trial. our democracy needs a fair trial. the american people deserve a fair trial. a fair trial means witnesses. a fair trial means documents. a fair trial means a consideration of all of the available evidence. a fair trial means testimony from mick mulvaney. mr. chief justice, the house managers reserve the balance of our time. >> mr. cipollone? >> thank you, mr. chief justice. [ inaudible ] counsel to the president will make the argument. >> thank you. counsel? >> mr. chief justice, members of

the senate, good evening. my name is michael purpura. i serve as deputy counsel to the president. we strongly oppose the amendment and support the resolution. there is simply no need to alter the process on witness -- witnesses and documents from that of the clinton trial which was supported by this body 100-0. at its core, this case is very simple and the key facts are undisputed. first, you've seen the transcripts which the president released transparently, unprecedentedly. there was no quid pro quo for

anything. security assistance funds aren't even mentioned on the call. second, president zelensky and the highest ranking officials in the ukrainian government repeatedly have said there was no quid pro quo and there was no pressure. third, the ukrainians were not even aware of the pause in the aid at the time of the call and weren't aware of it, did not become aware of it until more than a month later. fourth, the only witnesses in the house record who actually spoke to the president about the aid, ambassador sondland and

senator ron johnson. say the president was unequivocal in saying there was no quid pro quo. fifth, and this one is pretty obvious, the aid flowed and president trump and president zelensky met without any investigations started or announced. finally, and i ask that you not lose sight of the big picture here. by providing lethal aid to ukraine, president trump has proven himself to be a better friend and ally to ukraine than his predecessor. the time for the house managers

to bring their case is now. they had their chance to develop their evidence before they sent the articles of impeachment to this chamber. this chamber's role is not to do the house's job for it. with that, i yield the balance of my time to mr. scipollone. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a couple of observations. first of all, as mr. purpura said, all we're talking about is when this question is addressed. under the resolution, that will be next week. this resolution was accepted 100-0. some of you were here then, thought it was great.

if we keep going like this, it will be next week. [ laughter ] for those of you keeping score at home, they haven't even started yet. we're here today. we came hoping to have a trial. they spent the entire day telling you and the american people that they can't prove their case. i could have told you that in five minutes and saved us all a lot of time. they came here talking about the gao. it's an organization that works for congress. do you know who disagrees with the gao? don't take it from me. they do. they sent you articles of impeachment that makes no claim of any violation of any law. by the way, you know what also

doesn't -- you can search high and low in the articles of impeachment. you know what it doesn't say? quid pro quo, because there wasn't any. only in washington would someone say that it's wrong when you don't spend taxpayer dollars fast enough, even if you spend them on time. now, let's talk about the judiciary committee for a second. two days in the judiciary committee, two days. the judiciary committee is supposed to be in charge of impeachments. the delivery time for the articles they produced was 33 days. i think this might be the first impeachment in history where the delivery time was longer than the investigation in the judiciary committee. they come here and falsely accuse people -- by the way,

they falsely accused you. you're on trial now. they falsely accuse people of phony political investigations. really. since the house democrats took over, that's all we've had from them. they've used their office, all the money that the taxpayers send to washington to pay them to conduct phony political investigations against the president, against his family, against anyone who knew him. they started impeaching him the minute he was elected. they've weaponized the house of representatives to investigate incessantly their political opponent. and they come here and make

false allegations of phony political investigations. i think the doctors call that projection. it's time for it to end. it's time for someone -- for the senate to hold them accountable. think about what they're asking. i said it, they didn't deny it. they're trying to remove president trump's name from the ballot and they can't prove their case. they've told you that all day long. think about what they're asking some of you senators to do. some of you are running for president. they're asking you to use your office to remove your political opponent from the ballot. that's wrong. that's not in the interest of our country. and to be honest with you, it's not really a show of confidence.

so we will, i suppose, have this debate again next week if we ever get there. it's getting late. i would ask you respectfully if we could simply start -- maybe tomorrow we can start, and they can make their argument and they can, i guess, make a case that they once called overwhelming. we'll see. but this resolution is right and it's fair and it makes sense. you have a right to hear what they have to say before you have to decide these critical issues. that's all this is about. is it now or is it a week from now? seriously, can we please start? thank you.

>> the house -- mr. cipollone, is your side complete? >> yes, we are, mr. chief justice. >> thank you. the house managers have 14 minutes remaining. >> counsel for the president indicated that we have not charged president trump with a crime. we have charged him with crimes against the united states constitution, high crimes and misdemeanors. abuse of power. strikes at the very heart of what the framers of the constitution were concerned about. betrayal of one's oath of office for personal gain, and the corruption of our democracy. high crimes and misdemeanors, that's what this trial is all about. now, counsel for the president again has declined to address

the substantive merits of the amendment that has been offered. tried to suggest that house democrats have only been focused on trying to oust president trump. nothing can be further from the truth. in the last year we passed 400 bills, sent them to this chamber, 275 of those bills are bipartisan in nature addressing issues like lowering health care costs and prescription drug prices, trying to deal with the gun violence epidemic. we've worked with president trump on criminal justice reform. i personally worked with him along with all of you on the first step act. we worked with him on the u.s./mexi u.s./mexico/trade agreement. we worked with him to fund the government. we don't hate this president.

but we love the constitution. we love america. we love our democracy. that's why we're here today. the question was asked by mr. sekulow as he opened before this distinguished body. why, why are we here? let me see if i can just posit an answer to that question. we are here, sir, because president trump pressured a foreign government to target an american citizen for political and personal gain. we are here, sir, because president trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election and corrupted our democracy. we are here, sir, because president trump withheld $391 million in military aid from a

vulnerable ukraine without justification, in a manner that has been deemed unlawful. we are here, sir, because president donald trump elevated his personal political interests and subordinated the national security interests of the united states of america. we are here, sir, because president trump corruptly abused his power and then he tried to cover it up. and we are here, sir, to follow the facts, apply the law, be guided by the constitution, and present the truth to the american people. that is why we are here, mr. sekulow. and if you don't know, now you know. i yield to my distinguished colleague, chairman schiff.

>> i thank the gentleman for yielding and just want to provide a couple quick fact checks on my colleagues at the other table. first, mr. purpura said security assistance funds were not mentioned at all in the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky. well, let's think back to what was discussed in that call. you might remember from that call that president zelensky thanks president trump for the javelin antitank weapons and says they are ready to order some more skpfr. and what is president trump's immediate response? i have a favor to ask, though. what was it about the president of ukraine bringing up military assistance that triggered the

president to go immediately to the favor that he wanted? i think that's telling that it takes place in that part of the conversation. so, yes, security assistance, military assistance did come up in that call. it came up immediately preceding the ask. what kind of message do you think that sends to ukraine? they're not stupid. the people watching this aren't stupid. mr. purpura says they never found out about it, they didn't find out about the freeze in the aid until a month later. mr. purpura needs to be a little more careful with his facts. let me tell you about some of the testimony you're going to hear and you'll only hear it because it took place in the house. if these were other witnesses, you wouldn't be able to hear it. but you had kathryn croft, a witness from the state department, a career official at the state department who talked about how quickly, actually, after the freeze went into place

the ukrainians found out about it and she started getting contacts from the ukrainian embassy here in washington. she said she was really impressed with their diplomatic trade craft. what does that mean? it means she was really impressed with how quickly the ukrainians found out about something that the administration was trying to hide from the american people. ukraine found out about it. in fact, laura cooper, a career official at the defense department, said that her office started getting inquiries from ukraine about the issues with the aid on july 25th, the very day of the call. so much for ukraine not finding out about this for a month later. but i thought this was very telling, too. "the new york times" disclosed that by july 30th, so within a week of the call between president trump and president zelensky, ukraine's foreign ministry received a diplomatic cable from its embassy

indicating that trump had frozen the military aid within a week. that cable is reported to have gone from the ukrainian embassy to the ukrainian ministry. and the foreign ukrainian deputy minister said, quote, we have this information. it was densely mentioned there were some issues. she went on to say that the cable was simultaneously provided to president zelensky's office. but andre you'll learn about, a top aide to zelensky, directed her to keep silence and not discuss the hold with reporters or congress. now, we heard testimony about why the ukrainians wanted to keep it secret, that they knew about the hold. you can imagine why. zelensky didn't want his own people to know that the president of the united states was holding back aid from him. what does that look like for a new president of ukraine who is trying to make the case that

he's going to be able to defend his own country because he has such a great relationship with the great patron the united states. he didn't want ukrainians to know about it. you know even more than that, he didn't want the russians to know about it for the reasons we talked about earlier. so, yes, the ukrainians kept it close to their vest. now, mr. purpura went on to say, the ukrainians say they don't feel any pressure. that's what they say now. of course, we know that's not true. we've had testimony that they didn't want to be used as a political pawn in u.s. domestic politics. they resisted it. you'll hear more testimony about that, about the efforts to push back on this public statement, how they tried to water it down, how they tried to leave out the specifics and how giuliani at the president's behest forced them, no, this isn't going to be credible if you don't add burisma and you don't add 2016.

you'll hear about the pressure. they felt it. so why isn't president zelensky now saying he was pressured? well, can you imagine the impact of that? can you imagine the impact of president zelensky if he were to acknowledge today, hell yes, we felt pressured, you would, too. we're at war with russia, for crying out loud. he only felt pressure. we needed those hundreds of millions in military aid. do you think i'm going to say that now? i still can't get in the white house door. they let lavrov in, the russian foreign minister. they let him in. i can't get in the white house door. do you think i'm going to go out now and admit to this scheme? i mean, anyone who has watched this president the last three years knows how vindictive he can be. do you think it would be smart for the president of ukraine to contradict the president of the united states so directly on an issue he's being impeached for?

that would be the worst form of malpractice for the new president of ukraine. we shouldn't be surprised he would deny it. we should be surprised if he were to admit it. now, let me just end with a couple observations about mr. cipollone's comments. he says this is no big deal. we're not talking about when we're going to have witnesses or if we're going to have witnesses. we're just talking about when, just talktiing about when, as i later they're going to say, well, yes, we're happy to have the witnesses now. it's just a question of when. okay. as my colleague said, let's be real. there will be no when. there will be no when. do you think they're going to have an ee punxsutawney phpipham

now? their goal is to have you say no now. get you to have the trial, and then argue, make it go away. let's dismiss the whole thing. that's the plan. a vote to delay is a vote to deny. let's make no mistake about that. they're not going to have an epiphany a few days from now and suddenly say, okay, the american people do deserve the answers. their whole goal is that you'll never get to that point. you'll never get to that point. when they say when, they mean never. i yield back. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i make a motion to table the

amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander? >> aye. >> ms. baldwin? >> no. >> mr. baraso. >> aye. >> mr. bennett. mrs. blackburn. >> as they call the roll here, i'll jump in briefly to say what's going on. i'm rachel maddow at msnbc headquarters in new york. this is the fourth amendment proposed by the democratic side that has been voted on thus far. the original resolution was introduced or distributed last night by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. that was his proposed essential rules or structure for how 9 trial would proceed. there were changes made to that at the last minute today. and since then they've been voting all day long on a series of amendments put forward by the

democrats. the first amendment was to subpoena documents from the white house, voted down on a party line vote. second amendment was to subpoena documents from the state department. voted down on a party line vote. third amendment was to subpoena documents from omb, the office of management and budget. voted down on a party line vote. this is the fourth amendment now, which is to subpoena white house chief of staff mick mulvaney. people are going out of their way to describe him as acting chief of staff. there is no such thing as an acting chief of staff. it is not a senate confirmed position. he's just the white house chief of staff. this was a long argument from the democrats' shorter argument from the defense counsel for the president. no reason to expect that this vote will go differently than the others, but we will be watching this closely. we are also getting word that a fifth amendment is due to come after this. we are expecting, although we won't know until we see it for sure, we are expecting that the fifth amendment to come after this roll call vote will be an amendment to propose a subpoena

to the defense department, to subpoena the pentagon for documents as well under girding the impeachment scandal. i'm here on set with maia wiley, civil rights attorney, my friend chris hayes from all in. claire mccaskill, prosecutor and staff member of the special counsel's investigation. claire, let me just ask you as we watched that argument between hakeem jeffries for the house impeachment managers and the president's defense counsel, what did you make of that argument? >> you know, i've been struck all day, rachel, by the substantive arguments that have been made by the house managers. calm, dignified. their legal analysis thorough, with a lot of evidence. versus the president's lawyers. i have to believe if the president is watching this, he's not pleased because he likes a show. he wants to be the biggest thing in the room.

and his lawyers have just seemed kind of whiney and just full of rhetoric. nothing really substantive coming from them. just talking points, whereas we've seen various documents, we've seen videotaped testimony. we've seen an awful lot of the narrative that is the foundation of this impeachment. and i just think they've lawyered very, very well on behalf of the house and have run rings around the president's attorneys. >> it has been long, structured arguments from the house impeachment managers one after the other. senator -- congressman adam schiff tends to speak with fewer notes than the others, tends to speak more from the top -- off the the top of his head, but he's very eloquent in doing so. whereas the other impeachment managers are presenting written structured arguments. and at least 21 different occasions they have played tape. they've played sound bites that are meant to bolster and demonstrate pieces of their

argument. you saw adam schiff there. andrew, i'll put this to you. take issue and live fact check michael purpura from the white house for having made a false claim about when the ukrainians knew about the aid being withheld. is there a consequence for the president's defense counsel making factually false assertions in this venue? >> one of the things that i think was quite dignified was adam schiff i think handled that in a very understated way. this is not the first time today where claims that were false, and instead of jumping right to the fact that it was intentional, he just pointed out that those were incorrect and corrected the record. there was ample reason to think it was intentional. this all, the point claire made earlier today, this obviously was all script and had fact checked. you don't say something like that without many, many people going over it. yes, there can be consequence in terms of your bar license if it's shown that you're saying something not inadvertent, but

intentional. >> let's go back to this. i think they're just getting to the end of the alphabetical roll call. let's listen in. purchase >> are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 53 and the nays are 47. the amendment is tabled. >> mr. chief justice? >> mr. majority leader is recognized. >> i would ask consent to ask the democratic leader, since there is a certain similarity to all these amendments, whether he might be willing to enter into a

consent agreement to stack these votes. >> without objection, the inquiry is permitted. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. the bottom line is very simple. as has been clear to every senator and the country, we believe witnesses and documents are extremely important, and a compelling case has been made for them. we will have votes on all of those. we will also -- the leader, without consulting us, made changes, a number of significant changes that significantly deviated from the 1999 clinton resolution. we want to change those. so there will be a good number of votes. we are willing to do some of those votes tomorrow. there's no reason we have to do them all tonight and inconvenience the senate and the chief justice, but we will not back off on getting votes on all of these amendments which we regard as extremely significant

and important to the country. >> that was for a question. >> as i've said repeatedly, all these amendments under the resolution could be dealt with at the appropriate time. i suggest we ask for a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. >> claire, let me ask you what's happening. he suggests the absence of a quorum, and now they're calling the roll. what's happening? >> absence of a quorum is another way of saying, give me a minute, because clearly there's a quorum. >> every senator is in the room. >> this is the most quorum you've ever seen in the united states senate. so what he's asking for is time. and so what he wants to do is consult with his members and consult with schumer. he's probably getting some pressure from some members about isn't this enough, can't we go home?

and we'll see if he breaks and says they can begin tomorrow afternoon with more of these amendments or whether they push on tonight to continue to vote on amendments. what mcconnell is asking schumer to do is basically put all the amendments in, allow one hour for each side to argue all of them, and then do -- vote, vote, vote, vote, vote. >> did the word he use to stack, is that what that means? >> that is when you have, you know, like a manager's package on a bill, there might be seven or eight amendments and you stack them. you go one after the other, with literally one or two minutes between each vote. and that's what they're trying to do to get away from the ability of the house managers to continue to tell this story in great detail over many more hours yet tonight or tomorrow. >> and senator schumer flatly rejected? >> flatly rejected. i knew something was going on because if you see right in front of you, the woman in the yellow talking to gary who is

hair challenged, gary is the floor manager for the democrats. >> his hair is perfect. >> his hair is great. she is the floor manager for the republicans. so usually they're the ones that are negotiating this stuff. so they are now trying to figure this out, and then they go back to schumer and mcconnell and say, here's what we think we can agree to. >> it's worth noting, i mean just in terms of sort of the arc of history and the body of the united states senate as a microcosm of american politics, that daschle and lotte worked out as noted many times today a package passed 100-0 with consent, through extended negotiations between the two parties. even at that point, at the time felt like a sort of low point of the kind of institutional structure on capitol hill and the impeachment of president clinton as a high point, partisan polarization. that was not the high point of polarization as is evidenced now in the procedural fights we've seen this time around 20 years

later. >> maia wiley, let me ask you about the point claire just made about needing to stop the house impeachment managers from continuing to make this case. do you feel that they are drawing blood, that they are making a case here that is hurting? >> oh, i'm proud. i am proud for my profession when i see the house managers. and i'll put it in legal terms. they brought the receipts. they threw them on the table. and they asked them to be paid when they ask for these documents and these witnesses. what i mean by that is they are, as everyone has said, they are putting on their case every single chance they get because mitch mcconnell said publicly that there is no daylight between me and the white house's defense. and he is using the rules in every way he can to advantage the white house defense. and i think what the house managers are saying is, we're just going to put the evidence out there over and over and over again, and we will use this

rules process to deliver the evidence. and i think the only way in which it's slightly backfiring on them -- that's an overstatement -- is it does give the republicans the talking point that you say you don't have enough evidence. here you come to us with these articles, and you need more evidence. see, only little way in which -- i think they could say it's not that we don't have enough. it's that you've made clear that you won't accept what we have despite the white house's obstruction. so let's bring more. >> in terms of what we've been watching here, senator mccaskill, claire, because of what you just described about the house -- excuse me, the democratic floor manager and the republican floor manager and the conversation we just saw them in, just a moment ago they just broke apart. you see the woman in yellow who is the republican floor manager speaking with mitch mcconnell there at the bottom of the screen. it's hard to tell from their body language or any other form of sort of lip reading we try to do here, how that worked out. but the door she's leaving through right now is the door that pat cipollone just

scampered out a few minutes ago. presumably whatever is happening, they've now settled on how it's going to go and she's alerting the president's counsel. >> i'm assuming that the president's counsel is in the vice-president's ceremonial office, which is immediately out those double doors, in the lobby that is not restricted to just senators. the pages do homework there. senators get on the phone there. there are areas then behind that room that are restricted to senators only. but i'm assuming they have planted or parked the team in pence's ceremonial office which is just steps outside that door. >> let me just reset where we are for a moment. i do think this is a little surprising twist that we are seeing right here. again, what had happened right before we just had this surprise development is that the fourth democratic amendment had been voted down on a party line vote. we've seen them asking for subpoenas for white house documents, omb documents.

this is a statement formic mulvaney voted down. we received word the fifth was ready to go. but mitch mcconnell stepped in and interrupted the process, essentially said, i will, i will slightly mischaracterize his remarks to make clear the way they landed, which is to say that he basically said, we're done with this. how long is this going to go on? how many of these amendments are there going to be, how late are you going to make us stay up? let's stack these, as claire described that meant they were going to get through them quickly. senator schumer's response to this is interesting, though. we haven't talked about the implications of this. he said, no, we're not going to stack these. we are going to get a vote on every single one of these. he did say if you want to come back and do this tomorrow, we can, which would lengthen the overall process for how long the impeachment trial is going to go. and it would seem that part of the republican strategy here is to make it go as fast as possible. does that seem fair? >> that's exactly right. laura dove is her name.

i don't want to call her the woman in yellow again. let me get that in. and gary myrik. and they're technically called the secretary for the minority and the majority. chuck is trying to make sure that the case he's trying to make, not just to some republicans that he might get to waver on documents and witnesses, the case he's making to the american people that they have adequate time to present this compelling case about the need for witnesses and documents. and he doesn't feel any need to short circuit that. and if mitch doesn't want to continue to work tonight, then they have the option of extending this process and allowing them to do the amendments. it would have to be tomorrow afternoon because i believe the court has an argument in the morning. >> it does, yes. >> court has an argument. >> supreme court has an argument in the morning so they wouldn't be able to start until 1:00, which means the cases wouldn't begin until probably the following day. >> which would be extending -- >> add a day to the tally.

>> you know what they're in a race for, to get this in before the state of the union. >> we have been talking while this has been hashed out in the room. you see the counsel table that's the impeachment managers' table on the left that's got all the paper on it. the much cleaner table on the right is the white house defense counsel for the president. you can tell a little bit about the difference in approach from the two sides simply from looking at their work environments. part of the reason we have such a good view of it right now is because they're out of the roonl. as are a number of senators. and the reason that's important for you watching at home right now and what we're planning on doing, we're hoping with a lot of senators having flooded out of the chamber, one of their few opportunities to leave the chamber today, we're hoping to wrangle one of them if we can to get their perspective on what's happened here. you will notice at the center top of your screen, chief justice roberts is still there and has been chatting with various staff and with some senators. so we'll see how this resolves, but again, technically what happened here is a quorum call,

which essentially bought them some time to try to work out whatever it is that they are doing here. andrew? >> so, i think mitch mcconnell may have made a bit of a miscalculation there because what he is really saying, can you stack these, it doesn't matter what you say because we're going to vote against it. >> right. >> which -- >> reference to that. >> that is remarkable. this is supposed to be about the facts and the law and you have the democrats, whether you agree or not, they are making individualized assessments of each of the requests they've made. why is it that we need omb? why is it we need the state department? to turn to the democrats and say, hey, can you just put this all together? because it doesn't matter. >> we don't care. >> that is a really bad signal. >> i'm going to jump in right now because i do believe we have been able to get to a camera. senator amy klobuchar, democrat from minnesota, 2020 presidential candidate. thank you for getting to a camera. we appreciate it. >> we're in a quorum call. it's very exciting. >> i understand what that

technically means. can you tell us what's actually happening why we are having this break right now and what is being fought over? >> sure. there is negotiation about how many more of these motions we're going to be bringing up. obviously we are trying to get votes on amendments and resolutions so that we can have witnesses. not at the end of the trial, but now. and i've just been stunned that our colleagues on the republican side are not negotiating this and they aren't. all we're really talking about right now, as far as i know, is how many more we will do tonight, but they just don't seem to show any interest in having witnesses. as senator mccaskill knows from the kourt iocourt ious case, we on that panel and i'm shocked by what's going on here tonight. >> in terms of the way this is resolving, obviously we had a few twists and turns.

we did have the proposed resolution from the senate majority leader, senator mcconnell go through some changes, handwritten changes to the resolution which gave an additional day for making the arguments on each side which changed something about the way the house evidence would be brought over. there have been some tweaks and changes. are those things being driven by discussions among your republican colleagues, among the republican caucus? they're essentially lobbying senator mcconnell to make these changes? are they fights against the amendments as they are coming up? what is your sense of the dynamic thrust here? >> well, there are discussions on their side. but i think the key is which still don't have any commitment to have witnesses. every hearing like this in history has had witnesses in evidence. i thought actually right there at the close when the house managers and hakeem jeffries were talking about why are we here, we're here because the president put his own private

interests in front of the interests of the country. and we're here because we value the constitution. and so i've been very impressed by the house managers' case and how they're presenting it, not as impressed by the president's lawyers and their yelling and they basically say things often that aren't true, but i guess we're waiting to see what they've got because so far it has been very impressive. >> amy, do you see any of the republicans taking this seriously? you're there. you're watching them all. i know that several of them were caught sleeping today. i just want to make sure that we, in fact, have some republicans that are paying attention. is anybody on their side taking notes? is anyone taking this with even a grain of seriousness? >> i've seen a few people look down at their shoes when strong cases are made for national security.

to me they look embarrassed because they know very well what was going on here, and so many of them have spoken out against russia in the past on this side of ukraine. and then you see the evidence coming in. and to me they look embarrassed. i just don't know why they would have this job and come here if they're not going to protect the constitution. so my hope is somehow out of that, remember, we're not like a normal juror sitting in a jury box. we're representing the people in our states and the people in the country and maybe they'll list ebb listen to people. go ahead. >> are the phones -- >> i haven't asked. i've been in there all day. and as far as them falling asleep, i'm the one that got up at 4:00 a.m. from the presidential trail, got on a plane in minneapolis and got here. oh, i think i've got to get back

there. i don't want to violate the quorum call. >> we hear you, senator. good luck. thank you, senator. >> thank you. bye. >> very rarely talking to somebody when the alarm goes off in the middle of it. and you have to let them go. i mean, i'm happy to have senator klobuchar on any time. but it has been interesting to see them turn a number of times, the president's counsel turn the question to the four democrats who have been presidential candidates who are in the room. let's go to senator schumer. >> records from the department of defense, i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment, number 1288. at the appropriate place in the resolving clause, insert the following. section, notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution pursuant to rules 5

and 6 of the rules of procedures and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials, one, the chief justice of the united states through the secretary of the senate shall issue a subpoena to the secretary of defense commanding him to produce for the time period from january 1, 2019 to the present, all documents, communications and other records within the possession, custody or control of the department of defense referring or relating to, a, the actual or potential suspension, withholding, delaying, freezing or releasing of united states foreign assistance, military assistance, or security assistance of any kind to ukraine, including but not limited to the ukraine security assistance initiative, usai and foreign military financing, not limited to communications, one, between officials at the department of defense, white house, office of management and budget, department of state or office of

the vice-president. two, documents, communications, notes or other records created, sent or received by the secretary mark esper, deputy secretary david norquist, under secretary of defense elaine mccusker and deputy secretary of defense laura cooper or mr. erik ginning. three, draft or final letters from deputy secretary david norquist to the office of management and budget, and four, unredacted copies of all documents released in response to the september 25, 2019 freedom of information act request by the center for public integrity tracking number 19-f-1934. b, the ukrainian government's knowledge prior to august 28, 2019, of any actual or potential suspension, withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of united states foreign assistance military assistance, or security assistance to

ukraine, including but not limited to all meetings, calls, or other engagements with ukrainian officials regarding potential or actual suspensions, holds or delays in the united states assistance to ukraine, including but not limited to, one, communications received from the department of state concerning the ukrainian embassy's inquiries about united states foreign assistance, military assistance, and security assistance to ukraine. and two, communications received directly from the ukrainian embassy about united states foreign assistance, military assistance, and security assistance to ukraine. c, communications, opinions, advice, counsel, approvals or concurrences provided by the department of defense, office of management and budget, or the white house on the lalt egality freezing of united states foreign assistance security

assistance to ukraine. d., planned or actual meetings with president trump related to united states foreign assistance, military assistance, or security assistance to ukraine, including but not limited to any talking points and notes for secretary mark esper's planned or actwrual meetings with president trump on august 16, august 19 or august 30, 2019. e., the decision announced on or about september 11, 2019, to release appropriated foreign assistance, military assistance, and security assistance to ukraine, including but not limited to any notes, memoranda, documentation or correspondence related to that -- to the decision. and f., all meetings and calls between president trump and the president of ukraine, including but not limited to documents, communications and other records related to the scheduling of, preparation for and follow-up from the president's april 21 and july 25, 2019 telephone

calls as well as the president's september 25, 2019 meeting with the president of ukraine in new york. and two, the sergeant at arms is authorized to utilize the services of the deputy sergeant at arms or any other employee of the senate in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this action. >> the amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided. mr. manager schiff, are you a proponent or opponent? >> proponent. >> mr. cipollone? >> mr. chief justice, we are an opponent. >> house managers may proceed and reserve time for rebuttal. >> mr. chief justice, the house managers will be reserving the balance of our time to respond to the argument of the counsel for president. mr. chief justice, senators, and the american people, i'd like to begin by getting something off of my chest, something that's been bothering

me for a little while. counsel for the president and some other folks in this room have been talking a lot about how late it's getting, how long this debate is taking. it's almost 10:00 p.m. in washington, d.c. they say, let's get the show on the road, let's get moving. the whole time, the only thing i can think about is how late it is in other places, because right now it's the middle of the night in europe where we have over 60,000 u.s. troops. there are helicopter pilots flying training missions, tankers, maneuvering across fields, infantry men walking

with hundred-pound packs. and yes, ukrainian soldiers in their trenches facing off against russian tanks right now. and i don't think any of those folks want to hear us talk about how tired we are or how late it is. we have time to have this debate. and that's why the house managers strongly support this amendment to subpoena key documents from the department of defense. because just like the subpoena for omb, the documents from omb speak directly to one of trump's abuses, his withholding of critical military aid from our partner ukraine to further his personal political campaign. $250 million of taxpayer funded military aid for ukraine was managed by the department of defense as part of the ukraine

security assistance initiative. these funds, approved by 87 senators in this very room, would purchase additional training, equipment, and advising the strengthening capacity of ukraine's armed forces. the equipment approved for ukraine included sniper rifles. rocket propelled grenade launchers. counter artillery radar. night vision goggles and medical supplies. and this equipment was to be purchased almost exclusively from american businesses. this equipment, along with the training and advising provided by d.o.d., was intended to protect our national security by helping our friend ukraine fight against vladimir putin's russia. earlier, counsel for the president tried to make the argument, well, it made it there. the aid eventually made it

there. the delay doesn't really matter. and you heard me talk about why the delay does matter. but what counsel for the president didn't say is that all of the aid has not made it there. congress had to pass another law so that $35.2 million of that aid wouldn't expire and lapse. we did. but to this day, 18 1/2 million dollars of that money remains outstanding and hasn't made its way to the battle field. it was d.o.d. that repeatedly advised the white house and omb about the importance of the security assistance of not only ukraine, but also u.s. national security. it was d.o.d. in august of 2019 that warned omb that the freeze was unlawful and that the funds could be lost as a result. and it was d.o.d. that scrambled after the hold was lifted, without explanation, on

september 11th to spend the funds before they expired at the end of the month. without a doubt, d.o.d. has key documents that the president has refused to turnover to congress, key documents that go to the heart of the ways in which the president abused his power. it's time to subpoena those documents. d.o.d. documents would provide insight into critical aspects of this hold. they would show the decision-making process and motivations behind president trump's freeze. they would reveal the concerns expressed by d.o.d. and omb officials that the hold was violating the law. they would reveal our defense officials' grave concerns about the impact of the freeze on ukraine and u.s. national security. they would show that the senior defense department officials repeatedly attempted to convince president trump to release the aid. in short, they would further

establish the president's scheme to use our national defense funds to benefit his personal political campaign. we are not speculating about the existence of these documents and we're not guessing about what they might show because during the course of the investigation in the house, witnesses who testified before the committees identified multiple documents directly relevant to the impeachment inquiry that d.o.d. continues to withhold. we know these documents exist and we know that the only reason we do not have them is because the president himself directed the pentagon not to produce them, because he knows what they would show. to demonstrate the significance of the d.o.d. documents and the value they would provide in this trial, i would like to walk you through some of what we know exists, but that the trump administration continues to refuse to turn over. and again, based on what is known from the testimony and the

few documents that have been obtained through public reporting in lawsuits, it's clear the president is trying to hide this evidence because he is afraid of what it would show the american people. we know that d.o.d. has documents that reveal that as early as june the president was considering holding military aid for ukraine. as i mentioned earlier, the president began questioning military aid to ukraine in june of last year. the president's questions came days after d.o.d. issued a press release on june 18th announcing it would provide its 250 million portion of the aid to ukraine. according to public reporting, deputy under secretary defense elaine mccusker who manages the d.o.d.'s budget, learned about the president's questions. we know this email exists because in response to a freedom

of information act lawsuit, the trump administration was forced to release a redacted email. but d.o.d. provided none of those documents to the house. deputy assistant secretary of defense laura cooper and her team were tasked by the secretary of defense with responding to the president's questions about the ukraine assistance. miss cooper testified that she put those answers in an email and described those emails during her deposition. she testified that d.o.d. advised the security assistance was crucial for both ukraine and u.s. national security, and had strong bipartisan support in congress. but d.o.d. provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment, the senate has an opportunity to obtain and review the full record that could further demonstrate how and why the president was holding the aid. laura cooper also testified

about the inter-agency meetings that occurred in late 2019. the meetings at which d.o.d. was shocked to learn that president trump has placed a mysterious hold on the security assistance. we know what happened at several of those meetings because ms. cooler participated in them. in some cases with other senior defense department officials. however, we don't have laura cooper's notes from those meetings. we don't have the emails she sent to senior d.o.d. officials reporting the stunning news about the president's hold. we don't have the emails that show the response from the secretary of defense and other senior defense officials because d.o.d. has refused to provide them. separately, laura cooper testified about when the ukraine -- when ukraine first learned of the president's secret hold on the military

assistance. the same day as the president's july 25th call with president zelensky, d.o.d. officials received two emails from the state department indicating that officials from the ukrainian embassy and congressional staff had become aware of the hold and were starting to ask questions. ms. cooper testified that she was informed, quote, the ukrainian embassy and house foreign affairs committee are asking about the military aid, end quote. in that the hill knows about the fms situation to an extent ask so does the ukrainian embassy. all of this shows that people were starting to get very worried. again, this amendment for subpoena to d.o.d. would compel the production of these important documents. but again, there is more. d.o.d. documents would also reveal key facts about what happened on july 25th after omb directed d.o.d. to, quote, hold

off on any additional d.o.d. obligations for the assistance to ukraine. how did d.o.d. officials react to omb's directive to keep this order quiet? did d.o.d. officials raise immediate concerns about the legality of the hold? concerns that they would eventually vocally articulate to omb in august? did d.o.d. officials hear from the american businesses that were on tap to provide the equipment from ukraine? was d.o.d. informed of the president's hold would undermine american jobs? answers to those questions may be found in d.o.d. emails. emails that we could all see if you issue the subpoena. earlier i mentioned that by late july, officials in our government raised significant concerns about the impact and the legality of president trump's hold on the military

aid. we know this from witness testimony, public reporting, and documents produced in freedom of information act lawsuits. for example, at an inter agency meeting on july 31st, laura cooper, one of the officials at d.o.d., announced because there were two legally available options to continue the hold and they did not have direction to pursue either of those legal options, d.o.d. would have to start spending the funds on august 6th. cooper explained that if they did not start spending the funds, they would risk violating the impoundment control act. it was a fateful warning because that is exactly what happened. throughout august, pentagon officials grew increasingly concerned as the hold dragged on. according to public reporting, d.o.d. wrote to omb on august 9th to say that it could no longer claim the delay, would have no effect on the def