about process. remember back then in that house when you heard republicans say, adam schiff, the chairman of the intelligence committee and the lead house floor manager here, the prosecutor, he's a fact witness, he should have to testify. now you are hearing the democrats say that the lead defense lawyer for the president is a fact witness and he should have to testify. i expect today to be very nasty. you're going to hear the lawyers from both sides argue, i expected to be very nasty because one of the points the democrats are going to try to make is how unfair this is, try to build up public support and put more pressure on this moderate republican just in the house as republicans try to put pressure on the moderate democrats. the one thing i don't think is in doubt is the final outcome because exactly as you said, the republicans have the vote, however long it takes today when the final vote comes the mcconnell rules will go into

effect. >> martha: you point out that differences between the house process and the senate process where the minority is obviously sort of yelling and screaming for more power and control over the process. i'm also reminded about senator chuck schumer back in 1999 who voted to make a motion to dismiss the charges against president clinton. and also voted against witnesses and the trial against president clinton. one other thought here for mitch mcconnell, nobody will dictate the process of the united states senate, he's making it clear that he's invoked the charge. katie pavlich joins us now, i expect that table is going to get pretty full of the emotions i could table today. >> it certainly will get pretty full. going back to chuck schumer's argument about mitch mcconnell, he's argued that its water down process but that is an endowment of that house process because mitch

mcconnell is using information that house came up with during their inquiry and using it in the senate. mitch mcconnell during the house inquiry was confirming judges and wrapping a business, you have every intention of getting back to what he will call the people's business in very quick due time because he believes that is what the senate should be focused on. the politics have heated up, we have a number of senators who will be sitting in on this trial who are on the campaign trail, an argument about not having any kind of bias against anybody in the trial, a number of senators who will be listening and are running against president trump for his job and there are a lot of questions about where democrats are now. democrats lost momentum, they had defections in the house and articles of impeachment came down and there are a number of democratic senators, doug jones from alabama and west virginia governor joe manchin who have been skeptical of the way the house ran their process. chuck schumer continues to say

that the processes being rushed but the fact is that mitch mcconnell is working off with the house did come of the senate is not the house, the house has the ability and obligation to get as many witnesses and possible to make a rock-solid case. it's hard to make an argument now that the president should be impeached while also not doing the work that was required to get the articles over to the senate. >> senator schumer we are told that after 50 plus amendments, each will be moved to table my mitch mcconnell but if you will get through. this could be a long process. >> i actually got that chuck schumer there is the senate minority leader was probably the most animated i have seen him at the podium there. sometimes he just always looks down, has a very monotonous voice but he seems quite in charge of his caucus now but he

also seems outfoxed handouts weighed by mitch mcconnell once again. foiled again and the democrats regularly tried to make mitch mcconnell into this villain and mitch mcconnell doesn't really care, he just figures out, what are the tools at my disposal that i can utilize in order to make the best case and there is also this process point, in terms of the politics, of the 11 ads that are right now running about impeachment, they are all being sponsored by g.o.p.-aligned groups. the republicans are actually on offense on impeachment from a communications perspective even though it is the president of the united states, also republican, who is on trial in the senate. >> martha: let's bring in juan williams, joining us as well. one of the things the senate will say is that it's not up to them to fix what they see as the flaws of the house investigation, that they have the opportunity to push forward to subpoena john bolton for

example and didn't so now is not time to get a do over. >> correct, i think that is the argument you are hearing quite explicitly and i think you saw this yesterday in the brief from the president's lawyers. again, they did not rebut the articles as presented by the house. instead it was a really strong rhetorical exercise, a partisan exercise in saying that what they thought the house had done did not amount to something that deserves the senate's attention. they have in fact called for immediate dismissal, apparently mitch mcconnell is not buying into that but that is the tone of the argument coming from the president's side. and the second point to make is that when you heard from chuck schumer today, the senate minority leader, the suggestion he was making is that if the president is innocent as his republican colleagues believe then why not allow for witnesses and evidence to be presented? why not just let everybody see

and hear everything? and he emphasized that potential witnesses would be republicans, people who had worked for the president. you heard earlier, mcconnell say wait a second, that would take us into an extensive argument about executive power and the president's right to exercise that power to prevent people who work for him from speaking publicly about conversations. to my mind this was interesting because when you hear senator mcconnell argue that the house did not finish its business, it seems to me that he is omitting the idea that the president was telling his aides not to talk to congress, telling the state department, others, do not present documents to the house. now senator mcconnell said we are not obligated to bring the articles, we are here to try.

i thought it was ironic or interesting that you heard chuck schumer reply, the senate's responsibility is to try and that includes bringing in all available witnesses and evidence. >> bret: one, thanks. let's bring in jim jordan, ranking member of the house oversight committee and a member of the president's impeachment defense team. you heard juan there at going chuck schumer on the floor where he said trial without evidence is not a trial but a cover-up. your response to that? >> chuck schumer said the dark of the night because senators might have to past dinnertime. adam shifted 17 depositions in a bunker in the basement of the capital and now they're talking about, this is not going to be done in prime time, so to speak. i thought senator schumer's arguments were weak, i think this case is strong on process grounds, he was denied due process in the house and most important of the facts are on

the president's side. they all support the president's position, that's why i think he's going to prevail in this is all done. >> bret: what exactly is your role as part of the president's team? >> we are going to do whatever pat instructs us to do to be helpful, they've got great lawyers, they are going to present an excellent case because the facts are on their side, a top-notch legal team and we will do whatever they asked us to do because we want to help the president in any way possible. this is so ridiculous entities for koufax, the idea that we have the transcript, there was no quid pro quo in the transcript, two individuals on the call have repeatedly said that there was no pushing, no pressure, no leakage between the security assistance dollars and any type of investigation in ukraine, ukraine didn't even know at the time of the call that eight had been held and

they took no action, never started an investigation, never promised to start an investigation, never announced an investigation. those four facts will never change no matter how long jerry nadler and adam schiff talk. >> martha: congressman jordan, no doubt, the democrats in the senate will bring up a lot of the testimony that was heard from those 17 witnesses, over 100 hours of testimony of people who say the opposite of what you're saying, there's clear signs of the was being withheld and that it was for political reasons, that's a democrat arguments here. one of the things i think we are going to hear that drifted out this morning is this question of whether or not the white house attorney pat cipollone you just mentioned has first-hand evidence of any of these things and can he be pressed to divulge it? obviously that goes straight to an executive powers question that i would imagine would be tied up for quite some time. >> that's ridiculous, the president's lawyer? that is just ridiculous.

i don't see that ever happening, there is no reason for that to happen, no basis for that to happen. tell me when the announcement happen -- this is the democrats case, one of their witnesses -- went to the announcement happened, the announcement that they were going to investigate? it never happened. those four key facts i just talked about are never going to change, the facts are solely on the president side, i think that's why they understand that this is were ridiculous and that's why the president will prevail in as short a trial is possible because all the facts support the president. >> bret: senator mcconnell is essentially saying, what's the focus of the house impeachment inquiry, if they are going to reopen the case on the senate side. how long if you had to guess do you think this goes?

and do you think that the senate will hear from witnesses? >> i don't. the facts are so strong, as i've said, for the president. when pat cipollone's team presented, those of the facts, they support the president's narrative, ukraine got the money before the end of the fiscal year, the whole thing doesn't mean much so i think it's a strong case. i would love to see this thing dismissed right away, that's not going to happen, they will have the motions today, then they're going to have the presentation from the house manager on the democrat side and the white house counsel team and the negative questions. i assume the president will be acquitted sometime next week. >> martha: congressman jordan, you are a argued vociferously for minority witnesses on the house side wouldn't that principle be in play on the senate side? >> we didn't get any witnesses, we just argued for a fair process. every single witness called was adam schiff's, in the bunker of the basement of the capital, there were times, martha, where

we asked the witness questions and adam schiff prevented the witness from answering her question. he wasn't just chairman of the committee at the moment, he took on the role of the lawyer for the witness. they were paying a lot of money, the lawyer can make the argument if there is some privilege he wants to assert and prevent the witness from answering a question, not adam schiff. no due process for the president, the president wasn't allowed to be there to see what was going on, wasn't allowed to cross-examine, we weren't allowed to call any witnesses and now they are talking about process when senator mcconnell is simply following the precedent set 21 years ago during the clinton impeachment process. >> martha: you think there will be no witnesses, period? >> i do, i think they have the votes for that and i think that's the right thing to do, where all the evidence should be. frankly, if you got a strong

case, let the witnesses come. that's the to make the argument we made on the house side. if you have a good case, a strong case, you wouldn't deny due process to the minority and the president, lake adam schiff and nancy pelosi and jerry nadler did on the house side. >> bret: congressman, we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> martha: we are approaching 15 minutes after the time the trial was set to begin right now. by law. i think this is probably going to be the peace we will see for some time. we will find out what the holdup is this morning when you look at the blank screen. >> bret: we are going to squeeze in a quick break here as we wait for the trump impeachment trial to resume. what does help for heart failure look like?

♪the beat goes on it looks like emily cooking dinner for ten. ♪the beat goes on it looks like jonathan on a date with his wife. ♪la-di-la-di-di entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps your heart, so you can keep on doing what you love. entresto helped people stay alive and out of the hospital. heart failure can change the structure of your heart, so it may not work as well. entresto helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. don't take entresto if pregnant; it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb.

the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ♪the beat goes on ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure. ask your doctor about entresto for heart failure yeah! entrust your heart to entresto. ♪the beat goes on even when your car is clean, does it still smell stuffy or stale? try febreze car. it eliminates stuffy car odors and leaves behind a fresh scent for up to 30 days. try febreze car in a variety of scents including extra light.

oh no, here comes gthe neighbor probably to brag about how amazing his xfinity customer service is. i'm mike, i'm so busy. good thing xfinity has two-hour appointment windows. they have night and weekend appointments too. he's here. bill? karolyn? nope! no, just a couple of rocks. download the my account app to manage your appointments making today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome. i'll pass.

>> welcome back, as this process gets underway, so far we have heard from mitch mcconnell, senate majority leader, also from senator schumer, the minority leader as they lay out where they will be coming into this process, where their expectations are. we do expect there will be quite a few motions on procedural issues and the rules that mitch mcconnell laid out and his four-page document. let's go back to our congressional correspondent, chad pergram and get his take on what we have heard so far and what it indicates about where this is going, chad. >> well, we heard the senate minority leader chuck schumer say that he would "vociferously argue that the press be seated until they come in." they're actually about to start right now, john roberts the chief justice is coming, i should point that the senate rules indicate that the impeachment rules indicate that they start at 1:00 precisely, now it is about 1:18, they are

starting, here's chief justice john roberts presiding over the senate trial. >> waiting for audio from the senate floor associates underway, we see the chief justice standing, bringing all of us to order. here we go. >> we will do this according to the constitution and laws, so help you god. the secretary will note the name of the senator who was just taken the oath and will present the oath book to him for signature. [no audio] >> the sergeant and arms will make the proclamation. >> this is the swearing-in of senator james inhofe who is not there for the original

swearing-in last... let's listen in. >> while the senate of the united states is that sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment, exhibited by the house of representatives against o'donnell john tromp, president of the united states. >> i would like to state that for the information of all senators, the trial breach filed yesterday by the parties have been credited and our now at each senator's desk. >> the following documents will be submitted to the senate for printing in the senate journal. the preset, issue january 162020, and the receipt of summons dated january 162020. the following documents which were received by the senate will be submitted to the senate for printing in the senate journals pursuant to the order of januar.

the answer of donald don trump president of the united states to the articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against him on january 16, 2020 received by the secretary the senate, on januarl brief filed by the house of representative received by the secretary of the senate on january 18, 2020. the trial brief filed by the president, received by the secretary of the senate on january 20, 2020. a replication of the house of representatives received by the secretary of the senate on january 20, 2020. and the rebuttal brief filed by the house of representatives received by the secretary of the senate on january 21, 2020. without objection, the foregoing documents will be printed in the congressional record. i note the presence in the house of the senate in the senate

chamber of the managers on the part of the house of representatives and counsel for the president of the united states. >> mr. chief justice. to speak of the majority leader is recognized. >> a senate asked for floor privileges on close sessions, it's been created. it has been agreed to by unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> further further information of all senators, i'm about to send a resolution to the desk providing for an outline of the next steps in these proceedings. it will be debatable by parties for two hours, equally divided. senator schumer will then send an amendment to the resolution to the desk. once that amendment has been offered and reported, we will have a brief recess. when we reconvene, senator schumer's amendment will be debatable by the parties for two hours, upon the use or yielding back of time, i intend to move to table senator schumer's amendment.

and so, mr. chief justice, last senate resolution to the desk and asked that it be read. >> the clerk will read the resolution. >> senate resolution 483, to provide for 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 that have been submitted to or produced by the house judiciary committee, including transcripts of public hearings or markups and any materials printed by the house of representatives, or the house judiciary committee, pursuant to house resolution 660. materials in this record will be admitted into evidence, subject to any hearsay evidentiary or other objections that the president may make after opening presentations are concluded.

all materials filed pursuant to this paragraph shall be printed and made available to all parties. the president and the house of representatives shall have until 9:00 a.m. on wednesday january 22nd, 2022 file any motions permitted under the rules of impeachment with the exception of motions to subpoena witnesses or documents or any other evidentiary emotions, responses to any such motions shall be filed no later than 11:00 a.m. on wednesday january 22nd, 2020. all materials filed pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed with the secretary and be printed and made available to all parties. arguments on such motion shall begin at 1:00 p.m. on wednesday january 22nd 2,020, and each side may determine the number of persons to make its presentation. following which, the senate shall deliberate, if so ordered

under the impeachment rules and vote on any such motions. following the disposition of such motions, were no motions are made, than the house of representatives shall make its presentations in support of the articles of impeachment for a period of time it not to exceed 24 hours or for up to three session days. following the house of representatives presentation, the president shall make his presentation for a period not to exceed 24 hours or for up to three session days. each side made determine the number of persons to make its presentation. upon the conclusion of the presidents presentation, senators may question the parties for a period of time, not to exceed 16 hours. upon the conclusion of questioning by the senate, there shall be four hours of argument by the parties equally divided, followed by deliberation by the senate, if so ordered under the impeachment rules on the question of whether it shall be in order to consider and to debate other the impeachment

rules, any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. the senate, without entering into view name action or motion shall then decide by yay ornate is that whether it shall be decided to consider and debate under the impeachment rules the impeachment witnesses or documents. following the disposition of that question, other motion provided under the impeachment rules shall be in order. if the senate agrees to allow either the house of representatives or the president to subpoena witnesses, the witnesses shall first first be deposed and the senate shall decide after the deposition which witnesses and shall testify pursuant to the impeachment rules. no testimonies shall be admissible in the senate unless the parties have had an opportunity to depose the such witnesses. at the conclusion of deliberation by the senate, the senate shall vote on each article of impeachment. >> the resolution is arguable by the parties for two hours,

equally divided. mr. manager shift, are you a proponent or opponent of this motion? >> the manager owners are in opposition to this resolution. >> thank you, mr. cipollone, are you a proponent or opponent of this? >> we are proponents. >> then you may proceed first, and retain rebuttal time if you wish. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. majority leader mcconnell, democratic leader schumer, senators my name is pat cipollone, i am here as counsel to the president of the united states. our team is proud to be here representing president 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 and impeachment. it requires the house managers to stand up and make their opening statement and make their case. they have delayed bringing this impeachment to this house for 33 days, 33 days to this body. 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 statement, they will get 24 hours to do that. then, 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 and some of the more difficult questions that will come before this body. we are in favor of this, we believe that once you hear those initial presentations, the only conclusion will be that the president has done absolutely nothing wrong. 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, you will look at those articles alone and you will determine that there is absolutely no ca case. so we respectfully ask you to adopt this resolution so that we can begin with this process. it is long past time to start

this proceeding, and we are here today to do it. we hope that the house managers will agree with us and begin this proceeding today. we reserve the manner of our time for rebuttal. >> mr. chief justice, senators, 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. those articles charge president donald john trump with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. the misconduct set out in those articles is the most serious

ever charged by a president. the first article, abuse of power, charges the president with soliciting a foreign power to help them cheat in next election. moreover, it alleges and we will prove that he sought to coerce ukraine into helping him cheat by withholding official acts. two official acts, a meeting that the new president of ukraine desperately sought with president 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. even more pernicious lee, president trump he illegally withheld almost $400 million in taxpayer-funded military assistance to ukraine. a nation at war with our russian adversary, to compel ukraine to help him cheat in the election. astonishingly, the president's trial brief filed yesterday

contends that even if this conduct is proved, that there is nothing that the house where this senate may do about it. it is the president's apparent belief that under article 2 he can do whatever he wants, no matter how corrupt. outfitted in a gaudy legal clothing, and yet, when the founders wrote the impeachment clause, they had precisely this type of misconduct in mine. conduct that abuses the power of his office for personal benefit, that undermines our national security, that invites for interference in our democratic process of an election. it is the trifecta of constitutional misconduct justifying impeachment. an 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 itch impeachment best occasion into

the president's own misconduct, this is every bit as destructivr constitutional order as misconduct charged in the first article. if a president can obstruct his own investigation, if you can effectively nullify a power the constitution gives us only to congress, indeed, the ultimate power, the ultimate power the constitution gives to prevent presidential misconduct, and the president places himself beyond accountability, above the law. cannot be indicted, cannot be impeached. it makes him a monarch, they very evil against which our constitution and the balance of powers it carefully laid out was designed to guard against. shortly, the trial and these charges will begin. when it has concluded, you will be asked to make several determinations. did the house prove that the president abused his power by seeking to coerce a foreign nation to help him cheat in the

next election? and did he obstruct to the congress and its investigation into his own misconduct by ordering his agencies and officers to cooperate -- refused to cooperate in any way, to refuse to testify, to refuse to answer subpoenas for documents and through every other means. if the house has proved its case, and we believe the evidence will not be seriously contested, you will have to answer at least one other critical question. does the commission of these high crimes and misdemeanors require the conviction and removal of the president? we believe that it does. the constitution requires that it be so, or the power of impeachment must be deemed a relic or a casualty to partisan times, and the american people left unprotected against a president who would abuse his power for the very purpose of corrupting the only other method of accountability, our elections

themselves. and so, you will vote to find the president guilty or not guilty. to find his conduct in impeachable or not impeachable. but i would submit to you, these are not the most important decisions you will make. how can that be? how can any decision you will make the more important than guilt or innocence then 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 important question is the question you must answer today, will the president and the american people get a fair tri trial? will there be a fair trial? i submit that this is an even more important question than how you vote on guilt or innocence, because whether we have a fair trial will determine what you have a basis to render a fair and impartial verdict.

it is foundational, the structure upon which any other decision you will make must rest. if you only get to see part of the evidence, if you only allow one side where the other a chance to present at their full case, you are verdict will be predetermined by the bias in the proceeding. if the defendant is not allowed to introduce evidence of his innocence it's not a fair trial. so too for the prosecution, if the house cannot call witnesses or introduce documents and evidence, it's not a fair trial. it's not really a trial at all. americans all over the country are watching this right now. imagine they are on grand jury or they are on jury duty, imagine that the judge walks into that courtroom and says that she has been talking to the defendant, and at the defendants request the judge has allowed not to let the prosecution call any witnesses.

or introduce any documents. "the drudge" on the defendants have agreed that the prosecutor may only read to the jury the dry transcripts of the jury proceedings. that is it. has anyone on jury duty in this 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, this proceeding, the one we are in right now is the trial. this is not the appeal from a trial, you are not appellate court judges, okay, one of you is. and unless this trial is going to be different from every other impeachment trial or every other kind of trial, for that matter, you must allow the prosecution and defense, the house manager and the president's lawyers, to call relevant witnesses. you must subpoena documents at the president has blocked, but

which bear on his guilt or innocence. you must impartially do justice as your oath requires. so what does a fair trial look like in the context of impeachment? the short answer is it looks like every other trial. first, the resolution should allow the house managers to obtain documents that have been withheld. first, not last. because 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, and must be available to question them with. any other order makes no sense. next, the resolution should allow the house managers to call their witnesses, and then the president should be allowed to do the same, and any rebuttal witnesses. when the evidentiary portion of the trial ends, the parties argue the case. you deliberate and render a verdict. if there is a dispute as to whether a particular witness is

relevant or material to the charges brought, under the senate rules, the chief justice would rule on the issue of materiality. why should this trial be different than any other trial? the short answer is it should not. leader mcconnell's resolution would turn the trial process on its head. his resolution requires the house to prove its case without witnesses, without documents, 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. so what is the harm of waiting until the end of the trial? of kicking the can down the road on the question of documents and witnesses? besides the fact that it is completely backwards, trial first then evidence, besides the fact that 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 of 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 presidents of misconduct or those around him. and neither will the american people. the charges here 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 need to be taken after the president's conviction, the american people must know about it. but if, as the public already jaded by experience has come to suspect, this resolution is merely the first step of an effort orchestrated by the white house to rush the trial, hide the evidence, and render a fast verdict, or worse, facet dismissal, to make go away as

fast as possible, then the american people will be deprived of a fair trial and they will never know what other risks to our security and elections remain hidden. the harm will also endure for this body. if the senate allows the president to get away with such extensive obstruction, it will affect the senates power of subpoena and oversight just as much is the house. the senates 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 the senate investigation were another impeachment inquiry and trial, our system of checks and balances will be broken, presidents will become accountable to no one. now, it has been reported that leader mcconnell has already got the votes to pass this resolution.

the text of which we did not see until last night and has been changed even moments ago. they say that leader mcconnell is a very good vote counter. nonetheless, i hope that he is wrong. not just because i think this process, the process contemplated by this resolution is backwards and designed with a results in mind, and that the result is not a fair trial. i hope that he is wrong because whatever senators may have said or pledged or committed, has been superseded by an event of constitutional dimension. you have all now sworn an oath. not to each other, not to your legislative leadership, not to the managers or even to the chief justice, you have sworn an oath to do impartial justice. that oath binds you, that oath

supersedes all else. many of you in the senate, and many of us in the house have made statements about the president's conduct. where this trial, or this motion, or 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. but is that really possible? or, as the founders feared has excessive partisanship now made that impossible? one way to find out what a fair trial should look like devoid of partisan consideration is to ask yourselves, how do you structure the trial if you did not know what your party was, and you did not know what the party of the

president was. would it make sense to you to have the trial first and then decide on witnesses and evidence later? would that be fair to both sid 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 that the senate will be impartial, they believe that 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 still capable of rising to the occasion, they want to believe we can rise above party and do it is best for the country, but a great many americans don't believe that will happen. 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, but by letting the house prove its ca 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. now, let's turn to the precise terms of the resolution. the history of impeachment

trials, and what fairness and impartiality require. although we have many concerns about the resolution, i will begin with its single biggest flaw. 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 fairly decide the president's guilt or innocence. moreover, it guarantees that subpoenas will not be issued now, when they would be most valuable to the senate, the parties, and the american people. according to the resolution the leader has introduced, for us the senate receives the briefs and filings from the parties. next, it hears the lengthily presentations from the house on the president. now, my colleagues, the president's lawyers have described this as opening statements. but let's not kid ourselves. that is the trial that they

contemplate. the opening statements are the trial. they will either be most of the trial or they will be all of the trial. if the senate votes to deprive itself of witnesses and documents, the opening statements will be the end of the trial, so to stay, let's just have the opening statements and then we will see, that means let's have the trial, and maybe we can just weep this all under the rug. so you will hear these lengthily presentations from the house, there will be a question-and-answer period for the senators, then and only then, after essentially, the trial is over, after the briefs have been filed, after the arguments have been made, after the senators to exhaust all their questions, only then will the senate consider what are to can stomach's subpoena documents documents and witness testimony that unlike the clinton trial, have not yet been

seen, or heard. it is true that the record compiled by the house is overwhelming, it is true the record already overwhelms the president, the house assembled a powerful case, evidence of the president's high crimes and misdemeanors that includes direct evidence, testimony of officials who were unwilling and unwitting in this scheme and sought for what it was. if there is still more evidence, relative and probative evidence that the president continues to block, that would flesh out the full extent of the president's misconduct, and of those around him, we have seen that over the past few weeks, new evidence has continued to come to light. as the nonpartisan government's accountability offense has determined that the hold on military aid to ukraine was illegal. and broke the law. as john bolton has offered to

testify in the trial, as one of the presidents agents lev parnas has produced documents evidence that clarifies mr. giuliani's activities on behalf of the president and corroborates somnolence testimony that everyone was in the loop. as documents released under the freedom of information act have documented the alarm at the department of defense while the president illegally withheld the military support for ukraine, an ally at war with russia, without explanation. at the senior office of management and budget official michael duffy instructed to defense officials july 25th, 90 minutes after president trump spoke by ferrone with presiden president zelensky, that the department should pause all obligation of ukraine military assistance on th under its purv. 90 minutes after that call.

duffy added "given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held. to those who need to know to execute the direction." although the evidence is already more than sufficient to convict, there is no rational basis for the senate to deprive itself of all relevant information in making such a hugely consequential judgment. moreover, as their president's answer to his summons and his make clear, the president now contest the facts in misleading ways. he should not have it both ways, while also concealing mountains of evidence that they are precisely on those facts. if this body seeks impartial justice, it should ensure that subpoenas are 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 knows 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, the subpoenas cover narrowly tailored and targeted documents and witnesses 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 preserved these documents in response to house subpoenas. indeed, in some cases, agencies have already produced documents and alloys suits i'll be at and heavily redacted form. witnesses with knowledge or involvement should be heard. that includes the presidents acting chief of staff, mick mulvaney, his former national security advisor john bolton, who is publicly offered to testify.

senior officials implementing the presidents freeze on ukraine's military aid, also have very relevant testimony, why not hear it? robert blair who serves as mulvaney senior advisor, michael duffy a senior advisor, and other witnesses with direct knowledge who we reserve the right to call later, but these witnesses who we wish to begin the trial. last month, president trump made clear that he supported having senior officials testifying before the senate during his trial declaring that he would love to have secretary pompeo, mr. mulvaney, now former secretary perry and many other people testify in the senate trial. >> i would love to have mike pompeo, i would love to have to make, i would love to have a rick perry, and many other people testify.

>> the senate has an opportunity to take the president up on his offer, to make his senior aides available, including mr. mulvaney and secretaries. and pompeo. but now the president is changing his tune. the bluster of wanting these witnesses to testify is over. notwithstanding the fact he is never asserted a claim of privilege during the house impeachment proceedings, he threatens to invoke when now, in a last ditch effort to keep the rest of the truth from coming out. the president sends his lawyers here to breathlessly claim that these witnesses or others cannot possibly testify because it involves national security. never mind that it was the president's actions and withholding military aid from an ally at war that threatened 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 about misconduct, based on foreign

entanglement, was what the framers feared most. the president absurd as to argument announce this, we must endanger national security to protect national security. we must make the president's conduct threatening our security beyond the reach of impeachment power if we are to save the 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 the very concrete, and let me show you just one example of what the president is hiding in the name of national security. there is a document which the president has refused to turn over, in which his top diplomat in ukraine says to two other appointees of the president, "as i sat on the phone, i think it is 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 have only seen its contents because it was turned over by a cooperating witness. this is what the president would hide from you and from the american people. in the name of national security, he would hide graphic evidence of his dangerous misconduct. the only question is, it is the question raised by this resolution, will you let him? last year, president trump said that article 2 of the constitution will allow him to do anything he wanted. evidently, believing that article 2 empowered him to denigrate the government, he also declared that he will fight off subpoenas. let's hear the president's own words. >> president trump: then i have an article 2, where i have the right to do whatever i want as president, i'm fighting all

the subpoenas. >> to do his pledge to obstruct congress, president trump face and impeachment inquiry and the house of representatives, he ordered the executive branch to defy every single request on every single subpoena. he issued this order through his white house counsel pat cipollone on october 8th, the same counsel that stood before you a moment to go to defend presidents misconduct. he then affirmed it again at a rally on october 10th. following 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, mr. sipple loney stated in effect that the president will withhold all evidence in the executive branch

unless the house render 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 president was determined to obstruct congress no matter what we did. his conduct sense, his attacks on the impeachment inquiry, his attacks on witnesses, have affirmed that the president never had any intention to cooperate under any circumstan circumstance, and why? because the evidence and testimony he conceals would only further prove his guilt. the innocent do not act 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 th the presidentsn lawful hold on military aid,

state department records including text messages and what that messages exchanged by the state department and ukrainian officials and notes to file written by career professionals as they saw the presidents scheme unfold in real time. omb records demonstrating an after-the-fact rationale for the president's orders showing internal objections that the president's orders violated the law. defense department records reflecting bafflement and alarm that the president suspended military aid to a key security partner without explanation. many of the presidents aides have also followed these orders and refused to testify. these include central figures in the impeachment inquiry, including white house chief of staff mick mulvaney, formal national security advisor john bolton, and many others with relevant testimony like blair and robert duffy. mr. blair who serves as a senior advisor to acting chief of staff mall veiny he worked directly

with mr. duffy, a political appointee in the office of management and budget to carry out the president's order to freeze vital military and security assistance to ukraine. the trump administration has refused to disclose communications even though we know from written testimony, public reporting, even freedom of information act lawsuit that they were instrumental unable mentoring the hold and extending in at the presidents express direction. even as career officials warned accurately that doing so would violate the law. the president has also made the insupportable claim that the house should've been forcing subpoenas in court, and allow the president to delay its impeachment for years. if we had done so, we would have abdicated our constitutional duty to act on the overwhelming facts with force, and the evidence the president was seeking to cheat in the 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 course is also inconsistent with a constitution that gives the house the sole power of impeachment. if the house were compelled to 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 by endlessly litigating the matter in court, engaging every motion or device. indeed, and the case of don mcgann, 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 judgme judgment. a president may not defeat impeachment or accountability by engaging in endless litigation. instead, it h