necessarily mean anything to her. >> she has a political point. i think there should be witnesses and i think she should vote for witnesses. but she recognizes from a political standpoint that schumer wants what's best for the democrats, not her. >> we're waiting for this trial to resume momentarily. erin burnett is going to pick up special coverage right now. good evening. i'm erin burnett. welcome to our special coverage of president trump's impeachment trial. before the break, right now senators are having a brief dinner break. we heard the managers focus oin on the role of rudy giuliani specifically. they're taking a brief break and the trial is set to resume any minute. this is the time when we may here some of the most damning evidence as they try to make their case as americans come home from their day and turn on the television. i want to go to phil mattingly

on capitol hill tonight. you were inside the chamber able to see who was doing what and when. what stood out to you? >> reporter: two things in particular. first is how the democrats are making their case today and what they were utilizing. they were utilizing video clips once again. we saw this yesterday. you see every senator paying attention. it is what they were using. they were using the president's closest allies whether it was lindsey graham's comments in 1999 when he was a manager, rudy giuliani's television clips, tom boster to make their case. and to rebut what they think the arguments are going to be from the white house team when they take over in a couple of days. the other is more color that i picked up. starting halfway through yesterday, house democratic manager staff were handing out pacts of the slides that were being shown inside the chamber. that's been a good guide for reporters to see who's really following along. it's also been a good guide for members. i had one senator tell me it's been very helpful as they follow along in the presentation. it gives them a sign of how

close they are to the end of each presentation. when it comes to watching the senators themselves, we key in on the moderate republicans we're watching for in term of how they may vote in the trial. one to keep an eye on is susan collins. she turns the page every time they switch on the presentation itself. taking copious notes. i'm told already more than two dozen pages of notes. key evidence coming next. last night the prime time was the key moment for the managers. expect that again tonight. they know what time it is. they know who's watching. and they know this is the time to conclude their case for the day. >> phil mattingly. thank you very much. phil is going to stay with us as we are in this brief break for the senators. i want to bring in richard blumenthal who is on the judiciary committee and in the room throughout the day. senator, what do you think the most effective argument was that the house managers made today as they focus on this article of abuse of power specifically. >> what was so striking to me is

graphic detail, the number of messages and phone calls, the depth of conspiracy, people involved, messages, and evidence there still is. the kinds of documents and witnesses that we want to show first hand involvement of the president. but i'll tell you what was so striking to me is how donald trump wanted a foreign country to investigate a u.s. citizen, a political rival, and yet he never went to the department of justice of the united states supposedly to go after this criminality. it shows how he understood there was no there there and it was simply for personal benefit that he sought the interference by this foreign leader in our country's election and how he pressured that foreign leader with hundreds of millions of

dollars that were necessary to that country's defense against a common enemy, russia, our enemy, their enemy. >> skpu i donand you know, you congressman schiff make the argument of how much money trump had approved before this happened and after to make the point. you had congressman garcia make the point you're talking about about when joe biden got in and how he was doing in the polls and how that coincided with the timing of what the president did this past spring. you heard phil talking about republican senators and how closely they're paying attention in that room, susan collins specifically. he said she had two dozen pages of copious notes and she flips the page the second it changes on the screen. she's paying incredibly close attention. would you agree with that assessment of her and which other republican senator ds do u

see paying close attention? >> i'm going to be blunt. we've heard them talk about the need for more evidence. we've heard them wring their hand about more documents and witnesses. the proof will be in their voting. all of the rest of it is going through the motions, seeming to pay attention. the question is whether they're really listening and whether they understand how much is at stake here. an effort by the president to smear and sabotage a political rival. but more than a political rival, our country's basic security policy. and the test will be not what they say but how they vote. >> a letter from national security aide to mike pence, jennif jennif jennifer williams was admitted last night. she testified publicly to the house that trump's behavior troubleder had. but then she wrote this letter, an addendum of some sort. you have had a chance to read it. it is classified.

what can you tell us about it, and does it deserve to be classified? >> the answer is yes. or rather it should be declassified. >> you've read it but it should be declassified. >> absolutely. it did was not deserve to be classified. it should be made public. the american people deserve to see it regardless of which side it may help. and i can't go into the details. but there is no question in my mind that it should be declassified because there is no national interest served by keeping it classified. and i will tell you more broadly, erin, that when the history of this era, a very dark one in our history, is written, it will be the independent judiciary and our free press that are the heroes because there needs to be more openness and more declassification and more information and documents made available. all these documents coming out most recently are the result of courts ordering that they be released.

and the trump administration continues to stonewall, block these documents, prevent witnesses from coming forward. that is a disgrace. the american people should be deeply outraged. >> senator blumenthal, thanks very much for your time. i know you need to get back into the room. i want to get to our conversation here. laura, senator blumenthal responding to what he saw over the past few hours. it's been focused on the abuse of power article today but giuliani's role specifically. how did the house managers do. >> schiff began by talking about rudy giuliani does not lead the president by the nose. it's not to say the president of the united states cannot be held accountable. they used it as a strategic reason to say he had to have somebody outside of the white house acting as a minion who was the actual conduit of being able to carry out the abuse of power. certainly it wasn't the president of the united states making every decision and every phone call and leading the horses to water making them

drink. somebody had to go out and do it at the direction of the president of the united states and that person is rudy giuliani. the fixation on him is not so much about trying to deflect away from the blame of the president but about showing how this person under the direction of the president trump acted in the interest of actually abusing that power. that's what they're focusing on. so far they've made a compelling case without interestingly enough making me say i want to hear from giuliani. >> which obviously they don't. they don't want to step into that. so, ryan, the other part of this is they took on for an extensive period of time burisma and joe and hunter biden because it's one of the big talking points you hear from the republicans. they want hunter biden to testify. they didn't try to skimp over it. it was sylvia garcia taking down factually untrue allegations against joe biden including the context around his pushing for the firing of the ukrainian prosecutor, the allegations we all know. he fired him or pushed them to fire him to stop an

investigation into burisma which would help hunter biden. he was on the board, right? that's the allegation. of course it doesn't add up. wasn't investigating burisma. so, here's sylvia garcia making the points. >> under show gun, the investigation had stalled and was dormant. that was part of the reason why the united states and other countries wanted to remove shokin, calling for shokin's replacement would actually increase the chances that burisma would be investigated. in other words, shokin was corrupt in not investigating allegations against burisma. so, when vice president biden was calling for shokin's removal in advocating for his replacement, it would increase chances of burisma's investigation. >> all right. so, she's laying out how what biden did was actually the

opposite of what he would have done if he were trying to corruptly help his son and line his son's pocket. how effective was she? >> i think she's effective because the facts are on her side. so, everything she says is actually true, could be a heroic story for biden because he really is leading the administration with the ambassador at the same time criticizing the prosecutors office for not having fully investigating burisma and covering up burisma. >> right. >> so, it's a heroic story. at the same time spending that amount of time on joe biden and hunter biden -- >> you thought 30 minutes was too long. >> i think it set up the president's team to say it's relevant. they brought it up first. they spent 30 minutes on it. if they want to call one of the bidens as witnesses, i think it's a strategic error in the sense that that's not what the democrats want. it sets them up to say you think it's not relevant. you spent 30 minutes. it must be relevant. >> that's an interesting take. scott, when you look at senators

in the room, it wasn't just joe biden and the allies in europe and the european union, it was -- and she listed all those senators sitting there today who were sitting there at the time pushing for the firing of viktor shokin which biden pushed for. was that effective to call them out by name? >> well, i think it's effective for their side of the argument to try to prebut what they know the president's lawyers are going to do. except i agree with ryan, this legitimizes the whole conversation. i've heard for days and days and days people saying the bidens aren't relevant, this isn't a legitimate use of time, we don't need to be talking about, yet here they are getting a ton of floor time today. so, for whatever she did, she legitimized this conversation. i'm sure the president's lawyers are going to get into it and i'm sure the president himself will get into it over the weekend. >> it's a rock and a hard place though. if you don't take down the argument they're making they're going to make it anyway and you

didn't refute it. in a sense it's a catch 22. >> as a prosecutor i would have stolen their thunder before that lightning came. i would have done exactl what she did. if i don't address the big elephant in the room which is the reason the president has been impeached is because he was fearful of a perceived political rival in joe biden, if i don't address that point and talk about the absurdity that you did not seek to just try to undermine corruption generally, never brought it up in a meeting, you had the idea of trying to take down the bidens. all the testimony to day from the gordon sondland to bill taylor and the like were about the notion of what did the letter b stand for. we knew it was biden, not burisma. >> that was obvious. mcconnell is walking back in. obviously majority leader so we'll be going back in a moment. i wanted to ask you about something that phil mentioned which was the use of video and specifically all of it very effective because it got people to perk up. but specifically trump allies and defenders saying things that

do not fit with their you narrative now. i give you the number one example of that, we could all agree, lindsey graham. >> what's a high crime? how about if an important person hurts somebody of low means? it's not very scholarly, but i think it's the truth. i think that's what they meant by high crimes. doesn't even have to be a crime. it's just when you start using your office and you're acting in a way that hurts people, you committed a high crime. >> obviously he looks different now so i should tell people that was 1999. it's the same room and it's the same setting. it's a different president of a different party. joe, how effective is that? i mean, obviously it's absurdity, right? we can all agree. it's complete exact opposite of what he's saying now. was that impactful and helpful though? >> i think it was. and i would have expected we

would see lindsey graham. we may see mitch mcconnell from cnn in 1998 to 1999 saying i wanted live witnesses. that's a decision for the house managers obviously. i think there are a couple things going on here. they are pointing out the hypocrisy which weakens the defense case. they're saying these guys are hypocrites. they were in the exact opposite place. i lived through it in 1999. lindsey graham was effective then. if you put yourself back 20 years -- >> very eloquent. >> it was. very homespun and it was effective and it's something that hurt the president's defense. i mean, he ended up coming out okay, but i do think though the most effective use so far has been you see donald trump and you see him confessing over and over again. this is not a complicated matter. >> sorry to interrupt you. they are gaveling back in and they will continue the evening's proceedings. >> congressman, it looks like

roughly 10:30 tonight. so, we may need a short break somewhere between now and 10:30. >> thank you. >> mr. chief justice, distinguished members of the senate, counsel to the president, my colleagues, the american people, the second official act that president trump used to corruptly abuse his power was the withholding of an oval office meeting with the president of ukraine. before we took the break, we started walking through the overwhelming evidence about how president trump withheld this official white house meeting that was vitally important to ukraine as part of a corrupt

scheme to convince president zelensky to announce two phony political investigations. these investigations were entirely unrelated to any official u.s. policy and solely benefitted president trump. we talked about why withholding the meeting was so significant to our ally, ukraine. ukraine is a fragile democracy under relentless attack from russian-backed separatists in the east. u.s. support is vitally important to ukraine in that war. they desperately need our support. they desperately need our assistance. because it is vast power disparity, president trump had immense power over ukraine, and

president trump knew it. so, when president trump asked for a favor on july 25th call, he knew that president zelensky would feel incredible pressure to do exactly what president trump wanted. president trump used his agents, both his administration appointees and his personal attorney rudolph giuliani to make clear to ukraine even in early july that much-needed white house meeting that they requested would only occur if they announced these phony political investigations. now, to be clear, as ambassador sondland testified, everyone was in the loop. that includes acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, secretary

of state mike pompeo, and secretary of energy rick perry. even ahead of the july 25th call, ambassador sondland was in close repeated contact with these officials. his mission: schedule a telephone conversation during which the new ukrainian leader would personally commit to do the phony investigations sought by president trump in order to unlock a meeting in the oval office. this for that. a quid pro quo. now, this isn't just based on the testimony of witnesses. it is corroborated by texts and emails as well. let's look at some of that evidence now. on july 13, for example, ambassador sondland emailed national security counsel official timothy morrison and made the case for president

trump to call the ukrainian leader prior to the partic parliamentary elections scheduled for july 21st. in that email as the highlighted text shows, ambassador sondland said the sole purpose of the call was to assure president trump that investigations will be allowed to move forward. in other words, to get the oval office meeting, president zelensky had to move forward on the phony political investigations, part of the scheme to cheat in the 2020 presidential campaign. this for that. on july 19, ambassador sondland spoke directly with president zelensky. he spoke directly with president

zelensky to prepare him for a call with president trump. ambassador sondland coached president zelensky to use key phrases and reassure president trump of ukraine's intention to bend to president trump's will with respect to the phony investigations that president trump sought. ambassador sondland told kurt volker that he gave the ukrainian leader a full briefing. he's got it. that's what sondland told volker. in response, volker texted most important is for zelensky to say that he will help with the investigations. that same day ambassador sondland emailed top

administration officials including acting chief of staff mulvaney, secretary pompeo, and secretary perry to summarize his conversation with zelensky. in that email, ambassador sondland said zelensky is, quote, prepared to receive potus's call. will assure him, meaning potus, that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will turn over every stone. both acting chief of staff mulvaney and secretary perry responded to at t responded to the email noting that the head of state call would be scheduled. secretary perry wrote mick just confirmed the call set up for tomorrow. and mulvaney responded i asked nsc to set it up for tomorrow.

neither mulvaney nor secretary perry took issue with the fact that sondland coached zelensky to yield to president trump's pressure campaign. but instead, they took steps to connect the two leaders. everyone was in the loop. they were aware that during the july 20th call president trump intended to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election and pressed the ukrainian leader to announce investigations into former vice president biden and the crowdstrike conspiracy theory. there was no focus on advancing america's foreign policy or national security objectives. the only priority was president trump's corrupt demand for phony

investigations in exchange for an oval office meeting. this for that. here's ambassador sondland's testimony confirming this scheme. >> everyone was in the loop. it was no secret. everyone was informed via email on july 19, days before the presidential call. as i communicated to the team, i told president zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary in his call with president trump. >> in his call with president trump. now we come to july 25, the morning of the infamous phone call. the culmination of a months-long

campaign to engineer a corrupt quid pro quo. that morning before the call took place, president trump provided guidance to sondland. on the morning of july 25th, he told them that president zelensky should be prepared to announce the investigations in exchange for the white house meeting. after sondland's call with president trump on the morning of july 25th, sondland urgently tried to reach kurt volker. when he could not reach ambassador volker by phone, he sent a text that said call asap. and he left a message. volker testified that he indeed received that message which involved the following content:

quote, president zelensky should be clear, convincing, forthright with president trump about his commitment to fighting corruption, investigating what happened in the past. that refers to the russian-inspired fake, phony, and false conspiracy theory about ukraine having been involved in interfering in your 2016 elections. and if he does that, president trump was prepared to be reassured that he would say yes. come on, let's get this date for this visit scheduled. ambassador volker then conveyed that message approximately 30 minutes before the

trump/zelensky call to zelensky's top aide, andrey yermak. as you can see on the slide, ambassador volker texts yermak, zelensky's guy, and says assuming president z convinces trump he will investigate/get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, the white house meeting would get scheduled. this for that. so, president trump talks to ambassador sondland. sondland talks to ambassador volker. volker talks to president zelensky's aide yermak. and then the july 25th call occurs. when ambassador sondland testified, he agreed with this sequence indicating it certainly makes sense. here is what sondland had to

say. >> but the sequence certainly makes sense, right? >> yeah, it does. >> you talk to president trump, told kurt volker to call you, left a message for kurt volker, kurt volker sent this text message to andrey yar mac to prepare president zelensky, and president trump had a phone call where president zelensky spoke very similar to what was in this text message, right? >> right. >> and you would agree the message that was expressed here is that president zelensky needs to convince trump that he will do the investigations in order to nail down the date for a visit to washington, d.c. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> indeed, on july 25th call when president trump asked for a favor, president zelensky was ready with the magic words. he said, i also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit

the united states, specifically washington, d.c. on the other hand, i want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. this for that. read the transcript, president trump says. we have read the transcript, and it is damning evidence of a corrupt quid pro quo. the evidence against donald trump is hiding in plain sight. during our presentation, we've walked through the serious issues presented in the plain reading of the july 25th call. but now you can see the entire context of how this corrupt

parade of horribles unfolded. the quid pro quo was discussed in text messages, emails, voice mails, calls, and meetings amongst top administration officials and top ukrainian officials. indeed president trump's message was delivered to either president zelensky or his top aides on four different occasions in the month of july. four different occasions. on july 2 in toronto, on july 10 at the white house, on july 19 during a call between zelensky and ambassador sondland, and then on 25 before the call with the two leaders. so, before that faithful call on july 25th, president zelensky

understood exactly what needed to be done, a quid pro quo. the evidence of president trump's grave misconduct does not end with that july 25th call. from that point onward, president zelensky was on notice that it was president trump himself who demanded those two phony political investigations. after the july 25th call, the e ukrainians followed up with president trump's direction and began to coordinate with rudolph giuliani. the president's political bagman. acting on the president's orders, u.s. diplomats, including ambassador sondland and ambassador volker, worked with mr. giuliani to continue pressuring ukraine to announce

the phony investigations that president trump sought in exchange for that oval office meeting. this is corruption and abuse of power in its purest form. over the next two weeks, mr. giuliani directed ambassador sondland and volker to negotiate a public statement from president zelensky announcing the investigations that president trump corruptly demanded. here is how ambassador sondland described this august time frame. >> mr. giuliani conveyed to secretary perry, ambassador volker, and others that president trump wanted a public statement from president zelensky committing to investigations of burisma and the 2016 election. mr. giuliani expressed those

requests directly to the ukrainians, and mr. giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. we all understood that these prerequisites for the white house call and the white house meeting reflected president trump's desires and requirements. >> deputy assistant secretary of state george kent described the pursuit of president trump's corrupt demands as, quote, infecting u.s. engagement with ukraine. here is his full testimony. >> in mid august it became clear to me that giuliani's efforts were infecting u.s. engagement with ukraine, leveraging president zelensky's desire for a white house meeting. >> in short, u.s. diplomats responsible for ukraine policy understood that giuliani had

defacto control over whether the oval office meeting would be scheduled and under what circumstances. mr. giuliani had been given that level of authority by president trump. and it was infecting official u.s. policy toward ukraine. to shake loose the white house meeting, top ukrainian officials knew that they had to meet with mr. giuliani who john bolton described as a human hand grenade who was going to blow everybody up. so, on august 2nd, mr. giuliani met with mr. yermak, president zelensky's top aide in madrid. giuliani in madrid meeting with zelensky's top aide on august

2nd. mr. giuliani made clear in that meeting that president trump needed more private assurances that ukraine would pursue the investigations. mr. giuliani made clear that president trump needed a public statement. according to ambassador sondland -- and this is very important -- president trump did not require that ukraine actually conduct the investigations in order to secure that white house meeting. the ukrainian government only needed to announce the investigations because they were phony and they were simply designed to cheat in the 2020 election, solicit foreign interference, and corrupt our democracy to the benefit of president trump. so, the goal was not the investigations themselves but the corrupt political benefit that president trump would

receive as a result of these announcements. he also wanted to shake this russia thing and instead blame ukraine with the fairy tale that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. the facts didn't matter to president trump. he only cared about the personal political benefit of these sought after investigative announcements. over the next few weeks, ambassador sondland and volker worked with mr. yermak to draft the public statement for president zelensky to issue. ambassador volker was also in frequent contact with rudy giuliani regarding the content of that statement. now, rudy giuliani, of course, is not a secretary of state. he's not an ambassador. he's not a member of the

diplomatic core. he was working in the political personal interests of the president trump. interacting with ukrainian officials. on august 9th, ambassador volker texted mr. giuliani and requested a call to update him on the progress of the negotiations for the statement and discuss the content of what it should include. volker said that yermak had, quote, mentioned z, president zelensky, making a statement. he suggested that he and mr. giuliani get on the phone to make sure i advise zelensky correctly as to what he should be saying. later that afternoon, ambassador sondland suggested to ambassador volker that they obtain a draft statement from the ukrainian

government to avoid misunderstandings or in other words make sure that president trump's political objectives were met. ambassador sondland also reiterated that president trump would not be satisfied by a vague statement. the ukrainian leader needed to commit to the phony investigations in explicit terms in order to secure the sought after oval office meeting. this for that. call records subpoenaed by the house show multiple communications between ambassador sondland and mr. giuliani. on the one hand. and numbers associated with the office of management and budget and the white house on the other. on august 8, around the time of direct communications between mr. giuliani and mr. yermak,

mr. giuliani communicated repeatedly with the white house sending or receiving six text messages and completing several calls. most notably, late in the evening on august 8, mr. giuliani called the white house in a highly distinctive pattern. at 8:53 p.m., giuliani texted a white house number. at 10:09, a number identified only as dash 1 in the white house call records called mr. giuliani five times in rapid succession. two minutes later, mr. giuliani attempted to return the call, trying an office of management and budget number, then the white house situation room, then the white house switchboard. at 10:28, 16 minutes after

mr. giuliani tried to call the white house back frantically, situation room, office of management and budget, switchboard, 16 minutes after mr. giuliani tried to call the white house back, giuliani and the dash 1 number connected for four minutes and six seconds. we should be clear, we do not know what mr. giuliani said or even who he talked to. we do not know who was on the other end of that mysterious call with the dash 1. president trump refused to produce documents and ordered key witnesses not to testify, hiding part of the truth from the american people. he obstructed our congressional

investigation. but we do know that rudolph giuliani frantically called the white house late into the night. we do know that he talked to someone at 1600 pennsylvania avenue, and we know that mr. giuliani likely talked about the drug deal that john bolton characterized. over the next few days, president zelensky's aide, mr. yermak, exchanged drafts of the public statement with ambassadors volker and sondland who consulted on these drafts with mr. giuliani. the ukrainian officials appeared to finally relent. they agreed to mr. giuliani's specific language about the phony political investigations in exchange for the oval office meeting. on august 10th, yermak texted

volker that the ukrainians were willing to make the requested statements but only if they receive a date for the white house meeting first. mr. yermak texted, quote, i think it's possible to make this declaration and mention all these things. yermak again is zelensky's top guy. he later wrote the statement would come out after we receive a confirmation of a date for the white house visit. ambassador volker counterproposed. they would iron out the statement in private, use that to get the date for the meeting in the oval office, and then president zelensky would make the public statement. this for that. mr. yermak countered once we

have a date, we will call for a press briefing announcing up coming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of the u.s./ukraine relationship including among other things burisma and election meddling and investigations. that was a specific reference to president trump's corrupt demands. two days later mr. yermak sent the draft statement, but the statement did not reference burisma or the 2016 election. as soon as mr. yermak sent the statement, what did ambassador sondland and volker do? they sought a call with rudolph giuliani to see if the statement would suffice.

they needed to check in with mr. giuliani who was leading the charge to lock down the corrupt quid pro quo. let's listen to ambassador volker. >> this is the first draft of that from mr. yermak after the conversations that we had. >> and it does not mention burisma or the 2016 election interference, correct? >> it does not. >> and you testified that you and ambassador sondland and mayor giuliani had a conversation about this draft after you received it, is that right? >> that is correct. >> and mr. giuliani said that if the statement did not include burisma and 2016 election, it would not have any credibility. is that right? >> that's correct. >> mr. giuliani, acting on behalf of president trump, made clear that the statement from the ukrainians had to target

vice president biden for the reasons outlined earlier today. and it had to mention the conspiracy theory about ukraine interfering in the 2016 election. after mr. giuliani conveyed this on the telephone call, ambassadors volker and sondland texted mr. yermak and requested a call to convey that message. ambassador volker says hey andrey, we spoke with rudy. when is good to call you? and ambassador sondland makes clear the urgency texting important, do you have five minutes? now, ambassador volker made clear to mr. yermak that the statement needed the two key items mr. giuliani required for the president.

here's ambassador volker's testimony to that effect. >> hi andrey, good talking, following insert text at the end for the two key items, we will work on official request. >> and you'll see the highlighted part of the next text. the other is identical to the previous one and adds including these involving the burisma and 2016 elections, is that right? >> that is correct. >> and that is what mr. giuliani insisted on adding to the statement. >> that is what he said would be necessary for that to be credible. >> the ewe yukrainians did not that statement? >> that's correct. >> and he did not get the white house meeting. >> not yet. >> president zelensky is still waiting for that oval office meeting. ronald reagan, in a speech that he delivered in 1987 at the foot

of the berlin wall in the midst of the cold war, said to the world, east and west do not mistrust each other because we are armed. we are armed because we mistrust each other. and our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. the trump/ukraine scandal is certainly about weapons. it's about the unlawful withholding of $391 million in security aid. it's about a withheld sought after oval office meeting. it's about trying to cheat in the 2020 election. it's about corrupting our

democracy. it's about undermining america's national security. it's about a stunning abuse of power. it's about obstruction of congress. it's about the need for us here in this great chamber to have a fair trial with witnesses and evidence. it's about a corrupt quid pro quo. but perhaps above all else, it's about liberty because in america for all of us what keeps us free from tyranny is the sacred principle that in this great country no one is above the law.

>> mr. chief justice, senators, president's counsel, we've reviewed the mountain of evidence that proves the president officials act in his scheme. the corrupt bargain of a white house meeting in exchange for ukraine announcing sham political investigations. you heard from each relevant witness with first hand knowledge of the president's corrupt scheme. sondland, taylor, volker, hill, and vindman.

that there was a corrupt deal. an oval meeting for investigations. quid pro quo. this for that. you also saw inescapable documentary proof that clearly proves a corrupt quid pro quo. the evidence is consistent, corroborated. it comes in many forms from many individuals who are life long public servants with no motivation to lie. in short, the evidence is overwhelming. given how much we have gone through, let's review some of those career public servants' testimony who state clearly that they too believed it was a quid

pro quo, a this for a this for that. because it is really powerful to hear directly from them. so let's watch ambassador taylor. >> by mid-july it was becoming clear to me that the meeting president zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of burisma and alleged ukrainian interference in the 2016 u.s. elections. it was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular channel i had come to understand was guided by mr. giuliani. >> it was these were conditions driven by irregular policies. and we know this too because ambassador sondland said so at the july 10 meeting. dr. fiona hill described the scene in ambassador bolton's

office where the quid pro quo was made clear. let's watch. >> ukrainians starts to ask about a white house meeting, and ambassador bolton was trying to parry this back. although he is the national security adviser, he is not in charge of scheduling the meeting. we have input recommending the meetings, and this goes through a whole process. so it's not ambassador bolton's role to start pulling out the schedule and say right, we're going to look if this tuesday and this month is going to work with this, and he does not as a matter of course like to discuss the details of these meetings. he likes to leave them to the appropriate staff for this. so this is already going to be an uncomfortable issue. as ambassador bolton was trying to move that part of the discussion away, i think he was going to try to deflect it on to another wrap-up topic, ambassador sondland leaned in basically to say well we have an agreement that there will be a meeting if specific

investigations are put under way. and that's when i saw ambassador bolton stiffen. i was sitting behind him in the chair, and i saw him sit back slightly like this. he'd been more moving forward like i am to the table. and for me, that was an unmistakable body language, and it caught my attention. and then he looked up to the clock, and at his watch, his wrist in any case. again, i was sitting behind him, and basically said, well, it's been really great to see you. i'm afraid i've got another meeting. >> ambassador battle on the stiffened. quite a description. lieutenant colonel ventman's testimony is clear with the recollection of the july 10 meeting. and it was made clear that the deal for the white house meeting was investigations. let's watch lieutenant current ventman. >> i want to move now to that july 10th meeting that you

referenced, colonel vindman. what exactly did ambassador sondland say when the ukrainian officials raised the idea of a white house meeting? >> as i recall, he referred to specific investigations that ukrainians would have to deliver in order to get these meetings. >> lieutenant vindman, firsthand knowledge. they would have to deliver in order to get these meetings. it was also clear that this wasn't about general investigations about corruption. this was about corruption -- it wasn't about corruption at all. ambassador sondland directed everyone, including the iranian -- ukrainian officials to reconvene in the ward room

where he discussed the arrange. he had reached with mr. mulvaney in more detail, and he made clear it was about specific investigations that would benefit president trump personally. here's lieutenant colonel vindman testifying where he explains that ambassador sondland referred to the biden, burisma, and the 2016 election, which had nothing to do with national security policy. let's watch. >> were the investigations, the specific investigations that ambassador sondland referenced in the larger meeting also discussed in the ward room meeting? >> they were. >> what did ambassador sondland say? >> ambassador sondland referred to investigations into the bidens, burisma in 2016. >> how did you respond, if at all? >> i -- i said that these requests to conduct these meetings was inappropriate. these investigations was inappropriate and had nothing to

do with national security policy. >> nothing to do with national security policy. that's about sums it up, doesn't it? it has nothing to do with national security policy. president trump's scheme was for his personal interest, not national security. and his testimony once again is corroborated. dr. hill joined the wardroom corporation later and also recalled a discussion of investigations in a white house meeting and lieutenant colonel vindman said, quote, this is inappropriate. we're the national security council. we cannot be involved in this. here's her testimony. >> and so when i came in, gordon

sondland was basically saying, well, look, we have a deal here that there will be a meeting. i have a deal here with chief of staff mulvaney there will be a meeting if the ukrainians open up or announce these investigations into 2016 and burisma. and i cut it off immediately there, because by this point, having heard mr. giuliani over and over again on the television and all of the issues that he was asserting, by this point it was clear that burisma was code for the bidens, because giuliani was laying it out there. i could see why colonel vindman was alarmed, and he said "this is inappropriate. we're the national security council. we can't be involved in." >> and what's more, as ambassador sondland told us, everyone was in the loop. meaning it became clear that president trump was directing this. and dr. hill, who at one point confronted gordon sondland over this arrangement further reached the conclusion that he was

acting on the president's orders and coordinating with other senior officials. he had made this clear he was briefing the president on all this. here is dr. hill's testimony. let's watch. >> so i was upset with him that he wasn't fully telling us about all of the meetings that he was having, and he said to me, but i'm briefing the president. i'm briefing chief of staff mulvaney. i'm briefing secretary pompeo, and iowa talked to ambassador bolton. who else do i have to deal with? and the point is we have a robust interagency process that deals with eukraine. it includes mr. holmes. it ambassador taylor as the charge d'affairs in ukraine. but it struck me yesterday when you put up on the screen ambassador sondland's emails and said who were on these emails, he said these are the people that need to know. he was absolutely right because

he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. and those two things had just diverged. >> so the evidence is very clear. the white house meeting would only be scheduled if ukraine announced the investigations that everyone, including the ukrainians understood to be purely political efforts to benefit the president. the only way to come to a different conclusion is to ignore the evidence. one additional way you can tell that this conduct is truly corrupt and not u.s. foreign policy as usual is that these officials, these lifetime career public servants didn't just testify about this in impeachment proceedings. they contemporaneously reported

this conduct in realtime. their reactions illustrate that this was not the kind of thing that both parties do when they have the white house. this was something different, somethings corrupt, something insidious to use ambassador sondland's characterization in later testimony, the officials who instinctively recoiled from the corrupt deal that sondland blurted out were distinguished patriotic public servants. let's go through some specific examples of that evidence. after the july 10 meet iing we just talked about where ambassador sondland made clear that the agreement that the white house meetings were conditioned on the investigations, dr. hill consulted with ambassador bolton and told him what she had heard. ambassador bolton gave her, as she put it, very specific

instruction to report this conduct in realtime, and she did. here is her testimony. let's watch. >> a specific instruction was that i had to go to the lawyers, to john eisenberg. i was senior council for the national security council to basically say you tell eisenberg, ambassador bolton told me, that i am not part of this, whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland were cooking up? >> i took it to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you go speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did. again, investigations for a meeting, the quid pro quo consistent of dr. hill's recounting after both the july 10 meeting and the july 25 call, lieutenant vindman