>> THIS PROGRAM WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE CORPORATION OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR P-RBG BS STATION BY VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> James: GOOD AFTERNOON I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

WELCOME TO THE PBS COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP.

TODAY AT THE SECOND DAY FOR QUESTIONS.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS RECOGNIZE EACH SENATOR ALTERNATING PARTY.

THEY SEND QUESTIONS ON CARDS FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO READ ALLOWED.

SO FAR 90 QUESTIONS BY OUR COUNT HAVE BEEN ASKED.

I'M JOINED BY LISA DEJAR DESJARDINS AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS NOT IN THE ROOM.

HE TYPICALLY ENTERS FROM THE LEFT.

WE DON'T SEE ALL OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN THE FOREFRONT TO THE LEFT.

THEY'RE GENERALLY IN MACE BEFORE THIS GETS UNDER WAY.

WE DON'T SEE ALL OF THE PRECEDENT'S LEGAL DEFENSE TEAM ON THE RIGHT.

SO, WE ARE WAITING FOR EVERYONE TO GATHER.

IT LOOKS LUKE WE'RE STIFF A COUPLE OF MINUTES AWAY.

LISA, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM THE SENATORS IN WHAT THEY WANT TO ACCOMPLISH TODAY?

>> THIS ARE A FEW THINGS WEEING UP ON AT THE CAPITOL.

ONE A LOT ABOUT THE ARG AOUPLGTS ARGUMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM.

IDEA THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL INTEREST COULD BE THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT A CORRUPT MOTIVE.

SOMETHING SENATORS ARE HAVING A HARD TIME RESPONDING TO WHETHER THEY SUPPORT THE IDEA OR NOT.

WE'RE WATCHING RAND PAUL, SUBMITTED QUESTIONS YESTERDAY WHICH HE NAMED THE SUSPECTED WHISTLE BLOWER.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE REFUSED TO READ THE QUESTIONS.

HE SIGNALED BEFORE THE QUESTION WAS SENT TO HIS DESK.

THEY'RE READING THE QUESTIONS AHEAD OF TIME.

THAT'S A QUESTION HE WOULD NOT READ AND RAND PAUL SUN HAPPY WITH THAT.

WE ARE WATCHING.

>> James: LISA, THIS IS THE ONLY ISSUE WE HAVE HEARD THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAY I WILL NOT READ THE CONTENT OF THIS QUESTION.

>> YES THIS IS THE ONLY ONE WE KNOW OF AND POSSIBLY THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR.

HE HAS FOLLOWED CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST AS IN THE CLINTON TRIAL AND LET THE SENATE CALL THE TRIAL.

THE CALL FOR ALLOWING WITNESSES MANY SENATORS ARE SAYING THAT HASN'T CHANGED INCLUDING MIKE BRAUN TOLD OUR PRODUCERS THAT THIS MORNING.

THAT MEANS IT'S CLOSE, JUDY.

NOBODY KNOWS EXACTLY HOW IT WILL END.

WE WILL TAKE A LOT OF TEMPERATURES TO SEE WHICH WAY THE WIND IS BLOWING, IF I CAN SAY THAT PHRASE.

IT WILL BE TWO OR THREE SENATORS WE'RE WATCHING CLOSELY TO DETERMINE IF WITNESSES WILL BE ALLOWED.

WE'RE JUST ONE DAY AWAY FROM THAT VOTE POTENTIALLY.

>> Woodruff: WE KNOW TODAY WAS INTENDED TO BE THE FINAL DAY OF QUESTIONS BY THE SENATORS POSED TO THE DEFENSE, THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE AND HOUSE MANAGERS.

WE WILL SEE IF THEY STICK TO THAT.

THEY HAVE ALLOTTED EIGHT HOURS.

WE WILL SEE HOW IT GOES.

WHETHER IT GOES LATE INTO THE NIGHT.

YAMICHE AL CYNDER IS ON CAPITOL HILL TODAY.

YAMICHE, NO PLACE WATCHING THIS CLOSER THAN THE PEOPLE AROUND THE PRESIDENT.

HOW ARE THEY FEELING NOW ABOUT THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AS IT HAS GONE?

>> THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM FEELS FAIRLY CONFIDENT THEY HAVE FIELDED THE ANSWERS MOSTLY FROM REPUBLICANS PRETTY WELL.

THEY FEEL THEY'RE MAKING THEIR CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG.

THEY'RE MAKING THEIR CASE THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR AND THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE ACQUITTED AS KWUBGLY AS POSSIBLE.

I WANT TO READ A TWEET FROM THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER.

HE MADE A POINT THERE IS NO ABUSE OF POWER.

HERE IS WHAT HE SAID "THEY CHARACTERIZE MY ARGUMENT IF A PRESIDENT IS IN REELECTIONS HE CAN DO ANYTHING.

I SAID NOTHING LIKE THAT AS ANYONE HEARING WHAT I SAID CAN A TEST ."

BEFORE I CAME TO THE HILL I WAS AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE KELLY AN CONWAY HAD A RARE PRESS BRIEFING MUCH.

SHE WAS ASKED IF SHE AGREED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY THAT THE PRESIDENT CONDITION COMMIT A QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE THERE IS NATIONAL AND POLITICAL AND INTERESTS IN MIND.

SHE SAID SHE HAD NO COMMENT ON.

THAT I GOT INTO A TENSE EXCHANGE WITH HER REGARDING JOHN KELLY AND JOHN BOLTON AND BELIEVING HE TIED THE AIDE WITH DEMOCRAT.

SHE SAID HE SHE WANTS TO SEE WHAT JOHN BOLTON HAS TO SAY AND RESPECTS GENERAL KELLY.

LET'S GO TO THE CHAMBER.

BARRY BLACK IS THE CHAPLIN.

>> WITH THE LIGHT OF YOUR WISDOM EXPOSING TRUTH AND RESOLVING UNCERTAINTIES.

MAY THEY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CREATED THEM WITH COG COGNITIVE CAPABILITIES AND MORAL DISCERNMENT TO BE USED FOR YOUR GLORY.

GRANT THAT THEY WILL COMPREHEND WHAT REALLY MATTERS.

SEPARATING THE RELEVANT FROM THE ILLILL-RELEVANT.

LORD KEEP THEM FROM FEAR AS THEY BELIEVE THAT YOUR TRUTH WILL TRIUMPH THROUGH THEM.

ELIMINATE DISCORDANT STATIC WITH THE MUSIC OF YOUR WISDOM.

WE PRAY IN YOUR GREAT NAME.

AMEN.

>> AMEN.

PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECEIPTING THE PLEDGE OF THE ALLEGENCE TO THE FLAG.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, IN DID I VISIBILITY WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR AUFPL >> PLEASE BE SEATED.

THE DEPUTY SERGEANT IN ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.

>> HERE YEE, HERE YEE, HERE YEE ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT WHILE THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES IS SITTING FOR THE TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED AGAINST THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENTS AGAINST DONALD JOHN TRUMP THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> THE SENATE WILL CONDUCT ANOTHER QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD TODAY.

WE WERE ABLE TO GET THROUGH NEARLY A HUNDRED QUESTIONS YESTERDAY.

SENATORS POSED CONSTRUCTIVE QUESTIONS.

THE PARTIES WERE RESPONSIVE.

I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT ALL WHO PARTICIPATED YESTERDAY.

WE WILL AGAIN BREAK EVERY TWO TO THEE HOURS AND HOOK TO BREAK FOR DINNER AROUND 1:30.

WE HAVE BEEN RESPECTFUL IN THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S UNIQUE POSITION READING OUR QUESTIONS.

I WANT TO CONTINUE TO INSURE HIM THAT LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION FOR HIM WILL CONTINUE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> OH, THE SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.

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

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR MURRAY ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

YESTERDAY WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHY THE HOW DIDN'T REAMEND OR ASK FOR SUBPOENAS AFTER THE YOU MEAN PEACHMENT INQUIRY THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOUCHED UPON THE HOUSE HAVING THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AS SPECIFIED BY ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

COULD YOU FURTHER ELABORATE WHY THAT AUTHORITY CONTROLS DESPITE ANY ARGUMENTS BROUGHT FORTH BY THE DEFENSE TEAM CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENAS?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

THE ANSWER IS THESE WERE VALIDLY ISSUED SUBPOENAS UNDER THE HOUSE RULES.

THE WHITE HOUSE ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY IS WRONG AND WOULD HAVE PROFOUND NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS FOR CONGRESS AND HOW OUR DEMOCRACY FUNCTIONS.

THESE RULES GAVE THE COMMITTEE THE POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.

THEY'RE NOT AMBIGUOUS RULES.

HERE IS THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE 11 ON SLIDE 55.

THE HOUSE'S STANDING RULES GIVE EACH PARTY SUBPOENA POWER FOR PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT TPUFPBGSS AND DOUBT HE'S AS CONSIDERED NECESSARY.

THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 9th BEFORE THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCEMENT ON SEPTEMBER 24th, THAT IT WOULD BE PART OF THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY UMBRELLA THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T DISPUTE THE SUBPOENAS ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION.

THE ARGUMENT IS BY DECLARING THIS INVESTIGATION FALLS UNDER A INQUIRY TO CONSIDER ARTICLES OF UFP PEACHMENT GIVE CONGRESS GREATER AUTHORITY, SOME HOW IT NULLIFIES THE TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY AND DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

THE PRESIDENT COUNTERS WE HAVE TO TAKE A FULL VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT FIRST BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.

IN THE NIXON INQUIRY THEY NEEDED A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO DELEGATE SUBPOENA POWER.

THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM STANDING RULES TODAY.

PRESIDENT COMPELLS THE OPPOSITE CON KHAOUGS.

SEVERAL FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE BEEN I AM PAEFPLD AND CONVICTED IN THE SENATE WITH NO OFFICIAL VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE UNCHOIRY.

A FEDERAL COURT CONFIRMED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR A FULL VOTE OF THE HOUSE TO COMMENCE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

THERE WAS A VOTE, THE TEXT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 CONCLUDE THE SIX INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE WERE DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THEIR ON GOING INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INQUIRY AND WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR THE HOUSE TO EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL EMPOWER TO IMPEACH.

THE HOUSE REPORT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBES THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES AND SAID "ALL SUBPOENAS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. ""

WHY""SO WHY WERE THEY NOT REAUTHORIZED THEY DIDN'T NEED TO THEY WERE ALREADY REAUTHORIZED.

FOUR WITNESSES AND THE PRESIDENT CONTINUED TO BLOCK THE SUBPOENAS.

THE ARGUMENT OF A FULL HOUSE VOTE IS A EXCUSE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION.

THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO COMPLY BEFORE THE HOUSE VOTE AND AFTER THE HOUSE VOTE.

THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION IS THE ONE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE US ALL ALONG.

HE WAS DETERMINED TO FIGHT ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS.

I PRESIDENT'S TRUMP'S VIEW ACCORDING TO WHAT HE SAID, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC ENTRUSTED IN US BY WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND.

THIS ARGUMENT DOESN'T JUST IMPLY TO IMPEACHMENT BUT TO ORDER NARIS OVERSIGHT, NOT JUST TO THE HOUSE BUT ALSO TO THE SENATE.

BY SANCTIONING THE PRESIDENT'S BLANKET OBSTRUCTION THE SENATE WILL CURTAIL THEIR OWN SUBPOENA PEWER IN THE FUTURE AS WELL AS THE HOUSE'S AND THE OVERSIGHT OBLIGATION THAT WE HAVE AS WE NOW KNOW IT WOULD BE PERMANENTLY ALTERED.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU MS.

MANAGER.

>> SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION TO PRESENT FOR THE DESK FOR HOUSE MANAGER SCHIFF AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> PRESIDING OFFICE DECLINES TO READ THE QUESTION AS SUBMITTED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SECOND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR BALDWIN IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

GIVEN THE WHITE HOUSE COULDN'T ANSWER SENATOR ROMNEY'S QUESTION ASKING FOR THE EXACT DATE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S WITH HOLD TO UKRAINE WHAT WITNESS OR WITNESSES COULD ANSWER SENATOR ROMNEY'S QUESTION?

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION.

YOU'RE RIGHT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL OUT THERE IN THE FORM OF E-MAILS, TEXT MESSAGES, CONVERSATION AND WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT COULD SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THAT.

INCLUDING AN E-MAIL FROM LAST SUMMER BETWEEN MR. BOLTON, MR. BLAIR WE WE KNOW FROM WITNESS TESTIMONY THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED.

WE DO KNOW FROM MULTIPLE WITNESSES UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACED A HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE SOON AFTER JUT IN 2019.

WE KNOW NOT ONLY DID U.S. OFFICIALS KNOW ABOUT IT AND OMB COMMUNICATED ABOUT IT, BUT THE UKRAINIANS KNEW ABOUT IT AS WELL.

WE KNOW FROM FORMER DEPUTY ADMINISTER OF UKRAINE SHE STATED PUBLICLY, IN FACT THAT THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT IT AND FOUND OUT ABOUT IT IN JULY.

WE KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY OF LAURA COOPER HER STAFF RECEIVED TWO E-MAILS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25th RELAYING THAT THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WAS ASKING ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE HILL KNOWS TO AN EXTENT AND SO DOES THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY.

THAT WAS ON JULY 25th.

THE SAME DAY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WE KNOW THAT KATHARINE CROFT STATED SHE WAS SURPRISED BY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS, DIPLOMATIC TRADE CRAFT.

THAT THEY FOUND OUT EARLIER ON THAN EXPECTED.

WE KNOW THAT ALEXANDER VINDMAN BY MID AUGUST HE WAS GETTING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATUS OF SECURITY EXISTENCE.

THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE SURROUNDING IT.

THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT WHOLLY OUR EFFORTS TO GET THE E-MAILS ASK CORRESPONDENCE WE HAVE ASKED FOR THAT COULD BE REMEDIED BY THIS BODY.

SUBPOENAS NAMELY TO AM GAS DORE BOLTON AND TO THE STATE ACCIDENT AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND OTHERS TO PROVIDE THAT MATERIAL.

LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, LAST EVENING COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY DID THE HOLD FOR UKRAINE DIFFER FROM HOLDS IN THE NORTHERN TRY ANGLE AND OTHER HOLDS LIKE AFGHANISTAN.

HE PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION THAT I AM STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND.

BECAUSE HE SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS AN EXPLANATION.

AS FAR AS I COULD TELL THE EXPLANATION IS SOMEWHERE ALONG THE FRONT THAT ONE WAS PUBLIC, PUBLIC PRESSURE ON THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION.

ONE WAS NOT, IT WAS A PRIVATE WAY TO PUT PRESSURE.

IF THAT'S TRUE THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF EVIDENCE, E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES WITHIN THE INTERACTION PROCESS THAT WE KNOW IS ROBUST TO BE THE CASE.

THEY FAIL TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THAT.

LET ME FINISH WITH THIS.

I HAPPEN TO KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAPITOL INCLUDING ME HAVE OFTEN DESCRIBED MUCH CON STRA NATION ABOUT RED TAPE, BUREAUCRACIES AND LAYERS OF GOVERNMENT THAT RUN TOO SLOW.

I SOMETIMES SHARE THAT CONCERN.

SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LONG TIME.

MELMEMOS AND E-MAILS AND PAPER TRAILS FOR EVERYTHING IN THIS TOWN.

I THUNK THAT'S TRUE WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE.

IT'S TIME TO SEE THE INFORMATION TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED.

THIS BODY COULD GET THAT INFORMATION.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK DESK.

>> QUESTION IS FOR COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT.

GIVEN THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL ACTS IN WHICH WE AS CITIZENS ENGAGE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

HOW MUCH WEIGHT SHOULD THE IS NOT ATE GIVE TO THE FACT REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFYING HIM FROM FUTURE FEDERAL OFFICE WOULD UNDUE THAT DEMOCRATIC POSITION AND KICK THE PRESIDENT OF THE BALLOT IN THIS YEAR'S ELECTIONS.

>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE RAISE GOING BACK SEVERAL MONTHS WHEN THE HOUSE WAS DEALING WITH THIS.

WE'RE IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

THERE ARE SOME IN THIS ROOM DAYS AWAY FROM THE IOWA CAUCUSES TAKING MACE.

WE'RE DISCUSSING THE POSSIBLE ITCH IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOT ONLY IN ELECTION SEASON BUT THE HEART OF THE ELECTION SEASON.

I THINK THIS DOES A DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AGAIN WE THINK THE BASIS THIS HAS MOVED FORWARD IS IRREGULAR TO SAY THE LEAST.

I THINK IT COMPLICATES THE MATTER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT WE'RE LITERALLY AT THE DAWN OF A NEW SEASON OF ELECTIONS.

WORE AT THAT SEASON NOW.

YES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.

I WANT TO TIE THIS INTO THE URGENCY THAT WAS SO PREVALENT IN DECEMBER WITH MY COLLEAGUES, THE MANAGERS.

IT WAS SO URGENT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD THAT THEY HAD TO DO IT BY MID DECEMBER BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

BECAUSE NATIONAL SECURITY WAS AT STAKE.

THEN THEY WAITED 33 DAYS TO BRING IT HERE.

NOW THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO ALL OF THE INVESTIGATION.

ALTHOUGH THEY SAY THEY PROVED THEIR CASE.

STILL NEED MORE TO PROVE IT.

WE BELIEVE, I WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE THE ENTIRE PROCESS WAS CORRUPT FROM THE BEGINNING AND THEY'RE PUTTING IT ON THIS BODY.

TO DO IT WHILE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION TO BE THE HEAD OF THEIR PARTY, TO RUN AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SOME OF YOU IN THIS VERY ROOM, TO TALK ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES I THINK THAT'S ALL PART AND PARTIAL OF THE SAME PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF IRREGULARITIES TAKING PLACE WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING SINCE THE BEGINNING.

THE SPEAKER ALLOWED THE ARTICLES TO LINGER.

IT WAS SUCH A NATIONALLY URGENT MATTER THAT THEY COULD LINGER FOR A MONTH.

SO, WE THINK THIS POINTS TO THE EXACT PROBLEM THAT IS TAKING PLACE HERE.

MY COLLEAGUE SAID THIS IS REALLY TAKING THE VOTE AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU.

COUNCIL.

>> THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA.

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

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

YESTERDAY IT WAS STATED "IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING TO HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CAN NOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT"" DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE TYPE OF QUID PRO QUO A SITTING PRESIDENT CAN ENGAGE IN AS LONG AS THE INTENT OF THE SIGNATURE PRESIDENT IS TO BE REELECTED IN WHAT HE/SHE BELIEVES IS IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST?

>> CHIEF JUSTICE SENATOR, THERE IS NO LIMITING PRINCIPLE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HEARD LAST NIGHT.

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM THAT IS IF THERE IS A QUID PRO QUO THAT THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET REELECTED AND HE BELIEVES HIS REELECTIONS IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW CORRUPT THE QUID PRO QUO IS.

IT'S ASTONISHING IS THAT ON THE FLOOR OF THE BODY SOMEONE WOULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

IT DIDN'T BEGIN THAT WAY IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.

WHAT WE HAVE SEEN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS IS A DESCENT INTO CONSTITUTIONAL MADNESS BECAUSE THAT WAY MADNESS LIES.

IF WE ARE TO ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT A PRESIDENCY SENSUALLY CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, ENGAGE IN WHATEVER QUID PRO QUO HE WANTS I WILL GIVE YOU THIS IF YOU WILL GIVE ME THAT TO HELP ME GET ELECTED.

I WILL GIVE YOU MILITARY DOLLARS IF YOU WILL GIVE ME HELP IN MY REELECTIONS.

IF YOU WILL GIVE ME ELICIT TPOERPBGFOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.

THE ONLY REASON YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOUR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND DEAD TO RIGHTS.

THAT'S AN ARGUMENT OF DESPERATION.

WHAT IS SO STRIKING TO ME IS ALMOST HALF A CENTURY AGO WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO SAID WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

THAT OF COURSE WAS RICHARD NIXON.

WATERGATE IS NOW 40-50 YEARS BEHIND US.

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING IN THE LAST HALF CENTURY?

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING AT ALL?

IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE.

THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL.

OR DONALD TRUMP'S VERSION UNDER ARTICLE TWO, I CAN DO WHAT I WANT.

THE PROFESSOR'S POINT, IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT HELPS IN REELECTIONS IT IS THERE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

IN FACT MUCH AS WE THOUGHT THAT WE PROGRESSED POST WATERGATE, ENACTED WATERGATE REFORMS, AND TRIED TO INSULATE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENCY, WE TRIED TO END THE POLITICAL ABUSES OF THAT DEPARTMENT.

AS MUCH AS WE THOUGHT WE ENACTED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS WE'RE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE HALF A CENTURY AGO.

I WOULD ARGUE WE MAYBE IN A WORST PLACE.

BECAUSE THIS TIME, THIS TIME THAT ARGUMENT MAY SUCCEED.

THAT ARGUMENT IF THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT CAN'T BE ILLEGAL FAILED.

RICHARD NIXON WAS FORCED TO RESIGN.

BUT THAT ARGUMENT MAY SUCCEED HERE.

NOW.

THAT MEANS WE'RE NOT BACK TO WHERE WE WERE.

WE ARE WORST OFF THAN WHERE WE ARE.

THAT IS THE NORMALIZATION OF LAWLESSNESS.

I WOULD HELP THAT EVERY AMERICAN WOULD RECOGNIZE IT'S WRONG TO SEEK FOREIGN HELP IN A AMERICAN ELECTION.

AMERICANS SHOULD DECIDE AMERICAN ELECTIONS.

I HOPE, I BELIEVE ALL AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THAT.

ALL AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THAT'S TRUE FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.

I HOPE THIS TRIAL IS CONDUCIVE OF THE TRUTH.

THE SENATOR ASKED WHAT WITNESSES COULD SHED LIGHT ON WHEN THE PRESIDENT CAN ORDER THE HOLD AND WHY?

WE KNOW NICK MULVANEY WOULD.

THAT INSTRUCTION CAME FROM OMB.

REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY, THE SHOCK THAT WENT THROUGH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE SHOCK HE EXPERIENCED IN THAT VIDEO CONFERENCE WHEN IT WAS FIRST ANNOUNCED.

THE INSTRUCTION IS THIS COMES THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, OMB.

A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT.

NICK MULVANEY KNOWS WHEN THE ORDER WENT INTO PLACE, WHY THE ORDER WENT INTO PLACE.

HE MADE THE STATEMENT PUBLICLY WHICH HE NOW WISHES TO RECAN'T.

I'M SURE HE GOT A EARFUL FROM THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE DID.

NONE OF THAT MATTERS.

IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT'S IN HIS INTEREST IT'S OKAY.

THERE IS THE ARGUMENT, WHAT IF IT'S A CREDIBLE REASON.

SAO +*EU IT WAS A CREDIBLE REASON DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT?

WHAT PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO THINK HE HAS A CREDIBLE REASON TO INVESTIGATE HIS OPPONENT?

WHAT PRESIDENT DOESN'T THINK HE DOESN'T HAVE A CREDIBLE REASON OR ARTICULATE ONE OR COME UP WITH SOME FIG LEAF?

THEY COMPOUNDED THE DANGEROUS ARGUMENT THAT NO QUID PRO QUO IS TOO CORRUPT.

THEY COMPOUNDED IT BY SAYING IF WHAT YOU WANT IT TARGETING YOUR RIVAL IT'S EVEN MORE LEGITIMATE.

THAT WAY MADNESS LIES.

>> JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR OF NORTH DAKOTA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BE HALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR YOUNG.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KRAMER AND YOUNG IS TORE COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT.

MANAGER SCHIFF REGULAR STATES IF THE PRESIDENT IS INNOCENT HE WOULD AGREE TO ALL OF THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THE MANAGER WANTS.

IS THE PRESIDENT THE FIRST INNOCENT DEFENDANT NOT TO WAVE HIS RIGHTS?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR INTEREST FOR THATTHANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

THE ANSWER IS NO, HE'S NOT THE FIRST INNOCENT DEFENDANT NOT TO WAVE HIS RIGHTS.

I THINK IT'S SHOCKING SHOCKING AND STRIKING.

WE HEAR MANAGER NADLER ONLY THE GUILTY HIDE EVIDENCE.

ONLY THE GUILTY DON'T RESPOND TO SUBPOENAS.

MANAGER SCHIFF SAID THIS IS NOT HOW INNOCENT PEOPLE ACT.

THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM.

PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS AND A CERTIFICATING THOSE RIGHTS CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED AS A INDICATION OF GUILT.

THAT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY THE LAWS AND BY THE CONSTITUTION.

THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED IN OUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM THAT THE VERY IDEA OF PUNISHING SOMEONE WHICH IS WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE WITH THEIR OBSTRUCTION TO CONGRESS CHARGE.

IF THE PRESIDENT INSISTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE F THE PRESIDENT INSISTS THAT LIKE VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON AND SOME GOING BEYOND FURTHER BACK TO THAT HE WILL A CERTIFICATE THE IMMUNITY OF HIS SENIOR ADVISORS TO COMPEL CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY.

IF HE'S GOING TO A CERTIFICATE THOSE RIGHTS, GROUNDED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND ESSENTIAL FOR PROTECTING CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED EXECUTIVE BASED CONFIDENTIALITY, WE WILL CALL THAT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND IMPEACH HIM.

IT'S THIS FUNDAMENTAL THEME RUNNING THROUGH THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE AND ARGUMENTS GENERALLY HERE THAT IF THE PRESIDENT STANDS ON HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

IF HE TRIES TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE, THAT HE'S DUTY BOUND TO DO FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE OFFICE, THAT'S A INDICATION OF GUILT AND SHOWS HE OUGHT TO BE IMPEACHED.

THAT'S FUNDAMENTAL LEE ANN TIETHETICAL TO OUR DUE PROCESS AND PRINCIPALS OF ACKNOWLEDGING RIGHTS CAN BE DEFENDED.

RIGHTS EXIST TO BE DEFENDED.

A SERGT THE RIGHTS CONDITION BE TREATED AS PUNISHABLE OR EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

THERE WILL BE A LONG LINE OF PASS PRESIDENTS AS THE PROFESSOR POINTED OUT, A LOT OF PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSIVE POWER.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LONG LINE OF PRESIDENTS THAT COULD OF BEEN IMPEACHED FOR "OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS" IF EVERY TIME THE PRESIDENT INSISTED ON THE PREROGATIVES OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND DEFENDING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS COULD BE IMPEACHABLE AND GUILT.

PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF REFUSED TO TURN OVER A LOT OF DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE IN THE FAST AND TPAOURBIOUSFURIOUS INVESTIGATION.

HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT.

NOBODY THOUGHT THAT WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS THIS IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT IT'S A BOGUS ASSERTION.

IT'S CONTRARY TO OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND OUGHT TO BE REJECTED BY THIS BODY.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.

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

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR JONES QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

ASIDE FROM THE HOUSES CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY PLEASE IDENTIFY SPECIFIC WHAT PROVISION OR PROVISION IF ANY IN THE HOUSE RULES OR HOUSE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZE THE IMPEACHMENT PRIOR TO THE HOUSE PASSAGE 660.

IN ADDITION PLEASE LIST THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED AFTER HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

>> SENATOR, WE WILL COMPILE THE LIST.

WE DON'T HAVE IT ACCESSIBLE AT THE MOMENT.

WE DO HAVE IT.

LET ME JUST, IF I COULD.

SPECIFICALLY THE SUBPOENAS THAT WENT OUT AFTER THE PASS ACT OF THE HOUSE RESOLUTION.

JOHN ISENBERG -- GRIFFITH AND NICK MULVANEY.

LET ME UNDERSCORE SOMETHING MY COLLEAGUE HAD TO SAY.

LET ME BREAK THIS DOWN IN PRACTICAL TERMS.

WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL IMPORT OF WHAT COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT WOULD ARGUE.

IT IS THIS, LET'S SAY A DEMOCRAT IS ELECTED IN NOVEMBER.

LET'S SAY ANY ONE OF YOU THE CHAIR COMMITTEE, SENATE DETERMINE THAT YOU THINK THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN SOMETHING QUESTIONABLE.

MAYBE EVEN SOME WRONG DOING.

YOU BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION.

I WOULD IMAGINE YOUR SENATE RULES LIKE OUR HOUSE RULES.

HOUSE RULE TEN, SENATOR HAS THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS AS NORMAL OVERSIGHT.

THAT DIDN'T EXIST AT WATERGATE AND THEY HAD A SEPARATE RESOLUTION.

THAT HOUSE RULE PASSED EACH SESSION.

THERE YOU ARE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, YOU'RE A CHAIR, YOU START TO DO OVERSIGHT.

YOU ISSUE SUBPOENAS.

YOU START TO LEARN MORE, WHAT YOU LEARN BECOMES MORE AND MORE CONCERNING.

YOU ISSUE MORE SUBPOENAS.

THE ADMINISTRATION IN EFFORT TO COVER UP THE MISCONDUCT SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO COMPLY WITH YOUR SUBPOENAS.

WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT YOUR SUBPOENAS.

THEY COME UP WITH ONE BAD FAITH EXCUSE AFTER ANOTHER AS TO WHY NOT TO COMPLY.

YOU INVESTIGATE FURTHER AND OVERCOME THE WALL OF OBSTRUCTION, THEN YOU BEGIN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THAT LEADS TO THE PASSAGE OF YET ANOTHER RESOLUTION.

THEY WOULD ARGUE TO YOU THAT ALL THE WORK YOU DID BEFORE YOU DETERMINED THAT IT MERITED POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT MUST BE THROWN OUT.

THEY WERE PERFECTLY EMPOWERED TO OBSTRUCT YOU.

YOU MUST BEGIN WITH YOUR CONCLUSION.

YOU MUST BEGIN WITH THE CONCLUSION YOU ARE PREPARED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BEFORE YOU ISSUE A SINGLE SUBPOENA.

OTHERWISE THEY CAN SAY WHAT YOU DID BEFORE GETTING TO THAT PLACE SHOULD BE THROWN OUT.

WE DIDN'T HAVE A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DO THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION HERE.

WHY?

BILL BAR TURNS IT DOWN.

THE SAME ATTORNEY GENERAL MENTIONED THE JULY 25th, SAID THERE WAS NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

THERE WAS NO DOJ INVESTIGATION, A SPECIAL COUNCIL INVESTIGATION.

IT'S NOT AS IF SOMEONE LIKE KEN STARR HANDED US A PACKAGE AND SAID HERE IS THE EVIDENCE.

NOW YOU CAN TAKE UP A RESOLUTION, IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION, WE HAVE DONE THE INVESTIGATION WORK.

NO WE DID THAT WORK OURSELVES.

THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT ANY SUBPOENA YOU ISSUE AS PART OF THE OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY THAT DOWN THE ROAD REVEALS EVIDENCE THAT LEADS YOU TO EMBARK ON A IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY MUST BE DISREGARDED.

THAT CAN NOT AND IS NOT THE LAW.

IT WOULD RENDER THE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION MEANING LESS.

COURT AFTER COURT THAT HAS LOOKED AT THE CONGRESS' POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS HAVE THE SAME CONCLUSIONS.

THAT IS IF YOU HAVE THE POWER TO LEGISLATE YOU HAVE THE POWER TO OVERSEE.

HERE WE HAVE A VIOLATION OF THE ACT, CONGRESS PASSES MILITARY SPENDING.

THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T SPEND IT.

HE GIVES NO REASON AND KEEPS IT A SECRET.

THAT CAN'T BE MORE SQUARELY WITHIN THE OVERSIGHT POWER OF CONGRESS.

TO FIND OUT WHY AIDE WE APPROPRIATED ISN'T GOING OUT THE DOOR.

THEY WOULD SAY YOU CAN'T LOOK INTO THAT UNLESS YOU'RE PREPARED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AND ANNOUNCE IT FIRST HAND.

THAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT ARGUMENT.

IT WOULD CRIPPLE YOUR OVERSIGHT CAPACITY.

WITHOUT THAT YOUR LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY IS CRIPPLED.

THAT'S THE REAL WORLD IMPORT OF THIS LEGAL WINDOW DRESSING.

THEY WOULD STRIP YOU OF YOUR ABILITY TO DO MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT.

PARTICULARLY HERE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MISCONDUCT OF AN IMPEACHABLE KIND AND CHARACTER IT WOULD MEAN A PRESIDENT CAN OBSTRUCT THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION.

IF YOU NEED ANY EVIDENCE OF THEIR BAD FAITH WHICH IS ABUNDANT THE SHIFTING AND SPRINGING RATIONALIZATIONS AND -BGS PLANATIONS WHEN WE HAD CORY LIEU ENDOWLUENDOWSKI -- THIS IS SOMEONE WHO NEVER WORKED FOR THE EXECUTIVE.

THEY MADE THE CLAIM THEY MAY USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IS MY TIME UP?

>> TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IN CHIEF JUSTICE, I SECOND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BE HALF OF MYSELF, HOLLY AND GRAHAM.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR CRUZ ALONG WITH SENATORS HOLLY AND GRAHAM IS FOR BOTH SIDES.

THE COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

YESTERDAY MANAGER TKEPLINGS REFUSED TO ANSWER WHETHER JOE BIDEN SOUGHT ANY LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING HIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON BARISMA THE COMPANY PAYING HUNTER A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

U.S. DAY TO DAY REPORTED THAT WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID "HE HADN'T SPOKEN TO HIS SON HUNTER BIDEN ABOUT HIS OVERSEAS BUSINESS"" THAT ACCOUNT WAS CONTRADICTD BY HUNTER BIDEN WHO REPORTED IN THE NEW YORKER "DAD SAID I HOPE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

I SAID I DO "" WHY DO THEIR STORIES CONFLICT.

DID THE HOUSE ASK EITHER ONE THAT QUESTION?

THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL GOES FIRST.

>> YOU HEARD OUR ANSWER.

I'M SORRY, CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS.

SENATORS, YOU HEARD OUR ANSWER REGARDINGREGARDING THAT YESTERDAY.

IT IS VERY INTERESTING HE NEVER SPOKE TO HIS SON ABOUT OVERSEAS DEALINGS.

HIS SON SAID DIFFERENT THINGS.

JOE BIDEN WAS THE POINT MAN FOR UKRAINE INVESTIGATING AT THE TIME, UKRAINIANS CORRUPT COMPANY BARISMA AND THE OWNER.

BY ALL MEDIA ACCOUNTS WE HAVE DISCUSSED WAS EXTREMELY CORRUPT.

HUNTER BIDEN WAS PAID $83,000 A MONTH.

A MONTH TO SIT ON THE BOARD WITH NO EXPERIENCE IN ENERGY, THE UKRAINE, DOESN'T SPEAK THE LANGUAGE.

WE CLEARLY KNOW HE HAD A VERY FANCY JOB DESCRIPTION.

HE DID NONE OF THE THINGS.

ATTENDED ONE OR TWO BOARD MEETINGS.

ONE IN MONICO.

THEN WENT ON A FISHING TRIP WITH JOE BIDEN'S FAMILY IN NORWAY.

THE ENTIRE TIME JOE BIDEN KNOWS.

JOE BIDEN KNOWS THIS OLAGARK IS CORRUPT.

EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.

NEWS REPORTS ARE EVERYWHERE.

NOBODY WILL DISPUTE THAT.

IT RAISED EYEBROWS WORLDWIDE.

THE VICE PRESIDENT BY HIS ACCOUNT NEVER ONCE ASKED HIS SON TO LEAVE THE BOARD.

WE WOULDN'T BE HERE IF HE DID.

HE NEVER ASKED HIS SON TO LEAVE THE BOARD.

INSTEAD HE STARTED INVESTIGATING THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS GOING AFTER BARISMA AND THIS CORRUPT OLAGARK WHO THEY SAY WAS CORRUPT BY OLAGARK STANDARDS.

HE FLED THE COUNTRY, LIVING IN MONICO.

HE DOES NOT ASK HIM TO LEAVE THE BOARD.

HE DOES THE OPPOSITE.

IN 2015, WHAT DOES HE DO?

WE KNOW BY REPORTS HE HAS CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE PRESIDENT.

HE TRAVELS TO UKRAINE TWICE.

HE LINKS THE AIDE TO THE FIRING.

SAME IN 2016 AT A WHITE HOUSE FIRING.

LINKS THE AIDE TO5+Ss% LINGS THE AID TO THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR.

CALLS HIM FOUR TIMES IN THE EIGHT DAYS LEADING UP TO THE PROSECUTOR.

THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING HUNTER BIDEN.

YES HE NEVER SAYS THAT APPROXIMATELY.

ALL CASES CLOSE.

DAYS BEFORE BIDEN LEAVES OFFICE HE JOKES TO POROSHENK OFFERINGS THAT HE HAS TO CALL IN, HUNTER BIDEN STAYS ON THAT BOARD FOR THREE YEARS.

THREE YEARS.

THEN WE HEAR THE VIDEO OF JOE BIDEN BRAGGING ABOUT LINKING IT.

THEN WE HAVE THE PHONE CALL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> I'M SORRY, THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE TWO AND A HALF MINUTES.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND TO OUR SENATORS, SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION, I KNOW YOU HAVE ASKED ABOUT A CONVERSATION BETWEEN FATHER AND HIS SON.

AND WHAT I CAN TELL YOU, PROBABLY LIKE JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER, THE THERE'S PROBABLY SOME CONVERSATIONS THAT I CAN'T REPEAT TO YOU ABOUT MY CONVERSATIONS WITH BY SORN.

-- MY SOVEREIGN.

SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, SENATOR, WHAT THAT EXACT CONVERSATION WAS.

BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THIS.

IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT WHY WE ARE HERE, AND I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT WE ARE, WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT SPEAKING THE TRUTH BECAUSE THE TRUTH MATTERS NOT JUST FOR THOSE WHO HAVE PAID THE PRICE IN OUR HISTORY, TO HAVE FORMED A MORE PERFECT UNION, AND PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR FUTURE.

AND IN THIS CASE IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT THAT THEN CAN I TELL YOU THIS.

THAT WE ARE SERIOUS THEN ABOUT HEARING FROM FACT WITNESSES.

LOOKING AT THE BIDENS, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE CALLED THEIR NAME, WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO POINT TO THE FACT THAT EITHER BIDEN HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO TELL US ABOUT THE PRESIDENT SHAKING DOWN A FORM POWER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

THE PRECIOUS ELECTION TRYING TO STEAL EACH INDIVIDUAL IN THIS COUNTRY'S VOTE.

YOBILITY EITHER BIDEN HAS ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THAT BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHO I THINK DOES.

MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THE TRUTH, MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL HIM.

BECAUSE WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA ABOUT WHAT HE MIGHT SAY.

OR WHAT ABOUT MR. MULVANEY, WHO HAD DAY-TO-DAY CONTACT WITH THE PRINCIPAL IN OUR INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT WHEN DID WE KNOW?

OR WHEN DID THE PRESIDENT FIRST PUT THE HOLD ON?

WELL, WE DO HAVE REPORTS THAT SAY ON JUNE 19th OF 2019, MR. BLAIR PERSONALLY INSTRUCTED THE DIRECTOR OF OMB TO HOLD UP SECURITY ASSISTANCE FROM UKRAINE, OVER A MONTH BEFORE THE INFAMOUS JULY 25th CALL.

>> THANK YOU, MS. DEMINGS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

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

>> SENATOR FROM NEVADA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR ROSEN IS ADDRESSED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

OWNERSHIP IF COURSE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE TRIED TO MAKE A CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS OVER THOSE OF THE NATION, RISKING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE PROCESS.

WHAT PRECEDENT DO YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS SET FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS?

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

IT'S ONE THAT I'VE WANTED TO ANSWER OR THE SOME TIME NOW.

YOU'VE HEARD ME SPEAK BEFORE ABOUT SOME OF MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY, AND ONE THING THAT THAT EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT ME IS THAT WE ARE STRONG NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE AND THE SACRIFICE OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM WHICH IS EXTREME AND APPEAR IN ALL OF ITS SENSE BUT IT'S STRATEGY I THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER ACTUALLY APPRECIATES AND RMENTS.

BUT WE ARE ALSO STRONG BECAUSE WE HAVE -- REPRESENTS.

BUT WE ARE STRONG BECAUSE WE HAVE FRIENDS, AMERICA DOESN'T GO IT ALONE.

WHEN I WAS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN I WORKED FREQUENTLY WITH AFGHAN ARMY PARTNERS, IRAQI ARMY PARTNERS AND ODORS NOT BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT BUT BECAUSE -- OTHERS BUT BECAUSE IT WAS ESSENTIAL.

WE COULDN'T ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION WITHOUT IT.

BUT IF THOSE PARTNERS FEEL LIKE OUR POLICIES, WHAT WE SAY PUBLICLY, DON'T MATTER, IF THINK FEEL LIKE WE ARE NOT A RELIABLE AND PREDICKABLE PATTERN IF THEY PEOPLE LIKE THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE IS NOT WORTH ANYTHING THEN THEY WILL NOT STAND BY US.

THEY WILL THOUGHT STAND BY US.

AND FOR OVER 70 YEARS SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II ABOUT APPEARANCE, THAT WE HAVE STRIVED TO CREATE, PEACE AND PROSPERITY THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WILL START TO FRAY, BECAUSE THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE WILL NOT MATTER.

UKRAINE HAS STARTED TO LEARN THAT.

OUR 68,000 TROOPS THROUGHOUT EUROPE DESERVE BETTER.

BECAUSE EVERY DAY THEY GET UP AND THEY DO THEIR JOB, THE JOB THAT WE HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO, AND THEY RELY ON OUR CONSISTENCY OUR PREDICTABILITY.

THEY RELY ON THE INTERESTING AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST NOT THE WHIMS AND THE PERSONAL PREFT OF THE PRESIDENT.

WHETHER THAT BE PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT.

IT WILL CONTINUE TO CALL INTO QUESTION OUR BROADERS ALLIANCES AND SEND A MESSAGE THAT THE AMERICAN HANDSHAKE DOESN'T MATTER.

AND WE HAVE A SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE EVOLUTION OF SOME OF THE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO SEE.

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

I THINK YOU WILL PROBABLY BE REWARDED MIGHTILY BY OUR PRESS.

LET'S SEE THAT HAPPEN.

>> CAMPAIGN THIS TIME AROUND IS FOREIGNERS, IF RUSSIA, IF CHINA, IF SOMEONE ELSE OFFERS YOU INFORMATION, SHOULD THEY ACCEPT IT OR DO YOU CALL THE FBI?

>> I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO BOTH.

YOU COULD LISTEN, NOTHING WRONG WITH LISTENING.

IF SOMEBODY CALLED FROM A COUNTRY, NORWAY, WE HAVE INFORMATION ON YOUR OPPONENT, OH I THINK I WOULD WANT TO HEAR IT.

>> YOU WANT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION ON OUR ELECTIONS?

>> I THINK I'D TAKE IT.

>> LET'S MOVE TO THE THIRD EXCERPT THAT I MENTIONED RELATED TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

IT SAYS THE OTHER THING THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, PRESIDENT TRUMP, SPEAKING, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.

SO WHATEVER COULD YOU DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND AND BRAGGING HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION.

IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE.

>> I WOULD THINK IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.

IF WE FEEL THERE'S CORRUPTION LIKE I FEEL THERE WAS IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN, THERE WAS TREMENDOUS CORRUPTION AGAINST ME.

IF WE FEEL THERE'S CORRUPTION, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO GO TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

AND BY THE WAY, LIKEWISE, CHINA SHOULD START AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED IN CHINA IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS WHAT HAPPENED WITH UKRAINE.

>> PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW WHEN THEY GO TO BED TONIGHT, THAT THERE'S A PRESIDENT THAT HAS THEIR INTERESTS IN MIND, THAT WILL PUT THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY ABOVE HIS OWN POLITICAL SELF-INTEREST.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE ANSWERS, AND YES, IT IS STILL A GOOD TIME TO CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON TO TESTIFY.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

THE SENATOR FROM OHIO.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS TOOMEYY, KRAPO AND MORE MORAN.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR PORTMAN AND THE OTHER SENATORS IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR PRESIDENT.

I HAVE BEEN SURPRISETO HEAR THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPEATEDLY INVOKE JONATHAN TURLEY, INCLUDING PLAYING A PART OF A VIDEO OF HIM.

ISN'T IT TRUE PROFESSOR TURLEY OPPOSED THIS IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE AND HAS ALSO SAID THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO PROVE ALONE WITHOUT ANY ACCOMPANYING CRIMINAL ALLEGATION, ABUSE OF POWER HAS NEVER BEEN THE SOLE BASIS FOR A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT AND WAS NOT PROVEN THIS THIS CASE.

-- IN THIS CASE.

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

PROFESSOR TURLEY WAS VERY CRITICAL OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE AND OF THE CHARGES THAT THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS WERE CONSIDERING HERE, BOTH THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE AND THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE.

AND HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS A RUSHED PROCESS, THAT HAD NOT ADEQUATELY PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION, THAT AS THE SENATORS POINT OUT IN THE QUESTION, BOOUTION OF FOUR -- ABUSE OF POWER IS AN EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT THEORY TO USE TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN USED WITHOUT ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.

I THINK IN THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD OVER THE PAST WEEK AND A HALF WE'VE POINTED THAT OUT MULTIPLE TIMES.

EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN OUR HISTORY INCLUDING EVEN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH DIDN'T ACTUALLY LEAD TO AN IMPEACHMENT, HAVE USED CHARGES THIS INCLUDE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW AND THE CRIMINAL LAW.

ANDREW JOHNSON WAS CHARGED MOSTLY IN COUNTS THAT INVOLVED VIOLATION OF THE TENURE OF OFFICE ACT WHICH THE CONGRESS HAD SPECIFICALLY MADE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT AND EVEN WROTE INTO THE STATUTE THAT VIOLATION WOULD CUTE A HIGH -- CONSTITUTE A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR, USED TO TRIGGER AN IMPEACHMENT.

IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY EACH OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT THERE, EXCEPT FOR THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS CHARGE, INCLUDED SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF LAW.

THIS WERE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS ALLEGED IN THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH IS OFTEN SORT OF REFERRED TO LOOSELY AS THE ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE.

IT WASN'T ACTUALLY ENTITLED ABUSE OF POWER, IT DIDN'T CHARGE ABUSE OF POWER, THE SPECIFICATIONS THERE WERE VIOLATIONS OF LAW VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

VIOLATING THE LAWS GOVERNING EXECUTIVE BRAMPLE AGENCIES.

UNLAWFUL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE USING THE CIA AND OTHERS.

SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF LAW AND CLEARLY IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THOSE ARE CRIME CRIMES.

PROFESSOR TURLEY POINTED OUT HERE THAT THERE WASN'T NEARLY AS SUFFICIENT BASIS AND NOT NEARLY A SUFFICIENT RECORD COMPILED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO JUSTIFY AN ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE.

HE ALSO WAS VERY CRITICAL OF THE ON STRURKS OF CONGRESS THEORY AND HE POINTED OUT IT WOULD BE AFTERNOON ABUSE OF POWER BY CONGRESS UNDER THEE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONGRESS HAS SIMPLY DEMANDED INFORMATION, GOTTEN A REFUSEAL FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BASED ON A REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION THAN STRICTLY TO GO TO IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH IF ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS WITHOUT CONSIDERING CONTEMPT, WITHOUT GOING TO THE COURTS.

THAT WAS PROFESSOR TURLEY'S VIEW, IF THEY WERE GOING TO REACH ULTIMATELY SOME OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

DESPITE PROFESSOR TURLEY, IT IS TRUE THAT IN HIS TESTIMONY HE DID NOT ADOPT THE VIEW THAT YOU MUST HAVE A CRIME AND ONLY A CRIME AS THE CHARGE FOR ANNAL ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

HE STILL THOUGHT THAT NEITHER THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HERE COULD BE JUSTIFIED OR WERE SUFFICIENT, OR COULD BE USED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.

BOTH THE ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE AND THE OBSTRUCTION ARTICLE.

SO TAKING SNIPPETS OUT OF WHAT HE SAID REALLY DOES AN INJUSTICE TO THE TOTALITY OF HIS TESTIMONY.

BECAUSE THE TOTALITY OF HIS TESTIMONY WAS ENTIRELY AGAINST WHAT THE HOUSE ENDED UP DOING HERE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THE SNFER SENATOR FROM OHIO.

>> MONTH CHIEF JUSTICE, ON BEHALF OF SENATOR WYDEN AND MYSELF, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

SENATOR BROWN AND WYDEN ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTION NOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

DURING YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL FAILED TO GIVE AN ADEQUATE RESPONSE TO A QUESTION RELATED TO WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OR CANDIDATE WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW, AND WHETHER OFFERS OF SUCH INFORMATION SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE FBI.

FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY WHO WAS APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID, QUOTE, IF ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR MEMBER OF ANY CAMPAIGN IS CONTACTED BY ANY NATION STATE OR ANYBODY ACTING ON BEHALF OF A NATION STATE, ABOUT INFLUENCING OR INTERFERING WITH OUR ELECTION, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE FBI WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT, END QUOTE.

AND WE'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE TELL US INFORMATION PROMPTLY, SO THAT WE CAN TAKE THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

END QUOTE.

IF PRESIDENT TRUMP REMAINS IN OFFICE WHAT SIGNAL DOES THAT SEND TO OTHER COUNTRIES INTENT ON INTERFEARING WITH OUR ELECTIONS IN THE FUTURE AND WHAT MIGHT WE EXPECT FROM THOSE COUNTRIES AND THE PRESIDENTIAL?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.

I THINK THE LAST PART FIRST, IT WOULD SEND A TERRIBLE MESSAGE TO AUTOACCURACY AND DICK -- AUTO ACCURATES AND DICTATORS AND ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY AND THE FREE WORLD.

FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS TEAM TO ESSENTIALLY PUT OUT THERE FOR ALL TO CONSUME THAT IT'S ACCEPTABLE IN THE UNITED STATES TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS OR ACCEPT POLITICAL DIRT SIMPLY TO TRY OCHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

I WAS CERTAINLY SHOCKED BY THE COMMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL YESTERDAY RIGHT HERE ON THE FLOOR, WHEN HE SAID I THINK THE IDEA THAT ANY INFORMATION THAT HAPPENS TO COME FROM OVERSEAS IS NECESSARILY CAMPAIGN INTERFERENCE IS A SNAKE.

NO, IT'S WRONG.

IT'S WRONG.

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

HE ALSO ADDED, INFORMATION THAT IS CREDIBLE THAT POTENTIALLY SHOWS WRONGDOING BY SOMEBODY THAT HAPPENS TO BE RUNNING FOR OFFICE IS CREDIBLE FOR THE VOTERS TO KNOW TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE.

THIS IS NOT A BANANA REPUBLIC.

IT'S THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

IT'S WRONG.

FEW, THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT LESSON WE LEARNED FROM 2016 IS THAT NOBODY SHOULD SEEK OR WELCOME FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

BUT NOW WE HAVE THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS COUNSEL ESSENTIALLY SAYING IT'S OKAY.

IT IS NOT OKAY.

IT STRIKES AT THE VERY HEART OF WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

ABUSE OF POWER.

BETRAYAL BY THE PRESIDENT OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

CORRUPTING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS BY ENTANGLEING OWRS WILLIAM THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

DON'T JUST TRUST ME.

WE HAVE SEVERAL FOLKS WHO HAVE MADE THIS OBSERVATION.

THE FBI DIRECTOR, THE TRUMP FBI DIRECTOR SAID THAT THE FBI WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT ANY ATTEMPT AT FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

AND THE CHAIR OF THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION ALSO ISSUED A STATEMENT, REITERATING THE VIEW OF U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT, SHE SAID IN PART, LET ME MAKE SOMETHING 100% CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ANYONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY PERSON TO SOLICIT, ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL IN CONNECTION WITH A U.S. ELECTION.

THIS IS NOT A NOVEL CONCEPT.

ELECTION INTERVENTION FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF OUR NATION.

IT IS WRONG.

IT IS CORRUPT.

IT IS LAWLESS, IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

IT'S IMPEACHABLE.

AND IT SHOULD LEAD TO THE REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.

>> I SEND TO THE DESK A QUESTION ON MY OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SENATOR LEE.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS HAWLEY AND LEE IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURTS HAVE HELD MOST PREDOMINANTLY IN THE L BLEGOGIVH CASE, ON OFFICIAL ACTS PERFORMED BY ANOTHER PUBLIC OFFICER.

IS THERE ANY APPLICATION TO THE ALLEGATION AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP?

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

I THINK AN IMPORTANT THRESHOLD POINT TO MAKE HERE IS THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN IN THE REALM OF EXCHANGING OFFICIAL ACTS, BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NO PROOF OF A QUID PRO QUO HERE.

WE'RE NOT IN THE REALM OF A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S ONE OFFICIAL ACT BEING TRADE TAIDED FOR ANOTHER.

I THINK WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE THAT MAKES IT QUITE CLEAR THAT BOTH WITH RESPECT TO A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, A BILATERAL MEETING, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE TEMPORARY PAUSE ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE, THE EVIDENCE JUST DOESN'T STACK UP TO SHOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP LINKED EITHER OF THOSE.

BOTH TOOK PLACE.

THE MEETING AND THE RELEASE OF THE AID, WITHOUT UKRAINIANS DOING ANYTHING, ANNOUNCING OR BEGINNING ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE TRANSCRIPT LINKING THEM AS A QUID PRO QUO.

THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE -- THERE HAD BEEN A TEMPORARY PAUSE ON THE AID.

AND I COULD GO ON WITH THE LIST OF POINTS ON THAT.

I THINK IF THERE WERE ANY APPLICATION HYPOTHETICALLY, IT WOULD COME IN THE REALM OF THE FACT THAT IN FOREIGN POLICY, THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE CAN BE -- I WOULD -- SITUATIONS WHERE ONE GOVERNMENT WANTS SOME ACTION FROM ANOTHER.

AND WANTS THAT ACTION FROM ANOTHER IN A WAY THAT WILL CONDITION OTHER POLICIES OF ONE COUNTRY.

YOU CAN SAY WE WOULD LIKE YOU AND THIS HAPPENS, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE COUNTRIES, WE WANT YOU TO DO MORE TO STOP THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

WE'RE GOING TO BE CONDITIONING SOME OF OUR POLICIES TOWARDS YOU, UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU START DOING A BETTER JOB STOPPING THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

BECAUSE IT'S A REAL PROBLEM ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER.

THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

AND WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING LEGITIMATE TO LOOK INTO, THERE COULD BE A SITUATION WHERE THE UNITED STATES WOULD SAY, YOU GOT DO BETTER ON CORRUPTION.

YOU GOT TO DO BETTER ON THESE SPECIFIC AREAS OF CORRUPTION.

OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP HAVING THE SAME RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU.

ONE EXAMPLE LIKE THAT, I BELIEVE WE'VE POINTED OUT THAT AID WAS HELD UP TO AFGHANISTAN.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HELD UP AID TO AFGHANISTAN SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION.

IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WRONG WHATSOEVER WITH CONDITIONING ONE POLICY APPROACH ON A FOREIGN COUNTRY MODIFYING THEIR POLICY, TO BE MORE IN LINE TO ATTUNE MORE DIRECTLY TO U.S. INTEREST.

THAT'S WHAT PART OF FOREIGN POLICY IS ALL ABOUT.

AND THAT COULD ARISE IN THE SITUATION OF EVEN INVESTIGATIONS.

AND I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO POINT OUT THAT IN MAY OF 2018, THREE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS SENT A LETTER TO THE THEN-PROSECUTOR IN UKRAINE, SUGGESTING THAT WE'VE HEARD SOME THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT NOT BE COOPERATING WITH THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.

AND THERE WAS SORT OF AN IMPLICIT INDICATION BEHIND THE LETTER THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE AS MUCH SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT, YOU GOT TO BE HELPING WITH THAT ELECTION.

AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ENCOURAGING THE PROSECUTOR-GENERAL TO ASSIST WITH SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S PART OF FOREIGN POLICY, HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT CASE, THE BLAGOVECH CASE WAS IMPORTANT, GOING TO AFFECT OUR POLICIES TOWARDS YOU, THAT'S ENTIRETY LEGITIMATE.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS A VIOLATION OF ANY LAW OR IS IMPROPER.

AGAIN I COME BACK TO THE POINT THAT HERE THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT LINKAGE.

THERE IS NO PROOF THERE WAS ANY SORT OF AS WE'VE COME TO CALL IT A QUID PRO QUO IN THIS CASE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THE SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.

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

SENATOR CANTWELL'S QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

UKRAINE SCHEME WAS EXPANSIVE AND INVOLVED MANY PEOPLE.

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, SECRETARY OF STATE POMPEO, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR OR ANYONE FROM THE OUTSIDE WERE INVOLVED IN THIS SCHEME TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID OR OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS?

>> IN CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION.

IF WE REMEMBER AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY WHERE HE SAID EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP, BUT WE DON'T JUST HAVE TO TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT.

DURING HIS HEARING, MR. SONDLAND DISCUSSED A JULY 19th E-MAIL HE SENT TO THE PRESIDENT'S TOP AIDES INCLUDING SECRETARY MIKE POMPEO, ACT CHIEF STAFF MICK MULVANEY, TOP ADVISORY ROBERT BLARE, WHERE PERRY AND McCORMICK, SECRETARY PERRY'S CHIEF OF STAFF.

WE SHOULD START WITH IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING TO THE TRUTH ISSUING A SUBPOENA ABOUT STATE DEPARTMENT E-MAILS.

IN THE E-MAIL SONDLAND SAID QUOTE, I TALKED TO ZELENSKY JUST NOW.

HE IS PREPARED TO RECEIVE POTUS'S CALL.

HE WILL TURN OVER EVERY STONE.

HE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE A CALL PRIOR TO SUNDAY OHE COULD PUT OUT SOME MEDIA ABOUT A FRIENDLILY AND PRODUCTIVE CALL, NO DETAILS.

IN MULVANEY ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT AND RESPONDS, I ASKED FOR THE NS DROMPLET SET UP A CALL FOR TOMORROW.

SIX DAYS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NOW INFAMOUS JULY 25th CALL IN WHICH HE TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS AND THE 2016 ELECTION.

MR. SONDLAND SENT AND E-MAIL TO THE PRESIDENT'S TOP AIDES UPDATINGS THEM ON THE STATUS OF THE SCHEME.

AGAIN, QUOTE, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

ON AUGUST 11th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND E-MAILED MR. ON THE STATEMENT HE WAS NEGOTIATING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WITH THE AIM OF, QUOTE, MAKING THE BOSS HAPPY, THE BOSS BEING THE PRESIDENT, ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE THE INVESTIGATION.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WROTE TO MR. BRECKBALL TO BE DELIVERED FOR OUR REVIEW IN A DAY OR TWO.

THE CONTENTS WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THE BOSS HAPPY ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE AN INVITATION.

AND HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE INVITATION FOR A WHITE HOUSE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WHICH WE KNOW WAS MUCH MORE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAN A SIDELINE MEETING AT THE U.N.

YET FURTHER EVIDENCE AND I QUOTE, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR REPORTEDLY RESPONDED AT SOME POINT THERE WAS A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE THAT WAS DORN AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR RESPONDED TO THAT ARTICLE BY STATING THAT HE WAS AWARE OF DOJ INVESTIGATIONS INTO SOME COUNTRIES, AND THAT HE WAS CONCERNED PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GIVING WORLD LEADERS THE IMPRESSION HE HAD UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER WHAT WOULD ORDINARILY BE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS HE CITED CONVERSATIONS THE PRESIDENT HAD WITH LEADERS OF TURKEY AND CHINA.

FURTHER DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE PRESIDENT ABUSING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL, POLITICAL REASONS, AGAIN IT PROVES THAT EVERYBODY WAS IN THE LOOP, AND WE SHOULD WANT TO SUBPOENA AND REVIEW THOSE E-MAILS INVOLVING THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS.

>> THANK YOU, MRS.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WP.

>> SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA.

>> I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MY SELF, AND SENATORS ERNT, SCOTT AND KRAPO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR THUNE AND THE OTHER SENATORS ASK THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

ON MARCH 6th, TWRIENT, SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SAID QUOTE IMPEACHMENT IS SO DIVISIVE TO THE COUNTRY, THAT UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING COMPELLING AND BIPARTISAN I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE IT DIVIDES THE COUNTRY.

END QUOTE.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON ALSO WARNED IN FEDERALIST 65 AGAINST QUOTE PROSECUTION GENES TEMPERATE DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT.

IN EVALUATING THE CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT SHOULD THE SENATE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PARTISAN NATURE OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE?

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, ABSOLUTELY YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

THAT'S DISPOSITIVE, THAT'S SHOULD END IT.

BASED ON THE STATEMENTS WE HEARD LAST SOMETIME FROM OUR FRIENDS TON DEMOCRATIC SIDE, THAT'S A REASON WHY YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE AN IMPEACHMENT.

SPEAKER PELOSI WAS RIGHT WHEN SHE SAID THAT.

UNFORTUNATELY, SHE DIDN'T FOLLOW HER OWN ADVICE.

WE'VE NEVER BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THE IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT IN AN ELECTION YEAR WITH THE GOAL OF REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM THE BALLOT.

AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, THAT IS THE MOST MASSIVE ELECTION INTERFERENCE WE'VE EVER WITNESSED.

IT'S DOMESTIC ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

IT'S POLITICAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

AND IT'S WRONG.

THEY DON'T TALK ABOUT THE HORRIBLE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR COUNTRY.

OF DOING THAT.

BUT THEY WOULD BE TERRIBLE, THEY WOULD TEAR US APART FOR GENERATIONS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULDN'T ACCEPT IT.

LET ME ADDRESS IN THAT CONTEXT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VOTE.

FOR THEIR INQUIRY, WHICH ALSO HAD BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION.

NOW THEY SAID WELL WE WERE FINE WHEN SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED IT.

WE DIDN'T NEED A VOTE.

THE SUBPOENAS WERE AUTHORIZED.

THEN WHY DID THEY HAVE A VOTE?

THEY HAD A VOTE BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY HAD A BIG PROBLEM THAT THEY NEEDED TO FIX.

BUT WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT THE VOTE THAN THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE?

THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THE VOTE IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO START AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION, PARTICULARLY ON -- IN AN ELECTION YEAR, THERE NEEDS TO BE POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

YOU CAN'T JUST GO HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT THE VOTES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO BE DISALLOWED THAT ALL OF THE BALLOTS NEED TO BE TORN UP, THEN AT THE VERY LEAST YOU NEED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR HOME DISTRICT FOR THAT DECISION.

AND NOW THEY ARE.

AND NOW THEY ARE.

AND IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE, IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO VOTE, IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE, THAT THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE, THAT THEY DON'T LIKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED, THAT THEY DON'T LIKE THE ATTACK ON A SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENT FOR PURELY PARTISAN POLITICAL PURPOSES THEN THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND THEY CAN THROW THEM OUT.

THAT'S WHY A VOTE'S IMPORTANT.

BUT WE SHOULD NEVER EVEN CONSIDER REMOVING THE NAME OF A PRESIDENT FROM THE BALLOT ON A PURELY PARTISAN BASIS, IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

IMPORTANT, I'LL SAY IT'S IMPORTANT.

FOR THAT RENAL ALONE, AND FOR THE INTEREST OF UNITING OUR COUNTRY, IT MUST BE REJECTED.

THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF SENATOR DUCKWORTH, ARE SENATOR HARRIS, MYSELF, FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR REED AND FOR OTHER SENATORS IS FOR BOTH PARTIES BEGINNING WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

IT IS REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT PAY RUDY GIULIANI HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY FOR HIS LEGAL SERVICES.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHO HAS PAID RUDY GIULIANI FOR HIS EXPENSES IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY AND REPRESENTATIVE?

>> THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S PAYING RUDY GIULIANI'S FEES.

AND IF HE IS NOT BEING PAID BY THE PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT THIS DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND, FOR WHICH HE HAS DEVOTED SO MUCH TIME, IF OTHER CLIENTS ARE PAYING AND SUBSIDIZING HIS WORK IN THAT RESPECT, IT RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN'T ANSWER AT THIS POINT.

BUT THERE ARE SOME ANSWERS THAT WE DO KNOW.

AS HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED, HE'S NOT THERE DOING FOREIGN POLICY.

SO WHEN COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT SAYS THIS IS A POLICY DISPUTE, YOU CAN'T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT OVER POLICY, WHAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS ENGAGED IN BY HIS OWN ADMISSION HAS NOTHING DO WITH POLICY.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICY.

AND LET ME MENTION ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS SCHEME THAT GIULIANI WAS ORCHESTRATING IN, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY WOULD MAKE, THAT IT'S QUID PRO QUOS ARE JUST FINE.

LET'S SAY RUDY GIULIANI DOES ANOTHER ERRAND FOR THE PRESIDENT, THIS TIME AN ERRAND IN CHINA.

AND HE SAYS TO THE CHINESE, WE WILL GIVE YOU A FAVORABLE DEAL WITH RESPECT TO CHINESE FARMERS, AS OPPOSED TO AMERICAN FARMERS, WE WILL BETRAY THE AMERICAN FARMER IN THE TRADE DEAL BUT HERE'S WHAT WE WANT.

THE QUID PRO QUO IS MANY WE WANT YOU TO DO AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.

YOU KNOW THE ONE, THE ONE THE PRESIDENT'S BEEN CALLING FOR.

THEY WOULD SAY THAT'S OKAY.

THEY WOULD SAY THAT'S A QUID PRO QUO, TO HELP HIS REELECTION.

HE CAN BETRAY THE AMERICAN FARMER, THAT'S OKAY.

THAT'S THEIR ARGUMENT.

WHERE DOES THAT ARGUMENT LEAD US?

THAT'S EXACTLY THE KIND OF DOMESTIC CORRUPT POLITICAL ERRAND THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS DOING GRATIS, WITHOUT PAYMENT, AT LEAST WITHOUT PAYMENT APPARENTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT.

WHO'S PAYING THE FREIGHT FOR IT?

I DON'T KNOW WHO'S DIRECTLY PAYING THE FREIGHT FOR IT BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS PAYING THE FREIGHT FOR IT.

BECAUSE THERE ARE LEADERS AROUND THE WORLD WHO ARE WATCHING THIS AND THEY'RE SAYING THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

THIS PRESIDENT WANTS OUR HELP AND IF WE HELP HIM HE WILL BE GRATEFUL.

HE WILL BE GRATEFUL.

IS THAT THE KIND OF MESSAGE WE WANT TO SEND TO THE REST OF THE WORLD?

THAT IS THE RESULT OF NORMALIZING LAWLESSNESS OF THE KIND THAT RUDY GIULIANI WAS ENGAGED IN.

>> THANK YOU -- I'M SORRY, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

COUNSEL.

>> CAME OUT OF THE MANAGER'S MOUTH.

OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

I'LL TELL YOU WHO IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO'S OPEN FOR BUSINESS?

WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS CHARGED BY THE THEN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH DEVELOPING POLICIES TO AVOID AND ASSIST IN REMOVING CORRUPTION FROM UKRAINE, AND HIS SON WAS ON THE BOARD OF A COMPANY THAT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR UKRAINE, AND YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WAS DOING, WHEN HE WAS OVER TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS GOING ON IN UKRAINE?

AND BY THE WAY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT INTERESTING TO ME AND MY COLLEAGUE, DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL REFERRED TO THIS.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT IRONIC TO ME THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE QUESTIONING CONVERSATIONS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, WHEN THREE OF YOU, THREE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, SENATOR MENENDEZ, SENATOR LEAHY AND SENATOR DURBIN, SENT A LETTER LIKE THIS, THEY WROTE A LETTER TO THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF UKRAINE.

THEY SAY THEY ARE STRONG ADVOCATES IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE AND WE BELIEVE OUR COOPERATION SHOULD EXTEND TO SUCH LEGAL MATTERS REGARDLESS OF POLITICS AND THEIR CONCERN WAS ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS AND WHETHER THE MUELLER TEAM WAS GETTING APPROPRIATE, APPROPRIATE RESPONSES FROM UKRAINE REGARDING INVESTIGATIONS OF WHAT?

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT WHETHER FORM INVESTIGATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE?

I THINK IT ANSWERS ITSELF.

THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.

>> QUESTION ON THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF L, SENATOR ERNST AND SANITARY SENATOR CRAPO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR MILITARY AID AND STATE DEPARTMENT FUNDS TO UKRAINE IN 2019, AS A CAUSE TO BELIEVE THERE WAS A SECRET SCHEME OR QUID PRO QUO BY THE PRESIDENT.

IN 2019, 86% OF THE DOD FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED TO UKRAINE IN SEPTEMBER, BUT IN 2018, 67% OF THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN SEPTEMBER, AND IN 2017, 73% OF THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN SEPTEMBER.

IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED SEPTEMBER 30 IN 2019, BUT THEY WERE OBLIGATED SEPTEMBER 28 IN 2018.

EACH YEAR, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FUNDS WERE OBLIGATED IN THE FINAL MONTH OR DAYS OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

WAS THERE -- EXCUSE ME -- WAS THERE A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK TO UKRAINE OR THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FUNDS GOING OUT AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER OF, IN THE TWO PREVIOUS YEARS?

DID IT WEAKEN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR AID WAS RELEASED IN SEPTEMBER, EACH OF THE LAST THREE YEARS?

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

AND THE SHORT STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER IS, THERE WAS NO JEOPARDY TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE TIMING OF THE RELEASE OF THIS MONEY.

AS THE QUESTION INDICATED, THE VAST BULK OF FUNDS IN EACH OF THE PRIOR TWO FISCAL YEARS WERE ALSO OBLIGATED IN SEPTEMBER.

IS THE FACT THAT THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED HERE ON SEPTEMBER 11th AND OBLIGATED BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE TIMING IN PAST YEARS.

THERE WAS -- AND IT IS ALSO THE CASE THAT AT THE END OF EVERY FISCAL YEAR, THERE IS SOME FUNDING IN THIS UKRAINIAN MILITARY ASSISTANCE, THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR, THAT ISN'T OBLIGATED BY THE END OF THE RL FISCAL YEAR.

WE HAVE HEARD THE HOUSE MANAGERS POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THE HOUSING MANAGERS HAD TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION, THE SPECIAL PROVISION TO GET $38 MILLION EXTENDED SO IT COULD BE USED THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

MY UNDERSTANDING EVERY FISCAL YEAR, THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY, NOT THE SAME AMOUNT BUT THERE'S SOME A OF MONEY THAT HAS TO BE DONE, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GET OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

IT'S NOT JUST FROM THE RAW DATA THAT WE CAN SEE THE FUNDS WENT OUT ROUGHLY THE SAME TIMING TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR THAT THEREFORE IT DOESN'T SUGGEST ANY GREAT RISK TO UKRAINE OR RISK TO THE UNITED STATES, WE KNOW THAT FROM TESTIMONY AS WELL.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT THE BRIEF PAUSE ON AID WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT.

AND UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS DAVID HALE EXPLAINED THIS WAS FUTURE ASSISTANCE.

I MENTIONED THIS THE OARL DAY.

IT'S NOT LIKE THIS MONEY IS BEING SPENT MONTH BY MONTH TO SUPPLY CURRENT NEEDS IN THE UKRAINE.

IT'S FIVE-YEAR MONEY.

ONCE IT IS OBLIGATED, IT CAN GO TO U.S. FORMS WHO ARE PROVIDING MATERIAL TO THE UKRAINIANS AND IT DOESN'T GET SPENT DOWN FINALLY AND MATERIAL SHIPPED TO UKRAINE FOR A LONG TIME.

SO A DELAY OF 48 OR 55 DAYS DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNT IT AND THE MONEY BEING RELEASED BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR ENDS UP HAVING NO REAL EFFECT.

IT'S NOT CURRENT MONEY THAT'S SPLIETION IMMEDIATE NEEDS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HEARD ON THE FRONT LINES ON THE DONBAS UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS ARE BEING PUT AT RISK.

WE KNOW THAT IS NOT ACCURATE.

WE KNOW FROM THE UKRAINIAN DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEFENSE WHO GAVE AN INTERVIEW TO THE NEW YORK TIMES, WHO EXPLAINED THAT THE HOLD CAME AND WENT SO QUICKLY THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE ANY CHANGE.

REMEMBER THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T EVEN KNOW.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS ADVISORS, YERMAK AND OTHERS, HAVE MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, THERE WAS ANOTHER INTERVIEW JUST THE OTHER DAY WITH DANILUK WHO -- I MIGHT GET HIS TITLE WRONG, I THINK HE WAS THE FORM MINISTER AT THE TIME, THERE WAS AN INTERVIEW JUST THE OTHER DAY THAT WAS PUBLISHED AND HE EXPLAINED AGAIN THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE AID HAD BEEN HELD UP UNTIL THE POLITICAL ARTICLE ON AUGUST 28th.

AND THEN HE SAID THERE WAS A PANIC IN KIEV BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO.

WITHIN TWO WEEKS IT HAD BEEN RELEASED.

WE ALSO HEARD THE IDEA THAT WELL, IT WAS JUST THE FACT OF THE DELAY THAT GAVE THE RUSSIAN HE THE SIGNAL AND GAVE THE UKRAINIANS THE SIGNAL AND THAT IS WHAT THE DAMAGE TO NATIONAL SECURITY WAS.

BUT THE WHOLE POINT IS, THE LEADERS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN UKRAINE DIDN'T KNOW.

IT WASN'T MADE PUBLIC.

SO THEY WEREN'T BEING GIVEN A SIGNAL BY THEN AND THE RUSSIANS WEREN'T GIVEN A SIGNAL BY THEN.

SO THAT THEORY FOR DAMAGE TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ALSO DOESN'T WORK.

THERE WAS A PAUSE TEMPORARILY SO THAT THERE COULD BE SOME ASSESSMENT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT HAD RAISED.

THE MONEY WAS RELEASED BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY EITHER IN TERMS OF MATERIAL NOT BEING AVAILABLE TO UKRAINIANS OR IN TERMS OF ANY SIGNAL BE SENT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER.

THE MONEY GOT OUT THE DOOR ROUGHLY THE SAME TIME AS IN PRIOR YEARS, A LITTLE BIT MORE LEFT OVER AT THE END THAT HAD TO BE FIXED BUT THERE'S SOME LEFT OVER EVERY YEAR THAT HAS TO BE FIXED, WITH A RIDER ON CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS BILL, NO DAMAGE AT ALL TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM HAWAII.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR HIRONO FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS READS AS FOLLOWS: IN CONTRAST TO ARGUMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY STATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HELD UP AID TO UKRAINE TO GET HIS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS.

HE CLAIMED, QUOTE, WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME WITH FOREIGN POLICY END QUOTE, AND QUOTE, GET OVER IT, END QUOTE.

WHAT WAS DIFFERENT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WITHHOLDING OF AID TO UKRAINE FROM PRIOR AID FREEZES?

ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE WITHHELD FOREIGN AID AS A BRIBE TO EXTRACT PERSONAL BENEFITS?

>> THANK YOU, SENATOR, I'LL RESPOND TO THE QUESTION BUT LET ME BEGIN WITH SOMETHING IN THE CATEGORY OF YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

TODAY, WHILE WE'VE BEEN DEBATING WHETHER A PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR ESSENTIALLY BOGUS CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE FOR ATTEMPTING TO USE THE COURTS TO COVER UP MISCONDUCT.

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN RESISTING HOUSE SUBPOENAS IS IN COURT TODAY, AND WAS ASKED, WELL, IF THE CONGRESS CAN'T COME TO THE COURT TO ENFORCE ITS SUBPOENAS BECAUSE AS WE OH THEY'RE IN HERE ARGUING CONGRESS MUST GO TO COURT TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS BUT THEY'RE IN THE COURT SAYING CONGRESS THOU SHALT NOT DO THAT, IF THE CONGRESS CAN'T ENFORCE THEIRS SUBPOENAS IN COURT WHAT REMEDY IS THERE, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S LAWYERS RESPONSE IS IMPEACHMENT.

IMPEACHMENT.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP!

I MEAN WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO WE NEED OF THE BAD FAITH OF THIS EFFORT TO COVER UP?

I SAID THE OTHER DAY THEY'RE IN THIS COURT, THEY'RE DOWN THE STREET MAKING THE OTHER ARGUMENT, I DIDN'T THINK THEY WOULD MAKE IT ON THE SAME DAY BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON.

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, HOW IS THIS AID DIFFERENT, THIS HOLD DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER HOLDS?

IT'S CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE TO ASK THAT QUESTION.

THE LAWS SONG PASS AUTHORIZING -- CONGRESS PASS AUTHORIZING THIS APPROPRIATION DIDN'T HOLD FOR THIS PRESIDENT.

AS THE GAO, THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE FOUND IT VIOLATED THE LAW TO HOLD THE AID THE WAY IT DID.

ONCE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THERE WAS KNOCK THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A HOLD.

THE MONEY HAD TO FLOW.

AND THAT WAS INTENTIONAL.

MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE IS CRITICAL TO OUR NATIONAL SCUT.

IT IS OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

AND RECALL THEN THE SPRING OF 2019, THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CERTIFIED UKRAINE HAD MET ALL THE ANTICORRUPTION BENCHMARKS.

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE SENT THE SENATE A LETTER SAYING THE BENCHMARKS HAD BEEN MET.

IT ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE SAYING THE AID WAS BEING SPENT.

BUT THEN THE PRESIDENT STEPPED IN.

WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY HE SECRETLY PLACED A HOLD ON THE AID.

NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IN THEIR PRESENTATION GIVES SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF PAST HOLDS AS IF WE CAN'T DISTINGUISH ONE FOR A CORRUPT REASON AND ONE THAT IS FOR A POLICY REASON.

AND THEN THERE WERE EXAMPLES THE LAW EXPLICITLY PRESENTED THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE AUTHORITY TO PAUSE, REEVALUATE OR CANCEL FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS AS THE SITUATION IN A RECIPIENT COUNTRY EVOLVED.

FOR EXAMPLE, WITH REGARD TO FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS OR GUATEMALA, TO SUSPEND IN WHOLE OR IN PART THAT ASSISTANCE, IN ANY TIME THE SECRETARY DEEMS THAT THAT, UPHOLDING THE HAW, THOSE ARE THE PRIORITIES THAT YOU THE SENATE AGREED TO.

AND THE PRESIDENT WAS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THEM.

SIMILARLY, AID TO AFGHANISTAN, IS SUBJECT TO PERIODIC REEVALUATIONS BY LAW, AND LAW EXPLICITLY DIRECTS THE SECRETARIES OF STATE SHOULD SUSPEND ASSISTANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN, SHOULD IT BE ASSESSED THAT THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT IS NAILING TO MAKE CERTAIN PROGRESS IN ANTITERRORISM BENCHMARKS.

THE OVERTHROW OF THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT IN EGYPT, WE'VE HAD THIS BROUGHT UP AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE, INCLUDING SENATORS LEIGHLEAHY AND GRAHAM, SENATORS PRESSED FOR THAT AID TO BE WHELTD BECAUSE THE LAW WAS CLEAR INSTANCES OF A MILITARY COUP, AID MUST BE SUSPENDED.

SENATORS McCAIN AND GRAHAM WROTE AN OP ED, NOT ALL COUPS ARE CREATED EQUAL BUT A COUP IS A COUP.

ELECTED BY VOTERS AND, FORNS ASSISTANCE, I COULD GO ON AND ON WITH EXAMPLES.

NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED YOU CAN'T CONDITION AID.

WHERE BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD ALL AGREE THAT YOU CAN'T CONDITION AID FOR A CORRUPT PURPOSE.

TO TRY GET A FOREIGN POWER TO CHEAT IN YOUR ELECTION.

COUNSEL SAYS IF YOU DECIDE, THE PROSECUTION AS PROVED THAT HE ENGAGED IN THIS CRU CORRUPT SCHEME, IF YOU DECIDE AS IMPARTIALITY JURORS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES HIS REMOVAL OF OFFICE THAT THE PUBLIC WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR JUDGMENT.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS.

>> I SEVEN DAY A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MY SELF, MANY START COTTON ERNST YOUNG HAWLEY RISCH FISHER AND HOVEN.

>> THANK YOU.

SENATOR BOZEMAN AND THE OTHER SENATORS POSE A QUESTION TO BOTH SIDES.

IN THE HOUSE MANAGER'S OPENING STATEMENT THEY ARGUE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT CANNOT BE DECIDED AT THE BALLOT BOX.

FOR WE CANNOT BE ASSURED THAT THE VOTE WILL BE FAIRLY WON, UNQUOTE.

HOW WOULD ACQUITTING THE PRESIDENT PREVENT VOTERS FROM MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GOES FIRST.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHO SHOULD DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT.

THE VOTERS.

ALL POWER COMES FROM THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY.

THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE.

THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE ELECTED IN THE HOUSE.

AND THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT IS ELECTED.

IT'S EXACTLY WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE QUESTION.

PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE LIKE THIS, WHERE IT'S PURELY PARTISAN.

HERE'S THE OTHER THING.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, AS A POLITICAL WEAPON, THEY DIDN'T TELL WHAT YOU THEY TOLD THE COURT, OVER THE HOLIDAYS, WHEN THEY WERE WAITING TO DELIVER THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES.

THEY WENT AND TOLD THE COURT, THEY'RE ACTUALLY STILL IMPEACHING OVER THERE IN THE HOUSE, DID YOU KNOW THAT?

THEY'RE ACTUALLY STILL IMPEACHING.

THEY'RE COMING HERE AND THEY'RE TELLING YOU PLEASE DO THE WORK THAT WE DIDN'T DO.

WHERE WE HAD TWO DAYS IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE HAD THE RUSH DELIVERY FOR CHRISTMAS AN THEN WE WAITED AND WAITED AND WAITED.

BUT NOW WE WANT TO YOU CALL WITNESSES THAT WE NEVER CALLED THAT WE DIDN'T SUBPOENA.

THEY WANT TO TURN YOU INTO A INVESTIGATIVE BODY.

IN THE MEANTIME THEY SAY, BY THE WAY, WE'RE STILL DOING IT OVER THERE, WE'RE STILL IMPEACHING.

THEY DON'T WANT TO SPEED IT UP, THEY WANT TO SLOW DOWN AND TAKE UP THE ELECTION YEAR AND CONTINUE THIS POLITICAL CHARADE.

IT IS ALSO WRONG.

IT'S ALL SO WRONG.

LET'S LEAVE IT TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

LET'S TRUST THEM.

THEY'RE ASKING YOU NOT TO TRUST THEM.

PAIN THEY DON'T TRUST THEM.

MAYBE THEY WON'T LIKE THE RESULT.

WE SHOULD TRUST THEM.

THAT'S WHO SHOULD DECIDE WHO THE PRESIDENT OF THIS COUNTRY SHOULD BE.

IT WILL BE A FEW MONTHS FROM NOW.

AND THEY SHOULD DECIDE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, I APPRECIATE THE QUU QUESTION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE MUCH HIS ONGOING ABUSE OF POWER.

THREATENS THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT ELECTION.

AS WE SAW FROM THE VIDEO MONTAGE, THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE NO BONES THE FACT THAT HE'S WILLING TO SEEK FOREIGN INTERVENTION TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

NOW COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT SAYS THE NEXT ELECTION IS THE REMEDY.

IT'S NOT REMEDY WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO SEEK TO CHEAT IN THAT VERY ELECTION.

THIS IS WHY THE FOUNDERS DID NOT PUT A REQUIREMENT THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ONLY BE IMPEACHED IN THEIR FIRST TERM, INDEED AT THAT TIME OF COURSE WEREN'T TERM LIMITS ON THE PRESIDENCY.

IF IT WERE THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS TO SAY THAT A PRESIDENT CAN'T BE IMPEACHED IN AN ELECTION YEAR THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO.

NOW THEY DIDN'T FOR A REASON BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT A PRESIDENT WHO MIGHT TRY TO CHEAT IN THAT VERY ELECTION.

NOW, COUNSEL AS I WAS GETTING TO A MOMENT AGO, MADE THE ARGUMENT IF YOU MAKE THE DECISION AS IMPARTIAL JURORS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION, HE'S ABUSED HIS POWER, THAT HE SHOULD BE CONVICTAND REMOVED FROM OFFICE, THAT THE COUNTRY WOULD NOT ACCEPT IT.

I HAVE MORE CONFIDENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAN THAT.

BUT I WILL ASSURE YOU OF THIS.

IF YOU MAKE THE DECISION THAT A FAIR TRIAL CAN BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT HEARING FROM WITNESSES, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT JUDGMENT.

BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT GOES INTO A FAIR TRIAL AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT A FAIR TRIAL REQUIRES BOTH SIDES TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT OUR CASE.

WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL OUR WITNESSES.

WE'D LIKE TO RELY ON MORE THAN OUR ARGUMENTATION.

THERE ARE A FEW LIST ABOUT THIS TRIAL THAT AMERICANS AGREE ON BUT ONE THING THEY ARE SQUARELY IN AGREEMENT ON.

WELL, TWO.

THEY BELIEVE A TRIAL SHOULD HAVE WITNESS TESTIMONY AND THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON.

THAT IS THE OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REVIEW?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WOULD DO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW.

THEY VIOLATED EVERY PAST PRECEDENT.

THEY VIOLATED ALL FORLS OF DUE PROCESS.

NOW THEY SAY THAT'S A PROCESS ARGUMENT AND IT IS.

BUT IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

IF YOU FEEL CONFIDENT IN YOUR FACTS, THEN WHY DO YOU DESIGN A PROCESS THAT COMPLETELY SHUTS OUT THE PRESIDENT?

WHY DO YOU COOK UP THE FACTS IN A BASEMENT SKIFF, INSTEAD OF IN THE LIGHT OF DAY, WHY DO YOU DO THAT?

WHY DON'T YOU ALLOW THE MINORITY TO CALL WITNESSES AS THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO DO IN ALL PAST IMPEACHMENTS?

THEN THEY COME HERE AND SAY BY THE WAY, WE WERE FULLY IN CHARGE SO COMPLETELY IN CHARGE THAT WE LOCKED OUT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, DENIED ALL RIGHTS, DENIED THE MINORITY ANY WITNESSES AT ALL.

BUT WHEN WE COME HERE THEY STILL DON'T GET WITNESSES.

THEY WANT YOU NOT ONLY TO DO THEIR JOB BUT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE, THE SAME VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS THAT THEY DID.

THEY SAID WELL LET'S JUST PICK THE WITNESSES THAT WE WANT.

THE OTHER ONES ARE IRRELEVANT, NOT RELEVANT.

IN LISTENING TO MR. SCHIFF OVER THESE MONTHS, I'VE COME TO A DETERMINATION OF WHAT HE MEANS BY IRRELEVANT.

HE MEANS BAD FOR THEM.

OKAY?

HE MEANS WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO CALL.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DID THAT.

I'LL SAY SOMETHING ELSE, I'LL SAY SOMETHING ELSE.

I HAVE RESPECT FOR YOU AND I HAVE RESPECT FOR THE HOUSE.

AND WHEN I FIRST GOT THIS JOB I WENT, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I DID WAS I WENT TO VISIT MR. SCHIFF, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, I WENT TO VISIT CHAIRMAN NADLER, I WENT TO VISIT CHAIRMAN CUMTION AT THATCUMMINGSAT THE TIME.

WE'LL PARTICIPATE IN OVERSIGHT BUT IF WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL POINTS TO MAKE WE'LL MAKE THEM, MAKE THEM DIRECTLY.

AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PARTICIPATED IN OVERSIGHT.

MANY, MANY BUSINESSES HAVE TESTIFIED IN OVERSIGHT HEARINGS.

LARGE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN OVERSIGHT HEARINGS.

AND IN FACT IN THE LETTER THAT I SENT ON OCTOBER 8th I MADE THE SAME OFFER.

I SAID LOOK THIS IS NOT REALLY A VALID IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THIS WE'VE STATED BUT IF THE COMMITTEE'S WISH TO RETURN TO THE REGULAR ORDER OF OVERSIGHT, REQUESTS, WE STAND READY TO ENGAGE IN THAT PROCESS.

BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

SO I RESPECT CONGRESS, THE ADMINISTRATION RESPECTS CONGRESS BUT WE RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION.

WE RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION TOO.

AND WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND TO THE FUTURE PRESIDENTS, TO VINDICATE THE CONSTITUTION, AND VINDICATE THOSE RIGHTS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM OREGON.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE FLOOR MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR WYDEN FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS -- COMMUNITY IS PROHIBITED FROM REQUESTING THAT A FOREIGN ENTITY TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHEN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS ITSELF PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO.

IN 2017, DIRECTOR MIKE POMPEO AVERAGES CONFIRMATION HEARING TO THE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HE TESTIFIED THAT QUOTE IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO OUTSOURCE THAT WHICH WE CANNOT DO.

END QUOTE.

SO WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN WHEN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ESTABLISHED A LEGAL PREDICATE TO DO SO HOW IS THAT NOT AN ABUSE OF POWER?

>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY AN ABUSE OF POWER.

AND WHAT'S MORE, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT A PRESIDENT DID ESSENTIALLY ENGAGE IN ANY CORRUPT ACTIVITY AS LONG AS HE BELIEVES AT A IT WILL ASSIST HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN, THAT CAMPAIGN IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

AND WHAT'S TO STOP A PRESIDENT FROM TASKING HIS INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TO DO POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS?

WHAT'S TO STOP HIM FROM TASKING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IF HE CAN COME UP WITH SOME CREDIBLE OR INCREDIBLE CLAIM THAT HIS OPPONENT DESERVES TO BE INVESTIGATED, THEIR ARGUMENT WOULD LEAD YOU TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO THAT.

TO USE THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE A RIVAL.

AND WHEN THEY BECOME A RIVAL, IT'S EVEN MORE JUSTIFIED.

BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, IF SECRETARY POMPEO WAS CORRECT AND YOU CAN'T USE YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES YOU SURE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THE RUSSIAN ONES OR UKRAINIAN ONES.

AND HERE YOU KNOW WE HAVE THE PRESIDENT OFTEN THAT PHONE CALL, PUSHING OUT THIS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.

THIS RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE PROPAGANDA, CROWDSTRIKE, IF THERE'S ONE SERVER, IT WAS WHISKED TO UKRAINE.

MADE FOR YOU KREMLIN CONSPIRACY THEORY, SUITS THE POLITICAL INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS LEGAL AGENT, RUDY GIULIANI IS OUT THERE PEDALING THIS FUNCTION.

THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF IS OUT THERE PROMOTING THIS FICTION STANDING SIDE BY SIDE WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN.

BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

IT WOULD BE A MONUMENTAL ABUSE OF POWER AND IT IS A MONUMENTAL ABUSE OF POWER AND IF YOU DON'T THINK ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE WELL DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

DON'T TAKE EARLIER PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ'S WORD FOR IT OR JONATHAN TURLEY'S WORD FOR IT.

LET'S LISTEN TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON IMPROPER PROAIVES, SOMETHING PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAYS WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER, IS LEFT TO THE PEOPLE, TO THE ELECTION PROCESS AND THE CONGRESS THROUGH IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

THE TACT THAT THE PRESIDENT, THAT PRESIDENT IS ANSWERABLE FOR ANY ABUSES OF DISCRETION IS ULTIMATELY SUBJECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS THROUGH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS MEANS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE JUDGE IN HIS OWN CAUSE.

THEIR OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T AGREE WITH THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE.

AGREE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON THE OPINIONS.

THE CONSENSUS OF SCHOLARS EVERYWHERE THEY CAN RELY ON OUR COMMON SENSE.

THE CONCLUSION A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS POWER BY GETTING INTO A QUID PRO QUO TO GET A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DO THEIR POLITICAL DIRTY WORK APPEARED HELP THEM CHEAT IN THE ELECTION OUR COMMON SENSE TELLS US THAT CANNOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

IF WE SAY IT IS BEYOND THE REACH OF THE IMPEACHMENT POWER OR BECAUSE YOU PUT IT UNDER ABUSE OF POWER THAT WAS THE FRAMERS CORE OFFENSE AND DIDN'T PUT IT UNDER ANOTHER RUBRIC WE WON'T CONSIDER IT.

IT LEAVES THE COUNTRY COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.

THAT CANNOT BE WHAT THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND.

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT.

IT DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO SURRENDER OUR COMMON SENSE.

OUR COMMON SENSE AND MORALITY TELLS US WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS WRONG.

WHEN A PRESIDENT SACRIFICES THE INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY IT'S NOT ONLY WRONG BUT DANG YOU.

HE SAW HE WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT IF LEFT IN OFFICE IT'S DANGEROUS.

THE FRAMERS PROVIDED A REMEDY AND WE URGE YOU TO USE IT.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

SENATOR FROM INDIANA.

I'M ASKING THIS ON BY BEHALF APPEARED SENATE COUNCIL.

>> OKAY, SIR.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR BRAWN AND COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID THE COUNTRY MUST BE SAVED FROM THE PRESIDENT AND HE DOESN'T HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND FAMILIES IN MIND.

DO YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO THAT CLAIM?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE COMING BEFORE YOU AND ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF DOING THINGS IN THEIR OWN WORDS FOR PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN AND CLAIMING THAT HE'S NOT DOING THINGS IN THE INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TELL YOU JUST THE OPPOSITE.

THE PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL RATING WHILE SITTING HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS HIT AN ALL-TIME HIGH.

A POLL SHOWS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE THE HAPPIEST THEY HAVE BEEN WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY IN 15 YEARS.

WHETHER IT'S THE ECONOMY, SECURITY, MILITARY PREPAREDNESS, SAFER STREETS, OR SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS.

THEY ARE ALL WAY UP.

WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE HAPPIER.

YET, THE HOUSE MANAGER TELL YOU THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE HE'S A THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY.

LISTEN TO THE WORDS THAT THEY JUST SAID.

WE, WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, CANNOT DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE OUR PRESIDENT BECAUSE AS THEY TELL US, THESE ARE THEIR WORDS, QUOTE, WE CANNOT BE ASSURED THAT THE VOTE WILL BE FAIRLY WON.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?

DO YOU THINK SO LITTLE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

WE DON'T.

WE TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHO SHOULD BE OUR PRESIDENT.

IT'S CRAZY TO THINK OTHERWISE.

SO WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON?

WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IS HE'S A THREAT OR LEGITIMATE THREAT TO THE CANDIDATE.

THE ELECTION IS ONLY EIGHT MONTHS AWAY.

THEY REPLACE NAFTA WITH THE HISTORIC MTA.

THEY CAN REBUILD THE MILITARY.

THERE ARE MORE THAN MILLION JOBS.

THE BORDER CONTROSINGS ARE DOWN 78%.

100 MILES HAVE BEEN BUILT.

MORE THAN 160 MILLION BEFORE.

THE AMERICAN UNEMPLOYMENT, THE ASIAN UNEMPLOYMENT, HAS THE LOWEST RATE.

WE HIT THE LOWEST RATE IN MORE THAN 65 YEARS.

THE METROPOLITAN AREA PER CAPITA GROWTH HAS BEGUN.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS THE HIGHEST EVER RECORDED.

40 MILLION FEWER PEOPLE LIVE-IN HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVE GOERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

WE ARE SEEING THE BIGGEST TAX CUTS IN HISTORY.

OVER $1 TRILLION HAS POWERED BACK INTO THE U.S.

MOTHERS HAVE BEEN LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY.

WE SECURE IT HAD THE LARGEST CHILD CARE FUNDING FOR 800,000 LO INCOME FAMILIES.

WE PASS AS MANAGER JEFFREY WILL RECALL.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS DECREASE AND PART OF THE COUNTRY.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN NEARLY 30 YEARS.

THEY SAID THE TRACTOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ECONOMY AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY WILL RESONATE WITH AMERICANS WHEN IT DELIVERS THE STATE OF THE UNION NEXT TO CONGRESS NEXT WEEK.

IF ALL OF THAT WAS FOR HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL GAIN AND NOT IN THE BEST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE I WOULD SAY GOD BLESS HIM, KEEP DOING IT.

KEEP DOING IT.

KEEP DOING IT.

IF THE HOUSE MANAGER STOP OPPOSING HIM AND HARASSING HIM AND EVERYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIM WITH THE LETTERS AND INVESTIGATIONS MAYBE WE CAN GET MORE DONE.

MAYBE WE CAN TRY SOMETHING.

IT'S ONE NATION AND ONE PEOPLE.

THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR FOR COLORADO.

I ACCIDENT A QUESTION FOR MYSELF, SENATOR SCOTT, AND SENATOREZ.

QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

IF THE SENATE EXCEPTS THE PRESIDENT'S ASSERTION OF THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT QUERY.

HOW WILL THE SENATE WORK WITH THE CURRENT PRESIDENT AND FUTURE PRESIDENT.

HOW WILL THIS EFFECT THE SEPARATION OF POWER AND IN THIS CONTEXT WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL CLAIM THAT THE ADVISERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTION OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

WE HAVE VOTED TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OR AMONG OTHER THINGS IT'S TOTAL DEFIANCE.

THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED IT WHAT DOES IT MEAN.

IT MEANS THERE IS NO INFORMATION TO CONGRESS.

IT MEANS THE CLAIM OF POWER AND CONGRESS HAS NO FAMILY PHYSICIAN.

THEY CAN DISPUTE CERTAIN SPECIFICS TO DEFY ALL SUBPOENAS.

CONGRESS HAS NO POWER AT ALL ONLY THE EXECUTIVE HAS POWER.

THAT'S WHY CONSIDER ARTICLE TWO IS IMPEACHING THEM FOR BREECH OF CONGRESS.

RICHARD NIX OWNER WAS IMPEACHED FOR ABUSE OF OF CONGRESS.

OF ANY ATTEMPT AND CONGRESS INVESTIGATES.

ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

IS THERE ANY SUBPOENA YOU VOTE IN THE FUTURE MAYBE A FUTURE PRESIDENT DENIED YOU.

IT WILL ESTABLISH THE DEPART AS A TOTAL DICTATORSHIP.

THAT'S THE CONSEQUENCE.

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE MOTIVES.

I WANT TO TAKE APPOINT SINCE I HAVE THE FLOOR TO ANSWER THE QUESTION AND COMMENT THAT ACCEPT NAT TOR COLOLABS ASKED YESTERDAY.

THEY ASKED ABOUT THE QUESTION OF MIXED MOTIVES.

WHAT IF, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE DEED WITH THE PRESIDENT WHO MAY HAVE A CORRUPTION MOTIVE AND FINE MOTIVE.

HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH IT?

HE SAID WELL, YOU HAVE TO LICKS AND WEIGHT THE BALANCE.

WE NEVER IN AMERICAN LAW LOOK AT DECENT MOTIVES IF YOU CAN IMPROVE THE CORRUPT MOTIVE.

IF I'M OFFERED A BRIBE AND EXCEPT THE BRIBE THIS IS A CORRUPT MOTIVE.

I WOULDN'T BE IN HER DEFENSE TO SAY.

YOU DON'T INQUIRE INTO OTHER MOTIVES.

MAYBE YOU HAVE GOOD MOTIVES.

THE CORRUPT ACT IS ESTABLISHED.

THEY WILL POINT A WAY FROM THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT AND THE DEFENDERS DON'T BOTHER TO DEFEND THEY COME OUT WITH DISTRACTIONS.

IT'S ABUSED THE POWER BY VIOLATING THE LAW TO WITHHOLD AID FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY, EXTORT THE COUNTRY TO HELP HIM IN HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

CORRUPT, NO QUESTION.

VIOATION OF THE LAW, NO QUESTION.

FACTUALLY, NO QUESTION.

THEY DON'T MAKE A REAL ATTEMPT TO THE DENY IT.

EVERYTHING IS A DISTRACTION.

ONCE YOU PRODUCE AUTOBUS A CORRUPT ACT, THAT'S IT.

YOU NEVER MEASURE THE DEGREE OF MAYBE HAVING DECENT MOTIVES TOO.

THE PROFESSOR AND TALKING ABOUT THAT AND THE ABSOLUTE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY WAS JUST ABSENT FROM AMERICAN LAW OR ANY KIND OF LAW.

>> THANK YOU MR.

MANAGER.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.

I SEND A QUESTION FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF MYSELF.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWED.

SUMMARIZE THE THREE STAGE INVESTIGATION AND HOW THE PRESIDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN EACH STAGE COMBINED WITH THE REPEATED LEAKS IN THE INVESTIGATION.

DOES THIS MAKE THE IMPEACHMENT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONNIST TREE?

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

I'VE INDICATED THIS ENTIRE PROCEEDING IS THE FRUIT OF THE POISONNIST TREE.

IT'S THE FRUIT OF A PROCEEDING THAT WAS FATALLY DEFICIENT IN DUE PROCESS.

AS A RESULT OF THAT IT'S TOTALLY UNRELIABLE.

LET ME DETAIL THE THREE PHRASESMENT FIRSTER ROLL LANDS WAS THE HOUSE BEGAN THE PROCEEDINGS IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNLAWFUL MANNER.

IT STARTED DURING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES WITHOUT ANY VOTE OF THE HOUSE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND A SECOND ON THIS.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS SPENT A LOT OF TIME TODAY TRYING TO GO BACK AND ARGUE ABOUT BE THE WHY THEIR PROCEEDING WAS ALL RIGHT.

THEY ARE NOT ENGAGING THE REAL ISSUE.

FOR THE HOUSE TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT THERE HAS TO BE A DELEGATION OF THAT AUTHORITY TO THE COMMITTEE.

THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPAL.

THEY GIVE IT TO THE HOUSE AND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.

HERE IN THE SENATE YOU WOULDN'T THINK THE MAJORITY WOULD SAY GUESS WHAT, WE WON'T DO A TRIAL WITH THE WHOLE SENATE.

I HAVE ONE COMMITTEE AND PROVIDE A SUMMERY AND THEN YOU VOTE.

THEY DON'T HAVE THIS ON THEIR OWN TO DO THAT.

THE SPEAKER DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO START AN INQUIRY.

THIS IS THE KEY.

THERE IS NO RULE GIVING ANY COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE THE AUTHORITY TO USE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

RULE TEN SPEAKS OF LEGISLATURE AUTHORITY.

ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS SAID PURSUANT TO THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THEY USED A POWER THAT HADN'T BEEN DELEGATED TO THE COMMITTEE.

ILLEGITIMATE UNLAYFUL PROCEEDING.

THEN THERE IS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.

ONE IS A SECRET HEARING.

THE PRESIDENT IS LOCKED OUT AND NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAM WITNESSES.

YOU CAN SEE THE EVIDENCE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE.

THEN, THEY WILL GO FROM THAT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING WHICH IS A PUBLIC SHOW TRIAL.

THIS IS THE SECOND PHRASE AND PUBLIC FRIENDS AND STILL CUT OUT.

THE MINORITY MEMBERS DON'T HAVE EQUAL SUBPOENA.

THEY PROPORT TO HAVE OFFERED RIGHTS BUT I EXPLAINED THAT.

THEY WERE SUPPOSE TO RESPOND WITH WHAT RIGHTS WERE EXERCISED.

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DECIDED THEY WOULDN'T HEAR FRO FROM ANY FACT WITNESSES.

IT WAS ALL A FORE GONE CONCLUSION.

THE THIRDER ROLL LANDS TOOK CHAIRMAN SHIFT WAS IN CHARGE OF THE FACT FINDING AND HE HAD AN INTEREST BECAUSE OF THE INTERACTION OF HIS OFFICE.

I QUESTION ABOUT THE MOVETIVE AND BIAS.

THE REASON THE BASKETBALL BLOWER AND HOW IT ALL CAME ABOUT.

ALL THREE OF THE AREAS EFFECTED THE PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING.

THEY RESULTS IN A ONE-SIDED SLEIGHTED FACT-FINDING.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT FACT TO BE ALLOWED.

THE SUPREME COURT MADE CLEAR THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION IS THE GREATEST LEGAL ENGINE EVERY PREVENTED FOR THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH.

THAT'S AN ININDICATION THE GOAL WAS NOT A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH.

IT WAS A PARTISAN CHARADE TO JUSTIFY A RESULT.

IT'S NOT A RECORD THAT COULD BE RELIED ON.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

TO THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

E QUESTION FROM SENATOR DUCKWORTH FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THEY COULD GATHER INTERNAL U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION.

YOU CAN TURN CORRUPTION AND COST SHARING.

IS THERE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THIS.

FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S BRIEFED ON THE ISSUES BY THE NFC AND D.O.D.

DURING THE PERIOD OF THE SUMMER OF 2019 THE.

ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE REQUESTED SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON ANTICORRUPTION REFORM MEASURES FROM UKRAINE.

PRIOR TO RELEASING THE AID THE PRESIDENT ORDERED ANY CHANGES TO POLICY.

THEY CAN ADDRESS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND BURDEN SHARING WITH OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

LET'S JEST TAKE JUST TAKE A MOMENT AND ADDRESS WHAT THE PROCESS SHOULD HAVE LOOKED.

WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL AND CONCEDED THIS DOES HAPPEN.

THERE IS A LEGITIMATE POLICY PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND DETERMINATION ON HOLD.

THERE IS A REASON AND WE NEVER SAID CORRUPTION OR BURDEN SHARING WOULDN'T BE ONE OF THOSE.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNED OR ENGAGED THE PROCESS.

WHAT WOULD NOR NORMALLY HAPPEN IS MORE CONGRESS WILL HAPPEN.

WE WILL PASS APROP ASIAN BILLS.

FUNDING WAS APPROPRIATE AND 87 MEMBERS DID THIS PAST YEAR.

THE PRESIDENT WOULD RELY ON THE ADVISE OF GOVERNMENT EXPERTS FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND BUDGET.

THIS IS REGARDING THE AID.

THE INNER AGENCY PROCESS WE TALKED SO MUCH ABOUT.

THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH EARLIER LAST YEAR AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCESS IT WAS DETERMINED IT HAD MET ALL OF THE CONDITIONS FOR THE AID AND ALL OF THE AGENCIES DETERMINED IT SHOULD GO FORWARD.

THE PRESIDENT WOULD THEN SEEK PERMISSION FROM CONGRESS HE WOULD GO BACK AND SEEK PERMISSION TO HOLD THE AID.

LET ME REPEAT THAT.

IF THERE WAS A REASON TO HOLD IT THE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS DONE THIS IN THE PAST UNDER LEGITIMATE PROCESSES AS WELL AS PRIOR PRESIDENTS.

THEY WOULD GO BACK TO CONGRESS UNDER PREDESCRIBED PROCESSES AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT VIOLATING THE CONTROL ACT AND SEEK PERMISSION TO HOLD IT.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

CONGRESS WOULD WEIGH-IN ON THE REQUEST BY APPROVING OR DENYING THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST.

UNLESS CONGRESS APPROVES THE REQUEST THE AID MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE.

OF COURSE, NONE OF THAT HAPPENED.

IN THIS ENTRANCE A HOLD WAS PUT IN PLACE.

WE DON'T KNOW WHEN BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT AND HIS AGENCIES HAVE PREVENTED US TO GET THAT INFORMATION.

A HOLD WAS PUT IN PLACE AND NO REASON WAS GIVEN.

THE ONLY ONE WITHIN THE GO AUTOBUSMENT THAT KNOWS WHY THE HOLD WAS PUT INTO PLACE IS PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL THAT TOLD US LAST NIGHT WHY HE BELIEVES THE HOLD WAS PUT INTO PLACE BUT NO ONE ELSE KNOWS.

THE ANSWER IS IF THERE WAS A REAL POLICY PROCESS PUT IN PLACE THERE WOULD BE A LOTOF INFORMATION ABOUT BURDEN SHARING ARE CORRUPTION, OR ANY OF THE OTHER CONCERNS IN WHICH WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE.

IF BURDEN SHARING TO THE LAST POINT OF THE QUESTION WAS A CONCERN THEN THE PERSON WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DISCUSS THE CONCERNS WITH THE E.U.

WOULD HAVE BEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

HE'S THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION.

NOT ONE DID HE GO TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SAY DISCUSS THESE ISSUES WITH THE E.U.

AND SAY THEY NEED TO PROVIDE MORE MONEY.

NOT ONCE DID THAT HAPPEN.

IT DIDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE IT WASN'T THE REAL CONCERN.

THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD TAXPAYER MONEY, FOREIGN AID TO OUR PARTNER AT WAR TO COERCE THEM TO START A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION TO BENEFIT THE 2020 ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE STILL HERE.

ONE PERSON CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT AND THAT'S AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

YES, IT'S STILL A GOOD TIME TO SUBPOENA AMBASSADOR BOLTON.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

THE SENATOR FROM MAINE.

I SENT A QUESTION ON BEHALF OF BLUNT AND RUBIO.

>> THANK YOU.

E QUESTION FROM SENATOR COLLINS FROM BOTH PARTIES ARE THEIR REAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PRESIDENT CAN REQUEST A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE A U.S. CITIZEN INCLUDING A POLITICAL RIVAL NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

IF SO, WHO ARE THEY AND HOW DO THEY APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE.

THE HOUSE GOES FIRST.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, IT WOULD BE HARD TO CONTEMPLATE A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

THEY COULD SEEK AN POLITICAL INVESTIGATION OF AN OPPONENT.

ONE OF THE, I THINK MOST IMPORTANT POST WATER GATE REFOREMAN WAS TO DIVORCE DECISIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC CASES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ONE OF THE MANY NORMS IS THAT WALL HAS BEEN OBLITERATED.

THE PRESIDENT HAS AFFIRMATIVELY SOUGHT TO INVESTIGATE HIS RIVALS.

I CAN NOT CONCEIVE OF A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THAT IS APPROPRIATE.

IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ACTING INDEPENDENTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH.

THERE IS A PROSIS TO DO THIS.

WHEN A FOREIGN COUNTRY HAS EVIDENCE INVOLVING A CASE.

THERE IS A LEGITIMATE WAY TO DO THAT.

IF YOU CONCLUDE THE ACTS WITH MIXED MOTIVES IT'S COMMON PLACE GOING BACK CENTURIES.

FOR EXAMPLE IN DESCRIBING THE STANDARD FOR CORRUPT MOTIVE THEY REJECTED ANY REQUIREMENT THAT A DEFENDANTS MAIN PURPOSE WAS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

INSTEAD, THE COURT EXPLAINED A DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF HIS MOTIVES INCLUDING ANY CORRUPT OR FORGOOD BIDEN GOALS.

IT'S NOT ONLY RELEVANT HERE BUT ARGUED BY THE PROCESS SORE AND HE LOST THEY LOST THAT CASE AND FOR A GOOD REASON THE QUESTION ASSUMES THERE IS A REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES PERSON.

I WOULD LIKE TO BRING IT BACK HERE TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE JULY 25th CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION THE FIRST THING HE SAID WAS IT AND THE SITUATION WITH BURISMA.

HE SAID IT SO SOUNDS HORRIBLE.

THAT'S NOT CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR HIS SON.

THE SITUATION IN WHICH THE PROSECUTOR HAD BEEN FIRED WHICH EFFECTED ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS.

HE SAID THE ISSUE IS TO RESTORE THE HONEST DEAND TAKE CARE OF THAT.

HE EXPLAINS IT DEALS WITH WAS THERE AN INVESTIGATION OVER THERE AND DERAILED IN THE ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS.

IT'S THE PRESIDENT MAKING CLEAR WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT'S OFF LIMITS.

IT SOUNDS BAD AS WELL.

LET ME GET THE QUESTION IS THERE ANY SITUATION IT MIGHT BE LEGITIMATE TO ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION OVER SEAS, YES, IF THERE WAS A CONDUCT INVESTIGATION THAT VIOLATED THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY BUT NOT THIS COUNTRY.

THERE IS INFORMATION ABOUT THAT AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT WENT ON THEN IT'S PERFECTLY OKAY TO SUGGEST THIS IS SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING INTO WE HAVE AN INTEREST IN KNOWING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

SO, THAT COULD ARISE IN VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A PERSON DID SOMETHING OVER SEAS AND THERE WAS A NATIONAL INTEREST AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY HAD DONE.

THANK YOU.

>> THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK IF ARE THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL.

>> THANK YOU.

E DEMOCRATIC LEADERS, THE QUESTION IS THIS.

I ASKED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

I ASKED THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER TO NAME A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR WITNESS THE PRESIDENT TURNED OVER TO THE HOUSE OR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IN RESPONSE TO THEIR REQUEST OR SUBPOENA.

MR.MAN SPOKE FOR SEVERAL MINUTES BUT DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.

THIS IS DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL GOES FIRST.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MINORITY LEADER.

I APOLOGIZE IF I WASN'T DIRECT ENOUGH TO GET TO THE QUESTION YESTERDAY.

I WAS INTENDING TO EXPLAIN THE RATIONAL THAT THE ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED FOR HIS ACTIONS AND EXPLAIN CONTRARY TO THE QUESTION IT WASN'T SIMPLY ABSOLUTE DEFIANCE OR BLANK ASSERTION.

LET ME BE CLEAR.

THERE WERE DOCUMENT SUBPOENAS ISSUED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

THE PRESIDENT EXPLAINED IN VARIOUS LETTERS THEY WERE INVALID AND THERE WERE NO DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN ARE RESPONSES BECAUSE ALL OF THEM WERE INVALID.

THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO ISSUE THEM OR RETRO ACT THIVELY AUTHORIZE THEM THERE WAS THEN SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES FOR SENIOR ADVISERS FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT ADVISED THEY HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND NOT PRODUCED FOR TESTIMONY.

THERE WERE THEN SEDONA PEEP IN AS FOR WITNESSES TO OTHERS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS -- HOUSE DEMOCRATS SAID THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TESTIFY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AGENCY COUNCIL.

I EXPLAINED THAT.

THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO REQUIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AGENCY COUNCIL WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

THEY WEREN'T PRODUCED THERE WERE WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED.

THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT TESTIMONY AND HAS BEEN SOME DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THIS PRODUCED.

I RAISED THAT BECAUSE IT MAKES CLEAR IF YOU FOLLOW THE LAW AND RULES AND MAKE A DOCUMENT REQUEST THAT'S VALID THEY GET PRODUCED.

THE ADMINISTRATION REISISED.

THE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID AND WE MADE THAT CLEAR.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

NOT A SINGLE.COMMENT WAS TURNED OVER AND NOT A SINGLE WITNESS WAS PRODUCED.

COUNCIL MADE THE CLAIMS WE BELIEVE ARE SPURIOUS.

WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION TO FIGHT ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS.

THEY ARGUED THEY WERE REJECTED AND LOOKED AT IT AND THEY WERE INVALID.

WHY DIDN'T THEY PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS.

WHY DID DID THEY LOOK AT THE LEGAL THEORY.

THEY COVERED UP MISCONDUCT.

I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH THE COMMENTS I WAS MAKING EARLIER.

THERE IS A GOOD REASON WHY MIXED MOTIVES ARE NO DEFENSE.

EVEN IF THEY DID IT AND IT WAS CORRUPT THEY MUST BE AKUWAITED BECAUSE THEY MUST HAVE A PHENOMENON ANY MOTIVATION AND PLAYED A MINOR ROLE IN THE SCHEME.

IMAGE HOW IT WOULD A FLIES TO A BRIBING MEMBER OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

THEY SITED THIS THREAT WHILE DISCUSSIONING IMPEACHMENT AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONMENT COULD THEY DEFEND THEMSELF ON THE GROUND HE WAS MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO ELECT THE COLLEGE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE.

HE HANDED OVER THE BRIBES HE WASN'T ACTING CORRUPTIONLY BUT SEEKING TO ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY KEEPING HIMSELF IN POWER.

YES, HE COULD.

FOR ALL OF THE REASONS HE PROVIDED THE THERE IS NO DOUBT THE QUID PRO QUO AND USE OF OFFICIAL ACTS TO COMPEL THE INTERFERENCE WERE A CORRUPT SCHEME THE MOTIVE AND INTENT WAS TO BENEFIT HIMSELF LIKE IGNORING CORE IN OUR DEMOCRACY AND SECURITY.

WE BELIEVE IT WAS ENTIRE LIQUOR RUPTURE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY CONFIGURATION ABOUT THAT ASK JOHN BOLTON.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT BEING MIXED OR NOT MIXED ASK JOHN BOLTON.

YOU CAN ALSO ASK MICK MULVANEY.

ASK THE EARLIER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN THAT WITHHELD AID THERE WAS ANY AGENCY DISCUSSION OF REFORMS.

>> I MEAN THEY MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CHANGE WAS THE CHANGE IN IT.

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT IDEA.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER THE RECOGNIZE.

>> I ASK THAT WE STAND-IN RECESS UNTIL 4:00.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

>> AS YOU JUST HEARDED THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS AGREED TO A REQUEST BY THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER THAT THEY STAND-IN RECESS FOR ABOUT, 20 MINUTE OR SO OR UNTIL 4:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.

WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO QUESTIONS BETWEEN SENATORS AND THE TWO POLITICAL PARTIES UNTIL JUST AFTER 1:00 P.M.

THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW QUESTIONS DIRECTED AT THE COUNCIL FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY.

IN GENERAL THIS IS AN AFTERNOON OF O FRIENDLY QUESTIONS.

A GROUP OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS ASKED THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL IF THE IMPEACHMENT CASE CASE IS TRULY THE FRUIT OF THE POISONNIST TREE.

THAT WOULD LEAD TO PREDICTABLE ANSWER.

FRIENDLY QUESTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES TODAY.

JOINING ME NOW AT OUR TABLE IS MARGARET TAYLOR.

FORMER CHIEF COUNCIL AND DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR.

SHE WAS THE STATE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY FOR TEN YEARS AND A GOVERNMENT STUDIES FELLOW AT THE BROOKING L INSTITUTION.

KIMBERLY WHITEWATER.

FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BILL WAS ONE OF 13 HOUSE MANAGERS.

JOHN HART, WHO WORKED FOR THE REPUBLICAN OF OKLAHOMA.

HE WORKED FOR THE SENATOR FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS.

WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU AND GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACKSEAT OF THE CAR BEFORE I GO TO ALL OF YOU I'LL TURN TO ONE OF THE SENATORS THAT HAS BEEN IN THE CHAMBER.

I'M SORRY ONE OF THE CONGRESSMAN.

CONGRESSMAN JOHNSON, PLEASE TELL US YOUR TAKE AND HOW YOU RECEIVED THE LAST FEW HOURS OF QUESTIONS FROM PARTIES.

>> THERE IS LITTLE NEW INFORMATION BEING ILLUMINATED HERE.

THEY HAVE SAT THROUGH HOURS AND HOURS OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

AS A MEMBER OF O THE DEFENSE TEAM, WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT WHERE WE ARE AND HOW OUR CASE HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND HOW THE ANSWERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

I EXPECT THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ACQUITTED AND I HOPE IT WILL BE A BIPARTISAN ACQUITTAL.

>> WHY DO YOU THINK IT WILL BE AN ACQUITTAL?

>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS PROCEEDED ON THESE TWO WEAK ARTICLES.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED.

IT'S OPENED PANDORA'S BOX.

IF WILLOWER THE BAR TO THIS LEVEL OF ABUSE OF POWER THIS COULD APPLY TO EVERY PRESIDENT AND WOULD HAVE WITH ALL OF OUR PREVIOUS PRESIDENT'S.

THIS IS NOT A ROAD WE SHOULD GO DOWN AND THEY WILL FIND THAT.

>> ARE YOU BASING YOUR CONFIDENCE ON A VOTE COUNT IN THE SENATE OR CONVERSATIONS WITH SENATORS OR HOUSE COLLEAGUES HAVE HAD WITH SENATORS IN THE SENSE YOUR COCONFIDENT THERE WILL NOT BE FOUR SENATORS TO VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO CALL FLASH FLOOD WITNESSES.

>> I'M VERY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THAT BASED UPONLOSS OF CONVERSEISATIONS BEING HELD IN BROTH CHAMBERS AROUND CAPITOL HILL.

I HAVEN'T SPOKEN DIRECTLY WITH TOO MANY SENATES.

I CAN TELL YOU THE SENSE HERE RIGHT NOW IS THEY HAVE THE VOTE TO END THIS SOONER THAN LATER.

>> LET ME GO BACK TO A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION POSED IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE QUESTIONS BY THE SENATORS.

THAT IS, IT REALLY DOES GET TO THE BASICS.

IS THERE AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY THAT ASKED A FOREIGN LEADER TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO A POTENTIAL POLITICAL RIVAL.

IS THERE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT?

>> WE DON'T KNOW, ALL OF THE PHONE CALLS OF EVERY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN SCRUTINIZED.

WE KNOW IT'S PARAFOR THE COURSE TO HAVE VERY FRANK AND OPEN CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER HEADS OF STATES.

THEY ARE ALWAYS MONITORED BY OTHER PERSONS.

THIS IS PART OF DIPLOMACY.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAN ON A SIMILAR PLATFORM AND THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO BE SATISFIED OF THAT.

WE HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO AND JOHN BOLTON DESCRIBED IT AS FRIENDLY AND CORDIAL.

>> HE'S ALSO SAID HE BELIEVES THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION IN RETURN FOR UKRAINE RECEIVING AID.

LIT ME TAKE THIS ONE STEP FARTHER.

DO YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR AMERICAN PRESIDENTS TO SEEK INFORMATION ABOUT THAT POLITICAL OPPONENTS FROM FOREIGN GO AUTOBUSMENTS?

>> WELL, I GUESS I REJECT THE BASES OF THE QUESTION.

IT DOESN'T APPLY HERE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS PRIMARY TRYING TO DO.

I THINK THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT.

HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION AND TRYING TO ROOT THAT OUT.

OUR DEFENSE TEAM PUT THAT OUT THERE CLEARLY AND ANSWERED MOST OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ISSUE.

>> SO, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE REFERENCE TO JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON HUNTER?

>> AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED AT LENGTH.

THE HUNTER/BIDEN SITUATION RAISED A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

IT LOOKS STRANGE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THAT WAS PART OF THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN UKRAINE AND EVERYONE IS IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

>> FINALLY, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HOW LONG THEY PLAN TO GO TOMORROW AND INTO THE WEEKEND ARE YOU GETTING A READING FROM YOUR COLLEAGUES ABOUT WHAT THE PICTURE LOOKS LIKE FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS?

>> OUR ASSESSMENT THIS MIGHT BE WRAPPED UP AS EARLY AS MIDDAY TOMORROW.

IT'S JUST OUR GUESS.

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.

>> ALL RIGHT, CONGRESSMAN JOHNSON, ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REPUBLICAN MINORITY IN THE HOUSE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

> BACK TO OUR TABLE, I THINK WHAT WE WERE STARTING TO TALK ABOUT WERE THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS MOST OF THEM FRIENDLY, SOME OF THEM MORE CHALLENGING.

AS YOU JUST HEARD, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING US AROUND TO WHAT CONGRESSMAN JOHNSON WAS SAYING AND COME TO YOU YOU BILL.

IT SOUNDS LIKE AMONG THE REPUBLICANS THEY THINK THEY ARE IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE.

THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH VOTES.

NOT ONLY TO CALL A SPECIFIC WITNESS BUT ANY WITNESS.

>> THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE BECAUSE ALL ALONG I FELT THIS WASN'T A HIGH CRIME ISTHMUS DEMEANOR.

MOST AMERICANS ARE SUSPICIOUS OF THE ARRANGEMENT WITH HUNTER BIDEN WHILE HIS FATHER WAS VICE PRESIDENT TAKING $83,000 PER YEAR AS IT MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF A CORRUPT ORGANIZE AND HAVING THE PROSECUTOR GET FIRED.

THAT'S BEEN RESOLVED BUT FOR MOST AMERICANS THEY DON'T THINK SO.

THEY ASKED AS IT DEFENSE COUNCIL ASKED TODAY VERY ARTICULATELY, THIS INCIDENT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

THE FIRING OF THE PROSECUTOR, THE ARRANGE BEMENT THAT'S THERE.

THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS OFF LIMITS.

HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THERE IS A POLITICAL OPPONENT THAT MIGHT BE UNDER SUSPENSION TO SEEK AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CORRUPTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAT'S THE HEART OF THE MATTER OF A STRONG DEFENSIVE OPINION.

AS FOR WHAT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG ABOUT THIS AND WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE.

>> KIM, IS THAT WHAT THIS COMES DOWN TO?

>> IF THIS IS THE HEART OF THE MA THER WHAT SHIFT SAID AMERICANS UNDERSTAND WHAT A TRIAL IS AND AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THAT EVIDENCE MATTERS WITNESSES HAVE RELEVANT FACT AND WE SHOULD HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON AND MICK MULVANEY AND ASK THEM THE QUESTION, WHY DID YOU SAY ON PUBLIC TELEVISION THAT QUID PRO QUO WAS RELATED TO THE BIDEN'S AND HOLDING OF THE AID.

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES DESERVE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE.

ANOTHER THING THAT'S TELLING HAS TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT THIS WAS QUIET REFRESHING THAT ELLEN, YESTERDAY, MADE THE OMISSION THAT SOME OF US HAVE SAID FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT UNLIMITED POWER IN THE PRESIDENCY.

ANY POLICY DECISION I WANT TO ASIDE TO ASSASSINATE MY POLITICAL RIVAL.

THE OTHER PIECE THAT'S MISSING IS FROM RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

THIS WASN'T A FOREIGN POLICY THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS.

HE'S NOT UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES' OFFICE.

HE'S NOT GOVERNED BY THE LAWS.

HE DIDN'T GO THROUGH A CONFIRMATION PROCESS.

HE'S WORKING FOR THE MAN AND NOT THE COUNTRY, THAT'S VERY DID I HAVE VENT FROM -- HE DID IT IN A WAY THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH OFFICIAL FOREIGN POLICY.

>> YOU BROUGHT UP THREE POINTS.

WE HAVE NOT HEARD A LOT ABOUT RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND WHAT HE WAS DOING IN UKRAINE ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AS HIS PERSONAL LAWYER.

>> WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

DEMOCRATS MADE A DECISION WHEN HILLARY CLINTON LOSS.

SHE DIDN'T RUN A BAD CAMPAIGN OR HAD BAD IDEAS OR POLICY.

THEY ELEVATED THE RUSSIA ISSUE.

SO, WHAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY IS THE SENATE TURNING INTO A FOCUS GROUP WITH CAMPAIGN MASSAGES.

>> YOU ARE NOT REJECTING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

>> IT'S A REALLY IMPOINTANT POINT.

WHAT I'M REJECTING IS THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY STALLED THE ELECTION.

>> THE APPROXIMATE CAUSE.

YOU CAN LOOK AT AN ELECTION THAT CLOSE AND POINT OUT 50 DIFFERENT FACTORS AND RUSSIA WAS ONE OF 50.

THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE CLOSE ENOUGH FOR RUSSIA TO HAVE A ROLE.

>> WE ARE GOING DOWN A TRAIL THAT LEADS US BACK TO 2016 AND MARGARET TAYLOR.

I DON'T WANT TO IGNORE KIM'S OTHER POINTS.

LET'S CONTINUE ON THIS FOR ANOTHER MOMENT.

WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND RELITIGATE WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016.

I'M NOT SURE WE EVER COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THIS.

>> OH, YES, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT RIG.

I DON'T VIEW THIS AS NECESSARILY A RELITIGATION OF 2016.

IF I COULD TAKE A MOMENT TO COMMENT.

ONE QUESTION I FOUND INTERESTING IS THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR COLLINS, BLUNT, AND RUBIO.

ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT A PRESIDENT COULD REQUEST A COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL.

I FOUND IT INTERESTING THEY POSED THAT TO BOTH SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT IDS.

I THOUGHT HOUSE MANAGER'S SCHIFF'S ANSWER SAID THERE ARE LEGITIMATE WAYS TO PURSUE THAT INVESTIGATION THROUGH A MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY OR THROUGH NORMAL PROCESSES.

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

IN MY VIEW THE DEFENSE COUNCIL OFFERED A FAIRLY WEAK RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION.

SO, WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN GOING FORWARD IS WHAT DO REPUBLICANS THINK OF THAT QUESTION.

WHAT DO THEY THINK OF THE PRESIDENT HAVING POWER TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION WHEN IT'S NOT UNDER THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO BILL.

YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE -- YOU THOUGHT THIS WAS PERFECTLY NATURAL.

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE ASKINGMENT.

>> THE QUESTION ABOUT, ALL DUE RESPECT TO MARGARET, YOU GO TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT YOU HAD TO GO TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE OTHER COUNTRY.

NO INVESTIGATION WAS GOING TO HAPPEN SHORT OF THAT.

FORGET ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIDENS.

YOU HAD TO GO PRESIDENT TO PRESIDENT.

IT'S NOT UNUSUAL.

HAVING COUNCIL DO THAT OUT-OF-THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

THIS HAPPENS TO BE RUDOLPH GIULIANI IS A LIGHTNING ROD.

PRESIDENT USED AN OUTSIDE COMPANY TO DO THINGS LIKE THIS.

>> WE WILL TURN TO THE SENATE CHAMBER.

WE HAVE CHRIS.

>> I CAN BARELY HEAR YOU.

THERE IS A LOT OF BACKGROUND NO ENOISE.

>> WE WILL TRY TO DO THIS WITHOUT BLASTING YOUR EARDRUM.

JUST IN GENERAL, WHAT DO YOU MAKEOVER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SO FAR THIS AFTERNOON?

>> WE CONTINUE O TO HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS SOME OF WHICH ARE TRYING TO NARROW AND FOCUS ON THE ISSUES THAT ARE UNCLEAR.

THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT PROCESS AND SEDONA PAPI IN AS.

WE TALKED ABOUT SUBSTANCE AND WHEN DID PRESIDENT TRUMP DECIDE TO FREEZE THE AID ON UKRAINE.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER MIXED MOTIVES.

IT'S BEEN A PRODUCTIVE AFTERNOON AND I'M STILL WONDERING ABOUT THE ANSWER I GOT TO MY QUESTION LAST NIGHT.

IT'S BEEN ASKED AGAIN TODAY, WITH AN UNSATISFY TRY ANSWER.

WHEN IS IT LEGITIMATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ASK A FOREIGN POWER TO DIRECTLY INVESTIGATE ONE OF HIS POLITICAL RIVALS.

THERE IS AN EXISTING PROCESS WHERE APPROPRIATE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD SEEK A GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNMENT.

IT'S CLEARLY NOT APPROPRIATE.

HE CAN GO THROUGH HIS PRIVATE ATTORNEY FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.

WHEN I GOT A JAW-DROPPING ANSWER FROM THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL LAST NIGHT THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE RUSSIA AND CHINA HEARD ONE THING, AN CHANCE TO INTERFERE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

>> YOU SAY THEY ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THE PRESIDENT, IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE CAN ASK A FOREIGN LEADER TO DO WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED AND INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL.

I'M HERE AT THE TABLE WITH BILL OF FLORIDA THAT'S BEEN EXPRESSING THE OPINION THAT IN THIS ENTRANCE IT WAS WAR WARRANTED BECAUSE YOU HAD A NEW GOVERNMENT IN UKRAINE THAT WAS INTERESTED IN REFORM AND CLEANING UP UP CORRUPTION.

SO IT FITS QUIET NICELY WITH WHAT THE UKRAINIAN MOTIVATION AND MISSION WERE.

>> JUST HAD DI, JUDY, I HAD DIFFICULTY HEARING YOUR QUESTION BY I'LL ANSWER IT.

>> IN 2016 AND 2017 AND 2018 BY ANY LEVEL.

THE FIRST TIME THAT HAPPENED WAS RIGHT AFTER THE FORMER PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY.

BOTH THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE PERFECT PHONE CALL HAD A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCE EVIDENCE AROUND IT AND SUGGESTED WHAT THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN WAS AN COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE ATTEMPT TO USE HIS POWER OVER UKRAINE EXCERPTED THROUGH RUDOLPH GIULIANI TO DIG UP DIRT ON HIS MOST POWERFUL LIKELY RIVAL.

THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER WAYS IN THE LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION.

AND WHEN I HEAR YOU DESCRIBE IT.

IT SOUNDS VERY CLEAR AND RATIONAL.

YOU HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE REPUBLICANS AND CONGRESS.

WE ARE HEARING IT'S UNCLEAR IF THEY WILL BE SUFFICIENT.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT DEVOTED TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

THE IDEA WITNESSES TO ANSWER FARTHER QUESTIONS.

>> A LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE TROUBLED BY AND THINK IT'S CREDIBLE WITH APPROPRIATE ACTION.

THEY COLORED OUTSIDE THE LINES.

THEY RESPECT TRADITIONAL NORMS AND RULES.

BECAUSE THERE IS LO LIKELIHOOD TO REMOVE LEADERSHIP PUTS A LOT OF PRESSURE ON SENATORS TO NOT VOTE FOR WITNESSES THAT DOING SO WILL KEEP US HERE FOR WEEKS AND WEEKS.

WE COULD HAVE A RAPID DEPOSITION PARTICULARLY WHERE WE HAVE A WITNESS THAT'S DIRECTLY RELEVANT IN THE ROOM WHO COULD TESTIFY AS TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID AND DIDN'T SAY.

ONE LAST POINT IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HOPES TO CLAIM HE WAS ACTUALLY EXONERATED HE SHOULD PRESENT ONE WITNESS THAT COULD POSSIBLY CLEAR HIS NAME THAT HAS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HE ORDERED AND WHAT HAPPENED WITH REGARDS TO UKRAINIAN AIDE.

HE'S DECLINING TO DO SO AND LEADS US ALL TO CONCLUDE THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN EXONERATED.

>> IF THE VOTE IS NOT TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT THERE IS A BIG CLOUD OVER THE PRESIDENT.

THAT'S MY POINT.

>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN.

THE OTHER ARGUMENT OUT THERE ISN'T WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE ASKING THE SENATE TO DO IS TO TAKEAWAY A DECISION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT WHETHER HE'S NOT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BUT HAS THEIR OWN CHANCE TO VOTE IN EIGHT OR NINE MONTHS.

>> RIGHT, IF THAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT AND SAYING I WOULDN'T PROCEED WITH IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PREVENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM HAVING A CHANCE TO DECIDE IF THE PRESIDENT BEHAVED APPROPRIATELY THROUGH AN ELECTION.

JOIN WE MANY TO PROTECT OUR NEXT ELECTION.

AS I SAID MOMENTS AGO WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THE ANSWER IT COULD BE HEARD AS A WIDE OPEN INVITATION TO INTERFERE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THEY HAVE EVERYTHING THEY NEED.

THIS IS FOR FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

THERE ARE SEVERAL BILLS.

THEY ARE NOT TAKING UP BIPARTISAN BILLS THAT WILL TAKE-UP OUR NEXT ELECTION.

FOLKS THAT CLAIM THAT SHOULD WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT'S OUR GOAL.

>> WHO ARE YOU SINGLING OUT?

I'M SORRY.

WHOM ARE YOU SINGLING OUT?

MAJORITY LEADER.

THEY BRING UP A VIE VARIETY OF BIPARTISAN BILLS.

IT WILL STRAIGHTEN THE CYBER SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY.

THEY ARE PROTECTING OUR ELECTIONS AND FRANKLY STRAIGHTEN THE ABILITY BETWEEN OUR FEDERAL ELECTION.

IT'S REALLY BECAUSE THE MAJORITY LEADER WON'T GIVE IT A VOTE.

>> IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW WHETHER DEMOCRATS HAVE THE VOTE TO CALL WITNESSES AND HOW MUCH LONGER THIS PROCEEDING, THE TRIAL WILL GO ON.

>> JUDY IT'S NOT A QUESTION IF DEMOCRATS HAVE THE VOTES BUT IF THEY WANT TO HEAR MORE TIME ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID OR DIDN'T DO.

THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN GATHERED AND IF THERE ARE FOUR THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEEK THE INFORMATION.

WE DON'T KNOW IF AMBASSADOR BOLTON WOULD PROVIDE TESTIFY.

THAT'S UNCLEAR.

WE SHOULD BE INTERESTED IN GIVING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THEY HAVE HAD WITNESSES.

MOST OF THEM HAD WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS NOT SEEN THE HOUSE BEFORE.

THEY CAN CONDUCT A FAIR AND OPEN TRIAL IT'S BEYOND ME.

>> SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU, JUDY.

JOHN HART, HOW DO YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION?

>> WELL, I THINK IN THE PAST THEY HAVE.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THE ISSUE OF THIS IS THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

THIS IS A TOTALLY PARTISAN EXERCISE.

>> I'LL COME BACK TO YOU KIM, THE HOUSE PROCEDURE OUT-OF-THE NORM AND NOT AUTHORIZED.

>> WELL, A FEW THINGS.

AS YOU MENTIONED I WORKED ON THE WHITE WATER INVESTIGATION WITH KEN STAR.

THAT WAS A PROSECUTOR WITH A GRAND JURY AND FOUR YEARS OF INVESTIGATIVE POWER.

A TEAM OF AGENTS AND PROSECUTORS THAT DEVELOPED THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS AND A LOT OF WITNESSES.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT HERE, WHY BECAUSE THE STATUTE DOESN'T EXIST IN I MORE.

THE PROBLEM AND I THINK SENATOR MAKES AN EXCELLENT ARGUMENT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD HEAR THE FACTS.

IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY OR NOBODY KNOWS WHAT JOHN BOLTON WOULD SAY.

ONE SAID OF THIS HAS A SENSE OF WHAT JOHN BOLTON DID.

THIS IS THE ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENED HAVING THIS AIRED SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN MAKE A TERMINATION.

IT'S DIFFICULT REALLY TO REALLY DEFEND THAT AND ON THE LEGAL GALTY OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, YOU KNOW, MARGARET CAN TALK ABOUT THIS TOO.

THE LAW IS SQUARELY IN FAVOR OF CONGRESS' POWER AND THE TINKERING ARGUMENT ABOUT A VOTE OR NOT.

>> ARE YOU MEAN WHETHER IT HOUSE WAS AUTHORIZED AS IT MOVED AHEAD.

>> RIGHT, THE IDEA THE PRESENT WAS DOING ABSOLUTELY FILLED IN AND ACKNOWLEDGED NO RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS.

BOTH NIXON AND CLINTON.

THIS INCLUDED OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

PROBABLY STRONGER OF THE TWO ARGUMENTS.

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS AND TURNED OUT.

LIST LISA DESJARDINS, YOU HAVE NEW REPORTING.

>> THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CONFERENCE INCLUDING TWO OF OUR TEAM MEMBERS.

THEY HAVE THE VOTES TO BLOCK WITNESSES.

I HAVE CONFIRMED WITH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC SOURCE THAT'S TRYING TO WORK ACROSS BOTH ISLES.

AT THE MOMENT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE THREE REPUBLICAN VOTES FOR ALLOWING WITNESSES.

OF COURSE FOUR ARE NEEDED.

AT THIS MOMENT IT LOOKS LIKE MOMENTUM HAS SHIFTED THE VOTES CAN BE COUNTED.

WE HAVE THE LEADERSHIP OF REPUBLICAN COUNCIL.

THEY BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE VOTES TO BLOCK WITNESSES.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE O VOTE TO BLOCK WITNESSES WILL GO INTO EFFECT AND WE COULD HAVE VERDICT AS SOON AS TOMORROW NIGHT.

>> WE ARE WATCHING THE CHIEF JUSTICE READ THE NEXT QUESTION.

>> PAGES OF.COM OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HOW MANY OTHER CLIPS AND TRANSCRIPTS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THIS TRIAL?

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

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO TALK ABOUT WITNESSES.

YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL ABOUT WITNESS BEES.

YOU HAVE SEEN A LOT OF WITNESSES.

THERE WERE 17 WITNESSES THAT WERE DEP POSED AND TESTIFIED IN PUBLIC.

12 IN PUBLIC AND 17 IN CLOSED HEARING.

SOFAR YOU HAVE HAD 192 VIDEO CLIPS FROM 13 WITNESSES.

THE TESTIMONY WAS SHOWN HERE TO YOU JUST AS YOU WOULD HAVE IN TRIAL AND JUST LIKE YOU WOULD IN COURT.

YOU HAVE SEEN VIDEO CLIPS FROM 13 DIFFERENT WITNESSES.

THEY WILD INTO THE SENATE A RECORD THAT WAS REPORTED AS 29,000 PAGES OR THE MORE OFFICIAL NUMBER IS 28,578 PAGES.

SO, YOU HAVE OVER 28,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN THE RECORD.

THIS YOU HAVE ALSO HEARD HERE IT ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED ALONG THE DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE BY VIDEO CLIPS APPEARED SLIDES PUT-UP.

YOU HAVE HEARD A ARGUMENTS FROM UP TO 24 HOURS AND WE DIDN'T TAKE ALL OF OUR TIME FOR OVER 21 HOURS.

THEY PUT-ON THEIR VIDEO CLIPS SO, AT THIS POINT, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT PUT-ON HERE IN TERMS OF A TRIAL.

YOU HAVE SEEN THE WITNESSES IN THE CLIPS.

AS OF THE MOST RELEVANT PARTS.

YOU HAVE SEEN THE DOCUMENTS ON THE SCREEN CITIZEN.

AS A RESULT OF THIS THEY CONSISTENCY SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

THEY SAID THEY HAD AN OVERWHELMING CASE.

THEY DIDN'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE.

IT WAS PROAUTOBUSSEN.

EVERY ALLEGATION GIGS HAS BEEN PROVEN.

PROVEN, PROVEN.

WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE.

THEY SAID SAID PROVEN, SUFFICIENT, UNCONTESTENT, AND OVERWHELMING AT LEAST 68 TIMES IN THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FLOOR HERE.

JUST TODAY THEY BELIEVE THEY NOT ONLY PROVED IT WHY LITHE THE POINT IS THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE ALREADY BUT ON A REAL AMOUNT THROUGH THEIR CLIPS.

THERE US WITH A LARGE PORTION OF THE MOCT RELEVANT DOCUMENTS.

YOU HEARD FROM THE WITNESSES AND SEEN SEEN WHERE THEIR TESTIMONY CONFLICTS.

YOU CAN SEE WHICH IS THE BETTER MORE PERSUADIVE VERSION OF THE FACTS.

YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT IT IS THAT THEY HAVE IN THE RECORD THAT THEY SAY WAS OVERWHELMING AND ALREADY READY TO GO TO TRIAL.

THIS PROCEEDING HAS ALREADY HAD A LOT OF THE EARMARKS OF THE TRIAL.

SO, DON'T BE TAKEN IN BY THE IDEA WE CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL HERE AND VALID PROCEEDING UNLESS THEY BRING SOMEONE ONE IN HERE TO TOUGH LIVE.

IT WOULDN'T BE ONE PERSON.

IT'S NOT PRESENTING THE CASE IT WAS PREPARED IN THE HEARING BELOW.

IT'S OPENING DISCOVERY FOR A NEW CASE.

IT HAS TO BE DEPOSITIONS AND WITNESSES ON BOTH SIDES.

THERE IS NO NEED TO DO THAT IF THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU IT'S ALL READ DEOVER OVER -- READY OVERWHELMING AND PROVEN.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAD THEIR CASE AND A CHANCE DO PREPARE THEIR CASE.

I WOULD ALSO MAKE THE POINT TO TO BEAR IN MIND WHAT PRECEDENT WOULD BE SET IF THIS CHAMBER WAS THE BODY FOR IMPEACHMENT NOT PREPARED IN THE HOUSE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?

SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.

I SUBMIT A QUESTION ON BEHALF OF US.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> THE LOGAN ACT WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INFLUENCE THAT HERE CONTROVERSY IN THE UNITED STATES.

WILL THE PRESIDENT I SURE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC PRIVATE CITIZENS CAN'T CONDUCT NATIONAL SEQUITURTY POLICY UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN FORMALLY DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DO SO.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

LET ME ANSWER IN SEVERAL PARTS.

FIRST, I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO CONDUCT OF FOREIGN POLICY BEING CARRIED ON HERE BY A PRIVATE PERSON.

THE TESTIMONY WAS CLEAR FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

HE UNDERSTOOD MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI HAD A SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THE PRESIDENT.

SOMEONE WHO KNEW ABOUT UKRAINE AND SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT.

THE TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS UKRAINIANS THAT ASKED TO BE CONNECTED TO MR. RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

HE DIDN'T BELIEVE HE WAS CARRYING OUT POLICY DIRECTIVES.

THIS IS WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS USEFUL.

IT IS OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY.

THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY WILL ABIDE BY THE LAW AND CONTINUE TO DO SO.

I THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT OUT.

MANY PRESIDENT'S STARTING WITH PRESIDENT WASHINGTON HAVE RELIED ON A PERSON TO OUR TRUSTED CONFIDENT BUT WHO ARE NOT ACTUALLY EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSIST IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN DIPLOMACY TO RELY ON GOVERNOR MORRIS SO CARRY ON CERTAIN MASSAGES.

R HAD HIS CONFIDENT WHO HE RELIED ON IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND THERE ARE A LIST OF OTHERS.

THEY WERE MENTIONED THAT SOME OF THE TESTIMONY IN THE PROCEEDINGS.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS NOT HERE.

THEY RELY ON A PERSONAL CONFIDENT TO CONVEY MASSAGES BACK AND FORTH FROM A FOREIGN FOREIGN GOVERN THAT WOULD RELATE TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

IT'S NOT PROHIBITED.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

>> YOUR HONOR.

SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.

>> THANK YOU YOUR HONOR.

AND SENATOR ERNST I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR MR. NADLER AND MR. PHILBIN.

>> THE QUESTION FROM KEN FOR KENNEDY AND SENATOR ERNST FOR BOTH PARTIES, HOUSE MANAGERS WILL BE FIRST.

IF A PRESIDENT ASKS FOR INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE CORRUPTION BY A POLITICAL RIVAL UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OBJECTIVELY ARE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, SHOULD THE PRESIDENT BE IMPEACHED IF A MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE BELIEVES THE PRESIDENT DID IT FOR THE WRONG REASON.

>> PRESIDENT OF COURSE IS ENTITLED TO CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICYS ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO CORRUPTION IN THE UNITED STATES OR ELSEWHERE, IS ENTITLED TO USE DEPARTMENT OF STATE OR ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE.

IS NOT ENTITLED TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN SPECIFICALLY.

NOR DID HE DO SO INNOCENTLY HERE.

IT WAS ONLY AFTER MR. BIDEN BECAME ANNOUNCED CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT THAT HE SUDDENLY DECIDED UKRAINE OUGHT TO LOOK INTO THE BIDENS.

HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE WASN'T INTERESTED IN AN INVESTIGATION, HE WAS INTERESTED IN AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION JUST SO BIDENS COULD BE SMEARED.

SO, PROBABLY NEVER SUITABLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO ORDER AN INVESTIGATION IN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, IF HE THINKS GENERAL CORRUPTION AND THERE'S INVESTIGATION GOING, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CAN ASK FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO ASSIST IN THAT INVESTIGATION.

BUT THAT WASN'T DONE HERE.

THE PRESIDENT SPECIFICALLY TARGETED INDIVIDUAL WITH OBVIOUS POLITICAL MOTIVE.

AND I WOULD SIMPLY SAY THAT THAT IS SO CLEAR THAT THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT IT WAS A POLITICAL MOTIVE AGAINST A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL.

THERE ARE ABOUT 1.8 MILLION COMPANIES IN UKRAINE.

HALF WERE CORRUPT.

THE PRESIDENT CHOSE ONE.

ONE WITH MR. BIDEN.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

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

I THINK SHORT ANSWER IS, NO.

THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE IMPEACHED AND I THINK THE FOCUS OF THE QUESTION IS GETTING AT TO THE SITUATION OF MOTIVE WHICH HAS COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES HERE.

IF THE PRESIDENT IS CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION TO BE PURSUED AND HE INDICATES THAT IT SHOULD BE PURSUEDS IT POSSIBLE THAT HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR THAT IF THERE'S SOME DISPUTE ABOUT HIS MOTIVE, WHERE THERE IS LEGITIMATE FOR THAT CONDUCT.

THE ANSWER IS, NO.

AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS THEMSELVES IN THE WAY THEY FRAMED THEIR CASE HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS.

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT THEY REPEATEDLY SAY THAT THE STANDARD THEY ARE GOING TO TO MEET.

SHOW THAT THESE ARE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS, THESE ARE BASELESS INVESTIGATIONS, THAT THEY'RE ALLEGING THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO INITIATE AND THAT THEY HAD NO LEGITIMATE -- THERE WAS NOT ANY LEGITIMATE BRACES FOR PURSUING THE INVESTIGATION, I BELIEVE THAT IS IN ON PAGE FIVE OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY REPORT.

THEY HAVE USE THAT STANDARD AND TALKED ABOUT THEY'RE NOT BEING SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE ABOUT ANYTHING THAT ANYONE COULD REASONABLY WANT TO ASK ABOUT RELATED TO THE BIDENS AND BURISMA.

THEY KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T GET A MIXED MOTIVE SCENARIO, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING, 3 THERE IS LEGITIMATE NATIONAL INTEREST THERE, TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO START GETTING INTO THE FIELD OF SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT AND REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE BY PUTTING HIM ON PSYCHIATRIST COUCH TRY TO GET INSIDE HIS HEAD TO FIND OUT WAS IT 48% THIS MOTIVE AND 52 THE OTHER DID HE HAVE OTHER RATIONAL.

NO, IF IT'S LEGITIMATE INQUIRY IN THE NATIONAL INTERESTS, THAT'S THE END OF IT.

AND YOU CAN'T BE SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE, DECAPITATE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, DISRUPT THE FUNCTIONING OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COUNTRY IN AN ELECTION YEAR, BY TRYING TO PARSE OUT SUBJECTIVE MOTIVES AND WHICH PERCENTAGE OF THE MOTIVE WAS THIS GOOD MOTIVE OR SOME OTHER MOTIVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IT'S LEGITIMATE INQUIRY IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

IF THE POSSIBILITY IS THERE, IF THE NATIONAL INTEREST IS THERE, THAT'S THE END OF IT.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

I HAVEN'T SPECIFIED THIS BEFORE BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST IF SENATORS DIRECTED THEIR QUESTIONS TO ONE OF THE PARTIES OR BOTH AND LEAVE IT UP TO THEM TO FIGURE OUT WHO THEY WANT TO GO UP TO BAT RATHER THAN PARTICULAR COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR DURBIN TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

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

>> SENATOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WE HEARD A RATHER BREATHTAKING ADMISSION BY THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER.

IT WAS SAID IN UNDERSTATED WAY SO YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT.

BUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAID WAS THAT NO FOREIGN POLICY WAS BEING CONDUCTED BY A PRIVATE PARTY HERE.

THAT IS RUDY GUILIANI WAS NOT CONDUCTING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

RUDY GUILIANI WAS NOT CONDUCTING POLICY.

THAT IS A REMARKABLE ADMISSION BECAUSE TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SUGGEST OR CLAIM OR INSINUATE THAT THIS IS A POLICY DIFFERENCE, THAT IS CONCERN OVER BURDEN SHARING OR SOMETHING CORRUPTION WAS A POLICY ISSUE.

THEY HAVE NOW ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THIS WAS NOT CONDUCTING POLICY.

THAT IS A STARTLING ADMISSION.

SO THE INVESTIGATION THAT GUILIANI WAS CHARGED WITH TRYING TO GET UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INTO JOE BIDEN, INTO THIS RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA THEORY THEY HAVE JUST ADMITTED WE'RE NOT PART OF POLICY.

THEY WERE NOT POLICY CONDUCTED BY MR. GUILIANI.

SO WHAT WERE THEY?

THEY WERE IN THE WORDS OF DR. HILL A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH POLICY.

THEY HAVE JUST UNDERMINED THEIR ENTIRE ARGUMENT, EVEN AS TO MIXED MOTIVES.

BECAUSE THE MAN IN CHARGE OF IT WAS UNDERGOING THIS DOMESTIC ERRAND.

NOW YOU HEARD A SUGGESTION THERE, HE WAS ONLY DOING THIS BECAUSE IT WAS ASKED BY ANDRIY YERMAK.

THAT IF LAUGHABLE.

GUILIANI TRIED TO GET THE MEETING WITH ZELENSKY, REMEMBER?

HE COULDN'T GET IN THE DOOR AND THEN HE ANNOUNCED THAT THERE ARE ENEMIES AROUND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND THEN THEY GO INTO THE PHONE CALL JULY 25, UKRAINIANS TRY TO PERSUADE THE PRESIDENT, YOU DON'T HAVE ENEMIES IN UKRAINE, WE'RE ONLY FRIENDS.

WHAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE.

I WANT YOU TO TALK TO RUDY.

THAT'S NOT POLICY BEING CONDUCTED, THAT'S A PERSONAL POLITICAL ERRAND.

THEY JUST UNDERMINED THEIR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

NOW, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ALSO ESSENTIALLY ARGUES IN TERMS OF WITNESSES, IF THEIR CASE IS AS STRONG AS MR. SCHIFF AND MR. NADLER AND OTHERS SAY, THEN WHY DO THEY NEED WITNESSES?

YOU KNOW, YOU CAN IMAGINE THE SCENE MANY COURTROOM IN AMERICA WHERE BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGINS, DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT STAND UP AND SAYS, YOUR HONOR, IF THE PROSECUTION CASE IS SO STRONG LET THEM PROVE IT WITHOUT WITNESSES.

THAT IS AUTO SEVEN SHELLY WHAT IS BEING ARGUED HERE.

I WILL MAKE AN OFFER TO OPPOSING COUNSEL.

WHO HAVE SAID THIS WILL STRETCH ON INDEFINITELY IF YOU DECIDE FOR WITNESSES.

LET'S CAP THE DEPOSITIONS TO ONE WEEK.

IN THE CLINTON TRIAL, THERE WAS ONE WEEK OF DEPOSITIONS.

YOU KNOW WHAT THE SENATE DID DURING THAT WEEK.

THEY DID THE BUSINESS OF THE SENATE.

THE SENATE WENT BACK TO ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS WHILE DEPOSITIONS WERE BEING CONDUCTED.

YOU WANT THE CLINTON MODEL, LET'S USE THE CLINTON MODEL.

TAKE A WEEK, TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL.

YOU CAN CONTINUE YOUR BUSINESS.

WE CAN GET THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTRY DONE.

IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS?

THAT WE FOLLOW THE CLINTON MODEL, THAT WE TAKE ONE WEEK.

ARE WE REALLY DRIVEN BY THE TIMING OF THE STATE OF THE UNION, SHOULD THAT BE OUR GUIDENESS PRINCIPLE?

CAN'T WE TAKE ONE WEEK TO HEAR FROM THESE WITNESSES?

I THINK WE CAN.

I THINK WE SHOULD.

I THINK WE MUST.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM ALASKA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND TO THE DESK QUESTION SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR SCHATZ DIRECTED TO BOTH WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FROM SEN TO, MURKOWSKI AND SCHATZ DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES.

WOULD YOU AGREE THAT ALMOST ANY ACTION A PRESIDENT TAKES OR INDEED ANY ACTION VAST MAJORITY OF POLITICIANS TAKE IS TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER INHERENTLY POLITICAL.

WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN PERMISSIBLE POLITICAL ACTIONS AND IMPEACHABLE POLITICAL ACTIONS.

COUNSEL WILL GO FIRST.

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

I THINK THE QUESTION REALLY HITS THE NATURE ON THE HEAD.

AS I MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY IN A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY ELECTED OFFICIALS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE AT LEAST ONE EYE LOOKING ON TO THE NEXT ELECTION AND HOW THEIR ACTIONS, THEIR POLICY DECISIONS, THEIR ACTIONS IN OFFICE WILL BE RECEIVED BY THE ELECTORATE.

AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

THAT IS GOOD, IT'S PART OF THE WAY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY WORKS.

SO HAVING PART OF YOUR MOTIVE BEING LOOKING TOWARDS THE NEXT ELECTION, LOOKING TOWARDS HOW THAT WILL AFFECT ELECTORAL CHANCES, THAT IS PART OF THE NATURE OF ELECTED OFFICE.

AND TO START GETTING INTO MOTIVE ABOUT WILL THIS AFFECT MY PROSPECTS IN THE NEXT ELECTION AND CALLING THAT CORRUPT.

IF THAT IS PART OF YOUR MOTIVE, DOING SOMETHING FOR ELECTORAL ADVANTAGE SAYING, THAT'S GOING TO BE A CORRUPT MOTIVE, WE'LL SAY THAT YOU CAN BE CHARGED FOR WRONGDOING WITH THAT OR IMPEACHED.

IS VERY DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE'S ALMOST NO WAY TO GET INSIDE SOMEONE'S HEAD AND PARCEL OUT WHICH PERCENTAGE WAS ONE MOTIVE, WHICH PERCENTAGE WAS ANOTHER MOTIVE.

IF YOU START DOWN THAT PATH, IT'S TOTALLY AMORPHOUS.

THIS IS THE POINT THAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WAS MAKING THAT WE'VE MADE A COUPLE OF TIMES.

THAT IDEA OF IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT ON A THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT DEPENDS ON ANALYZING SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WE'RE ASSUMING THERE IS AN ACT ON ITS FACE THAT IS LEGITIMATE, THAT IT IS WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY, IT'S NOT ON ITS FACE IN ANY WAY UNLAWFUL OR UNCONSTITUTION BUT SOLELY BASED ON MOTIVE WE'RE GOING TO IMPEACH HIM.

AND BY SAYING THAT WELL, IF IT WAS REALLY DIRECTED AT THE NEXT ELECTION, THAT'S THE CORRUPT MOTIVE.

VERY DANGEROUS PATH.

BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS THIS M EYE TO THE NEXT ELECTION.

AND IT ENDS UP BECOMING STANDARD SO MALLEABLE THAT IT REALLY IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A POLICY DIFFERENCE F. WE DON'T LIKE YOUR POLICY, WE ATTRIBUTE YOU TO BAD MOTIVE.

SOMETHING THAT THE JUSTICE WARNED ABOUT IN THE NORTH CAROLINA RATIFYING CONVENTION.

THAT IF YOU SAY SOMETHING JUST ON MOTIVE BECAUSE OF WHAT HE CALLED MALIGNANTLY OF PARTY, THEY WILL ATTRIBUTE BAD MOTIVES.

>> I THINK THE ANSWER IS, YES, THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE INHERENTLY POLITICAL ANIMALS.

I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A DEROGATORY TERM.

THEY RUN FOR OFFICE, THEY HOLD OFFICE, THEY CONDUCT ACTS AS POLITICAL FIGURES.

BUT IF WE LOOK AT WHAT HAMILTON HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE CORE OF A CENSUS THAT WARRANT THE IMPEACHMENT POWER HE TALKED ABOUT THE CRIMES BEING POLITICAL IN CHARACTER AND THE REMEDIES BEING POLITICAL IN CHARACTER.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IMPRISONMENT HERE.

NOT TAKING AWAY SOMEONE'S LIBERTY.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A POLITICAL PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME.

WHAT IS A POLITICAL CRIME?

YES, EVERYONE IN OFFICE HAS A POLITICAL MOTIVATION.

BUT CERTAINLY THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T DRAW A LINE BETWEEN CORRUPT ACTIVITY THAT IS UNDERTAKEN, YES, FOR POLITICAL REASON AND NON-CORRUPT ACTIVITY.

INDEED WE HAVE TO DRAW THAT LINE.

LET'S SHOW WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ HAD TO SAY ABOUT WHERE WE SHOULD DRAW THE LINE.

>> IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT.

THE FACT THAT HE'S ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY IS A VERY GOOD REASON FOR UPPING THE INTEREST IN HIS SIDE.

IF HE WASN'T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT HE'S A HAS BEEN.

HE'S THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OKAY, BIG DEAL.

BUT IF HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THAT'S AN ENORMOUS BIG DEAL.

>> IT IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT WHEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS TAKE ACTIONS THEY MAY HAVE IN MIND WHEN THEY MAKE A POLICY JUDGMENT WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON MY POLITICAL CAREER GOING TO BE OR WHAT'S THE IMPACT GOING FOB ON MY RE-ELECTION PROSPECT.

THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION THAN WHETHER THEY CAN EBB GAUGE IN A CORRUPT ACT.

TO HELP THEIR ELECTION, IN THIS CASE TO GET FOREIGN HELP TO CHEAT IN AN ELECTION.

I THINK WE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE FACT THAT POLITICAL ACTORS HAVE POLITICAL INTERESTS WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE WOULD ARGUE.

THAT IS IF HE BELIEVES IN HIS RE-ELECTION INTERESTS THAT NO QUID PRO QUO WAS TOO CORRUPT.

IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD, THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT THIS OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT CAN DO.

THERE'S NO LIMIT TO WHAT FOREIGN POWERS WILL FEEL THEY CAN OFFER A CORRUPT PRESIDENT TO HELP THEIR RE-ELECTION IF THAT IS THE PRESIDENT WE -- >> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> Woodruff: SENATORS ARE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE WITH QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR SEVERAL MORE HOURS MY COLLEAGUES AND I ARE GOING TO TAKE A STEP BACK RIGHT NOW AND FOCUS ON PREPARING FOR TONIGHT'S "NEWSHOUR" BROADCAST.

BUT NOT TO WORRY, OUR COVERAGE IS ALIVE WILL CONTINUE HERE AND ONLINE AT PBS.ORG/NEWSHOUR AND YOUTUBE AND OTHER CIAL SOCIAL MEDIA PAGES.

THANKS TO LISA AND AMIR.

ALONG EXPERTS HERE AT THE TABLE, MARGARET TAYLOR, JOHN HART THANKS TO YOU ALL.

WE'LL BE BACK WITH ANCHORED COVERAGE ANALYSIS FOLLOWING THE "NEWSHOUR" AT 8:00 P.M. EASTERN, ALONG WITH OUR CORRESPONDENTS AND GUESTS.

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

>> GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY PREPARING TO ATTACK OUR ELECTION IN 2020.

THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID PUBLICLY HE WOULD WELCOME FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.

WHY SHOULD AMERICANS CONCERNED ABOUT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND WHY DOES IT MATTER THAT THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.

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

WE DO KNOW ABOUT TODAY.

NONE OF THE 17 WITNESS ONES TESTIFIED AS PARTED OF THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WERE AWARE OF ANY FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER RAY NOMINATED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP CONFIRMED BY THIS BODY, STATED AS RECENTLY AS THIS PAST DECEMBER THAT WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION.

HE STATED, QUOTE, WE HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT INDICATE THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP OWN HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR, TOM BOSERT SAID ABOUT THIS ALLEGATION, QUOTE, IT'S NOT ONLY A CONSPIRACY THEORY IT IS COMPLETELY DEBUNKED, END QUOTE.

HE ADDED, LET ME JUST REPEAT HERE AGAIN, IT HAS NO VALIDITY, END QUOTE.

OF COURSE, MISS HILL AS QUESTION INDICATED SAID, QUOTE, FICTIONAL NARRATIVE THAT IS BEING PERPETRATED AND PROPAGATED BY RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICES THEMSELVES.

THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS UNANIMOUSLY DETERMINED THAT THERE'S NO VALIDITY TO THIS, OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.

SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER FOUND RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE WAS, SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC.

BUT DON'T TAKE OUR OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES WORD FOR IT, LET'S HEAR WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN HIMSELF SAID RECENTLY ABOUT THIS.

MR. PUTIN WAS OVERHEARD SAYING, QUOTE, THANK GOD NO ONE IS ACCUSING US OF INTERFERING IN THE U.S.

ELECTIONS NOW THEY'RE ACCUSING UKRAINE, END QUOTE.

LET ME END WITH THAT ONE.

BECAUSE THAT ONE DEMONSTRATES TO ME WHY THIS MATTERS, THAT ONE DEMONSTRATES TO ME WHY ANYONE IN THE UNITED STATES SHOULD MATTER.

DELIVERING HEALTH CARE FOR PEOPLE OF RUSSIA, BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN RUSSIA, VLADIMIR PUTIN MANY PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER KNOW WELL, THAT WORK WITH SOME OF YOU ON THIS.

WAKES UP EVERY MORNING AND GOES TO BED EVERY NIGHT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DESTROY AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

THE ORGANIZED, INFRASTRUCTURE OF HIS GOVERNMENT AROUND THAT EFFORT.

THIS IS A BATTLE OVER RESOLVE, IT'S A BATTLE OVER THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF OUR PEOPLE, IT'S A BATTLE OVER INFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION.

FROM THE TOP OF OUR LEADERS, THE MESSAGE FROM SOME FOLKS OVER LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS IS THAT FACTS DON'T MATTER.

THAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T MATTER.

THAT OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS DOESN'T MATTER.

THAT IS DANGEROUS.

THAT IS WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN AND RUSSIA ARE LOOKING FOR.

AND THAT MAKES US LESS SAFE.

>> MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF MYSELF AND SENATORS HAWL,Y, CRUZ, KRAMER, BARRASSO, RUBIO, SULLIVAN, ERNST, SCOTT OF FLORIDA, DAINS, FOR BOTH HOUSE MANAGERS AND RESPONSE FROM PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR JOHNSON AND OTHER SENATORS OF TO BOTH PARTIES.

RECENT REPORTING DESCRIBED TWO NCS STAFF HOLD OVERS FROM OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ATTENDING AN ALL-HANDS MEETING OF NSC STAFF HELD ABOUT TWO WEEKS INTO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND TALKING LOUDLY ENOUGH TO BE OVERHEARD SAYING, NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TAKE OUT THE PRESIDENT.

ON JULY 26, 2019, THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HIRED ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS, SHAWN MISCO TO REPORT FURTHER DESCRIBES RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MISCO, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND INDIVIDUAL ALLEGED TO BE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

WHY DID YOUR COMMITTEE HIRE SHAWN THE DAY AFTER THE PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ZELENSKY AND WHAT ROLE HAS HE PLAYED THROUGHOUT YOUR COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION.

THE HOUSE WILL BEGIN.

>> FIRST OF ALL THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF ATTACKS ON MY STAFF.

AUTOS I SET WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME UP EARLIER, I'M APPALLED AT SOME OF THE SMEARING OF THE PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

NOW THIS QUESTION REFERS TO ALLEGATIONS IN THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE WHICH ARE CIRCULATING SMEARS ON MY STAFF AND ASKING ME TO RESPOND TO THOSE SMEARS.

AND I WILL NOT DIGNIFY THOSE SMEARS ON MY STAFF BY GIVING THEM ANY CREDENCE WHATSOEVER.

NOR WILL I SHARE ANY INFORMATION THAT I BELIEVE COULD OR COULD NOT LEAD TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

MEMBERS OF THIS BODY USED TO CARE ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF WHISTLE-BLOWER IDENTITY.

THEY DIDN'T USED TO GRATUITOUSLY ATTACK MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE STAFF.

BUT NOW THEY DO, NOW THEY DO.

NOW THEY WILL TAKE UNSUBSTANTIATED REPRESSED ARTICLE AND USE IT TO SMEAR MY STAFF.

I THINK THAT'S DISGRACEFUL.

I THINK IT'S DISGRACEFUL.

WHISTLE-BLOWERS ARE A UNIQUE AND VITAL RESOURCE FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, WHY, BECAUSE UNLIKE OTHER WHISTLE-BLOWERS WHO CAN GO PUBLIC WITH THEIR INFORMATION, WHISTLE-BLOWERS IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CANNOT BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

THEY MUST COME TO A COMMITTEE.

OUR SYSTEM RELIES UPON IT WHEN YOU JEOPARDIZE A WHISTLE-BLOWER BY TRYING TO OUT THEM THIS WAY, THEN YOU ARE THREATENING NOT JUST THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER BUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER THAN THAT, I'M SURE THE PRESIDENT IS PLOTTING THIS QUESTION BECAUSE HE WANTS HIS POUND OF FLESH.

HE WANTS TO PUNISH ANYONE THAT HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP TO HIM.

WELL, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS BUT I DON'T KNOW.

IT SHOULD BE EVERYONE OF US.

EVERYONE OF US SHOULD BE WILLING TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.

IF IT WEREN'T FOR THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER WE WOULDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS CONDUCT, THAT MIGHT BE JUST AS WELL FOR THIS PRESIDENT BUT NOT BE GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY.

AND I WORRY THAT FUTURE PEOPLE THAT SEE WRONGDOING ARE GOING TO WATCH HOW THIS PERSON HAS BEEN TREATED, THE THREATS AGAINST THIS PERSON'S LIFE THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, WHY STICK MY NECK OUT S. MY NAME GOING TO BE DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD.

WILL PEOPLE JOIN OUR STAFF IF THEY KNOW THAT THEIR NAMES ARE GOING TO BE DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> THERE ARE TWO RESPONSES THAT I'D LIKE TO GET 20.

ONE WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF WITNESSES IN THIS CASE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

MR. SCHIFF PUTS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER ISSUE FRONT AND CENTER.

WITH HIS OWN WORDS DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR INVESTIGATION.

HE TALKED ABOUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TESTIFYING.

RETRIBUTION IS WHAT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE STATUTE.

THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE PROTECTS.

THAT THERE'S NO RETRIBUTION.

IN OTHER WORDS, CANNOT BE FIRED FOR BLOWING THE WHISTLE.

BUT THIS IDEA THAT THERE'S COMPLETE ANONYMITY, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD DISCLOSE THE INDIVIDUAL AS NAME.

BUT WE CAN'T JUST SAY IT'S NOT A RELEVANT INQUIRY TO KNOW WHO ON THE STAFF THAT CONDUCTED THE PRIMARY INVESTIGATION WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH THAT WHISTLE-BLOWER.

ESPECIALLY AFTER MR. SCHIFF DENIED THAT HIS HIS STAFF HAD EVEN HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

IT GOES BACK TO THE WHOLE WITNESS ISSUE, I WANT TO GO TO THAT FOR JUST 30 SECONDS HERE.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE DISCUSSION FOR WITNESSES I HEARD WHAT MR. SCHIFF SAID ABOUT THE -- WE'LL DO DEPOSITIONS IN A WEEK.

DEMOCRATIC LEADER SAID I COULD HAVE ANY WITNESSES I GOT, AND YOU COULDN'T GET ALL THE WITNESSES YOU WANT IN A WEEK, COULDN'T GET THE DISCOVERY DONE IN A WEEK.

BUT IF IN FACT THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY PRESENTED THIS OVERWHELMING CASE THAT THEY HAVE, ALL -- TALK ABOUT SUBTERFUGE AND SMOKE SCREENS, THE SMOKE SCREEN HERE IS THAT THEY USED 13 OF THEIR 17 WITNESSES TO TRY TO PROVE THEIR CASE AND WE WERE ABLE TO USE THOSE VERY WITNESSES TO UNDERCUT THAT CASE.

SO I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN PERSPECTIVE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

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

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS FROM SENATOR MURRAY.

IF THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES TO OPENLY DEFYING A VALID CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA, HOW WILL CONGRESS BE ABLE TO PERFORM IT QUONS TAKE TALKSAL OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE ANY ADMINISTRATION IS FOLLOWING THE LAW AND ACTING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF AMERICAN FAMILIES.

>> WELL, THEY COULD HAVE VERY SERIOUS, DEVASTATING DIRE CONSEQUENCES.

IF THE SENATE IGNORES PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ONGOING OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS IT WOULD LEAD TO THE END OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AS WE KNOW IT TODAY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEYS ARGUED THAT OUR CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID UNTIL A COURT DETERMINES OTHERWISE.

THEIR ARGUMENT IS FALSE AND IT IS AN ATTACK ON CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT POWERS.

A VOTE AGAINST ARTICLE 2 IS A VOTE TO CONDONE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPTED VIEW OF AMERICA'S CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE.

VOTING AGAINST ARTICLE 2 WILL GRANT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT FROM NOW UNTIL FOREVER, THE POWER TO SIMPLY IGNORE ALL CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.

UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SEEK TO A COURT TO ENFORCE IT.

UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S VIEW, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU SENATORS WERE TO VOTE TO ISSUE SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES, ADMINISTRATION COULD STILL IGNORE THAT UNTIL A COURT RULES ON IT.

MR. SCHIFF ADDRESSED 134 OF THAT EARLIER IN ANOTHER QUESTION.

YOU COULD GO TO COURSE TO ENFORCE IT THEN IT WOULD GET APPEALED AND GO BACK TO COURT, WE COULD GO ON AND ON BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY THAT'S WHAT THEIR POSITION IS.

SO AGAIN AS MR. SCHIFF SAID EARLIER, IMAGE UNYOURSELVES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER AN ITEM THAT YOU CARE DEEPLY ABOUT AND YOU NEEDED INFORMATION, YOU HEARD OF SOME WRONGDOING, YOU HEARD THERE WAS A WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT ON SOMETHING AND YOU DECIDED THAT YOU WANTED TO DO A HEARING.

IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD JUST FLATLY REFUSE YOUR SUBPOENA.

BECAUSE WE IGNORE ARTICLE 2, THAT WOULD BE THE PRESIDENT TO IGNORE ALL SUBPOENAS.

BUT WE NEED YOU TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR US TODAY NOT ONLY TO GET MR. BOLTON HERE, BUT MR. DUFFEY, MR. MULVANEY AND EVERYONE ELSE WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON THIS CASE.

NOW, WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION EXERTS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THERE MIGHT BE SOME PRIVILEGE, ONE, THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM ON ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS.

BUT THOSE HAVE TO BE ASSERTED WITH EVERY DOCUMENT THAT I WOULD SEND A SUBPOENA.

SO DON'T BUY THE WHITE HOUSE ARGUMENT THAT OUR SUBPOENAS ARE INVALID BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THEM.

WE KNOW WE DO, YOU KNOW WE DO.

LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THIS BODY WILL MAKE SURE THAT NO FUTURE PRESIDENT WILL JUST SIMPLY DEFY, DISRESPECT AND IGNORE SUBPOENAS.

BECAUSE SOME DAY YOU MAY BE IN OUR SHOES WANTING TO GET INFORMATION, WANTING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE TO ENSURE THAT NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MISMANAGEER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM ALASKA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR RISCH BLUNT KENNEDY AND JOHNSON FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FOR ISN'T FOR SULLIVAN AND OTHER SEN FORS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

GIVEN THAT THE SENATE IS NOW CONSIDERING THE VERY EVIDENTIARY RECORD ASSEMBLED AND VOTED ON BY THE HOUSE, WHICH CHAIRMAN NADLER HAS REPEATEDLY CLAIM CONSTITUTES OVERWHELMING PRESIDENT FOR IMPEACHMENT, HOW CAN THE SENATE BE ACCUSED OF ENGAGING IN WHAT MR. NADLER DESCRIBED AS A COVER UP IF THE SENATE MAKES ITS DECISION BASED ON THE EXACT SAME EVIDENTIARY RECORD THE HOUSE DID.

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

I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

I THINK IT'S RATHER PREPOSTEROUS TO SUGGEST THAT THIS SENATE WOULD BE ENGAGING IN A COVER UP TO RELY ON THE SAME RECORD THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SAID IS OVERWHELMING.

THEY HAVE SAID IT DOZENS OF TIMES.

THEY HAVE SAID THAT IN THEIR VIEW THEY HAVE HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE PRESENTED ALREADY TO ESTABLISH THEIR CASE BEYOND ANY DOUBT, NOT JUST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

IS TOTALLY INCOHERENT TO CLAIM AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER FOR THE SENATE TO RELY ON THAT RECORD.

YOUR JUDGMENT MAY BE AND SHOULD BE, WE SUBMIT, DIFFERENT FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS ASSESSMENTS OF THAT EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT HASN'T ESTABLISHED THEIR CASE AT ALL.

GUT IF THEY'RE WILLING TO TELL YOU THAT IT'S COMPLETE AND IT HAS EVERYTHING THEY NEED, HAS EVERY EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO ESTABLISH EVERYTHING THEY WANT, I THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD THAT THAT IS ALL THAT IS THERE.

THE SWITCH NOW TO SAY NO, WE NEED MORE WITNESSES, I THINK DEMONSTRATES THAT THEY HAVEN'T PROVED THEIR CASE.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

AND AS I WENT THROUGH A MINUTE AGO, THEY HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED A RECORD WITH OVER 28,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS.

THEY HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED VIDEO CLIPS OF 13 WITNESSES, YOU'VE HEARD ALL OF THE KEY EVIDENCE THAT THEY GATHERED, IT WAS THEIR PROCESS, THEY WERE THE ONES THAT SAID WHAT THE PROCESS IS GOING TO BE, HOW IT HAD TO BE RUN, WHO OUGHT TO TESTIFY AND WHEN TO CLOSE IT.

WHEN TO DECIDE THEY HAD ENOUGH.

AND YOU'VE HEARD ALL OF THE KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM THAT.

THAT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THIS BODY TO MAKE A DECISION.

IN THE TIME I HAVE REMAINING TURN TO ONE POINT IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO, WE KEEP HEARING REPEATEDLY TODAY THE REFRAIN OF, THE IDEA THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SOMEHOW TRYING TO PEDDLE VLADIMIR PUTIN'S CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT IT WAS UKRAINE AND NOT RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN 2016 ELECTION.

THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TRY TO PRESENT THIS BINARY VIEW OF THE WORLD THAT ONLY ONE COUNTRY AND ONE COUNTRY ALONE COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTIONS AND IT WAS RUSSIA.

AND IF YOU MENTION ANY OTHER COUNTRY DOING SOMETHING RELATED TO ELECTION INTERFERENCE, YOU'RE JUST A PAWN OF VLADIMIR PUTIN TRYING TO PEDDLE HIS CONSPIRACY THEORY.

THAT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE.

MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY AND FOREIGN NATIONALITIES FROM MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY COULD BE DOING DIFFERENT THINGS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO TRY TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS INTERESTED IN.

AND THE TELEPHONE CALL, THE JULY 25th TRANSCRIPT.

HE MENTIONED CROWDSTRIKE, HE MENTIONED THE SERVER BUT HE TALKS ABOUT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WENT ON, THE FULL SITUATION.

I THINK YOU'RE SURROUNDING YOURSELVES WITH SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE.

HE'S TALKING ABOUT MUCH MORE THAN JUST THE SERVER.

HE COLOSSUS IT AGAIN SAYING, HE REFERS TO ROBERT MUELLER'S TESTIMONY.

AND HE SAYS, THEY SAY A LOT OF IT STARTED IN UKRAINE, THIS WAS A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON, TWICE IN THAT EXCHANGE HE SAYS THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF, THE WHOLE SITUATION.

WHAT IS THAT REFERRING TO, SURROUNDING YOURSELF WITH THE SAME PEOPLE.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REFERS IMMEDIATELY TO CHANGING OUT THE AMBASSADOR BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS AMBASSADOR WROTE CRITICIZING PRESIDENT TRUMP DURING THE ELECTION.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE WAS A POLITICO ARTICLE IN JANUARY 2017 CATALOGING MULTIPLE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO DID EITHER TO CRITICIZE PRESIDENT TRUMP OR TO ASSIST A DNC OPERATIVE IN GATHER GATHERING INFORMATION AGAINST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

THEY SAID THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, NO ONE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING DONE BY UKRAINE.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

ONE OF THEIR STAR WITNESSES, FIONA HILL, SPECIFICALLY TESTIFIED IN HER PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE SHE SAID SHE WENT BACK AND CHECKED, SHE HADN'T REMEMBERED THE POLITICO ARTICLE.

THEN SHE SAID THAT SHE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SOME UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, QUOTE, BET ON HILLARY CLINTON WINNING THE ELECTION, END QUOTE.

IT WAS QUITE EVIDENT IN HER WORDS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO FAVOR THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN INCLUDING BY TRYING TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON PEOPLE WORKING IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

THAT WAS FIONA HILL SHE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WERE DOING THAT.

THIS IDEA THAT IT'S A BINARY WORLD EITHER RUSSIA OR UKRAINE IF YOU MENTION UKRAINE, YOU'RE JUST DOING VLADIMIR PUTIN'S BIDDING, TOTALLY FALSE.

AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE FOOLED BY THAT.

UKRAINIANS WERE DOING THINGS TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS REFERRING TO.

>> COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM VERMONT.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I WOULD ASK TO SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR BLUMENTHAL TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.

QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS, SENATOR LEAHY AND SENATOR BLUMENTHAL.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL CLAIMS, QUOTE, IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CANNOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT, END QUOTE.

HE ADDED A HYPOTHETICAL, QUOTE, I THINK I'M THE GREATEST PRESIDENT THERE EVER WAS AND IF I'M NOT ELECTED THE NATIONAL INTEREST WILL SUFFER GREATLY.

THAT CANNOT BE AN IMPEACHMENTABLE OFFENSE, END QUOTE.

HUNDRED VIEW, THERE IS NO REMEDY TO PREVENT A PRESIDENT FROM CONDITIONING FOREIGN SECURITY ASSISTANCE ENZYME LAKES OF THE ACT ON RECIPIENT'S WILLINGNESS TO DO THE PRESIDENT A POLITICAL FAVOR.

IF THE SENATE FAILS TO REJECT THIS THEORY, WHAT WOULD STOP A PRESIDENT FROM WITHHOLDING DISASTER AID FUNDING FROM A U.S. CITY UNTIL THAT MAYOR ENDORSES HIM.

WHAT WOULD STOP A PRESIDENT FROM WITHHOLDING NEARLY ANY PART OF THE $4.7 TRILLION ANNUAL FEDERAL BUDGET SUBJECT TO HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE I THANK THE SENATORS FOR THAT VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION.

CERTAINLY WHAT WE HAVE ALLEGED IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT SOLICITED A PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT IN EXCHANGE FOR AN OFFICIAL ACT.

SOLICITED DIRT ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

IN EXCHANGE FOR THE RELEASE OF $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID.

SOLICITED DIRT IN EXCHANGE FOR WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

AND IF THIS SENATE WERE TO SAY, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, THEN PRECISELY AS WAS OUTLINED IN THAT QUESTION COULD TAKE PLACE ALL ACROSS AMERICA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEXT ELECTION AND ANY ELECTION.

GRANTS ALLOCATED, TO CITIES OR TOWNS OR MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THE PRESIDENT COULD SAY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT MONEY, MR. MAYOR, MRS. COUNTY EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE, MRS. TOWN SUPERVISOR, UNLESS YOU ENDORSE ME.

FOR RE-ELECTION.

PRESIDENT COULD SAY THAT TO ANY GOVERNOR OF OUR 50 STATES.

THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE, THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN IN OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

NOW, BY MY COUNT AS OF THIS AFTERNOON THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FOUNDERS OF OUR GREAT REPUBLIC HAT BEEN QUOTED EITHER DIRECTLY OR MENTIONED BY NAME 123 TIMES.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, 48 TIMES.

JAMES MADISON, 35.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, 24 TIMES.

JOHN ADAMS, 8 TIMES.

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND BEN FRANKLIN PULLING UP THE REAR, FOUR TIMES.

SEEMS TO ME THAT BEN FRANKLIN AND THOMAS JEFFERSON NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE LOVE.

SO LET ME TRY TO DO MY PART.

THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE OBSERVED THAT TYRANNY IS DEFINED AS THAT WHICH IS LEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

BUT ILLEGAL FOR THE CITIZENRY.

LEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT, BUT ILLEGAL FOR THE CITIZENRY.

THAT'S WHAT WE CONFRONT RIGHT NOW.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CORRUPTLY ABUSED HIS POWER, HE TARGETED AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, PRESSURED A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO CHEAT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION.

AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE, THAT IS OKAY.

BECAUSE HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

BUT OUR FELLOW CITIZENS CANNOT CHEAT, THE WORKER'S COMPENSATION BOARD BY CLAIMING A FAKE INJURY ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY.

OUR FELLOW CITIZENS CANNOT CHEAT THE STOCK MARKET BY ENENGAGING IN INSIDER TRADING THEN ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY.

MY FELLOW CITIZENS CANNOT CHEAT THE COLLEGE ADMISSIONS PROCESS IN ORDER TO GET THEIR CHILD INTO AN ELITE UNIVERSITY AND THEN ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY.

WHY SHOULD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE ALLOWED TO CHEAT IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY.

TYRANNY IS DEFINED AS THAT WHICH IS LEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND ILLEGAL FOR THE SIT WRENRY.

PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL HAS SUGGESTED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN DO ANYTHING, ANYTHING THAT HE WANTS AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN POLICE IT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY.

HE CAN CHEAT AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY.

HE CAN ENGAGE IN A COVER UP AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY.

HE CAN CORRUPTLY ABUSE HIS POWER, HE IS SKATE ACCOUNTABILITY.

ELEVATE HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS, SUBORDINATE AMERICA AS NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY THAT IS THE FIFTH AVENUE STANDARD OF PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT.

I CAN SHOOT SOMEONE ON 5th AVENUE AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.

NO LAWLESSNESS MATTERS.

ABUSE OF POWER MATTERS.

CORRUPTION MATTERS.

THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR RISCH TO BOTH HOUSE MANAGER AND WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND ALL I CANNOT PICK, IDEALLY WOULD BE MANAGER LOFGREN.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATORS CASSIDY AND RISCH FOR BOTH PARTIES.

IS AS FOLLOWS: IN THE CLINTON PROCEEDINGS WE SAW A VIDEO OF MANAGER LOFGREN SAYING, QUOTE, THIS IS UNFAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

BY THESE ACTIONS YOU WOULD UNDUE THE FREE ELECTION THAT EXPRESSED THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN 1996.

IN SO DOING YOU WILL DAMAGE THE FAITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE IN THIS INSTITUTION AND IN THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

IT YOU WILL SET A DANGEROUS PRESS DEPARTMENT THAT CERTAINTY OF PRESIDENTIAL TERM WHICH HAS SO BENEFITED OUR WONDERFUL AMERICA WILL BE REPLACED BY THE PARTISAN USE OF IMPEACHMENT.

FUTURE PRESIDENTS WILL FACE ELECTION THEN LITIGATION THEN IMPEACHMENT.

THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT WILL DIMINISH IN THE FACE OF THE CONGRESS, PHENOMENON MUCH FEARED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, END QUESTION QUOTE.

WHAT IS DIFFERENT NOW IF THE RESPONSE IS THAT THE QUESTION CANNOT RISK THE PRESIDENT INTERFERING IN THE NEXT ELECTION, ISN'T IMPEACHMENT THE ULTIMATE INTERFERENCE?

HOW DOES THIS NOT CHEAT THOSE WHO DID AND/OR WOULD VOTE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

I ASK MANAGER LOFGREN TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY AND TO NOT AVOID AS MANAGER JEFFRIES DID WITH RELATED QUESTION LAST NIGHT.

PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL ANSWERS FIRST.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, I AGREE 100% WITH MANAGER LOFGREN'S COMMENTS FROM THE PAST AND I THINK THEY SHOULD GUIDE THE SENATE.

THERE'S REALLY NO BETTER WAY TO SAY IT.

WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE, THEY KEEP FALSELY ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF WANTING TO CHEAT WHEN THEY'RE COMING HERE TELLING YOU, TAKE HIM OFF THE BALLOT.

IN A POLITICAL IMPEACHMENT.

TALK ABOUT CHEATING, YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO FACE THEM.

LET ME SAY ONE MORE THING WHILE I'M UP HERE.

I LISTENED TO MR.ER SCHIFF COME UP HERE SAY HE WON'T DIGNIFY LEGITIMATE QUESTION ABOUT HIS STAFF WITH A RESPONSE.

BECAUSE HE WON'T STAND HERE AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE ON HIS STAFF BE BESMIRCHED, WHO WILL JOIN HIS STAFF.

SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS CONGRESS, MANAGER SCHIFF, THE OTHER HOUSE MANAGERS AND OTHERS IN THE HOUSE HAVE FALSELY ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT, THEY HAVE COME HERE AND DONE IT.

THE VICE PRESIDENT, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, LAWYERS ON MY STAFF, FALSE ACCUSATIONS, AND THAT IS WRONG.

AND WHEN YOU TURN THAT AROUND AND SAY, HE WILL NOT RESPOND TO LEGITIMATE QUESTION THEN I ASK.

IT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION.

WHO COMMUNICATED WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

WHY WERE YOU DEMANDING SOMETHING THAT YOU ALREADY KNEW ABOUT.

I ASKED HIM IN ANOTHER PART OF MY OCTOBER 8th LETTER THAT DOESN'T GET A LOT OF ATTENTION FROM MR. SCHIFF.

I SAID, YOU HAVE THE FULL ABILITY TO RELEASE THESE DOCUMENTS ON YOUR OWN.

NO RESPONSE.

SO I THINK YOU DESERVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

AND I THINK IT'S TIME IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE START -- THAT WE STOP ASSUMING THAT EVERYBODY HAS HORRIBLE MOTIVES.

IN THE PURITANICAL RAGE OF JUST EVERYBODY'S DOING SOMETHING WRONG EXCEPT FOR YOU.

YOU CANNOT BE QUESTIONED.

THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> I WAS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND I WAS A MEMBER OF THE STAFF OF A MEMBER OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT.

AND DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, I FOUND MYSELF COMPARING WHAT WE WERE DOING IN CLINTON TO WHAT WE WERE DOING OR HAD DONE WITH NIXON.

AND HERE'S WHAT I SAW AND I STILL SEE TODAY.

A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR STARTED WITH WHITE WATER, SPEND SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL THEY FOUND D.N.A.

ON A BLUE DRESS.

AND THEY HAD A LIED -- THE PRESIDENT LIED ABOUT THE SEXUAL AFFAIR UNDER OATH, THAT WAS WRONG.

IT WAS A CRIME.

BUT IT WAS NOT A MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

ANY HUSBAND CAUGHT WOULD HAVE LIED ABOUT IT.

IT WAS WRONG BUT IT WAS NOT A MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

AND SO THROUGHOUT THE CLINTON MATTER, I KEPT RAISING THE ISSUE THAT IT WAS A MISUSE AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE A PARTISAN MISUSE OF IMPEACHMENT TO EQUATE A LIE ABOUT A SEXUAL AFFAIR TO A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

MR. MARKEY SAID THEY LEFT OUT THE WORD HIGH MADE IT ANY CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

THAT'S WHAT WAS WRONG IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

COMPARED TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, WHERE RICHARD NIXON ENGAGED IN A BROAD SCOPE OF ENDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER, CORRUPTING THE GOVERNMENT FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT IN THE ELECTION.

I WOULD ADD UNFORTUNATELY, AND I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD BE IN A THIRD IMPEACHMENT.

UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS WHAT WE SEE IN THIS CASE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> MS.

MANAGER.

SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR GILLIBRAND AND SENATOR SCHATZ TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATORS MANCIHN, GILLIBRAND AND SCHATZ FOR BOTH PARTIES.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY TRIAL, CIVIL, CRIMINAL OR OTHER IN WHICH YOU WERE UNABLE TO CALL WITNESSES OR SUBMIT RELEVANT EVIDENCE.

I BELIEVE THE HOUSE IS FIRST.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THANK YOU TO THE SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION.

I WANT US TO IMAGINE FOR JUST A MOMENT SOMEONE BROKE INTO YOUR HOUSE, STOLE YOUR PROPERTY, POLICE CAUGHT THEM, THEY RETURNED THE PROPERTY NOW THE FACT THAT THEY RETURNED THE PROPERTY CHANGES NOTHING.

THEY WOULD STILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

BUT IF I AM MAN -- IMAGINE TO ON YOUNG EVERY WITNESS, PREVENT WITNESSES FROM APPEARING, IMAGE FIN THEY HAD THE POWER TO DESTROY OR OBSTRUCT ANY EVIDENCE IN THE CASE AGAINST THEM.

FROM BEING PRESENTED TO THE COURT.

I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR IN A LOT OF HEARINGS AND BE A PART OF BUILDING A LOT OF CASES AND WE ALL KNOW, I KNOW EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS THAT WITNESS TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTATION IN A CASE IS EVERYTHING, IT IS THE LIFE AND BREADTH OF ANY CASE, IT IS THE PROSECUTOR'S DREAMA POLICE OFFICER'S OR DETECTIVE DREAM TO HAVE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE.

IT TRULY BAFFLES ME, REALLY, AS A 27 YEAR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT WE WOULD NOT ACCEPT OR WELCOME OR BE DELIGHTED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM DIRECT WITNESSES, PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE.

WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME, WE KNOW THAT.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS ALREADY RULED ON THAT.

BUT THE REMEDY FOR THAT IS IMPEACHMENT.

THAT IS THE TOOL THAT AS WE KNOW AS SOLELY BEEN GIVEN, THAT POWER SOLELY TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SOLELY TRIED BEFORE THE SENATE.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT IS EXTREMELY -- LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY.

ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THERE ARE NO AVAILABLE WITNESSES OR NO AVAILABLE EVIDENCE HAVE I EVER SEEN THAT OCCUR.

THANK YOU.

>> COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE I WOULD RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION IN THIS WAY.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS CONTROL THE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE, I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE TO THAT.

THEY WERE IN CHARGE AND THEY RAN IT.

AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL TO HAVE ANY WITNESSES AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO CALL THE WITNESSES THAT THEY'RE NOW ASKING YOU TO CALL, DEMANDING YOU TO CALL, ACCUSING YOU OF COVER UP IF YOU DON'T CALL.

I'VE NEVER BEEN IN ANY PROCEEDING, TRIAL OR OTHERWISE, WHERE YOU SHOW UP ON THE FIRST DAY THE JUDGE SAYS, LET'S GO, YOU SAY, I'M NOT READY YET, LET'S STOP EVERYTHING.

LET'S TAKE A BUNCH OF DEPOSITIONS.

WELL DID YOU SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES YOU'RE NOW SEEKING?

>> WELL, SOME, BUT NOT OTHERS.

WELL, WHEN YOU DID SUBPOENA THEM DID YOU TROY TO ENFORCE THAT SUBPOENA IN COURT?

NO, THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT YOU DID SUBPOENA DID THEY GO TO COURT?

YES.

WHAT DID YOU DO?

I WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA AND MOOD OUT THE CASE.

AND NOW I WANTED THEM OOMS I WANT THEM OTHERWISE DOING THE COVER UP.

LET ME MAKE ANOTHER POINT BECAUSE THEY KEEP MAKING THIS POINT.

WHAT WILL WE DO, PRESIDENT IS NOT PRODUCING DOCUMENTS.

I'D LIKE TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION ABOUT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.

THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION HAD 2800 SUBPOENAS, 500 SEARCH WARRANTS, 500 WITNESSES.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, MANY, MANY OTHERS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION TESTIFIED.

DOCUMENTS, VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED, AND WHAT HAPPENED.

BOB MUELLER CAME BACK WITH THE CONCLUSION HE ANNOUNCED IT, THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

WHAT DID THE HOUSE DO?

THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT.

DIDN'T LIKE THE OUTCOME.

WHAT DO THEY DO?

THEY WANT TO DO OVER.

THEY WANTED TO DO IT ALL AGAIN THEMSELVES, LIKE THE $34 MILLION OR MORE THAT WAS SPENT.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY BELIEVES THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HASN'T FULLY COOPERATED WITH INVESTIGATIONS.

THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN THEY DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME, THEY JUST KEEP INVESTIGATING.

THEY KEEP WASTING THE PUBLIC'S MONEY.

BECAUSE THEY DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT TRUTH.

THEY CARE ABOUT A POLITICAL OUTCOME.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM UTAH.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR HAWLEY, ERNST AND BRAUN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM SENATOR LEE AND OTHER SENATORS.

UNDER THE STANDARD EMBRACED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, WOULD PRESIDENT OBAMA HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT CHARGES BASED ON HIS HANDLING OF THE BENGHAZI ATTACK, THE SWAP OR DACA.

WOULD PRESIDENT BUSH HAD BEEN SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT CHARGES BASED ON HIS HANDLING OF NSA SURVEILLANCE, DETENTION OF COMBATANTS OR USE OF WATERBOARDING.

>> THANK I, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

UNDER THE STANDARD, WHICH IS NO STANDARD THAT THEY BRING THEIR IMPEACHMENT TO THE SENATE, ANY PRESIDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT FOR ANYTHING.

WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT FOR EXERCISING LONG STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

I GUESS ANY PRESIDENT AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ I'M NOT GOING THROUGH THE PARTICULAR INCIDENTS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BESMIRCH PAST PRESIDENTS.

I DON'T THINK THE STANDARD THAT THEY ANNOUNCE IS HELPFUL, I THINK IT'S VERY DANGEROUS.

I MEAN YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET A LOCK ON THAT DOOR BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE BACK A LOT IF THAT IS THE STANDARD.

AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT ANYTHING, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WITNESSES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT ANYTHING EXCEPT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

I I THINK WE ALL AGREE THEY DON'T ALLEGED A CRIME THAT'S WHY THEY SPEND ALL THEIR TIME SAYING YOU DON'T NEED ONE.

I REMEMBER ONE OF THE CLIPS I SHOWED WHERE SOMEONE WAS SAYING WITH A LOT OF PASSION, THEY'RE TRYING TO CROSS OUT HIGH CRIME AND MAKE IT ANY CRIME NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO CROSS OFF CRIME, ANY CRIME.

NO CRIME IS NECESSARY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT.

THIS IS DANGEROUS AND IT'S MORE DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT'S IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

SO, YES, UNDER THE STANDARD IMPEACHMENT ANY PRESIDENT COULD BE IMPEACHED FOR ANYTHING THAT'S WRONG.

THEY SHOULD BE -- BY THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO THEIR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, A LOT OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL HERE, THEIR OWN HOUSE COLLEAGUES WEREN'T BUYING.

DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

READ THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY DON'T ALLEGED A CRIME.

HI DON'T ALLEGED A VIOLATION OF LAW.

YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT THEIR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, YOUR CONSTITUTION AND YOUR COMMON SENSE.

AND YOU CAN END THIS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO AND SENATOR ROSEN.

>> QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

BOTH PARTIES.

IN JUNE 2019, ELLEN WINE TALK THEN CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WROTE IN A STATEMENT THAT, QUOTE, IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY PERSON TO SOLICIT ACCEPT OR RECEIVE ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN NATIONAL IN CONNECTION WITH THE U.S. ELECTION.

THIS IS NOT A NOVEL CONCEPT.

ELECTORAL INTERVENTION FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE SINCE THE BEGINNINGS OF OUR NATION, END QUOTE.

IN A 2007 ADVISORY OPINION, THE FEC FOUND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FROM FOREIGN NATIONALS ARE PROHIBITED IN FEDERAL ELECTION, EVEN IF, QUOTE, THE VALUE OF THESE MATERIALS MAY BE NOMINAL OR DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN, END QUOTE.

HOW VALUABLE WOULD A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS BE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

BEGIN WITH THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.

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

THE IDEA THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE A THING OF VALUE IS SOMETHING THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT 6 JUSTICE, AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WROTE A COVER LETTER ON THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT, WHICH HE HAD ACTUALLY EXAGGERATED IN THE COMPLAINT THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS A DEMAND FOR SOME ASSISTANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

THAT WAS FORWARDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THEY EXAMINED IT AND THEY ANNOUNCED BACK IN SEPTEMBER THAT THERE WAS NO ELECTION VIOLATION, DID NOT QUALIFY AS A THING OF VALUE.

AND I THINK THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HERE.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING, THE OTHER DAY THERE WAS -- YESTERDAY THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT INFORMATION COMING FROM OVERSEAS.

I WAS ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

AND I WANT TO BE VERY PRECISE THAT I UNDERSTOOD A QUESTION TO BE ABOUT, WAS THERE A VIOLATION OF THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, WOULD THERE BE ONE.

IF SOMEONE SIMPLY GOT INFORMATION FROM OVERSEAS.

AND THE ANSWER IS, NO, AS A MATTER OF LAW.

THINK ABOUT THIS, IF PURE INFORMATION, INFORMATION FROM CAME TO SOMEONE IN A CAMPAIGN THAT COULD BE CALLED A THING OF VALUE, IF IT COMES FROM OVERSEAS, A THING OF VALUE IS PROHIBITED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, IT'S NOT HE'LL LOUD.

COMES FROM WITHIN THE COUNTRY IT HAS TO BE REPORTED.

SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT ANY TIME A CAMPAIGN GOT INFORMATION FROM WITHIN THE COUNTRY ABOUT AN OPPONENT OR ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAYBE WOULD BE USEFUL IN THE CAMPAIGN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPORT THE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION AS THING OF VALUE UNDER THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW.

THAT'S NOT HOW THE LAWS WORK.

THERE WOULD BE TREMENDOUS FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS IF SOMEONE ATTEMPTED TO ENFORCE THE LAW THAT WAY.

SO THAT SIMPLY THE POINT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE.

PURE INFORMATION THAT IS CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS PROHIBITED FROM BEING RECEIVED UNDER CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> YES, MR.

MANAGER.

>> HOW VALUABLE WOULD IT BE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO GET UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE HIS INVESTIGATION THE ANSWER IS, IMMENSELY VALUABLE.

AND IT WASN'T GOING TO BE IMMENSELY VALUABLE, WHY WOULD THE PRESIDENT GO TO SUCH LENGTHS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

WHY WOULD HE BE WILLING TO VIOLATE THE LAW, THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROLLABLE, WHY WOULD HE GO WILLING TO IGNORE THE NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS, WHY WOULD HE BE WILLING TO WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM ALLY AT WAR IF HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO REALLY BENEFIT HIS CAMPAIGN.

YOU HAVE ONLY TO LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS TO DETERMINE JUST HOW VALUABLE HE BELIEVED IT WOULD BE TO HIM.

HOW WOULD HE MAKE USE OF THIS?

WELLF WE LOOK IN THE PAST WE GET A PERFECT ILLUSTRATION OF HOW DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE MADE USE OF THIS POLITICAL HELP FROM UKRAINE.

LET'S LOOK AT 2016 WHEN THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE DCCC AND DNC THEY STARTED DRIPPING OUT THESE DOCUMENTS THROUGH WIKILEAKS AND OTHER RUSSIAN PLAT FORCE.

DID HE MAKE USE OF IT, DID HE CONDEMN IT?

OH, HE MADE BEAUTIFUL USE OF IT.

OVER A HUNDRED TIMES IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS OF THE CAMPAIGN, THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME, RALLY AFTER RALLY AFTER RALLY THE CLINTON RUSSIAN STOLEN DOCUMENTS.

NOW WE'VE HAD A DEBATE SINCE THEN, WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE RUSH INTERFERENCE OF 2016.

ELECTION THAT CLOSE, WAS IT DECISIVE?

NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW.

WAS IT VALUABLE, ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP'S ACTIONS TO KNOW JUST HOW VALUABLE HE THOUGHT IT WAS.

HE THOUGHT IT WAS IMMENSELY VALUABLE.

AND YOU CAN DARN WELL EXPECT IF INTERFERENCE HAVE TO HAVE PRESIDENT DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN.

ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND SO SIGNIFICANT WAS THE DAY AFTER BOB MUELLER REACHED HIS CONCLUSION, THAT THIS PRESIDENT WAS BACK ON THE PHONE ASKING YET OTHER COUNTRY TO HELP CHEAT IN OTHER ELECTION.

U'RE DARN RIGHT THAT WOULD VE BEEN VALUABLE.

MR.

MANAGER.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS UZ AND CORNYN FOR BOTH RTIES.

THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATORS AHAM, CORNYN AND CRUZ IS FOR TH PARTIES.

EN DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL ROWITZ TESTIFIED BEFORE THE DICIARY COMMITTEE, HE SAID J HAD, A QUOTE, LOW THRESHOLD, QUOTE, TO INVESTIGATE THE UMP CAMPAIGN.

ID, QUOTE, YOUR REPORT NCLUDED THAT THE FBI HAD AN EQUATE PREDICATE REASON TO EN THE INVESTIGATION ON THE UMP CAMPAIGN TIES TO RUSSIA.

ULD YOU DEFINE THE PREDICATE.

ROWITZ REPLIED, YEAH, SO THE EDICATE HERE WAS THE FORMATION THAT THE FBI GOT AT E END OF JULY FROM THE IENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, END OTE.

Y IS THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR VESTIGATING TRUMP SO MUCH WER THAN THE STANDARD FOR VESTIGATING BIDEN AND WHY WAS OKAY TO GET THE INFORMATION OM A, QUOTE, FRIENDLY FOREIGN VERNMENT, END QUOTE.

USE MANAGERS ARE FIRST.

>> INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT FOUND THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DEDICATED.

THAT WAS THE BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSION THAT THIS WAS NOT A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATION.

INSPECTOR GENERAL ALSO FOUND THOUGH THERE WERE SERIOUS FLAWS WITH THE FISA COURT PROCESS.

THERE WERE SERIOUS FLAWS IN HOW THE FISA APPLICATIONS WERE WRITTEN AND INFORMATION THAT WAS USED AND PRESCRIBED THE WHOLE SERIES OF REMEDIES, WHICH THE FBI DIRECTOR HAS NOW SAID SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.

BUT THEY FOUND IT WAS PROCEDURALLY DEDICATED.

THEY FOUND THEY DID NOT HAVE TO IGNORE THE EVIDENCE THAT HAD COME TO THEIR ATTENTION, THAT THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE PRESIDENT WAS HAVING ILLICIT CONTACTS POTENTIALLY MAY BE CONCLUDING OR CONSPIRING WITH A FOREIGN POWER.

INDEED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DERELICT FOR THEM TO IGNORE IT.

BUT THE ARGUMENT, THE IMPLICIT ARGUMENT HERE IS BECAUSE THERE WERE PROBLEMS, SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE FISA COURT APPLICATION INVOLVING A SINGLE PERSON, THAT SOMEHOW WE SHOULD IGNORE THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCTED HERE.

THAT SOMEHOW THAT JUSTIFIES THE PRESIDENT'S EMBRACE OF THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA THAT SOMEHOW THAT JUSTIFIES THE PRESIDENT'S DISTRUST OF THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

BUT SOMEHOW JUSTIFIES IGNORING WHAT HIS OWN DIRECTOR OF FBI SAID, WHICH HIS LAWYERS IGNORED TODAY.

WHICH IS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

BECAUSE OF A SINGLE FISA APPLICATION AGAINST A SINGLE PERSON AND THE FLAWS IN IT, YOU SHOULD IGNORE THE EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING.

TURN AWAY FROM THAT.

LET'S NOT LOOK AT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT CONDITIONED MILITARY AID AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON HELP WITH AN INVESTIGATION.

LEGALS LOOK AT FLAWS IN HOW THE FBI CONDUCTED A FISA APPLICATION APPLICATION.

THE ONE DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE OTHER.

THE REALITY IS, THAT WHAT YOU MUST JUDGE HERE IS, DID THE PRESIDENT COMMIT THE CONDUCT HE IS CHARGED WITH.

DID THE PRESIDENT WITHHOLD MILITARY AID AND COVETED MEETING TO SECURE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION.

AND IF HE DID, AS WE BELIEVE WE HAVE SHOWN, DOES THAT WARRANT HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

THAT IS THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU, WHETHER THE FBI MADE ONE MISTAKE OR FIVE MISTAKES WITH THE FISA APPLICATION.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE LET ME ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID IN RESPONSE ACTUALLY FROM SENATOR GRAHAM.

WHEN JAMES COMEY SAID HE WAS VINTED KATE BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID, NO ONE CAN TOUCH THIS.

WAS VINDICATED.

WITH REGARD TO THE FISA -- YOU MAKE SO LIGHT, MANAGER SCHIFF, OF WHAT THE FBI DID.

IT WASN'T EIGHT FISA WARRANT, THEREWAS AN ORDER UNSEALED JUST DAYS AGO SAYING THAT THE PROCESS WAS SO TAINTED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SO TAINTED THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE NSD MISLED BUT SO WAS THE FISA COURT.

FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW THAT ARE WATCHING, THE FISA COURT, YOU CAN'T BLAME THE COURT ON THIS, BY THE WAY.

YOU HAVE TO PLAME THE FEDERAL BUREAU -- BLAME THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THAT THIS HAPPENED.

THOSE ARE PEOPLE WITH WARRANTS WHO ARE ALLEGED TO BE SPIES.

THERE ARE NO LAWYERS IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS.

THERE'S NO CROSS EXAMINATION.

THE COURT ITSELF IN ITS ORDER SAID WE RELY ON THE GOOD FAITH OF THE OFFICERS PRESENTING THE AFFIDAVITS.

ARE THERE TOO STANDARDS TWO STEWARDS FOR INVESTIGATION.

THAT'S AN UNDERSTATEMENT.

TO BELITTLE WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THE FISA MEETING, FRANKLY MANAGER SCHIFF YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THAT.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR DURBIN IS TO BOTH PARTIES.

E-MAILS BETWEEN DOD AND OMB OFFICIALS REVEAL BY AUGUST 12 THE PENTAGON COULD NO LONGER GUARANTEE THAT ALL OF THE $250 MILLION IN DOD TO UKRAINE COULD BE SPENT BEFORE IT EXPIRED.

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE NORQUIST DRAFTED A LETTER THAT STATED THAT THE PENTAGON HAD, QUOTE, REPEATEDLY ADVISED OMB OFFICIALS THAT PAUSES BEYOND AUGUST 19 JEOPARDIZED THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO OBLIGATION USAI FUNDING PRUDENTLY AND FULLY,ND QUOTE.

WHY DID THE PRESIDENT PERSIST IN WITHHOLDING THE FUNDS WHEN DOD OFFICIALS WERE SOUNDING THE ALARM THAT THE HOLD WOULD VIOLATE THE LAW AND SHORT CHANGE OUR ALLY OF NEEDED MILITARY AID?

IT IS THE TURN OF THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO GO FIRST.

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

THE THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THERE WERE A SERIES OF COMMUNICATIONS REFLECTED I BELIEVE IN THE LETTER THAT OMB HAS SENT TO THE JAO AND IN SOME OF THE TESTIMONY IN THE PROCEEDING BELOW THAT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WAS ENCOURAGING DOD TO TAKE WHAT STEPS IT COULD TO GET EVERYTHING LINED UP, HAVE EVERYTHING READY TO OBLIGATE THE FUNDS SO EVERYTHING WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE QUICKLY WHEN THE PAUSE WAS LIFTED.

DOD AS THE E-MAIL SUGGESTS WERE SAYING WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DIFFICULTY DOING IT.

BUT THE FACT WAS THAT THE DEADLINE FOR OBLIGATING THE FUNDS WAS NOT GOING TO BE UNTIL THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

AND AS IT TURNED OUT AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR LANKFORD'S QUESTION, THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED ON SEPTEMBER 11 AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM WERE ALL TBAITD BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

SO THAT THE PROCEDURES THAT HAD BEEN USED TO TRY TO GET EVERYTHING PREPLANNED WERE MOSTLY SUCCESSFUL.

YES, THERE SOME FUNDS, I BELIEVE IT WAS $35 MILLION THAT DID NOT GET OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, SLIGHTLY MORE THAN PAST YEARS.

BUT EVERY YEAR IN FIST ACTUAL YEAR 2017, FISCAL YEAR 2018, THERE WERE FUNDS IN THE SECURITY SYSTEMS PROGRAM THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

IN EACH OF THOSE YEARS THERE WAS ALSO THE LITTLE FIX IN EITHER THE NEXT APPROPRIATIONS BILL TO ALLOW THOSE FUNDS TO CARRY OVER.

SO THE PLANNING HAD BEEN TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE TO RELEASE THE FUNDS, IT WOULD BE DONE BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

NOT QUITE ALL OF IT GOT OUT THE DOOR, THAT'S TRUE BUT THERE'S ALWAYS SOME THAT DOESN'T GET OUT THE DOOR BY THE END OF THE FISCAL CAN YEAR.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

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

YOU KNOW, AS WE GO FURTHER AND FURTHER DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE 17 WITNESSES THAT THE HOUSE INTERVIEWED, NOBODY HAD AN EXPLANATION AND YET AGAIN LIKE LAST NIGHT, MR. PHILBIN SEEMS TO KNOW MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN THE GOVERNMENT, MORE THAN ANYONE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MORE THAN ANYBODY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MORE THAN ANYBODY IN OMB WOULD COME FORWARD WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HOW EXACTLY THIS HAPPENED.

BUT AGAIN HERE ARE THE FACTS.

OMB INTERVIEWED ABOUT AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT THEY SUPPOSEDLY SAID WAS GOING ON LONG AFTER THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS HAD ALREADY ENDED.

IN FACT, AS OMB WAS DOING THOSE FOOTNOTES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK, THOSE FOOT THAT'S THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE THAT MR. SANDY SAID HE HAD NEVER SEEN IN HIS 12 YEARS PLUS OF TIME WORKING THIS PROCESS, AS THAT WAS GOING ON, DOD WAS ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY WE ARE DOING THIS.

THEY HAD NO IDEA.

AND THEN WHEN THE RELEASE WAS FINALLY GETTING READY TO BE FINALLY LIFTED, THE HOLD RATHER, OMB E-MAILED, EMB E-MAILED DOD SAYING LISTEN, AS WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG UNDER THE CONTROL ACT THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS HERE AND IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, IT'S YOUR FAULT.

TO WHICH DOD REPLIED BACK AS YOU MAY RECALL, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

I'M SPEECHLESS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT KNOW, NOBODY HAD TOLD THEM ANYTHING.

NONE OF THE OTHER 17 WITNESSES KNEW ABOUT IT.

SO I DO WANT TO ADDRESS BEFORE I FINISH ONE OTHER POINTS.

THIS IDEA THAT THE DELAY DIDN'T MATTER.

IT DIDN'T MATTER IF IT WAS A FOUR DAY DELAY, A 40 DAY DELAY OR A 400 DAY DELAY.

EVERY DELAY IN COMBAT MATTERS.

EVERY DELAY IN COMBAT MATTERS.

I WILL SAY, THEY TALKED ABOUT DELAYS IN THE PAST.

WELL IN PAST YEARS THERE WAS ABOUT THREE TO SIX PERCENT OF THE FUNDS UNOBLIGATED.

BECAUSE OF UNFORESEEN AND LEGITIMATE REASONS FOLLOWING THE POLICY PROCESS.

IN 2019, 14% OF THE FUNDS WENT UNOBLIGATED FOR FORESEEABLE AND AVOIDABLE REASONS.

BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE HELD THEM.

TO THIS DAY -- >> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM MING.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SENT A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND RICIA, YOUNG, -- RISH, BLUNT, YOUNG AND CAPITO.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR BRA BRAWS SOBRAWSBARRASSO.

HE BELIEVES THE ESTABLISHED U.S.

PROCESS HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE PAST.

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

THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES, THE PRESIDENT IS UNDER ARTICLE TWO INVESTIGATED WITH THE ENTIRE AND IT'S BEEN MADE CLEAR SINCE THE FOUNDING THE EARLY PART OF THE 1800'S AND DECISIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE NEGOTIATOR IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

HE IS VESTED WITH AUTHORITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE NATION.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS DESCRIBED IT.

HE IS TO BE THE SOLE VOICE OF THE NATION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THAT IS WHY THE AUTHORITY WAS ASSIGNED IN THE CONSTITUTION TO THE EXECUTIVE.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON EXPLAINED IN THE FEDERALIST PAPERS THAT THE EXECUTIVE IS CHARACTERIZED BY UNITY AND DISPATCH, THE ABILITY TO HAVE ONE VIEW TO ACT QUICKLY AND ALSO THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN SECRECY AND THEREFORE IT IS THE EXECUTIVE THAT IS UNIQUELY SUITED AND UNIQUELY HAS THE ABILITY TO CARRY OUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENGAGING WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND CARRYING OUT DIPLOMACY.

SO WHEN THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE OF INTEREST TO THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING CORRUPTION IN ANOTHER COUNTRY AND THERE HASN'T BEEN THE SORT OF PROGRESS THAT HE WOULD WANT TO SEE IN DEALING WITH THAT ISSUE IN THE FOREIGN COUNTRY.

PERHAPS INTERACTIONS WITH PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS, PRIOR OFFICIALS OF PRIOR VALUATIONS THAT DON'T LOOK GREAT FROM AN ANTI-CORRUPTION PERSPECTIVE.

IT IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S PREROGATIVE ANDS HIS PROVINCE TO RAISE THOSE ISSUES WITH THE FOREIGN LEADER, TO POINT OUT WHERE HE PLEASE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING DONE IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES THAT IF THERE IS AN ISSUE RELATED TO CORRUPTION OR WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING ELSE, AN ISSUE RELATED TO ECONOMIC MATTERS, TRADE MATTERS, ANTI-TRUST MATTERS.

ACROSS BORDER TRADE.

THOSE ARE ALL THIN THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN RAISE WITH A FOREIGN LEADER.

CORRUPTION IS NOT TAKEN OFF THE TAKE AND IT'S ALSO NOT TAKEN OFF THE TABLE IF IT'S AN ISSUE THAT HAPPENS TO INVOLVE AN OFFICIAL FROM A PRIOR ADMINISTRATION.

WHETHER THAT OFFICIAL IS NOT OR MAY HAVE RECENTLY DECIDED TO RUN FOR ANOTHER OFFICEMENT IF IT RELATES TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, HE HAS LEGITIMATE REASON FOR RAISING IT AND IT'S WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

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

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR WARREN IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

AT A TIME WHEN LARGE MAJORITIES OF AMERICANS HAVE LOST FAITH IN GOVERNMENT, DOES THE FACT THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS PRESIDING OVER AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN WHICH REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAVE THUS FAR REFUSED TO ALLOW WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE CONTRIBUTE TO THE LOSS OF LEGITIMACY OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CONSTITUTION?

>> SENATOR, I WOULD NOT SAY THAT IT CONTRIBUTES TO A LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

I THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS PRESIDED ADMIRABLY.

BUT I WILL SAY THIS.

I WAS IN A CONVERSATION THE OTHER DAY ON THE HOUSE FLOOR WITH ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, TOM FROM NEW JERSEY, A BRILLIANT COLLEAGUE.

AND I WAS HARKENING BACK TO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A KEY EXCHANGE IN THE COURSE OF THIS SAGA.

THIS IS WHEN AMBASSADOR VOLKER IN SEPTEMBER IS TALKING WITH ANDRE YERMAK AND VOLKER IS MAKING THE CASE THAT THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE DOES NOT DO A POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION IN THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE POROSHENKO.

AND WHEN WE TRAVEL AROUND THE COUNTRY AND MEETING OTHER PARLIAMENT TAPERS ABOUT NOT ENGAGING IN POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

WHEN HE MAKES THAT REMARK, YERMAK THROWS IT RIGHT BACK IN HIS FACE AND SAYS YOU MEAN LIKE THE INVESTIGATION YOU WANT US TO DO WITH THE CLINTONS AND THE COLLIDENS.

AND I WAS LAMENTING THIS TO MY COLLEAGUE.

WHAT IS OUR ANSWER TO THAT?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT FOR THAT PRIDES ITSELF ON THE RULE OF THE LAW.

HIS RESPONSE I THOUGHT WAS VERY INTERESTING.

HE SAID THIS PROCEEDING IS OUR ANSWER.

THIS PROCEEDING IS OUR ANSWER.

YES, WE ARE A MORE THAN FALLIBLE DEMOCRACY AND WE DON'T ALWAYS LIVE UP TO OUR IDEALS.

BUT WHEN WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO DEMONSTRATES CORRUPTION OF HIS OFFICE, WHO SACRIFICES THE NATIONAL INTEREST FOR HIS PERSONAL INTEREST UNLIKE OTHER COUNTRIES THERE'S A REMEDY.

AND SO YES, WE DON'T ALWAYS LIVE UP TO OUR IDEALS BUT THIS TRIAL IS PART OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HERITAGE THAT WE WERE GIVEN A POWER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT.

I DON'T THINK A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES REFLECTS ADVERSELY ON THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

I DO THINK IT REFLECTS ADVERSELY ON US .

I THINK IT DIMINISHES THE POWER OF THIS EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.

IF WE CANNOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL IN THE FACE OF THIS KIND OF PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, THIS IS THE REMEDY.

THIS IS THE REMEDY FOR PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE.

BUT IT DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON ANY OF US IF WE ARE AFRAID OF WHAT THE EVIDENCE HOLDS.

THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TRIAL IN AMERICA WHERE THE DEFENDANT SAYS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL, IF THE PROSECUTION CASE IS SO GOOD, WHY DON'T THEY PROVE IT WITHOUT ANY WITNESSES.

THAT'S NOT A MODEL WE CAN HOLD UP WITH PRIDE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD.

AND YES, SENATOR, I THINK THAT WILL FEED CYNICISM ABOUT THIS INSTITUTION.

THAT WE MAY DISAGREE ON THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT OR NOT BUT WE CAN'T EVEN GET A FAIR TRIAL.

WE CAN'T EVEN GET A FAIR SHAKE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WE CAN'T, OH MY GOD WE CAN'T HEAR WHAT JOHN BOLTON HAS TO SAY.

GOD FORBID WE SHOULD HEAR FROM A RELEVANT WITNESS HAS TO SAY.

HEAR NO EVIL.

THAT CANNOT REFLECT WELL ON ANY OF US.

IT'S CERTAINLY NO CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION OR VINDICATION OR ANYTHING LIKE IT.

MY COLLEAGUE SAYS I'M A PURITAN WHO SPEAKS IN DULCET TONES.

I'M NOT A PUREST BUT I BELIEVE IN RIGHT AND WRONG.

I THINK A FAIR TRIAL MATTERS.

AND I THINK THAT THE COUNTRY DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL.

AND YES, SENATOR, IF THEY DON'T GET THAT FAIR TRIAL, IT WILL JUST FURTHER A CYNICISM THAT IS CORROSIVE TO THIS INSTITUTION AND TO OUR DEMOCRACY.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SHELBY IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

SO NOT CHARGED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, HOUSE MANAGERS AND OTHERS HAVE STATED THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED CRIMINAL BRIBERY.

CAN THIS CLAIM BE RECONCILED WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S UNANIMOUS DECISION IN MCDONALD VRSUS UNITED STATES.

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

I THINK THE IS NO IT CAN'T BE RECONCILED WITH THE MCDONALD CASE.

LET ME MAKE A COUPLE POINTS IN MY ANSWER.

THE FIRST IS OF COURSE BECAUSE THERE IS NO BRIBERY OR EXTORTION CHARGE IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THE MANAGERS CAN'T RELY ON THAT NOW TO TRY TO ESTABLISH THEIR CASE.

I POINTED OUT YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE, THAT THAT IS A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL SORT TO HAVE A CHARGING DOCUMENT AND THEN LEAVE OUT CERTAIN CHARGES IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENT.

THEN COME TO TRIAL AND SAY WELL IT'S NOT IN THE INDICTMENT, IT'S NOT IN THE CHARGE BUT ACTUALLY WHAT WE'VE SHENON YOU IS HE DID SOMETHING ELSE WRONG.

IT WAS THIS CRIME.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS WELL NO THAT WILL RESULT IN AN AUTOMATIC MISTRIAL IN ANY ACTUAL TRIAL IN A COURT IN THIS COUNTRY.

SO THAT'S THE INITIAL PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO GO THERE ON BRIBERY OR SOMETHING ELSE.

THEN AS THE SENATOR'S QUESTION RAISES THE MCDONALD CASE MADE CLEAR THAT SIMPLY ARRANGING A MEETING FOR SOMEONE FOR SIMPLY SETTING UP A MEETING WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS COULDN'T BE TREATED AS A SINGLE VALUE IN AN EXCHANGE UNDER THE BRIBERY STATUTE.

AND IT POINTED OUT PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO ALL THE TIME ARE ASKED BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS TO INTRODUCE THEM TO SOMEONE ELSE IN THE GOVERNMENT, TO ARRANGE A MEETING, THAT THAT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ACT.

IT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL POLICY DECISION, AN ACTION THAT'S DETERMINING SOME GOVERNMENT POLICY.

IT'S SIMPLY ALLOWING SOMEONE TO HAVE A MEETING TO THEN TALK ABOUT SOMETHING.

IF THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE MEETING, THAT CAN'T BE THE THING OF VALUE THAT IS BEING EXCHANGED AND CAN'T SUPPORT A CHARGE OF BRIBERY O.

THEY CAN'T RAISE IT BECAUSE IT'S NULL IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY HAD TO CHARGE IT IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THEY CAN'T COME NOW AND TRY A DIFFERENT CASE FROM THE ONE THEY FRAMED IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAD COMPLETE CONTROL OVER DRAFTING.

EVEN IF THEY DID, THEY CAN'T MAKE OUT THE CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING BECAUSE THE MCDONALD CASE PROHIBITS THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE OTHER POINT BECAUSE THE HOUSE MANAGERS TODAY HAVE BROUGHT UP A LOT.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS AGAIN AND AGAIN ABOUT THE SUBPOENA POWER AND WHETHER THEIR SUBPOENA IS ACTUALLY VALID AND THE OVERSIGHT IF THEIR ARGUMENT IS ACCEPTED.

I JUST WANT TO POINT SOMETHING OUT.

THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED WERE PURPORTEDLY ISSUED NOT UNDER OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY BUT PURSUANT TO THE HOUSE'S IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THEY PURPORTED TO BE EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY OF IMPEACHMENT.

AND THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS MENTIONED THIS.

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT, THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE INQUIRY INTO INFORMATION FOR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES HAS TO ACTUALLY RLATE TO SOMETHING THAT LEGISLATION COULD BE PASSED ON.

THERE ARE CERTAIN CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT INFORMATION COULD BE SOLVED.

SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF YOU'RE GOING UNDER THE I PEACHMENT POWER BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN INVESTIGATE INTO SPECIFIC PAST FACTS MORE READILY BECAUSE THAT'S RELEVANT TO AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THAT MIGHT NOT BE FOR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES.

THEY PERFORTH TO BE USING THE IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT AUTHORIZATION BECAUSE SPEAKER'S PRESS CONFERENCE DID NOT VALIDLY GIVE THEM THAT AUTHORIZATION.

WE POINTED OUT THAT THE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID.

THEY DID NOTHING TO TRY TO CURE THAT DEFICIENCY.

THEY DIDN'T REISSUE THE SUBPOENA, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTE AND REISSUE THEM OR ANYTHING.

TO SAY NOW ALL OF OVERSIGHT WILL BE DESTROYED FOREVER IF YOU ACCEPT THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT, TOTALLY FALSE, IT'S TOTALLY MISLEADING BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T PURPORTING TO DO JUST REGULAR OVERSIGHT.

AND AS WE POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES, THE OCTOBER 8TH LETTER THAT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SENT TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND OTHERS SAID SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU WANT TO RETURN TO REGULAR OVERSIGHT, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINT WE'LL PARTICIPATE IN THE ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS.

IT WAS THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS THAT DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THAT ROUTE.

THEY INSIST ON USING IN THE IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY.

WE POINTED OUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT AND THEY DIDN'T SEEK TO CURE THAT PROBLEMMENT SO.

SO ACT SENTING THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DESTROYING OVERSIGHT BY CONGRESS FOR ALL TIME AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

IT HAS TO DO WITH THE MISTAKE THEY MADE IN TRYING TO ASSERT PARTICULAR AUTHORITIES THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE IN THIS CASE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR BENNET, SENATOR BLUMENTHAL AND FOR HEINRICH I HAVE A QUESTION TO SEND TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR WARREN AND OTHER SENATORS IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERSHIP UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THAT RUSSIA CONTINUES THOSE EFFORTS TOWARD THE 2020 ELECTION.

THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION.

YESTERDAY, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAID THAT FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE COULD BE LEGAL IF IT'S RELATED TO CREDIBLE INFORMATION.

DOES THIS MEAN IT IS PROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ACCEPT OR ENCOURAGE RUSSIA, CHINA OR OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO PRODUCE DAMAGING INTELLIGENCE OR INFORMATION TARGETING HIS DOMESTIC POLITICAL OPPONENTS AS LONG AS HE DEEMS IT WOULD BE FROM CREDIBLE INFORMATION?

FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> SENATORS, CHIEF JUSTICE THAT'S THE NATURAL CONCLUSION THEY ARE ARGUING.

ESSENTIALLY IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT IT WOULD SERVE HIS RE-ELECTION INTEREST TO SEEK THE HELP OF A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE TO PROVIDE DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT OR IN OTHER WAYS ASSIST HIS CAMPAIGN, AS LONG AS HE THINKS HIS WINNING IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, THEN THAT'S OKAY.

IT'S NOT ONLY OKAY BUT NO RESTRAINT CAN BE PLACED UPON IT.

EVEN IF HE WERE TO GO SO FAR AS TO PROCLAIM A QUID PRO QUO.

HEY RUSSIA, YOU'VE GOT AMONG THE BEST INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ON THE PLANET.

IF YOU WILL ENGAGE THOSE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES ON MY BEHALF, I WILL REFUSE TO ENFORCE SANCTIONS ON YOU OVER YOUR INVASION OF UKRAINE.

THAT MAY INJURE THE SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY BUT LOOK I THINK MY RE-ELECTION IS MORE IMPORTANT.

THAT'S WHERE THIS BASTARDIZATION OF THE CONSTITUTION LEADS US.

THE IDEA THAT NO ABUSE OF POWER IS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE CONGRESS.

NOW I WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE OTHER QUICK POINTS IF I CAN.

FIRST, COUNSEL NEGLECTS THE FACT THAT WHEN WE ISSUED THOSE SUBPOENAS WE STATED IN THE LETTERS ACCOMPANYING THEIR ISSUANCE THAT THEY WERE BEING ISSUED CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND OUR OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY.

THEY NEGLECTED TO TELL YOU THE LATTER PART.

THAT WE EXPLICITLY MADE REFERENCE TO OUR OVERSIGHT CAPACITY AS LEGISLATORS.

AND FINANCIALLY ON THE ISSUE OF BRIBERY.

IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, THERE WAS AN UMBRELLA ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT THAT LISTED A SERIES OF SPECIFIC ACTS.

SOME OF THOSE ACTS INVOLVE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND SOME INVOLVE JUST UNETHICAL ACTIVITY.

IF YOU ACCEPT COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT, YOU WOULD HAVE SAID THAT THE ARTICLES PASSED OUT OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN NIXON WERE LIKEWISE IN FIRM BECAUSE IF THEY WERE GOING TO CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH ENGAGING IN A CRIMINAL ACT, THEY NEEDED TO MAKE A SEPARATE ARTICLE OF IT.

AND OTHERWISE HOW DARE THEY WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND BE THEN OUT OF ANY COURT PROSECUTORIAL CONDUCT AND THE LIKE.

THAT'S NONSENSE.

ON THE ONE HAND, THEY WANT TO ARGUE THERE'S NO CONDUCT HERE THAT'S EVEN AKIN TO A CRIME.

WHEN UNDER MCDONALD IN FACT THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE BRIBERY, WITHHOLDING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, WITHHOLDING PROVISIONS OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AID UNDER THE PRESIDENT MICK DONALD THAT WOULD BE BRIBERY BUT NO DOUBT IT'S AKIN TO BRIBERY.

THEY SAY UNLESS YOU CHARGE THAT, UNLESS IN THE NIXON CASE THEY HAD 15 ARTICLES ON EACH PARTICULAR ACT, CORRECTAL AND NON-CRIMINAL THAT YOU COULD NOT MAKE OUT A VIABLE CHARGE.

THAT'S NEVER BEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE.

JUST AS THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE HOUSE OCEAN IT'S IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION -- CAN ORGAN ITS OTHERWISE IT'S OIL INVESTIGATE AND WHETHER THE CONDUCT THAT'S CHARGED HAS BEENED COMMITTED AND WHETHER THAT ABUSE OF POWER RISES TO THE LEVEL OF WARRANTING IMPEACHMENT.

BUT THIS TECHNICAL LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT NO YOU HAVE TO CHARGE IT AS WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHARGE IT.

YOU CAN'T MAKE REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT YES THESE ACTS ALSO CONSTITUTE BRIBERY.

THAT THAT'S SOMEHOW OFFENSIVE TO LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.

IT'S NOT.

YES WE COULD HAVE CHARGED BRIBERY.

WE COULD HAVE HAD TWO SEPARATE COUNTS.

THAT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT.

AND HAD WE DONE THAT AS I SAID LAST NIGHT THEY WOULD HAVE ATTACKED THAT THING, TAKING ONE OFFENSE AND MAKING IT INTO TWO.

THAT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT VIOLATED OUR BRIBERY LAWS PARTICULARLY AS THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD BY THE FRAMERS NOT AS THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD 200 YEARS LATER.

THEY VIOLATED WHAT THE FRAMERS UNDERSTOOD FROM BRITISH COMMON-LAW TO CONSTITUTE EXTORTION.

THEY VIOLATED THE MODERN DAY ENDOWMENT CONTROL ACT, THEY VIOLATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT.

THEY VIOLATED MULTIPLE LAWS BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN NECESSARY.

WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THEY ABUSED THEIR POWER.

COUNSEL SAYS WELL CLAIMS ARE MADE OF ABUSE OF POWER ALL THE TIME.

YES, THAT'S TRUE, IN POLITICAL RHETORIC.

BUT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED IMPEACHMENT.

PRESIDENT WAS IMPEACHED -- WAS NOT IMPEACHED OVER CLIMATE CHANGE OR ANY OF THE OTHER NEWABLEENUMERABLE EXAMPLES PEOPLE GAVE THE PRESIDENT IS ABUSING HIS OFFICE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT BROUGHT US HERE.

WHAT BROUGHT US HERE WAS THE PRESIDENT DECIDED THAT HE COULD WITHHOLD MILITARY AID TO AN ALLY OR TO GET HELP IN HIS RE-ELECTION.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.

>> QUESTION FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL [INDISCERNIBLE] >> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR INHOFE JOINED BY SENATORS ROUNDS AND YOUNG FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

EVEN IF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES ARE CALLED, DO YOU EVER ENVISION THE HOUSE MANAGERS AGREEING THERE HAS BEEN ANYWHERE SENATE TRIAL IF IT ENDS IN THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL?

-- HAS BEEN A FAIR SENATE TRIAL IF IT ENDS IN THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, THE ANSWER IS NO.

THEY WILL NOT AGREE IT IS FAIR BECAUSE IF IT HAPPENS AND IF THERE IS A DISCUSSION OF WITNESSES AND IF WE GO TO WITNESSES, MR. SCHUMER'S LAID OUT THE FOUR HE WANTS AND HE TELLS ME WE COULD HAVE ANYBODY WE WANT.

BUT THE REALITY IS THAT ALSO INCLUDES DOCUMENTS.

AND THAT INCLUDES OTHER WITNESSES THAT IT MAY LEAD TO.

SO AT SOME POINT YOU'LL SAY, BECAUSE THIS CANNOT GO ON FOREVER AND WE'LL BE AT THE ELECTION, THIS BODY WILL SAY THIS HAS TO COME TO AN END.

AND THEY WILL SAY AWE AHA IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO THE END WHEN WE GET TO KEY EVIDENCES.

THEY HAD 17 WITNESSES THAT THEY HAD.

WHEN THE HEARING TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, MANAGER NADLER, YOU HAD FOUR WITNESSES I THINK AT ONE POINT WHEN YOU HAD THE LAW PROFESSORS.

AND THERE WAS THREE LAW PROFESSORS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE AND THERE WAS ONE FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT SAME FOUR TO ONE ANALYSIS FOR EVERY ONE OF THEIR WITNESSES WE SHOULD GET FOUR.

BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION EARLIER ASKED ABOUT THE FRUIT OF THE PRAYSPOISONOUS TREE.

THE TAINT OF THE POISON DOES NOT AGE WELL.

THE LONGER IT GOES DOES NOT MAKE THAT POISON GO AWAY.

IT GETS DEEPER AND DEEPER INTO THE SOIL.

AND HERE THE SOIL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A TRIAL THAT WOULD BE NOT ONLY ONGOING BUT THEY PUT UP 17 WITNESSES.

YOU HEARD THEM.

THEY'RE ACTING LIKE THERE'S BEEN NO WITNESSES PRESENTED HERE.

THEY PRESENTED TESTIMONY, 17.

THEY MAY NOT HAVE LIKED WE WERE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THOSE 17 BY PLAYING THOSE WITNESSES' WORDS.

BY THE WAY, THOSE WITNESSES, THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE NEVER DONE WITH THE CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE COUNSELS FOR THE PRESIDENT.

SO DOES THIS END?

WILL IT ARE EVER BE ENOUGH?

IT WILL ONLY BE ENOUGH IF THEY GOT A CONVICTION.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT BECAUSE LET'S FORGET NOT FORGET FOR A MOMENT, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON IN ONE STAGE OR ANOTHER FOR THREE AND-A-HALF, THREE YEARS NOW.

MY CONCERN IS THERE'S NOT A, WHERE IS THE ENDPOINT IN THAT?

SO THEIR END POINT IS JUST GIVE US JOHN BOLTON AND YOU DON'T GET ANYBODY OR THEN YOU GET ONE AND WE GET ONE AND THAT ONE MAY LEAD TO SOMEBODY ELSE.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS.

SO THEY SAID OVERWHENNING PROVED 63 TIMES.

63 TIMES.

WE'RE THREEHOURS AWAY FROM ANSWERING THE END OF THE QUESTION SECTION, WE'RE ABOUT -- IT SOUNDS WE'VE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT WITNESSES FOR THE LAST COUPLE HOURS BUT THAT STARTS TOMORROW.

BUT DO I THINK THAT THERE WILL BE, IS IT OUR POSITION THAT THERE WILL BE HAD A RECOGNITION THAT THERE'S DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN REACHED AND WE'VE REACHED THE HAPPY ACCORD?

NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE.

I ALSO DON'T BELIEVE WHAT CAN BE CURED HERE.

I DON'T THINK WHAT THEY DID CAN BE CURED HERE.

BY ANYTHING YOU WERE TO DO AS FAR AS WITNESSES OR ANYTHING ELSE.

THAT PROGRESSION WAS SO TAINTED AND I THOUGHT MR. PHILBIN DID A VERY EFFECTIVE JOB OF EXPLAINING PAINSTAKINGLY NOW AND MULTIPLE TIMES I KNOW, THE ISSUE OF THOSE SUBPOENAS.

AND I THOUGHT THE PERFECT THAT IS WAS WHEN ONE OF THE MANAGERS SAID WELL WHEN PEOPLE FILE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS THEY GET ANSWERS.

MR. PHILBIN SAID THAT'S BECAUSE THEY FOLLOWED THE LAW, THEY FOLLOW THE RULES.

THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

THANK YOU, MR. DHEAJ.

>> THANK --MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR.

SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF OUR COLLEAGUES SENATORS BOOKER CARDIN, JANE, MARKEY, MENENDEZ -- I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR HARPER AND THE OTHER SENATORS ADDRESSED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE PRESIDENT'S AIDES AND DEFNDERS HAVE CLAIMED THAT IT IS NORMAL OR USUAL TO USE U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AS THE PRESIDENT DID TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED OUTCOME.

HOW IS THE PRESIDENT'S ACT IN WITHHOLDING U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE DIFFERENT FROM HOW THE U.S.

USES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO ACHIEVE FOREIGN POLICY GOALS AND NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES AND HOW SHOULD WE EVALUATE THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS WHAT IS, QUOTE, DONE ALL THE TIME, END QUOTE.

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

SO TO UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO THIS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK INSIDE THE PRESIDENT'S MIND.

YOU JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT RECENT HISTORY AND THEN WHAT WAS DONE LAST YEAR.

AS I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER AND EVEN YESTERDAY, OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE HELD HOLDS OF AID FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS, EVEN THIS PRESIDENT.

WE CONCEDE THAT.

THAT THERE ARE A VARIETY OF LEGITIMATE POLICY REASONS FOR HOLDING AID.

WHETHER IT BE CORRUPTION OR BURDEN SHARING.

EVEN IN THE PRESIDENT'S OTHER HOLDS LIKE AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT TERRORISM OR CENTRAL AMERICA BECAUSE OF IMMIGRATION CONCERNS.

AND EVEN THOUGH SOME MIGHT DISAGREE WITH THAT, THAT IS A LEGITIMATE POLICY DEBATE.

THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT EVERY WITNESS TESTIFIED, THESE 17 WITNESSES THAT YOU HEAR ABOUT TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON PROVIDED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS HOLD.

I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER HOW THERE IS A PROGRESSION FOR DOING THIS, RIGHT.

THERE IS A WELL PRESCRIBED PROCESS FOR ALLOCATING THE FUNDS LIKE WE ALL DID HERE IN THIS CHAMBER AND 87 OF YOU AGREED ON.

AN INNER AGENCY PROCESS TO REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA OUTLINED BY THIS BODY.

ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS.

THAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE.

THE INTERAGENCY PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED.

THAT CERTIFICATION WAS MADE.

THE NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS WAS CONDUCTED.

THE TRAIN HAD LEFT THE STATION JUST LIKE THE TRAIN HAD LEFT THE STATION IN 2018 AND 2017.

CHANGE IN THE ACCURACY INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS IN PRIOR YEARS HAD BEEN ENGAGED AND HAD SIGNED OFF.

EXCEPT THIS YEAR, IN 2019, RATHER, THAT ALL CHANGED.

A HOLD WAS IMPLEMENTED FOR NO KNOWN REASON.

THERE WAS NO NO NOTIFICATION GIVEN TOKING QUONG WHICH VIOLATED THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT.

DOD, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SECRETARY ESPER, SECRETARY POMPEO AND VICE PRESIDENT PENCE THE WHOLE NATIONAL COUNSEL IMPLORED THE PRESIDENT TO MEAD THE AID BECAUSE NOT ONLY HAS IT MET ALL THE CERTIFICATIONS BUT IT WAS THAT U.S.

INTERESTS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY.

AND YET NOBODY KNEW WHY IT HAPPENED.

AND TO THIS DAY, THE INDIVIDUAL WHO COULD SHED LIGHT ON THIS, MR. BOLTON IS BEING PROHIBITED FROM COMING FORWARD TO EXPLAIN WHY THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM IT HAPPENED.

THE YES, IT IS STILL A GOOD TIME TO SUBPOENA AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND GET THAT INFORMATION.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

THE SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BOTH SETS OF COUNSELS SPONSOR THE BY MYSELF SENATOR CRUZ AND SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, HOLLY, SASSE AND RUBIO.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR BURR AND THE OTHER SENATORS IS FROM BOTH PARTIES, THE HOUSE WILL ANSWER FIRST.

HILLARY CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE HIRED A RETIRED FOREIGN SPINAL TO SPY TO WORK WITH RUSSIAN CONTACTS TO BUILD A DOSSIER OF OPPOSITION RESEARCH AGAINST HER POLITICAL OPPONENT DONALD TRUMP.

UNDER THE HOUSE MANAGER STANDARD WOULD THE STEEL DOSSIER BE CONSIDERED AS FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN A U.S. ELECTION A VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND/OR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND DISTINGUISHED SENATORS.

I THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

THE ANALOGY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESIDENT'S SITUATION BECAUSE FIRST TO THE EXTENT THAT OPPOSITION RESEARCH WAS OBTAINED, OR OPPOSITION RESEARCH THAT WAS PURCHASED.

BUT THIS SPEAKS TO THE UNDERLYING ISSUE OF THE AVOIDANCE OF FACTS.

THE AVOIDANCE OF THE REALITY OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE.

NOW, I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL BUT ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WE CONSISTENTLY HEAR ON THE FLOOR OF THIS SENATE IS GREAT INSTITUTION IN AMERICA'S DEMOCRACY IS CONSPIRACY THEORY AT THEAFTER CONSPIRACY THEORY AFTER CONSPIRACY.

WE HEARD ABOUT THE DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY.

WE HEARD ABOUT THE ADAM SCHIFF IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL CONSPIRACY THEORY.

WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE BURISMA CONSPIRACY THEORY.

WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER CONSPIRACY THEORY.

IT'S HARD TO KEEP COUNT.

THIS IS THE SENATE.

THIS IS AMERICA'S MOST EXCLUSIVE POLITICAL CLUB.

THIS IS THE WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY AND ALL YOU OFFER US IS CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ADDRESS THE FACTS IN THIS CASE THAT THE PRESIDENT CORRUPTLY ABUSED HIS POWER TO TARGET AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR POLITICAL AND PERSONAL GAIN.

HE TRIED TO CHEAT IN THE ELECTION BY SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

THAT IS AN IMPEACHMENTABLE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE BEFORE THIS GREAT BODY OF DISTINGUISHED SENATORS.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

SO I GUESS YOU COULD BUY, THIS IS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.

YOU CAN BUY A FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

IF YOU PURCHASE IT, YOU PURCHASED THEIR OPPOSITION RESEARCH I GUESS IT'S OKAY.

SO.

LET ME TRY TO DEBUNK THE CONSPIRACY MANAGER JEFFERIES.

IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THAT CHRISTOPHER STEEL WAS ENGAGED TO OBTAIN AND PREPARE A DOSSIER ON THE PRESIDENT'S CANDIDATE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DONALD TRUMP.

IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THAT CHRISTOPHER STEEL UTILIZED HIS NETWORK OF ASSETS INCLUDING ASSETS APPARENTLY IN RUSSIA TO DRAFT THE DOSSIER.

IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THAT THE DOSSIER WAS SHARED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THROUGH BRUCE ORR WHO WAS THE NUMBER FOUR RANKING MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THAT TIME BECAUSE HIS WIFE WIFE HAPPENED TO BE WORKING IN THE ORGANIZATION IN GPS THAT WAS PUTTING THE DOSSIER TOGETHER.

THIS IS ALSO NOT A CONSPIRACY.

IT SOUNDS LIKE ONE EXCEPT IT'S REAL.

AND IT'S ALSO NOT A CONSPIRACY THAT THAT DOSSIER PURCHASED DOSSIER WAS TAKEN BY THE FBI TO THE FOREIGN SURVEILLANCE COURT TO OBTAIN A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ORDER ON AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

IT IS ALSO NOT A CONSPIRACY THAT THAT COURT ISSUED AN ORDER, TWO OF THEM NOW CONDEMNING THE FBI'S PRACTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT MANY OF THOSE ORDERS WERE NOT PROPERLY ISSUED.

NONE OF THAT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY, THAT'S JUST THE FACTS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR BOTH PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR BALDWIN IS FROM BOTH PARTIES AND COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT WILL ANSWER FIRST.

CAN YOU ASSURE US THAT THE JENNIFER WILLIAMS DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE WAS NOT CLASSIFIED SECRET FOR ANY REASONS PROHIBITED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 13526 SUCH AS PREVENTING EMBARRASSMENT TO A PERSON.

IF YES, PLEASE DESCRIBE OR IDENTIFY THE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO NATIONAL SECURITY THAT WOULD BE CAUSED BY DECLASSIFYING THIS DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE SAME EXECUTIVE ORDER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION POLICY IS ALWAYS TO ABIDE BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL.

AND THE CLASSIFICATION, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT DUMP IS DERIVATIVELY -- DOCUMENT IS DERIVATIVELY CLASSIFIED BECAUSE IT REFERS TO ANOTHER DOCUMENT A TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY CLASSIFIED.

I CAN'T REPRESENT TO YOU THE SPECIFIC REASON THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OFFICER CLASSIFIED THAT DOCUMENT BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO PROPER PROCEDURES.

IT IS PROPERLY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO FOLLOW THE CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES.

THE MEMORANDUM THAT SHE SUBMITTED IS DERIVATIVELY CLASSIFIED BECAUSE OF THAT TRANSCRIPT.

NOW THAT TRANSCRIPT RELATES TO CONVERSATION WITH A FOREIGN HEAD OF STATE.

ALMOST ALL CONVERSATIONS WITH FOREIGN HEADS OF STATE ARE CLASSIFIED AND THEY ARE CLASSIFIED BECAUSE THE CONFIDENTIALITY RELATED TO THOSE COMMUNICATIONS IS IMPORTANT FOR ENSURING THERE CAN BE CANDID CONVERSATIONS WITH FOREIGN HEADS OF STATE.

THE PRESIDENT TOOK EXTRAORDINARY ACTION IN DECLASSIFYING TWO OF HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH FOREIGN HEADS OF STATE, UNPRECEDENTED BECAUSE HE CAREFULLY WEIGHED THE BALANCE OF WHAT WAS AT STAKE IN THIS CASE AND THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IN THOSE TWO CONVERSATIONS THAT WAS AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE THAT SUCH CONVERSATIONS ARE PROPERLY CLASSIFIED.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THAT DOCUMENT FOR YOURSELF AND ASK IF THERE IS LEGITIMATE BASIS TO CLASSIFY THAT SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY.

THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS SAID HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS SCHEME.

HE'S DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE, INVOLVEMENT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

WE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT BIEFDZ SONDLAND RAISED -- AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED VICE PRESIDENT WAS BEING TIED UP AND THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT COULD NEVER BE.

THE PRESIDENT WOULD NEVER ALLOW SUCH A THING.

THERE WAS NOTHING BUT A SILENT NOD OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT WITH WHAT HE WAS BEING TOLD.

NONETHELESS, THE VICE PRESIDENT SAYS THAT HE KNEW NOTHING.

AND THE VICE PRESIDENT POINTS TO THE OPEN TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER WILLIAMS TO SUPPORT THAT CONTENTION.

BUT THE CLASSIFIED SUBMISSION GOES TO THAT PHONE CALL BETWEEN THE VICE PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

YOU SHOULD READ THAT AND ASK YOURSELF WHETHER THAT SUBMISSION IS BEING CLASSIFIED BECAUSE IT WOULD EITHER EMBARRAS OR UNDERMIND WHAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT ARE SAYING OR THERE'S SOME LEGIT MUST REASON.

NOW THE PRIME AT ONE POINT SAID HE WANT TO RELEASE THE RECORD OF HIS CALL.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ISSUE AS HAS THE PRESIDENT.

IF IT WAS SO CLASSIFIED WHY ARE THEY ALL TALKING ABOUT IT.

BUT WE ARE TO BE ASSURED THAT THIS CLASSIFICATION DECISION WAS MADE ABSOLUTELY ABOVE BOARD.

I'M SURE THAT JOHN BOLTON'S MAN SCRIPT WILL BE TREATED WITH THE SAME RIDGED OBJECTIVE CONSTITUTE KNEE.

YOU PRESIDENT THAT.

DON'T TAKE MY WORTH FOR IT.

YOU READ THAT AND YOU ASK YOURSELVES IS THERE ANYTHING THAT OTHER THAN AVOIDING EVIDENCE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULDN'T SEE JENNIFER WILLIAMS SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY.

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN CONCLUDE THAT IT IS EXCEPT THAT IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU'RE BEING TOLD AND WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEING TOLD.

THEY DESERVE THE WHOLE TRUTH AND THAT'S PART OF THE TRUTH.

SO LET THE PUBLICITY IT.

>> MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHARYJ.

>> SENATOR FROM TEN.

>>TENNESSEE.>> I SEND A QUESTION FROM MYSELF AND SENATOR DAINES AND SENATOR CRUZ.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS ALEXANDER, DAINLZ AND CRUZ IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

CHIEF JUSTICE COMPARE THE BIPARTISANSHIP IN THE NIXON, CLINTON AND TRUMP IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, SPECIFICALLY HOW BIPARTISAN WAS THE VOTE IN THE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE HOUSE COMMITTEES TO BEGIN FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES FOR EACH OF THE THREE PRESIDENTS.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS.

IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT WE LOOK BACK AND WE THINK ABOUT THE VOTE ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT ENDED UP BIPARTISAN.

BUT IT DIDN'T START THAT WAY.

THE PARTIES WERE AS DUG IN AS PARTIES ARE TODAY.

THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SAW IT DIFFERENTLY.

BUT AS THE EVIDENCE EMERGED.

A BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS E MERGED ON THE COMMITTEE -- EMERGED ON THE COMMITTEE AND A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS, TOM RAILSBACK WHO JUST PASSED AWAY, CALDWELL BUTLER WHO LOVED RICHARD NIXON.

HE WAS A HUGE FAN OF RICHARD NIXON BUT THEY COULDN'T TURN AWAY FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED ABUSE OF POWER, CHEAT THE ELECTION AND THEY HAD TO VOTE TO IMPEACH HIM.

WHEN IT CAME TO THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THAT WAS AGAIN, IT STARTED OUT ALONG VERY PARTISAN LINES.

AND IT ENDED ALONG PARTISAN LINES.

AND I BELIEVE THE REASON WHY AS I SAID A SHORT WHILE EARLIER WAS WE NEVER HAD A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.

WITH NIXON WE HAD CLEAR ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO UPEND THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME TO CHEAT IN AN ELECTION AND MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES VOTED TO IMPEACHMENT.

WITH CLINTON WE HAD PRIVATE MISCONDUCT.

YES, I THINK BECAUSE HE LIED ABOUT THAT UNDER OATH BUT IT WAS THEN'T MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.

AS I SAID, ANY HUSBAND CAUGHT IN AN AFFAIR COULD HAVE LIED ABOUT IT AND IT DIDN'T INVOLVE THE USE OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.

AND SO WE NEVER GOT BEYOND OUR PARTISAN DIVISIONS ON THAT AND MANY OF US, AND I WILL INCLUDE MYSELF BELIEVE THAT IT WAS BEING DONE FOR PARTISAN PURPOSE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T REACH A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

IN THE TRUMP CASE, AND I'LL SAY I'VE BEEN DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE I YOU SERVE WITH A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE WHO I LIKE, WHO I RESPECT, WHO I WORK WITH ON LEGISLATION AND I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT WHEN THIS EVIDENCE CAME OUT AS WITH IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION, WE WOULD HAVE IT COMING TOGETHER BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN MUCH TO MY DISAPPOINT.

CHIEF JUSTICE I THINK YOU HAVE A NEW OPPORTUNITY HERE IN THE SENATE.

FOR ONE THING, IS THIS A SMALLER BODY YOU ARE AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED THE GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY ON THE PLANET.

YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO WHICH IS TO CALL FIRST HAND WITNESSES AND HEAR FROM THEM.

WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENED SINCE THE IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES WERE ADOPTED.

ONE OF THEM WERE E-MAILS THAT HAD BEEN RELEASED THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT.

IT'S BEEN SAID THAT BY COUNSEL THAT THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT INFORMATION JUST SHOWS IF YOU FOLLOW THE PROCESS, YOU GET INFORMATION.

NO, THEY HAD TO SUE AND THEY'RE STILL IN A LOCK DOWN FIGHT OVER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND THE REDACTIONS THAT WERE NOT PROPER.

SO THAT'S A BIG FIGHT THAT'S STILL GOING ON BUT WE'VE GOT INFORMATION.

BUT MOST TELLINGLY, MR. BOLTON HAS NOW STEPPED FORWARD AND SAID HE WANTS, HE'S WILLING TO TESTIFY.

HE'S WILLING TO COME HERE AND TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

AND I THINK WE WOULD ALL LEARN SOMETHING.

AND AS MR. SCHIFF HAS MENTIONED, I THINK WE CAN STRUCTURE THIS IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WILL RESPECT THE SENATE'S NEED TO DO OTHER BUSINESS.

WHICH WE ALSO FEEL IN THE HOUSE.

LET'S GET THAT DONE AND LET'S SEE IF THAT KIND OF INFORMATION CAN HELP THE SENATORS COME TOGETHER AS HAPPENED IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SO MANY YEARS AGO WHEN WE DEALT WITH THE SERIES PROBLEM OF OF PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, ABUSE OF POWER TO CHEAT AN ELECTION WHEN RICHARD NIXON SHOCKED THE NATION AND ULTIMATELY HAD TO RESIGN.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU MS.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE QUESTION FROM SENATOR SCHUMER FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

OF OUR COLLEAGUES ARE WORRIED THAT IF WE WERE ABLE TO BRING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THE TRIAL IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG.

MR. SCHIFF MENTIONED WE COULD DO DEPOSITIONS IN ONE WEEK.

PLEASE ELABORATE.

WHAT CAN YOU SAY THAT WILL REASSURE US THAT HAVING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS CAN BE DONE IN A SHORT TIME MINIMALLY IMPEDING THE BUSINESS OF THE SENATE.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

THE DOCUMENTS WE SUBPOENAED AND SOUGHT TO GET INTO THE HOUSE, THOSE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED.

SO THAT WORK HAS BEEN DONE.

WE'VE BEEN INFORMED FOR EXAMPLE THE STATE DEN DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED.

THOSE COULD READILY BE PROVIDED TO THE SENATE FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.

WITH RESPECT TO WITNESSES, IF WE AGREE TO A ONE WEEK PERIOD TO DO DEPOSITIONS WHILE YOU CONTINUE TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF THE SENATE.

IT DOESN'T MEAN WE WOULD HAVE UNLIMITED WITNESSES DURING THAT WEEK.

WE WOULD HAVE TO, WE WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE ON WITNESSES WHO ARE RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE OF THE ISSUES.

NEITHER SIDE WOULD HAVE AN UNLIMITED CAPACITY TO CALL ENDLESS WITNESSES.

WE WOULD HAVE A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME JUST AS WE HAD A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME FOR OUR OPENING PRESENTATIONS AND FOR THIS QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD.

IF THERE WAS ANY DISPUTE OVER WHETHER A WITNESS IS TRULY MATERIAL AND PROBATIVE, THAT DECISION COULD BE MADE BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN VERY SHORT ORDER.

IF THERE WAS A DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER A PASSAGE IN A DOCUMENT THAT'S COVERED BY AN APPLICABLE PRIVILEGE AND IF FOR THE FIRST TIME THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD ACTUALLY INVOKE A PRIVILEGE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE COULD DECIDE IS THAT PROPERLY LAID OR MERELY IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL CRIME OR FRAUD.

THIS CAN BE DONE VERY QUICKLY.

THIS CAN BE DONE I THINK IVELY.

WE NEVER SOUGHT TO DEPOSE EVERY WITNESS UNDER THE FACE OF THE SUN.

WE HAVE SPECIFIED FOUR IN PARTICULAR THAT WE THINK ARE PARTICULARLY PROBATIVE AND RELEVANT HERE BUT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT ON CONCLUDING THAT PROCESS WITHIN A WEEK.

SO THAT'S HOW WE WOULD CONTEMPLATE IT BEING DONE AND WE MAKE THAT PROPOSAL TO OUR OPPOSING COUNSEL.

IT WOULD BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME.

IT WOULD, I THINK, BE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.

COUNSEL SAYS THAT THE CONSTITUTION MANDATES A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION.

THAT'S HAVE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION HERE.

A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION WOULD BE IT WOULD TAKE ONE WEEK, WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE BUSINESS IN THE SENATE.

WE'LL DO THE DENY SIXES AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL PRESENT TO YOU WHAT THE WITNESSES HAD TO SAY IN THOSE DEPOSITIONS.

AND THAT'S HOW WE CONTEMPLATE THE PROCESS WOULD WORK.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I'M ABOUT TO SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK BUT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT FOLLOWING THE RESPONSE FROM MY QUESTION AND ONE MORE DEMOCRATIC QUESTION WE TAKE A 45 MINUTE BREAK FOR DINNER.

SO I'LL SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> I'M SURE THERE'S NO OBJECTION.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM THE MAJORITY LEADER IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE QUESTION ON BY PARTNERSHIP BY SENATOR ALEXANDER AND ANY ASSERTIONS THE HOUSE MANAGERS MADE IN RESPONSE TO ANY OF THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS.

CHIEF>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND FOR THANK YOU FOR QUESTION.

IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT BIPARTISAN SHINE, EXCUSE ME, I BEG YOUR PARDON, SENATOR ALEXANDER.

SENATOR SADDER, ALEXANDER, YOUR QUESTION QUESTION.

CHIEF JUSTICEQUESTIONAND DETERMINE-- THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT SAYS.

THAT IS THE THEORY THAT IS INFINITELY MALLEABLE.

IT PROVIDES NO STANDARD, NO REAL STANDARD AT ALL.

AND THAT WAS ONE CORE POINT THAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WAS MAKING.- IT'S TANTAMOUNT TO IMPEACHMENT FOR ADMINISTRATION AND THE OTHER POINT I'LL MAKE IS THEY SET THE STANDARD FOR THEMSELVES WITH RESPECT TO INVESTIGATIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO ESTABLISH IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THEIR BAD MOTIVE THAT THERE'S NOT A SIN TELL SILL AWE OF -- SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT WITH ANY POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE INTERFERENCE OF THE BURISMA BIDEN AFFAIR.

THEY CAN'T MEET THAT STANDARD.

IT'S DETERMINED THERE IS A LEGITIMATE POLICY INTEREST IN AT LEAST RAISING A QUESTION ABOUT THOSE THINGS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM DELAWARE.

>> ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR KLOBUCHAR I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DEXA DRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS -- DESK, ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE HOUSE WILL GO -- THE HOUSE WILL GO FIRST IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR CLOONS AND KLOBUCHAR.

MR. SEKULOW SAID EARLIER THAT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WOULD EXPECT TO CALL THEIR OWN WITNESSES IN THIS TRIAL IF MR. BOLTON OR OTHERS ARE CALLED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

CAN YOU TELL THE SENATE IF ANY OF THOSE WITNESSES WOULD HAVE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ACTIONS.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATOR, THERE CERTAINLY ARE WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD CALL WITH FIRSTHAND INFORMATION.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THE WITNESSES THAT THEY HAVE DESCRIBED SO FAR, THEIR POSITION IS APPARENTLY IF YOU ARE THE CHAIRMAN OF A COMMITTEE DOING AN INVESTIGATION, THAT MAKES YOU A RELEVANT WITNESS.

IT DOESN'T?

OR YOU'VE ALL BECOME WITNESSES IN YOUR OWN INVESTIGATIONS.

THEY WANT TO CALL JOE BIDEN AS A WITNESS?

JOE BIDEN CAN'T TELL US WHY MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD FROM UKRAINE WHILE IT WAS FIGHTING A WAR.

JOE BIDEN CAN'T TELL US WHY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COULDN'T GET IN THE DOOR OF THE WHITE HOUSE WHILE THE FOREIGN RUSSIAN MINISTER COULD.

HE'S NOT IN A POSITION TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

HE CAN'T TELL US WHETHER THIS RISES TO AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER ALTHOUGH HE PROBABLY HAS OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT.

BUT ARE THERE WITNESSES THEY COULD CALL?

ABSOLUTELY.

THEY HAVE SAID MICK MULVANEY ISSUED A STATEMENT SAYING THE PRESIDENT NEVER SAID WHAT I SAID HE SAID EARLIER.

WELL, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WHY DON'T THEY CALL MICK MULVANEY.

HE SHOULD BE ON THEIR WITNESS LIST.

IF SECRETARY POMPEO HAS EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A POLICY BASIS TO WITHHOLD THE AID AND IT WAS DISCUSSED, WELL THEN WHY DON'T THEY CALL HIM.

THAT'S A RELEVANT FACT WITNESS.

THEY DON'T WANT TO ALLOW THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO DECIDE ISSUES OF MATERIALITY BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO INVOLVES WITNESSES THAT DON'T SHED LIGHT ON THE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

THEY DO SATISFY THE APPETITE OF THEIR CLIENT BUT THEY DON'T HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE ISSUES HERE.

SO YES, THERE ARE WITNESSES.

NOW, THE REASON THEY ARE NOT ON THE PRESIDENT'S WITNESS LIST IS BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TRUTHFUL UNDER OATH, THEY WOULD INCRIMINATE THE PRIDE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD BE BEGGING MICK MULVANEY TESTIFY OR BEGGING TO HAVE THE HEAD OF OMB TO HELPED ADMINISTER THE FREEZE ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT.

LET'S BRING HIM IN.

HE'LL TELL YOU.

IT WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT.

IT WAS ALL ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.

SO WHY DON'T THEY WANT THE HEAD OF OMB IN?

WHY DON'T THEY WANT THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN?

BECAUSE THEIR OWN PEOPLE WILL INCRIMINATE THE PRESIDENT.

BUT THERE'S NO SHORTAGE OF RELEVANT PROBATIVE WITNESSES THEY JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> BESIDE THE FACT MR. SHOOMPLE SAYS AND IT'S ON PAGE 6 75 OF THE TRANSCRIPT THAT I CAN CALL, WE CAN CALL ANY WITNESSES WE WANT.

MR. SCHIFF JUST SAID WE CAN CALL THEIR WITNESSES.

THAT'S WHAT HE SAID YOU CAN CALL THEIR WITNESSES BECAUSE UNDER THEIR THEORY IF WE WANT TO TALK TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER IN A SECURE SETTING IF HE MAY HAVE WORKED FOR THE PRESIDENT OR WORKED IN UKRAINE OR BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH HIS STAFF THAT'S IRRELEVANT.

WE CAN'T TALK TO JOE BIDEN OR HUNTER BIDEN BECAUSE THAT'S IRRELEVANT.

EXCEPT THE CONVRSATION THAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS INQUIRY, THE PHONE CALL, TRANSCRIPT THAT YOU SELECTIVELY YOUTHIZE HAS A REFERENCE TO HUNTER BIDEN.

THE CONVERSATION WITH BURISMA, THEY RAISED IT FOR ABOUT HALF A DAY SAYING THERE WAS NOTHING THERE.

WELL LET ME FIND OUT THROUGH CROSS EXAMINATION.

BUT I JUST THINK THE IRONY OF THIS BEFORE WE GO TO DINNER THAT WE COULD CALL ANYONE WE WANT EXCEPT THE WITNESSES WE WANT BUT WE CAN CALL THEIR WITNESSES THAT THEY WANT.

REMEMBER WE SAID THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.

IT'S STILL ON THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.

IT DOESN'T GET BETTER WITH AGE LIKE I SAID.

THE IDEA THIS IS GOING TO BE A FAIR PROCESS.

CALL THE WITNESSES THEY WANT TONIGHT CALL THE WITNESSES YOU WANT BECAUSE THEY ARE IRRELEVANT.

MAY BE IRRELEVANT TO THEM, THEY ARE NOT IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND THEY ARE NOT IRRELEVANT TO OUR CASE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> COUNSEL, MR.

MAJORITY LEADER, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE 45 MINUTES?

CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, WE DO INDEED.

>> THANK YOU>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE AND THANKS FOR COMING.

I THAT YESTERDAY WAS VERY GOOD FOR US.

IT SHOWED HOW FLIMSY, HOW SPECIES AND HOW DANGEROUS THE REPUBLICAN A ARGUMENTS WERE.

I WANT TO GO OVER SOME IMPORTANT MOMENTS FROM THAT FIRST PERIOD OF SENATOR'S QUESTIONING YESTERDAY NEARLY ALL OF WHICH MADE THE CASE FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

SOME OF THE BEST QUESTIONS ACTUALLY CAME FROM REPUBLICANS.

FROM SENATOR COLLINS AND MURKOWSKI ASKED THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IF THEY COULD GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT HUNTER AND JOE BIDEN BEFORE THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED HIS DAND CANDIDACY.

PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL COULD NOT POINT TO A SINGLE EXAMPLE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM SO HE MADE A BOGUS EXCUSE THAT HIS ANSWER WAS LIMITED TO WHAT'S IN THE RECORD.

SENATOR ROMNEY ASKED THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IF THEY COULD CLARIFY THE SPECIFIC DATE WHEN THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE DELAY IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND WHAT REASON HE GAVE FOR DOING IT.

AGAIN, PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL COULD NOT POINT TO ANYTHING TO ANSWER SENATOR ROMNEY.

NOW THESE ARE CRUCIAL POINTS AND THEY GET RIGHT AT THE QUESTION OF CORRUPT MOTIVE.

THE SIMPLE FACTUAL QUESTION.

AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL UNABLE TO ANSWER THEM.

WOW.

YOU KNOW WHO COULD HELP THEM ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS?

MICK MULVANEY.

JOHN BOLTON.

AND OUR OTHER TWO WITNESSES.

SO COULD THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE ASKED TO SUBPOENA.

A FEW OTHER MOMENTS STOOD OUT.

I ASKED PRESIDENT, THEY SAID THEY WERE NOT DEMANDING ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY SO I ASKED THEM TO NAME A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR A SINGLE WITNESS THAT THE HOUSE COUNSEL REQUESTED AS THEY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID OKAY, NOT ONE.

THEY COULDN'T NAME ONE.

MR. PHILBIN HAD TO FILIBUSTER PH, PHILBIN FILIBUSTER, HAD TO FILL BURST AN ANSWER AS TO THE GENERAL REASONS THEY MIGHT.

ANOTHER THING STOOD OUT AMAZINGLY.

ON MONDAY NIGHT, MR. DERSHOWITZ ADVANCED A SCARCELY BELIEVABLE ARGUMENT OF IMPEACHMENT.

HE WENT EVEN FURTHER SUGGESTING PRESIDENTS BELIEVE THEIR RE-ELECTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN THEY DO THINGS TO BENEFIT THEIR RE-ELECTION IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THEY CAN BASICALLY DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.

I HERE HE'S CORRECTING IT ON TV TODAY.

THAT SEEMS TO MR. DERSHOWITZ PATTERN.

HE GAZE A STATEMENT ON THE FLOOR -- HE GAZE A STATEMENT ON THE FLOOR AND SPENDS THE NEXT DAY CORRECTING IT.

WHAT A LOAD OF NONSENSE.

BY DERSHOWITZ'S LOGIC PRESIDENT NIXON DID NOTHING WRONG IN WATERGATE.

HE WAS JUST BREAKING INTO THE DNC TO HELP HIS RE-ELECTION WHICH OF COURSE IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, ACCORDING TO DERSHOWITZIAN LOGIC.

THE DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT FRANKLY WOULD UNLEASH A MONSTER.

MORE APTLY IT WOULD UNLEASH A MONARCH.

THINK ABOUT THIS, ACCORDING TO DERSHOWITZ IMPEACHMENT IS ONLY FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

MEANWHILE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ARGUES THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT CAN'T BE INDICTED.

CAN'T INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT, CAN'T IMPEACH FOR NON-CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

THE PRESIDENT COULD BLACKMAIL A FOREIGN COUNTRY INTO POISONING OUR ELECTIONS AND GET AWAY WITH MURDER LITERALLY SO LONG AS THESE IN OFFICE.

REPUBLICANS HAVE GONE FROM DENYING THE PRESIDENT WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID TO NORMALIZING IT BY CLAIMING EVERY PRESIDENT DOES IT, TO NOW SAYING THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT EVEN IF HE DID IT.

IT'S INCREDIBLE.

THE LENGTH THEY WILL GO TO JUSTIFY SOMETHING MOST OF THEM, NOT ALL BUT MOST KNOWS IS WRONG.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS ASKING US TO CONFER TWO NEW RIGHTS ON THE PRESIDENCY.

THE RIGHT TO ASK FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO INVESTIGATE THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND THE RIGHT TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM INVESTIGATING THEIR OPPONENTS.

IF SENATE REPUBLICANS VOTE TO ENDORSE THESE IDEAS BY SHUTTING DOWN A FAIR TRIAL, THEY COULD SPELL THE END OF PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AS WE KNOW IT.

TODAY WE'LL FINISH THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD.

THEN TOMORROW WE'LL TAKE A CRUCIAL VOTE ON WHETHER WE BILL DEBATE HAVING FOUR WITNESSES, HAVING WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS TRIAL.

THE FATE OF MUCH OF THE FUTURE OF HOW THIS CONDUCT ITSELF IS ON THE SHOIRBLEDZ OF SHOULDERS OF FOUR REPUBLICANS.

I BELIEVE THE REPUBLICANS AND THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE VOTE.

YESTERDAY MR. SEKULOW SAID IF THE SENATE ELECTS TO ISN'T WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM WILL FORCE ALL SORTS OF MANNER OF DELAY.

TAKE THE MANAGERS TO PRESIDENT WILL ALERT ALL MATTERS OF DELAY.

IT WAS A SHOCKING OMISSION.

REVEALING HOW CONCERNED THEY ARE AND AFRAID THEY ARE TO THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT COMING BEFORE THE SENATE.

OF COURSE THIS ARGUMENT ISN'T TRUE.

THERE IS NO REASON FOR ENDLESS DELAYS.

THE DOCUMENTS ARE COMPILED.

ONE KEY WITNESS HAS SAID HE WOULD TESTIFY.

WE EXPECT THE OTHERS TO COMPLY IF SUBPOENAED AND QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE CAN BE SORTED OUT HERE IN THE SENATE.

THE ARGUMENT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A THREAT, A SHAKE DOWN.

HE SAID THEY DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO KEEP FROM SEEING THE TRUTH.

IT REMINDS YOU OF SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WOULD SA +*U.

WE ARE A NATION FOUNDED ON THE IDEA OF TRUTH.

FACTS, IDEAS, ARGUMENT.

THAT'S ALL WE SEEK IN THE TRIAL AS WE SAID BEFORE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FOUR WITNESSES WILL SAY.

THEY'RE PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEES.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DOCUMENTS WILL REVEAL.

THEY MAYBE EXCULPATORY.

THEY MAYBE FURTHER INCRIMINATING SOMEWHERE WE WILL LIVE WITH THE FACTS, LIVE WITH THE TRUTH.

LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.

WILL OUR REPUBLICAN FRIENDS.

IT'S IN THEIR INTEREST AND THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL.

A TRIAL WITHOUT TRUTH, KEY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENT WOULD RENDER THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL MEANING LESS BECAUSE THE TRIAL WAS SO RIGGED IN HIS FAVOR.

SENATOR.

>> THANK YOU, SENATOR.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A GRUNT WILLED FORMER EMPLOYEE.

IT TURNS OUT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS PLENTY OF DISGRUNTLED FORMER EMPLOYEES.

IT SEEMS TO BE THE GENESIS OF A LOT OF TWEETS THESE DAYS.

JOHN KELLY.

JOHN BOLTON.

LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAID YESTERDAY TALKING ABOUT THE JOHN BOLTON MANUSCRIPT THAT THEY NEVER CONCEDED RECEIVING A CERTAIN DATE.

THEY SAID IT RECEIVED TOP SECRET INFORMATION AND COULDN'T BE RELEASED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

EXCUSE ME IF I'M SUSPICIOUS.

I THINK THE MANUSCRIPT IS IN THE DRAWER WITH THE PRESIDENT'S TAX RETURNS.

I'M SURE THIS WON'T BE COMPLETED UNTIL AFTER THE TRIAL IS OVER.

NOW WE HAVE JOHN BOLTON'S PROFESSED POSITION THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM HE WAS ACTUALLY DOING THIS, WITH HEELING FUNDSWITHHOLDING FUNDS FROM UKRAINE FOR A POLITICAL PURPOSE.

JOHN BOLTON SHOULD BE TESTIFYING.

WHAT WE HEARD YESTERDAY FROM THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE WAS THE CONTINUING POSITION THAT THIS WILL BE SOMETHING LIKE A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT TRIALS THEN THAT.

THEY UNDERSTAND IT'S NO TRIAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES.

THIS THREAT TOO THEY WILL PROLONG THIS INDEFINITELY IT'S BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE.

IT RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION.

DO I UNDERSTAND AT THAT SENATOR MCCONNELL IS NOW ARGUING WE CAN'T WAIT TO GET BACK TO THE BUSINESS OF THE SENATE.

THE BUSINESS OF THE SENATE.

LAST CALENDAR YEAR WE CONSIDERED 12 AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.

SIX FROM RAND PAUL DEAD ON ARRIVAL.

HE INSISTED ON A VOTE BEFORE WE COULD LEAVE TOWN.

TWENTY-TWO AMENDMENTS NOW THEY ARGUE THIS TRIAL GOES ON FOR ANOTHER WEEK IT WILL KEEP US AWAY FROM SERIOUS BUSINESS.

THE ONLY SERIOUS SENATE BUSINESS IS MITCH MCCONNELL'S PASSION TO FILL EVERY FEDERAL VACANCY WITH A LIGHTLY QUALIFIED PERSON FOR A LIFE COMMITMENT.

CAN I SAY A WORD ABOUT DERSHOWITZ.

50 YEARS ON THE FACULTY I RESPECT THAT.

IT'S NOT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ IT'S NOW ADVOCATE DERSHOWITZ.

WHEN YOU ARE HIRED BY SOMEONE AND HAVE A CLIENT YOU DO ALL IN YOUR POWER TO ARGUE THE LAW AND FACTS ARE ON YOUR SIDE.

SOMETIMES PUSHING THE TRUTH TO MAKE YOUR CLIENT WILL WE KNOW.

WHAT WE SEE FROM PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ IS EXACTLY.

THAT HE'S ARGUE THOU AS IF YOU IDENTIFY SOMETHING AS PRECEDENT AS YOUR POLITICAL INTEREST AND SAY IT'S THE NATIONAL INTEREST THEN ALL BETS ARE OFF.

THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WISH WITH IMPUNITY IS THAT WHERE WE WANT TO GO AS A NATION?

HONESTLY.

IF PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS IS A TRUE REPUBLIC OR DEMOCRACY DEPENDING ON YOUR TASTE THEY HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE LEADERS ARE SUBJECT TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE RULE OF LAW.

THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MISSED THAT.

UNFORTUNATELY IT'S AT OUR EXPENSE.

THE LAST POINT I WOULD MAKE IS HAD, I LISTENED TO SHE'S QUESTIONS YESTERDAY.

UNDERSTOOD THERE ARE THREE REPUBLICANS THAT ARE CONSIDERING JOINING US.

WE NEED MORE I HOPE WILL WILL BE HERE.

THIS HAS TO BE A REAL TRIAL AT THE END OF THE DAY FOR THE PERSON PEOPLE TO TO AGREE WITH IT.

YOU HOPE THE QUESTIONING TODAY MOVES ALONG THAT TRACK.

I ALWAYS WANT TO ST. CHOSING COMMENTS BY MR. PHIL BIN INBIN IN THE FIRST PART OF THE PERIOD SUGGESTING HE COULD RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM FOREIGN SOURCES WITHOUT CONCERN REALLY IS A PROBLEM.

IF THAT IS THE NEW STANDARD GOD SAVE US.

WE'RE NOW RELYING ON UNFORTUNATELY A ELECTION PROCESS NOT PROTECTED FROM INFORMATION SOURCES WITHOUT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IN MIND.

THE -FRTS THEY MAKE TO DISTORT THE TRUTH COULD HURT US FOR MANY YEARS TO COME.

>> SENATOR.

>> THANK YOU.

WE ARE WITNESSING THE CORONATION OF TRUMP WITH MITCH MCCONNELL HOLDING THE CROWN AND THE REPUBLICANS HOLDING HIS TRAIN.

WE ALREADY KNOW THAT TRUMP BELIEVES HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS UNDER ARTICLE TWO OF THE CONSTITUTION.

YESTERDAY WE LISTENED TO DURING EIGHT HOURS OF QUESTION AND ANSWERS THIS, WHAT I CALL INSANE VIEW BEING PUSHED OUT TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

AMAZING.

MY COLLEAGUES TALKED ABOUT IT IN CONCRETE TERMS WHAT THEY THINK TRUMP CAN DO.

I WANT TO PUT THIS NO A LARGER CONTEXT WHAT HAD A PRESIDENT WHO BELIEVES THAT HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS UNDER ARTICLE TWO.

THIS IS NOT A PRESIDENT WHO CARES ABOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES.

THIS IS A PRESIDENT WHO ALREADY BROUGHT US TO THE BRINK OF WAR WITH IRAN.

WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH NORTH KOREA AS KIM JONG-UN PLAYS HIM.

THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO GO AFTER IMMIGRANTS TOOTH AND NAIL.

WE HAVE TO ASK WHO WILL HE GO AFTER NEXT?

HE HAS GIVEN US THAT INFORMATION.

THE NEXT GROUP HE WILL GO AFTER IS SENIORS.

HE WILL CUT SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

I REPRESENT A STATE WITH A LOT OF SENIORS.

BELIEVE ME, I LOOKED IT UP, ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, MAINE, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA.

THESE ARE STATES WITH ONE IN FIVE, MORE THAN ONE IN FIVE OF THE POPULATION RELIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

WHEN HE CONTINUES TO GO AFTER IMMIGRANTS, NOT ENOUGH OF US SPEAK UP, ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THESE STATES I HOPE THEY'RE LISTENING.

WE NOW HAVE KING TRUMP GOING AFTER YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY THIS.

IS THE LARGER CONTEXT IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT WHO BELIEVES HE CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS UNDER ARTICLE TWO OPERATES.

THAT IS THE DANGER WE FACE.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR US TO FIGHT BACK?

BY FIGHTING BACK.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY, QUESTION.

>> YES.

>> DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE CHIEF JUSTICE WILL WEIGHT IN OR STEP OUT.

>> RIGHT NOW OUR FOCUS IS ON GETTING FOUR REPUBLICANS.

WE SHOULDN'T RELY ON WHAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE WILL OR NOT FOUR REPUBLICANS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CRISIS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS CREATED.

TO UNDERSTAND THE WEIGHTINESS OF THE ARGUMENTS AND THE FACT THAT IN A FARE TRIAL.

THAT'S THE FOCUS.

THAT'S IT.

>> COULD YOU GIVE US INSIGHT -- >> I DON'T GET, LOOK.

WE ALL TALK TO REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.

WE HAVE MADE THE SAME ARGUMENTS MADE HERE.

THAT IS FAIRNESS DICTATES A FARE TRIAL.

IMPEACHMENT DICTATES A FARE TRIAL.

WE COULD FOREVER GIVE UP THE RIGHTS ON A PRESIDENT DOING WHAT HE WANTS IF YOU DON'T GET WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

I THINK SOME ARE WEIGHING IT.

YES.

>> YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP A LITTLE.

>> LOOK WE HAVE SAID THIS IS AN UPHILL FIGHT.

THE PRESSURE THAT TRUMP IS A VINDICTIVE NASTY PRESIDENT.

TRUTH PREVAILS.

OUR CAUCUS IS STRONG AND UNITED.

FRANKLY WE BELIEVE WE HAVE TRUTH AND RIGHT ON OUR SIDE.

TO BOOT AFTER FOUR WEEKS OF TALKING ABOUT THIS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ON OUR SIDE.

THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.

75% INCLUDING A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS ARE FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS.

IT'S RARE IN A PUBLIC POLL YOU GET REPUBLICAN RANK AND FILE DISAGREEING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IN THIS CASE THEY DO.

WE'RE CONTINUING TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT AND MAKE THE FIGHT.

WE THERBG THE TRUTH CAN PREVAIL AND WE GET THE FOUR VOTES.

YES.

>> OKAY.

I DON'T WANT TO CHARACTERIZE.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS OUR FOCUS IS ON THE SOET OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENT.

AS YOU KNOW THE HEADERS RESOLUTION DOESN'T GO PAST.

THAT THE MINORITY HAS RIGHTS.

WE WILL EXERCISE THE RIGHTS.

YES.

>> WHAT MOTIONS -- >> WE WON'T GET NO THAT HERE.

THE FOCUS NOW IS ON GETTING THE FOUR VOTES.

>> YES.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE THE SENATE SHOULD DELIVER AS A JURY PRIVATELY.

>> WE WILL DECIDE.

THAT IS ALLOWED BY THE RULES.

>> IT'S AMBIGUOUS.

>> IT SAYS YOU CAN DELIBERATE.

THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTE DETERMINES EVERYTHING.

WE WILL DECIDE THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

NO, THAT'S IT.

CHERYL.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT DEMOCRATS BEING UNITED AND NEEDING A VOTE.

WHAT MESSAGE WOULD IT SEND IF SOME DEMOCRATS VOTED -- >> WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE VOTES FOR THE WITNESSES AND DOCK UTILITIES.

I PHOEFB THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE MADE A EXTREMELY STRONG ARGUMENT.

WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE FOUR.

THAT IS WHERE THE FOCUS WILL BE.

OUR CAUCUS IS UNITED ON THAT ISSUE DETERMINING WHERE WE GO FROM THERE.

>> HOW IT BEHAVED THEN AND WHAT THE OBSERVATION WAS.

OBVIOUSLY TWO THINGS.

WE HAVEN'T HAD A PRESIDENT AS I SAID AS VINDICTIVE AND NASTY AS THIS ONE STRIKING FEAR IN THE HEARTS OF PEOPLE.

WITH THE NIXON AND CLINTON TRIALS THERE WAS COOPERATION.

THERE WERE LOADS OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE BY NIXON AND CLINTON.

THIS IS THE FIRST PRESIDENT IN THE DISGUISE OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY HAS STONEWALLED EVERYTHING.

THAT'S WHY THE NEED OF DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES ARE EVEN MORE NEEDED NOW.

IS YOU, LAST QUESTION.

>> YOU DISMISSED THE IDEA OF A WITNESS DEAL.

IF YOU'RE SEEKING CHANGE AT ALL ANYONE ON THAT LIST?

>> LOOK WE NEED THE FOUR VOTES.

FIRST THE REPUBLICANS CAN ALL ANYONE THEY WANT NOW.

THEY'RE AFRAID OF THE WITNESSES WE HAVE ASKED FOR.

OKAY.

SO, THAT IS THE FIRST STEP.

NOW IF WE GET THE FOUR VOTES I IMAGINE THIS WOULD BE NEGOTIATIONS.

FIRST STEP GET THE VOTES.

THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

>> SENATORS PLEASE BE SEATED.

IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION THE JOURNAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE TRUE TO DATE.

>> IS NOT ATE WILL CONDUCT ANOTHER QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD TODAY.

WE WERE ABLE TO GET THROUGH NEARLY A HUNDRED QUESTIONS YESTERDAY.

THE PARTIES WERE RESPONSIVE.

I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLIMENT ALL WHO PARTICIPATED YESTERDAY.

WE WILL BREAK EVERY TWO HOURS AND TAKE A BREAK FOR DINNER AT 6:30.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO ASSURE HIM THAT, THAT LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION FOR HIM WILL CONTINUE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR HOUSE OFFICERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR MURRAY ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

YESTERDAY WHEN ASKED ABOUT WHY THE HOW DIDN'T REAMEND OR ASK FOR SUBPOENAS AFTER THE impeachMENT INQUIRY THE HOUSE MANAGERS TOUCHED UPON THE HOUSE HAVING THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AS SPECIFIED BY ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

COULD YOU FURTHER ELABORATE WHY THAT AUTHORITY CONTROLS DESPITE ANY ARGUMENTS BROUGHT FORTH BY the defense team contesting the validity of the subpoenas?

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

THE ANSWER IS THESE WERE VALIDLY ISSUEDS UNDER THE HOUSE RULES These rules gave the committee the power to issue subpoenas.

They're not ambiguous rules.

AND HERE IS A RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE 11 ON SLIDE 55.

THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T DISPUTE THESE WERE FULLY WITHIN THE RESPECTED JURISDICTION.

THE ARGUMENT IS SOME HOW BY DECLARING THIS INVESTIGATION ALSO FALLS UNDER A IN FIERY TO CONSIDER ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH GIVE CONGRESS GREATER AUTHORITY AS SOME HOW IT NULLIFIES THE OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY AND THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

NOW THE PRESIDENT COUNTERS WE HAVE TO TAKE A FULL VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT FIRST.

THAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.

IN THE NIXON INQUIRY HOWEVER THEY NEEDED A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO DELEGATE SUBPOENA POWER THAT'S DIFFICULT FROM TODAY.

THE PRESIDENT COMPELLS THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.

SEVERAL FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE BEEN CONVICTED AND IMPEACHED WITHOUT EVER TAKING AN OFFICIAL VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE INQUIRY.

A FEDERAL COURT RECENTLY CONFIRMS THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A FORM ALL NEED OF THE FULL HOUSE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

EVEN ASSUMING, THERE WAS A VOTE.

THE TEXT OF RESOLUTION 660 CONCLUDED THE SIX INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE WERE DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THEIR ON GOING INVESTIGATIONS AS PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INQUIRY AND WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR THE HOUSE TO EXERCISE CONSTITUTION SIGNAL POWER TO IMPEACH.

IT'S SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE COMMITS AND SAID "ALL SUBPOENAS TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH REMAIN IN FULL FORCE"" WHY DIDN'T THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REISSUE THE SUBPOENAS?

THEY DIDN'T NEED TO.

THE SUBPOENAS WERE FULLY AUTHORIZED.

IN ANY EVENT THE COMMITTEE AUTHORIZED FOR FOUR OTHER WITNESSES AND THE PRESIDENT BLOCKED THE SUBPOENAS.

THE ARGUMENT OF A FULL HOUSE VOTE IS A EXCUSE ABOUT PRESIDENT'S TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION.

THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO COMPLY BEFORE THE HOUSE VOTE AND AFTER THE HOUSE VOTE.

THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION IS THE ONE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE US ALL ALONG.

HE WAS DETERMINED TO FIGHT ALL OF THE SUB EVENS.

BECAUSE IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S VIEW IN WHAT HE SAID, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ENTRUSTED TO US BY WHAT THE FOUNDERS HAD IN MIND.

THIS DOESN'T JUST IMPLY TO IMPEACHMENT.

IT APPLIES TO ORDINARY OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATIONS.

IT DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO THE HOUSE.

IT APPLIES TO THE SENATE.

BY SANCTIONING THE THE BLANKET OBSTRUCTION THE SENATE WOULD CURTAIL IT'S OWN SUBPOENA POWER IN THE FUTURE.

THE OVERSIGHT OBLIGATION AS THAT WE HAVE AS WE NOW KNOW IT.

IT WOULD BE PERMANENTLY ALTERED.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DESK.

>> PRESIDING OFFICE DECLINES TO READ THE QUESTION AS SUBMITTED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEnd A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR BALDWIN IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

GIVEN THE WHITE HOUSE COULDN'T ANSWER SENATOR ROMNEY'S QUESTION ASKING FOR THE EXACT DATE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S WITH HOLD TO UKRAINE WHAT WITNESS OR WITNESSES COULD ANSWER SENATOR ROMNEY'S QUESTION?

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATOR FOR THE QUESTION.

YOU'RE RIGHT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MATERIAL OUT THERE IN THE FORM OF E-mails, text messages, conversation and witness testimony that could shed additional light on that.

Including an E-mail from last summer between Mr. Bolton, Mr. Blair were we know from WITNESS TESTIMONY THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED.

WE DO KNOW FROM MULTIPLE WITNESSES UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACED A HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE SOON AFTER IN july 2019.

WE KNOW NOT ONLY DID U.S. OFFICIALS KNOW ABOUT IT AND OMB COMMUNICATED ABOUT IT, BUT THE UKRAINIANS KNEW ABOUT IT AS WELL.

WE KNOW FROM FORMER DEPUTY ADMINISTER OF UKRAINE SHE STATED PUBLICLY, IN FACT THAT THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUT IT AND FOUND OUT ABOUT IT IN JULY.

WE KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY OF LAURA COOPER HER STAFF RECEIVED TWO E-MAILS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25TH RELAYING THAT THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY WAS ASKING ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE HILL KNOWS TO AN EXTENT AND SO DOES THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY.

THAT WAS ON JULY 25TH.

THE SAME DAY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WE KNOW THAT KATHARINE CROFT STATED SHE WAS SURPRISED BY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS, DIPLOMATIC TRADE CRAFT.

THAT THEY FOUND OUT EARLIER ON THAN EXPECTED.

WE KNOW THAT ALEXANDER VINDMAN BY MID AUGUST HE WAS GETTING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATUS OF SECURITY EXISTENCE.

THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE SURROUNDING IT.

THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT WHOLLY OUR EFFORTS TO GET THE E-MAILS ASK CORRESPONDENCE WE HAVE ASKED FOR THAT COULD BE REMEDIED BY THIS BODY.

SUBPOENAS NAMELY TO AM GAS DORE BOLTON AND TO THE STATE ACCIDENT AND DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND OTHERS TO PROVIDE THAT MATERIAL.

LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, LAST EVENING, COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT WAS ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY DID THE HOLD FOR UKRAINE DIFFER FROM HOLDS IN THE NORTHERN TRY ANGLE AND OTHER HOLDS LIKE AFGHANISTAN.

HE PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION THAT I AM STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND.

BECAUSE HE SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS AN EXPLANATION.

AS FAR AS I COULD TELL THE EXPLANATION IS SOMEWHERE ALONG THE FRONT THAT ONE WAS PUBLIC, PUBLIC PRESSURE ON THE COUNTRIES IN QUESTION.

ONE WAS NOT, IT WAS A PRIVATE WAY TO PUT PRESSURE.

IF THAT'S TRUE THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF EVIDENCE, E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES WITHIN THE INTERACTION PROCESS THAT WE KNOW IS ROBUST TO BE THE CASE.

THEY FAIL TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THAT.

LET ME FINISH WITH THIS.

HAPPEN TO KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS CHAMBER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAPITOL INCLUDING ME HAVE OFTEN DESCRIBED MUCH CONSTERANATION ABOUT RED TAPE, BUREAUCRACIES AND LAYERS OF GOVERNMENT THAT RUN TOO SLOW.

I SOMETIMES SHARE THAT CONCERN.

SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LONG TIME.

MEMOS AND E-MAILS AND PAPER TRAILS FOR EVERYTHING IN THIS TOWN.

I thiNK THAT'S TRUE WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE.

IT'S TIME TO SEE THE INFORMATION TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED.

THIS BODY COULD GET THAT INFORMATION.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE SK.

QUESTION IS FOR COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT.

GIVEN THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL ACTS IN WHICH WE AS CITIZENS ENGAGE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.

HOW MUCH WEIGHT SHOULD THE IS NOT ATE GIVE TO THE FACT REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE AND DISQUALIFYING HIM FROM FUTURE FEDERAL OFFICE WOULD UNDUE THAT DEMOCRATIC POSITION AND KICK THE PRESIDENT OF THE BALLOT IN THIS YEAR'S ELECTIONS.

>> MEMBERS OF THE SENATE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE RAISE GOING BACK SEVERAL MONTHS WHEN THE HOUSE WAS DEALING WITH THIS.

WE'RE IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

THERE ARE SOME IN THIS ROOM DAYS AWAY FROM THE IOWA CAUCUSES TAKING plACE.

WE'RE DISCUSSING THE POSSIBLE ITCH IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOT ONLY IN ELECTION SEASON BUT THE HEART OF THE ELECTION SEASON.

I THINK THIS DOES A DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AGAIN WE THINK THE BASIS THIS HAS MOVED FORWARD IS IRREGULAR TO SAY THE LEAST.

I THINK IT COMPLICATES THE MATTER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THAT WE'RE LITERALLY AT THE DAWN OF A NEW SEASON OF ELECTIONS.

WORE AT THAT SEASON NOW.

YES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.

I WANT TO TIE THIS INTO THE URGENCY THAT WAS SO PREVALENT IN DECEMBER WITH MY COLLEAGUES, THE MANAGERS.

IT WAS SO URGENT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD THAT THEY HAD TO DO IT BY MID DECEMBER BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

BECAUSE NATIONAL SECURITY WAS AT STAKE.

THEN THEY WAITED 33 DAYS TO BRING IT HERE.

NOW THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO ALL OF THE INVESTIGATION.

ALTHOUGH THEY SAY THEY PROVED THEIR CASE.

STILL NEED MORE TO PROVE IT.

WE BELIEVE, I WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE THE ENTIRE PROCESS WAS CORRUPT FROM THE BEGINNING AND THEY'RE PUTTING IT ON THIS BODY.

TO DO IT WHILE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION TO BE THE HEAD OF THEIR PARTY, TO RUN AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SOME OF YOU IN THIS VERY ROOM, TO TALK ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES I THINK THAT'S ALL PART AND PARTIAL OF THE SAME PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF IRREGULARITIES TAKING PLACE WITH THIS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING SINCE THE BEGINNING.

THE SPEAKER ALLOWED THE ARTICLES TO LINGER.

IT WAS SUCH A NATIONALLY URGENT MATTER THAT THEY COULD LINGER FOR A MONTH.

SO, WE THINK THIS POINTS TO THE EXACT PROBLEM THAT IS TAKING PLACE HERE.

MY COLLEAGUE SAID THIS IS REALLY TAKING THE VOTE AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU.

COUNCIL.

THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA.

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

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR ASKS THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

YESTERDAY IT WAS STATED "IF A PRESIDENT DOES SOMETHING TO HELP HIM GET ELECTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT CAN NOT BE THE KIND OF QUID PRO QUO THAT RESULTS IN IMPEACHMENT" DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A LIMIT TO THE TYPE OF QUID PRO QUO A SITTING PRESIDENT CAN ENGAGE IN AS LONG AS THE INTENT OF THE SIGNATURE PRESIDENT IS TO BE REELECTED IN WHAT HE/SHE BELIEVES IS IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST?

>> CHIEF JUSTICE SENATOR, THERE IS NO LIMITING PRINCIPLE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HEARD LAST NIGHT.

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM THAT TIME, A PROPOSAL IS BEING MADE TO CAST A PARLIAMENTARY ROADBLOCK IN THE WAY OF APPROVAL OF TCI.

WHICH AT THE MOMENT AWAITS A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO BE DRAFTED BY THE GROUP OF 13 JURISDICTIONS AND CONSIDERED BY GOVERNOR BAKER.

SO WE'RE CASTING A CLOUD OVER A PROGRAM THAT'S EXISTED FOR 12 YEARS AND THAT FROM TIME TO TIME NEEDS IMPROVING REGULATIONS.

AND WE ARE CASTING AN COUPLE OF DAYS IS A DESCENT INTO CONSTITUTIONAL MADNESS BECAUSE THAT WAY MADNESS LIES.

IF WE ARE TO ACCEPT THE PREMISE AND CLIMATE THAT A PRESIDENCY SENSUALLY CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS, ENGAGE IN WHATEVER QUID PRO QUO HE WANTS I WILL GIVE YOU THIS IF YOU WILL GIVE ME THAT TO HELP ME GET ELECTED.

I WILL GIVE YOU MILITARY DOLLARS IF YOU WILL GIVE ME HELP IN MY REELECTIONS.

YOU WILL GIVE ME ELICIT OREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ECTION.

E ONLY REASON YOU MAKE THAT GUMENT IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW UR CLIENT IS GUILTY AND DEAD RIGHTS.

AT'S AN ARGUMENT OF DESPERATION.

WHAT IS SO STRIKING TO ME IS ALMOST HALF A CENTURY AGO WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO SAID WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

THAT OF COURSE WAS RICHARD NIXON.

WATERGATE IS NOW 40-50 YEARS BEHIND US.

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING IN THE LAST HALF CENTURY?

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING AT ALL?

IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE.

THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL.

OR DONALD TRUMP'S VERSION UNDER ARTICLE TWO, I CAN DO WHAT I WANT.

THE PROFESSOR'S POINT, IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT HELPS IN REELECTIONS IT IS THERE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

IN FACT MUCH AS WE THOUGHT THAT WE PROGRESSED POST WATERGATE, ENACTED WATERGATE REFORMS, AND TRIED TO INSULATE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENCY, WE TRIED TO END THE POLITICAL ABUSES OF THAT DEPARTMENT.

AS MUCH AS WE THOUGHT WE ENACTED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS WE'RE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE HALF A CENTURY AGO.

I WOULD ARGUE WE MAYBE IN A WORST PLACE.

BECAUSE THIS TIME, THIS TIME THAT ARGUMENT MAY SUCCEED.

THAT ARGUMENT IF THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT CAN'T BE ILLEGAL FAILED.

RICHARD NIXON WAS FORCED TO RESIGN.

BUT THAT ARGUMENT MAY SUCCEED HERE.

NOW.

THAT MEANS WE'RE NOT BACK TO WHERE WE WERE.

WE ARE WORST OFF THAN WHERE WE ARE.

THAT IS THE NORMALIZATION OF LAWLESSNESS.

I WOULD HELP THAT EVERY AMERICAN WOULD RECOGNIZE IT'S WRONG TO SEEK FOREIGN HELP IN A AMERICAN ELECTION.

AMERICANS SHOULD DECIDE AMERICAN ELECTIONS.

I HOPE, I BELIEVE ALL AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THAT.

ALL AMERICANS UNDERSTAND THAT'S TRUE FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.

I HOPE THIS TRIAL IS CONDUCIVE OF THE TRUTH.

THE SENATOR ASKED WHAT WITNESSES COULD SHED LIGHT ON WHEN THE PRESIDENT CAN ORDER THE HOLD AND WHY?

WE KNOW NICK MULVANEY WOULD.

THAT INSTRUCTION CAME FROM OMB.

REMEMBER THE TESTIMONY, THE SHOCK THAT WENT THROUGH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND THE SHOCK HE EXPERIENCED IN THAT VIDEO CONFERENCE WHEN IT WAS FIRST ANNOUNCED.

THE INSTRUCTION IS THIS COMES THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, OMB.

A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT.

NICK MULVANEY KNOWS WHEN THE ORDER WENT INTO PLACE, WHY THE ORDER WENT INTO PLACE.

HE MADE THE STATEMENT PUBLICLY WHICH HE NOW WISHES TO RECANT.

I'M SURE HE GOT A EARFUL FROM THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE DID.

NONE OF THAT MATTERS.

IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES IT'S IN HIS INTEREST IT'S OKAY.

THERE IS THE ARGUMENT, WHAT IF IT'S A CREDIBLE REASON.

SAO +*EU IT WAS A CREDIBLE REASON DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT?

WHAT PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO THINK HE HAS A CREDIBLE REASON TO INVESTIGATE HIS OPPONENT?

WHAT PRESIDENT DOESN'T THINK HE ESN'T HAVE A CREDIBLE REASON ARTICULATE ONE OR COME UP TH SOME FIG LEAF?

EY COMPOUNDED THE DANGEROUS GUMENT THAT NO QUID PRO QUO IS O CORRUPT.

EY COMPOUNDED IT BY SAYING IF AT YOU WANT IT TARGETING YOUR VAL IT'S EVEN MORE LEGITIMATE.

AT WAY MADNESS LIES.

JUSTICE.

SENATOR OF NORTH DAKOTA.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK BE HALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR UNG.

THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KRAMER AND YOUNG IS TORE COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT.

MANAGER SCHIFF REGULAR STATES IF THE PRESIDENT IS INNOCENT HE WOULD AGREE TO ALL OF THE WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS THE MANAGER WANTS.

IS THE PRESIDENT THE FIRST INNOCENT DEFENDANT NOT TO WAVE HIS RIGHTS?

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

THE ANSWER IS NO, HE'S NOT THE FIRST INNOCENT DEFENDANT NOT TO WAVE HIS RIGHTS.

I THINK IT'S SHOCKING AND STRIKING.

WE HEAR MANAGER NADLER ONLY THE GUILTY HIDE EVIDENCE.

ONLY THE GUILTY DON'T RESPOND TO SUBPOENAS.

MANAGER SCHIFF SAID THIS IS NOT HOW INNOCENT PEOPLE ACT.

THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM.

PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS AND A CERTIFICATING THOSE RIGHTS CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED AS A INDICATION OF GUILT.

THAT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY THE LAWS AND BY THE CONSTITUTION.

THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED IN OUR TRIAL MEMORANDUM THAT THE VERY IDEA OF PUNISHING SOMEONE WHICH IS WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE WITH THEIR OBSTRUCTION TO CONGRESS CHARGE.

IF THE PRESIDENT INSISTS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE F THE PRESIDENT INSISTS THAT LIKE VIRTUALLY EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON AND SOME GOING BEYOND FURTHER BACK TO THAT HE WILL A CERTIFICATE THE IMMUNITY OF HIS SENIOR VISORS TO COMPEL CONGRESSIONAL STIMONY.

IF HE'S GOING TO assert THOSE RIGHTS, GROUNDED IN THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND ESSENTIAL FOR PROTECTING CONSTITUTIONALLY BASED EXECUTIVE BASED CONFIDENTIALITY, WE WILL LL THAT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE D IMPEACH HIM.

IT'S THIS FUNDAMENTAL THEME RUNNING THROUGH THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE AND ARGUMENTS GENERALLY HERE THAT IF THE PRESIDENT STANDS ON HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

IF HE TRIES TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE, THAT HE'S DUTY BOUND TO DO FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THE OFFICE, THAT'S A INDICATION OF GUILT AND SHOWS HE OUGHT TO BE IMPEACHED.

THAT'S FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR DUE PROCESS AND PRINCIPALS OF ACKNOWLEDGING RIGHTS CAN BE DEFENDED.

RIGHTS EXIST TO BE DEFENDED.

THE RIGHTS CONDITION BE TREATED AS PUNISHABLE OR EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

THERE WILL BE A LONG LINE OF PASS PRESIDENTS AS THE PROFESSOR POINTED OUT, A LOT OF PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF ABUSIVE POWER.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LONG LINE OF PRESIDENTS THAT COULD OF BEEN IMPEACHED FOR "OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS" IF EVERY TIME THE PRESIDENT INSISTED ON THE PREROGATIVES OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND DEFENDING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS COULD BE IMPEACHABLE AND GUILT.

PRESIDENT OBAMA HIMSELF REFUSED TO TURN OVER A LOT OF DOCUMENTS TO THE HOUSE IN THE FAST AND FURIOUS INVESTIGATION.

HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT.

NOBODY THOUGHT THAT WAS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS THIS IS EVIDENCE OF GUILT IT'S A BOGUS ASSERTION.

IT'S CONTRARY TO OUR AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND OUGHT TO BE REJECTED BY THIS BODY.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT JONES US NOW.

THANK YOU, SENATOR, ON YOUR BREAK.

>> WHAT'S YOUR SENSE OF WHERE THINGS ARE NOW?

WE REPORT REPUBLICANS FEEL CONFIDENT TO BLOCK WITNESSES.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

>> IF IT'S TRUE IT'S TRAGIC FOR AMERICANS.

WE KNOW JOHN BOLTON WILL TESTIFY TO THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPTION.

THE MOST DIRECTION TESTIMONY.

IT'S POLITICALLY EMBARRASSING TO REPUBLICANS AND WOULD BE HARDER TO ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT WILL PURPOSELY BOX THEIR EARS AND BLOCK THEIR EYES.

THAT IS A DANGER TO THE REPUBLICAN EYES.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW THE SENATE RECOVERS FROM THIS.

>> WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT?

DO YOU THINK THERE IS A USE SUBMITTING MOTIONS AND FORCING MORE VOTES AS WE SAW LAST WEEK BEFORE A POTENTIAL ACQUITTAL OR TIME TO MOVE ONTO THE NEXT TOPIC.

I'M SORRY TO JUMP THE GUN.

AT SOME POINT WE COULD GET THERE.

>> LET'S TAKE FIRST THING FIRST.

WE HAVE THIS FIRST VOTE.

WE WILL SEE WHAT MECHANIC NATIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO US.

THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS IF THIS ARE DELIBERATIONS.

IF THERE ARE THE JURY CAN TALK BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BEFOREHAND.

THERE IS SCUTTLEBUTT THEY WILL BLOCK WITNESSES, DOCUMENTS, AND DELIBERATIONS.

IT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY.

>> WE HEARD TWO TOPICS ABOUT THE HOUSE MANAGERS COMING BACK TO.

ONE IS SUBPOENAS.

ONE WHY THEY DON'T WANT TO REISSUE SUBPOENAS?

DO YOU THINK THEY MADE A MISTAKE THERE?

WHY THEY HAVEN'T CHARGED BRIBERY.

IT'S BEEN A SWING QUESTION ON THAT.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE BEGINNINGBEGINNING IS UNDERNEATH THE CHARGE OF ABUSE OF POWER ARE ALL SORTS OF POTENTIAL CRIMES.

LIKELY CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND BRIBERY AND EXTORTION CHARGES.

IT IS ALL UNDER THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE, ABUSE OF POWER.

AS OF SUBPOENAS I THINKER WE WOULD GET YOU THIS THE SUB EVEN SKPAZ TESTIMONY VERY QUICKLY.

ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE WILLING TO LET THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE DECISIONS ON WHAT INFORMATION IS PRIVILEGED.

WHICH WITNESS TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT.

WE HAVE A JUDGE, A GOOD JUDGE SITTING RIGHT BEHIND US.

HE WOULD MAKE THESE DECISIONS HIMSELF.

>> THE CHIEF JUSTICE, YES.

>> LAST QUESTION I WANT TO TALK ABOUT UKRAINE, ITSELF.

YOU SPENT A LOST TIME MAKING SURE THEY GOT A TABLE FOUNDATION.

THIS LAST SUMMER REALIZING THERE COULD BE QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPLETE U.S. SUPPORT.

WHERE DO THINGS STAND NOW?

DO YOU HAVE A SENSE WHAT THE TRIAL MEANS IN UKRAINE FOR FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> THIS SITUATION HAS BEEN DEVASTATING TO UKRAINE.

THE BREAKAGE BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES HAS BEEN DEVASTATING.

THE FACT THAT ZELENSKY HASN'T HAD A VISIT TO THE WHITE HOUSE HURTS HIM.

SO HAVE THE OTHER THINGS TRUMP HAS DONE.

ATTACK ON NATO AND THE EUROPEAN UNION.

HIS GENERAL DISINTEREST.

IT'S ALL ACCUMULATED.

>> HE HAS PROVIDED WEAPONS.

THE REPUBLICANS BRING THAT UP.

>> THAT'S THE ONLY THING HE HAS DONE.

THEY CAN ONLY POINT TO ONE THING.

ONE SINGLE WEAPON CLASS HE PROVIDED THE UKRAINIANS.

HE HASN'T INCREASED ECONOMIC AID, DEMOCRACY AIDE, HE HAS PULLED A AMBASSADORS.

HE HAS DONE NINE THINGS TO WEAKEN UKRAINE FOR EVERY ONE THING HE DOES TO HELP THEM.

>> WE WILL LET YOU GET BACK, SENATOR MURRAY.

IT'S ANOTHER LONG NIGHT.

THANK YOU.

ING.

>> GOOD MORNING.

I WANT TO MACH A FEW COMMENTS AND ANSWER A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BEFORE GET CAN STARTED TO DAY.

WHAT WE SAW YESTERDAY WERE THE MOST INCREDIBLE ARGUMENTS BORN OF DESPERATION.

ARGUMENTS THAT IF THE SENATORS EVER FOLLOWED WOULD LEAD HAD COUNTRY DOWN THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE PATH.

YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COULD DO WHATEVER HE WANTED TO SECURE HIS REELECTIONS NO MATTER HOW CORRUPT.

HE BELIEVED HIS ELECTION WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARGUED IF THE PRESIDENT DOES A QUID PRO QUO.

EVEN ONE WHERE HE WITH HOLDS MILITARY AIDE FROM AN ALLY AT WAR OR TAKES ACTIONS JEOPARDIZING OUR ELECTIONS IF IT'S IN HIS REELECTIONS INTEREST THAT'S OKAY.

THERE IS NOTHING THE CONGRESS CAN DO ABOUT IT.

ONCE MORE IF PART OF THAT QUID PRO QUO INVOLVES A INVESTIGATION OF HIS POLITICAL RIVAL THE FACT THAT HIS POLITICAL RIVAL IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT GIVES A GREATER LEGITIMACY NOT LESS.

IT WOULD BE MORE CONSEQUENTIAL.

THAT IS THE MOST ABSURDLY DANGEROUS ARGUMENT THAT COULD OF BEEN MADE.

THE FACT THAT THEY MUST RESORT TO THIS LEVEL OF DESPERATION IS THE RESULT OF THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS PROVED THE DEFENDANT'S SCHEME INVOLVED WITH HOLDING MILITARY AIDE.

INVOLVED WITH HOLDING A COVETED MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE TO COHERES AND EX TOGETHER, BLACK MAIL THAT COMPANY TO CONDUCTING OR ANNOUNCING THE SHAM INVESTIGATION.

HELPING THEM CHEAT IN THE INVESTIGATION.

THEY WANT TO SAY THAT -- NOT WITHSTAND WHAGT FBI DIRECTOR SAYS OR ANY SELF-RESPECTING AMERICA SAYS THAT THEY VIEW THAT AS PERFECTLY FINE.

IT IS THE NORMALIZATION OF LAWLESSNESS.

THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE HAD TO RESORT TO AS THE EVIDENCES CONTINUE TO PILE UP OF THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT.

WHEN THE EVIDENCE THREATENED TO GET EVEN GREATER WITH THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN BOLTON THEY HAVE GONE TO EXTRAORDINARY LENGTHS TO PUT A MUZZLE ON JOHN BOLTON.

TO AVOID CALLING HIM AS A WITNESS, LETTING THE AMERICA PEOPLE HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO STAY, STIFLE HIS BOOK, ATTACKING HIM PERSONALLY FEARING WHAT HE HAS TO SAY.

THEY KNOW THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME HAS BEEN EXPOSED.

THAT IS WHERE THEY ARE.

WE WILL CONTINUE TODAY TO MAKE THE CASE.

A CASE THAT HAS BEEN MADE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IT NEEDS TO BE MADE TO THIS SENATE.

THAT IS A FAIR TRIAL AS FAR AS WITNESSES.

A FAIR TRIAL.

A IMPARTIAL OATH REQUIRES WITNESSES.

THAT IS WHAT THEY SHOULD DELIVER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

NO TRIAL, NO VINDICATION.

NO VINDICATION FOR THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE.

THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A FAIR TRIAL AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING.

>> AS I SAID YESTERDAY WE PROTECT WHISTLE BLOWERS.

WE NEED THEIR COOPERATION, WE NEED THEIR SUPPORT.

IN MAKING THE COUNTRY WORK.

I'M NOT TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS WHISTLE BLOWER BUT WHISTLE BLOWERS GENERALLY.

WE RELY ON PEOPLE OF GOOD CONSCIENCE TO REPORT MISS CONDUCT.

THE ONLY -- >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION IS ADDRESSED COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENT.

DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL HE ARGUED THAT "NO CIVIL OFFICER, NO PRESIDENT, NO JUDGE, NO CABINET MEMBER HAS EVER BEEN IMPEACHED BY SO NARROW A MARGIN, AND THAT THE CLOSENESS AND PARTISAN DIVISION OF THE VOTE THE DUBIOUS CHARGES AGAINST HIM"" PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS RAISED SIMILAR CONCERNS DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS AND ARGUES THE LACK OF BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS HIGHLIGHTS THE BIPARTISAN CHARGES.

ARE THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS WELL FOUNDED?

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

I THINK THE CONCERNS ARE VERY WELL FOUNDED.

I THINK IT'S A CONCERN THAT ECHOES BACK TO OUR FOUNDING WHEN ALEXANDER HAMILTON WAR WARNED IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65 AGAINST PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.

A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IS ONE OF THE GREATEST DANGERS THE FRAMERS SAW IN THE IMPEACHMENT POWER.

IN FEDERAL 65 HAMILTON SPECIFICALLY SAID IMPEACHMENTS COULD BE PERSECUTION BY A IN TEMPERAMENT MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS CASE.

THERE WAS BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT HERE IN THE HOUSE.

THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST DEVOICIVE SORT OF IMPEACHMENT COULD BE BROUGHT HERE.

IT REFLECTS VERY POORLY ON THE PROCESS THAT WAS RUN IN THE HOUSE.

THAT DID NOT HAVE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND THE CHARGES ADOPTED IN THE HOUSE.

IT'S A POWERLY PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND ALSO.

WARNED VERY ELOQUENTLY AGAINST PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.

THEY RECOGNIZED A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT WOULD NOT BE VALID.

IT WOULD DO GRAVE DAMAGE TO OUR COUNTRY, CREATING DEEP DIVISION THAT'S WOULD LAST FOR YEARS.

IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TH +*E THEY MADE THE WARNINGS WHEN IT WASN'T IN A ELECTION YEAR.

NOW WE HAVE A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT WITH AN ELECTION ONLY NINE MONTHS AWAY.

IT WILL BE PERCEIVED AND IS PERCEIVED AS A INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION AND LIMITING VOTERS CHOICE ON WHO THEY WANT AS PRESIDENT FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY WE CAN'T LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.

WE CAN'T BE SURE IT WILL BE A FAIRY ELECTION.

THAT CAN'T BE THE WAY WE APPROACH DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES.

WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE ABILITY OF THE VOTERS TO TAKE IN INFORMATION.

ALL OF THE INFORMATION IS OUT NOW.

THEY HAVE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY WITH THE PROCESS THEY RAN IN THE HOUSE TO MAKE ALL OF THE INFORMATION PUBLIC THAT THEY WANT.

AND TO MAKE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

WE THEY THINK THEY'RE DISPROVED AND THE VOTERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

THE GREATEST DANGER OF THIS PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IS THE ONE THAT MINORITY LEADER SCHUMER WARNED ABOUT IN 191.

ONCE WE START DOWN THE ROAD OF PURELY PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.

ONCE WE START TO NORMALIZE THAT PROCESS AND MAKE IT ALREADY ALRIGHT TO HAVE A PURELY PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IN AN ELECTION YEAR THEN WE TURNED IMPEACHMENT INTO A PARTISAN POLITICAL TOOL USED AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND MORE FREQUENTLY AND MORE TPR-BGTLY.

THAT IS NOT A PROCESS.

THAT IS NOT A FUTURE FOR THE COUNTRY THAT THIS CHAMBER SHOULD EXPECT.

THAT THIS CHAMBER SHOULD PUT AN END TO THE GROWING PATTERN TOWARDS PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT IN THIS COUNTRY.

PUT AN END TO THAT PRACTICE AND MAKE CLEAR IF THIS IS A PURELY PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT NOT BASED ON ADEQUATE CHARGES, CHARGES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD WILL NOT GET CONSIDERATION IN THE CHAMBER AND BE REJECTED.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> I SEND A QUESTION DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR VAN HALL EN TO BOTH PARTIES.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL WILL GO FIRST.

IN HIS RESPONSE TO AN EAR HERE QUESTION THIS EVENING IT WAS SITED INDIVIDUALS LIKE THE BIDENS AS BEING "NOT RELEVANT TO OUR CASE"" ARE YOU OPPOSED TO HAVING THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE THE INITIAL DETERMINATIONS OF THE RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS -- AS IT COULD DISAGREE BY A MAJORITY VOTE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, TO MAKE OUR POSITION CLEAR WE THINK CONSTITUTIONALLY THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO GO.

NO DISRESPECT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AT ALL.

PRESIDING AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER.

OUR VIEW IS IF THERE ARE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS IT SHOULD BE DONE IN THE APPROPRIATE WAY.

YOU HAVE SENATE RULES THAT GOVERNOR THAT AS TO WHAT TO DO.

THEN IF LITIGATION IS NECESSARY FOR A PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT.

THE IDEA OF SHORT CIRCUITING THE SYSTEM WHICH THEY HAVE DONE FOR THEE MONTHS, THAT'S NOT SOMETHINGS WE'RE WILLING TO GO WITH.

NO DISRESPECT TO THE SENATOR'S QUESTION.

THAT'S NOT A POSITION WE WILL ACCEPT MOVING THE PROCEEDINGS FORWARD.

THANK YOU.

>> SENATORS, COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT SAY THAT'S NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE.

WHY NOT?

IS IT PROHIBITED IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT A IMPEACHMENT TRIAL UPON THE AGREEMENT OF THE TRIAL CAN NOT RESOLVE ISSUES OF THE MATERIALITY OF WITNESSES.

OF COURSE IT'S PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

NOW COUNCIL EARLIER SAID THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO DECIDE ON WHICH WITNESSES THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO CALL.

WE WANT THEM TO CALL OUR WITNESSES.

WELL, YOU WOULD THINK THAT NICK MULL VEIN AOERBG THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF WOULD THEIR WITNESS IF HE SUPPORTS WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS CLAIMING.

IF HE IS WILLING TO SAY UNDER OATH WHAT HE'S WILLING TO SAY IN A PRESS STATEMENT.

HE WOULD BE THEIR WITNESS, YOU WOULD THINK.

I'M NOT SAYING WE GET TO DECIDE.

THE PROPOSAL IS WE TAKE A WEEK, THE SENATE GOES ABOUT IT'S BUSINESS.

WE DO DEPOSITIONS.

THE WITNESSES ARE NOT WITNESSES IN THE PRECEDENT'S BE HALF.

WE GET A DECISION AS HOUSE MANAGERS.

WE TRUST THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE A FARE AND IMPARTIAL DECISION WHETHER A WITNESS IS MATERIAL OR NOT.

WHEN THEY HAVE RELEVANT FACTS OR NOT OR WHETHER A WITNESS IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BODY FOR THE PURPOSES OF RETRIBUTION FOR THE WHISTLE BLOWER OR TO SMEAR THE BIDENS WITHOUT MATERIAL PURPOSE WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT OUR JUDGMENT WE PROPOSE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE THAT DECISION.

I THINK THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO ISN'T BECAUSE THEY DON'T TRUST THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO BE FARE.

IT'S BECAUSE THEY FEAR THE CHIEF JUSTICE WILL BE FARE.

I THINK THAT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE LACK OF GOOD FAITH WHEN IT COMES TO THE ARGUMENT THEY MAKE IN VERY COMPLY WITH ANY SUBPOENAS OR DOCUMENT.

WHY THEY'RE HERE BEFORE YOU SAYING THE HOUSE MANAGERS MUST SUE TO GET WITNESSES AND THEY'RE IN COURT SAYING YOU CAN'T SUE TO GET WITNESSES ON THE SAME DAY.

THIS IS WHY THEY DON'T WANT THEM TO MAKE THE DECISION.

THEY KNOW THE WITNESSES THEY REQUEST ARE FOR PURPOSES OF RETRIBUTION OR DISTRACTION.

>> MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK BE HALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR CRUZ.

>> QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

YOU HAVE BASED YOUR CASE ON THE PROPOSITIONS IT WAS UTTERLY BASIS AND A SHAM TO ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE CORRUPTION OF BARISMA AND THE BIDENS.

CHRIS HIENZ THE STEPSON OF THEN SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY E MAILED "APPARENTLY DID HE HAVE ON AND HUNTER BOTH JOINED THE BOARD OF BARISMA AND A PRESS RELEASE WENT OUT TODAY.

I CAN'T SPEAK WHY THEY DECIDED TOO, THERE WAS NO INVESTMENT BY OUR FIRM IN THEIR COMPANY "HIENZ SEQUENTIALLY TERMINATED THEIR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BECAUSE" WORKING WITH BARISMA IS UNACCEPTABLE "AND" SHOWED A LACK OF JUDGMENT "" DO YOU AGREE WITH CHRIS HIENZ THAT WORKING WITH BARISMA IS UNACCEPTABLE.

DID JOHN KERRY AGREE WITH CHRIS HIENZ.

IF NOT, WHY NOT?

>> JUSTICE, THE REASON WHY JOE BIDEN IS NOT MATERIAL TO THESE PROCEEDING.

THE REASON WHY THIS IS A BASELESS SMEAR IS THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER HUNTER BIDEN SHOULD OF SAT ON THE BOARD OR NOT SAT ON THE BOARD.

THE ISSUE ISN'T WHETHER HUNTER BIDEN WAS PROPERLY COMPENSATED OR NOT OR SPEAKS UKRAINIAN OR NOT.

THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR A INVESTIGATION OF JOE BIDEN.

THE SMEAR AGAINST JOE BIDEN IS THAT HE SOUGHT TO FIRE A PROSECUTOR BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT HIS SON.

THAT IS A BASE I WILLS SMEAR.

AS WE DEMONSTRATED.

UNOWE GIVE CALL TESTIMONY.

WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENT SOUGHT THE DISMISSAL OF A CORRUPT AND CONFIDENT PROSECUTOR IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTER BIDEN'S POSITION ON THE BOARD.

IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, OR ALLIES, THE MONETARY FUND WAS IN DISAGREEMENT THAT THIS PROSECUTOR WAS CORRUPT.

GETTING RID OF THE PROSECUTOR IT WOULD INCREASE REAL PROSECUTION CASES GOING FORWARD.

THE SHAM IS THAT JOE BIDEN DID SOMETHING WRONG FOLLOWING UNITED STATES POLICY.

HE DID WHAT HE WAS ASKED TO DO BY EUROPEAN ALLIES AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

THE OTHER SHAM IS THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA SHAM.

THE CROWD STRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

THE UKRAINIANS HACKED THE NDN AND SOMEONE WHISKED THE SERVER AWAY TO HIDE IT THAT'S RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE PROPAGANDA.

IT'S A SHAM.

WORST THAN THAN A SHAM.

IT'S A RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA COO IS WHAT IT IS.

THEY SAY THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE ANYMORE, PUTIN SAID, NOW THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE.

YOU HEARD WHAT OUR OWN DIRECTOR OF THE FBI SAID THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS I THINK WE CAN SITE THE FBI DIRECTOR THAT, THAT IS A SHAM.

THAT IS WHY WE REFERRED TO IT AS SUCH.

AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT IS THE PRESIDENT USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE, A PAOUSING THE POWER OF THAT OFFICE TO ENGAGE IN SOLICITING INVESTIGATIONS AND ACTUALLY JUST THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THEM.

IF THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT THERE WAS SO MUCH MERIT THERE THEN WHY DID HE JUST NEED THEIR ANNOUNCEMENT?

ONCE MORE AS COUNCIL JUST CONCEDED BEFORE THE BREAK RUDY GUILIANI DIDN'T PURSUE THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

OKAY IF IT'S NOT THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WHAT WAS IT.

IF IT'S NOT THE POLICY TO PURSUE AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS THEN WHAT WAS IT?

IT WAS A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND IS WHAT IT WAS.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> SENATOR FROM OREGON.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ON BE HALF OF SENATOR MENDEZ, SENATOR BROWN AND MYSELF I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATORS WIDEN, MENENDEZ AND BROWN ASK THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL HAVE ARGUED THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

HOWEVER NEW REPORTING SHOWS ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND JOHN BOLTON SHARED CONCERNS THE PRESIDENT GRANTED PERSONAL FAVORS TO LEADERS LIKE THE LEADER OF TURKEY.

THE PRESIDENT HAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED HIS PRIVATE BUSINESS INTERESTS IN THE COUNTRY LIKE TRUMP TOWERS IS TAN ISTANBUL.

-- IN THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION THE TURKISH STATE BANK.

HAS THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF CONDUCT HE PLACES HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL INTEREST ABOVE THE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I WANT TO THANKING THE SENATORS AGAIN FOR THEIR HOSPITALITY AND LISTENING TO BOTH SIDES AS WE HAVE ENDEAVORED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION I THINK FIRST AND FOR MOST THERE HAS BEEN A TROUBLE PATTERN OF POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE ADMINISTRATION THROUGH THIS MOMENT.

THE ALLEGATION HERE RELATED TO THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE IS THAT IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO CHEAT BY SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN AMERICAN ELECTION BY BRINGING FORWARD PHONY INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

NOW WHAT COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID IS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED IN CORRUPTION.

HE'S A ANTICORRUPTION CRUSADER.

FOR YOU TO BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT'S NARRATIVE YOU HAVE TO CONCLUDE HE'S A ANTICORRUPTION CRUSADER.

PERHAPS HIS DOMESTIC RECORD IS PART OF WHAT SENATORS CAN REASONABLY CONSIDER.

LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE CENTRAL CHARGE HERE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS TWO CALLS WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

APRIL 21st, JULY 25th.

IN BOTH INSTANTED HE DIDN'T MENTION THE WORD CORRUPTION ONCE.

>> RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPTS THE WORD CORRUPTION WAS NOT MENTIONED ONCE.

WE KNOW IN MAY OF LAST YEAR PRESIDENT'S TRUMP OWN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INDICATED THAT THE NEW UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT HAD MET ALL NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE MILITARY AID INCLUDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS.

THAT'S PRESIDENT'S TRUMP DEPARTMENT SAYING NO CORRUPTION OF CONCERN AS IT RELATES TO THE RELIEF OF THE AIDE.

WE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS A GENERAL CORRUPTION CHALLENGE WITH UKRAINE.

THEY HAVE SUFFERED FROM ONE OF THE WORSEN ENVIRONMENTS OF CORRUPTION IN THE WORLD.

I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE BUT HERE IS THE KEY QUESTION.

WHY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP WAIT UNTIL 2019 TO PRETEND HE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT CORRUPTION.

LET'S EXPLORE.

DID UKRAINE HAVE A CORRUPTION PROBLEM IN 2017?

GENERALLY THE ANSWER IS YES.

DID PRESIDENT TRUMP DISLIKE FOREIGN AIDE IN 2017?

THE ANSWER IS YES.

WHAT DID PRESIDENT DO ABOUT THESE ALLEGED CONCERNS IN 2017?

THE ANSWER IS NOTHING.

UNDER THE SAME EXACT CONDITIONS THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS MOTIVATED HIM TO SEEK A PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE BIDENS AND PLACE A HOLD ON THE MONEY, THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING.

HE DIDN'T SEEK A INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS IN 2017.

HE DIDN'T PUT A HOLD ON THE AIDE IN 2017.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVERSAW $560 MILLION IN MILITARY AND SECURITY AIDE TO UKRAINE IN 2017.

IN 2018 THE SAME CONDITIONS EXISTED IF PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TRULY AN ANTI CORE UPPING CRUSADER.

WHAT HAPPENED IN 2018?

HE DIDN'T SEEK A INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

HE DIDN'T PUT A HOLD ON THE AIDE.

RATHER THEY OVERSAW $620 MILLION IN MILITARY AND SECURITY AIDE TO UKRAINE.

WHICH BRINGS US TO THIS MOMENT.

WHY THE SUDDEN INTEREST IN BARISMA, THE BIDENS, ALLEGE CORRUPTION CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINE.

WHAT CHANGED IN 2019?

WHAT CHANGED IS JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCED HIS CANDIDACY.

THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED WITH THAT CANDIDACY.

POLLS HADHIM LOSE TO GET FORMER VICE PRESIDENT.

HE WAS DETERMINED TO STOP JOE BIDEN BY TRYING TO CHEAT IN THE ELECTION, SMEAR HIM, SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN 2020.

THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

THAT IS CORRUPT.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> THAT IS WRONG.

>> THE SENATOR FROM MAINE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SECOND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BE HALF OF MYSELF, SENATOR RUBIO AND SENATOR RISCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR COLLINS, RUBIO AND RISCH IS ADDRESSED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITHDREW SUBPOENA -- WHY DID KUPPERMAN -- >> Woodruff: GOOD EVENING I'M JUDY WOODRUFF WE'RE BACK WITH OUR COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE TEAM ARE ANSWERING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE SENATORS.

WATCHING IT ALL ALONG WITH ME ARE CORRESPONDENTS LISA DESJARDINS, AMIRAL CINDER BOTH ON CAPITOL HILL ALONG WITH DISTINGUISHED PANEL OF SENATE AND LEGAL EXPERTS WHO ARE HERE WITH ME AT THE TABLE.

WE'LL BE HEARING FROM ALL OF THEM SHORTLY.

BUT NOW, LET'S GO RIGHT BACK TO LISTENING TO THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THE LEAD HOUSE MANAGER, ADAM SCHIFF, IS ANSWERING A QUESTION FROM REPUBLICAN SENATORS.

>> SAID THAT THE DR. KUPPERMAN DIDN'T HAVE JURISDICTION TO CHALLENGE OR GET A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A SUBPOENA.

SO IN THAT LITIGATION WE WERE OFTEN ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

BUT MORE MEANINGFUL TO US WE WERE SIMPLY NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN A YEAR'S LONG PROCESS OF DELAY TO GET THE ANSWERS THAT WE NEEDED.

AND WE PROPOSED TO DR. KUPPERMAN'S COUNSEL THAT IF AS YOU CLAIM THIS IS REALLY ABOUT JUST WANT TOPPING GET COT BLESSING, THERE'S A WILLINGNESS TO COME FORWARD BUT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE DO SO IF YOU'RE SINCERE ABOUT THAT, THERE'S ALREADY CASE THAT'S BEEN FILED.

THE McGAHN CASE THAT IS ABOUT TO BE DECIDED.

LET'S AGREE TO BE BOUND BY WHAT CONCLUSIONS JUDGE JACKSON REACHES.

THEIR ANSWER WAS, NO.

AND INDEED THAT OPINION WOULD COME OUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THAT OPINION SAID THIS CLAIM OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IS NONSENSE, AND THERE'S NO PRECEDENT FOR IT IN THE 250 YEARS OF JURISPRUDENCE ON THIS SUBJECT.

WE WENT BACK TO DR. KUPPERMAN AND DR. KUPPERMAN SAID, NO, WE'D LIKE TO GET OUR OWN JUDICIAL OPINION.

NOW HAVE WE GONE TO FRUITION EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T BELIEVE AND WOULD HAVE CREATED A BAD PRECEDENT THEY HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE SUBPOENAS IN THAT WAY HAD THEY LOST THEY WOULD HAVE GONE TO COURT OF APPEALS, THEY WOULD HAVE COME BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT, NOW NO LONGER ARGUING IMMUNITY.

IT WOULD MAKE CLAIMS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THEY WOULD LITIGATE THOSE UP THROUGH THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT.

WE KNEW THAT THEY WERE IN IT WITH DON McGAHN.

NINE MONTHS AFTER HE WAS SUBPOENAED WE'RE STILL LITIGATING.

THEY'RE IN COURT SAYING CONGRESS SHOULDN'T DO WHAT THEY ARE SAYING WE SHOULD DO BEFORE THIS BODY.

THAT'S WHY WE WITHDREW THE SUBPOENA, NOT GOING THROUGH THAT EXERCISE.

NOW, YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION I THINK, WHY DID FIONA HILL FEEL THAT SHE COULD COME AND TESTIFY.

SHE WORKED FOR DR. KUPPERMAN, WHY WAS SHE WILLING TO SHOW THE COURAGE TO COME AND TESTIFY WHEN HER BOSS WASN'T.

THERE'S TO NOT A GOOD ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

BUT I'M AWFUL LIE GLAD THAT SHE DID BECAUSE WITHOUT HER, WE WOULD BE THAT MUCH LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

SO, THAT WAS THE HIS TORE OF THE KUPPERMAN SUBPOENA.

LIKEWISE, JOHN BOLTON WHO HAS THE SAME COUNSEL TOLD US IF WE SUBPOENAED HIM, HE WOULD SUE.

NOW, WHY IS IT THAT HE IS WILLING TO TESTIFY NOW AND HE WASN'T WILLING TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE SHOULD YOU ASK HIM THAT QUESTION.

THAT WAS THE PREDICAMENT WE FACED IN OUR VIEW A PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEAT AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS WRONGDOING BY ENDLESSLY LITIGATING THE MATTER IN COURT PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY'RE IN COURT SAYING, YOU CAN'T USE THE COURT TO ENFORCE YOUR SUBPOENA.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM HAWAII.

>> I SEND QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR HIRONO IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO WHISTLE-BLOWERS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN OUTED AGAINST THEIR WILL?

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF REVEALING THEIR IDENTITY, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO HAS TRIED TO BULLY AND THREATEN IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES.

>> SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN GIVE YOU EXAMPLES OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS WHO WERE THE SUBJECT OF RETALIATION, NO DOUBT MANY.

WE CAN SEE BY LATTER PART OF THIS EVENING TO GET A LIST OF SOME OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, IS THAT HAVE CONFRONTED RETALIATION RETALIATION.

BUT IT DOES GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK MORE -- IN A MORE FOLSOM WAY ABOUT A POINT I MADE EARLIER, THE UNIQUE AND IMPORTANCE OF WHISTLE-BLOWERS IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

OUR AREA OF INTELLIGENCE IS UNIQUE IN THIS RESPECT.

IF YOU ARE A WHISTLE-BLOWER WHO WANTS TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON A FRAUD PLENTY CONTRACT IN A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, YOU CAN GO PUBLIC.

IF YOU ARE BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON MISCONDUCT IN THE AREA OF HOUSING, YOU CAN GO PUBLIC.

YOU CAN HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE AND YOU CAN DECLARE THE WRONGDOING THAT YOU HAVE SEEN.

IF YOU ARE A WHISTLE-BLOWER IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, YOU CANNOT GO PUBLIC.

YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE TO BRING TO THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION WRONGDOING EXCEPT ONE OF REALLY TWO VEHICLES.

YOU CAN GO TO AN INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OR YOU CAN GO TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

AND IN THIS AREA WHERE OUR HEARINGS ARE IN CLOSED SESSION WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE OUTSIDE STAKEHOLDERS THAT CAN POINT OUT THE FLAWS IN WHAT AN AGENCY IS REPRESENTED.

IF YOU'RE IN THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND SOMEONE COMES IN AND THEY SAY, THIS HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT IS ON TIME AND UNDER BUDGET, YOU HAVE OUTSIDE VALIDATION OF STAKEHOLDERS THAT CAN SAY, THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE.

IN THE INTEL WORLD WHERE OUR HEARINGS ARE IN CLOSED SESSION, THERE ARE NOT OUTSIDE STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE LISTENING THAT CAN HOLD THOSE AGENCIES TO ACCOUNT.

AND SO WE ARE UNIQUELY DEPENDENT WHEN THERE'S WRONGDOING ON TWO THINGS, SELF REPORTING BY THE AGENCIES AND THE WILLINGNESS OF PEOPLE OF GOOD FAITH TO COME FORWARD AND BLOW THE WHISTLE.

AND WE DO INJURY TO THAT WHEN WE EXPOSE THOSE WHISTLE-BLOWERS TO RETALIATION.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD HAVE IMAGINED A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BEFORE NOW, WOULD HAVE CALLED A WHISTLE-BLOWER A TRAIT OR OR A SPY OR SUGGESTED THAT PEOPLE THAT BLOW THE WHISTLE ARE TRAITORS AND SPIES WE SHOULD TREAT THEM AS WE USED TO TREAT TRAITORS AND SPIES.

I DON'T THINK WE COULD HAVE MA'AM IN WHERE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE TOLD A FOREIGN LEADER, THAT THE U.S.

AMBASSADOR ARE ANTI-CORRUPTION CHAMPION UKRAINE WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME THING.

I DON'T THINK WE COULD HAVE IMAGINED THAT HAPPENING BEFORE THIS PRESIDENCY.

SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO STEP BACK AND REALIZE JUST HOW STRIKING AND ABHORRENT THIS IS AND WHAT A RISK IT IS TO CIVILITY, TO DECENCY, TO OUR INSTITUTIONS, WE HAVE BECOME ENURE TO IT THROUGH ENDLESS REPETITION OF ATTACKS ON ANYONE WHO WOULD STAND UP TO THIS PRESIDENT.

AND OF COURSE, THE RISK IS THE VERY ONLY WE HAVE A BLOWER PROTECTION, VERY REASON WHY WHISTLE-BLOWERS SHOULD ENJOY A RIGHT OF ANONYMITY, IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT MISCONDUCT AND WRONGDOING WILL PROLIFERATE F. THERE'S NOT A MECHANISM FOR PEOPLE LAWFULLY TO EXPOSE WRONGDOING, YOU CAN BET THAT WRONGDOING IS GOING TO INCREASE.

THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE BEEN GREAT CHAMPIONS LIKE SENATOR GRASSLEY, SENATOR BURR AND SENATOR WARREN AND MANY OTHERS BECAUSE WE ALL UNDERSTAND, AT LEAST WE DID HERETOFORE, THE VITAL IMPORTANCE AND CONTRIBUTION THAT ARE MADE BY AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO BRING WRONGDOING TO OUR ATTENTION.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS HAWLEY, WICKER AND CAPITO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IS ADDRESSED TO COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE TO SAFEGUARD THE USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR FOREIGN AID AND WORK TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS AN IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY TO SAFEGUARD TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT ARE USED IN FOREIGN AID OR USED ANYWHERE, FRANKLY, AND TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

NOW IT'S NO SECRET THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THE BEGINNING FROM THE TIME HE CAME DOWN THE ESCALATOR HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE USED APPROPRIATELY, ARE USED APPROPRIATELY.

IF THEY'RE GOING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE USED WRITESLY AND THERE'S AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THAT.

AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVEN DISPUTED OR DISPUTEABLE.

AND HE'S FULFILLING THAT OBLIGATION.

THE OTHER POINT THAT HE MAKES REPEATEDLY IS THAT IF WE'RE HELPING COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, OTHER COUNTRIES SHOULD HELP US HELP THEM.

WE USE THE WORD BURDEN SHARING.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

BURDEN SHARING MEANS THAT IF AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO HELP WITH A PROBLEM IN A COUNTRY AROUND THE WORLD, WE DO AND WE DO A LOT.

WE DO IT TO THE TUNE OF BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

WHEN HERE IN OUR COUNTRY WE NEED TO FIX OUR ROADS, WE NEED TO FIX OUR BRIDGES, SO IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM THOSE IMPORTANT PROJECTS HERE IN AMERICA THAT COME FROM THE HARDENED DOLLARS OF TAXPAYERS, WHY CAN'T OTHER COUNTRIES HELP US, THAT'S CALLED BURDEN SHARING SHARING.

IT'S ALSO CALLED FAIRNESS.

HE HAS THAT OBLIGATION AND EVERY DAY HE FULFILLS THAT OBLIGATION.

LET ME MAKE ANOTHER POINT.

IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR WARREN'S QUESTION.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN TERMS OF THE FAIRNESS OF THIS PROCEEDING AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE QUOTED REPEATEDLY, I HAVEN'T PLAYED THE VIDEOS VIDEOS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BUT YOU REMEMBER THEM.

THE WISE WORDS, THE TRUE WORDS OF THE DEMOCRATS NATALYN ON THIS IMPEACHMENT HEARING.

THE ONLY POINT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT, I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS BODY UNDERSTANDS IT.

THAT THERE CAN'T BE ONE STANDARD FOR ONE POLITICAL PARTY AND ANOTHER FOR THE OTHER POLITICAL PARTY.

THAT IS IMPORTANT.

THOSE WORDS SHOULD BE APPLIED HERE.

WE CAN'T HAVE A STANDARD THAT CHANGES DEPENDING ON WHAT SOMEBODY THINKS ABOUT POLITICAL ISSUES.

IN ORDER TO BE FAIR, THE SAME STANDARD HAS TO BE APPLIED REGARDLESS OF YOUR PARTY.

SO THAT'S THE CELL CALL ISSUE HERE.

AND THAT'S THE BEDROCK PRINCIPLE, NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD FOR JUSTICE IN THE SENATE.

BUT ONE STANDARD, THE TRUE STANDARD, THE STANDARD THAT HAS BEEN ARTICULATED ELOQUENTLY BY DEMOCRATS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE CLINTON PROCEEDING.

THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT IS RIGHT.

THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT WE ASK FOR.

REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM MAINE.

>> SENDING A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR KING ASKS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, WOULD IT BE PERMISSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO INFORM THE PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL THAT HE WAS HOLDING CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATED MILITARY AID UNLESS THE PRIME MINISTER PROMISED TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES AND PUBLICLY CHARGE HIS OPPONENT WITH ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE MIDST OF AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

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

BUT THE QUESTION REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.

I MEAN IT SEEMS TO BE TRYING TO GET AT THE MOST EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL RELATED TO A MISINTERPRETATION OF WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WAS SAYING THE OTHER NIGHT.

IT'S TOTALLY IRRELEVANT HERE.

WHAT THE CHARGES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT HERE ARTICULATED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE BASED ON A THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT THEY HAVE MADE CLEAR DEPENDS FOR THEM TO MAKE THEIR CASE TO ESTABLISH THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT RAISED TWO ISSUES ON THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE HE RAISED THE 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND HE MENTIONED THE BIDEN AND BURISMA INCIDENT, THERE WAS NOT ANY LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY OR FOREIGN POLICY INTEREST IN MENTIONING THOSE THINGS TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

THAT IS THE STANDARD THEY SET FOR THEMSELVES.

IT'S ON PAGE FIVE OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT AND ON PAGE FOUR THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW THEY HAVE TO SHOW IT'S A SHAM INVESTIGATION, I THINK IT'S ON PAGE SIX THEY SAY IT'S A BOGUS INVESTIGATION.

THAT'S THEIR STANDARD BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY INTO AT ALL IN MENTIONING THOSE IN ORDER TO COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO BEING ABLE TO ASSERT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE WRONGFUL CONDUCT BY THE PRESIDENT.

BECAUSE IF THERE'S A LEGITIMATE INTEREST, SOMETHING THERE WORTH ASKING, THEY DON'T HAVE A CASE.

AND THAT'S WHY THEY TRIED TO TELL YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN THERE'S NOT A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE.

THIS IS REALLY PRETTY PREPOSTEROUS.

FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS TO COME AND SAY, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE BIDEN-BURISMA INCIDENT THERE CAN'T BE ANY INTEREST IN RAISING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S ALL BEEN DEBUNKED.

AND THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED, WHERE WAS IT DEBUNKED?

BY WHOM WAS IT DEBUNKED?

WHO CONDUCTED THAT INVESTIGATION.

WHERE IS THE WORT FROM THAT INVESTIGATION?

WHO ESTABLISHED THERE'S NOTHING THERE.

THERE IS NO SUCH REPORT.

THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO CITE IT.

THERE'S BEEN NO SUCH INVESTIGATION.

BUT WHAT DO WE KNOW.

WE DO KNOW THAT EVERY WITNESS WHO IS ASKED ABOUT IT SAID AT A MINIMUM, THERE WAS AN APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

WE DO KNOW THAT AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, DEPUTY ASSISTANT STATE KENT, RAISED CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S OFFICE.

WE KNOW THAT CHRIS HYNES THE STEP SON OF SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY WHO HAD BEEN A BUSINESS PARTER WITH HUNTER BIDEN, BROKE OFF HIS BUSINESS TIES WITH HIM BECAUSE HUNTER BIDEN TOOK A SEASON THE BOARD OF BURISMA.

TO SAY THAT THERE IS NOTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY MERIT ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT THAT IS UTTERLY DISINGENUOUS.

IT CAN'T BE SAID WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.

EVERY WITNESS THAT WAS ASKED ABOUT IT SAID, THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING AT LEAST GAVE THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY INVESTIGATION TO DEBUNK THIS THEORY.

THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY INQUIRY TO FIND OUT IS THERE THERE OR NOT.

AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO AS MANAGER SCHIFF WAS SUGGESTING, JUST WITH, WELL, WHY WAS HUNTER BIDEN ON THE BOARD OR WERE THEY PAYING HIM, IT'S THE WHOLE SITUATION.

THE WHOLE SITUATION OF ALL OF A SUDDEN HE IS PUT ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME WHEN HIS FATHER WAS PUT IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY.

AND THERE ARE PEOPLE, THERE WERE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE PROCEEDINGS THAT IT APPEARED LIKE BURISMA WAS TRYING TO WHITE WASH THEIR REPUTATION BY PUTTING PEOPLE WITH CONNECTIONS ON THEIR BOARD.

AND THEN THERE'S A PROSECUTOR BEING FIRED.

IT'S JUST NOT REASONABLE TO SAY THAT NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY SAY, THAT LOOKS FISHY.

THERE'S SOMETHING MAYBE THAT SOMEBODY SHOULD LOOK INTO THERE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK, YOU.

COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM ALASKA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SENATOR MURKOWSKI ASKS COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SENATOR JOHNSON BOTH SAID THE PRESIDENT EXPLICITLY DENIED THAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO WITH UKRAINE.

THE REPORTING ON AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S BOOK SUGGESTS THE PRESIDENT TOLD BOLTON DIRECTLY THAT THE AID WOULD NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL UKRAINE ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION THE PRESIDENT DESIRED.

THIS DISPUTE ABOUT MATERIAL FACTS WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF CALLING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE.

WHY SHOULD THIS BODY NOT CALL AMBASSADOR BOLTON?

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

I THINK THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION HERE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE HOUSE COULD HAVE PURSUED AMBASSADOR BOLTON, THE HOUSE CONSIDERED WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD TRY TO HAVE HIM COME BY, THEY CHOSE NOT TO SUBPOENA HIM.

THIS ALL GOES BACK TO THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION, I THINK, THAT THIS CHAMBER HAS BEFORE IT.

ESPECIALLY ON THIS THRESHOLD ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES OR NOT.

HAS 20 DO WITH THE PRECEDENT THAT IS ESTABLISHED HERE FOR WHAT KIND OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING THIS BODY WILL ACCEPT FROM NOW GOING FORWARD.

BECAUSE WHATEVER IS ACCEPTED IN THIS CASE BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL FOR EVERY IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING IN THE FUTURE.

AND IT WILL DO GRAVE DAMAGE TO THIS BODY AS AN INSTITUTION TO SAY THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE DON'T HAVE TO REALLY BE COMPLETE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES THAT YOU THINK ARE NECESSARY TO PROVE YOUR CASE, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO PUT IT ALL TOGETHER BEFORE YOU BRING THE PACKAGE.

WHEN YOU'RE IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE GRAVEST IMPEACHMENT THAT THEY COULD POSSIBLY CONSIDER.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL OF THAT WORK BEFORE YOU GET TO THIS INSTITUTION.

INSTEAD WHEN YOU COME TO THIS CHAMBER IT CAN BE KIND OF HALF BAKED, NOT FINISHED, WE NEED OTHER WITNESSES AND WE WANT THIS CHAMBER TO DO THE INVESTIGATION THAT WASN'T DONE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

AND THEN THIS CHAMBER WILL HAVE TO BE ISSUING THE SUBPOENAS AND DEALING WITH THAT.

AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY THAT THIS CHAMBER SHOULD ALLOW IMPEACHMENTS TO BE PRESENTED TO IT.

AND WE'VE HEARD THERE WAS SOME EXCHANGE THE OTHER DAY ABOUT, WELL, THERE WERE A LOT OF WITNESSES IN THE JUDGE PORTOOUS IMPEACHMENT.

THIS IS BEING HANDLED BY A COMMITTEE.

UNDER RULE 11 OF THE SENATE PROCEDURES THAT WAS COMMITTEE RECEIVING THAT EVIDENCE.

BUT IN THE PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT THERE'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE A COMMITTEE IT'S THE ENTIRE CHAMBER THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE SITTING AS A COURT OF IMPEACHMENT AND THAT WILL AFFECT THE BUSINESS OF THE CHAMBER.

AND SO I THINK THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING COMES OUT THAT SOMEONE MAKES AN ASSERTION IN A BOOK, ALLEGEDLY, IT'S ONLY AN ALLEGED -- IT'S SIMPLY ALLEGED NOW THAT THE MANUSCRIPT SAYS THAT, AMBASSADOR BOLTON HASN'T COME OUT TO VERIFY THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

THAT THEN WE SHOULD START HAVING THIS CHAMBER CALL NEW WITNESSES AND ESTABLISH THE NEW NORMAL FOR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING AS BEING THAT THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION IN THE HOUSE.

I THINK THAT IS VERY DAMAGING FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS INSTITUTION.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM HAWAII.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I HAVE A QUESTION ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS WHITE 6 HOUSE AND -- >> QUESTION FROM SENATOR SCHATZ, WHITE HOUSE AND HEINRICH FOR BOTH PARTIES.

CAN THE WHITE HOUSE REALLY NOT ADMIT SENATOR KING'S HYPOTHETICAL WOULD BE WRONG.

WE BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> SENATOR WE HAVE NO TROUBLE RECOGNIZING JUST HOW WRONG THAT WOULD BE.

BUT MORE THAN THAT, IT'S THE NATURAL EXTENSION OF PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ' ARGUMENT THAT IF THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED THAT THAT KIND OF QUID PRO QUO WOULD HELP HIS RE-ELECTION THEN IT'S PERFECTLY FINE AND NON-I AM PREACHABLE.

THERE WAS A REASON OF COURSE WHY THEY DIDN'T TO ADDRESS THAT HYPOTHETICAL.

LET ME GO BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED ABOUT THE OTHER WRITTEN REPORTS THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WERE CONCERNED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INTERVENING IN CASES IN WHICH HE HAD BUSINESS INVESTMENTS LIKE TURKEY.

UNDER THE THEORY OF THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS, THAT'S PERFECTLY OKAY, TOO.

IF THE PRESIDENT THINKS SOMEHOW THAT THAT IS IN UNITED STATES INTEREST BECAUSE IT'S IN HIS INTEREST, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE, IT'S UNIMPEACHABLE.

IS IT A CRIME TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO AUTOCRATS, TO GIVE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO AUTOCRATS WHERE YOU HAVE BUSINESS INVESTMENTS, THAT MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL, BUT IT IS IMPEACHABLE, IT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE IMPEACHABLE IF WE ARE GOING TO SACRIFICE THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY IF WE'RE GOING TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID, IF WE'RE GOING TO BESTOW FAVORS IN U.S. RESOURCES, TO COUNTRIES WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAS INVESTMENTS, IS THAT WHAT WE WANT DRIVING U.S. POLICY.

BUT THAT'S IMPLICATION OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.

I AGREE WITH COUNSEL ABOUT ONE THING THEY SAYF WE HAVE A TRIAL WITH NO WITNESSES THAT WILL BE A NEW PRECEDENT.

WE SHOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENT WE SET HERE BECAUSE IT WOULD EVEN HERETOFORE WHETHER A PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHED THAT ONE PARTY CAN DENY THE OTHER WITNESSES AND THAT WILL BE THE NEW NORMAL THAT TRIALS WITHOUT WITNESSES.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE PRECEDENT WE SHOULD BE SETTING HERE.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

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

LET ME JUST BEGIN BY NOTING, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT RICH FOR MANAGER SCHIFF TO SAY THAT ONE PARTY IS GOING TO DENY THEM WITNESSES.

IT WAS THE PRESIDENT WHO DENIED WITNESSES UP UNTIL NOW.

BUT TO GET BACK TO THE QUESTION, ON SENATOR KING'S HYPOTHETICAL, IF THE PRESIDENT INSISTED THAT A FOREIGN LEADER COME HERE AND LIE ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE AND HE WAS HOLDING UP MILITARY AID OR PACKAGE OF CONGRESSIONAL AID SAYING YOU HAVE TO GO OUT AND LIE ABOUT THIS, THAT WOULD BE WRONG BUT IT'S NOT THIS CASE.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.

BUT I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS SOMETHING WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF SAID, BECAUSE HE PIVOTED NOW TO THE NEXT THING, WHAT IS EBB THE NEWSPAPERS, WHAT ELSE CAN WE BRING IN FROM THE NEWSPAPERS, THERE'S AN ALLEGATION THAT THE MANUSCRIPT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT CONVERSATION, IS THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BOOR.

WELL ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAS ISSUED A STATEMENT SAYING THAT THAT ALLEGATION TO THAT ASSERTION IS NOT ACCURATE.

THAT THAT'S FALSE.

THERE ARE OTHER ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE MADE ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE IN THIS MANUSCRIPT, MICK MULVANEY ISSUED A STATEMENT THAT THAT'S NOT TRUE.

TO SORT OF PLAY THE GAME OF, THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER LEAK SOMEBODY MIGHT WRITE A BOOK, THAT'S WHAT TURNING THIS BODY INTO THE ONE DOING INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE HOUSE DIDN'T PURSUE THE INVESTIGATION IS NOT POTENTIALLY A WISE MOVE FOR THIS CHAMBER TO TAKE ON THAT TASK, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> YOUR HONOR?

>> SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA?

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATOR KENNEDY IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

HAS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN ITS IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS OR OTHERWISE INVESTIGATED THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT BY FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL SHOKIN THAT HE, QUOTE, BELIEVES HIS OUSTER WAS BECAUSE OF HIS INTEREST IN BURISMA HOLDINGS AND HIS CLAIM THAT HAD HE REMAINED IN HIS POST SHOKIN SAID HE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED HUNTER BIDEN, END QUOTE.

AS REPORTED ON JULY 22, 2019 IN AN ARTICLE IN THE "WASHINGTON POST" ENTITLED "HAS VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SAID UKRAINE SHOULD INCREASE GAS PRODUCTION" THEN HIS SON GOT A JOB WITH THE UKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY BY MICHAEL CRANISH AND DAVID STERN.

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

THE ANSWER TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE IS, NO.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT INVESTIGATE THE VERACITY OF THE TRUTH OF THAT REPORTING ABOUT PROSECUTOR GENERAL SHOKIN, THAT WAS PART OF THE POINT AS MANAGER SCHIFF WAS SAYING HERE AGAIN, HOUSE DEMOCRATS' POSITION IS THAT EVERYTHING RELATED TO THE ENTIRE INCIDENT OF THE BIDENS AND BURISMA AND WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE PROSECUTOR IT'S ALL DEBUNKED, THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE THERE, MOVE ALONG, DON'T ASK ABOUT IT.

BUT THEY DIDN'T INVESTIGATIVE.

THEY CAN'T POINT TO ANYONE WHO HAS INVESTIGATED IT.

THEY CAN'T POINT TO ANYONE WHO IS REALLY LOOKED AT IT.

AS I SAID A MINUTE AGO, I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT, EVERY WITNESS WHO WAS ASKED SAID THAT THEY THOUGHT, YES, AT LEAST THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICK OF INTEREST THERE.

AT LEAST ONE WITNESS, THERE'S A PUBLIC REPORTING OF ANOTHER PERSON IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION RAISED THE ISSUE WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S OFFICE.

BUT NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT.

THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN SOUGHT OR RECEIVED AN ETHICS OPINION, WE DON'T KNOW.

NOT THAT I'VE HEARD OF, NOT THAT I'VE SEEN ANYWHERE.

BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT NO ONE HAS ACTUALLY INQUIRED INTO.

THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT WHY NOW.

WHY WAS IT RAISED NOW.

THE IMPLICATION THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE TRIED TO MAKE IS, JUST BECAUSE JOE BIDEN DECIDED IN APRIL HE WAS GOING TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

BUT AS I EXPLAINED THE OTHER DAY, RUDY GUILIANI IS THE PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE COUNSEL WAS EXPLORING MATTERS IN THE UKRAINE STARTING IN THE FALL OF 2018.

HE HAD TIPS BECAUSE HE WAS INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT, REMEMBER THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS STILL ONGOING AT THAT POINT.

IT WASN'T CLEAR WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS GOING TO BE.

HE WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT WERE THE ORIGIN OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, OF THE STEELE DOSSIER.

OF ALLEGATIONS OF COLLUSION BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

AND THAT LED HIM IN PART TO UKRAINE, HE GOT INFORMATION THAT LED HIM TO VARIOUS STRANDS TO PURSUE.

ONE OF THEM BECAME THE ISSUE OF THE BIDEN AND BURISMA INCIDENT.

HE PREPARED A LITTLE PACKAGE ON IT.

BASED ON INTERVIEW NOTES IN JANUARY 23 AND JANUARY 25th, OF 2019, MONTHS BEFORE JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS GOING TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENT SIGH.

RUDY GUILIANI WAS INTERVIEWING SHOKIN AND LUTSENKO WROTE DOWN ABOUT THE BIDEN AND BURISMA INCIDENT AND FIRING OF SHOKIN.

HE DELIVERED IT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN MARCH.

STILL BEFORE JOE BIDEN SAID HE WAS GOING TO BE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL APRIL 25.

IT WAS ALL DONE, ALL PUT IN A PACKAGE, ALL DELIVERED.

AND THAT'S PUBLIC NOW BECAUSE THAT LITTLE PACKAGE THAT HE SENT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT WAS RELEASED, I THINK IT WAS UNDER LITIGATION BUT RELEASED PUBLICLY.

AND THE NOTES THAT HE TOOK, HIS INTERVIEW NOTES ARE THERE PUBLICLY.

TIMING DATES BACK TO WHEN RUDY GUILIANI WAS PURSUING THAT STARTING BACK IN THE FALL OF 2018, TAKE TIME TO PURSUE LEADS, TRYING TO GET SHOKIN TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY TO INTERVIEW, COULDN'T GET HIM A VISA, HAD TO INTERVIEW BY PHONE.

HE PREPARES THIS PACKAGE.

THAT IS WHY THERE'S THAT TIMING.

AND THEN THERE WERE PUBLIC ARTICLES PUBLISHED ABOUT THE BIDEN-BURISMA AFFAIR, ONE WAS JUST MENTIONED IN THE QUESTION, THE "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE, JULY 22, 2019, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE FIRING EVER SHOKIN, THREE DAYS BEFORE THE JULY 25th TELEPHONE CALL.

IT WAS IN THE NEWS.

IT WAS TOPICAL.

THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?

>> SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ON BEHALF MYSELF AND SENATOR CORNYN, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR BOTH HOUSE MANAGERS AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS PETERS AND CORNYN FOR BOTH PARTIES, HOW WOULD THE VERDICT IN THIS TRIAL ALTER THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVES AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES IN THE FUTURE?

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GOES FIRST.

>> A VERDICT, A FINAL JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL WOULD BE THE BEST THING FOR OUR COUNTRY AND WOULD SEND A GREAT MESSAGE THAT WILL ACTUALLY HELP IN OUR SEPARATION OF POWERS, HERE'S WHY.

AS I'VE SAID REPEATEDLY, ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD ARTICULATED SO WELL DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH HERE?

WE'RE DEALING WITH PURELY PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT WITH BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION, NO CRIME, NO VIOLATION OF LAW IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

NO INVESTIGATION, NO DUE PROCESS, NOTHING.

WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU MEANS, WE CAN TALK ALL WE WANT, AND WE WILL, BUT WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT AT THE END OF THE DAY?

TALKING ABOUT REMOVING A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM A BALLOT IN AN ELECTION THAT'S OCCURRING IN MONTHS.

WHO THINKS THAT'S A GOOD IDEA?

PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH A PURELY PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT THAT WAS WARNED ABOUT FROM THE FRAMERS.

THE ONLY APPROPRIATE RESULT THAT WON'T DAMAGE OUR COUNTRY HORRIBLY, MAYBE FOREVER, BUT CERTAINLY FOR GENERATIONSS A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL.

HERE IS THE OTHER POINT.

GETTING BACK TO THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES.

MR. SCHIFF'S UP HERE, LET'S MAKE A DEAL.

HOW ABOUT WE HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE WE HAVE THE GREATEST RESPECT FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CRITICAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROTECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR OUR HISTORY.

WHAT IS HE REALLY SAYING?

THINK ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS.

THE SENATE CAN DECIDE ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BY A VOTE, BY MAJORITY VOTE.

IF THE SENATE CAN DECIDE WITH THE GREATEST RESPECT, WITH THE GREATEST RESPECT IF THE SENATE CAN JUST DECIDE THERE'S NO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, GUESS WHAT, YOU ARE DESTROYING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

CAN THE SENATE DECIDE THE HOUSE HAS DEBATE PROTECTION.

WE ASK FOR DOCUMENTS FROM MR. SCHIFF AND HIS STAFF, HE SAYS, ARE YOU GOING TO DECIDE THAT?

ARE WE GOING TO -- IS THAT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, ARE WE GOING TO FLIP A COIN IS THAT GOING TO BE NEXT SUGGESTION?

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT.

THERE ARE CRITICAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT WILL ALTER OUR BALANCE OF POWER FOR GENERATIONS IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROAD.

DOWN THIS ROAD IS THE PATH PROVIDED BY DEMOCRATS SO WISELY DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION DASH.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> IT MAY BE DIFFERENT IN THE COURTS THAN IT IS IN THIS CHAMBER AND THE HOUSE BUT WHEN ANYBODY BEGINS SEN TANS WITH THE PHRASE, I HAVE THE GREATEST RESPECT FOR -- BE YOU HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR WHAT FOLLOWS.

WE TRUST THE JUSTICE WILL MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.

THE JUSTICE HAS I THINK CONDUCTED THESE PROCEEDINGS IN AN EMINENTLY FAIRWAY.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD PROCEED CLUED US ALLOWING CHIEF JUSTICE THE MAKE THOSE CALLS.

AND I WOULD SAY ALSO WITH RESPECT TO AN ARGUMENT COUNSEL MADE ABOUT THE PORTEOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, THE SENATE DESIGNATED 12 SENATORS TO HEAR WITNESS TESTIMONY, IMPLICATION IS YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN AN IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT.

THAT'S ONLY HALF CORRECT.

THE OTHER HALF IS YOU CAN DO DEPOSITIONS IN WHICH ONLY A COUPLE MEMBERS OF THE BODY NEED PARTICIPATE.

AND SO IT'S A FALSE ARGUMENT TO SAY OR SUGGEST THAT THE WHOLE BODY WOULD NEED TO CONDUCT THE WHOLE OF THE DEPOSITIONS.

SO MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE LIVE TESTIMONY, WE'VE OFFERED A COMPROMISE.

BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WILL THIS DO TO THE BALANCE OF POWER, I WOULD SAY THIS.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE WILL SURVIVE THIS DEBACLE.

BUT IF WE HOLD THAT A PRESIDENT CAN DEFY ALL SUBPOENAS, CAN TIE UP THE CONGRESS AND WITH BAD FAITH CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE, CLAIM CLAIMING HERE ONCE CLAIM INK COURT SOMETHING IT WILL EVISCERATE OUR OVERSIGHT POWER.

IF THE PRESIDENT IS ALLOWED TO DECIDE WHICH SUBPOENAS THEY WILL CONSIDER VALID AND WHICH THEY WILL CONSIDER INVALID, YOUR OVERSIGHT POWER, OUR OVERSIGHT POWER IS GONE.

THAT IS AN IRREVOCABLE CHANGE TO THE BALANCE OF POWER AND WHAT'S MORE IF WE ADOPT THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS POWER, CAN DO SO BY HOLDING ANOTHER COUNTRY HOSTAGE BY WITHHOLDING CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED FUNDS, CAN VIOLATE THE LAW IN DOING SO, AS LONG AS THEY THINK IT'S IN THEIR INTEREST, IMAGINE WHAT THAT WILL DO TO THE BALANCE OF POWER.

ARTICLE 2 WILL REALLY MEAN WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS IT MEANS WHICH IS, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

SO, YES, THE STAKES ARE BIG HERE HERE.

ARTICLE 2 GOES TO WHETHER OUR OVERSIGHT POWER, PARTICULARLY IN A CASE OF INVESTIGATING A PRESIDENT'S OWN WRONGDOING CONTINUES TO HAVE ANY WEIGHT WHETHER THE IMPEACHMENT POWER ITSELF IS NOW A NULLITY.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM FLOOR?

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR, ARES CAPITO AND DAINS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATORS RUBIO, CAPITO, SCOTT OF SOUTH CAROLINA IS DIRECTED TO BOTH PARTIES AND WE BEGIN WITH COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

QUESTION READS, IF I UNDERSTAND THE MANAGER'S CASE, THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER BECAUSE HE ACTED CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF HIS ADVISORS BUT HE IS GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS BECAUSE HE ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADVICE OF HIS ADVISORS.

>> THAT'S NOT OUR ARGUMENT AT ALL.

THE PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHED ON ARTICLE 1 NOT BECAUSE HE ACTED CONTRARY TO THE ADVICE OF HIS ADVISORS.

THAT IS A RED HERRING OFFERED BY THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM.

WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT FREE TO DISREGARD THE ADVISES OF HIS COUNSEL, HE IS.

HE IS ENTITLED TO DISREGARD EVEN REALLY GOOD ADVICE.

WHAT HE'S NOT FREE TO DO IS ENGAGE IN CORRUPTION.

WHAT HE'S NOT FREE TO DO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID NOT FOR VALID POLICY DISAGREEMENT, THEY CONCEDED, RUDY GUILIANI WAS NOT DOING POLICY.

WHAT IS NOT PERMITTED IS FOR A PRESIDENT TO WITHHOLD CONGRESSIONALLY APPROPRIATED MONEY FOR A CORRUPT PURPOSE, TO SECURE HELP, ELICIT FOREIGN HELP TO CHEAT IN AN ELECTION THAT IS NO POLICY DISAGREEMENT.

NOW ARE WE ARGUING THAT HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR FOLLOWING HIS LAWYERS' ADVICE, NO, THEY WERE FOLLOWING HIS ADVICE.

HIS ADVICE WAS, FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS.

THEY WERE GIVING THE LEGAL WINDOW DRESSING TO THAT.

THEY WERE GOING TO COURT AND ARGUING ONE THING AND COMING BEFORE YOU AND ARGUING ANOTHER.

HE WAS NOT FOLLOWING THEIR ADVICE, THEY WERE FOLLOWING HIS.

YOU CAN SAY A LOT ABOUT DRUM BUT HE IS NOT LED AROUND BY THE NOSE BY HIS LEGAL COUNSEL.

ASK DON McGAHN ABOUT THAT.

DON McGAHN SHE'D UP TO THE PRESIDENT.

AND BOB MUELLER, IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT REPORT, FOUND SEVERAL INSTANCES, THIS GOES TO THE PATTERN OF THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCT WHICH HE SOUGHT TO OBSTRUCT THAT INVESTIGATION BY INCLUDING TELLING THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER THAT HE SHOULD FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THEN THAT HE SHOULD LIE ABOUT THAT INSTRUCTION.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

THAT'S YET ANOTHER WAY IN WHICH THE HOUSE MANAGERS' THEORIES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE INCOHERENT AND DANGEROUS.

WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 2, AGAIN I WON'T RESPOND TO THE AD HOMINEM ATTACK THAT KEEP COMING.

I WILL SAY JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU'RE RIGHT, I HAVEN'T BEEN ELECTED TO ANYTHING, BUT WHEN I SAY WITH THE GREATEST RESPECT, I MEAN IT.

ARTICLE 2, THE PRESIDENT'S BEEN IMPEACHED FOR EXERCISING LONG STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

HE'S LOOKING OUT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE FACE OF HOUSE PROCESS THAT VIOLATED ALL OF THEM.

AGAINST ALL PRECEDENT.

AND HE'S LOOKING OUT FOR FUTURE PRESIDENTS FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, HOW?

IF HE HAS SAID, OKAY, FINE, NO RIGHTS, NO COUNSEL, NO WITNESSES, NO RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE, HERE IS EVERYTHING YOU ASKED FOR.

WHAT SORT OF PRECEDENT WOULD THAT SET?

IT WOULD -- THAT WOULD DAMAGE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

SO, AGAIN, ALL YOU NEED TO LOOK AT ARE THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DO NOT ALLEGED A CRIME, THEY DO NOT EVEN ALLEGED A VIOLATION OF LAW.

THEY ARE PURELY PARTISAN.

THEY WERE OPPOSED BY DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE.

IT IS AN ELECTION YEAR.

AND THEY'RE HERE SAYING, INSTEAD OF AN ELECTION, LET'S CONFRONT VERY CONSEQUENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT HAVE NEVER REALLY BEEN CONFRONTED.

LET'S DO IT IN A WEEK.

LET'S DESTROY -- LET'S DESTROY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

MAYBE LET'S DESTROY SPEECH AND DEBATE PRIVILEGE.

LET ME POINT OUT ONE OTHER THING THING, IT'S NOT RIGHT TO ACCUSE SOMEBODY FALSELY OF SOMETHING AND THEN SAY, UNLESS YOU WAIF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT YOU'RE GUILTY.

THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

WE SHOULDN'T ACCEPT THAT.

THESE ARE LONG STANDING PRIVILEGES, THEY HAVE BEEN RESPECTED, FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO RESPECT THEM.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR MAN, WHICHIN FOR BOTH PARTIES WILL BEGIN WITH THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HAD DETAILED ALL THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOUSE'S DECISION TO MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH THEIR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

WHY SHOULDN'T THIS BODY HEED THEIR ADVICE AND SLOW DOWN AND AT LEAST ALLOW THE JUDGE TO RULE IN THE McGAHN CASE TO GIVE THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY AN OFFICIAL OPINION FROM THE JUDICIARY ON ARTICLE 2.

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

AND I THINK THE KEY POINT HERE IS THE McGAHN CASE IS NOT GOING TO DIRECTLY RESOLVE SOMETHING RELATED TO THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGES HERE.

IT'S GOING TO ADDRESS A LEGAL ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO AN ASSERTION OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR DON McGAHN.

THERE SHOULD BE DECISION FROM THE D.C.

CIRCUIT SOME TIME SOON BUT THAT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY GO TO THE SUPREME COURT.

THAT IMMUNITY IS BEING CHALLENGE AND IT'S BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE EXECUTIVE FOR OVER 40 YEARS, THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR THE SUPREME COURT.

SO THE IDEA IT'S NOT GOING TO BE JUST SLOW DOWN HERE A LITTLE BIT, THIS TRIAL CAN'T BE HELD OPEN PENDING THE FINAL RESOLUTION OF THAT LITIGATION.

THAT'S HAN IMPORTANT POINT, BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ALEXANDER HAMILTON POINTED OUT IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65 WHEN HE WAS DISCUSSING WHO SHOULD BE THE BODY TO TRY IMPEACHMENT.

AND ONE CONSIDERATION WAS POTENTIALLY DRAWING IN JUDGES FROM VARIOUS STATES TO CREATE A NEW BODY TO TRY IMPEACHMENT.

THE RATIONAL THAT HAMILTON GAVE WOULD BE BAD IDEA THERE HAS TO BE SWIFT PROGRESSION FROM IMPEACHMENT TO THE TRIAL TO A VERDICT TO HAVING IT FINISHED PRECISELY BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT THE PERSECUTION OF A DESIGNING MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

HE RECOGNIZED THERE COULD BE PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT AND THAT ACCUSATION THAT IMPEACHMENT SHOULDN'T BE HANGING OUT THERE, THERE SHOULD BE A 2015 TRIAL TO DETERMINE THINGS FINALLY.

AND THAT IS WHY ALL OF THE PREPARATION OUGHT TO BE DONE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION, THERE'S A CASE PUT TOGETHER AND IF THEY'RE READY TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THEY HAD BETTER BE FINISHED, HAVE EVERYTHING BUTTON DOWNED.

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HAVE A TRIAL OF A PRESIDENT.

HAMILTON WARNED AGAINST THAT SPECIFICALLY HANGING OVER THE COUNTRY ON MONTHS ON END.

AND SO TO PUSH OFF THIS TRIAL, TO SAY WE'LL WAIT FOR LITIGATION AT THAT POINT, THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS IDEA.

AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT THE TRIAL HERE SHOULD OPERATE.

IT OUGHT TO BE FINISHED ON THE BASIS OF THE CASE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS CAME READY TO PRESENT.

IF THEY WEREN'T READY TO PRESENT THE CASE THAT CAN WIN THERE SHOULD BE AN ACQUITTAL.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

WE HAVE ANOTHER HALF OF THE PRESENTATION.

>> IF WE COULD, SENATORSF WE COULD PULL MUCH SLIDE 37, THIS IS WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD TO SAY IN THE McGAHN LITIGATION NOW ON APPEAL.

EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE IMMUNE FROM COMPULSORY CONGRESSIONAL PROCESS FOR MATTER HOW MANY TIMES EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS ASSERTED AS MUCH OVER THE YEARS.

THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION IN THE MEIRS CASE WHERE THE SORT SAID CLEAR PRECEDENT CONFIRM THAT THE EXECUTIVE CANNOT BE THE JUDGE OF ITS OWN PRIVILEGE AND HENCE MS. MEIRS NOT ENTITLEED TO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

LET'S LOOK WHAT THE COURT SAID ON SLIDE 38.

JUDGE JACKSON SAID, STATED SIMPLY THE PRIMARY TAKE AWAY FROM THE PAST 250 YEARS OF RECORDED AMERICAN HISTORY IS THAT PRESIDENTS ARE NOT KINGS.

COMPULSELY APPEARANCE BY DINT OF SUBPOENA IS LEGAL CONSTRUCT NOT POLITICAL ONE AND PER THE CONSTITUTION NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

THAT IS THE DISTRICT COURT SAYING, THOU SHALT APPEAR THAT THIS IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

THE COURT -- THIS IS WHAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS ARGUING IN THAT CASE IF WE COULD SEE SLIDE 39.

THE COMMITTEE LACKS ARTICLE 3 STANDING TO SUE TO ENFORCE A CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA DEMANDING TESTIMONY FROM AN INDIVIDUAL ON MATTERS RELATED TO HIS DUTIES AS EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIAL.

AND SO HERE WE ARE, WE'RE NOW IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, JUSTICES DEPARTMENT SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT ENFORCE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS.

THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, LET'S CONTINUE TO LITIGATE THE MATSUZAKAER.

LET THIS PLAY OUT FURTHER.

TO WHAT END?

TO WHAT END.

YES, I SUPPOSE WE COULD WAIT FOR COURT OF APPEALS DECISION BUT OF COURSE THEY WOULD SAY THEY'RE NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT, COURT THROWING OUT THIS IDEA EITHER.

LOOK, WE'VE GOT A PERFECTLY GOOD JUSTICE RIGHT HERE THAT CAN MAKE THESE DECISIONS.

LET'S LET HIM MAKE THE CALL.

LET'S LET HIM MAKE THE CALL.

LET'S TRUST THAT HE WILL BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, AND SENATORS HAWLEY, SASSE AND BARRASSO.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATORS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, HAWLEY, SASSE AND BARRASSO IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

DURING THEIR PRESENTATION, THE HOUSE MANAGERS REFERENCED CHAIRMAN GOUDY AND HOUSE BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION.

THE FINAL REPORT ON BENGHAZI FLATLY SAYS, QUOTE, THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION.

END QUOTE.

THAT COMMITTEE FOUGHT FOR TWO YEARS TO ACCESS INFORMATION AND OFTEN HAD INFORMATION REQUESTS IGNORED OR DENIED.

IF THIS HOUSE INVESTIGATION AFTER JUST THREE MONTHS ALREADY SUPPOSEDLY JUSTIFIES IMPEACHMENT.

DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP OWE MORE COMPLIANCE THAN OTHER PRESIDENTS DID?

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

PART OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING, I BELIEVE, IS KIND OF A TWOFOLD ATTACK OR APPROACH.

WE JUST SAW CITATION TO TWO DISTRICT COURT OPINIONS AS IF THE FINAL ARBITER OF AN ISSUE OF THIS MAGNITUDE IS THE DISTRICT COURT OR FOR THAT MATTER THE COURT OF APPEALS.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

IT'S GOING TO BE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IF IT GOES IN THAT DIRECTION.

NOW WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE STATEMENT IN THE BENGHAZI REPORT THAT ADMINISTRATION DID NOT COOPERATE COOPERATE.

THE SAME IS ALSO TRUE WITH FAST AND FURIOUS AND INVESTIGATION THERE.

IN THAT PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION IT REACHES SUCH A SIGNIFICANT POINT THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE DETERMINE THAT THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT.

NOW, PRESIDENT OWE BAMA EXERCISED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY RELATED TO FAST AND FURIOUS.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED.

NOW, I'M NOT THE ONE THAT MAKES THE DECISION WHETHER THAT WAS PRIVILEGE OR NOT PRIVILEGED.

IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED.

BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, AT LEAST TEN TIMES TONIGHT MANAGER SCHIFF HAS SAID, WE HAVE COMPLETE CONFIDENCE IN THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

IGNORING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT HIS CALL.

AND I MEAN THAT WITH ALL SINCERITY, SINCE YOU'RE MAKING FUN OF SAYING OF PEOPLE SAYING "DUE RESPECT" THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT'S SET UP.

NOW YOU CAN AGREE TO ANYTHING.

SURE, YOU CAN NEGOTIATE THAT ALL THE WITNESSES CALLED WILL BE THE WITNESSES THEY REQUESTED.

OR YOU CAN NEGOTIATE THAT SINCE THEY HAD 17 AND WE HAD NONE, WE GET 17 AND THEY GET FOUR.

ALL KIND OF THINGS TO BE NEGOTIATED UNDER THEIR VIEW.

BUT THIS IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MANAGERS WHO HAVE AN OVERWHELMING CASE THAT THEY PROVED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY.

THEY PROOFED IT, IT'S OVERWHELMING, IT'S INCREDIBLE, WE WERE ABLE TO PUT IT TOGETHER IN A RECORD AMOUNT OF TIME.

AND NOW WE WANT YOU, THE UNITED STATES SENATE, TO START CALLING WITNESSES.

FOR OUR OVERWHELMINGLY PROVED CASE.

I WOULD JUST LAY THIS DOWN IF WE'RE NEGOTIATING, WHY DON'T WE JUST GO TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS, SEE WHAT THIS BODY DECIDES.

I RESPECT THE PROCESS, THE PROCESSS WE HAVE TWO DAYS OF QUESTIONING, TOMORROW THERE WILL BE ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION.

THERE WILL BE DECISION ON THE MOTION, WE HAVE -- THAT'S THE SYSTEM THAT'S ENPLACE, THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE SHOULD FOLLOW BUT THIS IDEA THAT TWO DISTRICT COURT JUDGES HAVE DECIDED AN ISSUE OF THIS MAGNITUDE AND THAT IS NOW THE DETERMINATION THEY WEREN'T ACCEPT IF THEY WERE IN OUR POSITION.

THEY WOULD SAY WELL DISTRICT COURT DECIDED THAT'S GOING TO BE IT.

SO I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE.

THESE ARE REALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES.

THESE ARE SERIOUS.

THE IDEA THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE SHOULD JUST BE WAIVED.

OR DOESN'T EXIST?

THAT IN YOUR VIEW ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY CAN POSSIBLY EXIST, IT'S ONLY BEEN UTILIZED FOR ADMINISTRATIONS FOR 50 YEARS OR MORE.

PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ GAVE YOU LIST OF PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE PUT FORWARD EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND LOT OF HIS WRITING HE TALKS ABOUT.

BUT TO SAY TONIGHT WE'RE JUST GOING TO -- WE'LL JUST CUT A DEAL.

WE'LL DO IT IN A WEEK, GET SOME DEPOSITIONS THAT WILL MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY.

DOESN'T MAKE THE CONSTITUTION HAPPY.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM OHIO.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF SENATORS, CASEY, KLOBUCHAR, WYDEN FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION FOR HOUSE MANAGERS FROM SENATOR BROWN AND OTHER SENATORS IS AS FOLLOWS: YESTERDAY YOU REFERENCED HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERPETUATING AND POP GREATING RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY THEORIES UNDERCUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES.

IF ACQUITTED IN THE SENATE WHAT WOULD PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM CONTINUING TO SIDE WITH PUTIN AND OTHER ADVERSARIES INSTEAD OF OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND CAREER DIPLOMATS AND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS ON NATIONAL SECURITY AGENDA IF SUCH BEHAVIOR CONTINUES UNCHECKED.

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

I'VE TALKED A LOT TONIGHT AND THROUGHOUT THE LAST WEEK ABOUT WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE, BECAUSE LATE INTO THE NIGHT, WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS DEBATE FOR SEVERAL DAYS NOW, THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THIS.

I DON'T WANT TO GET IN AGAIN TO THE ISSUES OF OUR TROOPS IN EUROPE, THE HOT WAR THAT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW AS WE'RE SPEAKING IN UKRAINE.

BUT I WILL REITERATE THE PRECEDENT THAT WE SET WITH REGARD TO RUSSIA AND FOREIGN ADVERSARIES.

THIS IDEA THAT IT'S OKAY TO CONTINUE TO PEDDLE IN RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA AND DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORIES, BECAUSE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A POLICY DISCUSSION.

THAT WE HAVE NOT RESOLVED THIS.

BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DEBATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

IF THAT IS INDEED THE CASE IF WE CONCEDE THAT THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT WE CAN ALL ON INCLUDING AMBASSADOR BOLTON THAT COULD SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON IT.

BUT THE FACT PATTERN THAT WE'RE SITTING AT RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS 17 WITNESSES THAT WERE CALLED IN THE HOUSE, NONE OF WHOM HAD ANY INDISH A OR ANY DATA TO PROVIDE ANY OF THESE THEORIES WERE ACCURATE.

WE HAVE THE ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES NANUSLY SAYING THAT THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT UKRAINE WAS INVOLVED IN 2016 ELECTION.

THAT IT WAS RUSSIA.

AND DON'T BUY THE RED HERRING, BY THE WAY, THAT COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT HAS BROUGHT FORTH THIS IDEA THAT OH, IT CAN ONLY BE RUSSIA.

THEY SAID EARLIER THAT WE'RE CLAIMING THAT IT CAN ONLY BE RUSSIA.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

NOBODY ON THIS TEAM HAS EVER SAID IT CAN ONLY BE RUSSIA, BECAUSE INDEED WE KNOW AS MANY OF THESE PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF MAL-ACTORS OUT THERE, LOT OF COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THE CAPABILITY AND THE WILL AND REGULARLY TRY TO ATTACK US IN VARIETY OF WAYS.

WHAT WE ARE SAYING WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE, THAT IS BEFORE THIS BODY RIGHT NOW, IS UNANIMOUSLY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE SAID, THAT IT WAS RUSSIA THAT INTERFERED IN 2016 ELECTIONS AND THAT THERE'S NO DATA THAT SUGGESTS UKRAINE WAS INVOLVED.

THAT IS THE ISSUE.

SO THE PRECEDENT BRINGING IT ALL THE WAY AROUND TO THE BEGINNING, THE PRECEDENT IS THAT ALL OF OUR ADVERSARIES, INCLUDING VLADIMIR PUTIN, WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CAN PLAY TO THE WHIMS OF ONE PERSON, WHETHER THAT BE PRESIDENT TRUMP OR SOME FUTURE PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN, THEY CAN PLAY TO THE WHIMS IN THE INTERESTS AND PERSONAL POLITICAL AMBITIONS OF ONE PERSON AND GET THAT INDIVIDUAL TO PROPAGATE THEIR PROPAGANDA, GET THEM TO UNDERMINE OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY THAT IS A PRECEDENT THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE IS WILLING AND INTERESTED IN SENDING, THAT IS TRULY WHAT IS AT STAKE.

>> THANK YOU MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA.

>> SENDING A QUESTION TO THE DESK FROM MYSELF, FOR SENATOR BOOZMAN, SENATOR WICKER AND SENATOR CAPITO.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM SENATOR HOGAN, BOOZMAN, WICKER AND CAPITO, HOUSE MANAGERS CONSTEPPED THAT THEY HAVE OVERWHELMING CASE AND THAT THEY HAVE MADE THEIR CASE IN CLEAR AND CONVINCING FASHION.

DOESN'T THAT ASSERTION DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THEIR REQUEST FOR MORE WITNESSES?

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

I THINK IT DOES DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THEIR CLAIM NOW THAT THEY NEED MORE WITNESSES.

THEY SAID FOR WEEKS THAT IT WAS OVERWHELMING CASE.

THEY CAME HERE AND THEY SAID 63 TIMES THAT IT'S OVERWHELMING OR PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

MANAGER NADLER SAID TWICE TODAY, BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY SHOWN YOU IT'S BEEN PROOFED BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

IF THAT IS THEIR POSITION WHY DO THEY NEED MORE WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE?

IT'S COMPLETELY SELF CONTRADICTORY.

I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS WHILE I'M HERE AND HAVE THE TIME.

WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS I DON'T KNOW WHY I HAVE TO SAY IT AGAIN.

HOUSE MANAGERS KEEP COMING UP HERE AND SAYING AND ACTING AS IF, IF YOU MENTION U CRANE, IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTION INTERFERENCE, EVEN MENTION IT, YOU ARE A PAWN OF VLADIMIR PUTIN, ONLY THE RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION THERE'S NOT ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THEY SAY THAT THE UKRAINE CONTINUES DID ANYTHING.

I READ IT BEFORE, I'LL READ IT AGAIN.

ONE OF THEIR STAR WITNESSES, FIONA HILL SAID, THAT SOME UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, QUOTE, THAT HILLARY CLINTON WIN CAN THE ELECTION, SO IT WAS QUOTE, UNQUOTE, QUITE EVIDENT THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO CURRY FAVOR WITH THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN INCLUDING BY TRYING TO COLLECT INFORMATION ON MR. MANAFORT AND OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL.

THAT WAS FIONA HILL.

THERE WAS ALSO THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD FROM POLITICO ARTICLE IN 2017 THAT A WHOLE BUNCH OF UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WHO HAD DONE THINGS TO TRY TO HELP THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND DNC AND TO HARM THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

IN ADDITION, TWO NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, BOTH POLITICO AND THE FINANCIAL TIMES, DID THEIR OWN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING AND THE FINANCIAL TIMES CONCLUDED THAT THE OPPOSITION TO PRESIDENT TRUMP LED KEY OF'S WIDER LEADERSHIP 20 DO NOTHING THEY WOULD HAVE ATTEMPTED BEFORE TO INTERVENE HOWEVER INDIRECTLY IN U.S. ELECTION.

THAT IS THE FINANCIAL TIMES.

THE IDEA THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF UKRAINIAN UKRAINIANS DOING ANYTHING TO INTERFERE IN ANY WAY IS JUST NOT TRUE.

THEY SAY IT AGAIN AND AGAIN, JUST NOT TRUE.

THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT, MANAGER SCHIFF KEEPS SUGGESTING THAT SOMEHOW WE'RE COMING HERE AND SAYING ONE THING AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS SAYING SOMETHING ELSE IN COURT WITHOUT LITIGATION.

THAT IS ALSO NOT TRUE.

WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR EVERY TIME.

POSITION OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LIKE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS THAT WHEN CONGRESS SUES IN ARTICLE 3 COURT TO TRY TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA AGAINST EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIAL THAT IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL.

THERE IS NOT JURISDICTION OVER IT.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS AND HOUSE TAKE POSITION THAT THEY HAVE THAT AVENUE OPEN TO THEM.

SO OUR POSITION WHEN WE GO TO COURT WE WILL RESIST JURISDICTION IN THE COURT.

BUT IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO PROCEED TO IMPEACHMENT WHERE THEY CLAIM THEY HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE MECHANISM AVAILABLE TO THEM, OUR POSITION IS, CONSTITUTION REQUIRES INCREMENTALISM IN CONFLICT BETWEEN THE BRANCHES.

AND THAT MEANS THAT FIRST THERE SHOULD BE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS THEN CONGRESS CAN CONSIDER OTHER MECHANISMS AT ITS DISPOSALS SUCH AS CONTEMPT OR SUCH AS SQUEEZING THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY BY WITHHOLDING MECHANISMS TO DEAL WITH THAT INTERBRANCH CONFLICT.

OR IF THEY CLAIM THAT THEY CAN SUE IN COURT, SUE IN COURT.

BUT IMPEACHMENT IS EVERYBODY MUSH -- MEASURE OF LAST RESORT.

NOW EARLIER, MANAGER SCHIFF SUGGESTED THAT TODAY IN COURT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WENT IN AND SAID, THERE'S NO JURISDICTION AND WHEN THE JUDGE SAID, IF THERE'S NO JURISDICTION TO SUE, THEN WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO.

THE DOJ AS HE REPRESENTED IT SIMPLY SAID, WELL, IF THEY CAN'T SUE THEN THEY CAN IMPEACH.

AS IF THAT WAS THE DIRECT ANSWER, JUST GO FROM IF YOU CAN'T SUE THE NEXT STEP IS IMPEACHMENT.

THAT DIDN'T SEEM RIGHT TO ME BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS WHAT DOJ WOULD SAY.

DOJ AS PUT OUT A STATEMENT.

I DON'T HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING, THEY DON'T HAVE A TRANSCRIPT READY YET AS FAR AS I KNOW.

BUT DOJ SAID, THIS IS A QUOTE FROM THE STATEMENT.

THE POINT WE MADE IN COURT IS SIMPLY CONGRESS HAS NUMEROUS POLITICAL TOOLS IT CAN USE IN BATTLES WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

APPROPRIATIONS, LEGISLATION, NOMINATIONS AND POTENTIALLY IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN IMPEACHMENT.

FOR EXAMPLE, IT CAN HOLD UP FUNDING FOR THE PRESIDENT'S PREFERRED PROGRAMS, PASS LEGISLATION HE OPPOSES OR REFUSE TO CONFIRM HIS NOMINEE.

THIS IS CONTINUING THEIR STATEMENT.

BUT IT IS ABSURD FOR SHARE MAN SCHIFF TO PORTRAY OUR MERE DESCRIPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO SOMEHOW ENDORSING HIS RUSH TO IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.

>> COUNSEL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR BLUMENTHAL TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

ON APRIL 24, 2019, ONE DAY AFTER THE MEDIA REPORTED THAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS FORMALLY ENTER THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACE STATE DEPARTMENT EXECUTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ORDER TO RECALL AM IS BASS DOOR MARIE YOVANOVITCH, AN ANTI-CORRUPTION CRUSADER.

WHY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP WANT IN HIS WORDS, TO, QUOTE, TAKE HER OUT.

END QUOTE.

>> MR. GUILIANI HAS PROVIDED THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

HE STATED PUBLICLY THAT THE REASON THEY NEEDED TO GET AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH OUT OF THE WAY WAS THAT SHE GOING TO GET IN THE WAY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS, THAT THEY WANTED.

THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN LAWYER'S EXPLANATION FOR WHY THEY HAD TO PUSH OUT, WHY THEY HAD TO SMEAR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

PRESIDENT'S OWN LAWYER GIVES IS THE ANSWER.

THAT OUGHT TO TELL US SOMETHING THAT COUPLE OF RESPECTS, ONE, THAT THE PRESIDENT'S OWN AGENT HAS SAID THAT SHE WAS I AM PEDESTRIAN DENT TO GETTING THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT ANTI-CORRUPTION CHAMPION, THIS ANTI-CORRUPTION CHAMPION WHO IS AS RECOGNITION CEREMONY FOR UKRAINIAN ANTI-CORRUPTION, SHE HAD AS IT THROWED IN HER FACE, WHO DIED A PAINFUL DEATH AT THE VERY CEREMONY ACKNOWLEDGING THIS OTHER CHAMPION FIGHTING CORRUPTION WHEN SHE GETS THE WORD, YOU NEED TO COME BACK ON THE NEXT PLANE.

NOW, ONE OF THE REASONS THE UKRAINIANS KNEW THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH RUDY GUILIANI IS THAT RUDY GUILIANI WAS TRYING TO GET THIS AMBASSADOR REPLACED.

YOU KNOW, HE SUCCEEDED.

AND THAT SENT A MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS THAT IF RUDY GUILIANI HAD THE JUICE WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECALL AN AMBASSADOR FROM HER POST THIS WAS SOMEBODY THAT NOT ONLY HAD THE EAR OF THE PRESIDENT TO COULD MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.

SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS, RUDY GUILIANI TELLS US WHY SHE HAD TO GO.

NOW, WHY THEY HAD TO SMEAR HER, WHY THE PRESIDENT COULDN'T SIMPLY RECALL HER, THAT'S HARDER TO EXPLAIN.

BUT REASON THEY WANTED HER OUT OF THE WAY IS THEY WANTED TO MAKE THESE INVESTIGATIONS GO FORWARD AND THEY KNEW SOMEONE THERE FIGHTING CORRUPTION WAS GETTING IN THE WAY OF THAT.

NOW I WANT TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HAVING THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN BOLTON.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORS WHO HAVE BEEN CALLED TO HEARINGS AND DEPOSITIONS.

THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR PRESIDENT CARTER, PROVIDED EIGHT HOURS OF PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY IN ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE INDIVIDUALS REGARDING THE INTERESTS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, ADMIRAL POINDEXTER PROVIDED OVER 25 HOURS OF TESTIMONY AND 20 HOURS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE COVERT ARMS TRANSACTIONS WITH IRAN.

FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY FOR PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN PROVIDED TURNOVER 20 HOURS OF PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY AND THREE ADDITIONAL HOURS OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY.

SAM BUREGER OF PRESIDENT CLINTON PROVIDED TWO HOURS OF PUBLIC HEARING 278 BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS.

CONDALEEZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH THREE HOURS OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY, ADDITIONAL CLOSED.

SPEWS AN RICE, PROVIDED CLOSED SESSION TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOW THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HANDLED IDENTIFICATION OF U.S. CITIZENS AND U.S. INTELLIGENCE REPORTS.

THERE IS AMPLE PRECEDENT WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE TESTIMONY OF NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORS.

YOU SAW I THINK PRESIDENT HE'S COUNSEL DANCING WRONG THE HEAD OF A PIN TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE BEFORE YOU WE CAN'T HAVE THESE PEOPLE COME HERE, HOUSE SHOULD SUE IN COURT AND WHY THEY'RE IN COURT SAYING THE COURT CAN'T HEAR IT.

I HAVE TO SAY I HAVE GREAT UNDERSTANDING FOR THE DIFFICULTY OF THAT POSITION.

I WOULD WANT TO BE IN POSITION OF HAVING TO ADVOCATE THAT ARGUMENT.

BUT IT GOES TO THE DEMONSTRATION OF BAD FAITH HERE.

HOW CAN YOU BE BEFORE THIS BODY SAYING YOU GOT TO GO TO COURT, THE HOUSE TO DERELICT BECAUSE IT DIDN'T GO TO COURT GO TO THE SAME COURT SAND 'THE HOUSE SHOULDN'T BE HERE.

HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

NOW THEY SAY THE HOUSE IS IN COURT, IT'S OKAY, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T THINK SO WE'LL TAKE IT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT IF WE HAVE TO.

WE DON'T THINK THAT IS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY.

THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM.

WHEN YOU HAVE BAD FAITH INVITATION OF PRIVILEGE WHEN YOU HAVE NON-IN FACT ASSERTION OF PRIM LEDGE, A PRESIDENT WHO WANTS TO CONTINUE TO COVER UP HIS WRONGDOING INDEFINITELY.

A PRESIDENT WHO IS TRYING TO GET FOREIGN HELP VERY NEXT ELECTION, THAT PROCESS OF GOING ENDLESSLY UP AND DOWN THE COURTS WITH DUPLICITOUS COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT PGH EWING ONE DAYS YOU CAN DO IT IN THE OTHER PLACE YOU CAN'T.

SHOWS THAT THE FLAW WITH A PRECEDENT THAT CONGRESS MUST EXHAUST ALL REMEDIES BEFORE CAN INSIST ON ANSWERS WITH THE ULTIMATE REMEDY OF IMPEACHMENT.

>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> WE TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

SO ORDERED.

>> Woodruff: WITH THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES THAT THERE WILL BE A SHORT BREAK.

AND WE -- WE'VE BEEN WATCHING SEVERAL HOURS OF BACK AND FORTH QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, BY THE ATTORNEYS -- RATHER BY THE SENATORS TAKING TURNS, REPUBLICANS THEN DEMOCRATS POSING QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM AND THEN TO THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MANAGERS.

I'M JOINED HERE AT OUR TABLE BY OUR EXPERT GUESTS WHO ARE BOTH LEGAL AND SENATE EXPERTS, LET ME START WITH VICTORIA NOURSE WHO IS SPECIAL COUNSEL TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

ALSO SERVED AS 'PELL PLAT LAWYER IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

AND AS VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S CHIEF COUNSEL IN 2015 TO 2016.

KIMBERLY WAYLY WAS ASSOCIATE COUNSEL SHE'S CURRENTLY VISITING PROFESSOR AND FELLOW IN LAW AND GOVERNMENT AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY'S WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW.

MICHAEL ALLEN WAS STAFF DIRECTOR OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY.

FINALLY JOHN HART, HE WORKED FOR CONGRESSMAN TOM COBURN, REPUBLICAN OF OKLAHOMA DURING OKLAHOMADURING THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON.

HE WORKED THEN FOR SENATOR COBURN FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN YEARS.

HELLO TO ALL OF YOU.

I WANT TO COME BACK TO SOME OF THESE, IT SEEMS TO ME MORE ARGUMENTATIVE, MORE PROBING QUESTIONS WE'VE BEEN HEARING TONIGHT.

RATHER THAN A SERIES OF WHAT WE CALL FRIENDLY QUESTIONS WITH DEMOCRATS ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS, ESSENTIALLY DESIGNED TO ILLUMINATE THE DEMOCRATS' ARGUMENT AND VICE VERSA, THE REPUBLICANS ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

YOU'VE HEARD MORE QUESTIONS POSED TO THE OTHER SIDE OR POSED TO BOTH.

SO AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCEEDING, CAME WHAT WHAT KIM WHALEY, ARE WE HEARING ANYTHING.

HOW DO YOU READ IT.

>> IT'S HARD TO SAY 23 WE'RE BUDGETING ANY OPINIONS -- IF WE'RE BUDGETING ANY OPINIONS.

AOUT THE BROADER SITUATION OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BOTH SIDES SEEM TO BE SAYING LISTEN THERE'S A NEW NORMAL BEING ESTABLISHED HERE.

THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM IS SAYING IF YOU REMOVE THIS PRESIDENT YOU'RE REALLY DIMINISHING EXECUTIVE POWER GOING FORWARD.

AND THEN WE'RE HEARING FROM ADAM SCHIFF THAT LISTEN, AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS WHICH I THINK FRANKLY IS THE STRONGER ARGUMENT THAT IF THERE ISN'T ANY SORT OF TICKETS FOR SPEEDING FOR THE PRESIDENCY, WE SEE A DEEPLY WEAKENED CONGRESS AND WE JUST, WE ALSO JUST HEARD, TALK ABOUT THE LAWYERS AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN THE COURT SAYING LISTEN, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS CONGRESS CAN LIMIT THE PRESIDENT'S POWER.

APPROPRIATIONS.

THAT'S WHAT THE IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT, NOT RESPECTING APPROPRIATIONS.

LEGISLATION.

AGAIN, THE EMPOWERMENT ACT WAS VIOLATED.

THE QUESTION REALLY IS WHAT IS THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE.

WHAT ARE THE LIMITS ON THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY GOING FORWARD.

THAT'S THE QUESTION RIGHT NOW FOR EVERY AMERICAN REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY AND I THINK THAT STARTED TO COME OUT IN THE LAST HOUR.

>> IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING?

MICHAEL ALLEN?

>> I HAVE HEARD A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THAT.

WHAT I FOUND MOST INTERESTING, I THINK, IS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS REPEATING OVER AND OVER THAT WE HAVE A JUSTICE RIGHT HERE WHO CAN DECIDE ANY MATTER OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND RESOLVE ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE.

TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE HE'S ALMOST OVER EMPHASIZED THIS TOO MUCH.

IS THIS CHIEF JUSTICE GOING TO SIT DOWN THERE, ROLL UP HIS SLEEVES AND MAKE A VERY CONTROVERSIAL DECISION HERE.

I THINK HE WILL DEFER AND SAY I'M THE PRESIDING OFFICER BUT THIS IS THE SENATE'S TRIAL AND IT'S A POLITICAL PROCESS AND THE SENATE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT THE CORRECT GOVERNING PRINCIPLE HAIR IS.

>> VIKTOR FORCE, DO YOU BELIEVE THEY'LL BE ABLE TO ENGAGE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN MAKING SOME OF THESE TOUGH CALL.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ACTUALLY THINK THAT.

I THINK THE POINT ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING THAT THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS IN COURT AT THE SAME TIME THEY'RE MAKING INCONSISTENT ARGUMENTS IN THE SENATE.

WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IS THEY'RE GOT BETWEEN A VICE.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO ARGUE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FOR MONTHS.

THE LAW IS DEFINITELY ON THEIR SIDE.

THERE ARE THREE CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT.

THERE ARE TWO DISTRICT COURT CASES ON THEIR SIDE.

NO ONE REALLY THINKS THERE'S ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY EXCEPT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

COURTS HAVE NEVER SAID THERE'S ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IN UNITED STATES VERSUS NIXON.

SO THEY FEEL VERY MUCH THAT THEY HAVE TO FIND SOME WAY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.

HOW CAN THEY, YOU KNOW, MANAGE TO GET THE KIND OF TESTIMONY THEY NEED IF THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING I GET TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU GET TO SEE.

THEY CAN NOT DO OVERSIGHT.

THEIR POWER OF OVERSIGHT WILL BE THEY'RE SAYINGITY MALL SAYING DEMOLISHED.

BREAKING DOWN THE NOTION OF THE PRESIDENCY.

IT MAKES THE PRESIDENCY MUCH MORE POWERFUL IF THE CONGRESS CANNOT COME IN AND ASK FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES WHICH THEY'VE BEEN AND HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SINCE 18923.

>> JOHN HART HOW MUCH DO SENATORS CAN CONSIDER THEIR DECISION.

HOW MUCH DO THEY THINK OF PRECEDENCE.

WE KNOW IT'S COME UP A NUMBER OF TIME IN THE QUESTIONS BUT AS THE NORS SIT THERE AND KNOW THEY'RE GETTING CLOSER TO HAVING TO MAKE A JUDGMENT.

THE FEW THAT ARE ON THE FENCE.

IN GENERAL WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA HOW THE SENATORS ARE GOING TO VOTE.

BUT HOW MUCH DO THEY THINK ABOUT PRECEDENT AND WHAT THIS MEANS TEN YEARS FROM NOW, A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW.

>> I THINK THEY'RE MINDFUL OF IT.

THE SENATORS DO HAVE A GREAT OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY ALREADY.

MY FORMER BOSS EXERCISED THAT VERY AGGRESSIVELY.

SO SENATORS SNE SHOULDN'T ASSUME THEIR POWERS OF OVERSIGHT WILL BE DIMINISHED.

THEY HAVE TO DO THE OVERSIGHT AND PRESENT IT AND THEN MAKE THEIR CASE TO THE PUBLIC.

I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE BELIEVING THAT THEIR OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY IS GOING TO BE ERODED HERE.

THERE'S A PROPORTIONALITY ISSUE HERE.

PHILBIN THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY MAKE THIS COMMENT.

HE TALKED ABOUT THIS IS A THERMAL NUCLEAR RESPONSE TO A SEPARATION OF POWERS CHALLENGE.

HE MENTIONED THE SPEEDING TICKET IDEA.

A LOT OF REPUBLICANS FEEL LIKE YOU DON'T -- YET THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT HOOKED THAT HAD THE APPEARANCE OF AN IMPROPRIETY BUT YOU DON'T IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY.

THERE'S A LACK OF PROPORTIONALITY AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT.

THE HOUSE HAS GONE THIS PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT TRACK AND THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE NOT REPEAT THIS IN THE FUTURE.

>> THAT'S A CONCERN FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE.

OUR CORRESPOND LISA DESJARDINS AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR ARE AT THE CAPITOL AT THIS HOUR GETTING LATER ON THIS THURSDAY NIGHT.

LISA, YOU'RE LISTENING.

YOU ALWAYS BRING US INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE PICKING UP FROM THE SENATORS.

WHAT ARE THEY SAYING RIGHT ABOUT NOW.

>> MY REPORTING HOLDS.

THE REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THEY DO HAVE THE VOTE TO BLOCK WITNESSES AND YOU KNOW WHO KNOWS.

IT'S HARD TO READ LEADER MCCONNELL BUT I SAW HIM GOING TO THE CHAMBER BEFORE THIS BREAK.

GIANT SMILE ON HIS FACE.

HE'S NOT ONLY ALWAYS A SMILING MAN BUT HE IS TONIGHT.

IT SEEMS THERE'S A SPIRIT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE TONIGHT AND THAT CORPORATIONCORRESPONDENCE TO MY REPORTING FROM HALF A DOZEN SOURCES IN FACT SENATOR ALEXANDER IS LEANING AND EXPECTING IT TO BE A NO AND WILL ANNOUNCE THAT NO TONIGHT.

WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE WHICH IS MUCH OF THE CONVERSATION NOW.

DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DECIDE DO THEY WANT ANOTHER KIND OF INTO THE LATE NIGHT TOMORROW NIGHT MOTION AFTER MOTION AFTER MOTION.

HOW HARD DO THEY WANT TO FIGHT THIS.

WHAT DO THEY WANT TO DO GOING DOWN THE STRETCH.

ALSO JUST FOR FUN AT THIS LATE HOUR I THOUGHT I WOULD ASK YOU AND ASK OUR VIEWERS HOW MANY QUESTIONS DO YOU THINK SENATORS HAVE ASKED SO FAR.

ANY GUESSES FROM THE PANEL.

>> WE KNOW THEY ASKED 90 ALL DAY YESTERDAY.

WHAT ARE WE GUESSING AT THIS POINT?

WHO WANTS TO TAKE A STAB.

>> 160.

>> TOTAL 160 OR ANOTHER COY INURY THAT'S THE TOTAL 160.

>> JOHN HART SAYS 160.

>> VERY GOOD GUESSES.

166.

>> SO LISA YOU'RE SAYING WHEN YOU SAY NO THAT MEANS NO VOTE ON WITNESSES AND NO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

ARE THERE OTHER SENATORS WHO MAY ANNOUNCE HOW THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE TONIGHT?

WE DO THINK OTHER SENATORS AND WE'RE WATCHING TO SEE IF THAT INCLUDES SENATOR COLLINS OF MAINE.

I DON'T MEAN TIMING ON THESE ANNOUNCES BUT I SUSPECT THEY MAY WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE SESSION CLOSES WHICH PROBABLY WON'T BE THAT LONG FROM NOW THE NEXT HOUR OR TWO.

I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISE IF THEY SEND OUT THOSE RELEASES AFTER THEY GET IN THEIR CAR AND LEAVE REPORTERS BEHIND FOR THE NIGHT.

THEY WILL BE BACK TOMORROW AGAIN SAME TIME 1:00 P.M. AFTER LUNCHTIME TOMORROW.

DEMOCRATS HAVE A LOT OF DECISIONS TO MAKE JUDY.

NOT ONLY HOW LONG THEY GO BUT THERE'S SOME TALK AFTER THE WITNESS QUESTION IS RESOLVED, IF IT IS RESOLVED QUICKLY TOMORROW AND IF WITNESSES ARE BLOCKED.

DOES THE SENATE WANT TO GO INTO OPEN DELIBERATIONS ABOUT WHETHER TO ACQUIT THIS PRESIDENT OR NOT.

THERE IS A SMALL SORT OF BIPARTISAN ARGUMENT FOR THOSE OPEN DELIBERATIONS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO TAKE HOLD OR NOT BUT THAT IS ONE OPTION OR THEY COULD KIND OF SIMPLY MOVE QUICKLY AND TO CLOSED DELIBERATIONS AS WELL.

SO TOMORROW IT SEEMS LIKE IT COULD BE A PRETTY WILD AND UNPREDICTABLE DAY AT LEAST FROM THE VANTAGE POINT WHEN WE GO TO BED OR WAKE UP WE'LL KNOW MORE.

>> LISA A QUESTION FOR SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T, HAS NOT COVERED THE CONGRESS.

I WOULD THINK THE SENATORS WOULD WANT TO EXPLAIN THEIR VOTES TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

BUT ARE YOU SAYING SOME OF THEM ARE ARGUING THEY'D RATHER NOT?

>> WELL IT'S COMPLICATED.

I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE MANY SENATORS WHO WOULD LIKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO STAND UP, HAVE A FEW MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE RATHER THAN UNDER THE GUISE OF A QUESTION THAT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS READS.

SENATORS ON THAT SIDE WOULD LIKE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

HOWEVER THERE ARE MANY SENATORS WHO WOULD LIKE THIS PROCESS TO MOVE ALONG.

IF THEY OPEN UP THOSE OPEN DELIBERATIONS THERE'S A FEAR THE TIMING ON THAT COULD JUST EXPAND INTO SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFICULT TO REALLY CONTAIN AND THEN IT SORT OF MAKES THE WEEKEND GO ALONG.

IF YOU FOLLOW THE CALCULATION THERE, IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR THE TRIAL TO WRAP UP THIS WEEKEND, MAKES IT GO INTO NEXT WEEK MORE LIKELY.

IT'S HARD TO SAY.

THIS IS ALL PART OF THE CALCULATION.

I THINK YOUR GUESS WOULD BE ABLE TO RING IN ON THIS TOO.

>> IF IT'S OPEN RATHER THAN CLOSED.

LET ME TURN QUICKLY TO YAMICHE ALCINDOR OUR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENCE WHO IS AT THE CAPITOL TONIGHT.

YAMICHE, YOU'VE BEEN DOING SOME REPORTING WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPORTING THE PRESIDENT WHO ARE REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT ARE YOU LEARNING?

>> EARLIER TODAY THE WHITE HOUSE IS BEING VERY VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THE VOTES TO BLOCK WITNESSES.

THAT HAS ALL CHANGED.

THEY'RE FEELING MUCH MORE CONFIDENT TONIGHT.

ONE SOURCE HE SAID IT'S ALL BUT CERTAIN THAT LAMAR ALEXANDER THAT SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE THAT HE WILL VOTE AGAINST HAVING WITNESSES AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE WANTS OF COURSE.

THEY WANT TO NOW FAST TRACK THIS.

THE PRESIDENT HAS THIS BIG SPEECH CALLED THE STATE OF THE UNION ON TUESDAY AND WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS BE ABLE TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE I'M AN ACQUITTED PRESIDENT I'M SOMEONE WHO THE DEMOCRATS TRIED TO TARGET WITH A PARTISAN ATTACK AND AS A RESULT I AM NO LONGER UNDER THAT CLOUD.

I CAN NOW TELL YOU I'LL BE LAUNCHING MY 2020 CAMPAIGN.

BY THE WAY HE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT ALL THE THINGS HE'S DOING SINCE IMPEACHMENT IS GOING ON LIKE A NEW TRADE DEAL, A MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS GOING ON AS WELL AS THE CAMPAIGNS.

>> HE'S HEADING TO, HE'S IN IOWA, MICHIGAN DOING SOME CAMPAIGNING.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER THEN.

AND CELEBRATING THE NEW TRADE AWE GREAT.

YAMICHE THANK YOU WE'LL GO RIGHT NOW TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF WHICH MANAGER SCHIFF SITS AS CHAIRMAN CONDUCTED A NUMBER OF DEPOSITIONS RELATED TO THIS IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS DEPOSED WAS INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INSPECTOR GENERAL MICHAEL ADD ATKINSON.

HAS THE WHITE HOUSE BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF HIS DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT.

DO YOU BELIEVE THIS TRANSCRIPT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

IF SO, WHY?

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

WE HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED THAT TRANSCRIPT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, MR. ATKINSON TESTIFIED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND HIPSY HAS RETAINED THAT TRANSCRIPT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WAS NOT TRAN MITTED TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THEREFORE UNDER THE HOUSE RESOLUTION 660 WAS NOT TURNED OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL SO WE'VE NOT SEEN IT.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

WE DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NEED TO SPHAWRS GETTING INTO MORE EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES BUT IF ONE WERE TO START GOING DOWN THAT ROAD, I THINK THAT THAT TRANSCRIPT COULD BE RELEVANT BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING FROM PUBLIC REPORTS IS THAT THERE WERE QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ABOUT HIS INTERACTIONS WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

AND THERE IS SOME QUESTION AND PUBLIC REPORTS ABOUT WHETHER THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON FORMS THAT WERE FILLED OUT.

AND WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN REVERENTATIONS WERE MADE ABOUT -- REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY CONTACTS WITH CONGRESS AND THAT THEN TIES INTO THE CONTACT THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER APPARENTLY HAD WITH THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE WHICH WE ALSO DON'T KNOW ABOUT.

SO, IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN THE ROAD, WE DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.

WE THINK THAT THIS, THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE REJECTED.

BUT IF ONE WERE TO GO DOWN THE ROAD OF ANY MORE EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE RELEVANT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER ALONG WITH THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'VE MENTIONED ABOUT WHISTLE BLOWERS BIAS, MOTIVATION, WHAT WERE HIS CONNECTIONS WITH THE WHOLE SITUATION OF THE BIDENS AND APPARENTLY IF HE WORKED WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

HE WORKED ON UKRAINE ISSUES ACCORDING TO PUBLIC REPORTS.

HOW DID THAT ALL TIE IN.

ALL THOSE THINGS WOULD BECOME RELEVANT IN THAT EVENT.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, SENATORS MANSION AND SINEMA.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATORS JONES, MANSION AND SINEMA IS DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

SO MUCH OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AS WELL AS THE PRESENTATIONS HAVE FOCUSED ON THE COMPLETENESS OF THE HOUSE RECORD.

SHOULD THE HOUSE HAVE INITIATED A FORMAL ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES AFTER THE PASSAGE OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 660.

AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE HOUSE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT OR INSUFFICIENT TO FIND THE PRESIDENT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, WHAT DUTY, IF ANY, DOES THE SENATE OWE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO ENSURE THAT ALL RELEVANT FACTS ARE MADE KNOWN IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT AT SAM POINT INSOME POINTIN THE FUTURE.

>> SENATORS, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

IT WAS APPARENT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WOULD FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS, WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL ISSUED ITS OCTOBER 8TH DIATRIBE SAYING IT WOULD NOT PAWSHTS PATE IN THE INQUIRY, THAT THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN ANY ACCOMMODATION.

WE TRIED TO GET DON MCGAHN TO TESTIFY.

WE TRIED THAT ROUTE.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING THAT ROUTE FOR NINE MONTHS NOW.

WE TRIED FOR QUITE SOME TIME BEFORE WE TOOK THAT MATTER TO COURT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SUCCESS.

AND I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THERE WAS NO DESIRE ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT TO REACH ANY ACCOMMODATION.

QUITE THE CONTRARY.

THE PRESIDENT WAS ADAMANT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO FIGHT IN EVERY SINGLE WAY.

NOW, IF THEY HAD AN INTEREST IN ACCOMMODATION, WE WOULDN'T BE BEFORE YOU WITHOUT A SINGLE DOCUMENT.

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED.

WE WOULD HAVE ENTERED AN ACCOMMODATION PROCESS OVER CLAIMS OF NARROW CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AS TO THIS SENTENCE OR THAT SENTENCE.

THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO MAKE A PARTICULARIZED CLAIM THAT WE COULD HAVE NEGOTIATED OVER.

BUT OF COURSE THEY DID NONE OF THAT.

THEY SAID YOUR SUBPOENAS ARE INVALID.

YOU HAVE TO DEPART FROM THE BIPARTISAN RULES HOW YOU CAN CONDUCT YOUR DEPOSITIONS.

EESSENTIALLY OUR IDEA OF THE COMBINATIONS IS YOU HAVE TO DO IT OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAYS.

THE PRESIDENT'S INSTRUCTIONS OR MARCHING ORDERS WERE GO POUND SAND.

WHAT IS THE SENATE'S RESPONSIBILITY IN THE CONTEXT OF A HOUSE IMPEACHMENT FOR WHICH THERE WAS SUCH BLANKET OBSTRUCTION.

BEAR IN MIND IF YOU COMPARE THIS TO THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT, RICHARD NIXON TOLD HIS PEOPLE TO COOPERATE.

PROVIDED DOCUMENTS TO THE CONGRESS.

YES, THERE WERE SOME THAT WERE WITHHELD AND THAT LED TO LITIGATION AND THE PRESIDENT LOST THAT LITIGATION.

BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

FRANKLY THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE MADE THIS A DIFFICULT CASE BUT DIDN'T BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE OBSTRUCTION.

IN TERMS OF THE SENATE RESPONSIBILITY, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS.

WHEN SITTING FOR THAT PURPOSE THEY SHALL BE ON OATH OR AFFIRMATION.

AND SO YOU HAVE THE SOLE POWER.

THAT EXPRESSION IS USED I BELIEVE ONLY TWICE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

ONE WHEN IT TELLS THE HOUSE THAT WE HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING AND AGAIN THE PROCESS WE USED AND THEY CAN REPEAT THIS AS OFTEN AS THEY'D LIKE IT'S THE SAME PROCESS AS THE CLINTON AND NIXON IMPEACHMENTS.

AND I'M SURE CLINTON AND NIXON THOUGHT THAT WAS UNFAIR BUT NONETHELESS WE USED THE SAME PROCESS.

BUT HERE, YOU HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO TRY THE CASE AND IF YOU DECIDE THAT ONE WEEK IS NOT TOO LONG IN THE INTEREST OF A FAIR TRIAL TO HAVE DEPOSITIONS OF KEY WITNESSES, THAT IS FOR YOU TO DECIDE.

YOU GET TO DECIDE HOW TO TRY THE CASE.

AND SO IF YOU DECIDE THAT YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT MATERIALITY AND RELEVANCE AND PRIVILEGE AND MAKE THOSE LINE BY LINE REDACTIONS IF THEY ARE WARRANTED.

IF YOU DECIDE YOU TRUST THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO DECIDE WHETHER A PRIVILEGE IS BEING APPLIED PROPERLY OR IMPROPERLY TO CONCEAL CRIME OR FRAUD OR FOR LEGITIMATE NATIONAL SECURITY PURPOSE YOU HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

THAT IS EVERY BIT WITHIN YOUR RIGHT.

WE WOULD URGE YOU TO DO SO.

CALM FOR THE PRESIDENT SAYS CONSTITUTION DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT.

THE EXPOOTION DOESN'T PROHIBIT THAT.

IT GIVES YOU THE SOLE POWER TO TRY THIS CASE.

IN ARE YOUR SOLE POWER, YOU CAN SAY WE MADE A DECISION, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE PARTIES ONE WEEK.

WE'RE GOING TO LET THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE A FAIR DETERMINE AGENT OF WHO IS PERTINENT AND WHO IS NOT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THE HOUSE DECIDE WHO ARE THE PRESIDENT'S WITNESSES ARE WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET THE PRESIDENT DECIDE WHO THEIR WITNESSES HERE.

THOSE ARE TOP PRIORITIES AND WE'LL LET THE CHIEF JUSTICE DECIDE WHO IS MATERIAL AND WHO IS NOT.

THAT IS FULLY WITHIN YOUR POWER.

AND SO IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTENTION OR WILLINGNESS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO ACCOMMODATE IN THE HOUSE.

IF THERE WAS, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE.

INSTEAD, THERE WAS WE WILL FIGHT ALL SUBPOENAS AND UNDER ARTICLE TWO I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT.

AND NOW WE'RE HERE.

AND I MAKE THE ASTOUNDING CLAIM IF THEIR CASE IS SO GOOD LET THEM TRY IT WITHOUT WITNESSES.

THAT WOULDN'T FLY BEFORE ANY JUDGE IN AMERICA AND IT SHOULDN'T FLY HERE EITHER.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE.

>> I SEND TO THE DESK A QUESTION ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND NORS LEE LEE -- SENATORS LEE AND JOHNSON.

>> THANK YOU.

>> QUESTION FROM SENATORS BLACKBURN AND SENATORS LEE AND JOHNSON IS FOR COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE FIRST CONTACT BETWEEN ANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER REGARDING THE INFORMATION THAT RESULTED IN THE COMPLAINT.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR STAFF COMMUNICATED IN ANY FORM WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER SINCE THAT FIRST DATE OF CONTACT?

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

THE ANSWER IS, WE DON'T KNOW.

NOBODY KNOWS.

WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE NURSE CONTACT WAS.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY -- FIRST CONTACT WAS.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CONTACTS THERE WERE OR WHAT THE SUBSTUPS OF THESUB-- SUBSTANCE OF THE CONTACT WAS.

THROATS BEEN SHROUDED.

THE WAY WE SHOULD MOVE THIS BODY IS TO ACQUIT.

IF WE WERE TO GO TOWN THE ROAD OF ANY WITNESSES THOSE ARE CERTAINLY RELEVANT QUESTIONS AND RELEVANT THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE CONTACTS WERE, WHAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S MOTIVATION WAS, WHAT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER AND ANY STAFFERS AND HOW THAT PLAYED ANY ROLE IN THE FORMULATION OF THE COMPLAINT THAT IT ALL BE RELEVANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WHOLE PROCESS BEGAN.

NOW, I DO WANT TO MENTION SOMETHING ELSE WHILE I HAVE THE MOMENT IN RESPONSE TO SOME THING THAT MANAGER SCHIFF SAID.

AGAIN THE HOUSE MANAGER'S COME UP AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY KEEP SAYING THE SAME THING AND WE KEEP POINTING TO ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND LETTERS THAT DISPROVE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

THEY COME UP AND SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IT'S MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY, BLANKET DEFIANCE.

THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO.

AND THEY SAY THAT WELL, THEY WOULD HAVE ACCOMMODATED IF WE WERE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS.

THE OCTOBER 8TH LETTER THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT WHO MR. SCHIFF SAYS ACTS IN BAD FAITH AND CALLED DUPLICITOUS HERE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.

THEN A LETTER ON OCTOBER 8TH TO MR. SCHIFF AND OTHERS EXPLAINING, QUOTE, IF THE COMMITTEE'S WISH TO RETURN TO THE REGULAR ORDER OF OVERSIGHT REQUESTS, WE STAND READY TO ENGAGE IN THAT PROCESS AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH WELL ESTABLISHED BIPARTISAN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AND RESPECT FOR THE SEPARATION OF POWERS ENSHRINED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

THAT WAS FOLLOWED UP IN AN OCTOBER 18 LETTER THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE, A LETTER THAT SPECIFIED THE DEFECTS IN THE SUBPOENAS THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED.

NOT PLAN KENTUCKY DEFIANCE NOT SYM -- NOT BLANKET DEFIANCE NOT WE DON'T COOPERATE, SPECIFYING THE LEGAL ERRORS IN THE SUBPOENAS.

AND IT CONCLUDED, QUOTE, AS I SPHAITD INSTATED IN MY LETTER OF OCTOBER 8 IF THEY WANT TO RETURN TO OVERSIGHT CAN WE STAND READY TO ENGAUGE IN THAT PROCESS AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH WELL ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AND RESPECT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF POWERS ENSHRINED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

THE PRESIDENT STOOD READY TO ENGAGE IN ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS.

IF ANYONE SAID MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY HERE, IT WAS THE HOUSE.

BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS DETERMINED THAT THEY WANT JUST TO GET THEIR IMPEACHMENT PROCESS DONE ON THE FASTEST TRACK THEY COULD.

THEY AT ANY TIME WANT TO DO ANY AWE CALL DAWTION.

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO ANY LITIGATION.

THEY DIDN'T WANT ANYTHING TO SLOW THEM DOWN.

THEY WANT TO GET IT DONE AS FAST AS THEY COULD SO IT WAS FINISHED BY CHRISTMAS.

IT WAS A PARTISAN CHARADE FROM THE BEGINNING.

THAT RESULTED IN A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT WITH BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THIS CHAMBER SHOULD CONDONE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM NEVADA.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DESK FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR ROSEN IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

DURING THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALL WITH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, HE INSISTED THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO INVOLVING THE EXCHANGE OF AID IN A WHITE HOUSE MEETING FOR AN INVESTIGATION.

BUT HE ALSO SAID, ACCORDING TO SONDLAND, THAT THE STALEMATE OVER AID WILL CONTINUE UNTIL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCES THE INVESTIGATIONS.

ISN'T THAT THE DEFINITION OF THE EXACT QUID PRO QUO THAT THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED DIDN'T EXIST?

>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT A QUID PR3 QUO IS.

WHEN SOMEONE SAYS I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO THIS BUT THEN SAYS I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO THIS.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

SONDLAND CALLS THE PRESIDENT AND THE FIRST WORDS OUT OF HIS MOUTH ARE NO QUID PRO QUO.

MAO THAT'S SUSSPISHZ SUSPICIOUS ENOUGH WHEN SOMEONE BLURTS OUT A FALSE EXCULPATORY BUT THE PRESIDENT GOES ON NONETHELESS TO SAY NO QUID PRO QUO AT THE SAME TIME ZELENSKY HAS TO GO TO THE MIC TO ANNOUNCE HIS INVESTIGATIONS, THAT'S THE IMPLICATION AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO IT.

SO NO QUID PRO QUO OVER THE MONEY BUT ZELENSKY'S GOT TO GO TO THE MIC.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THAT, YOU SHOULD DEMAND TO SEE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S NOTES, TIM MORRISON'S NOTES, AND OF COURSE SONDLAND GOES AND TELLS UKRAINE ABOUT THIS COUPLING OF THE MONEY IN ORDER TO GET THE INVESTIGATIONS.

LET ME JUST, IF I CAN, GO THROUGH A LITTLE HISTORY OF THAT.

YOU GOT RUDY GIULIANI AND OTHERS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE UKRAINIANS MAKE THESE STATEMENTS IN THE RUN UP TO THAT JULY PHONE CALL.

THIS IS THE QUID PRO QUO OVER THE MEETING.

SO THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THE STATEMENT THAT THEY WANT.

THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THE ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE INVESTIGATIONS.

AND AROUND THAT TIME PRIOR TO THE CALL, THE PRESIDENT PUTS A FREEZE ON THE MILITARY AID.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT CALL AND THE MINUTE THAT ZELENSKY BRINGS UP THE DEFENSE SUPPORT AND DESIRE TO BUY MORE JAVELINS, THAT'S WHEN THE PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY GOES TO THE FAVOR HE WANTS.

SO THE UKRAINIANS AT THIS POINT KNOW THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING IS CONDITIONED ON GETTING THESE INVESTIGATIONS ANNOUNCED.

BUT IN THAT CALL THE MINUTE MILITARY AID IS BROUGHT UP, THE PRESIDENT PIVOTS TO THE FAVOR HE WANTS OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS THEY ALREADY KNOW ABOUT.

NOW, AFTER THAT CALL, THE UKRAINIANS QUICKLY FIND OUT ABOUT THE FREEZE IN AID.

ACCORDING TO THE FORMER DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER, THEY FOUND OUT WITHIN DAYS.

JULY 25TH IS THE CALL.

BY THE END OF JULY UKRAINE FINDS OUT THE AID IS FROZEN.

THE DEMONSTRATEITY FOREIGN MINISTER IS TOLD BY ANDRE YERMAK KEEP THIS SECRET.

WE DON'T WANT THIS GETTING OUT.

SHE HAD PLANNED TO COME TO WASHINGTON.

THEY CANCEL HER TRIP TO WASHINGTON BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THIS MADE PUBLIC.

AND SO IN AUGUST, THREE THIS EFFORT TO GET THE INVESTIGATIONS ANNOUNCED.

THAT'S THE ONLY PRIORITY FOR THE PRESIDENT AND HIS MEN.

SO THEY KNOW THE AID IS WITHHELD, THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T GET THE MEETING, THEY KNOW THE PRESIDENT WANTS THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE UKRAINIANS LIKE THE AMERICANS CAN ADD UP TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR.

BUT IF THEY HAD ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT, SONDLAND MOVES ALL DOUBT SENT 1ST IN WARSAW WHEN SONDLAND GOES OVER TO YERMAK AND SAYS UNTIL YOU ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS YOU'RE NOT GETTING THIS AID.

HE MAKES EXPLICIT WHAT THEY ALREADY KNEW.

THAT NOT JUST THE MEETING BUT THE AID ITSELF WAS TIED.

ON SEPTEMBER 7TH, SONDLAND TELLS ZELENSKY DIRECTLY THE AID IS TIED TO YOUR DOING THE INVESTIGATIONS.

IT'S AT THAT POINT ON SEPTEMBER 7TH WHEN ZELENSKY IS TOLD BY SONDLAND DIRECTLY OF THE QUID PRO QUO THAT ZELENSKY FINALLY CAPITULATES AND SAYS ALL RIGHT, I'LL MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT ON CNN.

AND THEN THE PRESIDENT THE CAUGHT.

THE SCHEME IS EXPOSED.

THE PRESIDENT IS FORCED TO RELEASED AID.

WHAT DOES ZELENSKY DO?

HE CAN SELLS THE CNN INTER-- CAN SELLS THE CNN INTERVIEW BECAUSE THE MONEY WAS FORCE TO BE RELEASED WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT.

THAT'S THE CHRONOLOGY HERE.

MAKE NO MISTAKE.

UKRAINIANS ARE SOPHISTICATED ACTORS.

ONE ON OF THE WITNESSES SAID THEY FOUND OUT VERY SHORTLY AFTER THE HOLD.

THE UKRAINIANS HAD GOOD TRADE CRAFT.

THEY UNDERSTOOD VERY QUICKLY ABOUT THIS HOLD.

WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE FIGHTING A WAR AND YOUR ALLY IS HOLDING MILITARY AID WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE ONLY THING THEY TELL YOU THEY WANT FROM YOU ARE THE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

IF IT WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH, THEY HAMMERED THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT.

THEY TOLD YERMAK ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY WITHOUT ANNOUNCING THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

THEY TELL ZELENSKY HIMSELF ON SEPTEMBER 7TH, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE MONEY WITHOUT THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

AND FINALLY THE RESISTANCE OF THIS ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMER ZELENSKY IS BROKEN DOWN.

HE DESPERATELY NEEDS THE AID.

FINALLY THE RESISTANCE IS BROKEN DOWN, ALL RIGHT I'LL DO IT.

HE'S GOING TO GO ON CNN.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

I HAVE A MESSAGE TO BE SENT TO THE DESK, A QUESTION AND IT'S ON MY BEHALF AND SENATOR RUBIO, SENATOR CREATE MOW AND CRAPO AND SENATOR RISCH.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR MORAN, CRAPO AND RISCH READS AS FOLLOWS.

IMPEACHMENT -- FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL ARE DRAMATIC AND CONSEQUENTIAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT ESPECIALLY IN AN ELECTION YEAR WITH A HIGHLY DIVIDED CITIZENRY.

YET CHECKS AND BALANCES IS AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE.

DOES THE CONGRESS HAVE OTHER MEANS SUCH AS APPROPRIATIONS, CONFER MAKES AND OVERSIGHT HEARINGS -- CONFIRMATIONS AND OVERSIGHT HEARINGS LESS DAMAGING TO OUR NATION?

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

AND YES, CONGRESS HAS A LOT OF INCREMENTAL STEPS, A LOT OF MEANS SHORT OF IMPEACHMENT TO ADDRESS FRICTION OR CONFLICTS WITH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

THAT WAS A POINT THAT I WAS MAKING A MOMENT AGO WITH RESPECT TO WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAD SAID IN LITIGATION TODAY WHERE THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR SENIOR ADVISORS.

ACTUALLY I THINK IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE IN THAT CASE, I BEG YOUR PARDON.

BUT IN ANY EVENT THERE'S A DISPUTE IN THAT CASE ABOUT INFORMATION REQUEST.

TE POINT THE DOJ WAS MAKING THERE IS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES INCREMENTAL STEPS WHERE THERE'S FRICTION BETWEEN THE BRANCHES.

AS I MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY, FRICTION BETWEEN THE BRANCHES ASKAND BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE ON INFORMATION REQUEST IN PARTICULAR IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN.

IT'S BEEN WITH US SINCE THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION.

THEY DENIED THE NEGOTIATION IN THE JAY TREATY SO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THERE'S THIS PHOTOGRAPHICKION LEADING TO JOCKEYING FOR POSITION AND ACCOMMODATIONS AND CONFRONTATION AND LEADING TO WAYS OF WORKING THINGS OUT WHEN CONGRESS DEMANDS INFORMATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE ASSERTS TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THIS FEAR WHERE THE EXECUTIVE CAN BE ABLE TO KEEP INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL.

BUT THE FIRST STEP IN RESPONSE TO THAT SHOULD BE THE ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS.

AND THE COURTS HAVE DESCRIBED THAT AS CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED, SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY FIRST THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME TO HAVE THE BRANCHES NEGOTIATE AND TRY TO COME TO AN ARRANGE THE THAT ADDRESSES THE LEGITIMATE MEANS OF BOTH BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT.

PART OF THAT ACCOMMODATIONS PROCESS AS THE CONFRONTATION CONTINUES CAN INVOLVE CONGRESS EXERCISING THE LEVERAGE OF AUTHORITY THAT IT HAS UNDER ARTICLE 1 TO TRY TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE EXECUTIVE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, APPROPRIATATIONS.

NOT FUNDING.

POLICY PRIORITIES OF A PARTICULAR ADMINISTRATION.

CUTTING FUNDING ON SOME POLICY PRIORITIES.

OR LEGISLATION, NOT PASSING SHATION THAT THE PRESIDENT FAVORS OR PASSING OTHER LEGISLATION THAT THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T FAVOR.

OR THE SENATE HAS THE POWER NOT TO APPROVE NOMINEES AND AS I'M SURE OF YOU WELL KNOW HOLDING UP NOMINEES IN COMMITTEE CAN BE EFFECTIVE IN SOME POINTS AND PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE ADMINISTRATION TO GET PARTICULAR POLICY KICKED LOOSE, THINGS ACCOMPLISHED IN A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY.

ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS OF THE ENTER PLAY OF THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT THAT'S PART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN.

BUT IMPEACHMENT THE VERY LAST RESORT FOR THE VERY MOST SERIOUS CONFLICT WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO REARE SOLVE IT.

SO THERE ARE ALL OF THESE MULTIPLE INTERMEDIATE STEPS AND THEY ALL SHOULD BE USED.

THEY ALL SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN AN INCREMENTAL FASHION.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THIS CASE.

THIS WAS NO ATTEMPT AT THE ACCOMMODATIONS.

THERE'S NO ATTEMPT TO EVEN RESPOND TO THE LEGAL ISSUES, THE LEGAL DEFECTS THAT COUNCIL FOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES POINTED OUT IN EACH OF THE SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEES.

AND EVEN THE ISSUE OF AGENCY COUNSEL, THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE ON THAT AND THAT'S REALLY SOMETHING THAT IN THE PAST EVEN LAST APRIL WITH THE HOUSE COMMITTEE IN THE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM WITH CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS THERE WAS A DISPUTE ABOUT THAT AND WE WOULDN'T ALLOW A WITNESS TO GO WITHOUT AGENCY COUNSEL.

AND THEN WE HAD A MEETING WITH CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS AND IT GOT WORKED OUT AND IT WAS TURNED INTO A TRAN SCRIBED INTERVIEW I THINK AND THE AGENCY COUNSEL WAS PERMITTED TO BE THERE.

BUT THE COMMITTEE GOT THE INTERVIEW.

THEY GOT TO TALK TO THE PERSON AND THEY GOT THE INFORMATION THEY WANT BUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH GOT TO HAVE AGENCY COUNSEL THERE TO PROTECT EXECUTIVE BRANCH INTERESTS.

THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK BUT THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT AT ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM THE HOUSE IN THIS CASE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS.

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

>> THANK YOU.

SENATOR MARKEY IS QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MARGINS READS AS FOLLOWS.

IT'S RECENTLY REPORTED THAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE HACKED THE UKRAINIAN NATURAL GAS COMPANY BURISMA PRESUMABLY LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ON HUNTER BIDEN.

OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS WARNED US THE RUSSIANS WILL BE INTERFERING IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

IF DONALD TRUMP IS ACQUITTED OF THESE PENDING CHARGES BUT IS LATER FOUND TO HAVE INVITED RUSSIAN OR OTHER FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 2020 ELECTION, WHAT RECOURSE WILL THERE BE FOR CONGRESS UNDER THE DERSHOWITZ STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT WHICH REQUIRES A PRESIDENT TO HAVE COMMITTED A STATUTORY CRIME.

>> SENATOR NO RESOURCE.

ABSOLUTELY NO RECOURSE.

IF IN FACT IT WAS LATER TO BE SHOWN THAT NOT ONLY DID THE RUSSIANS HACK BURISMA TO TRY TO GET DIRT ON THE BIDENS AND DRIP DRIP DRIP IT OUT AS THEY DID IN 2016 ELECTION.

LET'S SAY IT WERE FOUND THAT THEY DID SO AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN WHOSE CONTENTS IS UNKNOWN, THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKED THE PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA TO HACK BURISMA BECAUSE HE COULDN'T GET UKRAINIANS TO DO WHAT HE SO NOW HE WAS TURNING TO THE RUSSIANS TO DO IT.

UNDER THE DERSHOWITZ THEORY OF THE CASE, UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S THEORY OF THE CASE THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT HOW BAD IT IS BECAUSE IT GOES FURTHER THAN THAT.

IF THE PRESIDENT WENT FURTHER AND SAID TO PUTIN IN THAT SECRET MEETING, I WANT YOU TO HACK BURISMA I COULDN'T GET THE UKRAINES TO DO IT.

I TELL YOU WHAT, YOU HACK BURISMA AND YOU GET ME SOME GOOD STUFF, THEN I'M GOING TO STOP SENDING MONEY TO UKRAINE.

AND I'LL GO A STEP FURTHER.

I'LL STOP SENDING MONEY TO UKRAINE SO THEY CAN'T FIGHT YOU.

AND WHAT'S MORE THOSE SANCTIONS THAT WE IMPOSED ON YOU FOR YOUR INTERVENTION ON MY BEHALF IN THE LAST ELECTION, I'M GOING TO MAKE THOSE GO AWAY.

I'M GOING TO SIMPLY REFUSE TO ENFORCE THEM.

I'M GOING TO CALL IT A POLICY DIFFERENCE.

THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE UNDER THEIR STANDARD.

THAT'S NOT ABUSE OF POWER.

YOU CAN'T SAY THAT'S CRIMINAL.

YES, IT'S AKIN TO CRIME.

MAYBE IT'S NOT BUT THAT'S WHAT ACQUITTAL HERE MEANS.

IT MEANS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS FREE TO ENGAGE IN ALL THE REST OF THAT CONDICK AND IT'S PERFECTLY FINE.

AND WHAT'S THE REMEDY THAT MY COLLEAGUES RENDIVES OF THE PRESIDENT SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO THAT ABUSE?

WELL, YOU CAN HOLD UP A NOMINEE.

THAT SEABLES SEEMS WHOLLY OUT OF SCALE WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM.

THAT PROCESS OF APPROPRIATIONS OR NOMINATIONS IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR A CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WILL BETRAY THE NATIONAL SECURITY FOR ITS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST.

HE GOT ON THE PHONE WITH ZELENSKY ASKING FOR THIS FAVOR THE DAY AFTER BOB MUELLER TESTIFIES.

WHAT DO YOU THINK HE IS CAPABLE OF DOING THE DAY AFTER HE'S ACQUITTED HERE?

THE DAY AFTER HE FEELS I DODGED ANOTHER BULLET.

I REALLY AM BEYOND THE REACH OF THE LAW.

MY ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS I CAN'T BE INDICTED, I CAN'T EVEN BE INVESTIGATED.

THEY CLOSED THE INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER BEFORE HE EVEN OPENED IT.

AND I CAN'T BE IMPEACHED EITHER.

I GOT THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.

I GOT BILL BARR SAYING I CAN'T BE INVESTIGATED, I CAN'T BE PROSECUTED.

I CAN BE IMPEACHED HOWEVER, THAT'S WHAT BILL BARR SAYS BUT I'VE GOT OTHER LAWYERS THAT SAY I CAN'T BE IMPEACHED.

THAT'S A RECIPE FOR A PRESIDENT WHO IS ABOVE THE LAW.

THAT ONLY IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, QUITE THE CONTRARY.

FOUNDERS KNEW COMING FROM A MONARCHY THAT IF THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE EXTRAORDINARY POWERS TO THEIR NEW EXECUTIVE, THEY NEEDED AN EXTRAORDINARY CONSTRAINT.

THEY NEEDED A CONSTRAINT SMEZ RUT WITH -- COMMISERATE WITH THE EVIL THEY SOUGHT TO CONTAIN.

THAT REMEDY IS NOT HOLDING UP THE NOMINATION.

THE REASON THEY GAVE FOR AN EXECUTIVE WHO ABUSE THEIR POWER AND ENDANGER THE COUNTRY, DANGER THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTIONS IS THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

AS ONE OF THE EXPERTS SAID ON THE HOUSE, IF THIS CONDUCT ISN'T AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THEN NOTHING IS.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.

>> I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS ANDERSON, CRUZ, PORTMAN, TOOMEY, SULLIVAN, MURKOWSKI TO THE COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR GRAHAM AND THE OTHER SENATORS IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE THAT BOLTON WERE TO TESTIFY IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE ALLEGATIONS STILL WOULD NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND THAT THEREFORE FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS HIS TESTIMONY WOULD ADD NOTHING TO THIS CASE.

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

LET ME START BY JUST MAKING VERY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

THERE WAS NO AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NOT THAT SORT OF LINKAGE THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE SUGGESTED.

BUT LET ME ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY WHICH I UNDERSTAND TO BE ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON WOULD COME AND TESTIFY THE WAY THE "NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE ALLEGES THE WAY HIS BOOK DESCRIBES THE CONVERSATION, THEN IT IS CORRECT THAT EVEN IF THAT HAPPENED, EVEN IF HE GAVE THAT TESTIMONY, THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT STILL WOULD NOT RISE TO AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

AND THAT'S FOR TWO REASONS.

LET ME EXPLAIN THAT.

THE FIRST IS ON THEIR FACE, THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AS THEY'VE BEEN LAID OUT BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS, EVEN IF YOU TAKE EVERYTHING THAT'S ALLEGED IN THEM, THEY DON'T HAVE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, RISE TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

BECAUSE EVEN THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVING CHARACTERIZED THEM AS INVOLVING A CRIME.

SO THAT'S ONE LEVEL OF THE ANSWER THAT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE WOULD REQUIRE A CRIME.

EVEN GOING BEYOND THAT TO THE SECOND LEVEL.

THE THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT THEY'VE ALLEGED PUT ASIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A CRIME.

THE THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER THAT THEY'VE ASSERTED IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CONFORMS WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

IT DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON SUBJECTIVE INTENT AND IT IS SUBJECTIVE INTENT ALONE.

AND AS PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ EXPLAINED AND AS I'VE EXPLAINED AND I DON'T MEAN IN THE MORE RADICAL PORTION OF HIS EXPLANATION THEORY.

I MEAN JUST IN TERMS OF WHAT IS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

HE EXPLAINED THAT SOMETHING THAT IS BASED ENTIRELY ON SUBJECTIVE INTENT IS EQUIVALENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION.

IT'S EQUIVALENT TO EXACTLY THE STANDARD THAT THE FRAMERS REJECTED BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY MALLEABLE.

IT DOESN'T DEFINE ANY REAL STANDARD FOR AN OFFENSE.

IT ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE ANY CONDUCT THAT ON ITS FACE IS PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE AND ON THE BASIS OF YOUR PROJECTION OF THE DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT CONDUCT, A DISAGREEMENT WITH THE REASONS FOR IT TO ATTRIBUTE A BAD MOTIVE TO TRY TO SAY THERE'S A BAD SUBJECTIVE MOTIVE FOR DOING THAT AND WE'LL MAKE IT IMPEACHABLE.

THAT DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD.

SO AT THE COMMON-LAW THEY WOULD CALL THE REACTION TO A CHARGE LIKE THIS A DEMUR.

YOU DEMUR AND SIMPLY SAY EVEN EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS TRUE THAT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE LAW AND THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE HERE.

EVEN IF EVERYTHING YOU ALLEGE IS TRUE AND EVEN IF JOHN BOLTON WOULD SAY IT'S TRUE, THAT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD.

BECAUSE THE WAY YOU TRIED TO DEFINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD, THIS THEORY OF ABUSE OF POWER IS FAR TOO MALLEABLE.

IT DOESN'T, IT GOES PURELY TO SUBJECTIVE INTENT AND IT CAN'T BE RELIED UPON.

THEN THE THIRD LEVEL OF MY ANSWER IS THIS.

WOVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE IS A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY INTEREST IN BOTH OF THE MATTERS THAT WERE RAISED ON THAT TELEPHONE CALL.

THE 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND THE BIDEN BURISMA AFFAIR.

BECAUSE THERE IS LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY INTEREST IN BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES IF IT WERE TRUE THERE WERE SOME CONNECTION, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SUGGESTED OR THOUGHT THAT WELL MAYBE I SHOULD HOLD UP THIS AID UNTIL THEY DO SOMETHING.

THAT'S PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE WHERE THERE IS THAT LEGITIMATE PUBLIC POLICY INTEREST.

IT'S JUST THE SAME AS IF THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION GOING ON.

THE PRESIDENT WANTS A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO PROVIDE SOME ASSISTANCE.

IF A LEGITIMATE FOREIGN POLICY ASSISTANCE TO GET AND TO USE LEVERAGE TO GET THAT ASSISTANCE.

IF THERE'S A LEGITIMATE POLICY ISSUE ON BOTH THOSE I THINK WE'VE DENIED THAT CLEARLY, IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE FOR THERE TO BE THAT LINKAGE.

AGAIN I'LL CLOSE WHERE I BEGAN WHICH IS THERE WAS NO SUCH LINKAGE HERE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

BUT TAKING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THE QUESTION AS PHRASED, EVEN IF AMBASSADOR BOLTON TESTIFIED TO THAT, EVEN IF YOU ASSUMED IT WERE TRUE, THERE IS NO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE STATED IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR DURBIN FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

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

>> SENATORS, IT'S BEEN A LONG COUPLE DAYS SO LET ME BE BLUNT ABOUT WHERE I THINK WE ARE.

I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID HERE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY MUCH QUESTION AT THIS POINT ABOUT WHY THE MILITARY AID WAS WITHHELD OR WHY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COULDN'T GET IN THE DOOR OF THE OVAL OFFICE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY CONFUSION ABOUT WHY HE WANT JOE BIDEN INVESTIGATED OR WHY HE WAS PUSHING THE CROWD STRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ROLE QUESTION ABOUT THAT AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WE COULD EXPECT IF AND WHEN JOHN BOLTON TESTIFIES ALTHOUGH THE DETAILS OF WHICH WE CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY MUCH QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

BUT WHAT'S EXTRAORDINARY IS ALTHOUGH THEY CAN CLAIM THAT THIS WAS A RADICAL MISTAKE OR NOTION OF PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ THEY SEEM TO BE DISTANCING HIM AND THEY'RE ACCUSING HIM IN HIS ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENSE.

THEY ARE STILL EMBRACING THAT IDEA BECAUSE WHAT THEY JUST TOLD YOU ADMITTEDLY IN OUTLINE OF A, B AND C WHAT THEY JUST TOLD YOU IS ACCEPT EVERYTHING THE HOUSE SAID EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT WITHHELD THE MILITARY AID TO COERCE UKRAINE IN HELPING HIM CHEAT IN THE ELECTION.

EXCEPT THESE INVESTIGATIONS ARE A SHAM.

EXSETACCEPT THAT HE OBSTRUCTED ALL SUBPOENAS AND WITNESSES.

ACCEPT ALL OF THAT.

TOO BAD, THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO.

THAT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE.

THE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES, THIS IS NOW WHERE WE'VE COME TO IN THIS MOMENT OF OUR HISTORY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN WITHHOLD HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN AID THAT WE APPROPRIATED CAN DO SO IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, CAN DO SO TO COERCE AN ALLY IN ORDER TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN AN ELECTION AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, SENT HOLD UP AN ELECTION.

THAT'S NOT IMPEACHABLE.

THEY CAN ABUSE THEIR POWER ALL THEY WANT, THIS PRESIDENT THE NEXT PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE THE POWER ALL THEY WANT IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THEIR RE-ELECTION AS LONG AS, HERE'S THE LIMITING PRINCIPLE, AS LONG AS THEY THINK THEIR RE-ELECTION IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

WELL, THAT'S QUITE A CONSTRAINT.

THAT'S WHERE WE'VE COME NOW AFTER TWO AND-A-HALF CENTURIES OF OUR HISTORY.

I THINK OUR FOUNDERS WOULD BE AGHAST THAT ANY WOULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE I THINK THEY WOULD BE AGHAST.

HAVING COME OUT OF A MONARCHY, HAVING LITERALLY RISKED THEIR LIVES, HAVING TAKEN THIS GREAT GAMBLE THAT PEOPLE COULD BE ENTRUSTED TO RUN THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT AND CHOOSE THEIR OWN LEADERS.

RECOGNIZING THAT WE ARE NOT ANGELS, SETTING A SYSTEM THAT WOULD HAVE AMBITION, COUNTER AMBITION THAT WE WOULD SO WILLINGLY A DE INDICATE THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND SAY THAT A CHIEF EXECUTIVE NOW HAS THE FULL POWER TO COERCE OUR ALLY, A FOREIGN POWER TO INTERVENE IN OUR ELECTION BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST THEY GET RE-ELECTED.

REALLY WHAT WE THINK THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE CONDONED.

OR DO WE THINK THAT THIS IS PRECISELY THE KIND AND CHARACTER OF CONDUCT THAT THEY PROVIDED A REMEDY FOR.

I THINK BE KNOW THE ANSWER -- WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

THEY WROTE A BEAUTIFUL CONSTITUTION.

THEY UNDERSTOOD A LOT ABOUT HUMAN NATURE.

THEY UNDERSTOOD AS WE DO THAT ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

AND THEY PROVIDED A CONSTRAINT BUT IT WILL ONLY BE AS GOOD AND AS STRONG AS THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THIS INSTITUTION'S WILLINGNESS TO UPHOLD IT.

TO NOT LOOK AWAY FROM THE TRUTH.

THE TRUTH IS STARING US IN THE EYES.

WE KNOW WHY THEY DON'T WANT JOHN BOLTON TO TESTIFY.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

THEY JUST DON'T WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HEAR IT IN ALL OF ITS UGLY GRAPHIC DETAIL.

THEY DON'T WANT THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR ON LIVE TV OR EVEN A NON-LIVE DEPOSITION TO SAY I TALKED WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HE TOLD ME IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS JOHN.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

TO>> TO BE CONTINUED.

>> SENATOR FROM GEORGIA.

>> QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS HOLLY, CRUZ, PURDUE, GARDNER, LANG FURTHER, HOEVEN, SCOTT OF FLORIDA, PORTMAN AND FISHER.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR LOEFFLER AND OTHER SENATORS IS FOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT MUCH AS REPORTED BY POLITICO, QUOTE, IN JANUARY 1999 THEN SENATOR JOE BIDEN ARGUED STRONGLY AGAINST DEPOSING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES OR SEEKING NEW EVIDENCE IN A MEMO SENT TO HEAD OF BILL CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

END QUOTE.

POLITICO REPORTS THAT SENATOR SCHUMER AGREED WITH BIDEN.

WHY SHOULD THE BIDEN RULE NOT APPLY HERE?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

IN A MEMORANDUM THE DATED JANUARY 5TH, 1919 THAT IS CAPTIONED ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, SENATOR BIDEN DISCUSSED SOME HISTORY FIRST REGARDING TWO SENATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE PUT FORWARD IN THE SENATE THAT WERE SUMMARILY DECIDED.

THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.

THESE TWO CASES DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SENATE MAY DISMISS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT HOLDING A FULL TRIAL OR TAKING ANY EVIDENCE.

PUT ANOTHER WAY, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT IMPOSE ON THE SENATE THE DUTY TO HOLD A TRIAL.

IN FACT THE SENATE MAY NOT HOLD A TRIAL EBB THOUGH THE HOUSE WISHES TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND HOLD A FULL TRIAL AND THE ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION ARE PRESENT.

HE WENT ON TO SAY IN A NUMBER OF PREVIOUS IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THE SENATE HAS REACHED THE JUDGMENT THAT IN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE AS SOUL TRIER OF IMPEACHMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE TO TAKE NEW EVIDENCE OR HEAR LIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY.

THIS FOLLOWS FROM THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS IN AT LEAST THREE TRIALS AND IT LISTED THE THREE TRIALS OF JUDGES AND THE SENATE CONSIDERED A SUMMARY FOR DISPOSITION ON THE MERITS.

IN NO CASE DID THE SENATE DECLINE TO CONSIDER A MOTION FOR DISPOSITION IS BEYOND THE SENATE'S AUTHORITY OR FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION.

THE FRAMERS DID NOT MEAN THAT THIS POLITICAL PROCESS AS TO BE A PARTISAN PROCESS.

INSTEAD, THIS MEANT IT TO BE POLITICAL IN THE HIGHER SENSE.

THE PROCESS WAS TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE WAY THAT WOULD BEST SECURE THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR IN THEIR PHRASE, THE GENERAL WELFARE.

THAT WAS THE BIDEN DOCTRINE OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

NOW SOME MEMBERS IN THIS CHAMBER AGREE WITH THAT.

SOME MEMBERS THAT SERVE ON THE AS MANAGERS ALSO AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT NOW THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT.

THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE MANAGER SCHIFF JUST MOMENTS AGO DID WHAT HE'S NOW FAMOUS FOR AND CREATED A CONVERSATION PURPORTEDLY FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES REGARDING RUSSIA HACKING OF BURISMA.

IT'S THE SAME THING HE DID WHEN HE STARTED HIS HEARINGS.

SO THIS IS A COMMON PRACTICE BUT IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT COMMON PRACTICE AND COMMON PROCEDURES, THE BIDEN RULE IS ONE.

I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS SOMETHING ELSE BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN ABOUT TWO JUDGES HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

I WANT TO ADDRESS TWO THINGS VERY QUICKLY.

MY VERY FIRST CASE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO.

OVER 30 YEARS AGO.

33 YEARS AGO.

MY CLIMATE LOST IN THE DISTRICT COURT.

THEY SAID WELL WE'LL APPEAL TO THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.

WENT TO THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT SO SUCCESSFUL WE DIDN'T WIN THERE EITHER.

MY CLIMATE SAID WELL WHAT DO WE DO.

ONE OPTION WE COULD FILE A PETITION FOR SURCHERRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BUT CHANCES ARE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THE CASE BUT AT THIS POINT IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO USE SO LET'S AGREED.

A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED AND THAT'S WHY YOU CONTINUE TO UTILIZE COURTS WHEN APPROPRIATE.

THAT'S WHY YOU DO IT AND YOU DON'T RELY ON WHAT A DISTRICT COURT JUNK SAID.

THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY THEY ARE ASKING YOU AS A SENATE BODY TO WAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

NOW THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.

THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO VOTE TO DETERMINE OR HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE VOTE TO WAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND THAT IS WHAT THEY THINK IS THE APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THIS PROCEEDING TO CONTINUE.

I THINK YOU SHOULD ADOPT THE BIDEN RULE.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> THE SENATOR FROM COLORADO.

>> THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEND A QUESTION TO THE DESK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR WARNER.

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATORS BENNET AND WARNER TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

MR. SEKULOW SAID IF THE SENATE VOTES FOR WITNESSES HE WILL CALL A LONG CHAIN OF WITNESSES THAT WILL GREATLY LENGTHEN THE TRIAL.

ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE SENATE WILL ESTABLISH BY MAJORITY VOTE WHICH AND HOW MANY WITNESSES THERE WILL BE.

ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT PRIOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE SENATE COMMONLY HAVE HEARD WITNESSES WHO DID NOT TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE?

>> THANK YOU MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I THANK THE DISTINGUISHED SENATORS FOR THEIR QUESTIONS.

CERTAINLY IT IS THE CASE THAT ALL WE ARE ASKING THE SENATE TO DO IS TO HOLD A FULL AND FAIR TRIAL CONSISTENT WITH THE SENATE'S RESPONSIBILITY.

ARTICLE ONE SECTION THREE OF THIS CONSTITUTION.

THE SENATE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE POWER WITH RESPECT TO AN IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

AND THIS GREAT INSTITUTION HAS INTERPRETED THAT DURING THE 15 DIFFERENT IMPEACHMENT TRIALS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE DURING OUR NATION'S HISTORY.

A FULL AND FAIR TRIAL MEANS WITNESSES BECAUSE THIS INSTITUTION, EVERY TIME IT'S HELD A TRIAL HAS HEARD WITNESSES.

ALL 15 TIMES.

INCLUDING IN SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE THERE WERE WITNESSES WHO DID NOT TESTIFY IN THE HOUSE WHO TESTIFIED IN THE SENATE.

NOW THE POINT BECAUSE RAISED EARLIER ABOUT BEN GAUZY.

AND TRAY TREY GOWDY IS A GRAY MAN, A GOOD LAWYER I'M SURE HE'S PLEASED THE DISTINGUISH GENTLEMAN FROM THE COMMON STATE THAT HIS NAME HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO THIS PROCEEDING.

TREY GOWDY, ACCORDING TO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS SAID THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T COOPERATE.

THE WHITE HOUSE IN THAT INSTANCE AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT TURNED OVER TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO A HOUSE SUBPOENA.

THAT'S COOPERATION.

SEVERAL WITNESSES APPEARED VOLUNTARILY IN BENGHAZI, INCLUDING GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS, FORMER C.I.A.

DIRECTOR.

SUSAN RICE WHO AT THE TIME WAS THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.

BEN RHODES, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.

ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF.

GENERAL CARTER HAMM FORMER COMMANDER OF AFRICON.

FORMER SECRETARY LEON PANETTA.

HE ALSO SHOWED UP.

GENERAL MICHAEL FLYNN.

FORMER CIA DIRECTOR.

WHO ELSE SHOWED UP?

THE FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON.

SHE TESTIFIED PUBLICLY UNDER OATH FOR 11 HOURS.

THAT'S COOPERATION.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IN THE HOUSE.

NO DOCUMENTS, NO WITNESSES, NO INFORMATION, NO COOPERATION, NO NEGOTIATION, NO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, BLANKET DEFIANCE.

THAT'S WHAT RESULTED IN THE OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ARTICLE.

SO ALL WE'RE ASKING IS FOR THE SENATE TO HOLD A FAIR TRIAL CONSISTENT WITH PAST PRACTICE.

AT EVERY SICKLE SICK SINGLE TRIAL THE SENATE HAS HELD, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF WITNESSES IS 33.

YOU CANNOT NORMALIZE LAWLESSNESS.

WE CANNOT NORMALIZE CORRUPTION.

WE CANNOT NORMALIZE ABUSE OF POWER, A FAIR TRIAL.

LASTLY, OF THE WITNESSES THAT DID TESTIFY, VOLUNTARILY SHOWED UP, WHAT DID THEY HAVE TO SAY?

THESE WERE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WITNESSES.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

HOW DID HE CHARACTERIZE THE SHAKEDOWN SCHEME, THE GEO POLITICAL SHAKEDOWN AT THE HEART OF THESE ALLEGATIONS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, QUID PRO QUO.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, CRAZY.

DR. FIONA FILL, A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN, IMPROPER.

JOHN BOLTON, DRUG DEAL.

WHAT WOULD THE FRAMERS HAVE SAID.

THE HIGHEST OF HIGH CRIMES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

>> THANK YOU, MR.

MANAGER.

SENATOR FROM UTAH.

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

>> THANK YOU.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR ROMNEY IS FOR BOTH PARTIES AND I BELIEVE THE HOUSE MANAGER WILL GO FIRST.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE WAS DIRECTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO TELL THE UKRAINIANS THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD UPON THE CONDITION OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS?

>> SENATOR, THE EVIDENCE THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE RECORD, THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE WHO HAD DIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE CONDITIONING OF AID ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

THE FIRST WAS GOURD I GORDON SONDLAND ON SEPTEMBER 7 HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT AND THEREAFTER RELATED TO TIM MORRISON AS WELL AS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

IN THE CONVERSATION THAT BY SONDLAND DESCRIBED AT THE TIME, HE SAID THE PRESIDENT ON THE ONE HAND SAID NO QUID PRO QUO BUT THEN WENT ON TO SAY THAT ZELENSKY HAS TO ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND HE SHOULD WANT TO.

SO THE PRESIDENT MADE THE DIRECT LINK TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THEN MADE THE DIRECT LINK OR HAD ALREADY MADE THE DIRECT LINK TO ANDRE YERMAK BUT AFTER THE CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT, HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ZELENSKY HIMSELF AND CONVEYED WHAT HE HAD BEEN INFORMED BY THE PRESIDENT THAT SLNS WAS GOING TO HAVE ON TO CONDUCT THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT'S WHEN ZELENSKY MADE THE COMMITMENT TO BE ON CNN.

BIEFDZ SONDLANDAMBASSADOR SONDLAND ACKNOWLEDGED THE TIE BETWEEN THE TWO AND SO DID MICK MULVANEY.

THAT VIDEO IS ETCHED IN OUR MINDS FOR ALL OF HISTORY.

WALK, TRY TO BEEN WALK THAT BACK AS HE MAY.

HE WAS QUITE ADAMANT WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THAT.

AND THE REPORTER WHO FOLLOWED UP WHEN HE SAID THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY THEY HELD UP THE AID WAS THE DESIRE FOR THIS INVESTIGATION INTO 2016.

AND THE RECORD SAID WELL WHAT'S YOU'RE SAYING IS A QUID PRO QUO.

YOU DON'T GET THE MONEY UNLESS YOU DO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE DEMOCRATS.

THE CHIEF OF STAFF'S ANSWER WAS WE DO IT ALL THE TIME.

GET OVER IT.

SO YOU HAVE IT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S OWN CHIEF OF STAFF.

YOU HAVE IT FROM ONE OF THE THREE AMIGOS WHO ARE THE PRESIDENT'S PEOPLE AND BEAR IN MIND BIEFDZ BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND -- DEPUTIZED TO BE PART OF THE PORTFOLIO SOMEONE GIVEN HE'S THE EU AMBASSADOR BECAUSE THIS WAS ABOUT BURDEN SHARING BUT HE DIDN'T OF COURSE.

HE SAID IT WAS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS.

THE THIRD DIRECT WITNESS WILL BE JOHN BOLTON IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO BRING HIM BEFORE YOU.

BUT THERE ALREADY ARE WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD PEOPLE WHO SPOKE DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THIS AND TO WHICH THE CONDITIONALITY WAS MADE CLEAR AFTER THE CONVERSATION ... >> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.

I BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYONE TOLD THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ANYONE TELL THE UKRAINIANS DIRECTLY THAT THE AID WAS LINKED.

I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE QUESTION.

AND THE ANSWER IN THE HOUSE RECORD IS NO.

I DESCRIBED ON SATURDAY WHEN I WALKED THROUGH AT LENGTH AND SO I REFER BACK TO THAT PRESENTATION.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND SENATOR JOHNSON.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INDICATED IN APPROXIMATELY THE SEPTEMBER 9TH TIME FRAME AS WE ALL HEARD THE STATEMENT HE ASKED THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT SAID I WANT NOTHING I WANT NOTHING I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO.

YOU'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS ABOUT GO OUT TO THE MICROPHONE OR DO THE RIGHT THING BUT I BELIEVE THE STAIN WAS HE NEEDS TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

HE NEEDS TO DO WHAT HE CAMPAIGNED ON.

EVEN EARLIER SENATOR JOHNSON AGAIN BECAUSE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD AMBASSADOR, TOLD SENATOR JOHNSON THAT THERE WAS A LINKAGE.

SO SENATOR JOHNSON ASKED THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY.

WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

THE PRESIDENT SAID WAS THERE, WHEN SENATOR JOHNSON ADD WHEN THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR INVESTIGATIONS, THE PRESIDENT ANSWERED NO WAY.

I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

WHO TOLD YOU THAT.

AND THE ANSWER WAS SONDLAND.

AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD COME TO THAT PRESUMPTION PRIOR TO SPEAKING TO THE PRESIDENT.

WE SAW THE MONTAGE FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ABOUT PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS AND GUESSING AND SPECULATING AND BELIEF.

SO WE ALSO REMEMBER THE MONTAGE IN WHICH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ASKED DID ANYONE ON PLANET TELL YOU THAT THE AID WAS LINKED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

AND HIS ANSWER WAS NO.

SO IN THE HOUSE RECORD BEFORE US, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD ANYONE TO TELL THE UKRAINIANS THAT THE AID WAS LINKED.

AND IN FACT, THE ARTICLE FROM THE DAILY BEAST YESTERDAY -- THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> SENATOR FROM OREGON.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I SEND A QUESTION TO THE DIRECT FOR SENATOR SHOTS, LOEFFLER AND FOR MYSELF.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION IS FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS FROM SENATORS MERKLEY, SCHATZ AND CARPER.

YESTERDAY ALAN DERSHOWITZ STATED THAT A PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMPEACHED FOR SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN HIS RELOOKION CAMPAIGN IF HE THINKS IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR COMMITTING A CRIME.

THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAS SAID, QUOTE, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT, END QUOTE.

AREN'T THESE VIEWS EXACTLY WHAT OUR FRAMERS WARRANTED ABOUT, AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENT ESCAPING ACCOUNTABILITY?

IF THESE ARGUMENTS PREVAIL WON'T FUTURE PRESIDENTS HAVE THE UNCHECKED ABILITY TO USE THEIR OFFICE TO MANIPULATE FUTURE ELECTIONS LIKE CORRUPT FOREIGN LEADERS IN RUSSIA AND VENEZUELA.

>> SENATOR, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, SENATORS.

BEFORE I ADDRESS IT, I JUST WANTED TO COMPLETE MY ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION.

ON SEPTEMBER 7TH, THE PRESIDENT HAS A CONVERSATION WITH GORDON SONDLAND AND THE PRESIDENT SAYS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT ZELENSKY HAS GOT TO GO TO THE MIC AND HE SHOULD WANT TO DO SO.

THIS IS THE CONTEXT WHETHER THE AID IS BEING WITHHELD IN ORDER TO SECURE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

AFTER THAT CALL ON THE SAME DAY, SONDLAND CALLS ZELENSKY, THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND SAYS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE MONEY UNLESS YOU DO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

SO YOU'VE GOT THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND SONDLAND AND SONDLAND CONVEYING THE MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS.

IN SHORT SUCCESSION.

AND SO I THINK YOU SEE THAT THE MESSAGE THE PRESIDENT GAVE TO SONDLAND WAS IN FACT COMMUNICATED IMMEDIATELY TO THE UKRAINIANS.

AND OF COURSE SONDLAND WENT ON TO EXPLAIN TO AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND TO TIM MORRISON THAT THE PRESIDENT WANT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX.

WHAT WAS MEANT BY THAT IS HE WANT TO HAVE TO GO OUT AND ANNOUNCE PUBLICLY THESE INVESTIGATIONS IF HE WAS GOING TO GET THE MONEY.

REMEMBER SONDLAND EXPLAINED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S A BUSINESSMAN AND BEFORE HE GIVES AWAY SOMETHING HE WANTS TO, BEFORE HE SIGNS THE CHECK HE WANTS TO GET THE DELIVERABLE.

AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAYS THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY AS SOON AS, UKRAINE DOESN'T OWE HIM ANYTHING.

SO IT WAS CLEAR TO EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE UKRAINIANS, THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET THE MONEY UNLESS THEY DID THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANT.

AND THAT'S THE CONNECTION ON SEPTEMBER 7TH MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR.

IN TERMS OF THE DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT, WHEN COUPLED WITH THE PRESIDENT WHO BELIEVES IT UNDER ARTICLE TWO HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.

YES.

THIS IS A PRESCRIPTION OF A PRESIDENT NOT JUST AN IMPURE RED BUT AN ABSOLUTE PRESIDENT WITH ABSOLUTE POWER.

BECAUSE IF A PRESIDENT CAN TAKE THIS ACTION AND EXPORT, ONE COUNTRY CAN EXTORT ANY COUNTRY.

IF HE CAN MAKE A DEAL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA OR TAKE AN ACTION ANTAGONIST TO WHAT CONGRESS HAS WITH RESPECT TO THAT COUNTRY, CAN VIOLATE THE LAW IN DOING IT, TO GET HELP IN HIS RE-ELECTION.

AND I THINK THAT EXAMPLE THAT SENATOR KING CANE ASKED ABOUT IS DIRECTLY ON POINT.

THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE HERE UNLESS THE PRESIDENT THINKS IT'S IN THE INTEREST OF HIS RE-ELECTION.

SO YES HE CAN ASK HIS I RAYLY PRIME MINISTER TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES AND CALL HIS OPPONENT AN ANTI-SEMITE IF HE WANTS TO GET U.S. MILITARY AID.

AND THAT PRINCIPLE CAN BE APPLIED ANYWHERE TO ANYTHING.

TO THE GRAVE DANGER OF THE COUNTRY.

THAT IS THE WATCHFUL EXTENSION OF NOT JUST FROM WHAT PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ SAID YESTERDAY BUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SAID TODAY.

YOU CAN ACCEPT EVERY FACT IN THE ARTICLES WE STILL THINK IT'S FINE AND BEYOND THE REACH OF THE CONSTITUTION.

THAT IS A PRESCRIPT%!

'wK@:M!THAT ARE KNOWN THERE WOULD BE A PERSONAL FAMILY FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THAT SITUATION.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IS IN CHARGE OF UKRAINE POLICY.

HIS SON IS SITTING ON THE BOARD OF A COMPANY THAT IS KNOWN FOR CORRUPTION.

THE PUBLIC REPORTS ARE THAT APPARENTLY THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS INVESTIGATING THAT COMPANY AND ITS OWNER THE OLIGARCH AT THE TIME, INVENTORY VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS QUITE OPENLY SAID HE LEVERAGED A BILLION DOLLARS IN U.S. LOAN GUARANTEES TO ENSURE THAT THAT PARTICULAR PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED AT THAT TIME ONE COULD PUT TOGETHER FAIRLY EASILY A SUGGESTION THAT THERE WAS A FAMILY FINANCIAL BENEFIT COMING FROM THE END OF THAT INVESTIGATION BECAUSE IT PROTECTED THE POSITION OF THE YOUNGER BIDEN ON THE BOARD THAT WOULD BE A PURELY PRIVATE PECUNIARY GAIN.

THAT'S THE BUCKET PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ WAS DESCRIBING AND THE ONE THAT WAS NECESSARILY PROBLEMATIC WHERE HE SAID THAT'S WHERE THESE GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE A CRIME AND A POTENTIALLY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE DISTINCTION THERE THAT THAT IS ONE THAT IF ALL THOSE FACTS LINED UP UNDER PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ'S CAT GHOARIZATION OF THINGS WOULD BE.

PROBLEMATIC CATEGORY.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU COUNSEL.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATOR CARDIN AND SENATOR VAN HOLLEN, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE HOUSE MANAGERS THAT I WILL SUBMIT TO THE DESK.

>> THANK YOU.

THE QUESTION FROM SENATOR KLOBUCHAR AND THE OTHER SENATORS.

I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT QUESTION AND IT IS DIRECTED TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

NO.

WE DON'T HAVE THE QUESTION BEFORE US.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR KLOBUCHAR TO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

COULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND TO THE ANSWER JUST GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL AND PROVIDE ANY OTHER COMMENTS THE SENATE WOULD BENEFIT FROM HEARING BEFORE WE ADJOURN FOR THE EVENING.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

WE'VE JUST HEARD FROM THE HOUSE, FROMMEDFROMMED PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS -- THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IS THE USUAL NONSENSE.

AS WE DRAW TO A CLOSE TONIGHT THERE ARE ONLY THREE THINGS TO REMEMBER.

ONE, THIS IS A TRIAL.

IT'S A TRIAL AS ANY TEN YEAR OLD KNOWS WE SHOULD HAVE WITNESSES.

WE ARE TOLD WE CAN'T HAVE WITNESSES BECAUSE AFTER ALL THE HOUSE SAYS WE PROVED OUR CASE AS WE HAVE AND SO WHY SHOULD WE NEED WITNESSES.

WELL THAT'S LIKE SAYING IN A BANK ROBBERY THE DA ANNOUNCES THAT HE'S PROVED HIS CASE.

HE'S HAD ALL THE WITNESSES.

AND THEN AN EYE WITNESS SHOWS UP AND HE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BECAUSE AFTER ALL, THE DA WAS SURE HE PROVED HIS CASE FIRST.

THAT'S ABSURD AND A TEN YEAR OLD KNOWS IT'S ABSURD AND THAT'S THE PRESIDENT'S CASE AGAINST WITNESSES.

THAT'S WE HAD ENOUGH.

THERE'S ALWAYS MORE.

THERE AREN'T TOO MANY MORE HERE BUT THE FACT IS WHEN THERE ARE WITNESSES TO BE ASKED THEY SHOULD BE ASKED.

SECOND, THERE'S ONLY ONE REAL QUESTION IN THIS TRIAL.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS A DISTRACTION.

THE THEY CARDAMONNITY GAME BEING PLAYED BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

DISTRACTIONS.

DON'T LOOK AT THE REAL QUESTION.

LOOK AT EVERYTHING ELSE.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT.

LOOK AT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, IRRELEVANT.

LOOK AT THE HOUSE PROCEDURES, IRRELEVANT.

LOOK AT HUNTER BIDEN, IRRELEVANT.

LOOK AT WHETHER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S POLICY WAS AS GOOD AS OR BETTER THAN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICY WITH RESPECT TO UKRAINE, IRRELEVANT.

LOOK AT THE STEEL DOSSIER, IRRELEVANT.

THERE'S ONLY ONE RELEVANT QUESTION.

DID THE PRESIDENT ABUSE HIS POWER BY VIOLATING THE LAW TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO EXTORT THAT COUNTRY INTO HELPING HIM INTO HELPING HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN BY SLANTED RING HIS OPPONENT.

THAT'S THE ONLY RELEVANT QUESTION FOR THIS TRIAL.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE PROVED THAT QUESTION BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

THE ONE THING THE HOUSE MANAGERS THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL GOT RIGHT WAS QUOTING ME AS SAYING IT WAS BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

IT IS INDEED BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

THAT'S WHY ALL THESE DISTRACTIONS.

THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT'S PEOPLE ARE TELLING YOU TO AVOID WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID OF THE WITNESSES .

THEY KNOW THE WITNESSES, THEY KNOW MR. BOLTON AND OTHERS WILL ONLY STRENGTHEN THE CASE AND YES WE HEAR WELL IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THE CASE IS SO STRONG, WHY DO YOU NEED MORE WITNESSES.

BECAUSE THE TRUTH CAN BE BOLSTERED.

I YIELD BACK.

>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE TRIAL ADJOURN UNTIL 1:00 P.M. FORTY JANUARY 31ST.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE TRIAL IS ADJOURNED.

>> AND WE HAVE JUST HEARD THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS CALL THE SENATE TRIAL TO ADJOURNMENT AT THE REQUEST OF THE MAJORITY LEADER.

WHAT'S NOT CLEAR AT THIS AT LEAST AT THIS MOMENT FOR ME IS WHETHER THERE ARE STILL TIME LEFT FOR MORE QUESTIONS.

THE INTENTION HAD BEEN FOR THE SENATORS TO CONCLUDE THEIR QUESTIONS AFTER 16 HOURS ROUGHLY EIGHT HOURS ON EACH SIDE.

WE'RE NOT SURE THAT THEY'VE REACHED THAT TOTAL.

MAYBE WHEN WE CHECK WITH OUR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT LISA DESJARDINS IN JUST A MOMENT WE CAN FIND OUT.

BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS GO TO OUR GUESTS AT THE TABLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING AND THAT IS VICTORIA FORCE, KIMBERLY WHALEY, MICHAEL ALLEN AND JOHN HART AND ASK EACH ONE OF YOU, GIVEN WHAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT AND GIVEN THE REPORTING THAT IT LOOKS AS IF THE HOUSE MANAGERS WILL NOT GET ENOUGH SENATORS TO SUPPORT THE IDEA OF A WITNESS.

MICHAEL ALAN, OF WITNESSES, WHETHER IT'S WITNESSES, THE IDEA OF WITNESSES, WHAT ALONE SPECIFIC WITNESSES JOHN BOLTON AND SO FORTH.

HAVE THE MANAGERS REALLY GONE AS FAR AS THEY CAN GO WITH THE CASE THAT THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE.

WHAT ELSE, WHAT OTHER ARGUMENTS COULD THEY MAKE TO CHANGE MINDS AT THIS HOUR.

>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS MUCH ELSE THAT YOU CAN DO WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN INTRODUCED TO SO FAR.

I THINK THEY HAVE REPEATEDLY GONE BACK TO THE SAME ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND I'M NOT SURE I'VE SAT THROUGH ALL 16 HOURS BUT I'M CERTAIN I'VE HEARD ALL THE ARGUMENTS TWO OR THREE TIMES.

I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME IS SORT OF A MOMENT OF STRATEGY THAT I WONDER IF LEADER MCDONALD REFLECTED ON BEFORE WE GOT INTO THIS PROCESS WHICH WAS WHEN PEOPLE WERE A LITTLE SHAKY, REPUBLICANS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD VOTE FOR WITNESSES OR NOT, HE SAID WELL LET'S JUST GET THROUGH THE Q&A SECTION OF THE TRIAL.

AND THEN MAKE A DECISION.

I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE FORESEEN WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT WHICH IS THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH VERY REPETITIVE ARGUMENTS.

PEOPLE ARE VERY VERY TIRED AND IT'S TOO WEEKS INTO THIS.

I'M CERTAIN THAT LAMAR ALEXANDER AND OTHERS MAY BE THINKING HEY LISTEN, I WAS FOR WITNESSES AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS BUT I AM NOT GOING TO LEARN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER NEW AND WE MIGHT AS WELL CUT THIS ONE LOOSE.

>> KIM WHALEY WHAT ELSE, I MEAN LOOKING BACK IT'S NOT OVER, AS WE SAID THERE STILL MAY BE QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED.

THERE'S A VOTE TO BE TAKEN ON WITNESSES PERHAPS AMONG OTHER THINGS BUT AS WELL AS THE FINAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

WHAT ELSE COULD THE MANAGERS HAVE DONE AT THIS POINT, IF ANYTHING.

>> I MEAN I AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE IN THE HOUSE TO ACTUALLY SUBPOENA THESE WITNESSES AND TO MOVE TO COMPEL .

BUT THAT'S WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE.

I THINK AT THIS POINT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO DESERVE TO HEAR THE FACT.

IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND WHAT'S INTERESTING REALLY IS THAT THIS IS NOT JUST I THINK A TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT BUT A TRIAL OF THE SENATORS.

REMEMBER THAT A VAST MAJORITY OF THE 70'S I THINK OF AMERICAN PEOPLE WANTED TO SEE, HEAR FROM WITNESSES.

UKRAINE IS COMPLICATED FOR PEOPLE BUT A TRIAL IS NOT.

PEOPLE UNDERSTAND FROM JUST REGULAR TRIAL, A TRIAL MEANS WITNESSES.

FOR NOT HAVING WITNESSES TRUNCATING THIS IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING HOW THAT PLAYS OUT FOR THESE SENATORS WHO I THINK I AGREE ARE TIRED.

THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO DO BUT THE STAKES ARE SO HIGH FOR THEM.

>> JOHN HART, I MEAN IT IS THE CASE THAT THE POLLS HAVE BEEN DONE SHOW MAJORITY TWO THIRDS OF AMERICANS AT LEAST ARE SAYING MAYBE THREE FOURTHS ARE SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES.

IT'S LOGICAL, IT'S COMMON SENSE.

>> RIGHT.

>> WHAT IS THE 5R789 AGAINST IT.

THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS JUDY.

NUMBER ONE, PRESIDENT TRUMP I THINK HAD AN INITIAL INSTINCT TO HAVE WITNESSES TO OPEN IT UP.

FRANKLY THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE BETTER STRATEGY BUT WE'RE AT A POINT NOW WHERE I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE MUCH MORE THE WITNESSES COULD ADD.

WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT POINT TODAY IN OUR MEDIA CULTURE THAN WE w YEARS AGO.

PEOPLE ARE INUNDATED WITH THIS INFORMATION.

IT IS A CONSTANT DEL UGE AND I'M NOT SURE WITNESSES WILL ADD MUCH TO THE DEBATE.

FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT AND MORE OF A PUBLIC POLL ABOUT IMPEACHMENT ITSELF, HAVE BEEN CONSTANT SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS.

THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE STVMENT VERY POLARIZED ELECTORATE WHERE THERE IS A MUCH BIGGER PARTISAN GAP TODAY THAN DURING THE CLINTON YEARS.

>> ITS HE NOT JUST PUTTING, EXCUSE ME, IT'S NOT JUST HEARING FROM WITNESSES AND HEARING WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN REPORTED AND SO FORTH AND SO ON BUT THE FACT THAT THEY WOULD BE UNDER OATH SWEARING TO TELL THE TRUTH WHETHER IS JOHN BOLON, MICK MULVANEY, THE ACTING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF OR OTHER STAFFERS AT THE OMB OR VICE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, FORKS.

PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD FROM UNDER OATH.

>> I THINK PROBABLY THE MOST NEWS WORTHY MOMENT OF THE PAST TWO HOURS WAS SENATOR MURKOWSKI ASKED THAT QUESTION YOU WERE RAISING, JOINED WITH SENATOR ALEXANDER AND OTHER SENATORS AND ASKED EFFECTIVELY TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL IF JOHN BOLTON TESTIFIES, WOULD THAT CHANGE THE EQUATION.

AND OF COURSE THE ANSWER WAS NO.

BUT THE FACT THAT THEY FRAMED THE QUESTION THE WAY THEY DID SUGGESTS THAT SENATOR ALEX ANDER WHO WILL MAKE A STATEMENT, REPORTEDLY, IN THE NEXT-- TONIGHT, THAT INDICATES STRONGLY TO ME THAT HE WILL VOTE AGAINST ALLOWING WITNESSES BECAUSE IT WAS WOO NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL.

>> Woodruff: VICTORIA NORSE, IT WAS STRIKING WHEN YOU HAD BOTH, TWO SENATORS WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHED VERY CLOSELY IN ALL OF THIS, BOTH LAMAR ALEX ANDER, REPUBLICAN SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE AND THE SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI OF ALASKA BOTH OF THEM HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT AS POSSIBLE, POSSIBLE VOTES FOR WITNESSES.

AND FOR THEM TO BE ASKING THE QUESTION, EVEN IF WE GOT JOHN BOLTON T WOULDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, WOULD IT, THAT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE THEY WERE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION.

>> IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY ARE MFING IN THAT DIRECTION, LOOK, THEY ARE TIRED.

AND I THINK THAT THAT MAY HAVE SOME PLAY HERE.

I THINK THERE IS ALSO YOU KNOW, WHEN ARE YOU IN THIS SITUATION, IT IS VERY GRAVE AND DIFFICULT.

THERE IS ALOT OF SHORT-- ARE YOU NOT THINKING DOWN THE ROAD ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN SOME RESPECTS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T EVEN ENVISION IT, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS WHAT IF TRUMP DOES WHAT HE DID LAST TIME AND RUNS AROUND SAYING I WAS EXONERATED AND I WILL CALL THEM BACK.

I AM GOING TO GO TO UKRAINE.

THINGS COULD CHANGE QUITE A BIT.

I THINK THEY'RE HOPING THAT THAT DUNTS HAPPEN.

BUT THE LEGACY OF HISTORY IN MY VIEW AS A LAWYER IS THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A HIGH POINT OF THE SENATE.

>> Woodruff: AND THE OTHER POINT THAT A NUMBER OF YOU HAVE BJ MAKING TONIGHT AND IN PREVIOUS DAYS IS THAT WHATEVER INFORMATION WE DON'T HAVE RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO COME OUT AT SOME POINT.

WHETHER IT COMES OUT IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS OR MONTHS OR BEFORE THE ELECTION THIS YEAR, WE ARE GOING TO KNOW MORE AND PEOPLE WILL BE REFLECTING BACK ON THE DECISIONS IN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE LIGHT OF NEW INFORMATION.

LET'S GO TO OUR CAPITOL, TO THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL AND TO OUR INTREPID CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER CORRESPONDENT LISA DESJARDINS, I KNOW LISA THAT YAMICHE IS STANDING BY AS WELL.

BUT LET ME COME TO YOU FIRST, IS THERE ANY NEW HEAD COUNT, IF YOU WILL, ON WHERE THEY STAND ON THE QUESTION OF VOTING FOR WITNESSES?

>> NO, BUT I'M COPING A CLOSE EYE ON MY EMAIL AND TEXT MESSAGES TO SEE IF WE DO GET OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THOSE SENATORS WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING, MURKOWSKI, ROLLINS, ALEXANDER WORK DOE EXPECT THOSE AT ANY TIME.

SENATOR ALEXANDER'S OFFICE CONFIRMED TO ME ON THE RECORD THAT THEY WILL PUT OUT A STATEMENT AFTER THE END OF THE SESSION SO THAT COULD COME AT ANY MOMENT NOW.

THEY ALSO CONFIRMED TO ME THE NAME OF THE BOOK THAT HE HAS BEEN READING.

IT IS IN IMPEACHMENT, AN AMERICAN HISTORY BY JOHN MEECHHAM, MANY HAVE SEEN SENATOR ALEXANDER LEAFING THROUGH THAT BOOK REGULARLY.

I SAW HIM TAKE A NOTE FROM IT TODAY.

SO IT WASN'T SORT OF JUST A PASTTIME, IT WAS SOMETHING HE WAS ACTUALLY ENGAGING WITH TODAY.

AS FOR SUMMARIES FOR THE TRIAL, WE HAD 180 SENATOR QUESTIONS.

IT'S INTERESTING, JUDY, EVERY SENATOR ASKED A QUESTION FROM MY SPREAD SHEET EXCEPT FOR TWO U.S.

SENATORS THAT IS SENATOR RAND PAUL WHO OF COURSE ATTEMPTED TO ASK A QUESTION BUT THE CHIEF JUSTICE DECLINED TO READ IT.

BECAUSE IT CONTAINED THE NAME OF A SUSPECTED WHISTLE-BLOWER.

THE OTHER ONE IS NOR MIKE ENZY OF WYOMING, I WILL REACH OUT TO HIS OFFICE AND MAKE SURE I HAVE THAT RIGHT BUT I DONE BELIEVE HE PARTICIPATED IN A QUESTION.

EVERY OTHER SENATOR DID.

>> Woodruff: LISA, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, THAT IS IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S SESSION THAT THE QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD IS FINISHED.

IT WAS TO HAVE BEEN 16 HOURS OVER TWO DAYS.

IS IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THEY FINISHED WITH QUESTIONS?

>> I WAS SUR PRIESED THAT SENATOR MCCONNELL DIDN'T MAKE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT AS WELL.

I HAVE ASKED DID BOTH THE SENATOR McCONNELL AND SCHUMER'S TEAM TO CONFIRM THAT QUESTIONS ARE OVER.

BUT I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE SENATE SECRETARY TODAY IN WHICH SHE SAID TO ME FIRMLY IT IS A LIMIT OF EIGHT HOURS TODAY.

AND WE WILL END TODAY.

SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING VERY UNUSUAL IN ORDER TO CHANGE THAT PLAN.

I THINK IT IS SAFE TO ASSUME THAT QUESTIONS ARE OVER.

I KNOW THAT SENATORS, AS YOUR GUESTS HAVE BEEN SAYING ARE TIRED, THEY'RE READY TO MOVE TO THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS.

I THINK WE SHOULD EXPECT AT 1:00 TOMORROW EASTERN TIME FOR US TO HAVE ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER WITNESSES SHOULD BE CALLED OR NOT AND THEN TO MOVE INTO THE NEXT PHASE AFTER THAT, THE VOTE ON WITNESSES AND WE CAN SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THE DIFFERENT VARIATIONS THAT COME AFTER THAT.

>> Woodruff: AND TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS THEN.

WELL, IT MAY HAVE BEEN JUST SIMPLY AN OVERSIGHT ON THE PART OF MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL.

HE MAY HAVE MEANT TO SAY IT AND LEFT IT OUT BUT I'M SURE THEY WILL GET BACK TO YOU AND IF THEY DO IN THE NEXT FEW MINUTES WHILE WE'RE STILL ON THE AIR, LET US KNOW.

MEAN TIME I WILL GO TO YAMICHE, YOU ARE TALKING TO THE WHITE HOUSE NOAKS AND OTHERS-- FOLKS AND OTHERS, ARE THEY ANXIOUS TO GET THIS OVERWITH OR WHAT.

>> THEY ARE VERY ANXIOUS TO GET THIS OVER WITH.

THE PRESIDENT IS VERY ANXIOUS TO MOVE ON TO WHAT HE SEES AS A CERTAIN ACQUITTAL AND HIM NOT BEING REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

HAVE I BEEN TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM AND THEY ARE VERY, VERY CONCERN BUT NOT ALL THE WAY CERTAIN THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO BLOCK WITNESSES AND ENSURE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ACQUITTED QUICKLY.

BUT IT IS INTERESTING THAT THE THING THEY ARE TELLING ME, THEY THINK SEALS THE DEAL WITH SENATORS IS THE THING A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL DAY, AND THAT IS ALLEN DERSHOWITZ ARGUMENT THAT MIXED MOTIVE CAN'T BE IMPEACHABLE.

THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN HAVE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS INTERTWINED AND THAT IS OKAY AS LONG AS HE IS NOT DOING SOMETHING FOR ONLY HIS OWN BENEFIT, I SPOKE TO ALAN DERSHOWITZ AND HE TOLL ME THE PEOPLE ATTACKING HIM BECAUSE THEY ARE TACKING HIM BECAUSE THE SENATOR UNDERSTAND MIXED MOTIVES IN THE WAY MANY PEOPLE DO IN THAT THEY TAKE VOTES OR MAKE STATEMENTS BECAUSE THEY BOTH ONE WANT TO BE RE-ELECTED BUT ALSO TO WANT TO DO GOOD THINGS FOR THEIR STATE, WANT TO DO GOOD THINGS FOR THEIR NATIONAL INTEREST.

SO ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS FEELING GOOD THAT HIS ARGUMENT, HIS STATEMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHAT SEALED THE DEAL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE TEAM THERE.

>> IT IS VERY INTERESTING.

BECAUSE AT AN DERSHOWITZ'S COMMENTS HAVE ALSO DRAWN A LOT OF CRITICISM, FRANKLY, FROM DEMOCRATS.

FOR IN THEIR WORDS SUGGESTING THAT ALMOST ANYTHING GOES, THAT A PRESIDENT CAN DO JUST ABOUT ANYTHING, AND SAY WELL, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, AND THEREFORE THAT IS NIE BELIEF AND THAT IS WHAT I DID.

AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

>> THAT IS RIGHT, JUDY.

AND ALAN DERSHOWITZ TELLS ME THAT HE THINKS THAT THE PRESIDENT LIKE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE, THAT THEY JUST HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS ON HIS MIND.

HE ALSO SAID THAT HE BELIEVES THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ARGUMENT, AND CAME TO THIS ARGUMENT, THAT IT WAS ON FIRM LEGAL GROUND.

HE SAYS AT THIS POINT IF THE PRESIDENT IS ACQUITTED, THAT THIS IMPEACHMENT SHOULD NOT HANG OVER HIS HEAD.

HE ALSO TOLD ME THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT HE THINKS PEOPLE SHOULD EMBRACE BECAUSE ST PART OF POLITICS.

GORCH I THINK I HAVE TO NOTE THAT WE HEARD THIS ARGUMENT SO CLEARLY IN OCTOBER WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY SAID GET OVER THIS.

THERE IS GOING TO BE POLITICAL INFEUNS IN FOREIGN POLICY.

HE SAID BUT ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, THERE IS WHAT YOU GET.

SO IF THE WHITE HOUSE IS SUCCESSFUL AND THE PRESIDENT IS ACQUITTED, WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE IS PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYING AS HE HAS SAID ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN, YEN FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS CAN GIVE ME INFORMATION.

I WELCOME THAT, AND MAIN I WILL CALL THE FBI, MAYBE I WON'T.

ALLEN DERSHOWITZ WANTS HE DOESN'T IS HE ANYONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FOREIGN COMPANY OR GOVERNMENT GIVING INFORMATION BAY POLITICAL OPPONENT THAN HE DOES A U.S. ORGANIZATION.

HE SAYS IT IS BUS GOVERNMENTS GOVERNMENTS CAN LAUNDER INFORMATION AND BASICALLY GET THAT INFORMATION TO A COMPANY OR AN ORGANIZATION AND MAKE IT SEEM LIKE IT'S NOT COMING FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

THAT'S WHY HE IS SAYING IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE OPPOSITE RESEARCH COMES FROM AS LONG AS IT IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN.

>> LET ME QUICKLY GO BACK TO LISA.

I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A BIT OF NEWS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, I HAVE CONFIRMED THAT QUESTIONS ARE OVER FOR THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

SENATOR QUESTIONS ARE OVER, WE HAVE A STATEMENT FROM SENATOR COLLINS.

SHE SAID SHE WILL VOTE FOR WITNESSES.

SHE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MORE FROM CERTAIN WITNESSES.

SHE SAID IT WITH GIVE EACH SIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MORE FULLY AND FAIRLY MAKE THEIR CASE.

HOWEVER, SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI SAYS SHE WANTS MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AND WILL HE ARE VIEW HER NOTES BEFORE SHE ANNOUNCES ANY DECISION ON WRITNESSES.

>> Woodruff: THANK YOU, LISA.

AND THANK YOU YAMICHE, AND MICHAEL, ALAN HAS JUST SHOWN ME A TWEET SUGGESTING THAT LAMAR ALEXANDER WILL ANNOUNCE HIS DECISION TONIGHT WHICH I GUESS IS WHAT LISA HAS BEEN REPORTING.

BUT WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE.

>> AND THEN THE MURKOWSKI TWEET ALSO, SHE IS GOING TO REFLECT TONIGHT.

>> Woodruff: SPENGDING TIME.

BUT NOW WE KNOW AS LISA REPORTED THAT THE QUESTION PERIOD IS OVER.

SO TOMORROW AFTERNOON WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT IS NEXT, WHICH IS THE PROCESS OF DECIDING HOW THEY WILL AND WHETHER THEY WILL VOTE ON WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.

WELL, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY HERE.

I CERTAINLY WANT TO THANK LISA DESJARDINS, YAMICHE ALCINDOR, BOFT YOU ON CAPITOL HILL ALL THIS LONG DAY FOR US, AND TO OUR GUESTS HERE AT THE TABLE, VICTORIA NOWRS, KIMBERLY WHALEY, MICHAEL AT ENAND JOHN HART, WE APPRECIATE IT, FROM ALL OF YOU.

AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR COVERAGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP FORP TODAY.

WE WILL BE BACK TOMORROW AS WE HAVE BEEN SAYING, FRIDAY, AT 1 P.M. SHARP.

IF YOU MISSED ANY PORTION OF TODAY'S HEARING AND YOU WANT TO CATCH UP, YOU CAN SEE IT ALL GAFFE EL GAFL TO GAFL ON OUR WEBSITE, OR YOU CAN FINE IT ON OUR YOU STEUB PAGESES FOR ALL OF US AT THE PBS NEWSHOUR, THANK YOU.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF, GOOD NIGHT.

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

THANK YOU.