bluster but confidencethey'. they're clear this could go in a number of directions they didn't count on and they're preparing it. >> they're going to head back to the chamber to consider the fourth amendment. thanks for joining us. our breaking news coverage continues with anderson. good evening. what day it has been. the big question, what are the senators talking about as they come back from their dinner break. this calling for the testimony of mick mulvaney. three others have gone down on strict party line votes. there could be sign of some weakness on the republican side, or at least willingness to compromise. mitch mcconnell backed down from language in the rule that would

have pushed opening arguments late into the night when few were watching. and relenting house proceedings automatically into the record and fopgsly getting the moderate senators early on in the proceedings about having witnesses. with a lot potentially right now, i want to get a quick read on things from manu raju. are there any type of negotiations taking place? what's going on? >> reporter: the republicans are lunching in their side of the senate and the democrats on their side. so there's not much interaction between the two sides at the moment. but we do expect after this dinner break, which is breaking up, each side is eats pizza right now, the members are going to come back in and debate this amendment to debate mick mulvaney. i'm told from two democratic senators that there are probably going to be three more amendments at least. on each of the three other

witnesses who the democrats have called for, including john bolton, robert blair, a top aide in the white house and michael duffy, a top white house budget office official. expect amendments on each of those individuals to subpoena them and then there possibly could be even more amendments if the house impeachment managers want to issue more subpoenas or offer any amendments whatsoever. expect any of those to go down along party lines like we have seen so far on a 53-47 vote as republicans hold firm. chuck schumer's office does not say exactly how many amendments are left. if there was any deal, it would be to punt the rest of the amendment votes until tomorrow and push off opening arguments in this case. as you can see, anderson, very partisan, very contentious and no signs of two sides coming to the at this point, anderson. >> there are votes, just to be clear, on witnesses, essentially whether or not to do it now or

to table it until later on in this process, correct? >> reporter: yeah. in the mcconnell resolution, it sets up a process that after the arguments take place on each side, opening arguments and then senators have 16 hours to ask questions to the managers and also to the president's defense team and then there will be a vote about whether the senate should subpoena any witnesses or should subpoena any document. it doesn't specify who or which documents but asks the senate if it wants to move forward in which direction. if that is voted down, they most certainly wouldn't be any agreement in the moment. it's unlikely at this point. we'll see if things change in the days ahead. >> we saw senator chris coons walking by. very briefly, do you know how late you're expecting it to go

tonight? >> the senators are buckling in for a late night. that's why they brought in pizza. if they thought they were going to be done, they would all go home. there could be a deal ultimately to push off the proceedings until tomorrow. that would require a bipartisan agreement. what i'm hearing is that mitch mcconnell wants to finish things up, finish up the whole trial potentially in a week and a half. if you were to delay further votes until tomorrow, that would only delay proceedings another day potentially. uncertain if they get to that point but senators can get worn out. maybe they'll speed up votes tonight, that's possible, or maybe push off the rest till tomorrow. we'll have to see how the floor proceedings play out. >> we'll be back 11 to midnight no matter what happens. we're expecting the senators back any moment now. joining us in the meantime cnn political analyst carl bernstein. cnn chief legal analyst jeff toobin, dana bash, kirstjen

powers, and mike shields. jeff, the rules of the trial are more or less set now. what did you take away from the first day? >> i thought it was really interesting. for people who are just tuning in, they probably didn't even know what went on and what went on was that chuck schumer put forth three proposals that -- and it was all about documents. it was not about witnesses we want the documents related to the ukraine matter first from the national security council, second from the state department and third from the office of management and budget. one house manager sort of made the case for -- it was zo lofgren, val demings and what was so interesting i thought about these presentations was that they were very detailed and rich in the facts of the case. and what they kept pointing out

was there were these meetings and there have to be emails about it, there have to be texts about it and in order to do a real investigation, we need these documents. and, you know, in the real world if you were doing an investigation of this matter, you would start with these documents. i mean, it was a very straight forward presentation and i think very persuasionive if you want to do a real investigation, you have to get these documents produced. obviously the democrats lost all three of these votes and presumably they will also lose the ones about the four witnesses. the democrats are making the case that we want facts and facts are what are needed to make a fair judgment. >> they were very specific about particular documents and instances, sort of actually not just a blanket thousands of pages of documents, they pinpointed some specific things. what do you make of it jove aov

today? >> they pinpointed certain things to tell the story and allow the narrative to play out to back up their overall argument, withhich is the presit abused his power and that they need information from people inside the white house who either witnessed it or have documents realtime about it and so forth. and so what was fascinating to me, i just came from the hill, i was inside up on the third floor in the gallery looking down on the trial for a bit, is, you know, we were hearing about what it would be like with all these senators, 100 senators as jurors or maybe individual judges, as you call them, and they're taking it very seriously. it's day one. you see them again without their electronics, many of them with their pads of paper taking copious notes, watching the managers, watching the president's counsel, watching

the videos that they're bringing to go along with the presentation, and it's not -- i'm not saying that people's minds are going to be changed but they are consuming this in a way that with everybody's busy lives -- >> well -- >> they have busy lives but they can day dream. >> i suppose at least person has fallen asleep. >> that may have happened. >> what do you have to say? >> i think it was devastating for the president of the united states both short term and long term. short term there was a narrative told today uninterrupted by jim jordan or anybody else of a grievous abuse of power, soliciting a foreign power to interfere in the election of the united states and then a massive coverup, all of which was demonstrated fact after fact after fact and these senators had to listen to it. they couldn't go do their

homework on other things. they had to sit there and hear it. i'm interested in what mike has to say about this, these are senators who many, if not a majority of the republicans up there, think that donald trump is unfit to hold office. and what they're hearing confirms that. they're not going to vote to convict him and they're going to acquit. i think in the long run the supreme court of the united states led by this chief justice might be really offended by the conduct that they are hearing and witnessing today. >> he's saying the majority of republican senators there don't believe the president is fit to hold office? >> question of fitness. they like a lot of what he's done but they don't think he's fit. >> do you believe that? >> no, i don't believe that. i think everyone puts their

partisan shirts on, as dan asa d earlier. republicans thought the process was completely biased, democrats think the republican process is completely biased. i thought the trump lawyers at the opening made a very strong case that there is a complete paradox in the idea that we have a very strong case but by the way, we need more witnesses and was in to bolster the case. i think that's persuasive to a lot of those senators. they're looking for a way to get this over with and get on with the nation's business and that's probably enough for them to do it and he's going to be acquitted just like he said. >> i agree with you, it's enough for them. >> i think today the lawyers were all playing different games. i think that from the president's side you heard very trumpian arguments, this is and i'm quoting pat cipollone, a partisan hearing is like stealing an election. if they can do this to a

president, said cipollone, they can do it to an american citizen. i'm not sure what he meant by that. this is about you, americans, this is about fairness, this is about a process. and on the other side the democrats are saying here's our case, here's our case against the president of the united states. here is what he did. not only in one phone call, which cipollone said was perfectly appropriate, the democrats were saying this isn't just this one phone call, this is a months-long endeavor to cut off aid to a country that is fighting our enemy, russia, in an existential fight for its own survival. so take a look at all of the evidence we have presented to you and, by the way, the evidence that we were not allowed to present to you because of the stonewalling of the white house. >> i just want to remind our viewers we are waiting for the senate to reconvene. they took a dinner break and

were supposed to be back ten minutes ago. we don't have a sense of how long that will be. when it reconvenes, we'll bring it to you. what gloria is talking about what the attorneys for the president was saying and jay sekulow was also saying was plenty of presidents have cut off or withheld aid to people for a variety of reasons. the obama administration did it to egypt during the revolution against mubarak. obviously a very different set of circumstances but there had been other examples. >> i thought that's a good example of how much of the talking points the lawyers used. there were pretty much almost everybody they were saying i probably heard on this set at some point. >> truly a lot of the sort of arguments that the trump surrogates make. and then adam schiff would have to come and say, well, actually, here's why that happened with egypt. so nobody has really said that the president of the united states can't withhold aid. that's not the argument. they have withheld aid in

different circumstances. they're saying you can't withhold aid to try to get another country to do your dirty work and look up and find information on your political opponents. so it was these kind of arguments that they kept making that are just the talking points that have been debunked over and over again and they kept coming up and the house manager would say why they said wasn't accurate. >> the argument you heard the most from the republicans was if you want all these documents, if you want all these witnesses, why didn't you get them during the impeachment process in the house? why are you expecting to do it now? >> i think it was mcconnell who said the democrats didn't want to get these witnesses or didn't want to do -- >> or they didn't try. that was the thing. and that came up over and over again from the republicans. the response to that, and people can decide whether it's persuasionive or not, was that the president made clear he was not going to provide any of this

documentary evidence. the infamous eight-page letter from pat cipollone in october said you're getting nothing. and they felt that to go to court on all of this would have rewarded the president and taken the months to allow him to cheat in this election, which they were not going to tolerate. >> they felt they couldn't wait because of the upcoming election. >> correct. that to go to court would be to allow the president to continue to cheat, which the fundamental offense he's being impeached over. we can argue about that but those are the two arguments. >> schiff also further made the point on that, he said, look, you can't get out of impeachment by delaying it indefinitely in the courts. at some point, the congress has to exercise its constitutional duty and say, okay, we have

enough evidence, we're going to impeach you. >> let's listen to hakeem jeffries speaking. >> it is one of the most diverse districts in the nation. in fact, i've been told i have the ninth most african-american district in the country and the 16th most jewish. and here on the hill some folks have said, hakeem, is that complicated? but as my friend leon goldenberg says back at home, hakeem, you've got the best of both worlds. you see, in america our diversity is a strength. it is not a weakness. and one of the things that biends us togethe binds us together, all of us as americans, regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of region, regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gender is that we believe in the rule of law and

the importance of a fair trial. the house managers strongly support this amendment to subpoena witness testimony, including with respect to mick mulvaney. who has ever heard of a trial with no witnesses? but that is exactly what some are contemplating here today. this amendment would address that fundamental flaw. it would ensure that the trial includes testimony from a key witness, the president's acting chief of staff and head of the office of management and budget, mick mulvaney. and it would ensure that the senate could consider his testimony immediately. let's ask why the need to hear from mick mulvaney is so critical. first, leader mcconnell's resolution undercuts more than 200 years of senate impeachment

trial practice. it departs from every impeachment trial conducted to date. and goes against the senate's own longstanding impeachment rules, which contemplates the possibility of new witness testimony. in fact, it departs from any criminal or civil trial procedure in america. why should this president be held to a different standard? second, the proposed amendment for witness testimony is necessary in light of the president's determined effort to bury the evidence and cover up his corrupt abuse of power. the house tried to get mr. mulvaney's testimony. we subpoenaed him. mr. mulvaney together with other key witnesses, national security adviser john bolton, senior

white house aide robert blair, officer of management and budget official michael duffy and national security council lawyer john eisenberg were called to testify before the house as part of this impeachment inquiry. but president trump was determined to hide from the american people what they had to say. the president directed the entire executive branch and all of his top aides and advisers to defy all requests for their testimony. that cannot be allowed to stastan stastand. third, mr. mulvaney is a highly relevant witness to the events at issue in this trial. mr. mulvaney was at the center of every stage of the president's substantial pressure campaign against ukraine. based on the extensive evidence, the house did obtain, it is

clear that mulvaney was crucial in planning the scheme, executing its implementation and carrying out the coverup. emails and witness testimony show that mr. mulvaney was in the loop on the president's decision to explicitly condition a white house meeting on ukraine's announcement of investigations beneficial to the president's reelection prospects. he was closely involved in implementing the president's hold on the security assistance and subsequently admitted that the funds were being withheld to put pressure on ukraine to conduct one of the phony political investigations that the president wanted. phony political investigations. a trial would not be complete without the testimony of mick

mulvaney. make no mistake, the evidentiary record that we have built is powerful and can clearly establish the president's guilt on both of the articles of impeachment, but it is hardly complete lp the record comes to you without the testimony of mr. mulvaney and other important witne witness witnesses. and that brins me to one final preliminary observation. the american people agree that there cannot be a fair trial without hearing from witnesses who have relevant information to provide. the constitution, our democracy, the senate, the president and, most importantly, the american people deserve a fair trial. a fair trial requires witnesses in order to provide the truth,

the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that is why this amendment should be adopted. before we discuss mr. mulvaney's knowledge of of the president's geo political shakedown, it is important to note that an impeachment trial without witnesses would be a stunning departure from this institution's past practice. this distinguished body has conducted 15 impeachment trials, all have included witnesses. sometimes those trials included just a handful of witnesses. as indicated on the screen. at other tiles they included dozens. in one case there were over a hundred different witnesses. as the slide shows, the average number of witnesses to appear at

a senate impeachment trial 33. and in at least three of those instances, including the impeachment of bill clinton, witnesses appeared before the senate who had not previously appeared before the house. that's because the senate, this great institution, has always taken its responsibility to administer a fair trial the senate has always taken its dutd, including to evaluate the president's conduct basis on a full body of available information. seriously. this is the only way to ensure fundamental fairness for everyone involved. respectfully, it is important to honor that unbroken pros dent

today so that mr. mulvaney's testimony without fear or favor as to what, can envelope this distinguished body of americans. this amendment is also important to counter the president's determination to bury the evidence of his high crimes and misdemeanors. as we despite considerable efforts by the house to obtain relative documents and testimony, president trump has directed the entire camp to execute a coverup he has ordered the entire administration to ignore the powers of being in american

history. there were 71 requests about the the house for relevant evidence. in response the white house produced zero documents. in this impeachment inquiry. 71 requests. zero documents. >> president trump is personally responsible for depriving the senate of information important to consider in this trial. this point cannot be overstated. when faced with a congressional epeeve it was set forth in article i, the president refused to comply in any respect, and he ordered his senior aides to fall in line.

as phone, 12 key witnesses, including mr. million, refused to appear for testimony in house's inquirythese witnesses include central figures and the abuse of power charged in article one. wh what. >> equally troublesome, prum and his administration did not make any legitimate attempts to reach a reasonable accommodation with the house or compromise regarding any document request or witness subpoenas. why? because president dornld john trump wasn't interested in cooperating. he was plotting a coverup. it is important to take a step back and think about what president trump is doing. complete and total presidential

obstruction is unprecedented in american history. even president nixon, whose articles of impeachment included obstruction of congress, did not block during the senate watergate hearings. in fact, he publicly urged without aides to testify. remember all of those witnesses who came in front of this body? take a look at the screen. john dean, the former white house counsel, testified for multiple days pursuant to a subpoena. h.r. haldeman was subpoenaed and testified. alexander butterfield, revealed

the existence of the tapes, testified publicly before the senate and so did several others. president trump's complete and total obstruction makes richard nixon look a choir boy. two other presidents have been tried before the senate. how did they conduct themselves? william jefferson clinton and andrew johnson did not block any witnesses from participating in the senate trial. president trump, by contrast, refuses to permit relevant witnesses from testifying to this very day. many of president clinton's white house aides testified in front of congress, even before the commencement of formal impeachment proceedings. during various investigations in the mid 1990s, the house and senate heard from more than two dozen white house aides,

including the white house counsel, the former chief of staff and multiple senior advisers to president clinton. president clinton himself gave testimony on camera and under oath. he also allowed his most senior advisers, including multiple chiefs of staff and white house counsels to testify in the investigation that led to his impeachment. and as you can see in the chart, their testimony was packaged and delivered to the senate. there were no missing witnesses who had defied subpoenas, no aides who had personal nong knoe of his conduct or directed to stay silent by president clinton. we have an entirely situation in this case. here we are seeking witnesses the president has blocked from testifying before the house. apparently president trump

thinks that he can do what no other president before him has attempted to do in such a brazen fashion. float above the law and hide the truth from the american people. that cannot be allowed to stand. let me now address some bedrock principles about congress's authority to conduct investigations. our broad powers of inquiry are at their strongest during an impeachment proceeding when the house and senate exercise responsibilities expressly set forth in article i of the constitution. nearly 140 years ago the supreme court recognized that when the house or senate is determining a question of impeachment, there is no reason to doubt the right

to compel the attendance of witnesses and their answer to proper questions in the same manner and by the use of the same means that courts of justice can in like cases. our nation's founders and greatest legal minds recognize these principles early on. supreme court justice joseph story explained that the president should not have the power of preventing a thorough investigation of his conduct or of securing himself against the disgrace of a public conviction by impeachment if he should deserve it. president trump cannot function as judge, jury and executioner of our democracy. and it wasn't just the courts who confirmed this for us. some of our nation's leading

public servants, representative john quincy adams, speaking on the floor of the house after he had served as president once exclaimed, "what mockery would it be for the constitution of the united states to say that the house should have the power of impeachment, extending even to the president of the united states, himself, and yet to say that the house had not the power to obtain the evidence and proofs on which their impeachment was based. as hamilton, story, adams and others have recognized, the president cannot insulate himself from congress's investigations of his wrongdoing. the president could decide what evidence gets to be presented in his own trial that would fundamentally nullify the

constitutional power of impeachment. this amendment is important because president trump simply cannot be allowed to hide the truth. no other president has done it, the supreme court does not allow it and the president is not above the law. witnesses matter. documents matter. evidence matters. the truth matters. let me now turn to a third justification for this amendment. mr. mulvaney's testimony is critical to considering the case for removal. it is imperative that we hear from the president's closest aide, a man intimately involved at key stages of this extraordinary abuse of power.

president trump knows this. why else would he be trying so hard to prevent mick mulvaney from testifying before you? there are at least four reasons why mr. mulvaney's testimony is critical. to begin with, as acting white house chief of staff and head of the office of management and budget, mick mulvaney has firsthand knowledge about president trump's efforts to shakedown ukraine and pressure its new president into announcing phony investigations. mr. mulvaney was in the loop at each critical stage of president trump's scheme. he was in the loop in the planning of the scheme. he was in the loop in its implementation, and he was in the loop when the scheme fell

apart. he even admitted publicly that the aid was withheld in order to pressure ukraine into announcing an investigation designed to elevate the president's political standing. mr. mulvaney, perhaps more than any other administration excepting the president has firsthand insight into the decision to withhold $391 in military and security aid to a vulnerable ukraine without justification. indeed our investigation revealed that president trump personally ordered mr. mulvaney to execute the freeze in july of 2019. mr. mulvaney holds the seepier most staff position at the white

house. he is a member of president trump's cabinet, and he is responsible for president trump's team at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. he remains the director of the office of management and budget, which implemented the hold on the securities is in violation of the law. as the government. in short, respectfully the senate's responsibility to conduct a complete and fair trial, demands that mr. million veiny testify. second, mr. mull vee's knowledge is critical because of the knowledge of the manning of trump's abuse of power. ambassador gordon sondland. the u.s. ambassador to the u

urn -- testified that there was a quid pro quo. ambassador sondland is not a so-called never trumper. mr. sondland $1 million to president trump's inauguration. he testified that everybody was in the loop. and that it was no what was going on. in fact, as early as may of 2019, ambassador sondland made clear he was. >> here is what david holmes, an official at the u.s. embassy on ukraine had to say about that matter. >> ambassador sondland's mandate did not cover individual member states, let alone nonmember

countries like ukraine. he made clear he had direct and present aspect to the president and portrayed him to the conduit. this. >> after you urnt they were able to secure an oval office meeting with president trump, to brief him on their trip, in part because of ambassador sondland' connections then during a june 18, 2019 meeting, ambassador sondland informed national security counsel did that he was in charge of ukraine. and that who had in ukraine.

here is dr. hill explaining this herself. >> so i was upset with him that he wasn't fully telling us about all of the meetings he was having. and he said to me but i'm briefing the president, i'm briefing chief of staff mulvaney, i'm briefing secretary pompeo and i talked to ambassador dolon. and the point is we have a rebust interagency process it includes a whole load of other people. but it struck me yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador sond-month-old because he was being involved in

a domestic and those two things had just diverged. >> and there's more, much more. a month later president trump's national security adviser at the time, john bolton, told dr. fiona hill to tell the national security council's lawyers that he not part of whatever drug deal. >> he made that statement after ambassador sondland specifically said ukraine announced two phony investigations involving the bidens and 2016 election

interference, investigations that were saw the by president donald john trump. >> here is drflt. >> i'm sorry, when i came in, gordon sundland was basically saying we have deal here that we will be a meeting i cut it off immediately there. by this time point herd that he was asserting. by this point it was clearly ghouliany was living it out there, i could see why colonel vindman was alarmed.

he said this is appropriate. we can't be involved in this. >> the. >> to maush adviser, leave s bu he was making a stre strong point that he wanted to know exactly what was being said and when i came back and related to him, he had some very strong instruction for me. >> what was that specific instruction? >> was there to that i am not part of whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sond land are cooking up. >> what did you understand him to mean by the drug deal that

they were being coulding up? >> i took it to mean investigations for ond lawns if he actually says that mick mulvaney, the subject of this amendment, who should appear before the senate, if we're going to have a free and fair trial. sondland says mick mulvaney knew all about it. did you feel. what i want to ask you about is he makes reference in that drug deal to a drug deal cooked up by you and mulvaney. >> it's the reference to mull van was aware of of this quid

pro quo, the conditions, pb if. >> the documents also highlight the extensive involvement of mick mulvaney in this go hit e-mail messages some ariff from if of his efforts to persuade president zen ski to announce the investigations desired by president trump. for example, as shown on the screen on july 19th, ambassador sondland e-mail several top administration officials,

including mr. mulvaney, stating that he had talked to president and he reported that president zel nen and we'll turn over every ten. ambassador tonight land made clear in his testimony that he was referring to the bris ma biden in 2016, electric interfeern investigations that were explolice mr. mulvaney wroe in response, i asked nf dr i have and when did he know it?

these and many other questions require answers under oath from mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney is also a central figure with respect to how president trump implemented this pressure campaign. according to public reports and witness testimony, mr. mulvaney was deeply involved with implementing the scheme, including the unlawful white house freeze on $391 million in aid to ukraine. but this isn't just other people fingering mr. mulvaney. mr. mulvaney has himself admitted that he was involved.

>> i was involved with the process by which the money was held up temporarily. >> the public reports confirm mr. mulvaney's own account that he has information that goes to the heart of this inquiry, specifically related to why the president ordered the hold on aid to ukraine and kept it in place, despite deep-seeded concerns among trump administration officials. this the "new york times" article on the screen summarizes an e-mail conversation between mr. mulvaney and robert blair. a senior administration adviser on june 27. when mr. mull vemulvaney asked ever find out about the money or ukraine and whether we can hold it back? what prompted that e-mail? according to public reports,

mr. mulvaney was on air force i. air force i. with president trump when he sent it. what other conversations did mr. mulvaney have with the president and white house officials about this unlawful freeze? the american people deserve to know. there is other significant evidence concerning mr. mulvaney's role in implementing the scream. acco -- scheme. according to multi-le witneple , the direction to freeze the aid to ukraine was delivered by mick mulvaney himself. mark sandy testified about a july 12th e-mail from mr. blair stating that president trump is

directing a hold on military support funding for ukraine. was mr. blair acting at mr. mulvaney eav's express direction? the members of this distinguished body deserve to know. on july 18th, those present were blindsided by the announcement that the security aid appropriated by this congress on a bipartisan basis to ukraine, which is still at war with russian-backed separatists in the east, they were alarmed that aid had inexplicably been put on

hold. meanwhile, others became increasingly concern that the hold also violated the law. their concerns turned out to be accurate. public reports have indicated that the white house is in possession of early august emails, exchanges between acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and white house budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for the funds. an explanation, i should note, that they were trying to provide after the president had already ordered the hold. mr. mulvaney presumably has answers to these questions. we don't know what those answers are, but he should provide them to this senate and to the american people. finally, on october 17th, 2019,

at a press briefing at the white house, mr. mulvaney left no doubt that president trump withheld the essential military aid as leverage to try to extract phony, political investigations as part of his effort to solicit interference in the 2020 election. this was an extraordinary press conference. mr. mulvaney made clear that the president was in fact pressuring ukraine to investigate the conspiracy theory that ukraine, rather than russia, had interfered in the 2016 election. a conspiracy theory promoted by none other than the great purveyor of democracy, vladimir putin himself. when white house reporters

attempted to clarify this acknowledgment of a quid pro quo related to security assistance, mr. mulvaney replied we do that all the time with foreign policy. i have news for you. get over it. let's listen to a portion of that stunning exchange. >> that he also mentioned to me in the past the corruption related to the dnc server? absolutely, no question about that. but that's it, and that's why we held up the money. now there was a report -- >> so the demand for an investigation into the democrats was part of the reason that he -- he wanted to withhold funding to ukraine? >> the lookback to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate. >> let's be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. it is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server happened

as well. >> we do that all the time with foreign policy. we were holding the money at the same time for, what was it, the northern tricycangle countries that they would change their policies on immigration. by the way, and this speaks to an important -- i'm sorry? this speaks to an important point because i heard this yesterday, and i can never remember the gentleman, mckinney? he testified yesterday. and if you believe the news reports, okay, because we have not seen any transcripts of this. the only transcript i've seen was sondland's testimony this morning. if you read the news reports and you believe them, what did mckinney say yesterday? he said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. that was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. and i have news for everybody. get over it. there is going to be political influence in foreign policy. >> in this extraordinary press conference, mr. mulvaney spoke with authority and conviction

about why president trump withheld the aid. he did not mince his words. but then following the press conference, he tried to walk back his statements as if he had not said them or had not meant them. we need to hear from mick mulvaney directly so he can clarify his true intentions. now, having gone through the need for the evidence, let's briefly address the president's arguments that he can block this testimony. that argument is not only wrong. it fundamentally undermines our system of checks and balances. step back for a moment and consider the extraordinary position that president trump is trying to manufacture for himself. the department of justice has already said that the president cannot be indicted or prosecuted

in office. as we sit here today, the president has actually filed a brief in the supreme court saying he cannot be criminally investigated as well while in the white house. so the senate and the house are the only check that are left when the president abuses his power. tries to cheat in the next election. undermines our national security. breaks the law in doing so and then tries to cover it up. this is america. no one is above the law. but if the president is allowed to determine whether he is even investigated by congress, if he is allowed to decide whether he should comply with lawful subpoenas in connection with an impeachment inquiry or trial, then he is the ultimate arbiter of whether he did anything wrong.

that cannot stand. if he can't be indicted and he can't be impeached and he can't be removed, then he can't be held accountable. that is inconsistent. with the united states constitution. now you will no doubt hear that the reason that the president blocked all of these witnesses including mr. mulvaney from testifying is because of some lofty concern for the office of the presidency and the preservation of executive privilege. let's get real. how can blocking witnesses from telling the truth about the president's misconduct help preserve the office of the presidency? this type of blanket obstruction undermines the credibility of the office of the presidency and deals the constitution a potentially mortal death blow.

to be clear, executive privilege does not provide a legally justifiable basis for his complete and total blockage of evidence. in fact, as you heard earlier today, president trump never even invoked executive privilege not once. and without ever asserting this privilege, how can you consider his argument in a serious fashion? instead speaking through mr. cipollone, the distinguished white house counsel, in a letter dated october 8th, 2019, president trump simply decided that he did not want to participate in the investigation into his own wrongdoing. it was a categorical decision not to cooperate without consideration of specific facts

or legal arguments. in fact, even the words that president trump used through his white house counsel were made up. in the letter mr. cipollone referred to so-called executive branch confidentiality interest. but that is not a recognized jurisprudential shield. to the extent that there aren't privilege issues to consider, those can be resolved during the testimony as they have been for decades. and, finally, the president claimed that mr. mulvaney could not be compelled to testify because of so-called absolute immunity. but every court to address this legal fiction has rejected it. as the supreme court

emphatically stated in unanimous fashion in its decision on the nixon tapes, confidentiality interests of the president must yield to an impeachment inquiry when there is a legitimate need for the information, as there is here today. there can be no doubt that mr. mulvaney as the president's chief of staff and head of the office of management and budget, is uniquely situated to provide this distinguished body with relevant and important information about the charges in the articles of impeachment. the president's obstruction has no basis in law and should yield to this body's co-equal authority to investigate impeachable and corrupt conduct. one final point. if the president wanted to make

witnesses available even while preserving the limited protections of executive privilege, he can do so. in fact, president trump expressed his desire for witnesses to testify in the senate just last month. let's go to the videotape. >> so, when it's fair, and it will be fair in the senate, i would like to have mike pompeo. i'd like to have rick perry and many other people testify. >> if president trump has nothing to hide, and his advisers repeatedically claim they should all simply testify in the senate trial, what is president donald john trump hiding from the american people? the constitution requires a fair

trial. our democracy needs a fair trial. the american people deserve a fair trial. a fair trial means witnesses. a fair trial means documents. a fair trial means a consideration of all of the available evidence. a fair trial means testimony from mick mulvaney. mr. chief justice, the house managers reserve the balance of our time. >> mr. cipollone? >> mr. chief justice.