so on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about aid. according to sandy, the memo advocated for the release of the funds. it said that the military aide was consistent with american national security interest, it would help to oppose russian and russian. it was backed by strong bipartisan support. but president trump did not lift the hold. over the next several weeks, omb continued to issue funding documents that kept kicking the can down the road. supposedly to allow for more of this quotes into her agency process. while inserting those footnotes, throughout the apportionment documents stating the delay would not affect the funding. but here is the really shocking part. there was no interagency process. they made it up. it had ended months before. they made it up, because nobody could say the real reason for the hold. in total, omb issued nine of these documents between july 25 and september 10. did the white house to respond to omb's concerns and recommendation to release the aid? did the white house instruct omb to continue creating a

appointee with zero relevant experience, abruptly seized responsibility for withholding the aid from mark sandy, a career office of management and budget official. seized the responsibility from a career official. mr. duffey provided no credible explanation for that decision. mr. sandy testified that nothing like that had ever happened in his entire governmental career. let's think about that. if this is as routine as the president claims, why is a career official saying he's never seen anything like this happen before. mr. duffey knowsouldn't we just to ask him? the american people deserve a far trial. the constitution deserves a fair trial. the president deserves a fair trial. a fair trial means witnesses, a fair trial means documents, a fair trial means evidence. no one is above the law. and i yield to my distinguished colleague, manager lofgren. >> mr. chief justice and senators, it's to the just about hearing from witnesses. you need documents. the documents don't lie. there are specific documents relevant to this impeachment trial in the custody of the white house, omb, d.o.d., and the st

so on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about aid. cording to sandy, the memo advocated for the release of the funds. it said that the military aide was consistent with american national security interest, it would help to oppose russian and russian. it was backed by strong bipartisan support. but president trump did not lift the hold. over the next several weeks, omb continued to issue funding documents that kept kicking the can down the road. supposedly to allow for more of this quotes into her agency process. while inserting those footnotes, throughout the apportionment documents stating the delay would not affect the funding. but here is the really shocking part. there was no interagency process. they made it up. it had ended months before. they made it up, because nobody could say the real reason for the hold. in total, omb issued nine of these documents between july 25 and september 10. did the white house to respond to omb's concerns and recommendation to release the aid? did the white house instruct omb to continue creating a p

omb went so far as to remove the authority to approve the budget documents from mark sandy, a career officer and gave it to michael duffy, a political appointee without experience in managing these documents. that change was unusual. it occurred less than two weeks after sandy raised concerns that the hold violated the law. sandy was not aware of any prior instance when a political appointee assumed this kind of funding approval authority. duffy's explanation that he simply wanted to learn more about the accounts, that doesn't make sense to sandy, really. this odd change in responsibility was just another way to keep the president's illegal hold within a tight knit unit of loyal soldiers within the omb. michael duff fi y denied the president's subpoena. the house did not assert any privileges or immunities when it directed duffy to defy congress's subpoena. it wasn't a real exercise of executive privilege. they told him not to appear, and they had no reason why. if mr. duffy knew about any legitimate reason for the hold, i'll bet he would not have been blocked from testifying. the fac

omb went so far as to remove the authority to approve the budget documents from mark sandy, a courier officer communicated to michael duffey, a political appointee without experience managing such documents. this is unusual. it occurred less than two weeks after sandy raised concerns that the hold of violated the law. sandy was not aware of any prior instance when the political appointee assumed this kind of funding approval authority. the duffey explanation just didn't make sense to sandy. really this on the chain and responsibility was just another way to keep the president illegal hold with any tightknit unit of loyal soldiers within the omb. michael duffey defied the house of subpoena at the president's direction he refused to appear. now, the house of the not assert any privileges or immunities when it directed duffey to defy congress's subpoena. it wasn't a real exercise of executive privilege. they told him not to appear and added no reason why. if mr. duffey knew about any legitimate reason for the hold, i bet he wouldn't have been walked from testifying. the fact that he was

throughout july mark sandy, the omb career official who handled military aid to ukraine, repeatedly tried to get duffey to provide an explanation for the freeze. he was unsuccessful. sandy and other officials from omb and the pentagon also raised questions about the freeze violating the impoundment control act. the federal law that limits the president's ability to withhold funds that had been allocated by congress. in fact, two career omb officials ultimately resigned in part based on concerns about the handling of the ukraine military aid freeze. these concerns were not unfounded. just last week the nonpartisan government accountability office issued a detailed legal opinion finding omb had violated federal law by executing the president's order to freeze military aid to ukraine. remarkably on july 29, after sandy had expressed his concerns about the legality of the freeze, duffey removed sandy from responsibility for ukraine military aid. instead duffey took over responsibility for withholding the aid himself. he was a political appointee. he had no relevant experience. he had no demon

the only reason we know about it is from the testimony of mark sandy, the career omb official who followed the law and complied with his subpoena. as you can see from the transcript excerpt in front of you, sandy testified the july 12th email did not mention concerns about any other country or any other aid packages. just ukraine. so the dozens of countries who we provide aid and support, the president was only concerned about one of them, ukraine. why? we know why. omb has still refused to provide a copy of this july 12th email and has refused to provide any documents surrounding it all because the president told omb to continue to hide the truth from congress and the american people. what was he afraid of? a subpoena issued by the senate would show us. omb also has documents of a key series of meetings triggered by the president's order to withhold the military aid. in the second half of july, the national security council convened a series of meetings about the president called on military aid. omb documents which show what happened during those meetings. for example, on july 18th the n

mark sandy, the senior career official at omb responsible for this type of aid couldn't recall any other time in his 12-year career at omb when a hold had been placed on security assistance after a congressional notification was named. later, if the president's counsel starts listing other times that aid has been held, ask yourself three questions: one, had congress already cleared the money to be released? two, was there a significant geopolitical development in that country? and, three, did the gao determine that the hold was illegal in part because congress was not notified. here the money had been cleared. there was nothing new or important in ukraine to disrupt the aid, just that a true anticorruption reformer was elected. the hold was illegal. from freedom of information releases and press reports, we know about just a few of the many documents being hidden from you about how the hold began. given president trump's obstruction with the facts that have come toht

and you can see this really b bio of mark sandy. we heard from him during the house hearings.ll of this was happening we're also getting word that lawmakers on capitol hill were getting very concerned about this. we had previously known that senator rob portman was very vocal, expressing concern about the hold-up. but now with some of these newly revealed emails, we're also seeing other lawmakers, in particular the chief of staff for congressman mack thornberry. he's the top republican on the house armed services committee. that chief of staff actually emailed an omb official on august 22nd asking about the hold-up and he wrote this. he said, i heard today that omb has put a pause on expending funds authorized for ukraine security assistance. is there someone there that i can talk to understand why? so all of these latest documents, they are shedding even more light on the process behind the freezing of the aid, the fact that all of this seemed to be in the works before that july 25th phone call with the ukrainian president zelensky. of course, it comes on the exact same day t

more explosively that official mark sandy testified that two other officials at omb had not only sharedtentially illegal, he told the impeachment investigation that two omb officials had actually resigned at least in part due to the concerns over the legality of the hold. well, we now know those officials who resigned, they were not alone in their concerns. and it would seem to be proven now that their concerns were well-founded. the white house refused to hand over any documents that could shed light on this matter. just before christmas, heavily redacted documents did start spilling into the open thanks to freedom of information filed by watchdog groups. they actively took steps to try to keep it as quiet as possible. earlier this month, reporting by justice security revealed that department of defense officials also expressed explicit and urgent concern about the potential illegality of the hold. the president and his allies have insisted consistently that no crime was committed in relation to any part of this impeachment inquiry. it's not true. the officials who were concerned early

mark sandy received an email from his boss michael duffey that for the first time gave a reason for the hold. sandy testified that in early september he received an email from duffey, quote, that attributed the hold to the president's concern about other countries not contributing more to ukraine. again, after months of scrambling this was the first time any reason had been provided for the hold and according to sandy it was also only in early september, again after the white house led the whistle-blower complaint and the hold became public that the white house requested data from omb on other countries' assistance to ukraine. so let's recap why we know the concern about burden sharing was bogus. first, for months no reason was given to the very people executing the military aid. who had been actively searching for answers about why the aid was being held. second, remember the supposed interagency process performed by omb. well, it was fake. and third, after the hold went public and the white house became aware of the whistle-blower they started scrambling to develop another excuse. pub

mark sandy of the omb also confirmed that. ambassador taylor testified that "i was not told the reason why the hold had been lifted ." let me take a moment to address another defense i expect you will hear. the aide was released and the investigations were never announced so therefore no harm, no foul. right? this defense would be laughable if this issue was not so serious first i have spoken over the past three days about the real consequences of asserting politics in the matters of war. real people, real lives are at stake. every day, every hour matters. so, no, the delay was not meaningless. just ask the ukrainians sitting in trenches right now. to this day they are still waiting on $18 million of aid that has not reached them. jennifer williams who attended the warsaw meeting with vice president hence described president volodymyr zelensky focus during this time. >> you testified in your deposition that in that conversation, president volodymyr zelensky emphasized that the military assistance, the security assistance, was

leadership transferred responsibility for approving funding obligations from career civil servant mark sandyto a political appointee mark duffey someone with no relevant experience in this funding. based on recent public reporting and document's dod released under the freedom of information act we learned on july 25 approximately 90 minutes after president trump's phonecall president zelensky mr. duffey this three pronged plan into motion when he sent an e-mail to senior dod officials copying sandy. the e-mail was in front of you. in this e-mail duffey stated polk based on guidance i've received and in light of the administration's plan to review assistance to ukraine please hold off on any additional dod applications of these funds pending direction. duffey also underscored quote given the sensitive nature of the request i appreciate you keeping that information closely held to those who need to know the direction. in other words don't tell anybody about it. later that day sandy approved and signed the first july 25 funding document which delayed funding until august 5. sandy testified the

he was talking about omb, mark sandy. we don't know why there was a hold. mark sandy told us why there was a hold on aid, because the president was concerned about other countries paying their fair share. why are they talking about president zelensky and andriy yermak saying no pressure, no demand, no quid pro quo. why won't they tell the american public the truth, that president zelensky didn't have a confirmation until august 29th. ambassador sondland earlier today in the reply brief, they don't mention that that was a guess, or ambassador taylor's line, but they don't say that hearsay. >> laura: congressman gaetz, so much of this hinges on discerning the subjective intent of the president. i believe that was on page 28 of the white house brief. 171 pages long but that was a really important section that hasn't gotten much play. they actually mind read the president's intent, saying the call, 13 people listening, he had the subjective intent to try to do something that would abuse his inherent executive authority to hurt the u.s. national security. that i

the only reason we know about it is from the testimony of mark sandy, the career omb official who followed the law and complied with his subpoena. as you can see from the transcript excerpt in front of you, sandy testified that the july 12 email to not mention concerns about any other country or any other aid packages, just ukraine. so of the dozens of countries we provide aid and support, the president was only concerned about ones of them, ukraine. why? well, we know why. but omb has still refused to provide a copy of this july 12 email and has refused to provide any documents surrounding it, all because the president told omb to continue to hide the truth from congress and the american people. what was he afraid h of? a subpoena issued by the senate would show us. omb also has documents of a ofe key cincinnati's triggered by the president's order to hold the military aid. in the second half of july the national security council convened a series of interagency meetings about the president's hold on military aid. omb documents which show what happened during those meetings. for example,

leadership transferred responsibility for approving funding obligations from career civil servant mark sandy to a political appointee mark duffey someone with no relevant experience in this funding. based on recent public reporting and document's dod released under the freedom of information act we learned on july 25 approximately 90 minutes after president trump's phonecall president zelensky mr. duffey this three pronged plan into motion when he sent an e-mail to senior dod officials copying sandy. the e-mail was in front of you. in this e-mail duffey stated polk based on guidance i've received and in light of the administration's plan to review assistance to ukraine please hold off on any additional dod applications of these funds pending direction. duffey also underscored quote given the sensitive nature of the request i appreciate you keeping that information closely held to those who need to know the direction. in other words don't tell anybody about it. later that day sandy approved and signed the first july 25 funding document which delayed funding until august 5. sandy testified the

omb went so far as to remove the authority to approve the budget documents from mark sandy, a courier officer communicated to michael duffey, a political appointee without experience managing such documents. this is unusual. it occurred less than two weeks after sandy raised concerns that the hold of violated the law. sandy was not aware of any prior instance when the political appointee assumed this kind of funding approval authority. the duffey explanation just didn't make sense to sandy. really this on the chain and responsibility was just another way to keep the president illegal hold with any tightknit unit of loyal soldiers within the omb. michael duffey defied the house of subpoena at the president's direction he refused to appear. now, the house of the not assert any privileges or immunities when it directed duffey to defy congress's subpoena. it wasn't a real exercise of executive privilege. they told him not to appear and added no reason why. if mr. duffey knew about any legitimate reason for the hold, i bet he wouldn't have been walked from testifying. the fact that he was

mark sandy testified that nothing like that had ever happened in his entire governmental career.hink about that. if this is as routine as the president claims, why is a career official saying he has never seen anything like this happened before? mr. duffey knows why. shouldn't we just take the time to ask him? the american people deserve a fair trial. the constitution deserves a fair trial. the president deserves a fair trial. a fair trial means witnesses. a fair trial means documents. a fair trial means evidence. no one is above the law. and i will yield to my distinguished colleague, manager lofgren. >> mr. chief justice and senators, it's not just about hearing from witnesses coming any documents. the documents don't lie. there are specific documents relevant to this impeachment trial in the constantly of the white house, omb, dod, and the state department and the president has hidden them from us. i'm not going to go through each category again in detail, but here are some observations. this is of course an impeachment case against the president of the united states, nothing

leadership transferred responsibility for approving funding obligations from career civil servant mark sandy to a political appointee mark duffy, someone with no relevant experience in this funding. based on recent public reporting and documents dod released we learned that july 25th approximately 90 minutes after president trump's phone call with president zelensky, mr. duffy put this three-pronged plan into motion. when he sent an e-mail to senior dod officials copying sandy. the e-mail is in front of you. in this e-mail, duffey stated, quote, based on guidance received and the plan to review assistance to ukraine please hold off on any additional dod obligations of these funds pending process. duffey underscored, given the sensitive nature of the request i appreciate you keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction. >> in other words, don't tell anybody about it. later that day sandy approved and signed the funding document until august 5th. sandy testified that the purpose of this and subsequent footnotes, quote, to preclude obligation for a li

throughout july, mark sandy, the omb career official who handled military aid to ukraine, repeatedly tried to get duffey to provide an explanation for the freeze. he was unsuccessful. sandy and other officials from omb and the pentagon also raised questions about the freeze violating the impoundment control act, the federal law that limits the president's ability to withhold funds that have been allocated by congress. in fact, two career omb officials ultimately resigned in part based on concerns about the handling of the ukraine military aid freeze. these concerns were not unfounded. just last week, the nonpartisan government accountability office issued a detailed legal opinion finding omb had violated federal law by executing the president's order to freeze military aid to ukraine. remarkably, on july 29th, after sandy had expressed his concerns about the legality of the freeze, duffey removed sandy from responsibility for ukraine military aid. instead, duffey took over responsibility for withholding the aid himself. he was a political appointee. he had no relevant experience. he h

mark sandy testified about a july 12th e-mail from mr. blair stating that president trump is directing a hold on military support funding for ukraine. was mr. blair acting at mr. mulvaney eav's express direction? the members of this distinguished body deserve to know. on july 18th, those present were blindsided by the announcement that the security aid appropriated by this congress on a bipartisan basis to ukraine, which is still at war with russian-backed separatists in the east, they were alarmed that aid had inexplicably been put on hold. meanwhile, others became increasingly concern that the hold also violated the law. their concerns turned out to be accurate. public reports have indicated that the white house is in possession of early august emails, exchanges between acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and white house budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for the funds. an explanation, i should note, that they were trying to provide after the president had already ordered the hold. mr. mulvaney presumably has answers to

office of management and budget official mark sandy testified about a july 12 e-mail for mr. blair statingfy their president trump is directing a hold on military support funding for ukraine was mr. blair acting at mr. mulvaney's express direction? the members of this distinguished body deserve to know your on july 18 the hold was announced to the agencies in the administration overseeing ukraine policy matters. those present were blindsided by the announcement. that thehe security aid appropriated by this congress on a bipartisan basis to ukraine, which is still at war with russian backed separatists in the east, ahi were alarmed that aid had inexplicably been put on hold. meanwhile, officials at the defense department and within the office of management and budget became increasingly concerned that the hold also violated the law. there are concerns turned to be accurate. public reports have indicated that the white house is in possession of early august e-mails, exchanges between acting chief of staff mick budgety and white house officials seeking to provide an explanation

vindman testified that nothing on the ground had changed in the two months of the hold and mark sandy of the omb could also confirm that. ambassador taylor too testified that "i was not told the reason why the hold had been lifted.". let me take a moment to address another defense i expect you will hear, that the aide was released and the investigations were never announced so therefore no harm no foul. this defense would be laughable if this issue wasn't so serious. first, i've spoken of the past three days about the real consequences of inserting politics in the matters of war. real people, real lives are at stake every day, every hour matters. so, no, the delay wasn't meaningless. just ask the ukrainians sitting in trenches right now and to this day they are still waiting on $18 million of aid that hasn't reached them. jennifer williams who attended the warsaw meeting with vice president pence describe president zelinski's focus during this time. >> you testified in your deposition that in that conversation president zelinski emphasized that the military systems, the security assis

have to say one thing about that gao report that is released, the first person i thought about was mark sandy, the former omb official, who received to the house intelligence committee that he was worried that they were breaking the law. and ended up and said something and ended up leaving as a result. so this just layers on another thing that we already know was a concern and that was just brushed aside as a pursuit was happening to -- sorry, go ahead. >> not for nothing. he's one of the four that schumer had presented at the beginning of this, that they want to call. >> yeah, exactly. >> exactly. >> let's quote from this gao finding, you spend a lot of time in government. faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own priorities for those this congress enacted into law. this is key because a principle part of the gop defense was this was just a policy disagreement. the president can do what the heck he wants on this. the gao saying, no, because congress in its constitutional duty passed this funding. >> that's right. there is -- there say super seeding sta

office of management and budget official mark sandy testified about a july 12th e-mail from mr. blair stating that president trump is directing the hold on military support funding for ukraine. was mr. blair acting at mr. mulvaney's express direction? the members of this distinguished body deserve to know. on july 18th, the hold was announced to the agencies in the administration overseeing ukraine policy matters. those present were blindsided by the announcement that the security aid appropriated by this congress on a bipartisan basis to ukraine, which is still at war with russian backed separatists in the east, they were alarmed that aid had inexplicably been put on hold. meanwhile, officials at the defense department and within the office of management and budget became increasingly concerned that the hold also violated the law. their concerns turned out to be accurate. public reports have indicated that the white house is in possession of early august e-mails, exchanges between acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and white house budget officials seeking to provide an explana

. >> mark sandy, a career officer at omb testified he only learned of a possible rationale for the hold in early september after the acting dni had informed the white house about the whistle-blower complaint. sandy testified that some time in early september he received an email from his boss, michael duffy, approximately two months after the hold had been placed the email, quote, attributed the hold to the president's concern about other countries not contributing more to ukraine and requested, quote, information about what additional countries were contributing to ukraine. this was a different explanation than omb provided at the july 26th interagency meeting. that referenced concerns about corruption. lieutenant colonel testified that none of the facts on the ground about ukrainian efforts to combat corruption or other countries' contribution to ukraine had changed before president trump lifted the hold. according to a press report, after congress began investigating president trump's scheme, the white house counsel's office opened an internal investigation relating to the july 25th

mark sandy testified that two officials at omb resigned during the scandal in part because of their concernthese funds to ukraine was illegal. it seems there concerns were justified. i would love to hear from them. it also means the republican talking opponent that no criminal laws were broken in this impeachment scandal, that is well and truly dead. or it should be. more ahead. stay with us. if h us if (whistling) (whistling) women with metastatic we breast cancerers. standing in the struggle. hustling through the hurt. asking for science not sorrys. our time for more time - has come. living longer is possible and proven in women taking kisqali plus fulvestrant or a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor. kisqali is the only treatment in its class with proven overall survival results in 2 clinical trials. helping women live longer with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali was also significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant alone. kisqali can cause lung problems or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it

on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about ukraine military aid to acting director it advocated for the release of the funds and said that military aid was consistent with national security interests, it would help oppose russian aggression and was backed by strong bipartisan support. president trump did not lift the hold. over the next several weeks, they continued to issue documents that kept kicking the can down the road, supposedly to allow for more of this "interagency process. while inserting those footnotes in the apportionment documents saying the delay wouldn't affect the funding. here is the really shocking pa part. there was no interagency proce process. they made it up. it had ended months before. they made it up because nobody could say the real reason for the hold. in total, omb issued nine of these documents between july 25th and september 10th. did the white house responded to omb's concerns and recommendation to release the aid? to the white house instruct omb to continue creating a paper trail in an effort to justify the hold? wh

so on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about ukraine military aid to acting director vought. according to sandy, the memo advocated for the release of the funds. it said that the military aid was consistent with american national security interests. it would help to oppose russian aggression and it was backed by strong bipartisan support. but president trump did not lift the hold. over the next several weeks, omb continued to issue funding documents that kept kicking the can down the road. supposedly to allow for more of this quote interagency process. well, inserting those footnotes throughout the apportionment documents stating that the delay wouldn't affect the funding but here's the really shocking part. there was no interagency process. they made it up. it had ended months before. they made it up because nobody could say the real reason for the hold. in total, omb issued nine of these documents between july 25th and september 10th. did the white house respond to omb's concerns and recommendation to release the aid, did the white house instr

so, on that day, mark sandy and other colleagues at omb drafted and sent a memo about ukraine military aid to acting director vaughn. according to sandy, the memo advocated for the release of the funds. it said that the military aid was consistent with american national security interests, it would help to oppose russian aggression, and it was backed by strong bipartisan support. but president trump did not lift the hold. over the next several weeks, omb continued to issue funding documents that kept kicking the can down the road. supposedly to allow for more of this, quote, interagency process. well, inserting those footnotes throughout the apportionment documents stating the delay wouldn't affect the funding. but here's the really shocking part. there was no interagency process. they made it up. it had ended months before. they made it up because nobody could say the real reason for the hold. in total, omb issued nine of these documents between july 25th and september 10th. did the white house respond to omb's concerns and recommendation and release the aid? did the white house instr

. >> mark sandy, the career officer at omb, testified he only learned of a possible rationale for the hold in early september after the acting dni had informed the white house about the whistle-blower complaint. now, sandy testified that sometime in early september, he received an email from his boss, michael duffey, approximate two months after the hold had been placed, the email, quote, attributed the hold to the president's concern about other countries not contributing more to ukraine and requested, quote, information about what additional countries were contributing to ukraine. this was a different explanation than omb had provided at the july 26th interagency meeting. that reference concerns about corruption. lieutenant colonel testified that none of the facts on the ground about ukrainian efforts to combat corruption or other countries' contribution to ukraine had changed before president trump lifted the hold. according to a press report, after congress began investigating president trump's scheme, the white house counsel's office opened an internal investigation relating to t

you may remember one of the impeachment witnesses, mark sandy, testified that two officials at omb resigneding this scandal in part because of their concerns about whether holding up these funds to ukraine was illegal. it seems their concerns were justified. i'd love to hear from them. it also means that the republican talking point that no criminal laws were broken in this impeachment scandal, that is well and truly dead. or it should be. more ahead. stay with us. and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for hiv in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights hiv to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it can't be measured by a lab test. research shows people who take hiv treatment every day and get to and stay undetectabe can no longer transmit hiv through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofet

the top career official, mark sandy told impeachment inve investigators when michael duffy ordered him to delay the ukraine aid, he immediately brought up the impoundment control act. joining me now, former u.s. attorney and msnbc contributor joyce vance and danny cevallos. thank you both for being here. the impoundment control act was clearly designed to underscore what the constitution said. that's that the congress has the power to apportion, to apportion money to tax money and apport n apportion. they were underscoring a point because nixon had a habit of redirecting money. what happens now that they say what the administration did is contrary to this law, this 1974 law. >> so it's a great question. this is another time where we talk about whether or not the rule of law continues to survive in the era of trump. the impoundment act is supposed to create norms. it's not a criminal statute. no one goes to jail for violating it. the notion was it would force the presidency to respect congress's power of the purse. that has broken down here. this is evidence that supports article one of

mark sandy told us why there was a hold on 8, the president was concerned about other countries payingtheir fair share. why aren't they talking about president the lindsay thing "quid pro quo. why won't the democrats told the american public the truth that president zelinski didn't have confirmation of a hold until august 20 ninth? but they want to use ambassador sondland, they don't mention it, that was a guest. shannon: so much of this hinges on discerning the subjective intent of the president. that was on page 28 of the white house brief, 171 pages long but there was an important section that didn't get much play. they mind read the president's intend, 13 people listening, he had the subjective intent to do something that would abuse his executive authority to hurt the us national security. that is a wild precedent we are setting for the future. >> if the american people are watching the waterfall crazy allegations from democrats they see you can categorize all into either hearsay, conjecture or a fundamental policy disagreement with the president. shannon: we are going to get back

on july 25th, minutes before the phone call, duffey asked mark sandy about that.ms to reference the email that duffey sent to the department of defense 90 minutes after the president's phone call with zelensky concluded informing the department that there would be a freeze on the aid to ukraine. >> also in these exchanges were some questions from members of congress, yes? >> yeah. so i think this is one of the more fascinating parts of what we saw last night. multiple republicans had actually inquired to omb about the status of the aid. an aide to senator portman wrote a sternly worded letter back in august agent the reasoning behind the freeze. the senator even reaching out directly to president trump urging him to release the aid. there are also emails from the chief of staff for republican congressman macthornbury where he said, quote, i heard today that omb has put a pause on funds authorized for ukraine security assistance. is there someone i can talk to to understand why? jim inhofe and paul cook also appeared to have some questions. with cook asking mick mu

referred to katherine crawford the special advisor for ukraine negotiations department the state marks sandy the deputy associate director for national security programs and christopher anderson special advisor for ukraine negotiation department state you heard their testimony referred to we did not have the opportunity to cross-examine them so this isn't going to happen if witnesses are called in a week now that's just the witnesses that have been produced that you have seen by the house managers. you were being called upon to make consequential constitutional decisions consequential decisions for our constitution we talk about the burden of proof i've said this before also i'll say it again 31 times the manager said they proved their case 29 times they said the evidence was overwhelming manager ned lawyer in an only say it was overwhelming in his view on page 739 of the congressional record he's very clear he says not only is it strong there is no doubt what he says the one thing that the house managers think the president counsel's got right is quoting me talking about mr nadler manager n

duffy copied mark sandy, career official at omb, that told us about the email in his testimony beforese. like all others, that email was not produced by the trump administration in the house impeachment investigation. we know the email exists, however, because in response to freedom of information lawsuit, the trump administration was forced to release a redacted email consistent with sandy's description. but omb provided none of those documents to the house. with this proposed amendment, the senate has an opportunity to obtain and review the full record that could further demonstrate how and why the president was holding the aid. these documents would also shed light on the president's order to implement the hold. on july 3rd, the state department told various officials that omb blocked it from dispensing $141 million in aid. omb had directed the state department not to send a notification to congress about spending the money, and without that notification, the aid was effectively blocked. why did omb block the congressional notification? who told them to do it? what was the reason?

bill taylor deputy assistant secretary of defense laura cooper deputy associate director of omb mark sandy state department official catherine croft and state department official christopher andersen. each of these eight witnesses followed the law. they obeyed how subpoenas and they testified before the house. in all we know that by issuing a blanket order and later specific orders president trump prevented at least 12 former administration officials from testifying during a house impeachment inquiry. he specifically forced nine of those witnesses to defy duly authorized subpoenas. the facts are straightforward and they are not in dispute. first in the history of our public no president ever in dared to issue an order to prevent even a single government witness from testifying in an impeachment inquiry. second, president trump abuse the power of his office by using his official powers in an attempt to prevent every single person who works in the executive branch from testifying before the house. finally president trump's orders in fact prevented the house from obtaining key witness testimo

mark sandy, afghanistan veteran who is responsible for managing the flow of pentagon funds testified that o.m.b. officials were told that the president wanted the ukraine aid paused but didn't understand why. while reaching out to the pentagon, he also repeatedly pressed mr. duffy why president trump imposed the hold and mr. sandy didn't get a clear answer and said mr. duffy didn't respond. he said we need to let the hold take place and then revisit this issue with the president, unquote. week later on june 27, mulvaney was flying with president trump when he fired off a quick email and it said, quote, i'm trying to close up loose ends, did we find out the money for you contain and whether we can hold it back. the aide said they could carry it out, the move to withhold ide would not go over with congress. respect congress to be unhinged. i don't know about unhinged but they aren't going to let it go unanswered. these conversations are critical to our time line because this administration's abuse of our laws and helping trump cheat our elections. trump, mulvaney with held security ass

appointee with zero relevant experience, abruptly seized responsibility for withholding the aid from mark sandy, acareer office of management and budget official. seized the responsibility from a career official. mr. duffy provided no credible explanation for that decision. mr. sandy testified that nothing like that had ever happened in his entire governmental career. let's think about that. if this is as routine as the president claims, why is a career official saying he's never seen anything like this happen before? mr. duffy knows why. shouldn't we just take the time to ask him? the american people deserve a fair trial. the constitution deserves a fair trial. the president deserves a fair trial. a fair trial means witnesses. a fair trial means documents. a fair trial means evidence. no one is above the law. and i yield to my distinguished colleague, manager lofgren. >> mr. chief justice and senators, it's not just about hearing from witnesses. you need documents. the documents don't lie. there are specific documents relevant to this impeachment trial in the custody of the white house, omd, d

b's leadership transferred the responsibility for approving obligations from career civil servant mark sandyintee, mark dutff and someone with no relevant experience in the funding. based on the recent public reporting and documents that d.o.d. released under the freedom of information act, we learned that 90 minutes after president trump's phone call with president zelensky, mr. duffy put the three-pronged plan into motion. when he sent ant email to senior d.o.d. officials copying sandy. the email is in front of you. in this email duffy stated, quote, based on the guideness a i have received and in light of the assistance of the administration for ukraine, please hold off any of the obligationings of these funds pending direction from the process. given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate you keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction. so in other words, don't tell anybody about it. so then the delayed funding document was delayed until august 5th, and sandy testified that this in subsequent footnotes was to preclude the obligation

the only reason we know about it is from the testimony of mark sandy, the career official who followed the the law and complied with his subpoena. as you can see from the transcript excerpt in front of you, sandy testified that the july 12th e-mail did not mention concerns about any other country or any other aid packages. just ukraine. so the dozens of countries where we provide aid and support, the president was only concerned about one of them. ukraine. why? well, we know why. but omb has still refused to provide a copy of this july 12 e-mail, and has refused to provide any documents surrounding it all because the president told omb to continue to hide the truth from congress and the american people. what was he afraid of? a subpoena issued by the senate would show us. omb also has documents about a key series of meetings triggered by the president's order to hold the military aid. in the second half of july, the national security council convened a series of interagency meetings about the president's hold of military aid. omb documents would show what happened during those meetings

vindman testified that nothing on the ground had changed in the two months of the hold, and mark sandyomb also confirmed that. and ambassador taylor, too, testified that, quote, i was not told the reason why the hold had been lifted. now, let me take a moment to address another defense i suspect you will hear, that the aid was released and the investigations were never announced, so, therefore, no harm, no foul, right? well, this defense would be laughable if this issue wasn't so serious. first, i have spoken over the past three days about the real consequences of asserting politics into matters of war. real people, real lives are at stake every d stake. every day, every hour matters. so no, the delay wasn't meaningless. just ask the ukranians sitting in trenches right now. to this day they are still waiting on $18 million of the aid that hasn't reached them. jennifer williams, who attended the warsaw meeting with vice president pence, described president zelensky's focus during this time. >> and you testified in your deposition that in that conversation, president zelensky emphasized

bill taylor deputy assistant secretary of defense laura cooper deputy associate director of omb mark sandy state

appointee with zero relevant experience abruptly seized responsibility for withholding the aid from mark sandyement and budget official, seized the responsibility from a career official. mr. duffey provided no credible explanation for that decision. mr. sandy testified that nothing like that had ever happened in his entire governmental career. let's think about that. if this is as routine as the president claims, why is a career official saying he's never seen anything like this happen before? mr. duffey knows why. shouldn't we just tab tke the t to ask him? the american people deserve a fair trial. the constitution deserves a fair trial. the president deserves a fair trial. a fair trial means witnesses. a fair trial means documents. a fair trial means evidence. no one is above the law, and i yield to my distinguished colleague, manager lofgren. >> mr. chief justice and senators, it's not just about hearing from witnesses. you need documents. the documents don't lie. there are specific documents relevant to this impeachment trial in the custody of the white house, omb, dod, and the state depar