of it. >> each has been down party line. another obvious reason this isn't about the law. this is the practice of politics. this is the minority leader his only chance to tactically keep coming at the republicans. not so much as a point of annoyance. but of relentlessness. you're in the going to get a pass. you'll be confront ld with the facts and confronted with the fact of evasion. the reason we don't have these things, these people, unlike in the clinton impeachment, where ken star of course conducted a multiple years long with lots of staff, a complete record where they talked to dozens of possible people. the outer fringes of relevance. that's denied. the witnesses in clinton the three people picked were already part of the record. how important is it to fight the fight? >> i think it's very important.

i think it's especially so because the core of the houses case is quite simple. when they pass the articles of impeachment i was a little bit on the fence on whether they should have included obstruction of justice from the mueller report or bribery. they didn't. they kept it simple. the narrative is clear. the president solicited foreign interference in our election using his leverage over the u.s. treasury and our funds to do it. and abused power in the process and he's blocking it. what they are able to do now is come at that same story over and over again from different angles. highlighting why each of those threads are particularly relevant to that bigger story. >> let's listen in to what the next step is it. >> amendment is tabled.

>> mr. chief justice. >> democratic leader is recognized. >> i send amendment to the desk to issue subpoena to john bolton and ask it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> senator from new york mr. schumer proposes an amendment number 1291. at the appropriate place in the resolving clause insert the following. section not with standing any other provision of this resolution pursuant to rules 5 and 6 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate. when sitting on impeachment trials. the chief justice of the united states through the secretary of the senate shall issue a subpoena for the taking of testimony of john robert bolton and sergeant at arms utilize the

services. any other employee of the senate in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by the section. >> the amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided. manager schiff, are you a proponent? >> yes, i am. >> mr. cipollone. >> you may proceed. >> before i begin, the house managers will be reserving the balance of the time to respond to the arguments to the counsel for the president. chief justice, senators, counsel for the president, the house managers strongly support the amendment to subpoena john bolton. i'm struck by what we have heard from the president's counsel so far tonight.

they complain about process. they do not seriously contest any of the allegations against the president. they insist that the president has done nothing wrong. they refuse to allow the evidence and hear from the witnesses. they will not permit the american people to hear from the witnesses. and they lie. and lie and lie and lie. for example, for months president trump repeatedly complained the house denied him the right to call witness and cross examine and so forth. you heard him repeat the lie today. i have with me the letter i sent as chairman of the house judiciary committee november 26. inviting the president and counsel to attend our hearings. to cross examine the witnesses. to call witnesses of his own and so forth. i have the letter the white house letter signed by mr. cipollone rejecting that offer.

we should expect at least a little regard from the truth from the white house. that is apparently too much to expect. ladies and gentlemen, this is a trial. as a trial the lawyers present evidence. the american people know that. most ten year-olds know that. if you vote to block this witness, or any of the evidence that should be presented here, it can only be because you do not want the american people to hear the evidence. you do not want a fair trial. and you are complicit in efforts to hide misconduct and hide the truth from the american people. ambassador bolton was appointed by president trump. he stated his willingness to testify in the trial. he's prepared to testify. he says he is relevant evidence not disclosed to the public.

his comments reaffirm what is obvious from the testimony and documents obtained by the house. which highlight ambassador bolton's role in repeat td criticism of the the president's misconduct. extensive efd collected by the house makes clear that ambassador bolton not only had firsthand knowledge of the ukraine scheme. he was deeply concerned with it. he described the scheme as a drug deal. to a senior member of the staff. he warned that president trump's personal lawyer rudy giuliani would quote blow everybody up. indeed an advance of the july 25, 2019 call, ambassador bolton expressed concern that president trump would ask the ukrainian president to announce political investigations. which is of course exactly what happened. of course there were no investigations. all he cared about was an

announcement to smear a political rival in the united states. he urged staff to report their own concerns about the president's conduct to legal counsel. ambassador bolton did. not the president. as the scheme was unfolding. finally national security adviser he objected to the president's freezing of military aid and advocated for the release of the aid including directly with president trump. as we all know, impounding control act makes illegal the with holding of aid. after congress had voted for it. the president ignored the warnings about that. all he cared about was smearing a political rival. the law meant nothing to him. bolton made clear he's ready and willing and able to testify about everything he witnessed. president trump doesn't want you to hear from ambassador bolton. the reason is nothing to do with the executive privilege or this other non-sense.

the reason is nothing to do with national security. if the president cared about national security, he wouldn't have block military assistance to a vulnerable ally in attempt to secure a personal political favor for himself. the president doesn't want you to hear from ambassador boeltden because the president doesn't want the american people to hear firsthand testimony about the misconduct at heart of the trial. the question is whether the senate will be complicit in the president's crimes by covering them up. any senator who votes against ambassador bolton's testimony or relevant testimony shows he or she wants to be part of the cover up. what other possible reason is there to prohibit a relevant witness from testifying? unfortunately, so far i have seen every republican senator has shown they want to be part of the cover up voting against

every document and witness proposed. ambassador bolton is a firsthand witness to president trump abuse of power. as national security adviser he reported to the president directly. and supervisored the entire national security counsel. including three key witnesses with responsibility for ukraine matters who testified in great detail before the house. dr. hill. tim morrison and lieutenant vindman. in his role, bolton was the tip of the spear for president trump on national security. it was his responsibility to over see everything happening in the trump administration regarding foreign policy and national security. by virtue of the unique position aponted by the president, he had knowledge of the latest intelligence and developments in our relationship with ukraine. including our support of the country and new president. and that is why the president

and some members of this body are afraid to hear from ambassador bolton. because they know he knows too much. there's also substantial evidence that ambassador bolton kept the keen eye on rudy giuliani. acting on behalf of the president in connection with with ukraine. as we will describe ambassador bolton communicated directly with giuliani at key moments. he knows the details of the so called drug deal he would later warn against. most importantly, ambassador bolton has said both that he will testify and he has relevant information that is not yet been disclosed. a key witness has come forward and confirmed not only he participated in critically important events. but that he has new evidence we have not yet heard. precisely what bolton has done. his lawyer tells us that

ambassador bolton was quote personally involved in many of the events meetings and conversations about which the house heard testimony. as well as many relevant meetings in conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimony thus far. close quote. ambassador bolton requested as a witness in the house inquiry. he refused to appear voluntarily. his lawyers informed the house intelligence committee ambassador would take the matter to court if issued a subpoena. as his subordinate did. he changed his tune. he issued a statement confirming if the senate issues a subpoena for testimony i am prepared to testify. the question presented as to ambassador bolton clear. it comes down it this. will the senate do its duty? and hear all the evidence? or will it slam the door shut and show it is participating in a cover up because it fears to

hear testimony frp the national security counsel adviser of the president because it fears what he might say. it fears he knows too much. consider this as well. why is president trump so intent on preventing us from hearing ambassador bolton? his own appointee. his formally trusted confident. because he knows, he knows. his guilt. and he knows he doesn't want people to know about it to testify. question is whether the republican senators here today will participate in that cover up. the reasons seem clear. president trump wants to block the witness because ambassador bolton has direct knowledge of the ukraine scheme. which he called a drug deal. let's start with the key meeting

that took place july 10. just two weeks before president trump now famous july 25 call with president zelensky. ambassador bolton hosted senior ukrainian officials in his west wing office. that meeting included dr. hill. lieutenant vindman. ambassadors sondland and volker and energy secretary rick perry. as they did in every meeting with u.s. officials, the ukrainian officials asked when president trump would schedule a white house meeting for the newly elected ukrainian president. because the it was very important for the ukrainian president the new president of democracy being invaded by russia to show that he had legitimacy by a meeting with the united states. dr. hill testified that ambassador sondland blurted out that he had a deal with mr.

mulvaney for white house visit. provided that ukraine first announce investigations into the president's political rival. ambassador bolton immediately stiffened and ended the meeting. hills testimony is on the screen. in other words, ambassador bolton and others at the meeting were interested in the national security of the united states. they were interested in protecting an american ally against russian invasion. they couldn't understand why the sudden order was coming from the president. to abandon that ally. because they didn't yet know. they didn't yet know of the president's plot. to try to extort the ukrainian government into doing him a political favor by announcing an

investigation of a political rival. when dr. hill reported back to ambassador bolton about the second conversation, ambassador bolton told doctor hill to go to the national security counsel legal adviser. and tell him quote i'm not part of whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney are cooking up on this. here's an excerpt of her hearing testimony. >> specific instruction was that i had to go to the lawyers to senior counsel for the national security counsel. to basically say you tell him bolton told him i am not part of the whatever drug deal mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand him to mean by the drug deal? >> i took to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you go speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. >> these statements and events

are reason enough to insist that ambassador bolton testify. he can explain the misconduct that caused him to characterize the ukraine deal the scheme as a drug deal. and why he directed to report concerns to legal counsel. he can tell us everything else he knows about how sondland, mulvaney and others were tempting to press ukrainians to do trumps political bidding. only bolton can tell us what he was thinking and knew as the scheme developed. that is why the president fears his testimony. that is why some mebs of the body fear his testimony. ambassador bolton involvement was not limited to a few isolated events. he was a witness at key moments in the course of the ukraine scheme. and especially in july, august and september. last year. i would like to walk through the

events. please remember as i'm describing them, this is not the entire universe of issues. to which bolton could testify. only examples that show why he's such an important witness and why the president is desperate to block his testimony. we know from ambassador bolton attorney, that there maybe other meetings and conversations that have not yet come to our attention. take one example we know from witness testimony that ambassador bolton repeatedly expressed concerns about the involvement of president trump's personal lawyer mr. giuliani. in the spring and summer of 2019 ambassador bolton caught wind of giuliani's involvement in ukraine. and soon began to express concern. ambassador bolton expressed strong concerns about giuliani's involvement in ukraine matters. bh bolton described mr. giuliani as quote a hand grenade going to

blow everybody up. it was based on his fear that mr. giuliani work on behalf of the president is atempts to have ukraine announce investigations. sham investigations. and his campaign to smear ambassador yovanovitch. was backfire. and cause lasting damage to the president. it turns out he was right. >> did your boss ambassador bolton tell you that giuliani was quote a hand grenade? >> yes. >> what do you think he meant by the characterization? >> it was clear to me mt. context of the statements giuliani was making publicly. the investigations he was promoting and the story line the narrative of promoting was going backfire. i think it has backfired. >> in june, as ambassador bolton became aware of mr. giuliani's

coordination with ambassador volker and sondland. he told dr. hill and other members of the national security staff nobody should be meeting with giuliani. he of course didn't know of the plot as to why people were meeting with giuliani. dr. hill testified that ambassador bolton was quote closely monitoring what giuliani was doing in the messaging he was sending out. bolton was keenly aware mr. giuliani was doing the president's bidding. that is also why the president fears his testimony. during a meeting on june 13, 2019, ambassador bolton made clear that he supported more engagement with ukraine by senior white house officials. caution quote giuliani was a key voice with the president on ukraine. he joked that every time ukraine is mentioned, giuliani pops up. ambassador bolton communicated

directly with giuliani a key junctures. according to court records obtained by the house the giuliani connected with bolton's office three times. for calls between april 23 and may 10. a time period that corresponds with the recall of ambassador yovanovitch. and the acceleration of giuliani's efforts on behalf of president trump to pressure ukraine into opening investigations that would benefit his reelection campaign. for instance april 23, the day before the state department recalled ambassador yovanovitch from ukraine, mr. giuliani had an eight minute call from the white house. 30 minutes later, he had a 48 second call with the phone number associated with ambassador bolton. if called to testify, we can ask ambassador bolton directly what transpired in the call. and whether that phone call informed his assessment mr.

giuliani was quote a hand grenade going to blow everyone up. and we can ask mr. bolton why when there are approximately 1.8 million companies in ukraine. several hundred thousand of which have been accused of corruption the president was focussed on only one. he didn't care about anything else. he cared only about the company on which the former vice president's son had been a board member. can you believe that he was concerned with corruption and only knew about one company? when there are hundreds of thousands accused of corruption? although ambassador bolton didn't listen in on the july 25 call, between president trump and zelensky, in which president trump asked the ukrainian

president a favor. a favor to investigate one company. and joe bidens son. we learned from witness testimony ambassador bolton was opposed to scheduling the call. why? . he predicted in the words of taylor that quote there could be some talk of investigations or worse on the call. he didn't want the call to happen because he quote thought it was going to be a disaster. how did ambassador bolton know that president trump would bring this up? what made him so concerned that a call would be a disaster? i this we know. i think we know. only bolton can answer these questions. we know on witness testimony that throughout this period multiple people on the national security counsel staff reported concerns to ambassador bolton about tieing american foreign policy to president trump's quote domestic political errand.

as dr. hill aptly put it. after he ended the july 10 meeting the meeting in which sondland told the ukrainians that a white house meeting could be scheduled in exchange for the i nounsed investigations. he spoke to dr. hill and directed her to report a concern to national security counsel legal adviser. at the end of august, ambassador bolton atd vised taylor to send a first person cable to secretary pompeo to relay concerns about the hold on military aid. ambassador bolton advised morrison, as top russia and ukraine official only national security counsel on at least two different occasions to report what he heard to the national security counsel's lawyers. sounding so suspicious. on september 1, ambassador bolton directed mr. morrison to

report to the national security counsel lawyers in explicit proposal from ambassador sondland to a senior ukrainian official that quote what could help them move the aid was if the prosecutor general would go to the mike and the announce he was opening the investigation. close quote. on september 7, ambassador bolton instructed morrison to report to the lawyers. another conversation mr. morrison had with ambassador sondland. this time ambassador sondland had conveyed the administration would not release the military aid unless president zelensky announced investigations demanded by president trump. the investigations of one company. because the president was so concerned about the corruption in ukraine. one company that had had vice president bidens son on the board and the president just happened to pick that company

from hundreds of thousands to be concerned about corruption. and the president also opposed funding for corruption aid to ukraine. why did ambassador bolton tell them to report the issues to the national security counsel lawyers? what does he know about how the lawyers responded to the concerns of hill or vindman and morrison? again only ambassador bolton can answer the questions. we must assume the answers go to the heart of the president's misconduct. given the president's attempt to block the testimony. why would the president pose the testimony of the national security adviser of the united states. unless he knew that that testimony would be damming to

him. those are other reasons the president fears ambassador bolton's testimony. i'd like to turn to ambassador boltons knowledge of and concerns about president trump's illegal with holding of the military aid to ukraine. we all know of course that under the act of 1974, passed to prevent president nixon from refusing to spend money appropriated by congress with holding money appropriated by congress is illegal. non-the less, the president did it. for obviously corrupt motives. by july of last year ambassador bolton was well aware that president trump was illegally with holding security assistance to ukraine and tried to convince the president to pursue american's national security interest and release the aid. instead of continuing to with hold vital military assistance to the president.

instead of holding that vital military assistance hostage. to the president's personal political agenda. throughout the rest of july, over the course of several meetings, the national security counsel repeatedly discussed the freeze on ukraine security assistance. national security adviser he supervised that process. these meetings worked up to the level of cabinet deputy. and every agency involved supported releasing the aid. omb meanwhile said the position was based on president trump's express orders. we know that a number of individuals and the department of defense raise serious concerns about the legality of freezing the funds. which we know is illegal. we have a ruling from the government accountability office

which we didn't need. that the freeze ordered by president trump was illegal and he was told this. and violated the act. we also know after the meeting of cabinet deputies on july 26, tim morrison talked to ambassador bolton. and according to mr. morrison, ambassador bolton said that the entire cabinet supported releasing the freeze. and wanted to get the issue to president trump as soon as possible. when did ambassador bolton first become aware president trump was with holding military aid to ukraine and conditioning the release ot aid on ukraine announcing political investigations? why was he told was the reason? what else did he learn about the president's actions in the meetings. only ambassador bolton can answer these questions. and again, we must presume that president trump is desperate for us not to hear those answers.

i hope not too many of the members of this body are desperate to make sure that the american people don't hear the same answers. we know that ambassador bolton tried without success throughout august to persuade the president that the aid to ukraine had to be released because that was many america's best interest and necessary for national security. in mid-august, we know lieutenant vindman wrote a presidential decision recommending that the freeze be lifted based on the views of the entire cabinet. the memo was given to ambassador bolton. who subsequently had a direct one on one conversation with the president in which he tried but failed to convince him to release the hold. >> he had a one on one meeting with trump in late august 2019 but the president was not ready to approve the release of the

assistant? do you remember that? >> i'm asking you. did that happen? or did it not. >> i want to be clear. okay. yes, sir, i see. >> you testified to that. what was the out come of the meeting. >> ambassador bolton did not yet believe the president was ready to approve the stance. >> did bolton inform you of the reason? >> no, sir. >> his efforts failed. by august 30, omb informed dod that there was quote clear direction from potus to continue to hold. what rational did president trump give bolton and senior officials for refusing to release aid? with the reasons convincing to

ambassador bolton and did they reflect the best interest of the national security or political interests. only bolton can tell us the answer. a fair trial in the body would ensure he testify. the president doesn't want you to hear his testimony. why is that? for all the obvious reasons i stated. the president claims he throws aid to ukraine in interest of national security. if that is true why would he oppose testimony from his own former national security adviser? and make no mistake, president trump had no legal ground to block ambassador boaten testimony in this trial. executive privilege is not a spell the president can cast do cover up evidence of his misconduct. it is a qualified privilege that protects senior advisers performing official functions. executive privilege is a shield not a sword. it cannot be used to block a witness willing to testify.

as ambassador bolton says he is. as we know, from the nixon case in water gate, the privilege also doesn't prevent us from obtaining specific evidence of wrong doing. the supreme court unanimously rejected nixons attempt to use executive privilege to conceal tape recordings. all the similar efforts by president trump. must also fail. the president sometimes relies on a theory of absolute immunity. that says he can order anybody in the executive branch not to testify to the house or senate. or to a court. obviously this is ridiculous. and rejected by every federal court to consider the idea. it's embarrassing the president's counsel's would talk about this today. again even if president trump is asserts bolton is immune from compelled testimony the president has no authority to block ambassador bolton from

appearing here. one court recently explained quote presidents are not kings. and do not have subjects. who destiny they are entitled to control. this body should not act as if the president is king. we will see with the next vote on this question whether the members of this body want to protect the president against all investigation against all suspicion, against any crimes or not. the framers of the constitution were most concerned about abuse of power where it effects national security. president trump has been impeached for facing political interest ahead of national security. we hear from the national security adviser who witnessed the president's scheme from start to finish. to be clear, the record has it stands fully supports both articles of impeachment.

it is beyond argument that president trump mounted a sustained pressure campaign to get ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically and try to cover it up. the president doesn't seriously deny any of the facts. the only question left is this, why is the president so intent on concealing the evidence and blocking all documents and testimony here today? only guilty people try to hide evidence. of course all of this is relevant only if this here today is a fair trial. only if you the senate sitting as an impartial jury do not work with the accused to conceal the evidence from the american people. we cannot be surprised that the president objects the calling witnesses who prove guilt. that is who he is. he doesn't want you to hear testimony details how he betrayed his office and asked a foreign government to intervene

in election. we should be surprised here in the united states senate the greatest body in the world. we are expected to put our oath of office ahead of politics and expected to be honest. and expected to protect the interest of the meern people. we should be surprised, shocked. that any senator would block to witness or witness who shed light on the president's obvious misconduct. president is on trial in the senate. the senate is on trial in the eyes of the american people. will you vote to allow all of the evidence to be presented here? or will you betray your pledge to be impartial juror. will you bring bolton here and permit us to present you with the entire record of the president's misconduct. or choose to be complicit in the president's cover up. so far i'm sad to say i see a

lot of senators voting for a cover up. voting to deny witnesses and obviously a treacherous vote. a vote against an honest consideration of the evidence against the president. a vote against an honest trial. a vote against the united states. a real trial we know has witnesses. we urge you to do the duty. permit a fair trial. all the witnesses must be permitted. that's elementary in american justice. either you want the truth or you and you must permit witnesses or you want a shameful cover up. history will judge. so will the electorate. >> mr. cipollone.

>> thank you, mr. chief justice. members of the senate. we came here today to address the false case brought to you by the house managers. sorry. we have been respectful of the senate. we have made our arguments to you. and you don't deserve and we don't desefb what just happened. mr. nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team, he made false allegations against all of you. he accused you of a cover up. he's been making false allegations against the

president. the only one who should be embarrassed, mr. nadler, is you. for the way you addressed this body. this is the united states senate. you're not in charge here. let me address the issue of mr. bolton. i have addressed it before. they don't tell you they didn't bother to call mr. bolton themselves. they didn't subpoena him. mr. cooper wrote them a letter. he said very clearly if the house chooses not it pursue through subpoena the testimony of doctor cupper man and bolton let the record be clear. that is the houses decision. and they didn't pursue

ambassador bolton and withdrew the subpoena to mr. cupperman. so for them to come here now and demand that before we even start the arguments, that they ask you to do something they refused to do for themselves and then accuse you of a cover up when you don't do it. it's ridiculous. talk about out of control government. let me read you a quote. from mr. nadler. not so long ago. the effect of impeachment is to over turn the popular will of the voters. there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and posed by

the other. such an impeachment would produce deviceness and bitterness in politics for years to come. and will call into question the very legitimacy of the political institution. you have just seen it for yourself. what happened, mr. nadler? what happened? the american people pay their salaries. and they're here to take away their vote. they're here to take away their voice. they have come here and they attacked every institution of our government. they have attacked the president. the executive branch, they

attacked the judicial branch. they say they don't have time for courts. they have attack td the united states senate. repeatedly. it's about time we bring this power trip in for a landing. president trump is man of his word. he made promises to the american people kp he delivered. over and over and over again. and they come here and say, with no evidence, spending the day complaining that they can't make their case. attacking a resolution that had 100% support in the body. and some of the people here supported it at the time.

it's a farce. it should end. mr. nadler, you owe an apology to the president of the united states and his family. you owe an apology to the senate. but most of all you owe an apology to the american people. i yield the remainder of my time. to mr. sekulow. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, chairman nadler talked about treacherous. 12:10 a.m., january 22, the chairman of the judiciary committee at this body on the floor of this senate said executive privilege and other non-sense.

think about that for a moment. executive privilege and other non-sense. mr. nadler, it is not non-sense. these are privileges recognized by the supreme court of the united states. and to shred the constitution on the floor of the senate to serve what purpose? the senate is not on trial. the constitution doesn't allow what just took place. look what we have dealt with for the last now 13 hours? we hopefully are closing the proceedings. not on a high note. only guilty people try to hide evidence? so i guess when president obama

instructed attorney general to not give information he was guilty of a crime. that's the way it works, mr. nadler? is that the way the united states constitution? because that's not the way it was written. that's is not the way it is interpreted. and there's not the way the american people should have to live. i'll tell you what's treacherous. come to the floor of senate and say executive privilege and other non-sense. we yield the rest of our time. >> managers have 27 minutes remaining. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate. the president's counsel has no standing to talk about lying. he told his body today the

president's told his body and the american people repeatedly for example that the house of representatives refused to allow the president due process. i told you available public document november 26 letter from me as chairman of judiciary committee to the president or due process. offering witnesses, offering cross-examination. a few days later we receive a letter from mr. cipollone that said no, we have no interest in appearing. one hand they're lying the house is condemned by the president for not giving him due process after they rejected the offer of due process. that letter rejecting it was december 1. the president's counsel says

that the house should have issued subpoenas. we did issue subpoenas. president you may recall, you should recall, said he would oppose all subpoenas and he did. many of the subpoenas are still being fought in court. subpoenas issued last april. so that's also untrue. and it's a heck of a nerve to criticize the house for not issuing subpoenas bh the president said he would oppose all subpoenas and we issued subpoenas and he opposes all of them, they're tied up in court. the president claims that most members of the body know better. executive privilege which is a limited privilege which exists but not as a shield. not as a shield against wrong

doing. as a supreme court specifically said in the nixon case in 1973. 74. the president claims absolute immunity. mr. cipollone wrote some letters. saying that the president not only saying the president but nobody he doesn't want to testify. and have the nerve and that is a violation of the constitutional rights of the house of representatives and the senate and the american people as represented through them. assertion of the kingly prerogative. only the president has rights. the people represented in congress cannot get information from the executive branch at all. this body has committees. it has a 200 year record of issues subpoenas. of having administration of the day testify.

of sometimes having subpoena fights. no president has ever claimed the right to stone wall congress on everything. period. congress has no right to get information the american people have no right to information. that is article 2 of the impeachment that we have voted. it is beyond belief that the president claims powers. i can do whatever i want under article 2. and acts on that. defies everything. defies the law to with hold aid from ukraine. and defies the law in a dozen different directions all the time. and lies about it all the time. and says to mr. cipollone to lie

about it. these facts are undenialable. i reserve. >> mr. cipollone, once again complained we did not request john bolton to testify in the house. of course we did. we did request testimony. and he was a no show. when we talked to his counsel about subpoenaing testimony the answer was you give us a subpoena and we will sue you. that's what his attorney did with the subpoena for doctor cupperman. there was no willingness by mr. bolton to testify before the house. he said he would sue us. what's the problem with suing us? their justice department over bill barr in court arguing

actually in that very case involving dr. cupperman that they can't sue -- he can't sue the administration and congress. that's the same position congress has taken and apparently not the position the lawyers are taking. here's the bigger problem we subpoenaed don mcgahn. you should know we subpoenaed don mcgahn in april of 2019. it's january of 2020. we still don't have a decision from a final decision from the court requiring him to testify. in a couple months it will be one year sense we issue that had subpoena. the president would like nothing more than for us to have to go through one year or two year or three years of litigation to get any witness to come before the

house. the problem is the president is trying to cheat in this election. we don't have the luxury of waiting one year or two years or three years when the very object of this was to cheat in the next election. it's not like that threat has gone away. just last month, the president's lawyer was in ukraine still trying to smear his opponent. still trying to get ukraine to interfere in our election. the president said while it was going on, when he was asked, what did you want? his anxious was if we're being honest with it, zelensky should do that investigation of the bidens. he hasn't stopped asking them to interfere. do you think the ukrainians have any doubt about what he wants? they testified and said it isn't over.

it's not like they don't want anything else from the united states. this pressure goes on to this day. with the president going on as we speak. china he wants now to investigate the bidens. this is no intangible threat to our elections. within the last couple weeks it hack reported that the russians have tried to hack burriisma? why do you think? because as chairman nadler says, everybody seems to be interested in this one company out of hundreds of thousands. there is a coincidence that the same company that the president has been trying to smear joe biden over happens to be the country the russians are hacking. why would the russians do that? if you look back to the last

election, the russians hacked the dnc. and they started to leak campaign documents in a drip, drip, drip. and the president was only too happy. over 100 times in the last couple months of the campaign to cite the russian hack documents and now the russians are at it again. this is no ill loosory threat. the russians are at it as we speak. is the president saying, back off, russia? no. he's saying, come on in, china. and he's got his guy in ukraine continuing the scheme. we can't wait one or two or three years to let you know this threat is ongoing. he says this is just like obama

citing the fast and furious case. they don't mention in that investigation, the obama administration turned over tens of thousands of documents. when you find barack obama saying under article two he can do anything, then you can compare barack obama to donald trump. when you find video of barack obama saying i can say no to all subpoenas, then you can compare him to donald trump. and finally, mr. cipollone says president trump is a man of his word. well, it's too late in the evening for me to go into that one except to say this. president trump gave his word he would drain the swamp. he said he would drain the swamp. and what have we seen?

we've seen his personal lawyer go to jail. his campaign chairman go to jail. his deputy campaign chairman convicted of a different crime. his associate's associate lev parnas under indictment. the list goes on and on. that's, i guess, how you drain swamp. you have your people to go jail. i don't think that's really what was meant by that expression. for the purposes of why we're here today, how does someone who promises to drain the swamp coerce an ally of ours into doing a political investigation? that is the swamp. that's not draining the swamp. >> i think it is appropriate for me to admonish both the house managers and the president's

counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. one reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. in the 1905 swain trial, a manager objected when someone used the term petty fogging. the presiding officer said the term ought not to have been used. i don't think we need to aspire to that high a standard but i think those addressing the senate should remember where they are.

>> it will not surprise anyone that i move to table the amendment. >> is there a sufficient second? the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. mr. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. >> well, i think that it can be said, here we are at 12:57, 28, 29, 30 seconds and counting. we had perhaps the most memorable moment of the day just now from chief justice john roberts who after there has been some much more chippy talk in the later hours here.

you see counsel especially for the president looking back at the house managers and kind of going face to face with insults about tactics and pettiness. and i use the term because after one of the latest volleys between two sides, the chief justice said that he would admonish both sides. that they are addressing the best deliberative body in the world. that civil discourse is the rule. he then cited a senator once objecting to a house manager for using the word petty fogging. p-e-t-t-i-f-o-g-g-i-n-g. and that that was a word that had no place on the floor of the senate. i think it was back in 1907 or something like that. the chief justice said, we aren't going to try on maintain

that high a standard. but decency. civil discourse will be the rule in the senate. it is remarkable for several reasons. one, we are seeing the chief justice do something we didn't see in the last one. doing something to take control of the tone and tenor of the proceeding. the bigger point is to enforce decorum, decency and civil discourse is something this country has been begging for for years. and it is interesting to see our chief justice the most respected head of the tribunal on the face of the planet having to point that out. so, now, one other thing to point out. i have andrew mccabe with me, jeff zeleny, we believe there

will be another amendment still tonight. that brings up a couple observations. one, chief justice john roberts who jumped at that opportunity to say enough is enough. he has to be in court at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. so whenever this ends, he has to do a second job early after sitting and listening to 12 or 13 hours of what would never pass in his courtroom for any kind of argumentation of civil discourse. that is to be september in mind. fatigue of this process. i have andrew mccabe next to me. that's who i'm looking at. five of the senators are over 80. 27 of 100 of the senators are over 70. 39 of the 100 senators are above