[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S420-S431]
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, the Senate, at 11:19 p.m., recessed until 
11:39 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff, are you in favor or opposed?

[[Page S421]]

  

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. In favor.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone.
  Mr. Counselor CIPOLLONE. Mr. Chief Justice, we are opposed.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. There are 2 hours for argument, equally divided.
  Mr. Schiff, you may proceed first.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, the majority leader amended his 
resolution earlier today to allow the admission of the House record 
into evidence, though the resolution leaves the record subject to 
objections.
  But there is a gaping hole--another gaping hole--in the resolution. 
The resolution would allow the President to cherry-pick documents he 
has refused to produce to the House and attempt to admit them into 
evidence here.
  That would enable the President to use his obstruction not only as a 
shield to his misconduct but also as a sword in his defense. That would 
be patently unfair and wholly improper. It must not be permitted, and 
that is what the Schumer amendment addresses.
  The amendment addresses that issue by providing that if any party 
seeks to admit, for the first time here, information that was 
previously subject to subpoena, that party must do a simple and fair 
thing; it must provide the opposing party all of the other documents 
responsive to the subpoena. That is how the law works in America. It is 
called the rule of completeness.
  When the selective introduction of evidence distorts facts or sows 
confusion in a trial, there is a solution. It is to ensure that 
documents that provide for a complete picture can be introduced to 
avert such distortions and confusion.
  The rule of completeness is rooted in the commonsense evidentiary 
principle that a fair trial does not permit the parties to selectively 
introduce evidence in a way that would mislead factfinders. The 
Senators should embrace it as a rule for this trial, and the amendment 
does just that.
  This amendment does not in any way limit the evidence the President 
may introduce during his trial. He should be able to defend himself 
against the charges against him as every defendant has the right to do 
around the country. But this amendment does make sure that he does it 
in a fair way and that his obstruction cannot be used as a weapon.
  It is an amendment based on simple fairness, and it will help the 
Senate and the American people get to the truth.
  House managers are not afraid of the evidence, whatever it may be. We 
want an open process designed to get to the truth, no matter whether it 
helps or hurts our case. That is what the Senate should want, and that 
is what the American people certainly want.
  This amendment helps that process of getting more evidence so we can 
get to the truth, and we urge you to vote for it.
  The amendment also addresses another omission in the majority 
leader's resolution by providing for the proper handling of 
confidential and classified information for the record. This amendment 
seeks to balance the public's interest in transparency with the 
importance of protecting limited, sensitive information bearing 
directly on the case you are trying.
  As for confidential information, some of the evidence in this case 
includes records of phone calls. They establish important patterns of 
conduct, as we explain in the Ukraine impeachment report.
  But the original phone records, including a great deal more 
information in context, should be available for this body to review if 
needed in a confidential setting. It contains personally sensitive 
information concerning individuals who are not at issue in this trial 
and would potentially subject them to intrusions on their privacy.
  The Secretary of the Senate has the capacity to handle such material 
and make it available to you as needed.
  The amendment allows the privacy interests of many individuals to be 
protected, while allowing the Senators access to the full record.
  As for the classified information that this amendment addresses, 
there may be several very relevant classified documents.
  Let me just highlight one in particular. It involves the testimony of 
the Vice President's national security aide, Jennifer Williams, and it 
concerns a conversation between the Vice President and the President of 
Ukraine, and the House managers believe that it would be of value to 
this body to see, in trying the case.
  Let me start by saying that we have twice requested that the Vice 
President declassify this document. We have reviewed it, and there is 
no basis to keep it classified. The Vice President has not responded, 
and we can only conclude this was an additional effort by the President 
to conceal wrongdoing from the public. But as it stands now, it remains 
classified. It must be handled like any other classified document by 
this body in a method that would allow them.
  Let me just take a moment to go further. The public should see that 
supplemental testimony as well. That supplemental testimony--that 
classified testimony--was added to the record by the Vice President's 
aide because she believed, I think, on further reflection, that it 
would shed additional light on what she has said publicly. You should 
see it and you should evaluate it for what it has to say, but, what is 
more, so should the American people.
  So I would urge not only that you support this amendment to make sure 
that you can handle the classified information, there is a mechanism 
for it, and personal identifiable information need not be made public, 
but also information that is improperly classified that bears or sheds 
light on her decision should be accessible to you and should be 
accessible to the American people.
  I reserve the balance of our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone.
  Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. Philbin and 
Mr. Sekulow will argue.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Philbin.
  Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the Senate, the 
President opposes this amendment, and I can be brief in explaining why.
  This amendment would say that any subpoena that was issued pursuant 
to the House's impeachment inquiry--any subpoena that they issued at 
all--becomes defined as a duly authorized subpoena for purposes of this 
amendment. As we have explained several times today, because the House 
began this inquiry without taking a vote, it never authorized any of 
its committees to issue subpoenas pursuant to the impeachment power.
  The first 23 subpoenas, at a minimum, that the House committees 
issued were all unauthorized in ultra vires, and that is why the Trump 
administration did not respond to them and did not comply with them. 
That was explained in a letter of October 18, from White House Counsel 
Cipollone to Chairman Schiff and others, that it is a legal infirmity 
in those subpoenas.
  There has never been an impeachment inquiry initiated by the House of 
Representatives against a President of the United States without it 
being authorized by a vote of the full House. This is a principle that 
the Supreme Court has made clear in cases such as United States vs. 
Rumely, that no committee of Congress can exercise authority assigned 
by the Constitution to the Chamber itself, of the House or the Senate, 
without being delegated that authority by the House or the Senate.
  In Rumely, the Court explains that to determine the validity of a 
subpoena requires ``construing the scope of the authority which the 
House of Representatives gave to the committee.''
  So this is a legal issue, an infirmity in those subpoenas, and this 
amendment proposes to do away with that legal infirmity by defining all 
their subpoenas as duly authorized, and we do not support that 
amendment.
  In addition to that, I just want to respond briefly to Chairman 
Schiff's description of the rule of completeness. This is not about the 
rule of completeness. The rule of completeness has to do with a 
particular document or a particular piece of evidence which is 
misleading in itself. With that document, if there is something 
specific about it that there is another response on the email chain--
something like that--that particular document has some specific thing 
attached to it, and then that should also come into evidence.
  But since all the evidentiary motions are being preserved and 
objections can be made later, evidentiary arguments under the 
underlying resolution can be made. The rule of completeness can be 
argued. There is no need for that to do this amendment, because this 
amendment doesn't have anything to do with the rule of completeness.

[[Page S422]]

  With that, I will yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Sekulow.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Sekulow.
  Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the 
Senate. I will be brief. This amendment to the resolution we oppose, as 
Mr. Philbin just said, because it is in essence an unconstitutional 
attempt to cure a defect--a defect in their own proceeding.
  To be clear, we are reserving our objections as it relates to 
hearsay, which is what the record primarily consists of.
  I also want to respond very briefly to what Manager Schiff said 
regarding the proceedings in the House of Representatives and the lack 
of agency counsel. He said it is much like the grand jury. He best be 
glad and the Members of his committee best be glad that it is not like 
a grand jury, because if it was a grand jury and information was 
leaked, which it was consistently throughout this process, they could 
be subject to felony.
  So I want to be clear. Utilizing this amendment to cure a 
constitutional defect--and that is what this is--is exactly what we 
have been arguing about now for almost 11 hours. It is changing the 
rules. It is different rules.
  I can't determine if we are dealing with a trial, a pretrial motion--
but we have now have spent 11 hours arguing about something that we 
will be arguing again next week.
  But the idea that you can cure in three paragraphs constitutional 
defects doesn't pass constitutional muster.
  We yield the rest of our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The House managers have 54 minutes remaining.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Well, first of all, the counsel makes the 
argument once again that with subpoenas, the President gets to decide 
which are valid and which are invalid, and any subpoena the President 
doesn't like, he may simply declare invalid, and that is the end of the 
story. Therefore, it is invalid, and no documents are required, and no 
witnesses need to show up, and, therefore, you don't need to consider 
whether the President should be able to game the system by showing you 
a handful of documents to mislead you and deprive you of seeing all of 
the other documents relevant to that same subject. That is their 
argument. The President didn't like the way the subpoenas were issued, 
even though the Court has already ruled on this issue and said: No, Mr. 
President, you don't get to decide whether a subpoena is valid or not 
in an impeachment proceeding. That is the sole responsibility of the 
House.
  But no, I guess they would suggest to you the President would never 
mislead you about documents. If they seek to introduce something, you 
can be assured that that document tells the complete truth.
  But we already know you can place no such reliance on the President. 
How do we know this? We have already seen it.
  Look at what they did in response to the FOIA, or Freedom of 
Information Act, requests. They blacked out all the incriminating 
information. They blacked out the ``we can't represent any more that we 
are going to be able to actually spend this money in time. We can't 
represent that we are not going to be in violation of the law of the 
Impoundment Act.'' They redact that.
  Is that what you want in this trial, for them to be able to introduce 
one part of an email chain and not show you the rest?
  You want to be able to have a situation where the President has 
withheld all these documents from you, can introduce a document that 
suggests a benign explanation but not the reply that confirms the 
corrupt explanation, because that is what we are really talking about 
here.
  Now they clothe this in the argument that, well, we don't think these 
were duly authorized subpoenas. We are merely categorizing the universe 
of documents they should turn over if they want to turnover selective 
documents. Let them call them unduly authorized, therefore. The point 
is, that the documents that should be turned over should not be cherry-
picked by a White House that has already shown such a deliberate intent 
to deceive.
  Finally, counsel says they can't tell whether we are dealing with a 
trial here. Well, do you know something? Neither can we. If they are 
confused, they are confused for a good reason, because this doesn't 
look like any other trial that they are used to. People watching--they 
are confused, too, because they would think if this was a trial, there 
would be no debate about whether the party with the burden of proof 
could call witnesses. Of course, they could. Of course, they can.
  The defendant doesn't get to decide who the prosecution can call as a 
witness. If you are confused, so is the public. They want this to look 
like a regular trial, and it should. That has been the history of this 
body. That has been the history of this body.
  Now I know it is late, but I have to tell you it doesn't have to be 
late. We don't control the schedule here. We are not deciding we want 
to carry on through the evening. We don't get to decide the schedule.
  There is a reason for why we are still here at 5 minutes to midnight. 
There is a reason why we are here at 5 minutes to midnight, and that is 
because they don't want the American people to see what is going on 
here. They are hoping people are asleep. You know, a lot of people are 
asleep right now, all over the country, because it is midnight.
  Now, maybe in my State of California people are still awake and 
watching, but is this really what we should be doing when we are 
deciding the fate of a Presidency--that we should be doing this in the 
midnight hour?
  I started out the day asking whether there could be a fair trial and 
expressing the skepticism I think the country feels about whether that 
is possible, how much they want to believe this is possible. But I have 
to say, watching now at midnight, this effort to hide this in the dead 
of night cannot be encouraging to them about whether there will be a 
fair trial.
  I yield back.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a motion at the desk to 
table the amendment.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does any Senator in the Chamber wish to change his 
or her vote?


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S422, January 21, 2020, third column, the following 
appears: The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does any Senator in the Chamber wish 
to change his or vote?
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The CHIEF JUSTICE. 
Does any Senator in the Chamber wish to change his or her vote?


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                                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. 1291

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to 
issue a subpoena to John Robert Bolton, 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 1291.
       At the appropriate place in the resolving clause, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, pursuant to

[[Page S423]]

     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 
     Robert Bolton, 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 amendment is arguable by the parties with 2 
hours equally divided.
  Mr. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent?
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Yes, I am.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone, are you an opponent?
  Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff, you may proceed, and you may reserve 
time for rebuttal.
  Mr. Manager NADLER. Before I begin, Mr. Chief Justice, the House 
managers will be reserving the balance of our time to respond to the 
arguments of the counsel for the President.
  Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, counsel for the President, the House 
managers strongly support this amendment to subpoena John Bolton. I am 
struck by what we have heard from the President's counsel so far 
tonight. They complain about process, but they do not seriously contest 
any of the allegations against the President. They insist that the 
President has done nothing wrong, but they refuse to allow the evidence 
and hear from the witnesses. They will not permit the American people 
to hear from the witnesses, and they lie and lie and lie and lie.
  For example, for months, President Trump has repeatedly complained 
that the House denied them the right to call witnesses, to cross-
examine witnesses, and so forth. You heard Mr. Cipollone repeat this 
lie today. Well, I have with me the letter that I sent as Chairman of 
the House Judiciary Committee last November 26, inviting the President 
and his counsel to attend our hearings, to cross-examine the witnesses, 
to call witnesses of his own, and so forth. I also have the White House 
letter signed by Mr. Cipollone, rejecting that offer. We should expect 
at least a little regard for the truth from the White House, but that 
is apparently too much to expect.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a trial. At a trial, the lawyers 
present evidence. The American people know that. Most 10-year-olds know 
that. If you vote to block this witness or any of the evidence that 
should be presented here, it can only be because you do not want the 
American people to hear the evidence, that you do not want a fair 
trial, and that you are complicit in President Trump's efforts to hide 
his misconduct and hide the truth from the American people.
  Ambassador Bolton was appointed by President Trump. He has stated his 
willingness to testify in this trial. He is prepared to testify. He 
says that he has relevant evidence not yet disclosed to the public. His 
comments reaffirm what is obvious from the testimony and documents 
obtained by the House, which highlight Ambassador Bolton's role in the 
repeated criticism of the President's misconduct.
  In fact, extensive evidence collected by the House makes clear that 
Ambassador Bolton not only had firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine 
scheme but that he was deeply concerned with it. He described the 
scheme as a ``drug deal'' to a senior member of the staff. He warned 
that President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, would ``blow 
everybody up.'' Indeed, in advance of the July 25, 2019, call, 
Ambassador Bolton expressed concern that President Trump would ask the 
Ukrainian President to announce these political investigations, which 
is, of course, exactly what happened. Of course, there weren't to be 
any investigations. All he cared about was an announcement to smear a 
political rival in the United States. He repeatedly urged his staff to 
report their own concerns about the President's conduct to legal 
counsel--that is, Ambassador Bolton did, not the President--as the 
scheme was unfolding.
  Finally, as National Security Advisor, he also objected to the 
President's freezing of military aid to Ukraine and advocated for the 
release of that aid, including directly with President Trump. Of 
course, as we all know, the Impoundment Control Act makes illegal the 
President's withholding of that aid after Congress had voted for it, 
but the President ignored the warnings about that because all he cared 
about was smearing a political rival. The law meant nothing to him.
  Ambassador Bolton has made clear that he is ready, willing, and able 
to testify about everything he witnessed, but President Trump does not 
want you to hear from Ambassador Bolton, and the reason has nothing to 
do with executive privilege or this other nonsense. The reason has 
nothing to do with national security. If the President cared about 
national security, he would not have blocked military assistance to a 
vulnerable strategic ally in the attempt to secure a personal political 
favor for himself.
  No, the President does not want you to hear from Ambassador Bolton 
because the President does not want the American people to hear 
firsthand testimony about the misconduct at the heart of this trial. 
The question is whether the Senate will be complicit in the President's 
crimes by covering them up. Any Senator who votes against Ambassador 
Bolton's testimony or any relevant testimony shows that he or she 
wants to be part of the coverup. What other possible reason is there to 
prohibit a relevant witness from testifying here? Unfortunately, so 
far, I have seen every Republican Senator has shown that they want to 
be part of the coverup by voting against every document and witness 
proposed.

  Ambassador Bolton is a firsthand witness to President Trump's abuse 
of power. As the National Security Advisor, he reported directly to the 
President and supervised the entire National Security Council. That 
included three key witnesses with responsibility for Ukraine matters 
who testified in great detail before the House--Dr. Fiona Hill, Tim 
Morrison, and LTC Alexander Vindman.
  Moreover, in his role, John Bolton was the tip of the spear for 
President Trump on national security. It was his responsibility to 
oversee everything happening in the Trump administration regarding 
foreign policy and national security. By virtue of his unique position 
appointed by the President, Bolton had knowledge of the latest 
intelligence and developments in our relationship with Ukraine, 
including our support of the country and its new President, and that is 
why the President and some Members of this body are afraid to hear from 
Ambassador Bolton--because they know he knows too much.
  There is also substantial evidence that Ambassador Bolton kept a keen 
eye on Rudy Giuliani, who was acting on behalf of the President in 
connection with Ukraine. As we will describe, Ambassador Bolton 
communicated directly with Mr. Giuliani at key moments. He knows the 
details of the so-called drug deal he would later warn against.
  Perhaps most importantly, Ambassador Bolton has said both that he 
will testify and that he has relevant information that has not yet been 
disclosed. A key witness has come forward and confirmed not only that 
he participated in critically important events but that he has new 
evidence we have not yet heard. That is precisely what Ambassador 
Bolton has done. His lawyer tells us that Ambassador Bolton was 
``personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and 
conversations about which the House heard testimony, as well as many 
relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in 
the testimony thus far.''
  Ambassador Bolton was requested as a witness in the House inquiry, 
but he refused to appear voluntarily. His lawyers informed the House 
Intelligence Committee that Ambassador Bolton would take the matter to 
court if issued a subpoena, as his subordinate did, but the Ambassador 
changed his tune. He recently issued a statement confirming that ``if 
the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to 
testify.''
  So the question presented as to Ambassador Bolton is clear. It comes 
down to this: Will the Senate do its duty and hear all the evidence? Or 
will it slam this door shut and show it is participating in a coverup 
because it fears to hear testimony from the former National Security 
Advisor of the President, because it fears what he might say or it 
fears he knows too much?

[[Page S424]]

  Consider this as well: Why is President Trump so intent on preventing 
us from hearing Ambassador Bolton, his own appointee, his formerly 
trusted confidant? Because he knows--he knows--his guilt and he knows 
that he doesn't want people who know about it to testify. The question 
is whether Republican Senators here today will participate in that 
coverup.
  The reasons seem clear. President Trump wants to block this witness 
because Ambassador Bolton has direct knowledge of the Ukraine scheme, 
which he called a drug deal. Let's start with the key meeting that took 
place on July 10.
  Just 2 weeks before President Trump's now famous July 25 call with 
President Zelensky, Ambassador Bolton hosted senior Ukrainian officials 
in his West Wing office. That meeting included Dr. Hill, Lieutenant 
Colonel Vindman, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker, and Energy Secretary 
Rick Perry. As they did in every meeting they took with U.S. officials, 
Ukrainian officials asked when President Trump would schedule a White 
House meeting for the newly elected Ukrainian President because it was 
very important for the Ukrainian President, a new President of an 
embattled democracy being invaded by Russia, to show that he had 
legitimacy by a meeting with the United States.
  Dr. Hill testified that Ambassador Sondland blurted out that he had a 
deal with Mr. Mulvaney for a White House visit, provided that Ukraine 
first announce investigations into the President's political rivals. 
Ambassador Bolton immediately stiffened and ended the meeting. Dr. 
Hill's testimony is on the screen.
  In other words, Ambassador Bolton and others at the meeting were 
interested in the national security of the United States. They were 
interested in protecting an American ally against Russian invasion. 
They couldn't understand why this sudden order was coming from the 
President to abandon that ally because they didn't yet know--they 
didn't yet know--of the President's plot to try to extort the Ukrainian 
Government into doing him a political favor by announcing an 
investigation of a political rival.
  When Dr. Hill reported back to Ambassador Bolton about the second 
conversation, Ambassador Bolton told Dr. Hill to go to the National 
Security Council's legal advisor, John Eisenberg, and tell him: ``I am 
not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on 
this.''
  Here is an excerpt of her hearing testimony.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ms. HILL. The specific instruction was that I had to go to 
     the lawyers--to John Eisenberg, the senior counsel for the 
     National Security Council, to basically say: You tell 
     Eisenberg Ambassador Bolton told me that I am not part of 
     this--whatever drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland are 
     cooking up.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. What did you understand him to mean by the 
     drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up?
       Ms. HILL. I took it to mean investigations for a meeting.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you go speak to the lawyers?
       Ms. HILL. I certainly did.

  Mr. Manager NADLER. These statements of events are reason enough to 
insist that Ambassador Bolton testify. He can explain the misconduct 
that caused him to characterize the Ukraine scheme as a drug deal and 
why he directed his subordinates to report their concerns to a legal 
counsel. He can tell us everything else he knows about how Ambassador 
Sondland, Mr. Mulvaney, and others were attempting to press the 
Ukrainians to do President Trump's political bidding. Once more, only 
Ambassador Bolton can tell us what he was thinking and what he knew as 
this scheme developed. That is why the President fears his testimony. 
That is why some Members of this body fear his testimony.
  Ambassador Bolton's involvement was not limited to a few isolated 
events; he was a witness at key moments in the course of the Ukraine 
scheme, especially in July, August, and September of last year. I would 
like to walk through some of these events. Please remember, as I am 
describing them, that this is not the entire universe of issues to 
which Ambassador Bolton could testify; they are only examples that show 
why he is such an important witness and why the President is desperate 
to block his testimony.
  We know from Ambassador Bolton's attorney that there may be other 
meetings and conversations that have not yet come to our attention. To 
take one example, we know from witness testimony that Ambassador Bolton 
repeatedly expressed concerns about the involvement of President 
Trump's personal lawyer, Mr. Giuliani.
  In the spring and summer of 2019, Ambassador Bolton caught wind of 
Mr. Giuliani's involvement in Ukraine and soon began to express 
concerns. Ambassador Bolton expressed strong concerns about Mr. 
Giuliani's involvement in Ukraine matters.
  When Ambassador Bolton described Mr. Giuliani as ``a hand grenade 
that was going to blow everybody up,'' it was based on his fear that 
Mr. Giuliani's work on behalf of the President, his attempts to have 
Ukraine announce these investigations--these sham investigations--and 
his campaign to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch would ultimately backfire 
and cause lasting damage to the President. It turns out he was right.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ms. SEWELL. Did your boss, Dr. Bolton--I mean Ambassador 
     Bolton, tell you that Giuliani was ``a hand grenade''?
       Ms. HILL. He did, yes.
       Ms. SEWELL. What do you think he meant by his 
     characterization of Giuliani as a hand grenade?
       Ms. Hill. What he meant by this was pretty clear to me in 
     the context of all of the statements that Mr. Giuliani was 
     making publicly about the investigations that he was 
     promoting, that the story line he was promoting, the 
     narrative he was promoting was going to backfire. I think it 
     has backfired.

  Mr. Manager NADLER. In June, as Ambassador Bolton became aware of Mr. 
Giuliani's coordination with Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, he told 
Dr. Hill and other members of the National Security Council staff that 
``nobody should be meeting with Giuliani.'' But, he, of course, did not 
know of the President's plot as to why people were meeting with 
Giuliani.
  Dr. Hill also testified that Ambassador Bolton was ``closely 
monitoring what Mr. Giuliani was doing and the messaging that he was 
sending out.'' But Ambassador Bolton was keenly aware that Mr. Giuliani 
was doing the President's bidding. That is also why the President fears 
his testimony.
  During a meeting on June 13, 2019, Ambassador Bolton made clear that 
he supported more engagement with Ukraine by senior White House 
officials but questioned that ``Mr. Giuliani was a key voice with the 
president on Ukraine.'' He joked that every time Ukraine is mentioned, 
Giuliani pops up.
  Ambassador Bolton also communicated directly with Mr. Giuliani at key 
junctures. According to call records obtained by the House, Mr. 
Giuliani connected with Ambassador Bolton's office three times for 
brief calls between April 23 and May 10, 2019, a time period that 
corresponds with the recall of Ambassador Yovanovitch and the 
acceleration of Mr. Giuliani's efforts on behalf of President Trump to 
pressure Ukraine into opening investigations that would benefit his 
reelection campaign.
  For instance, on April 23, the day before the State Department 
recalled Ambassador Yovanovitch from Ukraine, Mr. Giuliani had an 8-
minute 28-second call from the White House. Thirty minutes later, he 
had a 48-second call with a phone number associated with Ambassador 
Bolton.
  If he were called to testify, we could ask Ambassador Bolton directly 
what transpired on that call and whether that phone call informed his 
assessment that Mr. Giuliani was ``a hand grenade that was going to 
blow everyone up.'' We can ask Mr. Bolton why, when there are 
approximately 1.8 million companies in Ukraine--several hundred 
thousand of which have been accused of corruption--the President was 
focused on only one. He didn't care about anything else. He cared only 
about the company on which the former Vice President's son had been a 
board member. Can you believe that he was concerned with corruption and 
only knew about one company, when there are hundreds of thousands that 
were accused of corruption?

  Although Ambassador Bolton did not listen in on the July 25 call 
between President Trump and President

[[Page S425]]

Zelensky in which President Trump asked the Ukrainian President a 
favor--a favor to investigate one company and Joe Biden's son--we have 
learned from witness testimony that Ambassador Bolton was opposed to 
scheduling the call in the first place. Why? Because he accurately 
predicted, in the words of Ambassador Taylor, that ``there could be 
some talk of investigations or worse on the call.'' In fact, he did not 
want the call to happen at all because he ``thought it was going to be 
a disaster.''
  How did Ambassador Bolton know that President Trump would bring this 
up? What made him so concerned that a call would be a disaster? I think 
we know, but only Ambassador Bolton can answer these questions.
  Based on extensive witness testimony, we also know that throughout 
this period, multiple people on the National Security Council's staff 
reported concerns to Ambassador Bolton about tying American foreign 
policy to President Trump's ``domestic political errand,'' as Dr. Hill 
so aptly put it.
  After he abruptly ended the July 10 meeting--the meeting in which 
Ambassador Sondland abruptly told the Ukrainians that a White House 
meeting could be scheduled in exchange for the announced 
investigations--Ambassador Bolton spoke to Dr. Hill and directed her to 
report her concerns to National Security Council's legal adviser John 
Eisenberg.
  At the end of August, Ambassador Bolton advised Ambassador Taylor to 
send a first-person cable to Secretary Pompeo to relay concerns about 
the hold on the military aid.
  Ambassador Bolton also advised Mr. Morrison--Dr. Hill's successor as 
the top Russia and Ukraine official on the National Security Council--
on at least two different occasions to report what he had heard to the 
National Security Council's lawyers, it sounding so suspicious.
  On September 1, Ambassador Bolton directed Mr. Morrison to report to 
the National Security Council's lawyers an explicit proposal from 
Ambassador Sondland to a senior Ukrainian official that ``what could 
help them move the aid was if the prosecutor general would go to the 
mike and announce that he was opening the Burisma investigation.''
  On September 7, Ambassador Bolton instructed Mr. Morrison to report 
to the lawyers another conversation Mr. Morrison had with Ambassador 
Sondland. This time, Ambassador Sondland had conveyed that the 
administration would not release the military aid unless President 
Zelensky announced the investigations demanded by President Trump--the 
investigations of one company because the President was so concerned 
about the corruption in Ukraine. It was one company that had had Vice 
President Biden's son on the board, and the President just happened to 
pick that company from hundreds of thousands to be concerned about 
corruption. And the President also opposed funding for corruption aid 
to Ukraine.
  Why did Ambassador Bolton tell his subordinates to report these 
issues to the national security lawyers? What does he know about how 
the lawyers responded to the concerns of Dr. Hill or of Lieutenant 
Colonel Vindman and Mr. Morrison? Again, only Ambassador Bolton can 
answer these questions, and we must assume that the answers go to the 
heart of the President's misconduct, given the President's attempt to 
block his testimony. Why would the President oppose the testimony of 
his own appointee as the National Security Advisor of the United States 
unless he knew that testimony would be damming to him? Those are other 
reasons the President fears Ambassador Bolton's testimony.
  I would like to now turn to Ambassador Bolton's knowledge of and 
concerns about President Trump's illegal withholding of the military 
aid to Ukraine.
  Of course, we all know that under the Anti-Impoundment Act of 1974--
passed to prevent President Nixon from refusing to spend money 
appropriated by Congress--withholding money appropriated by Congress is 
illegal; nonetheless, the President did it for obviously corrupt 
motives.
  By July of last year, Ambassador Bolton was well aware that President 
Trump was illegally withholding security assistance to Ukraine, and he 
and his subordinates tried to convince the President to pursue 
America's national security interests and release the aid instead of 
continuing to withhold vital military assistance to the President--
instead of holding that vital military assistance hostage to the 
President's personal political agenda.
  Throughout the rest of July, over the course of several interagency 
meetings, the National Security Council repeatedly discussed the freeze 
on Ukraine's security assistance. As National Security Advisor, 
Ambassador Bolton supervised that process. These meetings worked their 
way up to the level of Cabinet deputies, and every agency involved, 
except for the Office of Management and Budget, supported releasing the 
aid. OMB, meanwhile, said its position was based on President Trump's 
express orders.
  We know that a number of individuals at OMB and the Department of 
Defense raised serious concerns about the legality of freezing the 
funds, which we know is illegal. We now have an explicit ruling from 
the Government Accountability Office, which we didn't need because we 
knew that is why the law was passed in 1974, that the freeze ordered by 
President Trump was illegal--and he was obviously told this--and 
violated the Impoundment Control Act.
  We also know that after the meeting of Cabinet deputies on July 26, 
Tim Morrison talked to Ambassador Bolton, and according to Mr. 
Morrison, Ambassador Bolton said that the entire Cabinet supported 
releasing the freeze and wanted to get the issue to President Trump as 
soon as possible.
  When did Ambassador Bolton first become aware that President Trump 
was withholding military aid to Ukraine and conditioning the release of 
that aid on Ukraine announcing political investigations? What was he 
told was the reason? What else did he learn about the President's 
actions in these meetings? Again, only Ambassador Bolton can answer 
these questions, and again we must presume that President Trump is 
desperate for us not to hear those answers. I hope not too many of the 
Members of this body are desperate to make sure that the American 
people don't hear these same answers.
  We know that Ambassador Bolton tried throughout August, without 
success, to persuade the President that the aid to Ukraine had to be 
released because that was in America's best interest and necessary for 
our national security.
  In mid-August, we know Lieutenant Colonel Vindman wrote a 
Presidential decision memorandum recommending that the freeze be lifted 
based on the consensus views of the entire Cabinet. The memo was given 
to Ambassador Bolton, who subsequently had a direct, one-on-one 
conversation with the President in which he tried but failed to 
convince him to release the hold.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. SWALWELL. You said Ambassador Bolton had a one-on-one 
     meeting with President Trump in late August 2019, but the 
     President was not yet ready to approve the release of the 
     assistance. Do you remember that?
       Mr. MORRISON. This was 226?
       Mr. SWALWELL. Yes, 266 and 268. But I am asking you: Did 
     that happen or did it not?
       Mr. MORRISON. Sir, I just want to be clear characterizing 
     it. OK, sir.
       Mr. SWALWELL. Yes. You testified to that. What was the 
     outcome of that meeting between Ambassador Bolton and 
     President Trump?
       Mr. MORRISON. Ambassador Bolton did not yet believe the 
     President was ready to approve the assistance.
       Mr. SWALWELL. Did Ambassador Bolton inform you of any 
     reason for the ongoing hold that stemmed from this meeting?

  Mr. Manager NADLER. Ambassador Bolton's efforts failed. By August 30, 
OMB informed DOD that there was ``clear direction from POTUS to 
continue to hold.'' What rationale did President Trump give Ambassador 
Bolton and other senior officials for refusing to release the aid? Were 
these reasons convincing to Ambassador Bolton, and did they reflect the 
best interests of our national security or the President's personal 
political interests?
  Only Ambassador Bolton can tell us the answers. A fair trial in this 
body would ensure that he testifies. The President does not want you to 
hear Ambassador Bolton's testimony. Why is that? For all the obvious 
reasons I have stated.
  The President claims that he froze aid to Ukraine in the interest of 
our

[[Page S426]]

national security. If that is true, why would he oppose testimony from 
his own former National Security Advisor?
  Make no mistake. President Trump had no legal grounds to block 
Ambassador Bolton's testimony in this trial. Executive privilege is not 
a spell that the President can cast to cover up evidence of his own 
misconduct. It is a qualified privilege that protects senior advisers 
performing official functions. Executive privilege is a shield, not a 
sword. It cannot be used to block a witness who is willing to testify, 
as Ambassador Bolton says he is.
  As we know from the Nixon case in Watergate, the privilege also does 
not prevent us from obtaining specific evidence of wrongdoing. The 
Supreme Court unanimously rejected President Nixon's attempts to use 
executive privilege to conceal incriminating tape recordings. All the 
similar efforts by President Trump must also fail.
  The President sometimes relies on a theory of absolute immunity that 
says that he can order anybody in the executive branch not to testify 
to the House or the Senate or to a court. Obviously, this is 
ridiculous. It has been flatly rejected by every Federal court to 
consider the idea. It is embarrassing that the President's counsel 
would talk about this today.
  Again, even if President Trump asserts that Ambassador Bolton is 
absolutely immune from compelled testimony, the President has no 
authority to block Ambassador Bolton from appearing here. As one court 
recently explained, Presidents are not Kings, and they do not have 
subjects whose destiny they are entitled to control.
  This body should not act as if the President is a King. We will see, 
with the next vote on this question, whether the Members of this body 
want to protect the President against all investigation, against all 
suspicion, against any crimes, or not.
  The Framers of our Constitution were most concerned about abuse of 
power where it affects national security. President Trump has been 
impeached for placing his political interests ahead of our national 
security. It is imperative, therefore, that we hear from the National 
Security Advisor who witnessed the President's scheme from start to 
finish. To be clear, the record, as it stands, fully supports both 
Articles of Impeachment. It is beyond argument that President Trump 
mounted a sustained pressure campaign to get Ukraine to announce 
investigations that would benefit him politically and then tried to 
cover it up. The President does not seriously deny any of these facts.
  The only question left is this: Why is the President so intent on 
concealing the evidence and blocking all documents and testimony here 
today? Only guilty people try to hide the evidence.
  Of course, all of this is relevant only if this here today is a fair 
trial, only if you, the Senate, sitting as an impartial jury, do not 
work with the accused to conceal the evidence from the American people.
  We cannot be surprised that the President objects to calling 
witnesses who would prove his guilt. That is who he is. He does not 
want you to see evidence or hear testimony that details how he betrayed 
his office and asked a foreign government to intervene in our election. 
But we should be surprised that, here in the U.S. Senate, the greatest 
deliberative body in the world, where we are expected to put our oath 
of office ahead of political expediency, where we are expected to be 
honest, where we are expected to protect the interests of the American 
people--we should be surprised, shocked--that any Senator would vote to 
block this witness or any relevant witness who might shed additional 
light on the President's obvious misconduct.
  The President is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial 
in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all of the 
relevant evidence to be presented here, or will you betray your pledge 
to be an impartial juror? Will you bring Ambassador Bolton here? Will 
you permit us to present you with the entire record of the President's 
misconduct, or will you, instead, choose to be complicit in the 
President's coverup?
  So far, I am sad to say, I see a lot of Senators voting for a 
coverup, voting to deny witnesses--an absolutely indefensible vote, 
obviously a treacherous vote, a vote against an honest consideration of 
the evidence against the President, a vote against an honest trial, a 
vote against the United States.
  A real trial, we know, has witnesses. We urge you to do your duty, 
permit a fair trial. All the witnesses must be permitted. That is 
elementary in American justice. Either you want the truth and you must 
permit the witnesses, or you want a shameful coverup. History will 
judge. So will the electorate.
  Mr. Chief Justice, we reserve the balance of our time--the managers.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone.
  Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, we 
came here today to address the false case brought to you by the House 
managers. We have been respectful of the Senate. We have made our 
arguments to you.
  You don't deserve and we don't deserve what just happened. Mr. Nadler 
came up here and made false allegations against our team. He made false 
allegations against all of you. He accused you of a coverup. He has 
been making false allegations against the President. The only one who 
should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you, for the way you have 
addressed this body. This is the U.S. Senate. You are not in charge 
here.
  Now let me address the issue of Mr. Bolton. I have addressed it 
before. They don't tell you that they didn't bother to call Mr. Bolton 
themselves. They didn't subpoena him. Mr. Cooper wrote them a letter. 
He said very clearly: 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 didn't pursue Ambassador Bolton, and they withdrew the subpoena 
to Mr. Kupperman. So, for them to come here now and demand that, before 
we even start the arguments--they ask you to do something that they 
refuse to do for themselves and then accuse you of a coverup when you 
don't do it--it is ridiculous. Talk about out-of-control governing.
  Now, let me read you a quote from Mr. Nadler not so long ago:

       The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will 
     of the voters. There must never be a narrowly voted 
     impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major 
     political parties and opposed by the other. Such an 
     impeachment would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our 
     politics for years to come and will call into question the 
     very legitimacy of our political institutions.

  Well, you have just seen it for yourself. What happened, Mr. Nadler? 
What happened?
  The American people pay their salaries, and they are here to take 
away their vote. They are here to take away their voice. They have come 
here, and they have attacked every institution of our government. They 
have attacked the President, the executive branch. They have attacked 
the judicial branch. They say they don't have time for courts. They 
have attacked the U.S. Senate, repeatedly. It is about time we bring 
this power trip in for a landing.
  President Trump is a man of his word. He made promises to the 
American people, and he delivered--over and over and over again. And 
they come here and say, with no evidence, spending the day complaining, 
that they can't make their case, attacking a resolution that had 100 
percent support in this body. And some of the people here supported it 
at the time. It is a farce, and it should end.
  Mr. Nadler, you owe an apology to the President of the United States 
and his family. You owe an apology to the Senate. But, most of all, you 
owe an apology to the American people.
  Mr. Chief Justice, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Sekulow.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Sekulow.
  Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, 
chairman Nadler talked about treacherous, and at about 12:10 a.m., 
January 22, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in this body, on 
the floor of this Senate, said ``executive privilege and other 
nonsense.'' Now, think about that for a moment--``executive privilege 
and other nonsense.''
  Mr. Nadler, it is not nonsense. These are privileges recognized by 
the Supreme Court of the United States. To shred the Constitution on 
the floor of the Senate--to serve what purpose? The Senate is not on 
trial. The Constitution doesn't allow what just took place.

[[Page S427]]

  Look at what we have dealt with for the last now 13 hours. We, 
hopefully, are closing the proceedings, but not on a very high note.
  Only guilty people try to hide evidence? So, I guess, when President 
Obama instructed his Attorney General to not give information, he was 
guilty of a crime. That is the way it works, Mr. Nadler? Is that the 
way you view the U.S. Constitution? Because that is not the way it was 
written. That is not the way it is interpreted, and that is not the way 
the American people should have to live.
  I will tell you what is treacherous: To come to the floor of the 
Senate and say ``executive privilege and other nonsense.''
  Mr. Chief Justice, we yield the rest of our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The managers have 27 minutes remaining.
  Mr. Manager NADLER. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, the 
President's counsel has no standing to talk about lying. He told this 
body today--the President has told this body--and told the American 
people repeatedly, for example, that the House of Representatives 
refused to allow the President due process. I told you that it is 
available--public document, November 26 letter from me, as chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, to the President, offering him due process, 
offering witnesses, offering cross-examination.

  A few days later, we received a letter from Mr. Cipollone on White 
House stationery that said: No, we have no interest in appearing.
  On the one hand, the House is condemned by the President for not 
giving him due process after they rejected the offer of due process. 
That letter rejecting it was December 1.
  The President's counsel says that the House should have issued 
subpoenas. We did issue subpoenas. The President, you may recall--you 
should recall--said he would oppose all subpoenas, and he did. So many 
of those subpoenas are still being fought in court--subpoenas issued 
last April. So that is also untrue. It takes a heck of a lot of nerve 
to criticize the House for not issuing subpoenas when the President 
said he would oppose all subpoenas. We have issued a lot of subpoenas. 
He opposes all of them, and they are tied up in court.
  The President claims--and most Members of this body know better, 
executive privilege, which is a limited privilege, which exists but not 
as a shield, not as a shield against wrongdoing, as the Supreme Court 
specifically said in the Nixon case in 1974. The President claims 
absolute immunity. Mr. Cipollone wrote some of those letters, not only 
saying the President but that nobody should testify that he doesn't 
want, and then they have the nerve--and that is a violation of the 
constitutional rights of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
and of the American people represented through them.
  It is an assertion of the kingly prerogative, a monarchical 
prerogative. Only the President--only the President has rights, and the 
people as represented in Congress cannot get information from the 
executive branch at all. This body has committees. It has a 200-year 
record of issuing subpoenas, of having the administration of the day 
testify, of sometimes having subpoena fights, but no President has ever 
claimed the right to stonewall Congress on everything, period. Congress 
has no right to get information. The American people have no right to 
get information. That, in fact, is article II of the impeachment that 
we have voted.
  It is beyond belief that the President claims monarchical powers--I 
can do whatever I want under article II, says he--and then acts on 
that, defies everything, defies the law to withhold aid from Ukraine, 
defies the law in a dozen different directions all the time, and lies 
about it all the time and says to Mr. Cipollone to lie about it. These 
facts are undeniable--undeniable.
  I reserve.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Cipollone, once again, complained that we did 
not request John Bolton to testify in the House, but of course we did. 
We did request his testimony, and he was a no-show.
  When we talked to his counsel about subpoenaing his testimony, the 
answer was: You give us a subpoena, and we will sue you. And, indeed, 
that is what Mr. Bolton's attorney did with the subpoena for Dr. 
Kupperman.
  There was no willingness by Mr. Bolton to testify before the House. 
He said he would sue us. What is the problem with his suing us? Their 
Justice Department, under Bill Barr, is in court arguing--actually in 
that very case involving Dr. Kupperman--that Dr. Kupperman can't sue 
the administration and the Congress.
  That is the same position that Congress has taken, the same position 
the administration is taking but, apparently, not the same position 
these lawyers are taking.
  Here is the bigger problem with that. We subpoenaed Don McGahn, as I 
told you earlier. You should know we subpoenaed Don McGahn in April of 
2019. It is January of 2020. We still don't have a final decision from 
the court requiring him to testify. In a couple of months, it will be 1 
year since we issued that subpoena.
  The President would like nothing more than for us to have to go 
through 1 year or 2 years or 3 years of litigation to get any witness 
to come before the House. The problem is, the President is trying to 
cheat in this election. We don't have the luxury of waiting 1 year or 2 
years or 3 years, when the very object of this scheme was to cheat in 
the next election. It is not like that threat has gone away.
  Just last month, the President's lawyer was in Ukraine still trying 
to smear his opponent and still trying to get Ukraine to interfere in 
our election. The President said, even while the impeachment 
investigation was going on, when he was asked: What did you want in 
that call with Zelensky, and his answer was: Well, if we are being 
honest about it, Zelensky should do that investigation of the Bidens.
  He hasn't stopped asking them to interfere. Do you think the 
Ukrainians have any doubt about what he wants? One of the witnesses, 
David Holmes, testified about the pressure that Ukraine feels. He made 
a very important point: It isn't over. It is not like they don't want 
anything else from the United States.
  This effort to pressure Ukraine goes on to this day, with the 
President's lawyer continuing the scheme, as we speak, with the 
President inviting other nations to also involve themselves in our 
election.
  China--he wants to now investigate the Bidens. This is no intangible 
threat to our elections. Within the last couple of weeks, it has been 
reported that the Russians have tried to hack Burisma. Why do you think 
they are hacking Burisma? Because, as Chairman Nadler says, everybody 
seems to be interested in this one company out of hundreds of thousands 
Ukrainian companies. It is a coincidence that the same company that the 
President has been trying to smear Joe Biden over happens to be the 
company the Russians are hacking.
  Why would the Russians do that? If you look back to the last 
election, the Russians hacked the DNC, and they started to leak 
campaign documents in a drip, drip, drip, and the President was only 
too happy--over 100 times in the last couple of months in the 
campaign--to cite those Russian-hacked Russian documents, and now the 
Russians are at it again.
  This is no illusory threat to the independence of our elections. The 
Russians are at it, as we speak. What does the President do? Is he 
saying: Back off, Russia; I am not interested in your help; I don't 
want foreign interference? No, he is saying: Come on in, China. He has 
his guy in Ukraine continuing the scheme.
  We can't wait a year or 2 years or 3 years, like we have had to wait 
with Don McGahn, to get John Bolton in to testify to let you know that 
this threat is ongoing.
  Counsel also says: Well, this is just like Obama, right? This is just 
like Obama, citing, I suppose, the Fast and Furious case. They don't 
mention to you that in that investigation, the Obama administration 
turned over tens of thousands of documents. They don't want you to know 
about that. They say it is just like Obama.
  When you find video of Barack Obama saying that under article II he 
can do anything, then you can compare Barack Obama to Donald Trump. 
When you find a video of Barack Obama saying: I am going to fight all 
subpoenas, then you can compare Barack Obama to Donald Trump.

[[Page S428]]

  And finally, Mr. Cipollone says, President Trump is a man of his 
word. It is too late in the evening for me to go into that one, except 
to say this. President Trump gave his word he would drain the swamp. He 
said he would drain the swamp. What have we seen? We have seen his 
personal lawyer go to jail, his campaign chairman go to jail, his 
deputy campaign chairman convicted of a different crime, his 
associates' associate, Lev Parnas, under indictment. The list goes and 
on. That is, I guess, how you drain the swamp. You have all your people 
go to jail.
  I don't think that is really what was meant by that expression. For 
the purposes of why we are here today, how does someone who promises to 
drain the swamp coerce an ally of ours into doing a political 
investigation? That is the swamp. That is not draining the swamp; that 
is exporting the swamp.
  I yield back.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. I think it is appropriate at this point for me to 
admonish both the House managers and the President's counsel in equal 
terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest 
deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because its 
Members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not 
conducive to civil discourse.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S428, January 21, 2020, first column, the following 
appears: The CHIEF JUSTICE. I think it is appropriate at this 
point for me to admonish both the House managers and the 
President's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are 
addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. One reason it 
has earned that title is because its Members avoid speaking in a 
manner and using language that is not conducive to certain 
discourse.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The CHIEF JUSTICE. 
I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both 
the House managers and the President's counsel in equal terms to 
remember that they are addressing the world's greatest 
deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because 
its Members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is 
not conducive to civil discourse.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  In the 1905 Swayne trial, a Senator objected when one of the managers 
used the word ``pettifogging,'' and the Presiding Officer said the word 
ought not have been used. I don't think we need to aspire to that high 
a standard, but I think those addressing the Senate should remember 
where they are.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S428, January 21, 2020, first column, the following 
appears: In the 1905 Swain trial, a Senator objected when one of 
the managers used the word ``pettifogging,''
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: In the 1905 Swayne 
trial, a Senator objected when one of the managers used the word 
``pettifogging,''


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The majority leader is recognized.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, it will surprise no one that I move 
to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

                                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. 1292

  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
  I send an amendment to the desk to provide for a vote of the Senate 
on any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents after the question 
period, and I waive its reading.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there any objection to the waiving of the 
reading?
  Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. I object.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I withdraw my request for a waiver.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does any Senator have an objection to the waiving 
of the reading?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I object.
  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 1292.
       On page 3, line 8, strike ``4 hours'' and insert ``2 
     hours''.
       On page 3, line 10, strike ``the question of'' and all that 
     follows through ``rules'' on line 12.
       On page 3, line 14, insert ``any such motion'' after 
     ``decide''.
       On page 3, line 15, strike ``whether'' and all that follows 
     through ``documents'' on line 17.
       On page 3, line 18, strike ``that question'' and insert 
     ``any such motion''.
       On page 3, lines 23 and 24 strike ``and the Senate shall 
     decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify'' and 
     insert ``and then shall testify in the Senate''.

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The amendment is arguable by the parties for 2 
hours, equally divided.
  Mr. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent or opponent?
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Proponent.
  Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. We oppose it.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff, you may proceed and reserve time for 
rebuttal.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, this amendment makes two important 
changes to the McConnell resolution.
  The first is, the McConnell resolution does not actually provide for 
an immediate vote even later on the witnesses we have requested.
  What the McConnell resolution says is that at some point after, 
essentially, the trial is over--after you have had the arguments of 
both sides and you have had the 16 hours of questioning--then there 
will be a debate as to whether to have a vote and a debate on a 
particular witness. There is no guarantee that you are going to get a 
chance to vote on specific witnesses.
  All the resolution provides is that you are going to get an 
opportunity to vote to have a debate on whether to ultimately have a 
vote on a particular witness. This would strip that middle layer. It 
would strip the debate on whether to have a debate on a particular 
witness.
  If my counsel, my colleagues for the President's team, are making the 
point that ``Well, you are going to get that opportunity later,'' the 
reality is that under the McConnell resolution, we may never get to 
have a debate about particular witnesses.
  You heard the discussion of four witnesses tonight. There may be 
others who come to the attention of this body who are able to get 
documents that we should also call. But will you ever get to hear a 
debate about why a particular witness is necessary? Well, you may only 
get a debate over the debate. This amendment would remove that debate 
over debate regarding particular witnesses.
  The other thing this resolution would provide is that you should hear 
from these witnesses directly. The McConnell resolution says that we 
deposed, and that is it. It doesn't say you are ever going to actually 
hear these witnesses for yourself, which means that you, as the triers 
of fact, may not get to see and witness the credibility of these 
witnesses. You may only get to see a deposition or deposition 
transcript or maybe a video of a deposition. I don't know. But if there 
is any contesting of facts, wouldn't you like to hear from the 
witnesses yourself and very directly?
  Now, the reason why it was done this way in the Clinton case and why 
there were depositions--and again, in the Clinton case, all these 
people had been interviewed and deposed or testified before. The reason 
it was done that way in the Clinton case is because of the salacious 
nature of the testimony. Nobody wanted witnesses on the Senate floor 
talking about sex. Well, as I said earlier, I can assure you that will 
not be the issue here.
  To whatever degree there was a reluctance in the Clinton case to have 
live testimony because of its salacious character, that is not an issue 
here. That is not a reason here not to hear from those witnesses 
yourself.
  This resolution makes those two important changes, and I would urge 
your support.
  I reserve time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone.
  Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
  Mr. Purpura will argue this motion.
  Mr. Counsel PURPURA. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, good 
morning. I will be very brief on this.
  We strongly oppose the amendment. We support the resolution as 
written. We believe, as to the two areas that Manager Schiff discussed, 
the resolution appropriately considers those

[[Page S429]]

questions and strikes the impeachment balance in the Senate's 
discretion as the sole trier of impeachments.
  The rules in place here in the resolution are similar to the Clinton 
proceeding in that regard in the sense that this body has the 
discretion as to whether to hear from the witness live, if there are 
witnesses at some point, or not.
  But, more fundamentally, the preliminary question has to be overcome, 
which is there will be 4 hours total, with 2 hours for them to try to 
convince you, after the parties have made their presentation--which 
they will have 24 hours to do--as to the preliminary question of 
whether it shall be in order to consider and debate any motion to 
subpoena witnesses or documents.
  Those were precisely the Clinton rules--actually, stronger than the 
Clinton rules. Those rules, as I have indicated before, passed 100 to 
0. We think that the resolution strikes the appropriate balance, and we 
urge that the amendment be rejected.
  I yield my time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, counsel.
  Mr. Schiff, you have 57 minutes.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Don't worry. I won't use it.
  I will say only that if there were any veneer left to camouflage 
where the President's counsel is really coming from, the veneer is 
completely gone now. After saying we are going to have an opportunity 
to have a vote on these witnesses later, now they are saying: No, you 
are just going to have a vote on whether to debate having a vote on the 
witnesses.
  The camouflage was pretty thin to begin with, but it is completely 
gone now.
  What they really want is to get to that generic debate about whether 
or not to have a debate on witnesses and have you vote it down so you 
never actually have to vote to refuse these witnesses, although you had 
to do that tonight. I don't see what purpose that serves except, I 
suppose, to put one more layer in the way of accountability.
  But the veneer is gone. All this promise about ``You are going to get 
that opportunity, it is just a question of when''--no, the whole goal 
is for you to never get the chance to take that vote. And what is more, 
the vote on this resolution is a vote that says that you don't want to 
hear from these witnesses yourself. You don't want to evaluate the 
credibility of these witnesses yourself. Maybe--just maybe--you will 
let them be deposed, but you don't want to hear them yourself. You 
don't want to see these witnesses put up their hand and take an oath.
  I don't know what the rules of these depositions are going to be. 
Maybe the public isn't going to ever get to see what happens in those 
depositions. We released all the deposition transcripts from our 
depositions--the secret 100-person depositions--but we have no idea 
what rules they will adopt for these depositions. Maybe the public will 
see them; maybe they won't. Maybe you will get to see them; I assume 
you will get to see them. But at the end of the day, this is also a 
vote you have to cast that says: No, I don't want to hear them for 
myself. No, I don't want to evaluate their credibility for myself.
  This is, after all, only a vote, only a case, only a trial about the 
impeachment of the President of the United States. If you have a bank 
robbery trial or you have a trial where somebody is stealing a piece of 
mail, you could get live witnesses. But to impeach the President of the 
United States, they are saying: No, we don't need to see their 
credibility.
  Is that really where we are here tonight? Is that what the American 
people expect of a fair trial? I don't think it is.
  I yield back.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I move to table the amendment and 
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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                                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. 1293

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to 
allow adequate time for written responses to any motions by the 
parties, and I ask that it be read.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1293.
       On page 2, beginning on line 10, strike ``11:00 a.m. on 
     Wednesday, January 22, 2020'' and insert ``9:00 a.m. on 
     Thursday, January 23, 2020''.
       On page 2, line 15, strike ``Wednesday, January 22, 2020'' 
     and insert ``Thursday, January 23, 2020''.

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The amendment is arguable by the parties for 2 
hours, equally divided.
  Mr. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent of this amendment?
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Justice, I am a proponent.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone, are you a proponent or an opponent 
of this amendment?
  Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Mr. Chief Justice, I am an opponent.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Okay.
  Mr. Schiff, you may proceed and reserve time for rebuttal if you 
wish.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
  This amendment is quite simple. Under the McConnell resolution, the 
parties file motions tomorrow at 9 a.m.--written motions, that is--and 
the responding party has to file their reply 2 hours later. That really 
doesn't give anybody enough time to respond to a written motion.
  When the President's team filed, for example, their trial brief, it 
was over 100 pages. We at least had 24 hours to file our reply, and 
that is all we would ask for. In the Clinton trial--again, if we are 
interested in the Clinton case--they had 41 hours to respond to written 
motions. We are not asking for 41 hours, but we are asking for enough 
time to write a decent response to a motion.
  That is essentially it, and I would hope that we could agree at least 
on this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Sekulow.
  Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice and Members of the 
Senate.
  So it seems like tomorrow is a day off according to your procedure; 
is that correct, Mr. Schiff?
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. I forgot the time.
  Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Today is tomorrow, and tomorrow is today. The 
answer is that we are ready to proceed. We will respond to any motions. 
We would ask the Chamber to reject this amendment.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff, there are 59 minutes remaining.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. I yield back our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.

[[Page S430]]

  



                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I move to table the amendment.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     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--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     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. 1294

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, on behalf of Senator Van Hollen, I 
send an amendment to the desk to help ensure impartial justice by 
requiring the Chief Justice of the United States to rule on motions to 
subpoena witnesses and documents. I ask that it be read. This is our 
last amendment of the evening.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for Mr. Van 
     Hollen, proposes an amendment numbered 1294.
       On page 3, line 20, insert ``The Presiding Officer shall 
     rule to authorize the subpoena of any witness or any document 
     that a Senator or a party moves to subpoena if the Presiding 
     Officer determines that the witness or document is likely to 
     have probative evidence relevant to either article of 
     impeachment before the Senate.'' after ``order.''.
  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 of the motion?
  Mr. Manager Schiff. Mr. Chief Justice, I am a proponent.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone, are you a proponent or an opponent 
of the motion?
  Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. Mr. Chief Justice, I am an opponent.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff, you may proceed and reserve time for 
rebuttal.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, this amendment would provide that the 
Presiding Officer shall rule to authorize the subpoena of any witness 
or any document that a Senator or a party moves to subpoena if the 
Presiding Officer determines that that witness is likely to have 
probative evidence relevant to either Article of Impeachment.
  It is quite simple. It would allow the Chief Justice and it would 
allow Senators, the House managers, and the President's counsel to make 
use of the experience of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to 
decide the questions of the relevance of witnesses. Either party can 
call the witnesses, and if we can't come to an agreement on witnesses 
ourselves, we will pick a neutral arbiter, that being the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court. If the Chief Justice finds that a witness would 
be probative, that witness would be allowed to testify. If the Chief 
Justice finds the testimony would be immaterial, that witness would not 
be allowed to testify.
  Now, it still maintains the Senate's tradition that if you don't 
agree with the Chief Justice, you can overrule him. If you have the 
votes, you can overrule the Chief Justice and say you disagree with 
what the Chief Justice has decided.
  But it would give this decision to a neutral party. That right is 
extended to both parties, who will be done in line with the schedule 
that the majority leader has set out. It is not the schedule we want. 
We still don't think it makes any sense to have the trial and then 
decide our witnesses. But if we are going to have to do it that way, 
and it looks like we are, at least let's have a neutral arbiter 
decide--much as he may loathe the task--whether a witness is relevant 
or a witness is not.
  We would hope that if there is nothing else we can agree on tonight, 
that we could agree to allow the Chief Justice to give us the benefit 
of his experience in deciding which witnesses are relevant to this 
inquiry and which witnesses are not.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Sekulow.
  Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, and 
with no disrespect to the Chief Justice, this is not an appellate 
court. This is the U.S. Senate. There is not an arbitration clause in 
the U.S. Constitution. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all 
impeachments. We oppose the amendment.
  We yield our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff, you have 57 minutes remaining.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Well, this is a good note to conclude on because 
don't let it be said we haven't made progress today.
  The President's counsel has just acknowledged for the first time that 
this is not an appellate court. I am glad we have established that. 
This is the trial, not the appeal, and the trial ought to have 
witnesses and the trial should be based on the cold record from the 
court below, but there is no court below, because, as the counsel has 
just admitted, you are not the appellate court.
  But I think what we have also seen here tonight is, they not only 
don't want you to hear these witnesses, they don't want to hear them 
live. They don't want even really to hear them deposed. They don't want 
a neutral Justice to weigh in because if the neutral Justice weighs in 
and says: You know, pretty hard to argue that John Bolton is not 
relevant here, pretty hard to argue that Mick Mulvaney is not relevant 
here--I just watched that videotape where he said he discussed this 
with the President. They are contesting it. Pretty relevant.
  What about Hunter Biden? Hunter Biden is probably the real reason 
they don't want the Chief Justice to have to rule on the materiality of 
a witness, right? What can Hunter Biden tell us about why the President 
withheld hundreds of millions of dollars from Ukraine? I can tell you 
what he can tell us--nothing. What does Hunter Biden know about why the 
President wouldn't meet with President Zelensky? He can't tell us 
anything about that. What can he tell us about these Defense Department 
documents or OMB documents? What can he tell us about the violation of 
the law, withholding this money? Of course he can't tell us anything 
about that because his testimony is immaterial and irrelevant. The only 
purpose in calling him is to succeed at what they failed to do earlier 
in this whole scheme, and that is to smear Joe Biden by going after his 
son.
  We trust the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to make that decision 
that he is not a material witness. This isn't like fantasy football 
here. We are not making trades--or we shouldn't be. We will trade you 
one completely irrelevant, immaterial witness who allows us to smear 
the President's opponent in exchange for ones who are really relevant 
whom you should hear. Is that a fair trial?
  If you can't trust the Chief Justice, appointed by a Republican 
President, to make a fair decision about materiality, I think it 
betrays the weakness of your case.
  Look, I will be honest. There has been some apprehension on our side 
about this idea, but we have confidence that the Chief Justice would 
make a fair and impartial decision and that he would do impartial 
justice, and it is something that my colleagues representing the 
President don't. They don't. They don't want a fair judicial

[[Page S431]]

ruling about this. They don't want one that you could overturn because 
they don't want a fair trial.
  And so we end where we started--with one party wanting a fair trial 
and one party that doesn't; one party that doesn't fear a fair trial 
and one party that is terrified of a fair trial.
  I yield back.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I make a motion to table the 
amendment, and 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to say, on behalf of 
all of us, we want to thank you for your patience.
  (Applause.)
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Comes with the job. Please.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S431, January 21, 2020, first column, the following 
appears: Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to say, on 
behalf of all of us, we want to thank you for your 
patience.(Applause.)
  
  The Record has been corrected to read: Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief 
Justice, I would like to say, on behalf of all of us, we want to 
thank you for your patience. (Applause.) The CHIEF JUSTICE. Comes 
with the job. Please.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Mr. McCONNELL. On scheduling, assuming there are no more amendments, 
the next vote will be on adoption of the resolution, and then all 
Senators should stay in their seats until the trial is adjourned for 
the evening.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question is on adoption of S. Res. 483.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask for yeas and nays.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                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. The yeas are 53, and the nays are 47.
  The resolution (S. Res. 483) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted 
Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________