[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S753-S769]
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 lead us in prayer.


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

  
  On page S753, January 31, 2020, first column, the following 
appears: The Chaplain will offer a prayer.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The Chaplain will 
lead us in prayer.


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


                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Eternal Lord God, you have summarized ethical behavior in a single 
sentence: Do for others what you would like them to do for you. Remind 
our Senators that they alone are accountable to You for their conduct. 
Lord, help them to remember that they can't ignore You and get away 
with it for we always reap what we sow.
  Have Your way, Mighty God. You are the potter. Our Senators and we 
are the clay. Mold and make us after Your will. Stand up, omnipotent 
God. Stretch Yourself and let this Nation and world know that You alone 
are sovereign.
  I pray in the Name of Jesus. Amen.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Please join me in reciting the Pledge of 
Allegiance to the flag.


                          Pledge of Allegiance

       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 CHIEF JUSTICE. Senators, please be seated.


                              The Journal

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. If there is no objection, the Journal of 
proceedings of the trial is approved to date.
  The Deputy Sergeant at Arms will make the proclamation.
  The Deputy Sergeant at Arms, Jennifer Hemingway, made the 
proclamation as follows:

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

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. For the information of all colleagues, we will take a 
break about 2 hours in.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 483, the 
Senate has provided up to 4 hours of argument by the parties, equally 
divided, on the question of whether or not it shall be in order to 
consider and debate under the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena 
witnesses or documents.
  Mr. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent or opponent?
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Proponent.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Cipollone, are you a proponent or opponent?
  Mr. CIPOLLONE. Opponent.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Schiff, you may proceed.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Before I begin, Mr. Chief Justice, the House 
managers will be reserving the balance of our time to respond to the 
argument of counsel for the President.
  Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, fellow House managers, and counsel for 
the President, I know I speak for my fellow managers, as well as 
counsel for the President, in thanking you for your careful attention 
to the arguments that we have made over the course of many long days.
  Today, we were greeted to yet another development in the case when 
the New York Times reported with a headline that says:

       Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, 
     Book Says
       The President asked his national security adviser last 
     spring in front of other senior advisers to pave the way for 
     a meeting between Rudolph Giuliani and Ukraine's new leader.

  According to the New York Times:

       More than two months before he asked Ukraine's president to 
     investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed 
     John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help 
     with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on 
     Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an 
     unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.
       Mr. Trump gave the instruction, Mr. Bolton wrote, during an 
     Oval Office conversation in early May that included the 
     acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, the 
     president's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and the White 
     House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, who is now leading the 
     President's impeachment defense.

  You will see in a few moments--and you will recall Mr. Cipollone 
suggesting that the House managers were concealing facts from this 
body. He said all the facts should come out. Well, there is a new fact 
which indicates that Mr. Cipollone was one of those who were in the 
loop--yet another reason why we ought to hear

[[Page S754]]

from witnesses. Just as we predicted--and it didn't require any great 
act of clairvoyance--the facts will come out. They will continue to 
come out. And the question before you today is whether they will come 
out in time for you to make a complete and informed judgment as to the 
guilt or innocence of the President.
  Now, that Times article goes on to say:

       Mr. Trump told Mr. Bolton to call Volodymyr Zelensky, who 
     had recently won election as president of Ukraine, to ensure 
     Mr. Zelensky would meet with Mr. Giuliani, who was planning a 
     trip to Ukraine to discuss the investigations that the 
     President sought, in Mr. Bolton's account. Mr. Bolton never 
     made the call, he wrote.

  ``Never made the call.'' Mr. Bolton understood that this was wrong. 
He understood that this was not policy. He understood that this was a 
domestic political errand and refused to make the call.

       The account in Mr. Bolton's manuscript portrays the most 
     senior White House advisers as early witnesses in the effort 
     that they have sought to distance the President from.

  Including the White House Counsel.

       Over several pages--

  According to the Times--

     Mr. Bolton laid out Mr. Trump's fixation on Ukraine and the 
     president's belief, based on a mix of scattershot events, 
     assertions and outright conspiracy theories, that Ukraine 
     tried to undermine his chances of winning the presidency in 
     2016.
       As he began to realize the extent and aims of the pressure 
     campaign, Mr. Bolton began to object, he wrote in the book, 
     affirming the testimony of a former National Security Council 
     aide, Fiona Hill, who had said that Mr. Bolton warned that 
     Mr. Giuliani was ``a hand grenade who's going to blow 
     everybody up.''

  Now, as you might imagine, the President denies this. The President 
said today: ``I never instructed John Bolton to set up a meeting for 
Rudy Giuliani, one of the greatest corruption fighters in America.''
  So here you have the President saying John Bolton is not telling the 
truth. Let's find out. Let's put John Bolton under oath. Let's find out 
who is telling the truth. A trial is supposed to be a quest for the 
truth. Let's not fear what we will learn. As Mr. Cipollone said, let's 
make sure that all facts come out.
  Mrs. Manager DEMINGS. Mr. Chief Justice, Senators, counsel for the 
President, last Tuesday, at the onset of this trial, we moved for 
Leader McConnell's resolution to be amended to subpoena documents and 
witnesses from the outset. This body decided to hold the question over. 
You have now heard opening arguments from both sides. You have seen the 
evidence that the House was able to collect. You have heard about the 
documents and witnesses President Trump blocked from the House's 
impeachment inquiry. We have vigorously questioned both sides.
  The President's counsel has urged you to decide this case and render 
your verdict upon the record assembled by the House. The evidence in 
the record is sufficient. It is sufficient to convict the President on 
both Articles of Impeachment--more than sufficient.
  But that is simply not how trials work. As any prosecutor or defense 
lawyer would tell you, when a case goes to trial, both sides call 
witnesses and subpoena documents to bring before the jury. That happens 
every day in courtrooms all across America. There is no reason why this 
impeachment trial should be any different. The commonsense practice is 
borne out of precedence. There has never been--never before been--a 
full Senate impeachment trial without a single witness. In fact, you 
can see in the slide that in every one of the 15 prior impeachment 
trials the Senate has called multiple witnesses. Today we ask you to 
follow this body's uniform precedence and your common sense. We urge 
you to vote in favor of subpoenaing witnesses and documents.
  Now, I would like to address one question at the outset. There has 
been much back and forth about whether if the House believes it has 
sufficient evidence to convict, which we do, why do we need more 
witnesses and documents? So I would like to be clear. The evidence 
presented over the past week and a half strongly supports a vote to 
convict the President. The evidence is overwhelming. We have a mountain 
of evidence. It is direct, it is corroborated by multiple sources, and 
it proves that the President committed grave impeachable offenses to 
cheat in the next election.
  The evidence confirms that if left in office, President Trump will 
continue to harm America's national security. He will continue to seek 
to corrupt the upcoming election. And he will undermine--he will 
undermine--our democracy all to further his own personal gain.
  But this is a fundamental question that must be addressed: Is this a 
fair trial? Is this a fair trial? Is this a fair trial? Without the 
ability to call witnesses and produce documents, the answer is clearly 
and unequivocally no. It was the President's decision to contest the 
facts, and that is his right, but because he has chosen to contest the 
facts, he shall not be heard to complain that the House wishes to 
further prove his guilt to answer the questions he would raise. He 
complains that few witnesses spoke directly to the President about his 
misconduct beyond his damning conversations with Sondland and Mulvaney. 
OK, let's hear from others, then--the witnesses the House wishes to 
call directly to the President's own words, his own admissions of 
guilt, his own confessions of responsibility. If they did not, all the 
President's men would be on their witness list, not ours.
  These witnesses and the documents their agencies produced tell the 
full story. And I believe that we are interested in hearing the full 
story. You should want to hear it. More than that, the American 
people--we know they want to hear it.

  The House Republicans' own expert witness in the House, Professor 
Turley, said, if you could prove the President used our military aid to 
pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival and interfere in our 
elections, it would be an impeachable abuse of power. Senator Graham, 
too, recognized that, if such evidence existed, it could potentially 
change his mind on impeachment.
  Well, we now have another witness--a fact witness--who would 
reportedly say exactly that. Ambassador Bolton's new manuscript, which 
we will discuss in more detail in a moment, reportedly confirms that 
the President told him in no uncertain terms--we are talking about the 
former National Security Advisor saying that the President told him in 
no uncertain terms--no aid until investigations, including the Bidens.
  For a week and a half, the President has said no such evidence 
exists. They are wrong. If you have any doubt about the evidence, the 
evidence is at your fingertips. The question is: Will you let all of 
us, including the American people, hear--simply hear--the evidence and 
make up their own minds? And you can make up your own minds, but will 
we let the American people hear all of the evidence?
  You will recall that Ambassador Bolton, the President's former 
National Security Advisor, is one of the witnesses we asked for last 
Tuesday. We did not know, at the time, what he would say. We didn't 
know what kind of witness he would be, but Ambassador Bolton made clear 
that he was willing to testify and that he had relevant, firsthand 
knowledge that had not yet been heard. We urged--we argued--that we all 
deserved to hear that evidence, but the President opposed him. Now we 
know why--because John Bolton could corroborate the rest of our 
evidence and confirm the President's guilt.
  So, today, Senators, we come before you, and we urge again--we 
argue--that you let this witness and the other key witnesses we have 
identified come forward so you will have all of the information 
available to you when you make this consequential decision.
  If witnesses are not called here, these proceedings will be a trial 
in name only, and the American people clearly know a fair trial when 
they see one. Large majorities of the American people want to hear from 
witnesses in this trial, and they have a right to hear from witnesses 
in this trial. Let's hear from them. Let's look them in the eye, gain 
their credibility, and hear what they have to say about the President's 
actions.
  For the same reasons, this body should grant our request to subpoena 
documents, the documents that the President also blocked the House from 
obtaining--documents from the White House, the State Department, the 
DOD, and the OMB--that will complete the story and provide the whole 
truth,

[[Page S755]]

whatever that may be. We ask that you subpoena these documents so that 
you can decide for yourselves. If you have any doubt as to what 
occurred, let's look at this additional evidence.
  To be clear, we are not asking you to track down every single 
document or to call every possible witness. We have carefully 
identified only four key witnesses with direct knowledge, who can speak 
to the specific issues that the President has disputed, and we have 
targeted key documents which we understand have already been collected. 
For example, at the State Department, they have already been collected.
  This will not cause a substantial delay. As I made clear last night, 
these matters can be addressed in a single week. As we made clear last 
night, these matters can be addressed in a single week. We know that 
from President Clinton's case. There, the Senate voted to approve a 
motion for witnesses on January 27. The next day, it established 
procedures for those depositions and adjourned as a Court of 
Impeachment until February 4. In that brief period, the parties took 
three depositions. The Senate then resumed its proceedings by voting to 
accept the deposition testimony into the Record.
  In this trial, too, let's do the same. We should take a brief, 1-week 
break for witness testimony and document collection, during which time 
the Senate can return to its normal business. The trial should not be 
allowed to be different from every other impeachment trial or any other 
kind of trial simply because the President doesn't want us to know the 
truth. The American people--the American people we all represent, the 
American people we all love and care about--deserve to know the truth, 
and a fair trial requires it.
  This is too important of a decision to be made without all of the 
relevant evidence. Before turning to the specific need for these 
witnesses and documents, I want to make clear that we are not asking 
you, again, to break new ground. We are asking quite the opposite. We 
are asking you to simply follow the Senate's unbroken precedent and to 
do so in a manner that allows you to continue the Senate's ordinary 
business.
  The Senate, in sitting as a Court of Impeachment, has heard witness 
testimony in every other--as we have said earlier--15 impeachment 
trials in the history of the Republic. In fact, these trials had an 
average of 33 witnesses, and the Senate has repeatedly subpoenaed and 
received new documents while adjudicating cases of impeachment. That 
makes sense. Under our Constitution, the Senate does not just vote on 
impeachments, and it does not just debate them. Instead, the Senate is 
commanded by the Constitution to try all cases of impeachment. Well, a 
trial requires witnesses. A trial requires documents. This is the 
American way, and this is the American story.
  If the Senate denies our motions, it would be the only time in 
history it has written a judgment on Articles of Impeachment without 
hearing from a single witness or receiving a single relevant document 
from the President, whose conduct is on trial. And why? How can we 
justify this break from precedent? How would we justify it? For what 
reason would we break precedent in these proceedings?

  There are many compelling reasons beyond precedent that demand 
subpoenas for witnesses and cases and documents in this case.
  At this time, I yield to Manager Garcia.
  Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Chief Justice, President's counsel, 
Senators, last week, I shared with you that I was reflecting on my 
first days at a school for baby judges. You all may recall that. I 
mentioned to you that one of the first things they told us was that we 
had to be good listeners and be patient, and you, as judges in this 
trial, have certainly passed the test. Thank you for being good 
listeners and for being patient with us. It has been quite a long 
journey.
  We are here today to talk about the other thing they told us in baby 
judge school, and that was that we had to give all of the parties in 
front of us a fair hearing--an opportunity to be heard, an opportunity 
to cross-examine witnesses, an opportunity to bring evidence. That is 
what I want to talk to you about today because, in terms of fundamental 
fairness, subpoenas by the Senate in this trial would mitigate the 
damage caused by the President's wholesale obstruction of the House's 
inquiry.
  The President claims that there is no direct evidence of his 
wrongdoing despite direct evidence to the contrary and Ambassador 
Bolton's offer to testify to even more evidence in a trial. Let's not 
forget that the President is arguing that there is no direct evidence 
while blocking all of us from getting that direct evidence.
  It is a remarkable position that they have taken. Quite frankly, 
never, as a lawyer or as a former judge, have I ever seen anything like 
this. For the first time in our history, President Trump ordered his 
entire administration--his entire administration--to defy every single 
impeachment subpoena. The Trump administration has not produced a 
single document in response to the congressional subpoenas--not a 
single page, nada. That has never happened before. There is no legal 
privilege to justify a blanket blocking of all of these documents. We 
know that there are more relevant documents. There is no dispute about 
that; it is uncontested. Witnesses have testified in exceptional detail 
about these documents that exist that the President is simply hiding.
  President Trump's blanket order of prohibiting the entire executive 
branch from participating in the impeachment investigation also extends 
to witnesses. There are 12 in all who followed that order and refused 
to testify. Much of the critical evidence we have is the result of 
career officials who bravely came forward despite the President's 
obstruction, but those closest to the President--some may say, like in 
the musical ``Hamilton,'' those ``in the room when it happened''--
followed his instruction.
  The President does not dispute that these witnesses have information 
that is relevant to this trial, that these individuals have personal 
and direct knowledge of the President's actions and motivations and can 
provide the very evidence he says now that we don't have.
  The President's counsel alleged the House managers hid evidence from 
you.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. Counsel CIPOLLONE. [B]ecause as house managers, really 
     their goal should be to give you all of the facts because 
     they're asking you to do something very, very consequential.
       And ask yourself, ask yourself, given the fact you heard 
     today that they didn't tell you, who doesn't want to talk 
     about the facts? Who doesn't want to talk about the facts?
       Impeachment shouldn't be a shell game. They should give you 
     the facts.

  Ms. Manager GARCIA of Texas. This is nice rhetoric, but it is simply 
incorrect.
  The President's counsel cherry-picked misleading bits of evidence, 
cited deposition transcripts of witnesses who subsequently corrected 
their testimony in public hearings and said the opposite and, in some 
cases, simply left out the second half of witness statements.
  The House managers accurately presented the relevant evidence to you. 
We spent about 20 hours presenting the facts and the evidence. The 
President's counsel spent 4 hours focusing on the facts and the 
evidence, and that evidence shows that the President is guilty. But to 
the extent certain facts were shown to you, let's be very clear: We are 
not the ones hiding the facts. The House managers did not hide that 
evidence. President Trump hid the evidence. That is why we are the ones 
standing up here, asking you to not let the President silence these 
witnesses and hide these documents.
  We don't know precisely what the witnesses will say or what the 
documents would show, but we all deserve to hear the truth. And, more 
importantly, the American people deserve to hear the truth.
  Never before has a President been put--put himself above the law and 
hid the facts of his offenses from the American people like this one. 
We cannot let this President be different. Quite simply, the stakes are 
too high.
  Second, as this builds on what we have been arguing, the Senate 
requires and should want a complete evidentiary record before you vote 
on the most sacred task that the Constitution entrusts in every single 
one of you.
  I can respect that some of you have deep beliefs that the removal of 
this President would be divisive. Others,

[[Page S756]]

you may believe that allowing this President to remain in the Oval 
Office would be catastrophic to our Republic and our democracy.
  But regardless of where you are, regardless of where you land on the 
spectrum, you should want a full and complete record before you make a 
final decision and to understand the full story. It should not be about 
party affiliation; it should be about seeing all the evidence and 
voting your conscience based on all the relevant facts. It should be 
about doing impartial justice.
  Consider the harm done to our institutions, our constitutional order, 
and the public faith in our democracy if the Senate chooses to close 
its eyes to learning the full truth about the President's misconduct.
  How can the American people have confidence in the result of a trial 
without witnesses?
  Third, the President should want a fair trial. He has repeatedly said 
that publicly; that he wants a trial on the merits. He specifically 
said it. You saw a clip that he wanted a fair trial in the Senate, and 
that would have to be with witnesses that testify, including John 
Bolton and Mick Mulvaney. He said that he wants a complete and total 
exoneration.
  Well, whatever you say about this trial, there cannot be a total--an 
exoneration without hearing from those witnesses because an acquittal 
on an incomplete record after a trial lacking witnesses and evidence 
will be no exoneration. It will be no vindication--not for the 
President, not for this Chamber, and not for the American people.
  And if the President is telling the truth and he did nothing wrong 
and the evidence would prove that, then we all know that he would be an 
enthusiastic supporter of subpoenas. He would be here probably himself, 
if he could, urging you to do subpoenas if he had information that 
would prove he was totally not in the wrong. If he is innocent, he 
should have nothing to hide. His counsel should be the ones here asking 
today to subpoena Bolton and Mulvaney and others for testimony.
  The President would be eager to have the people closest to him to 
testify about his innocence. He would be eager to present the documents 
that show he was concerned about corruption and burden-sharing. But the 
fact that he has so strenuously opposed the testimony of his closest 
advisers and all the documents speak volumes.
  You should issue subpoenas to the President so that the President can 
get the fair trial that he wanted--but more importantly, so the 
American people can get the fair trial that they deserve. The American 
people deserve a fair trial.
  I said at the onset of this trial that one of the most important 
decisions you would make at this moment in history will not be whether 
you convict or acquit but whether the President and the American people 
will get a fair trial.
  The process is more than just the ultimate decision because the faith 
in our institution depends on the perception of a fair process. A vote 
against witnesses and documents undermines that faith.
  Senators, the American people want a fair trial. The overwhelming 
majority of Americans, three in four voters--three in four--as of this 
past Tuesday believe that this trial should have witnesses. Now, there 
is not much that the American people agree on these days, but they do 
agree on that, and they know what a fair trial is; that it involves 
witnesses and it involves evidence.
  The American people deserve to know the facts about their President's 
conduct and those around him, and they deserve to have confidence in 
this process, confidence that you made the right decision. In order to 
have that confidence, the Senate must call relevant witnesses and 
obtain relevant documents withheld thus far by this President. The 
American people deserve a fair trial.
  I now yield to my colleague Manager Crow.
  Mr. Manager CROW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, counsel 
for the President, last week the House managers argued for the 
testimony of four witnesses: Ambassador John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, 
Robert Blair, and Michael Duffey. And during the presentations from 
both parties, it has become abundantly clear why the direct testimony 
from those witnesses is so critical, and new evidence continues to 
underscore that importance.
  So let's start with John Bolton. The President's counsel has 
repeatedly stated that the President didn't personally tell any of our 
witnesses that he linked the military aid to the investigations.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       PURPURA: There is simply no evidence anywhere that 
     President Trump ever linked security assistance to any 
     investigations[.] [M]ost of the democrats['] witnesses have 
     never spoken to the President at all let alone about Ukraine 
     security assistance.
       . . .
       Not a single witness testified that the President himself 
     said that there was any connection between any investigations 
     and security assistance, a presidential meeting, or anything 
     else.

  Mr. Manager CROW. Now, that is simply not true, as the testimony of 
Ambassador Sondland and the admission of Mick Mulvaney make very clear.
  The evidence before you proves that the President not only linked the 
aid to the investigations, he also conditioned both the White House 
meeting and the aid on Ukraine's announcement of the investigations.
  But if you want more, a witness to acknowledge that the President 
told them directly that the aid was linked, a witness in front of you, 
then you have the power to ask for it.
  I mentioned this portion--there is a slide. I mentioned this portion 
of the Ambassador's manuscript in the beginning, and Manager Schiff 
referenced it as well, but he said directly that the President told him 
this.
  Now, the President has publicly lashed out in recent days at 
Ambassador Bolton. He says that Ambassador Bolton is--what Ambassador 
Bolton is saying is ``nasty'' and ``untrue.'' But denials in 280 
characters is not the same as testimony under oath. We know that.
  Let's put Ambassador Bolton under oath and ask him point blank: Did 
the President use $391 million of taxpayer money--military aid intended 
for an ally at war--to pressure Ukraine to investigate his 2020 
opponent? The stakes are too high not to.
  I would like to briefly walk you through why Ambassador Bolton's 
testimony is essential to ensuring a fair trial, also addressing some 
of the questions that you have asked in the past 2 days.
  First, turning back to Ambassador Bolton's manuscript, the 
President's counsel has said: No scheme existed. And the President's 
counsel has cited repeated denials, public denials of President Trump's 
inner circle about Bolton's allegations--none of them, of course, under 
oath. And as we know from the testimony of Ambassador Bolton, how 
important being sworn in really is.
  But Ambassador Bolton, as the top national security aide, has direct 
insight into the President's inner circle, and he is willing to testify 
under oath whether ``everyone was in the loop,'' as he testified 
before.
  Ambassador Bolton reportedly knows ``new details about senior cabinet 
officials who have publicly tried to sidestep involvement,'' including 
Secretary Pompeo and Mr. Mulvaney's knowledge of the scheme.
  Second, Ambassador Bolton has direct knowledge of key events outside 
of the July 25 call that confirm the President's scheme. Remember, this 
is exactly the type of direct evidence the President's counsel say 
doesn't exist. That is partly because they would like you to believe 
that the July 25 call makes up all of the evidence of our case. The 
call, of course, is just a part of the large body of evidence that you 
have heard about the past week, but it is a key part. But Ambassador 
Bolton has critical insight into the President's misconduct outside of 
this call, and you should hear it.
  Take, for example, the July 10 meeting with U.S. and Ukrainian 
officials at the White House. Dr. Hill testified during the meeting 
that Ambassador Sondland said that he had a deal with Mr. Mulvaney to 
schedule a White House meeting if Ukrainians did the investigations. 
According to Dr. Hill, when Ambassador Bolton learned this, he told her 
to go back to the NSC's Legal Advisor, John Eisenberg, and tell him, 
``I am not a part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are 
cooking up on this.'' We already have corroboration of Dr. Hill's 
testimony from

[[Page S757]]

other witnesses like Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
  And we have new corroboration from Ukraine too. Oleksandr Danylyuk, 
President Zelensky's former national security advisor, recently 
confirmed in an interview that the ``roadmap [for U.S.-Ukraine 
relations] should have been the substance but . . . [the 
investigations] were raised.''
  Danylyuk also explained why this was so problematic. He raised 
concerns that being ``dragged into this internal process . . . would be 
really bad for the country. And also, if there's something that 
violates U.S. law, that's up to the U.S. to handle.''
  Danylyuk elaborated that there were serious things to discuss at the 
meeting, but if instead Ukraine was dragged into ``internal politics, 
using our president who was fresh on the job, inexperienced, that could 
just destroy everything.''
  Another key defense raised by the President has been that Ukraine 
felt no pressure, that these investigations are entirely proper. Well, 
here is Ukraine saying the opposite of that. You know what else 
Danylyuk said in the interview? ``It was definitely John who I 
trusted,'' talking about Ambassador Bolton.
  So if you want to know whether Ukrainians felt pressure, call John 
Bolton as a witness. He was trusted by Ukraine, and he was there for 
these key meetings, and he was so concerned that he characterized the 
scheme as a ``drug deal'' and urged Dr. Hill and others to report their 
concerns to NSC legal counsel, who reports to White House Counsel 
Cipollone.
  So let's ask Ambassador Bolton these questions directly under oath: 
The President says Ukraine felt no pressure, that soliciting these 
investigations wasn't improper. Is that true? If it is true, why is 
Ukraine publicly saying that the talk of investigations could destroy 
everything? And if the President's administration thought this was OK, 
why did you use the words ``drug deal?'' We should ask him that. Why 
did you urge your staff to report concerns to lawyers? These are all 
questions that we can get the answers to.
  Third, the President has suggested the House managers have not 
presented any direct evidence about Mr. Giuliani's role in the scheme.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Ms. Counsel RASKIN. In fact, it appears the House committee 
     wasn't particularly interested in presenting you with any 
     direct evidence of what Mayor Giuliani did or why he did it. 
     Instead, they ask you to rely on hearsay, speculation, and 
     assumption, evidence that would be inadmissible in any court.

  Mr. Manager CROW. Well, once again, that is simply not true. But if 
you want more evidence, we know that Ambassador Bolton has direct 
evidence of Mr. Giuliani's role regarding Ukraine and expressed 
concerns about it.
  The President has suggested that Mr. Giuliani wasn't doing anything 
improper, and he was not involved in conducting policy. By their own 
admission, they said he wasn't doing policy. So let's ask John Bolton 
what Giuliani was doing and whether the investigations were politically 
motivated or part of our foreign policy.
  He would know. Dr. Hill testified that Ambassador Bolton said Mr. 
Giuliani was ``a hand grenade,'' which he explained referred to ``all 
of the statements that Mr. Giuliani was making publicly, that the 
investigations that he was promoting, that the story line he was 
promoting, the narrative he was promoting was going to backfire.'' The 
narrative Mr. Giuliani was promoting, of course, was asking Ukraine to 
dig up dirt on Biden.
  Dr. Hill also testified that Ambassador Bolton was so concerned, he 
told Dr. Hill and other members of the NSC staff that ``nobody should 
be meeting with Giuliani,'' and that he was ``closely monitoring what 
Mr. Giuliani was doing and the messaging he was sending out.''
  So let's ask Ambassador Bolton: If Mr. Giuliani wasn't doing anything 
wrong, why were you so concerned about his behavior that you directed 
your staff to have no part in this? If Mr. Giuliani wasn't trying to 
dig up dirt on Biden, why did you seem to think that he could ``blow 
everything up''?
  Fourth, the President has said that there was nothing wrong with the 
July 25 call. But once again the evidence suggests that Ambassador 
Bolton would testify that the opposite is true. According to witness 
testimony, Ambassador Bolton expressed concerns even before the call 
that it would be ``a disaster'' because he thought there could be 
``talk of investigations or worse.'' Now, if the President would have 
you believe that the call was perfect, as he has repeatedly stated, why 
don't we find out? Because all of the evidence before you suggests 
otherwise.
  And Ukraine knows this is not the case. The call was not perfect. 
Danylyuk is clear on this point. He said:

       One thing I can tell you that was clear from this [July 25] 
     call is that the issue of the investigations is an issue of 
     concern for Trump. It was clear.

  But if there is still any uncertainty, we must ask Ambassador Bolton: 
If there was no scheme, how did you know President Trump would raise 
investigations on the call? What made you so concerned the call would 
be a ``disaster''?
  Fifth, the President's main defense, once again, is that he withheld 
the military aid for legitimate reasons. But the evidence doesn't 
support that. You have heard a lot. The evidence doesn't support that. 
Witness testimony, emails, and other documents confirm that Ambassador 
Bolton and his subordinates on many occasions, including through in-
person meetings with the President himself, urged the President that 
there was no legitimate reason to withhold the aid.
  But if you are not sure, if you think this could in any way have been 
about a legitimate policy reason, let's ask the National Security 
Advisor, who was in charge of that. If this was simply a policy 
dispute, as the President argues, let's ask John Bolton whether that is 
true.
  The President also argues that you cannot evaluate the President's 
subjective intent--that the President can use his power any way he 
feels is appropriate. That is, of course, not the case. Whether his 
intent was corrupt is a central part of this case, as it is in nearly 
every criminal case in the country. As a backup argument, however, the 
President's counsel claims that we want you to read the President's 
mind.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. This entire impeachment process is 
     about the House managers' insistence that they are able to 
     read everybody's thoughts. They can read everybody's 
     intention . . .
       Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. They think you can read minds.
       Mr. PHILBIN. They want to tell you what President Trump 
     thought.

  Mr. Manager CROW. Now, juries, of course, are routinely asked to 
determine the defendant's state of mind. That is central to almost 
every criminal case in the country. And it is disingenuous for the 
President's counsel to argue that the defendant's state of mind in 
unknowable, that it requires a mind reader, or is anything but the most 
common element of proof of any crime, constitutional or otherwise. But 
if you want more information, let's ask the President whether John 
Bolton can help fill in any gaps about his state of mind.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       President TRUMP. If you think about it, he knows some of my 
     thoughts. He knows what I think about leaders.

  Mr. Manager CROW. This case is about the President's conduct in 
Ukraine. John Bolton knows a lot about that. Let's hear from him. A 
fair trial demands it. It is more than just ensuring a fair trial, it 
is about remembering that in America, truth matters. As Mr. Bolton said 
on January 30, ``the idea that somehow testifying to what you think is 
true is destructive to the system of government we have, I think is 
very nearly the reverse, the exact reverse of the truth.''
  As Manager Schiff started this out, the truth continues to come out. 
Again, in an article today, more information. The truth will come out, 
and it is continuing to. The question here before this body is, What do 
you want your place in history to be? Do you want your place in history 
to be let's hear the truth or that we don't want to hear it?
  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Given our time constraints, we will now 
summarize the reasons why Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Duffey, and Mr. Blair are 
also important.

[[Page S758]]

  Let's turn first to Mr. Mulvaney. To begin with, Mr. Mulvaney 
participated in meetings and discussions with President Trump at every 
single stage of this scheme. We just talked about motives and intent. 
Well, if you want further insight into the President's motives or 
intent, further direct evidence of why he withheld the military aid and 
the White House meeting, you should call his Acting Chief of Staff, who 
has more access than anyone.
  Mr. Mulvaney is important because the President's counsel continues 
to argue--incorrectly--that our evidence is just hearsay and 
speculation. Faced with Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Holmes saying this 
was all as clear as two plus two equals four, the President says, 
``[T]hey are just guessing.'' That is simply not true. The evidence is 
direct, the evidence is compelling and confirmed by many witnesses, 
corroborated by text messages, emails, and phone records. But if you 
want more evidence, if you want another firsthand account of why the 
aid was withheld for the undisputed quid pro quo for that White House 
meeting, let's just hear from Mick Mulvaney.
  Over and over again, Ambassador Sondland described to multiple 
witnesses how Mr. Mulvaney was directly involved in the President's 
scheme. Here is some of that testimony.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Dr. HILL. So when I came in, Gordon Sondland was basically 
     saying, Look, we have a deal here. There will be a meeting. I 
     have a deal here with Chief of Staff Mulvaney, there will be 
     a meeting if the Ukrainians open up or announce these 
     investigations into 2016 and Burisma. And I cut it off 
     immediately there.
       Ambassador Bolton told me that: I am not part of this 
     whatever drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland are cooking up.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. What did you understand him to mean by the 
     drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up?
       Dr. HILL. I took it to mean investigations for a meeting.
       Mr. GOLDMAN. Did you go to see the lawyers?
       Dr. HILL. I certainly did.
       Mr. Manager SCHIFF. What I want to ask you about is, he 
     makes reference in that drug deal to a drug deal cooked up by 
     you and Mulvaney. It's the reference to Mulvaney that I want 
     to ask you about. You've testified that Mulvaney was aware of 
     this quid pro quo, of this condition that the Ukrainians had 
     to meet, that is, announcing these public investigations to 
     get the White House meeting. Is that right?
       Ambassador SONDLAND. Yeah. A lot of people were aware of it 
     . . .
       Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Including Mr. Mulvaney.
       Ambassador SONDLAND. Correct.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Remarkably, the President is still denying the 
facts, even as they argue that if it is true, it is still not 
impeachable. But if the President did nothing wrong, if he held up the 
aid because of so-called corruption or burden-sharing reasons, he 
should want his chief of staff to come testify under oath before this 
distinguished body and say just that.
  Why doesn't he want Mulvaney to appear before the United States 
Senate? Well, we know the answer--because Mr. Mulvaney will confirm the 
corrupt shakedown scheme because Mr. Mulvaney was in the loop.
  Everyone was in the loop.
  As Ambassador Sondland summarized in his testimony on July 19, he 
emailed several top administration officials, including Mr. Mulvaney, 
that President Zelensky was prepared to receive POTUS's call and would 
``assure'' President Trump that ``he intends to run a fully transparent 
investigation and will `turn over every stone.'''
  Mr. Mulvaney replied: ``I asked NSC to set it up for tomorrow.''
  The above email seems clear. Ambassador Sondland testified that it 
was clear; that he was confirming to Mr. Mulvaney that he had told 
President Zelensky he had to tell President Trump on that July 25 call 
that he would announce the investigation, which he explained was a 
reference to one of the two phony political investigations that 
President Trump wanted. And Mr. Mulvaney replies that he will set up 
the meeting--consistent with the agreement that Sondland explained he 
reached with Mr. Mulvaney to condition a meeting on the investigations.
  But if there is any uncertainty, if there is any lingering questions 
about what this means, let's just question Mick Mulvaney under oath.
  Mr. Mulvaney also matters because we have heard several questions 
from this distinguished body of Senators wanting to understand when or 
why or how the President ordered the hold on the security aid. As the 
head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Mulvaney has unique 
insights into all of these questions--your questions.
  Remember that email exchange between Mr. Mulvaney and his Deputy, Rob 
Blair, on June 27, when Mulvaney asked Blair about whether they could 
implement the hold and Blair responded that it could be done but that 
Congress would become ``unhinged''?
  It wasn't just Congress. It was the independent Government 
Accountability Office that determined that the President's hold 
violated the law. But, if the President's counsel is going to argue--
without evidence--that he withheld the aid as part of U.S. foreign 
policy, it seems to make sense that the Senate should hear directly 
from Mr. Mulvaney, who has firsthand knowledge of exactly these facts. 
He said so himself.
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Mr. MULVANEY: Again, I was involved with the process by 
     which the money was held up temporarily, okay?

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Why doesn't President Trump want Mick Mulvaney 
to testify? Why?
  Perhaps here is why:
  (Text of Videotape presentation:)

       Answer. Did he also mention to me in the past that the 
     corruption related to the DNC server, absolutely. No question 
     about that. But that's it. And that's why we held up the 
     money.
       Question. So the demand for an investigation into the 
     Democrats was part of the reason that he wanted to withhold 
     funding to Ukraine.
       Answer. The look back to what happened in 2016--
       Question. The investigation into Democrats--
       Answer.--certainly was part of the thing that he was 
     worried about in corruption with that nation. That is 
     absolutely appropriate.
       Question. But to be clear, what you just described is a 
     quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the 
     investigation into the Democratic server happens as well.
       Answer. We do that all the time with foreign policy. We 
     were holding the money at the same time for--what was it? The 
     Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid to the 
     Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their 
     policies on immigration. By the way, and this speaks to an 
     important--I'm sorry? This speaks to an important point, 
     because I heard this yesterday and I can never remember the 
     gentleman whose testimony--Was it McKinney, the guy--was that 
     his name? I don't know him. He testified yesterday. And if 
     you go--and if you believe those reports--okay? Because we've 
     not seen any transcripts of this. The only transcript I've 
     seen was Sondland's testimony this morning. 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's going to be 
     political influence in foreign policy.

  Mr. Manager JEFFRIES. Is that what the Constitution requires--``Get 
over it''? Is that good enough for this body, the world's greatest 
deliberative body--``Get over it''?
  The President's counsel can try to emphasize Mr. Mulvaney and his 
attorneys' efforts to walk back this statement, but, as you have seen 
with your own eyes, the statement was unequivocal. And even when given 
the chance in real time on that day, on October 17, to deny a quid pro 
quo, he doubled down. ``Get over it,'' he said.
  But if you have any questions about what the real answer is and where 
the truth lies, there is only one way to find out: Let's all just 
question Mr. Mulvaney under oath during the Senate trial. After all, 
counsel said that cross-examination was the greatest vehicle in the 
history of American jurisprudence ever invented to ascertain the 
truth--your standard.
  Finally, I would like to touch briefly on the importance of Mr. Blair 
and Mr. Duffey to this case.
  The President's lawyers have argued that withholding foreign aid is 
entirely within his right as Commander in Chief; that this was a 
normal, ordinary decision; and that this is all just one big policy 
disagreement.
  We have proven exactly the opposite. This can't be a policy 
disagreement because the President's hold actually went against U.S. 
policy. The hold was undertaken outside of the normal channels by a 
President who, they admit, was not conducting policy. The hold was 
concealed not only from Congress but from the President's own officials 
responsible for Ukraine policy,

[[Page S759]]

and, most importantly, the hold violated the law.
  The President has the right to make policy, but he does not have the 
right to break the law and coerce an ally into helping him cheat in our 
free and fair elections, and he doesn't have a right to use hundreds of 
millions of dollars in taxpayer funds as leverage to get political dirt 
on an American citizen who happens to be his political opponent.
  But if you remain unsure about all of this, who better to ask than 
Mr. Blair or Mr. Duffey? They oversaw and executed the process of 
withholding the aid. They can tell us exactly how unrelated to business 
as usual this whole shakedown scheme was when it was underway. They can 
testify about why the aid was withheld and whether there was any 
legitimate explanation for withholding it. Some of you have asked that 
very question.
  Multiple officials--including Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Taylor, 
David Holmes, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, Jennifer Williams, and Mark 
Sandy--all testified that they were never given a credible explanation 
for the hold. So let's ask Mr. Blair and let's ask Mr. Duffey if this 
happens all the time, as Mick Mulvaney suggests. Why, at this time, in 
connection with this scheme, were all of those witnesses left in the 
dark?
  Despite the President's refusal to produce a single document and to 
produce a shred of information in this impeachment inquiry undertaken 
in the House, his administration did produce 192 pages of Ukraine-
related email records in Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, albeit in 
heavily redacted form. These documents confirm Mr. Duffey's central 
role in executing the hold. He is on nearly every single impeachment 
release--nearly every single email.
  Here is an important email from that production.
  Just 90 minutes after the July 25 call, Mr. Duffey emailed officials 
at the Department of Defense that they should ``hold off on any 
additional DOD obligations of these funds.'' Mr. Duffey added that the 
request was ``sensitive'' and that they should keep this information 
``closely held.'' The timing is important because if the aid wasn't 
linked to the July 25 call and if it wasn't related, why the sensitive, 
closely held request made within 2 hours of that call? Let's just ask 
Mr. Duffey.
  Mr. Duffey and Mr. Blair can testify about the concerns raised by DOD 
to the Office of Management and Budget about the illegality of the hold 
and why it remained in place even after DOD warned the administration 
that it would violate the Impoundment Control Act.

  Now, the President, of course, has disputed this fact, but we have 
demonstrated that OMB was warned repeatedly by DOD officials of two 
things: first, continuing to withhold the aid would prevent the 
Department of Defense from spending the money before the end of the 
fiscal year, and second, the hold was potentially illegal, as turned 
out to be the case.
  By August 9, DOD told Mr. Duffey directly that DOD--the Department of 
Defense--could no longer support the Office of Management and Budget's 
claims that the hold would ``not preclude timely execution'' of the aid 
for Ukraine, our vulnerable ally at war with Russian-backed 
separatists. Yet, as Mr. Duffey reportedly told Ms. McCusker at the 
Department of Defense on August 30, there was a ``clear direction from 
POTUS to continue to hold''--clear direction from the President of the 
United States to continue the hold. So how did Mr. Duffey understand 
the ``clear direction'' to continue the hold? Why is the President 
claiming that this wasn't unlawful when DOD--the Department of 
Defense--repeatedly warned his administration that it was? Wouldn't we 
all like to ask Mr. Duffey these questions?
  Finally, here is another reason why we know this was not business as 
usual. On July 29, Mr. Duffey--a political appointee with zero relevant 
experience--abruptly seized responsibility for withholding the aid from 
Mark Sandy, a career Office of Management and Budget official--seized 
the responsibility from a career official. Mr. Duffey provided no 
credible explanation for that decision.
  Mr. Sandy testified that nothing like that had ever happened in his 
entire governmental career. Let's think about that. If this is as 
routine as the President claims, why is a career official saying he has 
never seen anything like this happen before? Mr. Duffey knows why. 
Shouldn't we just take the time to ask him?
  The American people deserve a fair trial. The Constitution deserves a 
fair trial. The President deserves a fair trial. A fair trial means 
witnesses. A fair trial means documents. A fair trial means evidence. 
No one is above the law.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague, Manager Lofgren.
  Ms. Manager LOFGREN. Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, it is not just 
about hearing from witnesses; you need documents. The documents don't 
lie. There are specific documents relevant to this impeachment trial in 
the custody of the White House, OMB, DOD, and the State Department, and 
the President has hidden them from us.
  I am not going to go through each category again in detail, but here 
are some observations.
  This is, of course, an impeachment case against the President of the 
United States. Nothing could be more important. And the most important 
documents--documents that go directly to who knew what when--are being 
held by the executive branch.
  Many of these records are at the White House. The White House has 
records about the phone calls with President Zelensky, about scheduling 
an Oval Office meeting with President Zelensky, about the President's 
decision to hold security assistance, about communications among his 
top aides, and about concerns raised by public officials with legal 
counsel. We have heard about Ambassador Bolton's handwritten notes and 
book manuscript and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's Presidential policy 
memorandum. We know of reports about a number of emails in early August 
trying to create after-the-fact justifications for the hold, but we 
haven't seen any of them. They are at the White House being hidden by 
the President. I think it is a coverup.
  Documents are also at the State Department, records about the recall 
of Ambassador Yovanovitch, about Giuliani's efforts for the President, 
about concerns raised about the hold, about the Ukrainian reaction to 
the hold and when exactly they learned about it, and about negotiations 
with the Ukrainians for an Oval Office meeting. We know about 
Ambassador Taylor's first-person cable and notes and Mr. Kent's memos 
to file. We know about Mr. Sondland's emails with Pompeo and Brechbuhl 
and Mulvaney and Perry, but we haven't seen them. They are sitting in 
the State Department.
  DOD and OMB also have records--records about President Trump's hold 
on military aid to Ukraine, about the justification for the hold, about 
hiding the hold from Congress and trying to justify the hold after the 
fact, and about why the hold was lifted, but we haven't seen them. They 
are at DOD and OMB. Why haven't we seen them? Because the President 
directed all his agencies not to produce them.
  This trial should not reward the President's really unprecedented 
obstruction by allowing him to control what evidence you see and what 
will remain hidden. You should ask for these documents on behalf of the 
American people, and you should ask for these documents to get the 
truth yourself.
  Now, let's come back to the issue of delay, since the President's 
lawyers have suggested that having witnesses and documents would make 
this trial take too long. There will be lengthy court battles, they 
say. The President might even invoke executive privilege for the very 
first time in this entire impeachment process. It would be better, we 
are told, to skip straight to the final verdict, to break from 
centuries of precedent and end this trial without hearing from a single 
witness and without reviewing a single document that the President 
ordered hidden. Respectfully, that shouldn't happen.
  House managers aren't interested in delaying these proceedings. We 
are interested in the full truth; in a trial that is fair to the 
parties and to the American people; in the facts that the President's 
counsel agrees are so critical to this trial. It is why we said we

[[Page S760]]

won't go to court; we will follow all the rulings of the Chief Justice. 
We can get the witness depositions done in a week. In fact, I know we 
can because if you, the Senators, order it, that is the law. You have 
the sole power to try impeachments.

  If questions or objections come up, including objections based on 
executive privilege, the Senate itself and the Chief Justice, in the 
first instance, can resolve them. We aren't suggesting that the 
President waive executive privilege. We simply suggest that the Chief 
Justice can resolve issues related to any assertion of executive 
privilege.
  As the Supreme Court recognized in the case of Judge Walter Nixon, 
judges will stay out of disputes over how the Senate exercises its sole 
power to try impeachments. That ensures there will be no unnecessary 
delay, and it is why we propose we suspend the trial for 1 week, and 
that during that time, you go back to business as usual. While the 
trial is suspended, we will take witness depositions and review the 
documents that are provided at your direction.
  The four witnesses you should hear from are readily available. 
Ambassador Bolton has already said he will appear. We can and would 
move quickly to depose these witnesses within a week of the issuance of 
subpoenas. The documents, too, are ready to be produced. We are ready 
to review them quickly and to present additional evidence. Meanwhile, 
the Senate can continue going about its important legislative work, as 
it did during the depositions in the Clinton impeachment trial.
  The President's opposition to this suggestion says a lot. The 
President is the architect of the very delay he warns against. He could 
easily avoid it. He could move things along. He could stop trying to 
silence witnesses and hide evidence. I think he is afraid the truth 
will come out. He hopes his threats of continued delay, however 
unjustified, will cause you to throw up your hands and give up on a 
fair trial. Please don't give up. This is too important for our 
democracy.
  A decision to forgo witnesses and documents at this trial would be a 
big departure from Senate precedent. When the Senate investigated 
Watergate, it heard from the highest White House officials. That 
happened because a bipartisan majority of the Senate insisted. We got 
to the truth then because the Senate came together and put a fair 
proceeding above party loyalty.
  We should all want the truth, and so we ask you to do it again--that 
you put aside any politics, party loyalty. Believe in your President, 
which we understand and sympathize with, but subpoena the documents and 
the witnesses necessary to make this a fair trial, to hear and see the 
evidence you need to impartially administer justice.
  Now, there has been a lot of discussion of executive privilege during 
this trial. Even if the President asserts executive privilege--
something he has not yet done--it wouldn't harm the President's legal 
rights or cause undue delay.
  Here is why. Let's focus on John Bolton, since this week's 
revelations confirm the importance of his testimony.
  First, as a private citizen, John Bolton is fully protected by the 
First Amendment if he wants to testify. There is no basis for imposing 
prior restraint for censoring him just because some of his testimony 
could include conversations with the President. That is commonplace. As 
long as his testimony isn't classified, it is shielded by the free 
speech clause of the First Amendment.
  Ambassador Bolton has written a book. It is inconceivable that he is 
forbidden from telling the U.S. Senate, sitting as a High Court of 
Impeachment, information that shortly will be in print.
  If the President did attempt to invoke executive privilege, he would 
fail. It is true for separate reasons. First, claims of executive 
privilege always involve a balancing of interests. The Supreme Court 
confirmed in U.S. v. Nixon--the Nixon tapes case--that executive 
privilege can be overcome by a need for evidence in a criminal trial. 
That is even more true here in an impeachment trial of the President of 
the United States, which is probably the most important interest under 
the Constitution. It would certainly outweigh any claim of privilege.
  Precedent confirms the point. To name just a few, National Security 
Advisors for President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski; President Clinton, 
Samuel Berger; President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice; and 
President Obama, Susan Rice, testified in congressional investigations. 
These advisors discussed their communications with top government 
officials, including the Presidents they served. There is no reason why 
all of these officials could testify in the normal course of events and 
hearings, but Ambassador Bolton, a former official, couldn't testify in 
the most important trial there could possibly be.
  The second reason is the President waived any claim of executive 
privilege about Ambassador Bolton's testimony. All 17 witnesses 
testified in the House about these matters without any assertion of 
privilege by the President.
  President Trump, as well as his lawyers and senior officials, have 
publicly discussed and tweeted about these issues at some length. The 
President has also directly denied reports about what Ambassador Bolton 
will say in his forthcoming book. Under these circumstances, the 
President cannot be allowed to tell his version of his story to the 
public while using executive privilege to silence a key witness who 
would contradict him. You shouldn't let the President escape 
responsibility only to later see clearly what happened in Ambassador 
Bolton's book.
  There are no national security risks here. The President has 
declassified the two phone calls with President Zelensky. All 17 
witnesses testified about the President's conduct regarding Ukraine. We 
aren't interested in asking about anything other than Ukraine. That is 
simply a bogus argument.
  The Constitution uses the words ``sole power'' only twice: first, 
when it gives the House sole power to impeach; and, second, article 1, 
section 3, where it gives the Senate sole power to try impeachments.

  Here is what it says:

       The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all 
     Impeachments. . . . When the President of the United States 
     is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.

  Now, I think that provision in the Constitution means something. It 
is up to the Senate to decide how to try this impeachment with 
fairness, with witnesses, and documents.
  Privileges asserted can be decided using the process that you devise. 
That is not unconstitutional. It is what the Constitution provides.
  You have the power. You decide. Please decide for a fair trial that 
would yield the truth and serve our Constitution and the American 
people.
  I yield now to Manager Schiff.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Senators, before we yield to counsel for the 
President, I would like to take a moment by talking about what I think 
is at stake here. A ``no'' vote on the question before you will have 
long-lasting and harmful consequences long after this impeachment trial 
is over.
  We agree with the President's counsel on this much: This will set a 
new precedent. This will be cited in impeachment trials from this point 
to the end of history. You can bet in every impeachment that follows, 
whether it is a Presidential impeachment or the impeachment of a judge, 
if that judge or President believes that it is to his or her advantage 
that there shall be a trial with no witnesses, they will cite the case 
of Donald J. Trump. They will make the argument that you can adjudicate 
the guilt or innocence of the party who is accused without hearing from 
a single witness, without reviewing a single document. And I would 
submit that will be a very dangerous and long-lasting precedent that we 
will all have to live with.
  President Trump's wholesale obstruction of Congress strikes at the 
heart of our Constitution and democratic system of separation of 
powers. Make no mistake. The President's actions in this impeachment 
inquiry constitute an attack on congressional oversight on the coequal 
nature of this branch of government, not just on the House but on the 
Senate's ability, as well, to conduct its oversight, to serve as a 
check and balance on this President and every President that follows.
  If the Senate allows President Trump's obstruction to stand, it 
effectively nullifies the impeachment power. It will allow future 
Presidents to decide whether they want their misconduct to be 
investigated or not,

[[Page S761]]

whether they would like to participate in an impeachment investigation 
or not. That is a power of the Congress. That is not a power of the 
President. By permitting a categorical obstruction, it turns the 
impeachment power against itself.
  How we respond to this unprecedented obstruction will shape future 
debates between our branches of government and the executive forever. 
And it is not just impeachment. The ability of Congress to conduct 
meaningful and probing oversight--oversight that, by its nature, is 
intended to be a check and balance on the awesome powers of the 
executive branch--hinges on our willingness to call witnesses and 
compel documents that President Trump is hiding with no valid 
justification, no precedential support.
  If we tell the President, effectively, ``You can act corruptly, you 
can abuse the powers of your office to coerce a foreign government to 
helping you cheat in an election by withholding military aid, and when 
you are caught, you can further abuse your powers by concealing the 
evidence of your wrongdoing,'' the President becomes unaccountable to 
anyone. Our government is no longer a government with three coequal 
branches. The President effectively, for all intents and purposes, 
becomes above the law.
  This is, of course, the opposite of what the Framers intended. They 
purposely entrusted the power of impeachment to the legislative branch 
so that it may protect the American people from a President who 
believes that he can do whatever he wants.
  So we must consider how our actions will reverberate for decades to 
come and the impact they will have on the functioning of our democracy. 
And as we consider this critical decision, it is important to remember 
that no matter what you decide to do here, whether you decide to hear 
witnesses and relevant testimony, the facts will come out in the end. 
Even over the course of this trial, we have seen so many additional 
facts come to light. The facts will come out. In all of their horror, 
they will come out, and there are more court documents and deadlines 
under the Freedom of Information Act. Witnesses will tell their stories 
in future congressional hearings, in books, and in the media. This week 
has made that abundantly clear.
  The documents the President is hiding will come out. The witnesses 
the President is concealing will tell their stories. And we will be 
asked why we didn't want to hear that information when we had the 
chance, when we could consider its relevance and importance in making 
this most serious decision. What answer shall we give if we do not 
pursue the truth now, if we allow it to remain hidden until it is too 
late to consider on the profound issue of the President's innocence or 
guilt?
  What we are asking you to do on behalf of the American people is 
simple: Use your sole power to try this impeachment by holding a fair 
trial. Get the documents they refuse to provide to the House. Hear the 
witnesses they refuse to make available to the House, just as this body 
has done in every single impeachment trial until now.
  Let the American people know that you understand they deserve the 
truth. Let them know you still care about the truth, that the truth 
still matters.
  Though much divides us, on this we should agree: A trial, stripped of 
all its trappings, should be a search for the truth, and that requires 
witnesses and testimony.
  Now, you may have seen just this afternoon, the President's former 
Chief of Staff, General Kelly, said ``a Senate trial without witnesses 
is a job only half done.'' A trial without witnesses is only half a 
trial. Well, I have to say I can't agree. A trial without witnesses is 
no trial at all. You either have a trial or you don't. And if you are 
going to have a real trial, you need to hear from the people who have 
firsthand information. Now, we have presented some of them to you, but 
you know as well as we there are others that you should hear from.

  Let me close this portion with words, I think, more powerful than 
General Kelly's. They come from John Adams, who in 1776 wrote: Together 
with the right to vote, those who wrote our Constitution considered the 
right to trial by jury ``the heart and lungs, the mainspring and the 
center wheel'' of our liberties, without which ``the body must die, the 
watch must run down, the government must become arbitrary.''
  Now, what does that mean? Without a fair trial, the government must 
become arbitrary. Now, of course, he is talking about the right of an 
average citizen to a trial by jury.
  Well, if in courtrooms all across America, when someone is tried but 
they are a person of influence and power, they can declare at the 
beginning of the trial ``If the government's case is so good, let them 
prove it without witnesses''; if people of power and influence can 
insist to the judge that the House, that the prosecutors, that the 
government, that the people must prove their case without witnesses or 
documents, a right reserved only for the powerful--because, you know, 
only Donald Trump--only Donald Trump, of any defendant in America can 
insist on a trial with no witnesses--if that should be true in courts 
throughout the land, then, as Adams wrote, the government becomes 
arbitrary because whether you have a fair trial or no trial at all 
depends on whether you are a person of power and influence like Donald 
J. Trump.
  The body will die. The clock will run down. And our government 
becomes arbitrary. The importance of a fair trial here is not less than 
in every courtroom in America; it is greater than in any courtroom in 
America because we set the example for America.
  I said at the outset, and I will repeat again: Your decision on guilt 
or innocence is important, but it is not the most important decision. 
If we have a fair trial, however that trial turns out, whatever your 
verdict may be, at least we can agree we had a fair trial. At least we 
can agree that the House had a fair opportunity to present its case. At 
least we can agree that the President had a fair opportunity to present 
their case--if we have a fair trial. And we can disagree about the 
verdict, but we can all agree the system worked as it was intended. We 
had a fair trial, and we reached a decision.
  Rob this country of a fair trial, and there can be no representation 
that the verdict has any meaning. How could it, if the result is baked 
in by the process? Assure the American people, whatever the result may 
be, that at least they got a fair shake.
  There is a reason why the American people want to hear from 
witnesses, and it is not just about curiosity. It is because they 
recognize that in every courtroom in America that is just what happens. 
And if it doesn't happen here, the government has become arbitrary; 
there is one person who is entitled to a different standard, and that 
is the President of the United States. And that is the last thing the 
Founders intended.
  Mr. Chief Justice, we reserve the balance of our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, Mr. Manager.
  The majority leader is recognized.


                                 Recess

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I request that the Senate take a 
15-minute recess.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, so ordered.
  There being no objection, at 2:49 p.m., the Senate, sitting as a 
Court of Impeachment, recessed until 3:40 p.m.; whereupon the Senate 
reassembled when called to order by the Chief Justice.


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

  
  On page S761, January 31, 2020, third column, the following 
appears: Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I request that the 
Senate take a 15- minute recess. There being no objection, at 2:49 
p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, recessed 
until 3:40 p.m.; whereupon the Senate reassembled when called to 
order by the CHIEF JUSTICE.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. 
Chief Justice, I request that the Senate take a 15- minute recess. 
The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, so ordered. There being no 
objection, at 2:49 p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court of 
Impeachment, recessed until 3:40 p.m.; whereupon the Senate 
reassembled when called to order by the CHIEF JUSTICE.


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


  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Please be seated.
  We are ready to hear the presentation from counsel for the President.
  Mr. Counsel PHILBIN. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, the 
House managers have said throughout their presentation and throughout 
all of the proceedings here again and again that you can't have a trial 
without witnesses and documents, as if it is just that simple. If you 
are going to have a trial, there have to be new witnesses and 
documents. But it is not that simple. It is really a trope that is 
being used to disguise the real issues, the real decisions that you 
would be making on this decision about witnesses, because there is a 
lot more at stake. Let me unpack that and explain what is really at 
stake there.
  The first is this idea that, if you come to trial, you have to always 
go to witnesses, have new witnesses come in, but that is not true. In 
every legal system and in our legal systems on both the civil and 
criminal sides, there is a way to decide right up front, in some quick 
way, whether there is really a triable issue, whether you really need

[[Page S762]]

to go to all the trouble of calling in new witnesses and having more 
evidence in something like that. There is not here. There is no need 
for that because these Articles of Impeachment, on their face, are 
defective, and we have explained that. Let me start with the second 
article, the obstruction charge.
  We have explained that that charge is really trying to say that it is 
an impeachable offense for the President to defend the separation of 
powers. That can't be right. It is also the case that no witnesses are 
going to say anything that makes any difference to the second Article 
of Impeachment. That all has to do with the validity of the grounds the 
President asserted, the fact that he asserted longstanding 
constitutional prerogatives of the executive branch in specific ways to 
resist specific deficiencies in the subpoenas that were issued. No fact 
witness is going to come in and say anything that relates in any way to 
that. It is not going to make any difference.
  On the first Article of Impeachment, that, too, is defective on its 
face. We have explained. We heard it again today here. They have this 
subjective theory of impeachment that will show abuse of power by 
focusing just on the President's subjective motives, and they said 
again today, here, that the way they can show the President did 
something wrong is that he defied the foreign policy of the United 
States. I talked about that before, this theory that he defied the 
agencies within the executive branch. He wasn't following the policy of 
the executive branch. That is not a constitutionally coherent 
statement.
  The theory of abuse of power that they have framed in the first 
Article of Impeachment will do grave damage to the separation of powers 
under our Constitution because it would become so malleable that they 
could pour into it anything they want to find illicit motives for some 
perfectly permissible action. It becomes so malleable that it is no 
different than maladministration--the exact ground that the Framers 
rejected during the Constitutional Convention.
  The Constitution defines specific offenses. It limits and constrains 
the impeachment power.
  Now, there is also the fact that we actually heard from a lot of 
witnesses. We have heard from a lot of witnesses in the proceedings so 
far. You have heard 192 video clips, by our count, from 13 different 
witnesses. There were 17 witnesses deposed in closed hearings in the 
House, and 12 of them testified again in open hearings. You have got 
all of those transcripts, so you can see the witnesses' testimony 
there. The key portions have been played for you on the screens. And 
you have got over 28,000 pages of documents and transcripts. You have 
got a lot of evidence already.
  But there is another principle that they overlook when they say 
``Well, if you are going to have a trial, there just has to be 
witnesses,'' as if the most ordinary thing is you get to trial and then 
start subpoenaing new witnesses and documents. That is not true either, 
and we pointed this out.
  In the regular courts, the way things work is you have got to do a 
lot of work preparing a trial--called discovery--to find out about 
witnesses and depose them and find out about documents before you get 
to trial. You can't show up the day of trial and say: Oh, Your Honor, 
actually, we are not ready. We didn't subpoena John Bolton or witness X 
or witness Y, and now we want to subpoena that witness. Now we want to 
do discovery.
  And why does that matter here? Because here, to show up not having 
done the work and to expect that work to be done in the Senate, by this 
body, has grave consequences for the institutional interests of this 
body, and it sets a precedent--really sets an important precedent for 
two bodies--for the Senate and for the House--because what the Senate 
accepts as an impeachment coming from the House determines not just 
precedent for the Senate but, really, precedent for the House in the 
future as well.
  If the procedures used in the House to bring this proceeding here to 
this stage are accepted, if the Senate says ``Yes, we will start 
calling new witnesses because you didn't get the job done in whatever 
process you used to get it here,'' then that becomes the new normal. 
And that is important in a couple of ways.
  One is, as we have pointed out, the totally unprecedented process 
that was used in the House that violated all notions of due process. 
There are precedents going back 150 years in the House, ensuring that 
someone accused in an impeachment hearing in the House has due process 
rights to be represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, to be 
able to present evidence. They didn't allow the President to do that, 
and if this body says that is OK, then that becomes the new normal.
  And they stand up here, the House managers, and say this body will be 
unfair if this body doesn't call the witnesses. They talk about 
fairness. Where was the fairness in that proceeding in the House?
  And Manager Schiff says that things would be arbitrary if you don't 
do what they said and call the witnesses they want. Well, wasn't it 
arbitrary in the House when they wouldn't allow the President to be 
represented by counsel, wouldn't allow the President to call witnesses? 
There was no precedent in a Presidential impeachment inquiry to have 
open hearings where the President and his counsel were excluded.
  It also would set a precedent to allow a package, a proceeding, from 
the House to come here that the House managers say ``Well, now we need 
new witnesses; we haven't done all the work,'' and it is witnesses they 
didn't even try to get. They didn't subpoena John Bolton, and they 
didn't go through the process. When other witnesses were subpoenaed--
when Dr. Kupperman--Charlie Kupperman--went to court, they withdrew the 
subpoena. And now to say that ``Well, fairness demands that this body 
has to do all that work''--that sets a new precedent, as well, and it 
changes--it would change for all of the future the relationship between 
the House and the Senate in impeachment inquiries. It would mean that 
the Senate has to become the investigatory body.
  And the principles that they assert--they did a process that wasn't 
fair. They did a process that was arbitrary, that arbitrarily denied 
the President rights. They did a process that wouldn't allow witnesses, 
and then they came here on the first night--remember when we were all 
here until 2 o'clock--and in very belligerent terms said to the Members 
of this body: You are on trial. It will be treachery if you don't do 
what the House managers say.
  That is not right. When it was their errors, when they were arbitrary 
and they didn't provide fairness, they can't project that onto this 
body to try to say that you have to make up for their errors, and if 
you don't, the fault lies here.
  Now, they also suggest that it is not going to take a long time, that 
they only want a few witnesses. But, of course, if things are opened up 
to witnesses and it is going to be fair, it is not just one side; it is 
not just the witnesses that they would want. The President would have 
to be permitted to have witnesses.
  And with all respect, Mr. Chief Justice, the idea that if a subpoena 
is sent to a senior adviser to the President and the President 
determines that he will stand by the principle of immunity that has 
been asserted by virtually every President since Nixon, that that will 
just be resolved by the Senate right here, whether or not that 
privilege exists, by the Chief Justice sitting as the Presiding 
Officer--that doesn't make sense. That is not the way it works.
  The Senate, even when the Chief Justice is the Presiding Officer 
here, can't unilaterally decide the privileges of the executive branch. 
That dispute would have to be resolved in another way, and it could 
involve litigation, and it could take a lot of time.
  So the idea that this will all be done quickly if everyone just does 
what the House managers say is not realistic. It is not the way that 
the process would actually have to play out in accord with the 
Constitution, and that has another significant consequence, again 
affecting this institution as a precedent going forward because what it 
suggests--the new normal that would be created then--is kind of an 
express path for precisely the sort of impeachment that the Framers 
most feared.

  The Framers recognized that impeachments could be done for 
illegitimate reasons. They recognized that

[[Page S763]]

there could be partisan impeachments. And if this is the new normal, 
this is the very epitome of a partisan impeachment. There was 
bipartisan opposition to it in the House, and it was rushed through 
with unfair procedures--78 days total of inquiry. Think about that. In 
Nixon there had been investigating committees, and there was a special 
prosecutor long before the House Judiciary Committee started its 
investigation.
  In Clinton there was a special counsel--an independent counsel for 
the better part of a year before the House Judiciary Committee even 
started hearings.
  Everything from start to finish in this case, from September 24 until 
the Articles of Impeachment were considered in the Judiciary Committee, 
was done in 78 days--in 78 days--and for 71 of them, the President was 
entirely locked out.
  So the new normal would be slapdash: Get it done quickly, unfair 
procedures in the House to impeach a President; then bring it to the 
Senate, and then all the real work of investigation and discovery is 
going to have to take place with that impeachment hanging over the 
President's head, and that is a particular thing the Framers also were 
concerned about. I mentioned this the other day.
  In Federalist No. 65 Hamilton warned specifically about what he 
called--I am quoting--``the injury to the innocent, from the 
procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought 
against them'' because he understood that if an impeachment charge from 
the House wasn't resolved quickly, if it was hanging over the 
President's head, that in itself would be a problem. And that is why 
they structured the impeachment process so that the Senate could be 
able to swiftly determine impeachments that were brought. That also 
suggests that is why there is a system for having thorough 
investigations, a thorough process done in the House.
  And Hamilton explained that delay after the impeachment would afford 
an opportunity for ``intrigue and corruption,'' and it would also be, 
as he put it, ``the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction 
of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have 
exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority 
in the House of Representatives.'' And that is what has happened here.
  And if you create a system now that makes the new normal a half-
baked, slapdash process in the House--just get the impeachment done and 
get it over to the Senate--and then once the President is impeached and 
you have the head of the executive branch, the leader of the free 
world, having something like that hanging over his head, then we will 
slow everything down, and then we will start doing the investigation 
and just drag it out. That is all part of what makes this even more 
political, especially in an election year.
  It is not the process that the Framers had in mind, and it is not 
something the Senate should condone in this case. The Senate is not 
here to do the investigatory work that the House didn't do.
  Where there has been a process that denied all due process, that 
produced a record that can't be relied upon, the reaction from this 
body should be to reject the Articles of Impeachment, not to condone 
and put its imprimatur on the way the proceedings were handled in the 
House and not to prolong matters further by trying to redo work that 
the House failed to do by not seeking evidence and not doing a fair and 
legitimate process to bring the Articles of Impeachment here.
  Thank you.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Mr. Sekulow.
  Mr. Counsel SEKULOW. Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the Senate, over a 
7-day period you did hear evidence. You heard evidence from 13 
different witnesses, 192 video clips, and as my colleague the Deputy 
White House Counsel said, over 28,000 pages of documents.
  You heard testimony from Gordon Sondland. He is the United States 
Ambassador to the European Union. You heard that testimony. He 
testified in the House proceedings. I did not have an opportunity to 
cross-examine him. If we get witnesses, I have to have that 
opportunity.
  William Taylor, former Acting United States Ambassador to Ukraine, 
testified. You heard his testimony. We didn't get the opportunity to 
cross-examine him. He would be called.
  Tim Morrison, the former senior director for Europe and Russia of the 
National Security Council. You saw his testimony. They put it up. We 
didn't get an opportunity--we did not have an opportunity to cross-
examine him.
  Jennifer Williams, special adviser on Europe and Russia for Vice 
President Mike Pence. You saw her testimony. They put it up. I did not 
have the opportunity to cross-examine her. If we call witnesses, we 
would have to have that opportunity.
  David Holmes, political counsel to the United States Embassy in 
Ukraine. You saw testimony from him. We were not able to cross-examine 
him. If he is called or if we get witnesses, we will call the 
Ambassador, and we will cross-examine.
  LTC Alexander Vindman. You saw his testimony. He appeared before the 
House. We didn't have the opportunity to cross-examine him. If we call 
witnesses, we will, of course, have that right to cross-examine him.
  Fiona Hill. She is the former senior director for Europe and Russia 
on the National Security Council. She testified for the House. If we 
have witnesses, we have the opportunity to call her then and cross-
examine Fiona Hill.
  Kurt Volker, former United States Representative for Ukraine 
Negotiations. They called him; we did not have the opportunity to 
cross-examine. If we are calling witnesses--these are witnesses you 
have heard from--we would have the right to call witnesses and to 
cross-examine Mr. Volker. George Kent, the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of State for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, you saw his 
testimony. They called him. If we have witnesses, we have the right to 
call that witness and to cross-examine Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent.

  The former United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Ambassador 
Yovanovitch, they called her. You saw that testimony. We did not have 
the opportunity to cross-examine her. If we have witnesses, we would 
have to call her.
  Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, 
Ukraine, and Eurasia, they called her. You saw her witness testimony 
right here. We did not have the opportunity to cross-examine her. We 
would have to be given that opportunity.
  These are the witnesses against the President. Laura Cooper, Deputy 
Secretary of Defense for Russia and Eurasia--again, the same thing.
  David Hale, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He 
was called by the House. You saw his testimony. We never had the 
opportunity to cross-examine him. If we have witnesses, we have to have 
the opportunity to do that.
  There were other witnesses that were called where you saw their 
testimony or heard their testimony or it was referred to. Catherine 
Croft, Special Adviser for Ukraine negotiation, Department of State; 
Mark Sandy, the Deputy Associate Director for National Security 
Programs; and Christopher Anderson, Special Adviser for Ukraine 
Negotiations, Department of State--you heard their testimony referred 
to. We did not have the opportunity to cross-examine them.
  So this isn't going to happen, if witnesses are called in a week. 
Now, that is just the witnesses that have been produced that you have 
seen by the House managers.
  You are being called upon to make consequential constitutional 
decisions--consequential decisions for our Constitution. We talked 
about the burden of proof. I said this before, and I will say it again. 
Thirty-one times the managers said they proved their case. Twenty-nine 
times they said the evidence was overwhelming. Manager Nadler--he 
didn't only say it was overwhelming in his view, on page 739 of the 
Congressional Record, he is very clear. He says not only is it strong, 
there is no doubt. That is what he said. ``The one thing the House 
managers think the President counsel got right is quoting me''--talking 
about Mr. Nadler, Manager Nadler--``as saying `beyond any doubt.' It 
is, indeed, beyond any doubt.''
  Now, of course, we think that they have not proven their case by any 
stretch of any proper constitutional analysis.
  In the Clinton investigation, they talk about witnesses being called, 
but

[[Page S764]]

the three witnesses that were called had either testified before the 
grand jury or before the House committee. There weren't new witnesses. 
What Mr. Philbin said is correct; that under our constitutional design, 
they are supposed to investigate; you are to deliberate. But what they 
are asking you to do is now become the investigative agency, the 
investigative body.
  If they needed all this additional evidence, which they said they 
don't need--and, by the way, not only did they say it in the Record, 
this is House Manager Nadler when he was on CNN back on the 15th of 
this month: ``We brought the articles of impeachment. Because, despite 
the fact that we didn't hear from many witnesses we [could] have heard 
from, we heard from enough witnesses to prove the case beyond any doubt 
at all.''
  The same can be said from Representative Lofgren:

       You know, we have evidence proving the case through, for 
     example, at the meeting when Bolton said it was a drug deal, 
     well, we have fact witnesses. Hill was there, Vindman was 
     there, Sondland was there.

  So this idea that they haven't had witnesses, that is the smoke 
screen. You have heard from a lot of witnesses. The problem with the 
case, the problem with their position is, even with all of those 
witnesses, it doesn't prove up an impeachable offense. The articles 
fail.
  I think it is very dangerous if the House runs up--which they did--
Articles of Impeachment quickly, so quickly that they are clamoring for 
evidence, despite the fact that they put all of this evidence forward. 
They got their wish of an impeachment by Christmas. That was the goal. 
But now they want you to do the work they failed to do.
  But, as I said, time and time again we heard: You didn't hear from 
witnesses. You didn't hear from many witnesses. Mr. Schiff modified 
that a little bit today, a little bit. You heard from a lot of 
witnesses. But if we go down the road of witnesses, this is not a 1-
week process. Remember, I talked about the waving the wand and 
Ukrainian corruption was gone? You are not going to have a witness wand 
here, where, OK, you got a week to do this and get it done. There is no 
way that would be proper under due process. But, you know, due process 
is supposed to be for the person accused, and they are turning it on 
its head. They brought the articles before you. They are the ones that 
rushed the case up and then held it before you could actually start 
proceeding, but they are the ones who passed the articles before 
Christmas.
  You know, we talked a lot about the court system and the fact that 
they were seeking witnesses, and when it got close to actually having a 
court proceeding, they decided that they didn't want to have that 
witness go through that proceeding, and they actually withdrew the 
subpoena to move the case out.
  How many constitutional challenges will we have in this body because 
they placed the burden on you that they would not take themselves in 
putting their case forward? If we look at our constitutional framework 
and our constitutional structure, that is not the way it is supposed to 
work.
  Now, our opposition to this motion is rather straightforward, as I 
have said. We came here ready to try the case on the record that they 
presented, the record that the managers told us was overwhelming and 
complete.

  Mr. Schiff went through every sentence of the Articles of Impeachment 
just a few days ago and said: Proved, proved, proved. But the problem 
is that what is proved, proved, proved is not an impeachable offense. 
You could have witnesses that prove a lot of things, but if there is 
not a violation of the law, if it doesn't meet the constitutional 
required process, the constitutional required substantive issues of do 
these articles--these allegations rise to the level sufficient for a 
removal of office for a duly elected President of the United States? It 
doesn't and especially so--especially so--when we are in an election 
year.
  I am not going to take the time--your time, which is precious, to go 
over each and every allegation about witnesses that I can. I could do 
it. I could stand here for a long time. I am not going to do that. I am 
just going to say this: They created the record. Do not allow them to 
penalize the country and the Constitution because they failed to do 
their job.
  With that Mr. Chief Justice, we yield our time.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, counsel.
  The House managers have 30 minutes remaining.
  Mr. Manager SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, Senators: I want to 
walk through some of the arguments that you just heard from the 
President's counsel.
  The first argument was made by Mr. Philbin. Mr. Philbin began by 
saying the House managers assert that you can't have a trial without 
witnesses, and he said: ``It's not that simple.'' Actually, it is. It 
is pretty simple. It is pretty simple. In every courthouse, in every 
State, in every county in the country, where they have trials, they 
have witnesses. And I think you heard Mr. Philbin tie himself into 
knots as to why this should be the first trial in which witnesses are 
not necessary. But, you know, some things are just as simple as they 
appear. A trial without witnesses is simply not a trial. You could call 
it something else, but it is not a trial.
  Now, Mr. Sekulow said something very interesting. He said: The House 
investigates, and the Senate deliberates. Well, he would rewrite our 
Constitution with that argument because the last time I checked the 
Constitution, it said that the House shall have the sole power of 
impeachment, and the Senate shall try the impeachment, not merely 
deliberate about it, not merely think about it, not merely wonder about 
it. I know you are the greatest deliberative body in the world, but not 
even you can deliberate in a trial without witnesses. But Mr. Sekulow 
would rewrite the Constitution: Your job is not to try the case, he 
says; your job is merely to deliberate. That is not what the Founders 
had in mind--not by a long shot.
  Now, Mr. Philbin says none of these witnesses would have relevance on 
article II--I guess conceding that they would have relevant evidence 
under article I. But that is not true either. Imagine what you will see 
when you hear from the witnesses who ran the Office of Management and 
Budget or imagine what you will see when you read the documents from 
the Office of Management and Budget. What you will see is what they 
have covered up. What you will see is the motive for their complete 
obstruction of Congress. When you see not the redacted emails, not the 
fully blacked-out emails that they deigned to give in the litigation 
and Freedom of Information Act, but when you see what is under those 
redactions, you will have proof of motive. When you see those 
documents, you will see just how fallacious these nonassertions of 
executive privilege are. You will see, in essence, what they have 
covered up. It could not be more relevant to whether their panoply of 
legal argumentation to justify ``we shall fight all subpoenas'' is 
merely a coverup in a legal window dressing. So these witnesses and 
documents are critical on both articles.
  Now, you also heard Mr. Philbin argue--and, again, this is where we 
expected we would be at the end of the proceeding, which is, 
essentially, they proved their case. They proved their case. We pretty 
much all know what has gone on here. We all understand just what this 
President did. No one really disputes that anymore. So what? So what? 
It is a version of the Dershowitz defense. So what? The President can 
do no wrong. The President is the State. If the President believes that 
corrupt conduct would help him get reelected, if he believes shaking 
down an ally and withholding military aid, if he believes soliciting 
foreign interference in our election, whether it be from the Ukrainians 
or the Russians or the Israeli Prime Minister or anyone else in any 
form it may take, so what? He has a God-given right to abuse his power, 
and there is nothing you can do about it. It is the Dershowitz 
principle of constitutional lawlessness. That is the end-all argument 
for them. You don't need to hear witnesses who will prove the 
President's misconduct because he has a right to be as corrupt as he 
chooses under our Constitution, and there is nothing you can do about 
it. God help us if that argument succeeds.
  Now, they say that these witnesses already testified, and so you 
don't need

[[Page S765]]

to hear from anybody. There are witnesses who already testified, so the 
House doesn't get to call witnesses in the Senate. That would be like a 
criminal trial in any courthouse in America where the defendant, if 
he's rich and powerful enough, can say to the judge: Hey, Judge, the 
prosecution got to have witnesses in the grand jury. They don't get to 
call anyone here. They had their chance in the grand jury. They called 
witnesses in the grand jury. They don't get to call witnesses here.
  That is not how it works in any courtroom in America, and it is not 
how it should work in this courtroom.
  Of course, you heard the argument again repeated time and time again: 
The House is saying they are not ready for trial. Of course, we never 
said we weren't ready for trial. We came here very prepared for trial. 
I would submit to you, the President's team came here unprepared for 
trial, unprepared for the fact that there would be, as we all 
anticipated, a daily drip of new disclosures that would send them back 
on their heels. We came here to try a case--prepared to try a case--
and, yes, we had, I hope, the not unreasonable expectation that in 
trying that case, like in every courtroom in America, we could call 
witnesses. That is not a lack of preparation. That is the presence of 
common sense.

  They didn't try to get Bolton, they argue. Someone said: They didn't 
even try to get Bolton.
  Now, of course, we did try to get Bolton, and what he said when he 
refused to show up voluntarily is: If you subpoena me, I will sue you. 
I will sue you.
  He said basically what Don McGahn told us 9 months ago: I will sue 
you; good luck with that.
  Now, the public argument that was made by his counsel was that he and 
Dr. Kupperman, out of, you know, just due diligence, they just want a 
court to opine that it is OK for them to come forward and testify. As 
soon as the court blesses their testimony, they are more than willing 
to come in. They just are going to court to get a court opinion saying 
they can do it.
  And so, of course, we said to them: If that is your real motivation, 
there is a court about to rule on this very issue of absolute immunity.
  And very shortly thereafter, that court did. That was the court--
Judge Jackson in the McGahn case--and the judge said that his argument 
about absolute immunity--which, yes, Presidents have always dreamed 
about and asserted but which has never succeeded in any court in the 
land--it was ridiculed in the case of Harriet Miers. It was made short 
shrift in the case of Don McGahn, where the judge said: No, we don't 
have Kings here. In the 250 years of jurisprudence, there is not a 
single case to support the proposition that the President can simply 
say that my advisers are absolutely immune from process.
  And, of course, in every other nonimpeachment context where the 
courts have looked at the issue of a Congress's power to enforce 
subpoenas against witnesses or documents, the courts have said the 
power to compel compliance with a subpoena is coequal and coextensive 
with the power to legislate because you can't do one without the other. 
If we can't find out whether the President is breaking the law, 
violating the Impoundment Control Act or any other--whether he is 
withholding aid that we appropriated for an ally--how can we legislate 
a fix to make sure that this never happens again? We can't. If we can't 
get answers, we can't legislate.
  That is a proposition indicated by every court in the land. And, of 
course, in the context of impeachment, the courts have said that is 
never more important--never more important.
  Now, I don't know why, after saying he would sue us--and we had to 
expect that, like Don McGahn, where we are still in court 9 months 
later. I don't know why he changed his mind, but I suspect it is for 
the reason that if this trial goes forward and he keeps this to 
himself, it will be very difficult to explain to the country why he 
saved it for the book. When he knew information of direct relevance and 
consequence to a decision that you have to make about whether the 
President of the United States should be removed from office, it would 
be very difficult to explain why that is saved for a book.
  Well, I would submit to you, it would be equally difficult for you to 
explain as it would be for him. But you can ask him that question: Why 
are you willing to testify before the Senate but not the House? And you 
should ask him that question.
  Now, it was said, and it has the character of ``you should have 
fought harder to overcome our obstruction.'' The House should have 
fought harder to overcome our stonewalling. Shame on the House for not 
fighting harder to overcome our stonewalling. If only they had fought 
harder to overcome our stonewalling, maybe they could have gotten these 
witnesses earlier.
  That is a really hard argument to make while they are stonewalling: 
You should have tried harder. You should have taken the years that 
would be necessary to overcome our stonewalling.
  And the reason why that argument is in such bad faith? As I pointed 
out to you yesterday, while they are in this body arguing the House was 
derelict, slapdash, they should have fought harder and longer and 
endlessly to overcome our stonewalling--while they are making that 
argument to you that the House should have fought up and down the 
courts from the district to the court of appeals to the Supreme Court 
and back again--they are in the courthouse arguing the opposite. They 
are in the courthouse saying: Judge, they are trying to enforce a 
subpoena on Don McGahn. You need to throw it out. They don't have the 
jurisdiction. This is nonjusticiable. You can't hear this case.
  That is a really hard argument to make. I credit them for making it 
with a straight face, but that is the character of it: You should have 
fought harder to overcome our stonewalling and obstruction.
  Now, they also say the Chief Justice cannot decide issues of 
privilege. No, the Chief Justice can't make those decisions. You need 
to let us litigate this up and down the court system.
  That is a pretty remarkable argument because the Senate rules allow 
the presiding officer to make judgments and to rule on issues of 
evidence, materiality, and privilege. That is permitted under your own 
rules. We don't need to go up and down the courts. We have got a 
perfectly good judge right here.
  Now, you heard our proposal yesterday that we take a week--just a 
week--to depose the witnesses that we feel are relevant, that they feel 
are relevant, and that the Justice rules are relevant--just one week. 
Now, they can say that the Constitution requires them to go to court, 
but, of course, it doesn't. There is absolutely no constitutional 
impediment from these fine lawyers saying: You know, that is eminently 
reasonable. We will allow a neutral party, the Chief Justice of the 
United States of America, to rule on whether a witness is material or 
immaterial, whether they have been called for purposes of probative 
evidence or harassment, and whether you are making a proper claim of 
privilege or merely trying to hide crime or fraud.
  The concern they have is not that the Chief Justice will be unfair, 
but rather that he will be fair. But do not make any mistake about it. 
Do not let them suggest that there is something constitutionally 
impermissible or it would violate the President's rights to allow the 
Chief Justice of the United States to make those decisions in this 
court, because he is empowered to do so by your rules and by the 
Constitution, which gives you the sole power to try impeachments. In 
the sole exercise of your power to try impeachments, you can say: We 
will allow the Chief Justice to make those decisions.
  Now, Mr. Sekulow said that you have heard the testimony of 13 
witnesses. And I think the impression is meant to be given, if not to 
you--we know otherwise--maybe the people watching at home, that they 
must have been in between errands while watching the Senate trial and 
missed where those 13 witnesses came before the Senate and testified.
  But of course, you heard no live testimony in this body. There wasn't 
any live testimony before this body, and I don't recall any of you in 
that supersecret basement bunker they have been talking about. Now, I 
will admit, there were 100 Members eligible to be there. So maybe I 
missed one of you, but I don't think you were there for the live 
testimony in the House.
  Now, Mr. Sekulow says the President was deprived of his right of 
calling

[[Page S766]]

these witnesses himself and cross-examining these witnesses in the 
House, but that is not true either because the President was eligible 
to call witnesses in his defense in the Judiciary Committee and chose 
not to do so. If the President's counsel felt that, you know, Bill 
Taylor says that he spoke with Sondland right after this phone call 
with the President, and Sondland talked about how the military aid was 
conditioned on these investigations, the President wanted Zelensky in a 
public box, and I would really like to cross-examine that West Point 
grad and Vietnam vet because I don't believe him, you know, they could 
have called Bill Taylor in the Judiciary Committee and cross-examined 
him, or they could have called Mick Mulvaney and put him under oath and 
let him contradict what we know John Bolton would say. But of course, 
they didn't do that. No, they said merely: Just get it over with in the 
House. For all there, it was too quick, too slapdash. Get it over with 
in the House, because, as the President said, when it comes to the 
Senate, we will have a real trial where he gets to call witnesses. But 
they have changed their tune because now they know what they have 
really known all along; which is, that those witnesses would deeply 
incriminate this President.
  So, instead, they have fallen back on the argument that if we are 
going to go down the road to having a real trial, if we are going to go 
down the road in having a real trial, we, the President's lawyers, are 
going to make you pay. And the form of this argument is: We are going 
to call every witness under the Sun. We are going to call every witness 
that testified before the House. We are going to call every witness 
that we can think of that would help smear the Bidens. We are going to 
keep you here until kingdom come. That is essentially the argument that 
they are making when Mr. Sekulow says: We are going to bring in Fiona 
Hill, and we are going to bring in Tim Morrison, and we are going to 
bring in this witness and bring in that witness.
  You have the sole power to try this case. You do not have to allow 
the President's lawyers to abuse your time or this process. You have 
the power to decide: No, we gave each side 24 hours to make their 
arguments. We are going to give each side a shared week to call their 
witnesses. You have that power. If you didn't, you couldn't have 
constricted the amount of time for our argument. You can likewise 
determine how much time should be taken with witness testimony.
  Now, Mr. Sekulow ended his argument against witnesses with where Mr. 
Philbin essentially began. It all comes back to the Dershowitz 
principle. What is the point of witnesses if the President can do 
whatever he wants under article II? What is the point of calling 
witnesses? What is the point of having a trial if the President can do 
whatever he wants under article II?
  The only constraining principle--and I think that one of the Senators 
asked yesterday: What is the limiting principle in the Dershowitz 
argument? If a President can corruptly seek foreign interference in his 
election because he believes that his election is in the national 
interest, then, you cannot impeach him for it, no matter how damaging 
it may be to our national security. What is the limiting principle?
  And I suppose the limiting principle is only this: It only requires 
the President to believe that his reelection is in the national 
interest. Well, it would require an extraordinary level of self-
reflection and insight for a President of the United States to conclude 
that his own reelection was not in the national interest--not 
unprecedented, mind you. I think that was the decision that LBJ 
ultimately arrived at, but I would not want to consider that a 
meaningful limitation on Presidential power, and neither should you.
  Finally, counsel expressed some indignance--indignance--that we 
should suggest that it is not just the Senate--it is not just the 
President, rather, who is on trial here but it is also the Senate; how 
dare the House managers suggest that your decision should reflect on 
this body. That is just such a calumny.
  Well, let me read you a statement made by one of your colleagues. 
This is what former U.S. Senator John Warner, a Republican of Virginia, 
had to say:

       As conscientious citizens from all walks of life are trying 
     their best to understand the complex impeachment issues now 
     being deliberated in the U.S. Senate, the rules of evidence 
     are central to the matter. Should the Senate allow additional 
     sworn testimony from fact witnesses with firsthand knowledge 
     and include relevant documents?
       As a lifelong Republican and a retired member of the U.S. 
     Senate, who once served as a juror in a Presidential 
     impeachment trial, I am mindful of the difficult 
     responsibilities those currently serving now shoulder. I 
     believe, as I am sure you do, that not only is the President 
     on trial, but in many ways, so is the Senate itself. As such, 
     I am strongly supportive of the efforts of my former 
     Republican Senate colleagues who are considering that the 
     Senate accept the introduction of additional evidence that 
     they deem relevant.
       Not long ago Senators of both major parties always worked 
     to accommodate fellow colleagues with differing points of 
     view to arrive at outcomes that would best serve the nation's 
     interests. If witnesses are suppressed in this trial and a 
     majority of Americans are left believing the trial was a 
     sham, I can only imagine the lasting damage done to the 
     Senate, and to our fragile national consensus. The Senate 
     embraces its legacy and delivers for the American people by 
     avoiding the risk.
       Throughout the long life of our nation, federal and state 
     judicial systems have largely supported the judicial norms of 
     evidence, witnesses and relevant documents. I respectfully 
     urge the Senate to be guided by the rules of evidence and 
     follow our nation's judicial norms, precedents and 
     institutions to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law 
     by welcoming relevant witnesses and documents as part of this 
     impeachment trial.

  That is your colleague, former Senator John Warner.
  Senators, there is a storm blowing through this Capitol. Its winds 
are strong, and they move us in uncertain and dangerous directions.
  Jefferson once said: ``I consider trial by jury as the only anchor . 
. . yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the 
principles of its constitution''--the only anchor yet imagined by man 
by which a government can be held to the principles of its 
constitution. I would submit to you, remove that anchor, and we are 
adrift, but if we hold true, if we have faith that the ship of state 
can survive the truth, this storm shall pass.
  I yield back.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you, Mr. Manager.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, the Democratic leader and I have 
had an opportunity to have a discussion, and it leads to the following: 
We will now cast a vote on the witness question.
  Once that vote is complete, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Thank you. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Shall it be in order to consider and debate under 
the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents?
  The yeas and nays are required under S. Res. 483.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Are there any Senators in the Chamber wising to 
change his or her vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:


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

  
  On page S766, January 31, 2020, third column, the following 
appears: The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
The question is, Shall it be in order to consider and debate under 
the impeachment rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or 
documents? The yeas and nays are required under S. Res. 483. The 
clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk 
called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as 
follows:
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The CHIEF JUSTICE. 
Thank you. Without objection, it is so ordered. The question is, 
Shall it be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment 
rules any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents? The yeas and 
nays are required under S. Res. 483. The clerk will call the roll. 
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The CHIEF 
JUSTICE. Are there any Senators in the Chamber wising to change 
his or her vote? The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as 
follows:


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


                         [Rollcall Vote No. 27]

                                YEAS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines

[[Page S767]]


     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young
  The motion was rejected.


                Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in 
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  Thereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court of 
Impeachment, recessed until 7:13 p.m.; whereupon the Senate reassembled 
when called to order by the Chief Justice.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will come to order. The majority leader 
is recognized.


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

  
  On page S767, January 31, 2020, first column, the following 
appears: Thereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court 
of Impeachment, recessed until 7:13 p.m.; whereupon the Senate 
reassembled when called to order by the CHIEF JUSTICE.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Thereupon, at 5:42 
p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, recessed 
until 7:13 p.m.; whereupon the Senate reassembled when called to 
order by the CHIEF JUSTICE. The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senate will 
come to order. The majority leader is recognized.


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


Providing For Related Procedures Concerning The Articles Of Impeachment 
       Against Donald John Trump, President Of The United States

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a resolution to the desk, 
and I ask the clerk to report.
  Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 488) to provide for related 
     procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against 
     Donald John Trump, President of the United States.
       Resolved, That the record in this case shall be closed, and 
     no motion with respect to reopening the record shall be in 
     order for the duration of these proceedings.
       The Senate shall proceed to final arguments as provided in 
     the impeachment rules, waiving the two person rule contained 
     in Rule XXII of the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the 
     Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials. Such arguments 
     shall begin at 11:00 am on Monday, February 3, 2020, and not 
     exceed four hours, and be equally divided between the House 
     and the President to be used as under the Rules of 
     Impeachment.
       At the conclusion of the final arguments by the House and 
     the President, the court of impeachment shall stand adjourned 
     until 4:00 pm on Wednesday, February 5, 2020, at which time 
     the Senate, without intervening action or debate shall vote 
     on the Articles of Impeachment.

  Thereupon, the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, proceeded 
to consider the resolution.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Democratic leader or designee be allowed to offer up four amendments to 
the resolution; further, that I be recognized to make a motion to table 
the amendment after it has been reported with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Democratic leader is recognized.


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

  
  On page S767, January 31, 2020, first column, the following 
appears: The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
The Democratic leader is recognized.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The CHIEF JUSTICE. 
Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Democratic leader is recognized.


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


  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Democratic leader will state the inquiry.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Is the Chief Justice aware that in the impeachment trial 
of President Johnson, Chief Justice Chase, as Presiding Officer, cast 
tie-breaking votes on both March 31 and April 2, 1868?
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. I am, Mr. Leader. The one concerned a motion to 
adjourn. The other concerned a motion to close deliberations. I do not 
regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a 
general authority to break ties.
  If the Members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to 
them, divide equally on a motion, the normal rule is that the motion 
fails.
  I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from 
a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that 
result so that the motion would succeed.


                           Amendment No. 1295

  (Purpose: To subpoena certain relevant witnesses and documents.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to 
subpoena Mulvaney, Bolton, Duffey, Blair, and the White House, OMB, 
DOD, and State Department documents, and I ask that it be read.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report.


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

  
  On page S767, January 31, 2020, second column, the following 
appears: The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will read the amendment.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The CHIEF JUSTICE. 
The clerk will report.


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


  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1295.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                            Motion to Table

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


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

  
  On page S767, January 31, 2020, second column, the following 
appears: There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will 
call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. The CHIEF 
JUSTICE. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber wishing to 
vote or change their vote?
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: There is a 
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative 
clerk called the roll. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Does any Member in the 
Chamber wish to change his or her vote?


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


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

                         [Rollcall Vote No. 28]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion to table is agreed to; the amendment is tabled.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1296

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to 
subpoena John R. Bolton, and I ask that it be read.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1296.

  The amendment is as follows:

               (Purpose: To subpoena John Robert Bolton)

       At the appropriate place in the resolving clause, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. ___.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, pursuant to rules V and VI of the Rules of 
     Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on 
     Impeachment Trials, the Chief Justice of the United States, 
     through the Secretary of the Senate, shall issue a subpoena 
     for the taking of testimony of John Robert Bolton, and the 
     Sergeant at Arms is authorized to utilize the services of the 
     Deputy Sergeant at Arms or any other employee of the Senate 
     in serving the subpoena authorized to be issued by this 
     section.


                            Motion to Table

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I move to table the amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Are there any Senators in the Chamber wishing to 
vote or change his or her vote?


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

  
  On page S767, January 31, 2020, third column, the following 
appears: There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will 
call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the 
roll. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote or change his or her vote?
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: There is a 
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The senior 
assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The CHIEF JUSTICE. 
Are there any Senators in the Chamber wishing to vote or change 
his or her vote?


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


  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                         [Rollcall Vote No. 29]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

[[Page S768]]


  


                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion to table is agreed to; the amendment is tabled.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1297

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to 
subpoena John R. Bolton; providing further that there be 1 day for a 
deposition, presided over by the Chief Justice, and 1 day for live 
testimony before the Senate, both of which must occur within 5 days of 
the adoption of the underlying resolution, and I ask that it be read.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1297.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

               (Purpose: To subpoena John Robert Bolton)

       At the appropriate place in the matter following the 
     resolving clause, insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, 
     pursuant to rules V and VI of the Rules of Procedure and 
     Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials, 
     the Chief Justice of the United States, through the Secretary 
     of the Senate, shall issue a subpoena for the taking of 
     testimony on oral deposition and subsequent testimony before 
     the Senate of John Robert Bolton, and the Sergeant at Arms is 
     authorized to utilize the services of the Deputy Sergeant at 
     Arms or any other employee of the Senate in serving the 
     subpoena authorized to be issued by this paragraph.
       The deposition authorized by this resolution shall be taken 
     before, and presided over by, the Chief Justice of the United 
     States, who shall administer to the witness the oath 
     prescribed by rule XXV of the Rules of Procedure and Practice 
     in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials. The Chief 
     Justice shall have authority to rule, as an initial matter, 
     upon any question arising out of the deposition. All 
     objections to a question shall be noted by the Chief Justice 
     upon the record of the deposition but the examination shall 
     proceed, and the witness shall answer such question. The 
     witness may refuse to answer a question only when necessary 
     to preserve a legally recognized privilege, or constitutional 
     right, and must identify such privilege cited if refusing to 
     answer a question.
       Examination of the witness at a deposition shall be 
     conducted by the Managers on the part of the House of 
     Representatives or their counsel, and by counsel for the 
     President. The witness shall be examined by not more than 2 
     persons each on behalf of the Managers and counsel for the 
     President. The witness may be accompanies by counsel. The 
     scope of the examination by the Managers and counsel for both 
     parties shall be limited to subject matters reflected in the 
     Senate record. The party taking a deposition shall present to 
     the other party, not less than 18 hours in advance of the 
     deposition, copies of all exhibits which the deposing party 
     intends to enter into the deposition. No exhibits outside of 
     the Senate record shall be employed, except for articles and 
     materials in the press, including electronic media. Any party 
     may interrogate the witness as if the witness were declared 
     adverse.
       The deposition shall be videotaped and a transcript of the 
     proceeding shall be made. The deposition shall be conducted 
     in private. No person shall be admitted to the deposition 
     except for the following: The witness, counsel for the 
     witness, the Managers on the part of the House of 
     Representatives, counsel for the Managers, counsel for the 
     President, and the Chief Justice; further, such persons whose 
     presence is required to make and preserve a record of the 
     proceeding in videotaped and transcript forms, and staff 
     members to the Chief Justice whose presence is required to 
     assist the Chief Justice in presiding over the deposition, or 
     for other purposes, as determined by the Chief Justice. All 
     persons present must maintain the confidentiality of the 
     proceeding.
       The Chief Justice at the deposition shall file the 
     videotaped and transcribed records of the deposition with the 
     Secretary of the Senate, who shall maintain them as 
     confidential proceedings of the Senate. The Sergeant at Arms 
     is authorized to make available for review at secure 
     locations, any of the videotapes or transcribed deposition 
     records to Members of the Senate, one designated staff member 
     per Senator, and the Chief Justice. The Senate may direct the 
     Secretary of the Senate to distribute such materials, and to 
     use whichever means of dissemination, including printing as 
     Senate documents, printing in the Congressional Record, 
     photo- and video- duplication, and electronic dissemination, 
     he determines to be appropriate to accomplish any 
     distribution of the videotaped or transcribed deposition 
     records that he is directed to make pursuant to this 
     paragraph.
       The deposition authorized by this resolution shall be 
     deemed to be proceedings before the Senate for purposes of 
     rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate, sections 101, 
     102, and 104 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 191, 192, and 
     194), sections 703, 705, and 707 of the Ethics in Government 
     Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. 288b, 288d, and 288f), sections 6002 
     and 6005 of title 18, United States Code, and section 1365 of 
     title 28, United States Code. The Secretary of the Senate 
     shall arrange for stenographic assistance, including 
     videotaping, to record the depositions as provided in section 
     205. Such expenses as may be necessary shall be paid from the 
     ``Appropriation Account--Miscellaneous Items'' in the 
     contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the 
     Secretary.
       The deposition authorized by this resolution may be 
     conducted for a period of time not to exceed 1 day. The 
     period of time for the subsequent testimony before the Senate 
     authorized by this resolution shall not exceed 1 day. The 
     deposition and the subsequent testimony before the Senate 
     shall both be completed not later than 5 days after the date 
     on which this resolution is adopted.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I move to table the amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there any Member in the Chamber who wishes to 
vote or change his or her vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:


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

  
  On page S768, January 31, 2020, third column, the following 
appears: There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. The result was 
announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read:There is a 
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative 
clerk called the roll. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there any Member in 
the Chamber who wishes to vote or change his or her vote? The 
result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:


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


                         [Rollcall Vote No. 30]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion to table is agreed to; the amendment is tabled.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 1298

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk to 
have the Chief Justice rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and 
documents and to rule on any assertion of privilege, and I ask that it 
be read.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Van Hollen] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1298.
       At the appropriate place in the matter following the 
     resolving clause, insert the following:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the 
     Presiding Officer shall issue a subpoena for any witness or 
     any document that a Senator or a party moves to subpoena if 
     the Presiding Officer determines that the witness or document 
     is likely to have probative evidence relevant to either 
     article of impeachment before the Senate, and, consistent 
     with the authority of the Presiding Officer to rule on all 
     questions of evidence, shall rule on any assertion of 
     privilege.

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I move to table the amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S769]]

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there any Senator in the Chamber wishing to 
vote or change his or her vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:


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

  
  On page S769, January 31, 2020, first column, the following 
appears: There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The 
result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: There is a 
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The senior 
assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is 
there any Senator in the Chamber wishing to vote or change his or 
her vote? The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:


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


                         [Rollcall Vote No. 31]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion to table is agreed to; the amendment is tabled.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The question occurs on the adoption of S. Res. 
488.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Is there any Member in the Chamber who wishes to 
vote or change his or her vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:


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

  
  On page S769, January 31, 2020, first column, the following 
appears: The CHIEF JUSTICE. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote or change his or her vote? The result was 
announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The CHIEF JUSTICE. 
Is there any Member in the Chamber who wishes to vote or change 
his or her vote? The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as 
follows:


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


                         [Rollcall Vote No. 32]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Loeffler
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The resolution (S. Res. 488) was agreed to.
  (The resolution is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted 
Resolutions.'')


 Unanimous Consent Agreement--Printing of Statements In The Record And 
         Printing Of Senate Document Of Impeachment Proceedings

  The CHIEF JUSTICE. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Secretary be authorized to include statements of Senators explaining 
their votes, either given or submitted during the legislative sessions 
of the Senate on Monday, February 3; Tuesday, February 4; and 
Wednesday, February 5; along with the full record of the Senate's 
proceedings and the filings by the parties in a Senate document printed 
under the supervision of the Secretary of the Senate that will complete 
the documentation of the Senate's handling of these impeachment 
proceedings.
  The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, so ordered.


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

  
  On page S769, January 31, 2020, second column, the following 
appears: The CHIEF JUSTICE. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The CHIEF JUSTICE. 
Without objection, so ordered.


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




                          ____________________