Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate Debate on Trial Rules  CSPAN  January 22, 2020 7:33am-9:04am EST

7:33 am
your local cable light satellite provider. c-span, unfiltered view of government. >> for the third time in us history, a president is on trial in the u.s. senate and right now we will show you tuesday's proceedings starting with house impeachment managers, debating the proposed rules for the senate impeachment trial. >> the senate will convene the court of impeachment. if there is no objection the proceedings of the trial are approved to date. i am aware of one senator who was unable to take the impeachment of, will he please raise his right hand and be sworn?
7:34 am
do you solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald john trump, president of the united states now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws so help you god? the secretary will knows the name of the senator who has just taken the oath. the sergeant-at-arms will make the proclamation. >> hear ye hear ye hear you, all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the senate of the united states is sitting for the trial the articles of impeachment exhibited by the
7:35 am
house of representatives, donald john trump, president of the united states. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i would like to state for the information of all senators the trial briefs filed by the parties have been printed, are now at each senator's desk. >> the following documents will be submitted to the senate for printing in the senate journal. the precept issued january 16th, 2020, a writ of summons issued january 16th, 2020, the receipt of summons dated january 16th, 2020. the following documents received by the secretary of the senate will be similar to the senate for printing in the senate journal pursuant to the order of january 16th, 2020. the answer of donald john trump, president of the united states, to the articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against him on january 16th, 2020, received by the secretary
7:36 am
of the senate on january 18th, 2020, the trial brief filed by the house of representatives received by the secretary of the senate on january 18th, 2020, the trial brief by the president, received by the secretary of the senate on january 20th, 2020, the replication of the house of representatives received by the secretary of the senate on january of 2020 other rebuttal brief filed by the house of representatives received by the secretary of the senate on january 21, 2020. without checking the foregoing documents will be printed in the congressional record. i note the presence in the house and senate in the senate chamber of managers on the part of the house of representatives and counsel for the president of the united states. >> mister chief justice. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i sent to the desk a list of
7:37 am
4 privileges agreed to by both sides. i ask it is inserted into the record and agreed to by unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> further information all senators i'm about to send a resolution to the desk providing an outline of the next step in these proceedings. it will be debatable by parties for two hours, equally divided. senator schumer will send an amendment to the resolution to the desk. ones that amendment has been offered and reported, we will have a brief recess. when we reconvene senator schumer's amendment will debatable by the parties for two hours. upon use or yielding of time i intend to move to table senator schumer's amendment. so mister chief justice, i send a resolution to the desk and ask that it be read. >> the clerk will read the resolution. >> senate resolution 483 to
7:38 am
provide related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against donald john trump, president of the united states. resolved that the house of representatives shall file its record with secretary of the senate which will consist of those publicly available materials submitted to or produced by the house judiciary committee, and transcripts of markups in any materials printed by the house of representatives. pursuant to 660. and subject to any hearsay, evidentiary or other objections the president may make, presentations are concluded. all materials filed pursuant to this paragraph shall been printed and made available, and until 9:00 am on wednesday january 20 second, 2022 to file
7:39 am
any motions permitted on the rules of impeachment with the exception of motions to subpoena witnesses, documents or other evidentiary motions. responses to any such motions shall be filed, on wednesday, january 20 second. all materials filed pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed, to be made available to all parties. arguments on such motions shall begin at 1:00 pm on wednesday january 20 second 2020 and each side may determine the number of persons to make its presentation. following which the senate shall deliberative so orders under the impeachment rules and vote on any such motions. following the disposition of such motions or if no motions are made then the house of representatives shall make its presentation in support of the articles of impeachment for a
7:40 am
period of time not to exceed 24 hours up to three session days. following the house of representatives representation the president shall make its presentation for a period not to achieve 3 session days. the number of persons to make the presentation and they made a presentation for a period of time. with the conclusion of questioning by the senate, there shall be for hours of argument by the parties, equally divided, qualified deliberation by the senate, so ordered under the impeachment pools on the question of whether the order to consider and debate under the impeachment rules, any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. the senate without any intervening action, motion, or amendment shall decide whether it shall be in order to consider and debate under the
7:41 am
impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. following disposition of that question other motions provided under the impeachment rules shall be in order. if the senate agrees to allow the house of representatives or the president to subpoena witnesses the witnesses shall first be deposed in the senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify pursuant to the impeachment rules. now testimony shall be admissible in the senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose such witnesses. at the conclusion of deliberations by the senate, the senate shall vote on each article of impeachment. >> the resolution is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided. mister schiff, are you a proponent or opponent of this motion? >> we are in opposition. >> thank you. mister cipollone, are you up
7:42 am
proponent or opponent? >> a proponent of the motion. >> sister cipollone, your side may go first and be reserved for rebuttal time if you wish. >> thank you, mister chief justice. majority leader mcconnell, democratic leader schumer, senators. my name is pat cipollone. i'm here as counsel to the president of the united states. our team is proud to be here representing donald trump. we support this resolution. it is a fair way to proceed with this trial. it is modeled on the clinton resolution which had 100 senators supporting it the last time this body considered an impeachment.
7:43 am
it requires the house managers to stand up and make their opening statements and make their case. they have delayed bringing this impeachment to this house for 33 days, 33 days to this body. and it is time to start with this trial. it is a fair process. they will have the opportunity to stand up and make their opening statements. they will get 24 hours to do that. and the president's attorneys will have a chance to respond. after that, all of you will have 16 hours to ask whatever questions you have of either side. once that is finished and you have all of that information we will proceed to the question of witnesses, some of the more difficult questions that will come before this body. we are in favor of this.
7:44 am
we believe once you hear the initial presentations, the only conclusion will be that the president has done absolutely nothing wrong and these articles of impeachment do not begin to approach the standard required by the constitution and in fact they themselves will establish nothing beyond those articles, look at those articles alone and you will determine that there is absolutely no case. so we respectfully ask you to adopt this resolution so we may begin with this process. it is long past time to start this proceeding and we are here today to do it and we hope the house managers will agree with us and continue this proceeding today. we reserve the remainder of our time for rebuttal.
7:45 am
>> mister chief justice, senators and counsel for the president, house managers, on behalf of the house of representatives, rise in opposition to leader mcconnell's resolution. let me begin by summarizing why. last week we came before you to present the articles of impeachment against the president of the united states for only the third time in our history. these articles charge donald john trump with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. the misconduct set out in those articles, the most serious ever charged against a president. the first article, abuse of power, charge of the president with soliciting a foreign power to help him cheat in this election. it alleges and we will prove he sought to coerce ukraine into
7:46 am
helping him cheat by withholding official acts, two official acts. a meeting the new president of ukraine desperately sought with donald trump at the white house to show the world and the russians in particular that the ukrainian president had a good relationship with his most important patron, the president of the united states. donald trump illegally withheld $400 million in taxpayer-funded military assistance to ukraine. a nation at war with our russian adversaries, to compel ukraine to help him cheat in the election. astonishingly the brief filed yesterday contends that even if this conduct is proved, that there's nothing the house or the senate may do about it. it is the president's apparent believe that under article 2 he can do anything he wants no matter how corrupt, outfitted
7:47 am
in god illegal clothing and yet when the founders wrote the impeachment clause they had precisely this type of misconduct in mind. conduct that abuses the power of his office for personal benefit, that undermines our national security, invites foreign interference in our democratic process. it is the trifecta of constitutional misconduct justifying impeachment. in article 2 the president is charged with other misconduct that would likewise have alarmed the founders. the full, complete and absolute obstruction of a coequal branch of government, the congress. during the course of it impeachment investigation into the president's own misconduct. this is every bit of destructive of our constitutional order as the misconduct charged in the first article. if a president can obstruct his own investigation, if he can
7:48 am
effectively nullify a power the constitution gives solely to congress, the ultimate power the constitution gives to prevent presidential misconduct, the president places himself beyond accountability, above the law, cannot be indicted, cannot be impeached. it makes him a monarch, the very evil against which our constitution and the balance of powers it carefully laid out was designed to guard against. the charges will begin and when it has concluded you will be asked to make several determinations. did the house prove the president abused his power by seeking to coerce a foreign nation to help him cheat in the next election? did he obstruct the congress in its investigation into his own misconduct by ordering his agencies and officers to cooperate, refused to cooperate
7:49 am
in any way, to refuse to testify to enter subpoenas. if the house approved its case and we believe the evidence will not be seriously contested, does the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors require the conviction and removal of the president? we believe that it does and the constitution requires that it be so or the power of impeachment must be deemed irrelevant or casualty to partisan times and the american people left unprotected against a president who would abuse his power for the purpose of corrupting the only other method of accountability, our elections themselves. you will vote to find the president guilty or not guilty, to find his conduct impeachable or not impeachable. but i would submit to you these
7:50 am
are not the most important decisions you will make. how can that be? how can any decision you will make be more important than guilt or innocence, removing the president or not removing the president? i believe the most important decision in this case is the one you will make today. the most import question is the question you must answer today. will the president and the american people get a fair trial? will there be a fair trial? i submit this is a more important questions and how you vote on guilt or innocence because whether we have a fair trial will determine whether you have a basis to render a fair and impartial verdict. it is foundation, the structure upon which every other decision you will make must rest. if you only see part of the evidence, if you only allow one side or the other a chance to
7:51 am
present their fool case your verdict will be predetermined by the bias and the proceeding. of the defendant is not allowed to introduce evidence of his innocence it is not a fair trial. so too for the prosecution. of the house cannot call witnesses, produced vitamins and evidence it is not a fair trial. it is not really a trial at all. americans all over the country are watching this right now. imagine their own jury duty, imagine that the judge walks into the courtroom and says she has been talking to the defendant and the defendant's request the judge has agreed not to let the prosecution call any witnesses or introduce any documents. the judge and the defendant have agreed that the prosecutor may only read to the jury the dry transcript of the grand jury proceedings. that is it. has anyone on jury duty in this
7:52 am
country ever heard a judge describe such a proceeding and call it a fair trial? of course not. that is not a fair trial. it is a mockery of a trial. under the constitution is proceeding, the one we are in right now, is the trial. this is not the appeal from the trial, you're not appellate court judges. one of you is. unless the trial is going to be different from every other impeachment trial you must allow the prosecution and defense to call relevant witnesses. you must subpoena documents the president has blocked which bear on his guilt or innocence. you must impartially do justice as your oath requires. what does a fair trial look like in the context of impeachment? the short answer is it looks
7:53 am
like every other trial. the resolutions allow house manages to obtain documents that have been withheld. first, not last. the documents will inform the decision about which witnesses are most important to call and when the witnesses are called, the documentary evidence will be available, must be available to question them with. any other order makes no sense. the resolutions allow house members to call the witnesses and then the president should be allowed to do the same and any rebuttal witnesses and when the evidentiary report of the trial ends the parties argue the case. you deliberate and render a verdict. if there is a dispute whether a particular witnesses relevant or material to the charges brought the senate rules the chief justice would rule on the issue of materiality. why should this trial be
7:54 am
different from any other trial? the short answer it isn't. leader mcconnell's resolution would turn the trial process on its head. the resolution requires the house to prove its case without document and only after it is done will such questions be entertained with no guarantee that any witnesses or any documents will be allowed even then. that process makes no sense. what is the harm of waiting until the end of the trial? kicking the can down the road on the question of documents and witnesses? besides the fact that it is completely backwards, the documents would inform the decision on which witnesses and help in their questioning, the harm is this. you will not have any of the evidence the president continues to conceal throughout most or all of the trial. although the evidence against the president is already overwhelming, you may never know the full scope of the
7:55 am
president's misconduct or those around him and neither will the american people. the charges involve the sacrifice of our national security at home and abroad and a threat to the integrity of the next election. if there are additional remedial steps that may be taken after the president's -- the american people must know about it. but if as the public jaded by experience has come to suspect. this resolution is the first step of an effort to rush to trial, hide the evidence and render a fast dismissal, to make the president go away as quickly as possible, to cover up his misdeeds, the american people will be deprived of a fair trial. how deep the corruption of this administration goes or what risks to our security and elections remain hidden.
7:56 am
the harm will also endure for this body. if the senate allows the president to get away with such obstruction, it will affect subpoena and oversight just as much as the house. the senate's ability to conduct oversight will be beholden to the desires of this president and future presidents, whether he or she decides they want to cooperate with a senate investigation, and the system of checks and balances will be broken, presidents will be accountable to no one. it is reported leader mcconnell has the votes to pass the resolution. the text of which we did not see in the last night and has been changed moments ago. they say leader mcconnell is a very good vote counter. nonetheless i hope that he is
7:57 am
wrong. not so much that this process contemplated is backwards with the result in mind and that the result is not a fair trial. i hope he is wrong because whatever senators may have said, pledged or committed, a constitutional dimension. we have all sworn an oath. not to their legislative leadership, not to the managers or even to the chief justice. you have sworn an oath to do in partial justice. that both binds you. that both supersedes all else. many of you in the senate and many of us in the house made statements about the president's conduct, or this trial or this motion or
7:58 am
expectations. none of that matters now. that is all in the past. nothing matters now but the oath to do impartial justice. that oath requires a fair trial, fair to the president and fair to the american people. is that really possible? or as the founders feared, has factionalism or excessive partisanship made that now impossible. one way to find out what a fair trial should look like devoid of partisan consideration is to ask yourselves how would you structure the trial if you didn't know what the party was and you didn't know what the party and the president was? it makes sense to you to have the trial first and then decide on trial -- witnesses and evidence later?
7:59 am
would that be fair to both sides? i have to think that your answer would be no. let me be blunt. let me be very blunt. right now a great many, perhaps even most americans do not believe there will be a fair trial. they don't believe the senate will be impartial. they believe the result is precooked. the president will be acquitted, not because he is innocent. he is not. but because the senators will vote by party and he has the votes, the votes to prevent the evidence from coming out, the votes to make sure the public never sees it. the american people want a fair trial, they want to believe their system of government is capable of rising to the occasion, that we can rise above party and do what is best for the country but a great many americans don't believe
8:00 am
that will happen. that -- let's prove them wrong. let's prove them wrong. how? by convicting the president? no, not by conviction alone. by convicting him if the house proves its case and only if the house proves its case. .. house proves its case, but by letting the house prove its case, by letting the house call witnesses, by letting the house obtained documents, by letting the house decide how to present its own case, and not deciding it for us. in sum, by agreeing to a fair trial. let's turn to the precise terms of the resolution. the history of impeachment trials and what fairness and impartiality requires work although with many concerns about the resolution, i will begin with the single biggest
8:01 am
law. the resolution does not ensure that subpoenas will, in fact, be issued for additional evidence, that the senate and the american people should have and that the president continues to block, to thoroughly decide the presidency or innocence. moreover,, guarantees subpoenas will not be issued now when there would be most valuable to the senate, the parties, and the american people. according to the resolution the leadery introduced first the senate receives briefs and filings from the parties. next, it is lengthy presentations from the house and the president. now, my colleagues the president's the president lawyers have described this as opening statements. but let's not kid that is the trial that they contemplate. the opening statements are the trial. t they will be most of the trial or allor of the trial. if the senate votes to deprive itself of witnesses and
8:02 am
documents, the opening statements will be the end of the trial. so to say let's just have the opening statements and then we will see that means let's have the trial and maybe we can just sweep this all under the rug. you will hear these lengthy presentations from the house. there will be a question and answer period for the senators and then andta only then after essential at the trial is over after the briefs have been filed after the arguments have been made after the senators have asked other questions, , only tn will the senate consider whether to subpoena crucial documents at witness testimony that the testimony has tried to conceal from this congress and the american people. documents and witness testimony that unlike the clinton trial have not yet been seen or heard. it is true the record compiled by the house is overwhelming. it is true the record already compels the conviction of the president in the face of unprecedented resistance by the president. the house assemble a powerful
8:03 am
case, evidence of the president high crimes and misdemeanors that includes direct evidence and testimony of officials who were unwilling and unwitting in this scheme and saw it for what it was. a yet there is still more evidence relative and probative evidence that for the president continues to block. that would flesh out the full extent of the president's misconduct and those around him we have seen that over the past few weeks new evidence has continued to come to light as the nonpartisan government accountability office has determined that the hold on military to ukraine was illegal and broke the law. as john bolton has offered to testify in the trial, as one of the president's agents lev parnas has produced documentary evidence that clarifies mr. giuliani's activities on behalf of the president and corroborates ambassadorne sondld testimony that everyone in the loop. stock is released under the
8:04 am
freedom of information act, that documented the alarm at the department of defense while the president illegally withheld military support for ukraine, an ally att war with russia, withot explanation. as a senior officer management budget official michael duffy instructed defense department officials on july 25, 90 minutes after president trump spoke by phone with president zelensky, the defense department should pause all obligation of ukraine military assistance under its purview, 90 minutes after that call. he added quote, given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know, to executet the direction. although the evidence is already more than sufficient to convict, there is simply no rational
8:05 am
basis for the senate to deprive itself of all relevant information in making such a hugely consequential judgment. moreover,, as a president answer to his summons and corroborates make clear the president tends to corrupt the fax but the president should not have it both ways. he should not be permitted to claim that the facts uncovered by the house are wrong while also concealing mountains of evidence that they are precisely on those facts. if this body seeks impartial justice, it should ensure that subpoenas arel issued and that they are issued now before the senate begins extended proceedings based on a record that every person in this room and every american watching at home nose does not include documents and witness testimony. it should, because the president would not allow it to be so. complying with these subpoenas would not impose a burden.
8:06 am
subpoenas cover tailored and targeteded documents and witness that the president has concealed. the senate deserves to see the documents from the white house. the state department, the office of management and budget, the department of defense, these agencies already should have collected and at least preserve these documents in response to house subpoenas. indeed in some cases agencies of already produced documents in foia lawsuits albeit in heavily redacted form. witnesses with direct knowledge or involvement should be heard, thatt includes the president's acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, , his former national security adviser john bolton who has publicly offered to testify, to mixing make senior officials implementing integral to implement the president's freeze on ukraine's military aid also have very relevant testimony. why not hear it? robert blair who serves as mulvaney's senior advisor, michael duffy a senior official
8:07 am
at omb, and other witnesses with direct knowledge that we reserve the right to call later but these witnesses with whom he wished to begin the trial. last month president trump it clear he supported having senior officials testified before the senate during his trial declaring that he would love to have secretary pompeo, mick mulvaney, now former secretary perry, end quote many of the people testify in the senate trial. [inaudible] -- i would love to have mick, i would love to have rick perry and many other people testify. >> the senate has an opportunity to take the present up on his offer, to make his senior aides available including mr. mulvaney and secretary pompeo and secretary perry. enough the the present is chang his tune. the bluster wanting these witnesses to testify is over.
8:08 am
notwithstanding the fact he is never asserted a claim of privilege going to course of the house impeachment proceedings. he threatens to h invoke one now in a last-ditch effort to keep the rest of the truth from the coming out. the president since his lawyers here to wrestling claim that these witnesses or others cannot possibly testify because it involves national security, nevermind it was the president's actions withholding military aid from an allyy at war that threatens our national security in the first place. never mind that the most impeachable, serious offenses will always involve national security because they will involve other nations and that misconduct based on foreign entanglement with what the framers feared most. the president's absurdist argument amounts to this, we must endanger national security toar protect national security. we must make a presidents conduct threaten our security on the reach of impeachment power if wee are to save the
8:09 am
presidency. this is dangerous nonsense. as justices of the supreme court have underscored, the constitution is not a suicide pact. but let us turn from the abstract to thect very concrete and let me show you just one example of what the president is hiding in the name of national security.. there was a document which the e president has refused to turn over in which he is top diplomat in ukraine says that two of appointees of the president, as i said on the phone, i think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. the administration refuses to turn over that document, and so many more. we only know about its existence. we voicingat its contents becaue it was turned over by cooperating witness. this is what the president would hide from you and from the
8:10 am
american people. in the name of national security he would hide graphic evidence of his dangerous misconduct, the only question is, and the question raised by this resolution, will you let him? last year president trump said article ii of the constitution will allow him to do anything he wanted. and evidently believing that article to empower them to denigrate coequal branch of government he also declared he will fight all subpoenas. let's hear the president's own words. >> then i have an article to where i have the right to do whatever i want as president. but we're fighting all the subpoenas. >> true to his pledge to obstruct congress, when president trump faced an impeachment inquiry in the house of representatives, he ordered the executive branch to defy every single request on every single subpoena.
8:11 am
he issued this order through his white house counsel pat cipollone on october 8, the same counsel that stood before you a moment ago to defend the president's misconduct. he then affirmed it again at a rally on october 10. followingdu president trump's categorical order we never received key documents and communications. it is important to note in refusing to respond to congress, the president did not make any, any formal claim of privilege ever. instead, after several long letter stated in the fact that the the president would withhold all evidence in executive branch unless the house surrendered to demands that would effectively place president trump in charge of the inquiry into his own misconduct. needless to say that was a nonstarter and designed to be so. the the president was determineo obstruct congress no matter what we did, and his contact sense,
8:12 am
his attacks on the impeachment inquiry, his attacks on witnesses have affirmed that the president never had any intention to cooperate under any circumstance.. and why? because the evidence and testimony he conceals would only further prove his guilt. the innocent do not act in this way. simply stated, this trial should not reward the president's obstruction by allowing him to control what evidence is seen, and when it is seen and what evidence will remain hidden. the documents the president seeks to conceal include white house records, including records about the president's unlawful hold on military aid, state department records including text messages and what's at messages exchanged by the state department and ukrainian officials and notes tog file written by career professionals as they saw the president's scheme unfold in real-time. omb records demonstrating efforts to fabricate and after-the-fact rationale for the
8:13 am
president's orders short intro objections that the president's orders violated the law. defense department records reflecting bafflement and alarmi that the president suspended military aid to a key security partner without explanation. many of the president's aides have also followed his orders and refused to testify including central figures in impeachment inquiry including white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, foam and national security adviser john bolton, and others with relevant testimony like robert blair and michael duffy. mr. blair who serves as a senior advisor to acting chief of staff mulvaney works directly with mr. duffy a political point in a wimpy to carry out the president order to freeze vital military and security assistance to ukraine. the trump administration has refused to disclose their communications even though we know from written testimony,
8:14 am
public reporting and even freedom of information act lawsuit that they were instrumental in implementing the hold and extended it at the president's expressed direction, even, even as career officials warned, accurately, that doing so would violate the law. the the president has also madee insupportable claims of the house should enforce its subpoenas in court and allow the president to delay the impeachment for years. if we had done so we would have abdicated our constitutional duty to act on the overwhelming facts before us and the evidence the present with seeking to cheat in the t next election. we could not engage in a deliberately protracted court process while the president continued to threaten the sanctity of our elections. resorting to the court is inconsistent with the constitution thatt gives the house the sole power of impeachment. if the house were compelleded to
8:15 am
exhaust all legal remedies before impeaching the president, it would interpose the courts or the decision of a single judge between the house and the power to impeach. moreover, it would invite the president to prevent its own impeachment by inversely litigating the matter ind cour, a peeling every judgment, in every frivolous motion or device. indeed, in thehe case of don mcgahn, the president's lawyer who was ordered to fire the special counsel and lie about it, he was subpoenaed by the house in april last year and there is still no final judgment. the president may not defeat impeachment or accountability by engaging in endless litigation. instead it's been a long practice of the house to compile core evidence that certain to reach a recent decision about whether to impeach and then to bring the case here to the senate for a full trial. that is exactly what we did here with an understanding that the senate had its own power to
8:16 am
compel documents and testimony. it would be one thing at the house had shown no interest in document or witnesses during its investigation although even to the house has a full right to determine its proceedings as long as it makes the full case to the house as it did. but it's quited. another when te president is the cause of his own complaint come when the president withhold witnesses and documents and then attempts to rely his own noncompliance to justify further concealment. president trump made it crystal clear we would never see a single document or a single witness when he declared as we just watched that he would fight all subpoenas. as a matter of history and precedent, it would be wrong to assert that the senate is unable to obtain anden review new evidence during a senate trial, regardless of what evidence was not produced in the house. you can and should insist on receiving all the evidence so
8:17 am
you can render impartial justice and can't earn the confidence of public in the senate willingness to hold a fair trial. under the constitution the senate does not just vote on impeachments. it does not just debate them. instead it i is commanded i do e constitution to try all cases of impeachment. if the founders intended for the house to try the matter and the senate to consider an appeal based on the cold record from the other chamber, they would have said so, but they did not. instead they gave us the power to charge and use the power to try all impeachments. the framers chose the language in a structure for a reason. as alexander hamilton said the sin is given awful discretion matters of impeachment. the constitution speaks to senators in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. it requires them to aim at real
8:18 am
demonstrations of innocence or guilt, and it requires them to do so by holding a trial. the senate is repeatedly subpoenaed and received newcu documents, often many of them while adjudicating cases of impeachment. moreover, the sent hazard witness testimony in every one of the 15 senate trials, full senate trials in the history of this republic, including those for presidentsoh after johnson d bill clinton. indeed, in president andrew johnson's senate impeachment trial, the house managers were permitted to begin presenting documentary evidence to the senate on february 1 day of the trial. the house managers initial presentation of documents in president johnson's case carried on for the first two days of trial, immediately after which witnesses were called to appear in the senate. this has been the standard practice in prior impeachment trials.
8:19 am
indeed, in most trials this body has heard from many witnesses ranging from three in president clinton's case to 40 in president johnson's, and well over 60 and other impeachments. as t these numbers make clear te same as always heard from key witnesses when trying and impeachment. the notion that on evidence that was taken before the house should be considered is squarely at unequivocally contrary to senate precedent. nothing in law or history supports it. to start, consider leader mcconnell's own description of his work in a prior senate impeachment proceeding. after serving on the central committee in the case of judge claiborne, leader mcconnell describe how the senate committee quote labored intensively for more than two months amassing the necessary evidence and testimony. in the same essay leader mcconnell recognize the full bodies responsibility for amassing and digesting evidence.
8:20 am
there was a lot of evidence in the senate to mass and a just in that proceeding which involve charges against a district court judge, the senate heard testimony from 19 witnesses and allowed for over 2000 pages of documents to beve entered into e record over the course of the trial. he know . did the senate limit evidence to what was before the house. it did the opposite. consistent with unbroken senate singlee in every impeachment trial, every single one. for example, of the 40 witnesses who testified to president johnson's senate trial, only three provided testimony to the house during its impeachment inquiry,in only three. the remaining 37 witnesses in that presidential impeachmentme trial testified before the senate. similarly, the senate full first impeachment trial which involve charges against judgeny pickerig
8:21 am
involve testimony from 11 witnesses, all of whom were new to the impeachment proceedings and have not testified before the house. there are many other examples of this point including the senates most of recent impeachment trial of judge porteous in 2010. it is one that many of you and some of us know well. it, too, is consistent this long-standing practice here they are the center testimony from 26 witnesses, 17 of whom have not testified before the house during its impeachmentea inquir. thus, there is a definitive tradition of the senate hearing from you witnesses when trying articles of impeachment. there has never been a ruling -- toes limiting witnesses those appear in the house or limiting evidence before the senate, to that which the house itself considered. and that is because as senator hiram johnson explained in 1934, the integrity of senate impeachment trials depend
8:22 am
heavily upon the witnesses who are called.d, their appearance on the stand, their mode of giving testimony. there is thus an unbroken history of witness testimony in senate impeachment trials. presidential and judicial, i would argue in the case of a president it is even more important to hear the witnesses and see the documents. any conceivable doubt on this score, and there should be none left as distilled by the senates old ruleshm for trials of impeachment. obtaining documents and your life witness testimony is so fundamental that the rules of procedure practiced in the senate for stating on impeachment trustry which big bk to the 19 century devote more attention to the gathering,, handling an admission of new evidence more than any other single these rules expressly contemplate the senate will hear evidence in conduct a thorough trial when sitting as a court of impeachment. at every turn they reject the notion that thee senate would take the house evidentiary
8:23 am
record, blind itself to everything else and vote to convict or acquit. for example, rule six says of the senate shall the power to compel the attendance of witnesses and enforce obedience to its borders. rule seven authorizes the presiding officer to rule on all questions of evidence including but not limited toot questions f relevancy, materiality and redundancy. this rule presumed the senate travel have testimony giving rise to such questions. rule 11 authorizes the full senate to designate a committee of senators to receive evidence and take testimony. at such times and places as the committee may determine. as rule 11 makes clear the committee report must be transmitted to the full senate for final adjudication. but nothing here in the rules prevent the senate for sin for any witness and hearing his testimony in open senate or by order of the senate involving the entire trial in the open senate. here, too, the senates operative
8:24 am
impeachment rules expressly contemplate and provide for subpoenaing witnesses and hearing their testimony as part of the senate trial. and the list goes on. these rules plainly contemplate a robust role for the senate in gathering and considering evidence. they reflect sentries of practice of accepting and requiring new evidence in senate trials. this senate should honor that practice today by rejecting this resolution. what about the clinton trial? even if we are departing from every of impeachment trial in history, including the impeachment of president johnson, what about the clinton trial? are we not following the same process as in the clinton trial? the answer is no.
8:25 am
first, the process for the clinton trial was worked out by mutual consent. among the parties. that is not true here with the process is sought to be imposed by one party on the other. second, all of the documents in the clinton trial were turned over prior to the trial, , all 90,000 pages of them so they could be used in the houses case. none of the documents have been turned over by the president in this case, and under leader mcconnell's proposal none may ever be. they certainly would not be available to you or to us during most all the trial if we are really going to follow the clinton precedent, the senate must insist on the documents now before the trial begins. third, the issue in the clinton trial was not one of calling witnesses, but of recalling
8:26 am
witnesses. all the key witnesses in the clinton trial had testified before the grand jury or been interviewed by the fbi, one of them dozens of times, and their testimony was already known. president clinton himself testified on camera and under oath before the senate trial. the a lot multiple chiefs of staff and other key officials to testify. again, before the senate trial took place. here, none of the witnesses we seek to call, none of them have testified or been interviewed by the house. and as i said, the president cannot complain that we did not call this witnesses before the house when their unavailability was caused by the president himself.he and last as you will remember, those of you who were here, the testimony in the clinton trial involved decorum issues that are not present here. you may
8:27 am
rest assured whatever else the case may be, such issues will not be present here. in some, the clinton precedent, if you are serious about it, if we are really serious about modeling is proceeding after the clinton trial, the clinton precedent is one where all the documents have been provided upfront, where all the witnesses had testified upfront prior to the trial. that is not being replicated by the mcconnell resolution, not in any way, not in any shape, not in any form. far from it. the traditional model followed and president johnson keep -- president johnson's case and all of the others is really the one that's most appropriate to the circumstances. the senate should address all the documentary issues and most of the witnesses now, not later. they need to subpoena documents and testimony now is only
8:28 am
increased due to the president t obstruction for several reasons. first, his obstruction has made him uniquely and personally responsible for the absences of the witnesses before the house, having ordered them not to appear. he may not be heard to complain now that they followed his orders and refused to testify, to do otherwise only rewards the president obstruction and encourages further future presidents to define lawful process impeachment investigations. second, if the president wishes to contest the facts, and his answer and trial brief indicates that he will try, he must not continue to deny the senate access to the relevant witnesses and documents that shed light on the very factual matters he wishes to challenge. the senate trial is not analogous to anpa appeal with te parties must argue the facts on the basis of the record below. there is no record below. there is no below. this is the trial.
8:29 am
third, thewe president must note allowed to mislead the senate by selectively introducing documents while withholding the vast body of documents that may contradict it. this is very important. the president must not be allowed to mislead you by introducing documents selectively and withholding all of the rest. all of the relevant document should be produced so there is full disclosure of the truth. otherwise therere is a clear rik that the president will continue to light all evidence harmful to its position while selectively producing documents without any context or opportunity to examine their creators. and finally, you may infer the president guilt from his continuing efforts to obstruct production of documents and witnesses. the president has said he wants witnesses like mulvaney and pompeo and other to testify, and that his interactions with ukraine have been perfect.
8:30 am
odcounsel has confirmed today tt will be thes president defense, his conduct is perfect, typically fine to coerce an ally by withholding military aid to help get cheating in the next election. that will be part of theg president's defense, albeit not worth it in that way. but now he is change course and doesn't want these witnesses to testify. the logic inference in any court of law that the parties continued obstruction of lawful subpoenas may be construed as evidence of guilt. let me conclude. the facts will come out in the end. the documents which the president is hiding would be released through the freedom of information act or through other means over time. witnesses will tell their stories in books and film. the truth will come out. the question is, will it come out in time?
8:31 am
and what answer shall we give if we did not pursue the truth now and let it remain hidden until it was too late to consider on the profound issue of the president guilt or innocence? there are many overlapping reasons for voting against this resolution, but that all converge on a single idea, fairness. the trial should be fair to the house, which is been wrongly deprived of evidence by a president wishes to conceal it. it should be fair to the president who will not benefit from an acquittal or dismissal if the trial is not viewed as fair, if it is not viewed as impartial, and fair toat you, senators, who are tasked with the greathe responsibility of determining whether to convict or acquit, and should do so with
8:32 am
the benefit of all of the facts. and they are to the american people who deserve the full truth -- fair -- and deserve representatives who will seek it on theirir behalf. and with that, mr. chief justice, i yield back. >> mr. cipollone, or mr. secular, you have 57 minutes available. -- mr. sekulow. >> thank you, mr. chair justice. members of the senate, leader mcconnell, democratic leaders, it's also my prose to represent the president of united states before this chamber. senator schumer said earlier today that the eyes of the founders on these proceedings. indeed that is true. it is the heart of the constitution that governs these proceedings. and what we just heard from
8:33 am
manager schiff, courts have no role, privileges don't apply. what happened in the past we should just ignore. in fact, manager schiff just said trying to summarize my colleagues defense of the president, he said not in those is notf course, which the first time mr. schiff's has put words into transcripts that did not exist. mr. schiff also talked about a trifecta. i'll give you a trifecta. during theac proceedings that tk place before the judiciary committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. the president was denied the right to access evidence, and the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings. that's a trifecta. a trifecta that violates the constitution of the united
8:34 am
states.. mr. schiff did say the courts don't have role in this, executive privilege, why would that matter? it matters because it's based on the constitution of the united states. one manager said that it is you that are on trial, the senate. also set and others did that you're not capable of abiding by your oath. and then we had the invocation of the ghost of the mueller report. i know something about that report. it came up empty on the issue of collusion with russia. there was no obstruction. in fact, them mueller report, to the contrary what these managers say today, came to the exact opposite conclusions of what they say. let me quote from the house impeachment report at page 16.
8:35 am
although presidentnt trump has n time to invoke the notion of due process, and impeachment trial, and impeachment inquiry is not a criminal trial and should not be confused with it. believe me, what has taken place in these proceedings is not to be confused with due process, because due process demands and the constitution requires that fundamental fairness and due process, we are hearing a lot about you process, due process is designed to protect the person who is accused. when the russia investigation failed, it devolved into the ukraine, a quid pro quo. when that didn't prove out it was a bin bribery or maybe extortion are so many said one of the members, members of the house said treason. but instead we get two articles
8:36 am
of impeachment, two articles of impeachment that have a vague allegation about a non-crime allegation of abuse of power and obstruction of congress. members, managers, right here before you today who have said that executive privilege and constitutional privileges have no place in these proceedings. on june 28, 2012, attorney general eric holderr became the first united states attorney general to be held in both civil and criminal contempt. why? because president obama asserted executive privilege. with respect to the holder contempt proceedings, mr. manager schiff wrote the white house assertion of privilege is backed by decades of precedent that is recognized the need for
8:37 am
the president and his senior advisers to receive candid advice and information from their top aides. indeed, that's correct. not because manager schiff said it butag it does the constitutin requires it. mr. manager nadler said that the effort to hold eric holder attorney general holder in contempt for refusing toor compy with various subpoenas was quote politically motivated and speaker pelosi called the holder matter and a coat a little more than a witch hunt. what are we dealing with here? why are we here? are we here because of a phone call? or arere we here before this grt body because since the president was sworn into office there was a desire to see him removed.
8:38 am
i remember in the mueller report there were discussions about insurance policies. insurance policies didn't work out so well. so then we moved to other investigations. i guess you would call it reinsurance or an umbrella policy. that didn't work out so well. and here we are today. manager schiff quoted the supreme court, and i would like to make reference to the supreme court as well. it was then justice rehnquist, later to be chief justice rehnquist, who wrote for the majority in '96 versus russell in 1973, these are the words, we may someday be presented with a situation which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles and absolute by the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction. that date is today.
8:39 am
that day was a year ago. that day was in july when special counselen mueller testified. i am not today going to take the time to review, what i will do it later, the pattern and practices of irregularities that have gone on in these investigations on the outset. but to say that the courts have no role, the rush to impeachment, to not wait for a decision from a court on an issue as important as executive privilege, as if executive privilege hasn't been utilized by presidents since our founding. this is not some new concept. we don't waive executive privilege, and there's a reason we keep executive privilege and
8:40 am
we assert it when necessary. and that is to protect, to protect the constitution and the separation of powers. the president's opponents in their rush to impeach have refused to wait for complete judicial review. that was their choice. speaker pelosi clearly expressed her impatience in contempt for judicial proceedingsju when she said we cannot be at the mercy of the courts. think about that for a moment. we cannot be at the mercy of the courts. so take article iii of the united states constitution and remove it? we are acting as if the courts are an improper venue to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude? that is why we have courts. that is why we have a federal
8:41 am
judiciary. it was interesting when professor testified before picky said with three branch of gum, not two. if you impeach a president if you make investment for going to court and abuse of power, it is your abuse of power. it's a lot more than that. there's a lot more than that abuse about it to the courts don't comply. constitutional principle don't apply. let's start with a clean slate as if nothing happened. a lot has happened. as we proceed in the days ahead we will lay out our case. we're going to put forward to the american people, but more important, for the constitutions sake, what's taking place here. that this idea that we should ignore what has taken place over the last three years is outrageous. we believe that senator
8:42 am
mcconnell has put forward provides due process, allows the proceedings to move forward in an orderly fashion. 33 days, 33 days they held ontoo those impeachment articles, 33 days. it was such a rush of national security to impeach this president before christmas that they've been held with them for 33 days. to do what? to act as if they negotiate the house of representatives should negotiate the rules of the united states senate. they didn't hide this. this was the expressed purpose. this was the reason they did it. we are prepared to proceed. majority leader, democratic majority leader, we are prepared to proceed. in our view, these proceedings should begin. i yield the rest of my time to my colleague, white house counsel. thanks.
8:43 am
>> mr. cipollone? >> thank mr. chief justice. i just m want to make a couple f additional points here it's very difficult to sit there and listen to mr. schiff tell the tale that heth just told. let's remember how we all got here. they make false allegations about a telephone call. the president of the united states declassified that telephone call and released it to the public. how's that for transparency? when mr. schiff found out that there was nothing to his allegations, he focused on the second telephone call. he made false, and his colleagues, made false allegations about that second telephone call that occurred before the one he had the main did. so the president of the united states declassified and released
8:44 am
that telephone call. still nothing. again, complete transparency in a way that frankly i'm unfamiliar with any precedent of any president of the united states releasing a classified telephone call with a foreign leader. when mr. schiff saw that his allegations w were false, and he knew it anyway, what did he do? he went to the house and he manufactured a fraudulent that call. he manufactured a false version of that call. he read it to the american people, and he didn't tell them it was a complete fake. do you want to know about due process? i'll tell you about due process. never before in history of our country has a president been
8:45 am
confronted with this kind of impeachment receiving in the house. it wasn't conducted by the judiciary committee. now, mr. nadler when he applied for that job told his colleagues when they took over the house that he was really good at impeachment. but what happened was the proceedings took place in a basement of the house of representatives. the president was forbidden from attending. the president was not allowed to have a lawyer present. in every other impeachment proceeding, the president has been given a minimal due process. nothing here. not even mr. schiff's republican colleagues were allowed into the oskiff. information was selectively leaked out. witnesses were threatened.
8:46 am
good public servants were told that they would be held in contempt. they were told that they were obstructing. what does mr. schiff mean by obstructing? he means that unless you do exactly what he says, regardless of your constitutional rights, then you are obstructing. the the president was not allowo call witnesses. by the way, there's still evidence in the skiff that we haven't been allowed to see. i wonder why. no witnesses. now let's think about something else for for a second. let's think about something else. they held these articles for 33 days. we hear all this talk about an overwhelming case, an overwhelming case that they are not even prepared today to stand
8:47 am
up and make an opening argument about. that's because they have no case. frankly, they have no charge when you look at these articles of impeachment, they are not only ridiculous, they are dangerous to our republic. and why? first of all, the notion that invoking your constitutional rightsut to protect the executie branch, that's been done by just about every president since george washington, that that is obstruction. that is our patriotic duty, mr. schiff, particularly when confronted with a wholesale trampling of constitutional rights that i'm unfamiliar with in this country. frankly, it's the kind of thing that our state department would criticize it we see it in foreign countries.
8:48 am
we have c never seen anything le it. and mr. schiff said have i got a deal for you. abandon all your constitutional rights. forget about your lawyers and come in and did exactly what i say. no, thank you. no, thank you. and then he says he has the temerity to come into the senate and say we have no use for courts. it's outrageous. now let me tell you another story. there is a man named charlie kupperman. he is the deputy national security adviser. he isbe the number two to john bolton. because you have to remember. mr. schiff want you to forget but you have to remember how we got here. they threatened him. they sent him a.t subpoena. mr. kupperman did what any american should be allowed to do, used to be allowed to do.
8:49 am
he was forced to get a lawyer. he was forced to pay for that lawyer. and he went to court. mr. schiff doesn't like courts. he went to court and he said, judge, tell me what to do. i have obligations that frankly rise to what the supreme court has called the apex of executive privilege in the area of national security. and then i have a subpoena from mr. schiff. what do i do? do you know what mr. schiff said? mr. kupperman went to the judge and the houseen said, never min, we withdraw the subpoena, we promise not to issue it again. and then they come here and ask
8:50 am
you to do the work that they refuse to do for themselves. they ask you to trample on executive privilege. now, would theyge ever suggest that the executive could determine on its own what the speech and debate clause means? of course not. uswhat ever suggest that the hoe could invade the discussions that the supreme court has behind closed doors? i hope not. but they come here and the ask you to do what they refuse to do for themselves. they had a court date, and they withdrew the subpoena. they made a decision and they're asking you to become complicit in that evasion of the courts here it's ridiculous and we should call it out for what it is.
8:51 am
obstruction for going to court? it's an act of patriotism to defend the constitutional rights of the president. because if they can do to the president, they can do it to any of you and they could do it to any american citizen, and that's wrong. and laurence tribe who has been advising them, i guess he didn't tell you that in the clinton impeachment he said, it's dangerouss to suggest that invoking constitutional rights is impeachable. it's dangerous point and you know what? it is dangerous, mr. schiff. so what are we doing here? we have the house that completely concocted a process that we have never seen before. they lock the president out. oh, and by the way, will
8:52 am
mr. schiff give documents? we asked him for documents. we asked him for documents when, contrary to his prior statements, it turned out that his staff was working with the whistleblower. wes said let's see the document, released into the public. we are still waiting. so the idea that they would come here and lecture the senate -- by the way, i was surprised to hear that, did you realize that you are on trial court mr. nadler is putting you on trial. everybody is on trial except for them. it's ridiculous. it's ridiculous. they said in their brief we have overwhelming evidence. and they are afraid to make their case. think about it. think about it. it's common sense. overwhelming evidence to impeach the president of the united
8:53 am
states, and then they come here on the first day and they say, you know what, we need some more evidence. now let me tell you something. if i showed up in any court in this country and i said, judge, my case is overwhelming but i'm not ready to go yet. i needo more evidence before i can make my case. i would get thrown out in two seconds, and that's exactly what should happen here. that's exactly what should happen here. it's too much to listen to almost. the hypocrisy of the whole thing. and what are the stakes? what areta the stakes? there's an election in almost nine months, months from now there's going to be an election. senators in this body the last time had very wise words. they echoed the words of our
8:54 am
founders. a partisan impeachment is like stealing an election. and that's exactly what we have. we have -- talk about the framers worst nightmare it's a partisan impeachment that they have delivered it to your doorstep. in an election year. some of you are upset because youu should be in iowa right no, but instead we are here and they are not ready to go. and it's outrageous. it's outrageous. and the american people won't stand for it, i'll tell you that right y now. you are not here to steal what election. they are here to steal to the elections. it's buried in the small print of the ridiculous articles of impeachment. they want to know president trump from the ballot. they won't tell you that. they don't have the guts to say it directly, but that's exactly what they are here to do.
8:55 am
they are asking the senate to attack one of the most sacred rights we have as americans. the right to choose our president. in an election year. it's never been done before. it shouldn't be done. now, the reason it's never been done is because no one ever thought that it would be a good idea for our country, for our children, for our grandchildren to trynt to remove a president from a ballot, to deny the american people the right to vote based on a fraudulent investigation conducted inul secret with no rights. well, i could go on and on, but my point is very simple.
8:56 am
it's long past time that we start this so we can in this ridiculous charade and go have an election. thank you very much, mr. chief justice. >> does the president's counsel yield back theck remainder of their time? hanky. the democratic leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i send an amendment to the desk to subpoena certain documents and records from the white house and ask that it be read. >> the clerk will read the document.
8:57 am
>> the senator from new york mrt number 1284. at the appropriate place in resolving clause insert the following, section notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution pursuant to rules five and six of the rules and procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials, one, the chief justice of the united states to the secretary of the senate shall issue a subpoena to the acting chief of staff of the white house commanding him to produce for the time period from january 1, 2019, to the present all documents, communications, and other records within the possession, custody or control of the white house, including the national security council, referring or relating to all meetings and calls between president trump and the president of ukraine including documents, communications and other records related to the scheduling of, preparation for,
8:58 am
and follow-up from theol president's april 21 and july 25, 2019 telephone calls as well as the president's september 25, 2019 meeting with 2019 meeting with the president of ukraine in new york. all investigations, inquiries or other probes relating to ukraine including any that relate in any way to, one, former vice president joseph biden, two, hunter biden and in any of his associates, three, the burisma holdings limited also known as burisma. interference or involvement by ukraine in the 2016 united states elections, five, the democratic national committee or, six, crowdstrike. the actual or potential suspension, withholding, delaying, freezing on releasing of united states for assistance, military assistance, or security assistance of any kind to ukraine, including but notut limited to the ukraine security
8:59 am
assistance initiative, usai, and foreign military financing, fmf. all documents, keyey medication, notes and other records created or received by acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, then national security adviser john bolton, senior advisor to the chief of staff robert blair, and other white house officials relating to efforts to, one, solicit request, , demand induc, persuade or coerce ukraine to conduct or announceai investigations. two, offers scheduled or our wih all the white house meeting for ukraine's president, or three, hold and then released military and other security assistance to ukraine. meetings at or involving the white house not related to ukraine including but not limited to, one, president zelensky's inauguration on
9:00 am
may 20, 2019 in kiev, , ukraine, including but not limited to president trump's decision not to attend, to ask vice president pence to lead the delegation directing vice president pence notsi to attend and subsequent decisionqu about the composition of the delegation of the united states. .. >> as well as any private meetings or conversations with those individuals before or after the larger meeting. three, meetings at the white house on or about july 10th, 2019 involving ukrainian officials andre yormac and the
9:01 am
united states government officials including, but not limited to then national security advisor john bolton, secretary perry, ambassador volcker, ambassador sondland, for a meeting and subsequent meeting in the boardroom. a meeting the at white house on or around august 30th, 2019 involving president trump, secretary of state mike pompeo, and secretary of defense mark esper. five, a planned meeting later canceled in warsaw, poland, on or around september 1st, 2019 between president trump and president wolinski. and involving vice-president pence, president trump, mick mulvaney concerning the lit offing hold on security assistance for ukraine.
9:02 am
f, meetings, telephone calls related to any occasions in which the national security counsel official reported concerns to national security council lawyers, included, but not limited to legal advisor john isenberg related to matters involving ukraine, but not limited to one, decision for military assistance to ukraine. two july 10th, 2019 meeting at the white house with ukrainian officials, three, the president's july 25th 2019 call with the president of ukraine. 4, a september 1st, 2019 meeting between ambassador sondland and a ukrainian official and five, the president's september 2019 call with ambassador sondland. g, any internal review or assessment within the white house regarding ukraine matters following the september 9th, 2019 request for documents from
9:03 am
the house permanent select committee on intelligence, house oversight committee on reform and house committee on foreign affairs included, but not limited to, hold on security assistance to ukraine scheduled white house meeting for the president of ukraine and any request for investigations by ukraine. h, complaint submitted by the whistleblower on or around august 2019 to inspector general of the intelligence community. i, all meetings or calls including requests for or recordings of meetings or telephone calls scheduling items, calendar entries, white house visitor records and e-mail or text emergencies using personal or work related devices between or among, one, current or former white house officials or employees, including, but not limited to
9:04 am
president trump and two, rudolph w. giuliani, ambassador sondland, victoria tunstand, and-- and the former ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch, including, but not limited to to enter or recall her from the united states embassy in kiev and two, the sergeant at arms is authorized to utilize the services of the deputy sergeant at arms or any other employee of the united states senate in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this section. >> i send an amendment to the desk to subpoena certain documents and records from the state department and i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will read the amendment.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on