C-SPAN

C-SPAN 25 Jan 2020

U.S. Senate: Impeachment Trial (Day 6)

Description:

The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump continues with opening arguments by the President's defense team.


Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., delivered his closing remarks in the Senate impeachment trial, claiming how important removing President Trump from office would be.
As the Senate impeachment trial heads toward a final vote, Democrats urged the Senate to hold President Trump accountable for abusing his power. Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today, joins CBSN to discuss the trial.
The United States Senate has acquitted President Donald Trump of all charges in his impeachment trial about putting pressure on Ukraine in exchange for military aid.

Only one Republican Senator, Mitt Romney voted alongside Democrats to convict Trump for abuse of power.

The White House said it was a full vindication and exoneration but the Democrats warn more investigations on Trump are ahead.

Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou-Castro reports from Washington.
After Hours catches up with Burgess Owens -- congressional candidate for Utah's 4th district and former NFL player - to discuss his reaction to the final days of the Senate impeachment trial.

… show captions ↓
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS]
..
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS]
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS]
>> IF YOU ARE JUST TUNING INTO
THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, AS WE
SEEK MORE SENATORS ARRIVE, THE
VIDEO WE GET IS FROM THE U.S.
SENATE, THE VIDEO ON AUDIO.
THE TABLE ON THE LEFT IS FOR THE
HOUSE MANAGERS.
THEY'VE FINISHED PRESENTING
THEIR CASE.
THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM IS
ON THE TABLE ON THE RIGHT, THE
TABLE IS PRETTY FULL RIGHT NOW
AS WE AWAIT THE ARRIVAL OF THE
CHIEF JUSTICE TO BEGIN.
>> WHY DON'T WE TAKE OUR SEATS.
>> WE WILL CONVENE, THE CHAPEL
WILL LEAD US IN PRAYER.
>> LET US PRAY.
ETERNAL GOD, THE WAY, THE TRUTH
AND THE LIGHT.
UNITE OUR SENATORS IN THEIR
STRIVING TO DO YOUR WILL.
LORD, YOU HAVE BEEN OUR HELP IN
AGES PAST.
YOU ARE OUR HOPE FOR THE YEARS
TO COME.
WE TRUST THE POWER OF YOUR
PREVAILING PROVIDENCE TO BREAK
THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TO THE
CONCLUSION YOU DESIRE.
LORD, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUR
THOUGHTS ARE NOT OUR THOUGHTS.
AND YOUR WAYS ARE NOT OUR WAYS.
FOR AS THE HEAVENS ARE HIGHER
THAN THE EARTH, SO ARE YOUR
THOUGHTS HIGHER THAN OUR
THOUGHTS.
AND YOUR WAYS HIGHER THAN OUR
WAYS.
LORD, WE LOVE YOU.
EMPOWER OUR CENTERS, RENEW THEIR
STRENGTH.
WE PRAY IN YOUR DEPENDABLE NAME,
AMEN.
>> JOIN ME IN RECITING THE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO OUR
FLAG.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE
FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT
STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD
INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> SENATORS, PLEASE BE SEATED.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE
APPROVED TO DATE.
SGT. AND ARMS WILL MAKE THE
PROCLAMATION.
>> HERE YOU, HEAR YE.
KEEP SILENT THE SENATE OF THE
UNITED STATES SITTING FOR THE
TRIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AGAINST
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.
THE MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
>> EXPECT TWO TO THREE HOURS OF
SESSION TODAY.
WE'LL TAKE A BREAK IF NEEDED.
>> TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE
RESOLUTION 483, THE COUNSEL FOR
THE PRESIDENT HAVE 24 HOURS TO
MAKE A PRESENTATION OF THEIR
CASE.
THE SENATE WHEN HERE YOU.
SIGNING OFFICER RECOGNIZED MR.
CIPOLLONE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
SANDERS, LEADER MCCONNELL,
DEMOCRATIC EATER SCHUMER, THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
I WANT TO START OUT BRIEFLY
GIVING YOU A SHORT PLAN FOR
TODAY.
WE ARE GOING TO BE VERY
RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME AS
LEADER MCCONNELL SET.
WE ANTICIPATE TWO TO THREE HOURS
AT MOST AND TO BE OUT OF HERE BY
1:00 AT THE LATEST.
WE ARE GOING TO FOCUS TODAY ON
TWO POINTS.
YOU HEARD THE HOUSE MANAGER
SPEAK FOR NEARLY 24 HOURS OVER
THREE DAYS.
WE DON'T ANTICIPATE USING THAT
MUCH TIME.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE COME
ANYWHERE CLOSE TO MEETING THEIR
BURDEN.
FOR WHAT THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO
DO.
IN FACT, WE BELIEVE WHEN YOU
HEAR THE FACTS, AND THAT'S WHAT
WE INTEND TO COVER TODAY, THE
FACTS, YOU WILL FIND THAT THE
PRESIDENT DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
WRONG.
WHAT WE INTEND TO DO TODAY, AND
WILL HAVE MORE PRESENTATIONS IN
GREATER DETAIL MONDAY BUT WE
INTEND TO GO THROUGH THEIR
RECORD THAT THEY ESTABLISHED IN
THE HOUSE.
WE INTEND TO SHOW YOU SOME OF
THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID IN
THE HOUSE THAT THEY DECIDED OVER
THERE THREE DAYS IN 24 HOURS
THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH
TIME OR MADE A DECISION NOT TO
SHOW YOU.
EVERY TIME YOU SEE ONE OF THESE
PIECES OF EVIDENCE, ASK
YOURSELF, WHY DIDN'T I SEE THAT
IN THE FIRST THREE DAYS?
THEY HAD IT, THEY CAME OUT OF
THEIR PROCESS.
WHY DIDN'T THEY SHOW THAT?
I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION.
AS HOUSE MANAGERS, REALLY THEIR
GOAL SHOULD BE TO GIVE YOU ALL
OF THE FACTS.
THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO DO
SOMETHING VERY, VERY
CONSEQUENTIAL AND I WOULD SUBMIT
TO YOU TO USE A WORD THAT MR.
SCHIFF USED A LOT, VERY
DANGEROUS.
THAT'S THE SECOND.
>> I WOULD ASK YOU TO KEEP IN
MIND TODAY.
THEY ARE ASKING YOU NOT ONLY TO
OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE LAST
ELECTION BUT AS I SAID BEFORE,
THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO REMOVE
PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT
IN AN ELECTION THAT IS OCCURRING
IN APPROXIMATELY NINE MONTHS.
THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO TEAR UP
ALL OF THE BALLOTS ACROSS THIS
COUNTRY ON YOUR OWN INITIATIVE,
TAKE THAT DECISION AWAY FROM THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND I DON'T
THINK THEY SPENT ONE MINUTE OF
THE 24 HOURS TALKING TO YOU
ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT
FOR OUR COUNTRY.
NOT ONE MINUTE.
THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU WHAT THAT
WOULD MEAN FOR OUR COUNTRY.
TODAY, THIS YEAR AND FOREVER
INTO OUR FUTURE THEY ARE ASKING
YOU TO DO SOMETHING THAT NO
SENATE HAS EVER DONE AND THEY
ARE ASKING YOU TO DO IT WITH NO
EVIDENCE.
THAT'S WRONG IF I ASK YOU TO
KEEP THAT IN MIND.
I WOULD POINT OUT ONE PIECE OF
EVIDENCE FOR YOU AND THEN I'M
GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUES AND THEY WILL WALK
YOU THROUGH THEIR RECORD AND
THEY WILL SHOW YOU THINGS THEY
DIDN'T SHOW YOU.
THEY DIDN'T TALK A LOT ABOUT THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL.
WHICH I WOULD SUBMIT IS THE BEST
EVIDENCE OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE
CALL.
THEY SAID THINGS OVER AND OVER
AGAIN THAT ARE SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
ONE OF THEM WAS THERE'S NO
EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S
INTEREST IN BURDEN SHARING.
THAT WASN'T THE REAL REASON.
BUT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT
BURDEN SHARING WAS DISCUSSED IN
THE CALL.
IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL.
THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT.
WHY?
LET ME READ IT TO YOU.
HERE'S THE PRESIDENT, AND WE ALL
GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE
TRANSCRIPT, I WON'T READ IT ALL,
WILL MAKE AVAILABLE COPIES SO
YOU CAN HAVE IT.
THE PRESIDENT SAID, AND THEY
READ THIS LINE, I WILL SAY THAT
WE DO A LOT FOR UKRAINE.
WE SPENT A LOT OF EFFORT AND A
LOT OF TIME BUT HE STOPPED
THERE.
THEY DIDN'T READ THE FOLLOWING.
MUCH MORE THAN EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES ARE DOING.
THEY SHOULD BE HELPING YOU MORE
THAN THEY ARE.
GERMANY DOES ALMOST NOTHING FOR
YOU.
ALL THEY DO IS TALK.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING YOU
SHOULD REALLY ASK THEM ABOUT.
WHEN I WAS SPEAKING TO MARCO,
SHE TALKS UKRAINE.
BUT SHE DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.
A LOT OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE
THE SAME WAY.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT
TO LOOK AT BUT THE UNITED STATES
HAS BEEN VERY GOOD TO UKRAINE.
THAT'S WHERE THEY PICKED UP
AGAIN WITH THE QUOTE.
THEY LEFT OUT THE ENTIRE
DISCUSSION OF BURDEN SHARING.
WHAT IS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
SAYING?
DOES HE DISAGREE?
NO.
HE AGREES.
I DIDN'T TELL YOU THIS.
DIDN'T HAVE TIME IN 24 HOURS TO
TELL YOU THIS.
YES, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
NOT ONLY ONE 100% BUT ACTUALLY
ONE 100%.
I CAN TELL YOU THE FOLLOWING.
I DID TALK TO MERKEL AND I DID
MEET WITH HER AND I ALSO MET
TALKED WITH MCCONE AND I TOLD
HER THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING AS
MUCH AS THEY NEED TO BE DOING
ONLY ISSUES WITH THE SANCTIONS.
THEY ARE NOT ENFORCING THE
SANCTIONS.
THEY'RE NOT WORKING AS MUCH AS I
SHOULD.
IT TURNS OUT EVEN THOUGH
LOGICALLY, THE EUROPEAN UNION
SHOULD BE OUR BIGGEST PARTNER
BUT TECHNICALLY THEY ARE A
BIGGER PARTNER.
I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR
THAT BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES
IS DOING A LOT FOR UKRAINE.
MUCH MORE THAN THE EUROPEAN
UNION, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT SANCTIONS AGAINST
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
YOU HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF CONFRONTING RUSSIA
AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT.
YOU WILL HEAR THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS A STRONG RECORD ON
CONFRONTING RUSSIA.
YOU WILL HEAR THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP HAS A STRONG RECORD OF
SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.
YOU WILL HEAR THAT FROM THE
WITNESSES IN THEIR RECORD.
THAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT.
THAT'S ONE VERY IMPORTANT
EXAMPLE.
THEY COME HERE TO THE SENATE AND
THEY ASK YOU, REMOVE A
PRESIDENT, TEAR UP THE BALLOTS
AND ALL OF YOUR STATES.
AND THEY DON'T BOTHER TO READ
THE KEY EVIDENCE OF THE
DISCUSSION OF BURDEN SHARING
THAT'S IN THE CALL ITSELF.
THAT'S EMBLEMATIC OF THEIR
ENTIRE PRESENTATION.
I'M GOING TO TURN THE
PRESENTATION OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUE.
HE'S GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH
MANY MORE EXAMPLES OF THIS.
WITH EACH EXAMPLE, ASK YOURSELF,
WHY AM I JUST HEARING ABOUT THIS
NOW AFTER 24 HOURS?
WHY?
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 ARGUMENTS.
THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
THEY HAVE NOT COME CLOSE TO
MEETING IT.
IN FACT, 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 THE PROCESS THE WAY THEY
RAN?
IF YOU WERE REALLY CONFIDENT IN
YOUR POSITION ON THE FACTS, WHY
WOULD YOU WALK EVERYBODY OUT OF
IT?
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE.
WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS
AUGMENTS 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 THE CASE.
THE FACT THAT THEY CAME HERE FOR
24 HOURS AND HID EVIDENCE FROM
YOU IS FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT
THEY DON'T REALLY BELIEVE IN THE
FACT OF THEIR CASE.
THAT THIS IS, FOR ALL THE TALK
ABOUT ELECTION INTERFERENCE, BUT
THEY ARE HERE TO PERPETRATE THE
MOST MASSIVE INTERFERENCE IN AN
ELECTION IN AMERICAN HISTORY AND
WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR
CONSTITUTION, IT WOULD VIOLATE
OUR HISTORY.
IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR OBLIGATIONS
TO THE FUTURE AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, IT WOULD VIOLATE
THE SACRED TRUST THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE PLACED IN
YOU.
AND HAVE PLACED IN THEM.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE
ELECTIONS.
THEY HAVE ONE COMING UP IN NINE
MONTHS.
SO WE WILL BE VERY EFFICIENT, WE
WILL BEGIN OUR PRESENTATION
TODAY, WE WILL SHOW YOU A LOT OF
EVIDENCE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE
SHOWED YOU.
WE WILL FINISH EFFICIENTLY AND
QUICKLY SO WE CAN ALL GO HAVE AN
ELECTION.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD TO MY
COLLEAGUE.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, GOOD
MORNING.
AGAIN, I SERVED AS DEPUTY
COUNSEL OF THE PRESIDENT.
IT IS MY HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO
APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY ON
BEHALF OF PRESIDENT DONALD J
TRUMP.
>> A CLASSIC ORGANIZED CRIME
SHAKEDOWN.
RAMBLING CHARACTER AND NOT SO
MANY WORDS, THIS IS THE ESSENCE
OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT
COMMUNICATES.
WE'VE BEEN VERY BUSY, NO OTHER
COUNTRY HAS DONE AS MUCH AS WE
HAVE BUT I DON'T SEE MUCH
RECIPROCITY HERE.
I HEAR WHAT YOU WANT, I HAVE A
FAVOR, I WANT FROM YOU, AND I
WILL SAY THIS ONLY SEVEN TIMES
SO YOU BETTER LISTEN GOOD.
I WANT YOU TO MAKE US UNDERSTAND
LOTS OF IT.
ON THIS AND ON THAT, I WILL PUT
YOU IN TOUCH WITH PEOPLE, NOT
JUST ANY PEOPLE.
I WILL PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH
BILL BARR.
HE'S GOT THE WHOLE WEIGHT OF THE
AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT BEHIND
HIM.
I WILL PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH
RUDY, YOU WILL LOVE HIM.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M ASKING, I'M
THE ONLY GOING TO SAY THIS A FEW
MORE TIMES.
IN A FEW MORE WAYS.
BY THE WAY, DON'T CALL ME AGAIN.
I'LL CALL YOU WHEN I HAVE DONE
WHAT I ASKED.
THIS IS IN CHARACTER WHAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO
COMMUNICATE.
IT'S FAKE.
THAT'S NOT THE REAL CALL.
THAT'S NOT THE EVIDENCE HERE.
THAT'S NOT THE TRANSCRIPT ESTHER
CIPOLLONE JUST REFERENCED.
WE CAN SHRUG IT OFF AND SAY WE
WERE MAKING FLIGHT OR A JOKE BUT
THAT WAS A HEARING IN THE UNITED
STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DISCUSSING THE REMOVAL OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THERE VERY THINGS FEW THINGS
THAT CAN BE GRAVE AND AS
SERIOUS.
LET'S STICK WITH THE EVIDENCE IN
THIS CASE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF
EVIDENCE WE HAVE IN THE CASE,
AND BEFORE YOU, IS THE ONE WE
BEGAN WITH NEARLY FOUR MONTHS
AGO.
THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE
JULY 25, 2019 TELEPHONE CALL BE
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
THE REAL TRANSCRIPT.
IF THAT WERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE
WE HAD, IT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO
SHOW THE DEMOCRATS THE ENTIRE
THEORY IS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED.
THE TRANSCRIPT IS FAR FROM THE
ONLY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT
THE PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG.
ONCE YOU SWEEP AWAY ALL OF THE
INNUENDO, THE SELECTIVE WEEKS,
THE CLOSED-DOOR EXAMINATIONS OF
THE DEMOCRATS HANDPICKED
WITNESSES, THE STAGE PUBLIC
HEARINGS.
WHAT WE ARE LEFT WITH OUR SIX
KEY FACTS THAT HAVE NOT AND WILL
NOT CHANGE.
FIRST, THE TRANSCRIPTS SHOW THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT CONDITION
EITHER SECURITY ASSISTANCE OR A
MEETING ON ANYTHING.
THE PAUSE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
FUNDS AREN'T EVEN MENTIONED ON
THE CALL.
SECOND, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
OTHER UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HAVE
REPEATEDLY SAID THERE WAS NO
QUID PRO QUO AND NO PRESSURE ON
THEM TO REVIEW ANYTHING.
THIRD, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
HIGH RANKING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSE UNTIL THE
END OF AUGUST.
OVER A MONTH AFTER THE JULY 25
CALL.
FOURTH, NOT A SINGLE WITNESS
TESTIFIED.
BUT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAID
THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN
ANY INVESTIGATIONS AND SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP
TWEETING OR ANYTHING ELSE.
FIFTH, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
FLOWS ON SEPTEMBER 11th AND A
PRESIDENTIAL MEETING TOOK PLACE
SEPTEMBER 25.
WITHOUT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT
ANNOUNCING ANY INVESTIGATIONS.
FINALLY, THE DEMOCRATS BLIND
DRIVE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT
DOES NOT AND CANNOT CHANGE THE
FACT IS ATTESTED TO BY THE
DEMOCRATS OWN WITNESSES THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN A
BETTER FRIEND AND A STRONGER
SUPPORTER OF UKRAINE THAN HIS
PREDECESSOR.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
WE PLAN TO ADDRESS SOME OF THEM
TODAY AND SOME OF THEM NEXT
WEEK.
EACH ONE OF THESE SIX FACTS
STANDING ALONE IS ENOUGH TO SEEK
THE DEMOCRATS CASE.
COMBINED, THEY ESTABLISH WHAT
WE'VE KNOWN SINCE THE BEGINNING.
THE PRESIDENT DID ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING WRONG.
THE DEMOCRAT ALLEGATION OF THE
QUID PRO QUO IS UNFOUNDED AND
CONTRARY TO THE FACTS.
THE TRUTH IS SIMPLE AND IT'S
RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES.
THE PRESIDENT WAS AT ALL TIMES
ACTING IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST
IN PURSUANT TO HIS OWN.
BEFORE I DIVE IN AND SPEAK
FURTHER ABOUT THE FACTS, LET ME
MENTION SOMETHING MY COLLEAGUES
WILL DISCUSS IN GREATER DETAIL.
THE FACT THAT I'M ABOUT TO
DISCUSS TODAY ARE THE DEMOCRATS
FACTS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE
HOUSE MANAGERS SPOKE TO YOU FOR
A VERY LONG TIME.
OVER 21 HOURS.
IT REPEATEDLY CLAIMED TO YOU
THAT THEIR CASE IN EVIDENCE IS
OVERWHELMING AND UNCONTESTED.
IT'S NOT.
I'M GOING TO SHARE A NUMBER OF
FACTS WITH YOU THIS MORNING WITH
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T.
DURING MORE THAN 21 HOURS.
I WILL ASK YOU AS MR. CIPOLLONE
ALREADY MENTIONED.
WHEN YOU HEAR ME SAY SOMETHING
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T
PRESENT TO YOU, ASK YOURSELF WHY
DIDN'T THEY TELL ME THAT?
IS NOT SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE
LIKED TO HAVE KNOWN?
WHY AM I HEARING IT FOR THE
FIRST TIME?
IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
HAVE ENOUGH TIME, THAT'S FOR
SURE.
THEY ONLY SHOWED YOU A VERY
SELECTIVE PART OF THE RECORD.
THERE RECORD.
THEY HAVE THE VERY HEAVY BURDEN
OF PROOF BEFORE YOU.
THE PRESIDENT IS FORCED TO MOUNT
A DEFENSE IN THIS CHAMBER
AGAINST THE RECORDS THAT THE
DEMOCRATS DEVELOPED.
THE RECORD WE HAVE TO GO ON
TODAY IS BASED ENTIRELY ON HOUSE
DEMOCRATIC FACTS PRECLEARED IN A
BASEMENT BUMPER.
NOT MOSTLY, ENTIRELY.
YET EVEN THOSE FACTS ABSOLUTELY
EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT.
LET'S START WITH THE TRANSCRIPT.
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT LINK
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO ANY
INVESTIGATIONS ON THE JULY 25
CALL.
ON JULY 25, PRESIDENT TRUMP
CALLED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, THIS
WAS THEIR SECOND PHONE CALL.
BOTH WERE CONGRATULATORY.
APRIL 21, PRESIDENT TRUMP
CONGRATULATE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
ON WINNING THE ELECTION.
JULY 25, THE PRESIDENT CALLED
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S PARTY, JUST
ONE A LARGE NUMBER OF SEATS IN
PARLIAMENT.
SEPTEMBER 24, BEFORE SPEAKER
PELOSI HAD ANY IDEA WHAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY ACTUALLY SAID ON THE
JULY 25 CALL, SHE CALLED FOR
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IN THE INTEREST OF FULL
TRANSPARENCY AND TO SHOW HE HAD
DONE NOTHING WRONG, PRESIDENT
TRUMP TOOK THE UNPRECEDENTED
STEP OF THE CLASSIFYING THE CALL
TRANSCRIPT SO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE COULD SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES EXACTLY WHAT THE TWO
PRESIDENTS DISCUSSED.
SO WHAT DID THEY SAY ON THE JULY
25 CALL?
PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED TWO
ISSUES.
I'M GOING TO BE SPEAKING ABOUT
THOSE TWO ISSUES A FAIR AMOUNT
THIS MORNING.
THE TWO ISSUES THAT GO TO THE
CORE OF HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP
APPROACHES THIS.
WHEN IT COMES TO SENDING U.S.
TAXPAYER MONEY OVERSEAS, THE
PRESIDENT IS FOCUSED ON BURDEN
SHARING AND CORRUPTION.
FIRST, THE PRESIDENT HAD REAL
CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER EUROPEAN
AND OTHER COUNTRIES WILL
CONTRIBUTE THEIR FAIR SHARE TO
ENSURING YOUR GREEN UKRAINE.
THE SOVIET UNION, UKRAINE
SUFFERED ONE OF THE WORST
ENVIRONMENTS OF CORRUPTION IN
THE WORLD.
A PARADE OF WITNESSES TESTIFIED
IN THE HOUSE ABOUT THE PERVASIVE
CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE AND HOW
AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY AND
NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST TO
HELP UKRAINE COME BACK
CORRUPTION.
DURING THE CALL RIGHT OFF THE
BAT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP MENTIONED BURDEN
SHARING TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY THAT THERE'S NOTHING
FOR YOU.
A LOT OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE
THE SAME WAY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP SPECIFICALLY
MENTIONED SPEAKING TO ANGELA
MERKEL, SHE TALKS UKRAINE BUT
DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREED.
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
HE SAID HE SPOKE TO THE LEADERS
OF GERMANY AND TOLD THEM THEY
ARE NOT DOING QUITE AS MUCH AS
THEY NEED TO BE DOING.
SO RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
TALKING ABOUT BURDEN SHARING.
PRESIDENT TRUMP TURNED TO
CORRUPTION IN THE FORM OF
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG
WITH ASKING A FOREIGN LEADER TO
HELP GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL
FORMS OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN
AMERICAN ELECTIONS.
YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT
LATER FROM MY COLLEAGUES.
WHAT ELSE DID THE PRESIDENT SAY?
HE ALSO WARNED PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY HE APPEARED TO BE
SURROUNDING HIMSELF WITH SOME OF
THE SAME PEOPLE SUGGESTING A
VERY FAIR PROSECUTOR WAS SHUT
DOWN BY VERY BAD PEOPLE.
AGAIN, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL
SPEAK MORE ABOUT THAT.
THE CONTENT OF THE JULY 25 CALL
WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
LEGITIMATE CONCERN ABOUT
CORRUPTION AND REFLECTED
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WHO
CAMPAIGNED ON A PLATFORM OF
REFORM, WOULD FINALLY CLEAN UP
UKRAINE.
SO WHAT DID PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DISCUSS ON
THE JULY 25 CALL?
TWO ISSUES, BURDEN SHARING,
CORRUPTION.
JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WASN'T
DISCUSSED ON THE JULY 25 CALL?
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THE
POSITIVE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON
THE JULY 25 CALL.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS KEEP POINTING TO
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S STATEMENT
THAT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR GREAT SUPPORT IN
THE AREA BUT HE WASN'T TALKING
THERE ABOUT THE POSITIVE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
HE TELLS US IN THE VERY NEXT
SENTENCE EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS
TALKING ABOUT.
JAVELIN MISSILES.
WE ARE READY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
CONTINUES.
CONTINUE TO COOPERATE WITH THE
NEXT STEPS.
BY FOUR JAVELINS FROM THE UNITED
STATES FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES.
JAVELINS ARE MISSILES ONLY MADE
AVAILABLE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.
PRESIDENT OBAMA REFUSED TO GIVE
JAVELINS TO THE UKRAINIANS FOR
YEARS.
JAVELIN WERE NOT PART OF THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT'S BEEN
PAUSED AT THE TIME OF THE CALL.
JAVELIN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
PAPA SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
THEY ARE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS
ENTIRELY.
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, MARIE
YOVANOVITCH AND SENIOR THAT THE
JAVELIN SECURITY ASSISTANCE WERE
UNRELATED.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL
YOU ABOUT IMPACTS THAT ARE
YOVANOVITCH'S TESTIMONY.
WHY NOT?
THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN TWO TO
FIVE MINUTES OUT OF 21 HOURS TO
MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT
THE JAVELIN FIELDS BEING
DISCUSSED WERE NOT PART OF THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
THIS IS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
VITA.
I'D LIKE YOU TO DO A FAVOR
BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN
THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS
A LOT ABOUT IT.
EVERYONE KNOWS BY NOW, PRESIDENT
TRUMP ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
TO DO US A FAVOR.
HE MADE CLEAR HE REFERRED TO OUR
COUNTRY AND NOT HIMSELF.
MORE IMPORTANT, THE PRESIDENT
WAS NOT CONNECTING.
DO US OF FAVOR, IT MAKES NO
SENSE IN THE LANGUAGE THAT BUT
EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN, THE
JAVELINS WERE NOT PART OF THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT HAD
BEEN TEMPORARILY PAUSED.
I WOULD TO BE VERY CLEAR.
WHEN HOUSE DEMOCRATS CLAIM THE
JAVELIN DISCUSSED IN THE JULY 25
CALL PART OF THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE, IT IS MISLEADING.
THEY ARE TRYING TO CONFUSE YOU
AND WRAP EVERYTHING IN INSTEAD
OF UNPACKING IT THE RIGHT WAY.
THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE ON THE CALL
AND CERTAINLY NOT FROM PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
AS YOU KNOW, HEAD OF STATE CALLS
ARE STAFFED BY A NUMBER ON BOTH
SIDES.
ALEXANDER VINDMAN, THE NATIONAL
SECURITY COUNCIL RAISED THE
CONCERN ABOUT THE CALL.
THAT WAS JUST A POLICY CONCERN.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN
ADMITTED HE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER
THERE WAS A CRIME OR ANYTHING OF
THAT NATURE BUT HE HAD DEEP
POLICY CONCERNS.
POLICY CONCERNS.
THERE YOU HAVE IT.
THE PRESIDENT SETS THE FOREIGN
POLICY.
IN A DEMOCRACY SUCH AS OURS, THE
ELECTED LEADERS MAKE FOREIGN
POLICY PROBABLY UNELECTED STAFF
IMPLEMENT THE POLICY.
OTHER WITNESSES WERE ON THE JULY
25 CALL HAD VERY DIFFERENT
REACTIONS.
LIEUTENANT GENERAL, NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR OF THE VICE
PRESIDENT, FORMING ACTOR, A
HIGHLY DECORATED VETERAN
ATTENDED THE CALL.
ACCORDING TO GENERAL, I WAS ON
THE MUCH REPORTED JULY 25 CALL
BETWEEN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP
AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AS AN EXCEEDINGLY PROUD MEMBER
OF A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND
AS A 34 YEAR HIGHLY EXPERIENCED
COMBAT VETERAN WHO RETIRED WITH
THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL
IN THE ARMY, I HEARD NOTHING
WRONG OR IMPROPER ON THE CALL.
I HAD AND HAVE NO CONCERNS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAID THAT
OTHER WITNESSES WERE ALSO
TROUBLED BY THE JULY 25 CALL.
IDENTIFY THE WITNESSES AS
JENNIFER WILLIAMS AND TIM
MORRISON.
JENNIFER WILLIAMS, WHO WORKS FOR
THE GENERAL NOW CLAIMS SHE HAD
CONCERNS ABOUT THE CALL.
YOU HEARD THAT FROM THE HOUSE
MANAGERS.
THEY WERE VERY CAREFUL IN THE
WAY THEY WORDED THAT.
WHAT THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU IS MS.
WILLIAMS WAS SO TROUBLED AT THE
TIME OF THE CALL THAT SHE TOLD
EXACTLY ZERO PEOPLE.
OF HER CONCERN.
SHE TOLD NO ONE FOR TWO MONTHS
FOLLOWING THE CALL.
NOT ONE PERSON.
SHE DIDN'T RAISE ANY CONCERNS
ABOUT THE CALL, NOT WITH
COUNSEL, NOT WITH ANYONE.
MS. WILLIAMS ANNOUNCED HER
CONCERNS WHEN SPEAKER PELOSI
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED HER PUBLIC
INQUIRY.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL
YOU THAT.
WHY NOT?
TO MORRISON LIEUTENANT COLONEL
VINDMAN'S BOSS WAS ON ALSO ON
THE CALL.
HE REPORTED THE CALL TO THE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
LAWYERS NOT BECAUSE HE WAS
TROUBLED BY ANYTHING ON THE CALL
BECAUSE HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT
LEAKS.
IN HIS WORDS, HOW IT WILL PLAY
OUT WASHINGTON'S POLARIZED
ENVIRONMENT.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR, MR. MORRISON
TESTIFIED, I WAS NOT CONCERNED
ANYTHING ILLEGAL WAS DISCUSSED.
HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THERE WAS
NOTHING IMPROPER AND NOTHING
ILLEGAL ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WAS
DONE ON THE CALL.
IN FACT, MR. MORRISON REPEATEDLY
TESTIFIED HE DISAGREED WITH
LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN'S
ASSESSMENT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
MADE DEMANDS OF PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY OR THAT HE SAID
ANYTHING IMPROPER AT ALL.
AS MR. MORRISON.
>> IN THE TRANSCRIPT, DOES THE
PRESIDENT NOT ASK ZELENSKY TO
ASK LOOK INTO THE BIDENS?
>> I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I
WAS THINKING AT THE TIME.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE
PRESIDENT TO BE DOING.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR
OPINION THAT THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES DEMANDED THE
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UNDERTAKE THE
INVESTIGATIONS?
AND YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE
PRESIDENT MAKE A DEMAND, DID
YOU?
AGAIN, THERE WERE NO DEMANDS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT AS YOU
ARE LISTENING TO THE CALL, YOU
WEREN'T THINKING WHILE THE
PRESIDENT BRIBING THE PRESIDENT
OF UKRAINE HAD NEVER CROSSED
YOUR MIND?
>> IT DID NOT.
>> OR THAT HE WAS DISTORTING THE
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
OR DOING ANYTHING IMPROPER.
>> CORRECT, SIR.
>> SIGNIFICANTLY, THE UKRAINIAN
GOVERNMENT NEVER RAISED ANY
CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25 CALL.
JUST HOURS AFTER THE CALL,
AMBASSADOR WILLIAM TAYLOR, HEAD
OF THE U.S. MISSION IN UKRAINE
HAD DINNER WITH THE THEN
SECRETARY OF THE UKRAINIAN
NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE
COUNSEL WHO SEEMED TO THINK THE
CALL WENT FINE.
THE CALL WENT WELL.
HE WASN'T DISTURBED BY ANYTHING.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL
YOU THAT.
WHY NOT?
AMBASSADOR KURT VOLKER, U.S.
SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR
UKRAINE WAS NOT ON THE CALL.
BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER SPOKE
REGULARLY PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND
OTHER TOP OFFICIALS IN THE
UKRAINE GOVERNMENT.
EVEN MET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
THE DAY AFTER THE CALL.
HE TESTIFIED THAT IN NO WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM READOUTS FROM THE
UNITED STATES OR UKRAINE THAT HE
RECEIVED ANY INDICATION
WHATSOEVER FOR ANYTHING THAT
RESEMBLES A QUID PRO QUO ON THE
DIE JULY 25 CALL.
>> IN FACT, THE DAY AFTER THE
CALL, YOU MET WITH PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY.
THIS WAS JULY 25th.
IN THAT MEETING, HE MADE NO
MENTION OF QUID PRO QUO.
HE MADE NO MENTION OF
WITHHOLDING THAT AID OR BRIBERY.
THE FACT IS, UKRAINIANS WERE NOT
EVEN AWARE OF THIS FULL ON AID.
>> CORRECT.
>> DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THIS
TESTIMONY.
WHY NOT?
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF HAS
CONFIRMED ON AT LEAST THREE
SEPARATE OCCASIONS THAT IS JULY
25 CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
A GOOD PHONE CALL AND NOBODY
PUSHED ME.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ADVISOR
ASKED IF HE HAD EVER FELT THERE
WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
U.S. MILITARY AID AND
INVESTIGATION, HE WAS ADAMANT WE
NEVER HAVE THAT FEELING AND WE
DID NOT HAVE THE FEELING THAT HE
WAS CONNECTED TO ANY ONE
SPECIFIC ISSUE.
THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS
NO PRESSURE OR QUIT PRO QUOTE IN
THE STATEMENTS THEMSELVES.
THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
HIMSELF HELD NO PRESSURE ON THE
CALL AND DID NOT PERCEIVE THERE
TO BE ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND
INVESTIGATIONS WOULD IN ANY
ORDINARY CASE, IN ANY COURT, BE
TOTALLY FATAL TO THE
PROSECUTION.
THE JUDGMENT JUDGE WOULD THROW
IT OUT, THE CASE WOULD BE THROWN
OUT.
LOAD MORE WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW?
THEY KNOW THE RECORD INSIDE OUT,
UPSIDE DOWN, LEFT AND RIGHT.
WHAT DO THEY DO?
HOW DO THEY TRY TO OVERCOME THE
DIRECT WORDS FROM PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY AND HIS ADMINISTRATION
THAT THEY FELT NO PRESSURE?
THEY TELL YOU UKRAINIANS MUST
HAVE FELT PRESSURE.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAID.
THEY TRY TO OVERCOME THE
DEVASTATING EVIDENCE AGAINST
THEM BY APPARENTLY CLAIMING TO
BE MIND READERS.
THEY KNOW WHAT PRESIDENT
ZELENSKY IS THINKING BETTER THAN
WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DOES.
HOUSE MANAGERS TELL YOU THEY
KNOW BETTER.
THIS IS REALLY THE THEME OF THE
HOUSE CASE.
I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THIS.
EVERY TIME THE DEMOCRATS SAY
PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE DEMANDS OR
ISSUED A QUID PRO QUO TO
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE JULY
25 CALL, THEY ARE SAYING
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TOP
ADVISERS ARE BEING UNTRUTHFUL.
THEY ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THAT'S
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.
THEY SAID OVER THE PAST FEW
DAYS.
TELL ME HOW THAT HELPS.
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL
SECURITY TO SAY THAT ABOUT OUR
FRIENDS.
WE NOTE THERE WAS NO QUID PRO
QUO ON THE CALL.
WE KNOW THAT FROM THE
TRANSCRIPTS.
THE CALL IS NOT THE ONLY
EVIDENCE SHOWN THAT THERE WAS NO
QUID PRO QUO.
THERE COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE
BEEN A QUID PRO QUO BECAUSE
UKRAINIANS DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ON HOLD
UNTIL IT WAS REPORTED IN THE
MEDIA.
MORE THAN A MONTH AFTER THE JULY
25 CALL.
THINK ABOUT THIS.
THE DEMOCRATS ACCUSED THE
PRESIDENT OF LEVERAGING SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO SUPPOSEDLY FORCE
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE
INVESTIGATIONS BUT HOW CAN THAT
POSSIBLY BE WHEN UKRAINIANS WERE
NOT EVEN AWARE THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE WAS PAUSE?
THERE CAN'T BE A THREAT WITHOUT
THE PERSON KNOWING HE'S BEING
THREATENED.
THERE CAN'T BE A QUID PRO QUO
WITHOUT THE QUOTE.
HE TESTIFIED THE UKRAINIANS DID
NOT KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL READING
ABOUT IT IN POLITICO.
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE GEORGE KEMP TESTIFIED NO
UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL CONTACTED HIM
ABOUT THE PAUSE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE UNTIL THAT FIRST
INTENSE WEEK IN SEPTEMBER.
LET'S HEAR FROM THE FOUR OF
THEM.
>> I BELIEVE THAT UKRAINIANS
BECAME AWARE OF THE HOLT ON
AUGUST 29.
THAT DATE IS THE FIRST TIME ANY
OF THEM ASKED ABOUT THE HOLD BY
FORDING AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN
POLITICO.
>> IT WAS ONLY AFTER AUGUST 29
WHEN THE ARGUMENT THAT I GOT THE
CALLS FROM SEVERAL OF UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS.
>> YOU MENTIONED THE AUGUST WHEN
28th PUT AGO, WAS AT THE FIRST
TIME UKRAINIANS HAD A REAL SENSE
THAT WAS ON HOLD?
>> YES.
>> HAD YOU HAD ANY UKRAINIAN
OFFICIAL CONTACTING YOU CONCERN
ABOUT -- WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME
UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL CONTACTING
YOU CONCERN ABOUT THE
WITHHOLDING OF U.S. AID?
>> AFTER THE ARTICLE THE
POLITICAL CAME OUT IN SEPTEMBER.
>> IT WASN'T UNTIL THE POLITICAL
ARGUMENT?
>> I RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE ON
AUGUST 29 FORDING THAT ARTICLE
AND THAT'S THE FIRST TIME.
>> THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T
SHOW YOU THIS TESTIMONY.
FROM ANY OF THESE FOUR
WITNESSES.
WHY NOT?
WHY DIDN'T THEY GIVE YOU THE
CONTEXT OF THIS TESTIMONY?
THINK ABOUT THIS AS WELL, IF THE
UKRAINIANS HAD BEEN AWARE, THEY
WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING.
THERE WERE NUMEROUS HIGH-LEVEL
DEMONIC MEETINGS BETWEEN SENIOR
UKRAINIAN AND U.S. OFFICIALS
DURING THE SUMMER.
AFTER THE REVIEW ON THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE, BEGAN BUT BEFORE
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LEARNED OF
THE HOLD THROUGH THE POLITICO
ARGUMENT.
IF UKRAINIANS HAD KNOWN ABOUT
THE HOLD, THEY WOULD HAVE RAISED
IT IN ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS.
YET THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT THE HOLD A SINGLE
ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS.
NOT JULY 9, NOT JULY 10, NOT ON
JULY 25, NOT ON JULY 26.
NONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, NONE OF
THOSE MEETINGS DID THAT
UKRAINIANS MENTION THE PAUSE ON
SECURITY.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED HE
WAS REGULARLY IN TOUCH WITH THE
SENIOR HIGHEST LEVEL OFFICIALS
IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT.
UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WOULD
CONFIDE THINGS AND WOULD HAVE
ASKED IF THEY HAD ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE EIGHT.
NOBODY SAID A WORD AMBASSADOR
VOLKER UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST.
WITHIN HOURS OF THE ARTICLE
BEING PUBLISHED, HE TEXT A LINK
OF THE ARTICLE AND ASK ABOUT THE
REPORT.
IN OTHER WORDS, AS SOON AS THE
UKRAINIANS LEARNED ABOUT THE
HOLD, THEY ASKED ABOUT IT.
NOW MR. SCHIFF SAID SOMETHING
DURING THE 21 HOURS THAT HE AND
HIS TEAM SPOKE, THAT I ACTUALLY
AGREE WITH.
WHICH IS WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT
COMMON STAFF.
MANY OF US AT THE TABLES IN THE
ROOM ARE FORMER PROSECUTORS.
AT THE STATE, FEDERAL OR
MILITARY LEVEL.
PROSECUTORS TALK A LOT ABOUT
COMMON SENSE.
COMMON SENSE COMES INTO PLAY
RIGHT HERE.
THE TOP UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL SAID
NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL TO THE
U.S. COUNTERPARTS DURING ALL
THESE MEETINGS ABOUT THE PAUSE
ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
BUT THEN, AS SOON AS THE ARTICLE
COMES OUT, SUDDENLY IN THE FIRST
INTENSE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER,
SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS ALL THEY
WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.
WHAT WAS HE TO CONCLUDE IF WE
ARE USING COMMON SENSE?
THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE
UNTIL THE POLITICAL ARGUMENT ON
AUGUST 20.
NO ACTIVITY BEFORE, ARTICLE
COMES OUT, FLURRY OF ACTIVITY.
THAT'S COMMON SENSE.
ABSOLUTELY FATAL TO THE HOUSE
MANAGERS CASE.
PAST MANAGERS ARE AWARE THAT THE
UKRAINIANS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON
THE HOLD IS FATAL TO THEIR CASE.
SO THEY DESPERATELY TRIED TO
MONEY THE WATER.
LAURA COOPER PRESENTED TO
E-MAILS THAT PEOPLE ON HER STAFF
RECEIVED FROM PEOPLE AT THE
STATE DEPARTMENT REGARDING
CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE AT THE
UKRAINE EMBASSY THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN ABOUT U.S. SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
WHAT THEY DID NOT TELL YOU IS
THAT MS. COOPER TESTIFIED THAT
SHE COULD NOT SAY FOR CERTAIN
WHETHER THE E-MAILS WERE ABOUT
THE PAUSE ON SECURITY
ASSISTANCE.
SHE COULDN'T SAY ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER.
SHE ALSO TESTIFIED SHE DIDN'T
WANT THE SPECULATE ABOUT THE
MEANING OF THE WORD IN THE
E-MAILS.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL
YOU MS. COOPER TESTIFIED THAT
I'VE REVIEWED MY CALENDAR AND
THE ONLY MEETING WHERE I CAN
RECALL UKRAINE OFFICIALS RAISING
THE ISSUE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE
WITH ME IS ON SEPTEMBER 5.
AT THE UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE
DAY CELEBRATION.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T TELL
YOU THAT.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS MENTIONED ONE
OF THE AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S, ONE
OF HIS ADVISORS, CATHERINE
CLAIMED UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
LEARNED ABOUT THE PAUSE EARLIER
THAN THE POLITICO ARGUMENT.
WHEN ASKED WHEN SHE HEARD FROM
UKRAINE EMBASSY OFFICIALS, SHE
CAN'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFICS AND
DID NOT THINK SHE TOOK NOTES.
SHE DID NOT REMEMBER WHEN THE
HOLD BECAME PUBLIC.
REMEMBER AMBASSADOR VOLKER, HER
BOSS, WHO WAS IN REGULAR CONTACT
WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS VERY
CLEAR THAT I BELIEVE THAT
UKRAINIANS BECAME AWARE OF THE
HOLD AUGUST 29 AND NOT BEFORE.
THIS IS ALL THE HOUSE MANAGERS
HAD.
IN CONTRAST OF TESTIMONY OF
VOLKER, TAYLOR, MORRISON AND
KEMP.
FROM YOUR.
>> , THE HIGH-RANKING UKRAINIANS
THEM SELVES AND THE FLURRY OF
ACTIVITY THAT BEGAN AUGUST 28.
THAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY
WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THE BASIS
TO REMOVE THE DULY ELECTED
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT'S NOT
POSSIBLE FOR THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE TO BE USED AS
LEVERAGE WHEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
AND OTHER TOP UKRAINIAN
OFFICIALS DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW.
THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS
DIDN'T TELL YOU.
PAST MANAGERS KNOW HOW IMPORTANT
THIS ISSUE IS.
WHEN WE BRIEFLY MENTIONED A FEW
DAYS AGO, THEY TOLD US WE NEEDED
TO CHECK OUR FACTS.
WE DID.
WE ARE RIGHT.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND TOP AIDES
DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE PAUSE ON
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AT THE TIME
OF THE JULY 25 CALL AND DID NOT
KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL AUGUST 28
WHEN THE ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED.
WE KNOW THERE WAS NO QUID PRO
QUO, JULY 25 CALL.
THE UKRAINIANS DID NOT KNOW IT
HAD BEEN PAUSED.
THERE WAS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE
ANYWHERE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
EVER LINKED SECURITY ASSISTANCE
TO ANY INVESTIGATIONS.
MOST OF THE DEMOCRATS WITNESSES
HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO THE
PRESIDENT AT ALL.
LET ALONE ABOUT UKRAINE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE.
THE TWO PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE
RECORD WHO ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP
ABOUT ANY LINKAGE BETWEEN
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND
INVESTIGATIONS WERE TOLD THERE
WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
TWO.
WHEN AMBASSADOR OF THE EUROPEAN
UNION, SOLOMON ASKED THE
PRESIDENT IN THE TIMEFRAME, THE
PRESIDENT TOLD HIM I WANT
NOTHING, I WANT NOTHING, I WANT
NO QUID PRO QUO.
EVEN EARLIER ON AUGUST 31,
SENATOR WARREN ASKED THE
PRESIDENT IF THERE WAS ANY
CONNECTION BETWEEN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATION.
THE PRESIDENT ANSWERED NO WAY.
I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.
WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
TO WITNESSES, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR
AND TIM MORRISON SAID THEY CAME
TO BELIEVE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
WAS LINKED TO INVESTIGATIONS.
BUT THOSE WITNESSES BASED THIS
BELIEF ENTIRELY ON WHAT THEY
HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND
BEFORE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE
TO THE PRESIDENT.
EITHER TAYLOR NOR MORRISON EVER
SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT IT.
HOW DID AMBASSADOR SONDLOND COME
TO BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY
CONNECTION BETWEEN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS?
AGAIN, THE HOUSE MANAGERS DIDN'T
TELL YOU.
WHY NOT?
IN HIS PUBLIC TESTIMONY
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND USE
VARIATIONS OF THE WORD ASSUME,
PRESUME, GUESS, SPECULATE AND
BELIEVE OVER 30 TIMES.
HERE'S SOME EXAMPLES.
>> THAT WAS MY PRESUMPTION, MY
PERSONALS PRESUMPTION, WITHOUT
MY BELIEF.
BUT I MIGHT PRESUME TO GET THAT.
IT WAS A PRESUMPTION.
I'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR AS TO WHEN
I WAS PRESUMING AND I WAS
PRESUMING ON THE AID, IT WOULD
BE PURE, SPECULATION, I DON'T
KNOW.
>> THAT WAS A PROBLEM.
NOBODY TOLD ME DIRECTLY THE AID
WAS TIED TO ANYTHING.
I WAS PRESUMING IT WAS.
>> DIDN'T SHOW YOU ANY OF THIS
TESTIMONY.
ONCE DURING THE 21 HOUR
PRESENTATION.
TWENTY-ONE HOURS, MORE THAN 21
HOURS.
THEY COULDN'T GIVE YOU THE
CONTEXT TO EVALUATE AMBASSADOR
SETTLEMENT.
ALL THE DEMOCRATS HAD THE
SUPPORT BETWEEN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ASSUMPTIONS
AND PRESUMPTION'S.
REMEMBER THIS EXCHANGE.
>> DON'T ON THIS PRESIDENT TOLD
YOU DONALD TRUMP WAS TYING THIS
AID TO THE INVESTIGATION.
IF YOUR ANSWER IS YES AND THE
CHAIRMAN IS WRONG IN THE
HEADLINE ON CNN IS WRONG, NO ONE
TOLD YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS
TYING AID TO INVESTIGATIONS.
YES OR NO?
>> YES.
>> SO YOU REALLY HAVE NO
TESTIMONY TODAY THAT TIES
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO SCHEME TO
WITHHOLD AID FROM UKRAINE IN
EXCHANGE FOR THESE
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> OTHER THAN MY OWN
PRESUMPTION.
>> WHEN HE WAS DONE PRESUMING,
ASSUMING AND GUESSING,
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DECIDED
THIS.
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT WANT FROM
UKRAINE?
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHEN I ASKED
HIM THE OPEN ENDED QUESTION AS I
TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, WHAT DID
YOU WANT FROM UKRAINE?
HIS ANSWER WAS, I WANT NOTHING.
NO QUID PRO QUO, TELL ZELENSKY
TO "DO THE RIGHT THING".
IT'S ALL I GOT FROM PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
>> THE PRESIDENT WAS
UNEQUIVOCAL.
BASSLER SONDLOND SAID THIS WAS
THE FINAL WORK HE HEARD FROM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
ONCE HE LEARNED THIS, HE TEXT
MESSAGED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR AND
VOLKER.
THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CRYSTAL
THERE.
NO QUID PRO QUO OF ANY KIND.
IF YOU ARE SKEPTICAL OF
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIMONY,
IT WOULD COOPERATE BY THE
STATEMENT OF ONE OF YOUR ALEX.
SENATOR JOHNSON.
HE ALSO HEARD FROM AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND BUT THE SECURITY
ASSISTANCE MIGHT BE LINKED TO
THE INVESTIGATIONS.
AUGUST 31, SENATOR JOHNSON ASKED
THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY.
WHETHER THERE WAS SOME KIND OF
ARRANGEMENT OR UKRAINE WOULD
TAKE SOME ACTION AND HOLD IT.
AGAIN, PRESIDENT TRUMP ANSWER
WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR.
NO WAY, I WOULD NEVER DO THAT.
WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
SENATOR JOHNSON WROTE, I HAVE
ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZED HIS
REACTION IS ADAMANT AND ANGRY.
THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT
SENATOR JOHNSON'S LETTER.
WHY NOT?
THE DEMOCRATS ENTIRE PRO QUOTE
SERIES IS BASED ON NOTHING MORE
THAN INITIAL SPECULATION OF ONE
PERSON.
AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.
THAT'S SPECULATION IS WRONG.
DESPITE THE DEMOCRATS HOPES, THE
AMBASSADOR'S MISTAKEN BELIEF
DOES NOT BECOME TRUE MERELY
BECAUSE HE REPEATED IT.
MANY TIMES AND APPARENTLY TOO
MANY PEOPLE.
UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE DAVID,
TOWARD KEMP AND AMBASSADOR BOCA
TESTIFIED THERE IS NO ACTION
WHATSOEVER BETWEEN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE AND INVESTIGATION.
HERE IS AMBASSADOR VOLKER.
>> YOU HAD A MEETING WITH THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND YOU BELIEVE THE POLICY
ISSUES HE RAISED WERE VALID.
DID THE PRESIDENT EVER STATE TO
YOU THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO
ALLOW AID TO THE UNITED STATES
TO GO TO UKRAINE MUST THERE WERE
INVESTIGATIONS INTO BURISMA,
BIDENS OR THE 2016 ELECTION.
DID THE UKRAINIANS EVER TELL YOU
THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD NOT
IN A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT,
A PHONE CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, MILITARY
AID OR FOREIGN AID FROM THE
UNITED STATES UNLESS THEY
UNDERTOOK INVESTIGATIONS OF
BURISMA, THE BIDENS OR THE 2016
ELECTIONS.
>> NO, THEY DID NOT.
>> HOUSE MANAGERS NEVER TOLD ANY
OF THIS.
WHY NOT?
WHY DIDN'T THEY SHOW YOU THIS
TESTIMONY?
WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL YOU ABOUT
THIS TESTIMONY?
WHY DIDN'T THEY PUT AMBASSADORS
SONDLOND'S TESTIMONY AND FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION?
BECAUSE NONE OF THIS FITS THEIR
NARRATIVE.
IT WOULDN'T LEAD TO THE
PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION, I
YIELD MY TIME.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, DEMOCRATIC
LEADER SCHUMER, HOUSE MANAGERS,
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
LET ME BEGIN BY SAYING YOU
CANNOT SIMPLY DECIDE THIS CASE
IN A VACUUM.
MR. SCHIFF SAID YESTERDAY THAT
IT WAS HIS FATHER SAID YOU
SHOULD PUT YOURSELF IN SOMEONE
ELSE'S SHOES.
LET'S, FOR A MOMENT, PUT
OURSELVES IN THE SHOES OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
RIGHT NOW.
BEFORE HE WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE,
HE WAS SUBJECTED TO AN
INVESTIGATION BY THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
THE PRESIDENT, WITHIN SIX MONTHS
OF INAUGURATION, FOUND A SPECIAL
COUNSEL BEING APPOINTED TO
INVESTIGATE A RUSSIA COLLUSION
THEORY.
IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT,
SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
MANAGERS TRIED ONCE AGAIN TO
RELITIGATE THE MUELLER CASE.
HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE.
THIS IS PART ONE.
OF THE MUELLER REPORT.
THIS PART ALONE IS 99 PAGES.
THE PRESENTATION, A COUPLE OF
TIMES SAID THIS FOR THAT.
LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.
THIS COST $32 MILLION.
THIS INVESTIGATION TOOK 2800
SUBPOENAS.
THIS INVESTIGATION HAD 500
SEARCH WARRANTS.
THIS, 230 ORDERS FOR
COMMUNICATION RECORDS.
THIS HAD 500 WITNESS INTERVIEWS.
ALL TO REACH THE FOLLOWING
CONCLUSION.
AND I'M GOING TO QUOTE FROM THE
MUELLER REPORT ITSELF, IT CAN BE
FOUND ON PAGE 173.
AS RELATES TO THIS WHOLE MATTER
OF COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY.
ULTIMATELY, IN THIS REPORT.
THIS INVESTIGATION DID NOT
ESTABLISH THE CAMPAIGN
COORDINATED OR CONSPIRED WITH
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT THIS
ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITY.
LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN.
THIS MUELLER REPORT RESULTED IN
THIS.
THAT FOR THIS.
ULTIMATELY, THE INVESTIGATION
DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE
CAMPAIGN COORDINATED OR
CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT AND ITS ELECTION
RELATED INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES.
THIS FOR THAT.
IN HIS SUMMATION THURSDAY NIGHT,
SENATOR SCHIFF COMPLAINT THE
PRESIDENT CHOSE NOT TO GO WITH
THE DETERMINATION OF
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES REGARDING
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND DECIDED
HE WOULD LISTEN TO PEOPLE HE
TRUSTED.
...
DISAGREEING WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S DECISION ON FOREIGN
POLICY MATTERS OR WHOSE ADVICE
HE IS GOING TO TAKE IS IN NO
WAY AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
SECOND, MISTER SCHIFF, AND
MISTER NADLER OF ALL PEOPLE
BECAUSE THEY CHAIR SIGNIFICANT
COMMITTEES, REALLY SHOULD KNOW
THIS AND THEY SHOULD KNOW WHAT
IS HAPPENING.
LET ME REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING.
JUST 6 TENTHS OF A MILE FROM
THIS CHAMBER SITS THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT
ALSO KNOWN AS THE FISA COURT,
FEDERAL COURT ESTABLISHED UNDER
THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT TO OVERSEE
REQUESTS BY FEDERAL AGENCIES,
SURVEILLANCE ORDERS AGAINST
FOREIGN SPIES INSIDE THE UNITED
STATES INCLUDING AMERICAN
CITIZENS.
BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVE NATURE
OF ITS BUSINESS, THE COURT IS A
MORE SECRET COURT, IT HEARINGS
CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS COURT THERE IS NO
DEFENSE COUNSEL, NO OPPORTUNITY
TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, THE
ONLY MATERIAL THE COURT SEES
ARE THOSE MATERIALS THAT ARE
SUBMITTED ON TRUST, ON TRUST BY
MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY.
WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT THEY
WOULD BE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.
ON DECEMBER 17TH, 2019, THE
FISA COURT ISSUED A SCATHING
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR
GENERAL'S REPORT ON THE
CROSSFIRE HURRICANE
INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER OR
NOT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS
COORDINATING WITH RUSSIA.
THAT REPORT DETAILED THE FBI'S
SYSTEMATIC ABUSES OF OBTAINING
SURVEILLANCE ORDER REQUESTS
FROM THE PROCESS THEY UTILIZE.
IN ITS ORDER, THIS IS THE ORDER
FROM THE COURT, I AM GOING TO
READ IT.
THIS ORDER RESPONDS TO REPORTS
THAT PERSONNEL AT THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INFORMATION PROVIDING
INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE.
AND WITHHELD MATERIAL
INFORMATION FROM THE NSD WHICH
WAS DEFERENTIAL TO THE FBI'S
CASE IN REACTION TO FOR
APPLICATIONS FOR THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
COURT.
WHEN THE FBI PERSONNEL MISLED
NSD, THE WAYS THAT ARE
DESCRIBED IN THESE REPORTS THEY
EQUALLY MISLED THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
COURT.
THIS ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED
UP.
THERE IS ANOTHER ONE.
IT WAS DECLASSIFIED A COUPLE
DAYS AGO.
THANKS IN LARGE PART TO THE
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE
COURT RECEIVED NOTICE OF
MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS AND
OMISSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT, DOJ
ASSESSED WITH RESPECT TO THE
APPLICATIONS ENLISTED TWO
SPECIFIC DOCKET NUMBERS, 17375,
AND 17679, IF NOT EARLIER.
THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT
PREDICATION TO ESTABLISH
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE
CARTER PAGE WAS ACTING AS AN
AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER.
THE PRESIDENT HAD REASON TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE INFORMATION
HE WAS BEING PROVIDED.
WE COULD IGNORE THIS.
WE COULD MAKE BELIEVE THIS DID
NOT HAPPEN BUT IT DID.
SO AS WE BEGIN INTRODUCING OUR
ARGUMENTS I WANT TO CORRECT A
COUPLE THINGS ON THE RECORD,
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING
TODAY.
WE INTEND TO SHOW FOR THE NEXT
SEVERAL DAYS THAT THE EVIDENCE
IS OVERWHELMING THAT THE
PRESIDENT DID NOTHING WRONG.
MISTER SCHIFF AND HIS
COLLEAGUES TOLD YOU THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
ASSESSMENT, RUSSIA WAS ACTING
ALONE, RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTION
INTERFERENCE IMPLYING THIS
DEBUNKED THE IDEA THERE MIGHT
BE INTERFERENCE FROM OTHER
COUNTRIES INCLUDING UKRAINE.
MISTER NADLER DEPLOYED AN
ARGUMENT SAYING DONALD TRUMP
SOUGHT, QUOTE, UKRAINE, NOT
RUSSIA, INTERFERED IN THE LAST
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A STRAW
MAN ARGUMENT.
LET ME BE CLEAR.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS IN A 23 HOUR
PERIOD KEPT PUSHING THIS FALSE
DICHOTOMY THAT IT WAS EITHER
RUSSIA OR UKRAINE BUT NOT BOTH.
THEY KEPT TELLING YOU THE
CONCLUSION OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY AND MISTER MUELLER
WAS RUSSIA ALONE WITH REGARD TO
THE 2016 ELECTIONS.
THE REPORT BOB MUELLER WROTE
FOCUSED ON RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE.
ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME
INFORMATION IN LETTERS
REGARDING UKRAINE.
IN FACT, LET ME TALK ABOUT
THOSE LETTERS RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS A LETTER DATED MAY
FOURTH 2018 TO YURI RUSCHENKO
MISTER, REQUESTING THAT HIS
OFFICE COOPERATE WITH THE
MUELLER INVESTIGATION INVOLVING
UKRAINE ISSUES AND ISSUES
INVOLVING UKRAINE'S GOVERNMENT
OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL
SIGNED BY SENATOR MENENDEZ,
SENATOR LEAHY AND SENATOR
DURBIN.
I AM DOING THIS TO PUT IT IN
PERSPECTIVE.
HOUSE MANAGERS TRIED TO TELL
YOU THE IMPORTANCE, MY
COLLEAGUE TALKED ABOUT THIS
BETWEEN PRESIDENT ZELINSKY AND
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE
BILATERAL MEETING IN THE OVAL
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
AS IF AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT
COULD BE BASED UPON A MEETING
NOT TAKING PLACE IN THE WHITE
HOUSE BUT TAKING PLACE
SOMEPLACE ELSE LIKE THE UNITED
NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHERE
IT IN FACT DID TAKE PLACE.
DOCTOR FIONA HILL WAS CLEAR THE
WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS
SUPPLIED, IT WOULD BE, QUOTE,
LEGITIMACY IT NEEDED ESPECIALLY
VIS-À-VIS THE RUSSIANS AND THEY
VIEWED IT AS RECOGNITION OF
THEIR LEGITIMACY AS A SOVEREIGN
STATE.
HERE IS WHAT THEY DID NOT PLAY.
HERE'S WHAT THEY DID NOT TELL
YOU.
AND I AM GOING TO QUOTE FROM
DOCTOR HILL'S TESTIMONY ON PAGE
145 OF HER TRANSCRIPT.
THESE ARE HER WORDS.
THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID UNDER
OATH.
IT WASN'T ALWAYS A WHITE HOUSE
MEETING PER SE BUT DEFINITELY A
PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL MEETING.
A MEETING WITH ZELINSKY AND THE
PRESIDENT.
IT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN
POLAND, IN WARSAW, COULD HAVE
BEEN A PROPER BILATERAL CONTEST
BUT IN OTHER WORDS A WHITE
HOUSE LEVEL PRESIDENTIAL
MEETING THAT ACTUALLY FOUND ON
PAGE 145.
CONTRARY TO WHAT SCHIFF AND THE
OTHER MANAGERS TOLD YOU, THIS
MEETING DID IN FACT OCCUR.
IT OCCURRED AT THE UN GENERAL
ASSEMBLY ON SEPTEMBER 20 FIFTH
2019.
THOSE WERE THE WORDS OF DOCTOR
HILL THAT YOU DID NOT HEAR.
THIS CASE IS REALLY NOT ABOUT
PRESIDENTIAL WRONGDOING.
THIS ENTIRE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS
ABOUT THE HOUSE MANAGER'S
INSISTENCE THAT THEY ARE ABLE
TO READ EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS,
THEY CAN READ EVERYBODY'S
INTENTION EVEN WHEN THE
PRINCIPAL SPEAKERS, THE
WITNESSES THEMSELVES, INSIST
THAT THOSE INTERPRETATIONS ARE
WRONG.
MANAGER SHIFT, MANAGERS GARCIA
AND DENNINGS RELIED ON SELECTED
CLIPS FROM AMBASSADOR
SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY.
I'M NOT GOING TO REPLAY THOSE.
MY COLLEAGUE PLAYED THOSE FOR
YOU.
IT IS CLEAR.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO PLAY THE
SAME CLIPS TWEE 7 TIMES.
HE SAID IT, YOU SAW IT.
THAT IS THE EVIDENCE.
MISS LAUGHLIN SAID NUMEROUS
WITNESSES TESTIFIED THEY WERE
NOT PROVIDED WITH ANY REASON
WHY THE HOLD WAS LISTED ON
SEPTEMBER 11TH, SUGGESTING THAT
THE PRESIDENT'S REASON FOR THE
HOLD, UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION AND
BURDEN SHARING WERE CREATED
AFTER THE FACT BUT AGAIN, AS MY
COLLEAGUE JUST SHOWED YOU,
BURDEN SHARING WAS RAISED IN
THE TRANSCRIPT ITSELF.
MISTER SCHIFF STATED HERE THAT
JUST LIKE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
HOLD, DONALD TRUMP PROVIDED NO
REASON FOR THE RELEASE.
THIS ALSO IS WRONG.
IN THEIR TESTIMONY, AMBASSADORS
VOLCKER AND SONDLAND SAID THE
PRESIDENT RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT
UKRAINIAN CORRUPTION IN THE MAY
20 THIRD, 2019, MEETING WITH
THE UKRAINE DELEGATION.
DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY LAURA
CRAFT TESTIFIED THAT SHE
RECEIVED AN EMAIL IN THE TUNE
-- IN JUNE OF 2019 LISTING
FOLLOW-UPS FROM THE MEETING
BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE
PRESIDENT RELATING SPECIFICALLY
TO UKRAINIAN SECURITY
ASSISTANCE INCLUDING ASKING
WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE
CONTRIBUTING, BURDEN SHARING.
THAT COULD BE FOUND IN LAURA
COOPER'S DEPOSITION, PAGES 33,
AND 34.
THE PRESIDENT MENTIONS
CORRUPTION AND BURDEN SHARING
TO SENATOR JOHNSON AS YOU
ALREADY HEARD.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT AMBASSADOR DAVID HALE
TESTIFIED THERE WAS A REVIEW
GOING ON IN 2019.
ON PAGE 84 OF HIS NOVEMBER 6TH,
2019, TESTIMONY HE SAID THE
ADMINISTRATION DID NOT WANT TO
TAKE A BUSINESS AS USUAL
APPROACH TO FOREIGN ASSISTANCE,
FEELING THAT WANT THE COUNTRY
HAS RECEIVED A CERTAIN PACKAGE
IT CONTINUES FOREVER.
DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE
23 HOUR PRESENTATION.
DOCTOR FIONA HILL CONFIRMED
THIS REVIEW AND TESTIFIED ON
THE 21st 2019 AND I WILL QUOTE
FROM PAGE 75 OF HER TESTIMONY
THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DIRECTIVE
FOR WHOLESALE, WHOLESALE REVIEW
OF OUR FOREIGN POLICY,
FOREIGN-POLICY ASSISTANCE AND
THE TIES BETWEEN FOREIGN-POLICY
OBJECTIVES AND THAT ASSISTANCE.
THIS HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR MANY
MONTHS.
MULTIPLE WITNESSES TESTIFIED
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD
LONG-STANDING SPECIFIC CONCERNS
ABOUT UKRAINE.
THE HOUSE MANAGERS,
UNDERSTANDABLY, IGNORE THE
TESTIMONY THAT TOOK PLACE
BEFORE THEIR OWN COMMITTEES.
IN HER TESTIMONY OF
OCTOBER 14TH, 2019, DOCTOR HILL
TESTIFIED ON PAGE 118-119 OF
HER TRANSCRIPT THAT SHE THINKS
THE PRESIDENT HAS QUITE
PUBLICLY SAID THAT HE WAS VERY
SKEPTICAL ABOUT CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE AND THEN SHE SAID AGAIN
IN HER TESTIMONY AND IN FACT HE
IS NOT ALONE BECAUSE EVERYONE,
BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS EXPRESSED
GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION
IN UKRAINE.
SIMILARLY, AMBASSADOR
YOVANOVITCH TESTIFIED THEY HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE AND IT IS NOTED ON
PAGES 142 OF HER DEPOSITION
TRANSCRIPT, WHEN ASKED WHAT SHE
KNEW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
DEEP-ROOTED SKEPTICISM ABOUT
UKRAINE'S BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
SHE ANSWERED PRESIDENT TRUMP
DELIVERED AN ANTICORRUPTION
MESSAGE TO FORMER UKRAINIAN
PRESIDENT POROSHENKO IN THEIR
FIRST MEETING IN THE WHITE
HOUSE ON JUNE 20TH, 2017.
SENIOR DIRECTOR MORRISON
CONFIRMED ON NOVEMBER 20 FIFTH
IN HIS TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT
THAT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,
HE WAS AWARE THE PRESIDENT
THOUGHT UKRAINE HAD A
CORRUPTION PROBLEM.
HIS WORDS AGAIN AND HE
CONTINUED AS DID MANY OTHERS
FAMILIAR WITH UKRAINE.
ACCORDING TO HER, OCTOBER 30TH,
2019, TESTIMONY, SPECIAL
ADVISOR, UKRAINE NEGOTIATIONS
AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
KATHERINE CROFT ALSO HEARD THE
PRESIDENT RAISE THE ISSUE OF
CORRUPTION WITH THEN-PRESIDENT
POROSHENKO OF UKRAINE DURING A
BILATERAL MEETING AT THE UNITED
NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THIS
TIME IN SEPTEMBER OF 2017.
SPECIAL ADVISOR CROFT TESTIFIED
SHE UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT'S
CONCERN THAT UKRAINE IS CORRUPT
BECAUSE, THIS IS HER WORDS,
TASKED TO WRITE A PAPER TO HELP
THEN NSA HEAD GENERAL MCMASTERS
MAKE THE CASE IN CONNECTION
WITH PRIOR, PRIOR SECURITY
ASSISTANCE.
THESE CONCERNS WERE ENTIRELY
JUSTIFIED.
WHEN ASKED, A QUOTE FROM DOCTOR
HILL'S HEARING TRANSCRIPT,
CERTAINLY, THESE ARE HER WORDS,
ELIMINATING CORRUPTION UKRAINE
WAS ONE OF THE CENTRAL GOALS OF
A FOREIGN POLICY.
DOES ANYBODY THINK THAT ONE
ELECTION OF ONE PRESIDENT THAT
RAN ON A REFORM PLATFORM WHO
FINALLY GETS A MAJORITY IN
THEIR LEGISLATIVE BODY, THAT
CORRUPTION UKRAINE JUST
EVAPORATES?
THAT IS LIKE LOOKING -- GOES
BACK TO THE MUELLER REPORT.
YOU CAN'T LOOK AT THESE ISSUES
IN A VACUUM.
VIRTUALLY EVERY WITNESS AGREES
THAT CORRUPTION IS AT THE
FOREFRONT OF US POLICY.
I THINK THERE ARE SOME OTHER
THINGS WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
ABOUT TIMING.
THIS AGAIN IS ACCORDING TO THE
TESTIMONY OF TIM MORRISON, HIS
TESTIMONY.
THIS IS WHEN PRESIDENT ZELINSKY
WAS FIRST ELECTED.
THERE WERE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT
WHETHER HE WOULD BE A GENUINE
REFORMER AND WHETHER HE WOULD
GENUINELY TRY TO ROOT OUT
CORRUPTION.
ALSO AT THIS TIME, BEFORE THE
ELECTION, UNCLEAR WHETHER
PRESIDENT ZELINSKY'S PARTY
COULD GET A WORKABLE MAJORITY.
I THINK WE ARE GLAD THEY DID.
TO SAY THAT HAS BEEN TESTED AND
DETERMINED THAT CORRUPTION
UKRAINE HAS BEEN REMOVED.
THE ANTICORRUPTION COURT OF
UKRAINE DID NOT COMMENCE ITS
WORK UNTIL SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2019,
121 DAYS AGO, FOUR MONTHS AGO.
WE ARE ACTING AS IF THERE WAS A
MAGIC WAND, THAT THERE WERE NEW
ELECTIONS AND EVERYTHING WAS
NOW FINE.
I WILL NOT, BECAUSE WE ARE
GOING TO HEAR MORE ABOUT IT,
GET INTO THE MEETINGS THE VICE
PRESIDENT HAD.
WE WILL GET TO THAT IN THE DAYS
AHEAD.
MANAGER CROWE SAID THIS.
WHAT IS MOST INTERESTING TO ME
ABOUT THIS IS PRESIDENT TRUMP
WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN UKRAINE
AID.
HIS WORDS.
NOBODY ELSE.
THE US PROVIDE AID TO DOZENS OF
COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD,
LOTS OF ALLIES, HE DIDN'T ASK
ABOUT ANY OF THEM, JUST
UKRAINE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO
OUR COUNTRY.
I REALLY DO.
I APPRECIATE THAT BUT LET'S GET
OUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
THAT IS WHAT MANAGER CROW SAID.
HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED.
PRESIDENT TRUMP PLACE HOLDS ON
AID A NUMBER OF TIMES.
TAKE BASIC DUE DILIGENCE TO
FIGURE THIS OUT.
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019 THE
ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED IT WAS
WITHHOLDING $100 MILLION IN AID
TO AFGHANISTAN OVER CONCERNS
ABOUT GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION.
IN AUGUST OF 2019, DONALD TRUMP
ANNOUNCED THE ADMINISTRATION
WAS IN TALKS TO INCREASE SOUTH
KOREA'S SHARE OF BURDEN SHARING
OF THE EXPENSES OF US MILITARY
AID, SUPPORT FOR SOUTH KOREA.
IN JUNE, HE CUT OR PAUSE OVER
$550 MILLION IN FOREIGN AID TO
EL SALVADOR, HONDURAS AND
GUATEMALA BECAUSE THOSE
COUNTRIES WERE NOT SHARING THE
BURDENS OF PROVIDING MASS
MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES.
IN JUNE THE ADMINISTRATION
TEMPORARILY POSSIBLE
$105 MILLION IN AID TO LEBANON.
THE ADMINISTRATION LIFTED THAT
OLD IN DECEMBER WITH ONE
OFFICIALLY PLAINTIFF THE
ADMINISTRATION CONTINUALLY
REVIEWS AND EARLY EVALUATES THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF ALL UNITED
STATES FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO
ENSURE FUNDS GO TOWARDS
ACTIVITIES THAT FURTHER US
FOREIGN POLICY.
AND ALSO FURTHER OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY INTERESTS, LIKE ANY
ADMINISTRATION WOULD.
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2018, THE
ADMINISTRATION CANCELED THE
$300 MILLION, $300 MILLION OF
MILITARY AID TO PAKISTAN
BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MEETING ITS
COUNTERTERRORISM OBLIGATION.
YOU DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT ANY OF
THAT.
FROM MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES,
THE HOUSE MANAGERS.
NONE OF THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
UNDER SECRETARY HAIL, HIS
TRANSCRIPT, SAID, QUOTE, AID
HAS BEEN WITHHELD FROM SEVERAL
COUNTRIES ACROSS THE GLOBE FOR
VARIOUS REASONS.
DOCTOR HILL EXPLAINED THERE WAS
A FREEZE PUT ON ALL KINDS OF
AID AND ASSISTANCE BECAUSE IT
WAS A PROCESS AT THE TIME OF AN
AWFUL LOT OF REVIEWS GOING ON
ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE, THAT IS
THE HILL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT.
SHE ADDED, THIS WAS ONE OF THE
STAR WITNESSES IN HER
EXPERIENCE STOPS AND STARTS ARE
SOMETIMES COMMON WITH FOREIGN
ASSISTANCE.
AND THAT THE OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HOLD OF
DOLLARS ALL THE TIME INCLUDING
DOLLARS GOING TO UKRAINE, IN
THE PAST.
SIMILARLY, AMBASSADOR VOELKER
AFFIRMED THAT AID GETS HELD UP
FROM TIME TO TIME FOR A LOT OF
REASONS.
MANAGER CROW TOLD YOU UKRAINE'S
POLICY WAS NOT STRONG NOTING WE
HELP OUR PARTNER FIGHT RUSSIA
OVER THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO
FIGHT RUSSIA HERE.
OUR FRIENDS ON THE FRONT LINE
IN THE TRENCHES, THIS WAS
FOLLOWING THE RUSSIAN INVASION
OF UKRAINE IN 2014, THE UNITED
STATES HAS STOOD BY UKRAINE,
THESE WERE YOUR WORDS.
MORE PROOF THE UNITED STATES
HAS STOOD BY UKRAINE SINCE THE
INVASION OF 2014.
ONLY ONE PRESIDENT SINCE THEN
TOOK A CONCRETE STEP.
SOME OF YOU SUPPORTED HIM.
THAT STEP INCLUDED ACTUALLY
PROVIDING UKRAINE WITH LETHAL
WEAPONS INCLUDING JAVELIN
MISSILES.
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID.
SOME OF YOU IN THIS VERY ROOM,
SOME OF YOU MANAGERS ACTUALLY
SUPPORT THAT.
HERE IS WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR
SAID, YOU DIDN'T HEAR THIS.
JAVELIN MISSILES ARE SERIOUS
WEAPONS.
THEY WILL KILL RUSSIAN TANKS.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH AGREED
STATING UKRAINE POLICY UNDER
PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTUALLY GOT
STRONGER, STRONGER THAN IT WAS
UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA.
THERE WERE THOUGHTS ABOUT
SANCTIONS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS IMPOSE
HEAVY SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA FOR
PRESIDENT ZELINSKY, THANKED
HIM.
THE UNITED STATES HAS IMPOSE
HEAVY SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA.
PRESIDENT ZELINSKY THANK HIM.
MANAGER JEFFRIES SAID THE IDEA
THAT TRUMP CARES ABOUT
CORRUPTION IS LAUGHABLE.
THIS IS WHAT DOCTOR HILL SAID.
ELIMINATING CORRUPTION UKRAINE
WAS ONE OF, IF NOT THE CENTRAL
GOAL OF US FOREIGN POLICY IN
UKRAINE.
LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN.
DOCTOR HILL TESTIFIED THAT
ELIMINATING CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE WAS ONE OF, IF NOT THE
CENTRAL GOAL OF US FOREIGN
POLICY IN UKRAINE.
IF YOU ARE TAKING NOTES YOU CAN
FIND THAT IN THE HILL
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT 34:7-13.
DOCTOR HILL ALSO SAID SHE
THINKS THE PRESIDENT IS QUITE
PUBLICLY SAID HE WAS VERY
SKEPTICAL ABOUT CORRUPTION IN
UKRAINE.
HE'S NOT ALONE, SHE SAID THIS
AS WELL, EVERYONE HAS EXPRESSED
GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT
CORRUPTION.
AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, THEY
DIDN'T PLAY THIS, SAID WE ALL
HAVE CONCERNS.
NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
MORRISON CONFIRMED THE, QUOTE,
HE WAS AWARE HE THOUGHT THE
PRESIDENT HAD A CORRUPTION
PROBLEM AS DID MANY OTHER
PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH IT.
I AM NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO
GO OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT
PUT BEFORE YOU BECAUSE WE WOULD
BE HERE FOR A LOT LONGER THAN
24 HOURS.
BUT TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT
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 PRESIDENT WASN'T CONCERNED
ABOUT BURDEN SHARING?
READ ALL OF THE RECORDS.
AND THEN THERE WAS MISTER
SCHIFF SAYING YESTERDAY MAYBE
WE CAN LEARN A LOT MORE FROM
OUR UKRAINIAN ALLY.
LET ME READ YOU WHAT OUR
UKRAINIAN ALLY SAID.
PRESIDENT ZELINSKY.
WHEN ASKED ABOUT THESE
ALLEGATIONS OF QUID PRO QUO HE
SAID I THINK YOU READ
EVERYTHING.
I THINK YOU READ THE TEXT.
WE HAD A GOOD PHONE CALL.
THOSE WERE HIS WORDS, IT WAS
NORMAL.
WE SPOKE ABOUT MANY THINGS.
I THINK, AND YOU READ IT,
NOBODY PUSHED ME, THEY THINK
YOU CAN READ MINDS.
I THINK YOU LOOK AT THE WORDS.
I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME
TO MY COLLEAGUE, DEPUTY WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL WHO WILL ADDRESS
TWO ISSUES.
WE WILL DO THIS IN A SYSTEMATIC
WAY OVER THE DAYS AHEAD.
ONE INVOLVING ISSUES RELATED
BECAUSE IT CAME UP NEAR THE END
SO I WANT TO DO IT IN SEQUENCE,
OBSTRUCTION AS RELATES TO THE
SUBPOENAS THAT WERE ISSUED AND
THE DUE PROCESS ISSUES SINCE IT
WAS FRESH ON EVERYBODY'S MIND.
>> MISTER CHIEF JUSTICE,
SENATORS, MAJORITY LEADER
MCCONNELL, DEMOCRATIC
LEADERSHIP, GOOD MORNING.
AS MISTER SEKULOW SAID, I WILL
TOUCH ON A COUPLE ISSUES
RELATED TO OBSTRUCTION AND DUE
PROCESS, JUST TO HIT ON SOME
POINTS BEFORE WE GO INTO MORE
DETAIL IN THE REST OF OUR
PRESENTATION, I WOULD LIKE TO
START WITH ONE OF THE POINTS
MANAGER JEFFRIES FOCUSED A LOT
ON DURING THE PRESENTATION
YESTERDAY RELATED TO THE
OBSTRUCTION CHARGE IN THE
SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT
BECAUSE HE TRIED TO PORTRAY A
PICTURE OF WHAT HE CALLED
BLANKET DEFIANCE, THERE WAS A
RESPONSE FROM THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION THAT WE WON'T
COOPERATE WITH ANYTHING, WON'T
GIVE YOU ANY DOCUMENTS, WON'T
DO ANYTHING, BLANKET DEFIANCE
WITHOUT EXPLANATION, JUST AN

Share Video:

Embed Video: