individual, and it is -- shouldn't be somebody that is working for the president. >> legal but indecent which is a characteristic we're learning a lot about these days. >> excellent point. we're waiting for the resumption of the question session. erin burnett picks up our special coverage. and good evening. i'm erin burnett. out front tonight, we are moments away from the senate returning to the chaimer be. they will resume asking questions of trump's legal team and the house manager. they've been at this for six hours, some heated responses, all of it geared towards getting to that vote, that crucial vote later this week on whether to call witnesses. some of the questions you're going to hear are going to get to the heart of the issue. i want to go to manu rah you. they're going to start filing in

for this crucial evening session. where do tngs stand right now? >> reporter: we're ed hadded right to the critical moment on friday, a vote to determine whether or not there should be witnesses in this trial. after the questioning period is done both tonight, expected to go late into the night tonight and tomorrow hours of questions. then we'll get into the crucial friday vote. behind closed doors, this is a topic of discussion all day long among top republicans. i can tell you republican leaders are feeling better about the process of defeating this motion on friday. they're trying to stem their losses to only three they can afford in order to defeat this motion on friday. i think the argument they are making is similar to the one the president's attorneys have been making on the floor of the senate that moving forward on witnesses could prolong the trial and their argument, turn the senate into a body like the house is investigating. they say it could create a damaging precedent for the senate to go down that route and paralyze the senate. that's an argument the

republican leadership is making to its members and one they believe they're making headway in making. so, at the moment they believe they're there. but we do expect at least two republicans at the moment to break rank, susan collins and mitt romney, uncertain about whether lisa murkowski would be a third. she declined to comment. >> obviously extremely crucial. you know corey gardner is not going to be that vote. all eyes turn to lamar alexander and those who have been reticent about their feelings. you've been in the chamber. what did you see today? >> reporter: one interesting moment occurred earlier today when lamar alexander, the key vote to decide on whether or not to move forward on witnesses, was taking extensive notes. at that moment the president's attorney had been giving his argument against moving forward on witnesses writing extensively on time.

he continued taking notes after as adam schiff made a counterpoint but that was something that was interesting, whether it's a statement he's going to eventually give remains to be seen. li lisa murkowski and susan collins have been attentive too, taking notes throughout. there has been tension when adam schiff took a shot of sorts against alan dershowitz, all scholars except for dershowitz agree about what constitutes impeachment. both sides were engaged and have been in recent days here. >> which is important. i guess they're hearing their own names read out in questions, that would get you more engaged i suppose. manu, thank you very much. there have been crucial questions, many more tonight. i want to go to democratic senator jon tester of montana. did you find it helpful? >> absolutely. i think today was good for me. basically laid out the arguments during the amendment procedure

because that was all really important information and it was new to me information. and i think what we've seen today with the five minutes on each side is we see them really kind of debate one another much easier because remember you guys saw this, the prosecution, house managers used 20 hours, the defense used a block of time less than that, but nonetheless a long block of time too. and i will tell you there was no interaction, just kind of sitting in a college class or just getting information, getting information, getting information and taking notes which i did. but now we're getting more exchange between the two sides. i think it's a lot more fun. >> yeah, it certainly has seemed that way. i just wanted to -- as you know alan dershowitz, one of the president's lawyers has been making the case that you need a crime to impeach a president and that that's required. now, just a few moments ago before the dinner break you're in right now, senator, he stood

up and seemed to acknowledge that many constitutional scholars are finding that argument about a crime hard to stomach. and he said something that i wanted to play for you. here he is, senator. >> i read you the list of 40 american president who is have been accused of abuse of power. should every one of them be impeach snd should every one of them have been removed from office? it's too vague a term. reject my argument about crime. reject it if you choose to. do not reject my argument that abuse of power would destroy, destroy, the impeachment criteria of the constitution and turn it in the words of one of the senators of the johnson trial to make every president, every member of the senate, every member of congress be able to define itself from within their own bosom. >> he's saying reject it, i don't care, throw it out if you don't want it. but if your standard is abuse of

pow e every president would be impeached. do you find that argument compelling at all? >> no. because you've got to look at the evidence behind that abuse of power in situations and we haven't done that. we're dealing with what president trump has allegedly done and we're looking at the information, the concealment of information, and the impacts on political opponents and u.s. citizens being investigated by a foreign country. i don't need to go through the charges again. but i don't think you can flatly say we're not going to consider it unless you know the information behind it. i think that's really what's important. i'm not -- i didn't teach at harvard. i'm not a lawyer. but the bottom line is if you think about this from a common sense standpoint, if somebody abused power and asked a foreign government to come in and that's proven to be true, that's a very serious charge. >> so, you know, big focus is on witnesses and corey gardner saying he will not vote for witnesses which puts a lot of spotlight on senators like lamar

alexander. joe manchin today said he is open to hunter biden testifying in exchange for john bolton or who knows who it might be. that position, hunter biden is okay puts him at odds with democratic colleagues. would you be okay with hunter biden testifying if that's what it takes to get witnesses at all? >> that's a great question. i think it deals with relevancy and the relevant issue is were they there when the president made the alleged decision to withhold aid and the reasons that were done. like john bolton has already said, like mick mulvaney knows and pompeo knows. i think it would be good to get those folks in, swear them in. it's a different world once you're sworn in than just talking to erin burnett. and get the information that's out there. plus get the documents that are out there. i'm going to tell you, it's part of what's frustrating with this, is that there's party information to convict and

acquit. but the bottom line is why not get as much as you can. so it takes another couple of weeks. i've seen so much time wasted in the united states senate that this important issue and impeachment is a very solemn, important issue. we ought to take the time to find out what the facts are. >> all right, senator, i appreciate your time. an important point. willing to wait two weeks and there's been plenty of time the senate may not have spent its time so well. let's go to the panel. laura, did this move to the needle on witnesses? senator tester i think is rightly pointing out there's a lot more back and forth as the day went on, you would see jay sekulow and then adam schiff back to back responding to a question. >> it was far more engaging, figuring out what the audience and the senators actually thinking. were they moved by previous things? questions can be telling about what they were thinking. were you preaching to a choir or do you have a chance to convert somebody. however there was a compelling

one-two punch that i think will the most persuasive. it was the combination of philbin and dershowitz saying you don't want to get inside the head of the president of the united states about mixed messages. and why? because each one of you at some point as had a calculus about what the electoral consequences will be for your decisions. be cautious how you vote. this might be you. that might not be the best legal argument to make, but for people who already have a self-fulfilling prophecy wannabe status, that may have compelled them to give a lifeline. >> alan dershowitz, i played his forget what i said about a crime, but abuse of power is too vague a term. he had before that moment the moment of day that had people saying what did he just say? what does that mean? >> every public official that i know believes that his election is in the public interest. and mostly you're right.

your election is in the public interest. and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. >> i mean, i'm not a lawyer. i can't believe alan dershowitz would take that seriously if he heard that from someone else. the translation is do whatever you need to do to win office. if you think you're the best person for that office, ice okay. >> that's right. and senator tester said he hadn't taught at harvard and he is a lawyer. i have taught with alan and i am a lawyer. i've never heard that argument. it's the most absurd theory i've ever heard. it in fact describes the crime and says that's not criminal. it's actually in the interest of the individual to win re-election by engaging in a corrupt quid pro quo because that's what they're really after

is just trying to win re-election. in fact, the remarkable thing, speaking to the audience of senators is the senators have rules for themselves which says they cannot engage in these kind of corrupt quid pro quos. and if they do, they could be expelled from the senate. so, they understand that the message he's conveying there is beyond counterintuitive. i don't know anybody who would support that proposition. >> what did you make when you heard that? everybody did respond to that sort of saying what did he just say? >> having worked on about a dozen campaigns, there is always the sense that, boy, if we win, it's better for the country. but that doesn't give you license to commit crimes or to do things that are unethical. so, it was absurd. and what i thought when i was watching it was i'm an american. this is what you hear from stalin. this is what you hear from mousse leeny, hitler, all the authoritarian people who

rationalized in some cases genocide based on what was in the public interest. it was a startling -- and i still can't believe he went on the floor of the senate and made that argument. >> i mean, scott, you know, you have that moment. then you had questions coming in. and one interesting thing about questions for people who weren't watching all day, some of them came from pairs or groups of senators so, they teamed up to make a point. murkowski, collins, romney, and murkowski and collins. they are clearly saying we see a lot of things the same way. it's true. we're deeply considering witnesses. so, our reporter in the room noted that senators visibly perked up when the question came later in the day from murkowski and collins. everybody wanted to hear what it was that they had to ask to say. and this was -- this particular question was whether the president had ever expressed concerns specifically about corruption, more broadly in

ukraine before zelensky took office. that was the question. what are gop senators reading into the questions when they hear that? >> well, i think broadly the question about who is prepared to vote for witnesses is what people are looking for here. >> yeah. >> and it strikes me that romney and collins have pretty clearly signalled where they are. corey gardner from colorado came out and said he opposes it. so, it strikes me that the locking in is on murkowski and alexander of tennessee. i think the question is which groups of senators are thinking about doing questions on friday. i think what i've heard it's still too early to predict how that's going to go. but to me that's right where it is. erin, if i may, i have to respond to something that my friend joe said. i'm not there to elbow him in the ribs. i don't think it's appropriate, frankly, to compare the president of the united states

to stalin and hitler. i don't think anything this president's done, the democrats have done, either legal teams have done rises to the level of stalin, hitler, and people who commit genocide. i think that to me is not a proper comparison honestly. >> that is not the comparison i made. i did not compare the president. i said that argument, that rationalization is exactly the rationalization that these authoritarian dictators make which is we will do these things because, yes, they're in my interest, but it's in the public interest. so, again, you know, i learned long ago not to disparage people without the receipts. so, scott's right. you shouldn't compare the president to any of those people, but i didn't. i compared the argument. and what's shocking about it is that alan dershowitz made it on the floor of the senate. again, if i had inadvertently compared trump to any of those people, scott, i would say i got it wrong. i apologize.

i didn't get this wrong because it is that argument that's so dangerous that you can commit any act as long as in your head you believe it's good for the country. >> justifies the means. >> our political system would literally break down because you would have 535 lawless people all using the argument that i'm good for my constituents so i'm going to go or a president saying i'm running against -- this guy is blocking my legislation. i'm going to get the irs to audit their taxes because the legislation is good for the country. can't have that. >> all of you stay with me please. we are awaiting the senate to return from that crucial dinner break. at this hour there's a major battle battle rerupting between the white house and john bolton, escalating war of words today. we'll be right back.

wow! that's ensure max protein, with high protein and 1 gram sugar. it's a sit-up, banana! bend at the waist! i'm tryin'! keep it up. you'll get there. whoa-hoa-hoa! 30 grams of protein, and one gram of sugar. ensure max protein.

and one gram of sugar. [happy ♪irthday music] ♪ don't get mad, put those years to work with e*trade. when they bundle home and auto with progressive. wow, that's... and now the progressive commercial halftime show, featuring smash mouth. ♪ hey now, you're an all star ♪ get your game on, go play thank you! goodnight! [ cheers and applause ] now enjoy the second half of the commercial! even renters can bundle and save! where did that come from? the kitchen. it was halftime. where did that come from? dad! not cool.o, son. you know what's not uncool? old spice after hours... and jazz. dad, i prefer ultra smooth, it handles sweat without all that...jazz. you're right son.

asand achieved new york city'sed cacleanest air quality in more than 50 years. as a leader in the fight against climate change, he helped shut down over half of the nation's coal plants, then led one of the biggest pollution reduction efforts in history. as president, he intends to reduce emissions by fifty percent within ten years. because if we want to stop climate change, we need to make a change. this is a fight-we can't afford to lose. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. so ithat gives me cash backsome new on everything.uten that's ebates new name. rakuten, it gets me cash back at tons of stores and i just shop like normal. that's ebates. i've told you fifteen times, we've saved like five hundred dollars last year. rakuten is changing my life, i get cash back on electronics, travel, clothes. you're talking about ebates. look, if you use my referral code you get ten bucks, i get twenty five. this is a pretty good deal to me we should probably- sfx [blender] smoothies ready. awesome. ebates is now rakuten,

sign up today and get cash back on everything you buy. who doesn't love a deal? i do. check out the united explorer card. savin' on this! savin' on this! savin' in here. rewarded! learn more at the explorer card dot com. breaking news as we wait for senators to return from their break back to the floor, more questions coming, president trump is escalating his war of words with john bolton, his former national security adviser. president trump tweeted a video of bolton from last august. >> president called to congratulate president zelensky on his election and his success

in the parliamentary election. they were very warm and cordial calls. >> which they were. this comes after the white house issued a formal threat to bolton designed to prevent the publication of his book. kaitlan collins is live from the white house. the president tweeting out that video along with the message "game over." obviously he's excited that bolton said the call was cordial which whatever quid pro quo was within it, it certainly was cordial. what is the fear in the white house tonight? >> reporter: the point of the president's tweet is that would nullify what john bolton has written in his book though it's unlikely to satisfy democrats who want to hear from the national security adviser as "the new york times" is reporting that the he is saying the president directly tied the security assistance to ukraine to the investigations. now it has erupted in this war between the white house and bolton's attorney. they said they had sent john

bolton a already saying they were looking at the draft of his book he turned over. you see mitch mcconnell going in now. they said they felt a lot of classified information in the book and a lot of top secret material so that it was going to obviously not be able to be published as it was. his attorney is releasing a letter that he sent to an attorney at the national security counsel saying look, it looks like my client could be called to testify. we do not have any reason to believe there is classified information in the chapter on ukraine and obviously if john bolton does testify, those are the kinds of questions he's going to be asked about. so, they're asking the national security counsel to speed that process up. they say they have not gotten a response to that. >> kaitlan, thank you very much. laura, let me ask you, there's this battle going on. and the white house says there's significant amounts of classified information in the book. but in the six days since they received the manuscript they have according to bolton's lawyer not given an example of

one single thing that is classified. what do you think? >> it's convenient that it's out there now. the reason it's odd is because bolton could go and testify or give a speech or a press conference or come here on your show and say the things that are in the book, provide they're not classified portion, the things that are really what people would like to hear about and why they're calling for his testimony right now. >> those things would not be classified. >> exactly. executive privilege is what he was going with before, there was the assumption. but you would prefer him not to speak is not the same thing as invoking a deliberative aspect under executive privilege. remember back in davos when the president said, you faknow, als he had bad blood when he left. that's why you don't want anyone to testify. that's neither privilege or classification. that's preference. >> ryan, they're trying to make this argument now, team trump, that you want to hear from john bolton but you're going to be

sitting here forever because we're going to go through the courts and not hear it. mr. fiphilbin made that argumen. here he is. >> john bolton is a national security adviser to the president. he has all of the nation's secrets from the time that he was the national security adviser. and that's precisely the area, the field, in which the supreme court suggested in nixon versus united states there might be something approaching an absolute privilege of confidentiality and communications with the president to feel the national security and foreign affairs. that's the crown jewels of executive privilege. >> okay. bottom line, executive privilege hold up? and if the senate decided to call john bolton, could he walk in and testify, or would it be held up? >> he could probably walk in and testify just like all the senior officials in the house walked in and testified. and he could do it in part because he would be testifying about the same set of facts they testified about. that also means they've already

waved executive privilege. so, he's going to try to get his opinion of what's in the public domain, he could speak to that. you can't say i can talk about it. i can say why y happened. you can say x happened. so, there isn't anything there. another piece of it is as the house managers said, the chief justice can rule on that. it's one of the rules, the standing rules of the senate for impeachment is that if a procedural issue comes up on evidence, he has the ability. >> so, he could rule on it and it happens right away. in other words you short circuit any other kind of court. >> that's right. there's a piece in the "washington post" today which basically says -- there's also a supreme court case that says that's final. when the senate sits in an impeachment trial and issues orders for itself, that's final. courts don't get to review that.

there's a supreme court case that says that. >> so, i mean you would hope that would be clear to senators who are making this important decision, joe. but there's also the issue of john bolton himself. >> yes. >> he's written a manuscript. he believes everything in it. he's been around top secret classified information for decades. he believes everything is fine and good to go. so, what are the odds of him making a horrible error and in their words full of top secret classified information. >> yeah, the odds are pretty low. i think john bolton as well as anyone would know what's classified and what's not classified, how you talk about things. >> significant amounts. >> i think there's a couple things to look for. one is whether things have been classified recently. it would -- i would not put it past this white house to have looked at the manuscript and then gone and retroactively classified things. >> so, they see it and then classify it. >> yes, yes. again, you know, you saw bolton could know this is classified because i was in the room, it

never got classified. it would fit the pattern. it would fit the pattern at every turn. and we've seen multiple justifications and rationalizations. it's gone from executive privilege to absolute immunity to classification. and i always thought that classi classification was the most dangerous -- >> okay. it's you speaking every time. you must be the magic sauce. they are reconvening. >> the senator from arizona. >> i sent a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senator scott of florida, holly and hoeven. >> thank you. >> the question is for counsel for the president from senator mcsally, senator scott from

florida, senator holly, and senator hoeven. chairman schiff just argued, that quote, we think there's a crime here of bribery or extortion or, quote, something akin to bribery, end quote. do the articles of impeachment charge the president with bribery, extortion, or anything akin to it. do they allege facts sufficient to prove either crime? if not, are the house managers discussion of crimes they neither alleged nor proved appropriate in this proceeding? >> mr. chief justice, senators, thank you for that question. and no, the articles of impeachment do not charge the crime of bribery, extortion, or any other crime. and that's a critical point because as the supreme court has explained, no principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that of notice of the specific charge and a chance to be heard and a

trial of the issues raised by the charge are among the constitutional rights oof every accused. that was the supreme court in cole versus arkansas. the court has explained for over 130 years a court cannot permit, it has been the rule, that a court cannot permit to be charged in the indictment made against him. that's the rule in criminal law and also the case for impeachments. it is the house's responsibility to make a specific accusation in articles of impeachment. the house had the opportunity to do that. and they did that. and the charges that they put in the articles were abuse of power on a vague standard that they made up and obstruction of congress. that puts discussion about other things in the house judiciary report but did not put that in the articles of impeachment. and if this were a criminal trial in an ordinary court and mr. schiff had done what he just did on the floor here and started talking about crimes of bribery and extortion that were

not in the indictment it would have been an automatic mistrial. we would be done now and we could go home. and mr. schiff knows that because he's a former prosecutor. it is not permissible for the house to come here failing to have charged, failing to have put in the articles of impeachment any crime at all, and then to start arguing that actually oh, we think there is some crime involved and actually we think we actually proved it even though we provided no notice we were going to try to prove that. it's totally impermissible. it's a fundamental violation of due process. and scholars have pointed out those rules applied equally in cases of impeachment. charles black and phillip bobbitt explained in their work impeachment a hand book that is regarded as one of the authorities collecting sources of authority on impeachments, they say, quote, the senator's role is one of acting on the

accusations the articles of impeachment voted on by the house of representatives. the senate cannot lawfully find a president guilty of something not charged by the house any more than a trial jury can find a defendant guilty of something not charged in the indictment, end quote. so, manager schiff just attempted here was totally improper. it would have resulted in a mistrial in any court in this country. and there is nothing that has been introduced in the facts that would satisfy the elements of a crime of extortion or bribery either. and to attempt after making their opening, after not charging anything in the articles that is a crime, after not specifying any crime, after providing no notice that they're going to attempt to argue a crime, in the question and answer session to try to change the charges that they've made against the president of the united states and to say that actually there's bribery and extortion is totally unacceptable. it's not permissible.

and this body should not consider those arguments. they're not permissible bounds for argument. they're not included in the articles of impeachment, and they should be ignored. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the senator from new mexico. >> thank you for the recognition, mr. chief justice. mr. chief justice, i have sent a question to the desk. i'm joined in this question by senators bloomen hall, leahy, and lighthouse. >> thank you. >> the senator is to the house managers. the president's counsel has argued that hunter biden's involvement with burisma created

a conflict of interest for his father, joe biden. president trump, the trump organization, and his family including those who serve in the white house maintain significant business interests in foreign countries and benefit from foreign payments and investments. by the standard, the president's counsel has applied to hunter biden, should mr. kushner, and mrs. trump's conflicts of interest with foreign governments also come under investigation? >> mr. chief justice and to the senators, thank you so much for that question. let me just preface what i'm about to say with this statement. this has been a tough few days. it's been a trying time for each of us and for our nation. but i just want to say this in response to the question that

has been posed. i stand before as the mother of three sons. i'm sure that many of you in this chamber have children, sons and daughters, and grandchildren that you think the world of. my childrens' last name is demings. so, when they go out to get a job, i wonder if there are people who associate my sons with their mother and their father. i just believe as we go through this very tough, very difficult debate about whether to impeach and remove the president of the united states that we stay focused. the last few days, we've seen many distractions, many things have been said to take our minds off of the truth off of why we're really here. and my former line of work i used to call it working with smoke and mirrors. anything that will take your attention off of what's painfully obvious, what's there

in plain view. the reason why we're here has nothing to do with anybody's children. as we talked about, the reason why we're here is because the president of the united states, the 45th president, used the power of his office to try to shake down -- i'll use that term because i'm familiar with it -- a foreign power to interfere into this year's election. in other words, the president of the united states tried to cheat and then tried to get this foreign power, this newly elected president to spread a false narrative that we know is untrue about interference in our election. that's why we are here and it really would help, i believe, the situation if the attorney general, perhaps the department of justice who's been pretty silent, would issue a ruling or opinion about any person of

authority, especially the president of the united states, using or abusing that authority to invite other powers into interfering in our election. so, mr. chief justice, i will just close my remarks as i began them. let us stay focused. this doesn't have anything to do with the president's children or the biden's children. this is about the president's wrong doing. thank you. >> thank you. senator from idaho. >> mr. chief justice on behalf of mooes, senator risch, senator cruz, graham, and boseman, i sent a question to the desk for the counsel for the president.

>> the question from senator kra poe and other senators for the counsel of the president. does the evidence in the record show that the investigation in the burisma/biden matter is in the national interest of the united states and its efforts to stop corruption? thank you for that question. the straightforward answer is yes, the evidence does show it would be in the interest of the

united states. in fact the evidence on that point is abundant. here's what we know. hunter biden was appointed to the board of an energy company in ukraine without any apparent experience that would qualify him for that position. he was apointed shortly after his father, the vice president, became the obama administration's point man for policy on ukraine. with we know that his appointment raised several red flags at the time. chris hines, the then stepson of the secretary of state severed his relationship with hunter citing hunter's lack of judgment in joining burisma because burisma is owned by an oligarch that is repeatedly under investigation for money laundering and other p offenses. hunter's role with burisma might undermine u.s. efforts led by his father then at that time to promote the u.s. anticorruption

message in ukraine. t"the washington post" said, quote, the appointment of vice president's son looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst. there were other articles. there was one that reported quote, the credibility of the united states was not helped by the news that hunter had been on the board of the directors of burisma. there is another article saying sadly the credibility of mr. biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with the ukrainian national gas company, burisma holdings, which is owned by a former official suspected of corrupt practices. and it went on. reports from the "wall street journal" said that activists here, that is in the ukraine, say that the u.s.'s antecorruption message is being undermined as hi son receives money from a former ukrainian official who is being investigated. at the time same time within the obama administration, officials

raised questions. the special envoy for energy policy raised the matter with the vice president. similarly, deputy assistant secretary of state kent testified that he too voiced concerns with vice president biden's office. everyone who was asked in the proceedings before the house of representatives agreed that there was at least an appearance of a conflict of interest when mr. biden's son was appointed to the board of this company. that included ambassador yovanovitch, deputy assistant secretary kent, lieutenant colonel vindman, jennifer williams, ambassador sondland, dr. fiona hill, and ambassador taylor. they all agreed there was appearance of conflict of interest. and even in the transcript of the july 25th telephone call, president zelensky himself acknowledged the connection between the biden and burisma incident, the firing of the prosecutor who reportedly had

been looking into burisma when vice president biden openly acknowledged he leveraged a billion dollars in u.s. loan guarantees to make sure that that particular prosecutor was fired. he openly acknowledged. it was an explicit quid pro quo. you don't get a billion dollars in loan guarantees unless and until that prosecutor is fired. my plane's leaving in six hours, he said on the tape. and when the president, president trump, raised this in the july 25th call, president zelensky recognized that this related to corruption, and he said the issue of the investigation of the case -- and he's referring to the case of the burisma -- is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that. and he later said in an interview that he recognized that the president trump had been saying to him things are corrupt in ukraine and he was trying to explain no, we're going to change that. there's not going to be

corruption. so, that explicit exchange in the july 25th call shows that president zelensky recognized that that biden burisma incident had an impact on corruption and anticorruption. so, it was definitely undermining the u.s. message on anticorruption. and wit was a perfectly legitimate issue for the president to raise with president zelensky to make clear that the united states did not condone anything that would seem to interfere with legitimate investigations and to enforce the proper anticorruption message. >> thank you. senator from illinois. >> thank you.

senator durbin's question is directed to the house managers. would you please respond to the answer that was just given by the president's counsel? >> mr. chief justice, senators, the president sought ukraine's help in investigating the bidens only after reports suggested vice president biden might enter the 2020 presidential race and would seriously challenge president trump in the polls. president trump had no interest in biden's obama era ukraine

work in 2017 or 2018 when biden was not running against him for president. none of the 17 witnesses in the impeachment inquiry provided any credible evidence, no credible evidence to support the allegation that former vice president biden acted inappropriately in any way in ukraine. instead, witnesses testified that the former vice president was carrying out official u.s. policy in coordination with the international community when he advocated for the ouster of a corrupt ukrainian official. in short, the allegations are simply unfounded. president trump's own hand picked special envoy to ukrainian ambassador kurt volker knew they were unfounded too. he testified that he confronted

the president's attorney mr. giuliani about this conspiracy theory and told him that, quote, it is simply not credible to me that joe biden would be influenced in his duties as vice president by money or things for his son or anything like that. i've known him for a long time. he's a person of integrity, and that's not credible. giuliani acknowledged that he did not find one of the sources of these allegations. former ukrainian prosecutor to be held credible. so, even giuliani knew the allegations were false. our own justice department confirmed that the president never spoke to the attorney general about ukraine or any investigations into vice president biden. if president trump genuinely believed that there was legitimate basis to request

ukraine's assistance in law enforcement investigations, there are specific formal processes that he should have followed. specifically he could have asked the doj to make an official request for assistance to the mutual legal assistance treaty. it's worth noting the president only cares about hunter biden to the extent that he is the vice president's son. and therefore, a means through which to smear a political opponent. but president trump specifically mentioned vice president biden in asking for the removal of the former prosecutor on that july 25 call. that is what he wanted, not an investigation into hunter biden. this is yet another reason you know that there is no basis for investigating vice president biden. can we get slide 52 up?

the timing shows clearly that despite the fact that this conduct occurred in 2015, it wasn't until vice president biden began consistently beating trump in national polls in the spring of 2019 by significant margins that the president targeted biden. he was scared of losing. the president wanted to cast a cloud over a formal political opponent. this wasn't about any genuine concern of wrong doing. the evidence proves that. this was solely about the president wanting to make sure that he could do whatever it took to make sure that he could win. so, he froze the critical money to ukraine to coerce ukraine to help him attack his political opponent and secure his re-election.

well, the president of the united states cannot use our taxpayer dollars to pressure a foreign government to do his personal bidding. no one is above the law. >> thank you. >> i yield back. >> the senator from south carolina. >> thank you, sir. i sent a question to the desk on behalf of myself, senators crapo and graham for the white house counsel. >> the question is from senator scott to the white house counsel. house managers claim that the biden burisma affair has been debunked. what agency within the government or independent investigation led to the

debunking? >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, there is no evidence in the record about any investigation, let alone debunked, sham, discredited or as manager jeffreys told you tonight, phony. the house managers haven't cited any evidence in the record because none exists. a couple of days ago, i read to you a quote and statements from vice president biden dealing with corruption in ukraine. what i didn't tell you was he made those statements before the ukrainian parliament directly. he spoke about the historic battle of corruption. he spoke about fighting

corruption, specifically in the energy sector. he spoke about no sweetheart deals. he said oligarchs and non-oligarchs must play by the same rules. corruption siphons away resources from the people. it blunts economic growth. and it affronts the human dignity. those were vice president biden's words. so, the real question is this: is corruption related to the energy sector in ukraine run but a corrupt ukrainian oligarch who was paying our vice president's son and his son's business partner millions of dollars for no apparent legitimate reason while his father was overseeing our country's relationship with ukraine merit any public inquiry investigation or interest? the answer is yes. and simply by saying it didn't happen is ridiculous. and with all due respect to the house managers insighting to our

children, especially when you try to rout it out in another country is to make sure your churn aren't benefitting from the house managers don't deny that there's a legitimate reason to do an investigation, they just say it's debunked, it's a sham, it's delegitimate, but they don't tell you when it happened. we all remember the email that chris hines sent. keep this in mind. he is the stepson of the secretary, then secretary of state, john kerry. he sends an official email to the state department, to the chief of staff, to john kerry, and his special assistant. the subject is ukraine. there's no question when you look at that email that it's a warning shot to say, i don't know what they're doing, but we're not invested in it. he's taking a giant step back.

and think about the words and remember the video that we saw about hunter biden. what did he say? i'm not going to open my kimono. i'm not going to open my kimono. when he was asked how much money he was making. in one month, in one month alone, hunter biden and his partner made as much, almost as much as every senator and congressman, just in one month alone what you earn in a year. and you didn't think that merits inquiry? does anyone here think, when they say it's a debunked investigation that didn't happen that we wouldn't remember if there was testimony of hunter biden, joe biden, secretary of state john kerry, his stepson, their business partner, his chief of staff, and his special assistant? how can you tell the american people it doesn't merit inquiry when our vice president's son is supposedly doing this for

corporate transparency in ukraine? he's going to oversee the legal department of a ukrainian company? he's going to help them, and if you look at his statement that i read to you beforehand, there's another part of it from october of 2019. if you want to know whether he thought it dealt with us on of ukraine, just the burisma, he says he was advising burisma on its corporate reform initiatives, an important aspect of fueling burisma's international growth and diversity. listen to this statement by hunter biden's attorney. vibrant energy production, particularly natural gas, was central to ukraine's independence and to stemming the tide of vladimir putin's attack on the principles of a democratic europe. do you think he understood when he was getting the millions of dollars what his father was doing? the only problem is that statement didn't come out until october of 2019. only when a news story started to break, only when the house

managers raised these issues did people start to talk about it. tell us where we saw joe biden, hunter biden, john kerry testify about it. tell us where you did it when you did your impeachment hearings. i don't remember seeing that testimony. i don't remember seeing the bank records. we put the bank records in front of you. the people are entitled to know what exactly was going on -- >> thank you, counsel. the senator from oregon. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. on behalf of the senator from new mexico, martin heinrich, and myself, i have a question to send to the desk. >> thank you. >> the question from senator

murkily and other senators is for counsel to the president. please clarify your previous answer about the bolton manuscript. when exactly did the first person on the president's defense team first learn of the allegations in the manuscript? secondly, mr. bolton's lawyer publicly disputes that any information in the manuscript could reasonably be considered classified. was the determination to block its publication on the basis that it contains classified information made solely by career officials, or were political appointees in the white house counsel's office or elsewhere in the white house involved? >> mr. chief justice, senator, to address your question specifically, the allegation that came out in the "new york times" article about a conversation that is allegedly reported in the manuscript

between the president and ambassador bolton -- officials, lawyers in the white house counsel's office, learned about that allegation for the first time sunday afternoon when the white house was contacted by "the new york times." in terms of the classification review it is conducted at the nsc. the white house counsel's office is not involved in classification review, determining what's classified, not classified. i can't state the specifics. my understanding is that it's conducted by career officials at nsc, but it's handled by the nsc, so i'm not in position to give you full information on that. my understanding, it's being done by career officials, but it is not being done by lawyers in the white house counsel's office. i hope that answers your question, senator. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice? >> senator from alaska. >> mr. chief justice, i send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and senator lang ford

for the president's counsel. >> thank you. >> question from senator sullivan and langford. to the counsel for the president. there has been conflicting testimony about how long the senate might be tied up in obtaining additional evidence. at the beginning of this trial, the minority leader offered 11 amendments to obtain additional evidence in the form of documents and depositions from several federal agencies. if the senate had adopted all 11 of these amendments, how long do you think this impeachment trial would take? >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, it would take a long

time. it would take a long time just to get through those motions. but there have been 17 witnesses. we're talking about now additional witnesses. that the managers would put forward and democratic leader schumer's discussed four witnesses in particular, as if this body, if it were to grant witnesses work, say, yes, you get those four witnesses and the white house and the president's counsel gets what? whatever i want. that's what he said, mr. schumer, whatever i want. here's what i want. i want adam schiff. i want hunter biden. i want joe biden. i want the whistle-blower. i want to also understand there may be additional people within the house intelligence committee that have had conversations with that whistle-blower. i get anybody we want. by the way, if we get anybody we want, we'll be here for a very long time. the fact of the matter is we're

not here to argue witnesses tonight, but obviously it is an undercurrent. to say this is not going to extend this proceeding? months. because understand something else. despite the executive privilege and other nonsense, i suspect manager schiff, smart guy, he's going to say, wait a minute, i got speech and debate privileges that may be applicable to this. i'm not saying that they are, but they may raise it, be legitimate to raise it. so this is a process that we -- this would be the first of many weeks. i think we've got to be clear. they put this forward in an aggressive and fast-paced way, and now they're saying, now we need witnesses. after 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case. that's what you said. well, he just said he did. then i don't think we need any witnesses. thank you. >> thank you, counsel.

the senator from new jersey? >> the question is from senator menendez to the house managers. president trump has maintained that he withheld u.s. security assistance to ukraine because he was concerned about corruption. yet his purported concern about corruption did not prevent his administration from sending congressionally appropriated assistance to ukraine more than 45 times between january 2017 and june 2019, totaling more than $1.5 billion. so why did the president suddenly become concerned about

corruption in early 2019? >> mr. chief justice, senator, thank you for the question. he became concerned about corruption, supposedly in early 2019, because vice president biden was running for election for the presidency. that is what the overwhelmingly amount of the evidence shows. because there was no other legitimate reason. as your question points out. first, the publicly released records of president trump's april 21 and 25 calls with president zelensky never mentioned the word corruption. despite the fact that the talking points for these calls prepared by his own staff