as the present was seeking to cheat in the next election we could not engage in a deliberately protracted court process well the present continue to threaten the sanctity of our elections resorting to the courts us also in consistent with a constitution that gives the house the sole power of impeachment if the housework compelled to exhaust all legal remedies before impeaching the president it would interpose the courts or the decision of a single judge between the house and the power to impeach moreover it would invite the present to prevent is own impeachment by endlessly litigating the matter in court appealing every judgment in gauging every frivolous motion or device indeed in the case of dawn mcgann the presents a lawyer who is order to fire the special counsel in lie about it he was subpoenaed by the house an april last year and there is still no final judgment a present may not to feet impeachment or accountability by engaging in analysts

litigation instead it's been the long practice of the house to compile core evidence necessary to reach a reason decision about whether to impeach and then to bring the case here to the senate for a full trial that is exactly what we did here with an understanding that the senate has its own power to compel documents and testimony it would be one thing if the house had show no interest in documents or wit this is during its investigation although human their of the houses the soul right to determine his proceedings as long as it makes the full case to the house as it did but is quite another when the president is the cause of his own complaint when the present with holds witnesses in documents and then attempts to rely on his own noncompliance to justify further concealment president trump made it crystal clear we would never see a single document or a single witness when he declared as we just watched that he would fight all

subpoenas as a matter of history and precedent it would be wrong to assert that the senate is unable to obtain and review new evidence during a senate trial regardless of why evidence was not produced in the house you can and should insist on receiving all of the evidence so you can render impartial justice and can earn the confidence of the public in the senate's willingness to hold a fair trial. under the constitution the senate does not just vote on impeachments it does not just debate them instead it just commanded by the constitution to try all cases of impeachment if the founders intended for the house to try the matter and the senate to consider an appeal based on the cold record from the other chamber they would have said so but they did not instead they gave us the power to charge and you the power to try all impeachments the framers

chose their language and the structure for a reason as alexander hamilton said the senate is given an awful discretion in matters of impeachment the constitution that speaks to senators in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments it requires them to aim at aim at real demonstrations of innocence or guilt and requires to them to do so by holding a trial the senate has repeatedly subpoenaed and receive new documents often many of them while adjudicating cases of impeachment moreover the senate has heard witness testimony in every one of the 15 senate trials full senate trials and a history of this republic including those for presidents andrew johnson and bill clinton. indeed in president andrew johnson senate impeachment trial the house managers were permitted to begin presenting documentary evidence to the senate on

the very 1st day of the trial the house managers initial presentation of documents in president johnson's case carried on for the 1st 2 days of trial immediately after which witnesses were called to appear in the senate this has been the standard practice in prior impeachment trials indeed in most trials this body has heard from many witnesses ranging from 3 unpleasant clinton's case to 40 in president johnson's and well over 60 in other impeachments as these numbers make clear the senate as always heard from key witnesses when trying an impeachment the notion that only evidence that was taken before the house should be considered is squarely and unequivocal a contrary to senate precedent nothing in law or history supports it to start consider a leader mcconnell's own description of his work in a prior senate impeachment proceeding after serving on the senate trial committee

in the case of judge clare born leader mcconnell described how the senate committee quote labored intensively for more than 2 months amassing the necessary evidence and testimony in the same essay leader mcconnell recognized the full body's responsibility for amassing and digesting evidence there was certainly a lot of evidence for the senate to amass and digest in that proceeding which involved charges against a district court judge the senate heard testimony from 19 witnesses and it allowed for over 2000 pages of documents to be entered into the record over the course of that trial at no point did the senate limit evidence to what was before the house it did the opposite consistent with unbroken senate practice in every single impeachment trial every single one. for example of the 40 witnesses who testified during president johnson's senate trial only 3 provided

testimony to the house during its impeachment inquiry only 3 the remaining 37 witnesses and that presidential impeachment trial testified before the senate semele summerlee the senate's full 1st impeachment trial which involved charges against judge pickering involved testimony from 11 witnesses all of whom were new to the impeachment proceedings and not had not testified before the house there are many other examples of this point including the senate's most recent impeachment trial of judge porteous in 2010 it is one that many of you and some of us know well it too is consistent with this longstanding practice there the senate heard testimony from 26 witnesses 17 of whom had not testified before the house during its impeachment inquiry thus there is a definitive tradition of the senate hearing from new witnesses when trying

articles of impeachment there has never been a rule limiting witnesses to those appeared in the house or limiting evidence before the senate to that which the house itself considered and that is because as senator hiram johnson explained in 1934 the integrity of senate impeachment trials depend heavily upon the witnesses who are called their appearance on the stand their mode of giving testimony there is thus an unbroken history of witness testimony and senate impeachment trials presidential and judicial i would argue in the case of a president it is even more important to hear the witnesses and see the documents any conceivable doubt on the score and there should be none left as dispelled by the senate's own rules for trial of impeachment. obtaining documents and hearing live witness testimony is so fundamental that the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on

a beach meant trials which date back to the 1000 century devote more attention to the gathering handling admission of new evidence than any other single subject these rules expressly contemplate that the senate will hear evidence and conduct a thorough trial when sitting as a court of impeachment at every turn they reject the notion that the senate would take the house's evidentiary record blind itself to everything else and vote to convict or acquit for example rule 6 says the senate shall have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses and enforce obedience to its orders rule 7 authorizes the presiding officer to rule on all questions of evidence including but not limited to questions of relevancy materiality and redundancy this rule to presume is that the senate trial will have testimony giving rise to such questions ruhleben authorize the full senate to designate a committee of senators to receive evidence and take testimony at such times and places as the committee may determine as ruhleben makes clear the committee's

report must be transmitted to the full senate for final adjudication but nothing here in the rule states shall prevent the senate from sending for any witness and hearing his testimony in open senate or by order of the senate involving the entire trial in the open senate here to the senate's operative impeachment rules expressly contemplate and provide for subpoenaing witnesses and hearing their testimony as part of the senate trial and the list goes on these rules plainly contemplate a robust role for the senate in gathering and considering evidence they reflect centuries of practice of accepting and requiring new evidence and senate trials the senate should honor that practice today by rejecting this resolution.

what about the current trial what about the clinton trial will be argued even if we are departing from every other impeachment trial in history including the present impeachment present andrew johnson what about the control are we fall in the same process is in the current trial the answer is no 1st the process for the current trial was worked out by mutual consent among the parties that is not true here where the process is sought to be imposed by one party on the other 2nd all of the documents in the clint trial were turned over prior to the trial all 90000 pages of them so they could be used in the house's case none of the documents have been turned over by the president in this case and under leader mcconnell is proposal none may ever be they certainly won't be

available to you or to us during most or all of the trial if we are really going to fall the clinton precedent the senate must insist on the documents now before the trial begins a 3rd the issue in the clinton trial was not one of calling witnesses but of recalling witnesses all of the key witnesses in the clinton trial had testified before the grand jury or been interviewed by the f.b.i. one of them dozens of times and their testimony was already known president clinton himself testified on camera and under oath before the senate trial he allowed multiple chiefs of staff and other key officials to testify again before the senate trial took place here none of the witnesses we seek to call none of them have testified or been interviewed by the house and as i said the president

cannot complain that we did not call these witnesses before the house when they're on availability was caused by the president himself and last as you will remember those of you that were here. the testimony in the clinton trial involved decorum issues that are not present here you may rest assured whatever else the case may be such issues will not be present here in sun the clinton precedent if you're serious about if you're really serious about modeling this proceeding after the clinton trial the clinton precedent is one where all the documents had been provided up front where all the witnesses had testified up front prior to the trial that is not being replicated by the mcconnell resolution not in any way not in any shape not in any form far from it the traditional

model followed in president johnson's case and all of the others is really the one that's most appropriate to the circumstances the senate should address all the documentary issues and most of the wish it witnesses now not later the need to subpoena documents and testimony now is only increased due to the president's obstruction for several reasons 1st his obstruction has made him uniquely and personally responsible for the absences of the witnesses before the house having ordered them not to pierre he may not be heard to complain now that they followed his orders and refused to testify to do otherwise only rewards the president's obstruction and encourages further future presidents to defy lawful process in a pietschmann investigations 2nd if the president wishes to contest the facts and his answer and trial brief indicates that he will try he must not continue to deny

the senate access to the relevant witnesses and documents that shed light on the very factual matters he wishes to challenge. the senate trial is not analogous to an appeal with the parties must argue the facts on the basis of the record below there is no record below there is no below this is the trial 3rd the president must not be allowed to mislead the senate by selectively introducing documents while withholding the vast body of documents that may contradict of this is very important the president must not be allowed to mislead you by introducing documents selectively and withholding all of the rest all of the relevant documents should be produced so there is full disclosure of the truth otherwise there is a clear risk that the president will continue to hide all evidence harmful to his position while selectively producing documents without any context or opportunity

to examine their creators and finally you may infer the president's guilt from his continuing efforts to obstruct production of documents and witnesses the president has said he wants witnesses like move any and pompei o and others to testify and that his interactions with ukraine have been perfect council has affirmed today that will be a presence defenses conduct was perfect it's perfect perfect we find to coerce an ally by withholding military aid to get help cheating in the next election that will be part of the president's the fence although i'll be it not worded that way but now he has changed course and does not want these witnesses to testify the logical inference in any of court of law would be that the parties continued obstruction of lawful subpoenas may be construed as evidence of guilt let me conclude the facts will come out in the end the documents which the

president is hiding will be released through the freedom of information act or through other means over time witness was will tell their stories in books and film the truth. will come out. the question is will it come out in time and what answer shall we give if we did not pursue the truth now and let it remain hidden until it was too late to consider on the profound issue of the president's guilt or innocence there are many overlapping reasons for voting against this resolution but they all converge on a single idea fairness the trial should be fair to the house which has been wrongly deprived of evidence by a president who wishes to conceal it it should be fair to the president will not

benefit from an acquittal or dismissal if the trial is not viewed as fair if it is not viewed as impartial and fair to you senators who are tasked with the grave responsibility of determining whether to convict or acquit and should do so with the benefit of all of the facts and fair to the american people who deserve the full truth and who deserve representatives who will seek it on their behalf and without mr chief justice i yield back mr sip loney 2nd. he said a little adam schiff speaking there he is then they'd manage the lead prosecutor for the democrats in this impeachment trial us and to president donald trump democratic leader from it's also my privilege to represent the president united

states before this chamber senator schumer said earlier today that the eyes of the founder of are on these proceedings dean that's true but it is the heart of the constitution that governs these proceedings and what we just heard from managership. courts have no role privileges don't apply what happened in the past we should just ignore in fact. manager ship just said try to summarize my colleague's defense of the president he said it not in those words of course which is not the 1st time mr ship has put words into transcripts that did not exist as your ship also talked about a trifecta i'll give you

a trifecta during the proceedings that took place before the judiciary committee the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses the president was that i had the right to access evidence and the president was denied the right to have counsel present at hearings that's a trifecta the trifecta that violates the constitution of the united states mr ship to say the courts really don't have a role in this. executive privilege why would that matter it matters because it's based on the constitution of the united states one manager said that it is you that are on trial the senate you also said that and others did that you're not capable of abiding by your oath and then we had the invocation of the ghost of the report i know something about that report it came up empty on the issue of collusion with russia there was no

obstruction in fact the report to the contrary what these managers say today came to the exact opposite conclusions of what they say let me quote from the house impeachment report at page 16 although president trump has in times invoked the notion of due process an impeachment trial an impeachment inquiry is not a criminal trial and should not be confused with it believe me what has taken place in these proceedings is not to be confused with due process because due process demands and the constitution requires. that fundamental fairness and due process we're in a lot about due process to process is designed to protect the person accused

when the russia investigation failed it devolved into the ukraine a quid pro quo with that improve out it was then bribery or maybe extortion or somebody said one of the members or the members of the house said treason but instead we get 2 articles of impeachment 2 articles of impeachment that have a vague allegation about a non-crime allegation of abuse of power and obstruction of congress members. managers right here before you today who have said that executive privilege and constitutional privileges have no place in these proceedings on june 28th 2012 attorney general eric holder became the 1st united states attorney general to be

held in both civil and criminal contempt why because president obama asserted executive privilege with respect to the holder of contemporary endings mr manager ship wrote the white house assertion a privilege is backed by decades of precedent that has recognized the need for the president and his senior advisers to receive candid advice and information from their top aides indeed that's correct not because manager ship said it but because the constitution requires it mr manager navl or said that the effort to hold. eric holder attorney general holder in contempt for refusing to comply with various subpoenas was quote politically motivated and speaker pelosi called the whole the matter and i quote more than a little more than a witch hunt what are we dealing with here why

are we here are we here because of a phone call or are we here before this great body because since the president was sworn into office there was a desire. to see him removed i remember in the mobile report there were discussions about rimmer insurance policies insurance policy that work out so well so then we moved to other investigations i guess you would call it reinsurance or an umbrella policy and that didn't work out so well and here we are today manager ship quoted the supreme court and i'd like to make reference to the supreme court as well it was then justice rehnquist later to be chief justice

rehnquist who wrote from the majority and united states versus brussel in 1073 these are the words we may some day be presented with the situation which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar of the government from invoking traditional process to obtain and conviction that day is today that day was a year ago that day was in july when special counsel mother testified i am not today going to take the time to review when i will do it later the pattern in practice was a bit irregularities that have gone on in these investigations from the outset but to say that the courts have no role the rushed to impeachment to not wait for a decision from a court on an issue is important as executive privilege as if executive

privilege hasn't been utilized by presidents since our founding this is not some new concept we don't wave executive privilege and there's a reason we keep executive privilege and we assert it when necessary and that it's to protect to protect the constitution and the separation of powers the president's opponents in their rushed to impeach i've refused to wait for complete judicial review that was their choice speaker pelosi clearly expressed her impatience and contempt for judicial preachings when she said we cannot be at the mercy of the courts think about that for a moment we cannot be at the mercy of the courts

so take article 3 of the united states constitution remove it we're acting as if the courts are an improper venue to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude that is why we have courts that is why we have a federal judiciary was interesting when professor turley testified before the house judiciary committee in front of mr now lawyers committee he said we have 3 branches of government not 2 if you impeach a president if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to courts an abuse of power it's your abuse of power you know it's more than that a lot more than that is a lot more than abuse of power if you say the courts don't apply constitutional principles don't apply let's start with a clean slate as if nothing happened a lot has happened as we proceed in the days ahead we will lay out our case

we're going to put boehlert to the american people but more important for the constitution sake what's taken place here but this idea that we should ignore what has taken place over the last 3 years is outrageous we believe that senator mcconnell has put forward provides due process allows the proceedings to move forward an orderly fashion 33 days 33 days they held on to those impeachment articles 33 days it was such a rush of national security to impeach this president before christmas that they then held them for 33 days to do what you act as if they negotiate the house of representatives should negotiate the rules of the united states senate they didn't hide this this was the expressed purpose this was the reason they did it. we're

prepared to proceed which already leader democratic majority leader we're prepared to proceed in our view these proceedings should begin you know the rest of my time to my colleagues white house counsel thank you it's only. thank you mr chief justice i just want to make a couple of additional points it's very difficult to sit there and listen to mr shift tell the tale that he just told let's remember how we all got here they made false allegations about a telephone call the president of the united states declassified that telephone call and released it to the public how's that for transparency when mr shift found out that there were not there was nothing to his

allegations he focused on the 2nd telephone call he made false and his colleagues made false allegations about that 2nd telephone call that occurred before the one he had demanded so the president of the united states. declassified and released that telephone call still nothing again complete transparency in a way that frankly i'm one familiar with any precedent of any president of the united states releasing a classified telephone call with a foreign leader when mr shift saw that his allegations were false and he knew it anyway what did he do he went to the house and he manufactured

a fraudulent version of that call he manufactured a false version of that call he read it to the american people and he didn't tell them it was a complete fake. if you want to know about due process i'll tell you about the process never before in the history of our country has a president been confronted with this kind of impeachment proceeding in the house it wasn't conducted by the judiciary committee now mr navl or when he applied for that job told his colleagues when they took over the house that he was really good at impeachment but what happened was the proceedings took place in a basement of the house of representatives the president was forbidden from attending the president was not allowed to have a lawyer present in every other impeachment proceeding the president has been given

a minimal minimal due process nothing here not even mr schiff's republican colleagues were allowed into the skiff information was selectively leaked out witnesses were threatened good public servants were told that they would be held in contempt they were told that they were an up struck thing what does mr schiff mean by obstructing he means that unless you do exactly what he says regardless of your constitutional rights then you're obstructing the president was not allowed to call witnesses by the way they're still evidence in the skiff that we haven't been allowed to see i wonder why

no witnesses now let's let's think about something else for a 2nd let's think about something else they held these articles for 33 days we hear all this talk about an overwhelming case an overwhelming case that they're not even prepared today to stand up and make an opening argument about that's because they have no case. frankly they have no charge when you look at these articles of impeachment they're not only read dickie alist they are dangerous to our republic and why 1st of all the notion that invoking your constitutional rights to protect the executive branch that's been done by just about every president since george washington that that

is obstruction that is our patriotic duty mr schiff particularly one confronted with a wholesale trampling of constitutional rights that i'm unfamiliar with in this country frankly it's the kind of thing that our state department would criticize if we see it in foreign countries we've never seen anything like it and mr schiff said have i got a deal for you abandon all your constitutional rights forget about your lawyers and come in and do exactly what i say no thank you no thank you and then he says he has the temerity to come into the senate and say we have no use for courts it's outrageous now let me tell you another story there's a man named charlie cupper men he is the deputy nasha.