to omb. in an instant, i realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support to ukraine was present. cement it is hard to believe that omb would not have any documents following this bombshell announcement. it surely does. it is the agency then delivered the shocking news to the rest of the u.s. government that the present was withholding vital military aid from our part. we would see these documents if the senate issued a subpoena. july 18th meeting was just the first in a series of meetings where omb held the line and forced the present hold on the aide. but there was a second meeting on july 23rd, when we understood agencies concerned about the legality of omb hold on the aide. and then at their meeting in a more senior level, on july 26. witnesses testified that at that meeting, omb struggled to offer an explanation for the president's hold on the aide. and then a fourth meeting on july 31st, when legal concerns about the whole were raised. at each of these meetings there was confu

to omb. in an instant i realized one of the key pillars of our strong support of ukraine was threatened. >> it's hard to believe that omb would not have any documents following this bombshell announcement. it surely does. it was the agency that delivered the shocking news to the rest of the government that the president was withholding the vital military aid from our partner and we would see these documents if the senate issued a subpoena. the july 18th meeting was just the first of a series of meetings where omb held the line and enforce the president's hold on the aide but there was a second meeting on july 23rd where we understood agencies raised concerns about the legality of omb's hold on the aide and then a third meeting at the more senior level on jul july 26th, witnesses testified at that meeting, omb struggled to offer an explanation for the president's hold on the aide. then a fourth meeting were legal concerns about the hold were raised. at each of these meetings, there was confusi

staff to omb. an instant i realize that one of the key pillars of our strong support for ukraine was threatened. >> it's hard to believe that omb documentshave any following this bombshell announcement. it surely does. it was an agency that delivered the shocking news to the rest of the u.s.. government that the president was withholding the vital military aid from our partner. and we would see these documents if the senate issued a subpoena. thee july 18 meeting was just te first in a series of meetings were omb held the line and enforce the president's hold ond the 80. but there was a second meeting on july 23 where we understood agencies raise concerns about the legality of omb's hold on the aid of the meeting at a more senior level on july 26. witnesses testified at that meeting omb struggle to offer an excavationon for the president's hold on the aid. and then a fourth meeting on july 31 where the little concerned about the hold were raised. at each of these meetings there was confusion about

omb circulated talking points claiming that, quote, no action has been taken by omb that would preclude the obligation of these funds before the end of the fiscal year, end quote. >>> let me just explain what's going on here. everybody is getting worried. everybody knows that something bad is about to happen. nobody has a good explanation. and nobody wants to be left holding the bag, so they're sending the emails, they're sending the memos to say, i told you so and i'm not going to be held responsible. d.o.d.'s mccusker took issue with omb's talking point. she did so in writing. ms. mccusker emailed mr. duffy to tell him omb's talking points were, quote, just not accurate and d.o.d. had been consistently conveying that point for weeks. again, we know this from a press report. not from documents produced to congress by the trump administration. now, president trump did release some documents in response to a lawsuit under the freedom of information act, but here is what ms. mccuscer's email looked like when it was released by the trump administration. her concern that omb's talking point

to omb.n an instant, i realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support to ukraine was present. cement it is hard to believe that omb would not have any documents following this bombshell announcement. it surely does. it is the agency then delivered the shocking news to the rest of the u.s. government that the present was withholding vital military aid from our part. we would see these documents if the senate issued a subpoena. july 18th meeting was just the first in a series of meetings where omb held the line and forced the present hold on the aide. but there was a second meeting on july 23rd, when we understood agencies concerned about the legality of omb hold on the aide. and then at their meeting in a more senior level, on july 26. witnesses testified that at that meeting, omb struggled to offer an explanation for the president's hold on the aide. and then a fourth meeting on july 31st, when legal concerns about the whole were raised. at each of these meetings there was confusi

staff to omb. in an instant, i realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for ukraine was threatened. >> it's hard to believe that omb would not have any documents following this bomb shell announcement. it surely does. it was the agency that delivered the shocking news to the rest of the u.s. government that the president was withholding the vital military aid from our partner. and we would see these documents if the senate issued a subpoena. the july 18th meeting was just the first in a series of meetings where omb held the line and the hold on the aid but there was a second meeting on july 23rd where we understood agencies raised concerns about the legality of omb's hold on the aid. a third meeting at a more senior level on july 26th, witnesses testified that at that meeting, omb struggled to offer an explanation for the president's hold on the aid. and then a fourth meeting on july 31st where the legal concerns about the hold were raised and there was confusion about the scope,

even as omb was ultimately the president's hold, facials inside omb advocated for the release of the funds. on august 7 omb staff sent a memo to director thought that the director bought, , supportig the stable peaceful europe, two, the fact the aid counted russian aggression through those bipartisan support for the program. this meant experts in every single relevant agency involved opposed the hold. by mid august dod raised concerns that might not be able to fully spin the dod funds before the end of the fiscal year lower cooper testified dod estimated 100 million of the aid was at risk of not getting to ukraine. dod concluded it could no longer support omb's claim that the footnotes quote, that in the footnotes, quote, this brief pause in obligations will not preclude dod's timely execution of the final policy direction, end quote. sandy testified this sentence in the footnote was quote, at the heart of that issue about ensuring that we don't run afoul of the impoundment control act. records produced in response to a foia lawsuit showed that mr. duffey and miss mccusker exchanged

even as omb was implementing the president told officials inside omb abdicated for the release of thefunds. on august 7 to omb staff sent a memo to direct your vaugn recommending removing the hold because the assistance was consistent with the national security strategy in terms of one, supporting a peaceful europe two the fact that the eight countered russian aggression in three that there was bipartisan support for the program. this meant that experts in every single relevant agency involved heard the whole. by mid-august via the race concerned of minot be able to fully spend the dod funds before the end of the fiscal year bird laura cooper testified the dod estimate of 100 million of the aid was at risk of not getting to ukraine. dod concluded it could no longer support the omb's claims that the footnote quote, in the footnotes that quote this brief pause in obligation will not exclude dod's timely execution of the finally policy direction end quote. sandy testified this incidence in the footnote was quote at the heart of the issue about ensuring that we don't run afoul of the cont

the house never received these documents from omb or dod. we know what they contain because the public reporting, despite persistent efforts by the trump administration to keep them from congress and the public. the pentagon's alarm shauf raised concerns for duffey. did he share dod's concerns with anyone else? did he agree with those concerns or take any actions in response? did he take direction from blair, the white house or president trump? these questions that duffey should answer, despite his actions executing the president's freeze duffey internally expressed reservations about it. in august he signed off on a memorandum to acting director vott that recommended releasing the aid. that memo stated the military aid was consistent with united states national security strategy in the region, that it served to counter russian aggression, and that the aid was rooted in bipartisan support in congress. this is contrary to duffey's actions leading up to the memo. what changed? what caused duffey to disagree with the president's direction to co

even as omb was implementing the president told officials inside omb abdicated for the release of the funds. on august 7 to omb staff sent a memo to direct your vaugn recommending removing the hold because the assistance was consistent with the national security strategy in terms of one, supporting a peaceful europe two the fact that the eight countered russian aggression in three that there was bipartisan support for the program. this meant that experts in every single relevant agency involved heard the whole. by mid-august via the race concerned of minot be able to fully spend the dod funds before the end of the fiscal year bird laura cooper testified the dod estimate of 100 million of the aid was at risk of not getting to ukraine. dod concluded it could no longer support the omb's claims that the footnote quote, in the footnotes that quote this brief pause in obligation will not exclude dod's timely execution of the finally policy direction end quote. sandy testified this incidence in the footnote was quote at the heart of the issue about ensuring that we don't run afoul of the con

including an attorney in omb. according to sandy, one colleague specifically disagreed with omb general counsel of the impoundment control act. the independent and nonpartisan government accountability office has already said that the hold was illegal. but you remember the omb correspondence of the interagency process. as we now know, there was no interagency process. it had ended months before. they made it up. they had to make it up because they couldn't say the real reason for the hold. sometime prior to august 16th, ambassador bolton had a one on one meeting with president trump. according to morrison at that meeting the president, quote, was not ready to approve the release of the assistance. ambassador bolton instructed morrison to look for other opportunities to get the president's cabinet together to, quote, have the direct in-person conversation with the president about this topic. everyone was worried. including the president's national security adviser. in mid-august, colonel vindman drafted a memorandu

based on the concerns under the dod, omb eventually dropped to have timely execution of the funds omb also circulated talking points claiming that would preclude the obligation so let me just explain what's going on. everybody is getting worried. everybody knows something bad is about to happen. nobody has a good explanation. nobody wants to be left holding the bag so they say i told you so and i will not be held responsible. and to take issue with the omb talking points and said that the talking points were just not accurate and dod you had consistently been at - - conveying that .4 weeks. again we know this from a press report not from documents produced by congress or the trump administration. now president trump did release some documents in response to a lawsuit under the freedom of information act but here is what the mc custer e-mail look like release by the trump administration. her concern that omb talking point was just not accurate was not entirely blacked out. that the senate should issue the subpoena. dod documents would shed light as the president scheme unraveled. septe

even as omb was implementing the hold, officers in omb were saying it should be lifted. mr. sandy testified that his team drafted a memo on august 7th to omb acting director russ vogt that recommended lifting the hold because, one, the assistance was consistent with national security to support a stable, peaceful europe. two, the aid counters russian aggression. three, there was bipartisan support for the program. michael duffy, the senior political appointee approved the memorandum. he agreed with its policy recommendations, and it wasn't just omb. senior advisers in the administration tried over and over again to convince president trump to lift the hold over the summer. some time prior to august 16th, ambassador bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump about the aid. but the president didn't budge. then, at the end of august, when the hold on the aid became public, ambassador taylor expressed to multiple officials his concerns about withholding the aid from ukraine at a time when it was fighting russia. ambassador taylor stressed the importance of the hold, no

omb documents would shed light on omb's actions as the president's scheme unravelled. did the white house direct omb to continue issuing the hold? what was omb told about the president's reasons for releasing the hold. what communications did omb officials have with the white house around the time of the release. as the president's scheme unravelled, did anyone at omb connected dots about the real reason for the hold? the omb documents would shed light on all of these questions, and the american people deserve answers. i remember what it feels like to not have the equipment you need when you need it. real people's lives are at stake. that's why this matters. we need this information so we can ensure that this never happens again. eventually this will all come out. we will have answers to these questions. the question now is whether we'll have them in time and who here will be on the right side of history. >> mr. sobserved the balance of time for an opportunity to respond to the president. >> mr. sekulow. >> thank you, mr. chief justice members of the senate. manager cr

omb documents should shed light on omb's actions as the president's scheme unravelled. did the white house direct omb to continue issuing the hold? what was omb told about the president's reasons for releasing the hold? what communications did omb officials have with the white house around the time of the release? as the president's scheme unravelled, did anyone at omb connect the dots about the real reason for the hold? the omb documents would shed light on all of these questions, and the american people deserve answers. i remember what it feels like to not have the equipment you need when you need it. real peoples' lives are at stake. that's why this matters. we need this information so we can ensure that this never happens again. eventually, this will all come out. we will have answers to these questions. the question now is whether we'll have them in time and who here will be on the right side of history. >> mr. sekulow. >> sir, chief justice, the house managers reserve the balance of our time for an opportunity to respond to the president's argument. >> thank you.

a top omb official instructed the freeze to be quoted closely held. in other words, don't say anything to anybody. senators, you know in order to lawfully withhold the funding, the president was required to notified congress about the amount of money involved and why he was intending to freeze it. instead, the white house tried to keep the fact of the freeze secret. maybe they kept it a secret as rob blair, white house aide, predicted to his boss, mick mulvaney, "expect congress to become unhinged if it learned that bipartisan aide approved for a valuable foreign partner was being frozen forident's per" the cover-up reached its peak soon after august 12. because on august 12, a whistle-blower filed the lawful and protected complaint intended for congress with the inspector general of the intelligence community. the president who was the subject of the complaint, learned of the filing well before congress and the american people. in an effort to conceal the whistle-blower's concerns, the white house and the department of justice took and unprecedented

even as omb was implementing the hold, officers and omb are saying that it should be lifted. mr. sandy testified that his team drafted a memo on august 7 at the omb acting director bought. it recommended lifting the hold because one, the assistance was consistent with national security to support a stable, peaceful europe. number two, the need to counter russian aggression. three, there was bipartisan support for the program. michael duffey, the senior political appointee overseeing fun, approved a memorandum and agreed with its policy recommendation and that it wasn't just omb. senior advisers in the administration tried over and over again to get president trump to lift the hold over the summer. sometime prior to august 16, ambassador bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump about the aid that the president didn't dodge. then at the end of august, when the hold on the aid became public, ambassador taylor expressed to multiple officials his concerns about withholding the aid from ukraine at a time it was fighting russia. ambassador taylor stressed the importance of t

based on the concerns under the dod, omb eventually dropped to have timely execution of the funds omb also circulated talking points claiming that would preclude the obligation so let me just explain what's going on. everybody is getting worried. everybody knows something bad is about to happen. nobody has a good explanation. nobody wants to be left holding the bag so they say i told you so and i will not be held responsible. and to take issue with the omb talking points and said that the talking points were just not accurate and dod you had consistently been at - - conveying that .4 weeks. again we know this from a press report not from documents produced by congress or the trump administration. now president trump did release some documents in response to a lawsuit under the freedom of information act but here is what the mc custer e-mail look like release by the trump administration. her concern that omb talking point was just not accurate was not entirely blacked out. that the senate should issue the subpoena. dod documents would shed light as the president scheme unraveled. septe

omb documents would shed light on omb's actions as the president's scheme unraveled. did the white house direct omb to continue issuing the hold? what was omb told about the president's reasons for releasing the hold? what communications did omb officials have with the white house around the time of the release? as the president's scheme unraveled, did anyone at omb connect the dots about the real reasons for the hold? the omb documents would shed light on all of these questions and the american people deserve answers. i remember what it feels like to not have the equipment you need when you need it. real people's lives are at stake, that's why this matters. we need this information so we can ensure this never happens again. eventually this will all come out we will have answers to these questions. the question now is whether we will have them in time and who hear will be on the right side of history. >> the house managers reserve the balance of our time for an opportunity to respond to the president's argument. >> thank you, mr. sekulow. >> thank you mr. chief justic

because just like the subpoena for omb, the documents from omb speak directly to one of trump's abuses, his withholding of critical military aid from our partner ukraine to further his personal political campaign. $250 million of taxpayer funded military aid for ukraine was managed by the department of defense as part of the ukraine security assistance initiative. these funds, approved by 87 senators in this very room, would purchase additional training, equipment, and advising the strengthening capacity of ukraine's armed forces. the equipment approved for ukraine included sniper rifles. rocket propelled grenade launchers. counter artillery radar. night vision goggles and medical supplies. and this equipment was to be purchased almost exclusively from american businesses. this equipment, along with the training and advising provided by d.o.d., was intended to protect our national security by helping our friend ukraine fight against vladimir putin's russia. earlier, counsel for the president tried to make the argument, well, it made it there. the aid eventually made it there. the delay

around talking points saying, no action was taken by omb that would preclude these funds by the end of the fiscal year. an acting pentagon controller responded, coat, i do not agree to the revised talking points. in other words, that's b.s. the last one is just inaccurate from the financial standpoint, something we've been consistently conveying for a few weeks. in other words your talking points are a lie, and now you're trying to lie back to us? for some reason her response which does not seem like a revelation caused by information or a security compromise, that response was redacted in a document released last month. interesting. perhaps the most damning evidence about president trump's cardination of the freeze came at the end of august after a meeting between secretary of state mike pompeo, esper and president trump, the political appointee coordinating the aid for omb told the dod controller, quote, clear direction to the president of the united states to hold. president trump says to hold the aid. so now here we are, speaker nancy pelosi has held back turning over the articl

omb's response was that they disagreed with the opinion. omb has authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent. absolutely, yes. omb's response was that they disagreed with the opinion. omb has authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent. these are taxpayer dollars going to another country that people believe there was corruption with the new administration. i think it was the rightful thing to do. yes. reporter: yesterday, lev parnas, rudy giuliani's associate, said that president trump was fully aware of the efforts on his behalf to dig up damaging information. and i'm wondering if this changes your view in any way or if you have any reaction to the fact that he has said not only was mr. trump aware, but the attorney general was read in, mike pence was involved, everybody was involved? rep. mccarthy: not at all. this man lacks all credibility. this is the same pattern i've seen before with cohen. the media tries to build something into it. just to show that he went on and the nature of what he spoke, this is the same

staff to omb.nstant, i realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for ukraine was threatened. >> it's hard to believe that omb would not have any documents following this bombshell announcement. it surely does. it was the agency that delivered the shocking news to the rest of the u.s. government that the president was withholding the vital military aid from our partner. and we would see these documents if the senate issued a subpoena. the july 18th meeting was just the first in a series of meetings where omb held the line and forced the president's hold on the aid. but there was a second meeting on july 23rd when we understood agencies raised concerns about the legality of omb's hold on the aid. and the third meeting at the more senior level on july 26th, witnesses testified that at that meeting omb struggled to offer an explanation for the president's hold on the aid. and then a fourth meeting on july 31st where the legal concerns about the hold were raised. at each of these meetin

and it wasn't just omb. senior advisers in the administration tried over and over again to convince president trump to lift the hold over the summer. sometime prior to august 16th, ambassador bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump about the aid. but the president didn't budge. then at the end of august, when the hold on the aid became public, ambassador taylor expressed to multiple officials his concerns about withholding the aid from ukraine at a time when it was fighting russia. ambassador taylor stressed the importance of the hold not just as a message to ukraine but, importantly, to russia as well. withholding the aid on vital military assistance while ukraine was in the midst of a hot war with russia sent a message to russia about u.s. support of ukraine. ambassador taylor felt so strongly about the harm of withholding the security assistance that for the first time ever in his decades of service at the state department he sent a first person cable with his concerns to secretary pompeo. in

. >> we were concerned about over at omb about an impoundment. i know i just half you folks to bed.udget control impoundment act of 1974 says if congress appropriates money, you have to spend it. we knew that money had to go out the door by the end of september or we had to have a really, really good reason not to do it. that was the legality of the issue. >> that was the legality of the issue. there was legal constraint on us. that presser is remembered for mick mulvaney admitting to the quid pro quo, but he also admitted that there were concerns inside the white house, inside omb, about the legality of that part of the quid pro quo. that part of the quid pro quo that was withholding the u.s. aid from ukraine. so that press conference was in october. the following month in november, there was a career official from omb testifying to the impeachment investigation that, in fact, he was among the people who had raised questions about whether withholding those funds from ukraine was illegal. more explosively, that official, mark sandy, testified that two other officials at omb had not

in documents reviewed by security but withheld by congress on omb on the president's instruction, omb official mark duffy emailed the comptroller that there was clear instruction from potus to continue the hold. here we are august 30th, a month after that july 25th call. aid is still being withheld. ukrainians still holding on, still not willing to capitulate, not willing to violate zelensky's whole campaign pledge about not engaging in corrupt investigations. that same day, august 30th, republican senator ron johnson spoke with amend sondland to express his concern about president trump's decision to withhold military assistance to ukraine. senator johnson described that call in an interview with the "wall street journal." according to senator johnson, amend sondland told him that, if ukraine would commit to, quote, get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, if president trump has that confidence, then he'll release the military spending. senator johnson added, at that suggestion, i winced. my reaction was, oh, god, i don't want to see those two things combined. the next day, august

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. public reports confirm this. on november 24th news report for instance revealed that in september mr. cipollone's lawyers conducted an internal records review. the review reportedly, quote, turned up hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after the fact justification for the decision in a debate over whether the delay was legal. the president's top aides were trying to convince the president to lift the hold in late august and early september. and white house officials were actively working to develop an excuse for the president's scheme and devise a cover story in the event that it was exposed. and soon it would be. on september 9th, the chairs of the house intelligence committee publicly announced the joint investigation of president trump and mr. giuliani's scheme. and this is when the music stops and everyone st

how would you grade omb's progress? >> omb is making tremendous progress. the evidence has a ton of requirements. as much of that starts with omb issuing guidance, regulations. the fact the strategy happen is a miracle. there has been no point in history where an administration has said we recognize that better using outdated is not something we will fix overnight. something that will take us a long time to get the right mechanisms and people and processes and procedures in place. just by saying this tenure strategy exists, i don't know if anybody's doing the math but no president can be in office more than ten years. you can do the math there. the fact it's a ten year plan is, it's a game changer. omb has started issuing their guidance. they have a number of documents that are still in draft form or expecting regulations to come out soon. 2020 is a year will see a lot of progress happen around establishing the chief data officers come making sure the evaluation officer, across federal agencies have what they need to get the job done. as for the budget, i h

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 the july 25th call. the following slides provide excerpts from a report in "the washington post." as part of that internal investigation, white house lawyers reportedly gathered and reviewed hundreds of documents that reveal extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the hold on military assistance for ukraine that had been ordered by the president. these documents reportedly include, quote, early august email exchanges between acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and white house budget officials seeking to provide an explanation for withholding the fund

and omb. why haven't we seen them? because the president directed all of his agencies not to produce them. this trial should not award the president's really up precedented ouclowing him to co evidence you see and what will remain hidden. you should ask for these documents on behalf of the american people and you should ask for these documents to get the truth yourself. let's come back to the issue of delay since the president's lawyers have suggested having witnesses and documents would make this trial too long. the president might even invoke executive privilege for the very first time in this entire impeachment process. it would be better, we're told, to skip straight to the final verdict, to break from centuries of precedent and end this trial without hearing from a single witness, without reviewing a single document that president ordered hidden. respectfully, that shouldn't happen. house managers aren't interested in delaying these proceedings. we're interested in the full truth. in a trial that is fair to the pa

even as omb was implementing the hold, officers and omb are saying that it should be lifted. mr. sandy testified that his team drafted a memo on august 7 at the omb acting director bought. it recommended lifting the hold because one, the assistance was consistent with national security to support a stable, peaceful europe. number two, the need to counter russian aggression. three, there was bipartisan support for the program. michael duffey, the senior political appointee overseeing fun, approved a memorandum and agreed with its policy recommendation and that it wasn't just omb. senior advisers in the administration tried over and over again to get president trump to lift the hold over the summer. sometime prior to august 16, ambassador bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump about the aid that the president didn't dodge. then at the end of august, when the hold on the aid became public, ambassador taylor expressed to multiple officials his concerns about withholding the aid from ukraine at a time it was fighting russia. ambassador taylor stressed the importance of t

and omb sort of kept pushing them on that. as you said earlier, the chief concern from the pentagon was that this hold violated the law and that it would violate the impoundment control act, which in fact it appears it did. by the time the hold was lifted, the pentagon couldn't get $35 million of the $250 million total spent by september 30th, and it required congress to step in and pass legislation that extend that money in order for them to buy weapons for ukraine. >> we're going to take a quick break. we're going have more with you. this is an important conversation. there is so much to know about. also tonight, what sizable new fundraising numbers say about bernie sanders' position with just a few weeks left for iowa and new hampshire. we'll talk money and politics and the rest of the democratic field with some top strategists. howard dean is going to join us. later the attack in iraq, the influence of iran and the question of whether the united states is losing its influence around the world. fareed zakaria joins us for t

in that simple statement, omb admitted several key points. first, mister cipollone's letter of october 8 was an official directive of the white house. second, president trumps like it order applied to omb and the three officials subpoenaed by the house. third, president trumps blanket order not only directed them to refuse to participate voluntarily, it also directed them to define house subpoenas area for, resident trumps blanket order directly prevented the three omb officials from providing testimony to the house. there's no question about the stove of president trumps order. it was total. there's no question about the intent of the order. it was clearly understood by administration officials as shown by omb and there's no question the order had an impact. it directly prevented the house and getting testimony from the three senior officials at omb. so here we are. the president of the united states issued an official order forbidding every single person who works for the executive branch of our government from getting testimony to the hous

rob portman was an omb director. he knows exactly -- he had michael duffey's job.e could very easily tell if this email is legal or illegal. it's binary. what does he say? >> i don't know what to tell you. i just feel like, politically speaking, so many of these republican senators have gone so far down this road. if they wanted to turn around now, there are no bread crumbs to lead them back. you have made your bed at this point, and i think just politically speaking taking the moral calculation out of it, and i know that's like not what anyone wants to do. but if you're just looking at this in a lizard-brain political way, you're in it now, and there is just not the value back out. [ laughter ] >> and the vulnerable members and so as fast as you can dismiss this and move on from this, the easier it may be for cory gardner. >> move on to what? we don't think he's going to be impeached for doing the same thing to another country? i guess my point is why do they think moving on from this makes it better? >> i don't know. i think just because, look, the facts of this

officials resigning including an attorney in omb.ndy, one colleague specifically disagreed with the omb general counsel about the application of the federal impoundable control act. as i stated the omb said that it should be released. and now, as we know, there was no intraagency process, because it had ended months before. they made it up. they had to make it up, because they could not say the real reason for the hold. sometimes prior to august 16th, ambassador bolton had a one-on-one meeting with president trump. according to morrison at that meeting the president, quote, was not ready to approve the release of the assistance. ambassador bolton instructed morrison to look for other opportunities to get the president's cabinet together to, quote, have the direct in-person conversation with the president about this topic. everyone was worried, including the president's national security adviser. in mid-august colonel vindman drafted a memorandum of ambassador bolton to president trump for the decision on ukraine security assistance.

but he also admitted that there were concerns inside the white house, inside omb, about the legalityo. that part of the quid pro quo that was withholding u.s. aid from ukraine. so, that press conference was in october. the following month in november, there was a career official from omb testifying to the impeachment investigation that in fact he was among the people who had raised questions about whether withholding those funds from ukraine was illegal. more explosively that official mark sandy testified that two other officials at omb had not only shared those concerns that this was potentially 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 tha

but that part is redacted. >> that's embarrassing for the white house and omb.is weeks she's saying, if we don't spend it now, we will not be able to spend it by law. she is not just a budget official, she's the controller, very senior official at the department of defense. she even sends them a draft letter from the deputy secretary of defense saying the same thing, and then at the end of it, when this all explodes because politico has it out in the open as well, that's right, that the omb person she's been speaking to says it is on you. if you can't spend it, we have been telling you to spend it. >> the emails show she said this will be a problem. she writes in another email to somebody else at dod that omb's general counsel appears to continue to consistently misunderstand the process and the timelines we provided for funds execution. this is elaine mccussker. this is redacted. the rules governing redactions, seems like they were used selectively in the process. if the report bears out, again, we haven't been able to see this, if the redactions are what was r

omb. so here we are. the president of the united states issued an official order for bidding every single person that works with the executive branch from giving to the house as part of the investigation that prevented counsel from getting testimony from witnesses who knew about the president's conduct. the matter is simple is plain to see the question we here in congress must ask is if we are prepared to turn a a blind eye to the presidents obstruction not only of oversight but the power to determine whether congress may gather evidence of impeachment proceedings. if the senate is p prepared to acceptne that not only president trump that all presidents after him will have veto power with congresses ability for oversight and the power of impeachment the house was not prepared to accept that and that's why it approved article to. as you consider what you think about this, please know that president trump's blanket order was not the end of his obstruct the impeachment inquiry. actually it is just the beginn

in that simple statement, omb admitted several key points. first, mister cipollone's letter of october 8 was an official directive of the white house. second, president trumps like it order applied to omb and the three officials subpoenaed by the house. third, president trumps blanket order not only directed them to refuse to participate voluntarily, it also directed them to define house subpoenas area for, resident trumps blanket order directly prevented the three omb officials from providing testimony to the house. there's no question about the stove of president trumps order. it was total. there's no question about the intent of the order. it was clearly understood by administration officials as shown by omb and there's no question the order had an impact. it directly prevented the house and getting testimony from the three senior officials at omb. so here we are. the president of the united states issued an official order forbidding every single person who works for the executive branch of our government from getting testimony to the hous

multiple republicans had actually inquired to omb about the status of the aid.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 mulvaney about the decision to freeze the aid in a letter. so, of course, this just adds to the question why can't we get access to the documents? and what else is out there? >> this is what they look like. we tried to read them this morning. >> we try to read between the lines. >> put a candle underneath it. >> exactly. i still can't see. i'm much more interested in what the emails that were exchanged on the day it was lifted. because that day begins with michael

more explosively that official mark sandy testified that two other officials omb had not only sharedotentially illegal, he told the impeachment investigation that two omb officials had resigned due to their concerns over the legality of the hold. well, we now know those officials who resigned, they were not alone. 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. before christmas, redacted documents did start spilling into the extra freedom of information filed by watchdog groups. they actively took steps to try to keep it as quiet as possible. justice security revealed the department of defense officials expressed explicit and urgent concern about the potential of illegality of the hold. the president and his allies insisted consistently that no crimes was committed in any part of the impeachment inquiry. it is not true. the officials who were concerned early on that what was going on around them may be illegal, they were right. yesterday, the g.a.o. passed with investigation

omb was like, no, keep the money. was omb and now is chief of staff, very involved? >> i think he would be a worthy witness as would bolton and pompeo. i love when you talk about omb not willing to turn over the emails? this is the statement they put out as their reason to decline to turn over the emails. they said among other things, "disclosure of this material would inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views necessary for effective --" why don't they just say, oh, heck, it's got a whole rack of crime in there so we're not turning them over? you know, they're digging their own grave. >> yeah. >> and i don't care what anybody says, the walls are going to come tumbling down with the parnases and these emails that ultimately are going to see the light of day and they're going to continue to show this is a corrupt administration. >> and it goes farther than the administration. let's play devin nunes, because devin nunes keeps finding himself more deeply involved in this every day. at first he just seems like a crank

august 30th email an omb official says there's now clear direction from potus, president of the united states, to hold. how significant are these emails? >> well, wolf, i think these emails give new urgency to the question of who should testify in this senate trial upcoming. it's interesting that the just security reports point specifically to an individual named in the letter that senator schumer sent to senator mcconnell on the 15th of december, which is mr. duffy, who is the national security person at the office of management and budget. he should testify because he has direct knowledge about the president giving the order, direct knowledge that is evident in that email that's now disclosed. in addition to the testimony proceeded or summarized, i should say, in the house intelligence report, way back in july, even before the august 30th email, way back in july, there was real concern about two things, two issues, i should say, that the president himself should have been concerned about. what will the delay in aid or holding up of the aid, what will that do to our national security

omb is saying we were all on the same page about this. there weren't issues. other sources saying that they believed that mccusker may have been exaggerating concerns to force the administration's hand. an inner agency fighting going on over this hold and these emails helped shed light on that. >> reading reporting, throughs weeks and months, escalating battle between omb and d.o.d. and the democrats minoritier leader, the newly revealed unredacted emails a blow to senator mcconnell's push to have the trial without a witnesses and documents requested. how will majority leader respond taking the floor tore more? -- tomorrow morning? phil mattingly, one hand, on the hill, significant. how will leader mcconnell address this if at all? >> reporter: you can expect senator mcconnell will stay in the same place he's been over the course of the last couple weeks. brooke, fill you in on anything missed regarding negotiations what a senate trial will look lie. traveling, in nashville by chance, you missed nothing. nothing at all. leaders did not speak to speaker pelosi

washington arein often thinking about omb.e realize the flex ability and the power that the states have at the state level and local level. that is really important. i think a lot is going on. look at the publications and the results first. also, results for america. there are several organizations that are doing excellent work at the state and local level. i think that is an important thing to emphasize. omb, at least in the last year, i don't know how much of this is at the top leadership level or where exactly it comes from but there are forces at omb that are saying yes, we will push this forward. we are going to make data much beenimportant than it has in the past. i think omb is on the right path. they are providing leadership for the federal agencies. we will continue to make great progress. >> that is what i heard as well. i am glad that you are confirming a decent sense of optimism there. other questions? the lady in the back and then the guy in the front. we will reverse it. >> i am retired so i get a chance to come

today omb official said there was an agreement every step of the way between dod and omb lawyers, whothe details of the hold, in line with the president's priorities. defense department officials disagreed. one said we were always concerned about the ramifications of holding the military assistance to ukraine. the new details come as the impeachment proceedings remain in limbo. white house aides were in touch with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's office over the holidays. mcconnell plans to continue business as usual when the senate returns tomorrow. until nancy pelosi officially transmits the articles of impeachment. >> others are suggesting they would prefer never to transmit the articles. fine with me. >> nancy pelosi and chuck schumer are seizing on these emails, pointing to evidence that any fair trial in the senate will need to include documents and witnesses from the trump administration. jake? >> sarah murray, thank you very much. this is how nancy pelosi just responded to these emails in a tweet, trump hid these emails and other documents. his excuse was a phony compl

within a couple of weeks of those letters to omb, here's more. here's republican senator rob portman and republican senator ron johnson. this is september 3rd, writing with a bunch of democratic senate cleolleagues to mick mulvaney. we write our concern of the administration not obligating security assistance for 2019. quote, we have worked hard in a bipartisan manner in the senate to provide funding for security assistance program for ukraine that is effective and transparent and fiscally responsible. we strongly urge you to direct the defense department to obligate these funds immediately. two days after that, september 5th, another republican, congressman mike mccaul, top republican on the foreign affairs committee writes to mick mulvaney and to the head of omb russell vought. he says, quote, we write to express our deep concern in support of ukraine's defense regarding reports that omb is holding up significant security assistance funding and support of ukraine's defense. we urge you to make these funds available for obligation without delay.

we, of course, have received no documents from omb and dod because of the present obstruction. why did the president want to hide these documents? we don't know. but thanks to freedom of information lawsuits and hard working reporters, we know a little from the documents that we do have. for instance, we know the day after the dod press release, the president asked for information about the ukraine aid. on june 19th, michael duffy, the associate director for national security programs at omb sent an e-mail to the dod controller with an article by the washington examiner reporting that, quote, pentagon to send $250 million in weapons to ukraine. at this e-mail he asked her the following general question. the question has asked about this funding release, and i have been tasked to follow-up with someone over there to get more detail. do you have any insight on this funding? it seems that on june 19 robert blare, mick mulvaney's deputy called acting omb director russell vogt to discuss the ukraine security assistance. he told him, we need to hold it up. that's right. the hold was

that's when we're learning omb officials shared a ukraine prep memo.s -- they shared this with a top official at omb, michael duffy. and we know from other emails that duffy played a key role in ultimately freezing this aid saying in one email it was a clear directive from the president. so at that point, we know that another omb official wrote to michael duffy that night. paul denaro. he said we'll be standing by to answer any questions you have and are happy to schedule time to discuss if you'd like. it was the same time, the night before all july 24th, the general counsel's office was preparing a footnote for budget officials. this is a footnote used as a device by omb to freeze this funding. then you go to 9:00 a.m. on july 25th. again, just before the call. and michael duffy asked career official mark sandy about the footnote in sandy's response, and he asked to be copied on the email to the department of defense which seems to be a reference to the next step in freezing these funds which is notifying the defense department. and you can see this r