[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S395-S406]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
There being no objection, at 4:48 p.m., the Senate, sitting as a
Court of Impeachment, recessed until 5:16 p.m.; whereupon the Senate
reassembled when called to order by the Chief Justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The amendment is arguable by the parties for 2
hours equally divided.
Mr. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent or an opponent?
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Proponent, Mr. Chief Justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
And Mr. Cipollone?
Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Opponent.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff, you have an hour, and you will be able
to reserve time for rebuttal.
Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Chief Justice Roberts, Senators, counsel for
the White House, I am Val Demings from the State of Florida.
The House managers strongly support the amendment to issue a subpoena
for documents to the State Department.
As we explained, the first Article of Impeachment charges the
President with using the power of his office to solicit and pressure
Ukraine to announce investigations that everyone in this Chamber knows
to be bogus. The President didn't even care if an investigation was
actually conducted, just that it was announced. Why? Because this was
for his own personal and political benefit. The first article further
charges that the President did so with corrupt motives and that his use
of power for personal gain harmed the national security of the United
States.
As the second Article of Impeachment charges, the President sought to
conceal evidence of this conduct. He did so by ordering his entire
administration--every office, every agency, every official--to defy
every subpoena served in the House impeachment inquiry. No President in
history has ever done anything like this. Many Presidents have
expressly acknowledged that they couldn't do anything like this.
President Trump did not take these extreme steps to hide evidence of
his innocence or to protect the institution of the Presidency. As a
career law enforcement officer, I have never seen anyone take such
extreme steps to hide evidence allegedly proving his innocence, and I
do not find that here today. The President is engaged in this coverup
because he is guilty, and he knows it. And he knows that the evidence
he is concealing will only further demonstrate his culpability.
Notwithstanding this effort to stonewall our inquiry, the House
amassed powerful evidence of the President's high crimes and
misdemeanors--17 witnesses, 130 hours of testimony, combined with the
President's own admissions on phone calls and in public comments,
confirmed and corroborated by hundreds of texts, emails, and documents.
Much of that evidence came from patriotic, nonpartisan, decorated
officials in the State Department. They are brave men and women who
honored their obligations under the law and gave testimony required by
congressional subpoena in the face of the President's taunts and
insults. These officials described the President's campaign to induce
and pressure Ukraine to announce political investigations; his use of
$391 million of vital military aid--taxpayer money appropriated on a
bipartisan basis by Congress--as leverage to force Ukraine to comply;
and his withholding of a meeting desperately sought by the newly-
elected President of Ukraine.
This testimony was particularly compelling because the State
Department is at the very center of President Trump's wrongdoing. We
heard firsthand from diplomatic officials who saw up close and personal
what was happening and who immediately--immediately--sounded the
alarms.
Ambassador William Taylor, who returned to Ukraine in June of last
year as Acting Ambassador, texted other State Department officials: ``I
think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a
political campaign.''
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who was delegated
authority over Ukraine matters by none other than President Trump,
testified: ``We knew these investigations were important to the
President'' and ``we followed the President's orders.''
David Holmes, a senior official at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, said:
``[I]t was made clear that some action on a Burisma/Biden investigation
was a precondition for an Oval Office meeting.''
During their testimony, many of these State Department officials
described specific documents--including text messages, emails, former
diplomatic cables, and notes--that would corroborate their testimony
and shed additional light on President Trump's corrupt scheme.
For instance, Ambassador Taylor, who raised concerns that military
aid had been conditioned on the President's demand for political
investigations, described a ``little notebook'' in which he would
``take notes on conversations'' he had with key officials.
Ambassador Sondland referred by date and recipient to emails
regarding the President's demand that Ukraine announce political
investigations. As we will see, those emails were sent to some of
President Trump's top advisers, including Acting White House Chief of
Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, and Secretary
of Energy Rick Perry.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who oversaw Ukraine
policy matters in Washington for the State Department, wrote at least
four memos to file to document concerning conduct he witnessed or
heard.
Ambassador Kurt Volker, the Special Representative for Ukraine
Negotiations, provided evidence that he and other American officials
communicated with high-level Ukrainian officials--including President
Zelensky himself--via text message and WhatsApp about the President's
improper demands and how Ukrainian officials would respond to them.
Based on the testimony we received and on evidence that has since
emerged, all of these documents and others that we will describe bear
directly on the allegations set forth in the first Article of
Impeachment. They would help complete our understanding of how the
President's scheme unfolded in real time. They would support the
conclusion that senior Ukrainian officials understood the corrupt
nature of President Trump's demand. They would further expose the
extent to which Secretary Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney,
and other senior Trump administration officials were aware of the
President's plot and helped carry it out.
We are not talking about a burdensome number of documents; we are
talking about a specific, discrete set of materials held by the State
Department--documents the State Department has already collected in
response to our subpoena but has never produced. We know these
materials exist, we know they are relevant, and we know the President
is desperately trying to conceal them.
As I will describe, the Senate should subpoena the following: No. 1,
WhatsApp and other text message communications; 2, emails; 3,
diplomatic cables; and 4, notes.
Given the significance and relevance of these documents, the House
requested that they be provided. When these requests were denied--when
our requests were denied--the House issued subpoenas commanding that
the documents be turned over, but at the President's direction, the
Department of State unlawfully defied that subpoena.
As I stand here now, the State Department has all these documents in
its possession but refuses, based on the President's order, to let them
see the light of day. This is an affront to the House, which has full
power to see these documents. It is an affront to the Senate, which has
been denied a full record on which to judge the President's guilt or
innocence. It is an affront to the Constitution, which makes clear that
nobody, not even the President, is above the law. It is an affront to
the American people, who have a right to know what the President and
his allies are hiding from them and why it is being hidden.
In prior impeachment trials, this body has issued subpoenas requiring
[[Page S396]]
the recipient to hand over relevant documents. It must do so again
here, and it must do so now at the beginning of the trial, not the end.
Of course the need for a Senate subpoena arises because, as I have
noted, the President ordered the State Department to defy a subpoena
from the House. At this point, I would like to briefly describe our own
efforts to get those materials. I will then address in a more detailed
fashion exactly what documents the State Department has hidden from the
American people and why the Senate should require it to turn them over.
On September 9, exercising their article I oversight authority, the
House investigating committee sent a document request to the State
Department. The committee sought materials related to the President's
effort to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations into his
political rival, as well as his dangerous, unexplained withholding of
millions of dollars in vital military aid.
After the State Department failed to produce any documents, the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs issued a subpoena to the State Department
on September 27.
In a letter on October 1, Secretary Pompeo acknowledged receipt of
the subpoena. At that time, he stated that he would respond to the
committee's subpoena for documents by the return date, October 4, but
his response never came.
Instead, on October 8, President Trump's lawyer--writing on the
President's behalf--issued a direction confirming that the
administration would stonewall the impeachment inquiry.
To date, the State Department has not produced a single document--not
a single document--in response to the congressional subpoena, but
witnesses who testified indicated that the State Department had
gathered all of the records and was prepared to provide them before the
White House directed it to defy the subpoena.
Notwithstanding this unlawful obstruction, through the testimony of
brave State Department employees, the House was able to identify, with
remarkable precision, several categories of documents relevant to the
first Article of Impeachment that are sitting right now--right now--the
documents are sitting right now at the State Department.
I would like to walk you through four key categories of documents
that should be subpoenaed and which illustrate the highly relevant
documents the State Department could produce immediately to this trial.
The first category consists of WhatsApp and other text messages from
State Department officials caught up in these events, including
Ambassadors Sondland and Taylor and also Deputy Assistant Secretary
George Kent, all three of whom confirmed in their testimony that they
regularly use WhatsApp to communicate with each other and foreign
government officials.
As Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent explained, WhatsApp is the
dominant form of electronic communication in certain parts of the
world. We know that the State Department possesses records of WhatsApp
and text messages from critical eyewitnesses to these proceedings,
including from Ambassadors Sondland and Taylor and Deputy Assistant
Secretary Kent.
We know that the Department is deliberately concealing these records
at the direction of the President, and we know that they could contain
highly relevant testimony about the President's plan to condition
official Presidential acts on the announcement of investigations for
his own personal and political gain.
We know this not only from testimony but also because Ambassador
Volker was able to provide us with a small but telling selection of his
WhatsApp messages. Those records confirm that a full review of these
texts and WhatsApp messages from relevant officials would help to paint
a vivid, firsthand picture of statements, decisions, concerns, and
beliefs held by important players unfolding in real time.
For example, thanks to Ambassador Volker's messages, we know that
Ambassador Sondland--a key player in the President's pressure campaign
who testified in the House about a quid pro quo arrangement--texted
directly with the Ukrainian President, President Volodymyr Zelensky.
This image produced by Ambassador Volker appears to be a screenshot of
a text message that Ambassador Sondland exchanged with President
Zelensky about plans for a White House visit--the very same visit that
President Zelensky badly needed and that President Trump later withheld
as part of the quid pro quo described by Ambassador Sondland in his
testimony.
This body and the American people have a right to know what else
Ambassador Sondland and President Zelensky said in this and other
relevant exchanges about the White House meeting or about the military
aid and the President's demands, but we don't know exactly what was
conveyed and when. We don't know it because President Trump directed
the State Department to conceal these vital records. These are records
that the State Department would have otherwise turned over if not for
the President's direction and desire to cover up his wrongdoing.
To get a sense of why texts and WhatsApp messages are so vital, just
consider yet another piece of evidence we have gleaned from Ambassador
Volker's partial production.
On July 10, after the White House meetings at which Ambassador
Sondland pressured Ukrainian officials to announce investigations of
President Trump's political opponents, a Ukraine official texted
Ambassador Volker: ``I feel that the key for many things is Rudi and I
ready to talk with him at any time.''
This is evidence that, immediately following Ambassador Sondland's
ultimatum, Ukrainian officials recognized that they needed to appease
Rudy Giuliani by carrying out the investigations. Of course, Mr.
Giuliani had publicly confirmed that he was not engaged in ``foreign
policy'' but was instead advancing his client's--the President's--own
personal interests.
Further, in another text message exchange provided by Ambassador
Volker, we see evidence that Ukraine understood President Trump's
demands loud and clear.
On the morning of July 25, half an hour before the infamous call
between President Trump and President Zelensky, Ambassador Volker wrote
to a senior Ukrainian official:
Heard from White House--assuming President Z convinces
trump he will investigate/``get to the bottom of what
happened'' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to
Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow--Kurt.
Ambassador Sondland confirmed that this text accurately summarized
the President's directive to him earlier that morning.
After the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky,
the Ukrainian official responded, pointedly: ``Phone call went well.''
He then discussed potential dates for a White House meeting.
Then, the very next day, Ambassador Volker wrote to Rudy Giuliani:
``Exactly the right messages as we discussed.''
These messages confirm Mr. Giuliani's central role, the premeditated
nature of President Trump's solicitation of political investigations,
and the pressure campaign on Ukraine waged by Mr. Giuliani and senior
officials at President Trump's direction.
Again, this is just some of what we learned from Ambassador Volker's
records. As you will see during this trial presentation, there were
numerous WhatsApp messages in August while Ambassadors Volker and
Sondland and Mr. Giuliani were pressuring President Zelensky's top aide
to issue a statement announcing the investigation that President Trump
wanted. Ambassador Taylor's text that you saw earlier about withholding
the aid further reveals how much more material there likely is that
relates to the Articles of Impeachment.
There can be no doubt that a full production of relevant texts and
WhatsApp messages from other officials involved in Ukraine and in touch
with Ukrainian officials--including Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador
Taylor, and Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent--would further illuminate
the malfeasance addressed in our first article.
This leads to the second category of documents that the State
Department is unlawfully withholding--emails involving key State
Department officials
[[Page S397]]
concerning interactions with senior Ukrainian officials and relating to
military aid, a White House meeting, and the President's demand for an
investigation into his rivals.
For example, on July 19, Ambassador Gordon Sondland spoke directly
with President Zelensky about the upcoming July 25 call between
President Trump and President Zelensky.
Ambassador Sondland sent an email updating key officials, including
Secretary Pompeo, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and his
senior adviser, Robert Blair. In this email, he noted that he
``prepared'' President Zelensky, who was willing to make the
announcements of political investigations that President Trump desired.
Secretary Perry and Mick Mulvaney then responded to Sondland,
acknowledging they received the email and recommending to move forward
with the phone call that became the July 25 call between the Presidents
of the United States and Ukraine.
We know all of this not because the State Department provided us with
critical documents but, instead, because Ambassador Sondland provided
us a reproduction of the email.
In his further testimony, Ambassador Sondland quite correctly
explained that this email demonstrated ``everyone was in the loop.''
(Text of Videotape presentation:)
Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was
informed via email on July 19th, days before the Presidential
call. As I communicated to the team, I told President
Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a fully
transparent investigation and turn over every stone were
necessary in his call with President Trump.
Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Even viewed alone, this reproduced email is
damning. It was sent shortly after Ambassador Sondland personally
conveyed the President's demand for investigations to Ukrainians at the
White House, leading several officials to sound alarms. It was said
just a few days before the July 25 call, where President Trump asked
for a ``favor,'' and, by itself, this email shows who was involved in
President Trump's plan to pressure the Ukrainian President for his own
political gain.
But it is obvious that the full email chain and other related emails
to this key time period would also be highly relevant. We don't have
those emails because the State Department is hiding them, at the
direction of the President. The Senate should issue the proposed
subpoena to ensure a complete record of these and other relevant
emails.
Any doubt that the State Department is concealing critical evidence
from this body was resolved when the State Department was recently
ordered to release documents, including emails, pursuant to a lawsuit
under the Freedom of Information Act. These documents are heavily
redacted and are limited to a very narrow time period, but,
nevertheless, despite the heavy redactions, this highly limited glimpse
into the State Department's secret records demonstrates that those
records are full of information relevant to this trial.
For example, several of these newly released emails show multiple
contacts between the State Department, including Secretary Pompeo, and
Mr. Giuliani throughout 2019. This is an important fact.
Mr. Giuliani served as the President's point person and executed his
corrupt scheme. Mr. Giuliani repeatedly emphasized that his role was to
advance the President's personal agenda--the President's political
interests, not to promote the national security interests of the United
States. The fact that the President's private attorney was in contact
at key junctures with the Secretary of State, whose senior officials
were directed by the President to support Mr. Giuliani's efforts in
Ukraine, is relevant, disturbing, and telling.
For example, we know that on March 26, as Mr. Giuliani was pursuing
the President's private agenda in Ukraine, and just 1 week after The
Hill published an article featuring Mr. Giuliani's Ukraine conspiracy
theories, Secretary Pompeo and Mr. Giuliani spoke directly on the
phone.
That same week, President Trump's former personal secretary was asked
by Mr. Giuliani's assistant for a direct connection to Secretary
Pompeo.
Based on these records, it is also clear that Secretary Pompeo was
already actively engaged with Mr. Giuliani in early spring of 2019. It
also appears that these efforts were backed by the White House, given
the involvement of President Trump's personal secretary.
This body and the American people need to see these emails and other
files at the State Department, flushing out these exchanges and the
details surrounding Mr. Giuliani's communications with Secretary
Pompeo. Moreover, based on call records lawfully obtained by the House
from this period, we know that from March 24 to March 30, Mr. Giuliani
called the White House several times and also connected with an
unidentified number numerous times.
These records show that on March 27, Mr. Giuliani placed a series of
calls--series of calls--to the State Department switchboard, Secretary
Pompeo's assistant, and the White House switchboard in quick
succession, all within less than 30 minutes.
Obtaining emails and other documents regarding the State Department
leadership's interaction with President Trump's private lawyer in this
period, when Mr. Giuliani was actively orchestrating the pressure
campaign in Ukraine related to the sham investigation into Vice
President Biden and the 2016 election, would further clarify the
President's involvement and direction at this key juncture in the
formation of a plot to solicit foreign interference in our election.
We also know, based on recently obtained documents from Lev Parnas,
an associate of Rudy Giuliani who assisted him in his representation of
President Trump, that Giuliani likely spoke with Secretary Pompeo about
Ukraine matters even earlier than previously understood.
According to documents obtained from Mr. Parnas, Mr. Giuliani wrote
in early February of 2019 that he apparently spoke with Secretary
Pompeo about the removal of the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine, Marie
Yovanovitch. Mr. Giuliani viewed her as an impediment to implementing
the President's corrupt scheme and orchestrated a long-running smear
campaign against her. Here is what Mr. Parnas said about this just last
week.
(Text of Videotape presentation:)
Ms. MADDOW. Do you believe that part of the motivation to
get rid of Ambassador Yovanovitch, to get her out of post,
was she was in the way of this effort to get the government
of Ukraine to announce investigations of Joe Biden?
Mr. PARNAS. That was the only motivation.
Ms. MADDOW. That was the only motivation?
Mr. PARNAS. There was no other motivation.
Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. These are just some of the email communications
that we know to exist, but there are undoubtedly more, including, for
example, Ambassador Yovanovitch's request for the State Department to
issue a statement of support of her around the time that Mr. Giuliani
was speaking directly with Secretary Pompeo, but that statement never
came.
The State Department has gathered these records, and they are ready
to be turned over pursuant to a subpoena from the Senate. It would not
be a time-consuming or lengthy process to obtain them, and there are
clearly--clearly--important and relevant documents to the President's
scheme. If we want the full and complete truth, then we need to see
those emails.
The Senate should also seek a third item that the State Department
has refused to provide, and that is Ambassador Taylor's extraordinary
first-person diplomatic cable to Secretary Pompeo, dated August 29 and
sent at the recommendation of the National Security Advisor, John
Bolton, in which Ambassador Taylor strenuously objected to the
withholding of military aid from Ukraine, as Ambassador Taylor
recounted in his deposition.
(Text of Videotape presentation:)
Ambassador TAYLOR. Near the end of Ambassador Bolton's
visit, I asked to meet him privately, during which I
expressed to him my serious concern about the withholding of
military assistance to Ukraine while the Ukrainians were
defending their country from Russian aggression. Ambassador
Bolton recommended that I send a first-person cable to
Secretary Pompeo directly relaying my concerns.
I wrote and transmitted such a cable on August 29th,
describing the folly I saw in withholding military aid to
Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the
east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level
of American support for
[[Page S398]]
the Ukrainian Government. The Russians, as I said at my
deposition, would love to see the humiliation of President
Zelensky at the hands of the Americans. I told the Secretary
that I could not and would not defend such a policy.
Although I received no specific response, I heard that soon
thereafter the Secretary carried the cable with him to a
meeting at the White House focused on security assistance for
Ukraine.
Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. While we know from Ambassador Taylor and Deputy
Assistant Secretary Kent that the cable was received, we do not know
whether or how the State Department responded, nor do we know if the
State Department possesses any other internal records relating to this
cable.
This cable is vital for three reasons. First, it demonstrates the
harm that President Trump did to our national security when he used
foreign policy as an instrument of his own personal, political gain.
Second, on the same day the cable was sent, President Zelensky's senior
aide told Ambassador Taylor that he was ``very concerned'' about the
hold on military assistance. He added that the Ukrainians were ``just
desperate'' for it to be released. In other words, President Trump's
effort to use military aid to apply additional pressure on Ukraine was
working.
Finally, based on reporting by the New York Times, we now know that
within days of Ambassador Taylor sending this cable, President Trump
discussed Ukrainian security assistance with Secretary Pompeo, Defense
Secretary Esper, and National Security Advisor Bolton. The
investigation uncovered testimony that Secretary Pompeo brought
Ambassador Taylor's cable to the White House; perhaps it was during
this meeting. There, perhaps prodded by Ambassador Taylor's cable, all
three of them pleaded--pleaded--with the President to resume the
crucial military aid. Yet the President refused.
This body has a right to see Ambassador Taylor's cable, as well as
the other State Department records addressing the official response to
it. Although it may have been classified at the time, the State
Department could no longer claim that the topic of security assistance
remains classified today in light of the President's decision to
declassify his two telephone calls with President Zelensky and Mr.
Mulvaney's public statements about security assistance.
The fourth category of documents that the Senate should subpoena are
contemporaneous, first-person accounts from State Department officials
who were caught up in President Trump's corrupt scheme. These
documents, which were described in detail by Deputy Assistant Secretary
Kent, Ambassador Taylor, and political officer David Holmes, would help
complete the record and clarify how the President's scheme unfolded in
realtime and how the Ukrainians reacted.
Mr. Kent wrote notes or memos to file at least four times, according
to his testimony. Ambassador Taylor took extensive notes of nearly
every conversation he had--some in a little notebook. David Holmes, the
Embassy official in Ukraine, was a consistent notetaker of important
meetings with Ukrainian officials.
(Text of Videotape presentation:)
Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you take notes of this conversation on
September 1st with Ambassador Sondland?
Ambassador TAYLOR. I did.
Mr. GOLDMAN. And did you take notes related to most of the
conversations, if not all of them, that you recited in your
opening statement?
Ambassador TAYLOR. All of them, Mr. Goldman.
. . .
Mr. GOLDMAN. And you are aware, I presume, that the State
Department has not provided those notes to the committee. Is
that right?
Ambassador TAYLOR. I am aware.
Mr. GOLDMAN. So we don't have the benefit of reviewing them
to ask you these questions.
Ambassador TAYLOR. Correct. I understand that they may be
coming, sooner or later.
Mr. GOLDMAN. Well, we would welcome that.
Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. The State Department never produced those
notes.
As another example, Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent testified about a
key document that he drafted on August 16, describing his concerns that
the Trump administration was attempting to pressure Ukraine into
opening politically motivated investigations.
(Text of Videotape presentation:)
[Ms. SPEIER.] I'd like to start with you, Mr. Kent. In your
testimony, you said that you had--``In mid-August, it became clear to
me that Giuliani's efforts to gin up politically motivated
investigations were now infecting U.S. engagement with Ukraine,
leveraging President Zelensky's desire for a White House meeting.'' Mr.
Kent, did you actually write a memo documenting your concerns that
there was an effort under way to pressure Ukraine to open an
investigation to benefit President Trump?
Mr. KENT. Yes, ma'am. I wrote a memo to the file on August
16th.
Ms. SPEIER. But we don't have access to that memo, do we?
Mr. KENT. I submitted it to the State Department, subject
to the September 27th subpoena.
Ms. SPEIER. And we have not received one piece of paper
from the State Department relative to this investigation.
Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent also
memorialized a September 15 conversation in which Ambassador Taylor
described a Ukrainian official accusing America of hypocrisy for
advising President Zelensky against investigating a prior Ukrainian
president. Mr. Kent described that conversation during his testimony.
He said:
But the more awkward part of the conversation came after
Special Representative Volker made the point that the
Ukrainians, who had opened their authorities under Zelensky,
had opened investigations of former President Poroshenko. He
didn't think that was appropriate.
And then Andriy Yermak said: What? You mean the type of
investigations you're pushing for us to do on Biden and
Clinton?
The conversation makes clear the Ukrainian officials understood the
corrupt nature of President Trump's request and therefore doubted
American credibility on anti-corruption measures.
Records of these conversations--and other notes and memorandum by
senior American officials in Ukraine--would flesh out and help complete
the record for the first Article of Impeachment. They would tell the
whole truth to the American people and to this body. You should require
the State Department to provide them.
To summarize, the Senate should issue the subpoena proposed and the
amendment requiring the State Department to turn over relevant text
messages and WhatsApp messages, emails, diplomatic cables, and notes.
These documents bear directly on the trial of this body--the trial that
this body is required by the Constitution to hold. They are immediately
relevant to the first Article of Impeachment. Their existence has been
attested to by credible witnesses in the House, and the only reason we
don't already have them is that the President has ordered his
administration, including Secretary Pompeo, to hide them.
The President's lawyers may suggest that the House should have sought
these materials in court or awaited further lawsuits under the Freedom
of Information Act, a.k.a. FOIA lawsuits. Any such suggestion is
meritless.
To start, the Constitution has never been understood to require such
lawsuits, which has never occurred--never occurred--in any previous
impeachment.
Moreover, the President has repeatedly and strenuously argued that
the House is not even allowed to file a suit to enforce its subpoenas.
In the Freedom of Information Act cases, the administration has only
grudgingly and slowly produced an extremely small set of materials but
has insisted on applying heavy and dubious redactions.
FOIA lawsuits filed by third parties cannot serve as a credible
alternative to congressional oversight. In fact, it is still alarming
that the administration has produced more documents pursuant to Freedom
of Information Act lawsuits by private citizens and entities than
congressional subpoenas.
Finally, as we all know, litigation would take an extremely long
time--likely years, not weeks or months--while the misconduct of this
President requires immediate attention. The misconduct of this
President requires immediate attention.
If this body is truly committed to a fair trial, it cannot let the
President play a game of ``keep away'' and dictate what evidence the
Senators can
[[Page S399]]
and cannot see bearing on his guilt or innocence. This body cannot
permit him to hide all the evidence while disingenuously insisting on
lawsuits that he doesn't actually think we can file--ones that he knows
will not be resolved until after the election he is trying to cheat to
win. Instead, to honor your oaths to do impartial justice, we urge each
Senator to support a subpoena to the State Department. And that
subpoena should be issued now, at the beginning of the trial, rather
than at the end so these documents can be reviewed and their importance
weighed by the parties, by the Senate, and by the American people. That
is how things work in every courtroom in the Nation, and it is how they
should work here, especially because the stakes, as you all know, are
so high.
The truth is there. Facts are stubborn things. The President is
trying to hide it. This body should not surrender to his obstruction by
refusing to demand a full record. That is why the House managers
support this amendment.
Mr. Chief Justice, the House managers reserve the balance of our
time.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone.
Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
In the interest of time, I will not repeat all of the arguments we
have made already with respect to these motions. I would say one thing
before I turn it over to my cocounsel. Mr. Schiff came here and said he
is not asking you to do something he wouldn't do for himself, and the
House manager said: We were not asking you to do our jobs for us.
Mr. Schiff came up here and said: ``I call Ambassador Bolton.''
Remember Paul Harvey? It is time for the rest of the story. He didn't
call him in the House. He didn't subpoena Ambassador Bolton in the
House.
I have a letter here from Ambassador Bolton's lawyer. He is the same
lawyer that Charlie Kupperman hired. It is dated November 8. He said: I
write as counsel to Dr. Charles Kupperman and to Ambassador John Bolton
in response to, one, the letter of November 5 from Chairman Schiff,
Chairman Engel, and Acting Chair Maloney, the House chairs, withdrawing
the subpoena to Dr. Kupperman--I mentioned that earlier--and to recent
published reports announcing that the House chairs do not intend to
issue subpoenas to Ambassador Bolton.
He goes on to say: ``We are dismayed that committees have chosen not
to join in seeking resolution from the Judicial Branch of this
momentous Constitutional question.'' He ends the letter by saying: ``If
the House chooses not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of Dr.
Kupperman and Ambassador Bolton, let the record be clear: that is the
House's decision.''
They made that decision. They never subpoenaed Ambassador Bolton.
They didn't try to call him in the House. They withdrew the subpoena
for Charles Kupperman before the judge could rule, and they asked that
the case be mooted. Now they come here, and they ask you to issue a
subpoena for John Bolton. It is not right.
I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Sekulow.
Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, the
managers said facts are a stubborn thing. Let me give you some facts.
It is from the transcripts.
Ambassador Sondland actually testified unequivocally that the
President did not tie aid to investigations. Instead, he acknowledged
that any leak he had suggested was based entirely on his own
speculation, unconnected to any conversation with the President.
Here is the question:
What about the aid? Ambassador Volker says that the aid was
not tied.
Answer. I didn't say that they were conclusively tied
either. I said I was presuming it.
Question. OK. And so the President never told you they were
tied?
Answer. That is correct.
Question. So your testimony and Ambassador Volker's
testimony is consistent, and the President did not tie
investigations, aid to investigations?
Answer. That is correct.
Ambassador Sondland also testified that he asked President Trump
directly about these issues, and the President explicitly told him that
he did not want anything from Ukraine. He said:
I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.
Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.
Similar comments were made to Senator Johnson.
Those are the facts--stubborn, but those are the facts.
No one is above the law. Here is the law. As every Member of Congress
knows and is undoubtedly aware, separate from even state sacred
privileges is the Presidential communication executive privilege to
communications in performance of a President's responsibilities. The
Presidential communication privilege has constitutional origins. Courts
have recognized a great public interest in preserving the
confidentiality of conversations that take place in the President's
performance of his official duties because such confidentiality is
needed to protect the effectiveness of the Executive decisionmaking
process. That is In re Sealed Case, which was decided in the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court found such a privilege necessary to guarantee the
candor of Presidential advisers and to provide a President and those
who assist him with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of
ultimately shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way
many would be unwilling to express except in private. For these
reasons, Presidential conversations are presumptively privileged.
There is something else about this privilege. Communications made by
Presidential advisers--again quoting courts--and by the way, lawyer
lawsuits? Lawyer lawsuits? We are talking about the impeachment of a
President of the United States, duly elected, and the Members and the
managers are complaining about lawyer lawsuits? The Constitution allows
lawyer lawsuits. It is disrespecting the Constitution of the United
States to even say that in this Chamber, ``lawyer lawsuits.''
Here is the law. Communications made by Presidential advisers in the
course of preparing advice for the President come under the
Presidential communications privilege even when these communications
are not made directly to the President--even when they are not made
directly to the President--adviser to adviser. Given the need to
provide sufficient elbow room for advisers to obtain information from
all knowledgeable sources, the privilege must apply both to
communications which these advisers solicited and received from others,
as well as those they authorized themselves.
The privilege must also extend to communications authored or received
in response to solicitation by members of a Presidential adviser's
staff since in many instances advisers must rely on their staffs to
investigate an issue and formulate advice given to the President.
Lawsuits, the Constitution--it is a dangerous moment for America when
an impeachment of a President of the United States is being rushed
through because of lawyer lawsuits. The Constitution allows it, if
necessary. The Constitution demands it, if necessary.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mrs. Demings, you have 13 minutes for rebuttal, or
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Let me respond to some of my colleague's points, if I can.
First, counsel said: Well, the House would like to call John Bolton,
but the House did not seek his testimony during its investigation.
Well, first of all, we did. We invited John Bolton to testify. Do you
know what he told us? He said:
I am not coming. And if you subpoena me, I will sue you.
That was his answer: ``I will sue you.''
Mr. Bolton is represented by the same lawyer who represents Dr.
Kupperman, who actually did sue us when he was subpoenaed. So we knew
that John Bolton would make good on that threat.
Mr. Sekulow said something about lawyer lawsuits. I have to confess,
I wasn't completely following the argument, but he said something about
lawyer lawsuits and that we are against lawyer lawsuits. I don't know
what that means, but I can tell you this: The Trump Justice Department
is in court in that case and in other cases arguing that Congress
cannot go to court to enforce its subpoenas. So when they say
[[Page S400]]
something about lawyer lawsuits and they say there is nothing wrong
with the House suing to get these witnesses to show up and they should
have sued to get them to show up, their own lawyers are in court saying
that the House has no such right. They are in court saying that you
can't have lawyer lawsuits. That argument cannot be made in both
directions.
What is more, in the McGhan issue, which tested this same bogus
theory of absolute immunity--once again, that lawsuit involving the
President's lawyer, Don McGahn, the one who was told to fire the
special counsel and then to lie about it, that lawsuit to get his
testimony--Judge Jackson ruled on that very recently when they made the
same bogus claim, saying that he is absolutely immune from showing up.
The judge said:
That is nonsense. There is no support for that--not in the
Constitution, not in the case. That is made out of whole
cloth.
But the judge said something more that was very interesting. What we
urged John Bolton's lawyer was, you don't need to file a lawsuit. Dr.
Kupperman, you don't need to file a lawsuit. There is one already filed
involving Don McGahn that is about to be decided. So unless your real
purpose here is delay, unless your real purpose here is to avoid
testimony and you just wish to give the impression of a willingness to
come forward, you just want to have the court's blessing--if that is
really true, agree to be bound by the McGahn decision.
Well, of course, they were not willing because they didn't want to
testify. Now, for whatever reason, John Bolton is now willing to
testify. I don't know why that is. Maybe it is because he has a book
coming out. Maybe it is because it would be very hard to explain why he
was unwilling to share important information with the Senate; that he
couldn't show up for a House deposition or interview because he would
need court permission to do it, but he could put it in the book. I
don't know. I can't speak to his motivation. I can tell you he is
willing to come now, if you are willing to hear him.
Of course, they weren't willing to be bound by that court decision in
McGahn, but the court said something very interesting, because one of
the arguments they happened to make--one of the arguments that John
Bolton's lawyer had been making as to why they needed their own
separate litigation was, well, John Bolton and Dr. Kupperman, they are
national security people, and Don McGahn is just a White House Counsel.
No offense to the White House Counsel, but apparently it had nothing to
do with the national security so they couldn't be bound by what the
court in the McGahn case said. Well, the judge in the McGahn case said
this applies to national security stuff too.
So we do have the court decision. What is more, we have the court
decision in the Harriet Miers case, in the George W. Bush
administration, where, likewise, the court made short shrift of this
claim of absolute, complete, and total immunity.
Now, there were also comments made about Ambassador Volker's
testimony by Mr. Cipollone, and they were along these lines: Ambassador
Volker said the President never told him that the aid was being
conditioned or that the meeting was being conditioned on Ukraine doing
the sham investigation. So I guess that is case closed--unless the
President told everyone, called them into the office and said: Hey, I
am going to tell you now; and then: I am going to tell you now. If he
didn't tell everyone, I guess it is case closed.
Well, you know who the President did tell, among others? He told Mick
Mulvaney. Mick Mulvaney went out on national television and said, yes,
they discussed it, this investigation, this Russian narrative that it
wasn't Ukraine that intervened in 2016; it was Russia. I am sorry. It
wasn't Russia; it was Ukraine. Yes, that bogus 2016 theory; yes, they
discussed it; yes, it was part of the reason why they withheld the
money.
When a reporter said: Well, you are kind of describing a quid pro
quo, his answer was: Yes, get used to it--or get over it. We do it all
the time.
Now, they haven't said they want to hear from Mick Mulvaney. I wonder
why. The President did talk to Mick Mulvaney about it. Wouldn't you
like to hear what Mick Mulvaney has to say? If you really want to get
to the bottom of this, if they are really challenging the fact that the
President conditioned $400 million in military aid to an ally at war,
if Mick Mulvaney has already said publicly that he talked to the
President about it, and this is part of the reason why, don't you think
we should hear from him? Wouldn't you think impartial justice requires
you to hear from him?
Now, counsel also referred to Ambassador Sondland and Sondland
saying: Well, the President told me there was no quid pro quo. Now, of
course, at the time the President said to Sondland no quid pro quo, he
became aware of the whistleblower complaint, presumably by Mr.
Cipollone. So the President knew that this was going to come to light.
On the advice, apparently, of Mr. Cipollone, or maybe others, the
Director of National Intelligence, for the first time in history,
withheld a whistleblower complaint from Congress, its intended
recipient. Nonetheless, the White House was aware of that complaint. We
launched our own investigations.
Yes, they got caught. In the midst of being caught, what does he say?
It is called a false exculpatory. For those people at home, that is a
fancy word of saying it is a false, phony alibi. No quid pro quo. He
wasn't even asked the question was there a quid pro quo. He just
blurted it out. That is the defense? The President denies it? What is
more interesting, he didn't tell you about the other half of that
conversation where the President says no quid pro quo. He says: No quid
pro quo, but Zelensky needs to go to the mike, and he should want to do
it, which is the equivalent of saying no quid pro quo, except the quid
pro quo, and here is what it is. The quid pro quo is he needs to go to
the mike, and he should want to do it. That is their alibi?
They didn't also mention, of course--and you will hear about this
during the trial, if we have a real trial. Ambassador Sondland also
said: We are often asked was there a quid pro quo, and the answer is,
yes, there was a quid pro quo. There was an absolute quid pro quo.
What is more, when it came to the military aid, it was as simple as
two plus two. Well, I will tell you something. We are not the only
people who can add up two plus two. There are millions of people
watching this who can add up two plus two also. When the President
tells his Chief of Staff: We are holding up the aid because of this, as
the Chief of Staff admitted; when the President gives no plausible or
other explanation for holding up aid that you all and we all supported
and voted on in a very bipartisan way, has no explanation for it; when
in that call he never brings up corruption except the corruption he
wants to bring about, it doesn't take a genius, it doesn't take Albert
Einstein to add up two plus two. It equals four. In this case, it
equals guilt.
Now, you are going to have 16 hours to ask questions. You are going
to have 16 hours. That is a long time to ask questions. Wouldn't you
like to be able to ask about the documents in that 16 hours? Would you
like to be able to say: Counsel for the President, what did Mick
Mulvaney mean when he emailed so-and-so and said such and such? What is
your explanation for that because that seems to be pretty damning
evidence of exactly what the House is saying. What is your explanation
of that? Mr. Sekulow, what is your explanation?
Wouldn't you like to be able to ask about the documents or ask the
House: Mr. Schiff, what about this text message? Doesn't that suggest
such--what the President is arguing? Wouldn't you like to be able to
ask me that question, or one of my colleagues? I think you would. I
think you should.
But the backward way this resolution is drafted, you get 16 hours to
ask questions about documents you have never seen. You know what is
more? If you do decide at that point, after the trial is essentially
over, that you do want to see the documents after all and the documents
are produced, you don't get another 16 hours. You don't get 16 minutes.
You don't get 16 seconds to ask about those documents. Does that make
any sense to you? Does that make any sense at all?
I will tell you something I would like to know that may be in the
documents. You probably heard before about the
[[Page S401]]
three amigos. My colleague has mentioned two of the three amigos: Amigo
Volker and Amigo Sondland. These are two of the three people whom the
President put in charge of Ukraine policy. The third amigo is Secretary
Rick Perry, former Secretary of Energy. We know from Amigo Sondland's
testimony that he was certainly in the loop, knew exactly all about
this scheme, and we knew from Ambassador Volker's testimony and his
text messages and his WhatsApps that that amigo was in the loop.
What about the third amigo? Wouldn't you like to know if the third
amigo was in the loop? Now, as my colleagues will explain when we get
to the Department of Energy records, well, surprisingly, we didn't get
those either. Any communication between the Department of Energy and
the Department of State is covered by this amendment. Wouldn't you like
to know? Don't you think the American people have a right to know what
the third amigo knew about this scheme? I would like to know. I think
you should be able to ask questions about it in your 16 hours.
At the end of the day, I guess I will finish with something Mr.
Sekulow said. He said this was a dangerous moment because we are trying
to rush through this somehow. It is a dangerous moment, but we are not
trying to rush through this trial. We are actually trying to have a
real trial here. It is the President who is trying to rush through
this.
I have to tell you that whatever you decide here--maybe this is a
waste of breath and maybe it is already decided, but whatever you
decide here--I don't know who the next President is going to be; maybe
it will be someone in this Chamber, but I guarantee you this: Whoever
that next President is, whether they did something right or they did
something wrong, there is going to come a time where you, in this body,
are going to subpoena that President and that administration. You are
going to want to get to the bottom of serious allegations. Are you
prepared to say that that President can simply say: I am going to fight
all the subpoenas. Are you prepared to say and accept that President
saying: I have absolute immunity. You want me to come testify? Senator,
do you want me to come testify? No, no. I have absolute immunity. You
can subpoena me all you like. I will see you in court. And when you get
to court, I am going to tell you, you can't see me in court.
Are you prepared for that? That is what the future looks like. Don't
think this is the last President, if you allow this to happen, who is
going to allow this to take place.
Mr. Chief Justice, I yield back.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
Motion to Table
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a motion to the desk to
table the amendment.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Are there any Senators in the Chamber wishing to
vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 16]
YEAS--53
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Loeffler
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--47
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The motion to table is agreed to; the amendment is tabled.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Amendment No. 1286
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to
subpoena certain Office of Management and Budget documents, and I ask
that it be read.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will read the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1286.
(Purpose: To subpoena certain Office of Management and Budget documents
and records)
At the appropriate place in the resolving clause, insert
the following:
Sec. ___. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, pursuant to rules V and VI of the Rules of
Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on
Impeachment Trials--
(1) the Chief Justice of the United States, through the
Secretary of the Senate, shall issue a subpoena to the Acting
Director of the Office of Management and Budget commanding
him to produce, for the time period from January 1, 2019, to
the present, all documents, communications, and other records
within the possession, custody, or control of the Office of
Management and Budget, referring or relating to--
(A) the actual or potential suspension, withholding,
delaying, freezing, or releasing of United States foreign
assistance, military assistance, or security assistance of
any kind to Ukraine, including but not limited to the Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative (referred to in this section
as ``USAI'') and Foreign Military Financing (referred to in
this section as ``FMF''), including but not limited to--
(i) communications among, between, or referring to Director
Michael John ``Mick'' Mulvaney, Assistant to the President
Robert Blair, Acting Director Russell Vought, Associate
Director Michael Duffey, or any other Office of Management
and Budget employee;
(ii) communications related to requests by President Trump
for information about Ukraine security or military assistance
and responses to those requests;
(iii) communications related to concerns raised by any
Office of Management and Budget employee related to the
legality of any hold on foreign assistance, military
assistance, or security assistance to Ukraine;
(iv) communications sent to the Department of State
regarding a hold or block on congressional notifications
regarding the release of FMF funds to Ukraine;
(v) communications between--
(I) officials at the Department of Defense, including but
not limited to Undersecretary of Defense Elaine McCusker; and
(II) Associate Director Michael Duffey, Deputy Associate
Director Mark Sandy, or any other Office of Management and
Budget employee;
(vi) all draft and final versions of the August 7, 2019,
memorandum prepared by the National Security Division,
International Affairs Division, and Office of General Counsel
of the Office of Management and Budget about the release of
foreign assistance, security assistance, or security
assistance to Ukraine;
(vii) the Ukrainian government's knowledge prior to August
28, 2019, of any actual or potential suspension, withholding,
delaying, freezing, or releasing of United States foreign
assistance, military assistance, or security assistance to
Ukraine, including all meetings, calls, or other engagements
with Ukrainian officials regarding potential or actual
suspensions, holds, or delays in United States assistance to
Ukraine;
(B) communications, opinions, advice, counsel, approvals,
or concurrences provided by any employee in the Office of
Management and Budget regarding the actual or potential
suspension, withholding, delaying, freezing, or releasing of
security assistance to Ukraine including legality under the
Impoundment Control Act;
(C) Associate Director Michael Duffey taking over duties
related to apportionments of USAI or FMF from Deputy
Associate Director Mark Sandy or any other Office of
Management and Budget employee;
(D) all meetings related to the security assistance to
Ukraine including but not limited to interagency meetings on
July 18, 2019, July 23, 2019, July 26, 2019, and July 31,
2019, including any directions provided to staff
participating in those meetings and any readouts from those
meetings;
(E) the decision announced on or about September 11, 2019,
to release appropriated foreign assistance, military
assistance, or security assistance to Ukraine, including but
not limited to any notes, memoranda, documentation or
correspondence related to the decision;
(F) all draft and final versions of talking points related
to the withholding or release of foreign assistance, military
assistance, or security assistance to Ukraine, including
[[Page S402]]
communications with the Department of Defense related to
concerns about the accuracy of the talking points; and
(G) all meetings and calls between President Trump and the
President of Ukraine, including documents, communications,
and other records related to the scheduling of, preparation
for, and follow-up from the President's April 21 and July 25,
2019, telephone calls, as well as the President's September
25, 2019, meeting with the President of Ukraine in New York;
and
(2) the Sergeant at Arms is authorized to utilize the
services of the Deputy Sergeant at Arms or any other employee
of the Senate in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued
by this section.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
Program
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, first a scheduling note: As the
parties are ready to debate this amendment, I suggest we go ahead, get
through the debate, and vote before we take a 30-minute recess for
dinner.
I remind everyone that I will be moving to table the amendment. It is
also important to remember that both the evidence and witnesses are
addressed in the underlying resolution.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The amendment is arguable by the parties for 2
hours, equally divided.
Mr. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent or opponent of this motion?
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Proponent, Mr. Chief Justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone, are you a proponent or opponent?
Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Mr. Chief Justice, we are an opponent.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff, your side will proceed first, and you
will be able to reserve time for rebuttal.
Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, before I begin, the House
managers will reserve the balance of our time to respond to the counsel
for the President.
Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, counsel for the President, and the
American people, I am Jason Crow from the great State of Colorado.
The House managers strongly support this amendment to subpoena key
documents from the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB. These
documents go directly to one of President Trump's abuses of power: his
decision to withhold vital military aid from a strategic partner that
is at war to benefit his own personal reelection campaign. Why should
that matter? Why should anybody care? Why should I care?
Before I was a Member of Congress, I was an American soldier serving
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although some years have passed since that
time, there is still some memories that are seared in my brain. One of
those memories was scavenging scrap metal on the streets of Baghdad in
the summer of 2003, which we had to bolt onto the side of our trucks
because we had no armor to protect against roadside bombs.
When we talk about troops not getting the equipment they need, when
they need it, it is personal to me. To be clear here, we are talking of
$391 million of taxpayer money intended to protect our national
security by helping our strategic partner, Ukraine, fight against
Vladimir Putin's Russia, an adversary of the United States.
The President could not carry out this scheme alone. He needed a lot
of people to help him. That is why we know as much about it as we do
today. But there is much more to know. That is what trials are for, to
get the full picture.
We know there is more because President Trump needed the Office of
Management and Budget to figure out how to stop what should have been a
routine release of funds mandated by Congress--a release of funds that
was already under way.
The people in this Chamber don't need me to tell you that because 87
of you in this room voted for those vital funds to support our partner
Ukraine.
Witnesses before the House testified extensively about OMB's
involvement in carrying out the hold. It was OMB that relayed the
President's instructions and implemented them. It was OMB that
scrambled to justify the freeze.
OMB has key documents that President Trump has refused to turn over
to Congress. It is time to subpoena those documents. These documents
would provide insight into critical aspects of the military aid hold.
They would show the decision-making process and motivations behind
President Trump's freeze. They would reveal the concerns expressed by
career OMB officials, including lawyers, that the hold was violating
the law. They would expose the lengths to which OMB went to justify the
President's hold. They would reveal concerns about the impact of the
freeze on Ukraine and U.S. national security. They would show that
senior officials repeatedly attempted to convince President Trump to
release the hold.
In short, they would show exactly how the President carried out the
scheme to use our national defense funds to benefit his personal
political campaign.
We are not speculating about the existence of these documents. We are
not guessing what the documents might show. During the course of the
investigation in the House, witnesses who testified before the
committees identified multiple documents directly relevant to the
impeachment inquiry that OMB continues to hold to this day.
We know these documents exist, and we know that the only reason we do
not have them is because the President directed OMB not to produce them
because he knows what they would show.
To demonstrate the significance of the OMB documents and the value
they would provide in this trial, I would like to walk you through some
of what we know exists for which the Trump administration has refused
to turn over.
As we have discussed, the Trump administration has refused to turn
over any documents to the House in response to multiple subpoenas and
requests. Based on what is known from the testimony and the few
documents that have been obtained through public reporting and
lawsuits, it is clear that the President is trying to hide this
evidence because he is afraid of what it would show. The documents
offer stark examples of the chaos and confusion that the President's
scheme set off across our government and made clear the importance of
the documents that are still being concealed by the President.
We know that OMB has documents that reveal that as early as June, the
President was considering holding military aid for Ukraine. The
President began questioning military aid to Ukraine after Congress
appropriated and authorized the money--$250 million in DOD funds and
$140 million in State Department funds. This funding had wide
bipartisan support because, as many witnesses testified, providing
military aid to Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression
also benefits our own national security. Importantly, the President's
questions came weeks after the Department of Defense already certified
that Ukraine had undertaken the anti-corruption reforms and other
measures mandated by Congress as a condition for receiving that aid.
There is a process for making sure that the funds make it to the right
place and to the right people--a process that has been followed every
year that we have been providing that security assistance to Ukraine,
including the first 2 years under the Trump administration.
Nonetheless, the President's questions came days after DOD issued a
press release on June 18, announcing they would provide its $250
million portion of the taxpayer-funded military aid to Ukraine.
According to public reporting, the day after DOD's press release, a
White House official named Robert Blair called OMB's Acting Director,
Russell Vought, to talk about the military aid to Ukraine. According to
public reports, Mr. Blair told Vought: ``We need to hold it up.''
OMB has refused to produce any documents related to this
conversation. The Senate can get them by passing the amendment and
issuing a subpoena.
But there is more. The same day Blair told Vought to hold up the aid,
Michael Duffey, a political appointee at OMB who reports to Vought,
emailed Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Elaine McCusker and told her
that the President had questions about the aid. Duffey copied Mark
Sandy, a career official at OMB, who told us about the email in his
testimony before the House.
Like all others, that email was not produced by the Trump
administration in the House impeachment investigation. We know this
email exists, however, because in response to a Freedom of Information
Act lawsuit, the Trump
[[Page S403]]
administration was forced to release a redacted email consistent with
Sandy's description.
But OMB provided none of those documents to the House. With this
proposed amendment, the Senate has an opportunity to obtain and review
the full record that can further demonstrate how and why the President
was holding the aid. These documents would also shed light on the
President's order to implement the hold.
On July 3, the State Department told various officials that OMB
blocked it from dispensing $141 million in aid. OMB had directed the
State Department not to send a notification to Congress about spending
the money, and without that notification, the aid was effectively
blocked. Why did OMB block the congressional notification? Who told
them to do it? What was the reason? The Senate would get those answers
if it issued this subpoena.
But there is more. On July 12, Blair--the White House official who
had called Vought on June 19 and said ``We need to hold it up''--sent
an email to Duffey at OMB. Blair said: ``The President is directing a
hold on military support funding for Ukraine.''
We haven't seen this email. The only reason we know about it is from
the testimony of Mark Sandy, the career OMB official who followed the
law and complied with his subpoena. As you can see from the transcript
excerpt in front of you, Sandy testified that the July 12 email did not
mention concerns about any other country or any other aid packages,
just Ukraine. So of the dozens of countries we provide aid and support
for, the President was only concerned about one of them--Ukraine. Why?
Well, we know why. But OMB has still refused to provide a copy of this
July 12 email and has refused to provide any documents surrounding it,
all because the President told OMB to continue to hide the truth from
Congress and the American people.
What was he afraid of? A subpoena issued by the Senate would show us.
OMB also has documents about a key series of meetings triggered by
the President's order to hold military aid. In the second half of July,
the National Security Council convened a series of interagency meetings
about the President's hold on military aid. OMB documents would show
what happened during those meetings. For example, on July 18, the
National Security Council staff convened a routine interagency meeting
to discuss Ukraine policy. During the meeting, it was the OMB
representative who announced that President Trump placed a hold on all
military aid to Ukraine.
Ambassador Bill Taylor, our most senior diplomat to Ukraine,
participated in that meeting, and he described his reaction at his own
hearing.
(Text of Videotape presentation:)
Mr. TAYLOR. In a regular NSC secure video conference call
on July 18, I heard a staff person from the Office of
Management and Budget say that there was a hold on security
assistance to Ukraine but could not say why. Toward the end
of an otherwise normal meeting, a voice on the call--the
person was off-screen--said that she was from OMB and her
boss had instructed her not to approve any additional
spending on security assistance for Ukraine until further
notice.
I and others sat in astonishment. The Ukrainians were
fighting the Russians and counted on not only the training
and weapons but also the assurance of U.S. support. All that
the OMB staff person said was that the directive had come
from the President, to the Chief of Staff, to OMB. In an
instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong
support for Ukraine was threatened.
Mr. Manager CROW. It is hard to believe OMB would not have any
documents following this bombshell announcement. It surely does. It was
the agency that delivered the shocking news to the rest of the U.S.
Government that the President was withholding the vital military aid
from our partner, and we would see these documents if the Senate issued
a subpoena.
The July 18 meeting was just the first in a series of meetings where
OMB held the line and enforced the President's hold on the aid. But
there was a second meeting on July 23, where we understood agencies
raised concerns about the legality of OMB's hold on the aid and then a
third meeting, at a more senior level, on July 26. Witnesses testified
that at that meeting, OMB struggled to offer an explanation for the
President's hold on the aid. Then there was a fourth meeting on July
31, where the legal concerns about the hold were raised. At each of
these meetings, there was confusion about the scope and the reasons for
the hold. Nobody seemed to know what was going on. But that was exactly
the point.
All of the agencies--except OMB, which was simply conveying the
President's order--supported the military aid and argued for lifting
the hold. OMB did not produce a single document providing information
about his participation, preparation, or followup from any of these
meetings.
Did these OMB officials come prepared with talking points for these
meetings? Did OMB officials take notes during any of these meetings?
Did they exchange emails about what was going on? Did OMB discuss what
reasons they could give everyone else for the hold? By issuing this
subpoena, the Senate can find out the answers to all of those questions
and others like them. The American people deserve answers.
OMB documents would also reveal key facts about what happened on July
25. On July 25, President Trump conducted his phone call with President
Zelensky, during which he demanded ``a favor.'' This favor was for
Ukraine to conduct an investigation to benefit the President's
reelection campaign. That call was at 9 a.m. Just 90 minutes after
President Trump hung up the phone, Duffey, the political appointee at
OMB who is in charge of national security programs, emailed DOD to
``formalize'' the hold on the military aid, just 90 minutes after
President Trump's call--a call in which the President had asked for ``a
favor.''
That email is on the screen in front of you. We have a redacted copy
of this email because it was recently released through the Freedom of
Information Act. It was not released by the Trump administration in
response to the House's subpoena.
In this email, Duffey told DOD officials that, based on the guidance
it received, they should ``hold off on any additional DOD obligations
of these funds.'' He added that the request was ``sensitive'' and that
they should keep this information ``closely held,'' meaning, don't tell
anybody about it.
Why did Duffey consider the information sensitive? Why didn't he want
anyone to learn about it? Answers to those questions may be found in
OMB emails--emails that we could all see if you issue a subpoena.
But there is more. Remember, the administration needed to create a
way to stop funding that was already underway. The train had already
left the station and something like this had never been done before.
Later in the evening of July 25, OMB found a way, even though DOD had
already notified Congress that the funds would be released.
Here is how this scheme worked. OMB sent DOD a funding document that
included a carefully worded footnote directing DOD to hold off on
spending the funds ``to allow for an interagency process to determine
the best use.'' Remember that language, ``to allow for an interagency
process to determine the best use.''
Let me explain that. The footnote stated that this ``brief pause''
would not prevent DOD from spending the money by the end of the fiscal
year, which was coming up on September 30. OMB had to do this because
it knew that not spending the money was illegal, and they knew that DOD
would be worried about that. And they were right; DOD was worried about
it. Mr. Sandy testified that in his 12 years of experience at OMB, he
could not recall anything like this ever happening before. The drafting
of this unusual funding document and the issuance of the document must
have generated a significant amount of email traffic, memos, and other
documentation at OMB--memos, email traffic, and documentation that we
would all see if the Senate issued a subpoena.
What was the result from this series of events on July 25? Where was
Mr. Duffey's guidance to implement the hold coming from? Why was the
request ``sensitive''? What was the connection between OMB's direction
to DOD and the call President Trump had with President Zelensky just 90
minutes before? Did agency officials communicate about the questions
coming from Ukrainian officials?
The American people deserve answers. A subpoena would provide those
answers.
OMB documents also would reveal information about the decision to
have a political appointee take over Ukraine funding responsibility.
The tensions
[[Page S404]]
and chaos surrounding the freeze escalated at the end of July, when
Duffey, a political appointee at OMB with no relevant experience in
funding approvals, took authority for releasing military aid to Ukraine
away from Sandy, a career OMB official. Sandy could think of no other
explanation of a political appointee's taking on this responsibility.
Sandy was given no reason other than Mr. Duffey wanted to be ``more
involved in daily operations.''
During his deposition, Sandy confirmed that he was removed from the
funding approval process after he had raised concerns to Duffey about
whether the hold was legal under the Impoundment Control Act. Needless
to say, OMB has refused to turn over any documents or communications
involving that decision to replace Mr. Sandy.
Why did Duffey--a political appointee with no relevant experience in
this area--take over responsibility for Ukraine's funding approval? Was
the White House involved in that decision? Was Sandy removed because he
had expressed concerns about the legality of the hold?
By August 7, people in our government were worried, and when people
in the government get worried, sometimes what they do is they draft
memos, because when they are concerned about getting caught up in
something that doesn't seem right, they don't want to be a part of it.
So, on that day, Mark Sandy and other colleagues at the OMB drafted
and sent a memo about Ukraine military aid to Acting Director Vought.
According to Sandy, the memo advocated for the release of the funds. It
said that the military aid was consistent with American national
security interests, that it would help to oppose Russian aggression,
and that it was backed by strong bipartisan support. But President
Trump did not lift the hold.
Over the next several weeks, the OMB continued to issue funding
documents that kept kicking the can down the road, supposedly to allow
for more of this ``interagency process'' while inserting those
footnotes throughout the apportionment documents, stating that the
delay wouldn't affect the funding. But here is the really shocking
part: There was no interagency process. They made it up. It had ended
months before. They made it up because nobody could say the real reason
for the hold. In total, the OMB issued nine of these documents between
July 25 and September 10.
Did the White House respond to the OMB's concerns and recommendation
to release the aid? Did the White House instruct the OMB to continue
creating a paper trail in an effort to justify the hold? Who knew what
and when the OMB documents would shed light on the OMB's actions as the
President's scheme unraveled? Did the White House direct the OMB to
continue issuing the hold? What was OMB told about the President's
reasons for releasing the hold? What communications did the OMB
officials have with the White House around the time of the release? As
the President's scheme unraveled, did anyone at the OMB connect the
dots for the real reason for the hold? The OMB documents would shed
light on all of these questions, and the American people deserve
answers.
I remember what it feels like to not have the equipment you need when
you need it. Real people's lives are at stake. That is why this
matters. We need this information so we can ensure that this never
happens again. Eventually, this will all come out. We will have answers
to these questions. The question now is whether we will have them in
time and who here will be on the right side of history.
I reserve the balance of our time for an opportunity to respond to
the President's argument.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you.
Mr. Sekulow.
Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the
Senate.
Manager Crow, you should be happy to know that the aid that was
provided to Ukraine over the course of the present administration
included lethal weapons. Those were not provided by the previous
administration. The suggestion that Ukraine failed to get any equipment
is false. The security assistance was not for funding Ukraine over the
summer of 2019. There was no lack of equipment due to the temporary
pause. It was for future funding.
Ukraine's Deputy Minister of Defense, who oversaw the U.S. aid
shipment, said: ``The hold went and came so quickly they did not notice
any change.''
Under Secretary of State David Hale explained: ``The pause to aid was
for future assistance, not to keep the army going now.''
So the made-up narrative that security assistance was conditioned on
Ukraine's taking some action on investigations is further disproved by
the straightforward fact that the aid was delivered on September 11,
2019, without Ukraine's taking any action on any investigation.
It is interesting to note that the Obama administration withheld $585
million of promised aid to Egypt in 2013, but the administration's
public message was that the money was not officially on hold as,
technically, it was not due until September 30--the end of the fiscal
year--so that then they didn't have to disclose the halt to anyone.
It sounds like this may be a practice of a number of administrations.
In fact, this President has been concerned about how aid is being put
forward, so there have been pauses on foreign aid in a variety of
contexts.
In September of 2019, the administration announced that it was
withholding over $100 million in aid to Afghanistan over concerns about
government corruption. In August of 2019, President Trump announced
that the administration and Seoul were in talks to substantially
increase South Korea's share of the expense of U.S. military support
for South Korea. In June, President Trump cut or paused over $550
million in foreign aid to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala because
those countries were not fairly sharing the burden of preventing mass
migration to the United States.
It is not the only administration. As I said, President Obama
withheld hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to Egypt.
To be clear--and I want to be clear--Ambassador Yovanovitch herself
testified that our policy actually got stronger under President Trump,
largely because, unlike the Obama administration, ``this administration
made the decision to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine to help Ukraine
fend off Russian aggression.'' She testified in a deposition before
your various committees that it actually had felt, ``in the 3 years
that I was there, partly because of my efforts but also the interagency
team and President Trump's decision to provide lethal weapons to
Ukraine, that our policy actually got stronger.''
Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent, whose name has come up a couple of
times, agrees that Javelins are incredibly effective weapons at
stopping advance and that the Russians are scared of them.
Ambassador Volker explained that President Trump approved each of the
decisions made along the way, and as a result, America's policy toward
Ukraine strengthened.
So when we want to talk about facts, go to your own discovery and
your own witnesses that you called.
This all supposedly started because of a whistleblower. Where is that
whistleblower?
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The House managers have 35 minutes remaining.
Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, in war, time matters; minutes
and hours can seem like years. So the idea that, well, it made it there
eventually just doesn't work. And, yes, the aid was provided. It was
provided by Congress--this Senate and the House of Representatives--
with the President's signature. The Congress is the one that sends the
aid, and millions of dollars of this aid would have been lost because
of the delay had Congress not actually passed another law that extended
that deadline to allow the funds to be spent. Let me repeat that. The
delay had jeopardized the expenditure of the money to such an extent
that Congress had to pass another law to extend the deadline so that
the money and the equipment got to the people on the frontlines.
Need I also reiterate, as to the supposed interagency process--the
concerns that the President and his counsel continue to raise about
corruption and making sure that the process went right--there was no
interagency process. The whole thing was made up. It
[[Page S405]]
was a phantom. There was a delay, and delays matter.
Mr. Chief Justice, I reserve the balance of my time for Mr. Schiff.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
There are just a few additional points I would like to make on this
amendment and on my colleagues' arguments.
First of all, Mr. Sekulow makes the point that the aid ultimately got
released. They ultimately got the money, right? Yes, they got the money
after the President got caught, after the President was forced to
relieve the hold on the aid. After he got caught, yes, but even then,
they had held on to the aid so long that it took a subsequent act of
Congress to make sure it could all go out the door.
So, what, is the President supposed to get credit for that--that we
had to intervene because he withheld the aid for so long and that this
is the only reason Ukraine got all of the aid we had approved in the
first place?
My colleagues have glossed over the fact that what they did was
illegal, that the GAO--independent watchdog agency--found that that
hold was illegal. So it not only violated the law, it not only took an
act of Congress to make sure they ultimately got the aid, but this is
supposed to be the defense as to why you shouldn't see the documents?
Is that what we are to believe?
Now, counsel also says, well, he is not the first President to
withhold aid. And that is true. After all, counsel says: Well,
President Obama withheld aid to Egypt. Yes. It was at the urging of the
Members of Congress. Senators McCain and Graham urged that that aid be
withheld. And why? Because there was a revolution in Egypt after it was
appropriated. It was not something that was hidden from Congress. That
was a pretty darned good reason to think, do we still want to give aid
to this government after this revolution?
We are not saying that aid has never been withheld--that is absurd--
but I would hope and expect this is the first time aid has been
withheld by a President of the United States to coerce an ally at war
to help him cheat in the next election. I think that is a first, but
what we do here may determine whether it is the last.
There is one other thing about this pause in aid, right? It is the
argument: Well, no harm, no foul. OK. You got caught. They got the aid.
What is the big deal?
Well, as we heard during the trial, it is not just the aid. Aid is
obviously the most important thing, as Mr. Crow mentioned--you know,
without it, you can't defend yourself--and we will have testimony as to
just what kind of military aid the President was withholding. But we
also had testimony that it was the fact of the aid itself that was so
important to Ukraine, the fact that the United States had Ukraine's
back. And why? Because this new President of Ukraine--this new,
untested, former comedian President of Ukraine who was at war with
Russia was going to be going into a negotiation with Vladimir Putin
with an eye to ending that conflict, and whether he went into that
negotiation from a position of strength or a position of weakness would
depend on whether we had his back.
And so when the Ukrainians learned and the Russians learned that the
President of the United States did not have his back, was withholding
this aid, what message do you think that sent to Vladimir Putin? What
message do you think it sent to Vladimir Putin when Donald Trump
wouldn't let Volodymyr Zelensky, our ally, in the door at the White
House but would let the Russian Foreign Minister? What message does
that send?
So it is not just the aid, and it is not just when the aid is
delivered, it is not just if all of the aid is delivered, it is also
what message does the freeze send to our friend and, even more
importantly, to our foe, and the message it sent was a disaster--was a
disaster.
Now, you might ask yourself because counselors said: Hey, President
Trump has given lethal weapons to Ukraine--you might ask yourself, if
the President was so concerned about corruption, why didn't he do that
in 2017, and why didn't he do that in 2018? Why was it only 2019 that
there was a problem? Was there no corruption in Ukraine in 2017? Was
there no corruption in Ukraine in 2018?
No. Ukraine has always battled corruption. It wasn't the presence or
lack of corruption in one year to another; it was the presence of Joe
Biden as a potential candidate for President. That was the key change
in 2019. That made all the difference.
Let's get back to one of the key moments in this saga. A lot of you
are attorneys--you are probably much better attorneys than I am--and I
am sure you had the experience in cases you tried where there was some
vignette, some conversation, some document. It may not have been the
most important on its face, but it told you something about the case
that was much larger than that conversation.
For me, one of those conversations was not on July 25 between
President Trump and President Zelensky but on July 26, the very next
day.
Now, you may have watched some of the House proceedings or you may
not have, and people watching may have seen it and maybe they didn't,
but there is this scene in a Ukrainian restaurant--a restaurant in
Kyiv--with Gordon Sondland. Now, bear in mind it was Gordon Sondland
who said there was absolutely quid pro quo and two plus two equals
four. This is not some Never Trumper. This is a million-dollar donor to
the Trump inauguration. OK? If there is a bias there, it is clearly in
a million-dollar bias in favor of this President, not against him.
So there is the scene in Kyiv, in this restaurant. Sondland has a
cell phone, and he is sitting with David Holmes, who is a career
diplomat--U.S. diplomat--in the Ukraine Embassy. Gordon Sondland takes
out his phone, and he calls the White House. Gordon Sondland calling
for the White House. Gordon Sondland holding for the President. And it
takes a while to be connected, but he is connected to the President.
That is pretty impressive, right? This isn't some guy with no
relationship to the President. The President may say: Gordon Sondland,
I barely know him, or something to that effect, but this is a guy who
picked up his cell phone, and he can call the President of the United
States from a restaurant in Kyiv, and he does.
And the President's voice is so loud that David Holmes, this
diplomat, can hear it. And what does the President say? Does he say:
How is that reform coming? How is the attack on corruption going?
No. He just says: Is he going to do the investigation? Is Zelensky
going to do the investigation? And Sondland says: Yes. He will do
anything you want. He loves your ass.
This is the extent of the President's interest in Ukraine. They go on
to talk about other things, and then they hang up. And David Holmes
turns to the Ambassador and says--in language which I will have to
modify to remove an expletive--says something along the lines of: Does
the President give a ``blank'' about Ukraine? And Sondland says: No. He
doesn't give a ``blank'' about Ukraine. He only cares about the big
stuff, like the investigation of the Bidens that Giuliani wants.
This is a million-dollar donor to the Trump inaugural admitting the
President doesn't care about Ukraine. He doesn't care whether they get
military dollars to defend themselves. He doesn't care about what
position Zelensky goes into in these negotiations with Putin. He
doesn't care about that.
Isn't that clear? It is why he didn't care about corruption in 2017
or 2018, and he certainly didn't care about it in 2019. All he cared
about was the big stuff that affected him personally, like this
investigation that he wanted of the Bidens.
So we do ask: Do you want to see these documents? Do you want to know
if these documents corroborate Ambassador Sondland? Will the documents
show, as we fully expect they will, that the only thing he cared about
was the big stuff that affected him?
David Holmes' response was: Well, you know, there is some big stuff
going on here, like the war with Russia. This isn't withholding aid
because of a revolution in Egypt. This is withholding aid from a
country in which 15,000 people have died fighting the Russians, and as
Ambassador Taylor said and others: You know, Russia is fighting to
remake the map of Europe by dint of military force.
If we think that is just about Ukraine's security, we are very
deceived. It is about our security. It is
[[Page S406]]
about the tens of thousands of troops we have in Europe. And if we
undercut our own ally, if we give Russia reason to believe we will not
have their back, that we will use Ukraine as a play thing or worse to
get them to help us cheat in an election, that will only embolden Putin
to do more.
You said it as often as I have--the only thing he respects is
strength. You think that looks like strength to Vladimir Putin? I think
that looks like something that Vladimir Putin is only too accustomed
to, and that is the kind of corruption that he finds and perpetuates in
his own regime and pushes all around the world.
My colleague Val Demings made reference to a conversation which I
think is one of the other key vignettes in this whole sad saga, and
that is a conversation that Ambassador Volker had with Andriy Yermak,
one of the top aides to President Zelensky.
This is a conversation in which Ambassador Volker is doing exactly
what he is supposed to be doing, which is he is telling Yermak: You
know, you guys shouldn't really do this investigation of your former
President Poroshenko because it would be for a political reason. You
really shouldn't engage in political investigations. And as
Representative Demings said: What is the response of the Ukrainians?
Oh, you mean like the one you want us to do of the Bidens and the
Clintons. Threw it right back in his face. Ukraine is not oblivious to
that hypocrisy.
Mr. Sekulow says: What are we here for? You know, part of our
strength is not only our support for our allies, it is not only our
military might, it is what we stand for.
We used to stand for the rule of law. We used to champion the rule of
law around the world. Part of the rule of law is, of course, that no
one is above the law.
But to be out in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world championing
the rule of law and saying don't engage in political prosecutions and
having them throw it right back in our face: Oh, you mean like the one
you want us to do--that is why we are here. That is why we are here.
That is why we are here.
I yield back.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
Motion to Table
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a motion to the desk to
table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 17]
YEAS--53
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Loeffler
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--47
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The CHIEF JUSTICE. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 47.
The motion to table is agreed to; the amendment is tabled.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Amendment No. 1287
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to
issue a subpoena to John Michael ``Mick'' Mulvaney, and I ask that it
be read.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 1287.
(Purpose: To subpoena John Michael ``Mick'' Mulvaney)
At the appropriate place in the resolving clause, insert
the following:
Sec. ___. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, pursuant to rules V and VI of the Rules of
Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on
Impeachment Trials, the Chief Justice of the United States,
through the Secretary of the Senate, shall issue a subpoena
for the taking of testimony of John Michael ``Mick''
Mulvaney, and the Sergeant at Arms is authorized to utilize
the services of the Deputy Sergeant at Arms or any other
employee of the Senate in serving the subpoena authorized to
be issued by this section.
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent for a 30-
minute recess before the parties are recognized to debate the Schumer
amendment.
Following the debate time, I will once again move to table the
amendment because those witnesses and evidence, as I repeatedly said,
are addressed in the underlying resolution.
____________________