widespread plot really to undermine a congressionally passed appropriation. they had no right to do it. the gao called them out on it. it's against the law. and so many people were involved in this thing. so this, to me, just watching this -- and i know most americans probably didn't have the time or ability to do it -- is stunning, how deep this plot goes. >> senator boxer, michael steele here. >> hi, michael. >> how you doing? >> good. >> on the question of a vote to dismiss, there's some debate right now in republican circles about whether or not they want to lead with that after this round of votes on these amendments. there are those inside the party that are like, no, let's wait. what's your assessment of that in this process and the impact it could potentially have should we get through this, they do the opening arguments and then there's a motion to dismiss?

how do you think that lands with the american people, and what impact do you think it may have politically going into the rest of this campaign season? >> if i may, a republican senator from a purple state or a blue state like susan collins is actually from a blue state, and i vote to dismiss, i think that's trouble for me. but i can't -- sure. >> hey, senator, i have to interrupt you for one second because we're coming down. we've broadcast all of these tallies. we're coming down to the moment where the clerk will report to the chief justice. >> does any senator in the chamber wish to change his or her vote? if no, the ayes are 53. the nays are 47. the amendment is tabled.

>> mr. chief justice. >> the democratic leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i send an amendment to the desk to issue a subpoena to john robert bolton, and i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >> the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment number 1291. 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 procedure and practice in the senate, when sitting on impeachment trials, the chief justice of the united states, through the secretary of the senate, shall issue a subpoena for the taking of testimony of john robert bolton, and 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 section. >> the amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided. mr. manager sheriff, achiff, ar proponent? >> yes, i am. >> mr. cipollone, an opponent? >> yes. >> mr. schiff, you may proceed. you may reserve time for rebuttal. >> before i begin, mr. chief justice, the house managers will be reserving the balance of our time to respond to the arguments of the counsel for the president. mr. chief justice, senators, counsel for the president, the house managers strongly support this amendment to subpoena john bolton. i am struck by what we have heard from the president's

counsel so far tonight. they complain about process, but they do not seriously contest any of the allegations against the president. they insist that the president has done nothing wrong, but they refuse to allow the evidence and hear from the witnesses. they will not permit the american people to hear from the witnesses. and they lie and lie and lie and lie. for example, for months president trump has repeatedly complained that the house denied him the right to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, and so forth. you heard mr. cipollone repeat this lie today. well, i have with me the letter that i sent as chairman of the house judiciary committee last november 26th, inviting the president and his counsel to attend our hearings, to cross-examine the witnesses, to call witnesses of his own and so forth. and i have the letter, the white house letter signed by mr. cipollone rejecting that

offer. we should expect at least a little regard for the truth from the white house, but that is apparently too much to expect. ladies and gentlemen, this is a trial. at a trial, the lawyers present evidence. the american people know that. most 10-year-olds know that. if you block -- if you vote to politic this witness or any of the evidence that should be presented here, it can only be because you do not want the american people to hear the evidence, that you do not want a fair trial, and that you are complicit in president trump's efforts to hide his misconduct and hide the truth from the american people. ambassador bolton was appointed by president trump. he has stated his willingness to testify in this trial. he is prepared to testify. he says that he has relevant

evidence not yet disclosed to the public. his comments reaffirm what is obvious from the testimony and documents obtained by the house, which highlight ambassador bolton's role in and repeated criticism of the president's misconduct. in fact, extensive evidence collected by the house makes clear that ambassador bolton not only had firsthand knowledge of the ukraine scheme but that he was deeply concerned with it. he described the scheme as a drug deal to a senior member of his staff. he warned that president trump's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani, would, quote, blow everybody up, unquote. indeed, in advance of the july 25th, 2019, call, ambassador bolton expressed concern that president trump would ask the ukrainian president to announce these political investigations, which is of course exactly what happened. now, of course, there were to be

no investigations. all he cared about was an announcement to smear a political rival in the united states. he repeatedly urged his staff to report their own concerns about the president's conduct to legal counsel. that is ambassador bolton did, not the president -- as the scheme was unfolding. finally, as national security adviser, he also objected to the president's freezing of military aid for ukraine and advocated for the release of that aid, including directly with president trump. and of course as we all know, the impoundment control act makes illegal the president's withholding of that aid after congress had voted for it. but the president ignored the warnings about that because all he cared about was smearing a political rival. the law meant nothing to him. ambassador bolton has made clear that he is ready, willing and able to testify about everything he witnessed. but president trump does not want you to hear from ambassador bolton. and the reason has nothing to do

with executive privilege or this other nonsense. and the reason has nothing to do with national security. if the president cared about national security, he would not have blocked military assistance to a vulnerable strategic ally in the attempt to secure a personal political favor for himself. no, the president does not want you to hear from ambassador bolton because the president does not want the american people to hear firsthand testimony about the misconduct at the heart of this trial. the question is whether the senate will be complicit in the president's crimes by covering them up. any senator who votes against ambassador bolton's testimony or any relevant testimony shows that he or she wants to be part of the cover-up. what other possible reason is there to prohibit a relevant witness from testifying here? unfortunately so far i've seen every republican senator has shown that they want to be part

of the cover-up by voting against every document and witness proposed. ambassador bolton is a firsthand witness to president trump's abuse of power. as the national security adviser, he reported directly to the president and supervised the entire national security council. that included three key witnesses with responsibility for ukraine matters who testified in great detail before the house -- dr. fiona hill, tim morrison, and lieutenant colonel alexander vindman. moreover, in his role, john bolton was the tip of the spear for president trump on national security. it was his responsibility to oversee everything happening in the trump administration regarding foreign policy and national security. by virtue of his unique position, appointed by the president, bolton had knowledge of the latest intelligence and developments in our relationship with ukraine, including our support of the country and its

new president. and that is why the president and some members of this body are afraid to hear from ambassador bolton, because they know he knows too much. there is also substantial evidence that ambassador bolton kept a keen eye on rudy giuliani, who was acting on behalf of the president in connection with ukraine. as we will describe, ambassador bolton communicated directly with mr. giuliani at key moments. he knows the details of the so-called drug deal he would later warn against. perhaps most importantly, ambassador bolton has said both that he will testify and that he has relevant information that has not yet been disclosed. a key witness has come forward and confirmed not only that he participated in critically important events but that he has new evidence we have not yet heard. that is precisely what ambassador bolton has done.

his lawyer tells us that ambassador bolton was, quote, personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which the house heard testimony as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far, closed quote. ambassador bolton was requested as a witness in the house inquiry, but he refused to appear voluntarily. his lawyers informed the house intelligence committee that ambassador bolton would take the matter to court if she issued subpoenas as a subordinate did. but the ambassador has changed his tune. he recently issued a statement confirming that, quote, if the senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, i am prepared to testify. so the question presented as to ambassador bolton is clear. it comes down to this. will the senate do its duty and hear all the evidence, or will it slam this door shut and show it is participating in a

cover-up because it fears to hear testimony from the former national security adviser of the president, because it fears what he might say. it fears he knows too much. consider this as well. why is president trump so intent on preventing us from hearing ambassador bolton, his own appointee, his formerly trusted confidant? because he knows, he knows his guilty, and he knows that he doesn't want people who know about it to testify. the question is whether the republican senators here today will participate in that cover-up. the reasons seem clear. president trump wants to block this witness because ambassador bolton has direct knowledge of the ukraine scheme, which he called a drug deal.

let's start with a key meeting that took place on july 10th. just two weeks before president trump's now famous july 25th call with president zelensky, ambassador bolton hosted senior ukrainian officials in his west wing office. that meeting included dr. hill, lieutenant colonel vindman, ambassadors sondland and volker, and energy secretary rick perry. as they did in every meeting they took with u.s. officials, the ukrainian officials asked when president trump would schedule a white house meeting for the newly elected ukrainian president because it was very important for the ukrainian president, the new president of an embattled democracy being invaded by russia, to show that he had legitimacy by a meeting with the united states. dr. hill testified that ambassador sondland blurted out

that he had a deal with mr. mulvaney for a white house visit provided that ukraine first announce investigations into the president's political rivals. ambassador bolton immediately stiffened and ended the meeting. dr. hill's testimony is on the screen. in other words, ambassador bolton and others at the meeting, they were interested in the national security of the united states. they were interested in protecting an american ally against russian invasion. they couldn't understand why this sudden order was coming from the president to abandon that ally because they didn't yet know, they didn't yet know of the president's plot to try to extort the ukrainian government into doing him a

political favor by announcing an investigation of a political rival. when dr. hill reported back to ambassador bolton about the second conversation, ambassador bolton told dr. hill to go to the national security council's legal adviser, john eisenberg, and tell him, quote, i am not part of whatever drug deal sondland and mulvaney are cooking up on this. here is an excerpt of her hearing testimony. >> the specific instruction was that hi to go to the lawyers, to john eisenberg, our senior counsel for the national security council, to basically tell eisenberg ambassador bolton told me i am not part of this whatever drug deal that mulvaney and sondland are cooking up. >> what did you understand him to mean by the drug deal that mulvaney and sondland were cooking up? >> i took it to mean investigations for a meeting. >> did you go speak to the lawyers? >> i certainly did.

>> these statements and events are reason enough to insist that ambassador bolton testify. he can explain the misconduct that caused him to characterize the ukraine deal -- the ukraine scheme as a drug deal and why he directed his subordinates to report their concerns to legal counsel. he can tell us everything else he knows about how ambassador sondland, mr. mulvaney, and others were attempting to press the ukrainians to do president trump's political bidding. once more, only ambassador bolton can tell us what he was thinking and what he knew as this scheme developed. that is why the president fears his testimony. that is why some members of this body fear his testimony. ambassador bolton's involvement was not limited to a few isolated events. he was a witness at key moments in the course of the ukraine scheme and especially in july, august, and september last year.

i would like to walk through some of those events. please remember as i'm describing them that this is not the entire universe of issues to which ambassador bolton could testify. only examples that show why he is such an important witness and why the president is desperate to block his testimony. we know from ambassador bolton's attorney that there may be other meetings and conversations that have not yet come to our attention. but to take one example, we know from witness testimony that ambassador bolton repeatedly expressed concerns about the involvement of president trump's personal lawyer, mr. giuliani. in the spring and summer of 2019, ambassador bolton caught wind of mr. giuliani's involvement in ukraine and soon began to express concerns. ambassador bolton expressed strong concerns about mr. giuliani's involvement in ukraine matters. when ambassador bolton described mr. giuliani as, quote, a hand

grenade that was going to blow everybody up, unquote, it was based on his fear that mr. giuliani's work on behalf of the president, his attempts to have ukraine announce these investigations, these sham investigations, and his campaign to smear ambassador yovanovich would ultimately backfire and cause lasting damage to the president. it turns out he was right. >> did your boss, ambassador bolton, tell you that giuliani was, quote, a hand grenade? >> he did, yes. >> what do you think he met by his characterization of giuliani as a hand grenade? >> what he meant by this was pretty clear to me in the context of all of the statements that mr. giuliani was making publicly that the investigations that he was promoting, that the story line he was promoting, the narrative he was promoting was going to backfire. i think it has backfired. >> in june, as ambassador bolton

became aware of mr. giuliani's coordination with ambassadors volker and sondland, he told dr. hill and other members of the national security council staff that, quote, nobody should be meeting with giuliani, unquote. but he, of course, did not know of the plot as to why people were meeting with giuliani, the president's plot. dr. hill also testified that ambassador bolton was, quote, closely monitoring what mr. giuliani was doing and the messaging that he was sending out. but bolton was keenly aware that mr. giuliani was doing the president's bidding. that is also why the president fears his testimony. during a meeting on june 13th, 2019, ambassador bolton made clear that he supported more engagement with ukraine by senior white house officials but cautioned that mr. giuliani was a key voice with the president on ukraine. he joked that every time ukraine is mentioned, giuliani pops up. ambassador bolton also

communicated directly with mr. giuliani at key junctures. according to call records obtained by the house, mr. giuliani connected with ambassador bolton's office three times for brief calls between april 23rd and may 10th, 2019. a time period that corresponds with the recall of ambassador yovanovich and the acceleration of mr. giuliani's efforts on behalf of president trump to pressure ukraine into opening investigations that would benefit his re-election campaign. for instance, on april 23rd, the day before the state department recalled ambassador yovanovich from ukraine, mr. giuliani had an 8:28 call from the white house. 30 minutes letter, he had a 48-second call with a phone number associated with ambassador bolton. if called to testify, we can ask ambassador bolton directly what transpired in that call and whether that phone call informed

his assessment that mr. giuliani was, quote, a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone one. and we can ask mr. bolton why when there are approximately 1.8 million companies in ukraine, several hundred thousand of which have been accused of corruption, the president was focused on only one. he didn't care about anything else. he cared only about the company on which the former vice president's son had been a board member. can you believe that he was concerned with corruption and only knew about one company when there are hundreds of thousands that were accused of corruption? now, although ambassador bolton did not listen in on the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky, in

which president trump asked the ukrainian president a favor, a favor to investigate one company and joe biden's son, we have learned from witness testimony that ambassador bolton was opposed to scheduling the call in the first place. why? because he accurately predicted in the words of ambassador taylor that, quote, there could be some talk of investigations or worse on the call. in fact, he did not want the call to happen at all because he, quote, thought it was going to be a disaster. how did ambassador bolton that president trump would bring this up? what made him so concerned that a call would be a disaster? i think we know, but only ambassador bolton can answer these questions. we also know, based on extensive witness testimony, that throughout this period, multiple people on the national security council staff reported concerns to ambassador bolton about tying

american foreign policy to president trump's, quote, domestic political errand as dr. hill so aptly put it. after he abruptly ended the july 10th meeting, the meeting in which ambassador sondland abruptly told the ukrainians that a white house meeting could be scheduled in exchange for the announcement of investigations, ambassador bolton spoke to dr. hill and directed her to report her concerns to national security council's legal adviser john eisenberg. at the end of august, ambassador bolton advised ambassador taylor to send a first-person cable to secretary pompeo to relay concerns about the hold on the military aid. ambassador bolton also advised mr. morrison, dr. hill's successor as the top russia and ukraine official on the national security council, on at least two different occasions to report what he had heard to the national security council's lawyers. it's sounding so suspicious.

on september 1st, ambassador bolton directed mr. morrison to report to the national security council's lawyers an explicit proposal from ambassador sondland to a senior ukrainian official that, quote, what could help them move the aid was if the prosecutor general would go to the mic and announce that he was opening the burisma investigation, closed quote. on september 7th, ambassador bolton instructed mr. morrison to report to the lawyers another conversation mr. morrison had with ambassador sondland. this time ambassador sondland had conveyed the administration would not release the military aid unless president zelensky announced the investigations demanded by president trump. the investigations of one company because the president was so concerned about the corruption in ukraine. one company that had had vice president biden's son on the

board, and the president just happened to pick that company from hundreds of thousands to be concerned about corruption. and the president also opposed funding for corruption in aid to ukraine. why did ambassador bolton tell his subordinates to report these issues to the national security council lawyers? what does he know about how the lawyers responded to the concerns of dr. hill or of lieutenant colonel vindman and mr. morrison? again, only ambassador bolton can answer these questions, and we must assume that the answers go to the heart of the president's misconduct given the president's attempt to block his testimony. why would the president oppose the testimony of his own appointee as the national security council adviser of the united states unless he knew that that testimony would be

damning to him? and those are other reasons the president fears ambassador bolton's testimony. i'd like to turn now to ambassador's bolton's knowledge of and concerns about president trump's illegal withholding of the military aid to ukraine. and we all know, of course, that under the anti-impoundment act of 1974, passed to prevent president nixon from refusing to spend money appropriated by congress, withholding money appropriated by congress is illegal. nonetheless, the president did it for obviously corrupt motives. by july of last year, ambassador bolton was well aware that president trump was illegally withholding security assistance to ukraine, and he and his subordinates tried to convince the president to pursue america's national security interest and release the aid instead of continuing to withhold vital military

assistance to the -- instead of holding that vital military assistance hostage to the president's personal political agenda. throughout the rest of july, over the course of several interagency meetings, the national supreme court council repeatedly discussed the freeze on ukraine's security assistance. as national security adviser, ambassador bolton supervised that process. these meetings worked their way up to the level of cabinet deputies, and every agency involved except for the office of management and budget supported releasing the aid. omb meanwhile said its position was based on president trump's express orders. we know that a number of individuals at omb and the department of defense raised serious concerns about the legality of freezing the funds, which we know is illegal. and we now have an explicit ruling from the government

accountability office, which we didn't need because we knew that's why the law was passed in 1974, that the freeze ordered by president trump was illegal, and he was obviously told this, and violated the impoundment control act. we also know that after the meeting of cabinet deputies on july 26th, tim morrison talked to ambassador bolton, and according to mr. morrison, ambassador bolton said that the entire cabinet supported releasing the freeze and wanted to get the issue to president trump as soon as possible. when did ambassador bolton first become aware that president trump was withholding military aid to ukraine and conditioning the release of that aid on ukraine announcing political investigations? what was he told was the reason? what else did he learn about the president's actions in these meetings? again, only ambassador bolton can answer these questions. and, again, we must presume that president trump is desperate for us not to hear those answers.

i hope not too many members of this body are desperate to make sure that the american people don't hear the same answers. we know that ambassador bolton tried without success throughout august to persuade the president that the aid to ukraine had to be released because that was in america's best interest and necessary for our national security. in mid-august, we know lieutenant colonel vindman wrote a presidential decision memorandum recommending that the freeze be lifted based on the consensus views of the entire cabinet. the memo was given to ambassador bolton, who subsequently had a direct one-on-one conversation with the president in which he tried but failed to convince him to release the hold. >> you said ambassador bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump in late august 2019, but the president was not yet ready to approve the release

of the assistance. do you remember that? >> sir, this was 2-26? >> yes. 266 and 268. but i'm asking you did that happen or did it not? >> sir, i just want to be clear in characterizing it. okay. yes, sir, i see. >> and you testified to that. what was the outcome of that meeting between president trump and ambassador bolton? >> ambassador bolton did not yet believe the president was ready to approve the assistance. >> ambassador bolton's efforts failed. by august 30th, omb informed dod that there was, quote, clear direction from potus to continue to hold. what rationale did president trump give ambassador bolton and other senior officials for refusing to release the aid?

were these reasons convincing to ambassador bolton, and did they reflect the best interests of our national security or the president's personal political interests? only ambassador bolton can tell us the answers. a fair trial in this body would ensure that he testifies. the president does not want you to hear ambassador bolton's testimony. why is that? for all the obvious reasons i've stated. the president claims that he froze aid to ukraine in the interest of our national security. if that is true, why would he oppose testimony from his own former national security adviser? and make no mistake, president trump had no legal grounds to block ambassador bolton's testimony in this trial. executive privilege is not a spell the president can cast to cover up evidence of his own misconduct. it is a qualified privilege that protects senior advisers performing official functions. executive privilege is a shield, not a sword. it cannot be used to block a

witness who is willing to testify as ambassador bolton says he is. and as we know from the nixon case in watergate, the privilege also does not prevent us from obtaining specific evidence of wrongdoing. the supreme court unanimously rejected president nixon's attempt to use executive privilege to conceal incriminating tape recordings. all the similar efforts by president trump must also fail. the president sometimes relies on a theory of absolute immunity that says that he can order anybody in the executive branch not to testify to the house or the senate or to a court. obviously this is ridiculous. it's been flatly rejected by every federal court to consider the idea. it's embarrassing the president's counsels would talk about this today. and again even if president trump asserts that ambassador bolton is absolutely immune from compelled testimony, the president has no authority to

block ambassador bolton from appearing here. as one court recently explained, quote, presidents are not kings, and they do not have subjects whose destiny they are entitled to control. this body should not act as if the president is a king. we will see with the next vote on this question whether the members of this body want to protect the president against all investigation, against all suspicion, against any crimes or not. the framers of our constitution were most concerned about abuse of power where it affects national security. president trump has been impeached for placing his political interests ahead of our national security. it is imperative therefore that we hear from the national security adviser, who witnessed the president's scheme from start to finish. to be clear, the record as it stands fully supports both

articles of impeachment. it is beyond argument that president trump mounted a sustained pressure campaign to get ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically and then tried to cover it up. the president does not seriously deny any of these facts. the only question left is this. why is the president so intent on concealing the evidence and blocking all documents and testimony here today? only guilty people try to hide the evidence. of course all of this is relevant only if this here today is a fair trial, only if you the senate, sitting as an impartial jury, do not work with the accused to conceal the evidence from the american people. we cannot be surprised that the president objects to calling witnesses who would prove his guilt. that is who he is. he does not want you to see evidence or hear testimony that details how he betrayed his office and asked a foreign

government to intervene in our election. but we should be surprised that here in the united states senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world where we are expected to put our oath of office ahead of political expediency, where we're expected to be honest, where we are expected to protect the interests of the american people, we should be surprised, shocked that any senator would vote to block this witness or any relevant witness who might shed additional light on the president's obvious misconduct. the president is on trial in the senate, but the senate is on trial in the eyes of the american people. will you vote to allow all of the relevant evidence to be presented here, or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror? will you bring ambassador bolton here? will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the president's misconduct, or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president's cover-up? so far i'm said to say i see a

lot of senators voting for a cover-up, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote, a vote against an honest consideration of the evidence against the president, a vote against an honest trial, a vote against the united states. a real trial, we know, has witnesses. we urge you to do your duty, permit a fair trial. all the witnesses must be permitted. that's elementary in american justice. either you want the truth and you must permit the witnesses, or you want a shameful cover-up. history will judge, and so will the electorate.

>> mr. cipollone? >> thank you, mr. chief justice. members of the senate, we came here today to address the false case brought to you by the house managers. sorry. we've been respectful of the sena senate. we've made our arguments to you, and you don't deserve and we don't deserve what just happened. mr. nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team. he made false allegations against all of you. he accused you of a cover-up. he's been making false

allegations against the president. the only one who should be embarrassed, mr. nadler, is you for the way you've addressed this body. this is the united states senate. you're not in charge here. now, let me address the issue of mr. bolton. i've addressed it before. they don't tell you that they didn't bother to call mr. bolton themselves. they didn't subpoena him. mr. cooper wrote them a letter. he said very clearly, if the house chooses not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of dr. kupperman and ambassador bolton, let the record be clear. that is the house's decision.

and they didn't pursue ambassador bolton, and they withdrew the subpoena to mr. kupperman. so for them to come here now and demand that before we even start the arguments, that they ask you to do something that they refused to do for themselves and then accuse you of a cover-up when you don't do it, it's ridiculous. talk about out-of-control government. now, let me read you a quote from mr. nadler not so long ago. the effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. there must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and

opposed by the other. such an impeachment would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. well, you've just seen it for yourself. what happened, mr. nadler? what happened? the american people pay their salaries, and they're here to take away their vote. they're here to take away their voice. they've come here, and they've attacked every institution of our government. they have attacked the

president, the executive branch. they have attacked the judicial branch. they say they don't have time for courts. they have attacked the united states senate repeatedly. it's about time we bring this power trip in for a landing. president trump is a man of his word. he made promises to the american people, and he delivered over and over and over again. and they come here and say, with no evidence, spending the day complaining that they can't make their case, attacking a resolution that had 100% support

in the body, and some of the people here supported it at the time. it's a farce, and it should end. mr. nadler, you owe an apology to the president of the united states and his family. you owe an apology to the sen e senate. but most of all, you owe an apology to the american people. i yield the remainder of my time to mr. sekulow. >> mr. sekulow? >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, chairman nadler talked about treacherous at about 12:10 a.m. on january 22nd, the chairman of the judiciary committee at this body, on the floor of this senate, said executive privilege and other nonsense.

now, think about that for a moment. executive privilege and other nonsense. mr. nadler, it is not nonsense. these are privileges recognized by the supreme court of the united states. and to shred the constitution on the floor of the senate to serve what purpose? the senate is not on trial. the constitution doesn't allow what just took place. look what we've dealt with for the last now 13 hours, and we hopefully are closing the proceedings, but not on a very high note. only guilty people try to hide evidence?

so i guess when president obama instructed his attorney general to not give information, he was guilty of a crime. that's the way it works, mr. nadler? is that the way you view the united states constitution? because that's not the way it was written. that is not the way it's interpreted, and it is not the way the american people should have to live. i'll tell you what's treacherous. come to the floor of the senate and say executive privilege and other nonsense. we yield the rest of our time. >> the managers have 27 minutes remaining. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, the president's counsel has no standing to talk

about lying. he told this body today, the president has told this body and told the american people repeatedly, for example, that the house of representatives refused to allow the president due process. i told you -- and it's available, public document, november 26th letter from me as chairman of the judiciary committee to the president, offering him due process, offering witnesses, offering cross-examination. a few days later, we received a letter from mr. cipollone on white house stationery that said, no, we have no interest in appearing. so on the one hand, they're lying because -- the house is condemned by the president for not giving him due process after they rejected the offer of due process. that letter rejecting it was december 1st.

the president's counsel says that the house should have issued subpoenas. we did issue subpoenas. the president, you may recall -- you should recall -- said he would oppose all subpoenas, and he did. so many of those subpoenas are still being fought in court. subpoenas issued last april. so that's also untrue. and it's a heck of a nerve to criticize the house for not issuing subpoenas when the president said he would oppose all subpoenas, and we've issued a lot of subpoenas, and he opposes all of them, and they're tied up in court. the president claims -- and most members of this body know better -- executive privilege, which is a limited privilege which exists, but not as a

shield, not as a shield against wrongdoing as the supreme court specifically said in the nixon case in 1973 -- '74. the president claims absolute immunity. mr. cipollone wrote some of those letters saying that the president -- not only saying that the president but that nobody that he doesn't want should testify, and then they have the nerve -- and that is a violation of the constitutional rights of the house of representatives and the senate and of the american people as represented through them. it's an assertion of a kingly prerogative, a monarch i cal prerogative. only the president has rights and the people's representative in congress cannot get information from the executive branch at all. this body has committees. it has a 200-year record of issuing subpoenas, of having the

administration of the day testify, of sometimes having subpoena fights. but no president has ever claimed the right to stonewall congress on everything, period. congress has no right to get information. the american people have no right to get information. that, in fact, is article 2 of the impeachment that we have voted. it is beyond belief that the president claims monarchical powers. i can do whatever i want under article 2, says he, and then acts on that. defies everything. defies the law to withhold aid from ukraine. defies the law in a dozen different directions all the time, and lies about it all the

time, and says to mr. cipollone here to lie about it. these facts are undeniable, undeniable. i reserve. >> mr. cipollone once again complained that we did not request john bolton to testify in the house, but of course we did. we did request his testimony, and he was a no-show. when we talked to his counsel about subpoenaing his testimony, the answer was, you give us a subpoena, and we will sue you. and indeed that's what mr. bolton's attorney did with the subpoena for dr. kupperman. so there was no willingness by mr. bolton to testify before the house. he said he would sue us. now, what's the problem with his suing us? well, their justice department

under bill barr is in court arguing actually in that very case involving fring dr. kupper that they can't sue -- dr. kupperman can't sue the administration and the congress. that's the same position that congress has taken, the same position the administration is taking. but apparently not the same position these lawyers are taking. but here's the bigger problem with that. we subpoenaed don mcgahn as i told you earlier. you should know we subpoenaed don mcgahn in april of 2019. it's january of 2020. we still don't have a decision, a final decision from the court requiring him to testify n. a couple months, it will be one year since we issued that subpoena. now, the president would like nothing more than for us to have to go through one year or two years or three years of litigation to get any witness to come before the house.

the problem is the president is trying to cheat in this election. we don't have the luxury of waiting one year or two years or three years when the very object of this scheme was to cheat in the next election. it's not like that threat's gone away. just last month the president's lawyer was in ukraine still trying to smear his opponent, still trying to get ukraine to interfere in our election. the president said even while the impeachment investigation was going on, when he was asked, what did you want in that call with zelensky, and his answer was, well, if we're being honest about it, zelensky should do that investigation of the bidens. he hasn't stopped asking them to interfere. you think the ukrainians have any doubt about what he wants? one of the witnesses, david holmes, testified about the pressure that ukraine feels, and he made a very important point. it isn't over. it's not like they don't want

anything else from the united states. this effort to pressure ukraine goes on to this day. with the president's lawyer continuing the scheme as we speak, with the president inviting even other nations to also involve themselves in our election. china he wants now to investigate the bidens. this is no intangible threat to our elections. within the last couple weeks it's been reported that the russians have tried to hack burisma. well, why do you think they're hacking burisma? because as chairman nadler says, everybody seems to be interested in this one company out of hundreds of thousands of ukrainian companies. it's a coincidence that the same company that the president has been trying to smear joe biden over happens to be the company the russians are hacking. now, why would the russians do that?

well, if you look back to the last election, the russians hacked the dnc, and they started to leak campaign documents in a drip, drip, drip. and the president was only too happy. over 100 times in the last couple months of the campaign to cite those russian hack documents. this is no illusory threat to the independence of our elections. the russians are at it as we speak, and what does the president do? is he saying back off, russia? i'm not interested in your help. no. he's saying, come on in, china. and he's got his guy in ukraine continuing the scheme. we can't wait a year or two years or three years like we've had to wait with don mcgahn to get john bolton in to testify to let you know that this threat is ongoing. counsel also says, well, this is just like obama, right? this is just like obama citing,

i suppose, the fast and furious case. they don't mention to you that in that investigation, the obama administration turned over tens of thousands of documents. they don't want you to know about that. they say it's just like obama. well, when you find video of barack obama saying that under article 2 he can do anything, then you can compare barack obama to donald trump. when you find video of barack obama saying, i'm going to fight all subpoenas, then you can compare barack obama to donald trump. and finally, mr. cipollone says president trump is a man of his word. well, it's too late in the evening for me to go into that one except to say this. president trump gave his word he would drain the swamp. he said he would drain the

swamp, and what have we seen? we've seen his personal lawyer go to jail, his campaign chairman go to jail, his deputy campaign chairman convicted of a different crime, his associate's associate, lev parnas, under indictment. the list goes on and on. that's, i guess, how you drain the swamp is you have all your people go to jail. i don't think that's really what was meant by that expression. but for the purposes of why we're here today, how does someone who promises to drain the swamp coerce an ally of ours into doing a political investigation? that is the swamp. that's not draining the swamp. that's exporting the swamp. i yield back. >> i think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the house managers and the

president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. one reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. in the 1905 swain trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word "pettyfogging," and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used. i don't think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but i do think those addressing the senate should remember where they are.

>> the majority leader is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. it will surprise no one that i move 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. barrasso. >> aye. >> mr. bennet. >> no. >> we have been wondering how active a role, how seriously the chief justice would take his title as, in effect, judge in front of this, in effect, trial with these 100 senators who are, in effect, jurors, and that was

the first kind of off-book rema remark of roberts' tenure however brief. we say brief, but we're just about to clock 12 hours from the start of these proceedings today. you now know how this goes. roll call vote. someone pointed out today you can more or less determine how these roll call votes are going to go because of a big marker. first in the alphabet is lamar alexander, retiring tennessee senator. and if he votes with the republican majority, there is a minimal, very slim chance you'll hear many other deviations from what has been a 53-47 straight party-line day. we will go back in and sample the roll call vote as it

progresses. then you know the rest. the clerk gets up, shares the tally sheet with the chief justice, who announces the tally to the chamber. and if this fits today's history, the majority leader will indeed table this amendment. this was a big one, though, laid in the day for one john bolton to come forward and testify. our next tranche of live coverage will be anchored by ali velshi as we continue to turn over the shifts in this studio to match the day they have logged in the well of the senate. back into the vote we go. >> mr. king. >> no. >> ms. klobuchar. >> no. >> mr. langford. >> aye. >> mr. leahy. >> mr. lee. >> aye. >> ms. loeffler

mr. mcconnell? >> aye. >> ms. mcsally. >> aye. >> good wednesday morning to you. you. i am ali velshi in our coverage of the impeachment trial of president trump continues as we watch a roll call vote, a tally in the senate on an amendment that has been presented by minority leader chuck schumer. this is eight amendments up, eight amendments tabled. and that is at least the expectation we will get in moments from now when the tally is announced. every vote has gone along party lines, 53-47 for the course of the day. this is probably we assume the last amendment for the night, but things have gone longer than expected. i want to bring our panel in while we wait for this count. joining me now jonathan alter. jonathan