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.

members of the senate, good evening. my name is michael perpura. i serve as deputy counsel to the president. we strongly oppose the amendment and support the resolution. there is simply no need to alter the process on witnesses and documents from that of the clinton trial, which was supported by this body 100-0. at its core, this case is very simple, and the key facts are undisputed. first, you've seen the transcripts which the president released transparently, unprecedentedly. there was no quid pro quo for anything. security assistance funds aren't

even mentioned on the call. second, president zelensky and the highest ranking officials in the ukrainian government repeatedly have said there was no quid pro quo, and there was no pressure. third, the ukrainians were not even aware of the pause in the aid at the time of the call and weren't aware of it, did not become aware of it until more than a month later. fourth, the only witnesses in the house record who actually spoke to the president about the aid, ambassador sondland and

senator ron johnson. say the president was unequivocal in saying there was no quid pro quo. fifth, and this one's pretty obvious. the aid flowed, and president trump and president zelensky met without any investigations started or announced. finally, and i ask that you not lose sight of the big picture here. by providing legal aid to ukraine, president trump has proven himself to be a better friend and ally to ukraine than his predecessor. the time for the house managers to bring their case is now.

they had their chance to develop their evidence before they sent the articles of impeachment to this chamber. this chamber's role is not to do the house's job for it. with that i yield the balance of my time to mr. cipollone. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a couple of observations. first of all, as mr. purpura said, all we are talking about is when this question is addressed under the resolution, and that'll be next week. this resolution was accepted 100-0. some of you were here then, thought it was great. if we keep going like this,

it'll be next week. for those of you keeping score at home, they haven't even started yet. we are here today. we came hoping to have a trial. they spent the entire day telling you and the american people that they can't prove their case. i could have told you that in five minutes and saved us all a lot of time. they came here talking about the gao. it's an organization that works for congress. do you know who disagrees with the gao? don't take it from me. they do. they sent you articles of impeachment that makes no claim of any violation of any law. by the way, you know what also doesn't?

you can search high and low in the articles of impeachment. you know what it doesn't say? quid pro quo. because there wasn't any. only in washington would someone say that it's wrong when you don't spend taxpayer dollars fast enough, even if you spend them on time. now let's talk about the judiciary committee for a second. two days in the judiciary committee, two days. the judiciary committee is supposed to be in charge of impeachments. the delivery time for the articles they produced was 33 days. i think this might be the first impeachment in history where the delivery time was longer than the investigation in the judiciary committee. they come here and falsely accuse people -- by the way, they falsely accused you.

you're on trial now. they falsely accuse people of phony political investigations. really? since the house democrats took over, that's all we've had from them. they've used their office, all the money that the taxpayers send to washington to pay them to conduct phony political investigations against the president, against his family, against anyone who knew him. they started impeaching him the minute he was elected. they've weaponized the house of representatives to investigate incessantly their political opponent. and they come here and make false allegations of phony political investigations.

i think the doctors call that projection. it's time for it to end. it's time for someone, for the senate, to hold them accountable. think about what they're asking. i said it, they didn't deny it. they are trying to remove president trump's name from the ballot. and they can't prove their case. they've told you that all day long. think about what they're asking some of you senators to do. some of you are running for president. they're asking you to use your office to remove your political opponent from the ballot. that's wrong. that's not in the interest of our country. and to be honest with you, it's not really a show of confidence.

so, we will, i suppose, have this debate again next week if we ever get there. it's getting late. i would ask you respectfully if we could simply start, maybe tomorrow we can start, and they can make their argument, and they can, i guess, make a case that they once called overwhelming. we'll see. but this resolution is right, and it's fair, and it makes sense. you have a right to hear what they have to say before you have to decide these critical issues. that's all this is about. is it now or is it a week from now? seriously. can we please start? thank you. >> the house -- mr. cipollone,

is your side complete? >> yes, we are, mr. chief justice. >> thank you. the house managers have 14 minutes remaining. >> counsel for the president indicated that we have not charged president trump with a crime. we have charged him with crimes against the united states constitution. high crimes and misdemeanors. abuse of power strikes at the very heart of what the framers of the constitution were concerned about betrayal of one's oath of office for personal gain and the corruption of our democracy. high crimes and misdemeanors. that's what this trial is all about. now, counsel for the president again has declined to address

the substantive merits of the amendment that has been offered. tried to suggest that house democrats have only been focused on trying to oust president trump. nothing can be further from the truth. in the last year we passed 400 bills sent into this chamber. 275 of those bills are bipartisan in nature addressing issues like lowering health care costs and prescription drug prices. trying to deal with the gun violence epidemic. we've worked with president trump on criminal justice reform. i personally worked with him along with all of you on the first step act. we worked with him on the u.s./mexico/canada trade agreement. we worked with him to fund the government. we don't hate this president, but we love the constitution.

we love america. we love our democracy. that's why we are here today. the question was asked by mr. sekulow as he opened before this distinguished -- why are we here? let me see if i can just posit an answer to that question. we are here, sir, because president trump pressured a foreign government to target an american citizen for political and personal gain. we are here, sir, because president trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election and corrupted our democracy. we are here, sir, because president trump withheld $391 million in military aid from a vulnerable ukraine

without justification in a manner that has been deemed unlawful. we are here, sir, because president donald trump elevated his personal, political interests and subordinated the national security interests of the united states of america. we are here, sir, because president trump corruptly abused his power and then he tried to cover it up. and we are here, sir, to follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the constitution, and present the truth to the american people. that is why we are here, mr. sekulow. and if you don't know, now you know. i yield to my distinguished colleague, chairman schiff.

>> i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i just want to provide a couple quick fact checks on my colleagues at the other table. first, mr. purpura said that security assistance funds were not mentioned at all in the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky. well, let's think back to what was discussed in that call. you might remember from that call that president zelensky thanks president trump for the javelin anti-tank weapons and says they are ready to order some more. and what is president trump's immediate response? i have a favor to ask, though. what was it about the president of ukraine bringing up military assistance that triggered the president to go immediately to

the favor that he wanted? i think that's telling that it takes place in that part of the conversation. so, yes, security assistance, military assistance, did come up in that call. it came up immediately preceding the ask. what kind of message do you think that sends to ukraine? they are not stupid. the people watching this aren't stupid. now, mr. purpura says they didn't find out about the freeze in the aid until a month later. mr. purpura needs to be a little more careful with his facts. let me tell you about some of the testimony you're going to hear, and you'll only hear it because it took place in the house. these were other witnesses you wouldn't be able to hear it. but you had catherine croft, a witness from the state department, a career official at the state department who talked about how quickly actually after the freeze went into place the ukrainians found out about it,

and she started getting context from the ukrainian embassy here in washington. she said she was really impressed with her diplomatic trade craft. what does that mean? it means she was really impressed with how quickly the ukrainians found out about something that the administration was trying to hide from the american people. ukraine found out about it. in fact, laura cooper, a career official at the defense department said that her office started getting inquiries from ukraine about the issues with the aid on july 25th, the very day of the call. so much for ukraine not finding out about this for a month later. but i thought this was very telling too. the "new york times" disclosed that july 30th, so within a week of the call between president trump and president zelensky, ukraine's foreign ministry received a diplomatic cable from its embassy indicating that

trump had frozen the military aid within a week. that cable is reported to have gone from the ukrainian embassy to the ukrainian foreign ministry. and the former ukrainian deputy, foreign minister said, quote, we have this information. it was mentioned that there were some issues. she went on to say that the cable was simultaneously provided to president zelensky's office. but, andriy yermak, a top aide to president zelensky, reportedly directed her to keep silent and not discuss the hold with reporters or congress. now, we heard testimony about why the ukrainians wanted to keep it secret. you can imagine why. zelensky didn't want his own people to know that the president of the united states was holding back aid from him. what does that look like for a new president of ukraine who is trying to make the case that he's going to be able to defend

his own country because he has such a great relationship with the great patron, the united states? he didn't want ukrainians to know about it. but he also didn't want the russians to know about it for the reasons we talked about earlier. so, yes, the ukrainians kept it close to the vest. now, mr. purpura also went on to say, well, the ukrainians say they don't feel any pressure. that's what they say now. of course we know that's not true. we've had testimony that they didn't want to be used as a political pawn in u.s. domestic politics. they resisted it. you will hear more testimony about that, about the efforts to push back on this public statement, how they tried to water it down, how they tried to leave out the specifics, and how giuliani at the president's behest forced them, nope, this isn't going to be credible if you don't add burisma and you don't add 2016. you will hear about the

pressure. they felt it. so, why isn't president zelensky now saying he was pressured? well, can you imagine the impact of that? can you imagine the impact of president zelensky if he were to acknowledge today, hell, yes, we felt pressure, you would too. we are at war with russia for crying out loud. yeah, we felt pressure. we needed those hundreds of millions of military aid. but do you think i'm going to say that now? i still can't get in the white house door. they let lavrov in, the russian foreign minister, they let him in. i can't even get in the white house door. do you think i'm going to go out now and admit to this scheme? i mean, anyone who's watched this president for the last three years knows how vindictive he can be. do you think it would be smart for the president of the ukraine to contradict the president of the united states so directly on an issue he's being impeached for? that would be the worst form of

malpractice for the new president of ukraine. we shouldn't be surprised he would deny it. we should be surprised if he were to admit it. now, let me just end with a couple observations about mr. cipollone's comments. he says this is no big deal. we're not talking about when we're going to have witnesses or if we're going to have witnesses. we are just talking about when, as if, well, later they're going to say, oh, yes, we're happy to have the witnesses now. it's just a question of when. as my colleague said, let's be real. there will be no when. there will be no when. do you think they're going to have an epiphany a few days from now and say, okay, we're ready for witnesses? no, no. their goal is get you to say no

now, get you to have the trial, and then argue make it go away. let's dismiss the whole thing. that's the plan. a vote to delay is a vote to deny. let's make no mistake about that. they're not going to have an epiphany a few days from now and suddenly say, okay, the american people do deserve the answers. their whole goal is that you'll never get to that point. you'll never get to that point. when they say when, they mean never. i yield back. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i'll make a motion to table the amendment and ask for the

yeas and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander? >> all right. this is our continuing coverage of the impeachment trial president donald john trump. what's been going on is the democrats are pushing a series of amendments when isbasically to get documents and witnesses. the pushback from the president's defense counsel is why now can't we do this after? the democrats rejoinder, their response is it'll never happen if it doesn't happen now. they want to go through both sides and hope that they will have political capital that the senators have already rejected the request and they will have heard both sides and there will be pressure for them to end it. right now they're going through a roll call. we have seen with the other amendments so far today. this is what we expected by the way, the idea that arguments would start in earnest today was never expected. we expected them to be fighting over the process and procedures

and the specifics. we didn't specific mr. mcconnell to back off of the idea of two days and make it over three days, which has different conveniences for the people who are going to be listening and for you monitoring at home. that's not what it was with clinton. with clinton it was four days to do the 24 hours. the difference is how much do you have to take in? what is the level of fatigue? doing it faster versus doing it slower, even with the same amount of hours. now, we expect these amendments to continue. this one is about getting in mr. mulvaney. getting in mr. bolton will be argued. getting in secretary pompeo will be argued. so let's dig into the strategy and what this tells us about see going forward. i want the strategy question. but first it's not just me, right? this is a real recycle fest. what we're hearing from both sides i have heard absolutely nothing new in terms of how they contextualize their feelings about the amendments.

>> that's because you've been paying attention. you are paid to do so. i am kind of. so are you. >> for those who are just joining -- >> a lot of americans are not paying attention. what we were talking about a couple minutes oohing is many people for the first time are paying attention to the first, quote/unquote, trial, although it's not a trial. >> why ask for the witnesses now instead of how they did it during the clinton trial, which was after openings? >> you had i think can near or virtual unanimity. everyone wants to make the strongest argument they can that makes common sense, understanding to the american people. something that people understand and republicans have some of these arguments too. everyone understands that a trial, whether or not you've been a prosecutor or an fbi agent like andy has been, you need witnesses. and if there's no witnesses, it's not a good trial.

so the fight is to get the witnesses. and the absence of getting witnesses you want to show that you fought hard for them so that you can say, well, this sham thing that took place and unfolded, it was not a trial because there were no witnesses, and therefore any acquittal that takes place at the end of that can't be credited. so i don't think it's a terrible strategy given the hand that they're dealt. >> so they are frontloading it. the negative is, well, last time you guys were different to the extent that anybody is going to observe history in this. and the other part that they're using is basically that, you know, why do we need them now? you and the house had the chance to do all this work that now you're trying to put on the senate. you didn't do your job. why should the senate have to do it? >> you know, this is the democrats' opportunity to draw a dark red line under each of those witnesses who they think are absolutely essential to having a successful and a credible trial. so why not wait until after all the openings are done and the questioning is done? because they're not sure they

will actually get those witnesses at that point. so they want to make sure they're on record with the senate and with the american people. like, these are the folks who we think you absolutely need to hear from. they have material facts to contribute to this finding. and, again, i think, as you mentioned, as we have heard in many of the debate around the specific amendments, the debate's gone far beyond the scope of the amendment. they're essentially arguing the case. repetition is the soul of learning. the more times they can hit their themes, they can hit the basic messages that they are trying to get across, they are hoping those message let's start to sink in. >> and a big part of this, maybe even more than the house, is the audience of america. but we know where the votes are. with some subtle shifts you know where the votes are in that room. >> yes. but we are a cynical few people who appear on television. sometimes votes change. we saw it with respect to brett kavanaugh's hearing. it didn't change the ultimate result, but there was some skirmish about whether there should be more people heard

from, just in the last 24 hours. democrats railed really hard against this idea of having 24 hours of argument in two days. >> they finished the vote. let's listen in. >> are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change his or her vote? if not the yeas are 53, and the nays are 47. the amendment is tabled. >> mr. chief justice? >> mr. majority leader is recognized. >> i would ask consent to ask the democratic leader, since there is a certain similarity to all these amendments, whether he might be willing to enter into a consent agreement to stock these

votes. >> without objection, the inquiry is permitted. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. the bottom line is very simple as has been clear to every senator and the country, we believe witnesses and documents are extremely important, and a compelling case has been made for them. we will have votes on all of those. we will also, the leader without consulting us, made changes, a number of significant changes that significantly deviated from the 1999 clinton resolution. we want to change those. so there will be a good number of votes. we are willing to do some of those votes tomorrow. there is no reason we have to do them all tonight and inconvenience the senate and the chief justice. but we will not back off on getting votes on all of these amendments, which we regard as

extremely significant and important to the country. >> consent was for a question -- >> as i have said repeatedly, all of these amendments under the resolution could be dealt with at the appropriate time. i suggest that you ask for a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. >> all right. so, what we are observing right now is the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell, said, you know what, these amendments kind of all go to the same situation. we keep having party line votes. how about we put them all together? everything you want, everything you're not happy about, let's all argue at once. the minority leader chuck schumer said, no, we want to do them individually, probably presumptively because they know they're going to lose the votes. but they want to have everybody's name out there, have all this introduced to you. these are the people we want, these are the things we want.

this is what we've been denied. so this is largely, this is the introduction to america of this case and the state of play. now, on that, what they're doing is they are voting to figure out now mcconnell called for what's called quorum. do we have enough votes to make a move on this to bundle these things together without the democrats' consent? and they're doing a roll call right now through the list of senators to see how many side with senator mcconnell. we expect that to be a party line vote as well. we will monitor it. if so, then we will see where it takes them in terms of their negotiation. schumer would only offer that they will do some of these tomorrow instead of all of them straight through the night. we will pick that up as soon as they are ready to tabulate and give us the next step. but schumer's trouble is, again, not that everybody's aware of this, schumer had the opposite position largely with clinton. he didn't want witnesses. he thought expanding it was a

problem. and this is part of people's frustration that you switch the r and the d and the arguments change. >> they changed for a lot of different people. i think in this particular instance, the argument i think falls more on the side of the democrats for a reason that is very apparent. that is because of the way this investigation was done in limited fashion by the house, the intelligence committee, not even the judiciary committee, the record is limited. with respect to the clinton impeachment, you can argue whether or not there are more or fewer witnesses in the trial. but ken starr who now happens to be the lawyer for the president of the united states in an odd turn of events, they had interviews with the sister-in-law of the housekeeper of the neighbor of the friend who owned the dog. >> dozens and dozens. >> every single human being of any relevance and not relevance got to pose. there was a record with respect to those people. the frustration here is a little bit on the part of the democrats. they set for themselves a clock because it's year three before the president's going to get re-elected. it's the only impeachment trial

we've ever had, there have only been a couple, where the person is seeking re-election. so they felt the heat of making sure to get this done quickly. they decided the lesser of the two evils is getting it done quickly. but that leaves them in a bind because there are lots of relevant witnesses left to the side including john bolton, which i think they should have a debate about it. because the american people don't understand how you can have a guy whose testimony has been described what it would be by other people who has a book deal and who has talked about these shen ananigans about bein drug deal. why on earth is that man not in the chamber testifying in connection with the trial? it makes no sense. that's a winning argument. >> why does he get the convenience of deciding when he wants to fulfill his pate on the ri -- patriotic duty. mcconnell wanted to bundle all of these. schumer said no, so now what? >> we're going to have a long

night i think is the short way of looking at this. you heard senator mcconnell say this. we feel like the arguments at this point in time are getting somewhat repetitive. can we stack all of the votes together and essentially make this a quicker process, especially given the fact that we know that the opening arguments over the course of the next couple of days will be rather lengthy as well. what schumer responded was, look, i'm willing to push these votes and this remaining debate until tomorrow. but we are going to have the full debate before we have the votes. he made clear he has several more amendments left. chris, keep in mind that we have not had amendment votes yet on something like subpoenaing john bolton or subpoenaing the other two white house aides that democrats made clear they want to hear from. now they want to subpoena documents and information from the department of defense. the democrats have several more amendments to go. mcconnell was trying to move this process along much quicker because he has made clear he wants the underlying organizationing resolution to be done tonight so the trial can start tomorrow.

schumer said i'm willing to push the votes and the debate that we are dealing with tonight into tomorrow. but i am not willing to short-circuit this process. therefore here we are. there is going to be a lengthy process ahead unless some agreement is reached. that was attempted on the floor, and i would note mcconnell and schumer have barely spoken over the course of the last several weeks. they did not reach an agreement. and at least at the moment that means there should be a rather long night ahead. >> couple more things before i let you go. this call for a quorum that they are doing right now, they are going through the roster of senators. what's that for? >> it's essentially an attendance vote. right now what's coming next, and i think the next substantive thing that's coming is schumer will introduce and read on the floor an amendment to subpoena documents from the department of defense. and the next substantive vote you will see is both sides will be given one hour to present their argument either in favor or in opposition to subpoena documents for the department of defense. that will come after that

debate. this vote is kind of a procedural vote setting the tone of where things are before they continue in earnest the debate over amendments that we've seen over the course of the last seven, eight hours. >> so this is like a little bit of a time-out, you say they talked but they didn't figure anything out. they want the dod because that goes to the substance of the allegations within the impeachment about the aid being withheld, when it was authorized by the dod, which is the way military aid works, goes from congress to the dod. when was it authorized, when could it have been released. schumer also said, phil, that mcconnell had changed the rules from clinton in some ways sneakily he was suggesting. what changed? >> so this is in reference to what happened earlier this morning. this was actually a republican on republican issue. obviously last night, chris, we saw finally the initial mcconnell resolution, essentially the rules of the road for the first stage in the trial. like clinton in 1999, each side

would be given 24 hours apiece for their presentation, then senators would be given 16 hours for their questions. that timetable would be compressed to which those 24 hours would have to occur within two days. now, internally, that caused major problems i am told within the republican conference. there was a closed door lunch before the trial was gavelled into session where several republicans made clear they were uncomfortable with the fact that they felt they were getting democrats a talking point to attack them for short-circuiting the trial. here's the rub. mcconnell did not inform anybody of that change until right before the actual text was read aloud. we didn't figure it out until somebody flagged it for me a couple minutes before it was read on the senate floor. this goes along with what we have seen over the course of the last several weeks. democrats felt like they were shut out of the process on this initial rules of the road resolution. they were not informed. they did not see the initial resolution until last night. they did not see the changes until before it was read this

morning. if you didn't want to include us throughout this process, we are not going to help you out by shortening tonight. we are going to keep moving forward on amendments because basically we were cut out up to this point and now you've got to deal with it. >> this is completely fair. they complained about this, fine. i changed it to something else. i think we should get it over faster. they want to drag it out. that's the political play. the two cube by half response from the democrats is look how he's hiding from any type of transparency. this is so different from the last time when we were 100-0 when dashel and for the democrats and the republicans had figured it out. all right, phil, thank you very much. anything you get, pass it along. i appreciate it. this is a time-out period we are told. they go through the roll call, a quorum call. it's an attendance check. but it gives them time to talk. we expect the night to be filled with the amendments which are going to be the rules of play, chance for both sides to tell you why this matters to them, and on the democrats side, why

they believe the process has been stifled by this president. now, in understanding this as this state of play, the idea then becomes, well, where does this go? they will start after all these amendments are done. you assume the democrats lose them all, right? >> by the same vote. >> 53-47 all the way through. now you start. if you are on the side of the democrats, one of the house managers, you don't know whether you're ever going to get witnesses. what do you do? are you going to make all the arguments in the strongest way possible. and the reason you do this, it's an exercise in calling b.s. i think one of the most effective things that happened today was not making an argument based on what happened in the house and in the intelligence committee but putting up a video of donald trump, the president of the united states himself who said falsely, because he lies all the time, and says i want these people to testify, maybe i'll come testify. i want john bolton to testify. it's b.s. and you have to call it out. and i think the more they do

that and the more repetitive they are about that and if they can show everybody at the end of the day all they wanted to do was hide the ball and all we wanted to do was show the truth. if they can be successful at that, that advances their cause. >> imagine if the democrats said, you know what, forget it, we don't want any of these other people, we don't want any of the other documents, forget it, we want the president. if the president wants to come in, we won't ask for anything else. what an interesting pressure that dynamic would be as, once again, the president would have to back away just as he did during the russia probe. >> such a tantalizing offer because you know the president, of all people, he is not the type of guy who wants to turn down a challenge. you know he'd feel some strong motivation to come in there and duke it out with them. my guess is initially he'd want to do it. i think one of the things we can't emphasize enough is that lunch that phil just told us about where some republicans pushed back on mcconnell's

resolution, that is the first small but first crack in the republican wall that the democrats have seen since this entire thing began. so i actually believe that some of what you're seeing now with the insistence on dragging every amendment out using the entire hour of argument for every amendment, this is the democrats' way of putting additional pressure on that small handful of republicans who might be inclined to lean in the direction of fairness and transparency in putting on a real trial. >> he didn't feel like he could get the motion to dismiss, which would be a simple majority, mcconnell. so when he talks about having votes. but the reason why i asked you about the strategy thing is if you're not sure you are going to get them, do you architect your argument a little bit differently to say and if we were able to have this person, we would then be able to answer this big question? and if i were able to have gotten these documents, then we'd know for sure if, you know, do you do it that way? >> i think so. but i think at the end of the day, what's important is to

show -- repetition is important. why didn't we get these other witnesses? people complained about p nancy pelosi. time is the democrats' friend here in the context of they're not making any headway in getting witnesses. at the same time these official proceedings are happening on television and in the senate, all this other stuff is going on. lev parnas is coming and testifying on television. you have people who are coming forward. and you had john bolton, by the way, during the interim period decide if i'm subpoenaed by the senate, i'm prepared to testify. there is a little bit of a hail mary pass thing going on probably in the mentality of some democrats, which is as days go by and investigations continue and some people feel the heat, maybe they will come forward, and they will have new shocking revelations about stuff, maybe not, but in case that happens, that then puts more pressure on mitch mcconnell because the world will have changed a little bit from what

we're seeing today. >> so it becomes a substance point versus a style point. you should've litigated it out and you should've fought. &you know who will decide this. you. you are going to decide whether or not which side you believe. was this about the democrats rushing it through? or was it about them being denied categorically by a pattern by the president and the people around him so that now you see there is so much more that could have come out? but it's being kept? what do you think of that? this trial's as much about how you feel as anybody in that room. let's take a break. when we come back, more of cnn's continuing coverage. the first day of the trial of president donald john trump. i need all the breaks that i can get. at liberty butchumal- cut. liberty biberty- cut. we'll dub it. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need.

only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ when a nasty cold won't let you sleep, try nyquil severe with vicks vapocool whoa! and vaporize it. ahhhhh! shhhhh! nyquil severe with vicks vapocool. the vaporizing nighttime, coughing, aching, stuffy head, best sleep with a cold, medicine. all right. we came quickly back out of break because in a surprise move, we have the senate minority leader chuck schumer is up making another move. he wants to start a new vote on a new amendment, which means new arguments. >> pursuant to rules five and six of the rules of procedures and practice in the senate when

sitting on impeachment trials. one, the chief justice of the united states through the secretary of the senate shall issue a subpoena to the secretary of defense commanding him to produce for the time period from january 1, 2019, to the present, all documents, communications, and other records within the possession, custody or control of the department of defense referring or relating to, a, the actual or potential suspension withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of united states foreign assistance, military assistance, or security assistance of any kind to ukraine, including but not limited to the ukraine security assistance initiative, usai, and foreign military financing, fmf, included but not limited to, one, communications between or among officials at the department of defense, white house, office of management and budget, department of state or office of the vice president.

two, documents, communications, notes or other records created, sent, or received by the secretary mark esper, deputy secretary david norquist, under secretary of defense elaine mccuster, and deputy assistant department of defense, three, draft final letters from deputy secretary david norquist to the office of management and budget and, four, un-redacted copies of all documents released in response to the september 25, 2019 freedom of information act request by the center for public integrity tracking number 19-f-1934. b, the ukrainian government's knowledge prior to august 28, 2019, of any actual or potential suspension withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of united states foreign assistance, military assistance or security assistance to ukraine, including but not

limited to all meetings, calls, or other engagements with ukrainian officials regarding potential or actual suspensions, holds, or delays in united states assistance to ukraine, including but not limited to, one, communications received from the department of state concerning the ukrainian embassy's inquiries about united states foreign assistance, military assistance, and security assistance to ukraine, and, two, communications received directly from the ukrainian embassy about united states foreign assistance, military assistance, and security assistance to ukraine. c, communications, opinions, advice, counsel, approvals, or concurrences provided by the department of defense, office of management and budget, or the white house on the legality of any suspension withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of united states foreign assistance, military assistance, and secretary assistance to ukraine. d, planned or actual meetings

with president trump related to united states foreign assistance, military assistance, or security assistance to ukraine including but not limited to any talking points and notes for secretary mark esper's plan or actual meetings with president trump on august 16, august 19, or august 30, 2019. e, the decision announced on or about september 11, 2019 to release appropriated foreign assistance, military assistance and security assistance to ukraine, including but not limited to any notes, memoranda, documentation or correspondence related to the decision. and, f, all meetings and calls between president trump and the president of ukraine including but not limited to documents, communications, and other records related to the scheduling of, preparation for, and follow-up from the president's april 21 and july

25, 2019, telephone calls, as well as the president's september 25, 2019 meeting with the president of ukraine in new york. and, two, the sergeant of arms is authorized to utilize the services of the deputy sergeant of arms or any other employee of the senate in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this action. >> the amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours, equally divided. mr. manager schiff, are you a proponent or opponent? >> proponent. >> mr. cipollone? >> mr. chief justice, we are an opponent. >> the house managers can proceed first and reserve time for rebuttal. >> mr. chief justice, the house managers will be reserving the balance of our time to respond to the argument of the counsel for the president. mr. chief justice, senators, counsel for the president, and the american people. i'd like to begin by getting something off of my chest, something that's been bothering me for a little while.

counsel for the president and some other folks in this room have been talking a lot about how late it's getting, how long this debate is taking. it's almost 10:00 p.m. in washington d.c. they say let's get the show on the road. let's get moving. and the whole time the only thing i can think about is how late it is in other places. because right now it's the middle of the night in europe where we have over 60,000 u.s. troops. there are helicopter pilots flying training missions, tankers maneuvering across fields, infantrymen walking with hundred-pound packs. and, yes, ukrainian soldiers getting ready to wake up in

their trenches facing off against russian tanks right now. and i don't think any of those folks want to hear us talk about how tired we are we have time to have this debate. that's why the house managers strongly support this amendment to subpoena key tomt documents from the department of defense. just like the subpoena for omb, these documents speak directly to one of president trump's abuses. his with holding of critical military aide from our partner ukraine. to further his personal political campaign. $250 million of taxpayer funded military aid for ukraine was managed by the department of defense part of the ukraine security assistance initiative.

these funds approved by 87 senators in this very room would purchase additional training, equipment, and advising the strengthen the capacity of ukraine armed forces. equipment approved included sniper rifles, rocket grenade launchers, radar, night vision goggles and medical supplies. this equipment was to be purchased exclusively from american businesses. this equipment along with the training and advising provided by dod was intended to protect our national security by helping our friend ukraine. fight against vladimir putin russia. earlier counsel for the president tried today make the argument it made it there. the aide eventually made it there. the delay doesn't matter.

you heard me talk about why it does matter. what counsel for the president didn't say is that all of the aide hasn't made it there. congress had to pass another law so that $35.2 million of the aide wouldn't expire in lapse. we did. but to this day, $18 million of the money remains out standing and hasn't made its way to the battlefield. it was dod that advised the white house about the importance of the security assistance not only ukraine but also u.s. national security. it was dod in august of 2019 that warned omb the freeze was unlawful and the fund could be lost as a result. it was dod that scramble ld after the hold was lifted without explanation on september 11. to spend the funds before they

expired at the end of the month. without a doubt, dod has key documents of the president has refused to turn over to congress. documents that go to the heart of the ways in which the president abused his power. it's time to subpoena those documents. dod documents would provide insight in the critical aspects of this hold. they would show the decision making process and motivations behind president trump's freeze. they would reveal the concerns expressed by dod and omb officials that the hold was violating the law. reveal our defense officials grave concerns about the impact of the freeze on ukraine and u.s. national security. they would show the senior defense department officials repeatedly attempted to convince president trump to release the aide. in short they would further the establish the scheme to use

national defense funds to benefit his person political campaign. we are not speculating about the existence of the documents and knot guessing about what they might show. during the course of the investigation in the house witnesses who testified before the committees identified multiple documents directly rel vent to the impeachment inquiry that dod continues to with hold. we know these documents exist kp the only reason we don't have them is because the president himself directed the pentagon not to produce them. because he knows what they would show. to demonstrate the significance of the documents in the value they would provide in the trial, i would like to walk you through some of what we know exists but that the trump administration continues to refuse to turn over. again, based on what's known from the testimony in the few documents that have been

obtained through the public reporting and lawsuits it's clear that the president is trying to hide this evidence because he's afraid of what it would show the american people. we know that dod has documents that reveal as early as june the president was considered holding military aid for ukraine. as i mentioned earlier the president began questioning military aide to ukraine in june of last year. the president's questions came days after dod issued a press release. on june 18. announcing it would provide 250 million portion of the aide to ukraine. according to public reporting, deputy under secretary of defense who manages the dod budget learned about the president's questions. we know this e-mail exists. because in response to a freedom of information act lawsuit the

trump administration was forced to release a redacted e-mail. dod provided none of the documents to the house. deputy assistance secretary of defense were tasked by the secretary of defense with responding to the president's questions about the ukraine assistance. she testified that she put those answers in an e-mail and described the e-mails during her deposition. she testified that dod advised the security assistance was crucial for both ukraine and u.s. national security and had strong bipartisan support in congress. dod provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment the senate has taunt to obtain and review the full record that could further demonstrate how and why the president was holding the aide. cooper also testified about the interagency meetings that

occurred in late 2019. the meetings at which dod was shocked to learn that president trump placed a mysterious hold on the security assistance. we know what happened at several meetings because she participated in them. in some cases with other senior defense department officials. however, we don't have coopers notes from the meetings. we don't have the e-mails shent to senior officials. reporting the news about the president's hold. we don't have the e-mails that show the response from the secretary of defense and other officials. because dod has refused to provide them. separately, cooper testified about when the ukraine first learned of the president's secret hold on the military assistance. the same day as the president's

july 25 call with president zelensky, dod officials received two e-mails from the state department. indicating that officials from the ukrainian embassy were aware of the hold and asking questions. cooper testified she was informed quote the ukrainian embassy are asking about the military aid. and that the hill knows about the situation to an extent and so does the ukrainian embassy. this shows that people were starting to get very worried. again, this amendment for subpoena to dod would compel the production of the important documents. but again, there is more. dod documents woumd also reveal key facts about what happened on july 25. after omb directed dod to quote hold off on any additional dod

obligations. for the assistance to ukraine. how did dod officials react to omb directive to keep the order quiet? did dod officials raise immediate concerns about the legality of the hold? concerns they would eventually vocally articulate in august. did dod officials hear from the american businesses that were on tap to provide the equipment from ukraine? was dod informed of the president's hold would under mine american jobs? answers to those questions maybe found in e-mails. e-mails that we could all see if you issue the subpoena. earlier i mentioned that by late july officials in our government raised significance concerns about the impact in the legality of president trump's hold on the military aide. we know this from witness

testimony public reporting and documents produced in freedom of information act lawsuits. for example, at a meeting on july 31st, cooper one of the officials announced that because there were two legally available options to continue the hold, and did not have direction to pursue either of those legal options, dod would have to start spending the funds on august 6. cooper explained if they didn't start spending the funds they would risk violating the control act. it was a fateful warning because that is exactly what happened. throughout august pentagon officials grew concerned as the hold dragged on. according to public reporting dod wrote to o many, b august 9 to say it could no longer claim the delay would n