Trump defense concludes opening arguments in Senate impeachment trial Day 7

them with such humility hope and courage that they will do your will Lord grant that this impeachment trial will make our nation stronger wiser and better we pray in your strong name amen please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag please be seated if there is no objection the journal of proceedings of the trial are approved to date without objection so ordered the sergeant in arms will make the proclamation hear ye hear ye hear ye all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump President of the United States as Chief Justice the majority leader is recognized we expect several hours obssession today with probably one quick break in the middle thank you pursuant to the provisions of Senate resolution 483 the counsel for the president have 15 hours and 33 minutes remaining to make the presentation of their case though will not be possible to use the remainder of that time before the end of the day the Senate will now hear you Thank You mr. Chief Justice members of the Senate just to give you a very quick brief overview of today we do not intend to use much of that time today mr. chief justice we intend to be our goal is to be finished by dinnertime and well before we'll have three presentations first will be Pat Philbin deputy White House Counsel then Jay Sekulow will give a presentation we'll take a break if that's okay with you mr. leader and then after that I'll finish with a presentation so that's our goal for the day and with that I'll turn it over to Pat Philbin mr. Chief Justice members of the Senate Majority Leader McConnell Minority Leader Schumer I'd like to start today by making a couple of observations related to the abuse of power charge in the first article of impeachment and I wouldn't presume to elaborate on professor Dershowitz his presentation from yesterday evening which I thought was complete and compelling but I wanted to just add a couple of very specific points in support of the exposition of the Constitution and the impeachment clause that he set out and it begins from a focus on the point in the debate about the impeachment Clause at the Constitutional Convention where maladministration was offered by George Mason as a grounds for impeachment and James Madison responded that that was a bad idea and he said so Vega term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate and that evinced a deep-seated concern that Madison had and it's part of the whole design of our Constitution for ways that can lead to exercises of arbitrary power the Constitution was designed to put limits and checks on all forms of government power obviously one of the great mechanisms for that is the separation of powers the structural separation of powers in our Constitution but it also comes from defining and limiting powers and responsibilities and a concern that vague terms vague standards are themselves an opportunity for the expansion of power and the exercise of arbitrary power and we see that throughout the Constitution and in the impeachment Clause as well and this is why as governor Morris argued in discussing the impeachment clause that only few offenses he said few offenses ought to be impeachable and the cases ought to be enumerated and defined and that's why we see in the debate that the Constitution there was a many terms had been included in earlier drafts when it was narrowed down to treason and bribery and there was a suggestion to include maladministration which had been a ground for impeachment in English practice the framers rejected it because it was too vague it was too expansive it would allow for arbitrary exercises of power and we see throughout the Constitution in terms that relate and fit in with the impeachment Clause the same concern one is in the definition of treason the framers were very concerned that the English practice of having a vague concept of treason that was malleable and could be changed even after the facts to define new concepts of treason was dangerous it was one of the things that they wanted to reject from the English system so they defined in the Constitution very specifically what constituted treason and how it had to be proved and then that term was incorporated into the impeachment clause similarly in the rejection of maladministration which had been an impeachable offense in england the framers rejected that because it was vague a vague standard something that's too changeable that can be redefined can be malleable after the fact allows for the arbitrary exercise of power and that would be dangerous to give that power to the legislature as a power to impeach the executive and similarly and it relates again to the impeachment clause one of the greatest dangers from having changeable standards that existed in the English system was bills of attainder under a bill of attainder the Parliament could pass a specific law saying that a specific person had done something unlawful they were being attainted even though it wasn't unlawful before that and the framers rejected that entire concept in article 1 section 9 they eliminated both bills of attainder and all ex post facto laws for criminal penalties at the federal level and they also included a provision to prohibit States from using bills of attainder now in the English system there was a relationship to some sent between impeachment and bills of attainder because both were tools of the Parliament to get at officials in the government you could impeach them for an established offense or you could pass of a bill of attainder and it was because the definition of impeachment was being narrowed that George Mason at the debates suggested he pointed out in the English system there's a bill of attainder it's been a great useful tool for the government but we're eliminating that and now we're getting a narrow definition of impeachment we ought to expand it to include maladministration and Madison said no one the framers agreed we have to have enumerated and defined offenses not a vague concept not something that can be blurry and interpreted after the fact and it could be used essentially to make policy differences or other differences like that the subject of impeachment all the steps that the framers took in the way they approached the impeachment Clause were in terms of narrowing restricting constraining enumerated offenses and not a vague and malleable approach as they had been in the English system and I think the minority views of Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry summed this up and reflected it well because they explained and I'm quoting from the minority views in the report the whole tenor of the framers discussions the whole purpose of their many careful departures from English impeachment practice was in the direction of limits and of standards an impeachment power exercised without extrinsic and objective standards would be tantamount to the use of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which are expressly forbidden by the Constitution and are contrary to the American spirit of justice and what we see in the house managers charges and their definition of abuse of power is exactly antithetical to the framers approach because their very premise for their abusive power charge is that it is entirely based on subjective motive not objective standards not predefined offenses but the president can do something that is perfectly lawful perfectly within his authority but if the real reason as professor Dershowitz pointed out that's the language from their report the reason in the president's mind is something that today fair it out and decide is wrong that becomes impeachable and that's exactly malleable and it's something that I think a telling factor that reflects how malleable it is and how dangerous it is is in the House Judiciary Committee's report because after they define their concept of abuse of power and they say that it involves you're exercising government power for personal interest and not the national interest and it depends on your subjective motives they realize that that's infinitely malleable there's not really a clear standard there and it's violating a fundamental premise of the American system of justice that you have to have notice of what is wrong you have to have notice of an offense and this is something that professor Dershowitz pointed out last night there has to be a defined offense in advance and the way they try to resolve this is to say well in addition to our definition high crimes and misdemeanors involve conduct that is recognizably wrong to a reasonable person and that's their kind of add-on to deal with the fact that they have an unconstitutionally vague standard they don't have a standard that really defines a specific offense they don't have a standard that really defines in coherence terms that are going to be identifiable what the offenses are so they just add on and it's got to be recognizably wrong and they say that they're doing this to resolve attention they call it within the Constitution because they point out and this is quoting from the report the structure of the Constitution including its prohibition on bills of attainder and the ex post facto Clause implies that impeachable offenses should not come as a surprise that's exactly what professor Dershowitz pointed out and everything about the terms of the Constitution speaking of an offense and a conviction that it's a crime should be tried by jury except impeachments they all talk about impeachment in those criminal offense terms but the tension here isn't within the Constitution is between the house managers definition which lacks any coherent definition of an offense that would catch people by surprise and the Constitution that's the tension that they're trying to resolve is between their malleable standard that actually states no clear offense and the Constitution and the principles of Justice embodied in the Constitution that requires some clear offense so I wanted to point that out in relation to the standards for impeachable offenses because it's another piece of the constitutional puzzle that fits in with the exposition that professor Dershowitz set out and it also shows an inherent flaw in the house managers theory of abuse of power regardless of whether or not one accepts the view that an impeachable offense has to be a crime and defined crime there is still the flaw in their definition of abuse of power that it is so malleable based on purely subjective standards that it does not provide any cognizable notice of an offense it is so malleable it in effect recreates the offense of maladministration that the framers expressly rejected as professor Dershowitz explained the second point that I wanted to make is that how do we tell under the house managers standard what an illicit motive is when there's an illicit motive how are we supposed to get the proof of what's inside the President's head because of course motive is inherently difficult to prove where you're talking about is they've conceded they're talking about perfect lawful actions on their face within the constitutional authority of the president but they want to make it in P chable if it's just the wrong idea inside the president's head and they explained in the House Judiciary Committee report that the way will tell if the president had the wrong motive is we'll compare what he did to what staffers in the executive branch said he ought to do so they say quote that the president quote disregarded United States foreign policy towards Ukraine and quote and that he ignored quote unquote official policy that he had been briefed on and that he quote ignored defied and confounded every agency within the executive branch end quote that is not a constitutionally coherent statement the president cannot defy agencies within the executive branch article 2 section 1 of the Constitution vests all of the executive power in a President of the United States he alone is an entire branch of government he sets policy for the executive branch he's given vast power and of course within limits set by laws passed by Congress and within limits set by spending priorities spending laws passed by Congress he within those constraints sets the policies of the government and in areas of Foreign Affairs military affairs national security which is what we're dealing with in this case Foreign Affairs head of state communications he has vast powers as professor Dershowitz explained for over two centuries the president has been guarded as the sole organ of the nation and foreign affairs so the idea that we're going to find out when the president had the wrong subjective motives by comparing what he did to the recommendations of some interagency consensus among staffers is fundamentally anti-constitutional it inverts the stitute structure and it's also fundamentally anti-democratic because our system is rather unique in the amount of power that it gives to the president the executive here is more much more power than Ana parliamentary system but part of the reason that the president can have that power is that he is directly democratically accountable to the people there is an election every four years to ensure that the president stays democratically accountable to the people but those staffers in these supposed interagency who have their meetings and make recommendations to the president are not accountable to the people there is no democratic legitimacy or accountability to their decisions or recommendations and that is why does the president as head of the executive branch who has the authority to actually set policies and make determinations regardless of what the staffers may recommend they are there to provide information and reclamation recommendations not to set policy so the idea that we're going to start impeaching presidents by deciding that they have illicit motives if we can show that they disagree with some interagency consensus it's fundamentally contrary to the Constitution and fundamentally anti-democratic so those were the two observations I wanted to add to supplement specific points on professor Dershowitz his comments from last night now I want to shift gears and respond to a couple of points that the house managers have brought up that are really a completely extraneous to this proceeding they involve matters that are not charged in the articles of impeachment they do not direct really direct really excuse me relate directly to the president for his actions but they are accusations that were brought up somewhat recklessly in any event and we cannot close without some response to them and the first has to do with the idea that somehow the White House and and White House lawyers were involved in some sort of cover-up related to the transcript of the July 25th call because it was stored on a highly classified system so let me start with that the house managers made this accusation there was something nefarious going on but let's see what the witnesses actually had to say Lieutenant Colonel Alexander VIN Minh and remember Lieutenant Colonel VIN Minh is the person who was listening in on the call and who raised a concern the only person who went and raised a concern with NSC lawyers that he thought he thought there was something improper something wrong with the call even though he later concede under cross-examination it was really a policy concern but he thought there was something wrong and he had to say that he did not think he said so I do not think there was malicious intent or anything of that nature to cover anything up he's the one who went and talked to the lawyers he's the one who's complaint spurred the idea that wait there might be something that's really sensitive here we should make sure that this is not going to leak he thought there was nothing covering it up his boss senior director Tim Morrison had similar testimony so the best year knowledge there's no malicious intent in moving the transcript to the compartment and server correct and the idea that there was some sort of cover-up is further destroyed by the simple fact that everyone who is part of their jobs needed access to that transcript still had access to it including lieutenant-colonel VIN Minh right so the person who raises a complaint still has access to the transcript the entire time and this is the way mr. Morrison's testimony explained that and even on the codeword server you had access to it yes so at no point in time during the course your official duties were you where you denied access to this information correct correct and to your knowledge anybody on the NSC staff that needed access to the transcript for their official duties always was able to access it correct people that had a need to know and I need to access it once it was moved to the compartment it's a scam yes okay now as mr. Morrison testified he'd recommended restricting access to the transcript not because he had any concern that there was anything improper or illegal but he was concerned about a potential leak and as he put it how that quote would play out in Washington's polarized environment end quote and would quote affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress and he was right to be concerned potentially about leaks because the Trump administration has fast faced national security leaks at an alarming rate Lieutenant Colonel VIN Minh himself said that concerns about leaks seemed justified and it was not unusual that something would be put in a more restore restricted circulation now what else is in the record evidence Mr Morrison explained his understanding of how the transcript ended up on that server I spoke with the NSC executive Secretariat staff asked them why and they did their research and they inform me it had been moved to the higher classification system at the direction of John Eisenberg whom I then asked why I mean that's that was the judgment he made that's not necessarily mind a question but I didn't understand it and he essentially told me I gave no such direction he did his own inquiry and he represented back to me that it was his understanding was it was a kind of administrative error that when he also gave direction to restrict access the executive secretary of staff understood that as an apprehension that there was something in the content of the men con that could not exist on the lower classification system so the best your knowledge there's no malicious intent in moving the transcript to the compartment and server correct everyone who knew something about it and who testified agreed there was no malicious intent the call was still available to everyone needed it as part of their job and it certainly wasn't covered up or deep-sixed in some way the president Declassified it and made it public so why were even here talking about these accusations about a cover-up when it's a transcript that was preserved and made public is somewhat absurd now the other point I'd like to turn to another accusation from the house managers is that the whistleblower complaint when the whistleblower complaint was not forwarded to Congress they've said that lawyers at the Department of Justice this time they accuse olc the office of legal counsel of providing a bogus opinion for why the Director of National Intelligence did not have to advance the whistleblowers complaint to Congress and manager Jeffrey said that OLC opined quote without any reasonable basis that the Acting DNI did not have to turn over the complaint to Congress end quote and the way he portrayed this now there's a statute that says if the Inspector General of the intelligence community finds a matter of urgent concern it must me it must be forwarded to Congress and manager Jeffrey's portrayed this as if the only thing to decide was were these claims urgent he said quote what could be more urgent than a sitting president's trying to cheat in an American election by soliciting foreign interference that's not the only question the statute doesn't just say if it's urgent you have to forward it it talks about urgent concern as a defined term now if the house managers want to come and cast accusations that the political and career officials at the Office of Legal Counsel which we all know is a very respected office of the Department of Justice provides opinions for the executive branch on what governing law is they should come backed up with analysis so let's look at what the law actually says and I think we have the slide of that urgent concern is defined as a serious or flagrant problem abuse violation of law relating to the funding administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibilities and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information so the office of legal counsel was consulted by the general counsel at the DA's office and they looked at this definition and they did an analysis and they determined that the alleged misconduct is not an urgent concern within the meaning of the statute because they're not just talking about do we think it's urgent do we think it's important know they're analyzing the law and they looked at the terms of the statute the alleged misconduct is not an urgent concern within the meaning of the statute because it does not concern the funding administration or operation of an intelligence activity under the authority of the DNI remember what we're talking about here is a head of state communication between the President of the United States and another head of state this isn't some CIA operation overseas this isn't the NSA doing something this isn't any intelligence activity going on within the intelligence community under the supervision of the DNI it's the head of the executive branch exercising his constitutional authority engaging in foreign relations with a foreign head of state so in reaching that conclusion the office of legal counsel looked at the statute case law the legislative history and it concluded that this phrase urgent concern includes matters relating to intelligence activities subject to the DNI supervision but it does not include allegations of wrongdoing arising outside of any intelligence activity or outside the intelligence itself and that makes sense this statute was meant to provide for an ability of the inspector general of the intelligence community overseeing the activities of the intelligence community to receive reports about what was going on at intelligence agencies those that are members of the intelligence community if there was fraud waste abuse something unlawful in those activities it was not meant to create an Inspector General of the presidency an inspector general of the Oval Office to purport to determine whether the president in exercising his constitutional authorities had done something that should be reported this law is narrow and it does not cover every alleged violation of law will see explained or other abuse that comes to the attention of a member of the intelligence community just because you're in the intelligence community happen to see something else doesn't make this law apply and the law does not make the inspector general for the intelligence community responsible for investigating and reporting on allegations that do not involve intelligence activities or the intelligence community now nonetheless the president of course released the July 25th call transcript and it was also not the end of the matter that the whistleblower complaint and the DNI the IC IGS letter were not sent directly to Congress because OLC explained that if the complaint does not involve an urgent concern but if there's anything else there that you want to have checked out the appropriate action is to refer the matter to the Department of Justice and that's what the dnase office did they sent the IC IGS letter with the complaint to the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice looked at it and this was all made public some time ago the Department of Justice examined the exact allegations of the whistleblower and the exact framing and concern raised by the inspector general which had to do with a potential of perhaps a campaign finance law violation DOJ looked at it looked at the statutes analyzed it and determined there wasn't a violation and it closed the matter and it announced that months ago all right when something gets sent over to the Department of Justice to examine you can't call that a cover-up everything here was done correctly the lawyers analyzed the law the complaint was sent to the appropriate person for review it was not within the statute that required transmission to Congress and everything was handled entirely properly so again actually extraneous to the matters before you there's nothing about this these two points in the articles of impeachment but it merits a response when reckless allegations are made against those at the White House and at the Department of Justice and with that mr. chief justice all yield back my time to mr. Sekulow [Music] Thank You mr. chief justice which already little McConnell Democratic leader Schumer house managers members of the Senate what we're involved in here as we conclude is perhaps the most solemn of duties under our constitutional framework the trial of the leader of the free world and the duly elected president of the United States it is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts that's politics unfortunately and Hamilton put impeachment in the hands of this body the Senate precisely and specifically to be above that fray this is the greatest deliberative body on earth in our presentation so far you've now heard from legal scholars from a variety of schools of thought from a variety of political backgrounds but they do have a common theme with a dire warning danger danger danger to lower the bar of impeachment based on these articles of impeachment would impact the functioning of our constitutional republic and the framework of that Constitution for generations I asked you to put yourself in reporting mr. ships manager shifts statement his father made about putting yourselves in the shoes of someone else and I I said I'd like you to put your shoes yourself in the shoes of the President and I think it's important as we conclude today that were minded of that fact the President of the United States before he was the president was under an investigation it was called crossfire hurricane who was investigation led by the FBI the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey eventually told the president a little bit about the investigation and referenced the steel dossier James Comey the DA then director of the FBI said it was salacious and unverified so salacious and unverified that they used it as a basis to obtain FISA warrants members managers here managers at this table right here said that any discussions on the abuse from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act utilized to get the FISA warrants from the court or conspiracy theories I told you at the very beginning I asked do you put yourself in the shoes of not just this president of any president that would have been under this type of attack FISA warrants issued on people affiliated with his campaign American citizens affiliated the people of hippocampus campaign citizens of the United States being surveilled pursuant to an order that is now been acknowledged by the very court that issued the order that it was based on a fraudulent presentation in fact evidence specifically changed changed by the very FBI lawyer who was in charge of this changed to such an extent that the foreign surveillance intelligence court as I said earlier I'm not gonna repeat it again issued two orders saying that when this agent this lawyer made these misrepresentations to the National Security Division they also made a misrepresentation to a federal court the federal court the foreign surveillance court a court where there are no defense witnesses a court where there are is no cross-examination it's a court based on trust that trust was violated and then the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey decides he will leak a memo a big conversation he had with the President of the United States and he is leaking the memo for a purpose he said to obtain the appointment of a special counsel and lo and behold a special counsel was appointed and it just so happens that that FBI agent lawyer who committed the fraud on the FISA Court became a lawyer from the Muller investigation only to be removed because of political animus and bias found by the inspector general then we have a Special Counsel investigation Lisa page agent Sturrock I'm not going to go into the details you know them they're not in controversy they're uncontroverted the facts are clear but does it bother your sense of justice even a little bit even a little bit that Bob Muller allowed the evidence on the phones of those agents to be wiped clean while there was an investigation going on by the inspector general now if you did it if you did it managership if you did it manager Jeffries if I did that destroyed evidence if anyone in this chamber did this we'd be in serious trouble there serious trouble as they get fired bomb Muller's explanation for it is I don't know what happened I don't know what happened I can't recall the conversations you can't view this case in a vacuum you are being asked and I say this with the utmost respect you are being asked to remove an elected duly elected president of the United States this isn't some we had references to law school exams I love the fact that I thought that was we're great analysis yesterday and I appreciate all that but I want to focus today or my section on what you're being asked to do you are being asked to remove a duly elected president of the United States and you're being asked to do it in an election year in an election year there are some of you in this chamber right now that would rather be someplace else and that's why we'll be brief I understand you'd rather be someplace else why would you rather be someplace else because you're running for president the nomination of your party I get it but this is a serious deliberative situation you're being asked to remove a duly elected president the United States that's what the articles impeachment call for removal so we had a special counsel and we got the report and just for a moment putting yourself in the shoes of this president or any president that would be under this situation you're number four at the Department of Justice his wife is working for the firm that's doing the opposition research on him and is communicating with the foreign former spy Christopher Steele to put together the dossier and it's being handled by Christopher Steele through Nelly or two or her husband then the fourth ranking member at the Department of Justice Bruce or and all of this is going on and he doesn't want to tell and he's testified to this he doesn't want to tell everybody what he's doing because he's afraid he might have to stop might have to stop how did this happen this is the Federal Bureau of Investigation and then we ask why is the president concerned about advice he's being given put yourself in his shoes put yourself in his shoes we've given you an our approach has been to give an overview and to be very specific to remove a duly elected president which is what you're being asked to do for in essentially policy disagreements to her a lot about policy although the one that I still it still troubles me this idea that the president it was said by several demanders is only doing these things for himself understanding what is going on in the world today as we're here they raised it by the way I'm not I'm not trying to be disrespectful I'm they raised him this president is only doing things for himself while the leaders of opposing parties by the way at the highest level to obtain peace in the Middle East to say you're only doing that for yourself I think the irony of that that those statements were made while all of that was going on and and other acts that this bodies past some of the bipartisan to help the American people policy differences those policy difference cannot be utilized to destroy the separation of powers house manager spoke for I know we've had disagreements on the time it was twenty one hours or twenty three hours they spoke during their time a lot of time most of it attacking the president policy decisions they didn't like what they heard they didn't like there was a pause on foreign aid I'd laid out before that there was pauses on all kinds of foreign aid it's not the first president to do it but the one thing I'm still trying to understand from the managers perspective and maybe it's not fair to ask the managers because you're not the you know the leader of the of the house but remember the whole idea that this was a dire national security threat a danger to our nation we had to get this over here right away it had to be done before Christmas it was so important was so significant the country was in such jeopardy the Jeopardy was so serious that it had to be done immediately let's hold on to the articles impeachment for a month to see if this house could force the Senate to adopt rules that they wanted which is not the way the Constitution is set up but it was such a dire emergency it was so critical for our nation's national interest that we could hold them for 33 days Danger Danger Danger that's politics as I said you're being called upon to to remove the duly elected president the United States that's what these articles of impeachment call for they never really answered the question of why they thought there was such a national emergency maybe they will during questions I don't know there was such a national emergency they never did explain why it was that they waited they certainly didn't wait to have the proceedings as my colleagues have laid out I mean those proceedings it moved in record time I suspect that we've been here more than the the house actually considered the actual articles of impeachment is that the way the Constitution is supposed to work is that the design of the Constitution and then the question of course came up and and yesterday on the whole situation with Purisima and the Biden's and that whole issue and my colleagues went through that a great deal and I'm not going to do that but do we have a like are we in a situation we used to call this in free speech cases like a a free speech zone you could have your free speech activities over here you can't have them over there do we have like a a Biden free zone and what was that what this was that there was it's it's a you mentioned someone or you're concerned about a company and it's now off limits you can impeach the president the United States for asking a question I think we significantly showed the question I'm not going to go through a detail by detail analysis of the facts but there are some that we just have to go through you heard a lot of new facts yesterday in our presentation Saturday what we were pointing to is a very quick overview and then yesterday we spent the day and we appreciate everybody's patience on that going through the facts they showed you this but they didn't show you that the facts are important though the pause facts have legal ramifications legal ramifications impact the decisions you make so I don't take facts lightly and I certainly don't take the constitutional mandate its lightly and we can't the facts we demonstrated yesterday and on briefly on Saturday demonstrate that there was in fact a proper governmental interest in the questions that the president asked and the issues that the president raised on that phone call a phone call now let's again put your shoes in the put your feet in the shoes of the president put yourself in the president's position do you think he thought when he was on the call it was him and president Solinsky he was talking to and that was it where it was as sometimes I heard one commentator said it was people listening in on the call the president and 3,000 of his closest friends let's be realistic the president United States knew when he was on that call there were a lot of people listening from our side and from their side so he knew what he was saying he said it we released a transcript of it the that's on the call that had been kind of the focus of all of this really focused on foreign policy initiatives both in Ukraine and around the globe they talked about other countries and other countries the president has been very concerned about other countries carrying some of the financial load here not just the United States that's a legitimate position for a president to take if you disagree with it you have the right to do that but he is the president as my colleague deputy white House Counsel Feldman just said that's the executive branch prerogative that is their constitutional appropriate role so the call is well documented there were lots of people on the call the person that would be on the other end of the quid pro quo if it existed would have been president Solinsky but president Solinsky and we already laid out the other officials from Ukraine have repeatedly said there was no pressure it was a good call they didn't even know there was a pause in the aid all of that is well documented I'm not going to go through each and every one of those facts we did that over the last several days president solinsky's senior advisor under a year mack was asked if he ever felt there was a connection between military aid in the request for investigations and he was adamant that we never had that feeling and we did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue this is coming from the people who were receiving the aid so we talked about this whole quid pro quo and that was a big issue that's how this actually before it became a impeachment proceeding there was as the proceedings were beginning in house permanent Select Committee on Intelligence under chairmanships role there was all these discussions is it a quid pro quo was it was it extortion was it bribery what was it and we are clear in our position that there was no quid pro quo but then yesterday my co-counsel Professor Alan Dershowitz explained last night that these articles must be rejected he's talking about from a constitutional framework even if there was a quid pro quo which we have clearly established there was not and this is what he said and I'm going to quote it verbatim the claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed were sole motives that the president was interested only in helping himself demonstrate the dangers of employing the vague subjective and politically malleable phrase abuse of power as a constitutionally permissible criteria for the removal of a president he went on to say now it follows from this that if a president any president were to have done what The Times reported about the content of John Bolton's manuscript that would not constitute an impeachable offense I'm quoting exactly from Professor Durst which he says let me repeat it nothing in the Bolton revelations even if true even if true would rise to the level of abuse of power or an impeachable offense that is clear from history that is clear from the language of the Constitution you cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit it is inconceivable that the framers would have intended to so politically loaded and promiscuously deployed a term as abuse of power to be weaponized again professor gerschwitz as a toll of a tool of impeachment it is precisely the kind of vague open-ended and subjective term the founders and the framers feared and rejected now to be specific you cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegation but what professor Dershowitz are saying even if everything in there was true it constitutionally doesn't rise to that level but I want to be clear on this because there's a lot of speculation out there with regard to what John Bolton has said which reference a number of individuals we'll start with the president here's what the president said in response to that New York Times piece I never told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats including the Biden's in fact he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination if John Bolton said this it was only to sell a book the Department of Justice while the Department of Justice has not reviewed mr. Bolton's manuscript the New York Times account of his conversation grossly mischaracterizes what Attorney General bar and Bolton discussed there was no discussion of personal favors or undue influence on investigations nor did the Attorney General state that the president's conversations with foreign leaders were improper the vice president's chief of staff issued a statement in every conversation with the president and the vice president in preparation for our trip to Poland remember that was the trip that was being planned for the meeting with President Solinsky the president consistent consistently expressed his frustration that the United States was bearing the lion's share of responsibility for H Ukraine and that European nations weren't doing their part the president also expressed concerns about corruption in Ukraine and at no time did I hear him tie Ukraine aid to investigations into the Biden family or that was the response responding to an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says and that's what I mean that's what the evident to call that evidence I don't know what you call that I call it an admissible but that's what it is to argue that the president is not acting in our national interest and is violating his oath of office which the managers have put forward is wrong based on the facts and by the way the Constitution is designed and when you look at the fullness of the record of their witnesses their witnesses the witnesses statements the transcripts there's one thing that emerges there is no violation of law there's no violation of the Constitution there is a disagreement on policy decisions most of those that spoke at your hearings did not like the president's policy that's why we have elections that's what policy differentials and differences are discussed but to have have a removal of a duly elected president based on a policy disagreement that is not what the framers intended and if you lower the bar that way Danger Danger Danger because the next president were the one after that he or she would be held to that same standard I hope not I pray not that that's not what happens not just for the sake of of my client but for the Constitution you know professor Dershowitz gave a list of presidents from Washington to where we are today who under that standard that they are proposing could be subject to abuse of power or obstruction of Congress look we know that what this is is not about a president pausing aid to Ukraine it's really not about a phone call it's about a lot of attempts on policy disagreements that are not being debated here my goodness how much time how much time has been spent in the House of Representatives hoping they were hoping that the Muller probe would result in me I'm not gonna play I was thinking about it playing all the clips from all the commentators the day after the day after the Bob Muller testified my mother was unable to answer under his examination basic and fundamental questions he had correct himself actually here to correct himself before the Senate for something he said before the house so that's what the president's been living with and then we're here today arguing about what a phone call to Ukraine or Ukraine aid being held or a question about corruption or a question about corruption that happens to involve a high public profile figure I mean is that what this is is that where we are and then what do we find out the aid was released it was released in an orderly fashion the reformed president president szalinski wins but there was a question whether his party would take the parliament it did they worked late into the evening with the desire to put forward reforms so everybody was waiting including and you heard the testimony from I will say their witnesses you heard the testimony everybody was concerned about Ukraine everybody was concerned about whether these reforms could actually take place everybody was concerned about it so you hold back didn't affect anything that was going on in the field we heard mr. crow worrying about the soldiers I understand that I appreciate that but none of that aid was affecting what was going on on the battlefield right then or for the next four months because it was future aid where and are we having an impeachment proceeding because aid came out three weeks before the end of the fiscal year we're a six minute phone call you boil it down that's what this is it's interesting to me that everybody saying well the aid was finally released September 11th only because some of the committee and the whistleblower who we've never seen mr. Philbin dealt with that in great detail not going to go over that again but you know the new High Court the anti-corruption court wasn't established and did not sit until September 5th 2019 so while the president of Ukraine was trying to get reforms put in place the court that was going to decide corruption issues was not set until September 5th I want you to think about this for a moment - they needed a high court of corruption for corruption I would think about that from now that's good that they recognized it but remember when I said the other day you don't make wave a magic wand and now Ukraine doesn't have a corruption problem the high court of corruption which they have to have because it's not just past corruption they're concerned about ongoing corruption issues and you could put all of your witnesses back on the under oath in the next hearings you'll have when this is all over and you're going to be back in the house and we'll be doing this again put them all back under oath and ask them mr shipp is there a problem of corruption in Ukraine and if they get up there and say no everything is great now hallelujah but I suspect they're gonna say we're working really hard on it no not I don't believe but this idea that it was just vanished and now we're back in - everything's fine it's absurd mr. Marcin testified that while the developments were taking place the vice president also met with President Solinsky in Warsaw that was the meeting of September 1st the one by the way where the vice president's office said in response to this New York Times see nobody told him about aid being held or linked to investigations are you gonna stop are you going to allow proceedings on impeachment to go from a New York Times report about someone that says what they hear is in a manuscript is that where we are I don't think so I hope not what in marsan say he heard firsthand that the new Ukraine administration was taking concrete steps to address corruption that's good he advised the president that the relationship with szalinski is one that could be trusted good presidents and whiskey also agreed with vice president pence this is interesting that the Europeans should be doing more and related to vice-president pence conversations he'd been having with European leaders about getting them to do more in some the president raised two issues he was concerned with to get them addressed now I've already went over again this is just the closing moments here of this proceeding of our portion of this proceeding aid was withheld were paused put on a pause button not just for Ukraine Afghanistan South Korea El Salvador Honduras Guatemala Lebanon in Pakistan and I'm sure I am leaving countries out but do you think the American people are concerned if the president says you know before we give a country I don't know five hundred and fifty million dollars some countries only four hundred million dollars we'd like to know what they're doing with it you're supposed to be the guardians of the trust here it's the taxpayers money we're spending there was a lot of testimony form from dr. Fiona Hill John Bolton's deputy here's what she said about aid was being held this is her testimony there was a pre put freeze put on all kinds of aid and assistance because it was in the process at the time of a awful lot of reviews of foreign assistance oh you mean there was a policy within the administration to review foreign assistance in how we're doing it because we spend a lot of money and by the way I'm not complaining about them I don't think anybody doesn't want to help but we do need to know what's going on and those are valid and important questions manager crow told you that President presidents Ukraine policy was not strong against Russia but ambassador Jovanovic stated the exact opposite she said in her deposition that our countries Ukraine policy under President Trump actually her words got stronger than it was under President Obama so again policy disagreements disagreements on approach have elections that's what we do in our republic for three long days house managers presented their case by selectively showing parts of testimony good lawyers show parts of testimony you don't have to show the whole thing but other good lawyers show the rest of the testimony and that's what we sought to do to give you a fuller view of what we saw as the glaring omissions by my colleagues the house managers the legal issues here are the constitutional ones and I have been I think pretty clear over the last week starting when we had the motions arguments that my concern about the constitutional obligations that we're operating under I have been critical of manager Nadler z-- executive privilege and other nonsense we I want you to look at it this way take out executive privilege First Amendment free speech and other nonsense the free exercise of religion and other nonsense the rights to due process and other nonsense the rights equal protection under the laws and other nonsense you can't start doing that you would not do that no administration has done that in fact since the first administration George Washington they wanted information he thought it was privileged he said it was executive privilege but let's not start calling constitutional rights other nonsense lumping them together of course this is from from a House of Representatives actually believes the attorney-client privilege doesn't apply which should scare every lawyer in Washington DC when we're more scary to the lawyers will be for their clients they say that in writing in letters I don't hide it I would ask them I don't I'm not going to it's not my privilege to do that do you really believe that do you really believe that the attorney-client privilege does not apply in a congressional hearing you really believe that because then if it doesn't apply then there is no attorney-client privilege or is that the attorney-client privilege and other nonsense Danger Danger Danger we believe that article one fails constitutionally the president has constitutional authority to engage and conduct foreign policy and foreign affairs it is our position legally president and all times acted with perfect legal authority inquired of matters in our national interest and having received assurances of those matters continued his policy that his administration put forward of what really is unprecedented support for Ukraine including the delivery of military aid package that was denied to the Ukrainians by prior administrations you know something some of the managers right here my colleagues at the other table voted in favor of those jet wanted javelin anti-tank missiles for Ukraine some of the members here did not didn't want to do that voted against that I'm glad we gave it to him I'm glad we allowed them to purchase javelins I told you I never served in the military I have tremendous tremendous respect for the men and women that protect our freedom each and every day I tremendous respect for what they are doing and continue to do but this president actually allowed the javelins to go some of you like that idea some of you did not its policy difference were you going to impeach President Obama because he did not give them lethal aid no nor shirred of you you should not do that it's policy difference policy difference do not rise to the level of constitutionally mandated were constitutional applications for removal from office it is policy differences by the way it's not just on lethal weapons then President Obama's I said withheld aid he had the right to do that you've allowed him to do that oh but we don't like that this president did it so the rules change so this president's rules are different than he he has a different set of standards he has to apply than what you allowed the previous administration to apply and you know what or the future administration to apply that's the problem with these articles we've laid out I believe a compelling case on what the Constitution requires when they were in the House of Representatives putting this together did they go through a constitutionally mandated accommodations process to see if there was a way to come up with something no they did not did they run to court no and the one time it was about to happen they ran the other way separation powers means something it's not separation of powers and other nonsense if we've reached now at this very moment in the history of our republic a bar of impeachment because you don't like the president's policies you don't like the way he undertook those policies because we heard a lot about policies if partisan impeachment is now the rule of the day which these members and members of this Senate said should never be the rule of the day my goodness they said it some of them five months ago but then we had the national emergency a phone call it's an emergency except well we look just wait but a partisan impeachment based on policy disagreements which is what this is and personal presumptions or newspaper reports and allegations in a unsourced maybe this is in somebody's book who's no longer at the White House that becomes the new norm future presidents Democrats Republicans will be paralyzed the moment they are elected before they can even take the oath of office the bar for impeachment cannot be set this low Majority Leader McConnell Democratic leader Schumer house managers members of the Senate Danger Danger Danger these articles must be rejected the Constitution requires it justice demands it majority leader we would ask for a short recess if we can about 15 minutes the majority leader is recognized we'll be in recess for 15 15 minutes without objection you the Senate will come to order please be seated mr. sip Bologna Thank You mr. Chief Justice members of the Senate well I had kind of a lengthy presentation prepared but I think I think you've heard a lot from our side and I think we've made our case and so I just want to leave you with a couple of points first of all first of all Thank You mr. leader and thank you Democratic leader Schumer and all of you for the privilege of speaking on the floor of the Senate and for your time and attention we really appreciate it we've made three basic points one all you need in this case is the Constitution and your common sense you just look at the articles of impeachment the articles of impeachment fall far short of any constitutional standard and they are dangerous and if you look to the words from the past that I think are instructive as I said last night they're instructive because they were right then and there right now and I'll leave you with some of those words they must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other such an impeachment will produce the device of this and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions this is unfair to the American people by these actions you would undo the free elections that express the will of the American people in 1996 in so doing you will damage the faith the American people have in this institution and in the American democracy you will set the dangerous precedent that the certainty of presidential terms which is so benefited our wonderful America will be replaced by the partisan use of impeachment future presidents will face election litigation then impeachment the power of the president will diminish in the face of the Congress a phenomena much feared by the founding fathers this is a constitutional amendment that we are debating not an impeachment resolution the Republicans are crossing out the impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors and they are inserting the words any crime or misdemeanor we are permitting a constitutional constitutional coup d'etat which will hunt this body and our country forever I warn my colleagues that you will reap the bitter harvest of the unfair partisan seeds you sow today the constitutional provision for impeachment is a way to protect our government and our citizens not another weapon in the political arsenal I expect history will show that we've lowered the bar on impeachment so much we have broken the seal on this extremely extreme stream penalty so cavalierly that it will be used as a routine tool to fight political battles my fear is that when the Republican wins the White House Democrats will demand payback you were right but I'm sorry to say you were all so prophetic and I think I couldn't say it better myself so I won't you know what the right answer is in your heart you know what the right answer is for our country you know right what the right answer is for the American people what they are asking you to do is to throw out a successful president on the eve of an election with no basis and in violation of the Constitution it would dangerously change our country and weaken weakened forever all of our democratic institutions you all know that's not in the interest of the American people why not trust the American people with this decision why tear up their balance why tear up every ballot across this country you can't do that you know you can't do that so I ask you to defend our Constitution to defend fundamental fairness to defend basic due process rights but most importantly most importantly to respect and defend the sacred right of every American to vote and to choose their president the election is only months away the American people are entitled to choose their president overturning the last election and massively interfering with the upcoming one would cause serious and lasting damage to the people of the United States and to our great country the Senate cannot allow this to happen it is time for this to end here and now so we urge the Senate to reject these articles of impeachment for all of the reasons we have given you you know them all I don't need to repeat them they've repeatedly said over and over again a quote from bridge Benjamin Franklin it's a republic if you can keep it and every time I heard it I said to myself it's a republic if they let us keep it and I have every confidence every confidence in your wisdom you will do the only thing you can do what you must do what the Constitution compels you to do reject these articles of impeachment for our country and for the American people it will show that you put the Constitution above partisanship it will show that we can come together on both sides of the aisle and and the era of impeachment for good you know it should end you know it should end it will allow you all to spend all of your energy and all of your enormous talent and all of your resources on doing what the American people sent you here to do to work together to work with the President to solve their problems so this should end now as quickly as possible thank you again for your attention I look forward to answering your questions and with that that ends our presentation thank you very much [Music] majority leader is recognized hmm mr. Chief Justice I have reached an agreement with the Democratic leader on how to proceed during the question period therefore I ask unanimous consent that the question period for senators start when the Senate reconvenes on Wednesday further that the questions alternate between the majority and minority sides for up to eight hours during that session of the Senate finally that on Thursday the Senate resume time for senators questions alternating between sides for up to eight hours during that session of the Senate without objection so ordered so we will complete the question period over the next two days remind senators that their questions must be in writing will be submitted to the Chief Justice during the question period of the Clinton trial senators were thoughtful and brief with their questions and the managers and counsel or succinct in their answers I hope we can follow both of these examples during this time the impeachment trial of President Clinton Chief Justice Rehnquist advised counsel quote counsel on both sides that the chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption that each question can be fully and fairly answered in five minutes or less and quote the transcript indicates that the statement was met with quote laughter unquote nonetheless managers and counsel generally limited their responses accordingly I think the late Chiefs time limit was a good one and would ask both sides to abide by it so mr. Chief Justice I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 1:00 p.m. Wednesday January 29th and that this order also constituted the adjournment of the Senate without objection we're adjourned you you

Channel: Fox News

Views: 1,966,573

Keywords: Trump, President Trump, Donald Trump, White House, Trump news, White House news, Potus, President, Fox news live, fox news live stream, live stream, fox live, Live updates, fox live stream, Live news, live video, impeachment, trump impeachment, senate impeachment, senate live, senate impeachment trial, impeachment live, impeachment trial live, schiff, adam schiff impeachment, live impeachment, watch impeachment live, watch live impeachment, adam schiff, trump defense

Id: KBTaRfaVb78

Length: 110min 24sec (6624 seconds)

Published: Tue Jan 28 2020