purpura needs to be a little more careful with his facts. let me tell you about some of the testimony you're going to hear and you'll only hear it because it took place in the house. if these were other witnesses, you wouldn't be able to hear it. but you had kathryn croft, a witness from the state department, a career official at the state department who talked about how quickly, actually, after the freeze went into place the ukrainians found out about it and she started getting contacts from the ukrainian embassy here in washington. she said she was really impressed with their diplomatic trade craft. what does that mean? it means she was really impressed with how quickly the ukrainians found out about something that the administration was trying to hide from the american people. ukraine found out about it. in fact, laura cooper, a career official at the defense department, said that her office started getting inquiries from ukraine about the issues with the aid on july 25th, the very day of the call. so much for ukraine not finding out abou

purpura needs to be a little more careful with his facts. let me tell you about some of the testimony you're going to hear, and you'll only hear it because it took place in the house. these were other witnesses you wouldn't be able to hear it. but you had catherine croft, a witness from the state department, a career official at the state department who talked about how quickly actually after the freeze went into place the ukrainians found out about it, and she started getting context from the ukrainian embassy here in washington. she said she was really impressed with her diplomatic trade craft. what does that mean? it means she was really impressed with how quickly the ukrainians found out about something that the administration was trying to hide from the american people. ukraine found out about it. in fact, laura cooper, a career official at the defense department said that her office started getting inquiries from ukraine about the issues with the aid on july 25th, the very day of the call. so much for ukraine not finding out about this

purpura needs to be more careful with his facts. let me tell you about some of the testimony that you are going to hear, and you will only hear it because it took place in the house. these were other witnesses he wouldn't be able to hear it. but you had kathryn croft, the witness from the state department, the career official at the sta a career official at the state department who talked about how quickly actually after the freeze wenten into place the ukrainians found out about and she started getting contacts from thehe ukraine embassy heren washington. she said she was really impressed with her diplomatic tradecraft. what doesre that mean? it means he was impressed with how quickly ukrainians found out about something that the administration was trying to hide from theheo american peopl. ukraine found out about it. in fact, laura cooper, a career official at the defense department, said that her office started getting inquiries from ukraine about the issues with the eight on july 25, that very, very day of the call. so much for

thank you, and i yield to my colleague,ea michael purpura. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, good morning. again, my name is michael purpura. i serve as deputy counsel to the president. it is my honor and privilege to appear before you today on behalf of president donald j. trump. >> and what is the president response? well, it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. sure of its rambling character in that so many words this is the essence of what the president communicates. we've been very good to your country, very good. no other country has done as much as we have. but you know what? i don't see much reciprocity here. i hear what you want. i have a favorite i want from you though, and i'm going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. understand? lots of it. on this and on that. i'm going to put you in touch with people, not just any people. i'm going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the united states, my attorney general bill barr. he has the wh

purpura has explained, the person who was actually speaking to mr.ni, ambassador volker, testified clearly that there was no linkage between the meeting with president zelensky and ukrainian investigations. the house managers also make much of a may 23rd white house meeting, during which the president suggested to his ukraine working group, including ambassador volker and ambassador sondland that they should talk to rudy. the managers told you that president trump gave a directive and a demand that the group needed to work with giuliani if they wanted him to agree with ukraine policy they were proposing. but those words, directive and demand, are misleading. they misrepresent what the witnesses actually said. ambassador volker testified that he understood, based on the meeting, that giuliani was only one of several sources of information for the president. and the president simply wanted officials to speak to mr. giuliani because he knows all these things about ukraine. as a best volker portrait, the president's comment was not an instruction, just a

>> i thought purpura did a great job.erly, very precise, pointing out various facts, flaws in the argument by the house democratic managers, and this constant refrain with the house floor managers did not tell you that. as if it was a willful effort on their part not to give you the facts, obviously, lawyers tend to emphasize what helps her case, and tend to deemphasize what hurts their case. it seems to me that this could be very helpful in the end vote by the senate on whether or not to remove president trump because it raises the question of reasonable doubt, is the evidence so overwhelming, what was interesting, and i think we all were wondering, how are the white house prosecutors, or the defenders, going to deal with the big news today about john bolton, the manuscript of his book in which he seems to indicate that president trump did condition support for ukraine on political investigations, the way they have decided to deal with it is to not deal with it at all. to basically ignore it, you did not hear any mention

the white house counsel and deputy white house counsel mike purpura and patrick philbin in their opening arguments today. susan of the washington examiner's washington bureau chief tweeting this, saying cipollone defending president trump may already be winning over senators in their opening statement. you heard the house manager speak 24 hours. we don't anticipate using that much time. the senate will return 1:00 p.m. monday. we wait for comments from senators, let's go to nicholas in sacramento. on the democrats fine. nicholas, california. go ahead. you hold off and hear from senator mike. >> that had to be the most refreshing thing in this whole process so far. i thought it was interesting in that not only did they take all the main ones and put together a presentation, but then they put the rest of it side-by-side which showed a completely different point of year. i was interesting, they ended up at the tail end and actually, adam schiff has been involved in this from the beginning. in fact, even when we were talking about the mother report, it had some interesting contradictions. i'

i'm going to turn the presentation over to my colleague mike purpura he's going to walk you through many more examples of this and with each example ask yourself why am i just hearing about this now after 24 hours of sitting through arguments why and the reason is. we can talk about the process we will talk about the law but today we are going to confront them on the merits of their argument now they have the burden of proof. and they have not come close to meeting it in fact and i want to ask you to think about one issue regarding process beyond process if you were really interested in finding out the truth why would you run a process the way they ran if you were really confident in your position on the facts why would you lock everybody out of it from the president's side why would you do that we will talk about the process arguments but the process arguments also are compelling evidence on the merits because it's evidence that they themselves don't believe in the facts of their case and the fact that they came here for 24 hours and hid evidence from you is further evidence that they d

purpura played those for you. it's clear. when i going to play the same clips seven times. he said it. you saw it. that's the evidence. ms. lofgren said that numerous witness testified, quote, they were not provided with any reason why the hold was lifted on september 11, again suggesting the president reason for the hold, ukrainian corruption and burden sharing were somehow created after the fact. but again asnd my colleague just showed you, burden sharing was raised in the transcript itself. mr. schiff stated here that just like the implementation of the hold president trump provided no reason for the release. this also is wrong speed we will leave this for a moment one of the senators is approaching the microphone in the hallways of capitol hill. take a listen. >> -- last-minute allegations. several have come from mr. parnas. we know of allegations from mr. bolton. i think they would have more credibility if the allegations came from someone else. so for reasons that are obvious, so to directly answer your question, are mr. parnas and mr. bolton telling the truth? i don'

purpura, played those for you. it's clear. we're not going to play the same clips seven times. he said it. you saw it. that's the evidence. ms lofgren said that numerous witnesses testified, quote, they were not provided any reason for why the hold was lifted on september 11th, again suggesting that the president's reason for the hold, ukrainian corruption, and burden sharing were somehow created after the fact. but, again, as my colleague just showed you, burden sharing was raised in the transcript itself. mr. schiff stated here that just like the implementation of the hold, president trump provided no reason for the release. this also is wrong. in their testimony, ambassadors volker and sondland said that the president raised his concerns about ukrainian corruption in the may 23rd, 2019 meeting with the ukraine delegation. deputy defense secretary laura bap testified that she received an email in june of 2019 listing follow-ups from a meeting between the secretary of defense chief of staff and the president relating specifically to ukrainian security assistance including aski

purpura's argument was helpful in building the witnesses, the republicans say more things they could demonstrate, well, we need to have witnesses, we need to have evidence, you can't criticize the house managers for not having the evidence and then refuse to produce the evidence. >> what do you think will happen on monday? >> well, i think we will hear arguments about process, a lot of assertions that -- that president trump didn't get his fair process in the house, attacks on the house manager, attacks on congressman schiff who have been their most effective advocate and i think it'll be a lot of talking about things other than what donald trump did with regard to ukraine. >> and finally, quickly, what are those things, hunter biden, we are told lawyers said that they're going to bring that up on monday, certainly raised that issue. >> well, you know, that wouldn't surprise me, i think they're looking for anything to distract from the actions of president trump himself. eric: thank you for joining us today. >> thank you, eric. eric: more reaction from the other side of the hill, sen

deputy white house counsel mike purpura will now address additional facts related to these proceedings. thank you. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, good afternoon. mr. leader, i believe that we will be ready to take a break at the conclusion of my remarks, if it meets with your approval. on saturday, we walked through some of the evidence that the house managers put forward and didn't put forward during their 21 plus hours of pres recounted was drawn directly from the house managers' own record. the case they chose to submit to this chamber. to echo my colleague, mr. sekulow, briefly, the house managers' own evidence shows that president trump did not condition anything on investigations during the july 25 call with president zelensky and did not even mention the pause security assistance on the call. president zelensky said that he felt no pressure on the call. president zelensky and the top ukrainian officials did not learn of the pause on the security assistance until more than a month after the july 25 call. and the housemanagers' own record, their record that they deve

this is something from mike purpura of the deputy white house counsel, says there is no evidence that president trump ever linked security assistance to any investigation and he also went to undercut the chain of custody about what some of the democratic witnesses, who they brought in during the hearings in november and december, actually knew about this alleged issue how the ukraine aid was held up and purpura said the following, most democratic witnesses have never spoken to the president at all let alone about ukraine security assistance here. the other thing i was struck by, and this came in the opening remarks of the trial, barry black, the senate chaplain usually says something poignant and caught my ear as soon as they gavelled in, said, quote in the prayer we trust the power of your prevailing providence to bring this to the conclusion you desire. a what this sets up, monday and tuesday the defense continues their argument and they may go deeper. and i was struck by the fact they showed republican members. house posing questions fot witnesses compared to the democratic clips o

purpura needs to be more careful with his facts. let me tell you about some of the testimony that you are going to hear, and you will only hear it because it took place in the house. these were other witnesses he wouldn't be able to hear it. but you had kathryn croft, the witness from the state department, the career official at the state department, who talked about how quickly actually after the freeze went into place, ukrainians found out about it and she started getting contacts from the ukrainian embassy in washington. she said she was impressed with her diplomatic tradecraft and what does that mean? she was impressed with how quickly the ukrainians found out about something that the administration was trying to hide from the american people. ukraine found out about it. in fact, laura cooper, a career official at the defense department, said that her office started getting inquiries from ukraine about the issues with the aid on july 25, the very day of the call. so much for ukraine not finding out about this for a month later.

los lakers la aficiÓn amarillo el pÚrpura y la nba estÁn esta noche y ana alvarado no habla sobre elta y seis por charlotte hornets. de inmediato pasÓ a los el paÍs, donde ganÓ cinco anillos de la nba. dos premios al jugador mÁs valioso de las finales de la nba, y el mendi pide la liga en el dos mil ocho, dieciocho meses fue llamado al juego de las estrellas. obtuvo ademÁs dos medallas de oro con la selecciÓn de estados unidos. en los juegos olÍmpicos de pekÍn dos mil ocho y londres, dos mil doce. retiraron las dos camisetas de kobe, la nÚmero ocho, y la veinticuatro. es el Único jugador en la historia del equipo angelino que ha recibido ese aÑo en el dos mil uno se casÓ con vanessa, con quien procreÓ cuatro hijas, natalia y ana marÍa bianca escape en sus dos dÉcadas como jugador se convirtiÓ en una de las grandes estrellas de la liga y en uno de los deportistas mÁs inversiones centrado en los sectores de tecnologÍa, medios de comunicaciÓn y da mÁs. asimismo, en el dos mil dieciocho ganÓ el oscar al mejor cortometraje animado con dieron bÁsquetbol. eh cambiamos de tema, pero prestÁ a

i'm going to turn the presentation over to my colleague, mikepr purpura.e's going to walk you through many more examples of this. and with each example ask yourself, why am i just hearing about this now? after 24 hours of sitting through arguments? why? and the reason is -- we can talk about the process, we will talk about p the law. but today we are going to cop front them on the merits -- con front them on the merits of their argument. now, they have the burden of ofproof. and they have not come close to meeting it. in fact, and i want to ask you to think about one issue regarding process, beyond process. if youne were really interestedn finding out the truth, why would you run a process the way they ran? if you were really confident in your position on the facts, why would you lock everybody out of it? from the president's side? why would you do that? wey will talk about the process arguments, but the process arguments also are compelling evidence on the merits because it's evidence that they themselves don't believe in the facts of their case. and the

purpura played those for you. it's clear.g to play the same clips seven times. >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, i have good news. just a few more minutes from us today. >> well, he did spend two hours today, i think the opening manager schiff made was two hours. >> it doesn't look like they will take as much time and he kept saying over and over and over how much time democrats used, they had 24 hours, they used 24 hours, they got 22 more hours, maybe they wrap on monday, maybe they wrap on tuesday, but we do know that this is a president, this is a party that wanted to get this over with, right? so the idea that they're going to use their whole time, it doesn't seem like it, and they're sort of using that as a way, in some ways to ingratiate themselves to senators there. >> the burden is on the democrats to make a case and that's why they had to take a lot of case and now the burden is on the republicans saying we're not them and we care about you and we're in the going to take as much time and we're not going to

they're talking about the transcript and purpura says it is the transcript.cterizing things when they don't have to. these are his lawyers, they're supposed to be more careful. why are you going to misrepresent what it is, all you have to say is we have the read out from the call and see what it says. >> i think they wanted to make sure everybody knew what they were talking about. it was the read out which everybody refers to as a transcript. in contrast to the whistle-blowers -- >> early on, they referred to the democratic facts, democrats' facts, things they pre-approved in the underground bunker, which is again just not a completely accurate way to describe it. >> it is not a bunker. >> michael purpura, and jennifer, served in the military, doesn't have windows, if there's a view, you know, that's parroting some of the words that trump and political allies like to put forward. dog whistles to folks. they don't get to the facts. for example, repeatedly, you see this in regular trials, too, they said you know what you didn't hear from the prosecution or hous

is there any recourse for start making patently false statements like that and then purpura did not do much better himself. trying to weave together these narratives that bring us back to what you are talking about to earlier with the need for evidence. trying to put this narrative saying that we heard from -- i forget his one name but for kerr and giuliani and giuliani seems to miss the link here. we need to hear from giuliani. if anyone wants full exoneration for this president and frankly, the democrats if he's exonerated by full evidence and witnesses, fine. that is okay but needs to be bifold witnesses and full evidence but otherwise it's a sham hearing. ... many of the reporters are noting that ken starr, like this reporter for pbs who prosecute the clinton impeachment is not arguing impeachment has been used to often and has become too political. those of us who live through the clinton impeachment understand it's like domestic war and divide the country like nothing else. boys in ohio republican. >> thank you for letting me get on. i've been trying since this thing started. eve

purpura played those for you, it's clear. we're not going to play the same clips seven times.id it. you saw it. that's the evidence. miss lofgren said that, you know, m numerous witnesses testified, it's a quote, there is no reason why the hold was lifted on september 11, again, suggesting that the president's reason for the hold, ukrainian corruption and burden sharing were somehow created after the fact. but again, as my colleague just showed you, burden sharing was raised in the transcript itself. mr. schiff stated here that jut like the implementation of the the hold president trump provided no reason for the release. this also is wrong. in their testimony, ambassadors volker and sondland said that the president raised his concerns about ukrainian corruption in the may 23rd, 2019 meeting with the ukraine delegation. deputy defense secretary laura craft testified that she received an e-mail in june of 2019 listing follow-ups from a meeting between the secretary of defense chief of staff and the president relating specifically to ukrainian security assistance, including aski

purpura has explained, the person who was actually speaking to mr. giuliani, ambassador volker, testified clearly that there was no linkage between the meeting with president zelensky and ukrainian investigations. the house managers also make much of a may 23 white house meeting during which the president suggested to his ukraine working group including ambassadors volker and sondland that they should talk to rudy. the managers told you that president trump gave a directive and a demand that the group needed to work with giuliani if they wanted him to a great with the ukraine policy they were proposing. but those words, directed and demand, are misleading. they misrepresent what the witnesses actually said. ambassador volker testified that he understood based on the meeting that giuliani was only one of several sources of information for the president. and the president simply wanted officials to speak to mr. giuliani because he knows all these things about ukraine. as volker put it, the president's, it was not an instruction but just a comment. amba

purpura to contest those facts.his point in our p prebuttle, if they contest any they are making the argument for further witnesses, making the argument to call people we want to call. i think the president's false tweets this morning are just a further false exculpatory. he said we didn't try to get his testimony in the house. when we did, he said that that we claimed that they had no meeting at the united nations when we showed video footage of them having a meeting at the united nations. he claimed that he gave them the aid earlier than expected, or something along the line, just patently false. when you have essentially the defendant making false statements, it's further evidence of guilt. at the end of the day, this the test for the senators. they have taken an oath to be impartial. they have just learned there's a key witness going to the heart of the allegations. the question they have to answer is do they want to hear the truth? do they want to cross-examination john bolton. john bolton, according to the pre

white house counsel will take the lead, aided by two of his deputies, michael purpura and patrick philbin. the president's chief outside counsel will also join, and sources tell fox news there is still serious discussion about having harvard law professor alan dershowitz take a role. alan dershowitz has been harshly critical of how the democrats conducted their impeachment inquiry. white house aides dismissed democrats' a time to take on the president. >> it has nothing to do with the rule of law by any stretch because the articles they came up with don't actually cite any crime. it is just to try to smear this president because they know they can't beat him at the ballot box. >> impeachment will certainly factor prominently in president trump's campaign event. south carolina senator lindsey graham spoke with the president last night and gained some insight into his state of mind. >> it is frustrating to think he did anything wrong but i told him, there is a process. he will come out of this politically stronger. i hate you have to go through it but i feel confident he will be acquitted i

again, my name is michael purpura. it is my honor and privilege to appear before you today on behalf of donald j. trump. >> and what is the president's response? well, it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown, short of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. we've been very good to your country, very good. no other country has done as much as we have, but you know what, i don't see much reciprocity here. i hear what you want, i have a favor i want from you though and i'm going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, on this and on that. i'm going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, but attorney general of the united states, my attorney general bill barr. he's got the whole weight of the american law enforcement behind him, and i'm going to put you in touch with rudy. you're going to love him, trust me. you know what i'm asking and so i'm only going to say this

during saturday's opening arguments, white house deputy counsel mike purpura claimed the democratic case for impeachment if based on assumptions. >> ambassador sondland used variations of the words "assume," "speculate" and quote believe" 30 times. that was my presusumption, mymy persononal presumption. that was my belief. that was my presumption. i presumed that might have to be done in order to get the aid released. it was presumption. i've been very clear as to when i was presumingng. and i was presuming on the eight. know,ld be pure, you guguess work on my part, speculation. that was t the problem. no one told me the aid was tied to anything. i was presuming it was. >> all the democrats had support the alleged link between security assistance and investigations is ambassador sondland's assumptions and presumptions. amy: during saturday's opening argument, trump's attorney pat cipollone accused the democrats of attempting to overturn an election. >> for all their talk about election interference, that they are here to perpetrate the most massive i interference in an election in americ

a guy named pat phil bin and mike purpura.litical reporter for "the washington post" and msnbc political analyst. the make-up of the house managers, how nancy pelosi was selecting the democrats to prosecute the case. let's talk about how the white house is putting together the make-up of a team to defend that case, if you will. bring me inside what you're hearing from sources. >> reporter: in conversations with white house officials and trump allies, it's clear the white house will likely have 24 hours over the course of several days to make the case on behalf of president trump and they're going to maybe not use all 24 hours that's allotted to them. it going it's going to be a concise case, taking some shots at burisma and hunter biden in terms of his engagement with ukrainian companies and then stepping away. it's not going to be an extensive legal effort, based on my reporting. >> i think that's right. we're heard from a senior administration official yesterday who said it was extraordinarily unlikely this trial would go pa

i think it was mike purpura or it might have been cipollone that made the argument that it's not the job of the senate to do the job of the house. the house in this case didn't do their job. and that's a real problem here. and they rushed to judgment on everything and it was done in a partisan manner and nadler said years ago this should never be done in a partisan manner. that's just indicative of the way they've handled it from day one. now they just want to whine, whine, whine about not having witnesses at this trial. the problem is they didn't develop the factual record when they could have. and you can say all day long, well, there was obstruction by the white house on this. there's a mechanism for that. and they said, with the, it's going to take too long. well, guess what? that's what the justice process calls for. to go to court and fight over subpoenas and fight over these issues. and they weren't willing to even have the fight. in bolton's case they weren't even willing to call him or subpoena him -- >> no, that's -- hold on, jimmy. that's not -- hold on. that's not accurat

purpura made that argument.e he is. >> so, what did president trump and president zelensky discuss in the july 25 call? two issues. burden sharing, corruption. to say that the president of the united states did not -- was not ke concerned about burden sharing, that he was not concerned about corruption in ukraine, the facts from their hearing, the facts from their hearing, establish exactly the opposite. >> the thing is there are these problems. here's what the democratic house managers said about those claims thachlt knew this is what they were going to say and hear are the facts. >> during the july 25th call, president trump didn't raise legitimate corruption concerns as it relates to ukraine. president trump did not mention the word corruption once. if the president was fighting corruption, if he wanted europeans to pay more, why would he hide it from us? why wouldn't he be proud to tell the congress of the united states i'm holding up this aid, and i'm holding it up because i'm worried about corruption? why

attorney mike purpura told the senate not a single witness testified there was any connection betweennvestigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else. now you just watched sondland testify that there was. the defense didn't count on bolton's book leaking which backs up sondland. now the white house knew what was in that book. they knew bolton said there was quid pro quo because bolton followed standard procedure, gave the white house a copy of the book early. so as the white house argues against witnesses they know what bolton would say would hurt them if he were allowed to testify. bottom line, what we're seeing it is a a lot of question of guilt and innocence as the trial is underway. you could make the argument that democrats filed charges too early but the danger to republicans is even as more evident may surface after they vote not guilty. we're going to be having special coverage of the trial to begin at 10:00 a.m. hour time. again this would be the white house's second day of defense, two out of three. we'll join that at 10:00 a.m. >> thanks, scott

listen to this real quick from the deputy white house counsel, michael purpura. president of leveraging security assistance to supposedly sport president zelensky to announce investigations, but how can that possibly be when the ukrainians were not even aware that the security assistance was paused? there can't be a threat without the person knowing he's being threatened. there can't be a quid pro quo without the quo. lisa: i mean, pete -- [laughter] pete: yeah. they dismantled three days, 24 hours of breathless speculation based on hearsay where they're also making things up, they broke that down in two hours. i mean, you couldn't miss the democrat case the last three days because it was wall to wall from one in the afternoon til midnight. you could have blinked and missed the president's case because it was two hours. 1-3:30, but they took the time they needed to lay out the facts, and they dismantled the case. they went through the points on the ukraine side, and the problem with the -- and this is pat cipollone, the president's top lawyer. he was a part of it

. >> muchos vestidos de pÚrpura y oro, luciendo los nÚmeros 8 y 24 mismos que convirtieron en leyendao de reuniÓn, de felicidad de estar todos juntos y pasÁndola muy bien. >> algunos encendieron velas, otros hicieron ofrendas florales mientras que muchos en silencio elevaron una oraciÓn por kobe bryant, su hijo y los fallecidos. >> nos dio campeonatos y estamos orgullosos de tener un Ídolo asi como Él. >> poca personas tuvimos la mundo que dios nos dio de poder compartir como personas Él como personas era una superpersonas. >> mi hijo hoy estÁ contigo. >> que descanse en paz y gracias por todas las memorias que nos dio los Ángeles, y que vivan los Ángeles (hablan inglÉs) (gritan) ♪ ♪ imagÍnense nada mÁs este oso tan grande, dice ahÍ, dios bendiga al Ícono tan grande que fue kobe bryant. ♪ muchachos es increÍble el amor que sentÍa la gente en esta ciudad por Él. >> asÍ es mario sin lugar a duda kobe bryant conquistÓ corazones alrededor del mundo, pero kobe bryant era l a yo tuve la oportunidad de verlo jugar en esa cancha del staples center y verlo encestar y encestar una cantidad hist

and then mike purpura had more to be discussed. a book from bolton, and he says president trump directly referred to a quid pro quo in an august conversation with him. the idea being that if ukraine wanted this almost $400 million in security assistance ukraine needed to help him by engaging in these investigations into the bidens. that is out there. what might mike purpura and the defense team decided to do was to say because that was not part of the record, they are not going to discuss it or acknowledge it. this is not a traditional jury trial where you can only look at the evidence in front of you, and this is a political process, and the idea that -- of his six points that purpura laid out, and number four, we know it's not true, that there was no linkage. i don't think they did themselves any favors by pretending this giant boulder in the middle of the room didn't exist. we all know it exists. i almost feel, and who knows what will happen, and maybe they are giving the republicans another talking point and we can only look at

estamos viendo cÓmo todo el paÍs se iluminÓ de pÚrpura y de amarillo para iluminar a esta gran estrellaa imborrable. >> dentro como fuera de las canchas. >> es un dolor que tenemos todos en nuestro corazÓn, ademÁs tambiÉn sus camisetas a la nÚmero ocho y la número 24 permanecieron iluminadas en los grammy. >> periÓdicos de todo el mundo tambiÉn, por supuesto informando de esta terrible noticia con su hija gigi. >> un total de nueve personas iban en este helicÓptero, iban a una academia de deporte que Él mismo creo. no fue solamente un deportista, fue un padre entregado, las redes sociales se volcaron para darle tributo. deportista, polÍticos, fanÁticos sienten el dolor de esta gran partida. >> vamos a compartir estas imÁgenes con ustedes. >> el siguiente paso es encontrar el dispositivo de recolecciÓn de datos que brindarÍa informaciÓn sobre las causas de la tragedia, los esfuerzos tardarÍan días. al parecer, el helicÓptero que viajaban se estrellÓ contra una colina de densa niebla. >> muy buenos dÍas, efectivamente no cumplÍa los estÁndares para volar, inclusive los helicÓpteros de la

purpura. you don't hear the wor word bidr crowd strike. those are in the document. it's obvious because the president was asking for a quid pro quo. take a few questions, but only a few. i can't have everyone yell so i have to identify you. >> you say you want bolton. you can do it alone. do you believe that the volker book of revelations are enough to get republicans over the line -- >> it is a little bit in this sense like watergate. every little -- every week, new evidence comes out that is further condemning of the president. so, obviously the revelation in "the new york times" about the bolton look strengthened the case for witnesses, for documents even more. each new day something comes out into the average american is saying why don't they want witnesses and documents. you can certainly listen to all these arguments, but one question looms overhead. if the president did nothing wrong, why is he so afraid of having witnesses and documents? >> mr. randy. >> should the house subpoena -- >> that is going to be up to them. i'm not giving them advice. >> guesser. >

purpura explained, the person speaking to mr.ni, ambassador comer have testified clearly that there was no linkage of the meeting with president zelensky and ukrainian investigations. the house managers also make much of a may 23rd white house meeting during which the president suggested to his ukraine working group including ambassadors volker and sondland that they should talk to rudy. the managers told you that president trump gave a directive and a demand that the group needed to work with giuliani if they wanted him to agree with the ukraine policy they were proposing. but those words directive and demand are misleading. they misrepresent what the witnesses actually said. ambassador volker testified that he understood based on the meeting that yuliany was only one of several sources of information for the president. and the president simply wanted officials to speak to mr. giuliani because he knows all these things about ukraine. as volker put it, the president's comment was not an instruction but just a comment. ambassador

provera explained -- purpura explained, mr. volker testified clearly there was no linkage between the meeting with president zelensky and ukrainian investigations. the house managers make much of a meeting during which the president suggested to the ukraine working group including ambassadors poker and sondland that they should talk to rudy giuliani. the managers told you president trump gave a directive and a demand that the group needed to awork with giuliani if they wanted him to agree to the ukraine policy they were proposing. but those words, directive and demand are misleading. they misrepresent what the witnesses actually said. ambassador volker testified he understood the summit meeting that giuliani was only one of several sources of information for the president and the president simply wanted officials to speake to mr. giuliani because he knows all these things about ukraine. as he put it, the president's comment was not an obstruction but just a comment. ambassador sondland agreed. he testified he didn't take it as

purpura, who is in the white house counsel's office, say not a single witness testified that the presidentny investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else. >> it's a lie. >> now you have john bolton in his manuscript saying that, and you have the president, by the way, who came out today and said, that's not true. so the question that i have is, well, if you're going to have bolton testify, the president says he's lying. do you now have to say to the president, okay, mr. president -- not that that will ever happen -- but, mr. president, we have a he said, she said situation here. the president says you're lying about this. you took copious notes, as john pointed out earlier. what happens next? >> can i just say something, laura, which is -- we talked about this earlier. it's not just john bolton who was contradicting the president's story. mick mulvaney went out in front of the cameras and said the security aid was tied to at least one of the investigations in part. we also have gordon sondland, and then, of course, all the other witnesses. so the question

de pÚrpura y amarillo se iluminÓ el empire estates para recordar a kobe bryant, pese que su carrera nooridades sanitarias de mÉxico activaron el protocolo del coronavirus ante la llegada de un aviÓn que venÍa de china, aterrizÓ con pasajeros a bordo todos los cuales fueron sometidos a una interrogaciÓn despuÉs se les tomÓ la temperatura corporal aunque en ningÚn caso se confirmÓ que hubiera contagio. las autoridades chinas han recomendado al resto de paÍses de la comunidad internacional que no evacuen a ciudadanos, el pedido lo hizo el gobierno chino para respetar la cuarentena impuesta a los habitantes de la ciudad para evitar la propagaciÓn del virus por el mundo, en wuhan han quedado atrapados ce densas de latinoamericanos gran parte de estudiantes que se encontraban cursando estudios por alguna beca con alguna universidad china. hasta aquÍ las noticias por hoy, ha sido un placer haberlos acompaÑado esta maÑana. usted siga disfrutando de mÁs de "un nuevo dÍa" >> gracias querida nicole, familia, pendiente porque le hemos estado hablando de esta nueva alternativa que es no invasiva pa

purpura showed that some facts don't change.ript of the july 25 call shows the president doing nothing wrong. president zelensky said he never felt any pressure. his other advisers have said if ukrainians never felt any pressure. they didn't think there was a quid pro quo. they didn't know the military assistant had been held up until the politco argument in argument. the only two people on record that spoke to the president are sondland and senator ron johnson, report that the president said to them, there was no quid pro quo. and the aid flowed without anything ever being done related to investigations. that is what is in the record. that is what the house managers have to rely on to make their case and they have failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, failed to even prove it by clear and convincing evidence, failed to prove it at all in any opinion. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. senator from california is recognized. >> mr. chief justice, i tend a question to the house managers. >> senator feinstein a

they will also be assisted by two white house deputy councils, michael purpura and patrick philbin.hotograph of either one of them. sources also tell fox news the possibility of alan dershowitz joining the team for at least part of the trial, still being seriously discussed. white house officials are confident that through this process the president is going to be exonerated. here is west principal secretary hogan gidley from "fox & friends" this morning. >> it has nothing to do with the rule of law by any stretch, because articles they came up with don't actually cite any crimes. it's just to try and smear this president because they know you can beat him at the ballot box. i am well aware it's difficult to run against somebody who has a booming economy, who has destroyed the isis caliphate, who is taking out terrorists left and right across the school. that's no reason to overturn a free and fair election just because you have the president i don't like the fact he is so successful. >> the president has come to embrace the idea of dismissing the case, but the way it's going to pla

what we heard from mike purpura and cipollone in their defense as they said there was no mention of ary, not transcript, summary, they knew that john bolton from witness testify, from fiona hill had said this was a drug deal. they knew already that he had serious concerns about what was going on here and why it was going on. and so for them to sort of suggest there's anything surprising that there is now information from a direct witness, because remember the other thing they argued was no one has been able to say that donald trump himself said, yes, i'm holding this money up in order to get the investigations. now they know somebody who has been reportedly concerned and upset about what was happening with the ukraine has information about a direct conversation with donald trump about holding aid in order to get those investigations. it's both direct evidence that goes straight to the question about whether his intent was corrupt, because again, if he was just doing it because he was making a bad policy decision, that's not impeachable. if he was doing it because it was personally cor

purpura went through effectively showing there are some facts that don't change. the transcript of the july 25th call shows the president doing nothing wrong. president zelensky said he never felt any pressure. his other advisers have said the ukrainians never felt any pressure. they didn't think there was any quid pro quo. they didn't know the military assistance had been held up until the political article at the end of august. the only two people with statements on record who spoke to the president who are sondland and senator ron johnson report that the president said to them there was no quid pro quo and the aid flowed out anything ever being done related to investigations. that is what's in the record. that is what the house managers have to rely onto make their case, and they have failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. failed even to prove it by clear and convincing evidence, failed to prove it at all, in my opinion. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> the senator from california is recognized? >> mr. chief justice, i send a question to the

purpura and outlining the fundamental fact that that was a particularly effective and highlights how strong a case this is for the president of the united states. >> before i got to congress and litigated high-profile constitutional law cases for almost 20 years i just want to say in all that time i've ever seen a plaintiff or prosecution case so completely destroyed by defense opening argument as we saw today. one thing i thought was very effective in addition to the other things that have been said is mr. feldman explaining how the constitution really matters and how all those subpoenas we've heard so much about were not authorized, they were not valid at all. that's why the white house resisted them exactly like previous administrations have. a lot of questions were answered today, but there is much more to come in the next two days and we are looking forward to that. >> the word of the day i've been hearing over the course of the last 10 or 15 minutes especially is eviscerate. that's what we just witnessed. as we been saying since the beginning of the process, adam schiff was asp