director fought and omb staffers arguing that withholding the aid was legal while officials at the national security council and state department protested. omb lawyers said it was legal to withhold the aid as long as they deemed it a temporary hold. you should be able to see these documents, but the white house has withheld them from congress. so the house can't verify the news report, but you could. you could do that if you could see these documentsment you should subpoena them, and there's no reason not to see all the relevant documents. the lengthy delay created by perez's hold prevented the department of defense from spending all the appropriate funds by the into of the fiscal year as mentioned before. that meant the funds were going to expire on september 30th because, as we know, unused

funds do not roll over to the next fiscal year. this confirmed the fears expressed by coop ersan difficult and others, concerns discussed within the relevant agencies in late july and throughout august, approximately, ultimately $35 million of ukraine military assistance, that's 14% of the dod funds remained unspent by the end of the fiscal year in order to make sure that ukraine did not permanently lose the $35 million of critical military assistance that had been frozen by the white house, congress had to pass a provision on september 27th, three days before the funds were to expire to ensure that the remaining $35 million could be sent to ukraine. now, george kent is an anti-corruption and rule of law expert. he told us that american

anti-corruption efforts prioritize building institutional capacity, support for the rule of law, not the pursuit of individual investigations, particularly of political rivals. here is how he explained the approach. >> u.s. efforts to counter corruption in ukraine focus on building institutional capacity so the ukrainian government has the ability to go after corruption and effectively investigate, prosecute and judge alleged criminal activities using appropriate institutional mechanisms, that is, to create and follow the rule of law. that means if there are criminal nexuses for criminal activity in the united states, lawmaker should pursue the case. if we think there's been a criminal act overseas that violates u.s. laws, we can address it through the justice department and fbi agents overseas or through treaty mechanisms such as the mutual

legal assistance treaty. as a generals principle, i do not believe the united states should ask other countries to engage in selective politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power because such selective actions undermine the rule of law regardless of the country. >> now, david holmes concurred during his testimony. holmes also compared the official approach that we believe in, that we promulgate across the world with what the president and mr. giuliani actually were doing. >> our longstanding policy is to encourage them to establish and build rule of law institutions that are capable and that are independent and can actually pursue credible allegations. that's our policy. we've been doing that for quite some time with some success. focusing on particular cases, including particular cases where

there is an interest to the president, it's not part of what we've done. it's hard to explain why we would do that. >> unfortunately, we do know the explanation. we know why president trump wanted president zelensky to announce investigations because it would help him in his election. now, on september 18th, approximately a week before he was supposed to meet with president trump at the united nations general assembly in new york, president zelensky spoke by telephone with vice president pence. during her deposition, jennifer williams testified -- and she was vice president pence's assistant. she testified that vice president pence basically reiterated that the hold on aid had been lifted and asked a bit more about how zelensky's efforts were going. now, following her deposition, and while preparing for her testimony at the open hearing on

november 19th, williams reviewed the documents. they have not been produced to us by the white house, and those documents refreshed her recollection of vice president pence's call with president zelensky. the white house blocked williams from testifying about her refreshed recollections of the vice president's call when she appeared at the open public hearing. they claim that certain portions of the september 18th call, including the information that williams wanted to tell us about, were classified. on november 26th, she submitted a classified ad decision to her hearing testimony where she provided additional information about the vice president's september 18th telephone call with president zelensky. the intelligence committee provided this classified ad decision to the judiciary

committee. it's been sent to the senate for your review. now i've read that testimony. i'll just say that a coverup is not a proper reason to classify a document. vice president pence has repeatedly said publicly that he has no objection to the white house releasing the actual transcript of his calls with president zelensky and yet his office refused many requests by the committee to declassify williams' addendum so the american people can also see the additional evidence about this call. we urge the senators to review it and we ask again that the white house declassify it. as the house wrote in two separate letters, there's no basis to keep it classified. and again, in case the white house needs a reminder, it's improper to keep something classified just to avoid embarrassment or to conceal

wrongdoing. now, we've been through a lot of facts today. we've seen the president's scheme, a shakedown of ukraine for his personal benefit, was i believe an obvious abuse of his power. but this misconduct, the scheme became exposed. congress asked questions. the press reported. non-political officers in the government expressed concern. the whistle-blower laws were activated. as this happened, there was an effort to create an after-the-fact misleading record to avoid responsibility for what the president had actually been doing. these were not the only efforts to hide misconduct and the misconduct continued. congressman schiff will review some of those items.

so we have about 20 minutes left in the presentation tonight. i'd like to now go through with you the president's efforts to hide this corrupt scheme even as it continued well into the fall of last year. on august 12th a whistle-blower in the intelligence community submitted a complaint addressed to the congressional intelligence committees. this explosive document stated that president trump solicited foreign interference from ukraine to assist in his 2020 re-election bid. the complaint alleged a scheme by president trump to, quote, use the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 u.s.

election. the complaint stated that the president had applied pressure on ukraine to investigate one of the president's main domestic political rivals and detail the involvement of the president's personal lawyer, rudy giuliani. the complaint also stated that the whistle-blower believed that the president's activities, quote, posed risk to u.s. national security and undermine the u.s. government's efforts to deter and encounter foreign interference in u.s. elections. under the law, the whistle-blower was permitted to file the complaint with the inspector general of the intelligence community which was then required to vet and assess the complaint and determine if it warranted reporting to the intelligence committees. the law gives the inspector general 14 days to conduct an initial review and then inform the director of national intelligence about his findings. on august 26th the inspector general sent the whistle-blower

complaint and the inspector general's preliminary determination to the acting director of national intelligence. the inspector general wrote that based on his review of the complaint, its allegations constituted an urgent concern and appeared credible under the statute. the inspector general confirmed that the whistle-blower acted lawfully in bringing the complaint and credibly raised a legitimate concern that should be kmun kated to the intelligence committees of congress. the director of national intelligence quickly informed the white house about the complaint. under the law the acting director of national intelligence was required to forward the complaint and the inspector general's determination to the congressional intelligence committees, no later than seven days after he received it. the legal requirement is extremely clear. upon seat of the transmittal

from the icig, that is the inspector general of the intelligence community, the director shall within seven calendar days of such receipt forward such trants middle to the congressional intelligence committees together with any comments the director considers appropriate. yet despite the clear letter of the law, the white house mobilized to keep the information in the whistle-blower complaint from congress including by inviting the department of justice to render an opinion as to whether the complaint could be withheld from congress. the statutory deadline of september 2nd when the director of national intelligence was required to turn it over to congress came and went, and the complaint remained hidden from congress. finally on september 9th, a full week after the complaint was required to be sent to congress and once again an urgent concern, the inspector general, one week after it was required

to be sent to congress, the inspector general wrote to leaders of the intelligence committees to inform them that the director of national intelligence was withholding a whistle-blower complaint in direct contravention of past practice and the law. on september 4th, speaker of the house nancy pelosi announced the house of representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. the next day the house of representatives passed a resolution calling on the trump administration to provide the whistle-blower's complaint immediately to the congressional intelligence committees. later that day the white house publicly released the summary of the july 25th call between president trump and president zelensky and permitted the acting director of national intelligence to provide the whistle-blower's complaint and related documents to the congress intelligence committees. the president himself was happy to discuss the motivations for the scheme in public.

that day in a joint press availability with president zelensky at the united nations general assembly, president trump reiterated he wanted ukraine to investigate the bidens. >> to do more on joe biden -- >> no. i want him to do whatever he can -- this was not his fault. he wasn't there. he's just been here recently, but whatever he can do in terms of corruption because the corruption is massive. when biden's son walks away with millions of dollars from ukraine. he knows nothing and they're paying him millions of dollars, that's corruption. >> finally the day after president trump explained to the public he wanted ukraine to investigate former vice president biden, on the morning of september 26th, the intelligence committee publicly released declassified redactions of two documents, the whistle-blower's august 12th complaint and the inspector general's august 26th transmittal to the acting

director of national cleanse. even after the impeachment inquiry into the ukraine matter began, president trump and his proxy rudy giuliani have continued to publicly urge president zelensky to launch an investigation of vice president biden and alleged 2016 election interference by ukraine. on september 30 during his remarks at the swearing in of the new labor secretary, president trump stated -- >> the new president of ukraine ran on the basis of no corruption. that's how he got elected. and i believe that he really means it. but there was a lot of corruption having to do with the 2016 election against us, and we want to get to the bottom of it. it's very important that we do. thank you very much. >> so here he is, his meeting at the united nations, september 30, and he's still pursuing this

bogus crowd strike conspiracy theory with the president of ukraine. on october 2nd in a public press availability, president trump discussed the july 25th call with president zelensky and stated the conversation was perfect, it couldn't have been nicer. he linked his notion of corruption with the biden investigation. on october 3rd, in remarks before he departed on marine one, president trump expressed his hope that ukraine would investigate vice president biden and his son. president trump escalated his rhetoric urging not only ukraine to investigate the bidens, but china, too. >> mr. president wlot exactly did you hope zelensky would do about the bidens after your phone call? >> i would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the bidens. it's a very simple answer. they should investigate the bidens because how does a company that's newly formed, and

all these companies -- by the way, likewise, china should start an investigation into the bidens. because what happened in china is just about as bad as what happened with ukraine. so i would say that president zelensky, if it were me, i would recommend they start an investigation into the bidens. >> the same day president trump tweeted he has an absolute right to investigate corruption. that really means is he feels he has an absolute right to investigate or get foreign countries to investigate his political opponents. the president sent a similar tweet the next day, once again linking corruption with the biden investigation. as president, i have an obligation to end corruption, even if that means requesting the help of a foreign country or countries. it is done all the time. this has nothing to do with politics or a political campaign

against the bidens. this does have to do with corruption. i give him credit for being so obvious. this has nothing to do with politics or political campaign against the bidens, but you've got to investigate the bidens. i guess that's just a coincidenc coincidence: president trump continued to demonstrate his eagerness to solicit foreign interference related to his personal interest. he said if we feel there's corruption like i feel there was in the 2016 campaign, there was tremendous corruption against me. if we feel there's corruption, we have the right to go to a foreign country. president trump asked added asking president xi to investigate the bidens is certainly something we can start thinking about. even last month, even last month the president and giuliani's scheme continued. during the first week of december giuliani traveled to

budapest, kiev and vienna to meet with former ukrainian government officials as part of a continuing effort to dig up dirt, political dirt on vice president biden and advance the theory that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. asked about his interviews of foreign ukrainian prosecutors giuliani told "the new york times" he was acting on behalf of his client, president trump. quote, like a good lawyer, i'm gathering evidence to defend my client against the false charges being leveled against him. indeed evidence obtained by the house of giuliani's associate confirms he had been representing himself as early as may 2019 doing donald j. trump's personal bidding in his dealings with ukraine. this letter, may 10, 2019 from giuliani to zelensky says, among other things, however, i have a

more specific request. in my capacity as personal counsel to president trump and with his knowledge and consent, i request a meeting with you on this upcoming monday, may 13th or tuesday may 14th. i will need no more than a half an hour of your time and i will be accompanied by my colleague, victoria toensing, a distinguished american attorney who is very familiar with this matter. please have your office let me know what time or times are convenient for you and victoria and i will be there. this is evidence recently obtained showing efforts to obtain the meeting with zelensky. giuliani said when he returned from new york on december 7th, president trump called him as his plane was taxis down the runway, what did you get, he said president trump asked. more than you can imagine giuliani replied. giuliani claim he was putting

his findings into a 20-page report that the president had asked him to brief the attorney general and the republicans in congress. short think thereafter on the same day president trump told reporters before departing on marine one that he was aware of giuliani's efforts in ukraine and giuliani was going to report his purported findings to the attorney general and congress: >> well, i just know he came back from some place and he's going to make a report i think to the attorney general and to congress. he says he has a lot of good information. i have not spoken to him about that information. rudy, as you know, has been one of the great crime fighters of the last 50 years. he did get back from europe just recently. he has not told me what he's found, but i think he wants to go before congress and say -- and also to the attorney general and the department of justice. i hear he's found plenty.

>> three days after that, those remarks on december 10th, giuliani confirmed to "the washington post" that president trump had asked him to brief the justice department and republican senators on his, quote, findings, unquote, from his trip to ukraine. giuliani stated he wants me to do it. i'm working on pulling it together and hope to have it done by the end of the week. that friday, december 13th, giuliani reportedly met with president trump at the white house. on december 17th, giuliani confirmed to cnn that president trump has been very supportive of his efforts to dig up dirt on vice president biden in ukraine and they are on the same page. the following day, on december 18, 2019, the house of representatives approved the two articles of impeachment you are considering in this trial. since the house voted on these articles, evidence has continued to come to light related to the

president's corrupt scheme. among other things, freedom of information act lawsuits, press reporting and documents provided to congress from rudy giuliani associate lev parnas further corroborate what we already know about the president's scheme. as giuliani again said on december 17th, president trump has been, quote, very supportive, unquote, of his efforts to dig up dirt on vice president biden and they are, quote, on the same page. parnas further krcorroborated wt we already know about president trump's scheme, that he was responsible for withholding military aid and sustaining that hold and his personal attorney, mr. giuliani was working at the direction of president trump himself. on december 20th, new emails were released showing 91 minutes after president trump's call with the ukrainian president

zelensky, a top office of management and budget aide asked the department of defense to hold off on sending military aid to ukraine. so those were flu documents that came on december 20th. on december 29th, revelations emerge from omb director and acting chief of staff mick mulvaney's role about them, about that role and the delay of aid and efforts by lawyers at omb, the department of justice and the white house to justify the delay and the alarm that the delay caused within the administration. those records just became available on december 29th. on january 2nd, newly unredacted pentagon emails which raised serious concerns by trump administration officials about the legality of the president's hold on aid became available. on january 6th, former trump national security adviser john bolton announced he would comply with a senate subpoena compelling his testimony.

his lawyers stated he has new relevant informationment on january 13th, repours emerged that the russian government hacked ukrainian gas company burisma, almost certainly to find information about vice president joe biden's son in order to weaponize that information against mr. biden and in favor of mr. trump just as russia did against secretary clinton in favor of then candidate trump in 2016. that brings us up to january 13th of this year. last week house committees received new evidence from lev parnas that further demonstrates that the president was a central player in the scheme to pressure ukraine for his political gain. and also last week, the government accountability office found president trump violated the law when he withheld that aid. last night we had a further development. when more redacted emails from the office of management and budget were produced.

i think representative crow showed you these. these are among the documents just released. i'm sure that, if we could read under those redactions, it would be a very perfect email. but you have to ask what is being redacted here. what is so important to keep confidential during the course of an impeachment inquiry. as you can see, right up until last night evident continues to be produced. the truth is going to come out. indeed the truth has already come out. but more and more of it will. more emails are going to come out. more witnesses are going to come forward. they're going to have more

relevant information to share, and the only question is do you want to hear it now? do you want to know the full truth now? do you want to know just who is in the loop? sounds like everyone was in the lo loop. you want to know how broad the scheme was? we have the evidence to prove that president trump ordered the aid withheld. he did so to coerce ukraine to help his re-election campaign. he withheld a white house meeting to coerce the same sham investigation investigations. we can and will prove president trump guilty of this conduct and of obstructing the investigation into his misconduct. but you and the american people should know who else was involved in this scheme. you should want the whole truth

to come out. you should want to know about every player in this sorted business. it is within your power to do so. i would urge you, even if you're prepared to vote to convict and impeach and remove this president, to find out the full truth about how far this corruption goes. because i think the public has a right to know. now, today -- yesterday we made the case for why you should hear this additional evidence and testimony. this morning i introduced you to the broad sweep of the president's conduct. and then during the course of today we walked you through a factual chronology in realtime about how this plot unfolded. and during that factual

chronology today you saw in march of this year giuliani began that smear campaign against ambassador yovanovitch in order to get her fired by president trump, something he would later admit was necessary to get her out of the way because she was going to be in the way of these two investigations. this is the supposed anti-corruption effort by the president, to get rid of a woman who has dedicated her career to representing the united states often in dangerous parts of the world, to fighting corruption and to promoting the rule of law. this plot begins with getting her out of the way. with the president saying she's going to go through some things. this anti-corruption reformer, this u.s. ppatriate.

tellingly, it wasn't enough just to recall her or fire her. the president could have done that any time. no. they wanted to destroy her because she had the audacity to stand in their way. we a heard in march about the effort to get rid of her, and it succeeded. guess what message that sent to the ukrainians about the power the president's lawyer has? the ukrainians were watching this whole saga, hearing his intervi interviews, seeing the smears he was putting out, and this attorney for the president working hand in hand with these corrupt ukrainians was able to

get a u.n. ambassador yanked out of her job. proof positive, you want a window to this president, you want to make things happen with this president, you go through his lawyer. never mind the state department. never mind the national security council, never mind the defense department, you go through his lawyer. that's march. april zelensky has this huge victory in the presidential election. he gets a congratulatory call from the president. the president assigns vice president pence to go to the inauguration. may, giuliani is rebuffed by zelensky, cancels the trip to ukraine, the one where he wanted to go, remember, meddle in the investigation. because giuliani says enemies of trump surrounds zelensky. i guess that means he didn't get the meeting and they must be enemies of the president. of course, the ukrainians know why he wants that meeting.

may trump disinvites pence to the inauguration. pence is going, giuliani is rebuffed, pence ain't going. that's may. instead, may 23rd we have this meeting at the white house and there's a new party in town. the three amigos. they're going to be handling the ukraine portfolio, and they're told work with rudy, work are rudy. ambassador sondland, ambassador volker, secretary perry. work with rudy. as you saw in june, giuliani is pushing for these investigation s and they're trying to arrange these meetings and trying to make this happen. and also in june the defense department announces they're going to release the military aid. the president reads about this

and then he stops it. he stops the aid. in july -- on july 10th, you heard in the chronology there's a meeting at the white house, the meeting in which sondland blurts out, hey, they've got a deal, they're trying to get this meeting, there's a debate about when it's going to happen. sondland says, we've got a deal with mulvaney, we're going to get this meeting and you're going to do these investigations. bolton stiffens and abruptly ends the meeting. that was the first meeting that day. then sondland brings the delegation to a different part of the white house and they have a followup meeting where he makes it even more explicit. this drug deal is made even more explicit. dr. hill is told by ambassador bolton, you need to talk to the lawyers. i don't want any part of this

drug deal they're cooking up. that's july. july is the month where that e plal goes from sondland to pompeo and others and everybody is in the loop. july is the month where the hold is implemented with no explanation. july is the month where mueller it was about russia's systemic interference from our affairs. july is the month after mueller testifies that the president believes he has escaped accountability. the next day in july is, of course, the july 25th call. in which the president asks for his favor. july is the month, july 26th is the date of the call between president trump and ambassador sondland, you know the one, zelensky loves your ass, he'll

do anything you want. is he going to do the investigation? yeah, he's going to do the investigation. july is the month of that conversation between sondland and david holmes where holmes says can you tell me candidly here what the president thinks of ukraine. does he give a blank a about the ukraine? no, he doesn't give a blank about ukraine. he only cares about the big stuff. well, there's kind of big stuff here in ukraine, like a war with the russians. no, no, no, big stuff that affects him personally like the biden investigation that giuliani bants. that's the month of july. august, we have that meeting between giuliani and yermak in madrid. august we have the back and forth about the statement. no, you go first, and you commit and publicly announce the investigations and then we'll give you a date. no, you give us a date and then we'll announce the investigations. well, we'll give you a statement that doesn't mention the specifics. no, no, you give us a statement

that mentions the investigations. that's the month of august. august is also the months where it becomes clear that it's not just the meeting anymore. it's everything. everything is conditioned on these investigations, the relationship, the money, the meeting. sondland and holmes testify it's as simple as two plus two equals four. that's august. september sondland says toier mark everything is conditioned on public announcements. so message delivered, no ambiguity, the ukrainians are told quid pro quo. taylor texts this is crazy to withhold aid. september is the month, september 7th in particular, trump and sondland talk on the phone, and the president has a conversation where he says no quid pro quo except here is the

quid pro quo. zelensky has got to go to the mic and what's more, he should want to do it. september is also the month where the investigations begin in congress. september is the month where after those investigations begin, after the president knows he's been caught, the aid is finally released. and september is the month where pence and zelensky are on the phone and jennifer williams has classified information to share with you that i hope you will take a look at because it is relevant to these issues. that's september. october trump admits, yes, if it wasn't obvious enough, he wants ukraine to investigate his political opponent. october is the month where he invites another nation, china, to investigate his opponent.

this is the broad outline of the chronology that we went through today. tomorrow we will go through the law, the constitution and the facts as they apply to article 1. that is the plan for tomorrow. we've introduced the case. we've gone through the chronology and tomorrow we'll apply the facts to the law as it pertains to the president's abuse of power. let me just conclude this evening by remarking again on what brought us here. what brought us here is that some courageous people came forwa

forward, courageous people that risked their entire careers. one of the things that's been so striking to me about that as i watch these witnesses like marie yovanovitch, ambassador taylor, david holmes and others, dr. hill, is how much these dedicated officials were willing to risk their career, the beginning of their career, middle of their career, late in their career when they had everything to lose. but people senior to them who have every advantage, who sit in positions of power lack that same basic commitment, lack that same basic willingness to put their country first and expose wrongdoi wrongdoing. why is it that colonel vindman

who worked for fiona hill, who worked for john bolton and dr. kupperman, why is it that they were willing to stick their neck out and answer lawful subpoenas when their bosses wouldn't? i don't know that i can answer that question, but i just can tell you i have such admiration for the fact they did. i think -- and i think this is some form of cosmic justice, that this ambassador that was so ruthlessly smeared is now a hero for her courage. there is justice in that. but what really vindicates that leap of faith she took is if we show the same courage. they risked everything, their

caree careers. and yes i know what you're asked to decide may risk yours, too, but if they could show the courage, so can we. i yield back. >> pursuant to the provisions of senate resolution 243 of the 100th congress, a single one-page classified document identified by the house managers for filing with the secretary of the senate, that will be received on january 22nd, 2020, shall not be made part of the

public record and shall not be printed, but shall be made available pursuant to the standing order from the 100th congress. the majority leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, colleagues, we're almost through for the evening. we'll convene again at 1:00 tomorrow. before we adjourn, i'd like to acknowledge that tomorrow is the official last day for this term's senate pages. [ applause ] >> in addition to witnessing this unusual event that we're all experiencing, they're studying for their final exams as well, and we wish them well as they head off back to boring

normal high school. >> mr. leader, let me just add my thanks and gratitude for all of us. it is rare, particularly these days, when 100 senators from both sides of the aisle of every political persuasion get up and give anyone a standing ovation. but you deserve it. thank you for your good work and we hope you have beautiful and successful lives. >> so mr. chief justice, i ask unanimous consent on tuesday, january 28 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. while the senate is sitting in court of impeachment, notwithstanding the senate's adjournment the senate can receive house messages and executive matters, committees be authorized to report legislation and executive matters and senators be allowed to submit statements for the record, bills, resolutiontion and co-sponsor requests and where

applicable the secretary of the senate on behalf of the presiding officer be permitted to refer such matters. >> without objection? so ordered. >> finally, i ask unanimous consent the trial adjourn until 1:00 p.m. thursday, january 23rd, and this also constitute the add journjournment of the s >> without objection, so ordered. the senate is adjourned. chief justice john roberts making it official there with the gavel. the senate stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. eastern time tomorrow. a little bit of business that you just saw there at the end. the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell asking for permission for the senate to do some of its normal senate business next week, next tuesday, even though they expect to still be in session for the impeachment trial. also, very quickly, we had a reference there from chief justice john roberts about a

single page, what he described as a one-page classified document. this has been a topic of some discussion and some intrigue since the house impeachment inqui inquiry. jennifer williams who was a staffer assigned to vice president mike pence's office testified publicly in the house impeachment trial about vice president pence and his interactions with the government of ukraine including the cancellation of his trip to go over to the zelensky inauguration and a subsequent meeting he did take with zelensky in warsaw on september 1st. when she was asked questions in open session about vice president pence and his interactions with ukraine, her lawyer intervened during her live testimony that said some of the things she was being asked about were classified and she could not discuss them in open session. they agreed there during her open testimony that she would provide a written classified supplement to her oral testimony in order to address those classified matters. she submitted that to the house

soon thereafter. immediately -- not immediately, but shortly thereafter adam schiff appealed to vice president pence's office to say now we have seen this material, we do not believe this should be classified. we are calling on you to unclassify it, and i remind you, he said words to the effect, that trying to cover up evidence of misbehavior or a crime is not a proper reason to classify something. so lofgren today reiterated that and said i read the testimony and i remind you classification should not be done for the purposes of covering up a crime or misconduct. that's an improper reason to classify something. she essentially implicitly called for it to be declassified as well. as yet, the vice president's office has declined to declassify that it's still treated as a classified matter. at the very end of tonight's proceedings, chief justice roberts said that classified

supplemental testimony from jennifer williams, that one page, as he described it, will be made available to senators even though it will not be made available to the public, as something still marked as classified. so drama and news right up until the very end. thank you for being with us here at msnbc for our special on going coverage of the impeachment trial of president trump. i am rachel maddow here in new york city with my distinguished colleagues. let me bring them into this conversation. chris hayes, the host of "all in," good to have you still here. recovering senator claire mccaskill, chuck rosenberg former u.s. attorney and we're also joined by maya wiley, a civil rights attorney and msnbc legal analyst. thank you all for being here tonight. we are wrapping up before midnight. this is a different sort o

of throe in terms of what the american public is being asked to stomach and get through. in terms of the classified material let me ask, is that how you all understand it? >> yes, i think you described it exactly right. there is something jennifer williams submitted to supplement the record. it's classified, so we don't get to see it. the chief justice, the presiding officer of the impeachment trial put it into the record for the senators. mr. schiff urged them to go look at it. >> in termination of this document potentially being improperly classified, raised by adam schiff and on the floor of the senate by zoe lofgren. if it has been improperly classified and it should be something that the public can see, who adjudicates that? >> well, it's complicated.

ultimately a court does if it gets to that. i do think we may be headed for a train wreck on classification, particularly if we get to the point where they subpoena documents and witnesses because they're going to try -- or bolton's testimony. they're now making plans to try to say that everything he's going to testify to is classified. you can't classify things just to keep them out of the public eye. there has to be a rational basis for the classification, and ultimately it would be a matter for the judges. >> we already know -- we know for a fact they've used redactions in precisely this matter. we have foyle lawsuits that resulted in the production of documents, and in the last documents that we got, someone got access to the unredacted comments. lo and behold there was no

reason to redact things, save to cover up things that looked terrible for the trump administration. we know they blew through a deadline to produce the 302, the interview with jared kushner which is now going to be taken up in court. there's a filing about that. >> justice department admitting they want to further review it. >> further review it. it's hard to credit good faith with these assertions given the pattern that's already established. >> keep in mind, rachel, that senators, if they go to a classified briefing or look at a classified document and they can confident that it is not, should not be classified, they can speak out and tell people about it. >> they can't tell people about the content, the classified content? >> oh, no. i think senator murphy or one of the senators on the air the last few days, i asked him the question, what if they try to phony classify bolton's testimony. he goes, well, i will make the

decision to speak about it publicly. >> defying -- >> exactly, because then it flips. then the people who classified it have to show that they wrongly disclosed and the predicate for that would be the prove it should have been classified in the first place. >> you're saying that if what zoe lofgren are implying and suggesting about this classified document is true, if it's an improper classification, one of the 100 senators given access to it tonight moments ago by john roberts' order, one of them called say i'm going to risk this and tell you what's in this document. >> their staff will probably go crazy and go don't you dare, this is way too risky. with the stakes involved here, if there's something important in that document and it's not legitimate classified, somebody will, in fact, speak about it. >> can we just make on the flip side of this is donald trump constantly declassifies

classified, actual national security information. he did it with carter page in terms of his fisa warrants. he shared secrets with vladimir putin. when it's in his interest, he absolutely shares national security. the only thing we're seeing in the cover-up are the things that he feels are not helpful to him. >> what's your reaction to what senator mckavcaskill is describ? >> i think it's quite risky. the classification system is designed for and sort of -- the power of it is held by the president. the president delegates that throughout the executive branch so others can classify and declassify information. the structure for a president, not this president, a president, and so here's the danger. a senator might look at it in good faith think, they this shouldn't be classified, there's nothing about it that's important or secret or dangerous

if disclosed and not understand how that information was collected. it could be bad faith but perfectly a good reason to keep it classified. that's why i think courts are reluctant to get involved in that dispute. that's why we delegate that decision-making to the executive. >> this is a microcosm of the issue at large, which is a constitutional crisis. which is a variety of powers asserted by the executive that are checked by essentially good faith lawyering within the executive and an expectation of pursuing good faith whether in purity of an ideology you do or do not like. what we've seen in the administration in the courts and it has been resulted in excoriating decisions by judges pooin appointed by different parties is bad faith over and over again, essentially just lying to courts about the reason they are doing something. and in all these things whether

it's classification or assertions executive privilege, these tends not to be refereed by the courts. they tend not to get to that point precisely because they are worked up between the branches where there's assumption of good faith. >> that's exactly right, chris. first of all, there's an accommodations process when the executive wants to keep something from the senate or the congress. those two branches of government get together and figure out a way to get some amount of that information in some fashion to the people who want it. but there's another problem. courts are loathe to interject into these political questions. in fact, there's something called the political question doctrine. courts have typically said when it comes to this type of decision, we are not really equipped to second guess the executive on questions involving national security. and so i think claire is right. a senator could disclose it, but there is quite a risk there, and i wouldn't advise it.

>> but ultimately if they do it, then it does go to the court because the only risk to them is that they are charged with disclosing information, and then it goes front of a judge and a judge goes, well, there's nothing here classified. this is just donald trump trying to hide stuff. >> if somebody is charging, sure, but that's several steps down the road. >> that's the real risk they would be taking, though. >> any senator facing this sort of risk/reward calculation would have to think about what the public benefit is of disclosing this information. >> has to be good. >> how much is in that jennifer williams one-page document about what pence did with ukraine, we don't know. now, if it is about the way they're going to try to keep john bolton's testimony from the public ever hearing about it, that might be something, depending on what he says -- that would lead somebody calculating that risk versus reward to land in a different way. i'll tell you in terms of what's going to happen turnover next few minutes, the next hour, in terms of what we're going to be doing here to want, we're hoping

this evening to be able to speak with the senate minority leader, chuck schumer, who you saw very briefly at the end of the proceedings tonight when he and senator mitch mcconnell both rose to lead standing ovations for the senate pages whose last day on the job is today? >> we have several classes of pages. this one is rolling through and it's their last day. >> we saw him at the end and we saw him earlier today. but senator schumer, we are hoping to be able to hear from and grab other senators as they head out the door. one of the things that has been the source of confusion and some consternation and a lot of teasing today has been the number of empty senators chairs in the room while the proceedings have been happening. now, the reason that you haven't seen video of empty chairs in the senate or you haven't seen the senators who are standing in the back of the room or doing knee bends or whatever it is

they're doing is because we're not allowed to have our cameras in there. it's just senate tv cameras that are there. we'll talk later on about the fact that there are sketch artists in the room drawing pictures of what senators are doing, including senators who are sleeping. but it is a little bit weird that we all thought it was within the rules that they had to be there. they had to attend and sit there and not eat or drink anything other than milk or water. and they needed to not have their phones and they needed to not speak but a lot of them have apparently been leaving for long stretches, including some senators maybe even leaving before tonight was done. it's odd and it's not something i expected. >> and it's a terrible look to the public to the extent that the news reports are getting out, so even though you don't have the visual of it, i've seen several tweets already from people who are, like, these are people who are supposed to be listening to hearing and then making a decision on what's

being presented all day long. you know, we've also heard a lot of people made up their minds already and are not actually taking their oath seriously. >> we also live in a country in which we ask every citizen to serve on juries. most of those people have other jobs, they have to take leaves from. if the trial goes for a long time, often they don't collect their paycheck from that and are given a meager amount of money relative to what some of those people might make. and these peoples jobs is to do this. this is literally the job. if you find it too annoying or frustrating or uncomfortable to sit for eight hours and listen, you can resign tomorrow and get another job. but this is your job. >> you can circle back to risk/reward. and what's happening in these senators' minds, they know they might get called out for leaving. some got called out for tweeting. someone did an interview on fox news. >> there's been a couple. >> while they were going on. so what is the risk?

what's going to happen? >> it's another one of these instances -- >> it's the microcosm. >> the sergeant at arms starts every day saying upon pain of imprisonment. sit there silently and they do not fox news interviews in the middle of the trial, which means they are not keeping silent but everybody knows there isn't a senate jail, or if there is, they're not going to use it and it doesn't appear the chief justice is planning on intervening in the trial, even on structural matters like this. >> you know, mr. schiff made a point at the end of his argument tonight that really resonated with me. and it ties into what we're talking about right now. he said the reason we're here to begin with is because courageous people came forward at risk to their careers, to their reputations to tell you what happened. and then he turned to the senate and he said, and we're going to ask you to be courageous too, perhaps at risk to your career. i mean, if we're expecting them to be courageous, they could at

least be the patient and attentive and sit in their seat, even if they're going to vote to acquit, whatever they're going to do at the end of the day, i mean, is it too much to ask? >> there is something to be said for the civic example that they could fake, you know? you don't have to believe it, but fake it for the sake of your country. >> sincerity is a great tactic. >> and a great thing to display fakely, even if dwrom it. let me take a moment to reset us here for a little bit. it has been a big day on capitol hill. first day of the case against president trump and his senate impeachment trial. so let's take a moment to look at what has unfolded over the course of this day. seven members of the house who are acting as prosecutors in this impeachment trial, we knew today that they would begin presenting their case against president trump. but we really didn't know what that would look like. not only is there no rule book for how the house is supposed to present an impeachment case in the senate, but we just haven't had very many presidential

impeachment trials in our history, only two before this one, to be precise, and only one of those was in living memory. so it was a little bit of a black box in terms of what we were going to get. what the house managers decided to do for their first day was to tell a story, a story in parts. lead impeachment manager adam schiff took the floor a few minutes after 1:00 this afternoon. in the course of the presentation that lasted well over two hours, he told senators his house colleagues, the other house managers, would lay out the details of the president's corrupt scheme in narrative form. later schiff said they will get into the constitutional issues around impeachment and the reasons president trump should be removed from office. that's apparently what we can expect in coming days. but today was for the story of factually what actually happened. house judiciary chairman told the story of marie yovanovitch, the ambassador to ukraine trump fired because she was perceived as being in the way of his