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 reported that

he had learned to the lawyers. here he is discussing that later interaction. let's see it. >> you went immediately and you reported it, didn't you? >> i did. >> why? >> because that was my duty. >> vindman said he reported this conduct again because that was his duty. he acted as he did out of a sense of duty. and as a purple heart veteran with confidence in america, he would be protected for doing this right thing. even if it angered the president of the united states. his father, who fled the soviet union to come to this country worried about his son fulfilling that duty. here was colonel vindman's message to his father. let's listen.

>> dad, my sitting here today in the u.s. capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the soviet union and come here to the united states of america in search of a better life for our family. do not worry. i'll be fine for telling the truth. >> you realize when you came forward out of sense of duty, that you were putting yourself in direct opposition to the most powerful person in the world? do you realize that, sir? >> i knew i was assuming a lot of risk. >> and i'm struck by the word -- that phrase "do not worry" you address to your dad. was your dad a warrior? >> he did serve. it was a different military, though. >> and worried if you were putting yourself up against the president of the united states, is that right? >> he deeply worried about it, because in his context, there was the ultimate risk. >> and why do you have confidence that you can do that and tell your dad not to worry? >> congressman, because this is

america. this is the country i've served and defended, that all my brothers have served and here right matters. >> thank you, sir. yield back. >> imagine. he had to tell his father do not worry, i'll be fine for telling the truth. it was his duty because in america, right matters. president trump has suggested that all other witnesses are never trumpers. that couldn't be further from the truth. as we just saw, this u.s. officials are brave public servants. it is wrong, just flat wrong to suggest that we're doing

anything other than testifying out of a sense of duty as lieutenant colonel vindman testified. but it wasn't just u.s. officials whose reactions show us that this was wrong. it is also clear how corrupt this scheme was because ukraine resisted it. president zelensky was selected as a reformer. his first few months in office, he lived up to this promise. here is ambassador taylor testifying on this point. let's see it. >> once i arrived in kiev, i discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming circumstances. first the encouraging. president zelensky was reforming ukraine in a hurry. he appointed reformist ministers and supported long stalled

anti-corruption legislation. he took quick executive action, including opening ukraine's high anti-corruption court. with a new parliamentary majority stemming from snap elections, president zelensky changed the ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunity from rotted entities, the source of raw corruption for two decades. the excitement in kiev was palpable. this time could be different, a uukraine finally breaking from its corrupt post soviet past. >> so we know that president zelensky was a reformer. fighting corruption, fighting for reform, and he got started early as soon as he was sworn in. we know that president zelensky's agenda was in our u.s. national interests. in fact, every witness testified that president zelensky deserved

america's support, and that they told president trump that. so keeping that in mind, it is extremely telling what president zelensky and his aides were saying behind closed doors. they were concerned about being dragged into president trump's scheme. they recognized the political peril of going along with the president's corrupt scheme. we've known that from the case for many reasons. but let's look at some of the evidence showing that now. first, the ukrainians made their concerns clear directly to u.s. officials. on july 20, just days ahead of the july 25 call, ambassador taylor spoke with president zelensky's national security adviser. he then conveyed to ambassador sondland and volker that the

current leader did not want to, quote be used as a pawn in a u.s. reelection campaign. here is ambassador taylor explaining what he understood that to mean. let's watch. >> what did you understand it to mean when that zelensky had concerns about being an instrument in washington domestic reelection politics? >> he understood that these investigations were pursuant to mr. giuliani's request to develop information, to find information about burisma and the bidens. this was very well-known in public. mr. giuliani had made this point clear in several instances in the beginning, in the springtime, and he was aware that that was a problem. >> and would you agree that

because president zelensky is worried about this, they understood at least that there was some pressure for them to pursue these investigations? is that fair? >> he indicated that president zelensky certainly understood it, that he did not want to get involved in these type of activities. >> as a slide shows, on july 21, ambassador taylor relayed the same message to ambassadors volker and sondland, making clear, quote, president zelensky is sensitive about ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in washington domestic politics, but ambassador sondland did not back down. instead, ambassador sondland reinforced the importance that president zelensky reassured

president trump of his commitment to the investigations. he said, quote, absolutely. but we need to get the conversation started and the relationship built, irrespective of the protect. i am worried about the alternative. the pretext that ambassador sondland referred to was president trump's requirement that ukraine announce investigations that would benefit him personally and politically. he wanted help in cheating. and it wasn't just ambassador taylor. deputy assistance secretary george kent too testified that ukraine was, quote, very uncomfortable. when the issue of investigations was raised during the negotiations in the statement of

august 2019, as the slide shows, mr. kent said, quote, i had a conversation with charge d'affairs taylor that volker had been engaging with andriy yermak, that the president and his private attorney rudy giuliani were interested in the initiation of investigations and that yermak was very uncomfortable when this was raised with him and suggested that if that were the case, if that were really the position of the united states, it should be done officially and put in writing. and i told bill taylor that's wrong and we shouldn't be doing that as a matter of u.s. policy. and when asked what did he say, mr. kent said, quote, he said he agreed with me.

now what's also important to note is this. why. ukraine made this clear. if the u.s. was asking them for investigations, especially investigations that made them uncomfortable, they should be done officially and put in writing. mr. kent's testimony shows that. he said, quote, yermak was very uncomfortable when this was raised with him and suggested if that were the case, if that were really the position of the united states, it should be done officially and put in writing. and this wasn't the only time. on august 13, mr. yermak asked ambassador volker, quote, were there any requests had ever been made by the united states to investigate election interference in 2016. now this makes sense.

normally, if something is actually about official u.s. policy, the president would go through official u.s. channels. but as we've seen here, he didn't. his personal attorney made this. this wasn't about foreign policy. it was something that would benefit president trump personally. yet administration officials made this clear too. there were undisputed testimony that the investigations were not part of u.s. policy. in fact, they diverged with the u.s. national security and our nation's values. and the department of justice has made this crystal clear in public statements. they have never, never been asked officially to do any of these investigations. and that's how we know this is

so very wrong. even ukraine, a struggling new country knew this was wrong. and they stood up to president trump and said so. yermak, and remember, he was zelensky's chief aide, was basically saying you want an investigation? please send us a formal request from doj. show us you're willing to stand behind the legitimacy of what you're asking. but ambassador volker was unable to provide that information, and that's why even though the white house meeting was so critical to ukraine, even though ukraine needed it so, so desperately, they still wouldn't make the statement with the key additions. president trump's political investigations, which were

solely to help his reelection and had nothing to do with foreign policy. president zelensky tried different ways to resist the pressure of becoming a pawn in u.s. politics, even though the oval office meeting was important, zelensky repeatedly tried to find a way around committing to the investigations that president trump demanded. or at the very least, schedule it before taking any official action. this is what you saw in the negotiation over the statement in august, and this is why even president trump's second official act, withholding the white house meeting, was not enough to make ukraine do his dirty work. senators, we're coming to the end of this section of the presentation regarding the withholding of the white house

meeting. so i want to just quickly remind us one last time about the central points that we have covered. president trump exercised his official power when he withheld an oval office meeting that was critical to ukraine, and he did this for only one reason and one reason only. president trump conditioned that oval office meeting on ukraine announcing investigations that would help him politically. this had nothing to do with official u.s. policy. president trump directed u.s. officials were supposed to work for the american people, to work instead with his personal agent rudy giuliani and focus only on his personal political interests. acting on behalf of the

president and with the president's full knowledge, mr. giuliani worked with those u.s. officials to carry out the president's scheme. they pressured the ukrainian government to ask as a personal opposition research firm for president trump. they tried to use a foreign government to dig up dirt on his client's rival. former vice president biden, an american citizen. and so president trump could win his election, and they made clear that ukraine would not get the official u.s. government support that it so desperately needed. support that the president's national security team conveyed was necessary to advance our own national security objectives unless president zelensky announced the sham investigations.

remember that an abuse of power occurs when the president corruptly exercises official power to obtain a personal benefit in a way that ignores or injures the national interests. senators, that is exactly what happened here. by withholding a white house meeting, president trump used official power to corruptly pressure ukraine. indeed, the entire quid pro quo, this for that, the entire campaign to use the oval office meeting as some kind of asset for the president's reelection campaign was corrupt. officials knew this. ukrainians knew this too, and i think deep down we all know it. and i think the american people

know it. senators, i ask you this one question. is that not an abuse of power? was it okay? if it's not an abuse of power, then what is? is it okay to withhold official acts from a foreign country until that foreign country assists your reelection effort? if any other public official did that, he or she would be held accountable. i know that if one of us did that, we would be held accountable. the only way to hold this president accountable is right here in this trial. otherwise you would be telling ukraine and the world that it's okay for the president to use our oval office and this country's prestige and power for

himself instead of for the american people. if we allow this gross abuse of power to continue, this president would have free rein, free reign to abuse his control of foreign policy for personal interest. and so would any other future president. and then this president and all presidents become above the law. a president could take the powers of the greatest office inform this land and use those powers not for the country, not for the american people, but for him or herself. i ask you to make sure this does not happen because in this country, no one, no one is above the law.

now i yield to ms. stems. >> the house managers have requested a five-minute break. >> so awarded. senate is in recess. >> we're at a break in the proceedings as house managers make their case that president trump used the power of his office to secure political favors from ukraine. as we wait for things to return, we're joined by jeffrey toobin, there was a prebuttal to what the president's attorneys are going to be saying in the coming days. >> that's true. they had a choice going into this process. do they ignore the bidens and their involvement in this story, backing their own argument that it's all irrelevant, or do they

engage as a sort of prebuttal. and i think they started to engage which i think is the start story. the president's lawyers are going to go after the bidens at great length. so their story might as well -- might as well be out there. you know, i think this has been a very impressive performance. it's been very factual. that's the thing that is very -- that has been so striking to me is that the rhetorical flourishes have been very few, but the presentation of real evidence, whether it's testimony from the judiciary committee or the intelligence committee and the documents that they were able to get, they have used them in power point format. and the idea that there wasn't an exchange here of, you know, you get your aid if you give us the announcement of the investigation of biden. it's just -- the case is

overwhelming on the facts. >> kerstin, we've also heard a lot from democrats about how the president was essentially doing the kremlin's work for them by promoting this conspiracy theory that ukraine was the one actually behind the hacks. >> yeah. and i think they've gone through today very methodically of laying out all of the different ways that we know that this is what the president was doing. and hakeem jeffries kept saying this for that, this for that. drawing these really clear lines between what was happening, and also relying on video of rudy giuliani going on "fox & friends" and talking about exactly what happened basically. let's keep an eye on ukraine and biden. and so i think it's a very convincing case. scott, we were talking before and he is saying it's not something that ultimately that a lot of republican senators are going to think rises to the level of impeachment. but then i just wonder what does rise to the level of impeachment, because this is so

clearly -- just going through even with the transcript at the very beginning of how the transcript was altered, and they didn't even reference some of the things that were actually in there. we didn't get to that until later. why would they cover that up? all of these facts i think are extremely damning. >> scott, do you see these troubling facts? >> well, look, i think it's pretty clear the case they're making is probably the first time the senators are hearing it in systematic fashion. they're probably seeing clips, heard drips and drabs from their staff. >> they haven't done a deep dive. which is fascinating to me. i assumed everybody would have. >> i think that's important to know. number two, i think a lot of people are making a very compelling argument about how thorough and detailed the case, which could be undercutting the case for witnesses. because i think some senators may say you know, i heard 24 hours of arguments here. i saw a lot of information. i thought it was really well done. and some of it i agree with. some of i don't. some of it i think is overblown.

some of it troubles me, but at the end of the day, i don't really need to hear anything else because they did a good job. >> the democrats were trying to address that. i think it was adam schiff saying yesterday, look, we'd like to show you this email about this discussion, but we don't have access to it. >> look, i think the answer to that for most republican senators would be you know what? i hear you, except i just don't think this subject matter and what you've laid out, even if i have to accept everything you say rises to the level of removal. that's where the democrats have not yet argued is here is all of our facts. they have not yet argued the point of you have to take the president out for a reason. and that's where republicans just differ from democrats on the severity. >> what's the difference of -- you're saying if they just accept on the facts that the president of the united states basically shook down a foreign government to try to get them to do his political dirty work, how does does that not rise to the level of impeachment? >> they wouldn't describe it the way you just described it. that's not how they -- >> he pressured a foreign government to investigate a

political rival by withholding aid and dangling a white house meeting that they wanted. >> i know. as many times as you or adam schiff says it, that doesn't mean that the republicans would see it that way. and they would not see it in the severe way that it's being described. >> what's another way to see it? >> the same way that nixon was looked at. what watergate began with is a very similar but maybe not as grievous event is that nixon did not want to run against senator edwin musky of maine. so this big plot of undermining through political espionage mussy's campaign was hatched. it included the abuse of power. the underlying abuse of power that the senate watergate committee investigate. what sam ervin, the senator charg it said this is at bottom what watergate is all about is undermining our very electoral process. and this president has not only undermined our very electoral process, the basis of our

democracy, he has done it with the intervention of a foreign power that he solicited that is at war with a hostile enemy of the united states and people are dying. and perhaps as we saw in some of the dots that were connected today, people indeed may be dying because it was known by putin that ukraine did not have the back of the united states here. >> and yet the go-to line you're going hear repeatedly not only from republican senators, but obviously from the president's defense is that they got the money, right? obama didn't give them the aid. this president gave them the aid. and what's happening next week? i don't think that it's a quince den that secretary of state mike pompeo will be traveling to ukraine to meet with zelensky. so you're going to have the opportunity for republicans to say all's well that ends well. this is much ado about nothing. they got the aid. there is nothing to see here. that having been said, what you did hear from democrats today was a reminder of perpetrating

this theory, this myth, this debunked myth, this lie that it was ukraine that infiltrated the election and not russia. they repeated vladimir putin's words saying thank god the pressure is not on us and they're not focusing on us. they're focusing on ukraine right now. and i thought it was effective that the democrats ran video from christopher wray, from tom bossert, debunking that theory too. these were the president's own people as cabinet level member. >> also lindsey graham, which we'll play you that video talking about that it doesn't need to be a crime to be an impeachable offense, that's what he said in the clinton impeachment. obviously it's counter to what the president's attorneys are going to be arguing. i want to go to manu raju who is standing by at the capitol. m manu, you've been in the chamber recently. i'm wondering what it's like in there. what jumps out at you? >> senators are getting tired. this has been a long day, a long several day stretch. it's going to go at least until 10:30 eastern time.

senators are paying attention. there are some empty seats, but for the most part, members are there taking note, paying attention. some paying more attention than others. but it's pretty clear that senators do want this particularly on the republican side are eager for this to wrap up. there are already discussions under way with some republican senators as with the president's defense team. you mentioned lindsey graham, anderson. he just spoke to reporters as he headed in to the chamber before dinnertime, and he discussed what he wants the defense team to focus on when they begin their arguments on saturday. he said that he wants the president's legal team to talk about joe biden, to talk about hunter biden, and talk about how in his view, that the ask for the investigation into the bidens was appropriate. and of course we know lindsey graham has the ear of the president, is in communication with the people in his inner circle and with his legal team. so that could be a key line of defense that they're going to try to wage, not back away from what the president did, but say it was completely defensible,

and we'll see if they raise those allegations about joe biden as well on the floor of the senate. but lindsey graham says that's exactly what the president should do, the president's team should do when they take the case on saturday, anderson. >> we've also got some new reporting about how republicans are approaching the upcoming vote on witnesses and evidence. >> yeah. the senators, the republican senators are pointing to the president's threat to invoke executive privilege that would essentially block witnesses from coming forward, block documents to be turning over to congress. and they're saying that there is no point in subpoenaing these documents, subpoenaing these witnesses because once executive privilege is invoked, then it could lead to a drawn-out court battle. so they're saying why go through the drawn-out court battle when we may not get the documents we ultimately need, and it could take weeks and months perhaps and leave this trial in limbo. and what i am being told from senators, this is a bit of a discussion point behind the scenes for several weeks. it's been an increasing line of argument that the republican

leadership has made privately. mitch mcconnell alluded to it on the senate floor earlier this week. but there is a line that expect them to use with their members who are on the fence about whether to move forward on subpoenas. and as you know, anderson, four republican senators could break ranks, join with the 47 democrats to vote subpoena witnesses like john bolton, like mick mulvaney. but the concern is if you go that route, what will that actually lead to? will that actually lead to anything other than drawn-out court fights that is what they're saying to their members. and the key line today, lisa murkowski, one of the swing votes said -- basically criticized the house of not enforcing the subpoenas through the court and they left it for the senate to do that. but the house didn't want to do it because they didn't want to get into a drawn-out court fight. why should the senate do the same thing? she is not saying how she will vote ultimately, but that is a sign the argument is being made and one that i am told is gaining traction with the members. and that's why there is a belief on the hill right now that it's

unlikely that will be a vote to witness subpoena documents, largely because of that argument. and that vote could take place next week. if it fails, the vote to subpoena witnesses and documents, the president presumably could get acquitted by the end of next weekend. >> manu, thank you very much. appreciate it. >> can i just say the absurdity and the outrageousness of that argument about -- well, it will be a court fight. in other words, the republican position is you can investigate the president for obstruction of justice because he is still obstructing justice. the whole point of the second article of impeachment is that he is using his powers to stop an investigation. and what they are saying, well, he is still doing it so i guess we better throw in the towel. >> it's even worse. he is doing to the senate of the united states what he did to zelensky, to ukraine. he is hanging out the republican senators to dry and saying okay, you want to be there for extra time and have to work a little

harder? okay. i'm going to throw this at you. it is so cynical that those republican senators would go along with this and not uphold the dignity of the senate of the united states. >> and bolton has said that he's willing to testify. so the idea that there will be automatic court fight and automatic interruption in his testimony is not necessarily true. he says he's going to come in there. why -- delay would it take? >> i'll give you the alternate view which is there is no real way to spin this rubik's cube to turn up that we're going to throw the president out of office. i think everyone in the senate, republican conference believes that. we probably believe that here. if you're a senator and have to go home all the time and explain to your constituents what you're doing. how many weeks and months do you want the senate effectively shut down over this when you're not doing drug pricing, transportation bill, funding of the government, whatever your

priority is, jobs, economic stuff. i think that weighs on these senators that look, whether we cast the vote for acquittal next week or whether we cast it five months from now, he is still going to be acquitted, and we're still going to have an election in which the american people can make this decision because it's obviously divided the country. i think if you're a senator and you have legislative priorities, that is a competing interest. >> but shutting down the senate is one to the other? >> i think that's one of the arguments that is being made if we get into a drawn-out issue here, it's going to be hard for us to do any legislative work. >> can't do those two things at once? >> something that is necessarily true. there is no reason -- >> tender lilies. >> will continue to work. unless they're looking for an excuse. >> fighting it in court themselves. >> so it doesn't really make sense. it sounds like something mcconnell is doing pressure people into voting the way he wants. >> exactly. >> whether it's slowed down, shut down for a week or five months, the reality is the vote to acquit the president is not going to change. so if you're mitch mcconnell and you're in the majority, and you have legislative priorities you

want to accomplish, the argument they would be making is let's get back to the business -- >> but isn't that the same argument -- the same argument, frankly, the democrats wrestled with on the house side should we even missouri forward with this because it's not going the lead to impeachment, and democrats, maybe they made a political calculation that it's going to help them with the election. but they would also say that they said it's the right thing to do. >> yeah. the democrats would have essentially made the same calculation the republicans did. let's get through this as fast as we can and get this out of here, because we don't want it anymore. we want to get back to doing what we do. essentially, the majority party in both chamber would have made the same calculation which is get this off my desk as on see as possible. >> not necessarily. >> let me ask, for democrats does it help if one of the goals besides dealing with the president is affecting the outcome of the election, riling the democratic base up, the fact that republicans vote not to have witnesses, does that help democrats? >> it may. you know, i don't -- perhaps i'm not being sinnal enough, but i

think actually democrats want the evidence. democrats want this to be something like an actual trial. and, you know, i don't think anyone knows for sure what the political implications of this will be. you know, it's like the discussions going on right now about is bernie sanders electable? is joe biden electable? nobody knows for sure. and certainly nobody knows for sure what the electoral implications are of this trial. and i think the democrats' straight forward position is let's have a trial. trials have witnesses. there is relevant evidence out there. let's hear it. that's not a -- i don't know the political implications of it if that's a winning argument or a losing argument, but i think it's an argument about how you have a trial that's fair. >> it's hard to make the argument that it helps republicans when you have the president essentially taunting the public and saying i have the documents and you don't.

isn't that him coming out and advertising that he is obstructing justice and this is happening during the trial? no? >> i don't know what he meant by that. actually, when i first heard it, i thought he was say we are having a better case than they have. i thought that's what he meant. i know how people have portrayed it. i don't know what he meant by that i think at the end of the day, all this talk about everything that's happened today, i have not heard one single thing that would convince me that a republican senator is going to move from acquittal to conviction. and until that happens, just like in the house, the democrats never made a case that attracted a single republican vote, and i don't think they've done it yet here. >> question, scott, i'm sorry, kirsten, go ahead. >> attract any republican votes after republicans said we'll never, ever work with him on a single thing. so them being intransigent and locked into their position, as you were saying before, even people on this panel would agree that they're not going to vote to convict him. well, we would do that as analysts. we wouldn't do that as people -- we're looking a the situation

and saying we know that from covering politics. for the senators, that really shouldn't be their position. their position should be show me the evidence and let me draw a conclusion. not to draw a conclusion we already know that how everybody is going to vote. >> but they are drawing a conclusion. you'll have senators that aren't worried about it, that are moderately worried or really think it was terrible judgment, but it all still falls below the threshold of removal. i think you will see some trouble about it, but again, they don't believe it should be kicked out. >> i want to bring manu back in. i know you've been talking to senators. what are you hearing from them on this topic? >> yeah, a lot of the republicans that i talked to, they're clearly saying that what they are hearing is not an impeachable offense, not warrants removal from office. but a lot are not defending the president's conduct either. the question about the appropriateness of his ask in order to ask the ukrainian government to investigate a political rival, they're saying it's not a question about appropriateness. it's a question about an impeachable offense.

one senator ted cruz just earlier, he was criticizing saying that the democrats had opened the door bringing in joe biden because of their presentation, talking about the bidens. i asked cruz well what about the president's conduct in ukraine? was it a perfect phone call as he said? and he wouldn't take the question. he said i asked the question yesterday at yesterday's press conference, and he wouldn't take my question. but another reporter tried to ask the same question. he wouldn't take that question, the same question. but other senators, including john cornyn of texas has said the question is not about appropriateness. we're talking about an impeachment and a removing the president. erflier today too i talked to james lankford of oklahoma. he would only talking about the president being frustrated with the way he has been dealt at home. >> i'm sorry, let's listen in. >> at 10:30, senator alexander and senator murray are involved in that. the location will be emailed to your office.

>> chief justice roberts, senators, and council fsel for president, we have now been through the first two official acts by the president, but neither of those official acts got the president what he wanted, help in his reelection campaign. so he turned to another official act to turn up the pressure even more. withholding nearly $400 million of vital military assistance to ukraine in exchange for the investigations.ing military ukr made the original abuse of power. soliciting foreign interference in our elections that much worse. but it was also in and of itself

an abuse of power. and not only that, it violated the law. it was illegal. the government accountability office a nonpartisan independent agency concluded that president trump's hold on the security assistance clearly violated the impoundment control act, a law that congress enacted to curb president nixon's own abuse of power. now president trump may not like it, but once a law is passed, the president cannot change that law without coming back to us, the congress. and president trump did not just break the law, he jeopardized our national security. because ukraine's national security is our national security.

how? because a free and democratic ukraine is a shield against russian aggression in europe. that has been one of america's most important foreign policy and national security goals since world war ii. freedom, liberty, democracy. those values keep us safe. let us now explain how president trump's improper withholding of military assistance was clearly done to pressure ukraine to announce the two baseless investigation investigatio investigations, a gross abuse of power. first we will briefly describe how important the military aid was to ukraine's defense against russian aggression, which affects our security. second, we will explain how

president trump used the power of his office to freeze military aid to ukraine in a way meant to conceal it from congress. and third, we will present the overwhelming evidence that president trump ordered the hold for a corrupt purpose, to pressure ukraine to announce two investigations that would personally benefit his own reelection effort. let us start with the importance of the aid to our, the united states' national security. the united states has supported ukraine since it secured independence from the soviet union in 1991. our support was critical to convince ukraine to forgo its pursuit of a nuclear arsenal in

1994. we promised them that we would defend them if necessary. but our support became truly vital in 2014 when ukraine revolted against its russian friendly president, viktor yanukovych. ukrainians rolled up in protest, demanding democratic reforms and an end to corruption. the protests, rightly known as the revolution of dignity, removed the pro-kremlin president. russia responded by using its own military forces and proxies in ukraine to invade ukraine. this was the first effort to redraw european boundaries by military force since world war ii. the war was devastating to

ukraine and remains so today. approximately 7% of ukraine's territory is now occupied by russia. approximately 15,000 people have been killed as a result of the conflict, and over 1.4 million people have been displaced. in response to russia's invasion of ukraine, the united states and our allies imposed sanctions on russian individuals and entities and agreed to provide billions of dollars in assistance to support ukrainian sovereignty and democratic development. we understood immediately democrats and republicans alike that ukraine's safety and security was directly tied to our safety and security.

with this goal in mind, since 2014, the united states has delivered roughly $11.5 billionn security assistance, and another 1.5 billion in other assistance to our ally ukraine. our allies in europe have provided approximately $18 billion in loans and grants since 2014. as we have explained, the u.s. assistant comes partly from the department of defense which provides important military support. it comes partially from the state department, which helps ukraine purchase military services or equipment manufactured by american companies in the united states. ambassador taylor explained how

security assistance counters russian aggression and can help shorten the war in the east. here is his testimony. >> mr. chairman, the security assistance that we provide takes many forms. one of the components of that -- that the security assistance that we provide takes many forms. one of the components of that assistance is counter battery radar. another component are sniper weapons. these weapons and this assistance allows the ukrainian military to deter further incursions by the russians against their own -- against ukrainian territory.

if that further incursion, further aggression were to take place, more ukrainians would die. so it is a deterrent effect that these weapons provide. it's also the ability -- it gives the ukrainians the ability to negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate an end to the war in dombos in negotiating with the russians. this also is a way that would reduce the number of ukrainians that would die. >> congress imposed certain conditions on the dod assistance. those conditions require a dod -- require dod to hold half of the money in reserve, to release all of the funds, dod in coordination with the state department must conduct a review and certify to congress that ukraine has done enough to fight

corruption. now president trump may argue that the conditions imposed by congress are similar to the hold he placed on aid to ukraine. as mick mulvaney said, and i quote, we do this all the time. but let us be very clear. these types of conditions which are often included in appropriation bills are designed to promote official u.s. policy, not the policy of one individual or one president. this is exactly the type of permissible condition on aid that vice president biden was implementing when he required that ukraine fire its corrupt prosecutor general before getting a loan guarantee. prior to 2019, the trump

administration provided security assistance to ukraine without incident, even under the previous ukrainian administration of president petro poroshenko which suffered from serious corruption, president trump allowed $510 million in 2017 and $559 million in 2018 to flow unimpeded to ukraine. but in the summer of 2019, without any explanation, president trump abruptly withheld >> so what had changed by july of 2019? congress had appropriated the funds. president trump had signed this into law. the department of defense had

certified that ukraine was meeting the required anticorruption reforms. in fact, dod had begun to spend the funds. so what happened? well, in april, two critical things happened. first joe biden publically announced his campaign for president. second, the muller investigation confirmed that russia interfered in the 2016 u.s. elections to assist the trump campaign and that the trump campaign had expensive contact with russians and even to the advantage of some of the russian efforts. the evidence shows that the only reason, the only logical reason, and we deal in what's reasonable, president trump

withheld the aid. it was to undermine these threats to its political future. as we have discussed, security assistance to ukraine has broad, bipartisan support from congress, as well as every agency within the president's own administration. and let us be clear about something. the money mattered to ukraine. it mattered to ukraine. witness testimony revealed that this money was 10% of ukraine's defense budget. 10%. now, imagine if president trump just decided without cause or explanation to hold 10% of our own defense budget. that would have a dramatic impact on our military, and it

certainly did to ukraine, our ally. keep in mind, too, that president trump had to sign the law -- the bill into law, which he did in september of 2018. at no time, at no time during the congressional debate or passage of the bill did the white house express any concerns about the funding or the program itself. i want you to see the slide before us. president trump signed bill authorizing aid to ukraine for fiscal year 2019. on june 18, president trump's own department of defense certified that ukraine had met

all of the anticorruption requirements necessary to receive aid. and you know what? the department of defense announced that the money was on its way. just as we, the united states of america, had promised. senators, our word must continue to mean something. our word must continue to mean something powerful in the world. so let us make certain that america continues to live up to its promise. mr. chief justice and senators, thank you so much for

the attention that you have given to our presentation throughout this day. it's a long day. you are here without your cell phones or any access to other information. it's not easy, but you're paying attention, and the country and the managers thank you for that. now, we have just through the importance of the security assistance to ukraine to our national security, and the clear consensus among congress, the executive and the president's agencies and advisers that the aid should be released to ukraine. in fact, by june 18th, after having certified that ukraine had met all the anti-corruption reform requirements to receive the aid, dod announced its intention to provide the $250 million in security assistance to ukraine. this brings us to the second

part of this section of our argument. soon after that june 18th press release, president trump quickly moved to stop the aid from flowing. he did this with no explanation against the clear consensus of his advisers and his agencies and against his nation's security interest. and he was so determined to do it in order to pressure ukraine to do his political dirty work that he was willing to violate the law, something his own officials were well aware of and worried about. how do we know the president ordered the hold? first, there is no real dispute that the president ordered the hold. the hold on security assistance to ukraine was a unilateral official act by the president. immediately after the dod's june 18th press release announcing

the $250 million in security assistance funds for ukraine, president trump started asking questions about the funding programs. cooper from dod and mark sandy from omb testified about this sudden interest in ukraine security assistance, something that cooper called unusual. we, of course, have received no documents from omb and dod because of the present obstruction. why did the president want to hide these documents? we don't know. but thanks to freedom of information lawsuits and hard working reporters, we know a little from the documents that we do have. for instance, we know the day after the dod press release, the president asked for information about the ukraine aid. on june 19th, michael duffy, the associate director for national security programs at omb sent an

e-mail to the dod controller with an article by the washington examiner reporting that, quote, pentagon to send $250 million in weapons to ukraine. at this e-mail he asked her the following general question. the question has asked about this funding release, and i have been tasked to follow-up with someone over there to get more detail. do you have any insight on this funding? it seems that on june 19 robert blare, mick mulvaney's deputy called acting omb director russell vogt to discuss the ukraine security assistance. he told him, we need to hold it up. that's right. the hold was actually directed impru impulsively as soon as president trump apparently learned about

it from press reports. and we know what was on the president's mind about ukraine that day because president trump gave a phone interview with shawn hannity on fox news. during the interview, he mentioned the so-called crowd strike conspiracy theory that blames ukraine rather than russia for interfering in the 2016 election. remember that president trump raised that theory a month later during his july 25th call with president zelensky and of course it had been said many times that theory has been completely refuted by u.s. intelligence agencies as well as the president's own hand picked senior advisers. "the new york times" also reported that on june 27th, mick mulvaney sent blare an e-mail saying, i'm just trying to tie up loose ends.

did we find out about the money for ukraine and whether we can hold it back? what was blare's response to mulvaney? that it was possible to hold the security systems, but blaire warned, expect congress to become unhinged. blaire, who previously worked for congress knew that congress one unhinged because overwhelming bipartisan support for ukraine. congress had already authorized the release of the funds. dod had already told congress and the world that it was going to spend the $250 million on ukraine security assistance and it already started to do so. mark sandy, the senior career official at omb responsible for this type of aid couldn't recall any other time in his 12-year career at omb when a hold had been placed on security assistance after a congressional

notification was named. later, if the president's counsel starts listing other times that aid has been held, ask yourself three questions: one, had congress already cleared the money to be released? two, was there a significant geopolitical development in that country? and, three, did the gao determine that the hold was illegal in part because congress was not notified. here the money had been cleared. there was nothing new or important in ukraine to disrupt the aid, just that a true anticorruption reformer was elected. the hold was illegal. from freedom of information releases and press reports, we know about just a few of the many documents being hidden from you about how the hold began. given president trump's obstruction with the facts that have come toht