[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 15 (Friday, January 24, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S531-S565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will convene as a Court of Impeachment.
  The Chaplain will please lead us in prayer.


                                 Prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Almighty God, as we resume this impeachment trial, let Your will be 
done. Enlighten our Senators as You show them Your will. Lord, guide 
them with Your wisdom, supporting them with Your power. In spite of 
disagreements, may they strive for civility and respect. May they 
respect the right of the opposing side to differ regarding convictions 
and conclusions. Give them the wisdom to distinguish between facts and 
opinions without lambasting the messengers.
  We pray in Your strong Name. Amen.


                          Pledge Of Allegiance

  The Chief Justice led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


                              The Journal

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Will Senators please be seated.
  If there is no objection, the Journal of proceedings of the trial are 
approved to date.
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
  The Sergeant at Arms, Michael C. Stenger, made proclamation as 
follows:

       Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye! All persons are commanded to 
     keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the Senate of 
     the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of 
     impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against 
     Donald John Trump, President of the United States.

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, for all of our colleagues' 
information about scheduling, today we will plan to take short breaks 
every 2 to 3 hours and will accommodate a 30-minute recess for dinner, 
assuming it is needed, until the House managers have finished their 
opening presentation.
  For scheduling purposes, we have organized tomorrow's session to 
convene at 10 a.m. and run for several hours as the President's counsel 
begin their presentation.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 483, the 
managers for the House of Representatives have 7 hours 53 minutes 
remaining to make the presentation of their case.
  The Senate will now hear you.


                      Opening Statement--Continued

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, distinguished 
counsel of the President, I keep wanting to say ``good morning,'' but 
good afternoon. I just wanted to give a very brief orientation to the 
argument you will hear today.
  We will begin with Jason Crow, who was talking about the 
conditionality of the military assistance. This is the latter part, 
although not the end, of the argumentation on the application of the 
constitutional law as it respects article I, the abuse of power. I will 
have a presentation after Mr. Crow, and soon thereafter we will 
conclude the presentation on article I. We will then begin the 
presentation on article II, once again applying the constitutional law 
to the facts on the President's obstruction of Congress. We will then 
have some concluding thoughts and then turn it over to the President's 
counsel.
  That is what you should expect for the day, and with that, I will now 
yield to Mr. Crow of Colorado.
  Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, good afternoon. I woke up this 
morning and walked to my local coffee shop, where, unlike my esteemed 
colleague Mr. Jeffries from New York, nobody complained to me about 
Colorado baseball. So I could only conclude that this is only a New 
York Yankees problem.
  As Mr. Schiff mentioned, we talked last night about the July 25 call 
and the multiple officials who had confirmed the intent of the 
President in withholding the aid, so now I would like to turn to what 
happened around the time the aid was lifted.
  We know that the aid was lifted ultimately on September 11, but it 
wasn't lifted for any legitimate reason. It was only lifted because 
President Trump had gotten caught. Let's go through how we know that.
  On August 26, the whistleblower complaint had been sent to the 
Director of National Intelligence, and public reports indicate that 
President Trump was told about the complaint by White House Counsel Pat 
Cipollone.
  On September 5, though, the scheme became public. An editorial in the 
Washington Post on that day, for the first time publicly, explicitly 
linked the military aid hold and the investigations that President 
Trump wanted.
  Keep in mind that public scrutiny of the President's hold increased 
exponentially after this became public. And this is where things start 
moving really fast.
  A few days later, on September 9, the House investigative committees 
publicly announced their investigation of the President's conduct in 
Ukraine. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified to the National Security 
Council, and others at the White House learned about the investigation 
when it was announced. And a colleague of his said that it might have 
the effect of releasing the aid. On that same day, the

[[Page S532]]

House Intelligence Committee learns that the administration had 
withheld the whistleblower complaint from Congress. The scheme was 
unravelling. What happens 2 days later? President Trump released the 
military aid.
  He only released it after he got caught. But there is another reason 
we know the President lifted the aid only because he got caught: 
because there is no other explanation. The testimony of all of the 
witnesses confirmed it. Both Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Ms. 
Williams testified that they were not provided any reason for lifting 
the hold. Vindman testified that nothing on the ground had changed in 
the 2 months of the hold, and Mark Sandy of the OMB also confirmed 
that. Ambassador Taylor, too, testified that ``I was not told the 
reason why the hold had been lifted.''
  Let me take a moment to address another defense I expect you will 
hear: that the aid was released and the investigations were never 
announced; so therefore no harm, no foul, right? Well, this defense 
would be laughable if this issue wasn't so serious.
  First, I have spoken over the past 3 days about the real consequences 
of inserting politics into matters of war. Real people, real lives are 
at stake. Every day, every hour matters. So, no, the delay wasn't 
meaningless. Just ask the Ukrainians sitting in trenches right now. And 
to this day, they are still waiting on $18 million of the aid that 
hasn't reached them.
  Jennifer Williams, who attended the Warsaw meeting with Vice 
President Pence, described President Zelensky's focus during this time.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. And you testified in your deposition that in 
     that conversation President Zelensky emphasized that the 
     military assistance, the security assistance, was not just 
     important to assist Ukraine in fighting a war against Russia 
     but that it was also symbolic in nature. What did you 
     understand him to mean by that?
       Ms. WILLIAMS. President Zelensky explained that more than--
     or just equally with--the financial and physical value of the 
     assistance, that it was the symbolic nature of that 
     assistance that really was the show of U.S. support for 
     Ukraine and for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial 
     integrity. And I think he was stressing that to the Vice 
     President to really underscore the need for the security 
     assistance to be released.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And, then, if the United States was holding 
     the security assistance, is it also true then that Russia 
     could see that as a sign of weakening U.S. support for 
     Ukraine and take advantage of that?
       Ms. WILLIAMS. I believe that is what President Zelensky was 
     indicating, that any signal or sign that U.S. support was 
     wavering would be construed by Russia as potentially an 
     opportunity for them to strengthen their own hand in Ukraine.

  Mr. Manager CROW. This is an important point, particularly when the 
President and his attorneys tried to argue: no harm, no foul.
  The financial assistance itself was really important to Ukraine, no 
question about it. But the aid was equally important as a signal to 
Russia of our support for Ukraine. And regardless of whether the aid 
was ultimately released, the fact that the hold became public sent a 
very clear signal to Russia that our support for Ukraine was wavering, 
and Russia was watching very closely for any sign of weakness. The 
damage was done.
  Now, any possible doubt about whether the aid was linked to the 
investigations has been erased by the President's own Chief of Staff. 
We have seen this video before during the trial, but there is a really 
good reason for this. It is a complete admission on national TV that 
the military aid was conditioned on Ukraine helping the President's 
political campaign.
  Here, once again, is what Mulvaney said.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. MULVANEY. Did he also mention to me in the past the 
     corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question 
     about that. But that is it. And that's why we held up the 
     money.

  Mr. Manager CROW. When pressed that he just confessed to the very 
quid pro quo that President Trump had been denying, Mulvaney doubled 
down.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       QUESTION. To be clear, what you just described is a quid 
     pro quo. Funding will not flow unless the investigation into 
     the Democratic server happened as well.
       Mr. MULVANEY. We do that all the time with foreign policy. 
     If you read the news reports and you believe them, what did 
     McKinney say yesterday? Well, McKinney said yesterday that he 
     was really upset with the political influence in foreign 
     policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about 
     this. And I have news for everybody: Get over it. There is 
     going to be political influence in foreign policy.

  Mr. Manager CROW. Remember, at the time he made these statements, 
Mulvaney was both the head of OMB and the Acting Chief of Staff at the 
White House. He knew about all of the legal concerns. He also knew 
about the President's so-called drug deal, as Ambassador Bolton called 
it. He knew exactly what was going on in the Oval Office and how OMB 
implemented the President's illegal order to hold the aid.
  Mulvaney confirmed why the President ordered the hold. It was not to 
develop further policy to counter aggression. It was not to convince 
the Ukrainians to implement additional anti-corruption reforms. And it 
was not to pressure our allies to give more to Ukraine.
  Since we won't have an opportunity to respond to the President's 
presentation, I am going to take a minute to respond to some of the 
arguments that I expect them to make.
  You will notice, I am sure, that they will ignore significant 
portions of the evidence, while trying to cherry-pick individual 
statements here and there to manufacture defenses. But don't be fooled.
  One defense you may hear is that the aid was held up to allow for a 
policy review. This is what the administration told the GAO at one 
point. But the evidence shows the opposite. The evidence shows that the 
administration didn't conduct a review at any time after the President 
ordered the hold.
  Laura Cooper was not aware of any review of the funding conducted by 
DOD in July, August, or September, and, similarly, George Kent 
testified that the State Department did not conduct and was never asked 
to conduct a review of funding administrated by the State Department. 
In fact, on May 23, the anti-corruption review was complete and DOD 
certified to Congress that Ukraine had complied with all of the 
conditions and that the remaining half of the aid should be released. 
This was confirmed by the June 18 press release announcing the funding.
  Do you remember the fictitious ``interagency review process''? That 
was made up too. No review is necessary because it had already been 
done.
  Next, the President's counsel keeps saying this was about corruption 
in Ukraine. President Trump was not concerned with fighting corruption. 
It is difficult to even say that with a straight face. The President 
never mentioned corruption on either call with President Zelensky. But 
let's go through the evidence.
  As we just discussed, DOD had already completed a review and 
concluded that Ukraine had ``made sufficient progress in meeting 
defense reform and anti-corruption goals consistent with the National 
Defense Authorization Act in order to receive the funds.''
  In fact, Mark Sandy, who was not at that meeting but who was 
initially responsible for approving the hold, said he had never heard 
corruption as a reason for the hold in all of the discussions he had 
about it.
  Similar to the anti-corruption argument, there is simply no evidence 
to support the President's after-the-fact argument that he was 
concerned about burden-sharing; that is, other countries also 
contributing to Ukraine.
  I imagine the President may cite the emails in June about what other 
countries provided to Ukraine, the reference to other countries' 
contributions in the July 25 call, and testimony from Sandy about a 
request for information about what other European countries give to 
Ukraine. But there is simply no evidence that ties the concern to his 
decision to hold the funding.
  First, let's actually look at the contributions of European countries 
to Ukraine. There is a slide in front of you. It shows that other 
European countries have significantly contributed to Ukraine since 
2014, and the European Union, in total, has given far more than the 
United States. The EU is the single largest donor to Ukraine, having 
provided over $16 billion in grants and loans.
  The President's assertion that other countries did not support 
Ukraine is meritless. There are other reasons too.

[[Page S533]]

  After DOD and OMB responded to the President's request, presumably 
with some of the information we just provided you, showing Europe gives 
a lot to Ukraine, nobody in the Trump administration mentioned burden-
sharing as a reason for the hold to any of the 17 witnesses that we 
have been talking about.
  Sondland, whose actual portfolio is the EU--not Ukraine--testified 
that he was never asked to speak to the EU or EU member countries about 
providing more aid to Ukraine. If President Trump were truly concerned 
about that, he would have been the perfect guy to handle it because he 
was our Ambassador to the EU. But it never happened. How could it? 
Sondland himself knew the aid was linked to the investigations because 
that is what the President himself had told him.
  It wasn't until the President's scheme began to unravel, after the 
White House learned of the whistleblower complaint and after POLITICO 
publicly revealed the existence of the hold, that the issue of burden-
sharing came up again.
  If the President's concern were genuinely about burden-sharing, he 
never made any public statements about it, never ordered a review of 
burden-sharing, and never ordered his officials to push Europe to 
increase their contributions. And then he released the aid without any 
changes in Europe's contributions.
  This last point is important. You know the President's purported 
concern about burden-sharing rings hollow because the aid was released 
after the President got caught, not because the EU or any European 
country made any new contributions. As Lieutenant Colonel Vindman 
testified, the facts on the ground had not changed.
  Finally, you may hear the President's counsel say that Ukraine didn't 
know about the hold until August 28, long after the hold was 
implemented. Therefore, they could not have felt pressure. But this 
makes no sense.
  First, they found out about it long before August 28. Multiple 
witnesses testified that the Ukrainians showed ``impressive diplomatic 
tradecraft'' in learning quickly about the hold, and, of course, they 
would know. The DOD release was announced in June. U.S. agencies knew 
about it in July. It should be no surprise that the first inquiries 
about the aid were on July 25, the same day as the call.
  You see, it doesn't matter if extortion lasts 2 weeks or 2 months. It 
is still extortion, and Ukraine certainly felt the pressure. Other 
Ukrainian officials also expressed concerns that the Ukrainian 
government was being singled out and penalized for some reason. And 
they were, by President Trump.
  Do you know how else you know they felt the pressure from the hold? 
President Zelensky finally relented and was planning to do the CNN 
interview. Ultimately, right around the time of President Zelensky's 
conversation with President Trump, which is the subject of the 
classified document that I urge all Senators to look at, President 
Zelensky canceled the CNN interview. But the damage was already done.
  The evidence is clear. The question for you is whether it is OK for 
the President to withhold taxpayer money, aid for our ally--our friend 
at war--for a personal political benefit; whether it was OK for the 
President to sacrifice our national security for his own election. It 
is not OK to me, it is certainly not OK with the American people, and 
it should not be OK to any of you.
  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished Members of the 
Senate, President's counsel, the American people, once again, we are 
gathered here, not as Democrats or Republicans, not as the left or the 
right, not as progressives or conservatives, but as Americans doing our 
constitutional duty during this moment of Presidential accountability. 
As House managers, we thank you for your courtesy, your attentiveness, 
and your hospitality.
  At the heart of article II, obstruction of Congress, is a simple, 
troubling reality. President Trump tried to cheat, he got caught, and 
then he worked hard to cover it up. The President tried to cheat, he 
got caught, and then he worked hard to cover it up.
  Patrick Henry, one the Nation's great patriots, once said that ``the 
liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be secure, when the 
transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.''
  Let's now address the effort by President Trump and his team to cover 
up his wrongdoing. By July of 2019, White House officials were aware of 
serious allegations of misconduct by President Trump regarding Ukraine, 
but instead of halting the President's corrupt scheme, they worked 
overtime to conceal it from the American people.
  As additional evidence of the President's wrongdoing mounted, White 
House lawyers redoubled their efforts to prevent Congress and the 
American people from learning of the President's misconduct.
  At the same time, top administration officials--including Secretary 
of State Pompeo, Secretary of Defense Esper, and National Security 
Advisor John Bolton--tried to convince President Trump to lift the hold 
on the security assistance. They failed. President Trump was determined 
to carry out his corrupt scheme.
  The military and security aid was only released on September 11 after 
the hold became public, after the House launched an investigation, and 
after Congress learned about the existence of a whistleblower 
complaint. The $391 million in security aid was only released because 
President Trump was caught redhanded.
  The actions of President Trump and high-level White House officials 
allowed his abuse of power to continue beyond the watchful eye of 
Congress and, most importantly, the American people.
  As we have discussed at length, on July 10, Ambassador Sondland told 
the Ukrainians and other U.S. officials that he had a deal with Acting 
Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney to schedule the White House meeting 
President Zelensky wanted, if the new Ukrainian leader committed to the 
phony investigations that President Trump sought.
  As you have seen in testimony shown during this trial, following that 
meeting, National Security Council officials, Dr. Fiona Hill and LTC 
Alexander Vindman immediately reported this information to John 
Eisenberg, the Legal Advisor for the National Security Council and a 
Deputy Counsel to the President. According to Dr. Hill, Mr. Eisenberg 
told her that he was also concerned about that July 10 meeting. On the 
screen is Dr. Hill's deposition testimony where she explains Mr. 
Eisenberg's reaction, saying:

       I mean, he wasn't aware that Sondland, Ambassador Sondland 
     was . . . kind of running around doing a lot of these . . . 
     meetings and independently. We talked about the fact that . . 
     . Ambassador Sondland said he'd been meeting with Giuliani 
     and he was very concerned about that. And he said he would 
     follow up on this.

  Mr. Eisenberg was very concerned about that and said that he would 
follow up on this.
  Dr. Hill further testified that Mr. Eisenberg told her that he 
followed up with his boss, the distinguished White House Counsel, Pat 
Cipollone. However, because the President blocked Mr. Eisenberg from 
testifying in the House, we do not know what, if anything, he or Mr. 
Cipollone did in response to this deeply troubling information. What we 
do know is that President Trump's effort to cheat continued with 
reckless abandon. By failing to put the brakes on the wrongdoing after 
that July 10 meeting--even after they were notified by concerned 
national security officials--the White House attorneys allowed it to 
continue unchecked.
  Right around the same time that the July 10 meetings at the White 
House took place, the Office of Management and Budget began executing 
President Trump's illegal order to withhold all security assistance 
from Ukraine.
  On July 10, Robert Blair, an assistant to the President, communicated 
the hold to the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
Russell Vought. On July 18, an Office of Management and Budget official 
communicated the hold to other executive branch agencies, including the 
Department of State and the Department of Defense. And a week later, on 
July 25, President Trump had his imperfect telephone call with 
President Zelensky and directly pressured the Ukrainian leader to 
commence phony political investigations as part of his effort to cheat 
and solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election.
  The July 25 call marked an important turning point. If there was any

[[Page S534]]

question among senior White House officials and attorneys about whether 
President Trump was directly involved in the Ukraine scheme, as opposed 
to just a rogue operation being led by Rudolph Giuliani or some other 
underlings, after July 25, there can be no mistake that the President 
of the United States was undoubtedly calling the shots.
  Thereafter, the complicity of White House officials with respect to 
the coverup of the President's misconduct intensified. Immediately 
after the July 25 call, both Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and his direct 
supervisor, Tim Morrison, reported their concerns about the call to Mr. 
Eisenberg and his Deputy, Michael Ellis. In fact, within an hour after 
the July 25 call, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman returned again a second 
time to Mr. Eisenberg and reported his concerns.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Lt. Col. VINDMAN. I was concerned by the call. What I heard 
     was inappropriate and I reported my concerns to Mr. 
     Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United 
     States to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. 
     citizen and a political opponent.
       I was also clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation, 
     it was also clear that if Ukraine pursued investigation into 
     the 2016 elections, the Bidens and Burisma, it would be 
     interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result 
     in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermining U.S. 
     national security and advancing Russia's strategic objectives 
     in the region.
       I want to emphasize to the committee that when I reported 
     my concerns on July 10th relating to Ambassador Sondland and 
     then on July 25th relating to the President, I did so out of 
     a sense of duty. I privately reported my concerns in official 
     channels to the proper authority in the chain of command. My 
     intent was to raise these concerns because they had 
     significant national security implications for our country. I 
     never thought that I'd be sitting here testifying in front of 
     this committee and the American public about my actions. When 
     I reported my concerns, my only thought was to act properly 
     and to carry out my duty.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Timothy Morrison, the National Security 
Council's Senior Director for Europe and Russia, also reported the call 
to Mr. Eisenberg and asked him to review the call, which he feared 
would be ``damaging'' if leaked.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, Mr. Morrison, shortly after you heard the 
     July 25th call, you testified that you alerted the NSC legal 
     advisor, John Eisenberg, pretty much right away. Is that 
     right?
       Mr. MORRISON. Correct.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And you indicated in your opening statement, 
     or at least from your deposition, that you went to Mr. 
     Eisenberg out of concern over the potential political fallout 
     if the call record became public and not because you thought 
     it was illegal. Is that right?
       Mr. MORRISON. Correct.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. But you would agree, right, that asking a 
     foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival 
     is inappropriate. Would you not?
       Mr. MORRISON. It's not what we recommended the President 
     discuss.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. The July 25 call was at least the second time 
that National Security Council officials had reported concerns about 
President Trump's pressure campaign to White House lawyers--the second 
time--who now clearly understood the gravity of the ongoing misconduct.
  But because the President blocked Mr. Eisenberg from testifying 
without any justification, the record is silent as to what, if any, 
actions he or the White House Counsel took to address President Trump's 
brazen misconduct and abuse of power. We do know, however, that instead 
of trying to halt the scheme, White House lawyers facilitated it by 
taking affirmative steps to conceal evidence of President Trump's 
misconduct. For example, after Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Mr. 
Morrison reported their concerns related to the July 25 call to the 
National Security Council lawyers, they tried to bury the call summary. 
They tried to bury it. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified that the 
National Security Council lawyers believed it was ``appropriate to 
restrict access'' to the call summary ``for the purpose of the leaks'' 
and ``to preserv[e] the integrity'' of the transcript.
  According to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Mr. Eisenberg ``gave the go-
ahead'' to restrict access to the call summary. Mr. Morrison testified 
that he learned in late August, after he raised concerns that the call 
record might leak and be politically damaging to the President, that 
the call summary had been placed on a highly classified National 
Security Council server. The call record was placed on a server that is 
reserved for America's most sensitive national security secrets and 
covert operations, not routine calls with foreign leaders.
  Apparently, Mr. Eisenberg claimed at the time that burying the call 
transcript on a highly classified server was a ``mistake.''
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, in a second meeting with Mr. Eisenberg, 
     what did you recommend that he do to prevent the call record 
     from leaking?
       Mr. MORRISON. I recommended we restrict access to the 
     package.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Had you ever asked the NSC legal advisor to 
     restrict access before?
       Mr. MORRISON. No.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you speak to your supervisor, Dr. 
     Kupperman, before you went to speak to John Eisenberg?
       Mr. MORRISON. No.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you subsequently learn that the call 
     record had been put in a highly classified system?
       Mr. MORRISON. I did.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And what reason did Mr. Eisenberg give you for 
     why the call record was put in a highly classified system?
       Mr. MORRISON. It was a mistake.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. He said it was just a mistake?
       Mr. MORRISON. It was an administrative error.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. In Mr. Morrison's view, the July 25 call record 
did not meet the requirements to be placed on a highly classified 
server.
  At his deposition, Mr. Morrison testified that the call record was 
placed on the server by ``mistake.'' However, even after this alleged 
``mistake'' was discovered, the July 25 call summary was not removed 
from the classified system because someone was trying to hide it. It 
was not until a launch of the House impeachment inquiry in late 
September, and after intense public pressure, that the rough transcript 
of the July 25 call was released.
  Again, because Mr. Eisenberg and Mr. Ellis refused to testify in the 
House, we do not know exactly how the July 25 call record ended up on 
this highly classified National Security Council server. What we do 
know is that Mr. Eisenberg ordered access restricted after multiple 
officials, like Dr. Fiona Hill and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, advised 
him of the scheme to condition a White House meeting on phony political 
investigations. They strongly suggested there was an active attempt to 
conceal the clear evidence of the President's wrongdoing. Instead of 
addressing the President's misconduct, Mr. Eisenberg seemingly tried to 
cover it up.
  Why did Mr. Eisenberg place the July 25 call summary on a server for 
highly classified material? Did anyone senior to Mr. Eisenberg direct 
him to hide the call record? Why did the call record remain on the 
classified server even after the so-called error was discovered? Who 
ordered the coverup of the call record? The American people deserve to 
know.
  Following the July 25 call, the President's scheme to pressure 
Ukraine for political purposes intensified, apparently unchecked by any 
effort to stop it from the White House Counsel's Office. After the July 
25 call, Ambassadors Sondland and Volker worked with the President's 
personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, to procure a public statement from 
President Zelensky to announce phony investigations into Joe Biden and 
the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory being peddled by President Trump. At 
the same time, President Trump continued to withhold the White House 
meeting and security assistance from Ukraine in a manner that broke the 
law.
  As these efforts were ongoing, White House attorneys reportedly 
received yet another warning sign that the President was abusing his 
power. According to a published report in the New York Times, the week 
after the July 25 call, an anonymous whistleblower reported concerns 
that the President was abusing his office for personal gain. The 
whistleblower's complaint landed with the CIA's General Counsel's 
office. Although the concerns related directly to the President's own 
misconduct, the CIA's General Counsel, Courtney Elwood, alerted Mr. 
Eisenberg. Over the next week, Ms. Elwood, Mr. Eisenberg, and their 
deputies reportedly discussed the whistleblower's concerns, and they 
determined, as required by law, that the allegations had a ``reasonable 
basis.''

[[Page S535]]

  So, by early August, White House lawyers began working, along with 
the attorneys at the Department of Justice, to cover up the President's 
wrongdoing. They were determined to prevent Congress and the American 
people from learning anything about the President's corrupt behavior. 
Although senior Justice Department officials, including Attorney 
General Bill Barr, were reportedly made aware of the concerns about 
corrupt activity, no investigation into President Trump's wrongdoing 
was even opened by the DOJ.
  As White House and Justice Department lawyers were discussing how to 
deal with the whistleblower's concerns, on August 12--another important 
date--the whistleblower filed a formal complaint with the inspector 
general for the intelligence community.
  In accordance with Federal law, on August 26, the inspector general 
transmitted the whistleblower's complaint to the Acting Director of 
National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, along with the inspector 
general's preliminary conclusion that the complaint was both credible 
and related to a matter of urgent concern. Instead of transmitting the 
whistleblower's complaint to the House's and Senate's distinguished 
Intelligence Committees, as required by law, the Acting Director of 
National Intelligence notified the White House.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       The CHAIRMAN. I'm just trying to understand the chronology. 
     [So] you first went to the Office of Legal Counsel, and then 
     you went to White House Counsel?
       MAGUIRE. We went to the--repeat that, please, sir.
       The CHAIRMAN. I'm just trying to understand the chronology. 
     You first went to the Office of Legal Counsel, and then you 
     went to the White House Counsel?
       MAGUIRE. No, no, no, sir. We went to the White House first 
     to determine--to ask the question--
       The CHAIRMAN. That's all I want to know is the chronology. 
     So you went to the White House first. So you went to the 
     subject of the complaint for advice first about whether you 
     should provide the complaint to Congress?
       MAGUIRE. There were issues within this, a couple of things: 
     One, it did appear that it has executive privilege. If it 
     does have executive privilege, it is the White House that 
     determines that. I cannot determine that, as the Director of 
     National Intelligence.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Under Federal law, the Acting Director of 
National Intelligence was required to share the whistleblower's 
complaint with Congress--period, full stop. If that had occurred, the 
President's scheme to withhold security assistance and a White House 
meeting--being sought by the new Ukrainian leader--in order to pressure 
Ukraine for his own, personal political gain would have been exposed.
  To prevent that from happening, the President's lawyers and top-level 
advisers adopted a two-pronged coverup strategy: first, block Congress 
and the American people from learning about the whistleblower's 
complaint; second, try to convince President Trump to lift the hold on 
the security assistance before anyone could find out about it and use 
that evidence against him.
  As to the first prong, sometime after the Acting Director of National 
Intelligence told the White House Counsel's Office about the complaint 
on August 26, Mr. Cipollone and Mr. Eisenberg reportedly briefed the 
President. They likely discussed with President Trump whether they were 
legally required to give the complaint to Congress. They stated that 
they were consulting with the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department 
of Justice. The Acting Director of National Intelligence testified that 
he and the inspector general consulted with the Office of Legal 
Counsel, which opined without any reasonable basis that he did not have 
to turn over the complaint to Congress.
  On September 3--the day after the statutory deadline for the Director 
of National Intelligence to provide the complaint to this body and to 
the House--the Office of Legal Counsel issued a secret opinion, 
concluding that, contrary to the plain language of the statute, the 
Acting Director of National Intelligence was not required to turn over 
the complaint. The coverup was in full swing.
  The Office of Legal Counsel opined that the whistleblower's complaint 
did not qualify as an urgent concern and therefore did not have to be 
turned over. What could be more urgent than a sitting President's 
trying to cheat in an American election by soliciting foreign 
interference? What could be more urgent than that? That is a 
constitutional crime in progress, but they concluded it was not an 
urgent matter.
  Acting Director of National Intelligence Maguire testified that the 
Office of Legal Counsel's opinion did not actually prevent him from 
turning over the complaint to Congress. Instead, based upon his 
testimony, it is clear that he withheld it on the basis that the 
complaint might deal with information he believed could be covered by 
executive privilege, but President Trump never actually invoked 
executive privilege. He never actually invoked executive privilege, nor 
did he inform Congress that he was doing so with respect to this 
complaint. Instead, the White House secretly instructed the Acting 
Director of National Intelligence to withhold the complaint based on 
the mere possibility that executive privilege could be invoked. By 
doing so, the White House was able to keep the explosive complaint from 
Congress and the American public without ever having to disclose the 
reason it was withholding this information.

  But truth crushed to the ground will rise again. There is a toxic 
mess at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and I humbly suggest that it is our 
collective job, on behalf of the American people, to try to clean it 
up. President Trump tried to cheat. He got caught. Then he worked hard 
to cover it up.
  There have been many great Presidents throughout the history of this 
Republic--great Republican Presidents and great Democratic Presidents. 
Perhaps one of the greatest Presidents was Abraham Lincoln. He once 
said that any man can handle adversity, but if you want to test a man's 
character, give him some power.
  America is a great nation. We can handle adversity better than any 
other country in the world. Whenever America has found itself in a 
tough spot, we have always made it to the other side. We were in a 
tough spot during the Civil War, when America was at risk of tearing 
itself apart, but we made it to the other side. We were in a tough spot 
in October of 1929, when the stock market collapsed, plunging us into 
the Great Depression, but we made it to the other side. We were in a 
tough spot in December of 1941, when a foreign power struck, plunging 
us into a great conflict with the evil empire of Nazi Germany, but 
America made it to the other side. We were in a tough spot in the 1960s 
when dealing with the inherent contradictions of Jim Crow, but we made 
it to the other side. We were in a tough spot on September 11, when the 
Towers were struck and when young men and women, like Jason Crow, were 
sent to Afghanistan to fight the terrorists there so we didn't have to 
fight the terrorists here, and we made it to the other side.
  America is a great country. We can handle adversity better than any 
other nation in the world, but what are we going to do about our 
character?
  President Trump tried to cheat and solicit foreign interference in an 
American election. That is an attack on our character. President Trump 
abused his power and corrupted the highest office in the land. That is 
an attack on our character. President Trump tried to cover it all up 
and hide it from America and obstruct Congress. That is an 
extraordinary attack on our character.
  America is a great nation. We can handle adversity better than any 
other country in the world, but what are we going to do about our 
character?
  Mr. Manager CROW. As the crisis around the President's hold deepened 
throughout our government, the President's own top advisers redoubled 
their efforts to lift the hold on military aid and stem the fallout in 
case it went public, and it did go public. On August 28, POLITICO 
publicly reported that the President was withholding the military aid.
  As you have heard, the public disclosure of the President's hold in 
late August caused deep alarm among Ukrainian officials. It also caused 
U.S. officials to redouble their efforts once again.
  At the end of August, Secretary of State Pompeo, Defense Secretary 
Esper, and Ambassador Bolton reportedly tried to convince President 
Trump to release the military aid, but they failed. The President 
wanted the hold to remain. That prompted Duffey, the political 
appointee charged with implementing the hold, to send an email on 
August 30 to the DOD, stating: ``Clear direction from POTUS to hold.'' 
This is

[[Page S536]]

consistent with Laura Cooper's deposition testimony, when she said that 
they were ``hopeful this whole time that Secretary Esper and Secretary 
Pompeo would be able to meet with the President and just explain to him 
why this was so important and get the funds released,'' but, instead, 
the President held firm.
  Even as the President's own Cabinet officials were trying to convince 
him to lift the hold, White House lawyers were receiving new reports 
about the President's abuse.
  On September 1, Vice President Pence met with President Zelensky in 
Warsaw, and immediately after, Sondland had a side conversation with 
the top Ukrainian Presidential aide. Morrison was privy to these 
conversations, and when he returned from Warsaw, he reported to 
Eisenberg the details.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. And what did Ambassador Sondland tell you that 
     he told Mr. Yermak?
       Mr. MORRISON. That the Ukrainians would have to have the 
     prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the 
     investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And you testified that you were not 
     comfortable with what Ambassador Sondland had told you. Why 
     not?
       Mr. MORRISON. Well, I was concerned about what I saw as 
     essentially an additional hurdle to accomplishing what I had 
     been directed to help accomplish, which was giving the 
     President the information that he needed to determine that 
     the security sector assistance could go forward.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. So now there's a whole other wrinkle to it, 
     right?
       Mr. MORRISON. There was the appearance of one, based on 
     what Ambassador Sondland represented.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And you told Ambassador Taylor about this 
     conversation as well. Is that right?
       Mr. MORRISON. I promptly reached out to Ambassador Taylor 
     to schedule a secure phone call.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And in your deposition, you testified that his 
     testimony, other than one small distinction between President 
     Zelensky and the prosecutor general, was accurate as to what 
     you told him. Is that correct?
       Mr. MORRISON. About that conversation, yes.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And, generally speaking, you confirmed 
     everything that Ambassador Taylor told you, except for that 
     one thing and a small other ministerial matter relating to 
     the location of the meeting. Is that correct?
       Mr. MORRISON. Correct.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, did you tell Ambassador Bolton about this 
     conversation as well?
       Mr. MORRISON. I have reached out to him as well and 
     requested his availability for a secure phone call.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And what was his response when you explained 
     to him what Ambassador Sondland had said?
       Mr. MORRISON. Tell the lawyers.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you go tell the lawyers?
       Mr. MORRISON. When I returned to the States, yes.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And did he explain to you why he wanted you to 
     tell the lawyers?
       Mr. MORRISON. He did not.

  Mr. Manager CROW. Now, this wasn't the first time--and it wouldn't be 
the last--that Ambassador Bolton instructed other government officials 
to report details of the President's scheme to White House lawyers.
  Now, let's be clear. When government employees have concerns about 
whether something is legal, they often go to their agency's lawyers. 
And it was happening an awful lot around this time. Recall that Bolton 
also instructed Dr. Hill to report to the lawyers Sondland's statements 
about requiring an announcement of the investigations as a condition 
for a White House meeting--what Bolton called Sondland's ``drug deal'' 
with the President's top aide, Mick Mulvaney. Ambassador Bolton's 
testimony would obviously shine further light on these concerns and 
what or who, if anyone, in the White House or the Cabinet did to try to 
stop the President at this time.
  After the President's hold on military aid became public in late 
August, there was increasing pressure on the President to lift the 
hold. On September 3, a bipartisan group of Senators sent a letter to 
Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. An excerpt from that 
letter is in front of you. The Senators expressed ``deep concerns'' 
that the ``Administration is considering not obligating the Ukraine 
Security Initiative funds for 2019.'' The Senators' letter also urged 
that the ``vital'' funds be obligated ``immediately.''
  On September 5, the chairman and the ranking member of the House 
Foreign Affairs Committee sent a joint letter to Mulvaney and OMB 
Director Russell Vought. That letter also expressed ``deep concern'' 
about the continuing hold on the military aid.
  The same day, Senators Murphy and Johnson visited Kyiv and met with 
President Zelensky, along with Ambassador Taylor.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. On September 5th, I accompanied Senators 
     Johnson and Murphy during their visit to Kyiv. When we met 
     with President Zelensky, his first question to the Senators 
     was about the withheld security assistance. My recollection 
     of the meeting is that both Senators stressed that bipartisan 
     support for Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine's most 
     important strategic asset and that President Zelensky should 
     not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn in to 
     U.S. domestic politics.
       I had been making and continue to make this point to all of 
     my official Ukrainian contacts. But the odd push to make 
     President Zelensky publicly commit to investigations of 
     Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed 
     how the official foreign policy of the United States was 
     undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.

  Mr. Manager CROW. The Senators sought to reassure President Zelensky 
that there was bipartisan support in Congress for providing the 
military aid.
  Also on September 5, the Washington Post editorial board reported 
concerns that President Trump was withholding the aid and a meeting to 
force President Zelensky to announce investigations to benefit his 
personal political campaign.
  The editors wrote:

       ``[W]e are reliably told that the President has a second 
     and more venal agenda: He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky 
     to intervene in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election by 
     launching an investigation of the leading Democratic 
     candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting 
     Ukraine's help with his Presidential campaign; he is using 
     U.S. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt 
     to extort it.

  Despite these efforts to get the President to lift the hold and the 
now-public discussion about the President's abuse of power, the scheme 
continued. Two days later, on September 7, Morrison went back to the 
White House lawyers to report additional details he had learned from 
Ambassador Sondland about the President's scheme--again, at the 
direction of Ambassador Bolton.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, a few days later, on September 7th, you 
     spoke again to Ambassador Sondland, who told you that he had 
     just gotten off the phone with President Trump. Isn't that 
     right?
       Mr. MORRISON. That sounds correct, yes.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that 
     President Trump said to him?
       Mr. MORRISON. If I recall this conversation correctly, this 
     was where Ambassador Sondland related that there was no quid 
     pro quo, but President Zelensky had to make the statement and 
     that he had to want to do it.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And by that point, did you understand that the 
     statement related to the Biden and 2016 investigations?
       Mr. MORRISON. I think I did, yes.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And that that was essentially a condition for 
     the security assistance to be released?
       Mr. MORRISON. I understood that that's what Ambassador 
     Sondland believed.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. After speaking with President Trump?
       Mr. MORRISON. That's what he represented.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Now, you testified that hearing this 
     information gave you a sinking feeling. Why was that?
       Mr. MORRISON. Well, I believe if we're on September 7th, 
     the end of the fiscal year is September 30th, these are 1 
     year dollars, the DOD and the Department of State funds, so 
     we only had so much time. And, in fact, because Congress 
     imposed a 15 day notification requirement on the State 
     Department funds, September 7th, September 30th, that really 
     means September 15th in order to secure a decision from the 
     President to allow the funds to go forward.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you tell Ambassador Bolton about this 
     conversation as well?
       Mr. MORRISON. I did. I did, yes.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And what did he say to you?
       Mr. MORRISON. He said to tell the lawyers.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. And why did he say to tell the lawyers?
       Mr. MORRISON. He did not explain his direction.

  Mr. Manager CROW. Again, ``tell the lawyers.''
  Ambassador Sondland's call with President Trump on September 7 also 
prompted deep concern by Ambassador Taylor, which you have already 
heard about.

[[Page S537]]

  On September 8 and 9, Ambassador Taylor exchanged WhatsApp messages 
with Ambassadors Sondland and Volker, describing his ``nightmare'' 
scenario that ``they give the interview and don't get the security 
assistance.'' He then goes on to say: ``The Russians love it. (And I 
quit.)''
  After the hold on the military aid became public, the White House 
took two actions in early September.
  First, the White House and the Justice Department ensured that the 
Acting DNI continued to withhold the whistleblower complaint from 
Congress, in clear violation of the law.
  And second, the White House attempted to create a cover story for the 
President's withholding of the assistance.
  Approximately 2 months after President Trump had ordered the freeze, 
Mark Sandy received an email from his boss, Michael Duffey that, for 
the first time, gave a reason for the hold. Sandy testified that in 
early September he received an email from Duffey ``that attributed the 
hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing 
more to Ukraine.''
  Again, after months of scrambling, this was the first time any reason 
had been provided for the hold.
  And according to Sandy, it was also only in early September--again, 
after the White House learned of the whistleblower complaint and the 
hold became public--that the White House requested data from OMB on 
other countries' assistance to Ukraine.
  So let's recap why we know the concern about burden-sharing was 
bogus. First, for months, no reason was given to the very people 
executing the military aid who had been actively searching for answers 
about why the aid was being held.
  Second, remember the supposed interagency process performed by OMB? 
Well, it was fake.
  And third, after the hold went public and the White House became 
aware of the whistleblower, they started scrambling to develop another 
excuse. Public reports confirm this.
  A November 24 news report, for instance, revealed that in September, 
Mr. Cipollone's lawyers conducted an internal records review. The 
review reportedly ``turned up hundreds of documents that reveal 
extensive efforts to generate an after-the-fact justification for the 
decision and a debate over whether the delay was legal.''
  The President's top aides were trying to convince the President to 
lift the hold in late August and early September, and White House 
officials were actively working to develop an excuse for the 
President's scheme and devise a cover story in the event it was 
exposed, and soon it would be.
  On September 9, the chairs of the House Intelligence Committee, the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform 
publicly announced a joint investigation of President Trump and Mr. 
Giuliani's scheme. And this is when the music stops and everyone starts 
running to find a chair.
  Word of the committees' investigation spread quickly through the 
White House to the NSC. Morrison recalled seeing and discussing the 
letter with NSC staff. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman also recalled 
discussions among NSC staff members, including Morrison's deputy, John 
Erath, about the investigation.
  The same day, there were efforts at OMB to create a paper trail to 
try to shift the blame for the President's hold on security assistance 
away from the White House. Duffey sent an email to Elaine McCusker that 
contradicted months of email exchanges and stated falsely that OMB had 
in fact ``authoriz[ed] DOD to proceed with all processes necessary to 
obligate funds.'' Duffey was attempting to shift all the responsibility 
for the delay onto the Pentagon. McCusker replied: ``You can't be 
serious. I am speechless.''
  Now, all of this--including OMB's efforts to shift blame to the 
Pentagon, the White House's effort to create a cover story for the hold 
on security assistance--was a continuation of the coverup.
  It started with the White House lawyers' failure to stop the scheme 
after the July 10 meeting was reported to them, continued with attempts 
to hide the July 25 call summary, and escalated with the White House's 
illegal concealment of the whistleblower complaint from Congress.
  On September 10, the House Intelligence Committee requested that the 
DNI provide a copy of the whistleblower complaint as the law requires. 
But DNI continued to withhold the complaint for weeks.
  The same day, it was announced that Ambassador Bolton was resigning 
or had been fired. It is unclear whether Ambassador Bolton's departure 
from the White House had anything to do with his opposition to the hold 
on military aid, but, of course, Ambassador Bolton could shed light on 
that himself if he were to testify.
  The next day, on September 11, President Trump met with Vice 
President Pence, Mulvaney, and Senator Portman to discuss the hold. 
Later that day, the President relented and lifted the hold after his 
scheme had been exposed.
  The President's decision to release the aid, like his decision to 
impose the hold, was never explained. Cooper testified that President 
Trump's lifting of the hold ``really came out of the blue. . . . It was 
quite abrupt.''
  The only logical conclusion, based upon all of this evidence, is that 
the President lifted the hold on September 11 because he got caught.
  The President's decision to lift the hold without any explanation is 
also very telling. If the hold was put in place for legitimate policy 
reasons, why lift it arbitrarily with no explanation?
  By lifting the hold only after Congress had launched an 
investigation--when, as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman testified, none of 
the ``facts on the ground'' had changed since the hold had been put in 
place--the President was conceding that there was never a legitimate 
purpose.
  Since the hold was lifted, the President has paid lip service to 
purported concerns about corruption and burden-sharing. But the 
administration has taken no concrete steps before or since those 
statements were made to show that it really cares.
  The record is clear. Before he got caught, the President had no 
interest in anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine. And, as you have 
already learned, those people who really were concerned about these 
issues--like Congress, this Senate, the DOD, and the State Department--
had already gone through the process to address them.
  As Ambassador Sondland testified, at no point did the President ask 
him to discuss additional contributions to Ukraine from the EU 
countries, nor did President Trump push Ukraine to undertake any 
specific anti-corruption reforms.
  Now, the President's counsel will likely say that his lifting of the 
hold shows his good faith. They will say that because Ukraine 
ultimately received the aid without President Zelensky having to 
announce the sham investigations, then there was no abuse of power. As 
a legal matter, the fact that the President's corrupt scheme was not 
fully successful makes no difference. Trump's abuse occurred at the 
moment he used the power of the Presidency to assist his reelection 
campaign, undermining our free and fair elections and our national 
security.

  But, importantly, President Trump almost did get away with it. As 
discussed earlier, President Zelensky agreed during his September phone 
call with Ambassador Sondland to do a CNN interview during which he 
would announce the investigations. On September 12, Ambassador Taylor 
personally informed President Zelensky and the Ukrainian Foreign 
Minister that President Trump's hold on military assistance had been 
lifted. On September 13, Ambassador Taylor and David Holmes met with 
President Zelensky and his advisers and urged them not to go forward 
with the CNN interview.
  It was not until September 18 and 19--around the time that President 
Zelensky spoke with Vice President Pence--that the Ukrainians finally 
canceled the CNN interview.
  The President has also repeatedly pointed to President Zelensky's 
public statements that he did not feel pressured by Trump. Not only 
unsurprising, it is also irrelevant. The question is whether President 
Trump used the power of the Presidency to coerce President Zelensky 
into helping him win a political campaign.
  But we know that President Zelensky was pressured. He kept delaying 
and delaying because he did not

[[Page S538]]

want to be a pawn in U.S. domestic politics.
  In fact, President Zelensky remains under pressure to this day. As 
Holmes testified, there are still things the Ukrainians want and need 
from the United States, including a meeting with the President in the 
Oval Office, which has still not been scheduled. And yes, Ukraine 
remains at war and needs U.S. military aid, including aid that is still 
delayed from last year. For these reasons, Mr. Holmes explained:

       I think [the Ukrainians are] being very careful. They still 
     need us now going forward. In fact, right now President 
     Zelensky is trying to arrange a summit meeting with President 
     Putin in the coming weeks, his first face-to-face meeting 
     with him to try to advance the peace process.
       He needs our support. He needs--he needs President Putin to 
     understand that America supports Zelensky at the highest 
     levels. So this doesn't end with the lifting of security 
     assistance hold. Ukraine still needs us, and as I said, still 
     fighting this war this very day.

  When President Trump, for his own personal political gain, asked for 
a favor from President Zelensky, he did exactly what the Framers feared 
most: He invited the influence of a foreign power into our elections. 
He used the power of his office to secure that advantage and 
jeopardized our national security.
  Yet President Trump maintains that he was always in the right and 
that his July 25 call with President Zelensky was ``perfect.'' 
President Trump has made it clear that he believes he is free to use 
his powers the same way, to the same ends, whenever and wherever he 
pleases. Even more troubling, he is even doubling down on his abuse, 
inviting other countries to interfere in our elections.
  What does all of this tell you? It tells you that Ambassador Sondland 
was correct when he told Holmes after hanging up with President Trump 
on July 26 that the President doesn't care about Ukraine. He only cares 
about the ``big stuff,'' meaning stuff that helps him personally.
  The bottom line is that the President used the powers of his office 
for personal political gain. He did so knowingly, deliberately, and 
repeatedly, and his misconduct continues to this day.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, just for your orientation, this will be 
the last presentation on article I, and, Mr. Leader, I think at the 
conclusion of this presentation would be a logical point to take a 
break.
  This last section on article I deals with the injury to our national 
interests and our national security.
  When President Trump used Ukraine's leader for a political favor and 
withheld critical military aid to an ally in exchange for that favor, 
he did exactly what our Framers feared most: He invited foreign 
interference in our elections and sold out our country's security for 
his personal benefit and betrayed the Nation's trust to a foreign 
power.
  The President's scheme to pressure Ukraine to do his political dirty 
work harmed our national security, undermined our free and fair 
elections, and even today--even today--threatens the very foundation of 
our democracy.
  When the President argues that his call was ``perfect,'' that he did 
nothing wrong, what he is really saying is that there is nothing wrong 
with a President asking a foreign government to do a personal favor, 
that there is nothing wrong with the President pressuring that foreign 
country to interfere in our elections for his personal benefit, that 
there is nothing wrong with withholding congressionally appropriated 
taxpayer-funded military assistance to that foreign country to extort 
that country to help the President cheat to win an election.
  But there are a great many things wrong with that. Most significant 
for the purposes that bring us here today, the Constitution does not 
permit it. The Constitution does not permit it because that conduct is 
the quintessential abuse of power--the use of official power for 
personal gain, putting personal interests over the national interests, 
and placing personal benefits over our Nation's security.
  The President's conduct that we outlined yesterday harmed our 
national security. That is without a doubt. It endangered our elections 
and it has sent our country on a dangerous path that if left unchecked 
will cause irrevocable damage to the balance of power contemplated in 
our Constitution. If someone sacrifices the national interest in favor 
of his own and is not removed from office, our democracy is in 
jeopardy. It is just that simple.
  The grave consequences of President Trump's misconduct demand our 
attention. Let me take these issues in turn, beginning with this harm 
to national security.
  First, the President's abuse of power had immediate consequences to 
our security. Ukraine is a burgeoning democracy entangled in a hot war 
with Russia. By withholding military aid, President Trump not only 
denied Ukraine much-needed military equipment but also weakened 
Ukraine's position in negotiations over the end of the war with Russia. 
Because of President Trump's corrupt actions, Vladimir Putin was 
emboldened at a pivotal moment ahead of those sensitive negotiations to 
attempt to end the war. An emboldened Russia is a threat to the United 
States and global security around the world.
  The President's willingness to put himself over country undercut our 
European allies' confidence in America's commitment to deterring 
Russian aggression, and it signaled to adversaries and friends alike 
that the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the 
world, our Commander in Chief, could be influenced by manipulating his 
perception of what was best for his personal interests.
  Now, I have no doubt that the Russians, and probably every other 
nation that has the capacity, does a psychological profile of the 
President of the United States, as we profile other leaders. If a 
President can be so easily manipulated to disbelieve his own 
intelligence agencies, to accept the propaganda of the Kremlin, that is 
a threat to our national security. That is just what has happened here, 
but that is not all.
  President Trump's willingness to entangle our foreign allies in a 
corrupt political errand also undermined the credibility of Americans 
to promote the rule of law and fight corruption abroad.
  This is ``Trump first,'' not ``America first,'' not American ideals 
first. And the result has and will continue to be great harm to our 
Nation if this Chamber does not stand up and say it is wrong, if you do 
not stand up and say this is not only wrong, not only unacceptable but 
conduct incompatible with the Office of the Presidency. If it really is 
incompatible with the Office of the Presidency, if you cannot 
faithfully execute that responsibility, if you cannot bring yourself to 
put your Nation's interests ahead of your own, it must be impeachable, 
for the Nation remains at risk.
  Let's consider the big picture, and probably a question many people 
around the country are asking: Why does Ukraine matter to the United 
States? Why does Ukraine matter to the United States? Because we are 
talking about a small country that many people know very little about.
  Well, this small country, this ally of ours, is a country hungry for 
reform and eager for a stronger relation with its most powerful, 
important ally, the United States. We are talking about ourselves and 
what it means to the strength of our own democracy and democracies 
around the world when countries like Ukraine are fighting our fight 
against authoritarianism. It used to be our fight, and God help us if 
it is not our fight still.
  Russian President Putin declared the collapse of the Soviet Union to 
be the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. Ukraine's 
vote for independence in December 1991 was the final nail in the Soviet 
Union's coffin. That made Ukraine's greatest moment Putin's greatest 
tragedy.
  When it declared independence from Soviet domination, Ukraine 
inherited roughly 1,900 Soviet nuclear warheads, enough firepower to 
level every major American city several times over--1,900 Soviet 
nuclear warheads. In exchange for Ukraine's surrendering this arsenal, 
the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom reached an 
understanding called the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. They committed in 
this memorandum to respecting the borders of an independent Ukraine and 
also to refrain from using the threat or use of force against Ukraine. 
This was an early success of the post-Cold War period.

[[Page S539]]

  Despite its commitment to respect Ukraine's independence, of course, 
Russia continued to meddle in Ukraine's affairs. Ambassador Taylor 
recounted how events took an even more sinister turn in 2013:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. In 2013, Vladimir Putin was so 
     threatened by the prospect of Ukraine joining the European 
     Union that he tried to bribe the Ukrainian President. This 
     triggered mass protests in the winter of 2013 that drove that 
     President to flee to Russia in February of 2014, but not 
     before his forces killed 100 Ukrainian protesters in central 
     Kyiv.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Angered by the fall of the Kremlin-backed leader 
in Kyiv, President Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine--specifically, 
a region known as Crimea. Russia's aggression was met with global 
condemnation.
  (Videotape presentation.)
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. We don't have the sound there, but you can see 
the images of that conflict on the screens before you.
  Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper testified as to 
the stakes for U.S. national security:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ms. COOPER. Russia violated the sovereignty of Ukraine's 
     territory. Russia illegally annexed territory that belonged 
     to Ukraine. They also denied Ukraine access to its naval 
     fleet at the time. And to this day, Russia is building a 
     capability on Crimea designed to expand Russian military 
     power projection far beyond the immediate region.
       Ms. CARSON. In 2014, were there concerns in Washington, 
     here in Washington, and European capitals that Russia might 
     not stop in Ukraine?
       Ms. COOPER. I was not in my current position in 2014, but 
     it is my understanding that there was significant fear about 
     where Russian aggression would stop.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. One American--a war hero and statesman who was no 
stranger to this body--recognized the threat posed by Russia's invasion 
of Crimea: Senator John McCain.
  In an interview, he declared: ``We are all Ukrainians.'' Senator 
McCain advised that this is a chess match reminiscent of the Cold War, 
and we need to realize that and act accordingly. He was, of course, 
absolutely right.
  Consistent with the commitments made to Ukraine in 1994, the United 
States and Europe responded to Russia's invasion by imposing 
significant sanctions on Russia. We joined Europe in providing Ukraine 
billions of dollars in economic support to help it resist Russian 
influence, and the Senate approved, by an overwhelming bipartisan 
majority, vital security assistance to help rebuild Ukraine's military, 
which the former Russian-backed leader of Ukraine had starved of 
resources.
  This strong bipartisan support for Ukraine reflected what Senator 
McCain said was an opportunity for the United States to undermine 
Russian leverage in Eastern Europe by building a ``success'' in 
Ukraine. Senator McCain outlined this vision:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       JOHN McCAIN. . . . Putin also sees--here's this beautiful 
     and large and magnificent country called Ukraine. And suppose 
     Ukraine, finally, after failing in 2004, gets it right, 
     democracy, gets rid of corruption, economy is really 
     improving and it's right there on the border of Russia. And 
     so I think it makes him very nervous if there were a success 
     in Ukraine in bringing about a free and open society and 
     economic success, which is not the case in Russia, as you 
     know, which is propped up by energy.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Achieving the Ukrainian success that Senator 
McCain and many of us hoped for proved to be a daunting task, but 
several witnesses who testified before the House said Volodymyr 
Zelensky's landslide election in April 2019 was a game changer. Here is 
how U.S. diplomat David Holmes explained the ``historic opportunity'' 
created by his election:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       DAVID HOLMES. Despite the Russian aggression, over the past 
     5 years, Ukrainians have rebuilt a shattered economy, adhered 
     to a peace process, and moved economically and socially 
     closer to the West, toward our way of life.
       Earlier this year, large majorities of Ukrainians again 
     chose a fresh start by voting for a political newcomer as 
     President, replacing 80 percent of their parliament, 
     endorsing a platform consistent with our democratic values, 
     our reform priorities, and our strategic interests.
       This year's revolution at the ballot box underscores that, 
     despite its imperfections, Ukraine is a genuine and vibrant 
     democracy and an example to other post-Soviet countries and 
     beyond, from Moscow to Hong Kong.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So American support for Ukraine's security and 
reform is critical not only to our own national security but to other 
allies and emerging democracies around the world. The widely accepted 
fact of Ukraine's importance to our national security makes President 
Trump's abuse of power and withholding of vital diplomatic and military 
support all the more disturbing.
  First, witnesses assessed that withholding the military aid likely 
helped to prolong the war against Russia. When wars drag on, more 
people die. Ambassador Taylor testified to this sober reality.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       The CHAIRMAN. I take it, if the provision of the U.S. 
     military assistance would save Ukrainian lives, that any 
     delay in that assistance may also cost Ukrainian lives. Is 
     that true?
       Ambassador TAYLOR. Chairman, of course it's hard to draw 
     any direct lines between any particular element of security 
     assistance and any particular death on the battlefield. But 
     it is certainly true that that assistance had enabled 
     Ukrainian Armed Forces to be effective and deter and to be 
     able to take countermeasures to the attacks that the Russians 
     had--
       The CHAIRMAN. I think you said that a Ukrainian soldier 
     lost their life while you were visiting Donbas.
       Ambassador TAYLOR. We keep very careful track of the 
     casualties. And I noticed, on the next day, the information 
     that we got, that one was killed, four soldiers were wounded 
     on that day.
       The CHAIRMAN. And, indeed, Ukrainians lose their lives 
     every week.
       Ambassador TAYLOR. Every week.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. David Holmes also testified that prolonging the 
war in Ukraine resulted in additional casualties.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       DAVID HOLMES. As we sit here today, Ukrainians are fighting 
     a hot war on Ukrainian territory against Russian aggression. 
     This week alone, since I have been here in Washington, two 
     Ukrainian soldiers were killed and two injured by Russian-led 
     forces in eastern Ukraine despite a declared cease-fire. I 
     learned overnight that seven more were injured yesterday.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Withholding the aid has real consequences to real 
soldiers with real families. Bear in mind that U.S. aid is fully 10 
percent of Ukraine's defense budget--10 percent. That is not an extra 
bonus. That is necessary aid for Ukraine to defend itself on the 
frontline.
  Now, a second consequence of President Trump's withholding of 
military assistance was that it emboldened Russia, our adversary. Here 
is Laura Cooper, a Pentagon official, who oversaw the military aid.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. CARSON. So what about today? If the U.S. were to 
     withdraw its military support of Ukraine, what would 
     effectively happen?
       Ms. COOPER. It is my belief that, if we were to withdraw 
     our support, it would embolden Russia. It would also validate 
     Russia's violation of international law.
       Mr. CARSON. And which country stands to benefit the most--
     would stand to benefit the most from such a withdrawal?
       Ms. COOPER. Russia.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Russia was not only emboldened on the 
battlefield. Ambassador Taylor testified that President Trump's corrupt 
withholding of military assistance and his failure to host President 
Zelensky in the Oval Office was a ``sign of weakness'' to Moscow. It 
harmed Ukraine's negotiating position, even as recently as December 9 
when Zelensky and Putin met to discuss the conflict in the east shown 
in this photo.
  Ambassador Taylor explained:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       The CHAIRMAN. I think you also testified that Russia was 
     watching closely to gauge the level of American support for 
     the Ukrainian government. Why is that significant?
       Ambassador TAYLOR. This is significant, Mr. Chairman, 
     because the Ukrainians, in particular under this new 
     administration, are eager to end this war, and they were 
     eager to end it in a way that the Russians leave their 
     territory. These negotiations, like all negotiations, are 
     difficult. Ukrainians would like to be able to negotiate from 
     a position of strength or at least more strength than they 
     now have. Part of that strength, part of the ability of the 
     Ukrainians to negotiate against the Russians with the 
     Russians for an end to the war in Donbas, depends on United 
     States and other international support. If we withdraw or 
     suspend or threaten to withdraw our security assistance, 
     that's a message to the Ukrainians, but it's at least as 
     important, as your question indicates, Mr. Chairman, to the 
     Russians, who are looking for any sign of

[[Page S540]]

     weakness or any sign that we are withdrawing our support for 
     Ukraine.
       The CHAIRMAN. And so, when the Ukrainians learned of the 
     suspension of the military aid, either privately or when 
     others learned publicly, the Russians would be learning also, 
     and they would take that as a lack of robust U.S. support for 
     Ukraine. Is that right?
       Ambassador TAYLOR. That's correct, sir.
       The CHAIRMAN. And that would weaken Ukraine in negotiating 
     an end to the war in Donbas.
       Ambassador TAYLOR. It would.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Indeed, the aid doesn't just supply much needed 
weapons to Ukraine. It is a symbol of support, a signal of strength, a 
signal of the backing of the United States. Withholding that aid, even 
for a period of time, undermined all of those things.
  President Trump's actions toward Ukraine also undercut worldwide 
confidence in the United States as a reliable security partner. 
Maintaining that confidence is crucial to the strength of our alliances 
in Europe to deterring Russia and ultimately protecting and projecting 
democracy around the world.
  The United States has roughly 68,000 troops stationed in Europe. They 
serve alongside troops from 28 other countries that comprise the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. They are holding the line 
against further Russian aggression. It was U.S. leadership that led to 
the creation of NATO 70 years ago as the Iron Curtain was descending 
across the heart of Europe, and it is American leadership that makes 
NATO work today.
  NATO is also affected because other countries, friends and foes 
alike, know that we are committed to our collective defense; that an 
attack against one nation is an attack against all of us. That 
principle deterred a Russian invasion of Europe during the Cold War. It 
has only been invoked once by NATO in the aftermath of the September 11 
terrorist attacks. New York is a long way from the frontlines with 
Russia, but our European allies stood with us after that dark day.
  They deployed tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan and joined 
us in fighting the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked the Twin Towers and 
the Pentagon.
  Now, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine was a threat to the peace and security of Europe. Moscow's 
aggression threatened the rules of the road that have kept the peace in 
Europe since World War II, the sacrosanct idea that borders cannot be 
changed by military force.
  If we had not supported Ukraine in 2014, if Members of this body had 
not voted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis for military assistance 
to rebuild Ukraine's military, there is no question it would have 
invited further Russian adventurism in Ukraine and perhaps elsewhere in 
the heart of Europe. It would have weakened our allies and exposed U.S. 
troops stationed in Europe to greater danger.
  Deterring Russia requires persistence--not just one military aid 
package or one Oval Office meeting but a sustained policy of support 
for our partners. We only deter Russia by consistently demonstrating 
support for our friends--friends like Ukraine.
  George Shultz, who served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State, 
understood this. He compared diplomacy and alliance management to 
gardening. He said:

       If you plant a garden and go away for six months, what have 
     you got when you come back? Weeds. Diplomacy is kind of like 
     that. You go around, talk to people, you develop a 
     relationship of trust and confidence, and then if something 
     comes up, you have that base to work from.

  President Trump's decision to transform the military aid and Oval 
Office meeting into leverage was the equivalent of trampling all over 
George Shultz's garden, crushing Ukraine's confidence in the United 
States as a partner. He also caused our NATO allies to question whether 
we would stand with them against Russia. Leaders in European capitals 
now wonder whether personal political favors and not treaty obligations 
guide our foreign policy.
  Colleagues, this is how alliances wither and die and how Russia wins. 
Ambassador Taylor made clear that is why it is so important to our 
security that we stand with Ukraine.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague, Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary George Kent, described, we have a 
     national security policy, a national defense policy that 
     identifies Russia and China as adversaries. The Russians are 
     violating all of the rules, treaties, understandings that 
     they committed to that actually kept the peace in Europe for 
     nearly 70 years. Until they invaded Ukraine in 2014, they had 
     abided by sovereignty of nations, of inviolability of 
     borders. That rule of law, that order that kept the peace in 
     Europe and allowed for prosperity as well as peace in Europe 
     was violated by the Russians. And if we don't push back on 
     that, on those violations, then that will continue. And that, 
     Mr. Chairman, affects us. It affects the world that we live 
     in, that our children will grow up in, and our grandchildren. 
     This affects the kind of world that we want to see abroad. So 
     that affects our national interest very directly. Ukraine is 
     on the front line of that conflict.

  We understood that in 2017, the first year of the Trump 
administration, and it appeared the Trump administration understood it 
as well. We understood it in 2018, and the Trump administration 
understood that as well. We understood that in 2019, and the Trump 
administration appeared to as well--at least it did until it didn't. It 
did until something of greater importance and significance came along. 
That event of greater significance to the Oval Office was the emergence 
of Joe Biden as a candidate for President, and then that military 
support, which had increased during the Trump administration, was 
suddenly put on hold for inexplicable reasons.
  Ukraine got the message. It wasn't very inexplicable to Ukraine. What 
is more, Russia got the message. It wasn't very inexplicable to Russia, 
which had pushed out the whole propaganda theory that it was Ukraine 
that had interfered in our election and not Russia.
  So that consensus among the Congress and the administration, among 
the right and the left and the center, that, as Ambassador Taylor 
explained, this is not only vital to Ukraine's security and the post-
World War II order that has kept the peace in Europe for 70 years, but 
it is vital to us and our security as well, that all broke down. That 
all broke down over an effort led by the President and his agent Rudy 
Giuliani and his agents Parnas and Fruman to overturn all of that--
overturn a decades-long commitment to standing up to Russian 
aggression.
  We have so tremendously benefited. No country has benefited more from 
the international rules of the road, the international order, than the 
United States. It gave us the peace and stability to prosper like no 
other nation has before, and we are throwing it away. We are throwing 
it away. We are undermining the rule of law. We are undermining the 
principle that you don't invade your neighbor. We are undermining the 
key to our own success. And for what? For help with a political 
campaign. To quote Bill Taylor, that is crazy. That is crazy.
  If our allies can't trust us to stand behind them in a time of need, 
we will soon not have a single ally left. I know it is painful to see 
some of our allies and how they talk about this President because when 
they talk about this President, they are also talking about the United 
States. It is painful to see our allies distance themselves from the 
United States. It is more than painful; it is dangerous. It is 
dangerous to us. I think it was Churchill who once said there is 
nothing worse than allies except having no allies.
  If we are going to condition our support for our allies on their 
willingness to be dragged kicking and screaming into our politics, if 
we are going to condition the strength of our alliance on whether they 
will help us cheat in an election, we are not going to have a single 
ally left, and not a single one of us in this Chamber is ever going to 
be able to say to one of our counterparts to respect the rule of law 
without it being thrown in our face.
  Promoting the rule of law and fighting corruption is central to our 
foreign policy. It distinguishes U.S. global leadership from the 
transactional approach favored by authoritarian adversaries.
  The inherently corrupt nature of the President's demand that Ukraine 
investigate his political opponent undermined the credibility of 
efforts to promote the rule of law and combat corruption in Ukraine and 
around the world. Indeed, the President engaging in the very conduct at 
home that our policy fights abroad sabotages longstanding bipartisan 
pillars of American diplomacy.

[[Page S541]]

  This was a problem, not least because the pervasive corruption within 
Ukraine leaves its politics and economy susceptible to Russian 
influence and subterfuge.
  Ambassador Yovanovitch emphasized that U.S. policy in Ukraine has 
long recognized that the struggle against corruption and defending 
against Russia are, in fact, two sides of the very same coin.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. Corruption makes Ukraine's leaders 
     ever vulnerable to Russia, and Ukraine people understand 
     that. That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 
     2014, demanding to be a part of Europe, demanding 
     transformation of the system, demanding to live under the 
     rule of law.
       Ukrainians wanted the law to apply equally to all people, 
     whether the individual in question is the President or any 
     other citizen. It was a question of fairness, of dignity.
       Here, again, there is a coincidence of interests. Corrupt 
     leaders are inherently less trustworthy while an honest and 
     accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukrainian 
     partnership more reliable and more valuable to the United 
     States.
       A level playing field in this strategically located 
     country, bordering four NATO allies, creates an environment 
     in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest, and 
     profit.
       Corruption is also a security issue, because corrupt 
     officials are vulnerable to Moscow.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. During that conversation that we related in the 
past, when Ambassador Volker urged his Ukrainian counterpart, Andriy 
Yermak, not to investigate the past President of Ukraine and Yermak 
threw it back in his face--you remember the conversation: Oh, you mean 
like the investigation you want us to do of the Clintons and the 
Bidens. They taught us something in that conversation. They taught us 
that we had forgotten, for that moment, our own values.
  Just listening to the Ambassador right now, I was thinking how 
interesting it is that Ukrainians chose to describe their revolution as 
a Revolution of Dignity. Maybe that is what we need here--a revolution 
of dignity at home, a revolution of civility here at home. Maybe we can 
learn a lot more from our Ukrainian ally.
  In short, it is in America's national security interest to help 
Ukraine transform into a country where the rule of law governs and 
corruption is held in check.
  As we heard yesterday, anti-corruption policy was a central part of 
the talking points provided to President Trump before his phone calls 
with President Zelensky on April 21 and July 25. President Trump, of 
course, didn't mention corruption, but, importantly, those same foreign 
policy goals remained intact following the call, as Tim Morrison 
testified. Anti-corruption reforms--institutional reforms--remain a top 
priority to help Ukraine fight corruption.
  President Zelensky was swept into office on an anti-corruption 
platform. Immediately, he kept his promise and introduced numerous 
bills in Ukraine's Parliament. In a sign that he intended to hold 
himself accountable, Zelensky even introduced a draft law on 
Presidential impeachment. He also introduced a bill to restore 
punishment of top officials found guilty of ``illicit enrichment.''
  President Trump's self-serving scheme threatened to undermine 
Zelensky's anti-corruption work. Zelensky's successful anti-corruption 
reforms would have advanced U.S. security. Instead, President Trump's 
demands undermined that effort to bring about reform to Ukraine.
  Here is George Kent, a rule of law and corruption expert at the State 
Department.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. KENT. U.S. efforts to counter corruption in Ukraine 
     focus on building institutional capacity so that the 
     Ukrainian Government has the ability to go after corruption 
     and effectively investigate, prosecute, and judge alleged 
     criminal activities using appropriate institutional 
     mechanisms, that is, to create and follow the rule of law. 
     That means that if there are criminal nexuses for activity in 
     the United States, U.S. law enforcement should pursue the 
     case. If we think there's been a criminal act overseas that 
     violates U.S. law, we have the institutional mechanisms to 
     address that. It could be through the Justice Department and 
     FBI agents assigned overseas, or through treaty mechanisms, 
     such as a mutual legal assistance treaty.
       As a general principle, I do not believe the United States 
     should ask other countries to engage in selective politically 
     associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents 
     of those in power because such selective actions undermine 
     the rule of law, regardless of the country.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. So it is clear: What President Trump did when 
abusing his office and demanding Ukraine open an investigation into Joe 
Biden was not fighting corruption. It was not part of established U.S. 
anti-corruption policy. That corrupt pressure campaign for his own, 
personal political benefit in fact subverted U.S. anti-corruption 
efforts in Ukraine and undercut our national security.
  President Trump is not fighting to end corruption in Ukraine, as my 
colleague in the House, Mr. Himes, pointed out during one of our 
hearings. He was trying to aim corruption in Ukraine at Vice President 
Biden and our 2020 election.
  Selective, politically motivated prosecutions of political opponents 
undercut governance in Ukraine. President Trump's demand that Zelensky 
help him do precisely what U.S. diplomats for decades advised Ukrainian 
officials not to do completely undercut the credibility of efforts to 
promote the rule of law there. The demand also undercut the U.S. moral 
standing and authority in the eyes of a global audience.
  Once again, here is George Kent.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOLDMAN. Mr. Kent, is pressuring Ukraine to conduct 
     what I believe you have called ``political investigations'' a 
     part of U.S. foreign policy to promote the rule of law in 
     Ukraine and around the world?
       Mr. KENT. It is not.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Is it in the national interests of the United 
     States?
       Mr. KENT. In my opinion, it is not.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Why not?
       Mr. KENT. Because our policies, particularly in promoting 
     the rule of law, are designed to help countries. And in 
     Eastern Europe and Central Europe, that is overcoming the 
     legacy of communism. In the communist system in particular, 
     the Prosecutor General Office was used to suppress and 
     persecute citizens, not promote the rule of law. So, in 
     helping these countries reach their own aspirations to join 
     the Western community of nations and live lives of dignity, 
     helping them have the rule of law, with strong institutions, 
     is the purpose of our policy.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. So, in other words, it is a purpose of our 
     foreign policy to encourage foreign nations to refrain from 
     conducting political investigations. Is that right?
       Mr. KENT. Correct. And, in fact, as a matter of policy, not 
     of programming, we oftentimes raise our concerns, usually in 
     private, with countries that we feel are engaged in selective 
     political prosecution and persecution of their opponents.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Ambassador Yovanovitch aptly summarized the 
global consequences and harm to U.S. national security resulting from 
President Trump's demand that Ukraine investigate his political 
opponent.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. Such conduct undermines the U.S., 
     exposes our friends, and widens the playing field for 
     autocrats like President Putin. Our leadership depends on the 
     power of our example and the consistency of our purpose. Both 
     have now been opened to question.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. The issues I just covered are not a matter of 
policy disagreement over foreign policy and national security. Article 
I asserts that the President was engaged in no such policy at all but, 
instead, sold out our policies and our national interests for his own 
personal gain and to help him corrupt the next election. That is the 
core conduct of an impeachable offense.
  The President's abuse of power also affected our election integrity.
  The Framers of our Constitution were particularly fearful that a 
President might misuse or abuse the power of his office to undermine 
the free and fair elections at the heart of our democracy. Sadly, that 
moment has arrived. President Trump's repeated solicitation of a 
Ukrainian investigation was a clear effort to leverage foreign 
interference and bolster his prospects in the 2020 election; in other 
words, to cheat in his election.
  In our democracy, power flows from the will of the people as 
manifested in free and fair elections. One person, one vote is 
fundamental in our democracy.
  President Trump's invitation of foreign interference in the 2020 
election--for the purposes of helping him win an election--undercut the 
Constitution's commitment to popular sovereignty. Americans are now 
left to wonder if their vote matters or if they are simply pawns in a 
system being manipulated

[[Page S542]]

by shadowy foreign forces working on behalf of the corrupt interests of 
a lawless President. Over the long term, this weakens our democratic 
system's capacity for self-governance by encouraging apathy and 
nonparticipation.
  Cynicism makes it easier for enemies to influence our politics and 
undermine the national good. Indeed, this is precisely what Vladimir 
Putin intended when he meddled in the 2016 election: for us to become 
more cynical; for us to lose faith in the notion that the American 
system of government is superior to the corrupt, autocratic model of 
government that he has erected in Russia and sought to export to places 
like Ukraine.
  These are not the free and fair elections Americans expect or demand 
if foreign powers are interfering. How can we know that our elections 
are free from foreign interference, whether by disinformation or 
hacking or fake investigations? We must not become numb to foreign 
interference in our elections.
  Our elections are sacred. If we do not act to put an end to the 
solicitation of foreign interference in our election by the President 
of the United States, the effect would be corrosive to our elections 
and our values. Future Presidents may believe that they, too, can use 
the substantial power conferred on them by the Constitution in order to 
undermine our system of free and fair elections, that they, too, can 
cheat to obtain power or keep it. That way lies disaster for the great 
American experiment in self-governance.
  As you have seen, there is powerful evidence that President Trump 
will continue to betray the national interest to a foreign power and 
further undermine both our security and democracy. This creates an 
urgent need to remove him from office before the next election.
  To explain the nature of that continuing threat, let me describe 
Russia's ongoing efforts to harm our elections, the President's corrupt 
refusal to condemn or defend against those attacks, his statements 
confirming that he welcomes foreign interference in our elections so 
long as this is meant to help him and his conduct, proving that he will 
persist in seeking to corrupt elections at the expense of our security 
and at the expense of those elections.
  Let's start with Russia's ongoing attacks on our democracy. At the 
heart of the President's Ukraine scheme is his decision to subscribe to 
that dangerous conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was 
responsible for interfering in 2016. President Trump and his men 
pressured Ukraine into investigating this bogus piece of Russian 
propaganda, and in doing so, they aided Putin's concerted plot to 
undermine our security and democracy.
  Special Counsel Mueller warned that Putin's plot was ongoing:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       HURD. Is this--in your investigation, did you think this 
     was a single attempt by Russia to get involved in our 
     election, or do you find evidence to suggest they'll try to 
     do this again?
       MUELLER. Oh, it wasn't a single attempt. They're doing it 
     as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next 
     campaign.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Not a single attempt. They're doing it as we sit 
here, and they expect to do it in the next campaign.
  That was Special Counsel Mueller's stark warning. And we now know 
that Director Mueller was right. Just the other week, we saw public 
reporting that Russian hackers may be using phishing emails to attack 
Ukrainian gas company Burisma, presumably in search of dirt on Joe 
Biden. Those are the same tactics deployed by the same adversary, 
Russia, that the special counsel warned about in the last election. It 
may be Russia once again attempting to sway our election for one 
candidate, this time through Ukraine.
  Indeed, President Trump, to this very day, refuses to accept the 
unanimous assessment of our intelligence community and law enforcement 
professionals that Russia interfered in the 2016 campaign and poses a 
threat to the 2020 Presidential election. Instead, he views it from his 
own personal lens--whether it is an attack on the legitimacy of his 
2016 electoral victory.
  Special Counsel Mueller's testimony on July 24, 2019, the day before 
the President's call with President Zelensky, contradicted President 
Trump's claim that his was ``a clean campaign.'' Mueller found that 
individuals associated with the 2016 campaign of the President welcomed 
Russia's offers of assistance and adjusted their political strategy so 
that then-Candidate Donald Trump might benefit from Russia's 
assistance.
  When they were subsequently asked by U.S. law enforcement about their 
activities, President Trump's advisers repeatedly lied. In Helsinki in 
July of 2018, however, President Trump refused to acknowledge the 
Russian threat to our elections. When a reporter explicitly asked 
whether he believed Putin or the U.S. intelligence agencies on the 
issue of foreign interference in the 2016 election, President Trump 
said: ``I don't see any reason why it would be''--Russia--and talked 
about the DNC server.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President TRUMP. So let me just say that we have two 
     thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI 
     never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why 
     was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic 
     National Committee? I've been wondering that. I've been 
     asking that for months and months, and I've been tweeting it 
     out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? 
     I want to know, where is the server? And what is the server 
     saying?
       With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My 
     people came to me--Dan Coats came to me and some others--they 
     said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin; he just 
     said it's not Russia.
       I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be, 
     but I really do want to see the server. But I have--I have 
     confidence in both parties. I really believe that this will 
     probably go on for a while, but I don't think it can go on 
     without finding out what happened to the server. What 
     happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that 
     worked on the DNC? Where are those servers? They're missing. 
     Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton's emails? 
     Thirty-three thousand emails gone--just gone. I think, in 
     Russia, they wouldn't be gone so easily. I think it's a 
     disgrace that we can't get Hillary Clinton's 33,000 emails.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. I am sure you remember this. It was, I think, 
unforgettable for every American. But I am sure it was equally 
unforgettable for Vladimir Putin. I mean, there he is, the President of 
Russia, standing next to the President of the United States and hearing 
his own Kremlin propaganda talking points coming from the President of 
the United States. Now, if that is not a propaganda coup, I don't know 
what is.
  It is the most extraordinary thing. It is the most extraordinary 
thing: the President of the United States standing next to the 
President of Russia, our adversary, saying he doesn't believe his own 
intelligence agencies. He doesn't believe them. He is promoting this 
kooky, crazy server theory cooked up by the Kremlin, right next to the 
guy who cooked it up. It is a breathtaking success of Russian 
intelligence. I don't know if there has ever been a greater success of 
Russian intelligence. Whatever profile Russia did of our President, 
boy, did they have him spot-on. Flattery and propaganda. Flattery and 
propaganda is all Russia needed.
  As to Ukraine, well, they needed to deliver a political investigation 
to get help from the United States. I mean, this is just the most 
incredible propaganda coup. As I said yesterday, it is not just that 
the President of the United States, standing next to Vladimir Putin, is 
reading Kremlin talking points; he will not read his own national 
security staff talking points, but he will read the Kremlin ones. It is 
not just that he adopts the Kremlin talking points. That would be bad 
enough. It is not bad enough, it is not damaging enough, it is not 
dangerous enough to our national security that he is undermining our 
own intelligence agencies. It is not bad enough that he undermines 
those very agencies that he needs later, that we need later to have 
credibility.
  We just had a vigorous debate over the strikes against General 
Soleimani, and the President has made his argument about what the 
intelligence says and supports. How do you make those arguments when 
you say the U.S. intelligence community can't be believed?
  Now, we have had a vigorous debate about what that intelligence has 
to say. That is not the issue here. The issue here is you undermine the 
credibility of your own intelligence agency--you weaken the country--
for when you need to rely on them, for when you need to persuade your 
friends and your allies that ``you can trust us when we

[[Page S543]]

tell you this is what the intelligence shows.'' How do you make that 
argument, as the President of the United States, when you have just 
told the world you trust the Russians more than your own people? You 
trust Rudy Giuliani more than Christopher Wray. How do you make that 
case? And if you can't make that case, what does that mean to our 
security?
  But that is not the end of it. It is not just the propaganda coup. It 
is not just the undermining of our agencies. It is also that the buy-in 
to that propaganda meant that Ukraine wasn't going to get money to 
fight the Russians.
  I mean, that is one hell of a Russian intelligence coup. They got the 
President of the United States to provide cover for their own 
interference with our election. They got the President of the United 
States to discredit his own intelligence agencies. They got the 
President of the United States to drive a wedge between the United 
States and Ukraine. They got the President of the United States to 
withhold aid from Ukraine in a war with Russia, in a war that is 
claiming Ukrainian lives every week.
  Has there ever been such a coup? I would submit to you, in the entire 
length of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had no such success--no such 
success. And why? Because a former mayor of New York persuaded a 
President of the United States to sacrifice all of that for a cheap 
shot at his political opponent, for a smear against his political 
opponent. Was it worth it? I hope it was worth it. I hope it was worth 
it for the President because it certainly wasn't worth it for the 
United States.
  Now, you can see President Trump did not blame Vladimir Putin and the 
Russian intelligence agencies who interfered in our election for the 
questions surrounding his victory. He did not blame the people who 
worked for his campaign and were subsequently convicted of lying to our 
law enforcement agencies. No. He blamed the investigators--Special 
Counsel Mueller, the man in charge of getting to the bottom of Russia's 
interference in 2016. And he chose to believe Vladimir Putin, a former 
Russian intelligence officer, rather than his own intelligence 
agencies.
  We can see a pattern here. President Trump solicited interference 
from Russia as a candidate in 2016, and then his campaign welcomed 
Russian interference in the election.
  In Helsinki, President Trump chose to believe Putin over his own 
agencies: ``I don't see any reason why it would be''--referring to 
Russia. Instead of denouncing Russia's interference, he denounced those 
investigating Russia's interference, and he raised that now-familiar 
DNC CrowdStrike server thing: ``I really do want to see the server. I 
don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the 
server.''
  That is the exact same server that President Trump demanded Ukraine 
investigate during his July 25 call with President Zelensky.
  When the President talked about the DNC server in Helsinki, with 
Vladimir Putin standing by his side, he was referencing the same 
discredited conspiracy theory about the Ukraine interference in 2016 
that Putin repeatedly promoted.
  Let's look at this Washington Post article from July 2018.

       In the end, Trump's performance alongside Putin in the 
     Finnish capital seemed like a tour through his most 
     controversial conspiracy theories, tweets and off-the-cuff 
     musings on Russia--except he did it all while abroad, 
     standing just feet from Putin, the leader of one of America's 
     greatest geopolitical foes.
       The spectacle in Helsinki also underscored Trump's 
     eagerness to disregard his own advisers, his willingness to 
     flout the conclusions of his own intelligence community--that 
     Russia interfered in the 2016 elections--and his apparent 
     fear that pressing Putin on the subject might cast doubt on 
     his electoral victory.

  White House officials told the Washington Post that President Trump's 
remarks in Helsinki were ``very much counter to the plan.''
  That is another understatement of the century. If that sounds 
familiar, it is because the witnesses who testified before the House as 
part of the impeachment inquiry all said the same thing about the July 
25th phone call. The President ignored vital national security issues 
he was supposed to raise and instead raised disproven conspiracies 
about 2016 and the DNC server--the very same Russian propaganda he 
publicly endorsed in Helsinki.
  Do you think it is going to stop now? Do you think if we do nothing 
it is going to stop now? All of the evidence is to the contrary. You 
know it is not going to stop.
  The President just told one of the Members of this body he still 
wants Biden investigated. It is not going to stop unless the Congress 
does something about it.
  President Trump's betrayal began in 2016, when he first solicited 
Russian interference in our election.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Candidate TRUMP. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're 
     able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. That betrayal continued in Helsinki in 2018, 
when, as we saw, he rejected the intelligence community's assessment 
about Russian interference in that same election--when he criticized 
U.S. officials investigating the Russian interference and instead 
promoted Putin's conspiracy theory about Ukraine.
  The betrayal continued in 2019 when he carried out a scheme to cheat 
in the 2020 election by demanding that the leader of Ukraine--a U.S. 
partner under military attack by Russia--announced an investigation 
into the same baseless conspiracy theory about a DNC server and the 
bogus allegations about Vice President Biden.
  The abuse of power continues. He is still trying to cheat in the next 
election, even after the scheme came to light. Even after it became the 
subject of an impeachment inquiry, it continued, and the false 
statements about it continued.
  President Trump repeatedly asserted that he had a prerogative to urge 
foreign nations to investigate U.S. citizens who dare to challenge him 
politically.
  Just for a minute, we should try to step into the shoes of someone 
else. My father used to say, you don't understand a person until you 
step in their shoes. I also thought he invented that wisdom himself 
until I watched ``To Kill a Mockingbird'' and found out that Atticus 
Finch said it first.
  Let's try to step into someone else's shoes for a moment. Let's 
imagine it wasn't Joe Biden. Let's imagine it was any one of us. Let's 
imagine the most powerful person in the world was asking a foreign 
nation to conduct a sham investigation into one of us. What would we 
think about it then? Would we think that is good U.S. policy? Would we 
think he has every right to do it? Would we think that is a perfect 
call?
  Let's step, for a minute, into Ambassador Yovanovitch's shoes, and we 
are the subject of a vicious smear campaign that no one in the 
Department we work for, up to the Secretary of State, thinks has a 
shred of credibility. Let's step into her shoes for a minute. We spent 
our whole life devoted to public service, served in dangerous places 
around the world, and we are hounded out of our post. And one day 
someone releases a transcript of a call between the President of the 
United States and a foreign leader, and the President says there is 
going to be some things happening to you, or to you, or to you, or to 
you, or to you. How would you feel about the President of the United 
States? Would you think he was abusing the power of his office? If you 
would, it shouldn't matter that it wasn't you. It shouldn't matter that 
it was Marie Yovanovitch. It shouldn't matter that it was Joe Biden. I 
will tell you something. The next time it just may be you. It just may 
be you.
  Do you think for a moment that any of you, no matter what your 
relationship with this President, no matter how close you are to this 
President--do you think for a moment that if he felt it was in his best 
interest he wouldn't ask you to be investigated? Do you think for a 
moment that he wouldn't?
  If somewhere deep down below you realize that he would, you cannot 
leave a man like that in office when he has violated the Constitution. 
It shouldn't matter that it was Joe Biden. It could have been any of 
us. It may be any of us. It shouldn't matter that it was Marie 
Yovanovitch. It will be some other diplomat tomorrow, for some other 
pernicious reason.
  It goes to what Mr. Jeffries said. It goes to character. You don't 
realize how important character is in the highest office in the land 
until you

[[Page S544]]

don't have it, until you have a President willing to use his power to 
coerce an ally to help him cheat, to investigate one of our fellow 
citizens--one of our fellow citizens.

  Yes, he is running for President. He is still a U.S. citizen. He is 
still a U.S. citizen, and he deserves better than that.
  Of course, it wasn't just Ukraine. It wasn't just Russia. There is 
the invitation to China to investigate the Bidens. It is not going to 
stop.
  On September 19, Rudy Giuliani was interviewed by Chris Cuomo on CNN. 
You have probably all seen the clip. When asked specifically if he had 
urged Ukraine to look into Vice President Biden, Mr. Giuliani replied 
immediately: ``Of course I did.'' ``Of course I did.''
  It shouldn't matter that it was Joe Biden. It wasn't Hunter Biden 
there. It was Joe Biden. It wasn't Hunter Biden on that call. It was 
Joe Biden. It shouldn't matter whether it was Hunter Biden or Joe 
Biden. We are talking about American citizens. It shouldn't matter to 
any of us which American citizens.
  He hasn't stopped urging Ukraine to conduct these investigations. Mr. 
Giuliani hasn't. Donald Trump hasn't. To the contrary and consistent 
with everything we know about the President, he has done nothing but 
double down.
  During the first week of December, Mr. Giuliani traveled to Ukraine 
and Hungary to interview the corrupt former Ukrainian prosecutors, who 
had been pushing these false narratives about Vice President Biden and 
this kooky conspiracy about 2016. Mr. Giuliani met with current members 
of the Ukraine Parliament who have advocated for that same fraudulent 
investigation.
  In June of last year, President Trump told ABC News that he would 
take political dirt from a foreign country if it was offered again.
  If he has learned anything from the tumult of the last 3 years, it is 
that he can get away with anything, can do it again. He can't be 
indicted. He can't be impeached--can't, if you believe our Attorney 
General, even be investigated.
  Our Founders worried about a situation just like this. James Madison 
put it simply: The President ``might betray his trust to foreign 
powers.'' In his farewell address, George Washington warned Americans 
``to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that 
foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican 
government.''
  John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson wrote:

       You are apprehensive of foreign Interference, Intrigue, 
     Influence. So am I. But as often as Elections happen, the 
     danger of foreign influence recurs.

  Or to quote the President's Chief of Staff:

       Get over it. There is going to be politics in foreign 
     policy.

  Well, I don't think that was John Adams' point, and I don't think 
that was James Madison's point, and I don't think that was George 
Washington's point. If it was, they would have said: ``Get over it.'' 
But they recognized, as I know we recognize, what a profound danger 
that would be for that to become the new normal.
  Another election is upon us. In 10 months, voters will undertake 
their most important duty as citizens by going to the polls and voting 
for their leader. And so we must ask: What role will foreign powers 
play in trying to influence the outcome? And if they take the 
President's side, who will protect our franchise if the President will 
not?
  As charged in the first Article of Impeachment, President Trump has 
demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the 
Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in a manner 
grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.
  Based on the abuse of power for which he was impeached and his 
ongoing powers to solicit foreign influence, both directly and through 
Mr. Giuliani, there can be little doubt that President Trump will 
continue to invite foreign interference in our elections again and 
again. That poses an imminent threat to the integrity of our democracy.
  Our Founders understood that a President like Donald Trump might one 
day grasp the reins of power: an unremorseful, overreaching executive, 
faithful to himself only, and willing to sacrifice our democracy and 
national security for his own personal advantage. His pattern of 
conduct--repeatedly soliciting foreign interference in our elections 
for his own benefit--confirms that he will stop at nothing to retain 
his power. He willfully chose to place his own personal interests above 
the country's and the integrity of our elections.
  There is every reason to believe that will continue. He has 
stonewalled Congress and ordered executive branch agencies--
organizations that work for the American people, not for the 
President--to join in his obstruction. He deployed Mr. Giuliani to 
Ukraine to continue advancing a scheme that serves no other purpose 
than advancing his 2020 reelection prospects. He attacked witnesses, 
public servants, patriots, who stayed true to their oath and leveled 
with the American people about the grave national injury that resulted 
from the President's misconduct. And he continued to urge foreign 
nations to investigate American citizens that he views as a threat. The 
threat that he will continue to abuse his power and cause grave harm to 
the Nation over the course of the next year, until a new President is 
sworn in or until he would be reelected is not a hypothetical. Merely 
exposing the President's scheme has not stopped him from continuing 
this destructive pattern of behavior that has brought us to this somber 
moment. He is who he is. That will not change, nor will the danger 
associated with him. Every piece of evidence supports the terrible 
conclusion that the President of the United States will abuse his power 
again, that he will continue to solicit foreign interference to help 
corruptly secure his reelection. He has shown neither remorse nor 
acknowledgement of wrongdoing. If you can believe that July 25 was a 
perfect call, that asking for investigations of your political 
opponents and using the power of your office to make it so is perfectly 
fine, then, there is nothing that would stop you from doing it again.

  President Trump has abused the power of his office and must be 
removed from that office.
  Mr. McConnell, I yield back.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                Recess Subject To The Call Of The Chair

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I suggest a 15-minute recess.
  There being no objection, at 3:30 p.m., the Senate, sitting as a 
Court of Impeachment, recessed until 4:04 p.m.; whereupon the Senate 
reassembled when called to order by the Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will come to order.
  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, first of all, I 
want to join my colleagues in just thanking you for your patience and 
your indulgence.
  What I can tell you today is that we are closer today than we were 
yesterday because I am prepared to present article II: Obstruction of 
Congress.
  The second Article of Impeachment charges the President with misusing 
the powers of his high office to obstruct the House impeachment 
inquiry.
  We are here today in response to a blanket order issued by President 
Trump directing the entire executive branch to withhold all documents 
and testimony from that inquiry.
  President Trump's obstruction of the impeachment inquiry was 
categorical, indiscriminate, and historically unprecedented. And its 
purpose was clear: to impede Congress's ability to carry out its duties 
under the Constitution to hold the President accountable for high 
crimes and misdemeanors.
  As part of his effort to cover up evidence of his scheme to solicit 
foreign interference in the upcoming election, President Trump did 
something no President has ever dared to do in the history of our 
Republic. President Trump directed the entire executive branch not to 
cooperate with the House's impeachment inquiry. President Trump blocked 
every person who works in the White House and every person who works in 
every department, agency, and office of the executive branch from 
providing information to the House as part of the impeachment inquiry.
  This was not about specific, narrowly defined security or privacy 
issues. Nor was it based on potential privileges

[[Page S545]]

available to the executive branch. Indeed, President Trump has not once 
asserted executive privilege during this process.
  This was a declaration of total defiance of the House's authority to 
investigate credible allegations of the President's misconduct and a 
wholesale rejection of Congress's ability to hold the President 
accountable.
  The President's order, executed by his top aids, substantially 
interfered with the House's constitutionally authorized power to 
conduct an impeachment inquiry.
  At President Trump's direction, the White House itself refused to 
produce a single document or record in response to a House subpoena 
that remains in full force and effect, and it continues to withhold 
those documents from Congress and from the American people.
  But it is not just the White House. Following President Trump's 
order, the Office of the Vice President, the Office of Management and 
Budget, the Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the 
Department of Defense all continued to refuse to produce a single 
document or record in response to 71 specific requests, including 5 
subpoenas.
  Additionally, following President Trump's order, 12 current or former 
administration officials continue to refuse to testify as part of the 
House's impeachment inquiry--not only current administration officials 
but former administration officials as well. Nine of those witnesses, 
including senior officials with direct firsthand knowledge of the 
President's actions, continue to defy subpoenas for testimony because 
of the President's order. And yet, despite President Trump's 
obstruction, as you have heard and seen throughout the House managers' 
presentation of the facts of the President's scheme, the House gathered 
overwhelming evidence of his misconduct from courageous public servants 
who were willing to follow the law, comply with subpoenas, and tell the 
truth.
  On the basis of that formidable body of evidence, the House adopted 
the first Article of Impeachment. These witnesses also testified with 
great specificity about extensive documents, communications, and 
records in the possession of the White House and other agencies 
regarding the President's scheme to coerce Ukraine's leader to help his 
reelection.
  As you have heard over the past few days, the House was, therefore, 
able to develop an extensive catalog of specific documents and 
pertinent communications that go to the heart of the President's 
wrongdoing and which the President has ordered be concealed from 
Congress and the American people.
  Revelations of evidence harmful to the President have only continued 
since the House compiled its investigative reports. Recent court-
ordered releases under the Freedom of Information Act, as well as 
disclosures to the media, have further demonstrated that the White 
House, OMB, State Department, and other agencies are actively 
withholding highly relevant documents that could further implicate the 
President and his subordinates.
  Over time, these documents and this evidence will undoubtedly come to 
light, and I ask this body to not wait to read about it in the press or 
in a book. You should be hearing this evidence now--hearing this 
evidence now.
  Now, there is one point that I would like to make very clear. 
President Trump's wholesale obstruction of Congress strikes at the very 
heart of our Constitution and our democratic system of government.
  The President of the United States could undertake such comprehensive 
obstruction only because of the exceptional powers entrusted to him by 
the American people. Only one person in the world has the power to 
issue an order to the entire executive branch. That person, Senators, 
as you know, is the President. And President Trump used that power not 
to faithfully execute the law but to order agencies and employees of 
the executive branch to conceal evidence of his misconduct.
  Now, I know that no other American could seek to obstruct an 
investigation into his or her wrongdoing in this way. We all know that 
no other American could use the vast powers of our government to 
undertake a corrupt scheme to cheat to win an election and then use 
those same powers to suppress the evidence of his constitutional crime. 
We would not allow--I am convinced that we would not allow any member 
of our State or local governments to use the official powers of their 
office to cover up crimes and misdeeds. As this body is well aware, 
mayors and Governors have gone to jail for doing so. Sheriffs and 
police chiefs are certainly not immune. If we allow President Trump to 
escape accountability, we will inflict lasting damage on the separation 
of powers among our branches of government--our fundamental system of 
checks and balances. It would inflict irreversible damage by allowing 
this Commander in Chief and establishing precedence for future 
Presidents to act corruptly or abusively and then use the vast powers 
of their office--the Office of the Presidency--to conceal their own 
misconduct from Congress and the American people. In other words, we 
would create a system that allows this President and any future 
President to really do whatever he or she wants.

  It is an attack on congressional oversight, not just on the House but 
also on the Senate's own ability to oversee and serve as a check on 
this and future Presidents in both Republican and Democratic 
administrations. Without meaningful oversight, without the power of 
impeachment, Americans will have to come to accept a far greater 
likelihood of misconduct by the Oval Office, and they would not be able 
to look to other branches of government to hold their President--the 
people's President--accountable.
  Executive power without any sort of restraint, without oversight, and 
without any checks and balances is absolute power. We know what has 
been said about absolute power: ``Absolute power corrupts absolutely.''
  This is the very opposite of what the Framers intended. The Framers 
of the Constitution purposefully entrusted the power of impeachment to 
the legislative branch so that it may protect the American people from 
a corrupt President. Well, the times, Senators, have found us. If 
Congress allows President Trump's obstruction to stand, it essentially 
nullifies the impeachment power.
  Senators, we are the keepers, the protectors, the defenders of what 
the Framers intended. We must hold any unprincipled and undisciplined 
Executive accountable.
  Senators, I know that this is not easy. I don't take this moment 
lightly. These are tough times. I remember quite a few tough times 
during my 27 years as a law enforcement officer, but we must stop this 
President. Today we will explain why.
  First, we will review key facts regarding the scope and breadth of 
President Trump's unprecedented actions to stop the House's impeachment 
powers. As you well know, we covered many of these facts on Tuesday 
when we explained in depth what evidence the President had blocked from 
Congress. We addressed documents we know the White House and other 
agencies are concealing. We addressed testimony the President's aides 
would provide if they testified under oath. We will, therefore, review 
the documents and witnesses briefly.
  Second, after surveying relevant history and constitutional law, we 
will explain why obstruction of Congress in and of itself warrants 
impeachment and removal from office.
  Finally, we will demonstrate that President Trump is without question 
guilty of obstruction of Congress, that his defenses lack any legal 
foundation, and that his actions pose a dire and continuing threat to 
the foundation of our constitutional framework.
  This is very simple. It is simple. The President abused the powers 
entrusted in him by the American people in a scheme to suppress 
evidence, escape accountability, and orchestrate a massive coverup, and 
he did so in plain sight. His obstruction remains ongoing.
  Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, President's 
counsel:
  Before I start, I, too, want to thank all the Senators for being so 
patient and being such good listeners. It reminds me, quite frankly, of 
one of the first days that I went to what was affectionately called 
``baby judge school.'' When we first got started, those were the first 
two things they told us--that we needed to be patient and that we 
needed to listen and that we needed to be fair and always give the 
opportunity to be heard to each side.

[[Page S546]]

  I am going to say that you have certainly been playing a very good 
role as judges because, although I know the press calls you jurors, I 
know that you are in the role of judges, and I commend you for being 
good listeners and for having the patience to listen to us these last 2 
days and in our final remarks today. So thank you all.
  Ms. Demings has given us an overview of the second Article of 
Impeachment: Obstruction of Congress.
  So let us now turn to the facts of the case because to fully 
appreciate the scope and the scale of the President's wrongdoing and 
the size of the coverup he has orchestrated, it requires an 
understanding of the evidence that he has lawlessly hidden from 
Congress and the American people.
  President Trump categorically, indiscriminately, and in unprecedented 
fashion obstructed Congress's impeachment inquiry; in other words, he 
orchestrated a coverup. He did it in plain sight.
  First, from the beginning, the Trump administration sought to hide 
the President's misconduct by refusing to turn over the Intelligence 
Committee whistleblower complaint. That complaint would sound the first 
alarm of the President's wrongdoing.
  Second, the President issued an order prohibiting the entire 
executive branch from participating in the impeachment inquiry--no 
cooperation, no negotiation, nothing--or as we say in Texas, nada.
  Following the President's orders, Federal agencies refused to produce 
documents, and key witnesses refused to testify. In fact, the President 
sanctioned specific directions to officials, ordering them to defy 
congressional subpoenas. Third, and perhaps the most reprehensible of 
all, the President waged a campaign of intimidation against those brave 
public servants who did come forward to comply with their obligation 
under the law.
  Senators, as I mentioned, I am a lawyer and a former judge. I have 
never ever seen anything like this from a litigant or a party in any 
case, not anywhere. But from the very beginning of this scandal, 
President Trump has sought to hide and cover up key evidence.
  The coverup started even before the House began to investigate the 
President's Ukrainian-related activity. It began when the White House 
sought to conceal the record of Donald Trump's July 25 call with the 
President of Ukraine by placing it on a highly classified system. But, 
as we have said before, there was no legitimate national security 
reason to do so. The coverup continued. A top OMB official instructed 
the freeze to be ``closely held.'' In other words, ``Don't say anything 
to anybody.''
  Senators, you know that in order to lock in the hold of the funding, 
the President was required to notify Congress about the amount of money 
involved and why he was intending to freeze it. Instead, the White 
House tried to keep the freeze secret.
  Maybe they kept it a secret because a senior White House aide, Rob 
Blair, accurately predicted to his boss, Mick Mulvaney, to ``expect 
Congress to become unhinged'' if it learned that bipartisan aid 
approved for a valuable foreign partner was being frozen for the 
President's personal gain.
  But the coverup reached its peak soon after August 12 because, on 
August 12, a whistleblower filed a lawful and protected complaint 
intended for Congress with the inspector general of the intelligence 
community. The President, who was the subject of the complaint, learned 
of the filing well before Congress and the American people.
  In an effort to conceal the whistleblower's concerns, the White House 
and the Department of Justice took an unprecedented step. No 
administration had ever intervened in such a manner before. But 
President Trump maneuvered to keep the whistleblower's concerns from 
the congressional Intelligence Committee.
  In the history of the Intelligence Committee Whistleblower Protection 
Act, no credible and urgent complaint had ever, ever been withheld from 
Congress--not ever before. It was through immense public pressure and 
vigorous oversight by the House that the Trump administration 
ultimately produced a complaint to the House and Senate Intelligence 
Committees. I will add that even when it was produced, it was weeks 
after the legal deadline.
  If the President's efforts to conceal the whistleblower's concerns 
had succeeded, Congress would never have learned about the existence of 
the complaint, let alone the allegations that it contained. But this 
attempt to hide key information from Congress was only the first sign 
of what was to come.
  Following new, deeply troubling revelations about the President's 
July 25 call, on September 24, the Speaker of the House announced that 
the House investigations into the President's scheme to pressure 
Ukraine for personal gain would be folded into the ongoing impeachment 
inquiry. Just days later, the President began to attack the legitimacy 
of the House impeachment inquiry.
  While standing on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base, President 
Trump argued that the House impeachment inquiry ``shouldn't be 
allowed.'' He claimed ``There should be a way of stopping it--maybe 
legally, through the courts.''
  Let's watch the President and what he had to say:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       The PRESIDENT. My call was perfect. The President, 
     yesterday, of Ukraine said there was no pressure put on him 
     whatsoever. None whatsoever. And he said it loud and clear to 
     the press. What these guys are doing--Democrats--are doing to 
     this country is a disgrace and it shouldn't be allowed. There 
     should be a way of stopping it--maybe legally, through the 
     courts.

  Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. ``There should be a way of stopping 
it.''
  Soon after, President Trump took the matter into his own hands. The 
President used his authority and his office to wage a relentless and 
misleading public campaign to attack the impeachment inquiry.
  The President spent time at rallies, at press conferences, and on 
Twitter trying to persuade the American people that the House's inquiry 
was invalid and fraudulent.
  Here are just a few of President Trump's comments about the 
impeachment inquiry. He called it ``a witch hunt,'' ``a COUP,'' ``an 
unconstitutional power grab,'' and ``a fraud against the American 
people.'' He said it is ``the phony Impeachment Scam,'' ``the phony 
Impeachment Hoax,'' the ``Ukraine Hoax,'' and ``a continuation of the 
greatest Scam and Witch Hunt in the history of our Country.''
  Those are probably some of the ones that I can repeat here. And it 
didn't stop. The attacks did not end there. President Trump turned from 
rhetoric to action.
  On October 8, the White House sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi 
informing her that President Trump would seek to completely obstruct 
the impeachment inquiry. They sent this letter. White House stationery. 
I shouldn't say this--I am a lawyer--but it is very lawyerly. It is an 
eight-page letter. You know, lawyers can't do one thing in one page; we 
have to do it in seven or eight. This was eight pages, and it is long. 
No worries, I am not going to read it all. I just want to get to the 
bottom line. It says: ``President Trump cannot permit his 
Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these 
circumstances.''
  He was just saying: We are not going to cooperate.
  The letter is dated, again, October 8, and it is signed by Pat 
Cipollone, who is here, of course, with us today as the lead counsel 
for the President.
  The President did not make any claim of privilege. The President did 
not make any attempt to compromise. He had no valid excuse. Although we 
are all too familiar with President Trump's rhetoric and rants, these 
words in this letter on White House stationery, signed by his lead 
counsel here today, have consequences. These words have consequences. 
They were more than just ink on a page. They were more than just eight 
pages of words.
  In the days that followed, President Trump's agencies and officials 
followed his order to conceal information from Congress. Over the past 
few days, you have heard in extensive detail from all of us about some 
of the specific and incriminating documents that the President has 
withheld from Congress. But, again, here is the bottom line: The House 
investigating committees sought a total of 71 specific categories of 
documents from 6 different agencies and offices. President Trump 
blocked every single one of these requests--all of them.

[[Page S547]]

  Between September 27 and October 10, the investigating committees 
issued subpoenas to the Department of State, the White House, the 
Office of Management and Budget, Department of Defense, and the 
Department of Energy. The committees always remained open to working 
with the executive branch to discuss and prioritize the subpoenas.
  Some agents initially suggested that they might comply. For example, 
a few days after receiving the subpoena, the Department of State staff 
reached out to the committee to ``discuss accommodations.''
  As you all know, the accommodation process is when Congress and the 
executive branch discuss priorities and concerns so that the committee 
gets what it needs most efficiently, while minimizing any burden to the 
agency.
  On October 7, the committee staff met with State Department 
officials. During that conversation, the committees made a good-faith 
attempt to engage the Department in negotiations.
  To start, the committees requested that the Department prioritize 
production of a narrow set of nonprivileged documents. The Department's 
representatives stated that they would take the request back to senior 
State Department officials, but that was the end. That was the end. 
Those priority documents were never provided to the committees.
  In addition to the State Department, the Department of Defense also 
showed an initial interest in cooperating. During an October 13 
television appearance, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper stated 
repeatedly that the Department of Defense would seek to comply. He said 
on air, on TV, that they would seek to comply with the subpoena.
  In an exchange on ``Face the Nation,'' he was specifically asked:

       Question. Very quickly, are you going to comply with the 
     subpoena that the House provided you and provide documents to 
     them regarding the halt to military aid to Ukraine?
       Answer. [From the Secretary] Yeah we will do everything we 
     can to cooperate with the Congress. Just in the last week or 
     two, my general counsel sent out a note as we typically do in 
     these situations to ensure documents are retained.
       [But, again, the question is] Is that a yes?
       Answer. [By the Secretary] That's a yes.
       Question. You will comply with the subpoena?
       Answer. [Again, by the Secretary] We will do everything we 
     can to comply.

  These are his very own words: We can comply.
  But remember that October 8 letter from the White House Counsel sent 
to the Speaker stating the President's position of total defiance. 
President Trump--again, I will quote it. It said: ``President Trump 
cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan 
inquiry under these circumstances.''
  So every department and every office, top to bottom, of the executive 
branch was under these instructions. You know, that is about 2 million 
public servants, top to bottom. The executive branch was all ordered by 
President Trump not to provide information to Congress. The President 
offered no accommodation and no opportunity for negotiation.
  Ultimately, each agency and office followed the President's order. In 
response to each subpoena, the Trump administration produced no 
documents--nothing, nada--and the agencies and offices made clear that 
it was due to the President's instructions. They always deferred to 
that October 8 letter.
  For example, despite the Secretary's initial signal of cooperation--I 
gave you the quote from when he was asked specifically on TV. He said 
they would try to cooperate. But despite that, the Department of 
Defense later refused to respond to the committee's subpoena. In a 
letter to the committees, the Department of Defense echoed many of the 
White House's unsupported legal arguments and concluded: ``In light of 
these concerns, and in view of the President's position as expressed in 
the White House Counsel's October 8 letter, and without waiving any 
other objections to the subpoena that the Department may have, the 
Department is unable to comply with your request for documents at this 
time.''
  In a TV interview on ``Face the Nation, they tried to ask him again. 
When asked by Chris Wallace on FOX News:

       Question. And--but do you feel Congress has a right to 
     oversight and to be able to see documents from the Pentagon 
     about a program that was approved by Congress?
       Answer. Well, they do, but provided it's done in the right 
     and proper way. And I think that was the issue. Again, I 
     think my reputation is pretty good in terms of being very 
     transparent. I like to communicate with members of Congress. 
     But in this case, they were--my recollection is that there 
     were technical and legal issues that prohibited us from doing 
     exactly what was requested by Congress.

  So he said he would try to cooperate, to seek to comply, but now they 
are back-peddling. But, Senators, there were no valid technical or 
legal arguments. None were put forth to justify the stonewalling of the 
impeachment inquiry. The documents President Trump is withholding are 
highly relevant, responsive, and would further our understanding of the 
President's scheme.
  Here is just a sampling of the documents we know exist that are 
currently being withheld: National Security Advisor John Bolton's 
notes, Ambassador Taylor's first-person cable to Secretary Pompeo, 
emails between OMB and other agencies about the President's directive 
to place a hold on the Ukraine military aid, and the hundreds of 
heavily redacted documents that the administration has now turned over 
to third parties under FOIA court orders.
  Certainly the documents released pursuant to the FOIA lawsuits were 
not subject to any claims of privilege or confidentiality or burden. 
The administration released them publicly. By contrast, the President 
turned over nothing in response to the House impeachment investigation.
  Senators, there still is another component of the President's 
obstruction that I want all of us to focus on.
  Not only did the President block agencies and offices from producing 
documents, his administration also blocked current and former officials 
from identifying, producing, or even reviewing relevant documents.
  First, the Trump administration actively discouraged its employees 
from even identifying documents responsive to the committees' request.
  Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent testified in his deposition 
that he informed the State Department attorney about additional 
responsive records that the Department had not collected. According to 
Kent, the Department attorney ``got very angry'' and ``objected to [Mr. 
Kent] raising of the additional information.'' He ``made clear that he 
did not think it was appropriate for [Mr. Kent] to make the 
suggestion.''
  So here is a lawyer telling the witness: Don't say that. I just--
frankly, as a lawyer and former judge, I just can't believe something 
like this would happen. But Kent responded that he was just trying to 
``make sure that the Department was being fully responsive.''
  Second, the Trump administration refused to permit individual 
witnesses to produce relevant documents themselves.
  After the State Department failed to respond to voluntary requests 
for documents at the beginning of the investigation, the committee sent 
document requests to six individual State Department employees. 
Secretary Pompeo objected to the committee's request to State 
officials, calling them ``an act of intimidation and invitation to 
violate federal court laws.'' He also claimed that the House inquiry 
was ``an attempt to intimidate, bully, and treat improperly the 
distinguished professionals of the Department of State.''
  Now we were the bullies. But let's be clear: His statement has been 
contradicted by actual State Department professionals from whom the 
committees sought documents. Kent testified that he ``had not felt 
bullied, threatened, and intimidated'' by the House. In fact, Kent said 
that the language in Secretary Pompeo's letter, which had been drafted 
by a State Department attorney, was without consulting Mr. Kent.
  He said: ``It was inaccurate''--``inaccurate.'' Then the State 
Department ordered witnesses to withhold documents from Congress.
  For example, on October 14, the Department sent a letter to Kent's 
personal attorney warning--warning: ``Your client is not authorized to 
disclose to Congress any records relating to official duties.''
  Certain witnesses defied those orders and produced the substance of 
key documents, providing critical insight into

[[Page S548]]

the President's scheme. Other witnesses produced documents to the Trump 
administration so they could be turned over to Congress, but now the 
administration is also sitting on those documents and is refusing to 
turn them over. Ambassador Taylor testified that he turned over 
documents to the Trump administration but, to his knowledge, they had 
not been produced to the House.
  Let's watch.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. QUIGLEY. But has any of the documents that you turned 
     over, to your knowledge, been turned over to the committee?
       Ambassador TAYLOR. No.

  Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Senators, I will confirm. The committees 
have not seen not one of these documents--none.
  Finally, if it could be any worse--well, it is--a Trump 
administration official, Ambassador Sondland, informed us that he was 
not even permitted to review his own relevant records in preparation 
for their testimony. Again, this would be his own records so that he 
could prepare to testify.
  Let's watch.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador SONDLAND. I have not had access to all of my 
     phone records, State Department emails, and many, many other 
     State Department documents. And I was told I could not work 
     with my EU staff to pull together the relevant files and 
     information. Having access to the State Department materials 
     would have been very helpful to me in trying to reconstruct 
     with whom I spoke and met and when and what was said.
       My lawyers and I have made multiple requests to the State 
     Department and the White House for these materials. Yet these 
     materials were not provided to me, and they have also refused 
     to share these materials with this committee. These documents 
     are not classified and, in fairness--and, in fairness--should 
     have been made available.

  Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Of course, we agree.
  At President Trump's order, agencies and offices refused to produce 
documents in response to the committee's requests, and they refused to 
allow individual witnesses to do so either.
  So let's recap. No documents--zero, goose egg, nada--in response to 
over 70 requests--70 requests and 5 subpoenas. There was no attempt to 
negotiate, no genuine attempt to accommodate. There was categorical, 
indiscriminate, and unprecedented stonewalling.
  Again, never in my time as a lawyer or as a judge have I seen this 
kind of total disrespect in defiance of a lawfully issued subpoena--and 
all on President Trump's orders. And it could continue because this 
obstruction of Congress is real, and it is beyond--beyond--comparison. 
This President should be removed.
  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, let's turn to 
President Trump's efforts to stop witnesses from testifying.
  No other President facing impeachment has taken the extreme step to 
prohibit executive branch witnesses from testifying before Congress. 
Even President Nixon, who famously attempted to defy a subpoena for 
tape recordings of his conversations, let his most senior staff testify 
before Congress.
  I remember listening on TV as John Dean testified before the Senate 
Watergate Committee. He was the President's lawyer. President Nixon 
didn't block him. Not only did President Nixon allow his staff to 
testify before Congress; he publicly directed them to testify and 
without demanding a subpoena.
  Actually, with the Senate Watergate investigation, President Nixon 
said:

       All members of the White House staff will appear 
     voluntarily when requested by the committee. They will 
     testify under oath, and they will answer fully all proper 
     questions.

  Now compare that to President Trump. He publicly attacked the House's 
impeachment inquiry, calling it ``constitutionally invalid,'' and he 
ordered every single person working in the executive branch to defy the 
House impeachment inquiry.
  As just discussed, in the letter to the Speaker of the House, the 
White House Counsel said that President Trump ``cannot permit his 
administration to participate.''
  No President ever used the official power of his office to prevent 
witnesses from giving testimony to Congress in such a blanket and 
indiscriminate manner. There is no telling how many government 
officials would have come forward if the President hadn't issued this 
order.
  Let's look at some of the witnesses who followed the President's 
orders.
  The House issued subpoenas to compel the testimony of three officials 
at the Office of Management and Budget: Acting Director Russell Vought, 
Associate Director Michael Duffey, and Associate Director, Brian 
McCormack.
  According to testimony in the House, which was reinforced by emails 
recently revealed through the Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, OMB 
was just central to the President's hold on security assistance to 
Ukraine. Its officials served as conduits for the White House to 
implement the hold without directly engaging the agencies that actually 
supported release of the aid. President Trump directed these three OMB 
officials to violate their legal obligation by defying lawful 
subpoenas, and they followed his orders.
  This isn't just an argument. It is a fact. In response to House 
subpoenas, OMB sent a letter to Chairman Schiff refusing to comply. 
This is what the letter said: ``As directed by the White House 
Counsel's October 8, 2019, letter, OMB will not participate in this 
partisan and unfair impeachment inquiry.''
  In that simple statement, OMB admitted several key points. First, Mr. 
Cipollone's letter of October 8 was an official directive from the 
White House.
  Second, President Trump's blanket order applied to OMB and the three 
officials subpoenaed by the House.
  Third, President Trump's blanket order not only directed them to 
refuse to participate voluntarily; it also directed them to defy House 
subpoenas.
  Fourth, President Trump's blanket order directly prevented the three 
OMB officials from providing testimony to the House.
  There is no question about the scope of President Trump's order. It 
was total. There is no question about the intent of the order. It was 
clearly understood by administration officials, as shown by OMB. And 
there is no question the order had an impact. It directly prevented the 
House from getting testimony from the three senior officials at OMB.
  So here we are. The President of the United States issued an official 
order forbidding every single person who works for the executive branch 
of our government from giving testimony to the House as part of an 
impeachment investigation. That order prevented the House from getting 
testimony from witnesses who knew about the President's conduct.
  The matter is simple. It is plain to see. The question we here in 
Congress must ask is whether we are prepared to turn a blind eye to a 
President's obstruction--obstruction not only of oversight but also the 
power to determine whether Congress may gather evidence in an 
impeachment proceeding.
  If the Senate is prepared to accept that, it will mean that not only 
President Trump but all Presidents after him will have veto power over 
Congress's ability to conduct oversight and the power of impeachment. 
The House was not prepared to accept that, and that is why the House 
approved article II.
  As you consider what you think about this, please know that President 
Trump's blanket order was not the end of his campaign to obstruct the 
impeachment inquiry. Actually, it was just the beginning.
  In addition to his total ban of government witnesses, President Trump 
also sent specific explicit orders. He directed key witnesses to defy 
subpoenas and to refuse to testify as part of the House's impeachment 
inquiry.
  As you know, the House subpoenaed Acting White House Chief of Staff 
Mick Mulvaney. We wanted his testimony.
  At a White House press briefing in October--I know you have seen it 
before--Mr. Mulvaney confirmed what we had suspected. Mr. Mulvaney 
admitted that President Trump withheld the aid to pressure Ukraine into 
announcing an investigation into the conspiracy theory that Ukraine 
interfered in the 2016 elections. Here are his words.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. MULVANEY. Did he also mentioned to me in the past the 
     corruption that related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no 
     question about that. But that's it, and that's why we held up 
     the money.

  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. After this really stunning admission, the House 
issued a subpoena to require Mr.

[[Page S549]]

Mulvaney to testify, but on the day of Mr. Mulvaney's scheduled 
deposition, the White House sent a letter to his personal attorney. It 
prohibited him from obeying the subpoena. The letter said: ``The 
President directs Mr. Mulvaney not to appear at the Committee's 
scheduled deposition.''
  When he issued this order, President Trump doubled down on his 
previous blanket order. He did so after the House voted to approve 
resolution 660, which in no uncertain terms made clear that Mr. 
Mulvaney was being subpoenaed to testify in an impeachment 
investigation.
  This order was the first of many. President Trump also ordered 
another White House official, Robert Blair, not to testify. Mr. Blair 
is Mr. Mulvaney's senior adviser and his closest aide. He was involved 
in communications about the hold on Ukraine aid.
  The day after his initially scheduled deposition, Mr. Blair's 
personal attorney sent a letter to the House. It said: ``Mr. Blair has 
been directed by the White House not to appear and testify.''
  The House also wanted testimony from John Eisenberg, the senior 
attorney on President Trump's National Security Council. As you have 
heard over the past few days, key witnesses, including Dr. Hill and 
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, said they were concerned by President 
Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine. They were told to report these 
concerns to Mr. Eisenberg.
  The day before his scheduled deposition, the White House sent a 
letter to Mr. Eisenberg's personal attorney. It said: ``The President 
directs Mr. Eisenberg not to appear at the Committee's deposition.'' 
Now, that language is starting to sound familiar.
  Mr. Eisenberg's personal attorney then sent a letter to the House. 
The letter said this:

       Under these circumstances, Mr. Eisenberg has no other 
     option that is consistent with his legal and ethical 
     obligations except to follow the direction of his client and 
     employer, the President of the United States. Accordingly, 
     Mr. Eisenberg will not be appearing for a deposition at this 
     time.

  Now, that language, I think, is important. And it is telling. It 
shows that President Trump's order left Mr. Eisenberg with ``no other 
option that is consistent with his legal and ethical obligations.'' By 
directing him to defy a lawful subpoena, President Trump created a 
legal and ethical problem for Mr. Eisenberg.
  I am sure you know, contempt of Congress can be punished as a 
criminal offense. It carries the possible sentence of up to 12 months 
in jail. No President has ever dared, during an impeachment inquiry, to 
officially and explicitly order government witnesses to defy House 
subpoenas. You don't have to consider high-minded constitutional 
principles to understand why this was wrong. It is simple, really. By 
ordering specific government officials to defy congressional subpoenas, 
President Trump forced those officials to choose between submitting to 
the demands of their boss or breaking the law. Nobody should abuse a 
position of power in that way. But President Trump specifically ordered 
all three of these senior White House officials--Mulvaney, Blair, and 
Eisenberg--to defy the House's subpoenas and refuse to testify.
  President Trump's efforts to conceal his actions didn't stop there, 
and they didn't stop at the front door of the White House. No less than 
12 other witnesses were specifically ordered not to testify. One of 
those witnesses, Ulrich Brechbuhl, hasn't been highlighted much over 
the past few days, but the way he fits into the story is worth noting.
  Mr. Brechbuhl is a senior official at the State Department. Like 
these other senior officials, he was ordered not to testify. In a 
letter to the House, his attorney said: ``Mr. Brechbuhl has received a 
letter of instruction from the State Department directing that he not 
appear.'' Mr. Brechbuhl is still another person who could shed light on 
President Trump's actions. He was kept updated on Rudy Giuliani's 
broader efforts in Ukraine. He had firsthand knowledge of Secretary 
Pompeo's involvement. For one thing, he handled Ambassador 
Yovanovitch's recall from Ukraine, though he refused to meet with her 
in the aftermath.
  Also, messages by Ambassador Volker show that Mr. Brechbuhl knew 
about Mr. Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine as they occurred. On July 10, 
Ambassadors Taylor, Volker, and Sondland discussed Rudy Giuliani's push 
abroad. While discussing the problems Rudy was creating by meddling in 
official U.S. foreign policy, Ambassador Taylor noted that he ``briefed 
Ulrich this afternoon.'' Also on August 11, Ambassador Sondland emailed 
Mr. Brechbuhl to ask him to brief Secretary Pompeo in the statement he 
was negotiating with President Zelensky, the aim of ``making the boss 
happy enough to authorize an invitation.''
  Ambassador Sondland wrote to him:

       Kurt and I negotiated a statement from Z to be delivered 
     for our review in a day or two. The contents will hopefully 
     make the boss happy enough to authorize an invitation.

  Now, State Department Executive Secretary Lisa Kenna answered 
Ambassador Sondland several hours later, letting him know that she 
passed that information on to Secretary Pompeo. Let's pause here and 
consider why this message to Mr. Brechbuhl, which the State Department 
continues to conceal, is important. In this exchange, Ambassador 
Sondland told Brechbuhl that he had negotiated a deal to get President 
Zelensky to make a statement and that Sondland hoped that the promised 
statement would ``make the boss happy enough to authorize an 
invitation.''
  It shows that senior State Department leadership, including Secretary 
Pompeo, was quite aware of the deal to trade an invitation to the White 
House for a statement from President Zelensky.
  Indeed, Ambassador Sondland confirmed that he kept them in the loop. 
Here is his testimony:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ambassador SONDLAND. We kept the leadership of the State 
     Department and the NSC informed of our activities, and that 
     included communications with Secretary of State Pompeo; his 
     counselor, Ulrich Brechbuhl; his Executive Secretary, Lisa 
     Kenna; and also communications with Ambassador Bolton, Dr. 
     Hill, Mr. Morrison, and their staff at the NSC. They knew 
     what we were doing and why.

  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Eight other witnesses were also ordered not to 
testify as part of the House's impeachment inquiry, but those eight 
witnesses came forward anyway, despite the President's efforts to 
prevent them from testifying. All of the following witnesses were told 
not to testify: Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Ambassador Gordon 
Sondland, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, Ambassador 
Bill Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, Deputy 
Associate Director at OMB Mark Sandy, State Department official 
Catherine Croft, and State Department official Christopher Anderson. 
Each of these eight witnesses followed the law. They obeyed House 
subpoenas, and they testified before the House.
  In all, we know that by issuing the blanket order and later specific 
orders, President Trump prevented at least 12 current or former 
administration officials from testifying during the House's impeachment 
inquiry. He specifically forced nine of those witnesses to defy duly 
authorized subpoenas.
  The facts are straightforward, and they are not in dispute:
  First, in the history of our Republic, no President ever dared to 
issue an order to prevent even a single government witness from 
testifying in an impeachment inquiry.
  Second, President Trump abused the power of his office by using his 
official power in an attempt to prevent every single person who works 
in the executive branch from testifying before the House.
  Finally, President Trump's orders, in fact, prevented the House from 
obtaining key witness testimony from at least 12 current or former 
government officials.

  President Trump's orders were clear; they were categorical; they were 
indiscriminate; and they were wrong. They prevented key government 
witnesses from testifying. There is no doubt. That is obstruction, 
plain and simple.
  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Mr. Chief Justice, now let us turn to some 
final sets of facts. In a further effort to silence his administration, 
President Trump engaged in a brazen effort to publicly attack and 
intimidate the dedicated public servants who came forward to testify. 
To be clear, these

[[Page S550]]

witnesses didn't seek the spotlight in this way. For years, they had 
quietly and effectively performed their duties on behalf of our 
national interest and on behalf of the American people.
  Why would they seek the spotlight in this way, knowing that the 
President of the United States would lead the chorus of attacks against 
them. And he did. In response, the President issued threats, openly 
discussed possible retaliation, attacked their character and 
patriotism, and subjected them to mockery and other insults--the 
President. The President's attacks were broadcast to millions of 
Americans, including the witnesses, their families, their friends, and 
their coworkers. This campaign of intimidation risked discouraging 
witnesses from coming forward voluntarily or complying with mandatory 
subpoenas for documents and testimony. And, as we all know, witness 
intimidation is a Federal crime.
  There is simply not enough time today to walk through each of the 
President's attacks on the House's witnesses, but let's talk about a 
few. As I am sure my colleagues recall, the House subpoenaed Ambassador 
Marie Yovanovitch for public testimony. Ambassador Yovanovitch's first 
tour was in Somalia, an increasingly dangerous place as that country's 
civil war progressed. During a different tour, Ambassador Yovanovitch 
helped to open a U.S. Embassy, during which time the Embassy was 
attacked by a gunman who sprayed the Embassy building with gunfire. 
Ambassador Yovanovitch has also served as an ambassador to Armenia and 
served the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. As Chairman Schiff said earlier, she 
has served in some dangerous places around the world on behalf of our 
interests and the interests of the American people.
  President Trump's Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs 
described Ambassador Yovanovitch as ``an exceptional officer, doing 
exceptional work at a critical embassy in Kyiv.'' But during Ambassador 
Yovanovitch's public testimony, President Trump tweeted:

       Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started 
     off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to 
     Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably 
     about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. 
     President's absolute right to appoint ambassadors.

  In that same hearing, Chairman Schiff asked Ambassador Yovanovitch 
for her reactions to the President's attacks during her testimony 
before the House. Let's listen to that exchange.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. SCHIFF. Ambassador, you've shown the courage to come 
     forward today and testify, notwithstanding the fact you were 
     urged by the White House or the State Department not to, 
     notwithstanding the fact that, as you testified earlier, the 
     President implicitly threatened you in that call record. And 
     now the President, in real-time, is attacking you. What 
     effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness 
     to come forward and expose wrongdoing?
       Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. It is very intimidating.
       Mr. SCHIFF. It is designed to intimidate, is it not?
       Ambassador YOVANOVITCH. I mean, I can't speak to what the 
     President was trying to do, but I think the effect is to be 
     intimidating.
       Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I want to let you know, Ambassador, that 
     some of us here take witness intimidation very, very 
     seriously.

  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. The House also subpoenaed the public testimony 
of Ambassador William B. Taylor, another career public servant, who 
graduated at the top of his class from West Point, served as an 
infantry commander in Vietnam, and earned a Bronze Star and an Air 
Medal with the ``V'' device for Valor.
  Yet, shortly after Ambassador Taylor came forward to Congress, 
President Trump publicly referred to him as a Never Trumper without any 
basis. Then, when a reporter noted that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 
had hired Ambassador Taylor, President Trump responded: ``Hey, 
everybody makes mistakes.'' He then had the following exchange about 
Ambassador Taylor. Let's listen.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President TRUMP. He's a Never Trumper. His lawyer is the 
     head of the Never Trumpers. They're a dying breed, but they 
     are still there.

  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Ambassador Taylor has since stepped down from 
his position as our chief diplomat in Ukraine.
  In addition to his relentless attack on witnesses who testified in 
connection to the House's impeachment inquiry, the President also 
repeatedly threatened and attacked the member of the intelligence 
community who filed the anonymous whistleblower complaint. In more than 
100 statements about the whistleblower over a period of just 2 months, 
the President publicly questioned the whistleblower's motives and 
disputed the accuracy of the whistleblower's account.
  But most disturbing, President Trump issued a threat against the 
whistleblower and those who provided information to the whistleblower. 
Let's listen.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President TRUMP. I want to know who's the person, who's the 
     person who gave the whistleblower the information. Because 
     that's close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old 
     days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we 
     used to handle it a little differently than we do now.

  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. The President's need to conceal his actions was 
so extreme that he even attacked the credibility of those witnesses who 
served our country in combat. This included Active Duty military 
personnel and veterans who earned the Purple Heart and Bronze Star, 
among other battlefield recognition. But President Trump showed utter 
disregard for such patriotism. For example, President Trump attacked 
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman during his testimony on November 19, seeking 
to question his loyalty to the United States. The President retweeted 
that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman was offered the position of Defense 
Minister for the Ukrainian Government three times. Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman, the national security director for Ukraine, has been an 
Activity Duty Army officer for more than 20 years. Lieutenant Colonel 
Vindman earned a Purple Heart for wounds he sustained in an improvised 
explosive attack or device in Iraq.
  President Trump's campaign of intimidation is reprehensible, debases 
the Presidency, and was part of his effort to obstruct the impeachment 
inquiry. The fact that it is the President of the United States making 
these threats tells us something. It tells us that the President 
desperately wanted to keep witnesses from testifying and thus further 
obstruct Congress's inquiry.
  Senators, we cannot, and we must not, condone President Trump's 
attacks on whistleblowers and witnesses--people who truly have the 
ability to put our country first.
  Mr. Manager NADLER. Now that we have carefully reviewed the facts and 
have described the President's categorical obstruction of Congress, we 
address questions of law. This discussion need not be abstract. The 
President's obstruction impacts the Senate directly. It impacts the 
constituents you represent. It impacts you because your job as a Member 
of Congress is to hold the executive branch in check. This is true no 
matter who occupies the White House or which party controls the House 
or Senate. And the further the President--any President--departs from 
the law in the Constitution, the more important it is for you to do 
your job.
  I suspect that there is common ground here. We all know that in order 
for Congress to do its work, we must have information. What is 
reasonable policy? What is the administration doing? Do we support it? 
Should we oppose it? Should we enact legislation to correct the 
problem? Asking questions, gathering information, making decisions 
based on the answers--this is one of the fundamental functions of 
Congress.
  I suspect that we agree on this as well: Our ability to do that work 
depends on gathering information. It depends on the power of the 
congressional subpoena. Even when you make a polite request for 
information from a friendly administration, that request is backed by 
the threat of a subpoena.
  And although the power of the congressional subpoena has been 
affirmed repeatedly by the courts, enshrined in the rules of the House 
and Senate, and respected by executive branch agencies for centuries, 
if the President chooses to ignore our subpoenas, our powers as a 
branch of government--our ability to do our jobs, our ability to keep 
an administration in check, our ability to make sure that the American 
people

[[Page S551]]

are represented by a Congress, not just by a President--are diminished.
  Please know that we are not talking about a disagreement over the 
last few documents at the end of a long production schedule. We are 
talking about a direct order from the President of the United States to 
completely disregard all our subpoenas, to deny us all information the 
President wants to keep secret. This is in order to deprive Congress of 
our ability to hold an administration accountable. It is a bid to 
neuter Congress, to render the President all powerful since Congress 
could not have any information the President didn't want us to have. 
Without information, we cannot act.
  We must ask: Is there a consequence for a President who defies our 
subpoenas absolutely; who says to all branches of the administration 
``Do not obey a single congressional subpoena''--categorically, without 
knowing the subject of the subpoena--just ``Never answer a 
congressional subpoena''; who denies Congress the right to any 
information necessary to challenge his power?
  Would Madison, Hamilton, and Washington support removing a President 
who declares that the Constitution lets him do whatever he wants and 
who brazenly adds that he can ignore any effort to investigate, even 
when backed by subpoenas that the law requires him to obey? The answer 
to all these questions is a resounding yes.
  Before diving in, I would like to set the historical scene. The 
Framers were wise. And so they worried that Presidents would abuse 
their power for personal gain. They feared that someday a President 
might mistake himself for a King--whose decisions cannot be questioned, 
whose conduct cannot be investigated, whose power transcends the rule 
of law. Such a would-be King would certainly think things like ``I have 
the right to do whatever I want as president.'' He might believe that 
it is ``illegitimate'' for anyone to investigate him. Of course, not 
even the Framers could have imagined a President would say these things 
out loud.
  A President with this view of raw power would attack anyone who tried 
to hold him to account, branding them ``human scum'' and ``the Enemy of 
the People.'' He would argue that courts had no power to enforce 
subpoenas against him.
  He would conscript his allies to ridicule Congress. He would harass 
witnesses who testified against him, declaring it was disloyal to 
question his conduct. He would use the powers of his high office to 
sabotage our system of checks and balances. All of this we have seen in 
the last few years--indeed, in the last few months.
  The Framers wrote the impeachment clause to protect the American 
people from such a President. The impeachment clause exists to protect 
our freedom and our democracy in between elections. It exists to remind 
Presidents that they serve the public, not the other way around. It is 
a reminder to Presidents that they answer to something greater than 
themselves. It confirms that nobody in America is above the law, not 
even the President.
  As we have discussed, the impeachment power does not magically 
protect us when a President commits high crimes and misdemeanors. In 
Benjamin Franklin's words, the Framers left us a Republic--if we can 
keep it.
  One way we can uphold that promise is to do our duty as elected 
Members of Congress to hold the executive branch in check. That 
responsibility is part of the constitutional design. The burden is 
ours, regardless of our political party, no matter who sits in the Oval 
Office.
  In the ordinary course, when we do our jobs, we do our Nation a 
service by holding the executive branch--both its political leadership 
and its professional core--accountable to the people for its actions.
  When the President's conduct exceeds the usual constitutional 
safeguards, it falls on the House to investigate Presidential 
wrongdoing and, if necessary, to approve Articles of Impeachment. It 
then falls on the Senate to judge, convict, and remove Presidents who 
threaten the Constitution.
  This entire framework depends on Congress's ability to discover and 
then to thoroughly investigate Presidential malfeasance. If Presidents 
could abuse their power and then conceal all the evidence from 
Congress, the impeachment clause would be a nullity. We the people 
would lose a vital protection.
  That is why officials throughout history have repeatedly recognized 
that subpoenas served in an impeachment inquiry must be obeyed, 
including by the President. It is why, before President Trump, only a 
single official in American history has ever defied an impeachment 
subpoena. And that is why that official, Richard Nixon, faced Articles 
of Impeachment for doing so.
  As the House Judiciary Committee reasoned in its analysis of Nixon's 
obstruction: ``[U]nless the defiance of the [House] subpoenas . . . is 
considered grounds for impeachment, it is difficult to conceive of any 
President acknowledging that he is obligated to supply the relevant 
evidence necessary for Congress to exercise its constitutional 
responsibility in an impeachment proceeding.''
  Representative Robert McClory, a Republican from Illinois, explained 
the importance of this Article of Impeachment for our separation of 
powers. He said:

       . . . if we refuse to recommend that the President should 
     be impeached because of his defiance of the Congress with 
     respect to the subpoenas that we have issued, the future 
     respondents will be in the position where they can determine 
     themselves what they are going to provide in an impeachment 
     inquiry and what they are not going to provide, and this 
     would be particularly so in the case of an inquiry directed 
     toward the President of the United States. So, it not only 
     affects this President but future Presidents.

  That is where we find ourselves now but with even greater force.
  President Nixon authorized other executive branch officials and 
agencies to honor their legal obligations. He also turned over many of 
his own documents. President Trump, in contrast, directed his entire 
administration--every agency, every office, and every official--not to 
cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. As in Nixon's case, President 
Trump's obstruction is merely an extension of his coverup.
  As in Nixon's case, President Trump's obstruction reveals 
consciousness of guilt. Innocent people do not act this way. They do 
not hide all the evidence. And like Nixon, President Trump has offered 
an assortment of arguments to excuse his obstruction. But as was true 
in Nixon's case, none of these excuses can succeed.
  At bottom, these arguments amount to a claim that the President can 
dictate the terms of his own impeachment inquiry. President Trump's 
lawyers may insist his grounds for defying Congress are unique and 
limited; that they only apply here, just this one time; that it was the 
House, not the President, that broke from precedent; that he would 
gladly comply with subpoenas if only the House would do as he insists.
  That is pure fantasy. The President's arguments are not a one-ride 
ticket. They are not unique to these facts. Unless they are firmly and 
finally rejected here, these bogus excuses will reappear every time 
Congress investigates any President for serious abuses of power--every 
single time. They will constitute a playbook for ignoring oversight, 
available to all future Presidents--Democratic and Republican.
  These arguments are not consistent with the Constitution. They are 
lawyerly window dressing for an unprecedented, dangerous power grab.
  Plenty of Presidents and judges have complained about impeachment 
inquiries, declaring their own innocence, attacking the House's 
motives, and insisting that due process entitled them to all sorts of 
things. But no President or judge--except Richard Nixon--has ever 
defied subpoenas on that basis. And no President or judge--none--has 
ever directed others to defy subpoenas categorically across the board. 
They have all eventually recognized their obligations under the law. 
President Trump stands alone.
  If President Trump is permitted to defy our subpoenas here in an 
impeachment inquiry, when the courts have said the congressional power 
of inquiry is at its highest, imagine what future Presidents will do 
when we attempt to conduct routine oversight.
  President Trump is the first leader of this Nation to declare that 
nobody can investigate him for official misconduct, except on his own 
terms. In word and in deed, President Trump has declared himself above 
the law. He has done so because he is guilty and wishes

[[Page S552]]

to conceal as much of the evidence from the American people and from 
this body as he can. In that, he must not succeed. If President Trump 
is allowed to remain in office after this conduct, historians will mark 
the date that this Senate allowed this President to break one of our 
mightiest defenses against tyranny. They will wonder why Congress so 
readily surrendered one of its core constitutional powers. They will 
wonder why Congress admitted that a President can get away with 
anything, can violate any constitutional rule, any liberty, any request 
for information, and get away with it simply by saying: I don't have to 
answer your questions. Congress has no power to make me answer 
questions about my conduct.

  That is what is at stake. In the future, people will despair that 
future Presidents will abuse their power without fear of consequences 
or constraint.
  Let's begin with a legal premise of the second Article of 
Impeachment.
  Congress has the power to investigate Presidents for official 
misconduct. This premise is indisputable. In article I of the 
Constitution:

       All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in 
     the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and House of Representatives.
       Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings.

  Our investigations are grounded in article I of the Constitution, 
which grants Congress all legislative powers and authorizes each House 
to determine its own rules. As the Supreme Court has explained, the 
Constitution thus vests the House and the Senate with the power of 
inquiry, that it is ``penetrating and far-reaching.''
  Moreover, Congress can effectuate that power of inquiry by issuing 
subpoenas commanding the recipient to provide documents or to testify 
under oath. Compliance with subpoenas is mandatory. It is not at the 
option of the executive or the President. As the Supreme Court has 
explained:

       [I]t is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to 
     cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the 
     facts needed for intelligent legislative action. It is their 
     unremitting obligation to respond to subpoenas, to respect 
     the dignity of the Congress and its committees, and to 
     testify fully with respect to matters within the province of 
     proper investigation.

  More recently, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has 
elaborated:

       [B]latant defiance of Congress' centuries-old power to 
     compel the performance of witnesses is not an abstract 
     injury, nor is it a mere banal insult to our democracy. It is 
     an affront to the mechanism for curbing abusers of powers 
     that the Framers carefully crafted for our protection, and, 
     thereby, recalcitrant witnesses actually undermine the 
     broader interests of the people of the United States.

  In recognition of the important role that congressional inquiries 
play in protecting our democracy and in guarding the American people, 
it is unlawful to obstruct them.
  Of course, while Congress investigates many issues, one of the most 
important is misconduct in the executive branch.
  There is a long history of congressional investigations into the 
executive branch. To name a few especially famous cases, Congress has 
investigated claims that President Lincoln mishandled Civil War 
military strategy; the infamous Teapot Dome scandal under President 
Harding; President Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal; 
President Reagan's involvement in the Iran-Contra affair; President 
Clinton's real estate dealings and the Monica Lewinsky scandal; 
warrantless wiretapping under President George W. Bush; and attacks on 
personnel in Benghazi under President Obama.
  Since the dawn of the Republic, Presidents have recognized Congress's 
power to investigate the executive branch. Even in sensitive 
investigations involving national security and foreign policy, 
Presidents have provided Congress with access to senior officials and 
important documents.
  For example, in the Iran-Contra inquiry, President Reagan's former 
National Security Advisor, Oliver North, and the former Assistant to 
the President for National Security Affairs, John Poindexter, testified 
before Congress. President Reagan also produced ``relevant excerpts of 
his personal diaries to Congress.''
  During the Clinton administration, Congress obtained testimony from 
top advisers, including the President's Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, 
his Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, White House Counsel Bernie Nussbaum, 
and White House Counsel Jack Quinn.
  In the Benghazi investigation, President Obama made many of his top 
aides available for transcribed interviews, including National Security 
Advisor Susan Rice and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic 
Communications Benjamin Rhodes. The Obama administration, in that case, 
also produced more than 75,000 pages of documents, including 1,450 
pages of White House emails, with communications of senior officials on 
the National Security Council.
  To be sure, certain House Republicans complained loudly that the 
Obama administration's response to the Benghazi investigation was 
insufficient. Just imagine how they would have reacted if Obama had 
ordered total defiance of all subpoenas. They would have been outraged. 
Why? Because Congress unquestionably has the authority to investigate 
Presidential conduct.
  Not only does Congress have the power to investigate the Executive, 
but, as we have discussed, article I of the Constitution gives the 
House the sole power of impeachment. The Framers intended this power to 
be the central check on out-of-control Presidents. But it does not work 
automatically. The House must investigate, question witnesses, and 
review documents. Only then can it decide whether to approve or not 
approve Articles of Impeachment. Therefore, when the House determines 
that the President may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors, it 
has the constitutional duty to investigate his conduct.
  In such cases, the House acts not only pursuant to its ordinary 
legislative authority but also serves as a ``grand inquest of the 
Nation'' because an impeachment inquiry wields one of the greatest 
powers of the Constitution--a power that exists specifically to 
constrain Presidents.
  Its subpoenas are backed with the full force of the impeachment 
clause. They cannot be thwarted by ordinary executive privileges or 
ordinary objections. It is therefore presumed--as President Polk 
conceded over 150 years ago--that ``all the archives and papers of the 
Executive Departments, public or private, would be subject to . . . 
inspection'' and ``every facility in the power of the Executive [would] 
be afforded to enable [the House] to prosecute the investigation.'' 
What investigation? The impeachment investigation of President Polk.
  President's Polk's statement, which we will return to, was no 
outlier. Presidents have long understood that they must comply with 
impeachment inquiries. Consistent with this understanding, in the 
history of the Republic, no President has ever claimed the unilateral 
prerogative to categorically defy a House impeachment inquiry. On the 
contrary, every President facing this issue has agreed that Congress 
possesses a broad and penetrating power of inquiry when investigating 
grounds for impeachment.

  This directly refutes President Trump's claim that he obstructed 
Congress to protect the Office of the President. Every prior occupant 
of his office has disavowed the limitless power that he asserts. That 
matters.
  As the Supreme Court explained just a few years ago:

       [L]ong settled and established practice is a consideration 
     of great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional 
     provisions regulating the relationship between Congress and 
     the President.

  Let's take a quick tour of the historical record. To begin at the 
beginning--a sweltering summer in Philadelphia, 1787--the Framers 
discussed at length the balance between Presidents and Congress. 
Remember, they had just fought a bloody war to rid themselves of a 
tyrant, and they were very conscious they didn't want another tyrant. 
When impeachment came up, they agreed it would limit the President's 
authority. But a strong majority of Framers saw that as a virtue, not a 
vice. They wanted to empower the President but also to keep his power 
from getting out of hand.
  Yet impeachment could not serve that role if the House was unable to 
investigate the President for suspected high crimes and misdemeanors. 
This was recognized early on, starting with our very first President. 
In 1796, the

[[Page S553]]

House requested that President Washington provide it sensitive 
diplomatic materials relating to the hugely unpopular Jay Treaty with 
Great Britain. President Washington declined since this request 
intruded upon his executive functions. But Washington agreed that 
impeachment would change his calculus. In the ensuing debates, it was 
noted on the House floor that Washington had admitted ``that where the 
House expresses an intention to impeach, the right to demand from the 
Executive all papers and information in his possession belongs to it.''
  ``All papers and information.'' This was only the first of many 
references to that point in our constitutional tradition. For example, 
less than 40 years later, in 1833, Justice Joseph Story remarked upon 
the dangers of Presidential obstruction. He wrote:

       The power of impeachment will generally be applied to 
     persons holding high offices under the government; and it is 
     of great consequence that the President should not have the 
     power of preventing a thorough investigation of their 
     conduct.

  Consistent with this teaching, President Polk later offered his clear 
and insightful explanation of why Presidents must honor all impeachment 
subpoenas. As I mentioned just moments ago, he said:

       It may be alleged that the power of impeachment belongs to 
     the House of Representatives, and that with a view to the 
     exercise of this power, that House has the right to 
     investigate the conduct of all public officers under the 
     government. This is cheerfully admitted.

  Decades later, during our first Presidential impeachment inquiry, 
President Andrew Johnson recognized Congress's power to thoroughly 
investigate him and his executive branch subordinates.
  In 1857, for example, the House Judiciary Committee obtained 
executive and Presidential records. The committee interviewed Cabinet 
officers and Presidential aides about Cabinet meetings and private 
conversations with the President by his top aides and Cabinet 
officials. Multiple witnesses, moreover, answered questions about the 
opinions of the President's, statements made by the President, and the 
advice given to the President. There is no evidence that Johnson ever 
asserted any privilege to prevent disclosure of Presidential 
conversations to the committee or failed to comply with any of the 
committee's requests.
  Thus, in the first 80 years of the Republic, Presidents Washington, 
Polk, and Johnson, along with members of committees of the House and a 
Supreme Court Justice, all recognized that Congress is authorized by 
the Constitution to investigate grounds for impeachment and that 
Presidents are obligated to give all information requested. President 
Trump's attempt to stonewall Congress would have shocked those 
Presidents.
  With only a few exceptions, invocations of the impeachment power 
subsided from 1868 to 1972. Yet, even in that period, while objecting 
to ordinary legislative oversight, Presidents Ulysses S. Grant, Grover 
Cleveland, and Theodore Roosevelt each noted that Congress could obtain 
key executive branch documents in an impeachment inquiry. They thus 
confirm yet again that impeachment is different. Under the 
Constitution, it requires full compliance.
  Then came Watergate, when President Nixon abused the power of his 
office to undermine his political opponents. But even Nixon--even 
Nixon--understood that he must comply with subpoenas for information 
relating to his misconduct. Thus, he stated in March 1973, regarding 
the Senate's Watergate investigation:

       All members of the White House staff will appear 
     voluntarily when requested by the committee. They will 
     testify under oath, and they will answer fully all proper 
     questions.

  As a result, many senior White House officials testified, including 
White House Counsel John Dean, White House Chief of Staff H. R. 
Haldeman, and Deputy Assistant to the President Alexander Butterfield.
  In addition, Nixon produced many documents in response to 
congressional subpoenas, including notes from meetings with the 
President.
  As the House Judiciary Committee explained at the time, 69 officials 
had been subjected to impeachment investigations throughout American 
history. Yet, ``with the possible exception of one minor official who 
invoked the privilege against self-incrimination, not one of them 
challenged the power of the committee conducting the investigation to 
compel the production of evidence it deemed necessary.''
  President Nixon's production of records was incomplete, however, in a 
very important respect: He did not produce tape recordings of key Oval 
Office conversations. In response, the House Judiciary Committee 
approved an Article of Impeachment against the President for 
obstruction of Congress.
  Twenty-four years later, the House undertook impeachment proceedings 
against President Clinton. Consistent with precedent and entirely 
unlike President Trump, Clinton ``pledged to cooperate fully with the 
[impeachment] investigation.'' Ultimately, he provided written 
responses to 81 interrogatories from the Judiciary Committee, and 3 
witnesses provided testimony during the Senate trial.
  As this review of the historic record proves, Presidents have long 
recognized that the Constitution compels them to honor subpoenas served 
by the House in an impeachment inquiry.
  Stated simply, President Trump's categorical blockade of the House--
his refusal to honor any subpoenas, his order that all subpoenas be 
defied without even knowing what they were--has no analog in the 
history of the Republic. Nothing even comes close. He has engaged in 
obstruction that several of his predecessors have expressly said is 
forbidden and that led to an Article of Impeachment against Nixon.
  President Trump is an outlier. He is the first and only President 
ever to declare himself unaccountable and to ignore subpoenas backed by 
the Constitution's impeachment power. If he is not removed from office 
and if he is permitted to defy the Congress entirely, categorically, 
and to say that subpoenas from Congress in an impeachment inquiry are 
nonsense, then we will have lost--the House will have lost, and the 
Senate, certainly, will have lost--all power to hold any President 
accountable.
  This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all 
powerful. He does not have to respect the Congress--he does not have to 
respect the representatives of the people. Only his will goes. He is a 
dictator. This must not stand. That is another reason he must be 
removed from office.
  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, we have now shown 
how the extreme measures President Trump took to conceal evidence and 
block witnesses defies the Constitution and centuries of historical 
practice; but there is more to this story, and it only further 
undermines President Trump's case. The position he has taken is not 
only baseless as an historical matter; it is also inconsistent with the 
Justice Department's stated reason for refusing to indict or prosecute 
Presidents.
  The Department of Justice's unwillingness to indict a sitting 
President creates a danger that the President can't be held accountable 
by anyone, even for grave misconduct. To its credit, the Department of 
Justice recognized that risk. In its view, ``the constitutionally 
specified impeachment process ensures that the immunity would not place 
the President `above the law.'''
  This argument by the Justice Department is really important. In 
justifying its view that a President can't be held criminally liable 
while in office, the DOJ relies on Congress's ability to impeach and 
remove a President, but the Justice Department's rationale falls apart 
if the ``constitutionally specified impeachment process'' can't 
function because the President himself has obstructed it.
  The Supreme Court correctly noted in Nixon v. Fitzgerald--and that is 
not Richard Nixon; it is Judge Nixon--``vigilant oversight by 
Congress'' is necessary to ``make credible the threat of impeachment.''
  The President should not be treated as immune from criminal liability 
because he is subject to impeachment but then be allowed to sabotage 
the impeachment process itself. That is what this President did. That 
places him dangerously above the law and beyond the separation of 
powers. Presidents can't be above the law. Presidents, like everyone 
else, must obey subpoenas served in an impeachment inquiry.
  In 1880, the Supreme Court explained: ``Where the question of such 
impeachment is before either [House of Congress] acting in its 
appropriate sphere

[[Page S554]]

on that subject, we see no reason to doubt the right to compel the 
attendance of witnesses, and their answer to proper questions, in the 
same manner and by the use of the same means that courts of justice can 
in like cases.''
  Almost a century later, Judge John Sirica's influential opinion on 
the Watergate ``roadmap'' in 1974 emphasized the special weight 
assigned to Congress in an impeachment.
  He wrote:

       [I]t should not be forgotten that we deal in a matter of 
     the most critical moment to the Nation, an impeachment 
     investigation involving the President of the United States. 
     It would be difficult to conceive of a more compelling need 
     than that of this country for an unswervingly fair inquiry 
     based on all the pertinent information.

  That same year, the Supreme Court decided the famous case of Nixon v. 
United States. That is President Nixon. I was standing just across the 
street from the Court when the case was handed down, and I remember 
seeing the reporters running down those marble steps, clutching the 
Court's unanimous decision. That decision forced the release of key 
Oval Office tapes that President Nixon had tried to cover up by 
invoking executive privilege. In short order, it led to the resignation 
of President Nixon.
  The plaintiff in that case was actually the special prosecutor, Leon 
Jaworski, who had been appointed to investigate the Watergate burglary 
and who had issued subpoenas for the Nixon tapes. The Supreme Court 
upheld these subpoenas against President Nixon's claim of executive 
privilege. It reasoned that his asserted interest in confidentiality 
could not overcome the constitutionally grounded interest in the fair 
administration of criminal justice.
  In reaching that conclusion, the Court said:

       The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments 
     were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation 
     of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and 
     public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of 
     all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence.

  That reasoning, which was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court 
in the Nixon tapes case, applies with full force--indeed, greater 
force--to impeachments.
  The House Judiciary Committee recognized this when it approved an 
Article of Impeachment against President Nixon for obstruction of 
Congress.
  It reasoned as follows:

       If a generalized Presidential interest in confidentiality 
     cannot prevail over ``the fundamental demand of due process 
     of law in the fair administration of justice,'' neither can 
     it be permitted to prevail over the fundamental need to 
     obtain all the relevant facts in the impeachment process. 
     Whatever the limits of legislative power in other contexts--
     and whatever need may otherwise exist for preserving the 
     confidentiality of Presidential conversations--in the context 
     of an impeachment proceeding the balance was struck in the 
     favor of the power of inquiry.

  Accordingly, President Trump's conduct is unprecedented and, 
actually, offensive to the precedents, and it is inconsistent with his 
duty--his oath--to faithfully execute the laws. That obligation to see 
that the laws are faithfully executed is not just about enforcing 
statutes; it is a duty to be faithful to the Constitution--every part 
of it--as stated in the text and understood across history, and it is a 
duty that he has violated by obstructing Congress here.

  I want to make one additional point regarding the judiciary.
  Presidents have an obligation to comply with Congress's impeachment 
inquiry regardless of whether a court has reviewed the request. We make 
this point even though, I think, President Trump's lawyers would be 
making a mistake to raise it. After all, the President's lawyers can't 
have it both ways. They can't argue here that we must go to court and 
then argue in court that our case can't be heard.
  Anyway, the House's ``sole Power of impeachment'' wouldn't be 
``sole'' or much of a ``power'' if the House could not investigate the 
President at all without first spending years litigating before the 
third branch of government. It would frustrate the Constitution for the 
House to depend entirely on the judiciary to advance its impeachment-
related investigatory powers.
  Consistent with this understanding, before President Trump, the House 
had never before filed a lawsuit to require testimony or documents in a 
Presidential impeachment. We didn't have to. No President had ever 
issued a blanket ban on compliance with House subpoenas or challenged 
the House to find a way around his unlawful order. In this strange and 
unprecedented situation, it is appropriate for Congress to reach its 
own judgment that the President is obstructing the exercise of its 
constitutional power.
  As then-Representative Lindsey Graham explained in 1998 during the 
Clinton proceedings, where we served together on the Judiciary 
Committee: ``The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is 
the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from 
Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became 
the judge and jury.''
  There is still another reason it would be wrong and dangerous to 
insist that the House cannot take action without involving the courts, 
and that reason is delay.
  Consider just three lawsuits filed by House committees over the past 
two decades to enforce subpoenas against senior executive branch 
officials. I served on the Judiciary Committee when we decided that we 
needed to hear from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.
  In Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, the Judiciary Committee tried 
to enforce a subpoena that required her to give testimony about the 
contentious firing of nine U.S. attorneys. The committee served the 
subpoena in 2007. We negotiated--as the courts indicate you should--
with the White House, and we finally filed suit in March of 2008. We 
won a favorable district court order in July 2008, but we didn't 
receive testimony from Miers until June of 2009. That was 2 years.
  In Committee on Oversight and Government Reform v. Holder, the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform tried to force Attorney 
General Eric Holder to produce additional documents relating to the so-
called Operation Fast and Furious. The committee served the subpoena in 
October 2011. They filed suit in August 2012. They won a series of 
orders requiring the production of documents, but the first such order 
did not issue until August of 2014--nearly 3 years.
  In Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, the House Judiciary 
Committee sought to enforce a subpoena to require White House Counsel 
Don McGahn to give testimony regarding matters relating to the special 
counsel's investigation. We served that subpoena in April of last year. 
We filed suit in August of last year. We won a favorable district court 
order in November of last year. The court of appeals stayed that ruling 
and didn't hear arguments until early this month--with an opinion and, 
potentially, a Supreme Court application likely to follow. We will 
likely not have an answer this year.
  Sometimes courts move quickly, but, here, they have not--not at all. 
Even when the House urges expedited action, it usually takes years, not 
months, to get evidence through judicial proceedings.
  The President can't put off impeachment for years by ordering total 
defiance of the House and then insist that the House go to court even 
as he argues that it can't go to court. That is especially true when 
the President doesn't just raise one or two objections to specific 
subpoenas but orders a blanket, governmentwide coverup of all evidence.
  That kind of order makes this clear. The President sees himself 
completely immune from any accountability--above the law. It reveals 
his pretentions, really, to absolute power. It confirms he must be 
removed from office.
  Here is the key point: President Trump's obstruction of Congress is 
not merely unprecedented and wrong; it is also a high crime and 
misdemeanor, as the Framers used and understood that phrase, warranting 
his immediate removal from office. To see why, let's return to first 
principles.
  As the Framers deliberated in Philadelphia, George Mason posed a 
profound question: ``Shall any man be above justice?''
  That question wasn't a hypothetical. The Framers had just rebelled 
against England, where one man, the King, was in fact above justice.
  By authorizing Congress to remove Presidents for egregious 
misconduct,

[[Page S555]]

the Framers rejected that model. Unlike Britain's King, the President 
would answer to Congress and, thus, to the Nation, if he engaged in 
serious wrongdoing, because the impeachment power exists not to punish 
the President but to check Presidents. It can't function if Presidents 
are free to ignore all congressional investigation and oversight.
  An impeachment scholar, Frank Bowman, said this:

       Without the power to compel compliance with subpoenas and 
     the concomitant right to impeach a president for refusal to 
     comply, the impeachment power would be nullified.

  So the consequences of Presidential obstruction go beyond any 
particular impeachment inquiry. They go to the heart of the impeachment 
power itself. They weaken our shield against a dangerous or corrupt 
President.
  Now, of course, Presidents are still free to raise privacy, national 
security, or other concerns in the course of an impeachment inquiry. 
There is room for good-faith negotiations over what evidence will be 
disclosed, although there is a strong presumption in favor of full 
compliance with congressional subpoenas.
  But when a President abuses his office, abuses his power to 
completely defy House investigators in an impeachment inquiry, when he 
does that without lawful cause or excuse, he attacks the Constitution 
itself. When he does that, he confirms that he sees himself as above 
the law.
  President Nixon's case is informative. As noted, President Nixon let 
his senior officials testify, he produced many documents. He did not 
direct anything like a blanket indiscriminate block of the House's 
impeachment inquiry. Still, he did defy subpoenas seeking records and 
recordings of the Oval Office.
  Now, President Nixon claimed that his noncompliance was legally 
defensible. He invoked the doctrine of executive privilege. The 
judiciary rejected that excuse.
  The committee emphasized that ``the doctrine of separation of powers 
cannot justify the withholding of information from an impeachment 
inquiry.'' After all, ``the very purpose of such an inquiry is to 
permit the House, acting on behalf of the people, to curb the excesses 
of another branch, in this instance the Executive.''
  ``Whatever the limits of legislative power in other contexts--and 
whatever need may otherwise exist for preserving the confidentiality of 
Presidential conversations--in the context of an impeachment proceeding 
the balance was struck in favor of the power of inquiry when the 
impeachment provision was written into the Constitution.
  Now, ultimately, the committee approved an article against Nixon 
because he sought to prevent the House from exercising its 
constitutional duty.
  Article III charged Nixon with abusing his power by interfering with 
the discharge of the Judiciary Committee's responsibility to 
investigate fully and completely whether he had committed high crimes 
and misdemeanors. President Nixon's third Article of Impeachment 
explained it this way:

       In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. 
     Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were 
     necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the 
     Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of 
     Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and 
     judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of 
     impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of 
     Representatives.
       In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner 
     contrary to his trust as President and subversive of 
     constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the 
     cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the 
     people of the United States. . . .

  President Nixon's case powerfully supports the conclusion that 
Presidential defiance of a House impeachment inquiry constitutes high 
crimes and misdemeanors.
  You know, I have been thinking a lot about the Founders and have been 
rereading the Constitution and the notes from the Constitutional 
Convention. It was just a little over 230 years ago that they met in 
Philadelphia, not too far from here. They had been at it for a long 
time. They didn't know whether the constitution they were going to 
write would sustain freedom, but they were trying to create a 
completely different type of government.
  On July 20, Governor Morris said this:

       The magistrate is not the king. The people are the king.

  George Mason, of Virginia, on that same day said:

       Shall any man be above Justice? Above all, shall that man 
     be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?''

  And Elbridge Gerry argued that he hoped that the maxim that the chief 
magistrate could do no wrong ``would never be adopted here.''
  Now, finally, on September 8, they adopted the impeachment clause in 
the U.S. Constitution, but I hope that we will remember the admonition 
that we should never accept the fact that the magistrate--the 
President--can do no wrong.
  They crafted the Constitution to protect our liberty and the liberty 
of those who will follow us.
  Professor Noah Feldman talked about the Constitution in his testimony 
before the House.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Noah FELDMAN. A President who says, as this President did 
     say, I will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form with 
     your process, robs a coordinate branch of government, he robs 
     the House of Representatives of its basic constitutional 
     power of impeachment.

  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. You know, a President who does that also 
endangers the American people by stripping away the Constitution's 
final safeguard against Presidents who abuse power and harm the Nation. 
Such a President acts like a King, which the Founders were fighting 
against. That is what they wrote out of the Constitution. A President 
cannot be immune from oversight, accountability, and even simple 
justice in the exercise of the powers entrusted to him.
  We can't let that stand in this case. The President must forfeit the 
powers that he has abused and be removed from office.
  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished Members of the 
Senate, counsel for the President, my colleagues, the American people 
who are assembled here today, I think we have our next break scheduled 
for within the hour, and so I find myself in the unenviable position of 
being the only thing standing between you and our dinner. But be not 
discouraged because I am going to try to follow the advice of a former 
Sunday school teacher of mine. I grew up in the Cornerstone Baptist 
Church in Brooklyn. She said: Jeffries, on the question of public 
presentations, be brief, be bright, and be gone.
  And so I am going to try to do my best.
  Presidents are required to comply with impeachment subpoenas. This 
President has completely defied them. That conduct alone is a high 
crime and misdemeanor.
  The facts here are not really in dispute. President Trump's defense 
appears to be: I can do whatever I want to do. Only I can fix it. I am 
the chosen one.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President TRUMP. Then I have an Article II, where I have 
     the right to do whatever I want as president. Nobody knows 
     the system better than me. Which is why I alone can fix it. 
     Somebody had to do it. I am the chosen one. Somebody had to 
     do it.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Is that who we are as a democracy?
  President Trump can't address the substance of our case. He therefore 
complains about process, but these procedural complaints are baseless 
excuses, and they do not justify his attempts to hide the truth from 
Congress and from the American people.
  The President's arguments fail for four simple reasons. First, the 
House, not the President, has the ``sole Power of Impeachment'' and the 
soul power ``to determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' That is 
article I, section 2, of the Constitution.
  Second, President Trump's ``due process'' argument has no basis in 
law, no basis in fact, no basis in the Constitution. President Trump 
may not preemptively deny any and all cooperation to the House and then 
assert that the House's procedures are illegitimate because they lack 
his cooperation.
  Third, President Trump's claim that he is being treated differently 
completely lacks merit. Despite what he contends, the House provided 
President Trump with greater protection than what was given to both 
President Nixon and President Clinton. The fact

[[Page S556]]

that President Trump failed to take advantage of these procedural 
protections does not mean they did not exist.
  President Trump is not the first President to complain about House 
procedures. He won't be the last. He is not the first one to challenge 
the motives of any investigation or certainly an impeachment inquiry. 
Such complaints are standard operating procedure from the article II 
executive branch.
  President Johnson, President Nixon, President Clinton had plenty of 
complaints, but no President--no President, no President--has treated 
such objections as a basis for withholding evidence, let alone 
categorically defying every single subpoena--none--except Donald John 
Trump.
  Finally, the obligation to comply with an impeachment subpoena is 
unyielding. It does not dissipate because the President believes House 
committees should invite different witnesses, give his defenders 
unfettered subpoena power, or involve his personal lawyers at the 
deposition stage of the process, when that has never been done.
  And if a President can defy Congress on such fragile grounds, then, 
it is difficult to imagine why any future President would ever comply 
with an impeachment or investigative subpoena again.
  Now, throughout our history, impeachments have been rare, and the 
Supreme Court has made clear that it is wary of intruding on matters of 
impeachment. This, of course, leaves room for interbranch negotiation, 
but it does not allow the President to engage in blanket defiance.
  President Trump's objections are not genuinely rooted in the law. 
They are not good-faith legal arguments. We know that because President 
Trump said early on he would fight all subpoenas. We know that because 
he declared the impeachment inquiry illegitimate before it even adopted 
any procedures; we know that because he has denounced every single 
effort to investigate him as a witch hunt; and we know that because he 
never even claimed executive privilege during the entire impeachment 
proceeding.

  President Trump's first excuse for obstructing Congress is his 
asserted belief that he did nothing wrong--that his July 25 call with 
President Zelensky was ``perfect.''
  In the October 8 letter sent by his Counsel, President Trump asserted 
the prerogative to defy all House subpoenas because he has declared his 
own innocence. As Mr. Cipollone put it, at President Trump's behest, 
``the President did nothing wrong,'' and ``there is no basis for an 
impeachment inquiry.'' Yes, the White House Counsel includes this in a 
formal letter to the House, defying every single subpoena.
  As we have shown in our discussion of the first Article of 
Impeachment, these claims of innocence are baseless. They lack merit. 
We have provided overwhelming evidence of President Trump's guilt.
  The President cannot unlawfully obstruct a House impeachment inquiry 
because he sees no need to be investigated. One of the most sacred 
principles of justice is that no man should be the judge in his own 
case, and yet that is exactly what President Trump has been determined 
to do. But this is America. He cannot be judge, jury, and executioner. 
Moreover, the President cannot simply claim innocence and then walk 
away from a constitutionally mandated process.
  Even President Nixon did not do that, as we have previously 
established. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to serve as a 
check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch. Our 
responsibility is not to this President; it is to the American people.
  Blanket Presidential defiance would bring a swift halt to all 
congressional oversight of the Executive. That principle would have 
authorized categorical obstruction in the impeachments of President 
Johnson, President Nixon, and President Clinton. In each of those 
cases, the House was controlled by a different party than the 
Presidency, and the President attacked those inquiries as partisan. Yet 
those Presidents did not view their concerns with excessive 
partisanship as a basis for defying every single subpoena.
  The purpose of an impeachment inquiry is for the House to collect 
evidence to determine, on behalf of the American people, whether the 
President may have committed an impeachable offense because the 
Constitution vests the House alone with the ``sole Power of 
Impeachment.''
  A President who serves as the judge of his own innocence is not 
acting as a President. That is a dictator. That is a despot. That is 
not democracy.
  The President also believes, it appears, that blanket obstruction is 
justified because the House did not expressly adopt a resolution 
authorizing an impeachment inquiry or properly delegate such 
investigatory powers to its committees.
  The full House voted in January in advance of the inquiry to adopt 
rules authorizing committees to conduct investigations, issue 
subpoenas, gather documents, and hear testimony.
  Beginning in the spring and summer of 2019, evidence came to light 
that President Trump and his associates might have been seeking the 
assistance of another foreign government, Ukraine, to influence the 
upcoming 2020 election.
  On September 9, the House investigating committees announced they 
were launching a joint investigation. They requested records from the 
White House and the Department of State. This investigation was 
consistent with all rules approved by the full House. At the same time, 
evidence emerged that the President may have attempted to cover up his 
actions and prevent the transmission of a whistleblower complaint to 
the Intelligence Committees of the Senate and the House.
  Given the gravity of these allegations and the immediacy of the 
threat to the next Presidential election, the Speaker of the House, a 
constitutional officer, explicitly named in article I, announced on 
September 24 that the House would begin a formal impeachment inquiry. 
There is nothing in the Constitution, nothing in Federal law, nothing 
in Supreme Court jurisprudence that required a formal vote at the time.
  The President has put forth fake arguments about process because he 
cannot defend the substance of these allegations.
  Following the announcement of the impeachment inquiry, the House 
investigating committees issued additional requests--and then 
subpoenas--for documents and testimony. The committees ``made clear 
that this information would be collected as part of the House's 
impeachment inquiry and shared among the Committees, as well as with 
the Committee on the Judiciary as appropriate.
  Then, on October 31, the full House voted to approve H. Res. 660, 
which directed the House committees to ``continue their ongoing 
investigations as part of the existing . . . inquiry into whether 
sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise 
its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump.''
  In addition to affirming the ongoing House impeachment inquiry, H. 
Res. 660 set forth procedures for open hearings in the Intelligence 
Committee and for additional proceedings in the Judiciary Committee.
  Every step in this process was fully consistent with the 
Constitution, the rules of the House, and House precedent.
  The House's autonomy to structure its own proceedings for an 
impeachment inquiry is grounded in the Constitution. The President's 
principal argument to the contrary is that no committee of the House is 
permitted to investigate any Presidential misconduct until the full 
House acted.
  As a Federal district court recently confirmed, the notion that a 
full House vote is required to authorize an impeachment inquiry ``has 
no textual support in the U.S. Constitution [or] the governing rules of 
the House.''
  The investigations into misconduct by Presidents Andrew Johnson, 
Nixon, and Clinton all began prior to the House's consideration and 
approval of a resolution authorizing the investigations.
  Recently, under Republican control, the Judiciary Committee 
considered the impeachment of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 
Service following a referral from another committee and absent a full 
vote of the House for an impeachment inquiry.
  There is no merit to President Trump's argument that the full House

[[Page S557]]

had to vote. The sequence of events in this particular case largely 
tracks those in the Nixon proceedings. There, the House Judiciary's 
proceedings began in October of 1973, when resolutions calling for 
President Nixon's impeachment were introduced in the House and referred 
to the Judiciary Committee.
  Over the next several months, the committee investigated the 
Watergate break-in and coverup, among other matters, using its existing 
investigatory authorities. The committee also hired a special counsel 
and other attorneys to assist in these efforts. Most importantly, all 
of this occurred before the House approved a resolution directing the 
Judiciary Committee to investigate whether grounds to impeach Richard 
Nixon existed.
  In this instance, the committees began the investigation with their 
existing powers authorized by the full House. That course of events is 
entirely consistent with the Richard Nixon precedent. It is also common 
sense. After all, before voting to conduct an impeachment inquiry, the 
House must ascertain the nature and seriousness of the allegations and 
the scope of the inquiry that may follow their actions.
  President Trump's second excuse also fails. Let's now address the 
President's so-called due process and fairness argument. The President 
has phrased his complaints in the language of ``due process.'' He has 
complained that the procedures were not fair, even though they reflect 
prior practice and strike a reasonable balance between Presidential 
involvement on the one hand and the House's obligation to find the 
truth on the other.
  Presidents come and Presidents go. They have all sharply criticized 
House procedures, but no President has ever treated those objections as 
a basis for complete defiance. No President has ever done that.
  In the context of a House impeachment inquiry, it is fair to say that 
the President is a suspect--a suspect who may have committed a high 
crime or misdemeanor. He cannot tell the detectives investigating the 
possible constitutional crime what they should do in the context of 
their investigation.
  In the President's October 8 letter, Mr. Cipollone complains that he 
was denied ``the most basic protections demanded by due process under 
the Constitution and by fundamental fairness,'' including ``the right 
to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts 
of testimony, to have access to evidence,'' and ``to have counsel 
present.''
  It sounds terrible, but it is not accurate.
  The President appears to have mistaken the initial phases of the 
impeachment inquiry for a full-blown trial. The trial phase of the 
impeachment inquiry is taking place right now.
  Chairman Peter Rodino of the Judiciary Committee once observed, as it 
related to the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, that 
``it is not a right but a privilege or a courtesy'' for the President 
to participate through counsel.
  An impeachment inquiry is not a trial; rather, it entails a 
collection and evaluation of facts before a trial occurs. In that 
respect, the House acts like a grand jury or a prosecutor investigating 
the evidence to determine whether charges are warranted or not. Federal 
grand juries and prosecutors do not allow targets of their 
investigation to coordinate witness testimony. The protections that the 
President labeled as ``due process'' do not apply here because those 
entitlements that he sought, many of which were actually afforded to 
him--but those entitlements that he sought would not necessarily be 
available to any American in a grand jury investigation.
  Moreover, it should be clear that the House, notwithstanding this 
framework, has typically provided a level of transparency in 
impeachment inquiries, particularly as it relates to Presidents.
  In past impeachment inquiries, this has typically meant that the 
principal evidence relied upon by the House Judiciary Committee is 
disclosed to the President and to the public, though some evidence in 
past proceedings has actually remained confidential.
  The President has typically been given an opportunity to participate 
in the proceedings at a stage when evidence has been fully gathered and 
is presented to the Judiciary Committee. President Trump was given the 
chance to do that in this case, but he declined.
  Presidents have been entitled to present evidence that is relevant to 
the inquiry and to request that relevant witnesses be called. President 
Trump was given the chance to do that in the House impeachment inquiry 
before the Judiciary Committee, but he declined.

  Under H. Res. 660, President Trump received procedural protections 
not just equal to but in some instances greater than that afforded to 
Presidents Nixon and Clinton. So let's be clear. The privileges 
described in the October 8 letter were in fact offered to President 
Trump as they had been in prior impeachment inquiries. The President 
was able to review all evidence relied on by the House investigating 
committees, including evidence that the minority's public report 
identified as favorable to President Trump.
  During the Judiciary Committee proceedings, the President had 
opportunities to present evidence, call witnesses, have counsel present 
to raise objections, cross-examine witnesses, and respond to the 
evidence raised against him.
  As the Rules Committee report accompanying H. Res. 660 noted, these 
privileges are ``commensurate with the inquiry process followed in the 
cases of'' Nixon and Clinton. President Trump simply chose not to avail 
himself of what had been afforded to him.
  The fact that President Trump declined to take advantage of these 
protections does not excuse his blanket, unconstitutional obstruction. 
Unlike the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, in this particular instance, 
the argument that the President has made--the argument that he has made 
as it relates to the investigative process--is not analogous.
  In this case, the House conducted a significant portion of the 
factual investigation itself because no independent prosecutor was 
appointed to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing against 
President Trump. Attorney General William Barr refused to authorize a 
criminal investigation into the serious allegations of misconduct 
against the President. They tried to whitewash the whole sordid affair. 
Left to their own devices, the House investigating committees followed 
standard best practices for investigations, consistent with the law 
enforcement investigation into Presidents Nixon and Clinton, in advance 
of their impeachments.
  The committees released transcripts of all interviews and depositions 
conducted during the investigation. During the investigation, more than 
100 Members of the House participated in the so-called closed-door 
proceedings--more than 100 Members of the House, 47 of whom were 
Republicans. They all had the opportunity to ask questions. They all 
had the opportunity to ask questions with equal time.
  The Intelligence Committee held public hearings with 12 of the key 
witnesses testifying, including several requested by the House 
Republicans. It is important to note that the very same procedures in 
H. Res. 660 were supported by Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick 
Mulvaney when he served as a member of the Oversight Committee and by 
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when he served as a member of the Select 
Committee on Benghazi.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. GOWDY. I can just tell you in the private interviews 
     there is never any of what you saw Thursday. It is one hour 
     on the Republican side, one hour on the Democrat side--which 
     is why you are going to see the next two dozen interviews 
     done privately. Look at the other investigations being done 
     right now. The Lois Lerner investigation that was just 
     announced, was that public or private?

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. If this process was good enough for other 
Presidents, why isn't it good enough for President Trump?
  Representative Gowdy finished that statement by saying: ``The private 
ones have always produced the best results.'' ``The private ones,'' 
according to Trey Gowdy, ``have always produced the best results.''
  President Trump complained that his counsel was not afforded the 
opportunity to participate during the Intel Committee's proceedings. 
But neither President Nixon nor President Clinton were permitted to 
have counsel participate in the initial fact-gathering stages

[[Page S558]]

when they were investigated by special counsel, independent counsel.
  President Nixon certainly had no attorney present when the 
prosecutors and grand juries began collecting evidence about Watergate 
and related matters. President Nixon did not have an attorney present 
in this distinguished body when the Senate Select Committee on 
Watergate began interviewing witnesses and holding public hearings. Nor 
did President Clinton have an attorney present when prosecutors from 
the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr deposed witnesses and 
elicited their testimony before a grand jury.
  President Trump's attorney could have cross-examined the Intel 
Committee's counsel during his presentation of evidence before the 
House Judiciary Committee. That would have functioned as the equivalent 
opportunity afforded to President Clinton to have his counsel cross-
examine Kenneth Starr, which he did, at length.
  President Trump was provided a level of transparency and the 
opportunity to participate consistent with the highest standards of due 
process and fairness given to other Presidents who found themselves in 
the midst of an impeachment inquiry.
  The President--and I am winding down--the President's next procedural 
complaint is that it was unconstitutional to exclude agency counsel 
from participating in congressional depositions. The basis for the rule 
excluding agency counsel is straightforward. It prevents agency 
officials who are directly implicated in the abuses Congress is 
investigating from trying to prevent their own employees from coming 
forward to tell Congress and the American people the truth. It is 
common sense. The rule protects the rights of witnesses by allowing 
them to be accompanied in depositions by personal counsel, a right that 
was afforded to all of the witnesses who appeared in this matter.
  Agency attorneys have been excluded from congressional depositions of 
executive branch officials for decades under both Republicans and 
Democrats, including Republican Chairman Dan Burton, Republican 
Chairman Darrell Issa, Republican Chairman Jason Chaffetz, Republican 
Chairman Trey Gowdy, Republican Chairman Kevin Brady, and Republican 
Chairman Jeb Hensarling, just to name a few.
  Again, the Constitution provides the House with the sole power of 
impeachment and the sole authority to determine the rules of its 
proceedings, which were fair to all involved. Given the Constitution's 
clarity on this point, the President's argument that he can engage in 
blanket obstruction is just dead wrong.
  President Trump also objects that the House minority lacked 
sufficient subpoena rights. But the subpoena rules that were applied in 
the Trump impeachment inquiry were put into place by my good friends 
and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, House Republicans, when 
they were in the majority. We are playing by the same rules devised by 
our Republican colleagues.
  President Nixon did not engage in blanket obstruction. President 
Clinton did not engage in blanket obstruction. No President of the 
United States has ever acted this way.
  Lastly, we should reject President Trump's suggestion that he can 
conceal all evidence of misconduct based on unspecified confidentiality 
interests. Those are his exact words, ``confidentiality interests.'' 
Not once in the entire impeachment inquiry did he ever actually invoke 
executive privilege.
  Perhaps that is because executive privilege cannot be invoked to 
conceal evidence of wrongdoing. Perhaps that is because executive 
privilege does not permit blanket obstruction that includes blocking 
documents and witnesses from the entire executive branch. Perhaps 
President Trump didn't invoke executive privilege because it has never 
been accepted as a sufficient basis for completely and totally defying 
all impeachment inquiries and subpoenas. Or perhaps President Trump 
didn't invoke executive privilege because when President Nixon did so, 
he lost decisively, unanimously, clearly before the Supreme Court. 
Whatever the explanation, President Trump never invoked executive 
privilege. So it is not a credible defense to his obstruction of 
Congress.
  President Trump has lastly suggested that his obstruction is 
justified because his top aides are ``absolutely immune'' from being 
compelled to testify before Congress. Every Federal court to consider 
the so-called doctrine of ``absolute immunity'' has rejected it.
  In 2008, a Federal court rejected an assertion by the 43rd President 
of the United States that White House Counsel Harriet Miers was immune 
from being compelled to testify, noting that the President had failed 
to point to a single judicial opinion to justify that claim.
  And on November 25 of last year, another Federal judge rejected 
President Trump's claim of absolute immunity for former White House 
Counsel Don McGahn. The court concluded:

       Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from 
     compulsory congressional process--no matter how many times 
     the Executive branch has asserted as much over the years--
     even if the President expressly directs such officials [not 
     to comply].

  The court added: ``[Simply stated], the primary takeaway from the 
past 250 [-some-odd] years of recorded American history is that 
Presidents are not kings.''
  The President is not a King.
  President Trump tried to cheat. He got caught, and then he worked 
hard to cover it up. He must be held accountable for abusing his power. 
He must be held accountable for obstructing Congress. He must be held 
accountable for breaking his promise to the American people.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       My foreign policy will always put the interests of the 
     American people and American security above all else. Has to 
     be first, has to be. That will be the foundation of every 
     single decision that I will make.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. What does it mean to put America First? America 
is a great country, but, above all else, I think America is an idea--a 
precious idea. It is an idea that has withstood the test of time--an 
enduring idea--year after year, decade after decade, century after 
century, as we continue a long, necessary, and majestic march toward a 
more perfect Union. America is an idea: one person, one vote; liberty 
and justice for all; equal protection under the law; government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people; the preeminence of the rule 
of law. America is an idea. We can either defend that idea or we can 
abandon it. God help us all if we choose to abandon it.

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                                 RECESS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, we will take a 30-minute break for 
dinner.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, at 6:45 p.m. the Senate, sitting as a Court 
of Impeachment, recessed until 7:32 p.m.; whereupon the Senate 
reassembled when called to order by the Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have spoken with Congressman Schiff and his team, 
and it looks like we have a couple more hours.
  Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, counsel 
for the President, impeachment exists not to inflict personal 
punishment for past wrongdoing but, rather, to protect against future 
Presidential misconduct that would endanger democracy and the rule of 
law.
  President Trump remains a threat in at least three fundamental ways:
  First, he continues to assert in court and elsewhere that nobody in 
the U.S. Government can investigate him for wrongdoing, making him 
unaccountable.
  Second, his conduct here is not a one-off; it is a pattern of 
soliciting foreign interference in our elections to his own advantage 
and then using the powers of his office to stop anyone who dares to 
investigate.
  Finally, the President's obstruction is very much a constitutional 
crime in progress, harming Congress, as it deliberates these very 
proceedings, and the American people, who deserve to know the facts.
  A President who believes he can get away with anything and can use 
his office to conceal evidence of abuse threatens us all.

[[Page S559]]

  President Trump is the first President in U.S. history to say he is 
immune from any effort to examine his conduct or check his power. He 
claims he is completely immune from criminal indictment and prosecution 
while serving as President. He claims he can commit any crime--even 
shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, as he has joked about--with impunity. 
The President's own lawyers have argued in court that he cannot even be 
investigated for violating the law under any circumstance. No President 
of either party has ever made claims like this.
  If an investigation somehow does uncover misconduct by the President, 
as this investigation has done, the President believes he can simply 
quash it. He claims the right to end Federal law enforcement 
investigations for any reason--or none at all--even when there is 
credible evidence of his own wrongdoing.
  Added together, the President's positions amount to a license to do 
anything he wants. No court has ever accepted this view and for good 
reason: Our Founders created a system in which all people--even 
Presidents--are bound by the law and accountable for their actions.
  In addition to claiming that he is immune from criminal process, 
President Trump contends that he is not accountable to either Congress 
or the judiciary. He has invoked bizarre legal theories to justify 
defying congressional investigations. He has argued that Congress is 
forbidden from having the courts intervene when executive branch 
officials disregard its subpoenas. He has sued to block third parties 
from complying with congressional subpoenas.
  Perhaps most remarkably, President Trump has claimed that Congress 
cannot investigate his misconduct outside of an impeachment inquiry, 
while simultaneously claiming that Congress cannot investigate his 
misconduct in an impeachment inquiry. Of course, President Trump 
considers any inquiry to be illegitimate if he thinks he did nothing 
wrong, doubts the motives of Congress, or decides that he would prefer 
a different set of rules.
  Let's review the President's position. He can't be investigated for 
crimes. He can end any Federal law enforcement investigation into him. 
He is immune from any State law enforcement investigation. Neither he 
nor his aides can be subpoenaed. He can reject subpoenas based on 
broad, novel, and even rejected theories. When he does reject 
subpoenas, Congress is not allowed to sue him, but he is allowed to sue 
to block others from complying with congressional subpoenas. Congress 
definitely can't investigate him outside of an impeachment inquiry, 
and, again, it can't investigate him as part of one.
  The bottom line is that the President truly believes that he is above 
the law. This is not our system, and it never has been. The President 
is a constitutional officer. Unlike a King, he is accountable to the 
Constitution. But this President doesn't believe that, and that is why 
we are here.
  Remember, the precedent that you set in this trial will shape 
American democracy for the future. It will govern this President, and 
it will govern those who follow. If you let the President get away with 
his obstruction, you risk grave and irreparable harm to the separation 
of powers itself.
  Representative Lawrence Hogan, a Republican from Maryland, made this 
point during the Nixon impeachment hearing.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. HOGAN (Republican). The historical precedent we are 
     setting here is so great because in every future impeachment 
     of a President, it is inconceivable that the evidence 
     relating to that impeachment will not be in the hands of the 
     executive branch which is under his controls. So I agree with 
     the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling, if we do not pass 
     this article today, the whole impeachment power becomes 
     meaningless.

  Mr. Manager CROW. This leads us to a second consideration: the 
President's pattern of obstructing.
  Article II describes President Trump's impeachable conduct in 
obstructing Congress. On its own, that warrants removal from office. 
Yet it must be noted that the President's obstruction fits a disturbing 
pattern.
  As stated in article II, President Trump's obstruction is 
``consistent with [his] previous efforts to undermine United States 
Government investigations into foreign interference in United States 
elections.''
  Another example is President Trump's attempts to impede the special 
counsel's investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 
election, as well as the President's sustained efforts to obstruct the 
special counsel after learning that he was under investigation for 
obstruction of justice.
  The special counsel's investigation addressed an issue of 
extraordinary importance to our national security and democracy: the 
integrity of our elections themselves. Rather than aid the special 
counsel's investigation, however, President Trump sought to thwart it 
and used the powers of his office to do it.
  After learning that he himself was under investigation, President 
Trump ordered the firing of the special counsel, sought to curtail the 
special counsel's investigation, instructed the White House Counsel to 
create a false record and make false public statements, and tampered 
with at least two key witnesses in the investigation.
  The pattern is as unmistakable as it is unnerving.
  In one moment, President Trump welcomed and invited a foreign nation 
to interfere in an election to his advantage, and the next, he 
solicited and pressured a foreign nation to do so.
  In one moment, President Trump used the powers of his office to 
obstruct the special counsel, and the next, he used the powers of his 
office to obstruct the House impeachment inquiry.
  In one moment, the President stated that he remained free to invite 
foreign interference in our elections. In the next, he, in fact, 
invited additional foreign interference in our elections.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President TRUMP. By the way, likewise, China should start 
     an investigation into the Bidens.

  Mr. Manager CROW. Indeed, President Trump placed his fateful July 25 
call to President Zelensky just 1 day after the special counsel 
testified in Congress about his findings.
  As Professor Gerhardt testified before the Judiciary Committee:

       The power to impeach includes the power to investigate, 
     but, if the president can stymy this House's impeachment 
     inquiry, he can eliminate the impeachment powers as a means 
     for holding him and future presidents accountable for serious 
     misconduct. If left unchecked, the president will likely 
     continue his pattern of soliciting foreign interference on 
     his behalf in the next election.

  I must emphasize that President Trump's obstruction persists to this 
day.
  The second Article of Impeachment charges a high crime in progress. 
As a result, the President's wrongdoing did not just harm the House as 
we have performed our own constitutional duty; it is also harming the 
Senate, which is being deprived of information you need before the 
votes you will soon take. And, of course, the true victim is the 
American people, who deserve the full truth.
  As we have discussed, the President claims that all the evidence he 
is hiding and covering up would actually prove his innocence. To borrow 
a phrase from the late Justice Scalia, that claim ``taxes the credulity 
of the credulous.''
  President Trump has used all the authority of his office to block the 
full truth from coming to light. He has defied subpoenas and ordered 
others to do so. He has publicly intimidated and threatened witnesses. 
He has attacked the House for daring to investigate him. And he has 
lobbed an endless volley of personal attacks on witnesses and meritless 
complaints about procedure to sow confusion and distract the American 
people.
  The President's abuses are unfolding before our eyes, and they must 
be stopped.
  Before I conclude, I think you all deserve an explanation from me as 
to why I am standing here. There has been a lot of conversation in the 
last few years about what makes America great, and I have some ideas 
about that. I happen to think that what makes America great is that 
generation after generation, there have been Americans who have been 
willing to stand up and put aside their self-interest to make great 
sacrifices for the public good, for our country. I know because I have 
seen people do that. Like some of the people in this Chamber, I have 
seen people give everything for this country so we could sit here 
today.

[[Page S560]]

  Now, this isn't politically expedient. It certainly isn't for me. It 
is hard. It requires sacrifice. It is uncomfortable. But that is the 
very definition of ``public service''; that we are here to give of 
ourselves for the country, for others, at sacrifice to ourselves. Those 
who have given so much for this country deserve nothing less from us 
now than to try to honor those sacrifices. I have tried to do that the 
last few days. My time is done, and it is now your turn.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Chief Justice, Senators, counsel for the 
President, you will be pleased to know this is the last presentation of 
the evening. And as I started last night, I made reference to some good 
advice I got from an encouraging voice that said: Keep it up but not 
too long.
  Tonight I got some equally good advice: To be immortal, you don't 
need to be eternal. I will do my best not to be eternal.
  The first point I would like to make is I am tired. I don't know 
about you, but I am exhausted, and I can only imagine how you feel. But 
I am also very deeply grateful for just how you have attended to these 
presentations and discussions over the last few days. I am deeply 
grateful. I can tell how much consideration you have given to our point 
of view and the President's point of view, and that is all we can ask. 
At the end of the day, all we can ask is that you hear us out and make 
the best judgment that you can, consistent with your conscience and our 
Constitution.
  Now, I wanted to start out tonight with where we began when we first 
appeared before you about a week ago, and that is with the resolution 
itself, with what the President is charged with in the articles and how 
that holds up now that you have heard the evidence from the House.
  Donald Trump was impeached in article I for abuse of power, and that 
article provides that:

       In his conduct of the office of the President of the United 
     States--and in violation of his constitutional oath 
     faithfully to execute the office of President of the United 
     States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
     and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in 
     violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the 
     laws be faithfully executed--Donald J. Trump has abused the 
     powers of the Presidency, in that:
       Using the powers of his high office, President Trump 
     solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, 
     in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

  ``President Trump solicited interference of a foreign government, 
Ukraine, in the 2020 election.''
  That has been proved.

       He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that 
     included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly 
     announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, 
     harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and 
     influence the 2020 Presidential election to his advantage.

  That has been proved.

       President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of 
     Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United 
     States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its 
     public announcement of the investigations.

  That has been proved.

       President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct 
     for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political 
     benefit.

  That has been proved.

       In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the 
     Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security 
     of the United States and undermined the integrity of the 
     United States democratic process.

  That has been proved.

       He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

  That has been proved.

       President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct 
     through the following means:
       (1) President Trump--acting both directly and through his 
     agents within and outside the United States Government--
     corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly 
     announce investigations into--
       (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. 
     Biden, Jr.; and

  That has been proved.

       (B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that 
     Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 United 
     States Presidential election.

  That has been proved.

       (2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump--acting 
     both directly and through his agents within and outside the 
     United States Government--conditioned two official acts on 
     the public announcements that he had requested--
       (A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer 
     funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis 
     for the purpose of providing vital military and security 
     assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which 
     President Trump had ordered suspended.

  That has been proved.

       (B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the 
     President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United 
     States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of 
     Russian aggression.

  That has been proved.

       (3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, 
     President Trump ultimately released the military and 
     security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has 
     persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting 
     Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal 
     political benefit.

  That has been proved.

       These actions were consistent with President Trump's 
     previous invitations of foreign interference in United States 
     elections.

  That has been proved.

       In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the 
     Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and 
     other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal 
     political benefit.

  That has been proved.

       He also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to 
     enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.

  That has been proved.

       Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has 
     demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national 
     security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, 
     and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-
     governance and the rule of law.

  That has been proved.

       President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, 
     removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy 
     any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United 
     States.

  That will be for you to decide. But the facts have been proved. Those 
facts are not contested. We have met our burden.

       Article II: Obstruction of Congress.
       The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives 
     ``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and the 
     President ``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, 
     and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
     Misdemeanors.'' In his conduct of the office of President of 
     the United States--and in violation of his constitutional 
     oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the 
     United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, 
     protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, 
     and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that 
     the laws be faithfully executed--Donald J. Trump has directed 
     the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance 
     of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant 
     to its ``sole Power of Impeachment''.

  That has been proved.

       President Trump has abused the powers of Presidency in a 
     manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in 
     that:
       The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment 
     inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of 
     the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United 
     States Presidential election.

  That has been proved.

       As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees 
     undertaking investigation served subpoenas seeking documents 
     and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry for various 
     Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former 
     officials.

  That has been proved.

       In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President 
     Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and 
     officials not to comply with those subpoenas.

  That has been proved.

       President Trump thus interposed the powers of the 
     Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of 
     Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and 
     judgments necessary to the exercise of the ``sole Power of 
     Impeachment'' vested by the Constitution in the House of 
     Representatives.

  That has been proved.

       President Trump abused the powers of his high office 
     through the following means:
       (1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by 
     withholding the production of documents sought therein by the 
     Committees.

  That has been proved.

       (2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices 
     to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of 
     documents and records from the Committees--in response to 
     which the Department of State, Office of Management and 
     Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense 
     refused to produce a single document or record.

  That has been proved.

       (3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials 
     not to cooperate with the

[[Page S561]]

     Committees--in response to which nine Administration 
     officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael 
     ``Mick'' Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, 
     Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, 
     Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

  That has been proved.

       These actions were consistent with President Trump's 
     previous efforts to undermine United States Government 
     investigations into foreign interference in United States 
     elections.

  That has been proved.

       Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate 
     to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and 
     nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as 
     well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all 
     information to the House of Representatives in the exercise 
     of its ``sole Power of Impeachment.''

  That has been proved.

       In the history of the Republic, no President has ever 
     ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or 
     sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability 
     of the House of Representatives to investigate ``high Crimes 
     and Misdemeanors''.

  That has been proved.

       This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own 
     repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of 
     impeachment--and thus to nullify a vital constitutional 
     safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.

  This has been proved.

       In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner 
     contrary to his trust as President and subversive of 
     constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the 
     cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the 
     people of the United States.

  That has been proved.

       Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has 
     demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution 
     if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner 
     grossly incompatible with self-government and the rule of 
     law.

  That has been proved.

       President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, 
     removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy 
     any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United 
     States.

  That will be for you to determine.
  Let me say something about this second article. The facts of the 
President's defiance of Congress are very simple because they were so 
uniform, because they were so categorical, because they are so 
uncontested; yet do not mistake for a moment the fact that it was 
simple and quick to present that course of conduct compared with the 
sophisticated campaign to coerce Ukraine into thinking that that second 
article is any less significant than the first. Do not believe that for 
a moment. If there is no article II, let me tell you something: There 
will never be an article I. If there is no article II, there will never 
of any kind or shape or form be an article I.
  And why is that? Because, if you and we lack the power to investigate 
a President, there will never be an article I. Whether that article I 
is an abuse of power or that article I is treason or that article I is 
bribery, there will never be an article I if the Congress can't 
investigate an impeachable offense. If the Congress cannot investigate 
the President's own wrongdoing because the President prevents it, there 
will never be an article I because there will be no more impeachment 
power. It will be gone. It will be gone.
  As I said before, our relationship with Ukraine will survive. God 
willing, our relationship with Ukraine will survive, and Ukraine will 
prosper. We will get beyond this ugly chapter of our history.
  Yet, if we are to decide here that a President of the United States 
can simply say, Under article II, I can do whatever I want, and I don't 
have to treat a coequal branch of government like it exists, and I 
don't have to give it any more than the back of my hand, that will be 
an unending injury to this country--Ukraine will survive, and so will 
we--but that will be an unending injury to this country because the 
balance of power that our Founders set out will never be the same if a 
President can simply say: I am going to fight all subpoenas.
  I will tell you something else. Truism in the courts is just as true 
here in the Senate. When they say, ``Justice delayed is justice 
denied,'' if you give this President or any other the unilateral power 
to delay as long as he or she likes--to litigate matters for years and 
years in the courts--do not fool yourself into thinking it is anything 
less.
  In April, it will be a year since we subpoenaed Don McGahn, and there 
is no sign of an end to that case. I will tell you, when it gets to the 
Supreme Court, you might think that is the end, but it is just the end 
of the first chapter because Don McGahn is in court, saying: I am 
absolutely immune from testifying.
  Now, that has been rejected by every court that has looked at it. We 
will see what the court of appeals says, and then we will see if it 
goes to an en banc court of appeals, and then we will see what the 
Supreme Court says. When we prevail in the Supreme Court, do you know 
what happens? That is not the end of the matter. It goes back to the 
trial court, and then--well, they can't claim absolute immunity 
anymore. They can't claim that. They don't even have to bother showing 
up.
  So now we are going to turn to plan B, executive privilege, where 
``we can't and won't answer any of the questions that are really 
pertinent to your impeachment inquiry.'' Let's start out in district 
court and then go to the court of appeals and then go to the en banc 
and then go to the Supreme Court.
  You can game the system for years. Justice delayed is justice denied, 
and so it is true about Presidential accountability. When you suggest 
or I suggest or anyone suggests or the White House suggests ``why 
didn't the Congress--why didn't the House--just exhaust their 
remedies?''--as if in the Constitution, where it says ``the House shall 
have the sole Power of Impeachment'' there is an asterisk that reads: 
``after exhausting all court remedies and seeking relief in the 
district court and seeking relief in the court of appeals and, after 
that, going to the Supreme Court''--let's not kid ourselves about what 
that really is.
  What that really means is you allow the President to control the 
timing of his own impeachment or if it will ever be permitted to come 
before this body. That is not an impeachment power. That is the absence 
of an impeachment power.
  Article II is every bit as important as article I. Without article 
II, there is no article I ever again, no matter how egregious this 
President's conduct or any other's. It is fundamental to the separation 
of powers. If you can't have the ability to enforce an impeachment 
power, you might as well not put it in the Constitution.
  Shortly, the President's lawyers will have a chance to make their 
presentation. As we will not have the ability to respond to what they 
say, I want to give you a little preview of what I think they are going 
to have in store for you so that, when you do hear it, you can put it 
into some perspective.
  I expect that they will attack the process, and I don't think that is 
any mystery. I want to tell you both what I expect they will share with 
you and what it really means. When you cut through all of the chaff, 
what does it really mean that they are saying? This is what I expect 
they will tell you.
  The process was so unfair. It was the most unfair in the history of 
the world because, in the House, they took depositions. How dare they 
take depositions? How dare they listen to Trey Gowdy? How dare they 
follow the Republican procedures that preceded their investigation? How 
dare they?
  They were so secretive in the bunker in the basement, as if whether 
it is on the ground floor or in the basement or on the first floor 
makes any difference. There were those supersecret depositions in which 
only 100 Members of Congress--equivalent to the entire Senate--could 
participate. That is how secret they were. That is how exclusive they 
were. Every Democrat, every Republican on the three committees could 
participate. Of course, that wasn't enough, so you even had more storm 
the SCIF, right? So you have 100 people who can participate, but as you 
heard earlier, the Republicans were not allowed to participate.

  OK. That is just false. Do you know how we did it in those 
supersecret depositions? You can look this up yourselves because we 
released the transcripts. We got an hour. They got an hour. We got 45 
minutes. They got 45 minutes. We did that back and forth until everyone 
was done asking their questions.
  You are going to hear that Chairman Schiff was so unfair, he wouldn't 
allow us to ask our questions. Well, there were certain questions I 
didn't allow,

[[Page S562]]

questions like ``Who is the whistleblower? because we want to punish 
that whistleblower.'' Some of us in that House and in this House 
believe we ought to protect whistleblowers. So, yes, I did not allow 
the outing of the whistleblower.
  When they say the chairman wouldn't allow certain questions, that is 
what they mean. It means that we protect people who have the courage to 
come forward and blow the whistle, and we don't think--though the 
President might--that they are traitors and spies. To believe that 
someone who blows the whistle on misconduct of the serious nature that 
you now know took place is a traitor or a spy, there is only one way 
you can come to that conclusion, and that is if you believe you are the 
state and that anything that contradicts you is treason. That is the 
only way that you could conceive of someone who exposes wrongdoing as 
being a traitor or a spy, but that is exactly how this President views 
those who expose his wrongdoing--because he is the state. Like any good 
monarch, he is the state.
  You will hear the President wasn't allowed to participate in the 
Judiciary Committee. Well, that is false, too, as you know. The 
President had the same rights in our proceedings as President Nixon and 
President Clinton. Nonetheless, you will hear it was so unfair.
  One other thing that was really unfair was that all of the subpoenas 
were invalid because the House didn't pass a resolution announcing its 
impeachment inquiry--never mind that we actually did. The problem was, 
they said, well, we had not, and then we did. Then the problem was, 
well, you did.
  Of course, as you know, the Constitution says the House will ``have 
the sole Power of Impeachment.'' If we want to do it by House 
resolution, we can do it by House resolution. If we want to do it by 
committee, we can do it by committee. It is not the President's place 
to tell us how to conduct an impeachment proceeding any more than it is 
the President's place to tell you how you should try it.
  So, when you see that eight-page diatribe from the White House 
Counsel, saying we should have been able to have had a resolution in 
the House or we should have been able to have had ``this,'' what you 
should hear--what they really mean--is Donald Trump had the right to 
control his own impeachment proceeding, and it is an outrage that 
Donald Trump didn't get to write the rules of his own impeachment 
proceeding in the House. If you give a President that right, there is 
no impeachment power. You will hear them say that.
  You will hear them complain about depositions that were the same as 
the Republicans' or the right to participate that was the same as with 
Clinton and Nixon and that, by the way, they were not allowed to call 
witnesses, they said. Well, 3 of the 12 witnesses that we heard in our 
open hearings were the minority's witness requests. You will hear those 
arguments, that it was the most unfair in history. The fact is we have 
the same process.
  In those other impeachments, the majority did not surrender its 
subpoena power to the minority. Do you know what it did? It said you 
can subpoena witnesses, and if the majority doesn't agree, you can 
force a vote. That is the same process we have here. The majority does 
not surrender its subpoena power. It didn't in the prior impeachments, 
and it didn't in this one. When they say the process was unfair, what 
they really mean is, Don't look at what the President did. For God's 
sake, don't look at what the President did.
  I think the second thing you will hear from the President's team will 
be to attack the managers. Those managers are just awful. They are 
terrible people, especially that Schiff guy. He is the worst. He is the 
worst. In exhibit A, he mocked the President. He mocked the President. 
He mocked the President as if he was shaking down the leader of another 
country like he was an organized crime figure. He mocked the President. 
He said it was like the President said: Listen, Zelensky, because I am 
only going to say this seven times.
  Well, I discovered something very significant by mocking the 
President, and that is, for a man who loves to mock others, he does not 
like to be mocked. As it turns out, he has got pretty thin skin. Who 
would have thought? Never mind that I said I wasn't using his words 
before I said it and that I wasn't using his words after I said it and 
that I said I was making a parody of his words. It is an outrage, he 
mocked the President--that Schiff, terrible.
  They will attack other colleagues, too, for things said in the heat 
of debate here on the floor as we were reaching the wee hours in the 
morning, and they will attack some of my colleagues who aren't even in 
this Chamber. Maybe they will attack The Squad. That is a perennial 
favorite with the President. If they attack The Squad, you should ask: 
What does that have to do with the price of beans?
  You can expect attacks on all kinds of Members of the House that have 
nothing to do with the issues before you. When you hear those attacks, 
you should ask yourself: Away from what do they want to distract my 
attention? Nine times out of ten, it will be the President's 
misconduct. Look for it--attacks on the managers, attacks on other 
House Members, attacks on the Speaker, attacks on who knows what. It is 
all of the same ilk. Whatever you do, just don't consider the 
President's misconduct.
  You will also hear attacks on the Constitution. Of course, it will 
not be framed as attacking the Constitution, but that is really what it 
represents, and that is: Abuse of power doesn't violate the 
Constitution.
  Presidents of the United States have every right to abuse their 
power. That is the argument.
  OK. I know it is a hard argument to make, right? Presidents have a 
constitutional right to abuse their power, and how dare the House of 
Representatives charge a President with abusing his power?
  Now, I am looking forward to that constitutional argument by Alan 
Dershowitz because I want to know why abusing power and trust is not 
impeachable now, but it was a few years ago. The last time I checked, I 
don't think there was significant change to the Constitution between 
the time he said it was impeachable and the time he is saying now that, 
apparently, it is not impeachable. So I am looking forward to that 
argument.
  But I am also looking forward to Ken Starr's presentation because, 
during the Clinton impeachment, he maintained that a President not only 
could but must be impeached for obstructing justice, that Clinton--Bill 
Clinton--needed to be impeached because he lied under oath about sex, 
and to do so obstructed justice.
  You can be impeached for obstructing justice, but you cannot be 
impeached for obstructing Congress.
  Now, I have to confess I don't know exactly how that is supposed to 
work because the logical conclusion from that is Ken Starr is saying 
that Bill Clinton's mistake was in showing up under subpoena, that Bill 
Clinton's mistake was in not saying: I am going to fight all subpoenas. 
Bill Clinton's mistake was in not taking the position that under 
article II he could do whatever he wanted.
  Does that really make any sense? You can be impeached for obstructing 
your own branch of government, but you cannot be impeached for 
obstructing a coequal branch of government. That would make no sense to 
the Framers. I have to think, over the centuries, as they have watched 
us, they would be astonished that anyone would take that argument 
seriously or could so misapprehend how this balance of power is 
supposed to work.
  So I look forward to that argument, and maybe, when they make that 
argument, they can explain to us why their position on abuse of power 
isn't even supported by their own Attorney General. So I hope they will 
answer why even their own Attorney General doesn't agree with them--not 
to mention, by the way, the constitutional law expert called by the 
Republicans in the House who also testified, as to abuse of power, that 
it is impeachable, that you don't need a crime. It is impeachable.
  When you hear them make these arguments--cannot be impeached for 
abusing your power--this is what it really means: We cannot defend his 
conduct, so we want to make it go all away without even having to think 
about it. You don't even need to think about what the President did 
because

[[Page S563]]

the House charged it wrong, so don't even consider what the President 
did. That is what that argument means. We can't defend the 
indefensible, so we have to fall back on this: Even if he abused his 
office, even if he did all the things he is accused of, that is 
perfectly fine. Nothing can be done about it.
  You will also hear, as part of the defense--and you heard this from 
Jay Sekulow. I think it was the last thing he said: ``The 
whistleblower.'' And then he stepped back to the table. ``The 
whistleblower.''
  I don't really know what that means, but I suspect you will hear more 
of that. ``The whistleblower.'' ``The whistleblower.'' It is his or her 
fault that we are here. ``The whistleblower.''
  You know, I would encourage you to read the whistleblower complaint 
again. When you read that complaint again, you will see just how 
remarkably accurate it is. It is astonishingly accurate.
  You know, for all the times the President is out there saying that 
the complaint was all wrong, was all wrong, you read it--now that you 
have heard the evidence, you read it, and you will see how remarkably 
right the whistleblower is.
  When that complaint was filed, it was obviously before we had our 
depositions and had our hearings, all of which obviated the need for 
the whistleblower.
  In the beginning, we wanted the whistleblower to come and testify 
because all that we knew about was the complaint, but then we were able 
to hear from firsthand witnesses about what happened.
  Then something else happened. The President and his allies began 
threatening the whistleblower, and the life of the whistleblower was at 
risk. And what was the point in exposing that whistleblower at the risk 
of his or her life when we had the evidence we needed? What was the 
point, except retribution? Retribution--and the President wants it 
still.
  Do you know why the President is mad at the whistleblower? Because, 
but for the whistleblower, he wouldn't have been caught, and that is an 
unforgiveable sin. He is the State, and but for the whistleblower, the 
President wouldn't have been caught. For that he is a spy, and he is 
guilty of treason.
  Now, what does he add to this? Nothing but retribution--a pound of 
flesh.
  You will also hear the President's defense: They hate the President. 
They hate the President. You should not consider the President's 
misconduct because they hate the President.
  Now, what I have said--I will leave you to your own judgments about 
the President. I only hate what he has done to this country. I grieve 
for what he has done to this country.
  But when they make the argument to you that this is only happening 
because they hate the President, it is just another of the myriad forms 
of ``Please do not consider what the President did.''
  Whether you like the President or you dislike the President is 
immaterial. It is all about the Constitution and his misconduct. If it 
meets the standard of impeachable conduct, as we have proved, it 
doesn't matter whether you like him; it doesn't matter whether you 
dislike him. What matters is whether he is a danger to the country 
because he will do it again, and none of us can have confidence, based 
on his record, that he will not do it again because he is telling us 
every day that he will.

  You will hear the further defense that Biden is corrupt--that Joe 
Biden is corrupt, that Hunter Biden is corrupt. This is their defense. 
It is another defense because what they hope to achieve in a Senate 
trial is what they couldn't achieve through their scheme.
  If they couldn't get Ukraine to smear the Bidens, they want to use 
this trial to do it instead. So let's call Hunter Biden. Let's smear 
the Bidens. Let's succeed in the trial with what we couldn't do with 
this scheme. That is the goal.
  Now, I don't know whether Rudy Giuliani, who said he was going to 
present his report to some of the Senators, has presented his report. 
Maybe he has. Maybe you will get to see what is in Rudy Giuliani's 
report. Maybe you will get to see some documents smearing the Bidens 
produced by--who knows? Maybe these same Russian, corrupt former 
prosecutors.
  But make no mistake about what that is about. It is about completing 
the object of the scheme through other means, through the means of this 
trial.
  You may hear the argument that what the President is doing when he is 
obstructing Congress is protecting the office for future Presidents 
because there is nothing more important to Donald Trump than protecting 
the Office of the Presidency for future Presidents. And I suppose when 
he withheld military aid from Ukraine, he was trying to protect future 
Presidents. And when he sought to force a foreign power to intervene in 
our election, he was doing it on behalf of future Presidents because 
future Presidents might likewise wish to cheat in a further election.
  I don't think that argument goes very far, but I expect you will hear 
it. I expect you will hear it.
  You may hear an argument that the President was really concerned 
about corruption, and he was concerned about the burden-sharing. I 
won't spend much time on that because you have heard the evidence on 
that. There is no indication that this had anything to do with 
corruption and every, every bit of evidence that it had nothing to do 
with fighting corruption or burden-sharing. Indeed, nothing about the 
burden changed between the time he froze the aid and the time he 
released the aid. There was no new effort to get others to contribute 
more, and Europe contributes a great deal as it is. This is an after-
the-fact rationalization.
  You probably saw the public reporting that there was an exhaustive 
effort after the fact to come up with a post hoc rationalization for 
this scheme. I would like to show you the product of that 
investigation, but I will need your help because it is among the 
documents they refuse to turn over. They will show you just what an 
after-the-fact invention this argument is.
  Now, I expect you will hear the argument that Obama did it. Obama did 
it. That may take several different forms, but the form of ``Obama did 
it'' that I am referring to is ``Obama also withheld aid.'' Honestly, I 
think that argument is an insult to our intelligence because the 
argument is that Obama withheld aid from Egypt, and he made a condition 
with it.
  Obama withheld aid from Egypt after they had a revolution and 
circumstances changed. And do you know something? He didn't hide it 
from Congress. In fact, Congress supported it. Yes, there are times 
when we withhold aid for a good policy reason--not a corrupt effort to 
get help in your election.
  The American people know the difference between right and wrong. They 
can recognize the difference between aid that is withheld for a 
malicious purpose and aid that is held in the best interests of our 
national security. But you will hear the ``Obama did it'' argument.
  You will hear the call was perfect. You will hear the call was 
perfect. I suspect the reason they will make the argument that the call 
was perfect is because the President insists that they do. I don't 
think they really want to have to make that argument. You wouldn't 
either. But they have a client to represent, so they will make the 
argument that the call was perfect, and they will also make the 
argument that Ukraine thinks the call was perfect. Ukraine says there 
was no pressure.
  What that really means is that Ukraine wants a future. Ukraine knows 
it is still beholden to us for aid. Ukraine still hasn't gotten in 
through the door of the White House. Ukraine knows if they acknowledged 
that they were shaken down by the President of the United States, the 
President of the United States will make them pay. So when you hear 
them say that Ukraine felt no pressure and their proof is because the 
Ukraine President doesn't want to call the President of the United 
States a bad name, you will know why--because they need America. They 
need America. The Framers did not expect you to leave your common sense 
at the door.

  Now, you will also hear the defense that the President said there was 
``no quid pro quo.'' The President said there was ``no quid pro quo.'' 
I guess that is the end of the story. This is a well-known principle of 
criminal law--that if the defendant says he didn't do it, he couldn't 
have done it.

[[Page S564]]

  If the defendant learns he has been caught and he says that he didn't 
do it, he couldn't have done it. That doesn't hold up in any courtroom. 
It shouldn't hold up here.
  You also will hear a variation of ``no harm no foul.'' They got the 
money. They got the money, and they got the meeting--even though they 
didn't. They got the meeting on the sideline of the U.N.--kind of a 
drive-by. But they got a meeting--no harm no foul, right? The meeting 
on the sidelines is pretty much the same thing, right, as a head-of-
state meeting in the Oval Office? Of course, it is not.
  Why do you think, at the meeting at the United Nations, the President 
of Ukraine was still saying: Hey, when am I going to get to come to 
town? He certainly recognizes the difference, and we should too. What 
is more, there is every bit of harm and every bit of foul in 
withholding aid from an ally at war and releasing it only when you are 
caught.
  Russia knows now about the wedge in our relations with Ukraine. The 
moment Russia found out about this--and I have to imagine, given how 
good their intel services are, they did not have to wait for POLITICO 
to break the story any more than Ukraine. In fact, there is so deep a 
penetration of Ukraine, I would have to expect that the Russians would 
have found out at least as early as the Ukrainians did, if not earlier.
  The moment Ukraine learned and Russia learned, there was harm, 
because Ukraine knew they couldn't trust us and Russia knew they could 
take advantage of us. There was immediate harm, and just because 
someone is caught, because a scheme is thwarted, doesn't make that 
scheme any less criminal and corrupt. You get no pass when you get 
caught.
  I expect one of the defenses you will see is they will play you 
certain testimony from the House where my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle ask questions like these: Did the President ever say he 
was bribing Ukraine? Did you ever see him actually bribe Ukraine? Did 
you hear him say that he was going to bribe Ukraine? Did you personally 
see this yourself? If you didn't see it, if he didn't lay it out for 
you, then it could not have happened. Two plus two does not equal four. 
You are not allowed to consider anything except for a televised 
confession by the President, and, even then, don't consider it.
  So I imagine you will hear some of that testimony where witnesses are 
asked--they work for the Defense Department: Did the President ever 
tell you that he was conditioning the aid? Never mind that these are 
people who don't necessarily even talk to the President, but I expect 
you will see some of that.
  As I mentioned before, you will hear the defense say: We claim 
privilege. You can't impeach the President over the exercise of 
privilege. Never mind the fact that they never claimed privilege; they 
never asserted privilege. And do you know why? Do you know why they 
never actually invoked privilege in the House? It is because they know 
that if they did, they would have to produce the documents and they 
would have to show what they were redacting, and they didn't want to do 
even that. They knew for the overwhelming majority of the documents and 
witness testimony there was no even colorable claim of privilege. So 
they didn't even want to invoke it. All they were saying is ``Maybe 
someday.'' But you will hear that you can't be impeached for a claim of 
privilege they never made.
  So what do all these defenses mean? What do they mean? What do they 
mean collectively when you add them all up?
  What they mean is, under article II, the President can do whatever he 
wants. That is really it. That is really it, stripped of all the detail 
and all the histrionics. What they want us to believe is that the 
President can do whatever he wants under article II, and there is 
nothing that you or the House can do about it.
  Robert Kennedy once said:

       Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle 
     or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital 
     quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most 
     painfully to change.

  ``Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle.'' I have 
to say, when I first read that, I wasn't sure I agreed. Moral courage 
is a rarer quality than courage in battle. It just doesn't seem right. 
I wasn't sure I really agreed, and for a Democrat not to agree with a 
Kennedy is kind of a heresy. I am sure my GOP colleagues feel the same 
way about the Kennedys from Louisiana. After all, what can be more 
brave than courage in battle? What could be more rare than courage in 
battle? But then I got to visit, as I know all of you have, our 
servicemembers around the world and see just how blessed we are with an 
abundance of heroes by the millions who have joined the service of this 
country--servicemembers who, every day, demonstrate the most incredible 
bravery. I just have the greatest respect for them, for people like 
Jason Crow and John McCain and Daniel Inouye and so many others who 
served in this body or the other or who never served in office, by the 
millions, around the country and around the world--the most incredible 
respect. It is an amazing thing, how common is their uncommon bravery.
  My father is 92. He is probably watching. He is part of the 
``greatest generation.'' He left high school early to join the service. 
He tried to enlist in the Marine Corps, and he failed the physical. At 
the end of World War II, he failed the physical for bad eyesight and 
flat feet--which was apparently enough to fail the physical. So 2 weeks 
later, he went and tried to enlist in the Army, thinking: Maybe it is a 
different physical standard, and even if it isn't, maybe I will get a 
different physician. As it turned out--same standard, same physician. 
He recognized my father, and he said: Weren't you here 2 weeks ago?

  And my father said: Yeah.
  And he said: Do you really want to get in that bad?
  And my father said: Yeah. And he was in the Army.
  So the war was over, and he never left the United States. When he 
left the service, he went to the University of Alabama. About midway 
through, he wanted to get on with his life, and he left college and 
went out into the business world. It is something he will always 
regret--leaving college early--but I think in many ways he got a better 
education than I did.
  I think I was lucky to get a good education, but I think those like 
Jason--and others who served in the military and also went to school--
got the best education. But I think there are certain things you can 
only learn by being in the military. Certainly, you can't really learn 
about war without going to war, and maybe there are things you just 
can't learn about life without going to war. So those of you who have 
served have the most complete education I think there is.
  Even so, is moral courage really more rare than that on a 
battlefield? And then I saw what Robert Kennedy meant by moral courage. 
He said: ``Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their peers, 
the censure of their colleagues, [and] the wrath of their society.''
  Then I understood by that measure just how rare moral courage is. How 
many of us are willing to brave the disapproval of our peers, the 
censure of our colleagues, and the wrath of our society?
  Just as those who have not served in the military can't fully 
understand what service means, so, too, there is a different kind of 
paternity or sorority among those who have served in the House. I 
always tell my constituents that there are two kinds of jobs in 
Congress, and it is not Democrats or Republicans; it is those in a safe 
seat, and those in an unsafe seat. I am sure the same is true of those 
in a safe State or an unsafe State. It is why I think there is a 
certain chemistry between Members who represent those swing districts 
and States--because they can step into each other's shoes.
  One of the things that we in this fellowship of officeholders 
understand that most people don't is that real political courage 
doesn't come from disagreeing with our opponents but from disagreeing 
with our friends and with our own party because it means having to 
stare down accusations of disloyalty and betrayal: He's a Democrat in 
name only or she's a Republican in name only.
  What I said last night, if it resonated with anyone in this Chamber, 
didn't require courage. My views, as heartfelt as they are, reflect the 
views of my constituents. But what happens when

[[Page S565]]

our heartfelt views of right and wrong are in conflict with the popular 
opinion of our constituents?
  What happens when the devotion to our oaths, to our values, to our 
love of country depart from the momentary passion of the large number 
of people backing us? Those are the times that try our souls.
  CBS news reported last night that a Trump confidante said that GOP 
Senators were warned: ``Vote against the President, and your head will 
be on a pike.'' I don't know if that is true.
  ``Vote against the President, and your head will be on a pike.'' I 
have to say when I read that--and again, I don't know if that is true, 
but when I read that, I was struck by the irony. I hope it is not true. 
I hope it is not true. I was struck by the irony of the idea, when we 
are talking about a President who would make himself a Monarch, that 
whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was 
opposed by a Monarch--``head on a pike.''
  Just this week America lost a hero, Thomas Railsback, who passed away 
on Monday, the day before this trial began. Some of you may have known 
or even served with Congressman Thomas Railsback. He was a Republican 
from Illinois and the second ranking Member on the House Judiciary 
Committee when that committee was conducting its impeachment inquiry 
into President Nixon.
  In July of 1974, as the inquiry was coming to a close, Congressman 
Railsback began meeting with a bipartisan group of Members of the 
House--three other Republicans and three Democrats. Here in the Senate 
they might have called them the Gang of 7.
  They gathered and they talked and they labored over language and 
ultimately helped develop the bipartisan support for the articles that 
led a group of Republican Senators, including Barry Goldwater and 
Howard Baker, to tell President Nixon that he must resign.
  Some say that the Nixon impeachment might not have moved forward were 
it not for those four courageous Republicans led by Congressman 
Railsback, and it pained the Congressman because he credited Nixon with 
giving him his seat and with getting him elected. He did it, he said, 
because ``seeing all the evidence, it was something we had to do 
because the evidence was there.'' One of his aides, Ray LaHood, 
eulogized him saying: He felt an obligation to the Constitution to do 
what is right.
  Now, soon, Members of this body will face the most momentous of 
decisions--not, as I said at the outset, between guilt and innocence, 
but a far more foundational issue: Should there be a fair trial? Shall 
the House be able to present its case with witnesses and documents 
through the use of subpoenas as has been the case in every impeachment 
trial in history?
  Now, the President's lawyers have been making their case outside of 
this Chamber, threatening to stall these proceedings with the assertion 
of false claims of privilege. Having persuaded this body to postpone 
consideration of the witnesses and documents, they now appear to be 
preparing the ground to say it will be too late to consider them next 
week.
  But consider this: Of the hundreds of documents that we have 
subpoenaed, there is no colorable claim and none has been asserted. To 
the degree that you could even make a claim, that claim has been 
waived. To the degree that even superficially the claim would attach, 
it does not conceal misconduct. And what is more, to the degree that 
there were a dispute over whether a privilege applied, we have a 
perfectly good judge sitting behind me empowered by the rules of this 
body to resolve those disputes.
  When the Chief Justice decides where a narrow application of 
privilege ought to apply, you will still have the power to overrule 
him. How often do you get the chance to overrule a Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court? You have to admit, it is every legislator's dream.
  So let us not be fooled by the argument that it will take too long or 
persuaded that the trial must be over before the State of the Union. 
This is no parking ticket we are contesting and no shoplifting case we 
are prosecuting. It is a matter of high crimes and misdemeanors.
  How long is too long to have a fair trial--fair to the President and 
fair to the American people? The American people do not agree on much, 
but they will not forgive being deprived of the truth and certainly not 
because it took a back seat to expediency.
  In his pamphlet of 1777, ``The American Crisis,'' Thomas Paine wrote:

       Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must . . 
     . undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

  Is it too much fatigue to call witnesses and have a fair trial? Are 
the blessings of freedom so meager that we will not endure the fatigue 
of a real trial with witnesses and documents?
  President Lincoln, in his closing message to Congress in December 
1862, said this:

       Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this 
     Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite 
     of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, 
     can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which 
     we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the 
     latest generation.

  I think he was the most interesting President in history. He may be 
the most interesting person in our history. This man, who started out 
dirt poor--dirt poor. Like hundreds of thousands of other people at the 
time, he had nothing--no money and no education. He educated himself. 
He educated himself. But he had a brain in that head, a brilliance in 
that mind that made him one of the most incredible, not just 
Presidents, but people in history.
  I think he is the most interesting character in our history. Out of 
the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of other Americans at the time, 
why him? Why him?
  I think a lot about history, as I know you do. Sometimes I think 
about how unforgiving history can be of our conduct.
  We can do a lifetime's work, draft the most wonderful legislation, 
help our constituents, and yet we may be remembered for none of that. 
But for a single decision, we may be remembered, affecting the course 
of our country.
  I believe this may be one of those moments--a moment we never thought 
we would see, a moment when our democracy was gravely threatened and 
not from without but from within.
  Russia, too, has a constitution. It is not a bad constitution. It is 
just a meaningless one. In Russia, they have trial by telephone. They 
have the same ostensible rights we do to a trial. They hear evidence 
and witnesses, but before the verdict is rendered, the judge picks up 
the telephone and calls the right person to find out how it is supposed 
to turn out. Trial by telephone. Is that what we have here--a trial by 
telephone, someone on the other end of the phone dictating what this 
trial should look like?
  The Founders gave us more than words. They gave us inspiration. They 
may have receded into mythology, but they inspire us still. And more 
than us, they inspire the rest of the world. They inspire the rest of 
the world.
  From their prison cells in Turkey, journalists look to us. From their 
internment camps in China, they look to us. From their cells in Egypt, 
those who gathered in Tahrir Square for a better life look to us. From 
the Philippines, those who were the victims and their families of mass 
extrajudicial killings, they look to us. From Elgin prison, they look 
to us. From all over the world, they look to us.
  Increasingly, they don't recognize what they see. It is a terrible 
tragedy for them. It is a worse tragedy for us, because there is 
nowhere else for them to turn. They are not going to turn to Russia. 
They are not going to turn to China. They are not going to turn to 
Europe with all of its problems. They look to us because we are still 
the indispensable Nation. They look to us because we have a rule of 
law. They look to us because no one is above that law.
  One of the things that separates us from those people in Elgin prison 
is the right to a trial. It is a right to a trial. Americans get a fair 
trial.
  So I am asking you. I implore you. Give America a fair trial. Give 
America a fair trial. She is worth it.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________