPTED FACT OF UKRAINE'S IMPORTANCE TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY MAKES PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER AND WITHHOLDING OF VITAL DIPLOMATIC AND MILITARY SUPPORT ALL THE MORE DISTURBING.

FIRST, WITNESSES ASSESS THAT WITHHOLDING THE MILITARY AID LIKELY HELPED TO PROLONG THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA.

WHEN WARS DRAG ON, MORE PEOPLE DIE.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED TO THIS SOBER REALITY.

>> I TAKE IT IF THE PROVISION OF THE U.S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE WOULD SAY TO UKRAINIAN LIVES THAT ANY DELAY IN THAT ASSISTANCE MAY ALSO COST UKRAINIANS LIVES.

IS THAT TRUE?

>> CHAIRMAN, OF COURSE, IT'S HARD TO DRAW ANY DIRECT LINES BETWEEN ANY PARTICULAR EARL MEANT OF SECURITY SYSTEMS AND ANY PARTICULAR DEATH ON THE BATTLEFIELD, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT THAT ASSISTANCE HAD ENABLED UKRAINIAN ARMED FORCES TO BE EFFECTIVE AND DETER AND TO BE ABLE TO TAKE COUNTERMEASURES TO THE ATTACKS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD.

>> I THINK YOU SAID A UKRAINE SOLDIERLOGS THEIR LIFE WHIRL YOU WERE VISITING.

>> WE KEEP VERY CAREFUL TRACK OF THE CASUALTIES AND I NOTICED, ON THE NEXT DAY, THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT THAT ONE WAS KILLED, FOUR SOLDIERS WERE WOUNDED ON THAT DAY.

>> AND, INDEED, UKRAINIANS LEWIS THEIR LIVES EVERY WEEK.

>> EVERY WEEK.

DAVID HOLMES ALSO TESTIFIED THAT PROLONGING THE WAR IN UKRAINE RESULTS IN ADDITIONAL CASUALTIES.

>> AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, UKRAINIANS ARE FIGHT AGO HOT WAR ON UKRAINIAN TERRITORY AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

THIS WEEK ALONG, SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE IN WASHINGTON, TWO UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS WERE KILLED AND TWO INJURED BY RUSSIAN-LED FORCES IN EASTERN UKRAINE DESPITE A DECLARED CEASE FIRE.

I LEARNED OVERNIGHT SEVEN MORE WERE INJURED YESTERDAY.

>> WITHHOLDING THE AID HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES TO REAL SOLDIERS WITH REAL FAMILIES AND, BEAR IN MIND, U.S. AID IS FULLY 10% OF UKRAINE'S DEFENSE BUDGET, 10%.

THAT'S NOT AN EXTRA BONUS, THAT'S NECESSARY AID FOR UKRAINE TO DEFEND ITSELF ON THE FRONT LINE NOW, A SECOND CONSEQUENCE OF WITHHOLDING MILITARY ASSISTANCE IS IT EMBOLDENED RUSSIA OUR ADD VEER SAUR.

HERE IS OUR OFFICIAL WHO OVERSAW THE MILITARY AID.

>> WHAT ABOUT TODAY, IF THE U.S.

WERE TO WITHDRAW ITS MILITARY SUPPORT OF UKRAINE, WHAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY HAPPEN?

>> IT IS MY BELIEVE THAT, IF WE WERE TO WITHDRAW OUR SUPPORT, IT WOULD EMBOLDEN RUSSIA, IT WOULD ALSO VALIDATE RUSSIA'S VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

>> AND WHICH COUNTRY TENDS TO BENEFIT THE MOST -- WOULD STAND TO BENEFIT THE MOST FROM SUCH A WITHDRAWAL?

>> RUSSIA.

WAS NOT ONLY EMBOLDENED ON THE BATTLEFIELD, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT WITHHOLDING MILITARY ASENSE AND FAILURE TO HOST PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE OVAL OFFICE WAS, QUOTE, A SIGN OF WEAKNESS TO MOSCOW, AND IT DID HARMED UKRAINE'S NEGOTIATING POSITION EVEN AS RECENTLY AS DECEMBER 9 WHEN ZELENSKY AND PUTIN MET TO DISCUSS THE CONFLICT IN THE EAST, SHOWN IN THIS PHOTO.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EXPLAINED.

>> I THINK YOU TESTIFIED RUSSIA WAS WATCHING CLOSELY TO GAUGE THE AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINE GOVERNMENT.

WHY IS THAT SIGNIFICANT?

>> THIS IS SIGNIFICANT, MR. CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE THE UKRAINIANS, IN PARTICULAR UNDER THIS NEW ADMINISTRATION, ARE EAGER TO END THIS BAR AND IN A WAY THAT THE RUSSIA'S LEAVE THEIR TERRITORY.

THESE NEGOTIATIONS, LIKE ALL NEGOTIATIONS, ARE DIFFICULT.

UKRAINIANS WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH OR AT LEAST MORE STRENGTH THAN THEY NOW V. PART OF THE STRENGTH, PART OF THE ABILITY OF THE UKRAINIANS TO NEGOTIATE AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, WITH THE RUSSIAN TO AN END TO THE WAR DEPENDS ON THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.

IF WE WITHDRAW OR SUS SPND OR THREATEN TO WITHDRAW OUR SECURITY SYSTEMS, THAT'S A MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS, BUT IT'S AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR QUESTION INDICATES, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO THE RUSSIANS, WHO ARE LOOK FOR ANY SIGN OF WEAKNESS OR ANY SIGN THAT WE ARE WITHDRAWING OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

>> AND, SO, WHEN THE UKRAINIANS LEARNED OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE MILITARY AID, EITHER PRIVATELY OR WHEN OTHERS LEARN PUBLICLY, THE RUSSIANS WOULD BE LEARNING, ALSO, AND THEY WOULD TAKE THAT AS A LACK OF ROBUST U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

AND THAT WOULD WEAKEN UKRAINE IN NEGOTIATING AN END TO THE WAR IN DANBAS.

>> IT WOULD.

NDEED THE AID DOESN'T JUST SUPPLY MUCH-NEEDED WEAPONS TO UKRAINE, IT IS A SYMBOL OF SUPPORT, A SIGNAL OF STRENGTH, A SIGNAL OF THE BACKING OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WITHHOLDING THAT AID, EVEN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, UNDERMINED ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS TOWARDS UKRAINE ALSO UNDERCUT WORLDWIDE CONFIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES AS A RELIABLE SECURITY PARTNER.

MAINTAINING THAT CONFIDENCE IS CRUCIAL TO THE STRENGTH OF OUR ALLIANCES IN EUROPE TO DETERRING RUSSIA AND ULTIMATELY PROTECTING AND PROJECTIONING DEMOCRACY AROUND THE WORLD.

THE UNITED STATES HAS ROUGHLY 68,000 TROOPS STATIONED IN EUROPE.

THEY SERVE ALONGSIDE TROOPS FROM 28 OTHER COUNTRIES THAT COMPRISE THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION OR N.A.T.O.

THEY ARE HOLDING THE LINE AGAINST FURTHER RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

IT WAS U.S.

LEADERSHIP THAT LED TO THE CREATION OF N.A.T.O.

70 YEARS AGO, AS THE IRON CURTAIN WAS DESCENDING ACROSS THE HEART OF EUROPE, AND IT IS AMERICAN LEADERSHIP THAT MAKES N.A.T.O.

WORK TODAY.

N.A.T.O.

IS ALSO AFFECTED BECAUSE OTHER COUNTRIES, FRIENDS AND FOES ALIKE KNOW THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO OUR COLLECTIVE DEFENSE, THAT AN ATTACK AGAINST ONE NATION IS AN ATTACK AGAINST ALL OF US.

THAT PRINCIPLE DETERRED A RUSSIAN INVASION OF EUROPE DURING THE COLD WAR.

IT'S ONLY BEEN INVOKED ONCE BY N.A.T.O.

IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS.

NEW YORK IS A LONG WAY FROM THE FRONT LINES WITH RUSSIA, BUT OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES STOOD WITH US AFTER THAT DARK DAY.

THEY DEPLOYED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN AND JOINED US IN FIGHTING THE AL QUAIDA TERRORISTS WHO ATTACKED THE TWIN TOWERS AND THE PENTAGON.

NOW, UKRAINE IS NOT A MEMBER OF N.A.T.O., BUT RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE WAS A THREAT TO THE PEACE AND SECURITY OF EUROPE.

MOSCOW'S AGGRESSION THREATENED THE RULES OF THE ROAD THAT HAVE KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE SINCE WORLD WAR II.

THE S SACROSANCT IDEA THAT BORDS CANNOT BE CHANGED BY MILITARY FORCE.

IF WE HAD NOT SUPPORTED UKRAINE IN 2014, IF MEMBERS OF THIS BODY HAD NOT VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO REBUILD UKRAINE'S MILITARY, THERE IS NO QUESTION IT WOULD HAVE INVITED FURTHER RUSSIAN ADVENTURISM IN UKRAINE AND PERHAPS ELSEWHERE IN THE HEART OF EUROPE.

IT WOULD HAVE WEAKENED OUR ALLIES AND EXPOSED U.S.

TROOPS STATIONED IN EUROPE TO GREATER DANGER.

DETERRING RUSSIA REQUIRES PERSISTENCE, NOT JUST ONE MILITARY AID PACKAGE OR ONE OVAL OFFICE MEETING, BUT A SUSTAINED POLICY OF SUPPORT FOR OUR PARTNERS.

WE ONLY DETER RUSSIA BY CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATING SUPPORT FOR OUR FRIENDS, FRIENDS LIKE UKRAINE.

GEORGE SCHULTZ WHO SERVED AS RONALD REAGAN'S SECR SECRETARY F STATE UNDERSTOOD THIS.

HE SAID, IF YOU PLANT A GARDEN AND GO AWAY FOR SIX MONTHS, WHAT HAVE YOU GOT WHEN YOU COME BACK?

WEEDS.

DIPLOMACY, HE SAID, IS KIND OF LIKE THAT.

YOU GO AROUND, TALK TO PEOPLE, YOU DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE, AND THEN IF SOMETHING COMES UP, YOU HAVE THAT BASE TO WORK FROM.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO TRANSFORM THE MILITARY AID AND OVAL OFFICE MEETING INTO LEVERAGE WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF TRAMPLING ALL OVER GEORGE SCHULTZ' GARDEN, CRUSHING UKRAINE'S CONFIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES AS A PARTNER.

HE ALSO CAUSED OUR N.A.T.O.

ALLIES TO QUESTION WHETHER WE WOULD STAND WITH THEM AGAINST RUSSIA.

LEADERS IN EUROPEAN CAPITALS NOW WONDER WHETHER PERSONAL POLITICAL FAVORS AND NOT TREATY OBLIGATIONS GUIDE OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

COLLEAGUES, THIS IS HOW ALLIANCES WITHER AND DIE AND HOW RUSSIA WINS.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR MADE CLEAR THAT IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO OUR SECURITY THAT WE STAND WITH UKRAINE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AS MY COLLEAGUE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT DESCRIBED, WE HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY, A NATIONAL DEFENSE POLICY THAT IDENTIFIES RUSSIA AND CHINA AS AADVERSARIES.

THE RUSSIANS ARE VIOLATING ALL OF THE RULES, TREATIES, UNDERSTANDINGS THAT THEY COMMITTED TO THAT ACTUALLY KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE FOR NEARLY 70 YEARS, UNTIL THEY INVADED UKRAINE IN 2014, THEY HAD ABIDED BY SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS, OF INVIABILITY OF BORDERS.

THAT RULE OF LAW, THAT ORDER THAT KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE AND ALLOWED FOR PROSPERITY, AS WELL AS PEACE IN EUROPE, WAS VIOLATED BY THE RUSSIANS, AND IF WE DON'T PUSH BACK ON THAT, ON THOSE VIOLATIONS, THEN THAT WILL CONTINUE, AND THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, AFFECTS US, IT AFFECTS THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN, THAT OUR CHILDREN WILL GROW UP IN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN.

THIS AFFECTS THE KIND OF WORLD THAT WE WANT TO SEE EVOLVE.

SO THAT AFFECTS OUR NATIONAL INTEREST VERY DIRECTLY.

UKRAINE IS ON THE FRONT LINE OF THAT CONFLICT.

>> NOW, WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IN 2017, THE FIRST YEAR OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND I WANT APPEARED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION UNDERSTOOD IT AS WELL, AND WE UNDERSTOOD IT IN 2018, AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION UNDERSTOOD THAT AS WELL.

AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IN 2019, AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPEARED TO AS WELL.

AT LEAST IT DID UNTIL IT DIDN'T.

IT DID UNTIL SOMETHING OF GREATER IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE CAME ALONG, AND THAT EVENT OF GREATER SIGNIFICANCE TO THE OVAL OFFICE WAS THE EMERGENCE OF JOE BIDEN AS A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

THEN THAT MILITARY SUPPORT WHICH HAD INCREASED DURING THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS SUDDENLY PUT ON HOLD FOR INEXPLICABLE REASONS.

UKRAINE GOT THE MESSAGE.

IT WASN'T VERY INEXPLICABLE TO UKRAINE.

WHAT'S MORE, RUSSIA GOT THE MESSAGE.

IT WASN'T VERY INEXPLICABLE TO RUSSIA, THAT IT PUSHED OUT THE WHOLE PROPAGANDA THEORY THAT IT WAS UKRAINE THAT HAD INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION AND NOT RUSSIA.

AND, SO, THAT CONSENSUS AMONG THE CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION AMONG THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT AND THE CENTER, THAT AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EXPLAINED, THIS IS NOT ONLY VITAL TO UKRAINE'S SECURITY IN THE POST-WORLD WAR II ORDER THAT HAS KEPT THE PEACE IN EUROPE FOR 70 YEARS, BUT IT'S VITAL TO US IN OUR SECURITY AS WELL.

THAT ALL BROKE DOWN.

THAT ALL BROKE DOWN.

OVER AN EFFORT LED BY THE PRESIDENT AND HIS AGENT RUDY GIULIANI AND HIS AGENTS PARNAS AND FRUMAN, TO OVERTURN ALL THAT, OVERTURN A DECADES' LONG COMMITMENT TO STANDING UP TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

WE HAVE SO TREMENDOUSLY BENEFITED.

NO COUNTRY HAS BENEFITED MORE FROM THE INTERNATIONAL RULES OF THE ROAD, THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER THAN THE UNITED STATES, GAVE US THE PEACE AND STABILITY TO PROSPER LIKE NO OTHER NATION HAS BEFORE, AND WE'RE THROWING IT AWAY.

WE'RE THROWING IT WAY WAY.

WE'RE UNDERMINING THE RULE OF LAW, WE'RE UNDERMINING THE PRINCIPLE YOU DON'T INVADE YOUR NEIGHBOR, WE'RE UNDERMINING THE KEY TO OUR OWN SUCCESS, AND FOR WHAT?

FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

TO QUOTE BILL TAYLOR, THAT'S CRAZY.

THAT'S CRAZY.

IF OUR ALLIES CAN'T TRUST US TO STAND BEHIND THEM IN A TIME OF NEED, WE WILL SOON NOT HAVE A SINGLE ALLY LEFT.

LOOK, I KNOW IT'S PAINFUL TO SEE SOME OF OUR ALLIES AND HOW THEY TALK ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT BECAUSE, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT, THEY'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE UNITED STATES.

AND IT'S PAINFUL TO SEE OUR ALLIES DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THE UNITED STATES, AND IT'S MORE TTHAN PAINFUL, IT'S DANGEROUS.

IT'S DANGEROUS TO US.

I THINK IT WAS CHURCHILL SAID THERE'S NOTHING WORSE THAN ALLIES EXCEPT HAVING NO ALLIES.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO CONDITION OUR SUPPORT FOR OUR ALLIES ON THEIR WILLINGNESS TO BE DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING INTO OUR POLITICS, WE'RE GOING TO CONDITION THE STRENGTH OF OUR ALLIANCE AND WHETHER THEY WILL HELP US CHEAT IN AN ELECTION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A SINGLE ALLY LEFT, AND NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US IN THIS CHAMBER IS EVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY ONE OF OUR COUNTERPARTS TO RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW WITHOUT IT BEING THROWN IN OUR FACE.

PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION IS CENTRAL TO OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

IT DISTINGUISHES U.S.

GLOBAL LEADERSHIP FROM THE TRANSACTIONAL APPROACH FAVORED BY AUTHORITARIAN ADVERSARIES.

THE INHERENTLY CORRUPT NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND THAT UKRAINE INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF EFFORTS TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW AND COMBAT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND AROUND THE WORLD.

INDEED, THE PRESIDENT ENGAGING IN THE VERY CONDUCT AT HOME THAT OUR POLICY FIGHTS ABROAD SABOTAGES LONG-STANDING BIPARTISAN PILLARS OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY.

THIS WAS A PROBLEM NOT LEAST BECAUSE THE PERVASIVE CORRUPTION WITH UKRAINE LEAVES ITS POLITICS AND ECONOMY SUSCEPTIBLE TO RUSSIAN INFLUENCE AND SUBTERFUGE.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH EMPHASIZED U.S. POLICY IN UKRAINE HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT THE STRUGGLE AGAINST CORRUPTION AND DEFENDING AGAINST RUSSIA ARE, IN FACT, TWO SIDES OF THE VERY SAME COIN.

>> CORRUPTION MAKES UKRAINE'S LEADERS EVER VULNERABLE TO RUSSIA AND THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT.

THAT'S WHY THEY LAUNCHED A REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY IN 2014, DEMANDING TO BE A PART OF EUROPE, DEMANDING THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SYSTEM.

DEMANDING TO LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW.

UKRAINIANS WANTED THE LAW TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE, WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION IS THE PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN.

IT WAS A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS, OF DIGNITY.

HERE AGAIN, IT IS A COINCIDENCE OF INTEREST.

CORRUPT LEADERS ARE INHERENTLY LESS TRUSTWORTHY OR AN HONEST AND ACCOUNTABLE UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP MAKES A U.S.-UKRAINIAN LEADERSHIP MORE RELIABLE AND VALUABLE TO THE UNITED STATES.

A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IN THIS STRATEGICALLY LOCATE COUNTRY BORDERING FOUR N.A.T.O.

ALLIES CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH U.S. CAN MORE EASILY TRADE, INVEST AND PROFIT.

CORRUPTION IS ALSO A SECURITY ISSUE BECAUSE CORRUPT OFFICIALS ARE VULNERABLE TO MOSCOW.

>> DURING THAT CONVERSATION THAT WE RELATED IN THE PAST WHEN AMBASSADOR VOLCKER URGED HIS UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART ANDRE YERMAK NOT TO INVESTIGATE WITH THE PAST PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND YERMAK THREW IT BACK IN HIS FACE, OH, YOU MEAN LIKE THE INVESTIGATION YOU WANT US TO DO OF THE CLINTONS AND THE BIDENS.

THEY TAUGHT US SOMETHING IN THAT CONVERSATION.

THEY TAUGHT US THAT WE'VE FORGOTTEN, FOR THAT MOMENT, OUR OWN VALUES.

YOU KNOW, JUST LISTENING TO THE AMBASSADOR RIGHT NOW, I WAS THINKING HOW INTERESTING IT IS THE UKRAINIANS CHOSE TO DESCRIBE THEIR REVOLUTION AS A REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY.

AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE NEED HERE, A REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY AT HOME.

A REVOLUTION OF CIVILITY HERE AT HOME.

MAYBE WE CAN LEARN A LOT MORE FROM OUR UKRAINIAN ALLY.

IN SHORT, IT IS AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST WHO HELPED UKRAINE TRANSFORM INTO A COUNTRY WHERE THE RULE OF LAW GOVERNS AND CORRUPTION IS HELD IN CHECK.

AS WE HEARD YESTERDAY, ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY WAS A CENTRAL PART OF THE TALKING POINTS PROVIDED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP BEFORE HIS PHONE CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON APRIL 21st AND JULY 25th.

PRESIDENT TRUMP, OF COURSE, DIDN'T MENTION CORRUPTION, BUT, IMPORTANT RI, THOSE ASSUME FOREIGN POLICY GOALS REMAINED IN TACT FOLLOWING THE CALL.

AS TIM MORRISON TESTIFIED, ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS, INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS REMAIN A TOP U.S.

PRIORITY TO HELP UKRAINE FIGHT CORRUPTION.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS SWEPT INTO OFFICE ON AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PLATFORM.

MIDDLE EAST, HE KEPT HIS PROMISE AND INTRODUCED NUMEROUS BILLS IN UKRAINE'S PARLIAMENT IN A SIGN THAT HE INTENDED TO HOLD HIMSELF ACCOUNTABLE, ZELENSKY EVEN INTRODUCED A DRAFT LAW ON PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

HE ALSO INTRODUCED A BILL TO RESTORE TOP -- PUNISHMENT OF TOP OFFICIALS FOUND GUILTY OF ILLICIT ENRICHMENT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SELF-SERVING SCHEME THREATENED TO UNDERMINE ZELENSKY'S ANTI-CORRUPTION WORK.

ZELENSKY'S SUCCESSFUL ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS WOULD HAVE ADVANCED U.S. SECURITY.

INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMANDS UNDERMINED THAT EFFORT TO BRING ABOUT REFORM TO UKRAINE.

HERE IS GEORGE KENT, A RULE OF LAW AND CORRUPTION EXPERT AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

>> U.S. EFFORTS TO COUNTERCORRUPTION IN UKRAINE FOCUS ON BUILDING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY SO THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO GO AFTER CORRUPTION AND EFFECTIVELY INVESTIGATE, PROSECUTE AND JUDGE ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES USING APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS, THAT IS TO CREATE AND FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW.

THAT MEANS THAT IF THERE ARE CRIMINAL NEXUSES OR ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD PURSUE THE CASE.

IF WE THINK THERE'S BEEN A CRIMINAL ACT OVERSEAS THAT VIOLATES U.S. LAW, WE HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS TO ADDRESS THAT.

IT COULD BE THROUGH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND F.B.I.

AGENTS ASSIGNED OVERSEAS, OR THROUGH TREATY MECHANISMS, SUCH AS THE MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY.

AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ASK OTHER COUNTRIES TO ENGAGE IN SELECTIVE POLITICALLY ASSOCIATD INVESTIGATIONS OR PROSECUTIONS AGAINST OPPONENTS OF THOSE IN POWER BECAUSE SUCH SELECTIVE ACTIONS UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW REGARDLESS OF THE COUNTRY.

>> AND, SO, IT'S CLEAR WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHEN ABUSING HIS OFFICE AND DEMANDING UKRAINE OPEN AN INVESTIGATION INTO JOE BIDEN WAS NOT FIGHTING CORRUPTION.

IT WAS NOT PART OF ESTABLISHED U.S. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY.

THAT CORRUPT PRESSURE CAMPAIGN FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT, IN FACT, SUBVERTED U.S. ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE AND UNDERCUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT FIGHTING TO END CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

AS MY COLLEAGUE IN THE HOUSE MR. HIMES POINTED OUT DURING THE ONE OF THE HEARINGS, HE WAS TRYING TO AIM CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND OUR 2020 ELECTION.

SELECTED POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROSECUTION OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS UNDERCUT GOVERNANCE IN UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND THAT ZELENSKY HELP HIM DO PRECISELY WHAT U.S. DIPLOMATS FOR DECADES ADVISED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS NOT TO DO COMPLETELY UNDERCUT THE CREDIBILITY OF EFFORTS TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW THERE.

THE DEMAND ALSO UNDERCUT THE UNITED STATES' MORAL STANDING AND AUTHORITY IN THE EYES OF A GLOBAL AUDIENCE.

HERE, ONCE AGAIN, IS GEORGE KENT.

>> MR. KENT, IS PRESSURING TO CONDUCT WHAT I BELIEVE YOU'VE CALLED POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS A PART OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TO PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW IN UKRAINE AND AROUND THE WORLD?

>> IT IS NOT.

S IT IN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> IN MY INK IT IS NOT.

>> Reporter: WHY NOT?

BECAUSE OUR POLICIES, PARTICULARLY IN PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW, ARE THE ESIGNED TO HELP COUNTRIES -- DESIGNED TO HELP COUNTRIES AND IN EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL EUROPE THAT IS OVERCOMING THE LEGACY OF COMMUNISM.

IN THE COMMUNIST SYSTEM IN PARTICULAR THE OFFICE WAS USED TO OPPRESS AND PERSECUTE CITIZENS, NOT PROMOTE THE LAW.

SO IN HELPING COUNTRIES TO REACH ASPIRATIONS TO JOIN THE WESTERN COMMUNITY OF NATIONS AND LIVE LIVES OF DIGNITY, HELPING THEM HAVE THE RULE OF LAW WITH STRONG INSTITUTIONS IS THE PURPOSE OF OUR POLICY.

>> SO, IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS A PURPOSE OF OUR FOREIGN POLICY TO ENCOURAGE FOREIGN NATIONS TO REFRAIN FROM CONDUCTING POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

AND, IN FACT, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, NOT OF PROGRAMMING, WE OFTENTIMES RAISE OUR CONCERNS, USUALLY IN PRIVATE, WITH COUNTRIES THAT WE FEEL ARE ENGAGED IN SELECTIVE POLITICAL PROSECUTION AND PERSECUTION OF THEIR OPPONENTS.

>> -- YOVANOVITCH APTLY SUMMARIZED THE GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES AND HARM TO NATIONAL SECURITY RESULTING FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND AT THE UKRAINE INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.

>> SUCH CONDUCT UNDERMINES THE U.S., EXPOSES OUR FRIENDS AND WIDENS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR AUTOCRATS LIKE PRESIDENT PUTIN.

OUR LEADERSHIP DEPENDS ON THE POWER OF OUR EXAMPLE AND THE CONSISTENCY OF OUR PURPOSE.

BOTH HAVE NOW BEEN OPENED TO QUESTION.

>> THE ISSUES I JUST COVERED ARE NOT A MATTER OF POLICY DISAGREEMENT OVER FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY.

ARTICLE ONE ASSERTS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ENGAGED IN NO SUCH POLICY AT ALL, BUT, INSTEAD, SOLD OUT OUR POLICIES AND OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL GAIN AND TO HELP HIM CORRUPT THE NEXT ELECTION, THAT IS THE CORE CONDUCT OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER ALSO AFFECTED OUR ELECTION INTEGRITY.

THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WERE PARTICULARLY FEARFUL THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT MISUSE OR ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO UNDERMINE THE FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AT THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

SADLY, THAT MOMENT HAS ARRIVED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REPEATED SOLICITATION OF A UKRAINIAN INVESTIGATION WAS A CLEAR EFFORT TO LEVERAGE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE TO BOLSTER HIS PROSPECTS IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

IN OTHER WORDS, TO CHEAT IN HIS ELECTION.

IN OUR DEMOCRACY, POWER FLOWS FROM THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AS MANIFEST IN FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.

ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE IS FUNDAMENTAL IN OUR DEMOCRACY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INVITATION OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF HELPING HIM WIN AN ELECTION UNDERCUT THE CONSTITUTION'S COMMITMENT TO POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.

AMERICANS ARE NOW LEFT TO WONDER IF THEIR VOTE MATTERS OR IF THEY WERE SIMPLY PAWNS IN A SYSTEM BEING MANIPULATED BY SHADOWY FOREIGN FORCES WORKING ON BEHALF OF CORRUPT INTERESTS OF A LAWLESS.

OVER THE LONG TERM, THIS WEAKENS OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS CAPACITY FOR SELF-GOVERNANCE BY ENCOURAGING APATHY AND NONPARTICIPATION.

CYNICISM MAKES IT EASIER FOR ENEMIES TO INFLUENCE OUR POLITICS AND UNDERMINE THE NATIONAL GOOD.

INDEED, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN INTENDED WHEN HE MEDDLED IN THE 2016 ELECTION, FOR US TO BECOME MORE CYNICAL, FOR US TO LOSE FAITH IN THE NOTION THAT THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS SUPERIOR TO THE CORRUPT, AUTOCRATIC MODEL OF GOVERNMENT THAT HE HAS ERECTED IN RUSSIA AND SOUGHT TO EXPORT TO PLACES LIKE UKRAINE.

THESE ARE NOT THE FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AMERICANS EXPECT OR DEMAND IF FOREIGN POWERS ARE INTERFERING.

HOW CAN WE KNOW THAT OUR ELECTIONS ARE FREE FROM FOREIGN INTERFERENCE WHETHER BY DISINFORMATION OR HACK OR FAKE INVESTIGATIONS?

WE MUST NOT BECOME NUMB TO FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

OUR ELECTIONS ARE SACRED.

IF WE DO NOT ACT TO PUT AN END TO THE SOLICITATION OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE EFFECT WILL BE CORROSIVE TO OUR ELECTIONS AND OUR VALUES.

FUTURE PRESIDENTS MAY BELIEVE THAT THEY, TOO, CAN USE THE SUBSTANTIAL POWER CONFERRED ON THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO UNDERMINE OUR SYSTEM OF FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, THAT THEY, TOO, CAN CHEAT TO OBTAIN POWER OR KEEP IT.

THAT WAY LIES DISASTER FOR THE GREAT AMERICAN EXPERIMENT IN SELF-GOVERNANCE.

AS YOU HAVE SEEN, THERE IS POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL CONTINUE TO BETRAY THE NATIONAL INTERESTS TO A FOREIGN POWER AND FURTHER UNDERMINE BOTH OUR SECURITY AND DEMOCRACY.

THIS CREATES AN UR URGENT NEED O REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.

TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THAT CONTINUING THREAT, LET ME DESCRIBE RUSSIA'S ONGOING EFFORTS TO HARM OUR ELECTIONS.

THE PRESIDENT'S REFUELS TO CONDEMN OR DEFEND AGAINST HIS ATTACKS, HIS STATEMENTS CONFIRMING HE WELCOMES FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, AS LONG AS IT IS MEANT TO HELP HIM AND HIS CONDUCT PROVING THAT HE WILL PER ZIT IN SEEKING TO CORRUPT ELECTIONS AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR SECURITY AND THE EXPENSE OF THOSE ELECTIONS.

LET'S START WITH RUSSIA'S ONGOING ATTACKS ON OUR DEMOCRACY.

AT THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENT'S UKRAINE SCHEME IS HIS DECISION TO SUBSCRIBE TO THAT DANGEROUS CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE, NOT RUSSIA, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERFERING IN 2016.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS MEN PRESSURED UKRAINE INTO INVESTIGATING THIS BOGUS PIECE OF RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA AND IN DOING SO AIDED PUTIN'S CONCERT CONCERTED PLOT TO UNDERMINE OUR SECURITY AND DEMOCRACY.

SPOWBLES MUELLER WARNED PUTIN'S PLOT WAS ONGOING.

>> IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU THINK THAT THIS WAS A SINGLE ATTEMPT BY THE RUSSIANS TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION, OR DID YOU FIND EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THEY WILL TRY TO DO IT AGAIN?

>> IT WASN'T A SINGLE ATTEMPT.

THEY'RE DOING IT AS WE SIT HERE, AND THEY EXPECT TO DO IT DURING THE NEXT CAMPAIGN.

>> NOT A SINGLE ATTEMPT, THEY'RE DOING IT AS WE SIT HERE, AND THEY EXPECT TO DO IT IN THE NEXT CAMPAIGN.

THAT WAS SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S STARK WARNING.

AND WE NOW KNOW THAT DIRECTOR MUELLER WAS RIGHT.

JUST THE OTHER WEEK, WE SAW PUBLIC REPORTING THAT RUSSIAN HACKERS MAY BE USING PHISHING E-MAILS TO ATTACK THE UKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY BURISMA, PRESUMABLY IN SEARCH OF DIRT ON JOE BIDEN.

THOSE ARE THE SAME TACTICS DEPLOYED BY THE SAME ADVERSARY RUSSIA THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL WARNED ABOUT IN THE LAST ELECTION.

IT MAY BE RUSSIA, ONCE AGAIN, ATTEMPTING TO SWAY OUR ELECTION FOR ONE CANDIDATE, THIS TIME THROUGH UKRAINE.

INDEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP TO THIS VERY DAY REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE UNANIMOUS ASSESSMENT OF OUR INTEMTION COMIEWJT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN AND POSES A THREAT TO THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

INSTEAD, HE VIEWS IT FROM HIS OWN PERSONAL LENS, WHETHER IT IS AN ATTACK ON THE LEGITIMACY OF HIS 2016 ELECTORAL VICTORY.

SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S TESTIMONY ON JULY 24, 2019, THE DAY BEFORE THE PRESIDENT'S CALL WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CONTINUE DUCTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CLAIM THAT HIS WAS A "CLEAN CAMPAIGN."

MUELLER FOUND THAT INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 2016 CAMPAIGN OF THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED RUSSIA'S OFFERS OF ASSISTANCE AND ADJUSTED THEIR POLITICAL STRATEGY SO THAT THEN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP MIGHT BENEFIT FROM RUSSIA'S ASSISTANCE.

WHEN THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ASKED BY U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT THEIR ACTIVITIES, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ADVISORS REPEATEDLY LIED.

IN HELSINKI IN JULY 2018, HOWEVER, PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE RUSSIAN THREAT TO OUR ELECTIONS.

WHEN REPORTER EXPLICITLY ASKED WHETHER HE BELIEVED PUTIN OR THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ON THE ISSUE OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, QUOTE, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY IT WOULD BE RUSSIA, AND TALKED ABOUT THE D.N.C.

SERVER.

>> SO LET ME JUST SAY THAT WE HAVE TWO THOUGHTS.

YOU HAVE GROUPS THAT ARE WONDERING WHY THE F.B.I.

NEVER TOOK THE SERVER, WHY HAVEN'T THEY TAKEN THE SERVER, WHY WAS THE F.B.I.

TOLD TO LEAVE THE OFFICE OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE?

I HAVE BEEN WONDERING THAT.

I HAVE BEEN ASKING THAT FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND I HAVE BEEN TWEETING IT OUT AND CALLING IT OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

WHERE IS THE SERVER?

I WANT TO KNOW WHERE IS THE SERVER AND WHAT IS THE SERVER SAYING?

WITH THAT BEING SAID, ALL I CAN DO IS ASK THE QUESTION.

MY PEOPLE CAME TO ME, DAN COATS CAME TO ME AND SOME OTHERS AND SAID THEY THINK IT'S RUSSIA.

I HAVE PRESIDENT PUTIN, HE JUST SAID IT'S NOT RUSSIA.

I WILL SAY THIS, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY IT WOULD BE, BUT I REALLY DO WANT TO SEE THE SERVER, BUT I HAVE -- I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN BOTH PARTIES.

I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL PROBABLY GO ON FOR A WHILE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT CAN GO ON WITHOUT FINDING OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SERVER, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SERVERS OF THE PAKISTANI GENTLEMAN THAT WORKED ON THE D.N.C.?

WHERE ARE THOSE SERVERS?

THEY'RE MISSING.

WHERE ARE THEY?

WHAT HAPPENED TO HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS?

33,000 E-MAILS GONE, JUST GONE.

I THINK, IN RUSSIA, THEY WOULDN'T BE GONE SO EASILY.

I THINK IT'S A DISGRACE THAT WE CAN GET HILLARY CLINTON'S 33,000 E-MAILS.

>> I'M SURE YOU REMEMBER THIS.

IT WAS, I THINK, UNFORGETTABLE FOR EVERY AMERICAN, BUT I'M SURE IT WAS EQUALLY UNFORGETTABLE FOR VLADIMIR PUTIN.

I MEAN, THERE HE IS, THE PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA, STANDING NEXT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND HEARING HIS OWN KREMLIN PROPAGANDA TALKING POINTS COMING FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

NOW, IF THAT'S NOT A PROPAGANDA COUP, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.

>> IT'S THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY THING.

IT'S THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY THING.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES STANDING NEXT TO THE PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA, OUR ADVERSARY, SAYING HE DOESN'T BELIEVE HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THEM.

HE'S PROMOTING THIS KOOKY, CRAZY SERVER THEORY COOKED UP BY THE KREMLIN, RIGHT NEXT TO THE GUY THAT COOKED IT UP.

IT'S A BREATHTAKING SUCCESS OF RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S EVER BEEN A GREATER SUCCESS OF RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.

WHATEVER PROFILE RUSSIA KILLED OF OUR PRESIDENT, BOY DID THEY HAVE HIM SPOT ON.

FLATTERY AND PROPAGANDA.

FLATTERY AND PROPAGANDA IS ALL RUSSIA NEEDED, AND AS TO UKRAINE, WELL, THEY NEEDED TO DELIVER A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION TO GET HELP FROM THE UNITED STATES.

I MEAN, THIS IS JUST THE MOST INCREDIBLE PROPAGANDA COUP!

BECAUSE, AS I SAID YESTERDAY, IT'S NOT JUST THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES STANDING NEXT TO VLADIMIR PUTIN IS READING KREMLIN TALKING POINTS, HE WON'T READ HIS OWN NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF TALKING POINTS, BUT HE WILL READ THE KREMLIN ONES.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST THAT HE ADOPTS THE KREMLIN TALKING POINTS, THAT WOULD BE BAD ENOUGH.

IT'S NOT BAD ENOUGH, IT'S NOT DAMAGING ENOUGH, IT'S NOT DANGEROUS ENOUGH TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY THAT HE'S UNDERMINING OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

IT'S NOT BAD ENOUGH THAT HE UNDERMINES THOSE VERY AGENCIES THAT HE NEEDS LATER, THAT WE NEED LATER TO HAVE CREDIBILITY.

WE'VE JUST HAD A VIGOROUS DEBATE OVER THESE -- THE STRIKES AGAINST GENERAL SOLEIMANI, AND THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE HIS ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT THE INTELLIGENCE SAYS AND SUPPORTS.

HOW DO YOU MAKE THOSE ARGUMENTS, WHEN YOU SAY THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CAN'T BE BELIEVED?

NOW, WE'VE HAD A VIGOROUS DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THAT INTELLIGENCE HAS TO SAY.

THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

THE ISSUE HERE IS YOU UNDERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

YOU WEAKEN THE COUNTRY FOR WHEN YOU NEED TO RELY ON THEM, FOR WHEN YOU NEED TO PERSUADE YOUR FRIENDS AND YOUR ALLIES, YOU CAN TRUST US WHEN WE TELL YOU WHAT THIS IS WHAT THE INTELLIGENCE SHOWS.

HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN YOU'VE JUST TOLD THE WORLD YOU TRUST THE RUSSIANS MORE THAN YOUR OWN PEOPLE.

YOU TRUST RUDY GIULIANI MORE THAN CHRISTOPHER WRAY.

HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT CASE?

IF YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT CASE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO OUR SECURITY?

BUT THAT'S NOT THE END OF IT.

IT'S NOT JUST A PROPAGANDA COUP, IT'S NOT JUST THE UNDERMINING OF OUR AGENCIES, IT'S ALSO THAT THE BUY-IN TO THAT PROPAGANDA MEANT THAT UKRAINE WASN'T GOING TO GET MONEY TO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS.

I MEAN, THAT'S ONE HELL OF A RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE COUP.

THEY GOT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE COVER FOR THEY ARE OWN INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTION.

THEY GOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DISCREDIT HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

THEY GOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DRIVE A WAGE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE.

THEY GOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO WITHHOLD AID FROM UKRAINE IN A WAR WITH RUSSIA, IN A WAR CLAIMING UKRAINIAN LIVES EVERY WEEK.

HAS THERE EVER BEEN SUCH A COUP?

I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU, IN THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE COLD WAR, THE SOVIET UNION HAD NO SUCH SUCCESS, NO SUCH SUCCESS, AND WHY?

BECAUSE A FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK PERSUADED A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO SACRIFICE ALL OF THAT FOR A CHEAP SHOT AT HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, FOR A SMEAR AGAINST HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.

WAS IT WORTH IT?

I HOPE IT WAS WORTH IT.

I HOPE IT WAS WORTH IT FOR THE PRESIDENT.

BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY WASN'T WORTH IT FOR THE UNITED STATES.

NOW, YOU CAN SEE PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT BLAME VLADIMIR PUTIN AND THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES WHO INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION FOR THE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING HIS VICTORY.

HE DID NOT BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR HIS CAMPAIGN AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CONVICTED OF LYING TO A -- OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

NO, HE BLAMED THE INVESTIGATORS.

SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, THE MAN CHARGED WITH GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE IN 2016, AND HE CHOSE TO BELIEVE VLADIMIR PUTIN, A FORMER RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, T RATHER THAN HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

WE CAN SEE A PATTERN HERE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED INTERFERENCE FROM RUSSIA AS A CANDIDATE IN 2016 AND THEN HIS CAMPAIGN WELCOMED RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION.

IN HELSINKI, PRESIDENT TRUMP CHOSE TO BELIEVE PUTIN OVER HIS OWN AGENCIES.

I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY IT WOULD BE, REFERRING TO RUSSIA.

INSTEAD OF DENOUNCING RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE, HE DENOUNCED THOSE INVESTIGATING RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE, AND HE RAISED THAT NOW-FAMILIAR D.N.C.

CrowdStrike SERVER THING.

I REALLY DO WANT TO SEE THE SERVER.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN GO ON WITHOUT FINDING OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SERVER.

THAT'S THE EXACT SAME STERVER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP -- SERVER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMAND UKRAINE INVESTIGATE DURING HIS JULY 25th CALL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT THE D.N.C.

SERVER IN HELSINKI WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN STANDING BY HIS SIDE, HE WAS REFERENCING THE SAME DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN 2016 THAT PUTIN REPEATEDLY PROMOTED.

LET'S LOOK AT THIS "THE WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE FROM JULY 2018.

IN THE END, TRUMP'S PERFORMANCE ALONGSIDE PUTIN IN THE FINNISH CAPITAL SEEMED LIKE A TOUR THROUGH HIS MOST CONTROVERSIAL CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

TWEETS AND MUSINGS ON RUSSIA, EXCEPT HE DID IT ALL ABROAD WHILE STANDING FEET FROM PRESIDENT PUTIN, THE LEADER OF ONE OF AMERICA'S GREATEST GEOPOLITICAL FOES.

SPECTACLE IN HELSINKI EXPOSED TRUMP'S EAGERNESS TO DISREGARD HIS OWN ADVISORS AND FLOUT HIS INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND HIS APPARENT FEAR PRESSING PRESIDENT PUTIN ON THE SUBJECT MIGHT CAST DOUBT ON HIS ELECTORAL VICTORY.

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS TOLD "THE WASHINGTON POST" PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REMARKS IN HELSINKI WERE "VERY MUCH COUNTER TO THE PLAN."

THAT'S ANOTHER UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE CENTURY.

IF THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, IT'S BECAUSE THE WITNESS WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THEY ALL SAID THE SAM THING ABOUT THE JULY 25th PHONE CALL, THE PRESIDENT IGNORED VITAL NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES HE WAS SUPPOSED TO RAISE AND, INSTEAD, RAISED DISPROVEN CONSPIRACIES ABOUT 2016 AND THE D.N.C.

SERVER, THE VERY SAME RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA HE PUBLICLY ENDORSED IN HELSINKI.

DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO STOP NOW?

DO YOU THINK IF WE DO NOTHING IT'S GOING TO STOP NOW?

ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY.

YOU KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP.

THE PRESIDENT JUST TOLD ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY HE STILL WANTS BIDEN INVESTIGATED.

IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP UNLESS THE CONGRESS DOES SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BETRAYAL BEGAN IN 2016, WHEN HE FIRST SOLICITED RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.

>> RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, I HOPE YOU'RE ABLE TO FIND THE 30,000 E-MAILS THAT ARE MISSING.

>> THAT BETRAYAL CONTINUED IN HELSINKI IN 2018, WHEN, AS WE SAW, HE REJECTED THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S ASSESSMENT ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THAT SAME ELECTION.

WHEN HE CRITICIZED U.S. OFFICIALS INVESTIGATING THE RUSSIA INTERFERENCE AND, INSTEAD, PROMOTED PRESIDENT PUTIN'S CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE.

THE THE BETRAYAL CONTINUED NO 2019 WHEN HE CARRIED OUT THE SCHEME TO CHEAT IN 2020 ELECTION BY DEMANDING THE LEADER OF UKRAINE A U.S.

PARTNER UNDER ATTACK BY RUSSIA ANNOUNCED A CLAIM ABOUT A CONSPIRACY ABOUT A D.N.C.

SERVER AND INVESTIGATIONS OF VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

AND THE ABUSE OF POWER CONTINUES, HE IS STILL TRYING TO CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION, EVEN AFTER THE SCHEME CAME TO LIGHT, EVEN AFTER IT BECAME THE SUBJECT OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, IT CONTINUED, AND THE FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT IT CONTINUED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY ASSERTED THAT HE HAD A PREROGATIVE TO URGE FOREIGN NATIONS TO INVESTIGATE U.S. CITIZENS WHO DARE TO CHALLENGE HIM POLITICALLY.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, JUST FOR A MINUTE, WE SHOULD TRY TO STEP INTO THE SHOES OF SOMEONE ELSE.

MY FATHER USED TO SAY, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND A PERSON TILL YOU STEP IN THEIR SHOES.

I ALWAYS THOUGHT HE INVENTED THAT WISDOM HIMSELF UNTIL I WATCHED TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD AND FOUND OUT ATTICUS FINCH SAID IT FIRST.

BUT LET'S TRY TO STEP INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S SHOES FOR A MOMENT.

LET'S IMAGINE IT WASN'T JOE BIDEN.

LET'S IMAGINE IT WAS ANY ONE OF US.

LET'S IMAGINE THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD WAS ASKING A FOREIGN NATION TO CONDUCT A SHAM INVESTIGATION INTO ONE OF US.

WHAT WOULD WE THINK ABOUT IT THEN?

WOULD WE THINK, THAT'S GOOD U.S. POLICY?

WOULD WE THINK HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO IT?

WOULD WE THINK, THAT'S A PERFECT CALL?

LET'S STEP, FOR A MINUTE, INTO AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S SHOES, AND WE'RE THE SUBJECT OF A VICIOUS SMEAR CAMPAIGN THAT NO ONE IN THE DEPARTMENT THAT WE WORK FOR UP TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS A SHRED OF CREDIBILITY.

LET'S STEP INTO HER SHOES FOR A MINUTE.

SPENT OUR WHOLE LIFE DEVOTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE, SERVED IN DANGEROUS PLACES AROUND THE WORLD, AND WE'RE HOUNDED OUT OF OUR POST, AND ONE DAY SOMEONE RELEASES A TRANSCRIPT OF A CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND A FOREIGN LEADER AND THE PRESIDENT SAYS THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME THINGS HAPPENING TO YOU, OR TO YOU, OR TO YOU, OR TO YOU, OR TO YOU.

HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

WOULD YOU THINK HE WAS ABUSING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE?

AND IF YOU WOULD, IT SHOULD MATTER THAT IT WASN'T YOU.

IT SHOULD MATTER THAT IT WAS MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

IT SHOULDENT MATTER THAT IT WAS JOE BIDEN BECAUSE, I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING, THE NEXT TIME, IT JUST MAY BE YOU.

IT JUST MAY BE YOU.

DO YOU THINK FOR A MOMENT THAT ANY OF YOU, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS PRESIDENT, NO MATTER HOW CLOSE YOU ARE TO THIS PRESIDENT, DO YOU THINK FOR A MOMENT THAT IF HE FELT IT WAS IN HIS INTEREST, HE WOULDN'T ASK YOU TO BE INVESTIGATED?

DO YOU THINK FOR A MOMENT THAT HE WOULDN'T?

AND IF SOMEWHERE DEEP DOWN BELOW YOU REALIZE THAT HE WOULD, YOU CANNOT LEAVE A MAN LIKE THAT IN OFFICE WHEN HE HAS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION.

SHOULDN'T MATTER IF IT WAS JOE BIDEN.

COULD HAVE BEEN ANY OF US.

IT MAY BE ANY OF US.

SHOULDN'T MATTER IF IT WAS MARIE YOVANOVITCH.

IT COULD BE SOME OTHER DIPLOMAT TOMORROW FOR SOME OTHER PERNICIOUS REASON.

IT GOES TO WHAT MR. JEFFREY SAID, IT GOES TO CHARACTER.

YOU DON'T REALIZE HOW IMPORTANT CHARACTER IS IN THE HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE LAND UNTIL YOU DON'T HAVE IT.

UNTIL YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT WILLING TO USE HIS POWER TO COARSE AN ALLY TO HELP HIM CHEAT.

TO INVESTIGATE ONE OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS, ONE OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS.

YES, HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, HE'S STILL A U.S. CITIZEN.

HE'S STILL A U.S. CITIZEN.

HE DESERVES BETTER THAN THAT.

OF COURSE, IT WASN'T JUST UKRAINE OR RUSSIA.

THERE IS THE INVITATION TO CHINA TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.

IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP.

IN SEPTEMBER 19th, RUDY GIULIANI WAS INTERVIEWED ON CHRIS CUOMO AND CNN.

YOU'VE PROBABLY ALL SEEN THE CLIP.

WHEN ASKED SPECIFICALLY IF HE HAD URGED UKRAINE TO LOOK INTO VICE PRESIDENT, MR. GIULIANI REPLIED MIDDLE EAST, OF COURSE I DID.

OF COURSE, I DID.

IT SHOULDN'T MATTER THAT IT WAS JOE BIDEN.

IT WASN'T HUNTER BIDEN THERE, IT WAS JOE BIDEN.

IT WASN'T HUNTER BIDEN ON THAT CALL, IT WAS JOE BIDEN.

BUT IT SHOULDN'T MATTER WHETHER HUNTER BIDEN OR JOE BIDEN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

IT SHOULDN'T MATTER TO ANY OF US WHICH AMERICAN CITIZENS.

AND HE HASN'T STOPPED URGING UKRAINE TO CONDUCT THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

MR. GIULIANI HASN'T, DONALD TRUMP HASN'T.

TO THE CONTRARY AND CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, HE HAS DONE NOTHING BUT DOUBLE DOWN.

DURING HIS FIRST WEEK, THE FIRST WEEK OF DECEMBER, MR. GIULIANI TRAVELED TO UKRAINE AND HUNGARY TO INTERVIEW THE CORRUPT FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN PUSHING THESE FALSE NARRATIVES ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THIS KOOKY CONSPIRACY ABOUT 2016.

MR. GIULIANI MET WITH CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE UKRAINE PARLIAMENT WHO HAVE ADVOCATED FOR THAT SAME FRAUDULENT INVESTIGATION.

JUNE OF LAST YEAR, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD ABC NEWS THAT HE WOULD TAKE POLITICAL DIRT FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY IF HE WAS OFFERED IT AGAIN.

IF HE HAS LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THE TUMULT OF THE LAST THREE YEARS, IT IS HE CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING, HE CAN DO IT AGAIN.

CAN'T BE INDICTED, CAN'T BE IMPEACHED.

CAN'T, IF YOU BELIEVE OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL, EVEN BE INVESTIGATED.

OUR FOUNDERS WORRIED ABOUT A SITUATION JUST LIKE THIS.

JAMES MADISON PUT IT SIMPLY, THE PRESIDENT, QUOTE, MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUST TO FOREIGN POWERS.

IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS, GEORGE WASHINGTON WARNED AMERICANS TO BE AWAKE AS FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE MOST BANEFUL FOES OF A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.

JOHN ADAMS WROTE YOU ARE ADVERSE TO FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, SO AM I.

BUT AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURSE.

OR TO QUOTE THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, GET OVER IT, THERE'S GOING TO BE POLITICS IN FOREIGN POLICY.

WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS JOHN ADAMS' POINT.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS JAMES MADISON'S POINT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS GEORGE WASHINGTON'S POINT.

IF IT WAS, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID "GET OVER IT."

BUT THEY RECOGNIZED, AS I KNOW WE RECOGNIZED, WHAT A PROFOUND DANGER THAT WOULD BE FOR THAT TO BECOME THE NEW NORMAL.

ANOTHER ELECTION IS UPON US.

TEN MONTHS, VOTERS WILL TAKE THEIR MOST IMPORTANT DUTY AS CITIZENS BY GOING TO THE POLLS AND VOTING FOR THEIR LEADER.

AND, SO, WE MUST ASK WHAT ROLE WILL FOREIGN POWERS PLAY IN TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME?

AND IF THEY TAKE THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE, WHO WILL PROTECT OUR FRANCHISE IF THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT?

AS CHARGED IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE WILL REMAIN A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE CONSTITUTION IF ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE AND HAS ACTED IN A MANNER GROSSLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH SELF-GOVERNANCE AND THE RULE OF LAW.

BASED ON THE ABUSE OF POWER FOR WHICH HE WAS IMPEACHED AND HIS ONGOING EFFORTS TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE BOTH DIRECTLY AND THROUGH MR. GIULIANI, THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL CONTINUE TO INVITE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS AGAIN AND AGAIN.

THAT POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY OF OUR DEMOCRACY.

OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD THAT A PRESIDENT LIKE DONALD TRUMP MIGHT ONE DAY GRASP THE REINS OF POWER.

AN UNREMORSEFUL, OVERREACHING EXECUTIVE, FAITHFUL TO HIMSELF ONLY AND WILLING TO SACRIFICE OUR DEMOCRACY AND NATIONAL SECURITY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, HIS PARENT OF CONDUCT REPEATEDLY SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERNINGS IN OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT CONFIRMS HE WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO RETAIN HIS POWER.

HE WILLFULLY CHOSE TO PLACE HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS ABOVE THE COUNTRY'S AND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTION'S, THERE IS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT WILL WILL CONTINUE.

HE HAS STONEWALLED CONGRESS AND ORDER EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS THAT WORK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT FOR THE PRESIDENT, TO JOIN IN HIS OBSTRUCTION.

HE DEPLOYED MR. GIULIANI TO UKRAINE TO CONTINUE ADVANCING A SCHEME THAT SERVES NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN ADVANCING HIS 2020 REELECTION PROSPECTS.

HE ATTACKED WITNESSES, PUBLIC SERVANTS, PATRIOTS WHO STAYED TRUE TO THEIR OATH AND LEVELED WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THE GRAVE NATIONAL INJURE THAT RESULTED FROM THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT, AND HE CONTINUED TO URGE FOREIGN NATIONS TO INVESTIGATE AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT HE VIEWS AS A THREAT.

THE THREAT THAT HE WILL DON'T ABUSE HIS POWER AND CAUSE GRAVE HARM TO THE NATION OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT YEAR UNTIL A NEW PRESIDENT IS SWORN IN OR UNTIL HE WOULD BE REELECTED IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL.

MERELY EXPOSING THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME HAS NOT STOPPED HIM FROM CONTINUING THIS DESTRUCTIVE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT HAS BROUGHT US TO THIS SOMBER MOMENT.

HE IS WHO HE IS.

THAT WILL NOT CHANGE.

NOR WILL THE DANGER ASSOCIATED WITH HIM.

EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT TERRIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL ABUSE HIS POWER AGAIN, THAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE TO HELP CORRUPTLY SECURE HIS REELECTION.

HE HAS SHOWN NEITHER REMORSE NOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WRONGDOING.

IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT JULY 25th WAS YOU BELIEVE ASKING FOR INVESTIGATIONS OF YOUR POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND USING THE OFFICE IS PERFECTLY FINE THEN THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD STOP YOU FROM DOING IT AGAIN.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE AND MUST BE REMOVED FROM THAT OFFICE.

MR. McCONNELL I YIELD BACK.

>> I SUGGEST A 15 MINUTE RECESS.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.

>> AND AT 3:30 IN THE EAST, WE SEE THIS AS THE END OF THIS SESSION OF THE SENATE TRIAL.

THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPRESENTING THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE HAVE CONTINUED TO MAKE THEIR CASE UNTIL NOW ARGUING PRESIDENT TRUMP DESERVES TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE OF ABUSE OF POWER WHICH IS THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT PASSED BY THE HOUSE.

THEY'LL MOVE THIS AFTERNOON TO LOOK AT THE SECOND ARTICLE HAVING TO DO WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

LET ME TURN QUICKLY TO OUR GUESTS HERE WITH ME AT THE TABLE.

ONCE AGAIN VICTORIA NOURSE SPECIAL COUNCIL TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN THE '90s AND WAS VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S CHIEF COUNSEL AND ELIZABETH CHRYST AND ON THE FINAL DAY THE HOUSE MANAGERS PRESENT THEIR CASE AND WE'RE JOINED BY TWO EXPERTS WHO WERE WITH US THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE INVESTIGATION MIKA OYANN ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND MICHAEL ALLEN UNDER REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP.

THANK YOU TO YOU ALL.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE ON THE DAY WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE TO BE WRAPPING UP THEIR ARGUMENTS THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

ELIZABETH CHRYST, LET ME COME TO YOU FIRST.

IT'S BEEN ALMOST TWO HOURS AND 20 MINUTES BY MY CLOCK.

HAVE THEY DO YOU THINK GIVEN IT THEIR BEST HERE.

HAVE THEY GIVEN IT AND MADE THE ARGUMENT THEY SET OUT TO MAKE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

>> I THINK THEY'RE REALLY TRYING TO GIVE IT THEIR ALL.

IT'S A TOUGH ROAD TO HOE AS YOU SAID THE THIRD DAY.

THESE ARE LONG DAYS.

THE CHAIRS ARE NOT COMFORTABLE.

SENATORS ARE USING TO RUNNING AROUND, AS YOU KNOW.

THEY'RE USED TO BEING VERY BUSY PEOPLE AND SITTING IN A CHAIR FOR LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME WITH NOTHING TO DO OTHER THAN TO LISTEN IS HARD ON EVERYBODY.

IT REALLY.

I THINK THEY'RE DOING THEIR BEST.

I THINK THE PANEL ALL TALKED ABOUT WHEN THEY OPENED THEY THANKED THE SENATORS FOR LISTENING.

THAT'S A NICE TOUCH.

IN MY OPINION THEY NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT AND A LITTLE BIT GOES A LONG WAY.

I THINK THEY'RE DOING THEIR BEST.

>> AND MIKKA, THEY WENT AT THE SAME TIME AND THEY'RE GOING OVER MATERIAL THAT WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THEY TALKED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION, THE PHONE CALL HE HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BACK IN JULY.

THE EXTENSIVE EFFORTS THE DEMOCRATS SAY THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MADE TO BASICALLY HIDE THAT PHONE CALL.

INFORMATION ABOUT THAT PHONE CALL FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

>> IT'S INTERESTING.

THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH INFORMATION WE HAVE LEARNED OVER THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION GOING BACK TO SEPTEMBER THAT THERE ARE THINGS WE HAD LEARNED EARLIER AND HAD FORGOTTEN.

THE TESTIMONY FROM THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND HOW THEY TRIED TO HIDE THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE.

THERE ARE THINGS WE'RE GET REMINDED OF TODAY WE HAD PREVIOUSLY LEARNED.

>> AND JOINING US NOW FROM JUST OFF THE SENATE FLOOR IS ONE OF THE SENATORS WHO'S BEEN LISTENING TO THIS PROCESS SHE IS MINNESOTA SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR ONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.

WHAT IS THE MOST POWERFUL ARGUMENT.

>> IT'S WHAT'S ARGUMENT IS COMING THROUGH TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.

I KEEP SEEING THEM LOOK DOWN AT THEIR SHOES EVERY TIME THE ARGUMENT IS MADE ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY AND SO MANY OF THEM HAVE STOOD UP AGAINST RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM AND STOOD UP FOR UKRAINE.

I THOUGHT IT WAS PARTICULARLY EVOCATIVE WHEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS PLAYED THE TAPE OF JOHN McCAIN WHO SOME OF THEM RESPECTED TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS WHEN YOU LET DOWN A DEMOCRAT LIKE UKRAINE AND WHAT MESSAGE IT SENDS TO RUSSIA.

I HOPE THEY LISTENED TO THAT AS WELL AS THE CALL FOR KURT.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY RAN FOR THE JOB IF ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS BUY THEIR DESK AT THE END OF THE TERM OR GET A TROPHY ON A SHELF.

THEY RAN FOR THIS OFFICE PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HOLD UP OUR CONSTITUTION AND STAND UP FOR THE COUNTRY.

THAT'S THE COURAGE WE'RE LOOK FOR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE.

AT THE MINIMUM THAT'S EVIDENCE AND JUSTICE.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR SIGNS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT THEY'RE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION WILL BE BUT ARE THEY READY TO JOIN US IN CALLING FOR WITNESSES.

>> DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANY SIGNAL, ANY SENSE YOU GET THEY MAY BE WILLING TO DO THAT?

I'M HEARING FROM SOME OF MY "NEWSHOUR" COLLEAGUES SOME ARE PEER TO BE TAKING SERIOUS NOTES -- APPEAR TO BE TAKING SERIOUS NOTES.

THEY MENTIONED A COUPLE SENATORS HUNCHED OVER THEIR DESK WRITING.

>> I HOPE THEY WRITE DOWN RIGHT MATTER WHICH IS IS ADAM SCHIFF'S CLOSING STATEMENT LAST NIGHT.

OTHERWISE WHY ARE WE HERE?

I HAVE ONLY HEARD EARLY ON WHEN SENATOR ROMNEY WHD I RESPECT SAID HE WANTED TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON WHO HAS VOLUNTARILY SAID HE WANTS TO TESTIFY AND OTHERS SAID THEY'D BE OPEN TO WITNESSES HERE AND THERE.

WE NEED TO HEAR THEM VOTE THAT WAY.

IT'S NOT JUST WHAT THEY SAY BUT HOW THEY VOTE.

>> AS YOU KNOW, SENATOR, SO MANY REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING THEY DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE PRESIDENT ASKING THE UKRAINIAN LEADER TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION.

THIS IS SOMETHING AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT WOULD DO.

>> EXACTLY.

WHAT'S BEEN DISTURBING IS WHAT IT MEANS FOR OUR ALLIES.

I THOUGHT THE POINTS MADE ABOUT NATO AND OUR OTHER ALLIES, THE WORLD IS WATCHING.

AND ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND ASKING FOR DIRT ON A FOREIGN LEADER THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU PUT OUR COUNTRY FIRST.

>> SENATOR, I ALSO WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR OWN CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT BEING HERE IN THE SENATE MEANS YOU'RE NOT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

WE'RE JUST DAYS AWAY FROM THE IOWA CAUCUSES FOLLOWED SHORTLY THEREAFTER BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY.

HOW ARE YOU JUGGLING THAT?

>> AS WELL AS I CAN, JUDY.

I'M AS COMPETITIVE AS ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IN THE RACE AND WHEN I SEE PEOPLE ON THEIR BUS TOURS DOING EVENTS OF COURSE I THINK ABOUT IT.

WHAT I TRIED TO DO IS THIS, I HAVE THE MOST ENDORSEMENT OF ANY LEGISLATORS OF THE CANDIDATES AND THEY'RE AT THE STATE CAPITAL BUT THEY'RE IN THE GROCERY STORES AND CAFES AND TALKING TO PEOPLE FOR ME.

MY DAUGHTER'S OUT THERE WHO IS AN INCREDIBLE CAMPAIGNER AS IS MY HUSBAND.

WE'VE DONE A TON OF TOWN HALL AND HAD 12,000 PEOPLE ON IT AND DOING SIMILAR THINGS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE WHERE I HAVE TWO OF THE FOUR LEADING LEGISLATORS IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE HOUSE SUPPORTING ME.

THOSE THINGS MATTER.

WE'RE SEEING AN INCREASE IN THE POLLS AND FEELING GOOD ABOUT ONE OF SIX PEOPLE ON THE DEBATE STAGE FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE AND I THINK THE PEOPLE IN THESE STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA AND NEVADA THEY UNDERSTAND AND GET WE'RE DOING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.

I KEEP TRYING EVERY WAY I CAN TO GET OUT THERE AND MAKE UP FOR THE FACT THAT RIGHT NOW I'M DOING MY JOB.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE FOR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AMONG THE LEADING CANDIDATES HE IS THE ONE NOT PART OF THE TRIAL OR A SITTING SENATOR.

DOES HE HAVE AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE HE'S ABLE TO CONTINUE CAMPAIGNING NON STOP?

>> ACTUALLY, TWO OF THEM ARE CAMPAIGNING ALL THE TIME.

AND THAT'S HOW IT IS.

I'M THE WON -- ONE WHO GOT THE NEW YORK TIMES ENDORSEMENT AND THE QUAD-CITY TIMES WHEN YOU INCLUDE EAST MOLI NEV AND THAT -- MOLENE AND THAT MEANT A LOT TO ME AND PEOPLE WILL PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE TWO ENDORSEMENTS AND THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN CARRY WITH ME BEYOND BEING IN THE STATE.

THAT'S HOW IT IS.

POLITICS IS WHAT IT IS.

I NEVER IMAGINED AFTER A YEAR OF LEADING TO THIS POINT WHERE I AM STILL ON THAT DEBATE STAGE WHERE WE ARE GROG EVERY SINGLE DAY I WOULD BEE.d> HERE.

THAT'S JUST HOW IT IS.

I CAN'T THINK OF A MORE IMPORTANT THING TO DO RIGHT NOW THAN BE HERE UPHOLDING OUR CONSTITUTION ESPECIALLY SOMEONE LIKE MYSELF THAT HAS RELATIONS WITH PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT'S ABLE TO TALK TO PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE AND BRING THEM PIN THAT'S THE WORK I'M DOING.

>> SENATOR, FINALLY WE HAVE EVERY EXPECTATION THE REPUBLICANS MAY BRING UP VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON, HUNTER BIDEN.

THE FACT THAT HE SERVED ON A BOARD IN UKRAINE.

WILL THAT ULTIMATELY, DO YOU THINK, BE A LIABILITY FOR VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THIS CAMPAIGN?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK RIGHT NOW I AM FOCUSSED ON MY OWN CAMPAIGN AND THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WILL DECIDE BUT I THINK HE'S EXPLAINED THAT.

I CAN JUST SAY THAT IN MY OWN CASE MY DAUGHTER WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF BUSINESS THAT WOULD BE A CONFLICT AND I THINK THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THE SAME ABOUT HIS SON GOING FORWARD.

>> SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR, MINNESOTA.

WE'RE GOING LET YOU TAKE A MINUTE OR TWO BEFORE YOU HAVE TO GO BACK IN TO THE REMAINDER OF THESE ARGUMENTS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, JUDY.

>> SO WE HEARD FROM ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS AS YOU JUST HEARD.

WE'LL BE HEARING IN A MOMENT FROM A REPUBLICAN DEB FISCHER OF NEBRASKA.

THEY HAVE TO STAY IN THEIR SEATS AND LISTEN.

THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GET UP AND GET OUT OF THE ROOM TO BRING A DRINK OF WATER.

THEY CAN ONLY BRING WATER OR MILK AND A PAD OF PAPER IN TO THE CHAMBER.

SO IT'S A KIND OF A TEST OF THEIR ABILITY TO BE IN ONE PLACE WITHOUT ELECTRONIC DEVICES.

WITHOUT THEIR SMARTPHONES.

CERTAINLY NO COMPUTERS.

I'M TOLD SENATOR FISCHER IS NOW WITH US.

SENATOR, WHAT ARE YOU MAKING TODAY OF THE ARGUMENT THE DEMOCRATS ARE MAKE WRAPPING UP THE CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE HE ABUSED THE POWER OF THE OFFICE WITH THIS REQUEST OF THE UKRAINIAN LEADER?

>> I THINK WHAT MOST OF US ARE HEARING ARE REPETITION OF WHAT WE HEARD THE LAST TWO DAYS.

WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION, TAKING NOTES.

I CONTINUE TO READ THE BRIEFS AND FOLLOW ALONG WITH WHAT THE MANAGERS ARE PRESENTING BUT IT IS REPETITION.

THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT JOE BIDEN, WHICH I FOUND AMAZING THE LENGTH OF TIME THE MANGERS SPEND ON TIME AND THE HISTORY LESSON WE'RE HEARING ABOUT UKRAINE AMONG THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE AND MOST MY COLLEAGUES KNOW WE UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY OF THE UKRAINE.

>> LET ME COME DIRECTLY TO ONE OF THE POINTS THE DEMOCRATS MADE THAT IT WAS WRONG FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ASK THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON.

DO YOU ACCEPT THEIR PREMISE THAT IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID?

>> I DON'T.

I'M WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE STARTING TOMORROW.

THAT'S WHAT A JURY'S SUPPOSED TO DO.

WE DON'T MAKE A DECISION ON ONE SIDE OF A PRESENTATION AND HEAR WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE SAYS TOMORROW.

>> WHAT WOULD BE ANOTHER EXPLANATION FOR THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST TO THE UKRAINIANS?

>> I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE CORRUPTION THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN UKRAINE.

AS I SAID, WE HEARD OF THAT BEFORE.

WE HAVE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT GOES ON IN OTHER COUNTRIES.

IT'S VERY COMPLICATED ESPECIALLY THE SITUATION IN UKRAINE.

AND WHAT YOU SEE WITH THEIR RELATIONSHIPS NOT JUST WITH THE UNITED STATES BUT WITH THE RUSSIANS.

YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY THAT THEY HAVE.

EVEN THE RECENT HISTORY.

IT'S NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER THERE.

IT'S NOT AN EASY ANSWER.

THERE'S A LOT TO WEIGH.

>> SENATOR, WHEN YOU HEAR THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LENGTHS THE WHITE HOUSE WENT EVEN THE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO KEEP PRIVATE THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE DEMOCRATS ARGUE THAT WAS A COVER UP.

THEY KNEW THERE WAS SMOG WRONG ABOUT CALL AND WENT TO GREAT LENGTH TO KEEP IT OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY DID.

>> YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT TIM MORRISON'S TESTIMONY WE SAW AGAIN TODAY.

BASICALLY HE WAS SAYING IT WAS A MISTAKE.

IT WASN'T CORRECTED RIGHT AWAY BUT HE WAS VERY BLUNT ON THAT TESTIMONY.

I GUESS I WOULD REFER PEOPLE TO LOOK BACK AT HIS TESTIMONY TO THE COMMITTEE.

>> AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN.

>> WELL, HE SAID IT WAS A MISTAKE THE WAY IT WAS CLASSIFIED AND THEY CAUGHT IT AND THEN IT WAS CHANGED.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DEALING WITH FACTS HERE NOT CONJECTURE.

NOT WELL, WE THINK IT HAPPENED THIS WAY.

WE THINK THIS WAS THEIR STATE OF MIND.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT.

TO LOOK AT TESTIMONY ONUx6 AND BE ABLE TO DIG THROUGH THAT AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS SAID AND NOT JUST SOUND BITES OR CHERRY PICK AND I'LL DO IT WHEN THE DEFENSE STARTS.

>> THE DEMOCRATS USED SEVERAL VIDEO CLIPS OF THE PRESIDENT AND THEY REFERRED TO THE PRESIDENT CONTINUING TO ASK VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BE INVESTIGATED.

DO YOU THINK HE STILL SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED, HE AND HIS SON?

>> I'M NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENT ON THAT WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE OR NOT.

I THINK THE MANAGERS, THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MANAGERS RAISED QUESTIONS WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSING THE BIDENS.

AS I SAID EARLIER, I FOUND IT AMAZING THE AMOUNT OF TIME HOUSE MANAGERS SPENT ON THE BIDENS.

I WOULD QUESTION WHY THEY FELT THEY NEEDED TO GO IN TO SUCH A LENGTHY CONVERSATION ON VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND HIS SON, HUNTER.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT POLITICS AND WE'RE IN A POLITICAL SETTING HERE IN THE SENATE AND HERE WITH THIS TRIAL.

I WOULD ASK MANGERS WHY THEY SPENT THAT AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE BIDENS.

>> YOU THINK IT COULD ULTIMATELY LEAD TO INFORMATION HARMFUL TO THE BIDENS OR SOMETHING ELSE?

>> THAT COULD BEING ONE -- COULD BE ONE REASON.

THEY'RE IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY NOW.

YOU'RE FOLLOWING OTHER CANDIDATES IN IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE AND I FOUND THAT STRANGE.

>> I'M TRYING TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES.

ARE YOU SAYING THEY'RE TRYING TO HELP ANOTHER CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT AND HURT -- >> I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW.

MAYBE THAT'S ONE EXPLANATION.

I KNOW MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WERE THINKING WHY ARE WE SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON THIS.

>> SENATOR FISCHER WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR MOST WHEN THEY START TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT TOMORROW?

>> I THINK ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE.

I'M SURE THEY'LL PRESENT THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.

THAT'S THEIR JOB TO PRESENT THE PRESIDENT'S CASE AND SIDE.

THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS OUT THERE.

I KNOW THAT I HAVE AND THAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE WE'LL BE ABLE TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS IN DAYS FROM NOW IF THE DEFENSE DOESN'T ASK THEM.

>> WE'LL LET YOU GO, SENATOR DEB FISCHER OF NEBRASKA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SO WE HEARD FROM SENATORS.

I'LL COME BACK TO YOU QUICKLY, VICTORIA NOURSE BECAUSE WE THINK THEY MAY RESUME COULD BE AT 3:45 EASTERN.

WE'RE NOT SURE.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE COMMENTS FROM SENATOR KLOBUCHAR AND SENATOR FISCHER?

>> THEY SAID IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE BIDENS BUT IT WASN'T ALL ABOUT BIDENS.

WE HAD A LONG HISTORY WITH THE UKRAINE, ETCETERA, ETCETERA.

I THINK THAT'S THEIR WAY TO SHIFT THE POLITICAL CONVERSATION TO THE BIDENS OPPOSED TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID AND THE FACT WE HAVE A SMOKING GUN.

WE HAVE A PHONE CALL TRANSCRIPT THAT SAYS I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE AND SMEAR MY POLITICAL OPPONENT.

>> YOU HEARD SENATOR FISCHER SAID SHE WASN'T READY TO ACCEPT THAT AND SAID SHE WASN'T READY TO ACCEPT.

>> I HEARD THAT FASCINATING BECAUSE THERE'S A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS THAT.

I CAN'T QUITE GET MY MIND AROUND THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE.

I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY KEEP PIVOTING AWAY FROM THAT.

IF YOU READ THE LAWYERS BRIEF THEY FEEL IT SHOULD BE SANCTIONED.

IT'S FULL OF FLUSTER.

>> WHO SHOULD BE SUBJECT?

THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS?

>> THE PEOPLE WHO FILED THE BRIEF.

>> MICHAEL ALLEN, WHAT ABOUT THE COMMENT THERE SENATOR FISCHER SAYING SHE DOESN'T ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE FOR PERSON GAIN.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS FOLKS AND HIS WAR ROOM HAVE BEEN HANGING THAT ARGUMENT ON JUST TRUMP SAYING IN THE TRANSCRIPT MEANING DOING THAT FOR US, THE UNITED STATES.

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S AN INCREDIBLY CONVINCING ARGUMENT BUT THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE HANGING THEIR HAT.

I THINK OVERALL WHAT I'VE SEEN IN THE LAST FEW HOURS IS THEY'RE GETTING FOR THE BIG FIGHT OF NEXT WEEK THAT'S THE VOTE ON WITNESSES.

WHEN YOU ASK AN AVERAGE AMERICAN WE'RE HAVING A TRIAL BUT CAN'T HAVE WITNESSES I THINK IT'S CONFUSING.

I THINK IT PUTS THE BURDEN ON THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO EXPLAIN QUICKLY WHY THEY WOULDN'T HAVE WITNESSES AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GET BACK TO THE BIDEN THING AND BE ABLE TO SAY IT'S A POLITICAL SHAM THAT NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE BIDEN ISSUE COME UP.

>> LISA DESJARDINS IS AT THE CAPITOL.

YOU'VE SEEN THE SENATORS AND WATCHED THE PROCEEDING.

WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN?

>> OUR VIEWERS WERE WITH US FOR THE HEARINGS AS WELL SO YOU'RE NOT WRONG, JUDY.

I SAW SOMETHING NEW TODAY IN THE CHAMBER I'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

THAT'S EVERY MEMBER OF THE REPUBLICAN SIDE TAKING NOTES OR READING DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF THEM.

FOR THE PAST TWO DAYS THERE'S BEEN A HANDFUL OF MEMBERS WHO SAT BACK AND LISTENED BUT NOT TAKING NOTES.

AMONG THEM SENATOR TOM COTTON AND TODAY HAD A FULL NOTEBOOK AND THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN HAD A CLEAN DESK FOR THE PAST THREE DAYS.

TODAY NOW HE DOES HAVE THE PRESENTATION GRAPHICS HANDED TO HIM AND IS ALSO TAKING NOTES.

I SEE MORE ATTENTION TO DETAIL TODAY THAN BEFORE.

>> DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHY THAT IS?

>> I DON'T.

I'M CURIOUS.

I'M GOING TO ASK SENATORS WHY THAT IS.

I WONDER IF THEY'RE ATTENTION IS BEING FOCUSSED AND THINK THEY'RE BEING ASKED MORE QUESTION DETAILS BY THE PRESS AND HAVING MORE DISCUSSIONS WITH EACH OTHER ABOUT THE EXACT DETAILS OF THE EVIDENCE.

IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE AS YOU'RE GUESTS ARE ALLUDING TO, THEY'RE PREPARING NOR DEFENSE THEMSELVES AS WELL -- FOR THE DEFENSE THEMSELVES AND WANT TO REMEMBER POINTS THE DEMOCRATS BROUGHT UP THEY FEEL ARE NOT THEIR STRONGEST POINT.

I DON'T KNOW BUT I WONDER IF THAT'S PART OF IT.

>> I KNOW IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO GO AROUND AND TALK TO ALL SENATORS IN THE BRIEF PERIOD.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR HAS BEEN TALKING TO FOLKS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

ARE YOU HEARING FROM THEM A SENSE WHETHER THEIR CASE HAS BEEN AS STRONG AS IT HAS BEEN?

THE WHITE HOUSE FEELS THEIR CASE IS STRONG.

ADAM SCHIFF HAS BEEN MAKING THE CASE NOT ONLY PRESIDENT TRUMP VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND CANNOT BE TRUSTED GOING FORWARD.

HE MADE THE CASE HE IS A BAD ALLIE FOR THE UNITED STATES ALLIES AROUND THE WORLD AND WOULD TRY TO CONTINUE TO INTERFERE IN ELECTION.

WE SEE THEM PUSHING BACK HARD.

OUR WHITE HOUSE PRODUCER MEREDITH LEE AND I GOT THE SENSE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM THEY'LL SPEND A LOT OF TIME DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT VIGOROUSLY SATURDAY AND THAT JOE BIDEN IS SOMEONE THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND THE PRESIDENT HAD TO BE TALKING ABOUT JOE BIDEN HAD TO LOOK IN TO THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS CORRUPTION AND ONE INTERESTING THING THAT HAPPENED TODAY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE SENSE OF WHETHER THERE'LL BE EVIDENCE OR MORE WITNESSES THERE WAS A RECORDING THAT CAME OUT THAT APPEARS TO BE PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKING ABOUT THE FORMER AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE MARIE YOVANOVITCH SAYING WE SHOULD GET RID OF HER AND PEOPLE AT THE TABLE WHO ARE TELLING HIM SHE'S A BAD PERSON ARE LEV PARNOV AND RUDY GIULIANI.

YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT HAVING TO CONTENT WITH NEW THING AND THAT'S WHY THEY NEED WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE BECAUSE MORE THINGS ARE COMING OUT.

THE WHITE HOUSE IS SAYING THIS IS NOT WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

INSTEAD THE PRESIDENT SAY TARGET OF A -- IS A TARGET OF A PARTISAN ATTACK AND IT'S INTERESTING GIVEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE WRAPPING UP THEIR CASE AND IT WILL BE TIME FOR THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM TO START DEFENDING HIM.

>> AND YAMICHE RAISES AN INTERESTING POINT, LISA DESJARDINS, TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE SENATORS ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS OUTSIDE WHAT WAS SAID IN THE CHAMBER DURING THE TRIAL?

>> THAT'S DETERMINED BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT.

HE HAS THE ABILITY TO RULE THINGS IN AND OUT OF ORDER.

THE QUESTIONS WILL BE HANDED TO HIM AND HE'LL READ THEM.

SAY SOMEONE WHO IS AN ARDENT DEFENDER OF THE PRESIDENT WRITES A QUESTION AND PERHAPS THERE'S LENGTHY REMARKS DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT LEADING TO THE QUESTION.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS THE ABILITY TO READ SOME OF WHAT HE'S HANDED, NOT ALL, AND DECIDE WHAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE TRIAL OR NOT.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S OFFICE AND THESE SENATORS ARE THINKING ABOUT THEIR QUESTIONS NOW.

IN FACT, MULTIPLE DEMOCRATIC SOURCES HAVE TOLD ME THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN INTERNAL DEADLINE OF MIDNIGHT TONIGHT TO HAND IN THEIR FIRST DRAFT OF QUESTIONS SO SENATOR SCHUMER AND THE LEADERSHIP STAFF CAN LOOK AT THEM AND SEE IF THERE'S DUPLICATES AND WEIGH HOW TO COORDINATE THEIR EFFORT.

HOWEVER, IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AS SOME OF YOUR GUESTS WILL BE ABLE TO REMARK ON MY UNDERSTANDING IS DUPLICATES WERE NOT A PROBLEM.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS ABLE TO NOTE IF THEY WERE DUPLICATIVE QUESTIONS AND POINT THAT OUT.

>> THAT'S INTERESTING THEY'RE ASKING FOR QUESTIONS BEFORE HEARING FROM THE DEFENSE.

>> NOT EVERY DEMOCRATIC CEN CENTER -- SENATOR IS HAPPY WITH THAT AND THEY'RE LIKELY TO COME UP WITH OTHER QUESTIONS AS WELL AS WHAT THEY SUBMIT TONIGHT.

>> I WANT TO COME BACK TO OUR GUESTS AT THE TABLE AND ASK IF ANY OF YOU KNOWS OR CAN OR IF THEY CAN ASK QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS ABOUT MATTERS THAT DID NOT COME UP IN THE COURSE OF TRIAL.

>> AND THE QUESTION CARD THEY FILL OUT CAN'T GO ON AND ON WITH ENDLESS COMMENTS OR EDITORIAL COMMENTS.

THERE'S ONLY A FEW LINES.

THEY HAVE TO FILL OUT THE NAME, THE QUESTION AND THERE'S A BOX IN THE CORNER AND THEY'LL DECIDE HOW MUCH IS DUPLICATIVE AND HOW MUCH IS NOT.

IT'S INTERESTING THE FACT YOU SEE MORE OF THEM TAKING NOTES.

THAT TELLS ME THEY'RE COMING UP WITH QUESTIONS IN THEIR MIND AT THE TIME THEY'RE HEARING SOME OF THIS, MAYBE I NEED TO SCAPE QUESTION DEALING WITH THAT.

THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE CLINTON TRIAL WHERE THE LEADERSHIP ASKED FOR QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE AND EVEN BEFORE THE PARTICULAR SIDE OF THE DEFENSE WAS ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING.

>> INTERESTING.

QUICKLY, TO MIEKE, FOR EXAMPLE IF, A SENATOR WROTE ON A CARD I'D LIKE TO ASK THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HOW DOES THE EXPLAIN THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENT, GET RID OF HER, REFERRING TO FORMER AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH IF THEY DIDN'T COME UP IN THE TRIAL AND YET PART OF THE STORY.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE LEGAL RULING WOULD BE BUT THERE'S A QUESTION SENATORS ARE WRESTLING WITH IN REAL TIME WHETHER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS ARISEN AFTER THE RECORD TRANSMITTED TO THE SENATE AND IT RAISES QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT'S COMPLETE AND PUTS THE REBOUND SENATORS IN A LITTLE BIT OF A CATCH-22 WHERE THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVEN'T MADE THEIR CASE OR WE NEED TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT BY PUTTING AN ALTERNATIVE STORY AND AT THE SAME TIME ARGUE SAYING WE CAN'T HAVE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND FACTS.

THOSE THINGS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER.

>> I BELIEVE WE HEARD SOME OF THE DEMOCRATIC MANAGERS BRING UP SOME INFORMATION THAT'S COME UP WITH LEV PARNAS AND RUDY GIULIANI WAS NOT PART OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT CONSIDERATION.

>> I THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE WILL BE ABLE TO DEVISE HIS OWN DEFINITION OF RELEVANCE.

I REMEMBER ATTENDING SEVERAL LAW SCHOOL CLASSES ON THIS SUBJECT.

NEITHER SIDE WILL TRY TO PUT IT IN A MEAT CLEAVER AND ASK ABOUT BURISMA OR THIS COMMENT ABC NEWS REPORTED ON TODAY.

IT'S GOT TO BE ARTFUL.

THEY HAVE TO USE A SCALPEL TO IMPORT ONE OF THESE ISSUES THAT'S OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL IN TO THE Q&A.

THEY'LL HAVE TO MAKE IT DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO SOMETHING MATERIAL OR GOES TO THE STATE OF MIND OF ONE OF THE WITNESSES.

>> WE'RE ABOUT 30 MINUTES TO WHAT WE WERE TOLD WOULD BE 15-MINUTE BREAK THE SENATE TOOK BUT IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE.

THEY'VE GONE ON, VICK TORE -- VICTORIA, TWO AND A HALF HOURS AND UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S GOING LONGER.

>> LET ME SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

HE'S HAPPY TO HAVE A NON-ROLE BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT HAS ITS OWN POLITICS.

HE'S BEEN UNDER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WHAT THE COURT HAS FELT UNDER ATTACK OF THE KAVANAUGH APPOINTMENT AND HE'S TRIED TO SHOW HE'S A MODERATE AND THE UMPIRE AND WILL AVOID RULING ON ANYTHING IN MY OPINION.

>> WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKED TO OBAMA JUDGE AND TRUMP JUDGES HE PUSHED BACK AND SAID THERE'S NO SUCH THING.

HE MADE A STATEMENT SAYING WE'RE ALL JUDGE HERE TO SERVE.

>> HE ALSO DOESN'T WANT TO BE A POTTED PLANT.

I AGREE TRYING TO AVOID THE RULE BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY THE SENATORS HAVE VERY SMART STAFFERS BEHIND THEM TRYING TO CRAFT THE RIGHT QUESTION THAT WILL BE DAMAGING SO IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE AN EASY YES OR NO.

>> WHAT IF THERE WERE AN OBJECTION FROM THE FLOOR.

YOU'RE THE EXPERT AS TO THE RELEVANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND NEW EVIDENCE COMING IN.

CAN THEY MAKE OBJECTIONS?

>> THEY CONDITION AND THAT TECHNICALLY WOULD BECOME A VOTE ON THE SENATE FLOOR.

>> SO IN ESSENCE IT'S NOT THE CHIEF RULING.

AND SOMEONE CAN SAY THAT'S NEW EVIDENCE.

>> AN OBJECTION.

>> THAT DID NOT HAPPEN IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT BUT COULD HAPPEN IF THE CHIEF WERE TO ALLOW A CERTAIN QUESTION A CERTAIN PARTY WOULD DECIDE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

>> THAT'S RELEVANT.

>> THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

>> IT'S GOING GET INTERESTING.

>> THE QUESTIONS SAY EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THAT EACH SIDE IS TRYING TO MAKE, AREN'T THEY?

THEY'RE ALL WRITTEN WITH A PURPOSE.

>> I THINK SO.

>> PRESUMABLY.

WHICH AGAIN I FIND INTERESTING THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS GIVEN THEIR SIDE OF THE DEADLINE AND WANT TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE GOING ASK AND ARE THEY GOING TO PROOF THEM?

WHO MAKES THAT DECISION?

DO ALL THE QUESTIONS GO TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OR SENATOR SCHUMER AND FOR THAT MATTER THE MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL GET TO WEIGH IN.

>> IN THE CLINTON TRIAL WE COLLECTED THEM ON THE FLOOR, CULLED THROUGH THEM AND HANDED THEM TO OUR REPRESENTATIVE LEADERS AND THEY LOOKED THROUGH THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY WASHINGTON ALL ABOUT THE SAME THING -- >> THEY BEING?

>> THE TWO LEADERS.

THEN WE CARRIED THEM UP TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HE READ THEM.

>> I THINK THIS HAS BECOME MORE ORCHESTRATED AND MORE PARTISAN AND THE LEADERS WILL UNDERSTAND AT THE END OF THE DAY HERE'S THE POINTS WE WANT TO ELUCIDATE SO LET'S FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAYBE GET A SOFTBALL HERE AND THERE AND ALSO FIND SOMETHING DAMAGING TO THE OTHERS' ARGUMENT.

>> LET'S SHAPE THE QUESTIONS WE'RE ASKING THE THRUST OF THE QUESTIONS.

>> WE DO SEE THE SENATE.

NOW WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE SENATE WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE BACK IN HIS CHAIR.

IT'S BEEN ABOUT 34 MINUTES BY MY CLOCK SINCE THEY DECIDED TO TAKE THAT BREAK.

WE WILL WATCH.

HERE WE GO.

>> I WANT TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUES IN THANKING NOW FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND INDULGENCE.

I CAN TELL YOU TODAY WE'RE CLOSER TODAY THAN WE WERE ON YESTERDAY.

I'M PREPARED TO PRESENT ARTICLE 2, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS AND CHARGES THE PRESIDENT WITH MISUSING THE POWERS OF HIS HIGH OFFICE TO OBSTRUCT THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

WE'RE HERE TODAY IN RESPONSE TO A BLANKET ORDER ISSUED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTING THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO WITHHOLD ALL DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY FROM THAT INQUIRY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WAS CATEGORICAL, INDISCRIMINATE AND HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED.

AND ITS PURPOSE WAS CLEAR TO IMPEDE CONGRESS'S ABILITY TO CARRY OUT ITS DUTIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

AS PART OF HIS EFFORT TO COVER UP EVIDENCE OF HIS SCHEME TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID SOMETHING NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER DARED TO DO IN THE HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP BLOCKED EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS IN EVERY DEPARTMENT, AGENCY AND OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FROM PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE AS PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THIS WAS NOT ABOUT SPECIFIC NARROWLY DEFINED SECURITY OR PRIVACY ISSUES.

NOR WAS IT BASED ON POTENTIAL PRIVILEGES AVAILABLE TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

INDEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS NOT ONCE ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DURING THIS PROCESS.

THIS WAS A DECLARATION OF TOTAL DEFIANCE OF THE HOUSE'S AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT AND A WHOLESALE REJECTION OF CONGRESS'S ABILITY TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE.

THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER, EXECUTED BY HIS TOP AIDES SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERED WITH THE HOUSE'S POWER TO CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT÷ INQUIRY.

AT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DIRECTION, THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF RELEASED, REFUSED TO PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT OF RECORD IN RESPONSE TO A HOUSE SUBPOENA THAT REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AND CONTINUES TO WITHHOLD THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM CONGRESS AND FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

BUT IT IS NOT JUST THE WHITE HOUSE.

FOLLOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER, THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ALL CONTINUED TO REFUSE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT OF RECORD IN RESPONSE TO 71 SPECIFIC REQUESTS INCLUDING FIVE SUBPOENAS.

ADDITIONALLY, FOLLOWING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER, 12 CURRENT OR FORMER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS CONTINUED TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY AS PART OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

NOT ONLY CURRENT ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS BUT FORMER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AS WELL.

NINE OF THOSE OFFICIALS WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE CONTINUED TO DEFY SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER.

YET DESPITE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION AS YOU HAVE SEEN OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE SCHEME THE HOUSE GATHERED OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT FROM COURAGEOUS PUBLIC SERVANTS WILLING TO FOLLOW THE LAW, COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS AND TELL THE TRUTH.

ON THE BASIS OF THAT FORMIDABLE BODY OF EVIDENCE, THE HOUSE ADOPTED THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

THESE WITNESSES ALSO TESTIFIED WITH SPECIFICITY WITH DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND OTHER AGENCIES REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO COERCE UKRAINE'S LEADER TO HELP HIS RE-ELECTION.

AS YOU HEARD THE HOUSE WAS ABLE TO CAT LOL DOCUMENTS AND -- CATALOG AND DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATION THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS ORDERED BE CONCEALED FROM CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

REVELATIONS HARMFUL TO THE PRESIDENT ONLY CONTINUED SINCE THE HOUSE COMPILED ITS INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS.

RECENT COURT ORDER RELEASES UNDER THE PREDOM OF INFORMATION ACT -- FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AS WELL AS DISCLOSURES TO THE MEDIA FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE WHITE HOUSE, OMB, STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES ARE ACTIVELY WITHHOLDING HIGHLY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THAT COULD FURTHER IMPLICATE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS SUBORDINATES.

OVER TIME THIS DOCUMENT AND THIS EVIDENCE WILL COME TO LIGHT.

I ASK THIS BODY TO NOT WAIT TO READ ABOUT IT IN THE PRESS OR IN A BOOK YOU SHOULD BE HEARING THE EVIDENCE NOW.

HEARING THIS EVIDENCE NOW.

THERE IS ONE POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE THIS STRIKES AT THE HEART OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COULD UNDERTAKE SUCH COMPREHENSIVE OBSTRUCTION ONLY BECAUSE OF THE EXCEPTIONAL POWERS ENTRUSTED TO HIM BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

ONLY ONE PERSON IN THE WORLD HAS THE POWER TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THAT PERSON, SENATORS, AS YOU KNOW, IS THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THAT POWER NOT TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAW BUT TO ORDER AGENCIES AND EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE OF HIS MISCONDUCT.

NOW, I KNOW THAT NO OTHER AMERICAN COULD SEE TO OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OR HER WRONGDOING IN THIS WAY.

WE ALL KNOW THAT NO OTHER AMERICAN COULD USE THE VAST POWERS OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO UNDERTAKE A CORRUPT SCHEME TO CHEAT, TO WIN AN ELECTION AND THEN USE THE SAME POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME.

WE WOULD NOT ALLOW.

I AM CONVINCED WE WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY MEMBER OF OUR STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO USE THE OFFICIAL POWERS OF THEIR OFFICE TO COVER UP CRIMES AND MISDEEDS.

AS THIS BODY IS WELL AWARE, MAYORS AND GOVERNS HAVE -- GOVERNORS HAVE GONE TO JAIL FOR DOING SO.

MAYORS AND POLICE CHIEFS ARE CERTAINLY NOT IMMUNE.

WE CAN HAVE LASTING DAMAGE ON OUR OPERATION OF POWERS OF GOVERNMENT.

OUR FUNDAMENTAL SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

ItzV%ó WOULD INFLICT IRREVERSIB DAMAGE BY ALLOWING THIS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND ESTABLISHING PRESIDENTS FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS TO ACT CORRUPTLY OR ABUSIVELY AND THEN USE THE VAST POWERS OF THEIR OFFICE.

THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY TO CONCEAL THEIR OWN MISCONDUCT FROM CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AN IT WOULD ALLOW A FUTURE PRESIDENT TO DO WHATEVER HE OR SHE WANTS.

S IT IT IS -- IT IS ON AN ATTACK ON CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND TO CHECK ON FUTURE PRESIDENTS BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS.

WITHOUT MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT, WITHOUT THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AMERICANS WILL HAVE TO COME TO ACCEPT A FAR GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF MISCONDUCT IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND NOT BE ABLE TO LOOK TO OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT TO HOLD THEIR PRESIDENT, THE PEOPLE'S PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE.

EXECUTIVE POWER WITHOUT ANY SORT OF RESTRAINT, WITHOUT OVERSIGHT AND WITHOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES IS ABSOLUTE POWER AND WE KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT ABSOLUTE POWER.

ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

THIS IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED.

THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION PURPOSEFULLY ENTRUST THE POURS OF PEOPLE TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM A CORRUPT PRESIDENT.

WELL THE TIMES HAVE FOUND US.

IF THE OBSTRUCTION IS ALLOWED TO STAND IT NULLIFIES THE IMPEACHMENT POWER.

SENATORS, WE HAVE THE KEEPERS, THE PROTECTERS, THE DEFENDERS OF WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED.

AND MUST HOLD ANY UNDISCIPLINED EXECUTIVE ACCOUNTABLE.

SENATORS, I KNOW THIS IS NOT EASY.

I DON'T TAKE THIS MOMENT LIGHTLY.

THESE ARE TOUGH TIMES.

I REMEMBER QUITE A FEW TOUGH TIMES DURING MY 27 YEARS AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BUT WE MUST STOP THIS PRESIDENT.

TODAY WE WILL EXPLAIN WHY.

FIRST WE WILL REVIEW KEY FACTS REGARDING THE SCOPE AND DEPTH OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UNPRECEDENTED ACTIONS TO STOP THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

AS YOU KNOW WE COVER MONDAY FACTS ON TUESDAY WHEN WE DISCUSSED WHAT THE PRESIDENT BLOCKED FROM CONGRESS.

WE ADDRESSED DOCUMENTS WE KNOW THE WHITE HOUSE AND OTHER AGENCIES ARE CONCEALING AND ADDRESSED TESTIMONY THE PRESIDENT'S AIDES WOULD PROVIDE IF THEY TESTIFIED UNDER OATH.

WE WILL THEREFORE REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES BRIEFLY.

SECOND, AFTER SURVEYING RELEVANT HISTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, WE WILL EXPLAIN WHY OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IN AND OF ITSELF WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

FINALLY, WE WILL DEMONSTRATE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WITHOUT QUESTION GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THAT HIS DEFENSE LACKS ANY LEGAL FOUNDATION AND IT A DIRE AND CONTINUING THREAT TO THE FOUNDATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.

THIS IS VERY SIMPLE.

IT'S SIMPLE.

THE PRESIDENT ABUSED THE POWERS ENTRUSTED IN HIM BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN A SCHEME TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY AND ORCHESTRATE A MASSIVE COVER UP AND HE DID SO IN PLAIN SIGHT.

AND HIS OBSTRUCTION REMAINS ONGOING.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, BEFORE I START, I TOO WANT TO THANK ALL THE SENATORS FOR BEING SO PATIENT AND BEING SUCH GOOD LISTENERS.

IT REMINDS ME OF ONE OF THE FIRST DAYS FOR WHAT I WENT TO WHAT I CALL LAY-JUDGE SCHOOL AND THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY TOLD US, WE NEEDED TO BE PATIENT, WE NEEDED TO LISTEN AND THAT WE NEEDED TO BE FAIR AND ALWAYS GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO EACH SIDE.

I MUST SAY YOU HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN PLAYING A VERY GOOD ROLE AS JUDGE BECAUSE ALL-KNOW I -- ALTHOUGH I KNOW THE PRESS CALLED YOU JURORS YOU'RE IN THE ROLE OF JUDGE.

I COMMEND YOU FOR BEING GOOD LISTENERS AND HAVING THE PATIENCE TO LISTEN TO US THE LAST TWO DAYS IN OUR FINAL REMARKS TODAY SO THANK YOU ALL.

MS. DEMMING GAVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

LET'S NOW TURN TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

TO FULLY APPRECIATE THE SCOPE AND THE SCALE.

THE SCALE OF THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING AND THE SIZE OF THE COVER-UP HE HAS ORCHESTRATED REQUIRES AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS LAWLESSLY HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CATEGORICALLY, INDISCRIMINATELY AND IN UNPRECEDENTED FASHION OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

IN OTHER WORDS, HE ORCHESTRATED A COVER-UP.

HE DID IT IN PLAIN SIGHT.

FIRST, FROM THE BEGINNING, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SOUGHT TO HIDE THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT BY REFUSING TO TURN OVER THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.

THAT COMPLAINT WHICH SOUNDED THE FIRST ALARM OF THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING.

SECOND, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED AN ORDER PROHIBITING THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

NO COOPERATION, NO NEGOTIATION, NOTHING OR AS WE SAY IN TEXAS, NADA.

FOLLOWING THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS, FEDERAL AGENCIES FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND KEY WITNESSES REFUSED TO TESTIFY AND THE PRESIDENT SANCTIONED DIRECTIONS TO OFFICIALS ORDERERING THEM TO DEFY CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.

THIRD AND PERHAPS THE MOST REPREHENSIBLE OF ALL, THE PRESIDENT WAGED A CAMPAIGN OF INTIMIDATION AGAINST THOSE BRAVE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO DID COME FORWARD TO COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW.

SENATORS, I'M A LAWYER AND FORMER JUDGE.

I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS FROM A LITIGANT PART OR LITIGANT OR PARTY IN ANY CASE NOT ANYWHERE.

BUT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS SCANDAL, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SOUGHT TO HIDE AND SOUGHT TO COVER-UP EVIDENCE EVEN BEFORE THE PRESIDENT'S UKRAINE ACTIVITY.

IT BEGAN WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE SOUGHT TO CONCEAL THE RECORD OF DONALD TRUMP'S JULY 25 CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE BY PLACING IT IN A HIGHLY-CLASSIFIED SYSTEM.

BUT AS WE SAID BEFORE, THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE NATIONAL SECURITY REASON TO DO SO.

THE COVER-UP CONTINUED AND THE TOP OMB OFFICIAL START THE FREEZE TO BE QUOTED CLOSELY HELD IN ORDER, DON'T SAY ANYTHING TO ANYBODY.

SENATORS, YOU KNOW IN ORDER TO LAWFULLY WITHHOLD THE FUNDING, THE PRESIDENT WAS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY CONGRESS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED AND WHY HE WAS INTENDING TO FREEZE IT.

INSTEAD THE WHITE HOUSE TRIED TO KEEP THE FACT OF THE FREEZE SECRET.

MAYBE BECAUSE A SENIOR WHITE HOUSE AIDE, ROB BLAIR, PREDICTED TO HIS JOB, MICK MULVANEY, QUOTE, EXPECT CONGRESS TO BECOME UNHINGED IF IT LEARNED THAT BIPARTISAN AID FOR AVALUABLE PARTNER WAS BEING FROZEN FOR THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL GAIN.

BUT THE COVER-UP REACHED ITS PEAK SOON AFTER AUGUST 12.

BECAUSE ON AUGUST 12 A WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A LAWFUL AND PROTECTED COMPLAINT INTENDED FOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

THE PRESIDENT WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT, AND IN AN EFFORT TO CONCEAL THE CONCERNS THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOOK AN UNPRECEDENTED STEP.

NO ADMINISTRATION HAD EVER INTERVENED IN SUCH A MANNER BEFORE.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP MANEUVERED TO KEEP THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S CONCERNS FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES.

IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATURAL GAS COMMUNITY WHEN ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAD THIS BEEN WITHHELD BEFORE.

IT WAS THROUGH PRESSURE AND VIGGIOUS OVERSIGHT BY THE HOUSE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ULTIMATELY PRODUCED A COMPLAINT TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES.

I'LL ADD EVEN WHEN IT WAS PRODUCED IT WAS WEEKS AFTER THE LEGAL DEADLINE.

IF THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S CONCERNS HAD SUCCEEDED, CONGRESS WOULD NEVER HAVE LEARNED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPLAINT LET AGONE THE ALLEGATIONS THAT IT CONTAINED.

THIS ATTEMPT TO HIDE KEY INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS WAS ONLY THE FIRST SIGN OF WHAT WAS TO COME.

FOLLOWING NEW, DEEPLY TROUBLING REVELATIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 25 CALL, ON SEPTEMBER 24, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE ANNOUNCED THE HOUSE INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE FOR PERSONAL GAIN WOULD BE FOLDED IN TO THE ONGOING IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

JUST DAYS LATER, THE PRESIDENT BEGAN TO ATTACK THE LEGITIMACY OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

WHILE STANDING ON THE TARMAC OF ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, PRESIDENT TRUMP ARGUED THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, QUOTE, SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED.

HE CLAIMED THAT THERE, AND I QUOTE AGAIN, THERE SHOULD BE A WAY OF STOPPING IT.

MAYBE LEGALLY THROUGH THE COURTS.

LET'S HEAR WHAT HE HAD SO SAY.

>> THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE PUT ON HIM WHATSOEVER.

NONE WHATSOEVER AND SAID IT LOUD AND CLEAR FOR THE PRESS.

WHAT THESE GUYS ARE DOING, DEMOCRATS ARE DOING TO THIS COUNTRY IS A DISGRACE AND SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED.

THEY SHOULD BE A WAY OF STOPPING IT, MAYBE LEGALLY THROUGH THE COURTS.

>> THERE SHOULD BE A WAY OF STOPPING IT.

SOON AFTER IT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK THE MATTERS IN TO HIS OWN HANDS.

THE PRESIDENT USED HIS AUTHORITY AND OFFICE TO WAGE A RELENTLESS MISLEADING PUBLIC CAMPAIGN TO ATTACK THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE PRESIDENT SPENT TIME AT RALLIES IN PRESS CONFERENCES AND ON TWITTER TRYING TO PERSUADE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE HOUSE'S INQUIRY WAS INVALID AND FRAUDULENT.

HERE ARE JUST A FEW OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

HE CALLED IT A WITCH HUNT.

A COUP, AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB.

A FRAUD AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

HE SAID IT'S THE PHONY IMPEACHMENT SCAM.

THE PHONY IMPEACHMENT HOAX.

THE UKRAINE HOAX.

AND A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST SCAM AND WITCH HUNT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY.

AND THOSE ARE PROBABLY SOME OF THE ONES I CAN REPEAT HERE.

IT DIDN'T STOP.

THE ATTACKS DID NOT END THERE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TURNED FROM RHETORIC TO ACTION.

THE WHITE HOUSE SENT A LETTER TO SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI INFORMING HER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD SEEK TO COMPLETELY OBSTRUCT THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THEY SENT THE LETTER, WHITE HOUSE STATIONARY -- I SHOULDN'T SAY THIS BUT I'M LAWYER BUT IT'S AN EIGHT-PAGE LAWYER.

LAWYERS CAN'T DO ONE THING IN ONE PAGE, WE HAVE TO DO SEVEN OR A LOT.

THIS WAS EIGHT PAGES AND IT'S LONG.

NO WORRIES, I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT ALL, I JUST WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE.

IT SAYS, PRESIDENT TRUMP CANNOT PERMIT HIS ADMINISTRATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PARTISAN INQUIRY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

HE WAS JUST SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING COOPERATE AND THE LETTER IS DATED OCTOBER 8 AND SIGNED BY PAT CIPOLLONE HERE WITH US TODAY AS THE LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.

HE DID NOT MAKE AN ATTEMPT OF COMPROMISE.

HE HAD NO VALID EXCUSE.

THOUGH WE'RE ALL TOO FAMILIAR WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RHETORIC AND RANTS, THIS LETTER ON WHITE HOUSE STATIONARY SIGNED BY HIS LEAD COUNSEL HERE TODAY, HAS CONSEQUENCES.

THESE WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

THEY WERE MORE THAN JUST INK ON A PAGE -- >> EXCUSE OUR SHORT INTERRUPTION AS THE DEMOCRATIC MANAGERS ARE CONTINUING THEIR ARGUMENT.

MY COLLEAGUES AND ARE GOING TO STEP AWAY FROM ANCHOR COVERAGE TO FOCUS ON PREPARING FOR TONIGHT'S PBS "NEWSHOUR."

COVERAGE WILL CONTINUE HERE AND ONLINE AT PBS.com/NEWSES IN HOUR AND WE'LL BE BACK AT 8:00 P.M. EASTERN TO CONTINUE ANALYSIS OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE FINAL DAY OF ARGUMENTS FROM THE DEMOCRATS.

FOR NOW WE RETURN YOU TO THE LIVE PROCEEDINGS ON CAPITOL HILL WHERE REPRESENT SILVIA GARCIA, HOW MANAGER IS SPEAKING.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP BLOCKED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE REQUESTS.

ALL OF THEM.

TWEETED OCTOBER 7 AND OCTOBER 10 THE COMMITTEE ISSUED SUBPOENAS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO THE WHITE HOUSE, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

THE COMMITTEES ALWAYS REMAIN OPEN TO WORKING WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DISCUSS AND PRIORITIZE THE SUBPOENAS.

SOME AGENCIES INITIALLY SUGGESTED THEY MIGHT COMPLY, FOR EXAMPLE, A FEW DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE SUBPOENA THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE SENT STAFF AND REACHED OUT TO THE COMMITTEE TO QUOTE, DISGUST ACCOMMODATIONS.

-- DISCUSS ACCOMMODATIONS.

AS YOU KNOW THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS IS WHEN CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DISCUSS PRIORITIES AND CONCERNS SO THE COMMITTEE GETS WHAT IT NEEDS MOST EFFICIENTLY WHILE MINIMIZING ANY BURDEN TO THE AGENCY.

ON OCTOBER 7, THE COMMITTEE STAFF MET WITH STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS.

DURING THAT CONVERSATION, THE COMMITTEE MADE A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE THE DEPARTMENT IN NEGOTIATIONS.

THEY REQUESTED A PRODUCTION OF A NARROW SET OF NON-PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS.

THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES STATED THEY'D TAKE THE REQUEST BACK TO SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS BUT THAT WAS THE END.

THAT WAS THE END.

THOSE PRIORITY DOCUMENTS WERE NEVER PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEES.

IN ADDITION TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ALSO SHOWED AN INITIAL INTEREST IN COOPERATING.

DURING AN OCTOBER 13 TELEVISION APPEARANCE, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MARK ASPER STATED REPEATEDLY THE DEPEND OF DEFENSE WOULD SEEK TO COMPLY, HE SAID, ON AIR, ON TV, THEY WOULD SEEK TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENAS.

IN EXCHANGE ON FACE THE NATION, HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED QUESTION VERY QUICKLY, ARE YOU GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE HALF-HALT TO MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.

ANSWER FROM THE SECRETARY, YEAH, WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO COOPERATE WITH THE CONGRESS.

JUST IN THE LAST WEEK OR TWO, MY GENERAL COUNSEL SENT OUT A NOTE AS WE TYPICALLY DO IN THESE SITUATIONS TO ENSURE DOCUMENTS ARE RETAINED.

BUT AGAIN THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT A YES?

ANSWER BY THE SECRETARY, THAT'S A YES.

QUESTION, YOU WILL COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA.

ANSWER AGAIN BY THE SECRETARY, WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN COMPLY.

THESE ARE HIS VERY OWN WORDS.

WE CAN COMPLY.

WE CAN COMPLY.

BUT REMEMBER, THE OCTOBER 8 LETTER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE SPEAKER STATING THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION OF TOTAL DEFIANCE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP I'LL QUOTE AGAIN SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP CANNOT PERMIT HIS ADMINISTRATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PARTISAN INQUIRY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

SO EVERY DEPARTMENT, EVERY OFFICE TOP TO BOTTOM OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WAS UNDER THESE INSTRUCTIONS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S ABOUT 2 MILLION PUBLIC SERVANTS TOP TO BOTTOM.

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ALL ORDERED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO CONGRESS.

THE PRESIDENT OFFERED NO ACCOMMODATION AND NO OPPORTUNITY FOR NEGOTIATION.

ULTIMATELY, EACH AGENCY AND OFFICE FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER.

AND THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AND THE AGENCIES AND OFFICES THEN CLEARED IT WAS DUE TO THE PRESIDENT'S INSTRUCTIONS.

THEY ALWAYS DEFER TO THAT OCTOBER 8 LETTER.

FOR EXAMPLE, DESPITE THE SECRETARY'S COOPERATION AND SAID HE WAS TRYING TO COOPERATE BUT DESPITE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LATER REFUSED TO RESPOND TO THE COMMITTEE'S SUBPOENA.

IN A LETTER TO THE COMMITTEES THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ECHOED MANY OF THE WHITE HOUSE'S UNSUPPORTED LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND C CONCLUDED IN QUOTE, IN VIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION AS EXPRESSED IN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OCTOBER 8 LETTER, AND WITHOUT WAVING ANY OTHER OBJECTION TO THE SUBPOENA THE DEPARTMENT MAY HAVE, THE DEPARTMENT IS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH YOUR REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AT THIS TIME.

AGAIN, ON A TV INTERVIEW, ON FACE THE NATION THEY TRIED TO ASK HIM AGAIN.

SO WHEN ASKED BY CHRIS WALLACE ON FOX NEWS QUESTION, BUT DO YOU FEEL CONGRESS HAS THE RIGHT TO OVERSIGHT AND TO BE ABLE TO SEE DOCUMENTS FROM THE PENTAGON ABOUT A PROGRAM THAT WAS APPROVED BY CONGRESS?

ANSWER, WELL, THEY DO BUT ED IT'S DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY AND PROPER WAY.

AND THINK THAT WAS THE ISSUE, AGAIN, I THINK MY REPUTATION IS PRETTY GOOD IN TERMS OF BEING VERY TRANSPARENT.

I'D LIKE TO COMMUNICATE TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BUT IN THIS CASE, MY RECOLLECTION IS THERE WERE ISSUES FROM KEEPING US FROM DOING WHAT WAS REQUESTED BY CONGRESS.

SO HE SAID HE WOULD TRY TO COOPERATE TO SEEK TO COMPLY BUT NOW THEY'RE BACK PEDALLING, SENATORS, THERE WERE NO TECHNICAL, LEGAL ARGUMENTS.

NONE WERE PUT FORTH AND THE DOCUMENTS PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE WITHHOLDING ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT, RESPONSIVE AND WOULD FURTHER OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

HERE IS JUST A SAMPLING OF THE DOCUMENTS WE KNOW EXIST THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING WITHHELD.

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JOHN BOLTON'S NOTES.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S FIRST-PERSON CABLE TO SECRETARY POMPEO.

DETAILS BETWEEN OMB AND OTHER AGENCIES ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE TO PLACE A HOLD ON THE UKRAINE MILITARY AID AND THE HUNDREDS OF HEAVILY REDACTED DOCUMENTS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION NOW TURNED OVER TO THIRD PARTIES UNDER FOIA COURT ORDERS.

CERTAINLY, THE DOCUMENTS RELEASED TO THE FOIA LAWSUIT NOT SUBJECT TO CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE OR CONFIDENTIALITY OR BURDEN.

YET, ADMINISTRATION RELEASED THEM PUBLICLY.

BY CONTRAST, THE PRESIDENT TURNED OVER NOTHING IN RESPONSE TO THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.

NOW, SENATORS THERE STILL IS ANOTHER COMPONENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION THAT I WANT ALL OF TO US FOCUS ON.

NOT ONLY DID THE PRESIDENT BLOCK AGENCIES AND OFFICES FROM PRODUCING DOCUMENTS, HIS ADMINISTRATION ALSO BLOCKED CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICIALS FROM IDENTIFYING PRODUCING OR EVEN REVIEWING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

FIRST, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED ITS EMPLOYEES FROM EVEN IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED IN HIS DEPOSITION HE INFORMED THE STATE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY ABOUT ADDITIONAL RESPONSIVE RECORDS THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT COLLECTED.

ACCORDING TO KENT THE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY QUOTE GOT VERY ANGRY.

AND QUOTE, OBJECTED TO KENT RAISING THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

HE QUOTE, MADE CLEAR THAT HE DID NOT THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR KENT TO MAKE THE SUGGESTION.

SO HERE'S WHAT WE'RE TELLING THE WITNESS, YOU KNOW, DON'T SAY THAT.

AS A FORMER JUDGE I CAN'T BELIEVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD HAPPEN BUT KENT RESPONDED HE WAS JUST TRYING TO QUOTE, MAKE SURE THE DEPARTMENT WAS BEING FULLY RESPONSIVE.

SECOND, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REFUSED TO PERMIT INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES TO PRODUCE PREVALENT DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES.

AFTER THE STATE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO RESPOND TO VOLUNTARY REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE COMMITTEE SENT DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO SIX INDIVIDUAL STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES.

SECRETARY POMPEO OBJECTED TO THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST TO STATE OFFICIALS CALLING THEM QUOTE, IT'S AN ACT OF INTIMIDATION AND AN INVITATION TO VIOLATE FEDERAL COURT LAWS.

HE ALSO CLAIMED THE HOUSE INQUIRY, QUOTE, AN ATTEMPT TO INTIMIDATE, BULLY AND TREAT IMPROPERLY THIS DISTINGUISHED PROFESSIONALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

NOW, WE WERE THE BULLIES.

BUT LET'S BE CLEAR, HIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN CONTRADICTED BY ACTUAL STATE DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONALS FROM WHOM THE COMMITTEE SOUGHT DOCUMENTS.

KENT TESTIFIED HE QUOTE, HAD NOT FELT BULLIED, THREATENED AND INTIMIDATED BY THE HOUSE.

IN FACT, KENT SAID THE LANGUAGE IN SECRETARY POMPEO'S LETTER WHY HAD BEEN DRAFTED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY WAS WITHOUT CONSULTING MR. KENT.

HE SAID, QUOTE, IT WAS INACCURATE.

INACCURATE.

ORDERED WITNESSES TO WITHHOLD DOCUMENTS FROM CONGRESS.

FOR EXAMPLE, ON OCTOBER 14, THE DEPARTMENT SENT A LETTER TO KENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY WARNIN, YOUR CLIENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DISCLOSE TO CONGRESS ANY RECORDS RELATING TO OFFICIAL DUTIES.

CERTAIN WITNESSES DEFIED THESE ORDERS AND PRODUCED THE SUBSTANCE OF KEY DOCUMENTS, PROVIDING CRITICAL INSIGHT INTO THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

OTHER WITNESSES PRODUCED DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUMP -- TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SO THEY COULD BE TURNED OVER TO CONGRESS, BUT, NOW, THE ADMINISTRATION IS ALSO SITTING ON THOSE DOCUMENTS AND IS REFUSING TO TURN THEM OVER.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT HE TURNED OVER DOCUMENTS TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, BUT, TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, THEY HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED TO THE HOUSE.

LET'S WATCH.

>> -- HAS ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU TURNED OVER, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE COMMITTEE?

>> NO.

WELL, SENATORS, I WILL CONFIRM, THE COMMITTEES HAVE NOT SEEN NOT ONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, NONE.

FINALLY, IF IT COULD BE ANY WORSE -- WELL, IT IS.

A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, INFORMED US HE WAS NOT EVEN PERMITTED TO REVIEW HIS OWN RELEVANT RECORDS IN PREPARATION FOR THE TESTIMONY.

AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE HIS OWN RECORDS SO THAT HE COULD PREPARE TO TESTIFY.

SO LET'S WATCH.

>> I HAVE NOT HAD ACCESS TO ALL OF MY PHONE RECORDS, STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS, AND MANY, MANY OTHER STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS, AND I WAS TOLD I COULD NOT WORK WITH MY E.U.

STAFF TO PULL TOGETHER THE RELEVANT FILES AND INFORMATION.

HAVING ACCESS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT MATERIALS WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO ME IN TRYING TO RECONSTRUCT WITH WHOM I SPOKE AND MET AND WHEN AND WHAT WAS SAID.

MY LAWYERS AND I HAVE MADE MULTIPLE REQUESTS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THESE MATERIALS, YET THESE MATERIALS WERE NOT PROVIDED TO ME, AND THEY HAVE ALSO REFUSED TO SHARE THESE MATERIALS WITH THIS COMMITTEE.

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AND, IN FAIRNESS -- AND, IN FAIRNESS -- SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE.

>> OF COURSE, WE AGREE.

AT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER, AGENCIES AND OFFICES REFUSED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE'S REQUEST, AND THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW INDIVIDUAL WITNESSES TO DO SO EITHER.

SO LET'S RECAP.

NO DOCUMENTS, ZERO, GOOSE EGG, NADA, IN RESPONSE TO OVER 70 REQUESTS, 70 REQUESTS AND FIVE SUBPOENAS.

NO ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE.

NO GENUINE ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE.

CATEGORICAL, INDISCRIMINATE AND UNPRECEDENTED STONEWALLING.

AGAIN, NEVER IN MY TIME AS A LAWYER OR AS A JUDGE HAVE I SEEN THIS KIND OF TOTAL DISRESPECT AND DEFIANCE OF A LAWFULLY ISSUED SUBPOENA, AND ALL ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDERS.

AND IT COULD CONTINUE BECAUSE THIS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS REAL AND IT'S BEYOND BEYOND -- D COMPARISON.

THIS PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS, LET'S TURN TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO STOP WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING.

NO OTHER PRESIDENT FACING IMPEACHMENT HAS TAKEN THE EXTREME STEP TO PROHIBIT EXECUTIVE BRANCH WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS.

EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON, WHO FAMOUSLY ATTEMPTED TO DEFY A SUBPOENA FOR TAPE RECORDINGS OF HIS CONVERSATIONS, HE LET HIS MOST SENIOR STAFF TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS.

NOW, I REMEMBER LISTENING ON TV, AS JOHN DEAN TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE WATERGATE COMMITTEE.

HE WAS THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER.

PRESIDENT NIXON DIDN'T BLOCK HIM.

NOT ONLY DID PRESIDENT NIXON ALLOW HIS STAFF TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS, HE PUBLICLY DIRECTED THEM TO TESTIFY AND WITHOUT DEMANDING A SUBPOENA.

ACTUALLY, WITH THE SENATE WATERGATE INVESTIGATION, PRESIDENT NIXON SAID -- AND THIS IS A QUOTE -- ALL MEMBERS OF THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF WILL APPEAR VOLUNTARILY WHEN REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE, THEY WILL TESTIFY UNDER OATH, AND THEY WILL ANSWER FULLY ALL PROPER QUESTIONS.

NOW, COMPARE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE PUBLICLY ATTACKED THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY CALLING IT "CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID" AND HE ORDERED EVERY SINGLE PERSON WORKING IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DEFY THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

AS JUST DISCUSSED, IN THE LETTER TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP "CANNOT PERMIT HIS ADMINISTRATION TO PARTICIPATE."

NO PRESIDENT EVER USED THE OFFICIAL POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO PREVENT WITNESSES FROM GIVING TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS IN SUCH A BLANKET AND INDISCRIMINATE MANNER.

THERE IS NO TELLING HOW MANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WOULD HAVE COME FORWARD IF THE PRESIDENT HADN'T ISSUED THIS ORDER.

LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE WITNESSES WHO FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS.

THE HOUSE ISSUED SUBPOENAS TO COMPEL THE TESTIMONY OF THREE OFFICIALS AT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.

ACTING DIRECTOR RUSSELL VOUGHT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL DUFFEY, AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR MICHAEL MCCORMICK.

NOW, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY IN THE HOUSE, WHICH WAS REINFORCED BY E-MAILS RECENTLY REVEALED THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUITS, OMB WAS SINFUL TO THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD ON SECURITY ISSUANCE TO UKRAINE.

ITS OFFICIALS SERVED AS CONDUITS OF THE WHITE HOUSE TO IMPLEMENT THE WHOLE WITHOUT DIRECTLY ENGAGING THE AGENCIES THAT ACTUALLY REPORTED RELEASE OF THE AID.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THESE THREE OMB OFFICIALS TO VIOLATE THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATION BY DEFYING LAWFUL SUBPOENAS, AND THEY FOLLOWED HIS ORDERS.

THIS ISN'T JUST AN ARGUMENT, IT'S A FACT.

IN RESPONSE TO HOUSE SUBPOENAS, THE OMB SENT A LETTER TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF REFUSING TO COMPLY.

AND THIS IS WHAT THE LETTER SAID.

AS DIRECTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OCTOBER 8, 2019 LETTER, OMB WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS PARTISAN AND UNFAIR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT, OMB ADMITTED SEVERAL KEY POINTS.

FIRST, MR. CIPOLLONE'S LETTER OF OCTOBER 8 WAS AN OFFICIAL DIRECTIVE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

SECOND, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BLANK ET ORDER APPLIED TO OMB AND THE THREE OFFICIALS SUBPOENAED BY THE HOUSE.

THIRD, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BLANKET ORDER NOT ONLY DIRECTED THEM TO REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE VOLUNTARILY, IT ALSO DIRECTED THEM TO DEFY HOUSE SUBPOENAS.

FOURTH, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BLANKET ORDER DIRECTLY PREVENTED THE THREE OMB OFFICIALS FROM PROVIDING TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THE SCOPE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER.

IT WAS TOTAL.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE ORDER, IT WAS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD BY ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AS SHOWN BY OMB, AND THERE'S NO QUESTION THE ORDER HAD AN IMPACT.

IT DIRECTLY PREVENTED THE HOUSE FROM GETTING TESTIMONY FROM THE THREE SENIOR OFFICIALS AT OMB.

SO HERE WE ARE.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ISSUED AN OFFICIAL ORDER FORBIDDING EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO WORKS FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT FROM GIVING TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE AS PART OF AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.

THAT ORDER PREVENTED THE HOUSE FROM GETTING TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES WHO KNEW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

THE MATTER IS SIMPLE.

IT'S PLAIN TO SEE.

THE QUESTION WE HEAR IN CONGRESS MUST ASK, IS WHETHER WE'RE PREPARED TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO A PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION, OBSTRUCTION NOT ONLY OF OVERSIGHT BUT ALSO THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONGRESS MAY GATHER EVIDENCE IN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

IF THE SENATE IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT, IT WILL MEAN NOT -- THAT NOT ONLY PRESIDENT TRUMP, ALL PRESIDENTS AFTER HIM WILL HAVE VETO POWER OVER CONGRESS' ABILITY TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT AND THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE HOUSE WAS NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT, AND THAT'S WHY THE HOUSE APPROVED ARTICLE 2.

AS YOU CONSIDER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, PLEASE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BLANKET ORDER WAS NOT THE END OF HIS CAMPAIGN TO OBSTRUCT THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

ACTUALLY, IT WAS JUST THE BEGINNING.

IN ADDITION TO HIS TOTAL BAN OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES, PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO SENT EXPLICIT SPECIFIC ORDERS.

HE DIRECTED KEY WITNESSES TO DEFY SUBPOENAS AND TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY AS PART OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

AS YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE SUBPOENAED ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY.

WE WANTED HIS TESTIMONY.

AT A WHITE HOUSE PRESS BRIEFING IN OCTOBER -- I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN IT BEFORE -- MR. MULVANEY CONFIRMED WHAT WE HAD SUSPECTED -- MR. MULVANEY ADMITTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THE AID TO PRESSURE UKRAINE INTO ANNOUNCING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS.

HERE'S HIS WORDS.

>> DID HE ALSO MENTIONED TO ME IN THE PAST THE CORRUPTION THAT RELATED TO THE D.N.C.

SERVE?

ABSOLUTELY.

NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

BUT THAT'S IT AND THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY.

>> AFTER THIS REALLY STUNNING ADMISSION, THE HOUSE ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO REQUIRE MR. MULVANEY TO TESTIFY.

BUT ON THE DAY OF MR. MULVANEY'S SCHEDULED DEPOSITION, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT A LETTER TO HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

IT PROHIBITED FROM OBEYING THE SUBPOENA, AND THE LETTER SAID, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT DIRECTS MR. MULVANEY NOT TO APPEAR AT THE COMMITTEE'S SCHEDULED DEPOSITION.

WHEN HE ISSUED THIS ORDER, PRESIDENT TRUMP DOUBLED DOWN ON HIS PREVIOUS BLANKET ORDER.

HE DID SO AFTER THE HOUSE VOTED TO APPROVE REVOLUTION 660, WHICH IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS MADE CLEAR THAT MR. MULVANEY WAS BEING SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY IN AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.

THIS ORDER WAS THE FIRST OF MANY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO ORDERED ANOTHER WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL, ROBERT BLAIR, NOT TO TESTIFY.

MR. BLAIR IS MR. MULVANEY'S SENIOR ADVISOR AND HIS CLOSEST AID.

HE WAS INVOLVED IN COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THE HOLD ON UKRAINE AID.

THE DAY AFTER HIS INITIALLY SCHEDULED DEPOSITION, MR. BLAIR'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY SENT A LETTER TO THE HOUSE.

IT SAYS, QUOTE, MR. BLAIR HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE NOT TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY.

THE HOUSE ALSO WANTED TESTIMONY FROM JOHN ISENBERG, THE SENIOR ATTORNEY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

AS YOU HEARD IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, KEY WITNESSES INCLUDING DR. HILL, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, SAID THEY WERE CONCERNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO PRESSURE UKRAINE.

THEY WERE TOLD TO REPORT THESE CONCERNS TO MR. ISENBERG.

ON THE DAY BEFORE HIS SCHEDULED DEPOSITION, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT A LETTER TO MR. ISENBERG'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY.

IT SAID, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT DIRECTS MR. ISENBERG NOT TO APPEAR AT THE COMMITTEE'S DEPOSITION.

NOW, THAT LANGUAGE IS STARTING TO SOUND FAMILIAR.

MR. ISENBERG'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY THEN SENT A LETTER TO THE HOUSE.

THE LETTER SAID THIS -- UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, MR. ISENBERG HAS NO OTHER OPTION THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS LEGAL AND ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS EXCEPT TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF HIS CLIENT AND EMPLOYER, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

ACCORDINGLY, MR. ISENBERG WILL NOT BE APPEARING FOR A DEPOSITION AT THIS TIME.

NOW, THAT LANGUAGE, I THINK, IS IMPORTANT, AND IT'S TELLING.

IT SHOWS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER LEFT MR. ISENBERG WITH, QUOTE, NO OTHER OPTION THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS LEGAL AND ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS.

BY DIRECTING HIM TO DEFY A LAWFUL SUBPOENA, PRESIDENT TRUMP CREATED A LEGAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEM FOR MR. ISENBERG.

I'M SURE YOU KNOW CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS CAN BE PUNISHED AS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

IT CARRIES A POSSIBLE SENTENCE OF UP TO 12 MONTHS IN JAIL.

NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER DARED, DURING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, TO OFFICIALLY AND EXPLICITLY ORDER GOVERNMENT WITNESSES TO DEFY HOUSE SUBPOENAS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER HIGH-MINDED CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WAS WRONG.

IT'S SIMPLE, REALLY.

BY ORDERING SPECIFIC GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO DEFY CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS, PRESIDENT TRUMP FORCED THOSE OFFICIALS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SUBMITTING TO THE DEMANDS OF THEIR BOSS OR BREAK THE LAW.

NOBODY SHOULD ABUSE A POSITION OF POWER IN THAT WAY.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP SPECIFICALLY ORDERED ALL THREE OF THESE SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS -- MULVANEY, BLAIR, ISENBERG -- TO DEFY THE HOUSE'S SUBPOENAS AND REFUSE TO TESTIFY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HIS ACTIONS DIDN'T STOP THERE, AND THEY DIDN'T STOP AT THE FRONT DOOR OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

NO LESS THAN 12 OTHER WITNESSES WERE SPECIFICALLY ORDERED NOT TO TESTIFY.

ONE OF THOSE WITNESSES, ULRICH, HASN'T BEEN HIGHLIGHTED IN THE PAST FEW DAYS BUT THE WAY HE FITS IN THE STORY IS WORTH NOTING.

MR. BRECKBULL IS A SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

LIKE THESE OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS, HE WAS ORDERED NOT TO TESTIFY.

IN A LETTER TO THE HOUSE, HIS ATTORNEY SAID, QUOTE, MR. BRECKBULL HAS RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT DIRECTING HE NOT APPEAR.

MR. BRECKBULL IS STILL ANOTHER PERSON WHO COULD SHED LIGHT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS.

HE WAS KEPT UPDATED ON RUDY GIULIANI'S BROADER EFFORTS IN UKRAINE.

HE HAD FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF SECRETARY POMPEO'S INVOLVEMENT.

FOR ONE THING, HE HANDLED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S RECALL FROM UKRAINE, THOUGH HE REFUSED TO MEET WITH HER IN THE AFTERMATH.

ALSO, MESSAGES BY AMBASSADOR VOLCKER SHOW THAT MR. BRECKBULL KNEW ABOUT MR. GIULIANI'S ACTIONS IN THE UKRAINE AS THEY OCCURRED.

ON JULY 10, AMBASSADORS TAYLOR, VOLCKER AND SONDLAND DISCUSSED RUDY GIULIANI'S PUSH ABROAD.

WHILE DISCUSSING THE PROBLEMS RUDY WAS CREATING BY MEDDLING IN OFFICIAL U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR NOTED THAT HE, QUOTE, BRIEFED ULRICH THIS AFTERNOON.

ALSO, ON AUGUST 11, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND E-MAILED MR. BRECKBULL TO ASK HIM TO BRIEF SECRETARY POMPEO ON A STATEMENT HE WAS NEGOTIATING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THE AIM OF, QUOTE, MAKING THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WROTE TO HIM, QUOTE, KURT AND I NEGOTIATED A STATEMENT FROM "Z" TO BE DELIVERED FOR OUR REVIEW IN A AT A OR TWO.

THE ON TENTS WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION.

NOW, STATE DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LISA KEN NA ANSWERED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SEVERAL HOURS LATER, LETTING HIM KNOW THAT SHE PASSED THAT INFORMATION ON TO SECRETARY POMPEO.

LETTERS CONSIDER AND PAUSE HERE WHY THIS MESSAGE TO MR. BRECKBULL WHICH THE STATE DEPARTMENT CONTINUES TO CONCEAL IS IMPORTANT.

IN THIS EXCHANGE, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD BRECKBULL THAT HE HAD NEGOTIATED A DEAL TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND SONDLAND HOPED THE PROMISE WOULD MAKE THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION.

IT SHOWS AT SENIOR STATE LEADERSHIP INCLUDING SECRETARY POMPEO WERE QUITE AWARE OF THE DEAL.

TO TRADE AN INVITATION TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

INDEED, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CONFIRMED THAT HE KEPT THEM IN THE LOOP.

HERE'S HIS TESTIMONY.

>> WE KEPT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE NSC INFORMED OF OUR ACTIVITIES, AND THAT INCLUDED COMMUNICATIONS WITH SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, HIS COUNSELOR, ULRICH BRECKBULL, HIS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY LISA KENNA, AND ALSO COMMUNICATIONS WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON, DR. HILL, MR. MORRISON AND THEIR STAFF AT THE NSC.

THEY KNEW WHAT WE WERE DOING AND WHY.

>> EIGHT OTHER WITNESSES WERE ALSO ORDERED NOT TO TESTIFY AS PART OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, BUT THOSE EIGHT WITNESSES CAME FORWARD, ANYWAY, DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO PREVENT THEM FROM TESTIFYING.

ALL OF THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES WERE TOLD NOT TO TESTIFY.

AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH, AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT, AMBASSADOR BILL TAYLOR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LAURA COOPER, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AT OMB M MARK SANDY, STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL CATHARINE CROFT AND STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, EACH OF THESE EIGHT WITNESSES FOLLOWED THE LAW, OBEYED HOUSE SUBPOENAS AND TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE.

IN ALL, WE KNOW THAT BY ISSUING THE BLANKET ORDER AND LATER SPECIFIC ORDERS, PRESIDENT TRUMP PREVENTED AT LEAST 12 CURRENT OR FORMER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS FROM TESTIFYING DURING THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

HE SPECIFICALLY FORCED NINE OF THOSET WITNESSES TO DEFY DULLY AUTHORIZED SUBPOENAS.

THE FACTS ARE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THEY'RE NOT IN DISPUTE.

FIRST, IN THE HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC, NO PRESIDENT EVER DARED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO PREVENT EVEN A SINGLE GOVERNMENT WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

SECOND, PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE BY USING HIS OFFICIAL POWER IN AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO WORKS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FROM TESTIFYING BEFORE THE HOUSE.

FINALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDERS, IN FACT, PREVENTED THE HOUSE FROM OBTAINING KEY WITNESS TESTIMONY FROM AT LEAST 12 CURRENT OR FORMER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDERS WERE CLEAR, THEY WERE CATEGORICAL, THEY WERE INDISCRIMINATE, AND THEY WERE WRONG.

THEY PREVENTED KEY GOVERNMENT WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING.

THERE'S NO DOUBT.

THAT'S OBSTRUCTION, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

>> NOW LET US TURN TO A FINAL SET OF FACTS.

IN A FURTHER EFFORT TO SILENCE HIS ADMINISTRATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGED IN A BRAZEN EFFORT TO PUBLICLY ATTACK AND INTIMIDATE THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANT WHO CAME FORWARD TO TESTIFY.

TO BE CLEAR, THESE WITNESSES DIDN'T SEEK THE SPOTLIGHT IN THIS WAY.

FOR YEARS, THEY HAD QUIETLY AND EFFECTIVELY PERFORMED THEIR DUTIES ON BEHALF OF OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS AND ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WHY WOULD THEY SEEK THE SPOTLIGHT IN THIS WAY, KNOWING THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD LEAD THE CHORUS OF ATTACKS AGAINST THEM?

AND HE DID.

IN RESPONSE, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED THREATS, OPENLY DISCUSSED POSSIBLE RETALIATION, ATTACKED THEIR CHARACTER AND PATRIOTISM, AND SUBJECTED THEM TO MOCKERY AND OTHER INSULTS.

THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT'S ATTACKS WERE BROADCAST TO MILLIONS OF AMERICANS, INCLUDING THE WITNESSES, THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR FRIENDS, AND THEIR CO-WORKERS.

THIS CAMPAIGN OF INTIMIDATION RISKED DISCOURAGING WITNESSES FROM COMING FORWARD VOLUNTARILY OR COMPLYING WITH MANDATORY SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY, AND, AS WE ALL KNOW, WITNESS INTIMIDATION IS A FEDERAL CRIME.

THERE IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH TIME TODAY TO WALK THROUGH EACH OF THE PRESIDENT'S ATTACKS ON THE HOUSE'S WITNESSES.

BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT A FEW.

AS I AM SURE MY COLLEAGUES RECALL, THE HOUSE SUBPOENAED AMBASSADOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S FIRST TOUR WAS IN SOMALIA, AN INCREASINGLY DANGEROUS PLACE, AS THAT COUNTRY'S CIVIL WAR PROGRESSED.

DURING A DIFFERENT TOUR, WHEN AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HELPED TO OPEN A U.S. EMBASSY, DURING WHICH TIME THE EMBASSY WAS ATTACKED BY A GUNMAN WHO SPRAYED THE EMBASSY BUILDING WITH GUNFIRE.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH ALSO SERVED AS AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA AND SERVED THE U.S. EMBASSY IN MOSCOW.

AS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID EARLIER, SHE HAS SERVED IN SOME DANGEROUS PLACES AFTERNOON THE WORLD ON BEHALF OF OUR INTERESTS AND THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS DESCRIBED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AS, AND I QUOTE, AN EXCEPTIONAL OFFICER DOING EXCEPTIONAL WORK AT A CRITICAL EMBASSY IN KIEV.

BUT DURING AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S PUBLIC TESTIMONY, PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED, EVERYWHERE MARIE YOVANOVITCH WENT TURNED BAD.

SHE STARTED OFF IN SOMALIA, HOW DID THAT GO?

THEN FAST FORWARD TO UKRAINE, WHERE THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT SPOKE UNFAVORABLY ABOUT HER IN MY SECOND PHONE CALL WITH HIM.

IT IS A U.S. PRESIDENT'S ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO APPOINT AMBASSADORS.

IN THAT SAME HEARING, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF ASKED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FOR HER REACTION TO THE PRESIDENT'S ATTACKS DURING HER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE.

LET'S LISTEN TO THAT EXCHANGE.

>> AMBASSADOR, UM, YOU'VE SHOWN THE COURAGE TO COME FORWARD TODAY AND TESTIFY.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT YOU WERE URGED BY THE WHITE HOUSE OR STATE DEPARTMENT NOT TO, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT, AS YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER, THE PRESIDENT IMPLICITLY THREATENED YOU IN THAT CALL RECORD, AND NOW THE PRESIDENT IN REALTIME IS ATTACKING YOU.

WHAT EFFECT DO YOU THINK THAT HAS ON OTHER WITNESSES' WILLINGNESS TO COME FORWARD AND EXPOSE WRONGDOING?

>> WELL, IT'S VERY INTIMIDATING.

IT'S DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE, IS IT NOT?

>> I -- I MEAN, I CAN'T SPEAK TOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO DO, BUT I THINK THE EFFECT IS TO BE INTIMIDATING.

>> WELL, I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, AMBASSADOR, THAT SOME OF US HERE TAKE WITNESS INTIMIDATION VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.

>> THE HOUSE ALSO SUBPOENAED THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR WILLIAM B. TAYLOR, ANOTHER CAREER PUBLIC SERVANT, WHO GRADUATED AT THE TOP OF HIS CLASS FROM WEST POINT, SERVED AS AN INFANTRY COMMANDER IN VIETNAM AND EARNED A BRONZE STAR, AND AN AIR MEDAL WITH A V DEVICE FOR VALOR.

YET, SHORTLY AFTER AMBASSADOR TAYLOR CAME FORWARD TO CONGRESS, PRESIDENT TRUMP PUBLICLY REFERRED TO HIM AS A "NEVER TRUMPER" WITHOUT ANY BASIS.

AND THEN WHEN A REPORTER NOTED SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO HAD HIRED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, PRESIDENT TRUMP RESPONDED, AND I QUOTE, HEY, EVERYBODY MAKES MISTAKES.

HE THEN HAD THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE ABOUT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

LET'S LISTEN.

>> HE'S A NEVER TRUMPER.

HIS LAWYERS ARE THE HEAD OF THE NEVER TRUMPERS.

THEY'RE A DYING BREED BUT THEY'RE STILL THERE.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HAS SINCE STEPPED DOWN FROM HIS POSITION AS OUR CHIEF DIPLOMAT IN UKRAINE.

IN ADDITION TO HIS RELENTLESS ATTACK ON WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN CONNECTION TO THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE PRESIDENT ALSO REPEATEDLY THREATENED AND ATTACKED THE MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHO FILED THE ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.

IN MORE THAN 100 STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER OVER A PERIOD OF JUST TWO MONTHS, THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY QUESTIONED THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S MOTIVES AND DISPUTED THE ACCURACY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S ACCOUNT.

BUT MO MOST DISTURBING, PRESIDENT TRUMP ISSUED A THREAT AGAINST THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND THOSE WHO PROVIDED INFORMATION TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

LET'S LISTEN.

>> WHO'S THE PERSON WHO GAVE THE WHISTLEBLOWER THE INFORMATION?

YOU KNOW WHAT WE USED TO DO IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN WE WERE SMART, RIGHT, WITH SPICE AND TREEN, WE USED TO HANDLE IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THAN WE DO NOW.

>> THE PRESIDENT'S NEED TO CONCEAL HIS ACTIONS WAS SO EXTREME THAT HE EVEN ATTACKED THE CREDIBILITY OF THOSE WITNESSES WHO SERVED OUR COUNTRY IN COMBAT.

THIS INCLUDED ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL AND VETERANS WHO EARNED THE PURPLE HEART AND BRONZE STAR, AMONG OTHER BATTLEFIELD RECOGNITION.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOWED ULTRA DISREGARD FOR SUCH PATRIOTISM.

FOR EXAMPLE, PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTACKED LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN DURING HIS TESTIMONY ON NOVEMBER 19, SEEKING TO QUESTION HIS LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES.

THE PRESIDENT RETWEETED, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN WAS OFFERED THE POSITION OF DEFENSE MINISTER FOR THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT THREE TIMES.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTOR FOR UKRAINE, HAS BEEN AN ACTIVE DUTY ARMY OFFICER FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN EARNED A PURPLE HEART FOR WOUNDS HE SUSTAINED IN AN IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE ATTACK OR DEVICE IN IRAQ.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN OF WITNESS INTIMIDATION IS REPREHENSIBLE, DEBASES THE PRESIDENCY, AND WAS PART OF HIS EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE FACT THAT IT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAKING THESE THREATS TELLS US SOMETHING.

IT TELL US THAT THE PRESIDENT DESPERATELY WANTED TO KEEP WITNESSES FROM TESTIFYING AND, THUS, FURTHER OBSTRUCT CONGRESS' INQUIRY.

SENATORS, WE CANNOT AND WE MUST NOT CONDONE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTACKS ON WHISTLEBLOWERS AND WITNESSES.

PEOPLE WHO TRULY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT OUR COUNTRY FIRST.

>> NOW THAT WE HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE FACTS AND HAVE DESCRIBED THE PRESIDENT'S CATEGORICAL OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, WE ADDRESS QUSTIONS OF LAW.

THIS DISCUSSION NEED NOT BE ABSTRACT.

THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION IMPACTS THE SENATE DIRECTLY.

IT IMPACTS THE CONSTITUENTS YOU REPRESENT.

IT IMPACTS YOU BECAUSE YOUR JOB AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS IS TO HOLD THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN CHECK.

THIS IS TRUE NO MATTER WHO OCCUPIES THE WHITE HOUSE OR WHICH PARTY CONTROLS THE HOUSE OR SENATE.

AND THE FURTHER THE PRESIDENT -- ANY PRESIDENT DEPARTS FROM THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION, THE MORE IMPORTANT IT IS FOR YOU TO DO YOUR JOB.

I SUSPECT THAT THERE IS COMMON GROUND HERE.

WE ALL KNOW THAT IN ORDER FOR CONGRESS TO DO ITS WORK, WE MUST HAVE INFORMATION.

WHAT IS REASONABLE POLICY?

WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION DOING?

DO WE SUPPORT IT?

SHOULD WE OPPOSE IT?

SHOULD WE ENACT LEGISLATION TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM?

ASKING QUESTIONS, GATHERING INFORMATION, MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON THE ANSWERS, THIS IS ONE TO HAVE THE FUNDAMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS.

I SUSPECT THAT WE AGREE ON THIS AS WELL.

OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT WORK DEPENDS ON OUR GATHERING INFORMATION.

IT DEPENDS ON THE POWER OF THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA.

EVEN WHEN YOU MAKE A POLITE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM A FRIENDLY ADMINISTRATION, THAT REQUEST IS BACKED BY THE THREAT OF A SUBPOENA.

AND ALTHOUGH THE POWER TO HAVE THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA -- AND ALTHOUGH THE POWER OF THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA HAS BEEN RESPECTED BY EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES FOR CENTURIES, IF THE PRESIDENT CHOOSES TO IGNORE SUBPOENAS, OUR POWERS OF BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, OUR ABILITY TO DO OUR JOBS, OUR ABILITY TO KEEP AN ADMINISTRATION IN CHECK, OUR ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY A CONGRESS AND NOT JUST BY A PRESIDENT IS DIMINISHED.

PLEASE KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A DISAGREEMENT OVER THE LAST FEW DOCUMENTS AT THE END OF A LONG PRODUCTION SCHEDULE.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO COMPLETELY DISREGARD ALL OUR SUBPOENAS, TO DENY US ALL INFORMATION THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO KEEP SECRET.

THIS IS AN ORDER TO DEPRIVE CONGRESS OF OUR ABILITY TO HOLD AN ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTABLE.

IT IS TO RENDER THE PRESIDENT ALL POWERFUL SINCE CONGRESS COULD NOT ANY INFORMATION THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T WANT US TO HAVE.

WITHOUT INFORMATION, WE CANNOT ACT.

AND, SO, WE MUST ASK, IS THERE A CONSEQUENCE FOR A PRESIDENT WHO DEFIES OUR SUBPOENAS ABSOLUTELY, WHO SAYS TO ALL BRANCHES OF THE ADMINISTRATION, DO N DO NOT OBEA SINGLE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA CATEGORICALLY WITHOUT KNOWING THE SUBJECTS OF A SUBPOENA, JUST NEVER ANSWER A SUBPOENA, WHO DENIES CONGRESS THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION NECESSARY TO CHALLENGE HIS POWER?

WOULD MADISON, HAMILTON AND WASHINGTON SUPPORT REMOVING A PRESIDENT WHO DECLARES THAT THE CONSTITUTION LETS HIM TO WHATEVER HE WANTS AND WHO BRAZENLY ADDS THAT HE CAN IGNORE ANY EFFORT TO INVESTIGATE, EVEN WHEN BACKED BY SUBPOENAS THAT THE LAW REQUIRES HIM TO OBEY?

THE ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS IS A RESOUNDING YES.

BUT BEFORE DIVING IN, I WOULD LIKE TO SET THE HISTORICAL SCENE.

THE FRAMERS WERE WISE, AND SO THEY WORRIED PRESIDENTS WOULD ABUSE THEIR POWER FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

THEY FEARED THAT, SOME DAY, A PRESIDENT MIGHT MISTAKE HIMSELF FOR A KING, WHOSE DECISIONS CANNOT BE QUESTIONED, WHOSE CONDUCT CANNOT BE INVESTIGATED, WHOSE POWER TRANSCENDS THE RULE OF LAW.

SUCH A WOULD-BE KING WOULD CERTAINLY THINK THINGS LIKE, QUOTE, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.

HE MIGHT BELIEVE THAT IT IS, QUOTE, ILLEGITIMATE FOR ANYONE TO INVESTIGATE HIM.

OF COURSE, NOT EVEN THE FRAMERS COULD HAVE IMAGINED THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD SAY THESE THINGS OUT LOUD.

A PRESIDENT WITH THIS VIEW OF RAW POWER WOULD ATTACK ANYONE WHO TRIED TO HOLD HIM TO ACCOUNT, RENDERING THEM, QUOTE, HUMAN SCUM AND, QUOTE, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.

HE WOULD ARGUE THAT COURTS HAD NO POWER TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS AGAINST HIM.

HE WOULD CON SCRIPT HIS ALLIES TO RIDICULE CONGRESS, HE WOULD HARASS WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM, DECLARING IT DISLOYAL TO QUESTION HIS CONDUCT.

HE WOULD USE THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO SABOTAGE OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

ALL OF THIS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, INDEED IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS.

THE FRAMERS WROTE THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM SUCH A PRESIDENT.

THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE EXISTS TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY IN BETWEEN ELECTIONS.

IT EXISTS TO REMIND PRESIDENTS THAT THEY SERVE THE PUBLIC, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

IT IS A REMINDER TO PRESIDENTS THAT THEY ANSWER TO SOMETHING GREATER THAN THEMSELVES.

IT CONFIRMS THAT NOBODY IN AMERICA IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT.

BUT AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, THE IMPEACHMENT POWER DOES NOT MAGICALLY PROTECT US WHEN THE PRESIDENT COMMITS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

IN BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S WORDS, THE FRAMERS LEFT US A REPUBLIC, IF WE CAN KEEP IT.

NOW, ONE WAY WE CAN UPHOLD THAT PROMISE IS TO DO OUR DUTIES AS ELECTIVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO HOLD THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN CHECK.

THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN.

THE BURDEN IS OURS NO MATTER WHO SITS IN THE OVAL OFFICE IN.

THE ORDINARY COURSE OF DOING OUR JOBS WE DO OUR NATION A SERVICE BY HOLDING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, BOTH POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL CORE, ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE FOR ITS ACTIONS.

AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT EXCEEDS THE USUAL CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS, IT FALLS ON THE HOUSE TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTIAL WRONGDOING AND, IF NECESSARY, TO IMPROVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

IT THEN FALLS ON THE SENATE TO JUDGE, CONVICT AND REMOVE PRESIDENTS WHO THREATEN THE CONSTITUTION.

THIS ENTIRE FRAMEWORK DEPENDS ON CONGRESS' ABILITY TO DISCOVER AND THEN TO THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTIAL MALFEASANCE.

IF PRESIDENTS COULD ABUSE THEIR POWER AND THEN CONCEAL ALL THE EVIDENCE FROM CONGRESS, THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE WOULD BE A ANNUL.

TWEE PEOPLE WOULD LOSE VITAL PROTECTION.

THAT'S WHY OFFICIALS THROUGHOUT HISTORY REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED SUBPOENAS SERVED IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY MUST BE OBEYED, INCLUDING BY THE PRESIDENT.

IT IS WHY, BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP, ONLY A SINGLE OFFICIAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY HAS EVER DEFIED AN IMPEACHMENT SUBPOENA, AND IT IS WHY THAT OFFICIAL RICHARD NIXON FACED AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT FOR DOING SO.

AS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REASONED IN ITS ANALYSIS OF NIXON'S OBSTRUCTION, QUOTE, UNLESS THE DEFIANCE OF THE HOUSE SUBPOENAS IS CONSIDERED GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF ANY PRESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT HE IS OBLIGATED TO SUPPLY THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE NECESSARY FOR CONGRESS TO EXERCISE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT MCCRORY, A REPUBLICAN FROM ILLINOIS, EXPLAINED THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT FOR OUR SEPARATION OF POWERS.

HE SAID, IF WE REFUSE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE OF HIS DEFIANCE OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBPOENAS WE HAVE ISSUED, THE FUTURE RESPONDENTS WILL BE IN A POSITION WHERE THEY CAN DETERMINE THEMSELVES WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO PROVIDE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE, AND THIS WOULD BE PARTICULARLY SO IN THE CASE OF AN INQUIRY DIRECTED TOWARD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SO IT NOT ONLY AFFECTS THIS PRESIDENT BUT FUTURE PRESIDENTS, AND THAT'S WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES NOW, BUT WITH EVEN GREATER FORCE.

PRESIDENT NIXON AUTHORIZED OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES TO HONOR THEIR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.

HE ALSO TURNED OVER MANY OF HIS OWN DOCUMENTS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP, IN CONTRAST, DIRECTED HIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION, EVERY AGENCY, EVERY OFFICE AND EVERY OFFICIAL NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

AS IN NIXON'S CASE, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION IS MERELY AN EXTENSION OF HIS COVERUP.

AS IN NIXON'S CASE, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INSTRUCTION REVEALS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT.

INNOCENT PEOPLE DO NOT ACT THIS WAY.

THEY DO NOT HIDE ALL THE EVIDENCE.

AND LIKE NIXON, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS OFFERED AN ASSORTMENT OF ARGUMENTS TO EXCUSE HIS OBSTRUCTION.

BUT AS WAS TRUE IN NIXON'S CASE, NONE OF THESE EXCUSES CAN SUCCEED.

FINALLY, THESE ARGUMENTS AMOUNT TO A CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN DICTATE THE TERMS OF HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYERS MAY INSIST HIS GROUNDS FOR DEFYING CONGRESS ARE UNIQUE AND LIMITED, THAT THEY ONLY APPLY HERE JUST THIS ONE TIME, THAT IT WAS THE HOUSE, NOT THE PRESIDENT, THAT BROKE FROM PRECEDENT, THAT HE WOULD GLADLY COMPLY WITH AS MUCH AS IF THE HOUSE WOULD ONLY DO AS HE INSISTS.

THAT'S PURE FANTASY.

THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENTS ARE NOT A ONE-TICKET RIDE.

THEY'RE NOT UNIQUE TO THESE FACTS.

UNLESS FIRMLY AND FINALLY REJECTED HERE, THESE BOGUS EXCUSES WILL REAPPEAR ANYTIME ANY CONGRESS INVESTIGATES ANY PRESIDENT FOR SERIOUS ABUSES OF POWER, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

THEY WILL CONSTITUTE A PLAY BOOK FOR IGNORING OVERSIGHT, AVAILABLE TO ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.

THESE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

THEY ARE LAWYERLY WINDOW DRESSING FOR AN UNPRECEDENTED DANGEROUS POWER GRAB.

PLENTY OF PRESIDENTS AND JUDGES HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES, DECLIERG THEIR OWN INNOCENCE, ATTACK THE HOUSE'S MOTIVES AND INSISTING DUE PROCESS ENTITLES THEM TO ALL SORTS OF THINGS, BUT NO PRESIDENT OR JUDGE, EXCEPT RICHARD NIXON, HAS EVER DEFIED SUBPOENAS ON THAT BASIS AND NO PRESIDENT OR JUDGE, NONE, HAS EVER DIRECTED OTHERS TO DEFY SUBPOENAS CATEGORICALLY ACROSS THE BOARD.

THEY HAVE ALL EVENTUALLY RECOGNIZED THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW.

PRESIDENT TRUMP STANDS ALONE.

AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IS PERMITTED TO DEFY OUR SUBPOENAS HERE IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

WHEN THE COURTS HAVE SAID THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OF INQUIRY IS AT ITS HIGHEST, IMAGINE WHAT FUTURE PRESIDENTS WILL DO WHEN WE ATTEMPT TO CONDUCT ROUTINE OVERSIGHT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE FIRST LEADER OF THIS NATION TO DECLARE THAT NOBODY CAN INVESTIGATE HIM OR OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, EXCEPT ON HIS OWN TERMS.

IN WORD AND IN DEED, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DECLARED HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW.

HE HAS DONE SO BECAUSE HE IS GUILTY AND WISHES TO CONCEAL AS MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THIS BODY AS HE CAN.

IN THAT, HE MUST NOT SUCCEED.

IF PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE AFTER THIS CONDUCT, HISTORIANS WILL MARK THE STATE THIS SENATE ALLOWED THIS PRESIDENT TO BREAK ONE OF OUR MIGHTIEST DEFENSES AGAINST TURNY.

THEY WILL WONDER WHY CONGRESS SO READILY SURRENDERED ONE OF ITS CORE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.

THEY WILL WONDER WHY CONGRESS ADMITTED THAT A PRESIDENT CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING, VIOLATE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RULE, ANY LIBERTY, ANY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND GET AWAY WITH IT SIMPLY BY SAYING I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO MAKE ME ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT MY CONDUCT.

THAT'S WHAT IS AT STAKE.

AND FUTURE PEOPLE WILL DESPAIR THAT FUTURE PRESIDENTS CAN ABUSE THEIR POWER WITHOUT FEAR OF CONSEQUENCE OR CONSTRAINT.

LET'S BEGIN WITH A LEGAL PREMISE OF THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTS THROUGH OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT.

THIS PREMISE IS INDISPUTABLE.

ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION, ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED SHALL BE INVESTED IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EACH HOUSE MAY DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS OWN PROCEEDINGS.

OUR INVESTIGATIONS ARE GROUNDED IN ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH GRANTS CONGRESS ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS AND AUTHORIZES EACH HOUSE TO DETERMINE ITS OWN RULES.

AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPLAINED, THE CONSTITUTION DOES THAT SO THE HOUSE AND SENATE WITH THE POWER OF INQUIRY AND, I QUOTE, PENETRATING AND FAR REACHING, CLOSE QUOTE.

MOREOVER, CONGRESS CAN EFFECTUATE THAT POWER OF INQUIRY BY ISSUING SUBPOENAS, COMMANDING THE RECIPIENT TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS OR TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS IS MANDATORY.

IT'S NOT AT THE OPTION OF THE EXECUTIVE OR THE PRESIDENT.

AS THE SUPREME COURT COURT EXPLAINED, QUOTE, IT IS THE UNQUESTIONABLY THE DUTY OF ALL CITIZENS TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS IN EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE FACTS NEEDED FOR INTELLIGENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

IT IS THEIR UNREMITTING OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO SUBPOENAS, TO RESPECT THE DIGNITY OF THE CONGRESS AND ITS COMMITTEES, AND TO TESTIFY WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF PROPER INVESTIGATION.

MORE RECENTLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE BROWN-JACKSON HAS ELABORATED, BLATANT DEFIANCE OF CONGRESS, CENTURIES-OLD POWER TO COMPEL THE PERFORMANCE OF WITNESSES IS NOT AN ABSTRACT DUTY INJURE, NOR IS IT A MERE BENT DENY INSULT TO OUR DEMOCRACY, IT IS AN AFFRONT TO THE MECHANISM FOR CURBING THE ABUSES OF POWER THAT THE FAMERS CAREFULLY CRAFTED FOR OUR PROTECTION AND, THEREBY, RECALCITRANT WITNESSES UNDERMINE THE BROADER INTERESTS TO HAVE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

IN RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANT ROLE THAT CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRIES CLAIM IN PROTECTING OUR DEMOCRACY AND GUARDING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IT IS UNLAWFUL TO OBSTRUCT THEM.

OF COURSE, WHILE CONGRESS INVESTIGATES MANY ISSUES, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT IS MISCONDUCT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

TO NAME A FEW ESPECIALLY FAMOUS CASES, CONGRESS HAS INVESTIGATED CLAIMS THAT PRESIDENT LINCOLN MISHANDLED CIVIL WAR MILITARY STRATEGY, THE INFAMOUS SCANDAL UNDER PRESIDENT HARDING, PRESIDENT NIXON'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE WATERGATE SCANDAL, PRESIDENT REAGAN'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE IRAN CONTRA AFFAIR.

PRESIDENT CLINTONS REAL ESTATE DEALINGS AND MONICA LEWINSKY.

ATTACKS ON GEORGE W. BUSH, ATTACKS ON PERSONNEL IN BENGHAZI UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA.

SINCE THE DAWN OF REPUBLIC, RECOGNIZED THE CONGRESS' ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE.

EVEN FOREIGN POLICY.

PRESIDENTS INVOLVING CONGRESS WITH ACCESS TO SENIOR OFFICIALS AND IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE IRAN CONTRA INQUIRY, PRESIDENT REAGAN'S FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR OLIVER NORTH AND FORMER ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS JOHN POINDEXTER TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS.

PRESIDENT REAGAN ALSO PRODUCED RELEVANT EXCERPTS OF HIS PERSONAL DIARIES TO CONGRESS.

DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS OBTAINED TESTIMONY FROM TOP ADVISORS INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF MACK McGORDY, HIS CHIEF OF STAFFER, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL BERNIE AND JACK QUINN.

IN THE BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION, PRESIDENT OBAMA MADE MANY OF HIS TOP AIDES AVAILABLE FOR TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEWS INCLUDING NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SUSAN RICE AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORPHOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS BENJAMIN RHODES.

THE OBSTRUCTION IN -- THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PRODUCED MORE THAN 7,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDING 450 PAGES OF WHITE HOUSE E-MAILS WITH COMMUNICATIONS OF SENIOR OFFICIALS ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

TO BE SURE, CERTAIN HOUSE REPUBLICANS COMPLAINED LOUDLY THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE TO THE BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION WAS INSUFFICIENT.

JUST IMAGINE HOW THEY'D HAVE REACTED IF PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD ORDERED TOTAL DEFIANCE OF ALL SUBPOENAS.

THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN OUTRAGED.

WHY?

BECAUSE CONGRESS UNQUESTIONABLY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT.

NOW, NOT ONLY DOES CONGRESS HAVE THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE THE EXECUTIVE BUT, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION, GIVES THE HOUSE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE FRAMERS INTENDED THIS POWER TO BE AN ESSENTIAL CHECK ON OUT OF CONTROL PRESIDENTS.

BUT IT DOES NOT WORK AUTOMATICALLY.

THE HOUSE MUST INVESTIGATE, QUESTION WITNESSES AND REVIEW DOCUMENTS.

ONLY THEN CAN IT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE OR NOT, APPROVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEREFORE, WHEN THE HOUSE DETERMINES THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, IT HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO INVESTIGATE HIS CONDUCT.

IN SUCH CASES, THE HOUSE ACTS NOT ONLY PURSUANT TO ITS ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, BUT ALSO SERVES AS A GRAND INQUEST OF THE NATION, BECAUSE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY YIELDS ONE TO HAVE THE GREATEST POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION, A POWER THAT EXISTS SPECIFICALLY TO CONSTRAIN PRESIDENTS, ITS SUBPOENAS ARE BACKED WITH THE FULL FORCE TO HAVE THE IMPEACHMENT CLUES.

THEY CANNOT BE THWARTED BY ORDINARY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGES OR ORDINARY OBJECTS.

IT IS THEREFORE PRESUMED AS PRESIDENT POPE CONCEDED OVER 150 YEARS AGO, THAT, QUOTE, ALL THE ARCHIVES AND PAPERS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION, AND, QUOTE, EVERY FACILITY IN THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE WOULD BE AFFORDABLE TO ENABLE THE HOUSE TO PROSECUTE THE INVESTIGATION.

WHAT INVESTIGATION?

THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT POPE.

PRESIDENT'S POPE'S STATEMENTS, WHICH WE WILL RETURN TO IS NO OUTLIER.

PRESIDENTS HAVE LONG UNDERSTOOD THEY MUST COMPLY WITH IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES.

CONSISTENT WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC, NO PRESIDENT EVER CLAIMED UNILATERAL PREROGATIVE TO CATEGORICALLY DEFY A HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

ON THE CONTRARY, EVERY PRESIDENT FACING THIS ISSUE HAS AGREED CONGRESS POSSESSES A BROAD AND PENETRATING POWER OF INQUIRY WHEN INVESTIGATING GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THIS DIRECTLY REFUTES PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CLAIM THAT HE OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS TO PROTECT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.

EVERY PRIOR OCCUPANT OF HIS OFFICE HAS DISAVOWED THE LIMITLESS POWER THAT HE ASSERTS.

THAT MATTERS.

AS THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, AND I QUOTE, LONG SETTLED AND ESTABLISHED PRACTICES ARE CONSIDERATION OF GREAT WEIGHT IN A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, REGULATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT.

SO LET'S TAKE A QUICK TOUR OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD.

TO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING, THE SWELTERING SUMMER IN PHILADELPHIA 1787.

THE FRAMERS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH THE BALANCE BETWEEN PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESS.

REMEMBER, THEY HAD JUST FOUGHT A BLOODY WAR TO RID THEMSELVES OF A TYRANT, AND THEY WERE VERY CONSCIOUS, THEY DID NOT WANT ANOTHER TYRANT.

WHEN IMPEACHMENT CAME UP, THEY AGREED IT WOULD LIMIT THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY, BUT A STRONG MAJORITY OF FRAMERS SAW THAT AS A VIRTUE, NOT A VICE.

THEY WANTED TO EMPOWER THE PRESIDENT BUT ALSO TO KEEP HIS POWER FROM GETTING OUT OF HAND.

YET IMPEACHMENT COULD NOT SERVE THAT ROLE IF THE HOUSE WERE UNABLE TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT FOR SUSPECTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THIS WAS RECOGNIZED EARLY ON, STARTING WITH OUR VERY FIRST PRESIDENT.

IN 1796, THE HOUSE REQUESTED PRESIDENT WASHINGTON PROVIDE IT WITH SENSITIVE DIPLOMATIC MATERIALS RELATING TO THE HUGELY UNPOPULAR JAY TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON DECLINED, SINCE THIS REQUEST INTRUDED UPON HIS EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS, BUT WASHINGTON AGREED THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD CHANGE HIS CALCULUS.

IN ENSUING DEBATES, IT WAS NOTED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR THAT WASHINGTON HAD ADMITTED THAT WHERE THE HOUSE EXPRESSES AN INTENTION TO IMPEACH THE RIGHT TO DEMAND FROM THE EXECUTIVE ALL PAPERS AND INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION BELONGS TO IT, ALL PAPERS AND INFORMATION.

THIS WAS ONLY THE FIRST OF MANY REFERENCES TO THAT POINT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION.

FOR EXAMPLE, LESS THAN 40 YEARS LATER, IN 1833, JUSTICE JOSEPH STOREY REMARKED UPON THE DANGEROUS OF PRESIDENTIAL OKDZ.

HE WROTE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT WILL GENERALLY BE APPLIED TO PERSONS HOLDING HIGH OFFERS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT AND IT IS OF GREAT CONSEQUENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER OF PREVENTING A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THEIR OWN CONDUCT.

CONSISTENT WITH THIS TEACHING, PRESIDENT POPE LATER OFFERED HIS CLEAR AND INSIGHTFUL EXPLANATION OF WHY PRESIDENTS MUST HONOR ALL IMPEACHMENT SUBPOENAS.

AS I MENTIONED JUST MOMENTS AGO, HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, IT MAY BE ALLEGED THAT THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT BELONGS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THAT WITH A VIEW TO THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER, THAT HOUSE HAS THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDUCT OF ALL PUBLIC OFFICES UNDER GOVERNMENT.

THIS IS CHEERFULLY ADMITTED.

DECADES LATER DURING OUR FIRST PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON RECOGNIZED CONGRESS' POWER TO THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE HIM AND HIS EXECUTIVE BRANCH SUBORDINATES.

IN 1867, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OBTAINED EXECUTIVE AND PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS.

THE COMMITTEE INTERVIEWED CABINET OFFICERS AND PRESIDENTIAL AIDES ABOUT CABINET MEETINGS AND PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT BY HIS TOP AIDES AND CABINET OFFICIALS.

MULTIPLE WITNESSES, MOREOVER, ANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPINIONS TO HAVE THE PRESIDENT, STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT AND ADVICE GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT JOHNSON EVER ASSERTED ANY PRIVILEGE TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE OF PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE OR FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE COMMITTEE'S REQUESTS.

THUS, IN THE FIRST 80 YEARS OF THE REPUBLIC, PRESIDENTS WASHINGTON, POLK AND JOHNSON ALONG WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE HOUSE AND THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ALL RECOGNIZED CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO INVESTIGATE FOR IMPEACHMENT AND THAT PRESIDENTS ARE OBLIGATED TO GIVE ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTEMPT TO STONEWALL CONGRESS WOULD HAVE SHOCKED THOSE PRESIDENTS.

WITH ONLY FEW EXCEPTIONS IN THE VOCATIONS OF THE IMPEACHMENT POWER SUBSIDED, FROM 1868 TO 1972.

YET EVEN IN THAT PERIOD WHILE OBJECTING TO ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT, PRESIDENTS ULYSSES GRANT, GROVER CLEVELAND AND THEODORE ROOSEVELT EACH NOTED THAT CONGRESS COULD OBTAIN KEY EXECUTIVE BRANCH DOCUMENTS IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THUS FIRMED YET AGAIN THAT IMPEACHMENT IS DIFFERENT.

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, IT REQUIRES FULL COMPLIANCE.

THEN CAME WATERGATE.

WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON ABUSED THE POWER OF OFFICE TO UNDERMINE POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

BUT EVEN NIXON -- EVEN MIXON UNDERSTOOD HE MUST COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS FOR INFORMATION RELATING TO HIS MISCONDUCT.

THUS HE STATED IN MARCH 1973 REGARDING THE SENATE'S WATERGATE INVESTIGATION, I QUOTE, ALL MEMBERS OF THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF WILL APPEAR VOLUNTARILY WHEN REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE.

THEY WILL TESTIFY UNDER OATH AND THEY WILL ANSWER FULLY ALL QUESTIONS.

AS A RESULT, MANY SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS TESTIFIED, INCLUDING WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL JOHN DEAN, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF H.R.

HALDERMAN AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT ALEXANDER BUTTERFIELD.

IN ADDITION, NIXON PRODUCED MANY DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS INCLUDING NOTES FROM MEETINGS WITH THE PRESIDENT.

AS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE EXPLAINED AT THE TIME, 69 OFFICIALS HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS THROUGHOUT AMERICAN HISTORY, YET, AND I QUOTE, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF ONE MINOR OFFICIAL WHO INVOKED THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-CRIMINATION, NOT ONE OF THEM CHALLENGED THE POWER OF THE COMMITTEE CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE IT DEEMED NECESSARY.

PRESIDENT NIXON'S PRODUCTION OF RECORDS WAS INCOMPLETE IN A VERY IMPORTANT RESPECT, HE DID NOT PRODUCE TAPE RECORDINGS OF KEY OVAL OFFICE CONVERSATIONS.

IN RESPONSE, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVED AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

24 YEARS LATER, THE HOUSE UNDERTOOK IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON, CONSISTENT WITH PRESIDENT AND UNLIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP, CLINTON PLEDGED TO COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS.

ULTIMATELY HE PROVIDED WRITTEN RESPONSES TO 81 INTERROGATORIES FROM THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THREE WITNESSES PROVIDED TESTIMONY DURING THE SENATE TRIAL.

AS THIS REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD PROVES, PRESIDENTS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THE CONSTITUTION COMPELS THEM TO HONOR SUBPOENAS SERVED BY THE HOUSE IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

STATED SIMPLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAT GORE CAL BLOCK AID OF THE HOUSE, HIS REFUELS TO HONOR ANY SUBPOENAS, HIS ORDER THAT ALL SUBPOENAS, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE, ALL SUBPOENAS BE DEFIED HAS NO ANALOG IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC, NOTHING EVEN COMES CLOSE.

HIS ENGAGEMENT OF OBSTRUCTION OF SEVERAL PREDECESSORS EXTREMELY FOREBEND AND LED TO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST NIXON.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS AN OUTLIER.

HE'S THE FIRST AND ONLY PRESIDENT EVER TO DECLARE HIMSELF UNACCOUNTABLE AND TO IGNORE SUBPOENAS BACKED BY THE CONSTITUTION'S IMPEACHMENT POWER.

IF HE IS NOT REMOVED FROM OFFICE, IF HE IS PERMITTED TO DEFY THE CONGRESS ENTIRELY, CATEGORICALLY, TO SAY THAT SUBPOENAS FROM CONGRESS IN THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY ARE NONSENSE, THEN WE WILL HAVE LOSE LOST, THE SENATE CERTAINLY WILL HAVE LOST -- ALL POWER TO HOLD ANY PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE.

THIS IS A DETERMINATION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WANTS TO BE ALL POWERFUL, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO RESPECT THE CONGRESS, HE DOES NOT HAVE TO RESPECT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, ONLY HIS WILL GOES.

HE IS A DICTATOR.

THIS MUST MOTT STAND, AND THAT IS WHY -- ANOTHER REASON HE MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, WE'VE NOW SHOWN THOUSAND THE EXTREME MEASURES PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE AND BLOCK WITNESSES DEFIES THE CONSTITUTION AND CENTURIES OF HISTORICAL PRACTICE.

BUT THERE'S MORE TO THIS STORY AND IT ONLY FURTHER UNDERMINES PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CASE.

THE POSITION HE'S TAKEN IS NOT ONLY BASELESS AS AN HISTORICAL MATTER, IT'S ALSO INCONSISTENT WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S STATED REASON FOR REFUSING TO I DO NOT OR PROSECUTE -- INDICT OR PROSECUTE PRESIDENTS.

NOW, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S UNWILLINGNESS TO I DO NOT A SITTING PRESIDENT CREATES A DANGER THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY ANYONE, EVEN FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT.

TO ITS CREDIT, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RECOGNIZED THAT RISK.

IN ITS VIEW, QUOTE, THE CONSTITUTIONALLY SPECIFIED IMPEACHMENT PROCESS ENSURE THAT THE MAINLITY WOULD NOT PLACE -- THAT THE IMMUNITY WOULD NOT PLACE THE PRESIDENT ABOVE THE LAW.

THIS ARGUMENT BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

IN JUSTIFYING ITS VIEW THAT A PRESIDENT CAN'T BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE WHILE IN OFFICE, D.O.J.

RELIES ON CONGRESS' ABILITY TO IMPEACH AND REMOVE A PRESIDENT.

BUT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S RATIONALE, IT FALLS APART IF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY SPECIFIED IMPEACHMENT PROCESS CAN'T FUNCTION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAS OBSTRUCTED IT.

THE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY NOTED IN NIXON VERSUS FITZGERALT RICHARD NIXON, IT'S JUDGE NIXON -- THAT VIGILANT OVERSIGHT BY CONGRESS IS NECESSARY TO, QUOTE, MAKE CREDIBLE THE THREAT OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY BECAUSE HE'S SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT, BUT THEN BE ALLOWED TO SABOTAGE THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS ITSELF?

THAT'S WHAT THIS PRESIDENT DID.

THAT PLACES HIM DANGEROUSLY ABOVE THE LAW AND BEYOND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

PRESIDENTS CAN'T BE ABOVE THE LAW.

PRESIDENTS, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, MUST OBEY SUBPOENAS SERVED IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

IN 1880, THE SUPREME COURT COURT EXPLAINED, QUOTE, WHERE THE REQUEST OF SUCH IMPEACHMENT IS BEFORE EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS, ACTING IN ITS APPROPRIATE SPHERE ON THAT SUBJECT, WE SEE NO REASON TO DOUBT THE RIGHT TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND THEIR ANSWER TO PROPER QUESTIONS IN THE SAME MANNER AND BY THE USE OF THE SAME MEANS THAT COURTS OF JUSTICE CAN IN LIKE CASES.

ALMOST A CENTURY LATER, JUDGE JOHN SARICA'S INFLUENTIAL OPINION ON THE WATERGATE ROAD MAP IN 1974 EMPHASIZED THE SPECIAL WEIGHT ASSIGNED TO CONGRESS IN AN IMPEACHMENT.

HE WROTE, IT SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT WE DEAL IN A MATTER OF THE MOST CRITICAL MOMENT TO THE NATION, AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A MORE COMPELLING NEED THAN THAT OF THIS COUNTRY FOR AN UNSWERVINGLY FAIR INQUIRERY BASED ON ALL THE PERTINENT INFORMATION.

THAT SAME YEAR, THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE FAMOUS CASE OF NIXON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES -- THAT'S PRESIDENT NIXON.

I WAS STANDING JUST ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE COURT WHEN THE CASE WAS HANDED DOWN, AND I REMEMBER SEEING THE REPORTERS RUNNING DOWN THOSE MARBLE STEPS, CLUTCHING THE COURT'S UNANIMOUS DECISION.

THE DECISION FORCED THE RELEASE OF KEY OVAL OFFICE TAPES THAT PRESIDENT NIXON HAD TRIED TO COVER UP BY INVOKING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IN SHORT ORDER, IT LED TO THE RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT NIXON.

THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT CASE WAS ACTUALLY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR LEON JAWORSKI WHO HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE WATERGATE BURGLARY AND WHO HAD ISSUED SUBPOENAS FOR THE NIXON TAPES.

THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THESE SUBPOENAS AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON'S CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IT REASONED THAT HIS ASSERTED INTEREST IN CONFIDENTIALITY COULD NOT OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONALLY-GROUNDED INTEREST IN THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

NOW, IN CREATURING THAT CONCLUSION, THE -- IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION, THE COURT SAID THE ENDS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE WOULD BE DEFEATED IF JUDGMENTS WERE TO BE FOUNDED ON A PATRICK OR SPECULATIVE PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS.

THE VERY INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AN PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE SYSTEM DEPEND ON FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL FACTS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE REFUSAL EVIDENCE.

-- RULES OF ETCHED.

THAT REASON WHICH WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE NIXON TAPES CASE APPLIES WITH FULL FORCE, INCLUDE GREATER FORCE, TO IMPEACHMENTS.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RECOGNIZED THAT WHEN IT APPROVED AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

IT REASONED AS FOLLOWS, QUOTE, IF A GENERALIZED PRESIDENTIAL INTEREST IN CONFIDENTIALITY CANNOT PREVAIL OVER, QUOTE, THE FUNDAMENTAL DEMAND OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THEN NEITHER CAN IT BE PERMITTED TO PREVAIL OVER THE FUNDAMENTAL NEED TO OBTAIN ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

WHATEVER THE LIMITS OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN OTHER CONTEXTS, AND WHATEVER NEED MAY OTHERWISE EXIST FOR PRESERVING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS, IN THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT, PROCEEDING, THE BALANCE WAS STRUCK IN THE FAVOR OF THE POWER OF INQUIRY.

ACCORDINGLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT IS UNPRECEDENTED AND ACTUALLY OFFENSIVE TO THE PRESIDENT'S AND IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS DUTY, HIS OATH TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS.

NOW, THAT OBLIGATION TO SEE THAT THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED IS NOT JUST ABOUT ENFORCING STATUTES.

IT'S A DUTY TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION.

EVERY PART OF IT AS STATED IN THE TEXT AND UNDERSTOOD ACROSS HISTORY, AND IT IS A DUTY HE HAS VIOLATED BY OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS HERE.

I WANT TO MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL POINT ABOUT THE JUDICIARY.

NOW, PRESIDENTS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE CONGRESS' IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A COURT HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST.

WE MAKE THIS POINT, EVEN THOUGH, I THINK, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYERS WOULD BE MAKING A MISTAKE TO RAISE IT.

AFTER ALL, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

THEY CAN'T ARGUE HERE THAT WE MUST GO TO COURT AND THEN ARGUE IN COURT THAT OUR CASE CAN'T BE HEARD.

ANYWAY, THE HOUSE'S SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT WOULDN'T BE SOLE OR MUCH OF A POWER IF THE HOUSE COULD NOT INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT AT ALL WITHOUT SPENDING YEARS LITIGATING BEFORE THE THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

IT WOULD FRUSTRATE THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE HOUSE TO DEPEND ENTIRELY ON THE JUDICIARY TO ADVANCE ITS IMPEACHMENT-RELATED INVESTIGATORY POWERS.

CONSISTENT WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING, BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE HOUSE HAD NEVER BEFORE FILED A LAWSUIT TO REQUIRE TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTS IN A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT.

WE DIDN'T HAVE TO.

NO PRESIDENT EVER ISSUED A BLANKET BAN ON COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE SUBPOENAS OR CHALLENGED THE HOUSE TO FIND A WAY AROUND HIS UNLAWFUL ORDER.

IN THIS STRANGE AND UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION, IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR CONGRESS TO REACH ITS OWN JUDGMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS OBSTRUCTING THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.

AS THEN REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY GRAHAM EXPLAINED IN 1998, DURING THE CLINTON PROCEEDINGS WHERE WE SERVED TOGETHER ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, QUOTE, THE DAY RICHARD NIRKSEN FAILED TO ANSWER THAT SUBPOENA IS THE DAY HE WAS SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE HE TOOK THE POWER FROM CONGRESS OVER THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AWAY FROM CONGRESS, AND HE BECAME THE JUDGE AND JURY.

THERE'S STILL ANOTHER REASON WHY IT WOULD BE WRONG AND DANGEROUS TO INSIST THAT THE HOUSE CANNOT TAKE ACTION WITHOUT INVOLVING THE COURTS, AND THAT REASON IS DELAY.

CONSIDER JUST THREE LAWSUITS FILED BY HOUSE COMMITTEES OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS AGAINST SENIOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS.

NOW, I SERVED ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHEN WE DECIDED THAT WE NEEDED TO HEAR FROM FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HARRIET MIERS.

IN THE COMMITTEE VERSUS MEYERS, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TRIED TO FORCE A SUBPOENA THAT REQUIRED HER TO GIVE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CONTENTIOUS FIRING OF NINE U.S.

ATTORNEYS.

THE COMMITTEE SERVED THE SUBPOENA IN 2007.

WE NEGOTIATED, AS COURTS INDICATE YOU SHOULD, WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AND WE FINALLY FILED SUIT IN MARCH OF 2008.

WE WON A FAVORABLE DISTRICT COURT ORDER IN JULY 2008.

BUT WE DIDN'T RECEIVE TESTIMONY FROM MYERS UNTIL JUNE OF 2009 -- THAT WAS TWO YEARS.

IN COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM VERSUS HOLDER, THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM TRIED TO FORCE ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SO-CALLED OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS.

THE COMMITTEE SERVED THE SUBPOENA ON OCTOBER 2011.

THEY FILED SUIT AUGUST 2012.

THEY WON A SERIES OF ORDERS REQUIRING PRODUCTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, BUT THE FIRST SUCH ORDER DID NOT ISSUE UNTIL AUGUST OF 2014, NEARLY THREE YEARS.

IN COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY VERSUS MCGHAN, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE SUBPOENA TO REQUIRE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON MCGHAN TO GIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING MATTERS RELATING TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION.

NOW, WE SERVED THAT SUBPOENA IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR.

WE FILED SUIT IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.

WE WON A FAVORABLE DISTRICT COURT ORDER IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS STAYED THAT RULING AND DIDN'T HEAR ARGUMENT UNTIL EARLY THIS MONTH WITH AN OPINION AND POTENTIALLY, UNLIKELY, SUPREME COURT APPLICATION LIKELY TO FOLLOW.

WE WILL NOT HAVE AN ANSWER LIKELY THIS YEAR.

SOMETIMES COURTS MOVE QUICKLY, BUT HERE THEY HAVEN'T, NOT AT ALL.

EVEN WHEN THE HOUSE URGES EXPEDITED ACTION, IT USUALLY TAKES YEARS, NOT MONTHS, TO GET EVIDENCE THROUGH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

NOW THE PRESIDENT CAN'T PUT OFF IMPEACHMENT FOR YEARS BY ORDERING TOTAL DEFIANCE OF THE HOUSE AND THEN INSIST THE COURT GO TO COURT EVEN AS HE ARGUES THAT THEY CAN'T GO TO COURT.

THAT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE WHERE THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T JUST RAISE ONE OR TWO OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC SUBPOENAS BUT ORDERS A BLANKET GOVERNMENT-WIDE COVERUP OF ALL EVIDENCE.

THAT KIND OF ORDER MAKES IT CLEAR THE PRESIDENT SEES HIMSELF COMPLETELY IMMUNE FROM ANY ACCOUNTABILITY, ABOVE THE LAW.

IT REVEALS HIS PRETENTIOUS, REALLY, TO ABSOLUTE POWER.

IT CONFIRMS HE MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

NOW, HERE'S THE KEY POINT -- PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IS NOT MERELY UNPRECEDENTED AND WRONG, IT'S ALSO A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR AS THE FRAMERS USED AND UNDERSTOOD THAT PHRASE WARRANTING HIS IMMEDIATE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

TO SEE WHY TO RETURN TO FIRST PRINCIPLES, AS THE FRAMERS DELIBERATED IN PHILADELPHIA, GEORGE MASON POSED A PROFOUND QUESTION -- SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE?

WASN'T A HYPOTHETICAL.

THE FRAMERS HAD JUST REBELT AGAINST ENGLAND WHERE ONE MAN, THE KING, WAS IN FACT ABOVE JUSTICE.

BY AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO REMOVE PRESIDENTS FOR EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT, THE FRAMERS REJECTED THAT MODEL.

UNLIKE WITNESS KING THE PRESIDENT WOULD ANSWER TO CONGRESS AND THUS TO THE NATION IF HE ENGAGED IN SERIOUS WRONGDOING.

BECAUSE THE IMPEACHMENT POWER EXISTS, NOT TO PUNISH THE PRESIDENT, BUT TO CHECK PRESIDENTS.

IT CAN'T FUNCTION IF PRESIDENTS ARE FREE TO IGNORE ALL CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION AND OVERSIGHT.

AN IMPEACHMENT SCAR, FRANK BOWMAN, SAID THIS: WITHOUT THE POWER TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS, AND THE COMMITMENT RIGHT TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY, THE IMPEACHMENT POWER WOULD BE NULLIFIED.

SO THE CONSEQUENCES OF PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION GO BEYOND ANY PARTICULAR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THEY GO TO THE HEART OF THE IMPEACHMENT POWER ITSELF.

THEY WEAKEN OUR SHIELD AGAINST A DANGEROUS OR CORRUPT PRESIDENT.

NOW, OF COURSE, PRESIDENTS ARE STILT FREE TO RAISE PRIVACY, NATIONAL SECURITY OR OTHER CONCERNS, IN THE COURSE OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THERE'S ROOM FOR GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS OVER WHAT EVIDENCE WILL BE DISCLOSED.

ALTHOUGH THERE IS A STRONG PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF FULL COMPLIANCE WITH CONGRESS AT SUBPOENAS.

BUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS OFFICE, ABUSES HIS POWER, TO COMPLETELY DEFY HOUSE INVESTIGATORS IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, WHEN HE DOES THAT, WITHOUT LAWFUL CAUSE OR EXCUSE, HE ATTACKS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

WHEN HE DOES THAT, HE CONFIRMS THAT HE SEES HIMSELF AS ABOVE THE LAW.

IF THE NIXON'S CASE IS INFORMATIVE.

AS NOTED -- IS INFORMATIVE.

MANY DOCUMENTS.

HE DID NOT DIRECT ANYTHING LIKE A BLANKET INDISCRIMINATE BLOCK OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

HE STILL DID DEFY SUBPOENAS SEEK RECORDS AND OF THE OVAL OFFICE.

HE INVOKED THE DOCTRINE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REJECTED THAT EXCUSE.

THE COMMITTEE EMPHASIZED THAT, QUOTE, THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS CANNOT JUSTIFY THE WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION FROM AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

AFTER ALL, THE VERY PURPOSE OF SUCH AN INQUIRY IS TO PERMIT THE HOUSE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE TO CURB THE EXCESSES OF ANOTHER BRANCH, IN THIS INSTANCE, THE EXECUTIVE.

QUOTE, WHATEVER THE LIMITS OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN OTHER CONTEXT AND WHATEVER NEED MAY OTHERWISE EXIST FOR PRESERVING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, THE BALANCE WAS STRUCK IN FAVOR OF THE POWER OF INQUIRY WHEN THE IMPEACHMENT PROVISION WAS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

NOW ULTIMATELY, THE COMMITTEE APPROVED AN ARTICLE AGAINST NIXON, BECAUSE HE SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE HOUSE FROM EXERCISING ITS COORNL DUTY.

-- CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.

ARTICLE 3, CHARGED NIXON WITH ABUSING HIS POWER BY INTERFERING WITH THE DISCHARGE OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE, FULLY AND COMPLETELY, WHETHER HE HAD COMMITTED HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

PRESIDENT NIXON'S THIRD ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT EXPLAINED IT THIS WAY.

QUOTE: IN REFUSING TO PRODUCE THESE PAPERS AND THINGS, RICHARD M. NIXON, SUBSTITUTING HIS JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT TERMS WERE NECESSARY FOR THE INQUIRY, INTERPOSED THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY AGAINST THE LAWFUL SUBPOENAS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THEREBY, ASSUMING THE HIMSELF FUNCTIONS AND JUDGMENTS NECESSARY TO THE EXERCISE OF THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AS VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

IN ALL OF THIS, RICHARD M. NIXON ACTED CONTRARY AND A MANNER CONTRARY TO HIS POSITION AS PRESIDENT, TO THE GREAT PREJUDICE OF THE CAUSE OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND TO THE MANIFEST INJURY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

PRESIDENT NIXON'S CASE POWERFULLY SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT PRESIDENTIAL DEFIANCE OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY CONSTITUTES HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

I'VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT THE FOUNDERS, BEEN REREADING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE NOTES FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

IT WAS JUST A LITTLE OVER 230 YEARS AGO, THAT THEY MET IN PHILADELPHIA, NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE.

THEY'D BEEN AT IT FOR A LONG TIME.

THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION THEY WERE TRYING TO WRITE WOULD SUSTAIN FREEDOM.

BUT THEY WERE TRYING TO CREATE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPE OF GOVERNMENT.

ON JULY 20th, GOVERNOR MORRIS SAID THIS.

THE MAGISTRATE IS NOT THE KING.

THE PEOPLE ARE THE KING.

GEORGE MASON OF VIRGINIA ON THAT SAME DAY SAID, SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE, ABOVE ALL, THAT MAN MAY BE ABOVE IT WHO ASK COMMIT THE MOST EXTENSIVE INJUSTICE?

AND ELDRIDGE JERRY ARGUED THAT HE HOPED THAT THE MAXIM THAT THE CHIEF WOULD DO NO WRONG WOULD NEVER BE ADOPTED HERE.

ON FEBRUARY 8th THEY ADOPTED THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

I HOPE WE WILL HONOR THE AT MONDAY ITION THAT WE CAN NEVER ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE MACK MAGISTRATE, THE PRESIDENT, CAN DO GO WRONG.

THEY CRAFTED A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTY AND THE LIBERTY OF THOSE WHO WILL FOLLOW US.

PROFESSIONAL NOEL FELDMAN TALKED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE.

>> A PRESIDENT WHO SAYS, AS THIS PRESIDENT DID SAY, I WILL NOT COOPERATE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, WITH YOUR PROCESS, ROBS A COORDINATE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

HE ROBS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> YOU KNOW, A PRESIDENT WHO DOES THAT ALSO ENDANGERS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY STRIPPING AWAY THE CONSTITUTION'S FINAL SAFEGUARD AGAINST PRESIDENTS WHO ABUSE POWER AND HARM THE NATION.

SUCH A PRESIDENT ACTS LIKE A KING, WHICH THE FOUNDERS WERE FIGHTING AGAINST.

THAT'S WHAT THEY GREW OUT OF A CONSTITUTION.

A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMMUNE FROM OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY AND EVEN SIMPLE JUSTICE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS ENTRUSTED TO HIM.

WE CAN'T LET THAT STAND IN THIS CASE.

THE PRESIDENT MUST FORFEIT THE POWERS HE HAS ABUSED AND BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED PEBS OF THE SENATE, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, MY COLLEAGUES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ASSEMBLED HERE TODAY.

I THINK WE HAVE OUR NEXT BREAK SCHEDULED FOR WITHIN THE HOUR.

AND SO I FIND MYSELF IN THE UNENVIABLE POSITION OF BEING THE ONLY THING STANDING BETWEEN YOU AND OUR DINNER.

BUT BE NOT DISCOURAGED BECAUSE I'M GOING TO TRY TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF A FORMER SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER OF MINE, GREW UP IN THE CORNERSTONE BA BAPTIST CHURCH IN BROOKLYN.

SHE SAID JEFFRIES ON THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS, BE BRIEF, BE BRIGHT AND BE GONE.

SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO DO MY BEST.

PRESIDENTS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH IMPEACHMENT SUBPOENAS.

THIS PRESIDENT HAS COMPLETELY DEFIED THEM.

-- DEGUYED THEM.

THAT -- DEFYTHEM.

THAT CONDUCT ALONE IS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

THE FACTS HERE ARE NOT REALLY IN DISPUTE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEFENSE APPEARS TO BE "I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT TO DO.

ONLY I CAN FIX IT.

I AM THE CHOSEN ONE."

>> THEN I HAVE IN ARTICLE 2 WHERE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.

NOBODY KNOWS THE SYSTEM BETTER THAN ME.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) >> WHICH IS WHY I ALONE CAN FIX IT.

SOMEBODY HAD TO DO IT.

I AM THE CHOSEN ONE.

SOMEBODY HAD TO DO IT.

>> IS THAT WHO WE ARE?

AS A DEMOCRACY?

PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN'T ADDRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR CASE, HE THEREFORE COMPLAINS ABOUT PROCESS.

BUT THESE PROCEDURAL COMPLAINTS ARE BASELESS EXCUSES.

AND THEY DO NOT JUSTIFY HIS ATTEMPTS TO HIDE THE TRUTH FROM CONGRESS, AND FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENTS FAIL FOR FOUR SIMPLE REASONS.

FIRST, DID HOUSE, NOT THE PRESIDENT, HAS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

AND THE SOLE POWER TO DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS.

THAT'S ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

SECOND, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT HAS NO BASIS IN LAW, NO BASIS IN FACT, NO BASIS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY NOT PREEMPTIVELY DENY ANY AND ALL COOPERATION TO THE HOUSE, AND THEN ASSERT THAT THE HOUSE'S PROCEDURES ARE ILLEGITIMATE BECAUSE THEY LACK HIS COOPERATION.

THIRD, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CLAIM THAT HE IS BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY, COMPLETELY LACKS MERIT.

DESPITE WHAT HE CONTENDS, THE HOUSE PROVIDED PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH GREATER PROTECTION THAN WHAT WAS GIVEN TO BOTH PRESIDENT NIXON AND PRESIDENT CLINTON.

THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP FAILED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS DOES NOT MEAN THEY DID NOT EXIST.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOUSE PROCEDURES.

HE WON'T BE THE LAST.

HE'S NOT THE FIRST ONE TO CHALLENGE THE MOTIVES OF ANY INVESTIGATION OR CERTAINLY AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

SUCH COMPLAINTS ARE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FROM THE ARTICLE 2 EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

PRESIDENTIAL JOHNSON, PRESIDENT NIXON, PRESIDENT CLINTON HAD PLENTY OF COMPLAINTS.

BUT NO PRESIDENT, NO PRESIDENT, NO PRESIDENT, HAS TREATED SUCH OBJECTIONS AS A BASIS FOR WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE, LET ALONE CATEGORICALLY DEFYING EVERY SINGLE SUBPOENA.

NONE.

EXCEPT DONALD JOHN TRUMP.

FIREARMLY, THE OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH AN GEEVMENT SUBPOENA IS UNYIELDING.

IT DOES NOT DISMATE BECAUSE A PRESIDENT BELIEVES HOUSE COMMITTEES SHOULD INVITE DIFFERENT WITNESSES, GIVE HIS DEFENDERS UNFETTERED SUBPOENA POWER OR INVOLVE HIS PERSONAL LAWYERS AT THE DEPOSITION STAGE OF THE PROCESS WHEN THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE.

AND IF A PRESIDENT CAN DEFY CONGRESS ON SUCH FRAGILE GROUNDS THEN IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE WHY ANY FUTURE PRESIDENT, WOULD EVER COMPLY WITH AN IMPEACHMENT OR INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA AGAIN.

THOUSANDTH OUR HISTORY, IMEESSMENTS HAVE BEEN RARE.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT IT'S WARY OF INTRUDING ON MATTERS OF IMPEACHMENT.

THIS OF COURSE LEAVES LEARN FOR INTERBRANCH NEGOTIATION.

BUT IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO ENGAGE IN BLANKET DEFIANCE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBJECTIONS ARE NOT GENUINELY ROOTED IN THE LAW.

THEY ARE NOT GOOD-FAITH LEGAL ARGUMENTS.

WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID EARLY ON HE WOULD FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS.

WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE DECLARED THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY ILLEGITIMATE BEFORE IT EVEN ADOPTED ANY PROCEDURES.

WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE HAS DENOUNCED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT TO INVESTIGATE HIM AS A WITCH HUNT.

AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE NEVER EVEN CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

DURING THE ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FIRST EXCUSE FOR OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS IS ASSERTED BELIEF THAT HE DID NOTHING WRONG.

THAT HIS JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PERFECT.

IN THE OCTOBER 8th LETTER SENT BY HIS COUNSEL PRESIDENT TRUMP ASSERTED THE PREROGATIVE TO DEFY ALL HOUSE SUBPOENAS BECAUSE HE HAS DECLARED HIS OWN INNOCENCE.

AS MR. CIPOLLONE PUT IT, AT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BEHEST, THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG.

AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

YET THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HE HAD THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL INCLUDE THIS IN A FORMAL LETTER TO THE HOUSE.

DEFYING EVERY SINGLE SUBPOENA.

WE HAVE SHOWN IN OUR DISCUSSION OF THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, THESE CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE ARE BASELESS.

THEY LACK MERIT.

WE HAVE PROVIDED OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S GUILT.

THE PRESIDENT CANNOT LAWFULLY OBSTRUCT THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BECAUSE HE SEES NO NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED.

ONE OF THE MOST SACRED PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE IS THAT NO MAN SHOULD BE THE JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE AND YET THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO DO.

BUT THIS IS AMERICA.

HE CANNOT BE JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER.

MOREOVER, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT SIMPLY CLAIM INNOCENCE AND THEN WALK AWAY FROM A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PROCESS.

EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON DID NOT DO THAT AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED.

CORNG HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO SERVE AS A CHECK AND BALANCE ON AN OUT OF CONTROL EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT TO THIS PRESIDENT.

IT IS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

BLANKET PRESIDENTIAL DEFIANCE WOULD BRING A SWIFT HALT TO ALL CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE.

THAT PRINCIPLE WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED CATEGORICAL OBSTRUCTION IN THE IMEESSMENTS OF PRESIDENTIAL JOHNSON, PRESIDENT NIXON AND PRESIDENTIAL CLINTON.

IN EACH OF THOSE CASES THE HOUSE WAS CONTROLLED BY A DIFFERENT PARTY THAN THE PRESIDENCY.

AND THE PRESIDENT ATTACKED THOSE INQUIRIES AS PARTISAN.

CAN YET THOSE PRESIDENTS DID NOT VIEW THEIR CONCERNS WITH EXCESSIVE PARTISANSHIP AS A BASIS FOR DEFYING EVERY SINGLE SUBPOENA.

THE PURPOSE OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS FOR THE HOUSE TO COLLECT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION VESTS THE HOUSE WITH THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE PRESIDENT WHO SERVES AS THE JUDGE OF HIS OWN INNOCENCE IS NOT ACTING AS A PRESIDENT.

THAT'S A DICTATOR.

THAT IS A DESPOT.

THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.

THE PRESIDENT ALSO BELIEVES IT APPEARS THAT HIS BLANKET OBSTRUCTION WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE HOUSE DID NOT EXPRESSLY ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OR PROPERLY DELEGATE SUCH INVESTIGATIVE POWERS TO ITS COMMITTEES.

NOW THE FULL HOUSE VOTED IN JANUARY, IN ADVANCE OF THE INQUIRY, TO ADOPT RULES AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, ISSUE SUBPOENAS, GATHER DOCUMENTS AND HEAR TESTIMONY.

BEGINNING IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 2019 EVIDENCE CAME TO LIGHT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEEKING THE ASSISTANCE OF ANOTHER FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

UKRAINE.

TO INFLUENCE THE UPCOMING 2020 ELECTION.

ON SEPTEMBER 9th THE HOUSE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES ANNOUNCED THEY WERE LAUNCHING A JOINT INVESTIGATION.

THEY REQUESTED RECORDS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

THIS INVESTIGATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH ALL RULES APPROVED BY THE FULL HOUSE.

AT THE SAME TIME, EVIDENCE EMERGED THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO COVER UP HIS ACTIONS AND PREVENT THE TRANSMISSION OF A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE.

GIVEN GRAVITY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THE IMMEDIACY OF THE THREAT TO THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER, EXPLICITLY NAMED IN ARTICLE 1, ANNOUNCED ON SEPTEMBER 24th, THAT THE HOUSE WOULD BEGIN A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION, NOTHING IN FEDERAL LAW, NOTHING IN SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE THAT REQUIRED A FORMAL VOTE AT THE TIME.

THE PRESIDENT HAS PUT FORTH FAKE ARGUMENTS ABOUT PROCESS BECAUSE HE CANNOT DEFEND THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE ALLEGATIONS.

FOLLOWING ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THE HOUSE BE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES ISSUED ADDITIONAL REQUESTS AND THEN SUBPOENAS FOR DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY.

THE COMMITTEES MADE CLEAR THAT THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE COLLECTED AS PART OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND SHARED AMONG COMMITTEES AS WELL AS WITH THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY AS APPROPRIATE.

THEN ON OCTOBER 31st, THE FULL HOUSE VOTED TO APPROVE HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

WHICH DIRECTED THE HOUSE COMMITTEES TO CONTINUE THEIR ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF THE EXISTING INQUIRY, INTO WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO DPR ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACH DONALD JOHN TRUMP.

IN ADDITION TO AFFIRMING THE ONGOING HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, H RES 660 SET FORTH PROCEDURES FOR OPEN HEARINGS IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND FOR ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

EVERY STEP IN THIS PROCESS WAS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THE RULES OF THE HOUSE, AND HOUSE PRECEDENT.

IF HOUSE ANSWER AUTONOMY ASHES THE HOUSE'S AUTONOMY IS GROUNDED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

THE PRESIDENT'S PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY IS THAT NO COMMITTEE TO THE HOUSE IS PERMITTED TO INVESTIGATE ANY PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.

IN THE THE FULL HOUSE ACTED.

FTC AS THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT RECENTLY CONFIRMED, THE NOTION THAT A FULL HOUSE VOTE IS REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE AND IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HAS NO TEXT CHURL SUPPORT IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR THE GOVERNING RULES OF THE HOUSE.

THE IS INVESTIGATION INTO MISCONDUCT BY PRESIDENTS ANDREW JOHNSON, NIXON AND CLINTON, ALL BEGAN PRIOR TO THE HOUSE'S CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INVESTIGATION.

RECENTLY UNDER REPUBLICAN CONTROL THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

FOLLOWING A REFERRAL FROM ANOTHER COMMITTEE, AND ABSENT A FULL VOTE OF THE HOUSE FOR AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THERE IS NO MERIT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ARGUMENT THAT THE FULL HOUSE HAD TO VOTE.

THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE LARGELY TRACK THOSE IN THE NIXON PROCEEDINGS.

THERE, THE -- THE HOUSE JUDICIARY'S PROCEEDINGS BEGAN IN OCTOBER OF 1973.

ARE WHEN RESOLUTIONS CALLING FOR PRESIDENT NIXON'S IMPEACHMENT WERE REFERRED TO THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THE BREAK IN AMONG OTHER MATTERS, USING ITS EXISTING INVESTIGATORY AUTHORITY.

THE HOUSE USED OTHERS TO ASSIST IN THESE EFFORTS.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, ALL OF THESE OCCURRED BEFORE THE HOUSE APPROVED A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER GROUNDS TO IMPEACH RICHARD NIXON EXISTED.

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE COMMITTEES BEGAN THE INVESTIGATION WITH THEIR EXISTING POWERS, AUTHORIZED BY THE FULL HOUSE.

THAT COURSE OF EVENTS IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE RICHARD NIX NIXON PRECEDENT.

IT IS ALSO COMMON SENSE.

AFTER ALL, BEFORE VOTING TO CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THE HOUSE MUST ASCERTAIN THE NATURE AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS AND THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY THAT MAY FOLLOW THEREAFTER.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SECOND EXCUSE ALSO FAILS.

LET'S NOW ADJUST THE PRESIDENT'S SO-CALLED DUE PROCESS GOOUSSMENTS.

THE PRESIDENT HAS PHRASED SOME OF HIS COMPLAINTS IN THE LANGUAGE OF DUE PROCESS.

HE HAS COMPLAINED THAT THE PROCEDURES WERE NOT FAIR EVEN THOUGH THEY REFLECT PRIOR PROCESS AND STRIKE A REASONABLE BALANCE BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL INVOLVEMENT ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE HOUSE'S OBLIGATION TO FIND THE TRUTH ON THE OTHER.

PRESIDENTS COME AND PRESIDENTS GO.

THEY HAVE ALL SHARPLY CRITICIZED HOUSE PROCEDURES.

BUT NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER TREATED THOSE OBJECTIONS AS A BASIS FOR COMPLETE DEFIANCE.

NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE THAT.

IN THE CONTEXT OF A HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, FAIR TO SAY THAT A PRESIDENT IS A SUSPECT, A SUSPECT WHO MAY HAVE COMMITTED A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR.

HE CANNOT TELL THE DETECTIVES INVESTIGATING THE POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME, WHAT THEY SHOULD DO IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR INVESTIGATION.

IN THE PRESIDENT'S OCTOBER 8th LETTER, MR. CIPOLLONE COMPLAINS HE WAS DENIED THE MOST BASIC PROTECTIONS DEMAND HE BY THE CONSTITUTION AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.

TO CALL WITNESSES, TO RECEIVE TRANSFERS OF TESTIMONY, TO HAVE ACCESSING TO EVIDENCE AND IT SOUNDS TERRIBLE BUT IT'S NOT ACCURATE.

THE PRESIDENT APPEARS TO HAVE MISTAKEN THE INITIAL PHASES OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FOR A FULL BLOWN TRIAL.

THE TRIAL PHASE OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS TAKING PLACE RITE NOW.

CHAIRMAN PETER RODINO OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ONCE OBSERVED AS IT RELATES TO THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON, IT IS NOT A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE BUT A COURTESY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO PARTICIPATE THROUGH COUNSEL.

AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS NOT A TRIAL.

RATHER IT ENTAILS A COLLECTION, AN EVALUATION OF FACTS BEFORE THE TRIAL OCCURS.

IN THAT RESPECT, THE HOUSE ACTS LIKE A GRAND JURY OR PROSECUTOR, INVESTIGATING THE EVIDENCE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER CHARGES ARE WARRANTED OR NOT.

FEDERAL GRAND JURIES AND PROSECUTORS DO NOT ALLOW TARGETS OF THEIR INVESTIGATION TO COORDINATE WITNESS TESTIMONY.

THE PROTECTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT LABEL AS DUE PROCESS, LABEL AS DUE PROCESS DO NOT APPLY HERE.

BECAUSE THOSE ENTITLEMENTS THAT HE SOUGHT, MANY OF WHICH WERE ACTUALLY AFFORDED TO HIM, BUT THOSE ENTITLEMENTS THAT HE SOUGHT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE AVAILABLE TO ANY AMERICAN IN A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION.

MOREOVER, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE HOUSE NOTWITHSTANDING THIS FRAMEWORK, HAS TYPICALLY PROVIDED A LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO PRESIDENTS.

IN PAST IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES, THIS HAS MEANT THAT THE PAST EVIDENCE IS DISCLOSED TO THE PRESIDENT AND TO THE PUBLIC.

THOUGH SOME EVIDENCE IN PAST PROCEEDINGS HAS ACTUALLY REMAINED CONFIDENTIAL.

THE PRESIDENT HAS TYPICALLY BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.

AT A STAGE WHEN EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FULLY GATHERED, AND PRESENTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GIVEN THE CHANCE TO DO THAT IN THIS CASE.

BUT HE DECLINED.

PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE INQUIRY, AND TO REQUEST THAT RELEVANT WITNESSES BE CALLED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GIVEN THE CHANCE TO DO THAT IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

BUT HE DECLINED.

UNDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 660, PRESIDENT TRUMP RECEIVED PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS, NOT JUST EQUAL TO BUT IN SOME INSTANCES GREATER THAN THAT AFFORDED TO PRESIDENTS NIXON AND CLINTON.

SO LET'S BE CLEAR.

THE PRIVILEGES DESCRIBED IN THE OCTOBER 8th LETTER WERE IN FACT OFFERED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AS THEY HAD BEEN IN PRIOR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES.

THE PRESIDENT WAS ABLE TO REVIEW ALL EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE HOUSE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES INCLUDING EVIDENCE THAT THE MINORITY'S PUBLIC REPORT IDENTIFIED AS FAVORABLE OPRESIDENT TRUMP.

DURING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS THE PRESIDENT HAD OPPORTUNITIES OPRESENT EVIDENCE, CALL WITNESSES, HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT TO RAISE OBJECTION HE, CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES AND RESPOND TO ETCHED RAISED AGAINST HIM.

AS THE RULES COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 NOTED THESE PRIVILEGES ARE COMMENSURATE WITH THE INQUIRY PROCESS FOLLOWED IN THE CASES OF NIXON AND CLINTON.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SIMPLY CHOSE NOT TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF WHAT HAD BEEN OFFERED.

THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DECLINED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE PROTECTIONS DOES NOT EXCUSE HIS BLANKET UNCONSTITUTIONAL OBSTRUCTION.

UNLIKE THE NIXON AND CLINTON IMEESSMENTS, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE, THE ARGUMENT THAT HE HAS MADE AS IT RELATES TO THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS, IS NOT ANALOGOUS.

IN THIS CASE, THE HOUSE CONDUCTED A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE FACTUAL INVESTIGATION ITSELF, BECAUSE NO INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR WAS APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THEY TRIED OWHITE WASH THE WHOLE SORDID AFFAIR.

LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES, THE HOUSE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES FOLLOWED STANDARD BEST PRACTICES FOR INVESTIGATIONS.

CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS, INTO PRESIDENTS NIXON AND CLINTON.

IN ADVANCE OF THEIR IMEESSMENTS.

IMPEACHMENTS.

COMMITTEES RELEASED COPIES OF INTERVIEWS OF ALL WITNESSES DURING THE INVESTIGATION.

DURING THE INVESTIGATION MORE THAN 100 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE PARTICIPATED IN THE SO-CALLED CLOSED DOOR PROCEEDINGS.

MORE THAN 100 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, 47 OF WHOM WERE REPUBLICANS, THEY ALL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.

THEY ALL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS WITH EQUAL TIME.

INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH 12 OF THE KEY WITNESSES TESTIFIED INCLUDING SEVERAL REQUESTED BITHE HOUSE REPUBLICANS.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE VERY SAME PROCEDURES IN HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 WAS SUPPORTED BY ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY WHEN HE SERVED AS A MEMBER OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, AND BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE MIKE POMPEO WHEN HE SERVED AS AA MEMBER OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI.

>> TELL YOU IN THE PRIVATE INTERVIEWS THERE IS NEVER ANY OF WHAT YOU SAW THURSDAY, IT IS ONE HOUR ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, ONE HOUR ON THE DEMOCRAT SIDE, WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE NEXT TWO DOZEN INTERVIEWS DONE PRIVATELY.

BECAUSE IT IS -- I MEAN LOOK AT THE OTHER INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE BEING DONE RIGHT NOW.

THE LOWEST LEARNER INVESTIGATION THAT WAS JUST ANNOUNCED, WAS THAT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?

>> IF THIS PROCESS WEIGHS GOOD ENOUGH FOR OTHER PRESIDENTS, WHY ISN'T IT GOOD ENOUGH FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP?

REPRESENTATIVE GOWDY FINISHED THAT STATEMENT BY SAYING: THE PRIVATE ONES HAVE ALWAYS PRODUCED THE BEST RESULTS.

THE PRIVATE ONES, ACCORDING TO TREY GOWDY HAVE ALWAYS PRODUCED THE BEST RESULTS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP COMPLAINED THAT COUNSEL WAS NOT AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY OPARTICIPATE.

DURING THE INTELECOMMITTEE'S MEETINGS.

BUT NEITHER PRESIDENT NIXON NOR PRESIDENT CLINTON WERE PERMITTED TO HAVE COUNSEL PARTICIPATE IN THE INITIAL FACULTY GATHERING STAGES WHEN THEY WERE INVESTIGATED.

BY SPECIAL COUNSEL, INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, PRESIDENT NIXON CERTAINLY HAD NO ATTORNEY PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTORS AND GRAND JURIES BEGAN COLLECTING EVIDENCE GOOD WATERGATE AND RELATED -- ABOUT WATERGATE AND DIFFERENT MATTERS.

PRESIDENT NIXON DID NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT IN THIS DISTINGUISHED BODY WHEN THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON WATERGATE BEGAN TO HOLD HEARINGS.

NOR DID PRESIDENT CLINTON HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT WHEN THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL KENNETH STARR DEPOSED WITNESS HE AND ELICITED THEIR TESTIMONY BEFORE A GRAND JURY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY COULD HAVE CROSS-EXAMINED THE INTELL COMMITTEE'S COUNSEL DURING HIS PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

THAT WOULD HAVE FUNCTIONED AS THE EQUIVALENT OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED TO PRESIDENT CLINTON TO HAVE HIS COUNSEL CROM EXAMINE KENNETH STARR WHICH HE DID.

AT LENGTH.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PROVIDED A LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE CONSISTENT WITH THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS AND FAIRNESS GIVEN TO OTHER PRESIDENTS WHO FOUND THEMSELVES IN THE MIDST OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE PRESIDENT -- AND I'M WINDING DOWN -- THE PRESIDENT'S NEXT PROCEDURAL COMPLAINT IS THAT IT WAS UNCICIAL TO SECLUDE AGENCY COUNSEL FROM PARTICIPATING IN CONGRESSIONAL DEPOSITIONS.

THE BASIS FOR THE RULE EXCLUDING COUNSEL IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.

IT PREERCHTS OFFICIALS WHO ARE DIRECTLY IMPLICATED IN THE AB ABUSES CONGRESS IS INVESTIGATING FROM TRYING TO PREVENT THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES FROM COMING FORWARD AND TELL CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE TRUTH.

IT'S COMMON SENSE.

THE RULE PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF WITNESSES BY ALLOWING THEM TO BE ACCOMPANIED IN DEPOSITIONS BY PERSONAL COUNSEL.

A RIGHT THAT WAS AFFORDED TO ALL OF THE WITNESSES WHO APPEARED IN THIS MATTER.

AGENCY ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN SECLUDED FROM CONGRESSIONAL DEPOSITIONS OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS FOR DECADES UNDER BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS.

INCLUDING REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN DAN BURTON.

REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN DARRYL ISSA.

REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN JASON CHAFETZ.

REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN TREY GOWDY, REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN KEVIN BRADY AND REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN JEB HENSELING JUST TO NAME A FEW.

AGAIN, THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THE HOUSE WITH THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, AND THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS.

WHICH WERE FAIR TO ALL INVOLVED.

GIVEN THE CONSTITUTION'S CLARITY ON THIS POINT, THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT HE CAN ENGAGE IN BLANKET OBSTRUCTION IS JUST DEAD WRONG.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO OBJECTS THAT THE HOUSE MINORITY LACKS SUFFICIENT SUBPOENA RIGHTS.

BUT THE SUBPOENA RULES THAT WERE APPLIED IN THE TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WERE PUT INTO PLACE BY MY GOOD FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, HOUSE REPUBLICANS, WHEN THEY WERE IN THE MAJORITY.

WE ARE PLACE BY THE SAME RULES DEVISED BY OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.

PRESIDENT NIXON DID NOT ENGAGE IN BLANKET OBSTRUCTION.

PRESIDENT CLINTON DID NOT ENGAGE IN BLANKET OBSTRUCTION.

NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER ACTED THIS WAY.

LASTLY, WE SHOULD REJECT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SUGGESTION THAT HE CAN CONCEAL ALL EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT BASED ON UNSPECIFIED CONFIDENTIALITY INTEREST.

THOSE ARE HIS EXACT WORDS.

CONFIDENTIALITY INTERESTS.

BUT NOT ONCE IN THE ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY DID HE ACTUALLY INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

PERHAPS THAT'S BECAUSE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING.

PERHAPS THAT'S BECAUSE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PERMIT BLANKET OBSTRUCTION THAT INCLUDES BLOCKING DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES FROM THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

PROGRAMS PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN ACCEPTED AS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DEFYING ALL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES AND SUBPOENAS.

OR PERHAPS PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE WHEN PRESIDENT NIXON DID SO HE LOST DECISIVELY, UNANIMOUSLY, CLEARLY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

WHATEVER THE EXPLANATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, SO IT IS NOT A CREDIBLE DEFENSE TO HIS OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS LASTLY SUGGESTED THAT HIS OBSTRUCTION HIS AIDES ARE ABSOLUTELY IMMEAN FROM BEING CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS.

EVERY FEDERAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE SO-CALLED DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS REJECTED IT.

TWRAI, A FEDERAL COURT REJECTED AN ASSERTION -- 2008 A FEDERAL COURT REJECTED AN ASSERTION THAT WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HARRIET MEYERS WAS IMMUNE IN BEING COMPELLED TO TESTIFY.

NOTING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD FAILED TO POINT TO A SINGLE JUDICIAL OPINION TO JUSTIFY THAT CLAIM.

AND ON NOVEMBER 25th, OF LAST YEAR, ANOTHER FEDERAL JUDGE REJECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN.

COURT CONCLUDED EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM COMPULSORY CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS.

NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS ASSERTED AS MUCH OVER THE YEARS, EVEN DID THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSLY DIRECTS SUCH OFFICIALS NOT TO COMPLY.

THE COURT ADDED, SIMPLY STATED, THE PRIMARY TAKE AWAY FROM THE PAST 250 SOME-ODD YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS.

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A KING.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO CHEAT, HE GOT CAUGHT.

AND THEN HE WORKED HARD TO COVER IT UP.

HE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ABUSING HIS POWER.

HE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.

HE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR BREAKING HIS PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

>> MY FOREIGN POLICY WILL ALWAYS PUT THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND AMERICAN SECURITY, ABOVE ALL ELSE.

HAS TO BE FIRST.

HAS TO BE.

THAT WILL BE THE FOUNDATION OF EVERY SINGLE DECISION THAT I WILL MAKE.

>> WHAT DOES IT MEAN, TO PUT AMERICA FIRST?

AMERICA IS A GREAT COUNTRY.

BUT ABOVE ALL ELSE, I THINK AMERICA IS AN IDEA.

A PRECIOUS IDEA.

AN IDEA THAT HAS WITHSTOOD THE TEST OF TIME.

AN ENDURING IDEA.

YEAR AFTER YEAR, DECADE AFTER DECADE, CENTURY AFTER CENTURY.

AND WE CONTINUE A LONG, NECESSARY AND MAJESTIC MARCH TOWARD A MORE PERFECT UNION.

AMERICA IS AN IDEA.

ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR PEOPLE.

THE PREEMINENCE OF THE RULE OF LAW.

AMERICA IS AN IDEA.

WE CAN EITHER DEFEND THAT IDEA, OR WE CAN ABANDON IT.

GOD HELP US ALL IF WE CHOOSE TO ABANDON IT.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WE'LL TAKE A 30 MINUTE BREAK NOR DINNER.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

♪ ♪ ♪ >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, DISTINGUISHED COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT, I KEEP WANTING TO SAY GOOD MORNING.

BUT GOOD AFTERNOON.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A VERY BRIEF ORIENTATION TO THE ARGUMENT YOU'LL HEAR TODAY.

WE WILL BEGIN WITH JASON CROW WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT THE CONDITIONALITY OF THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

THIS IS THE LATTER PART, ALTHOUGH NOT THE END, OF THE ARGUMENTATION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAW AS IT RESPECTS ARTICLE 1.

THE ABUSE OF POWER.

I'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION AFTER MR. CROW, AND SOON DLAF, WE'LL CONCLUDE THE PRESENTATION ON ARTICLE 1, WE'LL THEN BEGIN THE PRESENTATION ON ARTICLE 2, ONCE AGAIN, APPLYING THE CONSTITUTION AND LAW TO THE FACTS ON THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

BEE WILL THEN HAVE SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS, AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

AND THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT FOR DAY AND WITH THAT I WILL NOW YIELD TO MR. CROW OF COLORADO.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I WOKE UP THIS MORNING, AND WALKED TO MY LOCAL COFFEE SHOP, WHERE UNLIKE MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE MR. JEFFRIES FROM NEW YORK, NOBODY COMPLAINED TO ME ABOUT COLORADO BASEBALL.

SO I COULD ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS ONLY A NEW YORK YANKEES PROBLEM.

AS MR. SCHIFF MENTIONED, WE TALKED LAST NIGHT GOOD THE JULY 25th CALL.

AND THE MULTIPLE OFFICIALS WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE INTENT OF THE PRESIDENT IN WITHHOLDING THE AID.

SO NOW I'D LIKE TO TURN TO WHAT HAPPENED AROUND THE TIME THAT THE AID WAS LIFTED.

AND WE KNOW THAT THE AID WAS LIFTED ULTIMATELY ON SEPTEMBER 11th.

BUT IT WASN'T LIFTED FOR ANY LEGITIMATE REASON.

IT WAS ONLY LIFTED BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD GOTTEN CAUGHT.

NOW LET'S GO THROUGH HOW WE KNOW THAT.

ON AUGUST 26th, THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT HAD BEEN SENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, AND PUBLIC REPORTS INDICATE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TOLD ABOUT THE COMPLAINT BY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE.

ON SEPTEMBER 5th, THOUGH, THE SCHEME BECAME PUBLIC.

AFTERNOON EDITORIAL IN THE "WASHINGTON POST" ON THAT DAY FOR THE THE FIRST TIME PUBLICLY EXPLICITLY LINKED THE MILITARY AID HOLD AND THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.

NOW KEEP IN MIND THAT PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY AFTER THIS BECAME PUBLIC.

AND THIS IS WHERE THINGS START MOVING REALLY FAST.

A FEW DAYS LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 9th, THE HOUSE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THEIR INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN UKRAINE.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL AND OTHERS AT THE WHITE HOUSE LEARNED ABOUT IF INVESTIGATION WHEN IT WAS ANNOUNCED AND A COLLEAGUE OF HIS SAID IT MIGHT HAVE THE EFFECT OF RELEASING THE AID.

ON THAT SAME DAY, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LEARNED THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT FROM CONGRESS, THE SCHEME WAS UNRAVELING.

TWO DAYS LATER, PRESIDENT TRUMP RELEASED THE MILITARY AID.

HE ONLY RELEASED IT AFTER HE GOT CAUGHT.

BUT THERE'S ANOTHER REASON WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT LIFTED THE AID ONLY BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT.

BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER EXPLANATION.

THE TESTIMONY OF ALL OF THE WITNESSES CONFIRMED IT.

BOTH LIEU LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WMENTS TESTIFIED THEY WERE NOT PROVIDED ANY REASON FOR LIFTING THE HOLD.

VINDMAN TESTIFIED THAT NOTHING ON THE GROUND HAD CHANGED IN THE TWO MONTHS OF THE HOLD.

AND MARK SANDY OF THE OMB ALSO CONFIRMED THAT.

AN AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, TOO, TESTIFIED THAT QUOTE I WAS NOT TOLD THE REASON WHY THE HOLD HAD BEEN LIFTED.

NOW LET ME TAKE A MOMENT TO ADDRESS ANOTHER DEFENSE, I EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR, THAT THE AID WAS RELEASED, AND THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NEVER ANNOUNCED, SO THEREFORE NO HARM, NO FOUL, RIGHT?

WELL, THIS DEFENSE WOULD BE LAUGHABILITY IF THIS ISSUE -- LAUGHABLE IF THIS IERCH WASN'T SO SERIOUS.

FIRST I'VE SPOKEN OVER THE PAST THREE DAYS ABOUT THE REAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSERTING POLITICS INTO MATTERS OF WAR.

REAL PEOPLE, REAM LIVES ARE AT STAKE.

EVERY DAY EVERY HOUR MATTERS.

SO NO, THE DELAY WASN'T MEANINGLESS.

JUST ASK THE UKRAINIANS SITTING IN TRENCHES RIGHT NOW.

AND TO THIS DAY THEY ARE STILL WAITING ON $18 MILLION OF THE AID THAT HASN'T REACHED THEM.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS WHO ATTENDED THE WARSAW MEETING WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE DESCRIBED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S DEMEANOR AT THIS TIME.

>> AND YOU TESTIFIED IN YOUR DEPOSITION THAT IN THAT CONVERSATION PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EMPHASIZED THAT THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO ASSIST UKRAINE IN FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA, BUT THAT IT WAS ALSO SYMBOLIC IN SANITARY.

WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND HIM TO MEAN BY THAT?

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EXPLAINED THAT MORE THAN -- OR JUST EQUALLY WITH THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL VALUE OF THE ASSISTANCE, THAT IT WAS THE SYMBOLIC NATURE OF THAT ASSISTANCE, THAT REALLY WAS THE SHOW OF U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND FOR UKRAINE'S SORCHLT AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY.

AND I THINK HE WAS STRESSING THAT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT TO REALLY UNDERSCORE THE NEED FOR SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED.

>> AND THAT IF THE UNITED STATES WAS HOLDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE IS IT ALSO TRUE THEN THAT RUSSIA COULD SEE THAT AS A SIGN OF WEAKENING U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS INDICATING, THAT ANY SIGNAL OR SIGNS THAT U.S. SUPPORT WAS WAVERING WOULD BE CONSTRUED BY RUSSIA AS POTENTIALLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO STRENGTHEN THEIR OWN HAND IN UKRAINE.

>> THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.

PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ATTORNEYS TRIED TO ARGUE NO HARM, NO FOUL.

THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ITSELF WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO UKRAINE, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

BUT THE AID WAS EQUALLY IMPORTANT AS A SIGNAL TO RUSSIA OF OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

AND REGARDLESS WHETHER THE AID WAS ULTIMATELY RELEASED THE FACT THAT THE HOLD BECAME PUBLIC SEENT VERY CLEAR SIGNAL -- SENT A VERY CLEAR SIGNAL TO RUSSIA THAT, AND RUSSIA WAS WATCHING VERY CLOSELY FOR ANY SIGN OF WEAKNESS.

THE DAMAGE WAS DONE.

NOW ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT FOR WHETHER THE AID WAS LINKED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS WAS RELEASED BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN CHIEF HE STAFF.

WE HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO BEFORE IN THIS TRIAL BUT THERE'S A IMPORTANT REASON FOR THIS.

ON MILITARY TV, THE LAYER ONCE AGAIN IS WHAT MULVANEY SAID.

>> DID HE ALSO MENTION TO ME IN PAST THE CORRUPTION RELATED TO THE DNC SERVER, ABSOLUTELY, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

BUT THAT'S IT AND THAT'S WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY.

>> AND WHEN PRESSED THAT HE HAD JUST CONFESSED TO THE VERY QUID PRO QUO THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD BEEN DENYING MULVANEY DOUBLED DOWN.

>> LET'S ARE CLEAR, YOU WOULD DESCRIBE THIS AS A QUID PRO QUO.

>> IT IS FUNDING WILL NOT FLOW UNLESS THE INVESTIGATION IS INTO THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER HAPPENED AS WELL.

>> WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.

WITH FOREIGN POLICY.

IF YOU READ THE NEWS REPORTS AND YOU BELIEVE THEM, WHAT DID McKINNEY SAY YESTERDAY, THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE WAS SO UPSET ABOUT THIS.

I HAVE NEWS FOR EVERYBODY, GET OVER IT.

THERE IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN FOREIGN POLICY.

>> NOW, REMEMBER AT THE TIME HE MADE THESE STATEMENTS, MULVANEY WAS BOTH THE HEAD OF OMB AND THE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE WHITE HOUSE.

HE KNEW ABOUT ALL OF THE LEGAL CONCERNS.

HE ALSO KNEW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S SO-CALLED DRUG DEAL AS AMBASSADOR BOLTON CALLED IT.

HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND HOW OMB IMPLEMENTED THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL ORDER TO HOLD THE AID.

MULVANEY CONFIRMED WHY THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD, IT WAS NOT TO QUIRCHES UKRAINIANS TO IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL A ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS AND IT WAS NOT TO PRESSURE OUR ALLIES TO GIVE MORE TO UKRAINE.

NOW SINCE WE WON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE PRESIDENT'S PRESENTATION I'M GOING TO TAKE A MINUTE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT I EXPECT THEM TO MAKE.

YOU WILL NOTICE I'M SURE THAT THEY WILL IGNORE SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE EVIDENCE WHILE TRYING TO CHERRY PICK INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS HERE AND THERE TO MANUFACTURE DEFENSES.

BUT DON'T BE FOOLED.

ONE DEFENSE YOU MAY HEAR IS THAT THE AID WAS HELD UP TO ALLOW FOR A POLICY REVIEW.

THIS IS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION TOLD GAO AT ONE POINT.

BUT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE OPPOSITE.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T CONDUCT A REVIEW, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD.

LAURA COOPER WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY REVIEW OF THE FUNDING CONDUCTED BY DOD IN JULY, AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER.

AND SIMILARLY, GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT DID NOT CONDUCT AND WAS NEVER ASKED TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF FUNDING ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

IN FACT ON APRIL 23rd THE ANTICORRUPTION INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETE AND THE DOD CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS AND THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED.

THE JUNE 15th PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING THE FUNDING.

AND DO YOU REMEMBER THE FICTITIOUS QUOTE UNQUOTE INTERAGENCY REVIEW PROCESS?

WELL, THAT WAS MADE UP TOO.

SO NO REVIEW WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE.

NEXT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL KEEPS SAYING THIS WAS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH FIGHTING CORRUPTION.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO EVEN SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.

THE PRESIDENT NEVER MENTIONED CORRUPTION ON EITHER CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

BUT LET'S GO TO THE EVIDENCE.

AS WE JUST DISCUSSED, DOD HAD ALREADY COMPLETED A REVIEW AND CONCLUDED THAT UKRAINE HAD, QUOTE, MADE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS IN MEETING DEFENSE REFORM AND ANTICORRUPTION GOALS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE FUNDS.

AND IN FACT, MARK SANDY WHO WAS NOT AT THAT MEETING BUT WAS INITIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING THE HOLD, SAID HE HAD NEVER HEARD CORRUPTION AS A REASON FOR HOLD IN ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS HE HAD ABOUT IT.

SIMILAR TO THE ANTICORRUPTION ARGUMENT, THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S AFTER THE FACT ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN-SHARING.

NOW THAT'S OTHER COUNTRIES ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO UKRAINE.

I IMAGINE THE PRESIDENT MAY CITE THE E-MAILS IN JUNE ABOUT WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES PROVIDED TO UKRAINE.

THE REFERENCE TO OTHER CUNS E-COUNTRIES CONTRIBUTION TO THE JULY 25th CALL AND THE REQUEST BY SANDY ABOUT WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES GIVE TO UKRAINE.

BUT THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE THAT TIES THE CONCERN TO HIS DECISION TO HOLD THE FUNDING.

FIRST, LET'S ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO UKRAINE.

THERE'S A SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU.

IT SHOWS THAT OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED TO UKRAINE SINCE 2014 AND THE EUROPEAN UNION IN TOTAL HAS GIVEN FAR MORE THAN THE U.S.

THE EU IS THE SINGLE LARGEST DONOR TO UKRAINE HAVING PROVIDED OVER $16 BILLION IN GRANTS AND LOANS.

THE PRESIDENT'S ASSERTION THAT OTHER COUNTRIES DID NOT SUPPORT UKRAINE IS MERITLESS.

AND THERE ARE OTHER REASONS TOO.

AFTER DOD, AND OMB RESPONDED TO THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST PRESUMABLY WITH SOME OF THE INFORMATION WE JUST PROVIDED YOU, SHOWING THAT EUROPE GIVES A LOT TO UKRAINE, NOBODY MENTIONED BURDEN-SHARING AS A REASON FOR THE HOLD TO ANY OF THE 17 WITNESSES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

SONDLAND WHO IS ACTUAL PORTFOLIO IS THE EU NOT UKRAINE TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS NEVER ASKED TO SPEAK TO THE EU OR EU MEMBER COUNTRIES, ABOUT PROVIDING MORE AID TO EASTERN UKRAINE.

AND IF PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PERFECT GUY TO HANDLE IT.

BECAUSE HE WAS OUR AMBASSADOR TO THE EU.

BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED.

AND HOW COULD IT?

BECAUSE SONDLAND HIMSELF NEW THE AID WAS LINKED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAD TOLD HIM.

IT WASN'T IN THE THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME BEGAN TO UNRAVEL AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE LEARNED OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AND AFTER PLIT COAZ PUBLICLY REVEALED THE EXISTENCE OF THE HOLD THAT THE ISSUE OF BURDEN-SHARING CAME UP AGAIN.

IF THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN WAS GENUINELY ABOUT BURDEN-SHARING HE NEVER MADE ANY PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT IT, NEVER ORDERED A REVIEW OF BURDEN-SHARING AND NERCH ORDERED HIS OFFICIALS IN EUROPE TO PUSH THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEN HE RELEASED THE AID WITHOUT ANY CHANGES IN EUROPE'S CONTRIBUTIONS.

THIS LAST POINT T IS IMPORTANT.

PURPORTED CONCERN ABOUT BURDEN SHARING WAS HOLLOW BECAUSE THE AID INCREASED AFTER THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT.

NOT BECAUSE THE EU OR ANY OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRY MADE ANY ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

AS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED THE FR FACTS TON GROUD HAD NOT CHANGED.

FINALLY YOU MAY HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE HOLD UNTIL AUGUST 28th, LONG AFTER THE HOLD WAS IMPLEMENTED.

THEREFORE, THEY FELT NO PRESSURE.

BUT THIS MADE NO SENSE.

FIRST THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT LONG BEFORE AUGUST 28th.

MULTIPLE WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE UKRAINIANS SHOWED QUOTE IMPRESSIVE DIPLOMATIC TRADE CRAFT IN LEARNING QUICKLY ABOUT THE HOLD.

AND OF COURSE THEY WOULD KNOW.

THE DOD RELEASE WAS ANNOUNCED IN JUNE.

AND U.S.

AGENCIES KNEW ABOUT IT IN JULY.

SO IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE THAT THE FIRST INQUIRIES ABOUT THE AID WERE ON JULY 25th, THE SAME DAY AS THE CALL.

YOU SEE IT DOESN'T MATTER IF EXTORTION LASTS TWO WEEKS OR TWO MONTHS, IT'S STILL EXTORTION AND UKRAINE CERTAINLY FELT THE PRESSURE.

OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS ALSO DEPRESS ED CONCERNS THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WAS BEING SINGLED OUT AND PENALIZED FOR SOME REASON AND THREE WERE BUSY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AND YOU KNOW HOW ELSE YOU KNOW THEY FELT THE PRESSURE FROM THE HOLD?

BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FINALLY RELENTED AND WAS PLANNING TO DO THE CNN INTERVIEW.

ULTIMATELY RIGHT AROUND THE TIME OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S CONVERSATION WITH VICE PRESIDENT TRUMP WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS THAT I URGE ALL SENATORS TO LOOK AT, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CANCELLED THE CNN INTERVIEW.

BUT THE DAMAGE WAS ALREADY DONE.

THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR, THE QUESTION FOR YOU IS WHETHER IT'S OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD TAXPAYER MONEY, AID, FOR OUR ALLY, OUR FRIEND AT WAR, FOR A PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.

WHETHER IT'S OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SACRIFICE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY FOR HIS OWN ELECTION.

IT'S NOT OKAY TO ME.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT OKAY WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND IT SHOULD NOT BE OKAY TO ANY OF YOU.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

ONCE AGAIN WE ARE GATHERED HERE, NOT AS DEMOCRATS, OR REPUBLICANS, NOT AS THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT, NOT AS PROGRESSIVES, OR CONSERVATIVES, BUT AS AMERICANS.

DOING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY DURING THIS MOMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

AND AS HOUSE MANAGERS WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY, YOUR ATTENTIVENESS AND YOUR HOSPITALITY.

AT THE HEART OF ARTICLE 2, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, IS A SIMPLE TROUBLING REALITY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO CHEAT, HE GOT CAUGHT, AND THEN HE WORKED LARD TO COVER IT UP.

THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO CHEAT.

HE GOT CAUGHT.

AND THEN HE WORKED HARD TO COVER IT UP.

PATRICK HENRY, ONE OF THE NATION'S GREAT PATRIOTS ONCE SAID THAT THE LIBERTIES OF A PEOPLE NEVER WERE OR EVER WILL BE SECURE WHEN THE TRANSACTIONS OF THEIR RULERS MAY BE CONCEALED FROM THEM.

LET'S NOW ADDRESS THE EFFORT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS TEAM TO COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING.

BY JULY OF 2019, WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WERE AWARE OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

REGARDING UKRAINE.

BUTTER INSTEAD OF HALTING THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEMES THEY WORKED OVERTIME TO CONCEAL IT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING MOUNTED, WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS REDOUBLED THEIR EFFORTS TO PREVENT CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.

AT THE SAME TIME, TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, INCLUDING SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ESPER, AND NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON TRIED TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO LIFT THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THEY FAILED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DETERMINED TO CARRY OUT HIS CRUCHT KEEP.

-- CORRUPT SCHEME.

THE MILITARY AND SECURITY AID WAS ONLY RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11th, AFTER THE HOLD BECAME PUBLIC.

AFTER THE HOUSE LAUNCHED AN INVESTIGATION.

AND AFTER CONGRESS LEARNED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.

THE 391 MILLION DOLLARS IN SECURITY AID WAS ONLY RELEASED BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS CAUGHT RED-HANDED.

THE ACTIONS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIGH LEVEL WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ALLOWED HIS ABUSE OF POWER TO CONTINUE BEYOND THE WATCHFUL EYE OF CONGRESS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, ON JULY 10th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD THE UKRAINIANS AND OTHER U.S. OFFICIALS THAT HE HAD A DEAL, WITH ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, TO SCHEDULE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED.

IF THE NEWS UKRAINIAN LEADER COMMITTED TO THE PHONY INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT.

AS YOU HAVE SEEN IN TESTIMONY SHOWN DURING THIS TRIAL, FOLLOWING THAT MEETING NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS, DR. FIONA HILL AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINDMAN IMMEDIATELY REPORTED THIS INFORMATION TO JOHN EISENBERG.

THE LITTLE ADVISOR FOR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND A DEPUTY COUNCIL TO THE PRESIDENT.

ACCORDING TO DR. HILL MR. EISENBERG TOLD HER THAT HE WAS ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THAT JULY 10th MEETING.

ON THE SCREEN IS DR. HILL'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY WHERE SHE EXPLAINS MR. EISENBERG'S REACTION.

SAYING I MEAN HE WASN'T AWARE THAT SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS KIND OF RUNNING AROUND DOING A LOT OF THESE MEETINGS AND INDEPENDENTLY, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE'D BEEN MEETING REQUEST GIULIANI, AND HE WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW UP ON THIS.

MR. EISENBERG WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

AND SAID THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW UP ON THIS.

DR. HILL FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT MR. EISENBERG TOLD HER THAT HE FOLLOWED UP WITH HIS BOSS, THE DISTINGUISHED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL PAT CIPOLLONE, HOWEVER BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT BLOCKED MR. EISENBERG FROM TESTIFYING IN THE HOUSE, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HE OR MR. CIPOLLONE DID IN RESPONSE TO THIS DEEPLY TROUBLING INFORMATION.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORT TO TREAT CONTINUED WITH RECKLESS ABANDON.

BY FAILING TO PUT THE BRAKES ON THE WRONGDOING AFTER THAT JULY 10th MEETING, EVEN AFTER THEY WERE NOTIFIED BY CONCERNED NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS, THE WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS ALLOWED IT TO UNCHECK.

RIGHT AROUND THE SAME TIME, THE JULY 10th WITH WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS TOOK PLACE, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BEGAN EXECUTING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO WITHHOLD ALL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE.

ON JULY 12th ROBERT BLAIR AN ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT COMMUNICATED THE HOLD TO THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET RUSSELL VOUGHT.

ON JULY 18th, AN OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OFFICIAL COMMUNICATED THE HOLD TO OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

AND A WEEK LATER ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD HIS IMPERFECT TELEPHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND DIRECTLY PRESSURED THE UKRAINIAN LEADER TO COMMENCE PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF HIS EFFORT TO CHEAT AND SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

THE JULY 25th CALL MARKED AN IMPORTANT TURNING POINT.

IF THERE WAS ANY QUESTION AMONG SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS AND ATTORNEYS, ABOUT WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE UKRAINE SCHEME, AS OPPOSED TO JUST A ROGUE OPERATION BEING LED BY RUDOLPH GIULIANI OR SOME OTHER UNDERLINGS, AFTER JULY 25th, THERE CAN BE NO MISTAKE.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS UNDOUBTEDLY CALLING THE SHOTS.

THEREAFTER, THE COMPLICITY OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WITH RESPECT TO THE COVERUP OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT INTENSIFIED.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL BOTH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND HIS DIRECTOR SUPERVISOR, TIM MORRISON, REPORTED THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL TO MR. EISENBERG, AND HIS DEPUTY, MICHAEL EMC.

ELLIS.

IN FACT WITHIN AN HOUR AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN RETURNED AGAIN, A SECOND TIME, TO MR. EISENBERG, AND REPORTED HIS CONCERNS.

>> I WAS CONCERNED BY THE CALL.

WHAT I HEARD WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

AND I FORWARDED MY CONCERNS TO MR. EISENBERG.

IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN AND A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

I WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT IF UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, THE BIDENS AND BURISMA IT WOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A PARTISAN PLAY, ADVANCING RUSSIA'S STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN THE REGION.

I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WHEN I RECORD MY CONCERNS ON JULY 10th RELATING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND JULY 25th RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT I DID SO OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY.

I PRIVATELY REPORTED MY CONCERNS IN OFFICIALS E-OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND.

MY INTENT WAS TO RAISE THESE CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY HAD SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATION FOR OUR COUNTRY.

I NEVER THOUGHT I'D BE SIT BEING HERE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ABOUT MY ACTIONS.

WHEN I REPORTED MY CONCERNS REPLY ONLY THOUGHT WAS TO ACT PROPERLY AND TO CARRY OUT MY DUTY.

>> TIMOTHY MORRISON, THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPE AND RUSSIA ALSO REPORTED THE CALL TO MR. EISENBERG AND ASKED HIM TO REVIEW THE CALL WHICH HE FEARED WOULD BE DAMAGING IF LEAKED.

>> NOW MR. MORRISON SHORTLY AFTER YOU HEARD THE JULY 25th CALL, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU ALERTED THE NSC ATTORNEY JOHN EISENBERG PRETTY MUCH DIRECTLY AFTERWARD CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> YOU INDICATED AT LEAST FROM YOUR DEPOSITION THAT YOU WENT TO MR. EISENBERG OVER CONCERN OF THE POLITICAL FALLOUT IF THE CALL RECORD BECAME PUBLIC AND NOT BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT IT WAS ILLEGAL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> BUT YOU WOULD AGREE, RIGHT, THAT ASKS A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A DOMESTIC POLITICAL RIVAL IS INAPPROPRIATE, WOULD YOU NOT?

>> IT'S NOT WHAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE PRESIDENT DISCUSS.

>> JULY 25th CALL WAS AT LEAST THE SECOND TIME THAT NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIALS HAD REPORTED CONCERNS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN TO WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS.

THE SECOND TIME, WHO NOW CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THE GRAVITY OF THE ONGOING MISCONDUCT.

BUT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT BLOCKED MR. EISENBERG FROM TESTIFYING WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION, THE RECORD IS SIERNLT AS TO WHAT IF ANY ACTIONS HE OR THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TOOK TO ADDRESS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BRAZEN MISCONDUCT AND ABUSE OF POWER.

WE DO KNOW HOWEVER THAT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO HALT THE SCHEME, WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS FACILITATED IT.

CLASSIFIED SERVER WAS A MISTAKE.

NOW.

>> NOW, IN A SECOND MEETING WITH MR. EISENBERG, WHAT DID YOU RECOMMEND THAT HE DO TO PREVENT THE CALL RECORD FROM LEAKING?

>> I RECOMMENDED WE RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE PACKAGE.

>> HAD YOU EVER ASKED THE N.S.C.

LEGAL ADVISOR TO RESTRICT ACCESS BEFORE?

>> NO.

DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR SUPERVISOR DR. KUPERMAN BEFORE YOU WENT TO SPEAK TO JOHN EISENBERG?

>> NO.

DID YOU SUBSEQUENTLY LEARN THE CALL RECORD HAD BEEN PUT IN A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM?

>> I DID.

AND WHAT REASON DID MR. EISENBERG GIVE YOU FOR WHY THE CALL RECORD WAS PUT IN THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM?

>> IT WAS A MISTAKE.

YOU SAID IT WAS JUST A MISTAKE?

>> IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.

>> IN MR. MORRISON'S VIEW THE JULY 25th CALL RECORD DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE PLACED ON A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SERVER.

AT HIS DEPOSITION, MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT THE CALL WAS PLACED OBSERVE THE SERVER BY MISTAKE.

HOWEVER, EVEN AFTER THIS ALLEGED MISTAKE WAS UNCOVERED, THE JULY 25th CALL SUMMARY WAS NOT REMOVED FROM THE CLASSIFIED SYSTEM.

BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO HIDE IT.

IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE LAUNCH OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN LATE SEPTEMBER AND AFTER INTENSE PUBLIC PRESSURE THAT THE ROUGH TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY JULY 25th CALL WAS RELEASED.

AGAIN, BECAUSE MR. EISENBERG AND MR. ELLIS REFUSED TO TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE.

WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE JULY 25th CALL RECORD ENDED UP ON THIS HIGHLY CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SERVER.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT MR. EISENBERG ORDERED ACCESS RESTRICTED AFTER MULTIPLE OFFICIALS LIKE DR. FIONA HILL AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN ADVISED HIM OF THE SCHEME TO CONDITION A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON PHONY, POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

THEY STRONGLY SUGGEST THERE WAS AN ACTIVE ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING, INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT, MR. EISENBERG SEEMINGLY TRIED TO COVER IT UP.

WHY DID MR. EISENBERG PLACE THE JULY 25th CALL SUMMARY ON A SERVER FOR HIGHLY CLASSIFIED MATERIAL?

DID ANYONE SENIOR TO MR. EISENBERG DIRECT HIM TO HIDE THE CALL RECORD?

WHY DID THE CALL RECORD REMAIN ON A CLASSIFIED SERVER EVEN AFTER THE SO-CALLED ERROR WAS DISCOVERED?

WHO ORDERED THE COVERUP OF THE CALL RECORD?

WHO ORDERED THE COVERUP OF THE CALL RECORD?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW.

FOLLOWING THE JULY 25th CALL, THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES INTENSIFIED.

APPARENTLY UNCHECKED BY ANY EFFORT TO STOP IT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE.

AFTER THE JULY 25th ALL, AMBASSADORS SONDLAND AND VOLCKER WORKED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER RUDOLPH GIULIANI TO PROCURE A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE PHONY INVESTIGATIONS INTO JOE BIDEN AND THE CrowdStrike CONSPIRACY THEORY BEING PEDALED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AT THE SAME TIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUED TO WITHHOLD THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE, IN A MANNER THAT BROKE THE LAW.

AS THESE EFFORTS WERE ONGOING, WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS REPORTEDLY RECEIVED YET ANOTHER WARNING SIGN THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ABUSING HIS POWER.

ACCORDING TO A ACCOMPLISHED REPORT IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES," THE WEEK AFTER JULY 25th CALL, AN ANONYMOUS WHISTLEBLOWER REPORTED CONCERNS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ABUSING HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT LANDED IN THE C.I.A.

GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE.

ALTHOUGH THE CONCERNS RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT'S OWN MISCONDUCT, THE C.I.A.

'S OWN GENERAL COUNSEL, COURTNEY ELWOOD, ALERTED MR. EISENBERG.

OVER THE NEXT WEEK, MR. ELWOOD, MR. EISENBERG AND THE DEPUTIES REPORTEDLY DISCUSSED THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S CONCERNS AND THEY DETERMINED AS REQUIRED BY LAW THAT THE ALLEGATIONS HAD A REASONABLE BASIS.

SO BY EARLY AUGUST, WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS BEGAN WORKING ALONG WITH ATTORNEYS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO COVER UP THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING.

THEY WERE DETERMINED TO PREVENT CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING ANYTHING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT BEHAVIOR.

ALTHOUGH SENIOR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS INCLUDING ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR WERE REPORTED MADE AWARE OF CONCERNS OF CORRUPT ACTIVITY, NO INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WRONGDOING WAS EVEN OPENED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

AS WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS WERE DISCUSSING HOW TO DEAL WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S CONCERNS, ON AUGUST 12th, ANOTHER IMPORTANT DATE, THE WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW, ON AUGUST 26, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TRANSMITTED THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT TO THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTENSE JOSEPH McGUIRE, ALONG WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS BOTH CREDIBLE AND RELATED TO A MATTER OF URGENT CONCERN -- URGENT CONCERN.

BUT, INSTEAD OF TRANSMITTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT TO THE HOUSE AND TO THIS SENATE'S DISTINGUISHED INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE NOTIFIED THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> WELL, I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CRY LOG.

YOU FIRST WENT TO THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND THEN TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?

>> WE WENT -- REPEAT THAT, PLEASE, SIR?

>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGY.

YOU FIRST WENT TO THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND THEN YOU WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?

>> NO, NO, NO, SIR.

NO.

WE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE FIRST TO DETERMINE, TO ASK THE QUESTION.

>> THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW IS THE CHRONOLOGY.

SO YOU WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE FIRST.

SO YOU WENT TO THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT FOR ADVICE, FIRST, ABOUT WHETHER YOU SHOULD PROVIDE THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS?

>> THERE WERE ISSUES WITHIN THI.

ONE, IT DID APPEAR THAT IT HAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IF IT DOES HAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, IT IS THE WHITE HOUSE THAT DETERMINES THAT.

I CANNOT DETERMINE THAT AS THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

>> UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS REQUIRED TO SHARE THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WITH CONGRESS, PERIOD, FULL STOP.

IF THAT HAD OCCURRED, THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE IN A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BEING SOUGHT BY THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADER TO PRESSURE UKRAINE FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS AND TOP LEVEL ADVISORS ADOPTED A TWO-PRONG COVERUP STRATEGY.

FIRST, LOCK CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN -- BLOCK CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM LEARNING ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS.

SECOND, TRY TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO LIFT THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEFORE ANYONE CAN FIND OUT ABOUT IT.

AND USE THAT EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.

AS TO THE FIRST PRONG, SOME TIME AFTER THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE ABOUT THE COMPLAINT ON AUG AUGUST 26th, MR. CIPOLLONE AND MR. EISENBERG REPORTEDLY BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT.

THEY LIKELY DISCUSSED WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WHETHER THEY WERE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO GIVE THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS.

THEY STATED THAT THEY WERE CONSULTING WITH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TESTIFIED THAT HE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL CONSUGGESTED WITH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL -- CONSULTED WITH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL WHO OPINED WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE BASIS THAT HE DID NOT HAVE TO TURN OVER THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS.

ON SEPTEMBER 3, THE DAY AFTER THE STATUTORY DEADLINE FOR THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TO PROVIDE THE COMPLAINT TO THIS BODY AND TO THE HOUSE, THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL ISSUED A SECRET OPINION CONCLUDING THAT, CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER THE COMPLAINT.

THE COVERUP WAS IN FULL SWING.

THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINED THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT DID NOT QUALIFY AS AN URGENT CONCERN, AND, THEREFORE, DID NOT HAVE TO BE TURNED OVER.

WHAT CAN BE MORE URGENT THAN A SITTING PRESIDENT TRYING TO CHEAT IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION BY SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE?

WHAT CAN BE MORE URGENT THAN THAT?

THAT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME IN PROGRESS.

BUT THEY CONCLUDED IT WASN'T AN URGENT MATTER.

ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE McGUIRE TESTIFIED THAT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL'S OPINIONS DID NOT ACTUALLY PREVENT HIM FROM TURNING OVER THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS.

INSTEAD, BASED UPON HIS TESTIMONY, IT'S CLEAR THAT HE WITHHELD IT ON THE BASIS THAT THE COMPLAINT MIGHT DEAL WITH INFORMATION THAT HE BELIEVED COULD BE COVERED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP NEVER ACTUALLY INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

HE NEVER ACTUALLY INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

NOR DID HE INFORM CONGRESS THAT HE WAS DOING SO WITH RESPECT TO THIS COMPLAINT.

INSTEAD, THE WHITE HOUSE SECRETLY INSTRUCTED THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TO WITHHOLD THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE MERE POSSIBILITY THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE COULD BE INVOKED.

BY DOING SO, THE WHITE HOUSE WAS ABLE TO KEEP THE EXPLOSIVE COMPLAINT FROM CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO DISCLOSE THE REASON WHY IT WAS WITHHOLDING THIS INFORMATION.

BUT TRUTH CRUSHED TO THE GROUND WILL RISE AGAIN.

THERE'S A TOXIC MESS AT 1 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, AND I HUMBLY SUGGEST THAT IT'S OUR COLLECTIVE JOB ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO TRY TO CLEAN IT UP.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO CHEAT.

HE GOT CAUGHT.

THEN HE WORKED HARD TO COVER IT UP.

AS WITH MANY GREAT PRESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS REPUBLIC, GREAT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND GREAT DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS, PERHAPS ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS IS ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

HE ONCE SAID THAT ANY MAN CAN HANDLE ADVERSITY, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TEST A MAN'S CHARACTER, GIVE HIM SOME POWER.

AMERICA'S A GREAT NATION.

WE CAN HANDLE ADVERSITY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

WHENEVER AMERICA HAS FOUND ITSELF IN A TOUGH SPOT, WE ALWAYS MAKE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WERE IN A TOUGH SPOT DURING THE CIVIL WAR, WHEN AMERICA WAS AT RISK OF TEARING ITSELF APART, BUT WE MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

A TOUGH SPOT IN OCTOBER OF 1929 WHEN THE STOCK MARKET COLLAPSED, PLUNGING US INTO THE GREAT DEPRESSION, BUT WE MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WERE IN A TOUGH SPOT IN DECEMBER OF 1941, WHEN A FOREIGN POWER STRUCK, PLUNGING US INTO A GREAT CONFLICT WITH THE EVIL EMPIRE OF NAZI GERMANY, BUT AMERICA MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WERE IN A TOUGH SPOT IN THE 1960s DEALING WITH THE INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS OF JIM CROW, BUT WE MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WERE IN A TOUGH SPOT ON SEPTEMBER 11, WHEN THE TOWERS WERE STRUCK, AND YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN, LIKE JASON CROW, WERE SENT TO AFGHANISTAN TO FIGHT THE TERRORISTS THERE SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO FIGHT THE TERRORISTS HERE, AND WE MADE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

AMERICA IS A GREAT COUNTRY.

WE CAN HANDLE ADVERSITY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD, BUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT OUR CHARACTER?

PRESIDENT TRUMP TRIED TO CHEAT AND SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION -- >> -- CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF -- SPOKEN WITH CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF AND HIS TEAM.

LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT A COUPLE MORE HOURS.

>> OKAY.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

IMPEACHMENT EXISTS NOT TO INFLICT PERSONAL PUNISHMENT FOR PAST WRONG DOING BUT RATHER TO PROTECT AGAINST FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT THAT WOULD ENDANGER DEMOCRACY IN THE RULE OF LAW.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REMAINS A THREAT IN AT LEAST THREE FUNDAMENTAL WAYS.

FIRST, HE CONTINUES TO ASSERT IN COURT AND ELSEWHERE THAT NOBODY IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CAN INVESTIGATE HIM FOR W WRONGDOIN, MAKING HIM UNACCOUNTABLE.

SECOND, HIS CONDUCT HERE IS NOT A ONE-OFF.

IT'S A PATTERN OF SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS TO HIS OWN ADVANTAGE AND THEN USING THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO STOP ANYONE WHO DARES INVESTIGATE.

FINALLY, THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION IS VERY MUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL CRIME IN PROG PROGRESS, HARMING CONGRESS AS IT DELIBERATES THESE VERY PROCEEDINGS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO DESERVE TO KNOW THE FACTS.

A PRESIDENT WHO BELIEVES HE CAN GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING AND CAN USE HIS OFFICE TO CONCEAL EVIDENCE OF ABUSE FRIGHTENS US ALL.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE FIRST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY TO SAY HE IS IMMUNE FROM ANY EFFORT TO EXAMINE HIS CONDUCT OR CHECK HIS POWER.

HE CLAIMS HE IS COMPLETELY IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION WHILE SERVING AS PRESIDENT.

HE CLAIMS HE COULD COMMIT ANY CRIME, EVEN SHOOT SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE, AS HE HAS JOKED ABOUT, WITH IMPUNITY, AND THE PRESIDENT'S OWN LAWYERS HAVE ARGUED IN COURT THAT HE CANNOT EVEN BE INVESTIGATED FOR VIOLATING THE LAW UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

NOW, NO PRESIDENT OF EITHER PARTY HAS EVER MADE CLAIMS LIKE THIS.

AND IF AN INVESTIGATION DOES SOMEHOW UNCOVER MISCONDUCT BY THE PRESIDENT, AS THIS INVESTIGATION HAS DONE, THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT HE CAN SIMPLY QUASH IT.

HE CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO END FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS FOR ANY REASON OR NONE AT ALL.

EVEN WHEN THERE IS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF HIS OWN WRONGDOING.

ADDED TOGETHER, THE PRESIDENT'S POSITIONS AMOUNT TO A LICENSE TO DO ANYTHING HE WANTS.

NO COURT HAS EVER ACCEPTED THIS VIEW, AND FOR GOOD REASON.

OUR FOUNDERS CREATED A SYSTEM IN WHICH ALL PEOPLE, EVEN PRESIDENTS, ARE BOUND BY THE LAW AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

IN ADDITION TO CLAIMING THAT HE IS IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROCESS, PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTENDS THAT HE IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO EITHER CONGRESS OR THE JUDICIARY.

HE HAS INVOKED BIZARRE LEGAL THESE ARE TO JUSTIFY DEFYING CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.

HE HAS ARGUED THAT CONGRESS IS FORBIDDEN FROM HAVING THE COURTS INTERVENE WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS, DISREGARDING ITS SUBPOENAS.

HE HAS SUED TO BLOCK THIRD PARTIES FROM COMPLYING WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AND PERHAPS MOST REMARKABLY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CLAIMED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT INVESTIGATE HIS MISCONDUCT OUTSIDE OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMING THAT CONGRESS CANNOT INVESTIGATE HIS MISCONDUCT IN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

OF COURSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP CONSIDERS ANY INQUIRY TO BE ILLEGITIMATE IF HE THINKS HE DID NOTHING WRONG, DOUBTS THE MOTIVES OF CONGRESS OR DECIDES THAT HE WOULD PREFER A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES.

LET'S REVIEW THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION.

HE CAN'T BE INVESTIGATED FOR CRIMES.

HE CAN END ANY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION INTO HIM.

HE IS IMMUNE FROM ANY STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION.

NEITHER HE NOR HIS AIDES CAN BE SUBPOENAED.

HE CAN REJECT SUBPOENAS BASED ON BROAD, NOVEL AND EVEN REJECTED THESE ARE, AND WHEN HE DOES REJECT SUBPOENAS, CONGRESS IS NOT ALLOWED TO SUE HIM.

BUT HE IS ALLOWED TO SUE TO BLOCK OTHERS FROM COMPLYING WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.

CONGRESS DEFINITELY CAN'T INVESTIGATE HIM OUTSIDE OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND, AGAIN, IT CAN'T INVESTIGATE HIM AS PART OF ONE.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT TRULY BELIEVES THAT HE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

THIS IS NOT OUR SYSTEM AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN.

THE PRESIDENT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER, UNLIKE A KING, HE IS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT THIS PRESIDENT DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT, AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE.

REMEMBER THE PRECEDENT THAT YOU SET IN THIS TRIAL WILL SHAPE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY FOR THE FUTURE, IT WILL GOVERN THIS PRESIDENT AND IT WILL GOVERN THOSE WHO FOLLOW.

IF YOU LET THE PRESIDENT GET AWAY WITH HIS OBSTRUCTION, YOU RISK GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE POWERS THEMSELVES.

REPRESENTATIVE TOWINGEN A REPUBLICAN FROM MARYLAND MADE THE POINT DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.

>> THE HISTORICAL PRECEDENT WE'RE SETTING HERE IS SO GREAT BECAUSE, IN EVERY FUTURE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT, IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THIS EVIDENCE RELATING TO THAT IMPEACHMENT WILL NOT BE IN THE HANDS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHICH IS UNDER HIS CONTROL.

SO I AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR. CYBER LING, IF WE DO NOT PASS THIS ARTICLE TODAY, THE WHOLE IMPEACHMENT POWER BECOMES MEANINGLESS.

>> THIS LEADS US TO A SECOND CONSIDERATION, THE PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF OBSTRUCTING.

ARTICLE 2 DESCRIBES PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT IN OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.

ON ITS OWN, THAT WARRANTS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

YET, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION FITS A DISTURBING PATTERN.

AS STATED IN ARTICLE 2, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION IS, QUOTE, CONSISTENT WITH HIS PREVIOUS EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS INTO FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN UNITED STATES ELECTIONS.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTEMPTS TO IMPEDE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 ELECTION AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S SUSTAINED EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AFTER LEARNING THAT HE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION ADDRESSED AN ISSUE OF EXTRAORDINARY IMPORTANCE TO YOUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEMOCRACY, THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS THEMSELVES.

RATHER THAN AID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION, HOWEVER, PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO THWART IT AND USE THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO DO IT.

AFTER LEARNING THAT HE HIMSELF WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED THE FIRING OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, SOUGHT TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION, INSTRUCTED THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD AND MAKE FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND TAMPERED WITH AT LEAST TWO KEY WITNESSES IN THE INVESTIGATION.

THE PATTERN IS AS UNMISTAKABLE AS IT IS UNNERVING.

IN ONE MOMENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP WELCOMED AND INVITED A FOREIGN NATION TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION DUE TO ADVANTAGE.

IN THE NEXT HE SOLICITED AND PRESSURED A FOREIGN NATION TO DO SO.

IN ONE MOMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ONE MOMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP [PLEASE STAND BY] [PLEASE STAND BY] [PLEASE STAND BY] I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT WHAT MAKES AMERICA GREAT IS THAT GENERATION AFTER GENERATION, THERE HAVE BEEN AMERICANS WHO HAVE BEEN WILLING TO STAND UP AND PUT ASIDE THEIR SELF-INTERESTS TO MAKE GREAT SACRIFICES FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, FOR OUR COUNTRY.

I KNOW BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE DO THAT.

LIKE SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER, I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE GIVE EVERYTHING FOR THIS COUNTRY SO WE COULD SIT HERE TODAY.

NOW, THIS ISN'T POLITICALLY EX EXPEDIENT, IT CERTAINLY ISN'T FOR ME.

IT'S HARD, IT REQUIRES SACRIFICE, IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE.

BUT THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE, THAT WE ARE HERE TO GIVE OF OURSELVES FOR THE COUNTRY, FOR OTHERS, AT SACRIFICE TO OURSELVES.

THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN SO MUCH FOR THIS COUNTRY DESERVE NOTHING LESS FROM US NOW THAN TO TRY TO HONOR THOSE SACRIFICES.

I HAVE TRIED TO DO THAT THE LAST FEW DAYS.

MY TIME IS DONE AND IT IS NOW YOUR TURN.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

YOU WILL BE PLEASED TO KNOW THIS IS THE LAST PRESENTATION OF THE EVENING, AND, AS I STARTED LAST NIGHT, I MADE REFERENCE TO SOME GOOD ADVICE I GOT FROM AN ENCOURAGING VOICE THAT SAWED, KEEP IT UP BUT NOT -- THAT SAID, KEEP IT UP, BUT NOT TOO LONG.

TONIGHT, I GOT SOME EQUALLY GOOD ADVICE -- TO BE IMMORTAL, YOU DON'T NEED TO BE ETERNAL.

I WILL DO MY BEST NOT TO BE EARN.

ETERNAL.

THE FIRST POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS I'M TIRED.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT I'M EXHAUSTED, AND I CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW YOU CAN FEEL, BUT I ALSO AM VERY DEEPLY GRATEFUL FOR JUST HOW YOU HAVE ATTENDED TO THESE PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS, DEEPLY GRATEFUL.

I CAN TELL HOW MUCH CONSIDERATION YOU'VE GIVEN TO OUR POINT OF VIEW AND THE PRESIDENT'S POINT OF VIEW, AND THAT'S ALL WE CAN ASK.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, ALL WE CAN ASK IS THAT YOU HEAR US OUT AND MAKE THE BEST JUDGMENT THAT YOU CAN, CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CONSCIENCE AND OUR CONSTITUTION.

NOW, I WANTED TO START OUT TONIGHT WITH WHERE WE BEGAN WHEN WE FIRST APPEARED BEFORE YOU ABOUT A WEEK AGO, AND THAT IS WITH THE RESOLUTION ITSELF, WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS CHARGED WITH WITHIN THE ARTICLES AND HOW THAT HOLDS UP NOW THAT YOU HAVE HEARD THE EVIDENCE FROM THE HOUSE.

DONALD TRUMP WAS IMPEACHED IN ARTICLE ONE FOR ABUSE OF POWER, AND THAT ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT, IN HIS CONDUCT OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH FAITHFULLY TO EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IS IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED, DONALD J. TRUMP HAS ABUSED THE POWERS OF THIS PRESIDENCY IN THAT USING THE POWERS OF HIS HIGH OFFICE, PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED THE INTERFERENCE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, UKRAINE, IN THE 2020 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED INTERFERENCE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, UKRAINE, IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

>> THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

HE DID SO THROUGH A SCHEME OF -- OR A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT INCLUDED SOLICITING THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS REELECTION, HARM THE ELECTION PROSPECTS OF A POLITICAL OPPONENT AND INFLUENCE THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO HIS ADVANTAGE.

THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO SOUGHT TO PRESSURE THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO TAKE THESE STEPS BY CONDITIONING OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTS OF SIGNIFICANT VALUE OF UKRAINE ON ITS PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGED IN THE SCHEME OR COURSE OF CONDUCT FOR CORRUPT PURPOSES IN PURSUIT OF PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

IN DOING SO, PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY IN A MANNER THAT COMPROMISED THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND UNDERMINED THE INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES' DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

HE THUS INJURED, IGNORED AND INJURED THE INTERESTS OF THE NATION, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGED IN THIS SCHEME OR COURSE OF CONDUCT THROUGH THE FOLLOWING MEANS -- PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTING BOTH DIRECTLY AND THROUGH HIS AGENTS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CORRUPTLY SOLICITED THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO, A, A POLITICAL OPPONENT, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR. THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

A DISCREDITED THEORY PROMOTED BY RUSSIA ALLEGING UKRAINE RATHER THAN RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

WITH THE SAME CORRUPT MOTIVES, PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTING BOTH DIRECTLY AND THROUGH HIS AGENTS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONDITIONED TWO OFFICIAL ACTS ON THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT HE HAD REQUESTED, THE RELEASE OF $291 MILLION OF U.S.

TAXPAYER FUNDS THAT CONGRESS APPROPRIATED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING VITAL MILITARY AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE TO OPPOSE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED SUSPENDED, THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

AND, B, AHEAD OF STATE MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SOUGHT TO DEMONSTRATE CONTINUED UNITED STATES SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE IN THE FACE OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

FACED WITH PUBLIC REVELATION OF HIS ACTIONS, PRESIDENT TRUMP ULTIMATELY RELEASED THE MILITARY AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE, BUT HAS PERSISTED IN OPENLY AND CORRUPTLY URGING AND SOLICITING UKRAINE TO UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATIONS FOR HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

THESE ACTIONS WERE CONSISTENT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PREVIOUS INVITATIONS OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN U.S.

ELECTIONS, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

IN ALL OF THIS, PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY BY IGNORING AND INJURING NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER VITAL NATIONAL INTERESTS, TO OBTAIN AN IMPROPER PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.

THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

HE ALSO BETRAYED THE NATION BY ABUSING HIS HIGH OFFICE TO ENLIST A FOREIGN POWER IN CORRUPTING DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

WHEREPHOR, PRESIDENT TRUMP, BY SUCH CONDUCT, DEMONSTRATED HE WILL REMAIN A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY IF REMAINING IN OFFICE AND ACTED IN A MANNER GROSSLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH SELF-GOFF NANCE AND THE RULE OF LAW, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD OR ENJOY ANY OFFICE OF HONOR, TRUST OR PROFIT IN THE UNITED STATES, THAT WILL BE FOR YOU TO DECIDE.

BUT THE FACTS HAVE BEEN PROVED.

THOSE FACTS ARE NOT CONTESTED.

WE HAVE MET OUR BURDEN.

ARTICLE TWO, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND THE PRESIDENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE ON IMPEACHMENT FOR AND CONVICTION OF TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISNEERNS.

IN HIS CONDUCT TO HAVE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH FAITH FAITHFULLY TO EXECUTE THE OFFICE TO HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHLY EXECUTED, DONALD J. TRUMP HAS DIRECTED THE UNPRECEDENTED, CATEGORICAL AND INDISCRIMINATE DEFIANCE OF SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO ITS SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ABUSED THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENCY IN A MANNER OFFENSIVE TO AND SUBVERSIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS ENGAGED IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FOCUSED ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT SOLICITAION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE TO INTERFERE IN THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

AS PART OF THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, THE COMMITTEES UNDERTAKING THE INVESTIGATION SERVED SUBPOENAS, SEEKING DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY DEEMED VITAL TO THE INQUIRY FOR VARIOUS BRANCHES OF OFFICES AND AGENCIES AND CURRENT OFFICIALS, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

IN RESPONSE WITHOUT LAWFUL CAUSE OR EXCUSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES, OFFICES AND OFFICIALS NOT TO COMPLY WITH THOSE SUBPOENAS, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP THUS INTERPOSED THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT AGAINST THE LAWFUL SUBPOENAS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND ASSUMED TO HIMSELF FUNCTIONS AND JUDGMENTS NECESSARY TO EXERCISE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT VESTED IN THE CONSTITUTION, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED THE POWERS OF HIS HIGH OFFICE THROUGH THE FOLLOWING MEANS -- NUMBER ONE, DIRECTING THE WHITE HOUSE TO DEFY A LAWFUL SUBPOENA BY WITHHOLDING THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT THEREIN BY THE COMMITTEES.

THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

DIRECTING OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES AND OFFICES TO DEFY LAWFUL SUBPOENAS AND WITHHOLD THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS FROM THE COMMITTEES IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE OFFICE OF MANAGER AND BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND DEFENSE REFUSE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE RECORD OR DOCUMENT, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

DIRECTING CURRENT AND FORMER EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE COMMITTEES IN RESPONSE TO WHICH NINE ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS DEFIED SUBPOENAS FORDOM, NAMELY JOHN MICHAEL MICK MULVANEY, ROBERT B. BLAIR, JOHN A. EISENBERG, MICHAEL ELLIS, PRESTON WELLS GRIFFITH, RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, MICHAEL DUFFEY, BRYAN McKORMAN AND T. BRECTLE, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

THESE ACTIONS WERE CONSISTENT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PREVIOUS EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS INTO FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN U.S.

ELECTIONS, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

THROUGH THESE ACTIONS, PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO ARROGATE TO HIMSELF THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE PROPRIETY, SCOPE AND NATURE OF IMPEACHMENT CHOIRN CONDUCT AS WELL AS UNILATERAL PREROGATIVE TO DENY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SHOAL POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC, NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER ORDERED THE COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OR SOUGHT TO OBSTRUCT AND IMPEDE SO COMPREHENSIVELY THE ABILITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO INVESTIGATE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

THE ABUSE OF OFFICE SERVED TO COVER UP THE PRESIDENT'S OWN REPEATED MISCONDUCT AND TO SEIZE AND CONTROL THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND, THUS, TO NULLIFY A VITAL SAFEGUARD VESTED SOLELY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

IN ALL OF THIS, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ACTED IN A CONTRARY TO HIS TRUST, AS PRESIDENT AND SUBVERVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT TO THE GREAT PREJUDICE OF THE CAUSE OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND TO THE MANIFEST INJURE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

WHEREAS OR WHEREVER PRESIDENT TRUMP, BY SUCH CONDUCT, HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE WILL REMAIN A THREAT TO THE CONSTITUTION IF ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE AND HAS ACTED IN A MANNER GROSSLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH SELF-GOVERNMENT AND THE RULE OF LAW, THAT HAS BEEN PROVED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP THUS WARRANTS IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL, REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD AND ENJOY ANY OFFICE OF HONOR, TRUST OR PROFIT UNDER THE UNITED STATES, THAT WILL BE FOR YOU TO DETERMINE.

LET ME SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SECOND ARTICLE.

THE FACTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S DEFIANCE OF CONGRESS ARE VERY SIMPLE, BECAUSE THEY WERE SO UNIFORM, BECAUSE THEY WERE SO CATEGORICAL, BECAUSE THEY ARE SO UNCONTESTED.

BUT DO NOT MISTAKE FOR A MO MOMENT -- >> THIS PROGRAM MADE POSSIBLE BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FOR VIEWERS LIKE YOU, THANK YOU.

>> Woodruff: GOOD EVENING, I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, AND WE ARE BACK WITH OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, THIS IS THE THIRD AND FINAL DAY.

>> -- OR THAT ARTICLE ONE IS TREASON OR THAT ARTICLE ONE IS BRIBERY, THERE WILL NEVER BE AN ARTICLE ONE IF THE CONGRESS CAN'T INVESTIGATE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

IF THE CONGRESS CANNOT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT PREVENTS IT INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WRONGDOING, THERE WILL NEVER BE AN ARTICLE ONE.

BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO MORE IMPEACHMENT POWER.

IT WILL BE GONE.

IT WILL BE GONE.

AS I SAID BEFORE, OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE WILL SURVIVE.

GOD WILLING, OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE WILL SURVIVE, AND UKRAINE WILL PROSPER, AND WE WILL GET BEYOND THIS UGLY CHAPTER OF OUR HISTORY.

BUT IF WE ARE TO DECIDE HERE THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN SIMPLY SAY, UNDER ARTICLE TWO, I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT, AND I DON'T HAVE TO TREAT A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT LIKE IT EXISTS, I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT ANY MORE THAN THE BACK OF MY HAND, THAT WILL BE AN UNENDING INJURY TO THIS COUNTRY.

UKRAINE WILL SURVIVE, AND SO WILL WE, BUT THAT WILL BE AN UNENDING INJURY TO THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THE BALANCE OF POWER THAT OUR FOUNDERS SET OUT WILL NEVER BE THE SAME.

WILL NEVER BE THE SAME.

THE PRESIDENT CAN SIMPLY SAY, I'M GOING TO FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS.

AND I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING ELSE, TRUISM IN THE COURTS IS JUST AS TRUE HERE IN THE SENATE, WHERE THEY SAY JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.

YOU GIVE THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER THE UNILATERAL POWER TO DELAY AS LONG AS HE OR SHE LIKES, TO LITIGATE MATTERS FOR YEARS AND YEARS IN THE COURTS AND DO NOT FOOL YOURSELF INTO THINKING IT IS ANYTHING LESS.

IN APRIL, IT WILL BE A YEAR SINCE WE SUBPOENAED DON MCGHAN, AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF AN END TO THAT CASE.

AND I'LL TELL YOU, WHEN IT GETS TO THE SUPREME COURT, YOU MIGHT THINK THAT'S THE END, AND THAT'S JUST THE END OF THE FIRST CHAPTER, BECAUSE DON MCGHAN IS A COURT SAYING I AM ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE TO TESTIMONY.

THAT'S BEEN REJECTED BY EVERY COURT THAT'S LOOKED AT IT.

WE'LL SEE WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SUPREME COURT SAYS AND WHEN WE PREVAIL IN THE SUPREME COURT, YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS?

THAT'S NOT THE END OF THE MATTER, IT COMES BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT, AND THEN, WELL, THEY CAN'T CLAIM ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY ANYMORE, THEY CAN'T CLAIM WE DON'T HAVE TO BOTHER SHOWING UP, SO THEY TURN TO PLAN B, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

WE'RE GOING TO SAY WE CAN'T AND WON'T ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE REALLY PERTINENT TO YOUR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND LET'S START OUT IN DISTRICT COURT AND THEN GO TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND TO THE SUPREME COURT.

YOU CAN GAIN THE SYSTEM FOR YEARS -- YOU CAN GAME THE SYSTEM FOR YEARS.

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED AND SO IS TRUE OF PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

SO WHEN YOU SUGGEST OR I SUGGEST OR ANYONE WITH SUGGESTS OR THE I SUGGEST OR THE WHITE HOUSE SUGGESTS, WHY DIDN'T THE HOUSE JUST EXHAUST THEIR REMEDIES AS IF, IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHERE IT SAYS THE HOUSE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, THERE'S AN ASTERISK THAT SAYS AFTER EXHAUSTING ALL REMEDIES AND GOING TO THE APPEALS COURT AND SUPREME COURT, LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES ABOUT WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS.

WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS YOU ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO CONTROL THE TIMING OF HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT, OR IF IT WILL EVER BE PERMITTED TO COME BEFORE THIS BODY.

THAT IS NOT AN IMPEACHMENT POWER, THAT IS THE ABSENCE OF AN IMPEACHMENT POWER.

ARTICLE 2 IS EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS ARTICLE ONE.

WITHOUT ARTICLE TWO, THERE IS NO ARTICLE ONE EVER AGAIN, NO MATTER HOW EGREGIOUS THIS PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT OR ANY OTHER, IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

IF YOU CAN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE AN IMPEACHMENT POWER, YOU MIGHT AS WELL NOT PUT IT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

NOW, SHORTLY, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION, AND AS WE WILL NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO RESPOND TO WHAT THEY SAY, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE PREVIEW OF WHAT I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU.

SO THAT WHEN YOU DO HEAR IT, YOU CAN PUT IT INTO SOME PERSPECTIVE.

I EXPECT THAT THEY WILL ATTACK THE PROCESS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S ANY MYSTERY.

BUT I WANT TO TELL YOU BOTH WHAT I EXPECT THEY WILL SHARE WITH YOU AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.

WHEN YOU CUT THROUGH ALL THE CHAFF, WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN THAT THEY'RE SAYING?

SO HERE'S WHAT I EXPECT THAT THEY WILL TELL YOU.

THE PROCESS WAS SO UNFAIR.

IT WAS THE MOST UNFAIR IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, BECAUSE IN THE HOUSE, THEY TOOK DEPOSITIONS.

HOW DARE THEY TAKE DEPOSITIONS!

HOW DARE THEY LISTEN TO TREY GOWDY!

HOW DARE THEY FOLLOW THE REPUBLICAN PROCEDURES THAT PRECEDED THEIR INVESTIGATION, HOW DARE THEY!

AND THEY WERE SO SECRET IN THE BUNKER AND THE BASEMENT, AS IF, WHETHER ON THE GROUND FLOOR OR THE BASEMENT OR THE FIRST FLOOR MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE, THOSE SUPER SECRET DEPOSITIONS IN WHICH ONLY 100 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, GIVE RENT LENT TO THE ENTIRE SENATE COULD PARTICIPATE, THAT'S HOW SECRET THEY WERE, THAT'S HOW EX EXCLUSIVE THEY WERE, EVERY DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN ON THREE COMMITTEES COULD PARTICIPATE.

THAT WAS ENOUGH, SO YOU HAD MORE STORM THE SKIFF, RIGHT?

SO YOU HAVE 100 PEOPLE CAN PARTICIPATE BUT YOU HEARD EARLIER, BUT THE REPUBLICANS WEREN'T ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE.

OKAY, THAT'S JUST FALSE.

DO YOU KNOW HOW WE DID IT IN THE SUPER SECT DEPOSITIONS?

YOU CAN LOOK IT UP BECAUSE WE RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPTS.

WE GOT AN HOUR, THEY GOT AN HOUR.

WE GOT 45 MINUTES, THEY GOT 45 MINUTES, AND WE DID THAT BACK AND FORTH UNTIL EVERYONE WAS DONE ASKING THEIR QUESTIONS.

NOW, YOU DIDN'T HEAR, OH, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WAS SO UNFAIR, HE WOULDN'T ALLOW US TO ASK OUR QUESTIONS.

>> WELL, THERE WERE CERTAIN QUESTIONS I DIDN'T ALLOW, QUESTIONS LIKE WHO'S THE WHISTLEBLOWER, BECAUSE WE WANT TO PUNISH THAT WHISTLEBLOWER.

YES, SOME OF US IN THIS HOUSE AND THIS HOUSE BELIEVE WE OUGHT TO PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS.

SO, YES, I DID NOT ALLOW THE OUTING OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

SO WHEN THEY SAY THE CHAIRMAN WOULDN'T ALLOW CERTAIN QUESTIONS, THAT'S WHAT THEY MEAN.

IT MEANS THAT WE PROTECT, PEOPLE HAVE THE COURAGE TO COME FORWARD AND BLOW THE WHISTLE.

NOW, WE DON'T THINK, THOUGH THE PRESIDENT MIGHT, THAT THEY ARE TRAITORS AND SPIES.

TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE WHO BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON MISCONDUCT OF THE SERIOUS NATURE THAT YOU NOW KNOW TOOK PLACE IS A TRAITOR OR SPY, THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY YOU CAN COME TO THAT CONCLUSION, AND THAT IS IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE THE STATE AND THAT ANYTHING THAT CONTRADICTS YOU IS TREASON.

THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU CAN CONCEIVE OF SOMEONE WHO EXPOSES WRONGDOING IS A TRAITOR OR A SPY.

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY HOW THIS PRESIDENT VIEWS THOSE WHO EXPOSE HIS WRONGDOING BECAUSE HE IS THE STATE.

LIKE ANY GOOD MONARCH, HE IS THE STATE.

AND YOU WILL HEAR THE PRESIDENT WAS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

WELL, THAT'S FALSE, TOO, AS YOU'VE HEARD.

THE PRESIDENT HAD THE SAME RIGHTS IN OUR PROCEEDINGS AS PRESIDENT NIXON AND PRESIDENT CLINTON.

BUT, NONETHELESS, YOU WILL HEAR IT WAS SO UNFAIR.

ONE OTHER THING THAT WAS REALLY UNFAIR IS ALL THE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID BECAUSE THE HOUSE DIDN'T PASS A RESOLUTION ANNOUNCING ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

NEVER MIND THAT WE ACTUALLY DID.

THE PROBLEM WAS THEY SAID, WELL, WE HADN'T AND THEN WE DID AND THE PROBLEM WAS, WELL, YOU DID.

NOW, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE HOUSE WILL HAVE THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, IF WE WANT TO DO IT BY HOUSE RESOLUTION, WE CAN DO IT BY HOUSE RESOLUTION.

WE WANT TO DO IT BY COMMITTEE, WE CAN DO IT BY COMMITTEE.

IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PLACE TO TELL US HOW TO CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING ANYMORE THAN IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S PLACE TO TELL YOU HOW YOU SHOULD TRY IT.

SO WHEN YOU SEE THAT EIGHT-PAGE DIE TRIBE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SAYING WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OR WE SHOULDVANBON ABLE TO HAVE THIS, WHAT YOU SHOULD HEAR, WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN IS DONALD TRUMP HAD THE TRYING TO CONTROL HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING, AND IT'S AN OUTRAGE THAT DONALD TRUMP DIDN'T GET TO WRITE THE RULES OF HIS OWN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IN THE HOUSE.

YOU GIVE A PRESIDENT THAT RIGHT, THERE IS NO IMPEACHMENT POWER.

SO WHEN YOU HEAR THEM SAY THAT, WHEN YOU HEAR THEM COMPLAIN ABOUT DEPOSITIONS THAT WERE THE SAME AS THE REPUBLICANS OR THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE THAT WAS THE SAME IN CLINTON AND NIXON, AND, BY THE WAY, THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO CALL WITNESSES, THEY SAID.

WELL, THREE OF THE 12 WITNESSES WE HEARD IN OUR OPEN HEARINGS WERE THE MINORITY WITNESS REQUESTS.

SO YOU WILL HEAR THOSE ARGUMENTS MOST UNFAIR.

THE FACT IS WE HAVE THE SAME PROCESS.

IN THE OTHER IMPEACHMENTS, THE MAJORITY DIDN'T SURRENDERING THE SUBPOENA POWER.

THEY SAID YOU CAN SUBPOENAT WITNESSES AND IF THE MAJORITY DOESN'T AGREE, YOU CAN FORCE A VOTE.

THE MAJORITY DOES NOT SURRENDER ITS IMPEACHMENT POWER.

DIDN'T IN THE PRIOR IMPEACHMENT AND DIDN'T IN THIS ONE.

WHEN THEY SAY THE PROCESS WAS UNFAIR, WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN IS DON'T LOOK AT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID, FOR GOD'S SAKE, DON'T LOOK AT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.

I THINK THE SECOND THING YOU WILL HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS ATTACK THE MANAGERS.

THOSE MANAGERS ARE JUST AWFUL, TERRIBLE PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THE SCHIFF GUY, HE'S THE WORST.

HE'S THE WORST.

AND EXHIBIT A, HE MOCKED THE PRESIDENT.

HE MOCKED THE PRESIDENT.

HE MOCKED THE PRESIDENT AS IF HE WAS SHAKING DOWN THE LEADER OF ANOTHER COUNTRY LIKE HE WAS AN ORGANIZED CRIME FIGURE.

HE MOCKED THE PRESIDENT.

HE SAID, IT WAS LIKE THE PRESIDENT SAID, LISTEN, ZELENSKY, BECAUSE I'M ONLY GOING TO SAY THIS SEVEN TIMES.

WELL, I DISCOVERED SOMETHING VERY SIGNIFICANT BY MOCKING THE PRESIDENT, AND THAT IS FOR A MAN WHO LOVES TO MOCK OTHERS, HE DOES NOT LIKE TO BE MOCKED.

TURNS OUT, HE'S GOT A PRETTY THIN SKIN.

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT.

NEVER MIND I WASN'T SAYING I WASN'T USING HIS WORDS BEFORE I SAID IT OR AFTER I SAID IT AND I SAID I WAS MAKING A PARODY OF HIS WORDS, IT'S AN OUTRAGE.

HE MOCKED THE PRESIDENT!

THAT SCHIFF!

TERRIBLE!

NOW, THEY WILL ATTACK MY OTHER COLLEAGUES, TOO, FOR THINGS SAID IN THE HEAT OF DEBATE HERE ON THE FLOOR, AS WE WERE REACHING THE WEE HOURS OF THE MORNING, AND THEY ARE ATTACK SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO AREN'T EVEN IN THIS CHAMBER.

MAYBE THEY'LL ATTACK THE SQUAD, THAT'S A PERENNIAL FAVORITE WITH THE PRESIDENT.

THEY ATTACK THE SQUAD, YOU SHOULD ASK, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF BEANS?

BUT YOU CAN EXPECT A TAX ON ALL KINDS OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUES BEFORE YOU.

AND WHEN YOU HEAR THOSE ATTACKS, YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF, AWAY FROM WHAT DO THEY WANT TO DISTRACT MY ATTENTION BECAUSE NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN, IT WILL BE THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT, BUT LOOK FOR IT, ATTACKS ON THE MANAGERS, ATTACKS ON OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS, ATTACKS ON THE SPEAKER, ATTACKS ON WHO KNOWS WHAT.

IT'S ALL OF THE SAME ILK.

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT.

YOU WILL ALSO HEAR TA ATTACKS ON THE CONSTITUTION.

IT WON'T BE FRAMED AS ATTACKS ON THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT REPRESENTS, AND THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER DOESN'T VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ABUSE THEIR POWER.

THAT'S THE ARGUMENT.

OKAY, I KNOW IT'S A HARD ARGUMENT TO MAKE, RIGHT?

PRESIDENTS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABUSE ABUSE THEIR POWD HOW DARE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ACCUSE A PRESIDENT OF ABUSING HIS POWER.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT BY ALAN DERSHOWITZ BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW HOW ABUSING POWER AND TRUST IS NOT IMPEACHABLE NOW BUT IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO BECAUSE THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION BETWEEN THE TIME HE SAID IT WAS IMPEACHABLE AND THE TIME HE'S SAYING NOW THAT APPARENTLY IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT ARGUMENT.

I'M ALSO LOOKING FORWARD TO KEN STARR'S PRESENTATION BECAUSE, DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, HE MAINTAINED THAT A PRESIDENT NOT ONLY COULD BUT MUST BE IMPEACHED FOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, BUT BILL CLINTON NEEDED TO BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE LIED UNDER OATH ABOUT SEX AND TO DO SO OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

YOU CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE BUT YOU CANNOT BE IMPEACHED FOR OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS.

NOW, I HAVE TO CONFESS, I DON'T EXACTLY HOW THAT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK BECAUSE THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION FROM THAT IS KEN STARR SAYING THAT BILL CLINTON'S MISTAKE WAS IN SHOWING UP UNDER SUBPOENA, THAT BILL CLINTON'S MISTAKE WAS NOT SAYING I'M GOING TO FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS, THAT BILL CLINTON'S MISTAKE WAS IN MOTT TAKING THE POSITION THAT UNDER ARTICLE TWO, HE COULD DO WHATEVER HE WANTED.

DOES THAT REALLY MAKE ANY SENSE?

YOU CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR OBSTRUCTING YOUR OWN BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, BUT YOU CANNOT BE IMPEACHED FOR OBSTRUCT AGO CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

THAT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE TO THE FRAMERS.

I HAVE TO THINK, OVER THE CENTURIES AS THEY WATCHED US, THEY WOULD BE ASTONISHED THAT ANYONE WOULD TAKE THAT ARGUMENT SERIOUSLY, COULD SO MISAPPREHEND HOW THIS BALANCE OF POWER WAS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT ARGUMENT AND, MAYBE, WHEN THEY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, THEY CAN EXPLAIN TO US WHY THEIR POSITION ON ABUSE OF POWER ISN'T EVEN SUPPORTED BY THEIR OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SO I HOPE THEY WILL ANSWER WHY EVEN THEIR OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T AGREE WITH THEM, NOT TO MENTION, BY THE WAY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT CALLED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE WHO ALSO TESTIFIED AS TO ABUSE OF POWER, THAT IT IS IMPEACHABLE.

YOU DON'T NEED A CRIME, IT'S IMPEACHABLE.

NOW, WHEN YOU HEAR THEM MAKE THESE ARGUMENTS, CANNOT BE IMPEACHED FOR ABUSING YOUR POWER, THIS IS WHAT IT REALLY MEANS -- WE CANNOT DEFEND HIS CONDUCT, AND, SO, WE WANT TO MAKE IT GO ALL THE WAY WITHOUT EVEN HAVING TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

YOU DON'T EVEN NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID BECAUSE THE HOUSE CHARGED IT WRONG, AND, SO, DON'T EVEN CONSIDER WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.

THAT'S WHAT THAT ARGUMENT MEANS.

WE CAN'T DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE, SO EVE TO FALL BACK ON EVEN IF HE ABUSED HIS OFFICE, EVEN IF HE DID ALL THE THINGS HE'S ACCUSED OF, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE, NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.

NOW, YOU WILL ALSO HEAR, AS PART OF THE DEFENSE, AND YOU HEARD THIS FROM JAY SEKULOW, I THINK THE LAST THING HE SAID, THE WHISTLEBLOWER!

AND THEN HE STEPPED BACK TO THE TABLE.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER!

NOW, I DON'T KNOW REALLY KNOWT WHAT THAT MEANT.

BUT I SUSPECT YOU WILL HEAR MORE OF THAT, THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

IT'S HIS OR HER FAULT THAT WE'RE HERE, THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

YOU KNOW, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT AGAIN.

WHEN YOU READ THAT COMPLAINT AGAIN, YOU WILL SEE JUST HOW REMARKABLY ACCURATE IT IS.

IT'S ASTONISHINGLY ACCURATE.

YOU KNOW, FOR ALL THE TIMES THE PRESIDENT IS OUT THERE SAYING, THAT COMPLAINT WAS ALL WRONG, WAS ALL WRONG!

YOU READ IT!

NOW THAT YOU HAVE HEARD THE EVIDENCE, YOU READ IT AND YOU WILL SEE HOW REMARKABLY RIGHT THE WHISTLEBLOWER GOT IT.

NOW, WHEN THAT COMPLAINT WAS FILED, OBVIOUSLY BEFORE WE HAD OUR DEPOSITIONS AND HAD OUR HEARINGS, ALL OF WHICH OBVIATED THE NEED FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

IN THE BEGINNING, WE WANTED THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO COME AND TESTIFY BECAUSE ALL WE KNEW ABOUT WAS THE COMPLAINT, BUT THEN WE WERE ABLE TO HEAR FROM FIRSTHAND WITNESSES ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, AND THEN SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENED.

THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES BEGAN THREATENING THE WHISTLEBLOWER, AND THE LIFE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS AT RISK, AND WHAT WAS THE POINT IN EXPOSING THAT WHISTLEBLOWER TO THE RISK OF HIS OR HER LIFE WHEN WE HAD THE EVIDENCE WE NEED?

WHAT WAS THE POINT?

EXCEPT RETRIBUTION, RETRIBUTION, AND THE PRESIDENT WANTS IT STILL.

YOU KNOW WHY THE PRESIDENT IS MAD AT THE WHISTLEBLOWER?

BECAUSE, BUT FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER, HE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CAUGHT.

AND THAT IS AN UNFORGIVABLE SIN.

HE IS THE STATE AND, BUT FOR THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CAUGHT.

FOR THAT, HE'S A SPY AND HE'S GUILTY OF TREASON.

NOW, WHAT DOES HE ADD TO THIS?

NOTHING BUT RETRIBUTION, A POUND OF FLESH.

YOU WILL ALSO HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE, THEY HATE THE PRESIDENT, THEY HATE THE PRESIDENT.

YOU SHOULD NOT CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT BECAUSE THEY HATE THE PRESIDENT.

NOW, WHAT I'VE SAID, I LEAVE YOU TO YOUR OWN JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.

I ONLY HATE WHAT HE'S DONE TO THIS COUNTRY.

I GRIEVE FOR WHAT HE'S DONE TO THIS COUNTRY.

BUT WHEN THEY MAKE THE ARGUMENT TO YOU THAT THIS IS ONLY HAPPENING BECAUSE THEY HATE THE PRESIDENT, IT IS JUST ANOTHER OF THE MYRIAD FORMS OF PLEASE DO NOT CONSIDER WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.

WHETHER YOU LIKE THE PRESIDENT OR YOU DISLIKE THE PRESIDENT IS IMMATERIAL.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND HIS MISCONDUCT.

IF IT MEANS THE STANDARD OF IMIMPEACHABLE CONDUCT AS WE APPROVED, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU LIKE IT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER YOU DISLIKE HIM.

WHAT MATTERS IS WHETHER HE IS A DANGER TO THE COUNTRY BECAUSE HE WILL DO IT AGAIN, AND NONE OF US CAN HAVE CONFIDENCE BASED ON HIS RECORD THAT HE WILL NOT DOT IT AGAIN BECAUSE HE IS TELLING US EVERYDAY THAT HE WILL.

NOW, YOU WILL HEAR THE FURTHER DEFENSE THAT BIDEN IS CORRUPT, THAT JOE BIDEN IS CORRUPT, THAT HUNTER BIDEN IS CORRUPT.

THIS IS THEIR DEFENSE.

WHAT THEY HOPE TO ACHIEVE IN THE SENATE TRIAL IS WHAT THEY COULDN'T ACHIEVE THROUGH THEIR SCHEME.

IF THEY COULDN'T GET UKRAINE TO SMEAR THE BIDENS, THEY WANT TO USE THIS TRIAL TO DO IT INSTEAD.

SO LET'S CALL HUNTER BIDEN, LET'S SMEAR THE BIDENS, LET'S SUCCEED IN THE TRIAL WITH WHAT WE COULDN'T DO WITH THIS SCHEME.

THAT'S THE GOAL.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER RUDY GIULIANI, WHO SAID HE WAS GOING TO PRESENT HIS REPORT TO SOME OF THE SENATORS AS PRESENTED HIS REPORT, MAYBE HE HAS, MAYBE HE'LL FETE TO SEE WHAT'S IN RUDY GIULIANI'S REPORT.

MAYBE YOU WILL GET TO SEE SOME DOCUMENTS SMEARING THE BIDENS PRODUCED BY -- WHO KNOWS.

MAYBE THE SAME RUSSIAN CORRUPT FORMER PROSECUTORS.

BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT WHAT THAT'S ABOUT.

IT'S ABOUT COMPLETING THE OBJECT OF THE SCHEME THROUGH OTHER MEANS, THROUGH THE MEANS OF THIS TRIAL.

YOU MAY HEAR THE ARGUMENT THAT WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING WHEN HE IS OBSTRUCTING CONGRESS IS PROTECTING THE OFFICE FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT TO DONALD TRUMP THAN PROTECTING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS.

AND I SUPPOSE, WHEN HE WITHHELD MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE, HE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT FUTURE PRESIDENTS, AND WHEN HE SOUGHT TO COERCE A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTION HE WAS DOING IT ON BEHALF OF FUTURE PRESIDENTS BECAUSE FUTURE PRESIDENTS MIGHT LIKEWISE WISH TO CHEAT IN FURTHER ELECTIONS.

I DON'T THINK THAT ARGUMENT GOES VERY FAR, BUT I EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR IT, I EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR IT.

YOU MAY HEAR AN ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION, AND HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.

I WON'T SPEND MUCH TIME ON THAT BECAUSE YOU'VE HEARD THE EVIDENCE ON THAT.

THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH CORRUPTION AND EVERY -- EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FIGHTING CORRUPTION OR BURDEN SHARING, INDEED, NOTHING ABOUT THE BURDEN CHANGED BETWEEN THE TIME HE FROZE THE AID AND THE TIME HE RELEASED THE AID, THERE WAS NO NEW EFFORT TO GET OTHERS TO CONTRIBUTE MORE AND EUROPE CONTRIBUTES A GREAT DEAL AS IT IS.

THIS IS AN AFTER-THE-FACT RATIONALIZATION.

YOU PROBABLY SAW THE PUBLIC REPORTING THAT THERE WAS AN EXHAUSTIVE EFFORT AFTER THE FACT TO COME UP WITH A POST-HOCK RATIONALIZATION FOR THIS SCHEME.

I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THE PRODUCT OF THAT INVESTIGATION, BUT I'LL NEED YOUR HELP, BECAUSE IT IS AMONG THE DOCUMENTS THEY REFUSE TO TURN OVER.

THEY WILL SHOW YOU JUST WHAT AN AFTER-THE-FACT INVENTION THIS ARGUMENT IS.

NOW, I EXPECT YOU WILL HEAR THE ARGUMENT, OBAMA DID IT.

OBAMA DID IT.

NOW, THAT MAY TAKE SEVERAL DIFFERENT FORMS, BUT THE FORM OF OBAMA DID IT THAT I'M REFERRING TO IS OBAMA ALSO WITHHELD AID.

HONESTLY, I THINK THAT ARGUMENT IS AN INSULT TO OUR INTELLIGENCE BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT IS OBAMA WITHHELD AID FROM EGYPT, AND HE MADE A CONDITION WITH IT.

OBAMA WITHHELD AID FROM EGYPT AFTER THEY HAD A REVOLUTION AND CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGED.

YOU KNOW SOMETHING?

HE DIDN'T HIDE IT FROM CONGRESS.

IN FACT, CONGRESS SUPPORTED IT.

AAND, YES, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE'VE WITHHELD AID FOR A GOOD POLICY REASON, NOT A CORRUPT EFFORT TO GET HELP IN YOUR ELECTION.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG, THEY CAN RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AID THAT IS WITHHELD FOR A MALICIOUS PURPOSE AND AID THAT IS HELD IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

BUT YOU WILL HEAR IT THE "OBSEROBAMA DID IT " ARGUMENT.

YOU WILL HEAR "THE CALL WAS PERFECT."

NOW, I SUSPECT THE REASON THEY WILL MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE CALL WAS PERFECT IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT INSISTS THAT THEY DO.

I DON'T THINK THEY REALLY WANT TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

YOU WOULDN'T EITHER.

BUT THEY HAVE A CLIENT TO REPRESENT AND, SO, THEY WILL MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE CALL WAS PERFECT.

AND THEY WILL ALSO MAKE THE ARGUMENT UKRAINE THINKS THE CALL WAS PERFECT.

UKRAINE SAYS THERE WAS NO PRESSURE.

WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS IS UKRAINE WANTS A FUTURE, UKRAINE KNOWS IT'S STILL BEHOLDEN TO US FOR AID, UKRAINE STILL HASN'T GOTTEN IN THROUGH THE DOOR OF THE WHITE HOUSE, UKRAINE KNOWS IF THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THEY WERE SHAKEN DOWN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL MAKE THEM PAY.

SO WHEN YOU HEAR THEM SAY, UKRAINE FELT NO PRESSURE, AND THEIR PROOF IS BECAUSE THE UKRAINE PRESIDENT DOESN'T WANT TO CALL THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES A BAD NAME, YOU WILL KNOW WHY, BECAUSE THEY NEED AMERICA.

THEY NEED AMERICA.

THE FRAMERS DID NOT EXPECT YOU TO LEAVE YOUR COMMON SENSE AT THE DOOR.

NOW, YOU WILL ALSO HEAR THE DEFENSE.

THE PRESIDENT SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

THE PRESIDENT SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

I GUESS THAT'S THE END OF THE STORY.

THIS IS A WELL-KNOWN PRINCIPLE OF CRIMINAL LAW THAT IF THE DEFENDANT SAYS HE DIDN'T DO IT, HE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.

IF THE DEFENDANT LEARNS THAT HE'S BEEN CAUGHT AND HE SAYS HE DIDN'T DO IT, HE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.

THAT DOESN'T HOLD UP IN ANY COURT IN THE LAND.

IT SHOULDN'T HOLD UP HERE.

YOU ALSO HEAR A VERSION OF THE ARGUMENT NO HARM, NO FOUL.

THEY GOT THE MONEY.

THEY GOT THE MONEY.

AND THEY GOT THE MEETING, EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T.

THEY GOT THE MEETING ON THE SIDELINE OF THE U.N., KIND OF A DRIVE-BY, BUT THEY GOT A MEETING.

NO HARM NO FOUL, RIGHT?

MEETING ON THE SIDELINES IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING, RIGHT, AS THE HEAD OF STATE MEETING OF THE OVAL OFFICE?

OF COURSE IT'S NOT.

WHY DO YOU THINK, AT THAT MEETING, AT THE UNITED NATIONS, THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WAS STILL SAYING, HEY, WHEN AM I GOING TO GET TO COME TO DOWN?

TOWN?

HE CERTAINLY RECOGNIZES THE DIFFERENCE AND WE SHOULD, TOO.

WHAT'S MORE, THERE'S EVERY BIT OF HARM AND FOUL WITHHOLDING AID FROM AN ALLY AT WAR AND RELEASING IT ONLY WHEN YOU'RE CAUGHT.

RUSSIA KNOWS NOW ABOUT THE WEDGE IN OUR RELATIONS WITH UKRAINE.

THE MOMENT RUSSIA FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS, AND I HAVE TO IMAGINE, GIVEN HOW GOOD THEIR INTEL SERVICES, ARE THEY DID NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR POLITICO TO BREAK THE STORY ANY MORE THAN UKRAINE DID.

IN FACT, THERE'S SO DEEP A PENETRATION OF UKRAINE, I WOULD SUSPECT THE RUSSIANS FOUND OUT AT LEAST AS EARLY AS THE UKRAINIANS MOMENT UKRAINE LEARNM UKRAINE KNEW THEY COULDN'T TRUST US, RUSSIA KNEW THEY COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF US.

THERE WAS IMMEDIATE HARM.

AND BECAUSE SOMEONE IS CAUGHT, BECAUSE A SCHEME IS THWARTED DOESN'T MAKE THAT SCHEME ANY LESS CRIMINAL AND CORRUPT.

YOU GET NO PASS WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT.

NOW, I EXPECT ONE OF THE DEFENSES YOU'LL SEE IS THEY WILL PLAY YOU CERTAIN TESTIMONY FROM THE HOUSE WHERE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE ASKED QUESTIONS LIKE, "DID THE PRESIDENT EVER SAY HE WAS BRIBING UKRAINE?

DID YOU EVER SEE HIM ACTUALLY BRIBE UKRAINE?

DID YOU HEAR HIM SAY THAT HE WAS GOING TO BRIBE UKRAINE?

DID YOU PERSONALLY SEE THIS YOURSELF?

AND IF YOU DIDN'T SEE IT, IF HE DIDN'T LAY IT OUT FOR YOU, THEN IT COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED."

TWO PLUS TWO DOES NOT EQUAL FOUR.

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR A TELEVISED CONFESSION BY THE PRESIDENT.

AND EVEN THEN, DON'T CONSIDER IT.

SO I IMAGINE YOU'LL HEAR SOME OF THAT TESTIMONY WHERE WITNESSES ARE ASKED, THEY WORK FOR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, "WELL, DID THE PRESIDENT EVER TELL YOU THAT HE WAS CONDITIONING THE AID?

NEVER MIND THAT THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T NECESSARILY EVEN TALK TO THE PRESIDENT.

BUT I EXPECT YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THAT.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU'LL HEAR THE DEFENSE, "WE CLAIM PRIVILEGE.

YOU CAN'T IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OVER THE EXERCISE OF PRIVILEGE.

NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT THEY NEVER CLAIMED PRIVILEGE.

THEY NEVER ASERTED PRIVILEGE.

AND YOU KNOW WHY?

YOU KNOW WHY THEY NEVER ACTUALLY INVOKED PRIVILEGE IN THE HOUSE?

IT'S BECAUSE IF THEY KNOW THEY DTHEY'D HAVE TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS AND THEY'D HAVE TO SHOW WHAT THEY WERE REDACTING, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO EVEN THAT.

THEY KNEW THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY THERE WAS NO EVEN OCCURRABLE CLAVE OF PRIVILEGE, SO THEY DIDN'T EVEN WANT TO INVOKE IT.

ALL THEY WOULD SAY IS, "MAYBE SOME DAY."

BUT YOU WILL HEAR THAT YOU CAN'T BE IMPEACHEDLY FOR A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE THEY NEVER MADE.

SO WHAT DO ALL THESE DEFENSES MEAN?

WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

WHAT DO THEY MEAN COLLECTIVELY WHEN YOU ADD THEM ALL UP?

WHAT THEY MEAN IS UNDER ARTICLE II THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

THAT'S REALLY IT.

THAT'S REALLY IT, STRIPPED OF ALL THE DETAIL AND ALL THE HISTRIONICS.

WHAT THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE IS THE PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS UNDER ARTICLE II, AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT YOU OR THE HOUSE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

ROBERT KENNEDY ONCE SAID, "MORAL COURAGE IS A RARER COMMODITY THAN BRAVERY IN BATTLE OR GREAT INTELLIGENCE.

YET, IT IS THE ONE ESSENTIAL, VITAL QUALITY FOR THOSE WHO SEEK TO CHANGE THE WORLD WHICH YIELDS MOST PAINFULLY TO CHANGE.

MORAL COURAGE IS A RARER COMMODITY THAN BRAVERY IN BATTLE."

I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN I FIRST READ THAT, I WASN'T SURE I AGREED.

"MORAL COURAGE IS A RARER QUALITY THAN COURAGE IN BATTLE"?

THAT JUST DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.

I WASN'T SURE I REALLY AGREED.

AND FOR A DEMOCRAT NOT TO AGREE WITH A KENNEDY IS HIND OF A HERESY.

I'M SURE SOME OF MY G.O.P.

COLLEAGUES FEEL THE SAME ABOUT THE KENNEDYS FROM LOUISIANA.

AFTER ALL WHAT, COULD BE MORE BRAVE THAN COURAGE IN BATTLE?

WHAT COULD BE MORE RARE THAN COURAGE IN BATTLE?

BUT THEN I GOT TO VISIT, AS I KNOW ALL OF YOU HAVE, OUR SERVICE MEMBERS AROUND THE WORLD AND SEE JUST HOW BLESSED WE ARE WITH AN ABUNDANCE OF HEROES BY THE MILLIONS WHO HAVE JOINED THE SERVICE OF THIS COUNTRY, SERVICE MEMBERS WHO EVERY DAY DEMONSTRATE THE MOST INCREDIBLE BRAVERY.

I JUST HAVE THE GREATEST RESPECT FOR THEM, FOR PEOPLE LIKE JASON CROW AND JOHN McCAIN AND DANIEL INOUYE AND SO MANY OTHERS WHO SERVED IN THIS BODY AND THE OTHER, WHO SERVED IN OFFICE BY THE MILLIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY AND ALL AROUND THE WORLD.

MOST INCREDIBLE RESPECT.

IT'S AN AMAZING THING HOW COMMON IS THEIR UNCOMMON BRAVERY.

MY FATHER'S 92.

HE'S PROBABLY WATCHING.

HE'S PART OF THE GREATEST GENERATION, LEFT HIGH SCHOOL EARLY TO JOIN THE SERVICE.

HE TRIED TO ENLIST IN THE MARINE CORPS, AND HE FAILED THE PHYSICAL.

SO AT THE END OF WORLD WAR II, FAILED THE PHYSICAL.

BAD EYESIGHT AND FLAT FEET WHICH WAS, APPARENTLY, ENOUGH TO FAIL THE PHYSICAL.

SO TWO WEEKS LATER, HE WENT TO TRY TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY, THINKING THAT MAYBE IT'S A DIFFERENT PHYSICAL STANDARD, AND EVEN IF IT ISN'T, HE'D GET THE DIFFERENT PHYSICIAN.

TURNS OUT, SAME STANDARD, STAY PHYSICIAN.

AND HE RECOGNIZED MY FATHER.

HE SAID, "WEREN'T YOU HERE TWO WEEKS AGO?"

AND MY FATHER SAY, "YEAH."

HE SAID, "UP TO THE GET IN THAT BAD?"

AND MY FATHER SAID, "YEAH."

SO HE GOT IN THE ARMY.

THE WAR WAS OVER SO HE NEVER LEFT THE UNITED STATES.

AND WHEN HE LEFT THE SERVICE, HE WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, AND ABOUT MIDWAY THROUGH, HE WANTED TO GET ON WITH HIS LIFE, AND HE LEFT COLLEGE AND AND WENT OUT INTO THE BUSINESS WORLD, SOMETHING HE ALWAYS REGRETTED, LEAVING COLLEGE EARLY.

ABOUT THE I THINK IN MANY WAYS, HE GOT A BETTER EDUCATION THAN I DID I THINK THAT-- I WAS LUCKY TO GET A GOOD EDUCATION, BUT I THINK, THOSE LIKE JASON OTHER ANDS WHO SERVED IN THE MILITARY AND ALSO WENT TO SCHOOL GOT THE BEST EDUCATION, BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE ONLY CERTAIN THINGS YOU CAN LEARN BY BEING IN THE MILITARY.

CERTAINLY, YOU CAN'T REALLY LEARN, I THINK, ABOUT WAR, WITHOUT GOING TO WAR.

AND MAYBE THERE ARE THINGS YOU CAN'T LEARN ABOUT LIFE WITHOUT GOING TO WAR.

SO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SERVED HAVE THE MOST COMPLETE EDUCATION I THINK THERE IS.

BUT EVEN SO, IS MORAL COURAGE REALLY MORE RARE THAN THAT ON THE BATTLEFIELD?

AND THEN I SAW WHAT ROBERT KENNEDY MEANT BY "MORAL COURAGE."

"FEE," HE SAID, "ARE WILLING TO BRAVEST DISAPPROVAL OF THEIR FELLOWS, THE CENSURE OF THEIR COLLEAGUES, AND THE WRATH OF THEIR SOCIETY."

AND THEN I UNDERSTOOD BY THAT MEASURE JUST HOW RARE MORAL COURAGE IS, HOW MANY OF US ARE WILLING TO BRAVE THE DISAPPROVAL OF OUR FELLOWS, THE CENSURE OF OUR COLLEAGUES, AND THE WRATH OF OUR SOCIETY.

JUST AS THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED IN UNIFORM CAN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SERVED IN UNIFORM CAN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT MILITARY SERVICE MEANS, SO, TOO, THERE IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF FRATERNITY OR SORORITY AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED IN OFFICE.

I ALWAYS TELL MY CONSTITUENTS THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF JOBS IN CONGRESS, AND IT'S NOT DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.

IT'S THOSE FROM A SAFE SEAT AND THOSE FROM AN UNSAFE SEAT.

AND I'M SURE THE SAME IS TRUE OF THOSE FROM A SAFE STATE AND AN UNSAFE STATE.

IT'S WHY I THINK THERE'S A CERTAIN CHEMISTRY BETWEEN MEMBERS WHO REPRESENT THOSE SWING DISTRICTS AND STATES, BECAUSE THEY CAN STEP INTO EACH OTHER'S SHOES.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE IN THIS FELLOWSHIP OF OFFICE HOLDERS UNDERSTAND THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T IS THAT REAL POLITICAL COURAGE DOESN'T COME FROM DISAGREEING WITH OUR OPPONENTS BUT FROM DISAGREEING WITH OUR FRIENDS AND WITH OUR OWN PARTY.

BECAUSE IT MEANS HAVING TO STARE DOWN ACCUSATIONS OF DISLOYALTY AND BETRAYAL.

"HE'S A DEMOCRAT IN NAME ONLY," OR "SHE'S A REPUBLICAN IN NAME ONLY."

WHAT I SAID LAST NIGHT, IF IT RESONATED WITH ANYONE IN THIS CHAMBER, DIDN'T REQUIRE COURAGE.

MY VIEWS, AS HEARTFELT AS THEY ARE, REFLECT THE VIEWS OF MY CONSTITUENTS.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OUR HEARTFELT VIEWS OF RIGHT AND WRONG ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPULAR OPINION OF OUR CONSTITUENTS?

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN OUR DEVOTION TO OUR OATHS, TO OUR VALUES, TO OUR LOVE OF COUNTRY, TO PART FROM THE MOMENTARY PASSION OF A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE BACK HOME?

THOSE ARE THE TIMES THAT TRY OUR SOULS.

PBS NEWPBS NEWS REPORTED LAST NT THAT A TRUMP CONFIDANT SAID THAT G.O.P.

SENATORS WERE WARNED, "VOTE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND YOUR HEAD WILL BE ON A PIKE."

NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE.

"VOTE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND YOUR HEAD WILL BE ON A PIKE."

I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN I READ THAT-- AND, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE-- BUT WHEN I READ THAT I WAS STRUCK BY THE IRONY, BY THE IRONY.

I HOPE IT'S NOT TRUE.

I HOPE IT'S NOT TRUE.

BUT I WAS STRUCK BY THE IRONY OF THE IDEA WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PRESIDENT WHO WOULD MAKE HIMSELF A MONARCH THAT WHOEVER THAT WAS WOULD USE THE TERMINOLOGY OF A PENALTY THAT WAS IMPOSED BY A MONARCH "A HEAD ON A PIKE."

JUST THIS WEEK, AMERICA LOST A HERO, THOMAS RAILSBACK.

HE PASSED AWAY ON MONDAY, THE DAY BEFORE THIS TRIAL BEGAN.

SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE KNOWN OR EVEN SERVED WITH CONGRESSMAN THOMAS RAILSBACK.

HE WAS A REPUBLICAN FROM ILLINOIS AND THE SECOND RANKING MEMBER ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHEN THAT COMMITTEE WAS CONDUCTING ITS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO PRESIDENT NIXON.

IN JULY OF 1974, AS THE INQUIRY WAS COMING TO A CLOSE, CONGRESSMAN RAILSBACK BEGAN MEETING WITH A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, THREE OTHER REPUBLICANS AND THREE DEMOCRATS.

HERE IN THE SENATE THEY MIGHT HAVE CALLED THEM "THE GANG OF SEVEN."

THEY GATHERED, AND THEY TALKED, AND THEY LABORED OVER LANGUAGE, AND ULTIMATELY, HELPED DEVELOP A BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE ARTICLES THAT LED A GROUP OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS, INCLUDING BARRY GOLDWATER AND HOWARD BAKER, TO TELL PRESIDENT NIXON THAT HE MUST RESIGN.

SOME SAY THAT THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT MIGHT NOT HAVE MOVED FORWARD WERE IT NOT FOR THOSE FOUR COURAGEOUS REPUBLICANS, LED BY CONGRESSMAN RAILSBACK.

AND IT PAINED THE CONGRESSMAN BECAUSE HE CREDITED N NIXON WITH GIVING HIM HIS SEAT, WITH GETTING HIM ELECTED.

HE DID IT, BECAUSE, HE SAID, "SEEING ALL THE EVIDENCE IT WAS SOMETHING WE HAD TO DO BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS THERE."

ONE OF HIS AIDES, RAY LAHOOD, EULOGIZED HIM SAYING, "HE FELT AN OBLIGATION TO THE CONSTITUTION TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT."

NOW, SOON, MEMBERS OF THIS BODY WILL FACE THE MOST MOMENTOUS OF DECISIONS, NOT AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET, BETWEEN GUILT AND INNOCENCE, BUT A FAR MORE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE: SHOULD BE THERE A FAIR TRIAL?

SHALL THE HOUSE BE ABLE TO PRESENT ITS CASE WITH WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE USE OF SUBPOENAS AS HAS BEEN THE CASE IN EVERY IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN HISTORY?

NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS HAVE BEEN MAKING THEIR CASE OUTSIDE OF THIS CHAMBER, THREATENING TO STALL THESE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE ASSERTION OF FALSE CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE, HAVING PERSUADED THIS BODY TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, THEY NOW APPEAR TO BE PREPARING THE GROUND TO SAY IT WILL BE TOO LATE TO CONSIDER THEM NEXT WEEK.

BUT CONSIDER THIS: OF THE HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE SUBPOENAED, THERE IS NO COLORABLE CLAIM, AND NONE HAS BEEN ASERTED.

TO THE DEGREE THAT YOU COULD EVEN MAKE A CLAIM, THAT CLAIM HAS BEEN WAIVED.

TO THE DEGREE THAT, EVEN SUPERFICIALLY, A CLAIM WOULD ATTACH, IT DOES NOT CONCEAL MISCONDUCT.

AND WHAT'S MORE, TO THE DEGREE THAT THERE WERE A DISPUTE OVER WHETHER A PRIVILEGE APPLIED, WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD JUDGE SITTING BEHIND ME, EMPOWERED BY THE RULES OF THIS BODY TO RESOLVE THOSE DISPUTES.

AND WHEN THE CHIEF JUSTICE DECIDES WHERE A NARROW APPLICATION OF PRIVILEGE OUGHT TO APPLY, YOU WILL STILL HAVE THE POWER TO OVER-RULE HIM.

HOW OFTEN DO YOU GET THE CHANCE TO OVER-RULE A CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT?

( LAUGHTER ) YOU HAVE TO ADMIT, IT'S EVERY LEGISLATOR'S DREAM.

SO LET US NOT BE FOOLED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT IT WILL TAKE TOO LONG, OR PERSUADE THAT TRIAL MUST BE OVER BEFORE THE STATE OF THE UNION.

THIS IS NO PARKING TICKET WE ARE CONTESTING, NO SHOPLIFTING CASE WE ARE PROSECUTING.

IT IS A MATTER OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

HOW LONG IS TOO LONG TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL, FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT AND FAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE ON MUCH, BUT THEY WILL NOT FORGIVE BEING DEPRIVED OF THE TRUTH, AND CERTAINLY NOT BECAUSE IT TOOK A BACK SEAT TO EXPEDIENCY.

IN HIS PAMPHLET OF 7777, THE AMERICAN CRISE, THOMAS PAINE WROTE, THOSE WHO EXPECT TO REAP THE BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM, MUST UNDER GO THE FATIGUE OF SUPPORTING IT."

IS IT TOO MUCH FATIGUE TO CALL WITNESSES AND HAVE A FAIR TRIAL?

ARE THE BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM SO MEAGER THAT WE WILL NOT ENDURE THE FATIGUE OF A REAL TRIAL?

WITH WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS?

PRESIDENT LINCOLN IN HIS CLOSING MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN DECEMBER 1862 SAID THIS: "FELLOW CITIZENS, WE CANNOT ESCAPE HISTORY.

WE OF THIS CONGRESS AND THIS ADMINISTRATION WILL BE REMEMBERED IN SPITE OF OURSELVES.

NO PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE OR INSIGNIFICANCE CAN SPARE ONE OR ANOTHER OF US THE FIERY TRIAL THROUGH WHICH WE PASS WILL LIGHT US DOWN IN HONOR OR DISHONOR TO THE LATEST GENERATION."

I THINK HE WAS THE MOST INTERESTING PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

HE MAY BE THE MOST INTERESTING PERSON IN OUR HISTORY.

THIS MAN WHO STARTED OUT DIRT POOR, DIRT POOR, LIKE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE AT THE TIME, HE HAD NOTHING-- NO MONEY, NO EDUCATION.

HE EDUCATED HIMSELF.

EDUCATED HIMSELF.

BUT HE HAD A BRAIN IN THAT HEAD, A BRILLIANCE IN THAT MIND, THAT MADE HIM ONE OF THE MOST INCREDIBLE NOT JUST PRESIDENTS BUT PEOPLE IN HISTORY.

I THINK HE'S THE MOST INTERESTING CHARACTER IN OUR HISTORY.

OUT OF THE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER AMERICANS AT THE TIME, WHY HIM?

WHY HIM?

I THINK A LOT ABOUT HISTORY, AS I KNOW YOU DO.

SOMETIMES I THINK ABOUT HOW UNFORGIVING HISTORY CAN BE OF OUR CONDUCT.

WE CAN DO A LIFETIME'S WORK, DRAFT THE MOST WONDERFUL LEGISLATION, HELP OUR CONSTITUENTS, AND, YET, WE MAY BE REMEMBERED FOR NONE OF THAT BUT FOR A SINGLE DECISION WE MAY BE REMEMBERED, AFFECTING THE COURSE OF OUR COUNTRY.

I BELIEVE THIS MAY BE ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS, A MOMENT WE NEVER THOUGHT WE WOULD SEE, A MOMENT WHEN OUR DEMOCRACY WAS GRAVELY THREATENED, AND NOT FROM WITHOUT BUT FROM WITHIN.

RUSSIA, TOO, HAS A CONSTITUTION.

IT'S NOT A BAD CONSTITUTION.

IT'S JUST A MEANINGLESS ONE.

IN RUSSIA, THEY HAVE TRIAL BY TELEPHONE.

THEY HAVE THE SAME AUSTENSIBLE RIGHTS WE DO TO A TRIAL.

THEY HEAR EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES.

BUT BEFORE THE VERDICT IS RENDERED, THE JUDGE PICKS UP THE TELEPHONE AND CALLS THE RIGHT PERSON TO FIND OUT HOW IT'S POSED TO TURN OUT.

TRIAL BY TELEPHONE.

IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE HERE, TRIAL BY TELEPHONE?

SOMEONE ON THE OTHER END OF THE PHONE DICTATING WHAT THIS TRIAL SHOULD LOOK LIKE?

THE FOUNDERS GAVE US MORE THAN WORDS.

THEY GAVE US INSPIRATION.

THEY MAY HAVE RESCEEDED INTO MYTHOLOGY, BUT THEY ASPIRE US STILL.

AND MORE THAN US, THEY INSPIRE THE REST OF THE WORLD.

THEY INSPIRE THE REST OF THE WORLD FROM THEIR PRISON CELLS IN TURKEY, JOURNALISTS LOOK TO US.

FROM THEIR INTERNMENT CAMPS IN CHINA, THEY LOOK TO US.

FROM THEIR CELLS IN EGYPT, THOSE WHO GATHERED IN THE SQUARE FOR A BETTER LIFE, LOOK TO US.

IN THE PHILIPPINES, THOSE WHO WERE VICTIMS OF MASS KILLINGS, THEY LOOK TO US.

FROM ELGIN PRISON, THEY LOOK TO US.

FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD THEY LOOK TO US.

AND INCREASINGLY, THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE WHAT THEY SEE.

IT'S A TERRIBLE TRAGEDY FOR THEM.

IT IS A WORSE TRAGEDY FOR US.

BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE FOR THEM TO TURN.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TURN TO RUSSIA.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TURN TO CHINA.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TURN TO EUROPE WITH ALL OF ITS PROBLEMS.

THEY LOOK TO US BECAUSE WE ARE STILL THE INDISPENSABLE NATION.

THEY LOOK TO US BECAUSE WE HAVE A RULE OF LAW.

THEY LOOK TO US BECAUSE NO ONE IS ABOVE THAT LAW.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SEPARATES US FROM THOSE PEOPLE IN ELGIN PRISON IS THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL, THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL.

AMERICANS GET A FAIR TRIAL.

AND SO I ASK YOU, I IMPLORE YOU, GIVE AMERICA A FAIR TRIAL.

GIVE AMERICA A FAIR TRIAL.

SHE'S WORTH IT.

THANK YOU.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT WE ADJOURN UNTIL 10 A.M. JANUARY 25, AND THURSDAY ALSO CONSTITUTE THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION?

SO ORDERED.

THE SENATE IS ADJOURNED.

>> Woodruff: AND THAT WAS THE CHIEF JUSTICE GAVELING THIS SESSION OF THE SENATE TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TO A CLOSE.

THE-- WE HEARD JUST THERE AT THE END, A VERY POWERFUL-- WHICHEVER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT YOU'RE ON-- A VERY POWERFUL APPEAL FROM CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF, THE LEAD MANAGER FROM THE HOUSE, THE LEAD DEMOCRAT ON THEIR TEAM, REPRESENTING THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

SAYING, "I IMPLORE YOU," LOOKING AT THE SENATORS AND SAYING, "I IMPLORE YOU.

GIVE AMERICA A FAIR TRIAL.

SHE'S WORTH IT."

THIS IS THE CASE THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO MAKE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, THAT IT IS A MOMENT WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO BE DECIDING AFTER THE REPUBLICANS MAKE THEIR CASE, AFTER THE PRESIDENT MAKES THEIR CASE, AND AFTER THERE'S A QUESTION PERIOD BY THE SENATE, THEIR WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MOTIONS TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE AND TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES.

AND YOU HEAR CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT WITHOUT THAT, YOU DON'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL.

WE'VE BEEN WATCHING HERE IN THE STUDIO, ALONG WITH ME VICTORIA NOURSE.

SHE WAS COUNSEL TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

HE WAS AN APPELLATE LAWYER UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.

AND FOR VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN SHE WAS HIS CHIEF COUNSEL FROM 2015 TO 2016.

ALSO WITH ME, ELIZABETH CHRYST, THE REPUBLICANS' SENATE SECRETARY DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

AND JOINING US FROM THE CAPITOL, LISA DESJARDINS, AND MOHAMMED SAEED ALSHAMRANI.

BUT I WANT TO COME TO YOU VICTORIA AND ELIZABETH FIRST.

WHEN ADAM SCHIFF SAYS "GIVE AMERICA A FREE TRIAL"-- I'M SORRY, "VOTE FOR A TRIAL" WHICH MEANS VOTE FOR WITNESSES, A FAIR TRIAL, VOTE FOR WITNESSES.

IS HE SAYING OUR CASE IS WEEK UNLESS WE HAVE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES?

WHAT DO YOU THINK, VICTORIA?

>> I THINK THIS IS THE DIFFICULT THING TO DO IN THIS IMPEACHMENT, AS ELIZABETH HAS SAID IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

THE PRESIDENT HAD ADMITTED THE FACTS.

THIS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

THEY'RE DISPUTING THE FACTS.

BUT IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY, "I NEED SOME MORE EVIDENCE.

YOU SHOULD HAVE A VERY, VERY STRONG CASE ABOUT A VERY, VERY SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY.

>> Woodruff: AND IS HE ACKNOWLEDGING, ELIZABETH, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT?

HOW DO YOU READ THAT?

THESE LAST FEW DAYS HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBILITY MAKING THE POINT THAT THERE IS A CASE TO BE MADE.

>> I THINK IT'S SORT OF A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S TOUGH BECAUSE HE IS SAYING THAT WE HAVE A STRONG CASE, IT WAS A REALLY BAD THING.

HE'S A DANGEROUS MAN.

WE NEED TO GET RID OF THIS MAN.

HE'S A DANGER TO SOCIETY.

BUT WE THINK YOU NEED TO HEAR MORE ABOUT IT FIRST.

THEY'RE APPEALING TO THE 100 SENATORS IN THE ROOM, BUT ALSO THE ELECTERATE, THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING AND POPPING IN AND OUT.

I THINK THEY HAVE TO SPRINKLE THIS IN FREQUENTLY TO TRY TO MAKE THE POINT.

IT'S A BIT OF A MIXED MESSAGE.

IT REALLY IS.

>> Woodruff: NO QUESTION.

AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD OVER THE LAST I'D SAY 45 MINUTES OR SO FROM-- EVEN LONGER-- FROM ADAM SCHIFF, AND I HAVE TAKEN SOME NOTES ON IT.

HE WAS ESSENTIALLY ANTICIPATING WHAT THE ARGUMENT-- THE DEFENSE ARGUMENTS ARE GOING TO BE.

AND HE TICKED THEM OFF ONE BY ONE.

HE SAID THEY'RE GOING TO TELL YOU, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE PROCESS WAS AN UNFAIR PROCESS.

HE SAID, "THEY'RE GOING TO ARGUE THAT IT WAS THE MOST UNFAIR IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, THAT IT TOOK PLACE IN THE BASEMENT, IN THE BUNKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ," YOU KNOW, AS IF TO SAY WHERE WERE WE GOING TO HOLD A MEETING?

THAT'S WHERE THE ROOM IS WHERE THIS COMMITTEE MEETS.

IS HE ON TO SOMETHING THERE, VICTORIA?

>> IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE STRONGEST OBJECTION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS.

BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE SENT ALL SORTS OF THINGS.

OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE THAT.

REAGAN SENT PEOPLE.

NIXON HAD PEOPLE COME TO THE HOUSE EYE MEAN, TO THE CONGRESS.

SO I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT THE PROCESS IS THE THING.

AND, YOU KNOW, IN THE LAW THERE'S A SAYING, IF THE FACTS AREN'T ON YOUR SIDE, GO TO THE LAW, AND IF THE LAW ISN'T ON YOUR SIDE, GO TO THE FACTS.

SO YOU NOTICE THEY'RE GOING TO PROCESS.

AND I REALLY DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO EMPHASIZE THAT AS MUCH AS OTHER LEGAL CLAIMS TOMORROW.

>> Woodruff: SUCH AS WHAT?

>> SUCH AS THE FACT THAT THIS ISN'T AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THEY HAVE GONE OUT PRET STRONGLY IN THEIR LEGAL BRIEF.

NOW, THEY MAY CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

BUT IF YOU READ THE LEGAL BRIEF, THEY CONTEND THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CRIME TO BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, AND SCHIFF HAD A RESPONSE TO THAT, THAT THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER LEGAL OBJECTIONS, INCLUDING THAT THE SECOND ARTICLE IS NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY IMPEACH SOMEONE ON THE B BASIS OF RAISING A CLAM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, WHICH IS A LITTLE COMPLICATED AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT.

>> Woodruff: LISA DESJARDINS IS AT THE CAPITOL, I BELIEVE.

ARE YOU HERE?

>> YES.

>> Woodruff: AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

BUT, LISA IT WAS QUITE A CLOSE, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY, THAT WE HEARD FROM ADAM SCHIFF, WHO IS THE LEAD HOUSE MANAGER, ANTICIPATING WHAT THE SENATORS ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE IN THE COMING DAYS.

BECAUSE AS HE POINTED OUT, WE WON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND IMMEDIATELY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IT WAS FASCINATING BEING IN THE CHAMBER FOR THAT.

I THINK ADAM SCHIFF WAS TRYING TO COMBINE A CLOSING PROSECUTION ARGUMENT WITH GREAT AMERICAN RHETORIC.

HE WAS OBVIOUSLY AIMING FOR A MEMORABLE SPEECH THERE.

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I NOTICED WORKED AND DID NOT WORK IN THE CHAMBER-- AND I'M FASCINATED TO SAY MY COLLEAGUE YAMICHE ALCINDOR WAS THERE, AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SHE BEFOREHANDED AS WELL.

I THINK THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PASSAGES HAD THE ENTIRE SENATE WATCHING CLOSELY WAS WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THE MILITARY, AND WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THOSE WHO HAD SERVEDDED, LOOKING AT THOSE IN THE CHAMBER WHO HAD SERVED, WHO ARE NOW A MINORITY OF THE SENATE, SAYING THAT IS A POWERFUL WORK EXPERIENCE.

NOT AS SUCCESSFUL WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THE CAMARADERIE, THE FRATERNITY, OR SORORITY OF THOSE WHO HAD SERVED IN ELECTED OFFICE AND WHO ARE FROM SWING STATES.

THAT IS SUCH A KEY AUDIENCE FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

THOSE ARE SOME OF THE MODERATE SENATOR THEY SAY HOPE TO WIN OVER IN THEIR FIGHT FOR WITNESSES.

BUT, JUDY, I DID NOT SEE THEM REALLY APPRECIATING THAT EFFORT.

IN FACT, IF ANYTHING, I THINK THEY FELT MAYBE IT WAS PATRONIZING, AND IT DIDN'T LAND AS WELL AS I THINK HE HAD HOPED IT WOULD.

I THINK WHEN HE WAS QUOTING ROBERT KENNEDY AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THOSE WERE INCREDIBLY POWERFUL MOMENTS.

AND I ALSO THINK WHEN HE SAID, "TTHEY WANT THIS TRIAL TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO SMEERT BIDENS," THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I THINK I SAW MEMBERS PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO.

IT WAS A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THIS IDEA OF TALKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS AND THIS TRIAL IN PARTICULAR.

AS YOU SAID, SETTING UP WHAT WE ANTICIPATE TO COME FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

BUT, JUDY, MAUVE OF ALL I FOUND FASCINATING WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT ABRAHAM LINCOLN, I THINK WHAT ADAM SCHIFF WAS DOING WAS SPEAKING TO THE IDEA OF AN AMERICAN DREAM.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AN AMERICAN WHO CAME FROM POVERTY AND ROSE UP.

AND AFTER THAT, WHAT DID HE TALK ABOUT?

THOSE AROUND THE WORLD WHO HAVE LOOKED TO AMERICA WITH HOPE BEFORE AND NOW ARE DISAPPOINTED.

SO HE'S TRYING TO SAY, "WE ARE NO LONGER THE AMERICA WE BELIEVE OURSELVES TO BE, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF THIS PRESIDENT."

IT WAS A VERY LOFTY ARGUMENT.

AND IN THE CHAMBER, THERE WAS NO MOTION.

IT WAS INCREDIBLY FOCUSED.

AND I THINK POWERFUL.

NOW, WILL IT CHANGE MINDS?

I DON'T KNOW.

BUT IT FELT POWERFUL IN THE MOMENT THERE.

>> Woodruff: AND, INDEED, I TOOK NOTES ON THAT.

THAT WAS A THEME THAT WE HEARD EARLIER IN THE DAY FOR A TIME.

AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF RETURNED TO THAT TONIGHT.

TALKING ABOUT THE-- HOW AMERICA IS SEEN BY THE REST OF THE WORLD AS A PLACE THAT THEY CAN COUNT ON, NOT ONLY FOR FREEDOM BUT FOR A PLACE THAT TREATS PEOPLE FAIRLY, WHERE A PRESIDENT IS NOT A DICTATOR.

SO WE DID HEAR THAT POINT.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR AT THE WHITE HOUSE, I WANT TO COME BACK TO SOMETHING ELSE, ONE OF THE OTHER ANTICIPATED DEFENSES, AND I THINK LISA JUST REFERRED TO THAT, ADAM SCHIFF SAID, "YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR THEM BRING UP JOE BIDEN.

THEY'RE GOING TO SAY 'WHAT ABOUT JOE BIDEN?

AND WHAT ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN'?"

IS THAT SOMETHING WE EXPECT PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM TO TALK ABOUT?

>> WE DO EXPECT THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM SPEND A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT FORMER JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON HUNTER BIDEN MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY WERE A CORRUPT FAMILY MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFF THEIR NAME, AND HUNTER BIDEN WAS UNQUALIFIED TO BE DOING THE WORK HE WAS DOING IN UKRAINE.

AND I SHOULD SAY, JUDY, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME ON THE HILL IN THE SENATE CHAMBER WHILE THIS SENATE TRIAL WAS GOING ON, AND WHAT STRUCK ME THE MOST WAS THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A MOMENT IN HISTORY.

ADAM SCHIFF WAS TRYING IT PAINT THE HISTORY THAT HISTORY WILL REMEMBER ALL OF US, ALL OF US IN WHATEVER PLACE THAT YOU ARE, EITHER IF YOU'RE SITTING IN THE GALLEY OR A SENATOR WEIGHING WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HISTORY WILL JUDGE YOU MORE THAN THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU.

HE SAID, "LISTEN, I KNOW YOU MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENCES WITH YOUR CONSTITUENTS"-- SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO REPUBLICANS WHO MIGHT BE WORRIED TO BVOTEING TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT WHO ISULAR POPULAR AMONG REPUBLICANS.

HE SAID, "THERE ARE TIMES YOU HAVE TO BREAK WITH THAT.

HE WALKED THROUGH A LOT OF WHAT ARE THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM ARGUMENTS.

HE SAID THEY'RE GOING TO TELL YOU THERE WAS NO HARM BECAUSE UKRAINE GOT THE MONEY.

HE THERE IS HARM BECAUSE UKRAINE QUESTIONS NOW WHETHER WE'RE A FRIEND.

THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THE PROCESS WAS UNFAIR.

HE WALKED THROUGH THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM WAS INVITED TO TALK AND BE PART OF THE PROCESS ON THE HOUSE SIDE.

HE ALSO SAID THERE IS GOING TO BE ARGUMENTS THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID TO AMENTD SONDLAND, THE E.U.

AMBASSADOR, THERE WAS NO QUID PRO PEROT QUO.

JUST BECAUSE A DEFENDANT SAYS, "I'M NOT GUILTY," THAT THEY'RE NOT GUILTY.

THE OTHER IMPORTANT MOMENT THAT KIND OF STRUCK ME, WHEN ADAM SCHIFF WAS TALKING ABOUT CBS NEWS SAYING THERE ARE REPORTS HEADS MIGHT ROLL ON THE G.O.P.

SIDE.

AND I SAW REPUBLICAN SENATORS SCOFF AT THAT AND REALLY IN THEIR SEATS SETTLE AROUND AND START WHISPERING TO EACH OTHER.

THAT WAS A MOMENT WHEN ADAM SCHIFF REALLY LOST THE REPUBLICANS AND THEY LOOKED ANGRY AT HIM FOR SAYING THAT.

I THINK IT WAS REMARKABLE TO SEE SENATORS IN THIS VERY QUIET ROOM START TO WHISPER TO EACH OTHER WHEN ADAM SCHIFF SAID, "ARE YOU DOING THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE WORRIED THAT YOUR HEAD MY ROLL, YOU'LL BE UNPOPULAR WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IF YOU VOTE TO REMOVE HIM."

>> Woodruff: AS HE TICKED OFF HIS LIST OF ARGUMENTS HE EXPECTING THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM MAY MAKE, I WAS REALLY CURIOUS-- I WISHED I COULD HAVE SEEN THE REACTION AMONG THE SENATORS PURPOSE THERE WERE MOMENT WHIZ HEARD SENATORS LAUGH AT SOME OF HIS POINTS.

I ASSUME THOSE WERE MOSTLY DEMOCRATS.

IT MAY HAVE BEEN MORE THAN THAT.

BUT THERE WERE OTHER MOMENTS WHEN IT SEEMED VERY, VERY QUIET IN THE CHAMBER.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE JOINING US ALSO AT THE CAPITOL NOW SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, DEMOCRAT OF MARYLAND.

SENATOR VAN HOLLEN, ARE YOU THERE?

>> I'M HERE.

GOOD TO BE WITH YOU, JUDY.

>> Woodruff: THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, SENATOR VERY MUCH.

WHAT IS YOUR TAKEAWAY AT THIS POINT?

THE DEMOCRATIC-- THE MANAGERS FROM THE HOUSE HAVE NOW HAD THEIR 24 HOURS OR AT LEAST A GOOD PORTION OF IT TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THIS PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED, BOTH FOR ABUSE OF POWER AND FOR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

HAVE THEY MADE THAT CASE?

>> OH, YES THEY HAVE.

I THINK THEY PRESENTED A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE ON BOTH CHARGES, IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGE.

I THOUGHT ADAM SCHIFF WAS VERY EFFECTIVE IN ACTUALLY READING THROUGH THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ON BOTH CHARGES AND SAYING, "PROVED, PROVED," CHECKING THEM OFF.

BECAUSE HE HAS.

BUT WE ALSO NEED TO HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE OF THE STORY.

AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID ALL ALONG HE WANTS TO HAVE WITNESSES.

HE WANTS TO HAVE DOCUMENTS.

IN FACT, BACK ON DECEMBER 3, HE SAID HE WANTED MICK MULVANEY TO TESTIFY.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT A ADAM SCHIFF ENDED HIS COMMENS BY SAYING, "ULTIMATELY, WE NEED TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL, AND A TRIAL REQUIRES BOTH SIDES TO BE ABLE TO CALL RELEVANT, MATERIAL DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES."

EARLIER IN THIS PROCESS, ON THE FIRST NIGHT, I PUT FORWARD AN AMENDMENT SAYING THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SHOULD IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, MAKE THOSE RULINGS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS IN EVERY COURT, IN EVERY COURTROOM IN AMERICA.

THE JUDGE GETS TO CALL THE BALLS AND STRIKES.

ADAM REFERENCED THE CHIEF JUSTICE THIS EVENING, AS SOMEBODY WHO HE WOULD TRUST TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO EVIDENCE.

AND THE QUESTION IS WILL THE REPUBLICANS TRUST THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SOMEONE WHO WAS NOMINATED BY A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT?

OR WILL THEY TRY TO SHUT THIS DOWN, REFUSE TO CALL ANY WITNESSES OR REFUSE TO GET ANY DOCUMENTS?

WHICH WOULD JUST REINFORCE THE PRESIDENT'S WHOLE CAMPAIGN OF OBSTRURKZ BECAUSE THOSE ROF COURSE, THE VERY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT CONGRESS TO SEE.

>> Woodruff: SENATOR, IS THERE A CONTRADICTION, THOUGH?

BECAUSE IN ARGUING THAT WE NEED THOSE WITNESSES AND WE NEED THOSE DOCUMENTS, ARE YOU NOT ACKNOWLEDGING, ARE THEY NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A STRONG CASE WITHOUT THAT?

>> I DON'T THINK SO, JUDY, FOR THIS REASON.

I THINK THEY PUT ON A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE.

I THINK THEY MET THEIR STANDARD OF PROOF.

SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARE GOING TO TRY TO CONTEST THEIR FACTS, RIGHT?

IF IT'S REALLY A PERFECT PHONE CALL, THEN THEY'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE TO JUST SAY WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IS OKAY OR THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TRY TO CONTEST THE FACTS THAT THE DEMOCRATIC MANAGERS BROUGHT OUT.

AND IF REPUBLICANS TRY TO CONTEST THE FACTS, THEY'RE WALKING INTO A TRAP OF THEIR OWN BECAUSE THAT MEANS IN ORDER TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES ON FACTUAL QUESTIONS, YOU NEED WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

NOW, YOU'RE RIGHT, LOOK, IF THE REPUBLICAN-- IF THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARE PREPARED TO SAY, "WE AGREED THAT THEY PROVED EVERY ELEMENT OF THEIR CASE, BUT" THEY'LL ARGUE-- IF THEY WANT TO ARGUE JUST THE DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT, WHICH IS NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE PRESIDENT ABUSED POWER, UNLESS HE TECHNICALLY COMMITTED A CRIME-- EVEN THOUGH HE BROKE A LOT OF LAWS ON THE WAY-- BUT UNLESS HE BROKE A CRIMINAL STATUTE, HE CAN DO ANYTHING IN THE WORLD THAT'S BAD, BUT YOU STILL CAN'T IMPEACH HIM.

IF THAT'S THEIR ARGUMENT, THEN, OF COURSE REPUBLICANS WOULD SAY THEY DON'T NEED TO HEAR ANY MORE EVIDENCE.

IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TO HEAR IF THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARGUE, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT ALSO WANTS TO SAY NOT THAT HE DID SOMETHING VERY WRONG, BUT YOU CAN'T GET HIM THROWN OUT, BUT THAT HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.

IF THEY TRY TO PROVE, THAT THEY'LL ALSO PUT INTO QUESTION THE NEED FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

>> Woodruff: SENATE, AS I'M SURE YOU KNOW, HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL-- THERE ARE REPUBLICAN SENATORS OUT THERE WHO AREN'T CONVINCED THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT-- I MEAN TODAY, FOR EXAMPLE, TODAY, I INTERVIEWED SENATOR DEB FISCHER OF NEBRASKA, REPUBLICAN, WHO SAID SHE STILL IS NOT CONVINCED THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, "I WANT YOU TO INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS."

AND THAT HE USED THE WITHDRAWAL OF-- OR WITHHOLDING OF AID, OF MILITARY AID, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AS A RESULT OF THAT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET THE INVESTIGATION THAT HE WANTED.

SHE SAID, "I STILL DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S TRUE.

I NEED TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE."

SO IF YOU STILL HAVE REPUBLICANS WHO DON'T ACCEPT THAT THAT BASIC THING HAPPENED, HOW DO YOU GET-- >> WELL, THAT WOULD BE ASTONISHING AFTER THIS TRIAL.

BUT IT ACTUALLY UNDERSCORES THE IMPORTANCE OF WITNESSES.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS, OBVIOUSLY, PUT TOGETHER A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE, BUT JUST LIKE WHEN YOU GO TO A GRAND JURY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WHEN YOU GO TO TRIAL YOU DON'T GET TO CALL MORE WITNESSES.

SO IF REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY, "WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT SURE YOU ACTUALLY MADE YOUR FULL CASE," WELL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT A TRIAL IS FOR, IS TO BE ABLE TO CALL WITNESSES.

AND SO, IF REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT POSITION, THAT THEY DON'T-- THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID NOT PROVE EVERY FACT OF THEIR CASE, THEN THEY SHOULDN'T AT THE SAME TIME BE SAYING, "WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU WITNESSES."

THAT'S JUST LIKE SAYING, "WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH."

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE WITNESSES ARE GOING TO SAY.

BUT FOR REPUBLICANS TO SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING, "I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH."

AND WE SHOULD WANT THE WHOLE TRUTH TO COME OUT HERE.

THAT'S WHAT A TRIAL IS FOR.

>> Woodruff: SENATOR, TWO OTHER QUICK THINGS.

WHAT DO YOU SAY EYE MEAN, WE KNOW THE REPUBLICANS AT LEAST ARE DISCUSSING WHETHER THEY SHOULD ASK FOR JOE BIDEN, HUNTER BIDEN AS WITNESSES, IF THE DEMOCRATS INSIST ON HAVING-- WHETHER IT'S JOHN BOLTON OR SOMEONE ELSE.

WHAT ABOUT THAT?

>> WELL, THAT IS, OF COURSE, A TOTAL SIDE SHOW HERE, RIGHT.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT ITSELF BECAUSE THE WHOLE MISCONDUCT THAT THE PRESIDENT EXERCISED WAS USING THE POWER AND PRESTIGE AND OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY TO TRY TO GET A FOREIGN LEADER TO OPEN A SHAM INVESTIGATION.

AND SO IN DOING, THAT THEY WOULD JUST BE FURTHERING THE WHOLE FRAUD IN TERMS OF THEIR EFFORTS TO GET THOSE ISSUES BEFORE THE ELECTION.

BUT, JUDY, THAT'S EXACTLY YI PROPOSED THE AMENDMENT I DID ON THE FIRST NIGHT.

LET'S LET THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES DECIDE REQUESTS FOR WITNESSES IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

IT STILL WOULD ALLOW A VOTE TO OVER-TURN, OVER-RIDE THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

BUT LET'S DO THE SENATE TRIAL JUST LIKE WE DO EVERY TRIAL IN A COURTROOM IN THE COUNTRY.

LET THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE RULE.

IS THIS WITNESS RELEVANT?

IS THIS SOMEBODY WHO WILL ADD MATERIAL EVIDENCE?

THAT'S THE JOB FOR A JUDGE.

AND SO REPUBLICANS-- I'M GOING TO REVISIT THAT PROPOSAL IF WE GO FORWARD WITH WITNESSES.

BECAUSE I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE MOST IMPARTIAL TRIAL WE COULD HAVE IS ONE WHERE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GETS TO DECIDE, JUST LIKE JUDGES DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS IN EVERY TRIAL IN AMERICA.

>> Woodruff: FINALLY, SENATOR, HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE PAYING-- HOW CLOSE DO YOU THINK IS THE ATTENTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE PAYING TO THIS AT THIS POINT?

I MEAN, HERE WE ARE, PRETTY LATE ON A FRIDAY NIGHT.

THIS HAS GONE ON FOR SEVERAL DAYS INTO THE NIGHT.

IS IT-- IS IT HELPING THE CAUSE, THE DEMOCRATIC CAUSE HERE?

>> WELL, IN MY VIEW, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER IT'S HELPING THE DEMOCRATIC CAUSE OR THE REPUBLICAN CAUSE.

THIS IS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION UNDER THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE, WHICH WAS THE CLAUSE THE FRAMERS INCLUDE TO TRY TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY AGAINST ABUSES OF POWER THAT TAKE PLACE BEFORE ELECTIONS.

SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS I DON'T KNOW.

I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH THE COUNTRY'S PAYING ATTENTION.

I DO KNOW THAT WHEN ASKED, OVER 70% OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND MAJORITIES OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AGREE THAT A FAIR TRIAL MEANS THAT BOTH SIDES GET TO CALL RELEVANT WITNESSES AND GET RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

I DO KNOW THAT THAT'S OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND I HOPE OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL LISTEN TO THAT AND ACT ACCORDINGLY, BECAUSE WE SHOULDN'T A TRIAL THAT'S JUST DESIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT WHO IS ACCUSED HERE.

WE SHOULD HAVE A TRIAL THAT'S DESIGNED TO GET AT THE TRUTH.

>> Woodruff: AND JUST QUICKLY, FINALLY, DO YOU THINK SOME REPUBLICANS WILL SUPPORT THE IDEA OF WITNESSES AND/OR DOCUMENTS?

>> WELL, SOME OF THEM HAVE SAID THEY WOULD ALONG THE WAY.

AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY WILL WHEN WE GET TO THAT MOMENT OF TRUTH, AFTER THE PERIOD FOR SENATE QUESTIONING.

THERE WILL BE A DEBATE, ANOTHER LITTLE DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO CALL WITNESSES AND BE ABLE TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS.

AND SO I'M HOPEFUL, I'M HOPEFUL THAT REPUBLICAN SENATORS AND DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ALIKE UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE A LEGITIMATE TRIAL, THEN YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE FULL TRUTH.

AND I JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE FACT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A FAIR TRIAL, WELL, THERE IS NO VINDICATION IN A FRAUDULENT, RIGGED TRIAL.

NO ONE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO CLAIM THAT THEY'RE EXNERATED IF THEY RIG THE RULES AND DON'T ALLOW A TRIAL TO TAKE PLACE IN THE SENATE IN MUCH THE SAME WAY IT TAKES PLACE IN COURTROOMS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY WHERE WITNESSES ARE CALLED, WITNESSES-- DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED, AND PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR MIND ON ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, NOT JUST WHAT THE PRESIDENT OR THE DEFENDANT WANTS THEM TO SEE.

>> Woodruff: WELL, JUST TO GET BACK TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, WE ARE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION HERE ON PBS.

WE ARE FOLLOWING THIS VERY CLOSELY AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, AS LONG AS THIS TRIAL LASTS.

SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> GOOD TO BE WITH YOU, THANK YOU, JUDY.

SO, ELIZABETH CHRYST, VICTORIA NOURSE, AGAIN, YOU'RE HEARING FRAY DEMOCRAT, BUT HE'S SAYING, ELIZABETH, THAT AMERICANS SHOULD WANT WITNESSES, S SHOULD WANT EVIDENCE, AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CASE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED ISN'T A FULL CASE, ISN'T A THOROUGH CASE, BUT IT MEANS THIS IS WHAT IS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE CASE.

>> I THINK THEY'RE ALMOST TAKING IT A LITTLE TOO FAR, AND HERE'S MY THOUGHT PROCESS REAL QUICKLY.

IF THE PRESIDENT IS ACQUITTED, THEY CAN SAY, "WELL, IT WAS RIGGED, BECAUSE IT WASN'T A FAIR TRIAL."

IF THE PRESIDENT WINS RE-ELECTION, "WELL HE WAS RE-ELECTED BECAUSE IT WASN'T A FAIR TRIAL."

IN THE SAME BREATH, I THINK TOMORROW, MONDAY, AND MAYBE INTO TUESDAY, WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS GET THEIR CHANCE TO TELL THEIR STORY, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THE TRIAL HASN'T BEEN-- HAS BEEN RIGGED, ALSO.

SO A CASUAL ONLOOKER, A CASUAL VIEWER OR A CASUAL LISTENER OF THIS IS GOING TO HEAR THE SAME THEME.

"WELL, IT MUST BE RIGGED, BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING IT'S RIGGED, THE DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING IT'S RIGGED."

THEY MIGHT JUST COMPLETELY DISCOUNT IT AS SOMETHING IMPORTANT.

I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE WORRY ABOUT THAT.

YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, ALSO, WHEN THE SPEAKER WITHHELD SENDING THE ARTICLES OVER TO THE HOUSE FOR 33 DAYS, I'M NOT SURE ANYBODY REALLY KNOWS WHY SHE DID THAT.

BUT, AGAIN, IF YOU'RE NOT A REAL STUDENT OF CONGRESS, THAT SOUNDED KIND OF RIGGED.

IT DIDN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

SO IT'S THIS THEME THAT SEEMS TO BE-- MAYBE BY THE END OF TOMORROW OR BY MONDAY OR TUESDAY IT'S GOING TO BE SORT OF EVERYBODY'S THEME, WHICH MEANS THIS COULD BE NOT RELEVANT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE.

>> Woodruff: VICTORIA, WHAT ABOUT THAT?

>> THE ONE THING THAT SENATOR VAN HOLLEN WAS GETTING TO WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRELIMINARY CHARGE OR A GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AND A TRIAL.

SO THERE IS A LEGAL ANALOGY FOR THIS.

IF YOU ANALOGIZE THE HOUSE TO A PROSECUTOR, THE PROSECUTOR WHEN THEY GET THE INDICTMENT DOESN'T HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

THEY HAVE ENOUGH, A REASONABLE BASIS TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT-- WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY THE STANDARD HERE-- BUT ENOUGH SO THAT THEY THINK THEY CAN WIN AT JBUT THEY DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING.

AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE EVERYTHING TO RESPOND TO DEFENSES THAT THEY DON'T ANTICIPATE.

>> Woodruff: RIGHT, WHICH MEANS THAT-- AND THEY MAY NOT-- AND DO THEY-- DID ANYBODY THINK THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE CASE IN THIS-- IN THIS PROCEEDING?

I'M NOT SURE.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

LISA DESJARDINS, ARE YOU STILL THERE AT THE CAPITOL?

THERE YOU ARE.

>> YES.

>> Woodruff: SUM UP TONIGHT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO GRAB ANY OF THE SENATORS ON THEIR WAY OUT OF THE CAPITOL, WHAT ARE THEY SAYING THIS EVENING?

>> WELL, WE HAVE-- FORTUNATELY, WE HAVE OUR ACE NEWSHOUR TEAM ALL AROUND THE CAPITOL, AND DANIEL BUSH HAS BEEN TEXT ME.

HE RAN INTO SIEWNS COLLINS AND DID ASK HER FOR HER REACTION TONIGHT.

SHE DID NOT REACT.

SHE HAS NOT BEEN SAYING MUCH ALL WEEK.

ALSO, I THINK IN GENERAL, IT'S SAFE TO SAY MOST SENATORS ARE NOT TALKING TO REPORTERS ABOUT THIS.

BUT WE DO HAVE THE REACTION OF ONE VERY INTERESTING SENATOR, LINDSEY GRAHAM, PROBABLY THE PRESIDENT'S TOP ALLY IN THE SENATE ON THIS ISSUE.

HE TWEETED OUT, JUDY, "WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, THE HOUSE MANAGERS PRESENTED THEIR CASE IN A PROFESSIONAL AND ARTICULATE MANNER, RESPECTFUL OF THE BODY."

HE SAID, "THEY WERE PREPARED AND VERY, VERY THOROUGH"-- AGAIN, THIS IS LINDSEY GRAHAM'S TWEET.

HE SAID, THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE PRESENTED TOMORROW AND THEN WE DECIDE."

IT'S A FASCINATING TWEET, NOT ONLY GIVING CREDIT TO HOUSE MANAGERS FOR A PROFESSIONAL CASE, BUT ALSO THERE'S NO SENSE OF THAT FIERY LINDSEY GRAHAM EMOTION, THE FIRE AND SMOKE WE'VE SEEN FROM HIM THIS PAST WEEK.

I THINK WE WILL SEE THAT AGAIN.

FOR TONIGHT, HE'S HOLDING BACK, ALLOWING THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO HAVE THEIR THIET, AND SAYING, "WE WILL HAVE OUR DAY TOMORROW."

>> Woodruff: SO HE'S COMPLIMENTING THE PRESENTATION.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> Woodruff: I WROTE DOWN, HE SAID, "THEY WERE PREPARED.

THEY ARE THOROUGH."

>> "VERY, VERY THOROUGH."

>> Woodruff: BUT NOT COMMENTING ON THE CONTENT OF THEIR ARGUMENT.

>> NO, NO, HE'S NOT.

BUT I WILL SAY IT'S A COMMON THING.

THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF WHAT SENATORS WILL TELL YOU.

THE PUBLIC FACE OF WHAT SENATORS HAVE.

THEN THERE'S SORT OF A BACKGROUND HONEST FOR REPORTERS THEY KNOW.

THEN THERE ARE SENATORS YOU KNOW THINK THEY CAN CONFIDE IN YOU.

I HAVE A FEW REPUBLICANS TELL ME THEY DID THINK THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD AN IMPRESSIVE CASE.

THEY DIDN'T SAY THEY WERE CONVINCED BY IT, BUT THEY SAID IT WAS A STRONGER CASE THAN THEY EXPECTED.

I HEARD THAT FROM TWO REPUBLICANS, AND ANGUS KING OF MAINE SAID THIS IS MORE SERIOUS THAN HE THOUGHT.

I THINK THAT THEY, OBVIOUSLY, ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH HOW THEY ENDED TONIGHT.

OF COURSE, THE QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE DO.

THAT ALSO COULD BE POWERFUL.

WE'LL SEE.

AND A NOTE ON THAT JUDY INSPECT MAY HAVE ALREADY COME UP, BUT OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT THEY WILL ONLY, AS YAMICHE HAS BEEN REPORTING AS WELL, THAT THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE WILL ONLY SPEAK FOR TWO OR THREE HOURS TOMORROW, AND RETURN MONDAY.

AND THERE'S A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT MONDAY WILL BE THEIR ONLY DAY OF THESE OPENING ARGUMENTS.

I'M TOLD THIS BY A GOOD SOURCE IN REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP WHO IS IN CONTACT WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, WHO SAYS THE WHITE HOUSE DOES NOT FEEL IT WILL NEED ALL 24 HOURS.

IN FACT IT MAY ONLY NEED ONE FULL DAY, MONDAY.

>> Woodruff: THAT'S FASCINATING, BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT.

THEY ARE GIVEN 24 HOURS, UP TO OVER THREE DAYS, WHICH IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TAKEN.

AND IF THEY TAKE CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN THAT, IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TO UNDERSTAND WHY.

I MEAN WHAT, ARGUMENTS DID THEY FEEL DID NOT NEED TO BE RESPONDED TO?

WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC CASE THAT THEY FEEL IS NOT WORTHY OF A DEFENSE?

>> WELL, I THINK THERE'S TWO INSIGHTS INTO THAT AT THIS POINT.

ONE IS THAT THEY DO FEEL THAT THEY WANT TO DISMISS THE DEMOCRATIC CASE OUT OF HAND.

I THINK THAT HAS BECOME A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT WITH ALL OF THE DETAILS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PRESENTED.

THE OTHER IDEA IS THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT FACT WITNESSES AS MUCH ON THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE, NO ONE IS CLEAR ON IF THERE CAN BE THIS SAME KIND OF LEVEL OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE.

RATHER, IT'S EXPECTED THE WHITE HOUSE WILL MAKE A LARGER FIST SOSKAL ARGUMENT THIS IS POLITICAL.

DAN BUSH TALKED TO TED CRUZ ON THE WAY OUT, AND HE SAID, AGAIN, HE BELIEVES THIS IS ALL A BITLE PLIL BATTLE.

SO THOSE KINDS OF ARGUMENTS THE WHITE HOUSE CAN MAKE.

BUT DO THOSE TAKE THREE DAYS TO MAKE?

MAYBE NOT.

>> Woodruff: JUST QUICKLY TO YAMICHE.

I'M LOOKING AGAIN AT THE NOTES I TOOK ON WHAT ADAM SCHIFF SAID.

SAYING THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS GOING TO ARGUE FOR EXAMPLE THAT THEY, MEANING THE DEMOCRATS, HATE THE PRESIDENT.

HE SAID, "I LEAVE YOU TO YOUR OWN JUDGMENT."

HE SAID, "I ONLY HATE WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE TO THE COUNTRY."

HE ALSO ANTICIPATED THE DEFENSE THAT MAY BRING UP THE COMMENT ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS.

HE SAID EVERYTHING THE WHISTLEBLOWER INITIALLY SAID HAS TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE.

BUT, YAMICHE, IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS GOING TO ARGUE.

>> THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS GEARING UP FOR WHAT I WHATTHEY SAY IS GOING TO BE A VIGOROUS AND AGGRESSIVE DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT.

THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON JOE BIDEN.

BUT THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME REBUTTING THE DEMOCRATS' ARGUMENT.

I'VE BEEN EMAILING WITH THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM AND THEY FEEL THEY WILL AT LEAST GO BACK AND FORTH WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON SOME SPECIFIC ISSUES, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION, THE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE BIDENS ON THAT PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO BE MAKING A CASE FOR A WHILE-- FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING IT'S NOT GOING TO BE INTO TUESDAY.

IT WILL LIKELY BE THREE HOURS ON SATURDAY AND ABOUT EIGHT HOURS ON MONDAY.

AND THE ONE-- THE MAIN REASONS FOR THAT IS THEY THINK THE DEMOCRATS TOO TOO LONG.

I WAS TALK TYING SOURCE WHO SAID, "LOOK, WE THINK THERE'S WISDOM IN BREVITY.

WE THINK WE CAN MAKE THIS ARGUMENT DIGESTIBLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, DIGESTIBLE TO SENATORS WITHOUT TAKING UP THEIR TIME."

AND DEMOCRATS HAD THIS IDEA OF REPUTATION, IF YOU TUNE IN AT 1:00 P.M. OR 5:00 P.M. CATCH SOME OF THE SAME ARGUMENTS.

THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM SAYS WE HAD SOMETHING.

WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT AND CAN SAY IT AND GET OUT OF HERE.

THE PRESIDENT WANTS THIS TO BE OVER.

HE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH AND SAY, "I WAS ACQUITTED."

HE WANTS TO TAKE THAT LARGE, LARGE VICTORY LAP THAT MITCH McCONNELL AND THE REPUBLICANS THINK IS COMING, EVEN IF IT WILL NOT BE BEFORE THE STATE OF THE UNION.

THE PRESIDENT DEFINITELY WANTS TO USE THAT BIG SPEECH, IF HE CAN, TO MAKE THAT VICTORY LAP.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE ALCINDOR REPORTING TONIGHT FROM THE CAPITOL, WATCHING IT ALL, TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM.

LISA DESJARDINS AT THE CAPITOL AS WELL.

WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS LEFT, EDWARD NORTON, ELIZABETH CHRYST.

WE'RE LOOKING TO HEAR WHAT THE DEFENSE WILL BE.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR THE FULL POINT-BY-POINT DEFENSE PEOPLE EXPECTED.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MIGHT BE SHORT AND SWEET.

A COUPLE OF HOURS TOMORROW, MAJORITY OF IT MONDAY, AND TUESDAY WE COULD BE INTO QUESTIONS.

>> YEAH.

>> Woodruff: IT WILL BE REALLY INTERESTING.

>> QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE FASCINATING.

>> IT WILL BE FASCINATING.

>> Woodruff: THAT'S THE CHANCE THE SENATORS GET.

IT WILL BE SO INTERESTING, I THINK IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO HEAR WHICH POINTS THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM DHIEWZ REBUT, TO TRY TO REBUT, TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT AND WHICH OTHERS THEY JUST-- THEY JUST DISMISS.

THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.

VICTORIA NOURSE, ELIZABETH CHRYST, FOR BEING WITH US TONIGHT.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU WITH THE IN THE DAYS TO COME.

AGAIN, THANKS TO YAMICHE AND LISA DESJARDINS.

THIS DOES CONCLUDE OUR COVERAGE OF TODAY'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE NOW COMPLETED THEIR ARGUMENTS FOR CONVICTING PRESIDENT TRUMP ON IMPEACHMENT CHARGES.

WE WILL BE BACK TOMORROW MORNING RIGHT HERE AT 10:00 EASTERN WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM BEGINS ARGUMENTS IN HIS DEFENSE.

YOU CAN FIND OUR FULL GAVEL-TO-GAVEL COVERAGE ON PBS.ORG/NEWSHOUR, ON OUR YOUTUBE PAGES AND THE NEWSHOUR'S SOCIAL CHANNELS.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

FOR ALL OF US AT THE NEWSHOUR, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

GOOD NIGHT.