the president of the united states repeating russian propaganda and the white house is trying to say no, no, look at this, not that. >> erase history. >> a lot happening so far. good working with you. other we've got a lot going on over the weekend. in the meantime, erin burnett picks up our special coverage. ♪ good evening. i'm erin burnett, welcome to our special coverage of president trump's impeachment trial. you've been watching house democrats. they have been using the final hours of their opening statement to make the case that president trump obstructed congress. they're putting a moral compass on all of this. it is their last chance to make their case before trump's team steps on to the floor of the senate and takes center stage tomorrow morning. we are in a brief dinner break, that trial set to resume any minute as it has every night this week during this hour. we're going to bring that to you as soon as it resumes. i want to go to phil mattingly

on capitol hill. phil, you were there in the chamber today in the time where reporters are able to watch and observe. you've been talking to senators throughout the day during the breaks. what are you seeing and hearing? >> i think one of the interesting elements now is people are looking forward, not that they're looking past the presentations. but there's an understanding there's a big vote coming up. that will be the vote after the presentations as to whether or not the senate will proceed to consider subpoenas for witnesses and documents. what you've seen over the course of the last four or five days is republicans led by senate majority leader really kind of get behind the idea that any subpoenas would be problematic on executive privilege grounds, if you're going after the president's top advisers, former top advisers, it would not only elongate the trial but raise precedent issues. i think what's interesting is you have seen democrats recognize a reality that this idea that republicans have been talking about has taken hold inside the conference and could

endanger democrats possibility of getting the votes for witnesses later. you have seen strong push back, a concerted effort in press conferences by chuck schumer, adam schiff, and you've also seen it dove tail on the floor. remember, today's discussion, presentation, was largely in part about article two, the obstruction of congress piece. and you've heard democratic managers repeatedly make the case on the need for subpoenas on the opposite side of the precedent spectrum saying if you don't do this, think about what what it would mean in the future if a president can say at will i'm not going to comply with anything. i spoke to chuck schumer a while ago. he said he believed what the democratic managers did on the floor decimated the argument that has taken hold. we'll see if that's the case but it's a concerted effort by democrats to push back, erin. >> and also we're going to go to senator brown. but you have breaking news on new evidence that i understand the house now has. >> that's exactly right.

joseph bondi, the lawyer for lev parnas, the rudy giuliani associate who has turned over a bunch of information to the house intelligence committy has turned over a reporting, recording that purports to show president trump saying explicitly get rid of her directly talking about mari yovanovitch, the former ambassador to ukraine. she's played a major role throughout this. the lawyer has that recording. democrats have been talking about it throughout the day. it shows if nothing else the president is vicious in how he treats people. people are going to be talking about this and hearing about this. the house intelligence committee run by adam schiff has the tape according to parnas' lawyer. >> thank you very much. phil will rejoin us as he learns more. i want to go democratic senator brown. let me give you a chance to react first to what phil was just talking about here, this new information of the president

at a small dinner talking about marie yovanovitch and what senator schumer describes as vicious way of trying to get rid of her. it would not go to the senate. is it necessary that the senate get it? >> it's necessary the senate get witnesses and get documents and information. i'm not a lawyer, but i know enough about trials, the american public does. you have the house managers, prosecution, defense, president's lawyers and witnesses and information and documents. that's what the president says this is all hearsay but he won't let us talk to people who were in the room when he talked about the honorable ambassador to ukraine. all of this stuff comes out in the -- mitch mcconnell, he wants to get this trial over with. he doesn't want the truth to come out. fundamentally the president

cheated. he got caught. he tried to cover it up. that's the story of what happened. >> so, you heard phil talking about senator mcconnell making progress, convincing republicans not to vote for witnesses, in part they're going to plea executive privilege. guys, you've got a lot of information, so forget the witnesses and that that's been effective. are you concerned about getting enough votes from republicans to move forward with witnesses now? >> of course, erin. you know that's just the newest excuse they've now filed to say no. i mean, donald trump doesn't want witnesses. therefore -- and new information and documentation. therefore, mitch mcconnell who is donald trump's lap dog doesn't want information and witnesses. therefore 52 other relatively spineless republicans don't want witnesses, don't want information. they're scared. i talk to republicans all the time quietly, kwijly. many of them tell me that trump's a lawyer. a few said trump's a racist.

they're all afraid of him. they're afraid he'll campaign against them in their state. they're afraid he'll attach a nasty nickname to them. it's like the iraq war. fear does the business. republicans are afraid of what donald trump will do. the fundamental question is -- >> so, you're saying republicans you know that believe directly that the president of the united states is a liar and racist are going to vote for his acquittal and not for witnesses? >> i don't know. i hope not. i hear them say things like that. but the fundamental question really ultimately, erin, is that if we vote not guilty, if the senate doesn't convict and remove from office, what are republicans going to do, those that voted for acquittal, what are they going to do to stop the president from doing even more of this lawlessness. they know in their hearts he broke the law. he'll be unleashed. he'll be vengeful. he will have gotten away with

it. what are they going to do -- what are we going to do -- i know what the media will do. you'll continue to try to expose wrong doing. what are they going to do reign in the president the next eight months, this kind of lawlessness that clearly will have been rewarded because he, quote, got away with it. >> thank you very much senator brown. i appreciate your time. >> thanks erin. >> my panel is here with me. i've got a group in new york. david axelrod joins us from ig which ch chicago tonight. he says the president of the united states is a liar and i aracist and he still believes those people will vote to acquit, may not vote for witnesses. >> do you know what i find amazing about democrats in the trump era? they complain all the time about things trump does including things like saying many people tell me dot dot dot and here's brown on tv saying many senators tell me.

it's funny they never name names. they're never able to produce evidence. i think he has gone -- frankly, when his colleagues hear that, my suspicion is they're going to be wrangalled that he called mitch mcconnell a lap dog. he said things about what republicans -- >> he did call mitch mcconnell a lap dog. >> if you try to convince republicans to vote for witnesses, is that the right answer? >> joe, what do you make of that? i also add to that dick durbin, his comments were mr. schiff was phenomenal, he told "the new york times" referring to witnesses but i'm skeptical he moved any votes. >> yeah, and i think it goes to what senator brown was talking about which is, you know, the fix may have been in from the beginning. it didn't matter what democrats said. it didn't matter how compelling their arguments were. but you're not going to move them because this is all about politics. i think adam schiff made the point brilliantly last night when he talked about the president puts his personal interests in front of the

country's and by the subtext of that was senators, i plead with you not to do the same thing. i plead with you not to put your personal party interests in front of the country's. and, you know, if it turns out that the fix was in and that they weren't listening and that nothing could change their mind, then schiff is right about not only the president but about the senate. >> so, ryan, this also comes down to this crucial question because there's a big vote. when senator brown saying they realize there's a big vote. they're not talking about to acquit or not to acquit. they're talking about witness which has become a proxy of will you take a stand at all as a republican senator. mitch mcconnell has made a lot of enroads on vulnerable votes. cory gardner, susan collins, mitt romney in saying they're going to take executive privilege and this is going to be wrapped up for months. guys, don't do it. it's not worth it. is there any legal basis for executive privilege? >> so, there's not a very strong

legal basis for it. in fact, the senate can decide the matter and it wouldn't be litigate. if the senate decided to issue the subpoenas and the chief justice in fact sent those subpoenas, it would be the final word. there's a supreme court case about this, nixon v united states, judge nixon which said the courts review it. it's not like it will be litigated in a way. they are the final word. politically speaking, you are imagining a scenario in which the majority of the senate vote for subpoenas, the chief justice assigns the subpoenas and end ises to john bolton, that's an enormous amount of pressure on john bolton to comply. there are multiple ways in which it doesn't even get to the situation of executive privilege being invoked because the senate is so powerful in that moment. and then if he comes, then it's just invoked particular questions he might be asked. >> which let's be clear doesn't include talking about a drug deal because that wasn't a conversation with the president of the united states. we can go through many of the

things he would be asked about in the case of john bolton that would not involve the president directly. the question is are republican senators going to hear and understand this? these are the facts. this is how it would be. it wouldn't fly. but yet they're being told by mitch mcconnell, oh, my gosh, it's going to get stuck here in the gears and we're not going to get anywhere. >> yeah, i agree with ryan's analysis completely, and i think that executive privilege is not a bar for these witnesses coming forward. and i would even argue once they come forward, i would argue there's a pretty strong basis to say they need to talk because this is an impeachment, congress is at the height of its power in an impeachment. it is almost in some ways a spoke screen to get people to temperatu step back to say this will take two years when nothing could be further from the truth. the question you're asking is can that penetrate and get through to the four senators and other senators. and in part it's complicated because it's not a normal trial. the rules are up in the air. the rules are what they say it

is. so, i do really ask this question of nothing about what they're saying is true but does that matter? and i think -- >> well, people also hear what they want to hear and they hear what gives them license to do what they want to do. please stay with me. i want to bring in democratic senator, 2020 candidate also amy klobuchar who has been in that room. senator, great to speak with you. we're having a conversation right now about executive privilege. and the reporting of course is that senator mcconnell's been very effective at getting vulnerable republicans to be afraid of it and think that it could lock this up for a long time. and therefore they shouldn't bother voting for witnesses. what is your feel of where your republican colleagues are on this issue? >> i think that adam schiff and the other house managers have been incredibly effective in terms of saying to them one, you know he did this. you know what he does. many of you have said it before yourselves. secondly, why are you here? and i always think to myself are they just here to buy the chair

at the end of their time as senators and have it in their offices and have a trophy on the wall? i don't think so. i think they're here to do the work of the people and the work of the constitution. some of the most effective arguments -- i was thinking of the senators. i was thinking of senator romney who was republican nominee for president who has a sense of patriotism as he listens to what this president did to hold up aid to a fledgling democracy and embolden russia. i was thinking of senator grassley when representative demings, former police chief, made the case for whistleblowers and how this president attacked the whistleblower 100 times, something senator grassley has devoted his career to. and i was thinking of the other senator who is have really focused on transparency. and you look at the whole cover up that was involved here that was focused on today. there is just overwhelming

evidence here that would lead any sane person to say i want to know what happened in the room where it happened. you know, that is the hamilton musical, and we know there are people with bolton and mulvaney that know a bunch of stuff that were sitting in the rooms and we should have them testify. >> i want to ask you -- i'm not sure if you're aware, senator. we're now aware that the attorney for indicted rudy giuliani associate lev parnas has now said he's turned over a tape -- it's an audio tape from 2018 -- to the house intelligence committee. abc news first reported this. this is a dinner, trump is at the dinner, parnas is at the dinner, another indicted giuliani associate is at the dinner. trump reportedly says i don't care, get her out tomorrow, take her out. he's talking about ambassador yovanovitch. >> to me that is the most chilling. i know her personally. i went with senator graham to ukraine and spent four days with

her. she is the most dignified esteemed public servant. and to think of those word that is we know that he said on the phone call when he said things are going to happen to her to a leader of another country and now having this come out just bolsters the case. this was a threat against an american citizen, a threat against esteemed ambassador, career diplomat. and as adam schiff said at the end, you think he wouldn't do it to you because he did it to her. >> senator, i want to ask you one more question. a source close to your colleague and your former 2020 rival, senator kamala harris, who has been in the room every day this week as well, tells cnn she's actively considering the possibility of endorsing former vice president joe biden ahead of the california primary which is of course on supertuesday. what's your reaction? >> you know, i will deal with it when it happens. she and i got to be close friends during the campaign.

i was with her family the day before thanksgiving. and we'll see what she does. i will remain her friend no matter what, but i will tell you this, i have more endorsements of legislatures and former legislatures in the state of iowa than anyone else in the race. i was just endorsed by "the new york times" along with one of my colleagues as well as the quad city times which is an important newspaper in eastern iowa. and we are building support and going up in the polls with each and every week. so, i feel very good about our efforts. my daughter and husband are there right now along with the olympic gold medal curling coach who came down to campaign for me. i mean, you can't have a bigger celebrity than that, erin. >> all right. senator klobuchar, thank you very much. i've seen your daughter in charge of your twitter. >> yes. >> thank you for your time. i want to get back to my panel. they'll be heading back into the room at the end of this break.

david axelrod is here from chicago. david i want to give you the chance to respond to what i thought were two very different presentations from democratic senators. amy klobuchar trying to appeal to perhaps somebody watching like chuck grassley or mitt romney. sharon brown showing his frustration he feels with the republicans he feels are going to let him down. both of them genuine. which do you think is more effective? >> well, i'm not sure either is effective because i think there are other pressures at play here. i think, you know, obviously you heard scott say they're not going to respond well to what brown said. i don't know if that's true or not. i suspect they're thought processes are being effected by what they see on tv. i think the democrats managers

have made quite an effective presentation on all aspects of this case. i think the obstruction presentation today was devastating. but it also may be that they have made their own situation harder in terms of getting these witnesses because first of all, mcconnell's strategy is clearly to kind of wear out his people and say do you really want to hang around here for a few more weeks dealing with this and hear the same case over and over and again? and the second thing is the case is so effective they don't want any witnesses to make the vote to acquit the president even more difficult. >> all right. stay with me. we are going to take a brief break. as i said, we're waiting for the senate to return at any moment. they're in the midst of a very brief dinner break, about 30 minutes. so we're going to squeeze in a couple more moments if we can before they head back in. this is the democrat's last chance to make their case before trump's team takes to the floor. we are learning more details about the white house strategy. we'll be back in a moment.

teeth for so long ng tod was extremely depressing. now, i know how happy i am. there was all the feeling good about myself that i missed and all of the feeling bad about myself that was unnecessary. at aspen dental, we're all about yes. like yes to free exams and x-rays for new patients without insurance. yes to flexible hours and payment options. and yes, whenever you're ready to get started, we are too. don't wait, book at aspendental.com or call today. a general dentistry office. before we talk about tax-s-audrey's expecting... new? -twins! ♪ we'd be closer to the twins. change in plans. at fidelity, a change in plans is always part of the plan. (mom) [thunder] were you planning on mowing the lawn today? (son) no. (burke) saved by the bolt. seen it. covered it. at farmers insurance, we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ (vo) get a quote today.

♪ walk through this storm i would i'd do it all ♪ ♪ because i love you, ♪ i love you unconditional, ♪ unconditionally i will love you unconditionally ♪ there's a booking for every resolution. book yours, and cancel if you need to. at booking.com the ups and downs of frequent mood swings can plunge you into deep, depressive lows. (crying) take you to uncontrollable highs. (muffled arguing) or, make you feel both at once. overwhelmed by bipolar i symptoms? ask about vraylar. some medications only treat the lows or the highs. vraylar effectively treats depression, acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar i. full-spectrum relief of all symptoms. with just one pill, once a day. elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis

have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements, may be permanent. side effects may not appear for several weeks. metabolic changes may occur. movement dysfunction, restlessness, sleepiness, stomach issues are common side effects. when bipolar i overwhelms, vraylar helps smooth the ups and downs. when you look at the world, ♪ what do you see? ♪ where others see chaos, we see patterns. ♪ connections. relationships. ♪

when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen. ♪ with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪ breaking news, we are standing by for president trump's impeachment trial to resume at any moment. they are scheduled literally any second to end this dinner break and begin once again. democrats are in their final minutes here to make the case that president trump obstructed congress. they're using more understandable words to describe that, cover up, being what they're calling it.

this is the third and final day of opening arguments. tomorrow is trump's team's turn. i want to go to kaitlan collins at the white house. a few crucial hours left for adam schiff and his team, and then there will be other voices. they will not have the stage to themselves. team trump will take over. day one, what are you hearing about what we'll see? >> it's going to look a lot different from the democrats where you've seen them go for stretches of long periods of time where they have to take things like dinner breaks. we're not going to see that tomorrow. they're going to start earlier in the morning. they're only going to go two to three hours where pat cipollone and jay sekulow are going to just provide the overarching arguments of the president's defense. then they'll take a break. the senators will be able to leave washington. they'll come back on monday and that's when they're going to provide the bulk of their argument. it's curious they're not going to do a long stretch of it on saturday since the president wants his argument out there,

but the president made clear this morning he thought that saturday is the death valley of television ratings and essentially he wants his story to be heard and he doesn't think that's going to happen if they present most of it on saturday. that's why they're going to wait until monday to get to the argument. two things we should note when we had a briefing with the president's legal team earlier, they did not say if they will file a motion to outright dismiss the case once the arguments are done. they would not rule that out. they are going to bring up the bidens which they say is because the democrats brought up the biden family but it was never in question if they were going to. the big question now is how this new evidence that's emerging about lev parnas and this tape that he says has this recording of the president is going to affect all of this, whether or not it will. they have not been answering questions here at the white house about whether or not they're concerned about it. but we should note the president is doing an interview and they just released a clip of it from

fox news tonight where he's being asked were you relying on lev parnas to get rid of your ambassador? of course, that's referring to marie yovanovitch. he says, no, no, but i have a lot of people, and he's somebody that i guess based on picture that is he goes to fund-raisers, but i am not a fan of that ambassador. of course her removal in central to all this impeachment. the question going forward is going to be whether or not this plays a big factor in all this. >> we are learning more about this tape. he says get rid of her, get rid of her tomorrow. take her out. okay. do it. bri ryan, what do you make of this? it's apparently a phone video recording. >> we haven't heard it. it's what abc printed. it's pretty damaging since the president said on tv live that he didn't know lev parnas. here's the situation which if this is accurate, they have parnas telling him the ambassador is bad news, she

doesn't like you. and on that basis, he says let's fire her. so, either one of two things. he has a relationship with lev parnas who can say that to the president and the president would actually on that basis respond. >> and listen. >> or it's the opposite which is not very favorable to him either that somebody that is a nobody that is a hang arounder that goes to these parties or whatnot has said something that poisoned his mind and he still responds that way. either way it doesn't look good. there's evidence that suggests that parnas was implicated in this, was working as giuliani as the right hand person in ukraine. so, it's more the former that's going on here. >> right. because to your point, anne, let's just remind people what trump has said. his defense against parnas' allegations, and parnas produced a letter from rudy giuliani and the president of ukraine saying i want this meeting right away, something specific to talk about, full knowledge and consent of the president. the president's response is who is that parnas guy? here he is.

>> i don't know parnas other than i guess i had pictures taken which i do with thousands of people including people today that i didn't meet but just met them. i don't know him at all. don't know what he's about. don't know where he comes from. know nothing about him. he's trying to probably make a deal for himself. >> i mean, at the very least, right, this tape with parnas at a table would expose that to be -- just letting everyone know mitch mcconnell is walking back in so we'll be going back in in just a moment. it shows what the president said here to be false. >> that's true. it shows what the president said is false. it also corroborates what lev parnas said recently which is i was at this dinner, i told the president ambassador yovanovitch was bad mouthing him and he said get rid of him. i think you're right. the bigger point is the president has disavowed. knowing him i don't think it's going to play a huge role in the impeachment trial for a number of reasons. we already know about it.

it's corroborating what lev parnas has said. but right now there's so much focus on ukraine and these other pieces. parnas is not on the witness list. so, i think at this point it's relevant and the democrats may talk about it. but i don't think it's going to be big. >> there's this one point about it just that goes to what is not new information but yet it is yet again stuck in peoples' faces which is if parnas is at this table and this is all on tape, it would show what the president said is a blatant lie. >> i'm not going to defend getting rudy, lev, and igor, the goon squad involved here. it's the worse thing he's got going for him. the president does get to pick his ambassadors. he can fire and pick somebody else. that doesn't mean he went about it the right way in this case. she seemed like a good public servant to me. i have no doubt she loves her country and served her country well. still doesn't change the fact the president gets to pick their ambassadors. doesn't change the fact that having people like this involved is a terrible idea.

if you want to change your ambassador, use those channels. i'm not going to defend these guys. >> joe. >> listen, i think this story stretches credibility beyond its limits. scott, you worked in the white house. i worked in the white house. and you don't get to sit down with eight or nine people with the president and talk about foreign policy and talk about it in a way where the president's making a decision in the room and telling senior government officials who were at that dinner with him -- he wasn't in there by himself -- i want to fire that ambassador. it -- again, it is possible the president's telling the truth. it is not likely. and if he's not telling the truth, it gives so much more weight to this conspiracy to what was going on. remember, the ambassador was being surveilled by people involved in this. these are two indicted people. >> yeah. >> and i think it does. i'll take one exception is something anne said. this is politics. and something on a printed page

is important. something on an audio recording in the president's voice as a persuasive power to change the dynamic. i'm not saying it's going to. >> there's a difference between the printed word -- >> i'm not willing to dismiss it at this point as not being something that catches a little bit of fire and starts, you know, changes the narrative a little bit. >> the bigger piece here is that i think this is going to continue to happen. this is one example of a piece of evidence that is going to leak out or come out in some way and there's going to be other evidence similar to this. and it may come out within the next week or next year. >> or it may come out in the next year which is a big issue with republicans which is when they take the vote not to do witnesses, they then own that. and every piece of evidence is going to be an ad in their campaign saying you decided to silence this. >> this comes david as we are moments away from really the last uncontested commentary. this is a very big moment for the house managers, particularly adam schiff who has been the leader and clearly perceived as such. so, what does he need to do

tonight? and again, thinking that he's got an audience in that room and he's also got an audience tonight watching on national television, that he's not going to have again in the same way? >> yeah, i think he's going to have to make the same case he made last night which is -- and especially after the obstruction case is are you as a legislative body, as a coequal branch of government going to slit your own throat here and surrender your pow toer to a president an give him unlimited reach even when it jeopardizes the country? i think you're going to hear more of that. he's effective in that way. let me say one thing, erin. >> yeah. >> i was in a focus group this morning for the institute of politics at the university of chicago with chicago democratic voters and it was chilling to hear them talk about this because impeachment didn't even come up. no one volunteered it for 80 minutes into the focus group. and you know, we're right in the middle of the trial. when it came up, they said, you

know, it's terrible what he did. the case has been proven. but we know how it's going to turn out so, we're not really that interested. we're ready to move on. and i think that's what mitch mcconnell and the president and the white house are banking on, that they can take the hit here, buffalo their way through this, and that the public will move on. and it's a cynical calculation, but it might not be the wrong calculation. >> it doesn't seem that it's the wrong one, not from any democratic senators are saying, it's the calculation they're making, scott. but does it move people like mitt romney. i understand that doesn't get you to removal. we're not even talking about that. are there going to be some votes of people who say, you know what? i'm not okay with it? >> i don't know if there will be votes that say what you just said. i think there will be statements. i think there will be many senators -- i think rob portman this morning say i'm not in favor of a lot of what the president did here but i'm not going to throw him out of office

over it. i think you're going to hear that from a lot of people. it goes back to the idea the only choices you gave us were acquit the president or throw him out of office. we may have varying degrees of discomfort with what happened but we're not going to throw out a president for the first time in u.s. history over this thing. we don't think it rises to the level. >> there's one other option here which is -- and i think it goes to david's point about people not being interested. i'm not sure they're not interested. they're just not expecting anything. the other option is voting him out -- >> all right. mcconnell is gaveling them back in for this crucial evening session. >> i've spoken with congressman schiff and his team. it looks like we've got a couple more hours. >> okay.

>> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, counsel for the president, impeachment exists not to inflict personal punishment for past wrong doing, but rather to protect against future presidential misconduct that would endanger democracy and the rule of law. president trump remains a threat in at least three fundamental ways. first, he continues to assert in court and elsewhere that nobody in the u.s. government can investigate him for wrong doing, making him unaccountable. second, his conduct here is not a one off. it's a pattern of soliciting foreign interference in our elections to his own advantage

and then using the powers of his office to stop anyone who dares inve ininvestigate. finally, the president's obstruction is very much a constitutional crime in progress. harming congress as it deliberates these very proceedings and the american people who deserve to know the facts. a president who believes he can get away with anything and can use his office to conceal evidence of abuse threatens us all. president trump is the first president in u.s. history to say he is immune from any effort to examine his conduct or check his power. he claims he is completely immune from criminal indictment and prosecution while serving as president. he claims he can commit any crime, even shoot someone on

fifth avenue as he has joked about with impunity. and the president's own lawyers have argued in court that he cannot even be investigated for violating the law under any circumstance. now, no president of either party has ever made claims like this. and if in an investigation somehow does uncover misconduct by the president as this investigation has done, the president believes that he can simply quash it. he claims the right to end federal law enforcement investigations for any reason or none at all even when there is credible evidence of his own wrong doing. added together, the president's positions amount to a license to do anything he wants. no court has ever accepted this view and for good reason. our founders created a system in which all people, even presidents, are bound by the law and accountable for their

actions. in addition to claiming that he is immune from criminal process, president trump contends that he is not accountable to either congress or the judiciary. he has invoked bizarre legal theories to justify defying congressional investigations. he has argued that congress is forbidden from having courts intervene with executive branch officials disregarding its subpoenas. he has sued to block third parties from complying with congressional subpoenas. and perhaps most remarkably, president trump has claimed that congress cannot investigate his misconduct outside of an impeachment inquiry while simultaneously claiming that congress cannot investigate his misconduct in an impeachment inquiry. of course president trump considers any inquiry to be illegitimate if he thinks he did nothing wrong, doubts the motives of congress or decides that he would prefer a different set of rules.

let's review the president's position. he can't be investigated for crimes. he can end any federal law enforcement investigation into him. he is immune from any state law enforcement investigation. underneath he nor his aides can be subpoenaed. he can reject subpoenas based on broad, novel, and even rejected theories. and when he does reject subpoenas, congress is not allowed to sue him. but he is allowed to sue to block others from complying with congressional subpoenas. congress definitely can't investigate him outside of an impeachment inquiry. and again, it can't investigate him as part of one. the bottom line is that the president truly believes that he is above the law. this is not our system, and it never has been. the president is a constitutional officer.

unlike a king, he is accountable to the constitution. but this president doesn't believe that. and that's why we are here. remember the precedent that you set in this trial will shape american democracy for the future. it will govern this president and it will govern those who follow. if you let the president get away with his obstruction, you risk grave and irrepairable harm to the separation of powers itself. representative lawrence hogan, a republican from maryland made this point during the nixon impeachment hearings. >> the historical precedent we're setting here is so great because in every future impeachment of a president it is inconceivable that the evidence relating to that impeachment will not be in the hands of the executive branch which is under his controls. so, i agree with the gentleman from ohio.

if we do not pass this article today, the whole impeachment power becomes meaningless. >> this leads us to a second consideration. the president's pattern of obstructing. article two describes president trump's impeachable conduct in obstructing congress. on its own, that warrants removal from office. yet it must be noted that the president's obstruction fits a disturbing pattern. as stated in article two, president trump's obstruction is, quote, consistent with his previous efforts to undermine united states government investigations into foreign interference in united states elections. another example is president trump's attempts to impede the special counsel's investigation into russian interference with the 2016 election as well as the president's sustained evidence to obstruct the special counsel

after learning that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice. the special counsel's investigation addressed an issue of extraordinary importance to our national security and democracy. the integrity of our elections themselves. rather than aid the special counsel's investigation, however, president trump sought to thwart it and use the power of his office to do it. after learning he himself is under investigation, president trump ordered the firing of the special counsel, sought to curtail the special counsel's investigation, instructed false statements, and tampered with at least two key witnesses in the investigation. the pattern is as unmistakable as it is unnerving. in one moment, president trump welcomed and invited a foreign

nation to interfere in an election to his advantage. in the next, he solicited and pressured a foreign nation to do so. in one moment president trump used the powers of his office to obstruct the special counsel. in the next he used the powers of his office to obstruct the inquiry. in one moment he stated he remained free to invite foreign interference in our elections. in the next he in fact invited foreign interference in our elections. >> and by the way, likewise, china should start an investigation into the bidens. >> indeed, president trump placed his faithful july 25th call to president zelensky just one day after the special counsel testified in congress about his findings. as professor gerhardt testified,

goat the power to investigation is the power to impeach. he can eliminate the impeachment powers and means for holding him and future presidents accountable for serious misconduct. if left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on his behalf in the next election. now, i must emphasize that president trump's obstruction persists to this day. the second article of impeachment charges a high crime in progress. as a result, the president's wrong doing did not just harm the house as we have performed our own constitutional duty. it is also harming the senate which is being deprived of information you need before the votes you will soon take. and of course the true victim is the american people who deserve the full truth.

as we've discussed, the president's claims that all the evidence he is hiding and cover up would prove his innocence. to borrow a phrase from the late justice scalia, that claim, quote, taxes the credulous. president trump has used the authority of his office to block the full truth from coming to light. he has defied subpoenas and ordered others to do so. he has publicly intimidated and threatened witnesses. he has attacked the house for daring to investigate him. and hi has lobbed an endless volley of attacks on witnesses to sow confusion and distract the american people. the president's abuses are unfolding before our eyes, and they must be stopped. now, before i conclude, i think

you all deserve an explanation from me as to why i am standing here. there's been a lot of conversation the last few years about what makes america great. and i have some ideas about that. i happen to think that what makes america great is that generation after generation there have been americans that have been willing to stand up and put aside their self-interests to make great sacrifices for the public good for our country. i know because i have seen people do that. like some of the people in this chamber, i have seen people give

everything for this country. so, we can sit here today. now, this isn't politically expedient. it certainly isn't for me. it's hard. it requires sacrifice. it's uncomfortable. but that is the very definition of public service, that we are here to give of ourselves for the country, for others at sacrifice to ourselves. those who have given so much for this country deserve nothing less from us now than to try to honor those sacrifices.

i have tried to do that the last few days. my time is done, and it is now your turn. >> chief justice, senators, counsel for the president, you'll be pleased to know this is the last presentation of the evening. and as i started last night, i made reference to some good advice i got from an encouraging voice that said keep it up, but not too long. tonight i got equally good advice, to be immortal, you

don't need to be eternal. and i will do my best not to be eternally eternal. first point i'd like to make is i'm tired. i don't know about you, but i'm exhausted. i can only imagine how you feel. but i'm also very deeply grateful for just how you have attended to these presentations and discussions over the last few days, deeply grateful. i can tell how much consideration you have given to our point of view and the president's point of view, and that's all we can ask. at the end of the day, all we can ask is that you hear us out and make the best judgment that you can consistent with your conscience and our constitution. now, i wanted to start out

tonight with where we began when we first appeared before you about a week ago, and that is with the resolution itself, with what the president is charged with in the articles and how that holds up now that you have heard the evidence from the house. donald trump was impeached in article one for abuse of power. and that article provides that in his conduct of the office of president of the united states and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office oof president of the united states and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. trump has abused the powers of his presidency in that using the powers of his high office, president trump solicited the interference of the foreign government to ukraine in the

2020 united states presidential election. president trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, ukraine, in the 2020 election. that has been proved. he did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting ukraine to publicly announce to harm the election prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 u.s. presidential election to his advantage. that has been proved. president trump also sought to pressure the government of ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official u.s. government acts of significant value of ukraine on public announcement of the investigations. that has been proved. president trump engaged in the scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit that has been proved in doing so, the

manner that compromised the national security of the united states and undermined the integrity of the united states democratic process. that has been proved. he thus injured, ignored and injured the interest of the nation. that has been proved. president trump engaged in the scheme or course of conduct through the following means. president trump acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the united states government, corruptly solicited the government of ukraine to publicly announce investigations into, atia abajo biden jr. that has been disproved. alleging ukraine rather than russia interfered in the 2016 united states presidential election. that has been proved. with the same corrupt motives, president trump acting both directly and through his agents

within and outside the u.s. government conditioned two official acts on the public announcements he had requested. the release of $391 million of u.s. taxpayer funds that congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to ukraine to oppose russian aggression and which president trump had ordered suspended. that has been proved. and "b," a head of state meeting at the white house in which the president of ukraine sought to demonstrate continued united states support for the government of ukraine in the face of russian aggression. that has been proved. faced with public revelation of his actions, president trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the government of ukraine. but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal

political benefit. that has been proved. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in u.s. elections. that has been proved. in all of this, president trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. that has been proved. he also betrayed the nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections. that has been proved. wherefore, president trump has by such conduct remain a threat to national security and the constitution allowed to remain in office and acted in a manner grossly incompatible with

self-governments and the rule of law, that has been proved. president trump thus warrants impeachment and trial removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any honor, trust or profit under the united states, that will be for you to decide. but the facts have been proved. the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. in his conduct of the office of the president, in violation of the constitutional oath, faithfully to execute the office of the president of the united states to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the

united states. and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, donald j. trump has directed the unprecedented categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the house of representatives pursuant to its sole power of impeachment. that has been proved. president trump has abused the powers of the presidency in a manner offensive to and subversive of the constitution in that the house of representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on president trump's corrupt solicitation of the government of ukraine to interfere in the 2020 u.s. presidential election. that has been proved. as part of this impeachment inquiry, the committees undertaking the subpoenas, deemed vital to the inquiry for various executive branch agencies and offices and current and former officials. that has been proved.

in response without lawful cause or excuse, president trump directed executive branch agencies, offices and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. that has been proved. president trump thus interposed the powers of the presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the house of representatives and assume to himself, functions and judgments necessary to exercise the sole power of impeachment vested in the constitution, in the house of representatives, that has been proved. president trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means. number one, directing the white house to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the committees. that has been proved. directing other executive branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the committees in response to which the department of state, office of management budget, department of energy,

department of defense failed to produce a single record or document. that has been proved. directing current and former executive branch officials not to cooperate with the committees in response to which nine administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely, john michael mick mulvaney, robert b. blare, john a. eisenberg, michael ellis, preston wells griffith, russell t., brian mccormick and t. ulrick brekbill. that has been proved. these actions were consistent with president trump's previous efforts to undermine united states government investigations into foreign interference and u.s. elections, that has been proved. through these actions, president trump sought to irrigate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope and nature of the inquiry into his own conduct as well as the prerogative to deny any and all information to the house of

representatives in the exercise of its sole power of impeachment. that has been proved. in the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the house of representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors. that has been proved. the abuse of office served to cover up the president's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment and thus to nullify a vital safeguard vested solely in the house of representatives. that has been proved. in all of this, president trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust. as president and subversive of constitutional government to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the

manifest injury of the people of the united states. that has been proved. whereas or wherefore, president trump a threat to the constitution if allowed to remain in office and acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-government and the rule of law. that has been proved. president trump thus warrants impeachment and trial removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states that will be for you to determine. let me say something about this second article. the facts of the president's defiance of congress are very

simple. because they were so uniform, because they were so categorical, because they are so uncontested. but do not mistake for a moment the fact that it was simple and quick to present that course of conduct compared with the sophisticated campaign to coerce ukraine into thinking that that second article is any less significant than the first. do not believe that for a moment. if there is no article ii, let me tell you something, there will never be an article i. if there's no article ii, there will never of any kind of shape or form be another an