Mitch McConnell

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, we should expect 2 to 3 hours of session today. We will take a quick break if needed.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 1 p.m., Monday, January 27, and that this order also constitute the adjournment of the Senate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, for all of our colleagues' information about scheduling, today we will plan to take short breaks every 2 to 3 hours and will accommodate a 30-minute recess for dinner, assuming it is needed, until the House managers have finished their opening presentation. For scheduling purposes, we have organized tomorrow's session to convene at 10 a.m. and run for several hours as the President's counsel begin their presentation.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I suggest a 15-minute recess.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, we will take a 30-minute break for dinner.

Mr. McCONNELL. I have spoken with Congressman Schiff and his team, and it looks like we have a couple more hours. Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, counsel for the President, impeachment exists not to inflict personal punishment for past wrongdoing but, rather, to protect against future Presidential misconduct that would endanger democracy and the rule of law. President Trump remains a threat in at least three fundamental ways: First, he continues to assert in court and elsewhere that nobody in the U.S. Government can investigate him for wrongdoing, making him unaccountable. Second, his conduct here is not a one-off; it is a pattern of soliciting foreign interference in our elections to his own advantage and then using the powers of his office to stop anyone who dares to investigate. Finally, the President's obstruction is very much a constitutional crime in progress, harming Congress, as it deliberates these very proceedings, and the American people, who deserve to know the facts. A President who believes he can get away with anything and can use his office to conceal evidence of abuse threatens us all. President Trump is the first President in U.S. history to say he is immune from any effort to examine his conduct or check his power. He claims he is completely immune from criminal indictment and prosecution while serving as President. He claims he can commit any crime--even shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, as he has joked about--with impunity. The President's own lawyers have argued in court that he cannot even be investigated for violating the law under any circumstance. No President of either party has ever made claims like this. If an investigation somehow does uncover misconduct by the President, as this investigation has done, the President believes he can simply quash it. He claims the right to end Federal law enforcement investigations for any reason--or none at all--even when there is credible evidence of his own wrongdoing. Added together, the President's positions amount to a license to do anything he wants. No court has ever accepted this view and for good reason: Our Founders created a system in which all people--even Presidents--are bound by the law and accountable for their actions. In addition to claiming that he is immune from criminal process, President Trump contends that he is not accountable to either Congress or the judiciary. He has invoked bizarre legal theories to justify defying congressional investigations. He has argued that Congress is forbidden from having the courts intervene when executive branch officials disregard its subpoenas. He has sued to block third parties from complying with congressional subpoenas. Perhaps most remarkably, President Trump has claimed that Congress cannot investigate his misconduct outside of an impeachment inquiry, while simultaneously claiming that Congress cannot investigate his misconduct in an impeachment inquiry. Of course, President Trump considers any inquiry to be illegitimate if he thinks he did nothing wrong, doubts the motives of Congress, or decides that he would prefer a different set of rules. Let's review the President's position. He can't be investigated for crimes. He can end any Federal law enforcement investigation into him. He is immune from any State law enforcement investigation. Neither he nor his aides can be subpoenaed. He can reject subpoenas based on broad, novel, and even rejected theories. When he does reject subpoenas, Congress is not allowed to sue him, but he is allowed to sue to block others from complying with congressional subpoenas. Congress definitely can't investigate him outside of an impeachment inquiry, and, again, it can't investigate him as part of one. The bottom line is that the President truly believes that he is above the law. This is not our system, and it never has been. The President is a constitutional officer. Unlike a King, he is accountable to the Constitution. But this President doesn't believe that, and that is why we are here. Remember, the precedent that you set in this trial will shape American democracy for the future. It will govern this President, and it will govern those who follow. If you let the President get away with his obstruction, you risk grave and irreparable harm to the separation of powers itself. Representative Lawrence Hogan, a Republican from Maryland, made this point during the Nixon impeachment hearing. (Text of Videotape presentation:) Mr. HOGAN (Republican). The historical precedent we are setting here is so great because in every future impeachment of a President, it is inconceivable that the evidence relating to that impeachment will not be in the hands of the executive branch which is under his controls. So I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling, if we do not pass this article today, the whole impeachment power becomes meaningless. Mr. Manager CROW. This leads us to a second consideration: the President's pattern of obstructing. Article II describes President Trump's impeachable conduct in obstructing Congress. On its own, that warrants removal from office. Yet it must be noted that the President's obstruction fits a disturbing pattern. As stated in article II, President Trump's obstruction is ``consistent with [his] previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.'' Another example is President Trump's attempts to impede the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election, as well as the President's sustained efforts to obstruct the special counsel after learning that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice. The special counsel's investigation addressed an issue of extraordinary importance to our national security and democracy: the integrity of our elections themselves. Rather than aid the special counsel's investigation, however, President Trump sought to thwart it and used the powers of his office to do it. After learning that he himself was under investigation, President Trump ordered the firing of the special counsel, sought to curtail the special counsel's investigation, instructed the White House Counsel to create a false record and make false public statements, and tampered with at least two key witnesses in the investigation. The pattern is as unmistakable as it is unnerving. In one moment, President Trump welcomed and invited a foreign nation to interfere in an election to his advantage, and the next, he solicited and pressured a foreign nation to do so. In one moment, President Trump used the powers of his office to obstruct the special counsel, and the next, he used the powers of his office to obstruct the House impeachment inquiry. In one moment, the President stated that he remained free to invite foreign interference in our elections. In the next, he, in fact, invited additional foreign interference in our elections. (Text of Videotape presentation:) President TRUMP. By the way, likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens. Mr. Manager CROW. Indeed, President Trump placed his fateful July 25 call to President Zelensky just 1 day after the special counsel testified in Congress about his findings. As Professor Gerhardt testified before the Judiciary Committee: The power to impeach includes the power to investigate, but, if the president can stymy this House's impeachment inquiry, he can eliminate the impeachment powers as a means for holding him and future presidents accountable for serious misconduct. If left unchecked, the president will likely continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on his behalf in the next election. I must emphasize that President Trump's obstruction persists to this day. The second Article of Impeachment charges a high crime in progress. As a result, the President's wrongdoing did not just harm the House as we have performed our own constitutional duty; it is also harming the Senate, which is being deprived of information you need before the votes you will soon take. And, of course, the true victim is the American people, who deserve the full truth. As we have discussed, the President claims that all the evidence he is hiding and covering up would actually prove his innocence. To borrow a phrase from the late Justice Scalia, that claim ``taxes the credulity of the credulous.'' President Trump has used all the authority of his office to block the full truth from coming to light. He has defied subpoenas and ordered others to do so. He has publicly intimidated and threatened witnesses. He has attacked the House for daring to investigate him. And he has lobbed an endless volley of personal attacks on witnesses and meritless complaints about procedure to sow confusion and distract the American people. The President's abuses are unfolding before our eyes, and they must be stopped. Before I conclude, I think you all deserve an explanation from me as to why I am standing here. There has been a lot of conversation in the last few years about what makes America great, and I have some ideas about that. I happen to think that what makes America great is that generation after generation, there have been Americans who have been willing to stand up and put aside their self-interest to make great sacrifices for the public good, for our country. I know because I have seen people do that. Like some of the people in this Chamber, I have seen people give everything for this country so we could sit here today. Now, this isn't politically expedient. It certainly isn't for me. It is hard. It requires sacrifice. It is uncomfortable. But that is the very definition of ``public service''; that we are here to give of ourselves for the country, for others, at sacrifice to ourselves. Those who have given so much for this country deserve nothing less from us now than to try to honor those sacrifices. I have tried to do that the last few days. My time is done, and it is now your turn. Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Chief Justice, Senators, counsel for the President, you will be pleased to know this is the last presentation of the evening. And as I started last night, I made reference to some good advice I got from an encouraging voice that said: Keep it up but not too long. Tonight I got some equally good advice: To be immortal, you don't need to be eternal. I will do my best not to be eternal. The first point I would like to make is I am tired. I don't know about you, but I am exhausted, and I can only imagine how you feel. But I am also very deeply grateful for just how you have attended to these presentations and discussions over the last few days. I am deeply grateful. I can tell how much consideration you have given to our point of view and the President's point of view, and that is all we can ask. At the end of the day, all we can ask is that you hear us out and make the best judgment that you can, consistent with your conscience and our Constitution. Now, I wanted to start out tonight with where we began when we first appeared before you about a week ago, and that is with the resolution itself, with what the President is charged with in the articles and how that holds up now that you have heard the evidence from the House. Donald Trump was impeached in article I for abuse of power, and that article provides that: In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed--Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that: Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. ``President Trump solicited interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 election.'' That has been proved. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 Presidential election to his advantage. That has been proved. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. That has been proved. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. That has been proved. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. That has been proved. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation. That has been proved. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means: (1) President Trump--acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government-- corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into-- (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and That has been proved. (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election. That has been proved. (2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump--acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government--conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested-- (A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended. That has been proved. (B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. That has been proved. (3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit. That has been proved. These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections. That has been proved. In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. That has been proved. He also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections. That has been proved. Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self- governance and the rule of law. That has been proved. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. That will be for you to decide. But the facts have been proved. Those facts are not contested. We have met our burden. Article II: Obstruction of Congress. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and the President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' In his conduct of the office of President of the United States--and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed--Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its ``sole Power of Impeachment''. That has been proved. President Trump has abused the powers of Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that: The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. That has been proved. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry for various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials. That has been proved. In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. That has been proved. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the ``sole Power of Impeachment'' vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives. That has been proved. President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means: (1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees. That has been proved. (2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees--in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record. That has been proved. (3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees--in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael ``Mick'' Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl. That has been proved. These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections. That has been proved. Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its ``sole Power of Impeachment.'' That has been proved. In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors''. That has been proved. This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment--and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives. This has been proved. In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. That has been proved. Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-government and the rule of law. That has been proved. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. That will be for you to determine. Let me say something about this second article. The facts of the President's defiance of Congress are very simple because they were so uniform, because they were so categorical, because they are so uncontested; yet do not mistake for a moment the fact that it was simple and quick to present that course of conduct compared with the sophisticated campaign to coerce Ukraine into thinking that that second article is any less significant than the first. Do not believe that for a moment. If there is no article II, let me tell you something: There will never be an article I. If there is no article II, there will never of any kind or shape or form be an article I. And why is that? Because, if you and we lack the power to investigate a President, there will never be an article I. Whether that article I is an abuse of power or that article I is treason or that article I is bribery, there will never be an article I if the Congress can't investigate an impeachable offense. If the Congress cannot investigate the President's own wrongdoing because the President prevents it, there will never be an article I because there will be no more impeachment power. It will be gone. It will be gone. As I said before, our relationship with Ukraine will survive. God willing, our relationship with Ukraine will survive, and Ukraine will prosper. We will get beyond this ugly chapter of our history. Yet, if we are to decide here that a President of the United States can simply say, Under article II, I can do whatever I want, and I don't have to treat a coequal branch of government like it exists, and I don't have to give it any more than the back of my hand, that will be an unending injury to this country--Ukraine will survive, and so will we--but that will be an unending injury to this country because the balance of power that our Founders set out will never be the same if a President can simply say: I am going to fight all subpoenas. I will tell you something else. Truism in the courts is just as true here in the Senate. When they say, ``Justice delayed is justice denied,'' if you give this President or any other the unilateral power to delay as long as he or she likes--to litigate matters for years and years in the courts--do not fool yourself into thinking it is anything less. In April, it will be a year since we subpoenaed Don McGahn, and there is no sign of an end to that case. I will tell you, when it gets to the Supreme Court, you might think that is the end, but it is just the end of the first chapter because Don McGahn is in court, saying: I am absolutely immune from testifying. Now, that has been rejected by every court that has looked at it. We will see what the court of appeals says, and then we will see if it goes to an en banc court of appeals, and then we will see what the Supreme Court says. When we prevail in the Supreme Court, do you know what happens? That is not the end of the matter. It goes back to the trial court, and then--well, they can't claim absolute immunity anymore. They can't claim that. They don't even have to bother showing up. So now we are going to turn to plan B, executive privilege, where ``we can't and won't answer any of the questions that are really pertinent to your impeachment inquiry.'' Let's start out in district court and then go to the court of appeals and then go to the en banc and then go to the Supreme Court. You can game the system for years. Justice delayed is justice denied, and so it is true about Presidential accountability. When you suggest or I suggest or anyone suggests or the White House suggests ``why didn't the Congress--why didn't the House--just exhaust their remedies?''--as if in the Constitution, where it says ``the House shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' there is an asterisk that reads: ``after exhausting all court remedies and seeking relief in the district court and seeking relief in the court of appeals and, after that, going to the Supreme Court''--let's not kid ourselves about what that really is. What that really means is you allow the President to control the timing of his own impeachment or if it will ever be permitted to come before this body. That is not an impeachment power. That is the absence of an impeachment power. Article II is every bit as important as article I. Without article II, there is no article I ever again, no matter how egregious this President's conduct or any other's. It is fundamental to the separation of powers. If you can't have the ability to enforce an impeachment power, you might as well not put it in the Constitution. Shortly, the President's lawyers will have a chance to make their presentation. As we will not have the ability to respond to what they say, I want to give you a little preview of what I think they are going to have in store for you so that, when you do hear it, you can put it into some perspective. I expect that they will attack the process, and I don't think that is any mystery. I want to tell you both what I expect they will share with you and what it really means. When you cut through all of the chaff, what does it really mean that they are saying? This is what I expect they will tell you. The process was so unfair. It was the most unfair in the history of the world because, in the House, they took depositions. How dare they take depositions? How dare they listen to Trey Gowdy? How dare they follow the Republican procedures that preceded their investigation? How dare they? They were so secretive in the bunker in the basement, as if whether it is on the ground floor or in the basement or on the first floor makes any difference. There were those supersecret depositions in which only 100 Members of Congress--equivalent to the entire Senate--could participate. That is how secret they were. That is how exclusive they were. Every Democrat, every Republican on the three committees could participate. Of course, that wasn't enough, so you even had more storm the SCIF, right? So you have 100 people who can participate, but as you heard earlier, the Republicans were not allowed to participate. OK. That is just false. Do you know how we did it in those supersecret depositions? You can look this up yourselves because we released the transcripts. We got an hour. They got an hour. We got 45 minutes. They got 45 minutes. We did that back and forth until everyone was done asking their questions. You are going to hear that Chairman Schiff was so unfair, he wouldn't allow us to ask our questions. Well, there were certain questions I didn't allow, questions like ``Who is the whistleblower? because we want to punish that whistleblower.'' Some of us in that House and in this House believe we ought to protect whistleblowers. So, yes, I did not allow the outing of the whistleblower. When they say the chairman wouldn't allow certain questions, that is what they mean. It means that we protect people who have the courage to come forward and blow the whistle, and we don't think--though the President might--that they are traitors and spies. To believe that someone who blows the whistle on misconduct of the serious nature that you now know took place is a traitor or a spy, there is only one way you can come to that conclusion, and that is if you believe you are the state and that anything that contradicts you is treason. That is the only way that you could conceive of someone who exposes wrongdoing as being a traitor or a spy, but that is exactly how this President views those who expose his wrongdoing--because he is the state. Like any good monarch, he is the state. You will hear the President wasn't allowed to participate in the Judiciary Committee. Well, that is false, too, as you know. The President had the same rights in our proceedings as President Nixon and President Clinton. Nonetheless, you will hear it was so unfair. One other thing that was really unfair was that all of the subpoenas were invalid because the House didn't pass a resolution announcing its impeachment inquiry--never mind that we actually did. The problem was, they said, well, we had not, and then we did. Then the problem was, well, you did. Of course, as you know, the Constitution says the House will ``have the sole Power of Impeachment.'' If we want to do it by House resolution, we can do it by House resolution. If we want to do it by committee, we can do it by committee. It is not the President's place to tell us how to conduct an impeachment proceeding any more than it is the President's place to tell you how you should try it. So, when you see that eight-page diatribe from the White House Counsel, saying we should have been able to have had a resolution in the House or we should have been able to have had ``this,'' what you should hear--what they really mean--is Donald Trump had the right to control his own impeachment proceeding, and it is an outrage that Donald Trump didn't get to write the rules of his own impeachment proceeding in the House. If you give a President that right, there is no impeachment power. You will hear them say that. You will hear them complain about depositions that were the same as the Republicans' or the right to participate that was the same as with Clinton and Nixon and that, by the way, they were not allowed to call witnesses, they said. Well, 3 of the 12 witnesses that we heard in our open hearings were the minority's witness requests. You will hear those arguments, that it was the most unfair in history. The fact is we have the same process. In those other impeachments, the majority did not surrender its subpoena power to the minority. Do you know what it did? It said you can subpoena witnesses, and if the majority doesn't agree, you can force a vote. That is the same process we have here. The majority does not surrender its subpoena power. It didn't in the prior impeachments, and it didn't in this one. When they say the process was unfair, what they really mean is, Don't look at what the President did. For God's sake, don't look at what the President did. I think the second thing you will hear from the President's team will be to attack the managers. Those managers are just awful. They are terrible people, especially that Schiff guy. He is the worst. He is the worst. In exhibit A, he mocked the President. He mocked the President. He mocked the President as if he was shaking down the leader of another country like he was an organized crime figure. He mocked the President. He said it was like the President said: Listen, Zelensky, because I am only going to say this seven times. Well, I discovered something very significant by mocking the President, and that is, for a man who loves to mock others, he does not like to be mocked. As it turns out, he has got pretty thin skin. Who would have thought? Never mind that I said I wasn't using his words before I said it and that I wasn't using his words after I said it and that I said I was making a parody of his words. It is an outrage, he mocked the President--that Schiff, terrible. They will attack other colleagues, too, for things said in the heat of debate here on the floor as we were reaching the wee hours in the morning, and they will attack some of my colleagues who aren't even in this Chamber. Maybe they will attack The Squad. That is a perennial favorite with the President. If they attack The Squad, you should ask: What does that have to do with the price of beans? You can expect attacks on all kinds of Members of the House that have nothing to do with the issues before you. When you hear those attacks, you should ask yourself: Away from what do they want to distract my attention? Nine times out of ten, it will be the President's misconduct. Look for it--attacks on the managers, attacks on other House Members, attacks on the Speaker, attacks on who knows what. It is all of the same ilk. Whatever you do, just don't consider the President's misconduct. You will also hear attacks on the Constitution. Of course, it will not be framed as attacking the Constitution, but that is really what it represents, and that is: Abuse of power doesn't violate the Constitution. Presidents of the United States have every right to abuse their power. That is the argument. OK. I know it is a hard argument to make, right? Presidents have a constitutional right to abuse their power, and how dare the House of Representatives charge a President with abusing his power? Now, I am looking forward to that constitutional argument by Alan Dershowitz because I want to know why abusing power and trust is not impeachable now, but it was a few years ago. The last time I checked, I don't think there was significant change to the Constitution between the time he said it was impeachable and the time he is saying now that, apparently, it is not impeachable. So I am looking forward to that argument. But I am also looking forward to Ken Starr's presentation because, during the Clinton impeachment, he maintained that a President not only could but must be impeached for obstructing justice, that Clinton--Bill Clinton--needed to be impeached because he lied under oath about sex, and to do so obstructed justice. You can be impeached for obstructing justice, but you cannot be impeached for obstructing Congress. Now, I have to confess I don't know exactly how that is supposed to work because the logical conclusion from that is Ken Starr is saying that Bill Clinton's mistake was in showing up under subpoena, that Bill Clinton's mistake was in not saying: I am going to fight all subpoenas. Bill Clinton's mistake was in not taking the position that under article II he could do whatever he wanted. Does that really make any sense? You can be impeached for obstructing your own branch of government, but you cannot be impeached for obstructing a coequal branch of government. That would make no sense to the Framers. I have to think, over the centuries, as they have watched us, they would be astonished that anyone would take that argument seriously or could so misapprehend how this balance of power is supposed to work. So I look forward to that argument, and maybe, when they make that argument, they can explain to us why their position on abuse of power isn't even supported by their own Attorney General. So I hope they will answer why even their own Attorney General doesn't agree with them--not to mention, by the way, the constitutional law expert called by the Republicans in the House who also testified, as to abuse of power, that it is impeachable, that you don't need a crime. It is impeachable. When you hear them make these arguments--cannot be impeached for abusing your power--this is what it really means: We cannot defend his conduct, so we want to make it go all away without even having to think about it. You don't even need to think about what the President did because the House charged it wrong, so don't even consider what the President did. That is what that argument means. We can't defend the indefensible, so we have to fall back on this: Even if he abused his office, even if he did all the things he is accused of, that is perfectly fine. Nothing can be done about it. You will also hear, as part of the defense--and you heard this from Jay Sekulow. I think it was the last thing he said: ``The whistleblower.'' And then he stepped back to the table. ``The whistleblower.'' I don't really know what that means, but I suspect you will hear more of that. ``The whistleblower.'' ``The whistleblower.'' It is his or her fault that we are here. ``The whistleblower.'' You know, I would encourage you to read the whistleblower complaint again. When you read that complaint again, you will see just how remarkably accurate it is. It is astonishingly accurate. You know, for all the times the President is out there saying that the complaint was all wrong, was all wrong, you read it--now that you have heard the evidence, you read it, and you will see how remarkably right the whistleblower is. When that complaint was filed, it was obviously before we had our depositions and had our hearings, all of which obviated the need for the whistleblower. In the beginning, we wanted the whistleblower to come and testify because all that we knew about was the complaint, but then we were able to hear from firsthand witnesses about what happened. Then something else happened. The President and his allies began threatening the whistleblower, and the life of the whistleblower was at risk. And what was the point in exposing that whistleblower at the risk of his or her life when we had the evidence we needed? What was the point, except retribution? Retribution--and the President wants it still. Do you know why the President is mad at the whistleblower? Because, but for the whistleblower, he wouldn't have been caught, and that is an unforgiveable sin. He is the State, and but for the whistleblower, the President wouldn't have been caught. For that he is a spy, and he is guilty of treason. Now, what does he add to this? Nothing but retribution--a pound of flesh. You will also hear the President's defense: They hate the President. They hate the President. You should not consider the President's misconduct because they hate the President. Now, what I have said--I will leave you to your own judgments about the President. I only hate what he has done to this country. I grieve for what he has done to this country. But when they make the argument to you that this is only happening because they hate the President, it is just another of the myriad forms of ``Please do not consider what the President did.'' Whether you like the President or you dislike the President is immaterial. It is all about the Constitution and his misconduct. If it meets the standard of impeachable conduct, as we have proved, it doesn't matter whether you like him; it doesn't matter whether you dislike him. What matters is whether he is a danger to the country because he will do it again, and none of us can have confidence, based on his record, that he will not do it again because he is telling us every day that he will. You will hear the further defense that Biden is corrupt--that Joe Biden is corrupt, that Hunter Biden is corrupt. This is their defense. It is another defense because what they hope to achieve in a Senate trial is what they couldn't achieve through their scheme. If they couldn't get Ukraine to smear the Bidens, they want to use this trial to do it instead. So let's call Hunter Biden. Let's smear the Bidens. Let's succeed in the trial with what we couldn't do with this scheme. That is the goal. Now, I don't know whether Rudy Giuliani, who said he was going to present his report to some of the Senators, has presented his report. Maybe he has. Maybe you will get to see what is in Rudy Giuliani's report. Maybe you will get to see some documents smearing the Bidens produced by--who knows? Maybe these same Russian, corrupt former prosecutors. But make no mistake about what that is about. It is about completing the object of the scheme through other means, through the means of this trial. You may hear the argument that what the President is doing when he is obstructing Congress is protecting the office for future Presidents because there is nothing more important to Donald Trump than protecting the Office of the Presidency for future Presidents. And I suppose when he withheld military aid from Ukraine, he was trying to protect future Presidents. And when he sought to force a foreign power to intervene in our election, he was doing it on behalf of future Presidents because future Presidents might likewise wish to cheat in a further election. I don't think that argument goes very far, but I expect you will hear it. I expect you will hear it. You may hear an argument that the President was really concerned about corruption, and he was concerned about the burden-sharing. I won't spend much time on that because you have heard the evidence on that. There is no indication that this had anything to do with corruption and every, every bit of evidence that it had nothing to do with fighting corruption or burden-sharing. Indeed, nothing about the burden changed between the time he froze the aid and the time he released the aid. There was no new effort to get others to contribute more, and Europe contributes a great deal as it is. This is an after- the-fact rationalization. You probably saw the public reporting that there was an exhaustive effort after the fact to come up with a post hoc rationalization for this scheme. I would like to show you the product of that investigation, but I will need your help because it is among the documents they refuse to turn over. They will show you just what an after-the-fact invention this argument is. Now, I expect you will hear the argument that Obama did it. Obama did it. That may take several different forms, but the form of ``Obama did it'' that I am referring to is ``Obama also withheld aid.'' Honestly, I think that argument is an insult to our intelligence because the argument is that Obama withheld aid from Egypt, and he made a condition with it. Obama withheld aid from Egypt after they had a revolution and circumstances changed. And do you know something? He didn't hide it from Congress. In fact, Congress supported it. Yes, there are times when we withhold aid for a good policy reason--not a corrupt effort to get help in your election. The American people know the difference between right and wrong. They can recognize the difference between aid that is withheld for a malicious purpose and aid that is held in the best interests of our national security. But you will hear the ``Obama did it'' argument. You will hear the call was perfect. You will hear the call was perfect. I suspect the reason they will make the argument that the call was perfect is because the President insists that they do. I don't think they really want to have to make that argument. You wouldn't either. But they have a client to represent, so they will make the argument that the call was perfect, and they will also make the argument that Ukraine thinks the call was perfect. Ukraine says there was no pressure. What that really means is that Ukraine wants a future. Ukraine knows it is still beholden to us for aid. Ukraine still hasn't gotten in through the door of the White House. Ukraine knows if they acknowledged that they were shaken down by the President of the United States, the President of the United States will make them pay. So when you hear them say that Ukraine felt no pressure and their proof is because the Ukraine President doesn't want to call the President of the United States a bad name, you will know why--because they need America. They need America. The Framers did not expect you to leave your common sense at the door. Now, you will also hear the defense that the President said there was ``no quid pro quo.'' The President said there was ``no quid pro quo.'' I guess that is the end of the story. This is a well-known principle of criminal law--that if the defendant says he didn't do it, he couldn't have done it. If the defendant learns he has been caught and he says that he didn't do it, he couldn't have done it. That doesn't hold up in any courtroom. It shouldn't hold up here. You also will hear a variation of ``no harm no foul.'' They got the money. They got the money, and they got the meeting--even though they didn't. They got the meeting on the sideline of the U.N.--kind of a drive-by. But they got a meeting--no harm no foul, right? The meeting on the sidelines is pretty much the same thing, right, as a head-of- state meeting in the Oval Office? Of course, it is not. Why do you think, at the meeting at the United Nations, the President of Ukraine was still saying: Hey, when am I going to get to come to town? He certainly recognizes the difference, and we should too. What is more, there is every bit of harm and every bit of foul in withholding aid from an ally at war and releasing it only when you are caught. Russia knows now about the wedge in our relations with Ukraine. The moment Russia found out about this--and I have to imagine, given how good their intel services are, they did not have to wait for POLITICO to break the story any more than Ukraine. In fact, there is so deep a penetration of Ukraine, I would have to expect that the Russians would have found out at least as early as the Ukrainians did, if not earlier. The moment Ukraine learned and Russia learned, there was harm, because Ukraine knew they couldn't trust us and Russia knew they could take advantage of us. There was immediate harm, and just because someone is caught, because a scheme is thwarted, doesn't make that scheme any less criminal and corrupt. You get no pass when you get caught. I expect one of the defenses you will see is they will play you certain testimony from the House where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ask questions like these: Did the President ever say he was bribing Ukraine? Did you ever see him actually bribe Ukraine? Did you hear him say that he was going to bribe Ukraine? Did you personally see this yourself? If you didn't see it, if he didn't lay it out for you, then it could not have happened. Two plus two does not equal four. You are not allowed to consider anything except for a televised confession by the President, and, even then, don't consider it. So I imagine you will hear some of that testimony where witnesses are asked--they work for the Defense Department: Did the President ever tell you that he was conditioning the aid? Never mind that these are people who don't necessarily even talk to the President, but I expect you will see some of that. As I mentioned before, you will hear the defense say: We claim privilege. You can't impeach the President over the exercise of privilege. Never mind the fact that they never claimed privilege; they never asserted privilege. And do you know why? Do you know why they never actually invoked privilege in the House? It is because they know that if they did, they would have to produce the documents and they would have to show what they were redacting, and they didn't want to do even that. They knew for the overwhelming majority of the documents and witness testimony there was no even colorable claim of privilege. So they didn't even want to invoke it. All they were saying is ``Maybe someday.'' But you will hear that you can't be impeached for a claim of privilege they never made. So what do all these defenses mean? What do they mean? What do they mean collectively when you add them all up? What they mean is, under article II, the President can do whatever he wants. That is really it. That is really it, stripped of all the detail and all the histrionics. What they want us to believe is that the President can do whatever he wants under article II, and there is nothing that you or the House can do about it. Robert Kennedy once said: Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. ``Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle.'' I have to say, when I first read that, I wasn't sure I agreed. Moral courage is a rarer quality than courage in battle. It just doesn't seem right. I wasn't sure I really agreed, and for a Democrat not to agree with a Kennedy is kind of a heresy. I am sure my GOP colleagues feel the same way about the Kennedys from Louisiana. After all, what can be more brave than courage in battle? What could be more rare than courage in battle? But then I got to visit, as I know all of you have, our servicemembers around the world and see just how blessed we are with an abundance of heroes by the millions who have joined the service of this country--servicemembers who, every day, demonstrate the most incredible bravery. I just have the greatest respect for them, for people like Jason Crow and John McCain and Daniel Inouye and so many others who served in this body or the other or who never served in office, by the millions, around the country and around the world--the most incredible respect. It is an amazing thing, how common is their uncommon bravery. My father is 92. He is probably watching. He is part of the ``greatest generation.'' He left high school early to join the service. He tried to enlist in the Marine Corps, and he failed the physical. At the end of World War II, he failed the physical for bad eyesight and flat feet--which was apparently enough to fail the physical. So 2 weeks later, he went and tried to enlist in the Army, thinking: Maybe it is a different physical standard, and even if it isn't, maybe I will get a different physician. As it turned out--same standard, same physician. He recognized my father, and he said: Weren't you here 2 weeks ago? And my father said: Yeah. And he said: Do you really want to get in that bad? And my father said: Yeah. And he was in the Army. So the war was over, and he never left the United States. When he left the service, he went to the University of Alabama. About midway through, he wanted to get on with his life, and he left college and went out into the business world. It is something he will always regret--leaving college early--but I think in many ways he got a better education than I did. I think I was lucky to get a good education, but I think those like Jason--and others who served in the military and also went to school-- got the best education. But I think there are certain things you can only learn by being in the military. Certainly, you can't really learn about war without going to war, and maybe there are things you just can't learn about life without going to war. So those of you who have served have the most complete education I think there is. Even so, is moral courage really more rare than that on a battlefield? And then I saw what Robert Kennedy meant by moral courage. He said: ``Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their peers, the censure of their colleagues, [and] the wrath of their society.'' Then I understood by that measure just how rare moral courage is. How many of us are willing to brave the disapproval of our peers, the censure of our colleagues, and the wrath of our society? Just as those who have not served in the military can't fully understand what service means, so, too, there is a different kind of paternity or sorority among those who have served in the House. I always tell my constituents that there are two kinds of jobs in Congress, and it is not Democrats or Republicans; it is those in a safe seat, and those in an unsafe seat. I am sure the same is true of those in a safe State or an unsafe State. It is why I think there is a certain chemistry between Members who represent those swing districts and States--because they can step into each other's shoes. One of the things that we in this fellowship of officeholders understand that most people don't is that real political courage doesn't come from disagreeing with our opponents but from disagreeing with our friends and with our own party because it means having to stare down accusations of disloyalty and betrayal: He's a Democrat in name only or she's a Republican in name only. What I said last night, if it resonated with anyone in this Chamber, didn't require courage. My views, as heartfelt as they are, reflect the views of my constituents. But what happens when our heartfelt views of right and wrong are in conflict with the popular opinion of our constituents? What happens when the devotion to our oaths, to our values, to our love of country depart from the momentary passion of the large number of people backing us? Those are the times that try our souls. CBS news reported last night that a Trump confidante said that GOP Senators were warned: ``Vote against the President, and your head will be on a pike.'' I don't know if that is true. ``Vote against the President, and your head will be on a pike.'' I have to say when I read that--and again, I don't know if that is true, but when I read that, I was struck by the irony. I hope it is not true. I hope it is not true. I was struck by the irony of the idea, when we are talking about a President who would make himself a Monarch, that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was opposed by a Monarch--``head on a pike.'' Just this week America lost a hero, Thomas Railsback, who passed away on Monday, the day before this trial began. Some of you may have known or even served with Congressman Thomas Railsback. He was a Republican from Illinois and the second ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee when that committee was conducting its impeachment inquiry into President Nixon. In July of 1974, as the inquiry was coming to a close, Congressman Railsback began meeting with a bipartisan group of Members of the House--three other Republicans and three Democrats. Here in the Senate they might have called them the Gang of 7. They gathered and they talked and they labored over language and ultimately helped develop the bipartisan support for the articles that led a group of Republican Senators, including Barry Goldwater and Howard Baker, to tell President Nixon that he must resign. Some say that the Nixon impeachment might not have moved forward were it not for those four courageous Republicans led by Congressman Railsback, and it pained the Congressman because he credited Nixon with giving him his seat and with getting him elected. He did it, he said, because ``seeing all the evidence, it was something we had to do because the evidence was there.'' One of his aides, Ray LaHood, eulogized him saying: He felt an obligation to the Constitution to do what is right. Now, soon, Members of this body will face the most momentous of decisions--not, as I said at the outset, between guilt and innocence, but a far more foundational issue: Should there be a fair trial? Shall the House be able to present its case with witnesses and documents through the use of subpoenas as has been the case in every impeachment trial in history? Now, the President's lawyers have been making their case outside of this Chamber, threatening to stall these proceedings with the assertion of false claims of privilege. Having persuaded this body to postpone consideration of the witnesses and documents, they now appear to be preparing the ground to say it will be too late to consider them next week. But consider this: Of the hundreds of documents that we have subpoenaed, there is no colorable claim and none has been asserted. To the degree that you could even make a claim, that claim has been waived. To the degree that even superficially the claim would attach, it does not conceal misconduct. And what is more, to the degree that there were a dispute over whether a privilege applied, we have a perfectly good judge sitting behind me empowered by the rules of this body to resolve those disputes. When the Chief Justice decides where a narrow application of privilege ought to apply, you will still have the power to overrule him. How often do you get the chance to overrule a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? You have to admit, it is every legislator's dream. So let us not be fooled by the argument that it will take too long or persuaded that the trial must be over before the State of the Union. This is no parking ticket we are contesting and no shoplifting case we are prosecuting. It is a matter of high crimes and misdemeanors. How long is too long to have a fair trial--fair to the President and fair to the American people? The American people do not agree on much, but they will not forgive being deprived of the truth and certainly not because it took a back seat to expediency. In his pamphlet of 1777, ``The American Crisis,'' Thomas Paine wrote: Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must . . . undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Is it too much fatigue to call witnesses and have a fair trial? Are the blessings of freedom so meager that we will not endure the fatigue of a real trial with witnesses and documents? President Lincoln, in his closing message to Congress in December 1862, said this: Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. I think he was the most interesting President in history. He may be the most interesting person in our history. This man, who started out dirt poor--dirt poor. Like hundreds of thousands of other people at the time, he had nothing--no money and no education. He educated himself. He educated himself. But he had a brain in that head, a brilliance in that mind that made him one of the most incredible, not just Presidents, but people in history. I think he is the most interesting character in our history. Out of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of other Americans at the time, why him? Why him? I think a lot about history, as I know you do. Sometimes I think about how unforgiving history can be of our conduct. We can do a lifetime's work, draft the most wonderful legislation, help our constituents, and yet we may be remembered for none of that. But for a single decision, we may be remembered, affecting the course of our country. I believe this may be one of those moments--a moment we never thought we would see, a moment when our democracy was gravely threatened and not from without but from within. Russia, too, has a constitution. It is not a bad constitution. It is just a meaningless one. In Russia, they have trial by telephone. They have the same ostensible rights we do to a trial. They hear evidence and witnesses, but before the verdict is rendered, the judge picks up the telephone and calls the right person to find out how it is supposed to turn out. Trial by telephone. Is that what we have here--a trial by telephone, someone on the other end of the phone dictating what this trial should look like? The Founders gave us more than words. They gave us inspiration. They may have receded into mythology, but they inspire us still. And more than us, they inspire the rest of the world. They inspire the rest of the world. From their prison cells in Turkey, journalists look to us. From their internment camps in China, they look to us. From their cells in Egypt, those who gathered in Tahrir Square for a better life look to us. From the Philippines, those who were the victims and their families of mass extrajudicial killings, they look to us. From Elgin prison, they look to us. From all over the world, they look to us. Increasingly, they don't recognize what they see. It is a terrible tragedy for them. It is a worse tragedy for us, because there is nowhere else for them to turn. They are not going to turn to Russia. They are not going to turn to China. They are not going to turn to Europe with all of its problems. They look to us because we are still the indispensable Nation. They look to us because we have a rule of law. They look to us because no one is above that law. One of the things that separates us from those people in Elgin prison is the right to a trial. It is a right to a trial. Americans get a fair trial. So I am asking you. I implore you. Give America a fair trial. Give America a fair trial. She is worth it.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 10:00 a.m., Saturday, January 25, and that this order also constitute the adjournment of the Senate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, it is my understanding the schedule today will be similar to yesterday's proceedings. We will plan to take short breaks every 2 or 3 hours and will accommodate a 30-minute recess for dinner, assuming that is needed.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I am going to recommend that we take a 15-minute break at this point.

Mr. McCONNELL. I understand the presentations will continue for a while, and I would suggest a dinner break at 6:30 for 30 minutes.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that we have a break for 30 minutes.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, after consulting with Congressman Schiff, it looks like roughly 10:30 tonight. So we may need a short break somewhere between now and 10:30.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, the House managers have requested a 5-minute break.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, if I may, one brief announcement: In the morning, there will be a coronavirus briefing for all Members at 10:30. Senator Alexander and Senator Murray are involved in that. The location will be emailed to your office. Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Chief Justice Roberts, Senators, and counsel for the President, we have now been through the first two official acts by the President. But neither of those official acts got the President what he wanted--help in his reelection campaign. So he turned to another official act to turn up the pressure even more--withholding nearly $400 million of vital military assistance to Ukraine in exchange for the investigations. Withholding military assistance to Ukraine made the original abuse of power, soliciting foreign interference in our elections, that much worse. But it was also in and of itself an abuse of power. And not only that, it violated the law. It was illegal. The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan, independent agency, concluded that President Trump's hold on the security assistance clearly violated the Empowerment Control Act, a law that Congress enacted to curb President Nixon's own abuse of power. President Trump may not like it, but once a law is passed, the President cannot change that law without coming back to us, the Congress. And President Trump did not just break the law, he jeopardized our national security, because Ukraine's national security is our national security. How? Because a free and democratic Ukraine is a shield against Russian aggression in Europe. That has been one of America's most important foreign policy and national security goals since World War II. Freedom, liberty, democracy--those values keep us safe. Let us now explain how President Trump's improper withholding of military assistance was clearly done to pressure Ukraine to announce the two baseless investigations--a gross abuse of power. First, we will briefly describe how important the military aid was to Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, which affects our security. Second, we will explain how President Trump used the power of his office to freeze military aid to Ukraine in a way meant to conceal it from Congress. And third, we will present the overwhelming evidence that President Trump ordered the hold for a corrupt purpose: to pressure Ukraine to announce two investigations that would personally benefit his own reelection effort. Let us start with the importance of the aid to our--the United States'--national security. The United States has supported Ukraine since it secured independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Our support was critical to convince Ukraine to forgo its pursuit of a nuclear arsenal in 1994. We promised them that we would defend them if necessary. But our support became truly vital in 2014, when Ukraine revolted against its Russian-friendly President, Viktor Yanukovych. Ukrainian citizens rose up in protest, demanding democratic reforms and an end to corruption. The protests, rightly known as the Revolution of Dignity, removed the pro-Kremlin President. Russia responded by using its own military forces and proxies in Ukraine to invade Ukraine. This was the first effort to redraw European boundaries by military force since World War II. The war was devastating to Ukraine and remains so today. Approximately 7 percent of Ukraine's territory is now occupied by Russia. Approximately 15,000 people have been killed as a result of the conflict, and over 1.4 million people have been displaced. In response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United States and our allies imposed sanctions on Russian individuals and entities and agreed to provide billions of dollars in assistance to support Ukrainian sovereignty and democratic development. We understood immediately, Democrats and Republicans alike, that Ukraine's safety and security was directly tied to our safety and security. With this all in mind, since 2014, the United States has delivered roughly $1.5 billion in security assistance and another $1.5 billion in other assistance to our ally Ukraine. Our allies in Europe have provided approximately $18 billion in loans and grants since 2014. As we have explained, the U.S. assistance comes partially from the Department of Defense, which provides important military support. It comes partially from the State Department, which helps Ukraine purchase military services or equipment manufactured by American companies in the United States. Ambassador Taylor explained how security assistance counters Russian aggression and can help shorten the war in the east. Here is his testimony: (Text of Videotape presentation:) Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, the security assistance that we provide takes many forms. One of the components of that assistance is counter-battery radar. Another component are sniper weapons. These weapons and this assistance allows the Ukrainian military to deter further incursions by the Russians against Ukrainian territory. If that further incursion, further aggression, were to take place, more Ukrainians would die. So it is a deterrent effect that these weapons provide. It's also the ability--it gives the Ukrainians the ability to negotiate from a position of a little more strength when they negotiate an end to the war in Donbas, negotiating with the Russians. This also is a way that would reduce the numbers of Ukrainians who would die. Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Congress imposed certain conditions on the DOD assistance. Those conditions require DOD to hold half of the money in reserve. To release all of the funds, DOD, in coordination with the State Department, must conduct a review and certify to Congress that Ukraine has done enough to fight corruption. President Trump may argue that the conditions imposed by Congress are similar to the hold he placed on aid to Ukraine. As Mick Mulvaney said, ``[w]e do that all the time.'' But let us be very clear: These types of conditions, which are often included in appropriations bills, are designed to promote official U.S. policy, not the policy of one individual or one President. This is exactly the type of permissible condition on aid that Vice President Biden was implementing when he required that Ukraine fire its corrupt prosecutor general before getting a loan guarantee. Prior to 2019, the Trump administration provided security assistance to Ukraine without incident. Even under the previous Ukrainian administration of President Petro Poroshenko--which suffered from serious corruption--President Trump allowed $510 million in 2017 and $359 million in 2018 to flow unimpeded to Ukraine. But in the summer of 2019, without any explanation, President Trump abruptly withheld the security assistance for Ukraine. So what had changed by July of 2019? Congress had appropriated the funds. President Trump had signed this into law. The Department of Defense had certified that Ukraine was meeting the required anti- corruption reforms. In fact, DOD had begun to spend the funds. So what happened? Well, in April, two critical things happened. First, Joe Biden publicly announced his campaign for President. Second, the Mueller investigation concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections to assist the Trump campaign and that the Trump campaign had extensive contacts with Russians and even took advantage of some of the Russian efforts. The evidence shows that the only reason--the only logical reason, and we deal in what is reasonable--President Trump withheld the aid was to undermine these threats to his political future. As we have discussed, security assistance to Ukraine has broad bipartisan support from Congress, as well as every agency within the President's own administration. Let us be clear about something. The money mattered to Ukraine. It mattered to Ukraine. Witness testimony revealed that this money was 10 percent of Ukraine's defense budget--10 percent. Now imagine if President Trump just decided without cause or explanation to hold 10 percent of our own defense budget. That would have a dramatic impact on our military. It certainly did to Ukraine, our ally. Keep in mind, too, that President Trump had to sign the bill into law, which he did in September of 2018. At no time--at no time--through the congressional debate or passage of the bill did the White House express any concerns about the funding or the program itself. I want you to see the slide before us. It shows President Trump signs the bill authorizing aid to Ukraine for fiscal year 2019. On June 18, President Trump's own Department of Defense certified that Ukraine had met all of the anti-corruption requirements necessary to receive aid. And do you know what? The Department of Defense announced that the money was on its way, just as we, the United States of America, had promised. Senators, our word must continue to mean something. Our word must continue to mean something powerful in the world. So let us make certain that America continues to live up to its promise. Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, thank you so much for the attention that you have given to our presentation throughout this day. It is a long day. You are here without your cell phones or any access to other information. It is not easy, but you are paying attention, and the country and the managers thank you for that. We have just gone through the importance of security assistance to Ukraine to our national security and the clear consensus among Congress, the Executive, and the President's agencies and advisers that the aid should be released to Ukraine. In fact, by June 18, after having certified that Ukraine had met all the anti-corruption reform requirements to receive the aid, DOD announced its intention to provide the $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine. This brings us to the second part of this section of our argument. Soon after that June 18 press release, President Trump quickly moved to stop the aid from flowing. He did this with no explanation, against the clear consensus of his advisers and his agencies, and against our Nation's security interests. He was so determined to do it in order to pressure Ukraine to do his political dirty work that he was willing to violate the law, something his own officials were well aware of and worried about. How do we know the President ordered the hold? First, there is no real dispute that the President ordered the hold. The hold on security assistance to Ukraine was a unilateral official act by the President. Immediately after the DOD's June 18 press release announcing the $250 million in security assistance funds for Ukraine, President Trump started asking questions about the funding program. Laura Cooper from DOD and Mark Sandy from OMB testified about this sudden interest in Ukraine security assistance, something that Cooper called unusual. We, of course, have received no documents from OMB and DOD because of the President's obstruction. Why did the President want to hide these documents? We don't know, but thanks to Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and hard-working reporters, we know a little from the documents that we do have. For instance, we know that the day after the DOD press release, the President asked for information about the Ukraine aid. On June 19, Michael Duffey, the Associate Director for National Security Programs at OMB, sent an email to Elaine McCusker, the DOD comptroller, with an article by the Washington Examiner reporting: ``Pentagon to send $250M in weapons to Ukraine.'' In Duffey's email, he asked McCusker the following question: The President has asked about this funding release, and I have been tasked to follow-up with someone over there to get more detail. Do you have insight on this funding? It seems that on June 19, Robert Blair, Mick Mulvaney's deputy, called Acting OMB Director Russell Vought to discuss Ukraine's security assistance. He told him: ``We need to hold it up.'' That is right. The hold was actually directed impulsively without any policy or agency review as soon as President Trump learned about it from a press release. We know what was on the President's mind about Ukraine that day because President Trump gave a phone interview with Sean Hannity on FOX News. During the interview, he mentioned the so-called CrowdStrike conspiracy theory that blames Ukraine rather than Russia for interfering in the 2016 election. Remember, President Trump raised the CrowdStrike theory a month later during his July 25 call with President Zelensky. Of course--and this has been said many times-- that theory has been completely refuted by U.S. intelligence agencies, as well as the President's own handpicked senior advisers. The New York Times also reported that on June 27, Mick Mulvaney sent Blair an email. Mulvaney wrote: I am just trying to tie up some loose ends. Did we ever find out about the money to Ukraine and whether we can hold it back? What was Blair's response to Mulvaney? That it was possible to hold security assistance, but he warned: ``Expect Congress to become unhinged.'' Blair, who previously worked for Congress, knew that Congress would be ``unhinged'' because there was overwhelming bipartisan support for Ukraine. Congress had already authorized the release of the funds. DOD had already told Congress and the world that it was going to spend the $250 million on Ukraine security assistance, and it had already started to do so. Mark Sandy, the senior career official at OMB responsible for this type of aid, couldn't recall any other time in his 12-year career at OMB when a hold was placed on security assistance after a congressional notification was made. Later, if the President's counsel starts listing other times that aid has been held, ask yourself three questions. One, had Congress already cleared the money to be released; two, was there a significant geopolitical development in that country; and three, did the GAO determine that the hold was illegal, in part, because Congress was not notified? Here, the money had been cleared. There was nothing new or important in Ukraine to disrupt the aid--just that a true anti-corruption reformer was elected. The hold was illegal. From freedom of information releases and press reports, we know about just a few of the many documents being hidden from you about how the hold began. Given President Trump's obstruction with the facts that have come to light through the Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and news reporting, you may assume the documents that are being withheld would probably incriminate the President; otherwise, why wouldn't he have provided them? If he had a legitimate executive privilege claim, he could follow the rules and make each claim. Instead, he just said no--no to everything. By mid-July, the President had put a hold on all the money. Jennifer Williams, special adviser to Vice President Pence for Europe, learned about the hold on July 3. She said it came ``out of the blue'' and hadn't previously been discussed by OMB or the National Security Council. The hold was never discussed with any policy experts in any of the relevant agencies. That is remarkable. President Trump ordered a hold on congressionally appropriated funds without the benefit of any interagency deliberation, consultation, or advice. The evidence shows the President's hold was an impulsive decision unrelated to any American policy. On July 12, Robert Blair, Mulvaney's deputy, emailed Duffey at OMB. He said ``the President is directing a hold on military support funding for Ukraine.'' This is according to Sandy, the career officer at OMB who got a copy of the email. Now, we don't have a copy of the email because of the President's obstruction, but here is what we do know from Mr. Sandy's description of the email, as well as testimony from other witnesses. The hold was not part of a larger review of foreign aid. We do know it was not the result of a policy debate about what was best for America. It came ``out of the blue.'' We now know why it was done: to turn the screws on Ukraine to provide political help for the President. The hold was immediately suspect simply because of its timing. Duffey later asked Blair about the reason for the hold. Blair gave no explanation. Instead he said ``we need to let the hold take place'' and then ``revisit'' the issue with the President. Blair either didn't know the reason or wouldn't share the real reason because it was corrupt. It sure would be nice to know what Blair knew about the reason for the hold and what Duffey knew. We could ask them the question if you authorize a subpoena. Now, we had hoped, as we said, that the Senate would authorize subpoenas before our arguments were made. We thought it would have been helpful. But we know that you will have another opportunity to call witnesses, to require documents, and we hope that your decision will be informed by the arguments we are making to you over these days and that you will, in fact, get the full story. Well, we do know actually the reason why the President did what he did. We know the President held the money. It wasn't because of any policy reason to benefit America or any concern about corruption in Ukraine or any desire for more burden-sharing from other countries. It was because the President was upset that Ukraine was not announcing the investigations that he wanted because he wanted to ramp up pressure to force them to do it. From the very beginning, it was clear the hold was not in America's national interest. Those within the U.S. Government responsible for Ukraine security and for shaping and implementing U.S. foreign policy were caught off guard by the President's decision. Support for the aid and against the hold was unanimous, forceful, and unwavering. The President can call Ukraine policy experts ``unelected bureaucrats'' all he wants, but those are officers charged with implementing his official policy developed by the President himself, which was also a product of congressional action. Anyway, it wasn't just the career officers. President Trump's own politically appointed senior officials--his Cabinet members--also opposed the hold. Why? Because it was against our national interest. But the President wasn't persuaded by arguments about national interest. Why? Because the hold had nothing to do with the national interest. It had to do with the interest of just one person, Donald J. Trump. The demand for Ukraine to announce these investigations was not a policy decision but a personal decision by the President to benefit his own personal interest. At an NSC-led meeting on July 8, OMB announced that President Trump had directed a hold on Ukraine security assistance. The news shocked meeting participants. Ambassador Taylor testified that he and others on the call ``sat in astonishment'' when they learned about the hold. He immediately ``realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened.'' David Holmes, political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, testified he was ``shocked'' and thought the hold was ``extremely significant'' because it undermined what he understood to be longstanding U.S. policy in Ukraine. Catherine Croft, the State Department special adviser for Ukraine, testified that the announcement ``blew up the meeting.'' Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent said. ``There was great confusion among the rest of us because we didn't understand why that had happened.'' He explained: Since there was unanimity about this security assistance to Ukraine, it was in our national interest, it just surprised all of us. The policy consensus at this and later NSC meetings was clear. With the exception of OMB, which was following the direction of the President, everyone supported lifting the hold. All the way up to the No. 2 officials at the agencies--the political appointees of President Trump--there was unanimous agreement that the hold was ill-advised and the aid should be released. Tim Morrison, national security adviser to John Bolton, understood that the most senior appointed officials ``were all supportive of the continued disbursement of the aid.'' On August 15, at the President's golf club in Bedminster, NJ, members of the President's Cabinet ``all represented to Ambassador Bolton that they were prepared to tell President they endorsed the swift release and disbursement of the funding.'' The President ignored his advisers' recommendation to lift the hold. He provided no credible explanation for it--not from the day the hold was made until the day it was lifted. Witness after witness--including Hale, Vindman, Croft, Holmes, Kent, Cooper, Sandy--testified they weren't given any reason for the hold while it was in place. Croft said: ``[T]he only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the President.'' Mr. Holmes confirmed: ``The order had come from the President without further explanation.'' Kent testified too: ``I don't recall any coherent explanation.'' Ambassador Sondland agreed: ``I was never given a straight answer as to why it had been put in place to begin with.'' Dr. Hill explained: ``No, there was no reason given.'' Even Senator McConnell has said: ``I was not given an explanation for the hold.'' Even as OMB was implementing the hold, officers in OMB were saying it should be lifted. Mr. Sandy testified that his team drafted a memo on August 7 to OMB Acting Director Russ Vought. It recommended lifting the hold because of, one, the assistance was consistent with national security to support a stable, peaceful Europe; two, the aid countered Russian aggression; and three, there was bipartisan support for the program. Michael Duffey, the senior political appointee overseeing funds, approved the memorandum. He agreed with the policy recommendations, and it wasn't just OMB. Senior advisers in the administration tried over and over again to convince President Trump to lift the hold over the summer. Sometime prior to August 16, Ambassador Bolton had a one-on-one meeting with President Trump about the aid. The President didn't budge. Then, at the end of August, when the hold on the aid became public, Ambassador Taylor expressed to multiple officials his concerns about withholding the aid from Ukraine at a time when it was fighting Russia. Ambassador Taylor stressed the importance of the hold not just as a message to Ukraine but, importantly, to Russia as well. Withholding the aid on vital military assistance while Ukraine was in the midst of a hot war with Russia sent a message to Russia about U.S. support of Ukraine. Ambassador Taylor felt so strongly about the harm withholding the security assistance that for the first time ever in his decades of service at the State Department, he sent a first-person cable with his concerns to Secretary Pompeo. In the cable, he described directly the ``folly'' that Taylor saw in withholding the aid. Here is his testimony. (Text of Videotape presentation:) Patrick MALONEY: Have you ever sent a cable like that? How many times in your career of 40, 50 years have you sent a cable directly to the Secretary of State? Bill TAYLOR: Once. Patrick MALONEY: This time? Bill TAYLOR: Yes, sir. Patrick MALONEY: In 50 years? Bill TAYLOR: Rifle company commanders don't send cables, but yes, sir. Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Ambassador Taylor never received an answer to the cable, but he was told that Secretary Pompeo carried it with him to a White House meeting about security assistance to Ukraine. It seemed this meeting about the aid may have occurred on August 30. There are press reports that Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Esper, and National Security Advisor Bolton discussed the hold with President Trump shortly after Ambassador Taylor sent his cable. Keep this in mind. This was 2 days after the hold was publicly reported and after the President was briefed on the whistleblower complaint. Yet, even then, President Trump refused to release the aid. On August 30, Michael Duffey sent an email to Elaine McCusker, the DOD comptroller. It said: ``Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.'' President Trump has refused to produce this or any other email to Congress. When the administration was forced to produce it in a freedom of information case in response to a court order, this critical passage was actually blacked out. What is the reason for blacking out this direction from the President about an issue so central to this case? No reason has been given to us. So you should ask yourself this: What is the President hiding? The President finally released the hold on September 11, but, again, there was no credible reason given for the release. Mark Sandy testified that he could not recall another instance ``where a significant amount of assistance was being held up'' and he ``didn't have a rationale in this case.'' On the day it was released, OMB still didn't know why President Trump had ordered the hold. On September 11, the day the President finally released the aid, McCusker at DOD reportedly sent an email to Duffey asking: ``What happened?'' Michael Duffey answered: ``Not exactly clear but President made the decision to go. Will fill you in when I get details.'' So let's take a step back for a minute. Why was no reason given to anyone for the President deciding to hold up hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to our allies? Because there was no supportable reason for withholding the aid. No one agreed with it. According to the 17 witnesses in the House impeachment inquiry, President Trump insisted on holding the aid and provided no reason, despite unanimous support for lifting the hold throughout his administration, including his handpicked top advisers. It also wasn't consistent with American policy. The aid had the clear support of career officers and political appointees in President Trump's administration as important for national security. There was no national security or foreign policy reason provided. No one could think of one. DOD had already certified to Congress, as the law required, that Ukraine had met the anti-corruption conditions for the aid and that it planned to begin implementing the expenditures. So why did the President do this? I think we know why. The President ordered the hold for an improper purpose: to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would personally benefit President Trump. That brings us to a key point. It wasn't just that the President ordered a hold on the aid without any explanation against the unanimous advice of his advisers and even after, for weeks, as his administration--both career and political appointees--continued to try to get him to release the hold. What the President was trying to hide was worse. What the President did was not just wrong; it was illegal. In ordering the hold, President Trump not only took a position contrary to his senior advisers, counter to congressional intent, and adverse to American national security interests in Ukraine, he also violated the law. This issue was not a surprise. From the start of the hold in July, compliance of the Impoundment Control Act was a significant concern for OMB and DOD officials. Mark Sandy raised concerns with his supervisor, Michael Duffey, that the hold might violate Impoundment Control Act. DOD voiced the same concerns. Laura Cooper from DOD described the discussion at a July 26 meeting with No. 2 officials at all of the relevant agencies about the hold, stating: ``Immediately, deputies began to raise concerns about how this could be done in a legal fashion.'' She further testified that there was no legal mechanism to use to implement the hold after Congress had been notified of the release of the funding. At a July 31 meeting with more junior officials, Laura Cooper put all attendees on notice, including representatives of the White House, that because ``there were only two legally available options, and we do not have direction to pursue either,'' DOD would have to start spending the funds on or about August 6. In other words, the President had a choice. He could release the aid, or he could break the law. He chose to break the law. He was so determined to turn up the pressure on Ukraine that he kept the hold for no legitimate purpose and without any congressional notification for long enough to violate the law. The concerns from OMB and DOD were ultimately accurate. As has been mentioned just last week, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that President Trump broke the law by implementing the hold and in failing to notify Congress about it. Because of the President's hold, DOD was ultimately unable to spend all the $250 million in security assistance before the end of the fiscal year, as Congress--as we--intended. As GAO explained, the Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation. And they further explained: Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own constitutional priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The bottom line, President Trump froze the aid to increase the pressure on Ukraine to announce the investigations he wanted. He violated the law. He violated his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. But the President didn't just violate the Impoundment Control Act while pressuring Ukraine to announce the investigations he wanted. He was dishonest about it in the process. This is really telling because he is still not telling the truth about it even now. The budget documents that implemented the hold until September 11 asserted that it was being imposed to ``allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.'' But that wasn't true. There was no ongoing interagency process after July 31 after it became clear that the entire interagency, including Cabinet offices, unanimously agreed the aid should be released. The truth is, there simply was no debate or review in the interagency regarding the best use of such funds. So the reason given by the President was not only illegal; it was false too. The dishonesty in the budget documents weren't the only steps that the President's men at OMB took to cover up his misconduct and enable his scheme. OMB went so far as to remove the authority to approve the budget documents from Mark Sandy, a career officer, and gave it to Michael Duffey, a political appointee without experience managing such documents. This change was unusual. It occurred less than 2 weeks after Sandy raised concerns that the hold violated the law. Sandy was not aware of any prior instance when a political appointee assumed this kind of funding approval authority. Duffey's explanation that he simply wanted to learn more about the accounts doesn't make sense to Sandy. Really? This odd change in responsibility was just another way to keep the President's illegal hold within a tight-knit unit of loyal soldiers within the OMB. Michael Duffey defied the House's subpoena. At the President's direction, he refused to appear. The White House did not assert any privileges or immunities when it directed Duffey to defy Congress's subpoena. It wasn't a real exercise of executive privilege. They told him not to appear, and they had no reason why. If Mr. Duffey knew about any legitimate reason for the hold, I will bet he would not have been blocked from testifying. The fact that he was blocked might lead you to infer that his testimony would be damaging to the President and would be consistent with the testimony of the other witnesses that the hold was solely used to ratchet up pressure on Ukraine. But the warning from DOD wasn't just about how the hold was illegal. There were also practical consequences. By August 12, the Department of Defense told OMB it could no longer guarantee it would be able to spend all $250 million that Congress had directed before the end of the fiscal year. Not long after this August 12 email, DOD determined that time had run out. Ms. Cooper testified that DOD estimated that as much as $100 million of aid might go unspent, even if the hold was immediately lifted. As a result, DOD refused to certify that it would be able to spend the funds by September 30. On August 20, OMB issued the first of six budget documents and removed the language providing legal cover for the hold. From that point on, the White House knew that DOD would not be able to spend all the funds, which was what the law required before September 30. Yet, even though he knew the hold would violate the Impoundment Control Act, President Trump continued the hold for another 23 days without telling us--without telling the Congress. This had the exact outcome that DOD feared. After the President lifted the hold on the evening of September 11, DOD had only 18 days to spend the remaining $223 million, which is about 89 percent of the total. DOD scrambled, and they spent all but approximately $35 million. About 14 percent of the appropriated funds were left. That $35 million would have expired and would have been forever lost to Ukraine had Congress not stepped in to pass a law to roll the money over to the next year. But even as of today, more than $18 million of that money has not yet been spent. Why? You will have to ask DOD. They haven't given us a reason. OK, all of this shows, clearly, that President Trump knowingly and willfully violated the law when he withheld aid from Ukraine. But just to be clear, the Articles of Impeachment do not charge Donald Trump with violating the Impoundment Control Act. We are not arguing that, but understanding this violation of the law is important to understanding the broader scheme of his abuse of power. It shows the great lengths the President was willing to go to in order to pressure Ukraine to do his political dirty work. The security assistance wasn't something the law allowed him to give or take at his discretion. No, he was legally obliged to release the money, but he simply didn't care. Why? He was so determined to get the announcement from Ukraine to smear his election opponent that holding the aid to force Ukraine to do that was the most important thing. He didn't care if he was breaking the law. I have been sitting here on the Senate floor. Honestly, I never wanted to be here under these circumstances. But I have been looking at ``novus ordo seclorum.'' Now, I didn't study Latin. So I had to look it up. It means: ``A new order of the ages is born.'' That is what the Founders thought they were doing. Keeping that new order, the democracy, where the power is in the hands of the people, not in the hands of an unaccountable executive, is what we in the Congress--the House and the Senate--are charged to do. Senator Blunt and I are in charge of the Joint Committee on Printing. Every year, we print a new copy of the Constitution. This year, in the back, we printed a quote: ``At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, `What have you wrought?' He answered, ` . . . a Republic, if you can keep it.' '' That is the challenge that all of us face, and that you Senators face. I turn now to Mr. Crow, who will outline information about the President's intentions. Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, counsel for the President, just bear with us a little while longer. I promise, we are almost there. You have heard a lot the last few days about what happened. How do we know that the President ordered the hold to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that would help his personal political campaign? In other words, how do we know why it happened? We know it because, to this day, there is no other explanation. We know it because senior administration officials, including the President's own senior political appointees, have confirmed it. We know it because the President's own Chief of Staff said it at a national press conference. And we know it because the President himself directed it. Here are the facts. One, the President asked President Zelensky for a favor on July 25, and we all know what that favor was. Two, multiple U.S. officials with fact-based knowledge of the process have confirmed it. Three, President Trump lifted the hold only after his scheme was exposed. Four, there were no other legitimate explanations for the release of the hold. It was not based on a legitimate review of the foreign aid. It was not based on concerns of corruption in Ukraine. It was not because President Trump wanted countries to pay more. There are no facts that show that the President cared about any of those things. Five, as we know, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted at a press conference that the bogus 2016 election interference allegations were ``why we held up the money.'' Eventually, the truth comes out. There was no legitimate policy reason for holding the aid. So the truth came out. As Ambassador Sondland said, the President was a businessman who saw congressionally approved, taxpayer-funded military aid for Ukraine, our partner at war, as just another business deal to be made. Military aid in exchange for fabricated dirt on his political opponent. Dirt for dollars. This for that. A quid pro quo. Let's start with the President's own words to President Zelensky on the July 25 call. With the hold on his mind and on President Zelensky's mind, too--we know that--President Trump linked military aid to his request for a favor. At the very beginning of the call, President Zelensky said: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. The ``great support in the area of defense'' included, of course, the $391 million in military aid, because remember, just a month before, DOD had publicly announced its intent to provide $250 million of that aid. President Zelensky was showing gratitude to the President for the aid that DOD had just announced would be on its way. But the President had put a hold just a few weeks before. Immediately after President Zelensky brought up the U.S. military support and said that Ukraine was almost ready to buy more Javelin anti-tank missiles, President Trump pivoted to what he wanted in return. He turned from the quid to the quo. President Trump immediately responded. He said: ``I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.'' And what was that favor? Well, we all know by now; don't we? It wasn't to fight corruption. It wasn't to help the United States or our national interests. It was the two specific political investigations that he wanted Ukraine to announce to help his own personal political campaign. President Trump's quick pivot from the critical military aid that he knew Ukraine desperately needed to the investigations that would benefit him personally speaks volumes. By bringing up the investigations immediately after President Zelensky raised the issue of military support, he linked the two issues. U.S. officials listening to the call also made that connection. Here is what Jennifer Williams, Vice President Pence's aide, testified: (Text of Videotape presentation:) Mr. SCHIFF. But I was struck by something else you said in your deposition. You said that it shed some light on possible other motivations behind the security assistance hold. What did you mean by that? Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I was asked during the closed- door testimony how I felt about the call; and, in reflecting on what I was thinking in that moment, it was the first time I had heard internally the President reference particular investigations that previously I had only heard about through Mr. Giuliani's press interviews and press reporting. So, in that moment, it was not clear whether there was a direct connection or linkage between the ongoing hold on security assistance and what the President may be asking President Zelensky to undertake in regard to investigations. So I--it was--it was noteworthy in that regard. I did not have enough information to draw any firm conclusions. Mr. SCHIFF. But it raised a question in your mind as to whether the two were related. Ms. WILLIAMS. It was the first I had heard of any requests of Ukraine which were that specific in nature. So it was noteworthy to me in that regard. Mr. Manager CROW. In fact, the hold was formally implemented by OMB the very day of the call. Just hours after the call between President Trump and President Zelensky, Duffey sent an email to senior DOD officials instructing them to put a hold on the security aid. He said he underscored: ``Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute the direction.'' In other words, don't tell anybody about it. If the President ordered the hold for a legitimate policy reason, then why did he want to hide it from the rest of the administration? President Trump has obstructed Congress's ability to get those answers. We would like to ask Duffey why they wanted to keep it quiet. There is more evidence, of course--a lot more. In fact, there is so much evidence that, according to witnesses, the fact that the security assistance was conditioned on investigations became as clear as ``two plus two equals four.'' Everyone knew it. Indeed, with no explanation for the hold, unanimous support for its release in the administration, and ongoing efforts by the President's top advisers to pressure Ukraine into announcing the investigations by holding up the White House meeting, it became crystal clear, as confirmed by multiple witnesses, that the only reason for the hold was to put additional pressure on Ukraine. David Holmes, the senior official at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, explained. (Text of Videotape presentation:) GOLDMAN. Mr. Holmes, you have testified that by late August you had a clear impression that the security assistance hold was somehow connected to the investigation that President Trump wanted. How did you conclude that--how did you reach that clear conclusion? HOLMES. We'd been hearing about the investigation since March, months before. President Zelensky had received a letter, a congratulatory letter, from the President saying he'd be pleased to meet him following his inauguration in May. And we hadn't been able to get that meeting, and then the security hold came up with no explanation. I'd be surprised if any of the Ukrainians . . . you said earlier, we discussed earlier, sophisticated people . . . when they received no explanation for why that hold was in place, they wouldn't have drawn that conclusion. GOLDMAN. Because the investigations were still being pursued? HOLMES. Correct. GOLDMAN. And the hold was still remaining without explanation? HOLMES. Correct. GOLDMAN. This to you was the only logical conclusion that you could reach? HOLMES. Correct. GOLDMAN. Sort of like two plus two equals four? HOLMES. Exactly. Mr. Manager CROW. And Ambassador Sondland said the same thing. (Text of Videotape presentation:) GOLDMAN. So, is this kind of a two plus two equals four conclusion that you reached? SONDLAND. Pretty much. GOLDMAN. Is the only logical conclusion to you that, given all of these factors, that the aid was also a part of this quid pro quo? SONDLAND. Yep. Mr. Manager CROW. Ambassador Sondland didn't reach that conclusion based only on common sense. It was confirmed by Secretary Pompeo and Vice President Pence, too. So let's begin with what Secretary Pompeo knew about the link between the investigations and the aid. In front of you is an email. At the end of August, before President Trump canceled his trip to Warsaw to meet with President Zelensky, Sondland sent an email to Secretary Pompeo in which he proposed a pull-aside between President Zelensky and President Trump at the proposed meeting in Warsaw. Three minutes later, Secretary Pompeo replied ``yes.'' That is it. Ambassador Sondland explained the email in his testimony. (Text of Videotape presentation:) The CHAIRMAN. Later in August, you told Secretary Pompeo that President Zelensky would be prepared to tell President Trump that his new justice officials would be able to announce matters of interest to the President, which could break the logjam. When you say matters of interest to the President, you mean the investigations that President Trump wanted. Is that right? Ambassador SONDLAND. Correct. The CHAIRMAN. And that involved 2016 and Burisma or the Bidens? Ambassador SONDLAND. 2016 and Burisma. The CHAIRMAN. And when you're talking here about breaking the logjam, you're talking about the logjam over the security assistance, correct? Ambassador SONDLAND. I was talking logjam generically because nothing was moving. The CHAIRMAN. But that included the security assistance, did it not? Ambassador SONDLAND. Correct. The CHAIRMAN. And based on the context of that email, this was not the first time you had discussed these investigations with Secretary Pompeo, is it? Ambassador SONDLAND. No. The CHAIRMAN. He was aware of the connections that you were making between the investigations and the White House meeting and the security assistance? Ambassador SONDLAND. Yes. Mr. Manager CROW. So let's break that down for a minute. A meeting between two Presidents is a big deal. A pull-aside is a big deal. These are highly choreographed events. Secretary Pompeo didn't ask any questions and didn't show any surprise or confusion in response to the email. Instead, he immediately endorsed the idea. This shows that Secretary Pompeo, who also listened to the July 25 call as well, understood that the security assistance was conditioned on the investigations. By this time, everyone knew what was happening. A simple ``yes'' by Secretary Pompeo was enough. Secretary Pompeo wasn't the only senior official who knew. Vice President Pence knew as well. Sondland raised the issue to Vice President Pence during a meeting to prepare for the Warsaw trip. At some point late in the meeting, Sondland said: ``It appears that everything is stalled until this statement gets made.'' What Sondland was referring to, of course, was the military aid and the White House meeting. Ambassador Sondland testified about Vice President Pence's reaction. (Text of Videotape presentation:) GOLDMAN. Now, I want to go back to that conversation that you had with Vice President Pence right before that meeting in Warsaw. And you indicated that you said to him that you were concerned that the delay in the aid was tied to the issue of investigations. Is that right? SONDLAND. I don't know exactly what I said to him. This was a briefing attended by many people, and I was invited at the very last minute. I wasn't scheduled to be there. But I think I spoke up at some point late in the meeting and said, it looks like everything is being held up until these statements get made, and that's my, you know, personal belief. GOLDMAN. And Vice President Pence just nodded his head? SONDLAND. Again, I don't recall any exchange or where he asked me any questions. I think he, it was sort of a duly noted response. GOLDMAN. Well, he didn't say, Gordon, what are you talking about? SONDLAND. No, he did not. GOLDMAN. He didn't say, what investigations? SONDLAND. He did not. Mr. Manager CROW. Like Secretary Pompeo, Vice President Pence wasn't surprised, nor did he ask what Sondland meant--because they all knew. This meeting also confirmed Sondland's understanding that the President had indeed conditioned the military aid on the public announcement of the investigations. This was a commonsense conclusion, confirmed by the Secretary of State and the Vice President. With that confirmation in mind, Sondland pulled aside Yermak, the top aide to President Zelensky, immediately after the Pence-Zelensky meeting. Now, recall, he was the one who resisted the public statement about the specific investigations in August. Ambassador Sondland described what he told Yermak in that short meeting. (Text of Videotape presentation:) SONDLAND. Based on my previous communication with Secretary Pompeo, I felt comfortable sharing my concerns with Mr. Yermak. It was a very, very brief pull-aside conversation that happened within a few seconds. I told Mr. Yermak that I believed that the resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine took some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. Mr. Manager CROW. You see, this just wasn't an internal scheme among the President's top advisers. President Trump, through his agents, communicated the quid pro quo clearly to Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland told President Zelensky's top aide on September 1 that Ukraine would not get the military aid unless it announced the investigations. This, my Senate colleagues, is the very definition of a quid pro quo. But other witnesses know it, too. Morrison watched Sondland's conversation with Yermak and then received an immediate readout from Sondland after that meeting. Morrison urgently reported the interaction to Ambassador Bolton on a secure phone call, and, of course, Bolton told him to go tell the NSC lawyers. Morrison did as he was instructed. He also told Ambassador Taylor. Ambassador Taylor then confronted Sondland. Taylor texted: ``Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?'' Sondland responded: ``Call me.'' And as everyone knows, when someone says ``call me,'' it says stop putting this in writing. During their subsequent phone call, Sondland confirmed to Taylor that the military aid was conditioned on an announcement of investigations and that President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a ``public box.'' Here is how Taylor, who took contemporaneous notes of the conversation, explained that call. (Text of Videotape presentation:) TAYLOR. During that phone call Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling Ukrainian officials that only a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations. In fact, Ambassador Sondland said, everything was dependent on such an announcement including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a public box by making a public statement about ordering such investigations. Mr. Manager CROW. President Trump wanted President Zelensky in a ``public box.'' A private commitment wasn't enough for President Trump because he needed the political benefit, and he could only get the political benefit if it was public. We all know how this works with President Trump, how he weaponizes investigations for political purposes. Think about that for a second. That is actually the exact opposite of how law enforcement investigations are conducted. If they are legitimate, law enforcement does not announce to the world they are investigating before actually doing it. That would tip off your targets. It would lead to witness intimidation, destruction of evidence. But the President didn't actively want a legitimate investigation. He only wanted the announcement. At the end of that conversation between Taylor and Sondland on September 1, Taylor asked Sondland to speak to the President to see if he could change his mind. That is exactly what Sondland did. On September 7, President Trump and Sondland spoke. We know the call was on September 7 for four reasons. First, Morrison testified that he had a conversation with Sondland on September 7 about Sondland's discussion with the President. Second, Morrison told Taylor about this conversation on September 7. Third, Sondland and Taylor had a conversation on September 8 about the conversation that Sondland had the day before. Finally, Sondland texted Taylor and Volker on September 8 that he had conversations with ``POTUS'' and ``Ze''--meaning President Trump and President Zelensky. So we know that the conversations must have happened before the morning of September 8, when that text was sent. For his part, Sondland, who doesn't take notes, also recalled that on that call, he simply asked President Trump an open-ended question about what he wanted from Ukraine. President Trump immediately responded: ``I want no quid pro quo.'' Let's stop here for a second. The President has latched on to this statement that he said that, and because he said it, it must be true, right? But wait just a minute. Remember what is happening here at the same time. The President had just learned about the whistleblower complaint in the Washington Post editorial linking the military aid to the investigations just 2 days before. The fact that the President immediately blurted that out speaks volumes. I am a parent, and there are a lot of parents in this room. I think many of you can probably relate to the situation where you are in a room and you hear a large crash in the next room, and you walk in, and your kid is sitting there, and that first thing that happens is ``I didn't do it.'' But there is more. Sondland did acknowledge that President Trump said he wanted Zelensky to ``clear things up.'' You will no doubt hear a lot from the President's counsel that Sondland testified no one in the world told him that there was a quid pro quo, including President Trump. And, of course, that is right, because people engaging in misconduct don't usually admit it. But we know exactly what the President told Sondland. We know it from the testimony of Tim Morrison and Ambassador Taylor. We know it because Sondland testified that his own conclusion that there was a quid pro quo was confirmed by his conversation with President Trump. And we know it because Sondland relayed the exact message to President Zelensky right after he spoke to President Trump. Keep in mind that Sondland does not take notes, and he readily admitted that if he could have seen his own documents prior to testifying, he would have remembered more. But Morrison and Taylor took extensive notes at the time and testified based on those notes, and Sondland--and this is important-- said he did not dispute any of the accounts of Morrison and Taylor. Let's look at what Morrison and Taylor said about that September 7 phone call. Here is Tim Morrison's understanding of the Trump-Sondland call. (Text of Videotape presentation:) GOLDMAN. Now, a few days later, on September 7th, you spoke again to Ambassador Sondland, who told you that he had just gotten off the phone with President Trump. Is that right? MORRISON. That sounds correct, yes. GOLDMAN. What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that President Trump said to him? MORRISON. If I recall this conversation correctly, this was where Ambassador Sondland related that there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky had to make the statement and that he had to want to do it. GOLDMAN. And by that point, did you understand that the statement related to the Biden and 2016 investigations? MORRISON. I think I did, yes. GOLDMAN. And that that was essentially a condition for the security assistance to be released? MORRISON. I understood that that's what Ambassador Sondland believed. GOLDMAN. After speaking with President Trump? MORRISON. That's what he represented. Mr. Manager CROW. Here is the consistent recollection of how Ambassador Taylor described his understanding of the call. First, here is what he heard from Mr. Morrison. (Text of Videotape presentation:) TAYLOR. According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland he was not asking for a quid pro quo, but President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself. Mr. Manager CROW. And second, here is Ambassador Taylor explaining what Sondland himself told Taylor about what took place on that Sondland-Trump call a day later. (Text of Videotape presentation:) TAYLOR. He confirmed that he had talked to President Trump, as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelensky himself had to clear things up and do it in public. President Trump said it was not a quid pro quo. Mr. Manager CROW. Like Sondland, both Taylor and Morrison recalled that President Trump said that he did not want a quid pro quo, but they both testified that President Trump followed that statement immediately by describing perfectly an exchange of this for that--or, in other words, a quid pro quo. Prior to his call with the President, Sondland had reached the conclusion that the aid was being held until the public announcement of the investigations. That conclusion was confirmed by Secretary Pompeo and Vice President Pence. Then Sondland relayed it to the Ukrainians. And after this phone call with President Trump, that conclusion was confirmed. (Text of Videotape presentation:) GOLDMAN. Well, you weren't dissuaded then, right, because you still thought that the aid was conditioned on the public announcement of the investigations after speaking to President Trump? SONDLAND. By September 8 I was absolutely convinced it was. GOLDMAN. And President Trump did not dissuade you of that in the conversation that you acknowledge you had with him? SONDLAND. I don't ever recall because that would have changed my entire calculus. If President Trump had told me directly, I'm not-- GOLDMAN. That's not what I'm asking, Ambassador Sondland. I'm just saying, you still believed that the security assistance was conditioned on the investigation after you spoke to President Trump. Yes or no? SONDLAND. From a timeframe standpoint, yes. Mr. Manager CROW. How else do we know that President Trump confirmed to Sondland that the aid was conditioned on the announcement? Sondland relayed the message to President Zelensky right after his conversation with President Trump. Here is Ambassador Taylor's recollection of what Sondland told Zelensky, based on his notes. (Text of Videotape presentation:) Ambassador TAYLOR. Ambassador Sondland also said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and had told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not clear things up in public, we would be at a stalemate. I understood a ``stalemate'' to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much needed military assistance. Mr. Manager CROW. Ambassador Sondland confirmed that Taylor's memory of this call was accurate; there would be a stalemate without the investigations. Here is his testimony. (Text of Videotape presentation:) GOLDMAN. And then you also told Ambassador Taylor in that same conversation that if President Zelensky, rather you told President Zelensky and Andriy Yermak that although this was not a quid pro quo as the President had very clearly told you, it was however required for President Zelensky to clear things up in public or there would be a stalemate. You don't have any reason to dispute Ambassador Taylor's recollection of that conversation you had with President Zelensky, do you? SONDLAND. No. GOLDMAN. And that you understood the stalemate referenced the aid, is that correct? GOLDMAN. At that point, yes. Mr. Manager CROW. A stalemate. Nothing would happen with the aid unless President Zelensky publicly announced the investigations. The President had not received his ``quid'' so there would be no ``quo.'' Don't take my word for it. Here is a recap of how we knew what happened during the call. First, Sondland testified about the conversation. Second, Morrison received a readout from Sondland immediately after the call and testified based on his notes. Third, Taylor testified based on his own notes. And fourth, Sondland agreed that President Trump had confirmed a quid pro quo, and Sondland actually relayed the message to the President of Ukraine and told Ambassador Taylor about it. President Zelensky got the message. He succumbed to the pressure. At the end of the conversation between Sondland and President Zelensky, President Zelensky explained that he had finally relented. His country needed the military aid, desperately. Their people were dying on the frontline all of the time. They were taking casualties every day. He agreed to make the statement. (Text of Videotape presentation:) TAYLOR. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelensky agreeing to make a public statement in an interview on CNN. Mr. Manager CROW. President Zelensky had resisted making the announcement of the corrupt investigations for months. He resisted when Giuliani and other agents of the President made it known that President Trump required it. He resisted when President Trump himself asked directly on July 25. He resisted when the White House meeting he so desperately desired was conditioned on that announcement. And he resisted as vital military aid was on hold. But the money is 10 percent of his entire defense budget. Russia occupied the eastern part of his country. He could resist no more. Ambassador Taylor was worried that even if the Ukrainian leader did as President Trump wanted, President Trump might continue to hold the military aid. Ambassador Taylor texted his concerns to Ambassadors Volker and Sondland stating: The nightmare is they give the interview and don't get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.) In other words, the nightmare is that they make the announcement but President Trump doesn't release the aid. This would be perfect for the Russians. Russian propaganda would be adopted by the United States and the United States would be withdrawing its support for Ukraine. On September 9, Ambassador Taylor reiterated his concerns about the President's quid pro quo in another series of text messages with Ambassadors Volker and Sondland. Ambassador Taylor said: The message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key. With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us. Thus my nightmare scenario. And then later, he texted again saying: Counting on you to be right about this interview, Gordon. Ambassador Sondland responded: Bill, I never said I was ``right''. I said we are where we are and believe we have identified the best pathway forward. Lets hope it works. Ambassador Taylor replied: As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. Here it is. Once again, in clear text message between three U.S. officials: ``It's crazy to withheld security assistance for help with a political campaign.'' Think about that. If there was no quid pro quo, then why did everybody know about it? Well, Ambassador Taylor told us why, too. Here is his testimony. (Text of Videotape presentation:) TAYLOR. As I said on the phone, I think it is crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. GOLDMAN. What did you mean when you said you thought it was crazy? TAYLOR. Mr. Goldman, I meant that the importance--because of the importance of security assistance that we had just described and had a conversation with the chairman, because that was so important, that security assistance was so important for Ukraine as well as our own national interests, to withhold that assistance for no good reason other than help with a political campaign made no sense. It was counterproductive to all of what we had been trying to do. It was illogical. It could not be explained. It was crazy. GOLDMAN. And when you say ``all of what we were trying to do,'' what do you mean by ``we''? TAYLOR. I mean that the United States was trying to support Ukraine as a frontline state against Russian attack. And, again, the whole notion of a rules based order was being threatened by the Russians in Ukraine. So our security assistance was designed to support Ukraine. And it was not just the United States; it was all of our allies. GOLDMAN. When you referenced ``help with a political campaign'' in this text message, what did you mean? TAYLOR. I meant that the investigation of Burisma and the Bidens was clearly identified by Mr. Giuliani in public for months as a way to get information on the two Bidens. Mr. Manager CROW. Now, that testimony is really clear, and it makes sense. It is consistent with all of the evidence you have seen here today. That is a quid pro quo as clear as two plus two equals four. And what happened next also makes sense. Sondland got scared. Taylor was making clear that he didn't agree with the scheme. In response to Taylor's text message that it was ``crazy to withhold security assistance for help in a political campaign,'' Sondland repeated again the false denial of a quid pro quo. At 5:17 a.m., Sondland responded to Taylor: Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quos of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text. If you still have concerns, I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S-- That is Secretary Pompeo-- a call to discuss them directly. Thanks. Now, the text message says very clearly that there are no quid pro quos ``of any kind.'' So end of story, right? Case closed. But Sondland's testimony revealed this text and the President's denial were false. Just like President Trump, when Ambassador Sondland thought he was getting caught, he got nervous, and he wanted to deny it in writing to cover his tracks. That is why he suddenly says: ``I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.'' Again, quit putting this in writing. We know that Sondland's denial in the text was false because later, when he was under oath, under penalty of perjury, he actually said a quid pro quo did exist. (Text of Videotape presentation:) SONDLAND. Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously with regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes. Mr. Manager CROW. The answer is yes. It is clear that President Trump himself confirmed that the aid was conditioned on the public announcement of the investigations that the President wanted. To get Ukraine to help him with his reelection campaign, the President of the United States violated the law by withholding nearly $400 million of taxpayer dollars intended to fight Russia. He put his own interests over the country, and that is why we are here. Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the Senate, in deference to our proposed schedule and the late hour, I am now going to yield to my colleague, Mr. Schiff, to provide a brief recap of today and then we will begin again in the morning. Mr. Manager SCHIFF. He means the afternoon. Senators, Chief Justice, President's counsel, it has been a long day. We started out the day with the Chaplain asking for empathetic listening, and I think that is certainly what you have delivered for us today. I know you have been bombarded with information all day, and when you leave this Chamber, you are bombarded again by members of the press. There is no refuge, I know. And I just want to thank you for keeping an open mind about all the issues that we are presenting--an open mind for us and an open mind for the President's counsel. That is all that we can ask for. Having watched you now for 3 days, whether it is someone you are predisposed to agree with or predisposed not to, it is abundantly clear that you are listening with an open mind, and we can't ask for anything more than that, so we are grateful. At the beginning of the trial, you may have seen the President's tweet. He tweeted a lot, but he tweeted a common refrain: ``Read the transcript.'' So I thought at the end of the evening, I would join in the President's request that you reread the transcript because now that you know a lot more of the facts of this scheme, it reveals a lot more about that conversation. Let me just point out a few things that may have escaped your attention about that transcript, which is not really a transcript because it is not complete. Let me just tell you a few things that may have escaped your attention about that call record. We have already talked about it. I will not go into it again. There are the pivotal sections where he talks about CrowdStrike and he asks for that favor and he wants investigation of the Bidens. There is a lot more to that call. Now that you know so much more about that scheme, let me just point out a few things that really struck my attention. Early in the call, President Zelensky says: We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. Again, this is the July 25 call. Early in the call, President Zelensky wants to impress upon President Trump he has brought in new people; that he is a reformer. This was his campaign pledge. He is a reformer. He is coming in. He is bringing in new people. So if there had been any concern about corruption in Ukraine, he is bringing in new people. He is a reformer. That is one of the first messages he wants to get across. You can better well believe that he is prepared for this call because he needs that White House meeting. So everything he says is prepared. And early on, he wants to make sure that he lets the President know he is a reformer. Now, the President has his own agenda in this call, and immediately after that, in the next exchange, the President makes this point: [T]he United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. This is very interesting that he brings up very early in the conversation this relationship is nonreciprocal. We've been ``very very good to Ukraine,'' but, you know, can't say there is much coming the other way. Now, you will remember that Bill Taylor had this reaction to talking to Gordon Sondland. When Sondland says: Donald Trump is a businessman. Before he writes a check, he likes to get what he is owed, Taylor's reaction is, well, that makes no sense because Ukraine doesn't owe us anything. Well, in this call you can see that Donald Trump does think he is owed. This is what he is talking about when he says ``there's not much reciprocity here.'' He thinks he is owed something. You want to get this military, you want to get this meeting--I don't see much reciprocity here. He thinks he is owed something. When you read that passage and you know about that: ``He is a businessman. Before he signs a check'' that takes on new meaning. Now, a little later in the call, Zelensky says: I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. You should read this carefully yourself, but this may be the first mention of Giuliani. Zelensky is bringing him up and saying: Well, I would really like to meet with Giuliani. This is July. What do we know now about the meeting between Giuliani and Zelensky? We know that Giuliani, in May, wanted to go meet with Zelensky. We saw that letter from Giuliani: I want to go meet with Zelensky. And we know he was rebuffed or something happened because he didn't get that meeting. And he was angry and went on TV and he said that Zelensky is surrounded by enemies of Trump, right? So Zelensky is prepared for this call, and he knows it is going to resonate with Donald Trump if he says he would like to meet with Rudy Giuliani. And immediately after that he says: ``[W]e are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine.'' Immediately thereafter, the next sentence he says: ``I just wanted to assure you once again you have nobody but friends around us.'' Now, we could have read this transcript to you early on, and that wouldn't have meant much to you, but now that you know that Rudy Giuliani was out there on TV saying Zelensky is surrounded by enemies of Trump, you can see why Zelensky says ``you have nobody but friends around us.'' And he goes on. ``I also wanted to tell you that we are friends.'' He brings up friendship again. ``We are great friends.'' That is the third time he wants to underscore what great friends they are. And why? Because Rudy Giuliani has been saying they are enemies. And then he goes on to say: I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you. He needs to assure the President that he is going to get his deliverable because it has been made clear before this call what the President wants to hear--more than that--what the President needs to hear is there will be no stone unturned in that investigation. So the President in the next response says: Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. Well, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Call Rudy. The same thing he told the three amigos in May: Call Rudy. Now he is telling Zelensky: Call Rudy. And he says: I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him, that would be great. Talk to Rudy. That is pretty remarkable--right?--a head-of-state to head-of-state call. It is not: Talk to my Secretary of State. It is not: Talk to my national security advisers. It is: Talk to Rudy. It is interesting, too, that it is not just Rudy, right? I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. That was quite a shock when this call record was released, right? The Attorney General shows up in this call record. A couple of times, he shows up in this call record. That is when the Department of Justice immediately issues a statement: We have got nothing to do with this. We don't know anything about this. The ink is barely dry. This thing has been released, and we don't know what this is about. We haven't talked about it. We haven't gone to Ukraine. We don't know a thing about it. Now, bear in mind a couple of other things that you know at this point. Bear in mind that there was a whistleblower complaint before this call record was released. Bear in mind that the law that we passed and you passed requires that a whistleblower complaint that is designated to go to Congress must go to Congress and must go to the intelligence committees. If the inspector general finds it credible and urgent, it has to not only go to Congress, it has to go to Congress soon. There is a timetable. Bear in mind what happens when that complaint is filed and the inspector general says: It is not only credible--it is urgent. It is urgent. What happens? Well, it goes to the Acting Director of National Intelligence. And what does he do? He contacts the White House, and he contacts Bill Barr's Justice Department. And what does Bill Barr's Justice Department do in consultation with the White House? They say: Don't turn it over to Congress. You don't have to turn it over to Congress. I know what the law says. It says ``you shall.'' It doesn't say ``you may.'' It doesn't say ``you might.'' It doesn't say ``you can if you want to.'' It doesn't say ``if the President doesn't object.'' It says ``you shall.'' We are telling you--Bill Barr's Justice Department is telling you--you don't have to. The highest office of the law in the land is saying: Ignore the law. Ignore the law. We will come up with some rationalization. We will get our guys at the Office of Legal Counsel to write some opinion. We will find a way. Do not turn it over. You don't have to. And they don't. The inspector general, who deserves a lot of credit for guts, reports to the intelligence committees and says: They are violating the law, and I don't know what to do about it. They are supposed to turn it over to you, and I don't know what to do about it, but I need to tell you, to meet my obligation, they are not doing what they should. So we subpoena the Director of National Intelligence, and we make it clear to the Director of National Intelligence that he is going to have to come before Congress in an open hearing and explain why he is the first Acting Director to refuse to turn a complaint over to Congress. The investigations are open. The result is they are forced to turn it over to Congress, and they are forced to release this call record, but here you have the Department of Justice weighing in: You don't have to turn it over. It is the same call record that mentions the Attorney General of the United States, but it fails. That effort to cover up--to conceal the whistleblower complaint--fails, and it comes out. No sooner than it does, the Attorney General says: We had nothing to do with this. Of course, if that had never been released, well then, the Attorney General's name would have never come up in this call record, and there would have been no necessity to distance himself from the President's actions. In the next exchange, President Zelensky says that he or she--he is going to have a new Prosecutor General--will look into the situation, specifically into the company that you mention in this issue. Now, this is also interesting: the company that you mention in this issue. There is no company mentioned in this issue in the call record, but, of course, you have heard now testimony from two witnesses who were on that call that Burisma was mentioned. So why isn't Burisma in the call record? Well, I can say this: That call record went to that highly classified server, and the mention of Burisma didn't make it into the call record. Zelensky goes on to say: The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty. So we will take care of that, and we will work on the investigation of the case. Time after time after time, Zelensky feels the need to assure the President he is going to do those political investigations that the President wants. In the next exchange, after Zelensky says this, the President says: I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call, and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call, and we will get to the bottom of it. I mean, you can count. Don't take my word, but I think there is no one who comes up more in this call record than Rudy Giuliani, which tells us something. In the next exchange, among other things, Zelensky says: I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington, DC. On the other hand, I also want to assure you that we will be very serious about the case, and we will work on the investigation. In the same way that earlier in the conversation Zelensky brings up those weapons he needs--those Javelins--the President immediately says: I have a favor. So we have military assistance and ``I have a favor.'' Here, Zelensky says: I want to thank you for your invitation to come visit. I also want to assure you we are serious about doing the investigation. Clearly, he is linking the two, and, of course, he is linking the two because he is told the two are linked before the call, and he is conveying to the President: I got the message. The President, in the next exchange, says: I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Again, let's make sure there is no misunderstanding here. I am going to have them call. I want you in touch with Rudy Giuliani and the Attorney General. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. I am going to have you talk to Rudy and the Attorney General, and by the way, any time you want to come to the White House, just call. Give us a date, and we will work that out. I look forward to seeing you. Then Zelensky says: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come. I am looking forward to our meeting. Again and again, Zelensky goes into that call with his wanting the meeting. You could tell what he was prepared for. He was prepared for the request for investigations. He knew what he had to promise, and he knew what he wanted to obtain, and that was the visit. You also saw in that video, that rather sad video--yes, sort of humorous but sad, too--Zelensky and President Trump at the U.N., where he is saying: You know, I still haven't gotten that meeting. I can tell you something--and this is what is so frightening about these circumstances. If we had not discovered all of this, he would likely be saying at that U.N. meeting: You know, we are still waiting on that military aid. Yes, we forced the aid to be released because the President got caught, but, even now, our ally can't get his foot in the door. Even now, our ally can't get his foot in the door. This brings me to the last point I want to make tonight, which is, when we are done, we believe that we will have made the case overwhelmingly of the President's guilt--that is, that he has done what he is charged with. He withheld the money. He withheld the meeting. He used it to coerce Ukraine to do these political investigations. He covered it up. He obstructed us, and he is trying to obstruct you. He has violated the Constitution. But I want to address one other thing tonight. OK. He is guilty. OK. He is guilty. Does he really need to be removed? We have an election coming up. Does he really need to be removed? He is guilty. You know, is there really any doubt about this? I mean, do we really have any doubt about the facts here? Does anybody really question whether the President is capable of what he is charged with? Nobody is really making the argument ``Donald Trump would never do such a thing'' because, of course, we know that he would, and, of course, we know that he did. It is a somewhat different question, though, to ask: OK. It is pretty obvious. Whether we can say it publicly or we can't say it publicly, we all know what we are dealing with here with this President, but does he really need to be removed? This is why he needs to be removed: Donald Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies. He chose Rudy Giuliani over his own FBI Director. He chose Rudy Giuliani over his own national security advisers. When all of them were telling him this Ukraine 2016 stuff was kooky, crazy, Russian propaganda, he chose not to believe them. He chose to believe Rudy Giuliani. That makes him dangerous to us, to our country. That was Donald Trump's choice. Why would Donald Trump believe a man like Rudy Giuliani over a man like Christopher Wray? OK. Why would anyone in his right mind believe Rudy Giuliani over Christopher Wray? Because he wanted to, because what Rudy was offering him was something that would help him personally and what Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the truth. What Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the information he needed to protect this country and its elections, but that was not good enough. What is in it for him? What is in it for Donald Trump? This is why he needs to be removed. You may be asking: How much damage can he really do in the next several months until the election? A lot--a lot of damage. We just saw last week a report that Russia tried to hack or maybe did hack Burisma, OK? I don't know if they got in. I am trying to find out. My colleagues on the Intel Committees of the House and Senate are trying to find out. Did the Russians get in? What are the Russians' plans and intentions? Well, let's say they get in, and let's say they start dumping documents to interfere in the next election. Let's say they start dumping some real things they have from Burisma. Let's say they start dumping some fake things they didn't hack from Burisma, but they want you to believe they did. Let's say they start blatantly interfering in our election again to help Donald Trump. Can you have the least bit of confidence that Donald Trump will stand up to them and protect our national interests over his own personal interests? You know you can't, which makes him dangerous to this country. You know you can't. You know you can't count on him. None of us can. What happens if China got the message? Now, you can say: Well, he is just joking, of course. He didn't really mean China should investigate the Bidens. You know that that is no joke. Now, maybe you could have argued it 3 years ago when he said: Hey, Russia. If you are listening, hack Hillary's emails. Maybe you could have given him a freebee and said he was joking, but now we know better. Hours after he did that, Russia did, in fact, try to hack Hillary's emails. There is no mulligan here when it comes to our national security. So what if China does overtly or covertly start to help the Trump campaign? Do you think he is going to call them out on it or do you think he is going to give them a better trade deal on it? Can any of us really have the confidence that Donald Trump will put national interests ahead of his personal interests? Is there really any evidence in this Presidency that should give us the ironclad confidence that he would do so? You know you can't count on him to do that. That is the sad truth. You know you can't count on him to do that. The American people deserve a President they can count on to put their interests first--to put their interests first. Colonel Vindman said: Here, right matters. Here, right matters. Well, let me tell you something. If right doesn't matter--if right doesn't matter--it doesn't matter how good the Constitution is; it doesn't matter how brilliant the Framers were; it doesn't matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is; it doesn't matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right doesn't matter, we are lost. If the truth doesn't matter, we are lost. The Framers couldn't protect us from ourselves if right and truth don't matter. And you know that what he did was not right. You know, that is what they do in the old country that Colonel Vindman's father came from or the old country that my great-grandfather came from or the old countries that your ancestors came from or maybe you came from, but here, right is supposed to matter. It is what has made us the greatest Nation on Earth. No Constitution can protect us if right doesn't matter anymore. And you know you can't trust this President to do what is right for this country. You can trust he will do what is right for Donald Trump. He will do it now. He has done it before. He will do it for the next several months. He will do it in the election if he is allowed to. This is why, if you find him guilty, you must find that he should be removed--because right matters. Because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 1 p.m., Friday, January 24, and that this order also constitute the adjournment of the Senate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, for the information of all of our colleagues, no motions--no motions--were filed this morning, so we will proceed to the House managers' presentation. We will go for approximately 2 hours and take a short recess when there is an appropriate break time between presenters.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Chief Justice, colleagues, I suggest we have a recess until 10 minutes to 4, at which moment we will reconvene, subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, if I may, what I was going to suggest was that at 6:30 we take a 30-minute break for dinner, if that would work.

Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. What I was going to suggest is a break for dinner at 6:30 for about 30 minutes, if that works.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, we will now take a 30- minute break for dinner and reconvene at 5 minutes after 7:00. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until that time.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, January 28, from 10 a.m. until 11 a.m., while the Senate is sitting in the Court of Impeachment and that notwithstanding the Senate's adjournment, the Senate can receive House messages and executive matters, committees be authorized to report legislative and executive matters, and Senators be allowed to submit statements for the Record, bills and resolutions and cosponsor requests and, where applicable, the Secretary of the Senate on behalf of the Presiding Officer be permitted to refer such matters.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 1 p.m. Thursday, January 23, and this also constitute the adjournment of the Senate.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, colleagues, we are almost through for the evening. We will convene again at 1 o'clock tomorrow. Before we adjourn, I would like to acknowledge that tomorrow is the official last day for this term's Senate pages. (Applause, Senators rising.) In addition to witnessing this unusual event that we are all experiencing, they are studying for their final exams as well, and we wish them well, as they head off back to boring, normal high school.

Mr. McCONNELL

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last Thursday, the U.S. Senate crossed one of the greatest thresholds that exist in our system of government. We began just the third Presidential impeachment trial in American history. This is a unique responsibility which the Framers of our Constitution knew that the Senate--and only the Senate--could handle. Our Founders trusted the Senate to rise above short-term passions and factionalism. They trusted the Senate to soberly consider what has actually been proven and which outcome best serves the Nation. That is a pretty high bar, and you might say that later today, this body will take our entrance exam. Today, we will consider and pass an organizing resolution that will structure the first phase of the trial. This initial step will offer an early signal to our country. Can the Senate still serve our founding purpose? Can we still put fairness, evenhandedness, and historical precedent ahead of the partisan passions of the day? Today's vote will contain some answers. The organizing resolution we will put forward already has the support of a majority of the Senate. That is because it sets up a structure that is fair, evenhanded, and tracks closely with past precedents that were established unanimously. After pretrial business, the resolution establishes the four things that need to happen next. First, the Senate will hear an opening presentation from the House managers. Second, we will hear from the President's counsel. Third, Senators will be able to seek further information by posing written questions to either side through the Chief Justice. Fourth, with all that information in hand, the Senate will consider whether we feel any additional evidence or witnesses are necessary to evaluate whether the House case has cleared or failed to clear the high bar of overcoming the presumption of innocence and undoing a democratic election. The Senate's fair process will draw a sharp contrast with the unfair and precedent-breaking inquiry that was carried on by the House of Representatives. The House broke with precedent by denying Members of the Republican minority the same rights that Democrats had received when they were in the minority back in 1998. Here in the Senate, every single Senator will have exactly the same rights and exactly the same ability to ask questions. The House broke with fairness by cutting President Trump's counsel out of their inquiry to an unprecedented degree. Here in the Senate, the President's lawyers will finally receive a level playing field with the House Democrats and will finally be able to present the President's case. Finally, some fairness. On every point, our straightforward resolution will bring the clarity and fairness that everyone deserves--the President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the American people. This is the fair roadmap for our trial. We need it in place before we can move forward, so the Senate should prepare to remain in session today until we complete this resolution and adopt it. This basic, four-part structure aligns with the first steps of the Clinton impeachment trial in 1999. Twenty-one years ago, 100 Senators agreed unanimously that this roadmap was the right way to begin the trial. All 100 Senators agreed the proper time to consider the question of potential witnesses was after--after--opening arguments and Senators' questions. Now, some outside voices have been urging the Senate to break with precedent on this question. Loud voices, including the leadership of the House majority, colluded with Senate Democrats and tried to force the Senate to precommit ourselves to seek specific witnesses and documents before Senators had even heard opening arguments or even asked questions. These are potential witnesses whom the House managers themselves--themselves--declined to hear from, whom the House itself declined to pursue through the legal system during its own inquiry. The House was not facing any deadline. They were free to run whatever investigation they wanted to run. If they wanted witnesses who would trigger legal battles over Presidential privilege, they could have had those fights. However, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee decided not to. They decided their inquiry was finished and moved right ahead. The House chose not to pursue the same witnesses they apparently would now like-- would now like--the Senate to precommit to pursuing ourselves. As I have been saying for weeks, nobody--nobody--will dictate Senate procedure to U.S. Senators. A majority of us are committed to upholding the unanimous, bipartisan Clinton precedent against outside influences with respect to the proper timing of these midtrial questions. So if any amendments are brought forward to force premature decisions on midtrial questions, I will move to table such amendments and protect our bipartisan precedent. If a Senator moves to amend the resolution or to subpoena specific witnesses or documents, I will move to table such motions because the Senate will decide those questions later in the trial, just like we did back in 1999. Now, today may present a curious situation. We may hear House managers themselves agitate for such amendments. We may hear a team of managers led by the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees chairmen argue that the Senate must precommit ourselves to reopen the very investigation they themselves oversaw and voluntarily shut down. It would be curious to hear these two House chairmen argue that the Senate must precommit ourselves to supplementing their own evidentiary record, to enforcing subpoenas they refused to enforce, to supplementing a case they themselves have recently described as ``overwhelming''--``overwhelming''--and ``beyond any reasonable doubt.'' These midtrial questions could potentially take us even deeper into even more complex constitutional waters. For example, many Senators, including me, have serious concerns about blurring--blurring--the traditional role between the House and the Senate within the impeachment process. The Constitution divides the power to impeach from the power to try. The first belongs solely to the House, and with the power to impeach comes the responsibility to investigate. The Senate agreeing to pick up and carry on the House's inadequate investigation would set a new precedent that could incentivize frequent and hasty impeachments from future House majorities. It could dramatically change the separation of powers between the House and the Senate if the Senate agrees we will conduct both the investigation and the trial of an impeachment. What is more, some of the proposed new witnesses include executive branch officials whose communications with the President and with other executive branch officials lie at the very core of the President's constitutional privilege. Pursuing those witnesses could indefinitely delay the Senate trial and draw our body into a protracted and complex legal fight over Presidential privilege. Such litigation could potentially have permanent repercussions for the separation of powers and the institution of the Presidency that Senators would need to consider very, very carefully. So the Senate is not about to rush into these weighty questions without discussion and without deliberation--without even hearing opening arguments first. There were good reasons why 100 out of 100 Senators agreed two decades ago to cross these bridges when we came to them. That is what we will do this time as well. Fair is fair. The process was good enough for President Clinton, and basic fairness dictates it ought to be good enough for this President as well. The eyes are on the Senate. The country is watching to see if we can rise to the occasion. Twenty-one years ago, 100 Senators, including a number of us who sit in the Chamber today, did just that. The body approved a fair, commonsense process to guide the beginning of a Presidential impeachment trial. Today, two decades later, this Senate will retake that entrance exam. The basic structure we are proposing is just as eminently fair and evenhanded as it was back then. The question is whether the Senators are themselves ready to be as fair and as evenhanded. The Senate made a statement 21 years ago. We said that Presidents of either party deserve basic justice and a fair process. A challenging political moment like today does not make such statements less necessary but all the more necessary, in fact. So I would say to my colleagues across the aisle: There is no reason why the vote on this resolution ought to be remotely partisan. There is no reason other than base partisanship to say this particular President deserves a radically different rule book than what was good enough for a past President of your own party. I urge every single Senator to support our fair resolution. I urge everyone to vote to uphold the Senate's unanimous bipartisan precedent of a fair process.