>> Woodruff: GOOD MORNING.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP STARTS A NEW PHASE AS HIS DEFENSE TEAM PRESENTS THEIR CASE.

LAST NIGHT DEMOCRATIC HOUSE MANAGERS COMPLETED THEIR ARGUMENTS FOR IMPEACHMENT CONCLUDING WITH THE LEAD MANAGER CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF OF CALIFORNIA.

WITH ME THIS MORNING ARE LISA DESJARDINS, SHE'S AT THE CAPITOL, AND WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT YAMICHE ALCINDOR, BOTH OF THEM ARE ON CAPITOL HILL FOR TODAY'S COVERAGE.

HERE IN THE STUDIO WITH ME, SENATE VETERAN ELIZABETH CHRYST, SHE WAS THE REPUBLICAN SENATE SECRETARY DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AND MARGARET TAYLOR, SHE WORKED TON SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE AND WAS AN ATTORNEY AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR TEN YEARS.

GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU.

IT'S SO GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK WITH US.

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

WE WANT TO SHOW THAT TO YOU AS WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS.

WE HAVE BEEN BRINGING YOU THE SENATE CHAPLAIN BARRY BLACK.

YOU SEE HIM STANDING OFF TO THE RIGHT.

THERE ON THE LEFT, YOU SEE ADAM SCHIFF, THE LEAD HOUSE MANAGER WALKING IN FOLLOWED BY HAKEEM JEFFRIES.

BOTH CONGRESSMEN HAVE PLAYED A CENTRAL ROLE IN MAKING THE DEMOCRATS' CASE, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

ON THE RIGHT YOU SEE THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM THERE STANDING, LOOKING AT SOME PAPERS.

PAT CIPOLLONE, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT'S WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, YOU ALSO SEE JAY SEKULOW AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM.

WE ARE -- LISA DESJARDINS AT THE CAPITOL, I'M GOING TO COME TO YOU FIRST.

WE DO HAVE SOME SENSE OF HOW THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM PLANS TO BEGIN TO LAY OUT THEIR ARGUMENTS TODAY.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

WE JUST HAD AN APPEARANCE FROM SOME OF HIS CLOSEST ALLIES, ADVISORS HERE IN THE CAPITOL, HOUSE MEMBER JIM JORDAN AND OTHERS, WHO CAME TO SPOKE TO REPORTERS A FEW MINUTES AGO AND SAID THEY DO PLAN ON LAYING OUT THE FACTS.

THEY ALSO ARE GOING TO RAISE WITH REPORTERS WHAT THEY SAY WAS AN OFFENSIVE STATEMENT BY ADAM SCHIFF, WHO RAISED A REPORT THAT THE A REPUBLICAN CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT THAT SAID SENATORS HEADS WOULD BE ON PIKES IF THEY VOTE AGAINST HIM.

MANY SENATORS FELT THAT WAS QUESTIONING THEIR OWN MORALS, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MAY COME UP, I THINK, BECAUSE THEY'RE BRINGING IT UP THIS MORNING WITH THE PRESS, EVEN IN THE PRESIDENT'S OWN STATEMENT.

ALSO, JUDY, THE DEMOCRATS BROUGHT OVER FROM THE HOUSE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF EVIDENCE IN LARGE CARTS THAT MIGHT BE SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS WE SEE ON THE FLOOR.

I CAN'T GET QUITE A GOOD LOOK.

BUT YAMICHE WILL KNOW MORE ABOUT THE WHITE HOUSE LAYING OUT THEIR CASE.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE, I WANT TO COME TO YOU ON THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN GETTING SOME SENSE OF HOW THEY PLAN TO ARGUE THE CASE.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO BE USING THE ENTIRE 24 HOURS SPREAD OVER THREE DAYS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DID.

>> THEY WILL NOT BE USING, IT SEEMS, THE 24 HOURS THAT HAY AE ALLOWED BUT THEY ARE EAGER TO MAKE A DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT.

TODAY THEY WILL TALKING ABOUT THREE HOURS, TOLD BY SOURCES CLOSE TO THEIR LEGAL STRATEGY, AND WE WILL HEAR FROM PAT CIPOLLONE AND JAY SEKULOW, THE LEAD ATTORNEYS, AND THEY WILL BE MAKING THE CASE IN A COMING ATTRACTIONS TRAILER, AND THEY WILL BE SAYING HERE'S OUR OVERVIEW.

THEY WON'T BE LONG ABOUT THIS AND THEY WILL BE TALKING ABOUT JOE BIDEN AND THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG.

>> Woodruff: ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO NOW TO BARRY BLACK WHO IS THE SENATE CHAPLAIN.

>> -- IN AGES PAST.

YOU ARE OUR HOPE FOR THE YEARS TO COME.

WE TRUST THE POWER OF YOUR PREVAILING PROVIDENCE TO BRING THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO THE CONCLUSION YOU DESIRE.

LORD, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE NOT OUR THOUGHTS, AND YOUR WAYS ARE NOT OUR WAYS, FOR AS THE HEAVENS ARE HIGHER THAN THE EARTH, SO ARE YOUR THOUGHTS HIGHER THAN OUR THOUGHTS AND YOUR WAYS HIGHER THAN OUR WAYS.

LORD, WE LOVE YOU.

EMPOWER OUR SENATORS, RENEW THEIR STRENGTH.

WE PRAY IN YOUR DEPENDABLE NAME, AMEN.

>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO OUR FLAG.

(RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE) >> SENATORS, PLEASE BE SEATED.

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

THE SERGEANTT AT ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.

>> HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE.

ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SLEPT ON PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT WHILE THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES SITTING FOR THE TRIALS OF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> WE SHOULD EXPECT TWO TO THREE HOURS OF SESSION TODAY.

WE'LL TAKE A QUICK BREAK IF NEEDED.

>> PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE REVOLUTION 483, THE COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT HAVE 24 HOURS TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR CASE.

THE SENATE WILL NOW HEAR YOU.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER RECOGNIZES MR. CIPOLLONE TO BEGIN PRESENTATION OF THE CASE FOR THE PRESIDENT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

SENATORS, LEADER MCCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

I WANT TO START OUT JUST VERY BRIEFLY GIVING YOU A SHORT PLAN FOR TODAY.

WE ARE GOING TO BE VERY RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME, AS LEADER MCCONNELL SAID.

WE ANTICIPATE GOING ABOUT TWO TO THREE HOURS AT MOST AND TO BE OUT OF HERE BY 1:00 AT THE LATEST.

WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS TODAY ON TWO POINTS.

YOU HEARD THE HOUSE MANAGER SPEAK FOR NEARLY 24 HOURS OVER THREE DAYS.

WE DON'T ANTICIPATE USING THAT MUCH TIME.

WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO MEETING THEIR BURDEN FOR WHAT THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO DO.

IN FACT, WE BELIEVE THAT, WHEN YOU HEAR THE FACTS -- AND THAT'S WHAT WE INTEND TO COVER TODAY, THE FACTS -- YOU WILL FIND THAT THE PRESIDENT DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.

AND WHAT WE INTEND TO DO TODAY, AND WE'LL HAVE MORE PRESENTATIONS IN GREATER DETAIL ON MONDAY, BUT WHAT WE INTEND TO DO TODAY IS GO THROUGH THEIR RECORD THAT THEY ESTABLISHED IN THE HOUSE.

AND WE INTEND TO SHOW YOU SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ADDUCED IN THE HOUSE THAT THEY DECIDED OVER THEIR THREE DAYS AND 24 HOURS THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME OR MADE A DECISION NOT TO SHOW YOU.

AND EVERY TIME YOU SEE ONE OF THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE, ASK YOURSELF, WHY DIDN'T I SEE THAT IN THE FIRST THREE DAYS?

THEY HAD IT.

IT CAME OUT OF THEIR PROCESS.

WHY DIDN'T THEY SHOW THAT TO THE SENATE?

AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION BECAUSE, AS HOUSE MANAGERS, REALLY, THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO GIVE YOU ALL OF THE FACTS BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING VERY, VERY CONSEQUENTIAL, AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU, TO USE A WORD THAT MR. SCHIFF USED A LOT, VERY, VERY DANGEROUS.

AND THAT'S THE SECOND POINT THAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO KEEP IN MIND TODAY -- THEY'RE ASKING YOU NOT ONLY TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE LAST ELECTION, BUT, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO REMOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT IN AN ELECTION THAT'S OCCURRING IN APPROXIMATELY NINE MONTHS.

THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO TEAR UP ALL OF THE BALLOTS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY ON YOUR OWN INITIATIVE, TAKE THAT DECISION AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND I DON'T THINK THEY'VE SPENT ONE MINUTE OF THEIR 24 HOURS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT FOR OUR COUNTRY.

NOT ONE MINUTE.

THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN FOR OUR COUNTRY TODAY, THIS YEAR AND FOREVER INTO OUR FUTURE.

THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT NO SENATE HAS EVER DONE, AND THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO IT WITH NO EVIDENCE, AND THAT'S WRONG, AND I ASK YOU TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

I ASK YOU TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

SO WHAT I WOULD DO IS POINT OUT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR YOU, AND THEN I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MY COLLEAGUES, AND THEY WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THEIR RECORD, AND THEY WILL SHOW YOU THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T SHOW YOU.

NOW, THEY DIDN'T TALK A LOT ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL, WHICH I WOULD SUBMIT IS THE BEST EVIDENCE OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE CALL.

AND THEY SAID THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT ARE SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

ONE OF THEM WAS THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTERESTS IN BURDEN-SHARING.

THAT WASN'T THE REAL REASON.

BUT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT BURDEN SHARING WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CALL, IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL.

THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT.

WHY?

LET ME READ IT TO YOU.

HERE'S THE PRESIDENT -- AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE TRANSCRIPT.

WE'LL MAKE IT AVAILABLE.

I'M SURE YOU HAVE IT, BUT WE'LL MAKE AVAILABLE COPIES OF THE TRANSCRIPT SO YOU CAN HAVE IT.

THE PRESIDENT SAID -- AND THEY READ THIS LINE -- I WILL SAY THAT WE DO A LOT FOR UKRAINE.

WE SPEND A LOT OF EFFORT AND A LOT OF TIME.

BUT THEY STOPPED THERE, THEY DIDN'T READ THE FOLLOWING -- MUCH MORE THAN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE DOING, AND THEY SHOULD BE HELPING YOU MORE THEN THEY ARE.

GERMANY DOES ALMOST NOTHING FOR YOU, ALL THEY DO IS TALK, AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD REALLY ASK THEM ABOUT.

WHEN I WAS SPEAKING TO ANGELA MERKEL, SHE TALKS UKRAINE, BUT SHE DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

A LOT OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE THE SAME WAY.

SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO LOOK AT, BUT THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN VERY, VERY GOOD TO UKRAINE.

THAT'S WHERE THEY PICKED UP AGAIN WITH THE QUOTE, BUT THEY LEFT OUT THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION OF BURDEN SHARING.

NOW, WHAT DOES PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAY?

DOES HE DISAGREE?

NO.

HE AGREES.

THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THIS.

DIDN'T TELL YOU THIS.

DIDN'T HAVE TIME IN 24 HOURS TO TELL YOU THIS.

YES, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, NOT ONLY 100% BUT ACTUALLY 100%, AND I CAN TELL YOU THE FOLLOWINO ANGELA MERKEL, AND I DID MEET WITH HER, AND I ALSO MET AND TALKED WITH MACRON, AND I TOLD THEM THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING QUITE AS MUCH AS THEY NEED TO BE DOING ON THE ISSUES WITH THE SANCTIONS, THEY ARE NOT ENFORCING THE SANCTIONS, THEY ARE NOT WORKING AS MUCH AS THEY SHOULD WORK FOR UKRAINE.

IT TURNS OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH LOGICALLY THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD BE OUR BIGGEST PARTNER, BUT TECHNICALLY THE UNITED STATES IS A MUCH BIGGER PARTNER THAN THE EUROPEAN UNION, AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES IS DOING QUITE A LOT FOR UKRAINE, MUCH MORE THAN THE EUROPEAN UNION, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SANCTIONS AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

YOU HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF CONFRONTING RUSSIA, AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

AND YOU WILL HEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS A STRONG RECORD ON CONFRONTING RUSSIA.

YOU WILL HEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS A STRONG RECORD OF SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

YOU WILL HEAR THAT FROM THE WITNESSES IN THEIR RECORD THAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT.

SO THAT'S ONE VERY IMPORTANT EXAMPLE.

THEY COME HERE TO THE SENATE, AND THEY ASK YOU, REMOVE A PRESIDENT, TEAR UP THE BALLOTS IN ALL OF YOUR STATES, AND THEY DON'T BOTHER TO READ THE KEY EVIDENCE OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE BURDEN SHARING THAT'S IN THE CALL ITSELF.

NOW, THAT'S EMBLEMATIC OF THEIR ENTIRE PRESENTATION.

I'M GOING TO TURN THE PRESENTATION OVER TO MY COLLEAGUE, MIKE PRIPERA, WHO WILL WALK YOU THROUGH MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS.

AND WITH EACH EXAMPLE, ASK YOURSELF, WHY AM I JUST HEARING ABOUT THIS NOW?

AFTER 24 HOURS OF SITTING THROUGH ARGUMENTS?

WHY?

AND THE REASON IS, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE LAW, BUT TODAY WE ARE GOING TO CONFRONT THEM ON THE MERITS OF THEIR ARGUMENT.

NOW, THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PR PROOF.

AND THEY HAVE NOT COME CLOSE TO MEETING IT.

IN FACT, AND I WANT TO ASK YOU TO THINK ABOUT ONE ISSUE REGARDING PROCESS, BEYOND PROCESS.

IF YOU WERE REALLY INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT THE TRUTH, WHY WOULD YOU RUN A PROCESS THE WAY THEY RAN?

IF YOU WERE REALLY CONFIDENT IN YOUR POSITION ON THE FACTS, WHY WOULD YOU LOCK EVERYBODY OUT OF IT?

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE?

WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS ARGUMENTS, BUT THE PROCESS ARGUMENTS ALSO ARE COMPELLING EVIDENCE ON THE MERITS, BECAUSE IT'S EVIDENCE THAT THEY THEMSELVES DON'T BELIEVE IN THE FACTS OF THEIR CASE.

AND THE FACT THAT THEY CAME HERE FOR 24 HOUR S AND HID EVIDENCE FROM YOU IS FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THEY DON'T REALLY BELIEVE IN THE FACTS OF THEIR CASE.

THAT THIS IS -- FOR ALL THEIR TALK ABOUT ELECTION INTERF INTERFERENCE, THAT THEY ARE HERE TO PERPETRATE THE MOST MASSIVE INTERFERENCE IN AN ELECTION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

AND WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTION.

IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR HISTORY.

IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT WOULD VIOLATE THE SACRED TRUST THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE PLACED IN YOU AND HAVE PLACED IN THEM.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE ELECTIONS.

THEY HAVE ONE COMING UP IN NINE MONTHS.

SO WE WILL BE VERY EFFICIENT.

WE WILL BEGIN OUR PRESENTATION TODAY.

WE WILL SHOW YOU A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE SHOWED YOU.

AND WE WILL FINISH EFFICIENTLY AND QUICKLY SO THAT WE CAN ALL GO HAVE AN ELECTION.

THANK YOU.

AND I YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE, MICHAEL PERPEIERO.

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

AGAIN, MY NAME IS MICHAEL PRIPIERO.

I SERVE AS DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT.

IT IS MY HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF DONALD J. TRUMP.

>> AND WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE?

>> WELL, IT READS LIKE AN ORGANIZED CRACKDOWN.

SURE OF ITS RAMBLING CHARACTER AND IN NOT-SO-MANY WORDS, THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT COMMUNICATES.

WE HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD TO YOUR COUNTRY, VERY GOOD.

NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS DONE AS MUCH AS WE HAVE, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?

I DON'T SEE MUCH RECIPROCITY HERE.

I HEAR WHAT YOU WANT, I HAVE A FAVOR I WANT FROM YOU, THOUGH.

AND I'M GOING TO SAY THIS ONLY SEVEN TIMES, SO YOU BETTER LISTEN GOOD.

I WANT YOU TO MAKE UP DIRT ON MY POLITICAL OPPONENT, UNDERSTAND, LOTS OF IT.

ON THIS AND ON THAT.

I'M GOING TO PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH PEOPLE, NOT JUST ANY PEOPLE, I'M GOING TO PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, MY ATTORNEY GENERAL, BILL BARR, HE'S GOT THE WHOLE WEIGHT OF THE AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT BEHIND HIM.

AND I'M GOING TO PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH RUDY, YOU'RE GOING TO LOVE HIM, TRUST ME.

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M ASKING, AND SO I'M ONLY GOING TO SAY THIS A FEW MORE TIMES.

IN A FEW MORE WAYS.

AND BY THE WAY, DON'T CALL ME AGAIN.

I'LL CALL YOU WHEN YOU'VE DONE WHAT I'VE ASKED.

THIS IS IN SOME IN CHARACTER WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE.

>> THAT'S FAKE.

THAT'S NOT THE REAL CALL.

THAT'S NOT THE EVIDENCE HERE.

THAT'S NOT THE TRANSCRIPT THAT MR. CIPOLLONE JUST REFERENCED.

AND WE CAN SHRUG IT OFF AND SAY WE WERE MAKING LIGHT OR A JOKE, BUT THAT WAS IN A HEARING IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISCUSSING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM OFFICE.

THERE ARE VERY FEW THINGS, IF ANY, THAT CAN BE AS GRAVE AND AS SERIOUS.

LET'S STICK WITH THE EVIDENCE.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.

THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE WE HAVE IN THE CASE AND BEFORE YOU IS THE ONE WE BEGAN WITH NEARLY FOUR MONTHS AGO, THE ACTUAL TRIAL OF THE JULY 25, 2019, TELEPHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THE REAL TRANSCRIPT.

IF THAT WERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAD, IT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS' ENTIRE THEORY IS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED.

BUT THE TRANSCRIPT IS FAR FROM THE ONLY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG.

ONCE YOU SWEEP AWAY ALL OF THE BLUSTER AND INNUENDO, THE SELECTIVE LEAKS, THE CLOSED-DOOR EXAMINATIONS OF THE DEMOCRATS' HAND-PICKED WITNESSES, THE STAGED PUBLIC HEARINGS, WHAT WE'RE LEFT WITH ARE SIX KEY FACTS THAT HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT CHANGE.

FIRST, THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT CONDITION EITHER SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR A MEETING ON ANYTHING.

THE PAUSED SECURITY ASSISTANCE FUNDS AREN'T EVEN MENTIONED ON THE CALL.

SECOND, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND OTHER UKRAINE AN OFFICIALS SAID THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO AND NO PRESSURE ON THEM TO REVIEW ANYTHING.

THIRD, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE HIGH-RANKING UKRAIIAN OFFICIALS DID NOT EVEN KNOW, DID NOT EVEN KNOW, THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST.

OVER A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL.

FOURTH, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN ANY INVESTIGATIONS IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE, A PRESIDENTIAL MEETING OR ANYTHING ELSE.

FIFTH, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE FLOWED ON SEPTEMBER 11.

AND A PRESIDENTIAL MEETING TOOK PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 25 WITHOUT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCING ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

FINALLY, THE DEMOCRATS' BLIND DRIVE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT AND CANNOT CHANGE THE FACT AS ATTESTED TO BY THE DEMOCRATS' OWN WITNESSES, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN A BETTER FRIEND AND STRONGER SUPPORTER OF UKRAINE THAN HIS PREDECESSOR.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS.

WE PLAN TO ADDRESS SOME OF THEM TODAY AND SOME OF THEM NEXT WEEK.

EACH ONE OF THESE SIX FACTS STANDING ALONE IS ENOUGH TO SINK THE DEMOCRATS' CASE, COMBINED THEY ESTABLISH WHAT WE HAVE KNOWN SINCE THE BEGINNING.

THE PRESIDENT DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.

THE DEMOCRATS' ALLEGATION THAT THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN A QUID PRO QUO IS UNFOUNDED AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS.

THE TRUTH IS SIMPLE, AND IT'S RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES.

THE PRESIDENT WAS AT ALL TIMES ACTING IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST AND PURSUANT TO HIS OATH OF OFFICE.

BUT BEFORE I DIVE IN AND SPEAK FURTHER ABOUT THE FACTS, LET ME MENTION SOMETHING THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL DISCUSS IN GREATER DETAIL.

THE FACTS THAT I'M ABOUT TO DISCUSS TODAY ARE THE DEMOCRATS' FACTS.

THIS IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THE HOUSE MANAGER SPOKE TO YOU FOR A VERY LONG TIME, OVER 21 HOURS.

AND IT REPEATEDLY CLAIMED TO YOU THAT THEIR CASE IS -- AND THEIR EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING AND UNCONTESTED.

IT'S NOT.

I'M GOING TO SHARE A NUMBER OF FACTS WITH YOU THIS MORNING THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T SHARE WITH YOU DURING MORE THAN 21 HOURS.

I'LL ASK YOU AS MR. CIPOLLONE ALREADY MENTIONED, THAT WHEN YOU HEAR ME SAY SOMETHING THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T PRESENT TO YOU, ASK YOURSELF, WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL ME THAT?

IS THAT SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE KNOWN?

WHY AM I HEARING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME FROM THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS?

IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME, THAT'S FOR SURE.

THEY ONLY SHOWED YOU A VERY SELECTIVE PART OF THE RECORD, THEIR RECORD.

AND THEY, REMEMBER THIS, THEY HAVE THE VERY HEAVY BURDEN OF PROOF BEFORE YOU.

THE PRESIDENT IS FORCED TO MOUNT A DEFENSE IN THIS CHAMBER AGAINST THE RECORD THAT THE DEMOCRATS DEVELOPED.

THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE TO GO ON TODAY IS BASED ENTIRELY ON HOUSE DEMOCRATIC FACTS PRE-CLEARED IN A BASEMENT BUNKER, NOT MOSTLY, ENTIRELY.

YET, EVEN THOSE FACTS EVEN ABSOLUTELY EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT.

LET'S START WITH THE TRANSCRIPT.

THE PRESIDENT DID NOT LINK SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS ON THE JULY 25 CALL.

STEP BACK.

ON JULY 25, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THIS WAS THEIR SECOND PHONE CALL.

BOTH WERE CONGRATULATORY.

ON APRIL 21st, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED TO CONGRATULATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON WINNING THE ELECTION.

ON JULY 25, THE PRESIDENT CALLED BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S PARTY WON A LARGE AMOUNT OF SEATS IN PARLIAMENT.

ON SEPTEMBER 24, BEFORE SPEAKER PELOSI HAD IDEA WHAT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD ON THE JULY 25 CALL, SHE CALLED FOR AN IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IN THE INTEREST OF FULL TRANSPARENCY AND TO SHOW THAT HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK THE UNPRECEDENTED, UNPRECEDENTED STEP OF DECLASSIFYING THE CALL TRANSCRIPT SO THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE COULD SEE FOR THEMSELVES EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO PRESIDENTS DISCUSSED.

SO, WHAT DID PRESIDENT TRUMP SAY TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE 25th CALL?

I'M GOING TO BE SPEAKING ABOUT TWO ISSUES A FAIR AMOUNT THIS MORNING.

THE TWO ISSUES THAT GO TO THE CORE OF HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP APPROACHES FOREIGN AID.

WHEN IT COMES TO SENDING U.S.

TAXPAYER MONEY OVERSEAS, THE PRESIDENT IS FOCUSED ON BURDEN SHARING AND CORRUPTION.

FIRST, THE PRESIDENT, RIGHTLY, HAD REAL CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER EUROPEAN AND OTHER COUNTRIES WERE CONTRIBUTING THEIR FAIR SHARE TO ENSURING UKRAINE'S SECURITY.

SECOND, CORRUPTION.

SINCE THE FALL OF THE SOVIET UNION, UKRAINE HAS SUFFERED FROM ONE OF THE WORST ENVIRONMENTS FOR CORRUPTION IN THE WORLD.

A PARADE OF WITNESSES TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE ABOUT THE PERVASIVE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND HOW IT IS IN AMERICAN'S FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST TO HELP UKRAINE COMBAT CORRUPTION.

TURNING THE CALL, RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED BURDEN SHARING TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT GERMANY DOES ALMOST NOTHING FOR YOU.

AND A LOT OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE THE SAME WAY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED SPEAKING TO ANGELA MERKEL OF GERMANY, WHOM HE SAID TALKS UKRAINE BUT SHE DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREED, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

HE SAID THAT HE SPOKE WITH THE LEADERS OF GERMANY AND FRANCE AND TOLD THEM THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING QUITE AS MUCH AS THEY NEED TO BE DOING.

SO RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TALKING ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.

PRESIDENT TRUMP THEN TURNED TO CORRUPTION IN THE FORM OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH ASKING A FOREIGN LEADER TO HELP GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL FORMS OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT LATER FROM ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES.

WHAT ELSE DID THE PRESIDENT SAY?

THE PRESIDENT ALSO WARNED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE APPEARED TO BE SURROUNDING HIMSELF WITH SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE AS HIS PREDECESSOR AND SUGGESTING THAT A VERY FAIR AND VERY FAIR PROSECUTOR WAS SHUT DOWN BY SOME VERY BAD PEOPLE.

AGAIN, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL SPEAK MORE ABOUT THAT.

THE CONTENT OF THE JULY 25 CALL WAS IN LINE WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION AND REFLECTED THE HOPE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO CAMPAIGNED ON A PLATFORM OF REFORM WOULD FINALLY CLEAN UP UKRAINE.

SO WHAT DID PRESIDENT TRUMP AND.

SKI PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DISCUSS ON THE JULY 25 CALL?

MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED ON THE JULY 25 CALL?

THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THE PAUSED SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON THE JULY 25 CALL.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS KEEP POINTING TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S STATEMENT THAT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE.

BUT HE WASN'T TALKING THERE ABOUT THE PAUSED SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

HE TELLS US IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

JAVELIN MISSILES.

WE ARE READY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CONTINUES, TO CONTINUE TO COOPERATE FOR THE NEXT STEPS SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE ALMOST READY TO BUY MORE JAVELINS FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES.

JAVELINS ARE THE ANTI-TANK MISSILES ONLY MADE AVAILABLE TO THE UKRAINIANS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

PRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSED TO GIVE JAVELINS TO THE UKRAINIANS FOR YEARS.

JAVELIN SALES WERE NOT PART, WERE NOT PART OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT HAD BEEN PAUSED AT THE TIME OF THE CALL.

JAVELIN SALES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PAUSED SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THOSE ARE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS ENTIRELY.

BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

BOTH FORMER AMBASSADOR UKRAINE, MARIA YOVANOVITCH AND TIMMY MORRISON CONFIRMED THAT THE JAVELIN MISSILES AND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WERE UNRELATED.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT AMBASSADOR YOVANO YOVANOVITCH'S TESTIMONY, WHY NOT?

THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN 2 TO 5 MINUTES OUT OF 2 IS HOURS TO MAKE SURE YOU KNEW THAT THE JAVELIN SALES WERE NOT DISCUSSED AS PART OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THIS PUTS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP IN A WHOLE NEW LIGHT, DOESN'T IT?

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO US A FAVOR, THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.

AS EVERYONE KNOWS BY NOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO DO US A FAVOR.

AND HE MADE CLEAR THAT US REFERRED TO OUR COUNTRY AND NOT HIMSELF.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT CONNECTING, DO US A FAVOR TO THE JAVELIN SALES THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MENTIONS, IT MAKES NO SENSE IN THE LANGUAGE THERE, BUT EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN, THE JAVELIN SALES WERE NOT PART OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WAS TEMPORARILY PAUSED.

IT I WANT TO BE VERY CLEARLY ABOUT THIS, WHEN THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS CLAIM THE JAVELIN SALES DISCUSSED IN THE JULY 25 CALL ARE PART OF THE PAUSED SECURITY ASSISTANCE, IT IS MISLEADING.

THEY ARE TRYING TO CONFUSE YOU AND WRAP IT IN INSTEAD OF UNPACKING IT IN THE RIGHT WAY.

THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE PAUSED SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON THE CALL AND CERTAINLY NOT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AS YOU KNOW, HEAD OF STATE CALLS ARE STAFFED BY A NUMBER OF AIDES ON BOTH SIDES.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER VINMAN, A DETAILEE RAISED THE CONCERN ABOUT THE CALL.

AND THAT WAS JUST A POLICY CONCERN.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN ADMITTED HE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THERE WAS A CRIME OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, BUT HAD DEEP POLICY CONCERNS.

POLICY CONCERNS.

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT.

BUT THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN POLICY IN A DEMOCRACY SUCH AS OURS, THE ELECTED LEADERS MAKE FOREIGN POLICY WHILE THE UNELECTED STAFF, SUCH AS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN IMPLEMENT THE POLICY.

OTHER WITNESSES WERE ON THE JULY 25 CALL AND HAD VERY DIFFERENT REACTIONS THAN THAT OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL HEATH KENEL, FORMER ACTING NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND A LONG SERVING AND HIGHLY-DECORATED VETERAN ATTENDED THE CALL.

ACCORDING TO GENERAL KELLOGG, I WAS ON THE MUCH-REPORTED JULY 25 CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AS AN EXCEEDINGLY PROUD MEMBER OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION AND A 34-YEAR HIGHLY-EXPERIENCED COMBAT VETERAN WHO RETIRED WITH RANKS OF GENERAL IN THE ARMY, I HEARD NOTHING, WRONG OR IMPROPER ON THE CALL.

I HAVE AND HAVE NO CONCERNS.

THE HOUSE MANAGER SAID THAT OTHER WITNESSES WERE ALSO TROUBLED BY THE JULY 25 CALL.

AND IDENTIFIED THE WITNESSES AS JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND TIM MORRISON.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS WHO WORKS FOR LIEUTENANT GENERAL KELLOGG NOW CLAIMS SHE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL.

YOU HEARD THAT FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

THEY WERE VERY CAREFUL IN THE WAY THEY WORDED THAT.

WHAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU IS THAT MS. WILLIAMS WAS SO TROUBLED AT THE TIME OF THE CALL THAT SHE TOLD EXACTLY ZERO PEOPLE OF HER CONCERN.

SHE TOLD NO ONE FOR TWO MONTHS FOLLOWING THE CALL.

NOT ONE PERSON.

MS. WILLIAMS DIDN'T RAISE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL WHEN IT TOOK PLACE, NOT WITH LIEUTENANT GENERAL KELLOGG, NOT WITH COUNSEL, NOT WITH ANYONE.

MS. WILLIAMS WAITED TO ANNOUNCE HER CONCERNS UNTIL SPEAKER PELOSI PUBLIC ANNOUNCED HER IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT.

WHY NOT?

TIM MORRISON, WHO IS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S BOSS WAS ALSO ON THE CALL.

MR. MORRISON REPORTED THE CALL TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSEL LAWYERS, NOT BECAUSE HE WAS TROUBLED BY ANYTHING ON THE CALL, BUT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT LEAKS.

AND IN HIS WORDS, HOW IT WOULD PLAY OUT IN WASHINGTON'S POLAR ENVIRONMENT.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR, MR. MORRISON TESTIFIED, I WAS NOT CONCERNED THAT ANYTHING ILLEGAL WAS DISCUSSED.

MR. MORRISON FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IMPROPER AND NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID ON THE CALL.

IN FACT, MR. MORRISON REPEATEDLY TESTIFIED THAT HE DISAGREED WITH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S ASSESSMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE DEMANDS OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR THAT HE SAID ANYTHING IMPROPER AT ALL.

HERE'S MR. MORRISON -- >> IN THAT TRANSCRIPT, HAS THE PRESIDENT NOT ASKED ZELENSKY TO LOOK INTO THE BIDENS?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I WAS THINKING AT THE TIME.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT TO BE DOING.

>> DO YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR OPINION THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEMANDED THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UNDERTAKE THE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> NO, SIR.

>> AND YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE PRESIDENT MAKE A DEMAND, DID YOU?

>> NO, SIR.

>> AGAIN, THERE WERE NO DEMANDS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, MR. MORRISON?

>> THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.

>> BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT AS YOU WERE LISTENING TO THE CALL, YOU WEREN'T THINKING, WOW, THE PRESIDENT'S BRIBING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, THAT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND?

>> IT DID NOT, SIR.

>> OR THAT HE WAS EXTORTING THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

>> IT DID NOT, SIR.

>> OR DOING ANYTHING IMPROPER?

>> CORRECT, SIR.

>> SIGNIFICANTLY, THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNOR NEVER RAISED ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25 CALL.

JUST HOURS AFTER THE CALL, AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR, HEAD OF THE U.S. MISSION IN UKRAINE, HAD DINNER WITH THEN THE SECOND RARE OF THE UKRAINIAN NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL WHO SEEMED TO THINK THAT THE CALL WENT FINE.

THE CALL WENT WELL.

HE WASN'T DISTURBED BY ANYTHING.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT.

WHY NOT?

AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, SPECIAL AMBASSADOR UKRAINE, WAS NOT ON THE CALL, BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER SPOKE REGULARLY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND TOP OFFICIALS IN THE UKRAINE GOVERNMENT.

AND EVEN MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE DAY AFTER THE CALL.

HE TESTIFIED THAT IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, AND THESE ARE THE READOUTS FROM THE UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE, DID HE RECEIVE ANY INDICATION WHATSOEVER FOR ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES A QUID PRO QUO ON THE JULY 25 CALL.

HERE'S AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

>> AND, IN FACT, THE DAY AFTER THE CALL, YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THIS WOULD BE ON JULY 26.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND IN THAT MEETING, HE MADE NO MENTION OF A QUID PRO QUO.

>> NO.

>> HE MADE NO MENTION OF WITH HOLDING THE AID.

>> NO.

>> HE MADE NO MENTION OF BRIBERY.

>> NO.

>> SO THE FACT IS THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE HOLD ON AID, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THIS TESTIMONY FROM AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

WHY NOT?

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF HAS CONFIRMED ON AT LEAST THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS THAT HIS JULY 25 CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS A GOOD PHONE CALL AND NORMAL, AND THAT NOBODY PUSHED ME.

WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ADVISOR WAS ASKED IF HE FELT THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE U.S. MILITARY AID AND THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIONS, HE WAS ADAMANT THAT WE NEVER HAD THAT FEELING, AND WE DID NOT HAVE THE FEELING THAT THIS AID WAS CONNECTED TO ANY ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE.

OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS NO PRESSURE OR QUID PRO QUO IS THE STATEMENTS OF THE UKRAINIANS THEMSELVES.

THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF FELT NO PRESSURE ON THE CALL AND DID NOT PERCEIVE THERE TO BE CONNECTION BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS, WOULD IN ANY ORDINARY CASE, IN ANY COURT, BE TOTALLY FATAL TO THE PROSECUTION.

THE JUDGE WOULD THROW IT OUT, THE CASE WOULD BE OVER, WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW?

THE HOUSE TEAM KNOWS THAT.

THEY KNOW THE RECORD INSIDE-OUT, UPSIDE-DOWN, LEFT AND RIGHT.

SO WHAT DO THEY DO?

HOW DO THEY TRY TO OVERCOME THE DIRECT WORDS FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS ADMINISTRATION THAT THEY FELT NO PRESSURE?

THEY TELL YOU THAT THE UKRAINIANS MUST HAVE FELT PRESSURE.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY HAVE SAID.

THEY TRY TO OVERCOME THE DEVASTATING EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM BY APPARENTLY CLAIMING TO BE MIND READERS.

THEY KNOW WHAT IS IN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S MIND BETTER THAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DOES.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID HE FELT NO PRESSURE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS TELL YOU THEY KNOW BETTER.

AND THIS IS REALLY A THEME OF THE HOUSE CASE.

I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THIS.

EVERY TIME THE DEMOCRATS SAY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE DEMANDS OR ISSUED A QUID PRO QUO TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE JULY 25 CALL, THEY ARE SAYING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TOP ADVISERS ARE BEING UNTRUTHFUL.

AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

THEY SAID IT OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS.

TELL ME HOW THAT HELPS U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY TO SAY THAT ABOUT OUR FRI FRIENDS.

WE KNOW THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO ON THE CALL.

WE KNOW THAT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT.

BUT THE CALL IS NOT THE ONLY EVIDENCE SHOWING THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO.

THERE COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE BEN A QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ON HOLD UNTIL IT WAS REPORTED IN THE MEDIA BY POLITICO AT THE END OF AUGUST, MORE THAN A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25 CALL.

THINK ABOUT THIS.

THE DEMOCRATS ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT OF LEVERAGING SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO SUPPOSEDLY FORCE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS.

BUT HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE WHEN THE UKRAINIANS WERE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED?

THERE CAN'T BE A THREAT WITHOUT THE PERSON KNOWING HE'S BEING THREATENED.

THERE CAN'T BE A QUID PRO QUO WITHOUT THE QUO.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE HOLD UNTIL READING ABOUT IT IN POLITICO.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND TIM MORRISON BOTH AGREED.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT NO YOU CRANE AN OFFICIAL -- UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL NOTIFIED HIM UNTIL THE FIRST TENSE WEEK IN SEPTEMBER.

LET'S HEAR FROM THE FOUR OF THEM.

>> I BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE OF THE HOLD ON AUGUST 29th AND NOT BEFORE.

THAT DATE IS THE FIRST TIME ANY OF THEM ASKED ME ABOUT THE HOLD BY FORWARDING AN ARTICLE THAT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED IN POLITICO.

>> IT WAS ONLY AFTER AUGUST 29th WHEN THE POLITICO ARTICLE CAME OUT THAT I GOT CALLS FROM SEVERAL OF THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE AUGUST 28th POLITICO ARTICLE, WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS MAY HAVE HAD A REAL SENSE THAT THE AID WAS ON HOLD?

>> YES.

>> MR. KENT, HAD YOU HAD ANY Y UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL CONTACTING YOU -- WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL CONTACTED YOU ABOUT THE WITH HOLDING OF U.S. AID?

>> IT WAS AFTER THE ARTICLE IN POLITICO CAME OUT, THE FIRST INTENSE WEEK IN SEPTEMBER.

>> IT WASN'T UNTIL THE POLITICO ARTICLE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

I RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE FROM ONE OF MY UKRAINIAN COUNTERPARTS FORWARDING THE ARTICLE, AND THAT WAS THE FIRST IT WAS RAISED WITH ME.

>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T SHOW YOU THIS TESTIMONY.

FROM ANY OF THE FOUR WITNESSES.

WHY NOT?

WHY DIDN'T THEY GIVE YOU THE CONTEXT OF THIS TESTIMONY?

AND THINK ABOUT THIS AS WELL, IF THE UKRAINIANS HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE REVIEW ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, THEY, OF COURSE, WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING.

THERE WERE NUMEROUS HIGH-LEVEL DIPLOMATIC MEETINGS BETWEEN SENIO SENIOR UKRAINIAN AND U.S. OFFICIALS AFTER THE SUMMER AFTER THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEGAN, BUT BEFORE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEARNED OF THE HOLD THROUGH THE POLITICO ARTICLE.

IF THE UKRAINIANS HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE HOLD, THEY WOULD HAVE RAISED IT IN ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, YET THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE HOLD AT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS.

NOT ON JULY 9, NOT ON JULY 10, NOT ON JULY 25, NOT ON JULY 26, NOT ON AUGUST 27.

AT NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, DID THE UKRAINIANS MENTION THE PAUSE ON THE ASSISTANCE.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED HE WAS REGULARLY IN TOUCH WITH THE SENIOR HIGHEST LEVEL OFFICIALS IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.

AND THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WOULD CONFIDE THINGS AND WOULD HAVE ASKED IF THEY HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AID.

NOBODY SAID A WORD TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST.

THEN WITHIN HOURS OF THE POLITICO ARTICLE BEING PUBLISHED, MR. YERMAK TEXTED AMBASSADOR VOLKER WITH A LINK TO THE ARTICLE AND TO ASK ABOUT THE REPORT.

IN OTHER WORDS, AS SOON AS THE UKRAINIANS LEARNED ABOUT THE HOLD, THEY ASKED ABOUT IT.

NOW, MR. SCHIFF ID SOMETHING DURING THE 21 HOURS OR MORE THAN 21 HOURS THAT HE AND HIS TEAM SPOKE THAT I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, WHICH IS WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT COMMON SENSE.

MANY OF US AT THE TABLES AND IN THE ROOM ARE FORMER PROSECUTORS AT THE STATE, FEDERAL OR MILITARY LEVEL.

PROSECUTORS TALK A LOT ABOUT COMMON SENSE.

COMMON SENSE COMES INTO PLAY RIGHT HERE.

THE TOP UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS SAID NOTHING AT ALL TO THE U.S.

COUNTERPARTS DURING ALL THE MEETINGS ABOUT THE PAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE, BUT THEN, BOOM, AS SOON AS THE POLITICO ARTICLE COMES OUT, SUDDENLY IN THAT FIRST INTENSE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER IN GEORGE KENT'S WORDS, SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ALL THEY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.

WHAT MUST WE CONCLUDE IF WE ARE USING OUR COMMON SENSE?

THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE UNTIL THE POLITICO ARTICLE ON AUGUST 28th.

NO ACTIVITY BEFORE, ARTICLE COMES OUT, FLURRY OF ACTIVITY.

THAT'S COMMON SENSE.

AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY FATAL TO THE HOUSE MANAGER'S CASE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS ARE AWARE THAT THE UKRAINIANS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLD IS FATAL TO THEIR CASE.

SO THEY HAVE DESPERATELY TRIED TO MUDDY THE WATER.

THE MANAGERS TOLD YOU THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COOPER, PRESENTED TWO EMAILS THAT TWO EMAILS ON HER STAFF RECEIVED FROM PEOPLE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT REGARDING CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE AT THE UKRAINE EMBASSY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE UKRAINE.

WHAT THEY DID NOT TELL YOU IS THAT MS. COOPER TESTIFIED THAT SHE COULD NOT SAY FOR CERTAIN WHETHER THE EMAILS WERE ABOUT THE PAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

SHE COULDN'T SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

SHE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT SHE DIDN'T WANT TO SPECULATE ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE WORDS IN THE EMAILS.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALSO DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT MS. COOPER TESTIFIED THAT I REVIEWED MY CALENDAR, AND THE ONLY MEETING WHERE I CAN RECALL A UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL RAISING THE ISSUE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE WITH ME IS ON SEPTEMBER 5th.

AT THE UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY CELEBRATION.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS ALSO MENTIONED THAT ONE OF AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S ADVISERS, KATHERINE CROFT, CLAIMED THE UKRAINIAN EMBASSY OFFICIALS LEARNED ABOUT THE PAUSE EARLIER THAN THE POLITICO ARTICLE.

BUT WHEN ASKED WHEN SHE HEARD FROM THE UKRAINE EMBASSY OFFICIALS, MS. CROFT SAID SHE COULDN'T ADMIT SPECIFICS AND DIDN'T TAKE NOTES.

MS. CROFT ALSO DIDN'T REMEMBER WHEN NEWS OF THE HOLD BECAME PUBLIC.

REMEMBER, THOUGH, THAT AMBASSADOR VOLKER, HER BOSS, WHO WAS IN REGULAR CONTACT WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE TOP UKRAINIAN AIDS, WAS VERY CLEAR THAT I BELIEVE THE UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE OF THE HOLD ON AUGUST 29th AND NOT BEFORE.

THIS IS ALL THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE.

IN CONTRAST TO THE TESTIMONY OF VOLKER, TAYLOR, MORRISON AND KENT, THE TEXT FROM YERMAK, THE WORDS OF THE HIGH-RANKING UKRAINIANS THEMSELVES AND THE FLURRY OF ACTIVITY THAT BEGAN ON AUGUST 28th, AND THAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY WANT YOU TO CONSIDER AS A BASIS TO REMOVE THE DUALLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE BRIEF SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO HAVE BEEN USED AS LEVERAGE WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND TOP UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW.

THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS ISSUE IS.

WHEN WE BRIEFLY MENTIONED IT A FEW DAYS AGO, THEY TOLD US WE NEEDED TO CHECK OUR FACTS.

WE DID.

WE'RE RIGHT.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TOP AIDS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AT THE TIME OF THE JULY 25 CALL AND DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL AUGUST 28 WHEN THE POLITICO ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED.

WE KNOW THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO ON THE JULY 25 CALL.

WE KNOW THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSED AT THE TIME OF THE CALL.

THERE WAS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER LINKED SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS.

MOST OF THE DEMOCRATS' WITNESSES HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT AT ALL.

LET ALONE ABOUT UKRAINE'S SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE TWO PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE RECORD WHO ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS ANY LINK ANNUAL BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS WERE TOLD ON NO CERTAIN TERMS THERE'S NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO.

WHEN AMBASSADOR TO THE EUROPEAN UNION GORDON SONDLAND ASKED THE PRESIDENT IN APPROXIMATELY THE SEPTEMBER 9 TIMEFRAME, THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM, I WANT NOTHING, I WANT NOTHING, I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO.

EVEN EARLIER ON AUGUST 31, SENATOR RON JOHNSON ASKED THE PRESIDENT IF THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS.

THE PRESIDENT ANSWERED, NO WAY.

I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

WHO TOLD YOU THAT?

TWO WITNESSES, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND TIM MORRISON, SAID THEY CAME TO BELIEVE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS LINKED TO INVESTIGATIONS.

BUT BOTH WITNESSES BASED THIS BELIEF ENTIRELY ON WHAT THEY HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BEFORE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT.

NEITHER TAYLOR NOR MORRISON EVER SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE MATTER.

HOW DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND COME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS?

AGAIN, THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL YOU.

WHY NOT?

IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND USED VARIATIONS OF THE WORDS ASSUME, PRESUME, GUESS, SPECULATE AND BELIEF OVER 30 TIMES.

HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES -- >> THAT WAS MY PRESUMPTION, MY PERSONAL PRESUMPTION.

THAT WAS MY BELIEF.

I SAID I PRESUME THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO GET THE AID RELEASED.

IT WAS A PRESUMPTION.

I'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR AS TO WHEN I WAS PRESUMING.

AND I WAS PRESUMING ON THE AID.

IT WOULD BE PURE, YOU KNOW, GUESS WORK ON MY PART, SPECULATION, I DON'T KNOW.

THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, MR. GOLDMAN, NO ONE TOLD ME DIRECTLY THAT THE AID WAS TIED TO ANYTHING.

I WAS PRESUMING IT WAS.

>> THEY DIDN'T SHOW YOU ANY OF THIS TESTIMONY.

NOT ONCE DURING THE 21-HOUR PRESENTATION.

21 HOURS.

MORE THAN 21 HOURS.

AND THEY COULDN'T GIVE YOU THE CONTEXT TO EVALUATE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

ALL THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE SECURITY BETWEEN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE INVESTIGATIONS IS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS.

WE REMEMBER THIS EXCHANGE.

>> IS IT CORRECT THAT NO ONE ON THIS PLANET TOLD YOU THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS TYING THIS AID TO THE INVESTIGATIONS?

BECAUSE IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES, THEN THE CHAIRMAN'S WRONG AND THE HEADLINE ON CNN IS WRONG.

NO ONE ON THIS PLANET TOLD YOU THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS TYING AID TO INVESTIGATIONS, YES OR NO?

>> YES.

>> SO, YOU REALLY HAVE NO TESTIMONY TODAY THAT TIES PRESIDENT TRUMP TO A SCHEME TO WITHHOLD AID FROM UKRAINE IN EXCHANGE FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS?

>> OTHER THAN MY OWN PRESUMPTION.

>> WHEN HE WAS DONE PRESUMING, ASSUMING AND GUESSING, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND FINALLY DECIDED TO ASK PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY.

WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT WANT FROM UKRAINE?

HERE'S THE ANSWER.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHEN I ASKED HIM THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION, AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE?

HIS ANSWER WAS, I WANT NOTHING.

I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO.

TELL ZELENSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THAT'S ALL I GOT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> THE PRESIDENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND STATED THIS WAS THE FINAL WORD HE HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND ONCE HE LEARNED THIS, HE TEXT MESSAGED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND VOLKER, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CRYSTAL-CLEAR, NO QUID PRO QUOS OF ANY KIND.

IF YOU ARE SKEPTICAL OF AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY, IT WAS CORROBORATED BY THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES, SENATOR JOHNSON.

SENATOR JOHNSON ALSO HAD HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE MIGHT BE LINKED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

SO ON AUGUST 31, SENATOR JOHNSON ASKED THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY.

WHETHER THERE WAS SOME KIND OF ARRANGEMENT WHERE UKRAINE WOULD TAKE SOME ACTION AND THE HOLE WOULD BE LIFTED?

AGAIN, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTION WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR.

NO WAY, I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.

WHO TOLD YOU THAT?

AS SENATOR JOHNSON WROTE, I WAS ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZED HIS REACTION AS ADAMANT, VEHEMENT AND ANGRY.

THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT SENATOR JOHNSON'S LETTER.

WHY NOT?

THE DEMOCRATS' ENTIRE QUID PRO QUO THEORY IS BASED ON NOTHING MORE THAN THE INITIAL SPECULATION OF ONE PERSON, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

THAT SPECULATION IS WRONG.

DESPITE THE DEMOCRATS' HOPES, THE AMBASSADOR'S MISTAKEN BELIEF DOES NOT BECOME TRUE MERELY BECAUSE HE REPEATED IT.

MANY TIMES AND APPARENTLY TO MANY PEOPLE.

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE DAVID HALE, GEORGE KENT AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER ALL TESTIFIED THERE WAS NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER BETWEEN THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND THE INVESTIGATIONS.

HERE'S AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

>> YOU HAD A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU BELIEVE THAT THE POLICY ISSUES HE RAISED CONCERNING UKRAINE WERE VALID, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES EVER SAY TO YOU THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO ALLOW AID TO THE UNITED STATES TO GO TO THE UKRAINE UNLESS THERE WERE INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA, THE BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTIONS?

>> NO, HE DID NOT.

>> DID THE UKRAINIANS EVER TELL YOU THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD NOT GET A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MILITARY AID OR FOREIGN AID FROM THE UNITED STATES UNLESS THEY UNDERTOOK INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA OR THE 2016 ELECTIONS?

>> NO, THEY DID NOT.

>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS NEVER TOLD YOU ANY OF THIS.

WHY NOT?

WHY DIDN'T THEY SHOW YOU THIS TESTIMONY?

WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL YOU ABOUT THIS TESTIMONY?

WHY DIDN'T THEY PUT AMBASSADOR SONLAND'S TESTIMONY IN THE FULL AND PROPER CONTEXT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION?

BECAUSE NONE OF THIS FITS THEIR NARRATIVE.

AND IT WOULDN'T LEAD TO THE PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

I YIELD TO MR. SECULIN.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, HOUSE MANAGERS, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT SIMPLY DECIDE THIS CASE IN A VACUUM.

MR. SCHIFF SAID YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE IT WAS HIS FATHER WHO SAID, YOU SHOULD PUT YOURSELF IN SOMEONE ELSE'S SHOES.

LET'S FOR A MOMENT PUT OURSELVES IN THE SHOES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW.

BEFORE HE WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE, HE WAS SUBJECTED TO AN INVESTIGATION BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CALLED CROSSFIRE HURRICANE.

THE PRESIDENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF HIS INAUGURATION FOUND A SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE A RUSSIA COLLUSION THEORY.

IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS TRIED TO ONCE AGAIN RELITIGATE THE MUELLER CASE.

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

THIS IS PART ONE OF THE MUELLER REPORT.

THIS PART ALONE IS 199 PAGES.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN THEIR PRESENTATION A COUPLE TIMES REFERENCED THIS FOR THAT.

LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.

THIS COST $32 MILLION.

THIS INVESTIGATION TOOK 2800 SUBPOENAS.

THIS INVESTIGATION HAD 500 SEARCH WARRANTS.

THIS HAD 230 ORDERS FOR COMMUNICATION RECORDS.

THIS HAD 500 WITNESS INTERVIEWS.

ALL TO REACH THE FOLLOWING CONCL CONCLUSION, AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE FROM THE MUELLER REPORT ITSELF.

IT CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 173.

AS IT RELATES TO THIS WHOLE MATTER OF COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY, ULTIMATELY, THOSE ARE THE WORDS OF BOB MUELLER IN THIS REPORT, THIS INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE CAMPAIGN COORDINATED OR CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND ITS ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES.

LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN.

THIS MUELLER REPORT RESULTED IN TH THIS, THAT FOR THIS.

ULTIMATELY, THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE CAMPAIGN COORDINATED OR CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ELECTION-RELATED INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES.

THIS FOR THAT.

IN HIS SUMMATION ON THURSDAY NIGHT, MANAGER SCHIFF SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT GO WITH HIS INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES REGARDING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND INSTEAD DECIDED TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE THAT HE TRUSTED.

AND HE WOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE UKRAINE ISSUE HIMSELF.

MR. SCHIFF DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT APPARENTLY BLINDLY TRUST SOME OF THE ADVICE HE WAS BEING GIVEN BY THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.

FIRST OF ALL, LET ME BE CLEAR.

DISAGREEING WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION ON FOREIGN POLICY MATTERS OR WHOSE ADVICE HE'S GOING TO TAKE IS IN NO WAY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

SECOND, MR. SCHIFF AND MR. NADLER OF ALL PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY CHAIR SIGNIFICANT COMMITTEES, REALLY SHOULD KNOW THIS.

AND THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENED.

LET ME REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING, JUST 6/10 OF A MILE FROM THIS CHAMBER SITS THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT.

ALSO KNOWN AS THE FISA COURT.

IT IS THE FEDERAL COURT ESTABLISHED AND AUTHORIZED UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT TO OVERSEE REQUESTS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES FOR SURVEILLANCE ORDERS AGAINST FOREIGN SPIES INSIDE THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS, THE COURT IS A MORE SECRET COURT.

THE HEARINGS ARE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.

IN THIS COURT, THERE ARE NO DEFENSE COUNSEL, NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND NO ABILITY TO TEST EVIDENCE.

THE ONLY MATERIAL THAT THE COURT EVER SEES ARE THOSE MATERIALS THAT ARE SUBMITTED ON TRUST, ON TRUST BY MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT THEY WOULD BE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.

ON DECEMBER 17th, 2019, THE FISA COURT ISSUED A SCATHING ORDER IN RESPONSE TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT ON FBI'S CROSS-FIRE HURRICANE INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS COORDINATING WITH RUSSIA.

WE ALREADY KNOW THE CONCLUSION.

THAT REPORT DETAILED THE FBI'S PATTERN AND PRACTICE SYSTEMATIC ABUSES OF OBTAINING SURVEILLANCE ORDER REQUESTS AND THE PROCESS THEY UTILIZE.

IN ITS ORDER, THIS IS THE ORDER FROM THE COURT, I'M GOING TO READ IT.

THIS ORDER RESPONDS TO REPORTS THAT PERSONNEL OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PROVIDED FALSE INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

AND WITHHELD MATERIAL INFORMATION FROM THE NSD, WHICH WAS DETRIMENTAL TO THE FBI'S CASE IN CONNECTION WITH FOREIGN APPLICATIONS TO THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE COURT.

WHEN THE FBI PERSONNEL MISLED NSD IN THE WAYS THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THESE REPORTS, THEY EQUALLY MISLED THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT.

THIS ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED UP.

THERE'S BEEN ANOTHER ORDER.

IT WAS DECLASSIFIED JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO.

THANKS IN LARGE PART, THE COURT SAID TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL'S U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE COURT HAS RECEIVED NOTICE OF MATERIAL MISAT THE SAME TIMES AND OMISSIONS -- MISSTATEMENTS AND ADMISSIONS FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE ABOVE CAPTION DOCUMENTS.

WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATIONS, AND IT LISTS TWO DOCKET NUMBERS, 17375 AND 17679, IF NOT EARLIER, THERE WAS NOT -- THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PREDICATION TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT CARTER PAGE WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER.

THE PRESIDENT HAD REASON TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INFORMATION HE WAS BEING PROVIDED.

NOW, WE COULD IGNORE THIS.

WE COULD MAKE BELIEVE THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.

BUT IT DID.

SO, AS WE BEGIN INTRODUCING OUR ARGUMENTS, I WANT TO CORRECT A COUPLE OF THINGS ON THE RECORD AS WELL.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.

WE REALLY INTEND TO SHOW OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS ACTUALLY REALLY OVERWHELMING THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT WRONG.

MR. SCHIFF AND HIS COLLEAGUES REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT THAT RUSSIA WAS ACTING ALONE, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ELECTION INTERFERENCE, IMPLYING THAT THIS SOMEHOW DEBUNCTS THE INTERFERENCE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, INCLUDING UKRAINE.

MR. NADLER DEPLOYED THE SIMILAR ARGUMENT SAYING PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT, QUOTE, RUSSIA DID NOT INTERFERE IN THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT WE CALL A STRONG-MAN ARGUMENT.

LET ME BE CLEAR.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS OVER A 23-HOUR PERIOD KEPT PUSHING THE FALSE DICHOTOMY THAT IT WAS EITHER RUSSIA OR UKRAINE BUT NOT BOTH.

THEY KEPT TELLING YOU THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND MR. MUELLER WAS RUSSIA ALONE WITH REGARD TO THE 2016 ELECTIONS.

OF COURSE, THE REPORT THAT BOB MUELLER WROTE FOCUSED ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE.

ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME INFORMATION IN LETTERS REGARDING UKRAINE.

AND I'M GOING TO POINT TO THOSE IN A FEW MOMENTS.

IN FACT, LET ME REPORT -- LET ME TALK ABOUT THOSE RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS A LETTER DATED MAY 4th, 2018, TO MR. YURI YASENKO.

IT WAS A LETTER REQUESTING THAT HIS OFFICE COOPERATE WITH THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION INVOLVING UKRAINE ISSUES AND THE ISSUES INVOLVING UKRAINE GOVERNMENT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS SIGNED BY SENATOR MENENDEZ, SENATOR LEDAHY AND SENATOR DURBIN.

I'M DOING THIS TO PUT THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE.

HOUSE MANAGERS TRIED TO TELL YOU THAT THE IMPORTANCE -- REMEMBER THE WHOLE DISCUSSION, AND MY COL COLLEAGUE, MR. PURPURA, TALKED ABOUT THIS.

BUT THE BILATERAL MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE OVAL OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE, AS IF AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT COULD BE BASED UPON A MEETING NOT TAKING PLACE IN THE WHITE HOUSE BUT TAKING PLACE SOMEPLACE ELSE.

LIKE THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

WHERE IT, IN FACT, DID TAKE PLACE.

NOW, DR. FIONA HILL WAS QUITE CLEAR IN SAYING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WOULD SUPPLY THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WITH THE LEGITIMACY IT NEEDED, ESPECIALLY VIS-A-VIS THE LEGITIMACY OF RUSSIA AS A SOVEREIGN STATE.

BUT HERE'S WHAT THEY DID NOT PLAY.

HERE'S WHAT THEY DID NOT TELL YOU.

AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE FROM DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY ON PAGE 145 OF HER TRANSCRIPT.

THESE ARE HER WORDS.

THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID UNDER OATH.

IT WASN'T ALWAYS A WHITE HOUSE MEETING PER SE, BUT DEFINITELY A PRESIDENTIAL-LEVEL MEETING.

YOU KNOW, A MEETING WITH ZELENSKY AND THE PRESIDENT.

I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN POLAND N WARSAW, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A PROPER BILATERAL IN SOME OTHER CONTEXT, BUT IN OTHER WORDS A WHITE HOUSE PRESIDENTIAL MEETING.

THAT CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 145.

AND CONTRARY TO WHAT MANAGER SCHIFF AND SOME OF THE OTHER MANAGERS TOLD YOU, THIS MEETING DID, IN FACT, OCCUR.

IT OCCURRED AT THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON SEPTEMBER 25th, 2019.

THOSE WERE THE WORDS OF DR. HILL THAT YOU DID NOT HEAR.

THIS CASE IS REALLY NOT ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL WRONGDOING.

THIS ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS ABOUT THE HOUSE MANAGER'S INSISTENCE THEY ARE ABLE TO READ EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS, THEY CAN READ EVERYBODY'S INTENTION, EVEN WHEN THE PRINCIPLE SPEAKERS, THE WITNESSES THEMSELVES INSIST THAT THOSE INTERPRETATIONS ARE WRONG.

MANAGER SCHIFF, MANAGER GARCIA AND DENNINGS, RELIED HEAVILY ON SELECTED CLIPS FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY.

I AM NOT GOING TO REPLAY THOSE.

MY COLLEAGUE, MR. PURPURA, PLAYED THOSE FOR YOU.

IT'S CLEAR.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO PLAY THE SAME CLIPS SEVEN TIMES, EXCEPT YOU SAW IT.

THAT'S THE EVIDENCE.

MR. LOFTGREN SAID MANY WITNESSES TESTIFIED, AND THEY WERE NOT TOLD WHY THE LIFT WAS HELD.

AND THE REASON FOR THE HOLD AND THE REASON FOR IT WAS CREATED AFTER THE FACT.

AGAIN, AS MY COLLEAGUE JUST TOLD Y YOU, BURDEN SHARING WAS RAISED IN THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF.

MR. SCHIFF STATED HERE THAT JUST LIKE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOLD, PRESIDENT TRUMP PROVIDE NOD REASON FOR THE RELEEASE.

THIS ALSO IS WRONG.

IN THEIR TESTIMONY, AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND SAID THE PRESIDENT RAISED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION IN THE MAY 23rd, 2019, MEETING WITH THE UKRAINE DELEGATION.

DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY LAURA CRAFT TESTIFIED THAT SHE RECEIVED AN EMAIL IN JUNE OF 2019 LISTING FOLLOW-UPS FROM THE MEETING BETWEEN THE SECRETARY CHIEF OF DEFENSE STAFF AND THE PRESIDENT RELATING SPECIFICALLY TO TRAINING SECURITY ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING ASKING ABOUT WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE CONTRIBUTING.

BURDEN SHARING.

THAT CAN BE FOUND IN LAURA COOPER'S DEFINITION, PAGES 33 AND 3 -- DEPOSITION, PAGES 33 AND 34.

THIS WAS MENTIONED TO SENATOR JOHNSON ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPTION, AS YOU ALREADY HEARD.

AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AMBASSADOR DAVID HALE TESTIFIED THAT FOREIGN AID GENERALLY WAS UNDERGOING A REVIEW IN 2019.

FROM PAGE 84 OF HIS NOVEMBER 6th, 2019, TESTIMONY, HE SAID THE ADMINISTRATION DID NOT WANT TO TAKE A SORT OF BUSINESS-AS-USUAL APPROACH TO FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.

A FEELING THAT ONCE A COUNTRY HAS RECEIVED A CERTAIN ASSISTANCE PACKAGE, IT IS SOMETHING THAT CONTINUES FOREVER.

THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE 23-HOUR PRESENTATION.

DR. FIONA HILL CONFIRMED THIS REVIEW AND TESTIFIED ON NOVEMBER 21st, 2019, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO QUOTE FROM PAGE 75 OF HER TESTIMONY, THAT QUOTE -- THERE HAD BEEN A DIRECTIVE FOR WHOL WHOLESALE, A WHOLE-SCALE REVIEW OF THE FOREIGN POLICY ASSISTANCE.

AND THE TIES BETWEEN OUR FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES AND THAT ASSIS ASSISTANCE.

THIS HAD BEEN GOING ON ACTUALLY FOR MANY MONTHS.

SO MULTIPLE WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD LONGSTANDING CONCERNS AND SPECIFIC CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINE.

THE HOUSE MANAGERS UNDERSTANDABLY IGNORE THE TESTIMONY THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THEIR OWN COMMITTEE.

IN HER TESTIMONY OF OCTOBER 14th, 2019, DR. HILL TESTIFIED AT PAGES 118 AND 119 OF HER TRANSCRIPT THAT SHE THINKS THE PRESIDENT HAS ACTUALLY QUITE PUBLICLY SAID THAT HE WAS VERY SKEPTICAL ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

AND THEN SHE SAID AGAIN IN HER TESTIMONY, AND, IN FACT, HE'S NOT ALONE.

BECAUSE EVERYONE -- BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

SIMILARLY, AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED THEY ALL HAD CONCERNS ABOUT UKRAINE.

AND IT IS NOTED ON PAGES 142 OF HER DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT.

WHEN ASKED WHAT SHE KNEW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S DEEP-ROOTED SKEPTICISM ABOUT UKRAINE'S BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT, SHE ANSWERED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DELIVERED THE ANTI-CORRUPTION MESSAGE TO FORMER UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT PORASHENKO IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2017.

THE NSA SENIOR DIRECTOR MORRISON CONFIRMED ON PAGE 63 IN HIS TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT THAT THIS WAS DURING THE VOLKER AND MORRISON PUBLIC HEARING, THAT HE WAS AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT UKRAINE HAD A CORRUPTION PROBLEM.

HIS WORDS AGAIN, AND HE CONTINUED, AS DID MANY OTHERS FAMILIAR WITH UKRAINE.

AND ACCORDING TO HER OCTOBER 30th, 2019, TESTIMONY, THE SPECIAL ADVISER FOR UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, KATHERINE CROFT, ALSO HEARD THE PRESIDENT RAISE THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION DIRECTLY WITH THEN PRESIDENT PORASHENKO OF UKRAINE DURING A BILATERAL MEETING AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THIS TIME IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017.

SPECIAL ADVISER CROFT TESTIFIED, SHE ALSO UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERN THAT, QUOTE, UKRAINE IS CORRUPT BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN -- THIS IS HER WORDS, TASKED TO WRITE A PAPER TO HELP THEN NSA HEAD GENERAL McMASTER'S CASE WITH THE PRESIDENT IN PRIOR SECURITY ASSISTANCE, PRIOR.

THESE CONCERNS WERE ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED.

WHEN ASKED, AGAIN, A QUOTE FROM DR. HILL'S OCTOBER 14th, 2019, TRANSCRIPT, CERTAINLY -- THESE ARE HER WORDS, ELIMINATING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE WAS ONE OF THE CENTRAL GOALS OF THE FOREIGN POLICY.

NOW, DOES ANYBODY THINK THAT ONE ELECTION OF ONE PRESIDENT THAT RAN ON A REFORM PLATFORM WHO FINALLY GETS A MAJORITY IN THEIR LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE JUST EVAPORATES?

THAT'S LIKE LOOKING AT THIS.

IT GOES BACK TO THE MUELLER REPORT.

YOU CAN'T LOOK AT THESE ISSUES IN A VACUUM.

VIRTUALLY, EVERY WITNESS AGREED THAT CONFRONTING CORRUPTION BE AT THE FOREFRONT OF U.S. POLICY.

NOW, I THINK THERE'S SOME OTHER THINGS WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT TIMING.

THIS AGAIN IS ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF TIM MORRISON.

HIS TESTIMONY.

THIS IS -- WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS FIRST ELECTED, THERE WAS THIS -- THESE ARE HIS WORDS, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD BE A GENUINE REFORMER.

AND WHETHER HE WOULD GENERALLY TRY TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

IT WAS ALSO AT THIS TIME, THIS WAS REPORTING THE ELECTION UNCLEAR, WHETHER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S PARTY WOULD ACTUALLY GET A WORKABLE MAJORITY.

I THINK WE'RE ALL GLAD THAT THEY DID.

TO SAY THAT THAT'S BEEN TESTED OR DETERMINE D, THAT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE HAS BEEN REMOVED, THE ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT OF UKRAINE DID NOT COMMENCE ITS WORK UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5th OF 2019.

121 DAYS AGO.

FOUR MONTHS AGO.

WE'RE ACTING AS IF THERE WAS A MAGIC WAND.

THAT THERE WAS NEW ELECTIONS, AND EVERYTHING WAS NOW FINE.

I WILL NOT -- BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HEAR MORE ABOUT IT, GET INTO SOME OF THE MEETINGS THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT HAD.

YOU'LL HEAR THAT IN THE DAYS AHEAD.

MANAGER CROW SAID THIS, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN UKRAINE AID.

HIS WORDS.

NOBODY ELSE.

THE U.S.

PROVIDES AIDES TO HUNDREDS OF COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, LOTS OF PARTNERS AND ALLIES.

HE DIDN'T ASK ABOUT ANY OF THEM.

JUST UKRAINE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

I REALLY DO.

UP DIDN'T SERVE IN THE MILITARY.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT LET'S GET OUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

THAT IS WHAT MANAGER CROWE SAID.

HERE'S WHAT HE SAID, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS PLACED HOLDS ON AID A NUMBER OF TIMES.

WE'LL JUST TAKE BASIC DUE DILIGENCE TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

IN SEPTEMBER 2019, THE ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS WITHHOLDING OVER $100 MILLION IN AID TO AFGHANISTAN OVER CONCERNS ABOUT GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION.

IN AUGUST 2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND SEOUL WERE LOOKING TO INCREASE SOUTH KOREA'S BURDEN-SHARING OF THE EXPENSES OF THE U.S. MILITARY AID SUPPORT FOR SOUTH KOREA.

IN JUNE, PRESIDENT TRUMP CUT OR PAUSED OVER $550 MILLION IN FOREIGN AID TO EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS AND GUATEMALA BECAUSE THE COUNTRIES WERE NOT HELPING IN MASS PRODUCING IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES.

IN JUNE, THE ADMINISTRATION TEMPORARILY PAUSED $105 MILLION IN AID TO LEBANON.

THE ADMINISTRATION LIFTED THAT HOLD IN DECEMBER WITH ONE OFFICIAL EXPLAINING THAT THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUALLY REVIEWS AND THOROUGHLY EVALUATES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ALL UNITED STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO ENSURE THAT FUNDS GO TOWARDS ACTIVITIES THAT FURTHER U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

AND ALSO FURTHER OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST.

LIKE ANY ADMINISTRATION WOULD.

IN SEPTEMBER 2018, THE ADMINISTRATION CANCELED THE $300 MIL MILLION IN MILITARY AID TO PAKISTAN BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MEETING THE COUNTER TERRORISM OBLIGATIONS.

YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT ANY OF THAT.

FROM MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES OR HOUSE MANAGERS.

NONE OF THAT WAS DISCUSSED.

UNDER SECRETARY HALE, AGAIN, HIS TRANSCRIPT, SAID THAT, QUOTE, AID HAS BEEN WITHHELD FROM SEVERAL COUNTRIES ACROSS THE GLOBE FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

DR. HILL SIMILARLY EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS A FREEZE PUT ON ALL KINDS OF AID.

ALSO, FREEZE PUT ON ASSISTANCE BECAUSE IT WAS A PROCESS AT THE TIME OF AN AWFUL LOT OF REVIEWS GOING ON ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.

THAT'S THE HILL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT.

SHE ADDED, THIS WAS ONE OF THE STAR WITNESSES FOR THE MANAGERS, THAT IN HER EXPERIENCE STARTS AND STOPS ARE SOMETIMES COMMON WITH FOREIGN ASSISTANCE.

AND THAT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HOLDS UP DOLLARS ALL THE TIME, INCLUDING THE PATH FOR DOLLARS GOING UKRAINE IN THE PAST.

SIMILARLY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AFFIRMED THAT AID GETS HELD UP FROM TIME TO TIME FOR A WHOLE ASSORTMENT OF REASONS.

MANAGER CROWE TOLD YOU THAT THE PRESIDENT'S UKRAINE POLICY WAS NOT STRONG AGAINST RUSSIA, HELPING THAT WE WANT TO FIGHT RUSSIA THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE WITH THE FRIENDS IN THE FRONT LINES IN SNEAKERS.

THE UNITED STATES HAS STOOD BY UKRAINE, THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.

WELL, IT'S TRUE.

THE UNITED STATES HAS STOOD BY UKRAINE SINCE THE INVASION OF 2014.

ONLY ONE PRESIDENT SINCE THEN TOOK A VERY CONCRETE STEP.

SOME OF YOU SUPPORTED IT.

AND THAT STEP INCLUDED ACTUALLY PROVIDING UKRAINE WITH LETHAL WEAPONS, INCLUDING JAVELIN MISSILES.

THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID.

SOME OF YOU IN THIS VERY ROOM, SOME OF YOU MANAGERS, ACTUALLY SUPPORTED THAT.

HERE'S WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T HEAR IN THE 23 HOURS.

YOU DIDN'T HEAR THIS.

JAVELIN MISSILES ARE SERIOUS WEAPONS.

THEY WILL KILL RUSSIAN TANKS.

AMBAS AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AGREED SAYING PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY GOT STRONGER, STRONGER THAN IT WAS UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA.

THERE'S TALKS ABOUT SANCTIONS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ALSO IMPOSED HEAVY SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HE THANKED HIM.

THE UNITED STATES HAS IMPOSED HEAVY SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THANKED HIM.

MANAGER JEFFREY SAID THAT THE IDEA THAT TRUMP CARES ABOUT CORRUPTION IS LAUGHABLE.

THIS IS WHAT DR. HILL SAID.

THEY DIDN'T PLAY THIS.

ELIMINATING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE WAS ONE IF NOT THE CENTRAL GOAL OF THE FOREIGN POLICY IN UKRAINE.

LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN.

DR. HILL TESTIFIED THAT ELIMINATING CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE WAS ONE OF IF NOT THE CENTRAL GOAL OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN UKRAINE.

YOU'RE TAKING NOTES.

YOU CAN FIND THAT IN THE HILL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT 34.

AND DR. HILL SAID THE PRESIDENT QUITE SKEPTICALLY WAORRIED ABOU CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

AND EVERYONE HAS GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THEY DIDN'T PLAY THIS, SHE ALSO SAID, WE ALL HAD CONCERNS.

NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTOR MORRISON CONFIRMED THAT, QUOTE, HE WAS AWARE THAT THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT UKRAINE HAD A CORRUPTION PROBLEM, AS DID MANY OTHER PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH IT.

I AM NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT PUT BEFORE YOU.

BECAUSE WE WOULD BE HERE FOR A LOT LONGER THAN 24 HOURS.

BUT TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DID NOT -- WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING, THAT HE WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE, THE FACTS FROM THEIR HE HEARING, THE FACTS FROM THEIR HEARING ESTABLISH EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

THE PRESIDENT WASN'T CONCERNED ABOUT BURDEN SHARING?

READ ALL OF THE RECORDS.

AND THEN THERE WAS MR. SCHIFF SAYING YESTERDAY, MAYBE WE CAN LEARN A LOT MORE FROM OUR Y UKRAINIAN ALLY.

LET ME READ YOU WHAT OUR UKRAINIAN ALLY SAID.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY -- WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS OF QUID PRO QUO, HE SAID, I THINK YOU READ EVERYTHING.

I THINK YOU READ THE TEXT.

HE SAYS, WE HAD A GOOD PHONE CALL.

THESE ARE HIS WORDS.

IT WAS NORMAL.

WE SPOKE ABOUT MANY THINGS.

I THINK AND YOU READ IT THAT NOBODY PUSHED ME.

THEY THINK YOU CAN READ MINDS.

I THINK YOU LOOK AT THE WORDS.

I'M GOING TO YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE, THE DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, PAT PHILBIN.

HE'S GOING TO ADDRESS THE TWO ISSUES.

SO WE'LL TRY TO DO THIS OVER A SYSTEMATIC WAY OVER THE DAYS AHEAD.

ONE INVOLVING ISSUES RELATED TO, BECAUSE THIS CAME UP NEAR THE END OF THERE, SO THE SEQUENCE OF OBSTRUCTION AS IT RELATES TO THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED.

AND HE'S GOING TO TOUCH ON THE DUE PROCESS ISSUES, SINCE IT WAS AT THE END OF THEIRS, AND FRESH ON EVERYBODY'S MIND.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE?

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, MAJORITY LEADER McCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC LEADER SCHUMER, GOOD MORNING.

AS MR. SEKULOW SAID, I'M GOING TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE ISSUES RELATED TO OBSTRUCTION AND DUE PROCESS.

AND JUST TO HIT ON SOME POINTS, BEFORE WE GO INTO MORE DETAIL IN THE REST OF OUR PRESENTATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH ONE OF THE POINTS THAT MANAGER JEFFREYS FOCUSED A LOT ON TOWARDS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION YESTERDAY RELATED TO THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE IN THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

BECAUSE HE TRIED TO PORTRAY A PICTURE OF WHAT HE CALLED BLANKET DEFIANCE.

THAT THERE WAS A RESPONSE FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT WAS SIMPLY, WE WON'T COOPERATE WITH ANYTHING, WE WON'T GIVE YOU ANY DOCUMENTS, WE WON'T DO ANYTHING, AND IT WAS BLANKET TO FIND FREELY WITHOUT EXPLANATION THAT WAS ALL THERE WAS, JUST AN ASSERTION THAT WE WOULDN'T COOPERATE.

AND HE SAID, AND I PULLED THIS FROM THE TRANSCRIPT, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBJECTIONS ARE NOT GENERALLY ROOTED IN THE LAW AND ARE NOT LEGAL ARGUMENTS.

THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

IN EVERY INSTANCE WHEN THERE WAS RESISTANCE TO A SUBPOENA FOR WITNESS OR FOR DOCUMENTS, THERE WAS A LEGAL EXPLANATION OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.

FOR EXAMPLE, THEY FOCUSED A LOT ON OCTOBER 8th'S LETTER FROM THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT, PAT CIPOLLONE, BUT THEY DIDN'T SHOW THE OCTOBER 18th LETTER UP ON THE SCREEN NOW, THAT WENT THROUGH IN DETAIL WHY SUBPOENAS THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY MANAGER SCHIFF'S COMMITTEES WERE INVALID.

BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAS NOT AUTHORIZED YOUR COMMITTEES TO CONDUCT ANY SUCH INQUIRY OR TO SUBPOENA INFORMATION IN FURTHERANCE OF IT.

THAT'S BECAUSE THE HOUSE HAD NOT TAKEN A VOTE TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMITTEE TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO ISSUE ANY COMPULSORY PROCESS.

AND I'M GOING TO GET INTO THAT ISSUE IN JUST A MOMENT.

NOT ONLY WAS THERE A LEGAL EXPLANATION, A SPECIFIC REASON FOR EVERY RESISTANCE, NOT JUST BLANKET DEFIANCE, BUT EVERY STEP THAT THE ADMINISTRATION TOOK WAS SUPPORTED BY AN OPINION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FROM THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL.

AND THOSE ARE EXPLAINED IN OUR B BRIEF.

AND THEY MADE YOUR OPINION FROM THE LEGAL COUNSEL IS ACTUALLY ATTACHED IN THE JEFFERYS AND OT SUGGESTED THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TOOK THE APPROACH OF BLANKET REFUSAL AND NO ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE.

THAT'S ALSO NOT TRUE.

IN THE OCTOBER 8 LETTER MR. CIPOLLONE SENT TO SPEAKER PELOSI IT SAID EXPLICITLY, QUOTE, IF THE COMMITTEES WISH TO RETURN TO THE REGULAR ORDER OF OVERSIGHT REQUESTS WE STAND READY TO ENGAGE IN THAT PROCESS AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH WELL ESTABLISHED BIPARTISAN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AND A RESPECT FOR THE SEPARATION OF POWERS ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION, END QUOTE.

IT WAS MANAGER SCHIFF AND HIS COMMITTEES THAT DID NOT WANT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACCOMMODATION PROCESS.

WE HAD SAID WE WERE WILLING TO EXPLORE THAT.

COMMITTED HOUSE MANAGERS ASSERTED A NUMBER OF TIMES IT CAME UP ON THE FIRST LONG NIGHT WHEN WE WERE HERE UNTIL 2:00 AS WELL THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

I EXPLAINED AT THE TIME THAT'S TECHNICALLY TRUE BUT MISLEADING.

MISLEADING BECAUSE THE RATIONALE ON WHICH THE SUBPOENAS WERE RESISTED NEVER DEPARTMENTED ON AN ASSERTION OF -- DEPENDED ON AN ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

EACH OF THE RATIONALES WE HAVE OFFERED AND I'LL IN TO ONE TODAY THE HOUSE SUBPOENAS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED DOES NOT DEPEND ON MAKING THAT FORMAL ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

IT'S A DIFFERENT LEGAL RATIONALE.

THE SUBPOENAS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DOUBTS OR WERE TO SENIOR ADVISER IMMUNE FROM COMPULSION AND OFFICIALS TO TESTIFY WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF AGENCY COUNSEL WHICH IS A SECOND LEGAL IMFIRMITY SECOND SUPPORTED FROM THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

BUT LET ME TURN TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE SUBPOENAS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T SUPPORTED BY A VOTE OF THE HOUSE AUTHORIZING MANAGER SCHIFF'S COMMITTEES TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT FOR COMPULSARY PROCESS.

THEY SAID THERE WAS NO PRECEDENCE SUGGESTED SUCH AN REQUIREMENT AND EVERY IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY HAS BEGUN WITHOUT A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE.

AND THOSE STATEMENTS SIMPLY AREN'T ACCURATE.

THERE IS SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT EXPLAINING VERY CLEARLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT A COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS GETS ITS AUTHORITY ONLY BY A RESOLUTION FROM THE PARENT BODY.

UNITED STATES VERSUS ROMLY AND WAT WATKINSON VERSUS THE UNITED STATES MAKES IT CLEAR.

IT'S CLEAR.

THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNS THE SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO THE HOUSE NOT ANY MEMBER OR SUBCOMMITTEE AND THAT AUTHORITY CAN BE DELEGATED TO A COMMITTEE TO USE ONLY BY A VOTE OF THE HOUSE.

IT WOULD BE THE SAME HEAR IN THE SENATE.

THE -- HERE IN THE SENATE.

THE SENATE HAS THE SOLE POWER TO TRY IMPEACHMENT BUT IF THERE ARE WITH NO RULES THAT HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE SENATE, WOULD YOU THINK THE MAJORITY LEADER HIMSELF COULD SIMPLY DECIDE HE WOULD HAVE A COMMITTEE RECEIVE EVIDENCE, HANDLE THAT, SUBMIT A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SENATE AND THAT WOULD BE THE WAY THE TRIAL WOULD OCCUR WITHOUT A VOTE FROM THE SENATE TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO THAT COMMITTEE?

I DON'T THINK SO.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION ASSIGNED THAT AUTHORITY.

AND IT'S THE SAME IN THE HOUSE.

HERE THERE WAS NO VOTE TO AUTHORIZE A COMMITTEE TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT AND THIS LAW HAS BEEN BOILED DOWN BY THE D.C.

CIRCUIT IN EXXON CORPS VERSUS FTC TO EXPLAIN TO ISSUE A VALID SUBPOENA A COMMITTEE OR SUBCOMMITTEE MUST CONFORM STRICTLY TO THE RESOLUTION INVESTIGATING THE POWERS THERE MUST BE A RESOLUTION BY THE PARENT BODY TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE THAT POWER AND THE PROBLEM HERE IS THERE IS NO STAN STANDING RULE.

THERE WAS NO STANDING AUTHORITY GIVING MANAGER SCHIFF'S COMMITTEE THE AUTHORITY TO USE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT TO ISSUE COMPULSORY PROCESS.

RULE 10 OF THE HOUSE DISCUSSES LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.

IT DOESN'T MENTION IMPEACHMENT.

AND THAT IS WHY IN EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY THE HOUSE INITIATED THE INQUIRY BY VOTING TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE THE AUTHORITY TO PURSUE THAT INQUIRY.

SO CONTRARY TO WHAT JEFFERYS SUGGESTED, THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN EVERY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY A VOTE FROM THE FULL HOUSE TO AUTHORIZE A COMMITTEE AND THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THE INQUIRY BEGINS.

THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT VOTES FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON IN JANUARY 1867, MARCH 1867 AND FEBRUARY 1868.

FOR PRESIDENT NIXON CHAIRMAN REDINO OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THERE WAS A MOVE TO REMOVE HIM AFTER THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE AND THEY DETERMINED THEY DID NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITHOUT A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE.

AND HE DETERMINED AS HE EXPLAINED THAT A RESOLUTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN PASSED BY THE HOUSE.

IT'S A NECESSARY STEP IF WE ARE TO MEET OUR OBLIGATIONS.

THERE'S BEEN REFERENCE TO INVESTIGATORY AUTHORITIES IN THE NIXON IMPEACHMENT PRIOR TO THE VOTE FROM THE HOUSE BUT ALL THE COMMITTEE WAS DOING WAS ASSEMBLING PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND INFORMATION THAT HAD BEEN GATHERED BY OTHER CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.

THERE WAS NEVER AN ATTEMPT TO ISSUE COMPULSORY PROCESS THERE HAD BEEN A VOTE BY THE THOUS GIVE THE HOUSE -- TO GIVE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT AUTHORITY.

SIMILARLY IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, THERE WERE TWO VOTES FROM THE FULL THOUS -- HOUSE TO GIVE IT A VOTE FIRST ON THE RESOLUTION 525 JUST TO ALLOW THE COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL REPORT AND DETERMINE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS HOW TO PROCEED THEN A SEPARATE RESOLUTION, HOUSE RESOLUTION 581 THAT GAVE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.

AND AT THE TIME IN A HOUSE REPORT, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE EXPLAINED, I'M QUOTING, BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT IS OF SUCH OVERWHELMING IMPORTANCE THE COMMITTEE DECIDED IT MUST RECEIVE AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FULL HOUSE BEFORE PROCEEDING ON ANY FURTHER COURSE OF ACTION BECAUSE IMPEACHMENT IS DELEGATED SOLELY TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE CONSTITUTION THE FULL HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN CRITICAL DECISION MAKING REGARDING VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPEACHMENT.

HERE, THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS SKIPPED OVER THAT STEP COMPLETELY.

WHAT THEY HAD INSTEAD WAS SIMPLY A PRESS CONFERENCE FROM SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCING SHE WAS DIRECTING COMMITTEES TO PROCEED WITH AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SPEAKER PELOSI DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE POWER OF THE HOUSE TO THOSE COMMITTEES ON HER OWN SO WHY DOES IT MATTER?

IT MATTERS BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION PLACES THAT AUTHORITY IN THE HOUSE AND ENSURES THAT THERE'S A DEMOCRATIC CHECK ON THE EXERCISE OF THAT AUTHORITY.

THERE WILL HAVE TO BE A VOTE ON THE FULL HOUSE BEFORE THERE CAN BE A PROCEEDING TO START INQUIRING INTO IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

ONE OF THE THINGS THE FRAMERS WERE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IN IMPEACHMENT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT.

A PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT BEING PUSHED MERELY BY A FACTION AND A WAY TO ENSURE A CHECK ON THAT IS TO REQUIRE DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE FULL HOUSE TO HAVE A VOTE IN THE ENTIRE HOUSE BEFORE AN INQUIRY CAN PROCEED.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE.

IT WAS ONLY AFTER FIVE WEEKS OF HEARINGS THE HOUSE DECIDED TO HAVE A VOTE.

AND WHAT THAT MEANT AT THE OUTSET WAS THAT ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED UNDER THE LAW OF THE SUPREME COURT CASES I DISCUSSED, ALL THE SUBPOENAS WERE INVALID AND THAT IS WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POINTED OUT SPECIFICALLY TO THE HOUSE.

THAT WAS THE REASON FOR NOT RESPONDING TO THEM BECAUSE UNDER LONG SETTLED PRECEDENT THERE HAD TO BE A VOTE FROM THE HOUSE TO GIVE AUTHORITY AND THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT RESPOND TO SUBPOENAS THAT WERE INVALID.

NOW, THE NEXT POINT I'D LIKE TO TOUCH ON BRIEFLY HAS TO DO WITH DUE PROCESS.

BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS THAT THEY OFFERED THE PRESIDENT DUE PROCESS AT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

AND MANAGER NADLER DESCRIBED IT AS HE SENT THE PRESIDENT A LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL A LETTER OFFERING TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO PARTICIPATE AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL REFUSED AS IF THAT WAS THE ONLY EXCHANGE AND THERE WAS A BLANKET REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE.

BUT LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

I SHOULD NOTE BEFORE I GET IN TO THOSE DETAILS, THERE WAS A SUGGESTION ALSO DUE PROCESS IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE HOUSE PROCEEDING.

IT'S SIMPLY A PRIVILEGE.

THAT WASN'T THE POSITION THAT MANAGER NADLER HAS TAKEN IN THE PAST.

IN 2016, HE SAID, QUOTE, THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS A SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNED TO THE HOUSE BY THE CONSTITUTION AND TO THIS COMMITTEE BY OUR PEERS.

THAT RESPONSIBILITY DEMANDS A RIGOROUS LEVEL OF DUE PROCESS.

AND IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IN 1988 HE EXPLAINED WHAT DOES DUE PROCESS MEAN?

IT MEANS AMONG OTHER THINGS THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST YOU, TO CALL YOUR OWN WITNESSES AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

NOW, I THINK WE ALL KNOW ALL THOSE RIGHTS WERE DENIED TO THE PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST TWO ROUNDS OF HEARINGS.

THE FIRST ROUND OF SECRET HEARINGS IN THE BASEMENT BUNKER WHERE MANAGER SCHIFF HAD THREE COMMITTEES HOLDING HEARINGS AND THEN AROUND PUBLIC HEARINGS TO TAKE THE TESTIMONY THAT HAD BEEN SCREENED IN THE BASEMENT BUNKER AND HAVE IT IN A PUBLIC TELEVISED SETTING WHICH WAS TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED IN ANY PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY FOR EVERY PUBLIC HEARING THE PRESIDENT WAS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WITH COUNSEL AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.

THE HOUSE MANAGER SAID THAT'S ALL RIGHT BECAUSE WHEN WE GOT TO THE THIRD ROUND OF HEARINGS AFTER PEOPLE TESTIFIED TWICE THEN WE'LL ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE DUE PROCESS.

BUT THE WAY THAT PLAYED OUT WITH US THIS.

FIRST, THEY SCHEDULED A HEARING FOR DECEMBER 4 THAT WAS GOING TO HEAR SOLELY FROM LAW PROFESSORS.

AND BY THE TIME THEY WANTED THE PRESIDENT TO COMMIT WHETHER HE'D PARTICIPATE THEY COULDN'T SPECIFY HOW MANY LAW PROFESSORS OR WHO THEY WOULD BE.

AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WROTE BACK AND DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

AT THE SAME TIME MANAGER NADLER SPOKE ABOUT A RULE THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE TO EXERCISE AND THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WROTE BACK ASKING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AND ASKED WHETHER YOU INTEND FACT WITNESSES TO BE CALLED INCLUDING THE WITNESSES REQUESTED BY RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ AND WHETHER YOU'LL ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND COUNSEL TO CROSS-EXAMINE FACT WITNESSES AND WHETHER YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL BE ABLE TO CALL WITNESSES OF THEIR CHOOSING AND MANAGER NADLER DIDN'T RESPOND TO THAT LETTER.

THERE WASN'T INFORMATION PROVIDED AND WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE STAFF ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT WERE THE PLANS.

WHAT WERE THE HEARINGS GOING TO BE LIKE.

THE WAY WE PLAYED OUT ON DECEMBER 4 THERE WAS THE HEARING WITH THE LAW PROFESSORS.

THE FIRST HEARING BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ON DECEMBER 5, THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 5 SPEAKER PELOSI ANNOUNCED THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE SHE ANNOUNCED SHE WAS DIRECTING CHAIRMAN NADLER TO DRAFT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO THE CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE PROCESS WAS ALREADY SET.

THEN AFTER THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE 5th, WE LEARNED FROM THE STAFF THE COMMITTEE HAD NO PLANS OTHER THAN A HEARING ON DECEMBER 9 TO HEAR FROM STAFFERS WHO HAD PREPARED HIPSE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND HAD NO PLANS TO HEAR FROM FACT WITNESSES.

NO PLANS TO DO ANY FACTUAL INVESTIGATION.

SO THE PRESIDENT WAS GIVEN A CHOICE OF PARTICIPATING IN A PROCESS THAT WAS GOING TO ALREADY HAVE THE OUTCOME DETERMINED.

THE SPEAKER ALREADY SAID ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE GOING TO BE DRAFT AND THERE WERE NO PLANS TO HEAR FROM FACT WITNESSES.

THAT'S NOT DUE PROCESS.

THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT DECLINED AND THE COMMITTEE DECIDED TO ACCEPT AN EX-PARTE RECORD AND DEVELOP THE PROCESS AND THERE WAS NO POINT IN PARTICIPATING IN THAT.

THE IDEA THERE WAS A DUE PROCESS OFFERED TO THE PRESIDENT IS SIMPLY NOT ACCURATE.

THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE FROM THE TIME OF THE SEPTEMBER 4 PRESS CONFERENCE UNTIL THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BEGAN MARKING UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DECEMBER 11 LASTED 78 DAYS.

IT'S THE FASTEST INVESTIGATORY PROCESS FOR A PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT IN HISTORY.

AND FOR 71 DAYS OF THAT PROCESS AND THE HEARINGS AND TAKING OF DEPOSITIONS AND HEARING TESTIMONY THE PRESIDENT WAS COMPLETELY LOCKED OUT.

HE COULDN'T BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, HE COULDN'T CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, HE COULDN'T PRESENT EVIDENCE, HE COULDN'T PRESENT WITNESSES FOR 71 OF THE 78 DAYS.

THAT'S NOT DUE PROCESS.

IT GOES TO A POINT MR. CIPOLLONE RAISED EARLIER WHAT'S IT TELL U ABOUT THE PROCESS.

AS WE POINTED OUT A COUPLE OF TIMES, CROSS-EXAMINATION IS THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH IN GOLDBERG VERSUS KELLY FOR ANY DETERMINATION THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT REQUIRES DETERMINING FACTS, CROSS-EXAMINATION HAS BEEN ONE OF KEYS OF THE DUE PROCESS.

WHY DO THEY DESIGN A MECHANISM HERE WHERE THE PRESIDENT WAS LOCKED OUT AND DENIED THE ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES?

BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T REALLY INTERESTED IN GETTING AT THE FACTS AND THE TRUTH.

THEY HAD A TIMETABLE TO MEET.

THEY WANTED TO HAVE IMPEACHMENT DONE BY CHRISTMAS AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE STRIVING TO DO.

AS A SLIGHT SHIFT IN GEARS, I WANT TO TOUCH ON ONE LAST POINT BEFORE I YIELD TO ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES.

THAT RELATES TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHO WE HAVEN'T HEARD THAT MUCH ABOUT.

WHO STARTED ALL OF THIS.

THE WHISTLEBLOWER WE KNOW FROM A LETTER FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SENT HE THOUGHT THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAD POLITICAL BIAS.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE POLITICAL BIAS WAS BECAUSE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TESTIFIED IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEES IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THAT TRANSCRIPT IS STILL SECRET.

IT WASN'T TRANSMITTED UP TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN IT.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS ASKED AND REVEALED ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

NOW, YOU WOULD THINK THAT BEFORE GOING FORWARD WITH AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES YOU WOULD WANT TO FIND OUT SOMETHING ABOUT THE COMPLAINANT THAT HAD STARTED ALL OF THIS BECAUSE MOTIVATIONS, BIAS, REASONS FOR WANTING TO BRING THIS COMPLAINT COULD BE RELEVANT BUT THERE WASN'T ANY INQUIRY INTO THAT.

RECENT REPORTS, PUBLIC REPORTS SUGGEST THAT POTENTIALLY THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS IN AN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY STAFFER WHO WORKED WITH THEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ON UKRAINE MATTERS, WHICH, IF TRUE, WOULD CREATE A POTENTIAL MATTER FOR A MOTIVE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

AT FIRST WHEN THINGS STARTED, IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYONE AGREED WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER INCLUDING MANAGER SCHIFF.

I THINK WE HAVE WHAT HE SAID.

>> YES, WE WOULD LOVE TO TALK DIRECTLY WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

WE'LL GET THE UNFILTERED TESTIMONY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

WE DON'T NEED THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

>> WHAT CHANGED?

AT FIRST MANAGER SCHIFF AGREED WE SHOULD HEAR THE UNFILTERED TESTIMONY FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER BUT THEN HE CHANGED HIS MIND.

HE SUGGESTED BECAUSE HE THEN HAD THE TRANSCRIPT THE SECOND CLIP FROM FROM DECEMBER 29 FOUR DAYS AFTER THE TRANSCRIPT HAD BEEN RELEASED.

BUT THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT CAME IN TO PLAY AND THAT WAS SOMETHING MANAGER SCHIFF HAD SAID EARLIER WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD SPOKEN TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

>> WE HAVE NOT SPOKEN DIRECTLY TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

WE WOULD LIKE TO.

>> AND IT TURNED OUT THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT TRUTHFUL.

AROUND OCTOBER 2 OR 3rd IT WAS EXPOSED THE MANAGER HAD SPOKEN WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER BEFORE THE WHISTLEBLOWER FILED A COMPLAINT AND POTENTIALLY HAD GIVEN SOME GUIDANCE, SOME SORT TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

AFTER THAT POINT IT BECAME CRITICAL TO SHUT DOWN ANY INQUIRY IN TO WHISTLEBLOWER.

AND DURING THE HOUSE HEARINGS OF COURSE MANAGER SCHIFF WAS IN CHARGE.

HE WAS CHAIRING THE HEARINGS.

AND THAT CREATES A REAL PROBLEM FROM A DUE PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, FROM A SEARCH FOR TRUTH PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE HE WAS AN INTERESTED FACT WITNESS AT THAT POINT.

HE HAD A REASON SINCE HE WAS CAUGHT OUT SAYING SOMETHING UNTRUTHFUL ABOUT THAT CONTACT.

HE HAD A REASON TO NOT WANT THAT INQUIRY.

AND IT WAS HE WHO ENSURED THERE WASN'T ANY INQUIRY IN TO THAT.

NOW, THIS IS RELEVANT HERE, I THINK, BECAUSE AS YOU HEARD FROM MY COLLEAGUES A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD OVER THE PAST 23 HOURS, OVER THE PAST THREE DAYS HAS BEEN FROM CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.

AND HE HAS BEEN TELLING YOU THINGS LIKE WHAT'S IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S AHEAD.

WHAT'S IN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S HEAD AND TRYING TO PULL INFERENCES OUT OF THINGS.

AND THERE'S AN ANOTHER STATEMENT CHAIRMAN SCHIFF MADE I THINK WE HAVE ON VIDEO.

>> YOU ADMIT ALL YOU HAVE IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE.

>> ACTUALLY, NO, CHUCK.

I CAN TELL YOU THE CASE IS MORE THAN THAT AND A CAN'T GO IN TO THE PARTICULARS BUT THERE'S MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE NOW.

>> YOU HAVE SEEN DIRECT EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION?

>> DON'T WANT TO GO INTO SPECIFICS BUT I WILL SAY THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND IS VERY MUCH WORTH WORTHY OF INVESTIGATION.

>> THAT WAS IN MARCH OF 2017 WHEN CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AS RANKING MEMBER OF HPSCI WAS SELLING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC--TELLING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HE HAD MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THROUGH HIS POSITION IN HPSCI THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION INCLUDED WITH RUSSIA.

AND THE MUELLER REPORT AS MR. SEKULOW POINTED OUT AFTER $32 MILLION AND ROUGHLY 3500 SEARCH WARRANTS DETERMINED THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

THAT WASN'T TRUE.

AND WE WANTED TO POINT THESE THINGS OUT SIMPLY BECAUSE FOR THIS REASON.

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF HAS MADE SO MUCH OF THE HOUSE'S CASE ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF INTERPRETATIONS THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS WANT TO PLACE ARE NOT HARD EVIDENCE BUT ON INFERENCES.

THEY WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THOUGHT.

THEY WANT TO TELL YOU DON'T BELIEVE WHAT ZELENSKY SAID, WE CAN TELL YOU WHAT HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT.

DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THE OTHER UKRAINIANS SAID ABOUT BEING PRESSURED, WE CAN TELL YOU WHAT THEY THOUGHT.

IT IS VERY RELEVANT TO KNOW WHETHER THE ASSESSMENTS OF EVIDENCE HE'S PRESENTED IN THE PAST ARE ACCURATE.

AND WE'LL SUBMIT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN AND THAT IS RELEVANT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

WITH THAT I'LL YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE, MR. CIPOLLONE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF SENATE.

I HAVE GOOD NEWS, JUST A FEW MORE MINUTES FROM US TODAY BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF POINTS.

NUMBER ONE, JUST TO FOLLOW-UP ON WHAT MR. PHILBIN JUST TOLD YOU.

DO YOU KNOW WHO ELSE DIDN'T SHOW UP IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE?

TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS REPORT IN THE WAY KEN STARR DID IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT?

KEN STARR WAS SUBJECTED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

DO YOU KNOW WHO DIDN'T SHOW UP IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE?

CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.

HE DID NOT SHOW UP.

HE DID NOT GIVE CHAIRMAN NADLER THE RESPECT OF APPEARING BEFORE HIS COMMITTEE AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM HIS COMMITTEE.

HE DID SECOND HIS STAFF BUT WHY DIDN'T HE SHOW UP?

ANOTHER GOOD QUESTION YOU SHOULD THINK ABOUT.

NOW, THEY'VE COME HERE TODAY AND THEY BASICALLY SAID LET'S CANCEL AN ELECTION OVER A MEETING WITH UKRAINE.

AND AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SHOWN, THEY FAILED TO GIVE YOU KEY FACTS ABOUT THE MEETING AND LOTS OF OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THEY PRODUCED THEMSELVES.

BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MEETING.

THEY SAID, IT WAS ALL ABOUT AN INVITATION TO A MEETING.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST TRANSCRIPT, AT THE FIRST TRANSCRIPT, THE PRESIDENT SAID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHEN YOU'RE SETTLED IN AND READY, I'D LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO TALK ABOUT BUT WE'RE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY.

AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID, WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION.

WE ACCEPT THE INVITATION AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE VISIT.

THANK YOU AGAIN.

THEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GOT A LETTER ON MAY 29 INVITING HIM AGAIN TO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

THEN GOING BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT AND THE PART OF THE CALL THEY DIDN'T TALK TO YOU ABOUT, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID WHENEVER YOU'D LIKE TO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE, FEEL FREE TO CALL.

GIVE US A DATE AND WE'LL WORK THAT OUT.

I LOOK FORWARD IT SEEING YOU.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REPLIED, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'D BE HAPPY TO COME AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO MEET WITH YOU PERSONALLY AND GET TO KNOW YOU BETTER.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO OUR MEETING AND I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO INVITE TO YOU VISIT UKRAINE.

COME TO THE CITY OF KIEV WHICH IS A BEAUTIFUL CITY.

WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY WHICH WOULD WELCOME YOU.

THEN HE SAID, ON THE OTHER HAND, I BELIEVE ON SEPTEMBER 1, WE WILL BE IN POLAND.

WE CAN MEET IN POLAND HOPEFULLY.

THEY DIDN'T READ YOU THAT PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT AND TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED.

A MEETING IN POLAND WAS SCHEDULED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SCHEDULED TO GO TO POLAND.

HE WAS SCHEDULED TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

WHAT HAPPENED?

PRESIDENT TRUMP COULDN'T GO TO POLAND.

WHY?

BECAUSE THERE WAS A HURRICANE IN THE UNITED STATES AND HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR HIM TO STAY HERE TO HELP DEAL WITH THE HURRICANE SO THE VICE PRESIDENT WENT.

WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL YOU THAT?

WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL YOU PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SUGGESTED, HEY, HOW ABOUT WE MEET IN POLAND.

WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL THEM THE MEETING WAS SCHEDULED AND HAD TO BE CANCELLED FOR A HURRICANE?

WHY?

SO THAT WAS OUR FIRST QUESTION WE ASKED YOU.

YOU HEARD A LOT OF FACTS THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU.

FACTS THAT ARE CRITICAL.

FACTS THAT THEY KNOW COMPLETELY COLLAPSED THEIR CASE ON THE FACTS.

NOW, YOU HEARD A LOT FROM THEM.

YOU'RE NOT GOING IT HEAR FACTS FROM THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE FACTS.

THAT'S ALL WE'VE DONE TODAY.

ASK YOURSELF, ASK YOURSELF, GIVEN THE FACTS YOU HEARD TODAY THAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS?

WHO DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FACTS?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR THOSE FACTS.

THEY PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR THIS INVESTIGATION.

AND THEY DIDN'T BOTHER TO TELL YOU.

ASK YOURSELF WHY.

IF THEY DON'T WANT TO BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT, AT LEAST OUT OF RESPECT TO YOU, THEY SHOULD BE FAIR TO YOU.

THEY SHOULD TELL YOU THESE THINGS.

AND WHEN THEY DON'T TELL YOU THESE THINGS IT MEANS SOMETHING.

SO THINK ABOUT THAT.

IMPEACHMENT SHOULDN'T BE A SHELL GAME.

THEY SHOULD GIVE YOU THE FACTS.

THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR TODAY.

WE ASK YOU OUT OF RESPECT TO THINK ABOUT, THINK ABOUT WHETHER WHAT YOU'VE HEARD WOULD REALLY SUGGEST TO ANYBODY ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE ABUSE OF POWER TO DO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO DO.

TO STOP AN ELECTION, TO INTERFERE IN AN ELECTION AND TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE BALLOT.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.

THAT'S WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED.

THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD ALL WANT.

AND WITH THAT, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ON MONDAY.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE TRIAL ADJOURN UNTIL MONDAY JANUARY 27 AND CONSTITUTE THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION SO ORDERED.

THE SENATE IS ADJOURNED.

>> AND WITH THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE GAVELS THE SENATE TO ADJOURNMENT AS YOU HEARD UNTIL THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL CONTINUES TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM CONTINUES TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

THEY'LL TAKE A BREAK TOMORROW ON SUNDAY AND COME BACK ON MONDAY AFTERNOON.

TODAY, SATURDAY, THEY SPENT LESS THAN TWO HOURS ESSENTIALLY GOING AFTER THE DEMOCRATIC ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT SAYING THEY HAVEN'T PRESENT THE FACTS.

THEY'VE LEFT OUT IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND AS YOU JUST HEARD PAT CIPOLLONE THE WHITE HOUSE LEAD COUNSEL SAYING JUST NOW THEY'RE ASKING TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE WITHIN MONTHS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVING THEIR SAY SUGGESTING THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

LISA DESJARDINS IS FOLLOWING ALL THIS FROM THE CAPITOL.

LISA, THIS HAS BEEN PRETTY MUCH A VIEW THE WHITE HOUSE IS FULL OF HOLES.

>> THERE'S TWO WAYS OF GOING AT THIS.

THEY TALKED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PHONE CALL IN JULY BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ARGUING THAT'S PROOF THE PRESIDENT'S INTENTIONS WERE GOOD AND WENT AFTER ADAM SCHIFF AND DEMOCRATS SAYING THEY ESSENTIALLY THE CORRUPT ONES.

THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN YOU ALL THE EVIDENCE, SENATORS.

IN JUST A FEW MINUTES AT THE PODIUM BEHIND ME WERE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS LED BY CHUCK SCHUMER OF NEW YORK ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE THE PODIUM WE'LL SEE HOW THEY EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE TODAY.

IT'S FASCINATING THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME ON THINGS LIKE THE MUELLER REPORT AND WATCHING THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE DURING THE RECAP YOU CAN TELL SOME REPUBLICANS WERE HUNGRY FOR THAT BUT THE MODERATES DID NOT SEEM AS TUNED IN TO THAT SECTION OF THEIR DEFENSE.

IF >> AND LISA, AGAIN, YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE SENATORS TODAY AS THEY'VE BEEN TAKING ALL THIS IN.

YOU OBVIOUSLY WERE WATCHING THEM AS THE DEMOCRATS MADE THEIR CASE.

HOW DO YOU CONTRAST THE INTEREST OF THE SENATORS?

>> THE SENATORS WERE VERY ALERT.

THE ENTIRE CHAMBER WAS SEATED MOST OF THE TIME.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE PAST COUPLE DAYS AS MUCH.

I WILL SAY THEY WERE READY TO TAKE NOTES BUT WEREN'T ALWAYS TAKING NOTES.

THERE WEREN'T ALWAYS THINGS THEY FELT THEY NEEDED TO WRITE DOWN TO REMEMBER.

I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT'S CASE IN MANY INSTANCES IS PHILOSOPHICAL WE DIDN'T HEAR POINT BY POINT AND I DID NOTICE ONE MODERATE POTENTIAL SWING SENATOR NODDING OFF DURING THE PRESIDENT'S PRESENTATION.

WHILE THEY WERE THERE TO RESOURCE -- RECEIVE INFORMATION THEY WERE WEARING FOR THE NEXT VARIOUS SPECIFIC FACTS.

>> AND QUICKLY, ANY REACTION YOU PICKED UP FROM SENATORS ACROSS THE BOARD FROM THE FACT THE WHITE HOUSE PRESENTATION IS SO MUCH MORE BRIEF ON A NOT EVEN TWO HOURS COMPARED TO WHAT THE DEMOCRATS DID OVER THE COURSE OF THREE DAYS.

>> I THINK NO SURPRISE IT'S A COMPLETELY PARTISAN QUESTION.

REPUBLICANS WILL TELL YOU THIS CASE THERE'S NOTHING TO IT.

WE SHOULDN'T WASTE TIME GOING OVER THE EVIDENCE.

DEMOCRATS SAY, NO, THEY DON'T HAVE A JUSTIFIED ANSWER TO OUR CASE.

IT'S A PARTISAN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

>> ALL RIGHT.

LISA DESJARDINS AT THE CAPITOL.

WE'LL LET YOU GET READY TO LISTEN IN ON THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER AND THEY'LL HOLD A NEWS CONFERENCE WHERE YOU SAW LISA STANDING.

I WANT TO TURN TO YAMICHE ALCINDOR OUR CORRESPONDENT AND YOU WERE THERE FOLLOWING THIS ALONG AS THE WHITE HOUSE MAKES ITS CASE TODAY.

THEY'VE BEEN SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO GO DOWN THE LIST, IF YOU WILL, OF DEMOCRATIC ALLEGATIONS AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE BEGUN TO DO.

>> THAT IS WHAT THEY'VE BEGUN TO DO.

THE BIG QUESTION IS IS THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL TEAM GOING TO FOCUS ON THE FACTS OR ON PROCESS AND SAY THIS IS ALL UNFAIR.

THEY DID BOTH JUDY BUT THE MAIN THING THEY DID WAS WALK THROUGH THE IDEA THEY BELIEVE DEMOCRATS SELECTIVELY CHOSE WHAT THEY WANTED TO SHARE WITH SENATORS AND LEFT OUT KEY FACTS.

WHILE I WAS IN THE CHAMBER THERE WERE TWO BIG MOMENTS AND JAY SEKULOW SAID THIS COST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND SHOWED THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA AND SOME WERE ATTENTIVE BECAUSE JAY SEKULOW LET THEM TAKE IT IN AND MADE THE CASE IT'S THE DEMOCRATS WANTED TO GO AFTER THE SECOND PART OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO GO AFTER THE PRESIDENT AND SUSAN COLLINS A KEY SENATOR DEMOCRATS WANT TO VOTE TO HAVE WITNESSES TESTIFY AT THE SENATE, SHE WAS SOMEONE WHO WAS TAKING VIGOROUS NOTES WHEN ANOTHER LAWYER FOR THE PRESIDENT SAID GORDON SONDLAND WAS PRESUMING AND ASSUMING THE PRESIDENT WANT THE AID IN EXCHANGE FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS BUT THAT WASN'T ACTUALLY THE CASE.

SUSAN COLLINS WHEN SHE HEARD THAT STARTED WRITING NOTES AND TOLD ME AND A LOT OF THE REPORTERS THERE SHE WAS TAKING THAT POINT IN.

>> YAMICHE, IT WAS INTERESTING TO ME THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING WENT AFTER WHAT THEY REFER TO AS THE TRANSCRIPT AS A MEMO GATHERING THE INFORMATION FROM THE PRESIDENT'S PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BACK IN JULY.

BUT THEY WENT BACK AND MADE A POINT, THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM, OF SAYING NOT ONLY WAS THE BURDEN-SHARING ISSUE MENTIONED WHICH HAS TO DO WITH HOW MUCH SUPPORT UKRAINE WAS GET FROM EUROPE AND OTHER COUNTRIES BESIDES THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THAT HAS A CONNECTION TO THE U.S. DECISION TO DELIBERATE.

ALSO THAT CORRUPTION WAS MENTIONED IN THAT PHONE CALL AND THEY WENT STRAIGHT TO THOSE TWO ARGUMENTS WHICH I THOUGHT WAS STRIKING.

>> IT WAS STRIKING.

IT WAS STRIKING TO HEAR THEM SAY THE DEMOCRATS DOESN'T WANT TO FOCUS ON THE CALL MEMO.

THEY WERE CALLING THE TRANSCRIPT BELOW ON THE MEMO IT SAYS THIS IS IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT SO THAT'S A BIT OF A FACT CHECK BUT THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS SAID HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BURDEN SHARING AND WANTED MORE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO SHARE THE BURDEN OF KEEPING EUROPE SAFE AND THE WORLD SAFE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN MAKING THAT POINT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID THE CALL WAS ABOUT VERSUS WHAT IT WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT IT WAS DIFFERENT.

THE WHITE HOUSE CALL MEMO OF THE JULY 25 PHONE CALL SAID THEY DISCUSSED CORRUPTION.

HE SAID THE MEMO THE WHITE HOUSE PUT OUT THE WORD CORRUPTION WAS NEVER MENTIONED THEN WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS ARE SAYING EVENT -- AND UKRAINE WAS ON THE PRESIDENT'S MIND BECAUSE HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE HE HAD AN ALLY FEELING SUPPORT THE UNITED STATES AND HE WAS SOMEONE WHO IS NOT TRYING TO SHAKE THEM DOWN.

ONE OF THE LAWYERS MADE A POINT OF ESSENTIALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A FAKE VERSION SAYING THE PRESIDENT I NEED TO YOU DO THIS IN ORDER TO DO THIS AND THEY'RE SAYING THE PRESIDENT NEVER DID THAT AND THERE'S NO DIRECT CORRELATION OF SAYING THE PRESIDENT I NEED THIS TO HAPPEN IN ORDER FOR THIS TO HAPPEN.

THEY'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE A PRID QUO QUO WITHOUT A QUO.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, YAMICHE AND THE MEMO REFERS TO THE FACT THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP THE INVESTIGATION BUT WASN'T CONNECTED TO WITHHOLDING AID.

I DO WANT TO COME BACK TO A QUESTION THOUGH.

I DON'T HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM, AT LEAST AT THIS é EXPLAINING WHY THE AID WAS WITH HEADLINE.

THEY POINTED OUT -- WITHHELD.

THEY POINTED OUT OTHER INSTANCES OF THE UNITED STATES WITHHOLDING AID FOR A TIME FROM OTHER COUNTRIES BUT THEY DIDN'T EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THE AID WAS HELD.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IN THIS INSTANCE THEY DID NOT EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHY THE PRESIDENT WAS FIXATED ON THE BIDENS AND HOLDING UP THE $391 MILLION THAT CONGRESS ALREADY APPROPRIATED.

INSTEAD THEY SAID THE PRESIDENT HAD DONE THIS BEFORE TO EL SALVADOR AND -- HONDURAS AND THIS WAS A PREF VIEW, THEY SAID A MOVIE TRAILER VERSION OF THEIR ARGUMENT.

PERHAPS ON MONDAY WHEN THEY SAID THEY'LL TALK FOR ABOUT EIGHT HOURS WE'LL HEAR ABOUT THAT.

ONE OTHER QUICK POINT I WAS TALKING TO SOURCES CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM AND SAID PART OF THE ARGUMENT THEY'LL MAKE IS TO CONVINCE REPUBLICAN SENATORS TO VOTE AGAINST HAVING WITNESSES.

WE HAD THIS IDEA THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM WAS GOING TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT AND WERE TRYING TO NOT MESS IT UP BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD THE VOTES TO ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT AND SOME SENATORS SAID WE MAY WANT TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES AND THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM IS TRYING TO CHANGE A COUPLE OF THOSE MINDS SO MAY BE PART OF THE REASON WHY THEY DIDN'T GO IN TO WHY THE PRESIDENT WAS HOLViLG UP THE MILITARY AID.

>> YAMICHE ALCINDOR WATCHING THE TRIAL FROM THE CAPITOL AWAY FROM HER USUAL PERCH AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT YOU'RE THERE TO BE CLOSE TO AND KEEP AN EYE ON THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM AS THEY MAKE THEIR CASE.

I WANT TO COME TO OUR GUESTS AT THE TABLE WITH ME, ELIZABETH CHRYST, MAR GET TAI -- MARGARET TAYLOR.

TO PICK UP ON THE POINT YAMICHE WAS MAKING ON WHO IT IS ON THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM THEY WANT TO PER HAVE A.

THEY'RE LOOKING -- PERSUADE AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DIGITAL AUDIENCE IN THE MILLIONS AND THE SENATORS ON NOT JUST WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE CONVICTED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE BUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE WITNESSES AND MORE EVIDENCE.

I WAS STRUCK, ELIZABETH WHEN WE HEARD I BELIEVE IT WAS PAT CIPOLLONE POINT OUT OR PERHAPS IT WAS ANOTHER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL POINTING OUT CAN YOU IMAGINE THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MAKING UP THE RULES AND CONTRASTING THAT WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, SORRY, WITH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTS WHERE THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE A FULL HOUSE VOTE ON CONDUCTING THE IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.

>> AT THAT POINT YOU'RE RIGHT.

THEY WERE DIRECTING THAT AT THE UNITED STATES SENATORS.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY DIDN'T AGREE WITH AND SENATORS IN GENERAL SHOULD NOT AGREE WITH.

I THINK OVERALL IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.

I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO PLAY TO THE SENATORS WHEN IT COMES TO WITNESSES AND THEY'RE DESIRE THEY DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY NEED FOR THEM.

BUT THEN I THINK THE WAY THEY SORT OF GAVE TEASERS TO THREE OR FOUR OF THESE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT WILL BE COMING DOWN NEXT WEEK.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD DECIDE ELECTIONS.

THAT'S FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THEY CAME BACK TO THAT SEVERAL TIMES.

THAT'S FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS A CENTRAL THEME.

WHAT DID THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY OR LEAVE OUT AND WE SHOULD ANALYZE WHY THAT WAS LEFT OUT.

I THINK THAT'S FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALSO.

I DO.

I THINK FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE UNITED STATES SENATORS THEY HEARD AN AWFUL LOT OF THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

I'M NOT SURE THEY'LL HEAR A TON THAT'S NEW.

THEY'LL HEAR THAT THIS WAS LEFT OUT AND LET'S ALL THINK ABOUT WHY IT WAS LEFT OUT.

>> AND MARGARET TAYLOR, HOW MUCH OF A PROBLEM IS THAT FOR THE DEMOCRATS AND THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM SPENT A LOT OF TIME THIS MORNING IN THE TIME THEY HAD CASTING DOUBT ON RAISING THE QUESTION, WHY WAS INFORMATION LEFT OUT AT THE END?

AGAIN, POINTING OUT ADAM SCHIFF THE LEAD HOUSE MANAGER SAID AT AT ONE POINT, WE HAVEN'T HAD DISCUSSION THE WHISTLEBLOWER WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF SAID HE HAD SPOKE TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER.

>> IT'S INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THEY APPROACH THIS.

IT'S GOOD I THINK IN TIMES WHEN THEY REFERRED TO THE RECORD AND BROUGHT IN WITNESS TESTIMONY FROM THE HOUSE.

JUST AS THEY'RE SAYING THE HOUSE MANAGERS HAVE CHERRY PICKED WITNESS STATEMENTS ETCETERA TO MAKE THEIR CASE, I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM IS DOING THE SAME THING.

AND THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL.

WHEN YOU HAVE A TRIAL AND YOU'RE IN THIS TYPE OF SETTING YOU PULL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CASE.

THAT'S NOT SURPRISING TO ME.

WHAT IS INTERESTING TO ME IS THE TONE IN WHICH IT'S BEING DONE.

TO YOUR EARLIER QUESTION IT WOULD SEEM THOUGH THE DEFENSE TEAM IS GOING TO THE PRESIDENT'S APPROACH NO EVIDENCE, THE CALL WAS PERFECT, READ THE TRANSCRIPT, THEY'RE DOING IT IN A WAY THAT IS MEASURED AND IT'S REALLY QUITE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE SAW ON TUESDAY, THE OPENING DAY OF ARGUMENTATION WHERE THERE'S LOTS OF FIERY BACK AND FORTH AND MORE MEASURED AND DULCET TONES AND WILL SPEAK WELL TO SOME.

>> AND LET'S GO BACK TO LISA DESJARDINS AND YOU'VE HEARD FROM SENATORS.

>> OUR TEAM HAS BEEN TALKING TO THE SENATORS.

WE WERE LOOKING OVER THE SENATE AS IT CLOSED AND SAID LINDSAY GRAHAM GOT OUT OF HIS SEAT, WENT UP TO THE COUNSELS TO THE PRESIDENT AND TALK TO PAM BONDI ONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS AND GAVE HER A THUMBS UP AND WALKED AWAY.

WE HAVE CANDACE NORWAY TALKING TO SENATORS AND GAVE ME TWO INTERESTING TIDBITS.

ONE, SHE SAID THE SENATOR OF INDIANA IS TALKING ABOUT HOW HE THINK IT WAS A STRONG DEFENSE.

THE QUESTION OF CONSEQUENCES, ANOTHER INTERESTING DETAIL, SHE SAID SENATOR RICK SCOTT OF FLORIDA, THE ULTIMATE SWING STATE SAID HE IS STILL OPEN TO THE IDEA OF WITNESSES.

HE IS STILL KEEPING AN OPEN MIND ON THE CONCEPT.

BOTH ARE REPUBLICANS SHE'S TALKING TO.

ONE OF THEM ALSO SAID RICK SCOTT SAID IT'S A GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA AND THEY'RE HAPPY WITH THE PRESENTATION.

I SAW THIS MORNING AHEAD OF THE PRESENTATIONS KIND OF FOUR OF THE PRESIDENT'S STRONGEST ALLIES CAME TO THE MICROPHONES AND I'VE BEEN WATCHING THEM FOR A LONG TIME.

I'VE NEVER SEEN THEM MORE RELAXED OR AT EASE OR CONFIDENT AS THEY WERE THIS MORNING.

I THINK FOR MANY OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE STRONG AL EYES OF THE PRESIDENT AND -- ALLIES THE PRESIDENT IS GETTING HIS TURN.

>> YOU'RE SAYING YOU'VE SEEN THEM IN THE PAST WHEN THEY HAVEN'T SEEMED RELAXED?

>> I THINK ANYONE WHO'S SEEN JIM JORDAN WILL SAY HE'S AN INTEN INTENSING IF INTENSE FIGURE AND HE SEEMED MORE CASUAL.

I THINK THERE WAS A FEELING ABOUT THE FOUR ADVISORIES TO THE PRESIDENT THAT THEY JUST SEEMED AND A SAID I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS ON THE ESCALATOR AND THEY JOKED BACK SAYING WE'RE HOUSE MEMBERS YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, DON'T FOLLOW THE SENATE RULES.

THERE WAS A DIFFERENT SENSE AND TONE FROM THEM THAN I'VE SEEN FOR MONTHS.

>> INTERESTING.

BACK AT THE TABLE, ELIZABETH CHRYST ON THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES WHICH LISA BRINGS UP, WHETHER SENATOR RICK SCOTT WILL ULTIMATELY VOTE FOR WITNESSES OR NOT, THIS IS A KEY PART OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING HAS TO HAPPEN.

>> I THINK WE'LL GET A SNEAK PEAK TO WHAT THE DIFFERENT SENATORS BELIEVE AS WITNESSES OR NOT WITNESSES WHEN WE GET TO THE QUESTION PERIOD.

THAT'S OF COURSE AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS HAVE THEIR TIME.

SO MAYBE BY TUESDAY WHEN SENATORS START ASKING QUESTIONS OF EITHER THE HOUSE MANAGER OR THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS.

IF THERE'S A LOT OF HOLES IN THE ANSWERS THAT MIGHT LEAD TO WHETHER THEY MIGHT VOTE FOR WITNESSES OR FURTHER EVIDENCE.

>> VERY QUICKLY BACK TO LISA DESJARDINS.

>> I'M SORRY, I MISREAD THE NOTES IT WAS MIKE BRAUN IT WAS NOT RICK SCOTT.

RICK SCOTT SAID IT'S A GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA I WANT TO CORRECT THAT.

>> WE APPRECIATE CORRECTING THE RECORD.

WE WANT TO BE ACCURATE AND WHEN WE DO MAKE A MANSLAUGHTER WE WANT TO MAKE WHEN WE MAKE A MISTAKE WE WANT TO GET IT WORKED OUT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.

I WANT TO TALK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT WHAT I PERCEIVE TO BE ONE OF THE CENTRAL ARGUMENTS THE WHITE HOUSE TEAM IS MAKE THAT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED FOR THIS PRESIDENT, THIS DEMOCRATIC MANAGER TEAM IS COMING TO YOU AND SAYING DON'T LISTEN TO THE AMERICAN VOTERS.

WE HAVE AN ELECTION AND THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO RIP UP THE BALLOTS.

THAT'S HOW THEY DESCRIBED IT, TEAR UP THE BALLOTS AND YOU TAKE THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN LEADER TO CHOOSE THEIR AMERICAN LEADERS AWAY FROM THEM AND SAID THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

>> THAT'S A RHETORICAL APPROACH TO THIS IN MY VIEW.

THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT IS ALSO A CONSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM FOR EXAMINING PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT AND REMOVING A PRESIDENT.

THIS PROCESS IS JUST AS CONSTITUTIONAL AS AN ELECTION AND IF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY GOES TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS SEEKING TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE INTO THE NEXT ELECTION IT BEGS THE QUESTION OF YOU CAN'T JUST SIT BY AND LET THAT HAPPEN IF THERE IS SOME CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING TO THAT ELECTION.

>> ELIZABETH CHRYST, WE HAVEN'T HAD A PRESIDENT AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS OF A PRESIDENT TAKE PLACE IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

THIS IS ONLY THE THIRD TIME IN HISTORY IT'S EVER HAPPENED, PERIOD.

THE FIRST TIME IT'S HAPPENED IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

WE ASSUMED IT WOULD BE PART OF THE CASE IT WAS MAKING.

I WAS STRUCK IT CAME UP EARLY.

>> I WAS TOO.

AND TO ECHO WHAT MARGARET SAID I WAS PLEASED WITH THE TONE AND TENOR.

THEY DON'T WANT TO DEMONIZE ANYBODY.

AND THIS MAKES A GENERAL STATEMENT BUT THE PRESIDENT TALKS IN GENERALITIES.

HE'S NOT A DETAIL-ORIENTED GUY.

WHEN HAVE YOU -- AT LEAST IN HIS GENERAL STATEMENTS HE TALKS IN DETAILS.

IT LEAVES ROOM FOR PEOPLE PRESUME HE MEANT THIS OR GUESS THAT AND I NOTICE THAT WAS IN SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS TODAY.

THOSE WORDS, PRESUME, ASSUME AND GUESS.

HIS MANNERISMS LEAD YOU TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

SO I THINK THEY MAY GO BACK TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT TOO.

>> WHAT ABOUT THAT?

>> WELL, I THINK THIS POINTS OUT THE CRUCIAL TESTIMONY THAT COULD BE HAD FROM SOMEONE LIKE ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY WHO IT'S POSSIBLE IS HAVING SPECIFIC CONVERSATION THE PRESIDENT AND WE COULD HEAR FROM HIM, SPECIFIC WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF THE PRESIDENT'S MOUTH IN PRIVATE.

THE PRESIDENT HAS BLOCKED MICK MULVANEY'S TESTIMONY AND THAT'S SOMETHING DEMOCRATS HAVE TOUCHED ON FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS.

>> AND JOHN BOLTON, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT.

WHEN THEY REFER TO THOSE THAT KNEW ABOUT WHAT THE DEMOCRATS BROUGHT UP, INDIVIDUALS THEY WANT TO HAVE TESTIFY WHO KNEW ABOUT THE DECISION TO WITHHOLD THE AID, HOW IT WAS DONE, THE TIMING OF IT, THE WAY IT CAME AFTER THE PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE FACT THE AID WASN'T RELEASED UNTIL AFTER THE WHISTLEBLOWER ACCOUNT WAS MADE PUBLIC AND IT WAS KNOWN THE CONGRESS WAS GOING TO IN INITIATE AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

ALL THAT TIMING IS IMPORTANT TO THE DEMOCRATS' CASE.

>> I THINK THEY'LL DRILL DOWN INTO THE MONEY ESPECIALLY AND BREAK DOWN THE VARIOUS THINGS THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT, THE TRANSCRIPT OR THE MEMO DETAILS.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE ELECTIONS.

AS YOU SAID, JUDY, THAT RESONATES.

THAT RESONATES.

I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF WE HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT AND WHAT THE MANAGERS LEFT OUT.

>> AND AGAIN AT THE RISK OF REPEATING GOING AFTER THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MANAGERS.

CERTAINLY GOING AFTER ADAM SCHIFF.

THEY DID PLAY AS WE EXPECTED THEY WOULD, THE NOW INFAMOUS STATEMENT FROM ADAM SCHIFF WHERE HE COMPARED WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO A MOB BOSS IN SO MANY WORDS SAYING HE MADE IT CLEAR HE WOULD BE PARAPHRASING AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING, HEY, YOU'RE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, WE DEPEND ON YOU TO BE CREDIBLE AND HERE'S WHAT YOU SAID AND THEN WE HEARD A WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TURNING TO THE CONGRESSMAN FROM COLORADO SAYING I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE HE SERVED IN THE ARMY BUT HERE ARE THE FACTS AND TURNING TO THE SENATE AND SAYING WHAT YOU SAID WAS MISLEADING.

THERE'S A LOT OF HERE ABOUT CREDIBILITY AND MARGARET TAYLOR, I THINK THEY'LL CONTINUE ON THAT THEME.

>> I THINK THEY WILL.

I THINK THAT TYPE OF PERFORMANCE THOUGH IS LARGELY FOR THOSE AMERICANS OUT THERE WATCHING THIS WHO ARE SORT OF INTERESTED IN THAT.

I DON'T FIND IT TO BE PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO WHAT ARE TO THE FACTS OF WHAT HAS GONE ON AND THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE.

I MORE THAT AS GOING TO THE RHETORIC PRESIDENT TRUMP USED ON THE ISSUE AND WANTING IT REFLECTED HERE AS WELL.

>> ONE THING WE WANT TO SHOW OUR AUDIENCE BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK OURSELVES IS A VIDEO, A QUICK VIDEO THIS MORNING AS THE HOUSE MANAGERS WALKED OVER TO THE SENATE CHAMBER FOR TODAY'S TRIAL SESSION TO BEGIN.

THEY BROUGHT WITH THEM ON A CART WHAT WE WERE TOLD ARE BOX FILLED WITH 25,578 PAGES OF TRANSCRIPTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING THEIR INQUIRY.

THIS WAS THIS MORNING.

CLEARLY INVITING THE CAMERAS TO CAPTURE VIDEO TO REMIND ANYONE WATCHING OF THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THEY SAY BOLSTERS THEIR CASE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, WAS IMPEACHED AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU WHO WERE PART OF OUR LIVE COVERAGE THIS MORNING AND INTO THE AFTERNOON HERE AT THE TABLE WITH ME.

ELIZABETH CHRYST AND MARGARET TAYLOR, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US ON THIS SATURDAY MORNING AND AT THE CAPITOL, LISA DESJARDINS AND YAMICHE ALCINDOR FOLLOWING THIS WITH US WITH OUR "NEWSHOUR" TEAM.

THIS CONCLUDES OUR COVERAGE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EMPLOYERS BEGAN THE PRESENTATION OF HIS DEFENSE.

WE'LL BE BACK MONDAY AFTERNOON AT 1:00 P.M. EASTERN FOR MORE OF THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE ARGUMENTS.

AS ALWAYS, YOU CAN FIND FULL GAVEL TO GAVEL COVERAGE AT PBS.org/NEWS HOUR ON OUR YOUTUBE PAGE AND ALL THE NEWSHOUR CHANNEL.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THIS PROGRAM WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

Captioning sponsored by NEWSHOUR PRODUCTIONS, LLC