>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M JUDY WOODRUFF.

BEFORE WE GET TO OUR IMPEACHMENT COVERAGE, I HAVE SAD NEWS TO REPORT.

JIM LAHR DIED THIS MORNING.

HIS LEGACY OF JOURNALISM IS WITH US EVERY DAY.

WE WANT TO SEND OUR LOVE TO KATE, JIM'S WIFE, TO HIS CHILDREN, HIS THREE DAUGHTERS AND THEIR GRANDCHILDREN.

WE WILL LOOK BACK AT JIM'S LIFE AND TALK WITH ROBIN McNEILL, HIS LONG-TIME PARTNER HAHN TONIGHT'S PROGRAM.

THIS PROGRAM GOT ITS START WHEN JIM AND ROBERT COVERED WATERGATE IN THIS VERY STUDIO.

WE KNOW JIM WOULD WANT US TO HONOR HIM BY BRINGING YOU THE SPECIAL COVERAGE OF THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

TODAY THE DEMOCRATS WILL CONTINUE THEIR CASE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED POWER, OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM CONGRESS.

WE'RE GOING STRAIGHT TO THE HEARING WHERE BARRY BLACK IS THE CHAPLAIN OF THE SENATE WHO WILL BE GIVING THE PAYER.

I BELIEVE THEY DO THE PLEDGE AND THEN JOHN ROBERTS WILL TAKE HIS SEAT AND THE ARGUMENTS WILL BEGIN.

IT LOOKS AS IF THERE'S A MOMENT OR SO OF DELAY.

SO LET'S TALK WITH LISA DESJARDINS WHO HAS BEEN AT THE CAPITOL FROM THE BEGINNING AND WELL BEFORE.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR HAS BEEN AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

THIS IS THE DAY WHEN THE DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT FOR WHY -- NOT ONLY WHY THEY THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, BUT TO CONNECT WHAT HE DID WITH WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SENSE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

WE KNOW FROM THE PRESIDENT'S SIDE AND FROM REPUBLICANS THAT DEFEND HIM THAT THEY'RE QUESTIONING THE CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF POWER AS AN IMPEACHABLE CRIME.

SO DEMOCRATS TODAY IN PART WILL BE ARGUING IN FACT THAT IS NOT ONLY IMPEACHABLE BUT IT IS THE ULTIMATE CRIME TO ABUSE POWER AS PRESIDENT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

LET'S GO TO THE SENATE CHAPLAIN, BARRY BLACK FOR THE OPENING PRAYER.

>> LET US PRAY.

ALMIGHTY GOD, OUR ROCK OF AGES, BE OMNIPRESENT DURING THIS IMPEACHMENT TRIAL PROVIDING OUR SENATORS WITH THE ASSURING AWARENESS OF YOUR POWERFUL INVOLVEMENT.

MAY THEY STRIVE TO HAVE A CLEAR CONSCIOUS IN WHATEVER THEY DO FOR YOU AND COUNTRY.

LORD, HELP THEM REMEMBER THAT LISTENING IS OFTEN MORE THAN HERING.

IT CAN BE AN EMPATHETIC ATTENTIVENESS THAT BUILDS BRIDGES AND UNIT.

MAY OUR SENATORS NOT PREVENT FATIGUE OR CYNICISM TO JEOPARDIZE FRIENDSHIPS THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR YEARS.

AT EVERY DECISION POINT THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL, MAY THEY ASK WHICH CHOICE WILL BRING GOD THE GREATER GLORY.

WE PRAY IN YOUR MIGHTY NAME, AMEN.

>> PLEASE JOIN ME IN RECITING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO OUR FLAG.

>> 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.

>> SENATORS WILL PLEASE BE SEATED.

IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL ARE APPROVED TODAY.

THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WILL MAKE THE PROCLAMATION.

>> HEARYE, HEAR YE.

ALL PERSONS ARE COMMANDED TO KEEP SILENT ON PAIN OF IMPRISONMENT AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS BEING TRIED FOR IMPEACHMENT.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

>> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING TODAY'S SCHEDULE WILL BE SIMILAR TO YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

WE'LL PLAN TO TAKE SHORT BREAKS EVERY TWO OR THREE HOURS AND WE'LL ACCOMMODATE A 30-MINUTE RECESS FOR DINNER ASSUMING THAT IS NEEDED.

>> THANK YOU.

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE RESOLUTION 43, THE MANAGERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAVE 16 HEURS AND 42 MINUTES REMAINING TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR CASE.

THE SENATE WILL NOW HEAR YOU.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER RECOGNIZES MR.

MANAGER SCHIFF TO CONTINUE THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF JUSTICE.

THANK YOU SENATORS FOR TWO NOW VERY LONG DAYS.

WE'RE GREATLY APPRECIATIVE OF CHIEF JUSTICE KNOWING THAT PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL IN THE CHAMBER EACH DAY, YOU HAVE A LOT OF WORK AT THE COURT NECESSITATING OUR BEGINNING IN THE AFTERNOON AND GOING TO THE EVENING.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK THE SENATORS FOR THEIR LONG AND CONSIDERABLE ATTENTION OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST TWO DAYS.

I'M NOT SURE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS FULLY AWARE OF JUST HOW RARE IT IS, HOW EXTRAORDINARY IT IS FOR THE HOUSE MEMBERS TO BE ABLE TO COMMAND THE ATTENTION OF SENATORS SITTING SILENTLY FOR HOURS.

OR EVEN FOR MINUTES, FOR THAT MATTER.

OF COURSE, DOESN'T HURT THAT THE MORNING STARTS OUT WITH THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WARNING YOU THAT IF YOU DON'T, YOU WILL BE IMPRISONED.

IT'S OUR HOPE WHEN THE TRIAL CONCLUDES AND YOU'VE HEARD US AND HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL OVER A SERIES OF LONG DAYS THAT YOU DON'T CHOOSE IMPRISONMENT INSTEAD OF ANYTHING FURTHER.

TWO DAYS AGO WE MADE THE CASE FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES IN THE TRIAL.

YESTERDAY WE WALKED THROUGH THE CHRONOLOGY, THE FACTUAL CHRONOLOGY AT SOME LENGTH.

TODAY WE'LL GO THROUGH ARTICLE 1, THE CONSTITUTIONAL UNDERPINNINGS OF ABUSE OF POWER AND APPLY THE FACTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION.

HERE I MUST ASK YOU FOR SOME FOREBEARANCE.

THERE WILL BE SOME REPETITION OF INFORMATION FROM YESTERDAY'S CHRONOLOGY AND I WANT TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR IT.

YOU NOW HEARD HUNDREDS OF HOUSE OF DEPOSITION AND LIVE TESTIMONY FROM THE HOUSE CONDENSED INTO AN ABBREVIATED NARRATIVE OF THE FACTS.

WE WILL NOW SHOW YOU THESE FACTS AND MANY OTHERS AND HOW THEY ARE INTERWOVEN.

YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THESE FACTS AND VIDEOS THEREFORE IN A NEW CONTEXT, IN A NEW LIGHT, IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT ELSE WE KNOW AND WHY IT COMPELS A FINDING OF GUILT AND CONVICTION.

SO THERE IS SOME METHOD TO OUR MADNESS.

TOMORROW WE WILL CONCLUDE THE PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS AND LAW ON ARTICLE 1 AND BEGIN AND COMPLETE THE SAME ON ARTICLE 2, THE PRESIDENT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WILL HAVE THREE DAYS TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATIONS AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE 16 HOURS TO ASK QUESTIONS AND THEN THE TRIAL WILL BEGIN.

AND THEN YOU'LL GET TO HEAR FROM THE WITNESSES YOURSELF, AND THEN YOU'LL GET TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS YOURSELF OR SO WE HOPE, AND SO DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AFTER THEIR TESTIMONY AND AFTER WE'VE HAD CLOSING ARGUMENTS, THEN IT WILL BE IN YOUR HANDS.

SO LET'S BEGIN TODAY'S PRESENTATION AND I YIELD TO HOUSE MANAGER NADLER.

>> GOOD MORNING, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE.

SENATORS, MY FELLOW HOUSE MANAGERS AND COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, THIS IS THE THIRD DAY OF A SOLEMN OCCASION FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP RANK AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGES EVER BROUGHT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

AND AS OUR RECITAL OF THE FACTS INDICATED, THE ARTICLES ARE OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AMASSED BY THE HOUSE.

NOT WITHSTANDING THE PRESIDENT'S COMPLETE STONEWALLING, HIS ATTEMPT TO BLOCK ALL WITNESSES AND ALL DOCUMENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

THE FIRST ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT CHARGES THE PRESIDENT WITH ABUSE OF POWER.

PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT A FOREIGN NATION TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.

NOTE THAT THE ACT OF SOLICITATION ITSELF, JUST THE ASK, CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF POWER.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WENT FURTHER.

IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS FAVOR FROM UKRAINE, HE WITHHOLD TWO OFFICIAL ACTS OF IMMENSE VALUE.

FIRST, HE WITHHELD THE RELEASE OF $391 MILLION IN VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE, APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS, WHICH UKRAINE NEEDED TO FIGHT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

SECOND, PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THE LONG SOUGHT OFF WHITE HOUSE MEETING WHICH WOULD CONFIRM TO THE WORLD THAT AMERICA STANDS BEHIND UKRAINE IN ITS ONGOING STRUGGLE.

THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IS WRONG.

IT IS ILLEGAL.

IT IS DANGEROUS.

AND CAPTURES THE WORST FEARS OF OUR FOUNDERS AND THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

SINCE PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON TOOK OFFICE IN 1789, NO PRESIDENT HAS ABUSED HIS POWER IN THIS WAY.

LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN.

NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER USED HIS OFFICE TO COMPEL A FOREIGN NATION TO HELP HIM CHEAT IN OUR ELECTIONS.

PRIOR PRESIDENTS WOULD BE SHOCKED TO THE CORE BY SUCH CONDUCT.

RIGHTLY SO.

NOW BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS LARGELY FAILED TO CONVINCE THE COUNTRY THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE, HE HAS ADOPTED A FALL-BACK POSITION.

HE ARGUES THAT EVEN IF WE DISAPPROVE OF HIS MISCONDUCT, WE CANNOT REMOVE HIM FOR IT.

FRANKLY, THAT ARGUMENT IS ITSELF TERRIFYING.

IT CONFIRMS THAT THIS PRESIDENT SEES NO LIMITS ON HIS POWER OR ON HIS ABILITY TO USE HIS PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE GAIN.

OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT ALSO BELIEVES THAT HE CAN USE HIS POWER TO COVER UP HIS CRIMES.

THAT LEADS ME TO THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT WHICH CHARGES THAT THE PRESIDENT CATEGORICALLY, INDISCRIMINATELY AND UNLAWFULLY OBSTRUCTED OUR INQUIRY INTO HIS CONDUCT.

THIS PRESIDENTIAL STONEWALLING OF CONGRESS IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THE 238-YEAR HISTORY OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

IT PUTS EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON TO SHAME.

TAKEN TOGETHER, THE ARTICLES AND THE EVIDENCE CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS PLACED HIS OWN PERSONAL, POLITICAL INTERESTS FIRST.

HE'S PLACED THEM ABOVE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, ABOVE OUR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND ABOVE OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

THIS CONDUCT IS NOT AMERICA FIRST.

IT IS DONALD TRUMP FIRST.

DONALD TRUMP SWORE AN OATH TO EXECUTE THE LAWS THAT MEANS PUTTING A NATION'S INTEREST ABOVE HIS OWN.

THE PRESIDENT HAS REPEATEDLY FLAGRANTLY VIOLATED HIS OATH.

>> AND I JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT IF THIS -- IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE.

THIS IS PRECISELY MISCONDUCT THAT THE FRAMERS CREATED A CONSTITUTION INCLUDING IMPEACHMENT TO PROTECT AGAINST.

>> ALL OF THE LEGAL EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THOSE INVITED BY THE DEMOCRATS AND THOSE INVITED BY THE REPUBLICANS, ALL AGREED THAT THE CONDUCT WE HAVE CHARGED CONSTITUTES HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

PROFESSOR MICHAEL GERHARDT, THE AUTHOR OF SIX BOOKS AND THE ONLY JOINT WITNESS WHEN THE HOUSE CONSIDERED PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE PUT IT SIMPLY, "IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT IMPEACHABLE, THEN NOTHING IS IMPEACHABLE."

PROFESSOR JONATHAN TURLEY CALLED BY THE REPUBLICANS AS A WITNESS AGREED THAT THE ARTICLES CHARGED IN THE OFFENSE THAT IS IMPEACHABLE.

IN HIS WRITTEN TESTIMONY, HE STATED "THE USE OF MILITARY AID FOR A QUID PRO QUO TO INVESTIGATE ONE'S POLITICAL OPPONENT IF PROVEN CAN BE AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE."

THUS FAR, WE HAVE PRESENTED THE CORE FACTUAL NARRATIVE.

NONE OF THAT RECORD CAN BE SERIOUSLY DISPUTED.

NONE OF IT WILL BE DISPUTED.

WE CAN PREDICT WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS WILL SAY IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.

I URGE YOU SENATORS TO LISTEN TO IT CAREFULLY.

YOU WILL HEAR ACCUSATIONS AND NAME CALLING.

YOU WILL HEAR COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE.

THE MOTIVES OF THE MANAGERS.

YOU WILL HEAR THIS ALL COMES DOWN TO A PHONE CALL THAT WAS PERFECT.

AS IF YOU HAD NOT JUST SEEN EVIDENCE OF A MONTH'S LONG GOVERNMENTWIDE EFFORT TO EXTORT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

YOU WILL NOT HEAR A REFUTATION OF THE EVIDENCE.

INDEED, IF THE PRESIDENT HAD ANY EXCULPATORY WITNESSES, EVEN A SINGLE ONE, HE WOULD BE DEMANDING THEIR APPEARANCE HERE INSTEAD OF URGING YOU NOT TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.

SO NOW LET ME OFFER A PREVIEW OF THE PATH AHEAD.

FIRST, WE WILL EXAMINE THE LAW OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WITH A FOCUS ON ABUSE OF POWER.

THAT WOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF MY PRESENTATION.

AND THEN MY COLLEAGUES WILL APPLY THE LAW TO THE FACTS.

THEY WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS UNQUESTIONABLY COMMITTED THE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS OUTLINED IN THE FIRST ARTICLE.

ONCE THE PRESENTATIONS ARE CONCLUDED, WE'LL TAKE THE SAME APPROACH TO DEMONSTRATING THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

THE SECOND ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT.

WE WILL BEGIN BY STATING THE LAW.

THEN WE WILL REVIEW THE FACTS, AND THEN WE WILL APPLY THE LAW TO THE FACTS PROVING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GUILTY ON THE SECOND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AS WELL.

WITH THAT ROAD MAP TO GUIDE US, I WILL BEGIN BY WALKING THROUGH THE LAW OF ABUSE OF POWER.

HERE I'LL START BY DEFINING THE PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS."

WHEN THE FRAMERS SELECTED THIS TERM, THEY MEANT IT TO CAPTURE AS GEORGE MASON PUT IT, ALL MANNER OF GREAT AND DANGEROUS OFFENSES AGAINST THE NATION.

AND IN CONTEMPORARY TERMS, THE FRAMERS HAD ABUSE OF POWER IN MIND, BETRAYAL OF THE NATION THROUGH FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS AND CORRUPTION OF ELECTIONS.

YOU CAN THINK OF THESE AS THE ABCs OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

ABUSE, BETRAYAL AND CORRUPTION.

THE FRAMERS BELIEVED THAT ANY ONE OF THESE STANDING ALONE JUSTIFIED REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN EXPLAINED THIS WELL BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

HERE'S HIS EXPLANATION OF WHY THE FRAMERS CREATED THE IMPEACHMENT POWER.

>> THE FRAMERS PROVIDED FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY FEARED THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT, CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND ENSURE HIS RE-ELECTION OR TO SUBVERT THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> THAT IS THE STANDARD AS DESCRIBED BY PROFESSOR FELDMAN.

IT IS CORRECT.

OF COURSE, ALL THREE OF THESE CONCERNS APPEAR AT ONCE, ABUSE, BETRAYAL AND CORRUPTION, THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE CASE FOR REMOVING A PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE.

LATER ON WE'LL APPLY THIS RULE TO THE FACT.

ABUSE.

WE WILL SHOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSED HIS POWER WHEN HE USED HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT AND PRESSURE UKRAINE TO MEDDLE IN OUR ELECTIONS FOR HIS PERSONAL GAIN.

BETRAYAL.

WE WILL SHOW THAT HE BETRAYED VITAL NATIONAL INTERESTS SPECIFICALLY OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BY WITHHOLDING DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT IN MILITARY AID FROM UKRAINE EVEN AS IT FACED ARMED RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

CORRUPTION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENT WAS TO CORRUPT OUR ELECTIONS TO HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.

HE PUT HIS PERSONAL INTEREST IN RETAINING POWER ABOVE FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND ABOVE THE PRINCIPLE THAT AMERICANS MOST GOVERN THEMSELVES WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM A BROAD.

ARTICLE 1 CHARGES HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

THAT IS WHY THIS PRESIDENT MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

ESPECIALLY BEFORE HE CONTINUES HIS EFFORT TO CORRUPT OUR NEXT ELECTION.

THE CHARGES SET FORTH IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT ARE FIRMLY GROUNDED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

SIMPLY STATED, IMPEACHMENT IS THE CONSTITUTION'S FINAL ANSWER TO A PRESIDENT WHO MISTAKES HIMSELF FOR A KING.

THE FRAMERS HAD RISKED THEIR FREEDOM AND THEIR LIVES TO ESCAPE MONARCHY.

TOGETHER THEY RESOLVE TO BUILD A NATION COMMITTED TO DEMOCRACY AND A RULE OF LAW.

A BEACON TO THE WORLD.

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WE THE PEOPLE WOULD BE SOVEREIGN.

WE WOULD CHOOSE OUR LEADERS AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY EXERCISE POWER ON OUR BEHALF.

IN WRITING OUR CONSTITUTION, THE FRAMERS RECOGNIZED THAT WE NEEDED A CHIEF EXECUTIVE THAT COULD LEAD THE NATION WITH EFFICIENCY, ENERGY AND DISPATCH SO THEY CREATED A POWERFUL PRESIDENCY, INVESTED IT WITH IMMENSE PUBLIC TRUST.

THE SOLUTION CREATED A DIFFERENT PROBLEMS.

THE FRAMERS WERE NOT NAIVE.

THEY KNEW THAT POWER CORRUPTS.

REPUBLICS CANNOT FLOURISH AND LEAVE FREE UNDER A CORRUPT LEADER.

THEY SAW A PRESIDENT FAITHFUL TO HIMSELF WOULD ENDANGER EVERY AMERICAN.

SO THEY BUILT GUARDRAILS TO ENSURE OUT OF CONTROL PRESIDENTS WOULDN'T DESTROY EVERYTHING THAT THEY SOUGHT TO BUILD.

THEY IMPOSED ELECTIONS EVERY FOUR YEARS TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY.

THEY BANNED THE PRESIDENT FROM PROFITING OFF OF HIS OFFICE.

THEY DIVIDED THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACROSS THREE BRANCHES AND THEY REQUIRED THE PRESIDENT TO SWEAR AN OATH TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS.

TO THE FRAMERS, THE CONCEPT OF FAITHFUL EXECUTION WAS PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT.

IT PROHIBITED THE PRESIDENT FROM EXERCISING POWER IN BAD FAITH OR WITH CORRUPT INTENT AND ENSURED THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIRST, NOT HIMSELF.

A FEW FRAMERS WOULD HAVE STOPPED THERE.

THIS MINORITY FEARED VESTING ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WITH THE POWER TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM OFFICE.

THEY WOULD HAVE RELIED ON ELECTION AGAINST LONE TO ADDRESS ROGUE PRESIDENTS.

BUT THAT VIEW WAS DECISIVELY REJECTED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

CONVENING IN THE SHADOW OF REBELLION AND REVOLUTION, THE FRAMERS WOULD NOT DENY THE NATION AN ESCAPE FROM PRESIDENTS THAT DEEMED THEMSELVES ABOVE THE LAW.

INSTEAD, THEY ADOPTED THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO DOING, THEY OFFERED A CLEAR ANSWER TO GEORGE MASON'S QUESTION, SHALL ANY MAN BE ABOVE JUSTICE.

AS MASON HIMSELF EXPLAINED, SOME MODE OF DISPLACING AN UNFIT MAGISTRATE IS RENDERED INDISPENSABLE BY THE FALLIBILIT OF THOSE THAT CHOOSE AS WELL AS THE CORRUPTIBILITY OF THE MAN CHOSEN.

UNLIKE IN BRITAIN, THE PRESIDENT WOULD ANSWERS PERSONALLY TO CONGRESS AND THUS TO THE NATION FOR ANY SERIOUS WRONGDOING.

BUT THIS DECISION RAISED THE QUESTION, WHAT CONDUCT WOULD JUSTIFY IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL?

CAREFUL STUDENTS OF HISTORY, THE FRAMERS KNEW THREATS TO DEMOCRACY CAN TAKE MANY FORMS.

THEY FEARED WOULD-BE MONARCHS AND WARNED AGAINST FAKE POPULOUS AND CORRUPT CLEPTOCRATS.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON OFFERED A STRIKING PORTRAIT.

MR. SCHIFF READ THIS IN HIS INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND IT BEARS REPETITION.

WHEN A MAN UNPRINCIPLED IN PRIVATE LIFE, DESPERATE IN HIS FORTUNE, BOLD IN HIS TEMPER, KNOWN TO HAVE SCOFFED IN PRIVATE AT THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY, WHEN SUCH A MAN IS SEEN TO MOUNT A HOBBY HORSE OF POPULARITY, TO JOIN IN THE CRY OF DANGER TO LIBERTY, TO TAKE EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF EMBARRASSING THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND BRINGING IT UNDER SUSPICION, TO FLATTER AND FALL IN WITH ALL OF THE NONSENSE OF THE ZEALOTS OF THE DAY, IT'S HIS OBJECT TO THROW THINGS IN CONFUSION AND RIDE THE STORM AND DIRECT THE WHIRLWIND.

HAMILTON WAS A WHITE MAN.

HE FORESAW DANGERS FAR AHEAD OF HIS TIME.

GIVEN THE MANY THREATS THAT THEY HAD TO ANTICIPATE, THE FRAMERS CONSIDERED EXTREMELY BROAD GROUNDS FOR REMOVING PRESIDENTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, THEY DEBATED SETTING THE BAR AT MALADMINISTRATION TO ALLOW REMOVE VALUE FOR RUN OF THE MIDDLE POLICY DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT.

THEY ALSO CONSIDERED VERY NARROW GROUNDS LIMITING IMPEACHMENT TO TREASON AND BRIBERY.

ULTIMATELY, THEY STRUCK A BALANCE.

THEY DID NOT WANT PRESIDENTS REMOVED FOR ORDINARY POLITICAL OR POLICY DISAGREEMENTS.

BUT THE INTENDED IMPEACHMENT TO REACH THE FULL SPECTRUM OF PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT THAT MIGHT THREATEN THE CONSTITUTION AND INTENDED OUR CONSTITUTION TO ENDURE FOR THE AGES.

SO THEY ADOPTED A STANDARD MEANT AS MASON PUT IT, TO CAPTURE ALL MATTER OF GREAT AND DANGEROUS OFFENSES.

INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

THIS STANDARD BORROWED FROM THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT WAS HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

IN ENGLAND, THE STANDARD WAS STOOD TO CAPTURE OFFENSES FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM ITSELF.

THAT IS CONFIRMED BY THE USE OF THE WORD "HIGH."

FROM 1376 TO 1787, THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IMPEACHED OFFICIALS ON A FEW GENERAL GROUNDS.

MAINLY CONSISTING OF ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY, CORRUPTION, TREASON, BRIBERY AND DISREGARDING THE POWERS OF PARLIAMENT.

THE PHRASE "HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS" WAS CRIMES AGAINST THE BRITISH CONTUSION.

AS SCHOLARS HAVE SHOWN, THE SAME UNDERSTANDING PREVAILED ON THIS SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC.

IN THE COLONIAL PERIOD AND UNDER NEWLY RATIFIED STATE CONSTITUTIONS, MOST IMPEACHMENTS TARGET ADD BECAUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF THE REVOLUTIONARY CAUSE, CORRUPTION, TREASON AND BRIBERY.

THESE EXPERIENCES WERE WELL-KNOWN TO THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

HISTORY THUS TEACHES THAT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS REFERRED MAINLY TO ACTS COMMITTED BY OFFICIALS USING THEIR POWER OR PRIVILEGES THAT INFLICTED GRAVE HARM ON SOCIETY.

SUCH GREAT AND DANGEROUS OFFENSES INCLUDED TREASON, BRIBERY, ABUSE OF POWER, BETRAYAL OF THE NATION AND CORRUPTION OF OFFICE.

AND THEY WERE UNIFIED BY A CLEAR THEME.

OFFICIALS WHO ABUSED, ABANDONED OR SOUGHT TO BENEFIT PERSONALLY FROM THEIR PUBLIC TRUST AND THREATENED THE RULE OF LAW IF LEFT IN POWER FACED IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.

ABUSE, BETRAYAL, CORRUPTION.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FRAMERS INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ROBERT JACKSON WISELY OBSERVED, THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT ONLY TO GRANT POWER BUT TO KEEP IT FROM GETTING OUT OF HAND.

NOWHERE IS THAT TRUER THAN IN THE PRESIDENCY.

AS THE FRAMERS CREATED A FOR MITTABLE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, THEY MADE CLEAR THAT IMPEACHMENT IS JUSTIFIED FOR SERIOUS ABUSE OF POWER.

JAMES MADISON STATED THAT IMPEACHMENT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT "MIGHT PERVERT HIS ADMINISTRATION INTO A SCHEME OF OPPRESSION."

HAMILTON SAID THE STANDARD FOR REMOVAL AT AN ABUSE OR VIOLATION OF SOME PUBLIC TRUST.

IN MASSACHUSETTS, REVEREND SAMUEL STILLMAN ASKED WITH SUCH A PROSPECT OF IMPEACHMENT, WHO WILL DARE TO ABUSE THE POWERS INVESTED IN HIM BY THE PEOPLE?

TIME AND AGAIN, AMERICANS THAT WROTE AND RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION CONFIRMED THAT PRESIDENTS MAY BE IMPEACHED FOR ABUSING THE POW ENTRUSTED TO THEM.

TO THE FRAMING GENERATION, ABUSE OF POWER WAS A WELL-UNDERSTOOD OFFENSE.

IT TOOK TWO BASIC FORMS.

THE FIRST OCCURRED WHEN SOMEONE EXERCISED POWERS IN WAYS FAR BEYOND WHAT THE LAW ALLOWED OR IN WAYS THAT DESTROYED CHECKS ON THEIR OWN AUTHORITY.

THE SECOND OCCURRED WHEN AN OFFICIAL EXERCISED POWER TO OBTAIN AN IMPROPER PERSONAL BENEFIT WHILE IGNORES OR INJURING THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.

IN ORDERS, THE PRESIDENT MAY COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.

BY ENGAGES IN FORBIDDEN ACTS OR BY TAKING ACTIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED BUT FOR REASONS THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED.

FOR INSTANCE, TO OBTAIN CORRUPT PRIVATE BENEFITS.

LET ME UNPACK THAT IDEA.

CONDUCT CLEARLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW INCLUDING LAW OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

THE GENERATION THAT REBELLED AGAINST GEORGE III KNEW WHAT ABSOLUTE POWER LOOKED LIKE.

IT WAS NO ABSTRACTION TO THEM.

THEY HAD A DIFFERENT IDEA IN MIND WHEN THEY ORGANIZED OUR GOVERNMENT.

MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, THEY PLACED THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE LAW, NOT ABOVE IT.

THAT MEANS THE PRESIDENT MAY EXERCISE ONLY THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION.

HE MUST ALSO RESPECT THE LEGAL LIMITS ON THE EXERCISE OF THOSE POWERS.

A PRESIDENT WHO EGREGIOUSLY REFUSES TO FOLLOW THESE RESTRICTIONS BY ENGAGING IN WRONGFUL CONDUCT MAY BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

TWO AMERICAN IMPEACHMENT INVOLVE CLAIMS OF THE PRESIDENT GROSSLY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONS SEPARATIONS OF POWERS.

THE FIRST WAS IN 1868.

WHEN THE HOUSE IMPEACHED PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON WHO SUCCEEDED ABRAHAM LINCOLN AFTER HIS ASSASSINATION AT FORD'S THEATER.

IN FIRING THE SECRETARY OF WATER, PRESIDENT JOHNSON ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED THE TENURE OF OFFICE ACT, WHICH RESTRICTED THE PRESIDENT TO REMOVE CABINET MEMBERS.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APPROVED ARTICLES CHARGING HIM WITH CONDUCT FORBIDDEN BY LAW.

THAT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER ON ITS FACE.

ULTIMATELY THE SENATE ACQUITTED PRESIDENT JOHNSON BY ONE VOTE.

THIS IS PARTLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A STRONG ARGUMENT THAT THE TENURE OF OFFICE ACT WHICH PRESIDENT JOHNSON WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING WAS ITSELF UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

A POSITION THE SUPREME COURT LATER ACCEPTED.

OF COURSE, HISTORIANS HAVE NOTED THAT A KEY SENATOR APPEARED TO CHANGE HIS VOTE THE LAST MONTH FOR FAVORS BY PRESIDENT JOHNSON.

SO PERHAPS THAT ACQUITTAL MEANS LESS THAN MEETS THE EYE.

IN ANY EVENT, OVER 100 YEARS LATER, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACCUSED THE SECOND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ABUSING HIS POWER MANY A MANNER EGREGIOUSLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW.

THE COMMITTEE CHARGED PRESIDENT NIXON WITH OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

BASED ON HIS MERITLESS ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE TO COVER UP KEY WHITE HOUSE TAPE RECORDINGS.

WE WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE IN A MOMENT.

THE NIXON CASE ALSO EXEMPLIIES A PRESIDENT CAN ABUSE HIS POWER.

PRESIDENT NIXON FACED TWO MORE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

BOTH OF THESE ARTICLES CHARGED HIM WITH ABUSING THE POWERS OF HIS OFFICE WITH CORRUPT INTENT.

ONE FOCUSED ON HIS ABUSE OF POWER TO OBSTRUCT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THE OTHER TARGETED HIS ABUSE OF POWER TO TARGET POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

EACH ARTICLE ENUMERATED SPECIFIC ABUSES BY PRESIDENT NIXON.

MANY WHICH INVOLVED THE WRONGFUL CORRUPTION OF POWER AND MANY WHICH WERE NOT STATUTORY CRIMES.

IN EXPLAINING THE ARTICLES, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID NIXON'S CONDUCT WAS UNDERTAKEN FOR HIS PARTIAL POLITICAL ADVANTAGE AND NOT NATIONAL POLICY OBJECTIVE.

THAT SHOULD SOUND FAMILIAR TO EVERYONE HERE.

IT REFLECTS A STANDARD'S ALREADY ARTICULATED.

THE EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL POWER TO CORRUPTLY OBTAIN A PERSONAL BENEFIT WHILE IGNORING OR INJURING THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.

TO BE SURE, ALL PRESIDENTS ACCOUNT TO SOME EXTENT FOR HOW THE DECISIONS IN OFFICE MAY AFFECT THEIR POLITICAL PROSPECTS.

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FOR BID THAT.

ELECTED OFFICIALS CAN AND SHOULD CARE ABOUT VOTERS WILL REACT TO THEIR DECISIONS.

THEY WILL OFTEN CARE WHETHER THEIR DECISIONS WILL MAKE IT MORE LIKELY IF THEY'LL BE RE-ELECTED.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

A DIFFERENCE THAT MATTERS BETWEEN POLITICAL CALCULUS AND OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION.

SOME USES OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER ARE SO OUTRAGEOUS, SO OBVIOUSLY IMPROPER THAT IF THEY'RE UNDERTAKEN FOR A PRESIDENT'S OWN PERSONAL GAIN WITH INJURY OR INDIFFERENCE TO CORE NATIONAL INTERESTS, THEN THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

OTHERWISE, EVEN THE MOST EGREGIOUS WRONG DOING WOULD BE CORRUPTION THAT WOULD HAVE SHOCKED THE FRAMERS.

AND THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING SURPRISING ABOUT IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT FOR USING HIS POWER WITH CORRUPT MOTIVES.

THE HOUSE AND SENATE HAVE CONFIRMED TO THIS POINT IN PRIOR IMPEACHMENTS.

MORE IMPORTANT, THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF SAYS THAT WE CAN DO SO.

TO START, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAW.

THE PRESIDENT WHO ACTS WITH CORRUPT MOTIVES PUTTING HIMSELF ABOVE COUNTRY HAS ACTED FAITHLESSLY, NOT FAITHFULLY EXECUTED THE LAWS.

MOREOVER, THE TWO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES THE CONSTITUTION ENUMERATES EACH REQUIRE PROOF OF THE PRESIDENT'S MENTAL STATE.

FOR TREASON, HE MUST HAVE ACTED WITH A DISLOYAL MIND TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THAT AS WELL-ESTABLISHED THE ELEMENTS OF BRIBERY INCLUDE CORRUPT MOTIVES.

SOME TO THE FRAMERS, IT WAS DANGEROUS FOR OFFICIALS TO EXCEED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.

IT WAS EQUALLY DANGEROUS, PERHAPS MORE SO, FOR OFFICIALS TO USE THEIR POWER WITH CORRUPT NEFARIOUS MOTIVES THUS PERVERTING PUBLIC TRUST FOR PRIVATE GAIN.

ABUSE OF POWER IS CLEARLY AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

TO BE HONEST, THIS SHOULD NOT BE A CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT.

I FIND IT AMAZING THAT THE PRESIDENT REJECTS IT.

YET HE DOES.

HE INSISTS THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS IMPEACHABLE ABUSE OF POWER.

THIS POSITION IS DEAD WRONG.

ALL PRIOR IMPEACHMENTS CONSIDERED OF HIGH OFFICE HAVE ALWAYS INCLUDED A BECAUSE OF POWER.

ALL OF THE EXPERTS THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE INCLUDING THOSE CALLED BY THE REPUBLICANS AGREED THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

HERE'S TESTIMONY FROM PROFESSOR PAM CARLIN OF STANFORD JOINED BY PROFESSOR GERHARDT.

>> DO SCHOLARS OF IMPEACHMENT GENERALLY AGREE THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

>> YES, THEY DO.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DO YOU AGREE THAT ABUSE OF POWER IS IMPEACHABLE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> PROFESSOR TURLEY THAT TESTIFIED AT REPUBLICAN INVITATION ECHOED THAT VIEW.

IN FACT, HE NOT ONLY AGREED BUT HE QUOTED STRESS THAT IS POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT BASED ON A NONCRIMINAL ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF POWER.

PROFESSOR TURLEY IS HARDLY THE ONLY LEGAL EXPERT TO TAKE THAT VIEW.

ANOTHER COMES TO MIND IS PROFESSOR ALAN DERSHOWITZ.

AT LEAST ALAN DERSHOWITZ IN 1998.

BACK THEN HERE'S WHAT HE HAD TO SAY ABOUT IMPEACHMENT FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

>> CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CRIME.

IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO COMPLETELY CORRUPTS THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT AND WHO ABUSES TRUST AND WHO POSES GREAT DANGER TO OUR LIBERTY, YOU DON'T NEED A TECHNICAL CRIME.

>> BUT WE NEED NOT LOOK TO 1998 TO FIND ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S KEY ALLIES ESPOUSING THIS VIEW.

CONSIDER THE COMMENTS OF OUR CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL, WILLIAM BARR.

A MAN KNOWN FOR HIS EXTRAORDINAIRILY EXPANSIVE VIEW OF EXECUTIVE POWER.

ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S VIEW AS EXPRESSED 18 MONTHS AGO, PRESIDENTS CANNOT BE INDICTED OR CRIMINALLY INVESTIGATED.

BUT THAT'S OKAY.

BECAUSE THEY CAN IMPEACHED.

THAT'S THE SAFEGUARD.

IN AN IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR ADDED, THE PRESIDENT IS ANSWERABLE FOR ANY ABUSES OF DISCRETION AND MAY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE UNDER LAW FOR HIS MISDEEDS IN OFFICE.

IN OTHER WORDS ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WHO BELIEVES THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY NOT BE INDICTED BELIEVES THAT THAT IS OKAY, WE DON'T NEED THAT SAFEGUARD AGAINST A PRESIDENT WHO WOULD COMMIT ABUSES OF POWER.

IT'S OKAY.

BECAUSE HE CAN BE IMPEACHED.

THAT'S THE SAFEGUARD FOR ABUSES OF DISCRETION AND MISDEEDS IN OFFICE.

MORE RECENTLY, A GROUP OF THE NATION'S LEADING CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS RANGING ACROSS THE IDEALOGICAL SPECTRUM FROM HARVARD LATER PROFESSOR LARRY TRIED TO FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL CHARLES FRIED ADDED, THAT WAS CLEARLY THE VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION'S FRAMERS.

I COULD GO ON.

BUT YOU GET THE POINT.

EVERYONE EXCEPT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS LAWYERS AGREE THAT PRESIDENTS CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION AMOUNTS TO NOTHING BUT SELF-SERVING CONSTITUTIONAL NONSENSE AND IT IS DANGEROUS NONSENSE AT THAT.

A PRESIDENT THAT SEES NO LIMIT ON HIS POWER THREATENS THE REPUBLIC.

THE CONSTITUTION ALWAYS MATCHES POWER WITH CONSTRAINT.

THAT IS TRUE EVEN IF POWERS VESTED IN THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.

NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO WIELD POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

IF THEY BETRAY THE NATION'S INTERESTS TO ADVANCE THEIR OWN.

PRESIDENT NIXON WAS WRONG IN ASSERTING THAT "WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL."

PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS EQUALLY RIGHT WHEN HE SAID I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AS PRESIDENT.

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, HE'S SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

AS WE WILL PROVE, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MUST HAPPEN HERE.

OF COURSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER AS CHARGED IN THE FIRST ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND SUPPORTED BY A MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE IS AGGRAVATED BY ANOTHER CONCERN AT THE HEART OF THE CONSTITUTION'S IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE.

BETRAYAL.

THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY WERE NOT FEARFUL MEN.

WHEN THEY WROTE OUR CONSTITUTION, THEY JUST WON A BLOODY WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE.

AS THEY LOOKED OUTWARD FROM THEIR NEW NATION, THEY SAW KINGS SCHEMING FOR POWER, PROMISING WEALTH TO SPIES AND DESSERTERS.

THE UNITED STATES COULD BE IMMESHED IN SUCH CONSPIRACISIES.

FOREIGN POWERS WILL INTERMEDDLE IN OUR AFFAIRS.

THE YOUNG REPUBLIC MIGHT NOT SURVIVE A PRESIDENT THAT SCHEMED WITH OTHER NATIONS AND TANGLING HIMSELF IN SECRET DEALS THAT HARMED OUR DEMOCRACY.

THAT REALITY LOOMED OVER THE IMPEACHMENT DEBATE IN PHILADELPHIA.

EXPLAINING WHY THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED AN IMPEACHMENT OPTION, MADISON ARGUED THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT BETRAY HIS TRUTH TO FOREIGN POWERS.

TO BE SURE, THE FRAMERS DID NOT INTEND IMPEACHMENT FOR GENUINE GOOD FAITH DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS OVER MATTERS OF DIPLOMACY.

THEY WERE EXPLICIT THAT BETRAYAL OF THE NATION THROUGH PLOTS OF FOREIGN POWERS MUST RESULT IN REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

NO SUCH BETRAYAL SCARED THEM MORE THAN FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND OUR DEMOCRACY.

IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS, GEORGE WASHINGTON WARNED AMERICANS TO BE AWAKE.

SINCE HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVED THAT FOREIGN INFLUENCE IS ONE OF THE MOST BAINFUL FOES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.

AND IN A LETTER TO THOMAS JEFFERSON, JOHN ADAMS WROTE, YOUR ARE APPREHENSIVE OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE, FOREIGN INTRIGUE AND INFLUENCE.

SO AM I.

AS OFTEN AS ELECTIONS HAPPEN, THE DANGER OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE RECURS.

THE FRAMERS NEVER SUGGESTED THAT THE PRESIDENTS'S ROLE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS SHOULD PREVENT CONGRESS TREACHERY IN HIS DEALINGS.

THEY WROTE A CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES CONGRESS EXTENSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OVER FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

INCLUDING POWER TO DECLARE WAR, REGULATE FOREIGN COMMERCE, ESTABLISH UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION AND DEFINE OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS.

CONTRARY TO THE CLAIMS YOU HEARD THE OTHER DAY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORITY IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THERE'S NOTHING CONGRESS CAN DO ABOUT IT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS STATED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER THE CONDUCT OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF OUR GOVERNMENT IS SHARED BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES.

OR TO QUOTE ANOTHER SUPREME COURT CASE, THE EXECUTIVE IS NOT FREE FROM THE ORDINARY CONTROLS AND CHECKS OF CONGRESS MERELY BECAUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS ARE AT ISSUE.

IN THESE REALMS, JUSTICE JACKSON RATE THERE'S INTERDEPENDENCE.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT BETRAYS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY FOR HIS OWN FOR GAIN, HE'S SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL.

THE SAME IS TRUE OF A DIFFERENT CONCERN RAISED BY THE FRAMERS.

THE USE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO CORRUPT THE ELECTIONS AND THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

THE FRAMERS WERE NO STRANGERS TO CORRUPTION.

THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT CORRUPTION HAD BROKEN ROME, DEBASED BRITAIN AND THREATENED AMERICA.

THEY SAW NO SHORTAGE OF THREATS TO THE REPUBLIC AND FOUGHT TO GUARD AGAINST THEM.

AS ONE SCHOLAR WRITES, THE BIG FEAR UNDERLYING THE SMALL FEARS IS WHETHER THEY WOULD ABLE TO CONTROL CORRUPTION.

SO THE FRAMERS ATTEMPTED TO BUILD A GOVERNMENT THAT OFFICIALS WOULD NOT USE PUBLIC POWER, DISREGARDING THE PURSUIT OF THEIR OWN ADVANCEMENT.

THIS PRINCIPLE APPLIED WITH SPECIAL FORCE TO THE PRESIDENCY.

AS MADISON EMPHASIZED, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENCY WAS TO BE ADMINISTERED BY A SINGLE MAN, HIS CORRUPTION MIGHT BE FATAL TO THE REPUBLIC.

INDEED NO FEWER THAN FOUR DELEGATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, MADISON, MORRIS, MASON AND RANDOLPH LISTED CORRUPTION AS A CENTRAL REASON WHY PRESIDENTS MUST BE SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

IMPEACHMENT WAS SEEN FOR PRESIDENTIAL CONDUCT CORRUPTING OUR SYSTEM OF POLITICAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.

THE FRAMERS FORESAW AND FEARED THAT A PRESIDENT MIGHT SOME DAY PLACE HIS PERSONAL INTEREST IN RE-ELECTION ABOVE OUR ABIDING COMMITMENT TO DEMOCRACY.

SUCH A PRESIDENT IN THEIR VIEW WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

PROFESSOR FELDMAN MADE THIS POINT IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

>> THE FRAMERS RESERVED IMPEACHMENT FOR SITUATIONS WHERE THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS OFFICE, THAT IS USED IT FOR HIS PERSONAL ADVANTAGE AND IN PARTICULAR THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY WORRIED ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT USED HIS OFFICE TO FACILITATE CORRUPTLY HIS OWN RE-ELECTION.

THAT'S IN FACT WHY THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED IMPEACHMENT AND WHY WAITING FOR THE NEXT ELECTION WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

>> PROFESSOR FELDMAN'S TESTIMONY IS GROUNDED IN THE RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

THERE WILLIAM DAVEY WARNED THAT A PRESIDENT THAT ABUSES OFFICE MIGHT SPARE NO MEANS WHAT EVER TO GET HIMSELF RE-ELECTED AND THUS TO ESCAPE JUSTICE.

GEORGE MASON BUILT ON DAVEY'S POSITION ASKING, SHALL THE MAN WHO HAS PRACTICED CORRUPTION AND BY THAT MEANS PROCURED HIS APPOINTMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BE SUFFERED TO ESCAPE PUNISHMENT BY REPEATING HIS GUILT?

MASON'S CONCERN WAS STRAIGHTFORWARD.

HE FEARED THAT PRESIDENTS WOULD WIN ELECTION BY IMPROPERLY INFLUENCING MEMBERS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

GOVERNOR MORRIS LATER ECHOED THIS POINT URGING THAT THE EXECUTIVE OUGHT TO BE IMPEACHABLE FOR CORRUPTING HIS ELECTORS.

TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE DEMONSTRATE A POINT.

THE FRAMERS KNEW THAT A PRESIDENT THAT ABUSED POWER TO MANIPULATE ELECTIONS PREVENTED THE GREATEST POSSIBLE THREAT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

AFTER ALL, THE BEATING HEART OF THE FRAMER'S PROJECT WAS A COMMITMENT TO POPULOUS SOVEREIGNTY.

AT A AT THE TIME WHEN SERVE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT EXISTED NOWHERE ON EARTH, POWER FLOWED FROM AND RETURNED TO THE PEOPLE.

THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS MUST STAND BEFORE THE PUBLIC FOR RE-ELECTION ON SIX TERMS.

IF A PRESIDENT ABUSES HIS POWER TO CORRUPT THOSE ELECTIONS, HE THREATENED THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

AS PROFESSOR CARLIN EXPLAINED IN HER TESTIMONY.

>> DRAWING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN TO OUR ELECTIONS IS AN ESPECIALLY SERIOUS ABUSE OF POWER BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

OUR CONSTITUTION BEGINS WITH THE WORDS "WE THE PEOPLE" FOR THE REASON.

OUR GOVERNMENT IN JAMES MADISON'S WORDS DERIVES ALL ITS POWERS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE GREAT BODY OF THE PEOPLE.

AND THE WAY IT DERIVES THESE POWERS IS THROUGH ELECTIONS.

ELECTIONS MATTER.

IT GOES TO THE LA JIT -- LEGITIMACY OF OUR FREEDOMS.

VOTING PRESERVES ALL RIGHTS.

>> PROFESSOR CARLIN IS RIGHT.

ELECTIONS MATTER.

THEY MAKE OUR GOVERNMENT LEGITIMATE AND THEY PROTECT OUR FREEDOM.

A PRESIDENT THAT ABUSES HIS POWER IN ORDER TO KNEECAP A POLITICAL OPPONENT AND SPREAD RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY THEORIES, A PRESIDENT THAT USES HIS OFFICE TO ASK FOR OR EVEN WORSE TO COMPEL FOREIGN NATIONS TO MEDDLE IN OUR ELECTIONS IS A PRESIDENT THAT ATTACKS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR LIBERTY.

THAT IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF POWER.

IT IS AN UNPRECEDENTED BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND A SHOCKING CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTION PROCESS AND WITHOUT DOUBT A CRIME AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION WARRANTING, DEMANDING REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

THE FRAMERS EXPECTED THAT FREE ELECTIONS WOULD BE THE USUAL MEANS OF PROTECTING OUR FREEDOMS.

BUT THEY KNEW THAT A PRESIDENT THAT SOUGHT FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN THE CAMPAIGN MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BEFORE HE COULD STEAL THE NEXT ELECTION.

IN THE LAST DITCH LEGAL DEFENSE OF THEIR CLIENT, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ARGUE THAT IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL ARE SUBJECT AS STATUTORY CRIMES OR TO OFFENSES AGAINST ESTABLISHED LAW.

THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE HE HAS NOT COMMITTED A CRIME.

THIS VIEW IS COMPLETELY WRONG.

IT HAS NO SUPPORTING CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT AND STRUCTURE, ORIGINAL MEANING, COMMON SENSE OR THE CONSENSUS OF CREDIBLE EXPERTS.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT CONFLICTS WITH EVERY RELEVANT CONSIDERATION.

PROFESSOR GERHARDT CAPTURED THE VIEW IN HIS TESTIMONY.

>> PROFESSOR GERHARDT, DOES A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR REQUIRE AN ACTUAL STATUTORY CRIME?

>> NO.

IT PLAINLY DOES NOT.

EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT REINFORCES THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES DO NOT HAVE TO BE CRIMES AND AGAIN NOT ALL CRIMES ARE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

WE LOOK AT THE CONTEXT AND GRAVITY OF THE MISCONDUCT.

>> THIS POSITION WAS ECHOED BY THE REPUBLICAN'S EXPERT WITNESS, PROFESSOR TURLEY IN HIS WRITTEN TESTIMONY.

HE STATED THAT "IT IS POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT BASED ON A NONCRIMINAL ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF POWER."

HE ALSO STATED "IT'S CLEAR THAT HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS CAN ENCOMPASS NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT."

MORE RECENTLY PROFESSOR TURLEY AGAIN THE REPUBLICAN WITNESS AT OUR HEARING, WROTE AN OPINION PIECE IN "THE WASHINGTON POST" ENTITLED "WHERE THE TRUMP DEFENSE GOES TO FAR."

IN THIS PIECE, HE STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT IS AS POLITICALLY UNWISE AS IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SHORT-SIGHTED.

HE ADDED, IF SUCCESSFUL, IT WOULD COME AT A CONSIDERABLE COST TO THE CONSTITUTION.

ALTHOUGH I DISAGREE WITH PROFESSOR TURLEY ON MANY, MANY ISSUES, HERE HE IS CLEARLY RIGHT.

I MIGHT SAY THE SAME THING OF THEN HOUSE MANAGER LINDSEY GRAHAM WHO REJECTED THE NOTION THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE LIMITED TO VIOLATIONS OF ESTABLISHED LAW.

HERE'S WHAT HE SAID IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

>> WHAT IS A HIGH CRIME?

HOW ABOUT AN IMPORTANT PERSON HURT SOMEBODY IN LOW MEANS?

IT'S NOT VERY SCHOLARLY.

BUT I THINK IT'S THE TRUTH.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY MEANT BY HIGH CRIMES.

DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CRIME.

IT'S JUST WHEN YOU START USING YOUR OFFICE AND YOU'RE ACTING IN A WAY THAT HURTS PEOPLE YOU COMMITTED A HIGH CRIME.

>> THERE'S MANY REASONS WHY HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE LIMITED TO VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.

WE ADDRESS THEM AT LENGTH IN THE BRIEFS WE FILED AND THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RESPECTING THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

I'D LIKE THE HIGHLIGHT A FEW ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS.

I'LL TICK THROUGH THEM QUICKLY.

FIRST, THERE'S THE MATTER OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD.

THE FRAMERS COULD NOT HAVE MEANT, COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO LIMIT IMPEACHMENT TO STATUTORY CRIMES.

PRESIDENTS ARE TO BE IMPEACH AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR TREASON, BRIBERY AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

BUT BRIBERY WAS NOT MADE A STATUTORY CRIME UNTIL 1837.

SECOND, THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION IS CONTRADICTED BY THE CONSTITUTION'S TEXT.

THE FRAMERS REPEATEDLY REFERRED TO CRIMES, OFFENSES AND PUNISHMENT, CRIMES OFFENSES AND PUNISHMENT ELSE WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT HERE THEY REFER TO HIGH CRIMES.

THAT MATTERS.

IT MATTERS BECAUSE THE PHRASE "HIGH CRIMES" REFERS TO OFFENSES AGAINST A STATE RATHER THAN TO WORK A DAY CRIMES.

IT MATTERS BECAUSE THE PHRASE HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS HAD A RICH HISTORY IN ENGLAND WHERE IT HAD BEEN APPLIED IN MANY, MANY CASES THAT DID NOT INVOLVE CRIMES UNDER BRIDGE LAW.

WHEN THE FRAMERS ADDED HIGH CRIMES HERE, THEY MADE A DELIBERATE CHOICE.

ANY DOUBT IS DISPELLED BY THE FRAMER'S OWN STATEMENTS.

IN FEDERALIST NUMBER 65, ALEXANDER HAMILTON EXPLAINED THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE SAID A VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST.

JAMES WILSON AGREED WITH HAMILTON.

WILSON STATED "IMPEACHMENTS AND OFFENSES AND OFFENDERS IMPEACHABLE COME NOT WITHIN THE SPHERE OF JURIS PRUDENCE, THEY'RE FOUNDED ON DIFFERENCE PRINCIPLES, AND DIRECTED TO DIFFERENT OBJECTS."

GEORGE MASON EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT ABUSE THE PARDON POWER TO "SCREEN FROM PUNISHMENT NOSE THAT HE HAD INSTIGATED TO COMMIT A CRIME AND PREVENT A DISCOVERY OF HIS OWN GUILT."

SOUND FAMILIAR?

JAMES MADISON RESPONDED TO MASON'S CONCERN.

BECAUSE MASON'S CONCERN WAS AT THE PARDON POWER MIGHT BE TOO BROAD.

THE PRESIDENT MIGHT MISUSE HIS BROAD PARDON POWERSTO PARDON HIS OWN CO CONSPIRATORS.

MADISON RESPONDED, IF THE PRESIDENT BE CONNECTED IN ANY SUSPICIOUS MANNER WITH IN PERSON AND THAT HE WILL SHELTER HIM, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CAN IMPEACH HIM.

AT THE NORTH CAROLINA RATIFYING CONVENTION, JAMES IREDELL THAT WOULD SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT, RESPONDED TO THE SAME CONCERN.

HE ASSURED DELEGATES THAT IF THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER WITH SOME CORRUPT MOTIVE OR OTHER, HE WOULD BE LIGHT FOR IMPEACHMENT.

IN THE EARLY 1800s THIS UNDERSTANDING WAS ECHOED BY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STORY WHO WROTE HIS TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTION.

HE REJECTED CRIMES AND IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES WHICH HE STATED "MUST BE EXAMINED UPON VERY BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC POLICY AND DUTY."

LATER IN AMERICAN HISTORY, CHIEF JUSTICE AND FORMER PRESIDENT WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT AS WELL AS CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES PUBLICLY STATED THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES ARE NOT LIMITED TO CRIMES BUT INSTEAD CAPTURE A BROADER RANGE OF MISCONDUCT.

INDEED UNDER CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT ABUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S PARDON POWER TO FRUSTRATE CORD ORDERS WOULD SUGGEST RESORT TO IMPEACHMENT.

THIS IS -- NOTICE PARDON POWERS ARE UNLIMITED.

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HERE IS ABUSE OF THE PARDON POWER.

USE OF THE PARDON POWER FOR CORRUPT MOTIVE IS IMPEACHABLE.

IF ALL OF THAT AUTHORITY IS NOT ENOUGH TO CONVINCE YOU, THERE'S MORE.

HISTORIANS HAVE SHOWN THAT AMERICAN COLONISTS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION AND AMERICAN STATES AFTER THE REVOLUTION BUT BEFORE 1787, ALL IMPEACHED OFFICIALS FOR NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT.

THE PAST TWO CENTURIES, A STRONG MAJORITY OF THE IMPEACHMENTS VOTED BY THE HOUSE HAVE INCLUDED ONE OR MORE ALLEGATIONS THAT DID NOT CHARGE A VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.

INDEED, THE SENATE HAS CONVICTED AND REMOVED MULTIPLE JUDGES ON NONCRIMINAL GROUNDS.

JUDGE ARCHIBALD WAS REMOVED IN 1912 FOR NONCRIMINAL SPECULATION IN COAL PROPERTIES.

JUDGE RITTER WAS REMOVED IN 1936 FOR THE NONCRIMINAL OFFENSE OF BRINGING HIS COURT IN TO SCANDAL AND DISREPUTE.

DURING JUDGE RITTER'S CASE, ONE OF MY PREDECESSORS STATED EXPRESSLY, WE DO NOT ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROVING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF A CRIME AS THAT TERM IS KNOWN TO CRIMINAL JURIS PRUDENCE.

WHAT IS TRUE FOR JUDGES IS ALSO TRUE FOR PRESIDENTS.

AT LEAST ON THIS POINT.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVED THREE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT NIXON.

EACH OF THEM ENCOMPASSED MY ACTS THAT DID NOT VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW.

ONE OF THE ARTICLES, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS, INVOLVED NO ALLEGATIONS OF ANY LEGAL VIOLATION.

AND IT IS WORTH REFLECTING ON WHY PRESIDENT NIXON WAS FORCED TO RESIGN.

MOST AMERICANS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE STORY.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVED ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IN 1974.

THE ARTICLES PASSED WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT ALTHOUGH MOST REPUBLICANS STOOD BY PRESIDENT NIXON.

THEN THE SMOKING TAPE CAME OUT.

WITHIN A WEEK ALMOST EVERYONE THAT SUPPORTED THE PRESIDENT A WEEK BEFORE CHANGED HIS POSITION AND THE PRESIDENT WAS FORCED TO RESIGN BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS REVEALED ON THE SMOKING GUN TAPE.

WITHIN A WEEK SENATOR GOLDWATER AND OTHERS FROM THE SENATE WENT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SAID YOU WON'T HAVE A SINGLE VOTE IN THE SENATE, YOU MUST RESIGN OR YOU'LL BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE SMOKING GUN TAPE.

BUT WHAT WAS ON THE SMOKING GUN TAPE?

THE SMOKING GUN TAPE WERE RECORDINGS OF PRESIDENT NIXON INSTRUCTING WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS TO PRESSURE THE CIA AND THE FBI TO END THE WATERGATE INVESTIGATIONS.

NO LAW PROHIBITED THAT CONVERSATION.

IT WAS NOT IN THAT SENSE A CRIME.

BUT PRESIDENT NIXON HAD ABUSED HIS POWER.

HE TRIED TO USE TWO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, THE FBI AND THE CIA FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT.

HIS IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL WAS CERTAIN AND HE ANNOUNCED HIS RESIGNATION WITHIN DAYS.

DECADES LATER IN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S CASE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORTED ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT STATED THE ACTIONS OF PRESIDENT CLINTON DO NOT HAVE TO RISE TO VIOLATING THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

THERE'S OVERWHELMING AUTHORITY AGAINST RESTRICTING IMPEACHMENTS TO VIOLATIONS OF ESTABLISHED OR STATUTORY LAW.

EVERY RELEVANT PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COMPELS THAT RESULT.

SO DOES COMMON SENSE.

IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMES.

IMPEACHMENT EXISTS TO ADDRESS THREATS TO THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.

APPLIES ONLY TO POLITICAL OFFICIALS AND RESPONDS NOT BY IMPRISONMENT OR FINES BUT BY STRIPPING POLITICAL POWER.

IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE TO SAY THAT A PRESIDENT THAT ENGAGES IN HORRIFIC ABUSES MUST BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN CONGRESS UNLESS THERE WAS A STATUTE YOU LAWING IT.

THAT WOULD PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

AS JUSTICE STORY OBSERVED, THE THREATS POSED BY PRESIDENTIAL ABUSE ARE SO COMPLEX THAT WOULD BE ALMOST ABSURD TO ATTEMPT A COMPREHENSIVE LIST.

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT.

IT DOES NOT LEAVE US STUCK WITH PRESIDENTS THAT ABUSE THEIR POWER IN WAYS THAT THREATEN OUR SECURITY AND DEMOCRACY.

UNTIL RECENTLY, IT DID NOT OCCUR TO ME THAT OUR PRESIDENT WOULD CALL A FOREIGN LEAD AND DEMAND A SHAM INVESTIGATION MEANT TO KNEECAP HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS ALL IN EXCHANGE FOR RELEASING VITAL MILITARY AID THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ALREADY REQUIRED BY LAW TO PROVIDE.

NO ONE ANTICIPATED THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD STOOP TO THIS MISCONDUCT AND CONGRESS HAS PASSED NO LAW TO MAKE THIS BEHAVIOR A CRIME.

YET THIS IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF ABUSE THAT THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY WROTE THE IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE AND WHEN THEY CHARGED CONGRESS WITH DETERMINING WHEN THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT WAS SO CLEARLY WRONG, SO DEFINITELY BEYOND THE PALE, SO THREATENING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER AS TO REQUIRE HIS REMOVE VALUE.

THAT'S WH YOU MUST JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES WHETHER JUSTICE WILL BE HAD FOR THE PRESIDENT'S CRIMES AGAINST OUR FREEDOM AND THE CONSTITUTION.

I WILL CONCLUDE BY HIGHLIGHTING A FEW POINTS IN SPECIAL EMPHASIS AS YOU APPLY THE LAW OF IMPEACHMENT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CONDUCT.

FIRST, IMPEACHMENT IS NOT FOR PETTY OFFENSES.

THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT MUST CONSTITUTE AS MASON PUT IT A GREAT AND DANGEROUS OFFENSE AGAINST THE NATION.

OFFENSES THAT THREATEN THE CONSTITUTION.

SECOND, IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES INVOLVE WRONG DOING THAT REVEAL THE PRESIDENT AS A CONTINUING THREAT IF HE'S ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT IMPEACHMENT DOES NOT EXIST FOR A MISTAKE.

IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ACTS THAT ARE MERELY UNWISE OR UNPOPULAR.

IMPEACHMENT IS RESERVED FOR DELIBERATE DECISIONS BY THE PRESIDENT TO EMBARK ON A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT BETRAYS HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND DOES VIOLENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN SUCH CONDUCT AND WHEN THERE'S STRONG EVIDENCE THAT HE WILL DO SO AGAIN, WHEN HE'S TOLD US HE WILL DO SO AGAIN, WHEN HE TOLD US THAT IT'S OKAY TO INVITE INTERFERENCE FROM A FOREIGN POWER INTO OUR NEXT ELECTION, THE CASE FOR REMOVAL IS AT ITS PEAK.

THIS IS CERTAINLY THE CASE WHEN HE ATTEMPTS TO COMPEL A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO HELP HIM SUBVERT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEXT ELECTION.

THERE CAN BE NO GREATER THREAT TO THE REPUBLIC.

FINALLY, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS INVOLVE CONDUCT THAT IS RECOGNIZABLY WRONG TO A REASONABLE, HONORABLE CITIZEN.

THE FRAMERS ADOPTED A STANDARD OF IMPEACHMENT TO STAND THE TEST OF TIME.

AT THE SAME TIME, THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION IMPLIES THAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE.

IMPEACHMENT IS AIMED AT PRESIDENTS THAT ACT AS IF THEY'RE ABOVE THE LAY.

PRESIDENTS THAT BELIEVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOSE OF THE NATION.

THOSE WILL IGNORE RIGHT AND WRONG IN PURSUIT OF THEIR OWN GAME.

ABUSE, BETRAYAL, CORRUPTION.

HERE ARE EACH OF THE CORE OFFENSES THE FRAMERS FEARED MOST.

THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER, HIS BETRAYAL OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND HIS CORRUPTION OF OUR ELECTIONS QUALIFY AS GREAT AND DANGEROUS OFFENSES.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS MADE CLEAR IN WORD AND DEED THAT HE WILL PERSIST IN SUCH CONDUCT IF HE'S NOT REMOVED FROM POWER.

HE POSES A CONTINUING THREAT TO OUR NATION TO THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS TO OUR DEMOCRATIC ORDER.

HE MUST NOT REMAIN IN POWER ONE MOMENT LONGER.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL.

WOE WILL NOW WALK THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S ABUSE OF POWER.

THE CORRUPT OBJECT OF HIS SCHEME.

HIS THREE OFFICIAL ACTS CARRYING OUT HIS SCHEME, HIS ATTEMPTED COVER-UP AND EXPOSURE AND THE HARM TO OUR NATION.

AND CONTINUING THREAT CAUSED BY HIS MISCONDUCT.

LET'S START FIRST WITH THE OBJECT OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

SENATORS, WE HAVE TODAY PROVIDED HANDOUTS THAT YOU CAN FOLLOW ALONG IN OUR SLIDES.

SO IS THIS FIRST SLIDE INDICATES, IN THIS PORTION OF OUR PRESENTATION, WE WILL DISCOVER THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS OVERWHELMINGLY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THIS SCHEME WITH CORRUPT INTENT WITH ONE CORRUPT OBJECTIVE TO OBTAIN FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN HIS RE-ELECTION BID IN THE 2020 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

WE WILL WALK THROUGH FIRST HOW THE PRESIDENT WANTED UKRAINE TO HELP IN THIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

HE WANTED UKRAINE TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE TWO INVESTIGATIONS.

ONE INTO HIS POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN AND THE SECOND INTO THE DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY RELATED TO UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF LATER CONFIRMED THIS INTENT IN PUBLIC STATEMENTS.

WE WILL THEN EXPLAIN HOW WE KNOW THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE SOLELY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL POLITICAL GAIN.

FIRST, PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE CLEAR HE CARED ONLY ABOUT THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

NOT THE ACTUAL INVESTIGATIONS.

SECOND, PRESIDENT TRUMP SIMILARLY MADE CLEAR THAT HE CARED ONLY ABOUT THE BIG STUFF, THE BIG STUFF MEANING HIS POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

THIRD, HE USED HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY, MR. GULIANI, WHO REPEATEDLY TOLD US HE WAS PURSUING THE INVESTIGATIONS IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER.

AND THAT THIS WAS PRESIDENT ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY.

FOURTH AND FIFTH, THERE IS NO RULED DISPUTE THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NEVER PART OF AN OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY AND THEY IN FACT WENT OUTSIDE OFFICIAL CHANNELS.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PUBLICLY CONFIRMED THAT THEY WERE NEVER ASKED TO TALK TO UKRAINE ABOUT THIS.

SIX OFFICIALS THAT KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON REPORTED THESE CONCERNS TO SUPERVISORS AND EVEN THE NSC LEGAL ADVISERS.

SEVEN, UKRAINE EXPRESSED CONCERNS MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THESE WERE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND UKRAINE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN DOMESTIC U.S.

POLITICS.

EIGHTH, THE WHITE HOUSE TRIED TO BURY THE CALL.

NINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF TOLD US THAT HE REALLY WANTED AND CARED ABOUT IN HIS OWN WORDS IN MANY PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND FINALLY DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL'S ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY HIS ACTIONS, THE EVIDENCE MAKES CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT CARE ABOUT ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS IN UKRAINE.

THIS WAS ONLY ABOUT ONE THING, HIS POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

WE'RE FOLLOWING ALONG ON THE SLIDE.

NOW AS I MENTIONED, THE OBJECT OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME IS CLEAR.

TWO INVESTIGATIONS TO HELP HIS POLITICAL RE-ELRE-ELECTION.

THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS THE PRESIDENT BROAD AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FOREIGN POLICY.

HE'S OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

AND CHIEF DIPLOMAT.

WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLS A FOREIGN LEADER, A PRESIDENT'S FIRST AND ONLY OBJECTIVE SHOULD BE TO GET FOREIGN LEADERS TO DO WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST -- WHAT'S BEST FOR THE U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST.

CONSISTENT WITH THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF HIS OATH OF OFFICE AND CONSISTENT WITH OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

BUT ON JULY 25, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID THE OPPOSITE.

INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING OFFICIAL U.S. TALKING POINTS, INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO HIS STAFF ON WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED UKRAINE FOR SOMETHING THAT BENEFITTED ONLY HIMSELF.

HIS POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

NOT ONLY DID THESE INVESTIGATIONS DIVERGE FROM U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS AS YOU'LL HEAR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ACTIONS HARMED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

IN PUTTING HIMSELF ABOVE OUR COUNTRY, HE PUT OUR COUNTRY AT RISK, AND THAT IS WHY HIS ACTIONS ARE SO DANGEROUS.

NOW LET'S TAKE A MOMENT AND LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT FROM UKRAINE.

THEY'RE AT THE HEART OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME AND HOW HE STOOD TO BENEFIT POLITICALLY FROM UKRAINE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF EACH.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE, THE FIRST INVESTIGATION WAS OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

LET'S GO TO THE JULY 24th TELEPHONE CALL AGAIN.

PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED CLEARLY EACH OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WANTED.

SO LET'S START WITH VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND HIS -- AND THE REMOVAL OF CORRUPT PROSECUTOR IN THE UKRAINE.

THE FIRST INVESTIGATION RELATED TO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN AND THE UKRAINIAN GAS COMPANY BURISMA HOLDINGS.

ON WHOSE BOARD HIS SON HUNTER BIDEN USED TO SIT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF SUMMARIZED THE THEORY BEHIND HIS REQUEST IN BROAD STROKES AND HIS JULY 25 CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.

"THE OTHER THING, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT, SO THAT WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO THAT.

SOUNDS HORRIBLE TO ME."

NOW LET'S LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE INVESTIGATION PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKING FOR AND WHAT IT WAS BASED ON.

IN SHORT, PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR THE INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN BASED ON A MADE UP UP THEORY THAT NOBODY AGREED WITH, NO ONE.

WE'LL GO INTO THIS IN MORE DETAIL, BUT AT A HIGH LEVEL, THE ALLEGATION IS THAT LATE IN 2015, BIDEN PRESSURED UKRAINE TO REMOVE THE THEN PROSECUTOR GENERAL, VICTOR SHOKIN, BUT THREATENING TO WITHHOLD $1 BILLION IN LOAN GUARANTEES IF HE WAS NOT REMOVED.

ACCORDING TO THIS THEORY, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DID THIS IN ORDER TO HELP HIS SON COMPANY CALLED BURISMA.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON SAT ON THE BOARD OF AS THE THEORY GOES, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN TRIED TO REMOVE UKRAINE'S PROSECUTOR ALL TO MAKE SURE THE PROSECUTOR WOULDN'T INVESTIGATE THAT SPECIFIC COMPANY, BURISMA.

BECAUSE, AGAIN, HIS SON WAS ON THE BOARD.

THEN SENATORS, IF THAT DOESN'T SOUND FAR-FETCHED AND COMPLICATED TO YOU, IT SHOULD.

SO LET'S TAKE THIS STEP BY STEP AND START FROM THE BEGINNING.

IN 2014, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON, HUNTER, JOINED THE BOARD OF THE UKRAINIAN NATIONAL GAS FOR BURISMA HOLDINGS.

AT THE TIME, BURISMA'S OWNER, A UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH AND FORMER GOVERNMENT ADMINISTER WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION.

IN 2015, VICTOR SHOKIN BECAME UKRAINE'S PROSECUTOR GENERAL A JOB SIMILAR TO ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE UNITED STATES.

ALTHOUGH SHOKIN VOWED TO KEEP INVESTIGATING BURISMA, AMID AN INTERNATIONAL PUSH TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE, HE ALLOWED THE BURISMA INVESTIGATION TO GO DORMANT.

THAT IS WHEN HE WAS REMOVED.

HE WAS NOT ACTIVELY INVESTIGATING BURISMA.

HE HAD LET IT GO DORMANT.

MOREOVER, SHOKIN WAS WIDELY PERCEIVED AS INEFFECTIVE AND CORRUPT.

GEORGE KENT, THE SECOND MOST SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV AT THE TIME DESCRIBED SHOKIN AS A TYPICAL UKRAINE PROSECUTOR WHO LIVED A LIFESTYLE FAR IN EXCESS OF HIS GOVERNMENT'S SALARY WHO NEVER PROSECUTORS ANYBODY KNOWN FOR AND COVERED OF CRIMES THAT WERE KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

IN LATE 2015, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, WHO HAD ASSUMED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN U.S. POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE, PUBLICLY CALLED FOR THE REMOVAL OF MR. SHOKIN, BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE, HIS FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY COMBAT CORRUPTION.

BUT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WASN'T ALONE.

THE EUROPEAN UNION, OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES, THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, REFORMERS INSIDE UKRAINE, ALSO WANTED MR. SHOKIN REMOVED TO REFORM THE UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE TO REFORM IT.

REFORMING THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE WAS ALSO SUPPORTED ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS BY THE UKRAINIAN CAUCUS HERE IN THE SENATE.

ON FEBRUARY 12, 2016, AFTER VMENT BIDEN HAD URGED FOR THE REMOVAL OF MR. SHOKIN, BUT BEFORE THE UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT VOTED TO REMOVE HIM, A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENATORS, INCLUDING SENATORS PORTMAN, DURBIN, SHAH HEEB, BLUMENTHAL AND BROWN, SENT A LETTER TO PRESIDENT PR PORSHENKO URGING HIM TO MAKE REFORMS TO THE PROSECUTOR-GENERAL'S OFFICE.

THE MONTH AFTER THE DISMART SENT THAT LETTER MR. SHOKIN WAS FIRED.

HE WAS FIRED.

SO LET'S BE VERY, VERY CLEAR.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLED FOR THE REMOVAL OF THIS PROSECUTOR AT THE OFFICIAL DIRECTION OF U.S. POLICY.

BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR WAS WIDELY PERCEIVED AS CORRUPT.

AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF ALL OUR INTERNATIONAL ALLIES HIS ACTION HE WERE THEREFORE SUPPORTED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, CONGRESS, AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.

COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL US THAT THIS ALLEGATION AGAINST JOE BIDEN IS FALSE.

AND THIS THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR ANY INVESTIGATION.

BUT THERE ARE SERT E-SEVERAL OTHER REASONS.

YOU KNOW THAT THE ONLY REASON PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN THAT WAS SOLELY FOR HIS VERY OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHIED IT WILL SUMMARIZE SOME POINTS.

FIRST, NONE OF THE 17 WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE'S INQUIRY SAID THERE WAS ANY FACTUAL BASIS FOR THIS ALLEGATION.

NOT ONE OF THE 17.

TO THE CONTRARY, THEY TESTIFIED, IT WAS FALSE.

HE SECOND AS I MENTIONED THE FORMER BEING PROSECUTOR, GENERAL, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS WIDELY CONSIDERED TO BE CORRUPT AND FAILED TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

THUS REMOVING HIM FROM OFFICE WOULD ONLY INCREASE THE CHANCES THAT BURISMA WOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLE CORRUPTION.

THIRD, BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR WAS SO CORRUPT, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLING OR THE HIS REMOVAL WAS ALSO AT THE DIRECTION OF OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

AND UNDERTAKEN WITH THE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF OUR ALLIES.

FOURTH, THE SUCCESSOR TO THE FIRED UKRAINIAN GENERAL ADMITTED THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG IN CONNECTION WITH BURISMA ABOUT SO THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED UKRAINE TO PURSUE WAS SIMPLY FALSE.

FINALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIDN'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THIS UNTIL 2019.

BUT WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN BECAME THE FRONT RUNNER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION AND POLLS SID HE HAD THE LARGEST HEAD TO HEAD LEAD AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, THAT BEAR IN MIND A PROBLEM.

LET'S START WITH THE FIRST AND SECOND POINTS.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S CONDUCT WAS UNIFORMLY VALIDATED BY THE WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION, WHO CONFIRMED HIS CONDUCT WAS CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY.

EVERY SINGLE WITNESS WHO WAS ASKED ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS, AGAIN SAID THAT BIDEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, AND IT WAS FALSE.

THEY TESTIFIED THAT HE ACTED PROPERLY.

EVERY WITNESS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THIS ISSUE TESTIFIED THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS CARRYING OUT OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY IN CALLING FOR SHOKIN'S REMOVAL.

SHOKIN WAS CORRUPT.

AND THIS WITNESSES EXPLAINED THE U.S. WAS NOT ALONE IN THIS VIEW.

ALL OF OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES ALSO SUPPORTED THIS ACTION.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE, NOTHING, NADA IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THIS BASELESS ALLEGATION.

I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THAT TESTIMONY NOW.

FIRST HEAR DR. HILL AND MR. HOLMES, SO LET'S WATCH.

>> NOW, ARE EITHER, DR. HILL ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN?

>> I'M NOT, NO.

>> AND IN FACT, MR. HOLMES, THE FORMER PROSECUTOR-GENERAL OF UKRAINE, WHO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ENCOURAGED TO FIRE, WAS ACTUALLY CORRUPT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND WAS NOT PURSUING CORRUPTION INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS, RIGHT?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL AT THE TIME SHOKIN WAS NOT AT THAT TIME PURSUING INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA OR THE BIDENS.

>> AND IN FACT REMOVING THAT CORRUPT PROSECUTOR GENERAL WAS PART OF THE UNITED STATES ANTICORRUPTION POLICY ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND NOT JUST US, BUT ALL OF OUR ALLIES AND THOSE INVOLVED IN UKRAINE AT THE TIME.

>> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH CONFIRMED THIS POINT.

>> AND ACTED TO REMOVE THE FORMER CORRUPT PROSECUTOR IN UKRAINE DID HE DO SO AS PART OF OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY?

>> OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

THAT WAS ENDORSED AND WAS THE POLICY OF A NUMBER OF OTHER INTERNATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS, OTHER COUNTRIES, OTHER MONETARY INSTITUTIONS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

>> AND SIMILARLY, WHEN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT BIDEN, GEORGE KENT REPLIED, NONE WHATSOEVER.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN AND MS. WILLIAMS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THEY ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN DID ANYTHING WRONG.

AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT THE BIDEN ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT CREDIBLE AND THAT BIDEN, QUOTE, RESPECTS HIS DUTIES OF HIGHER OFFICE.

NOW, AS I MENTIONED, THERE WAS ALSO CONCRETE REASON THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WANTED SHOKIN REMOVED.

AS DAVID HOLMES, A SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN UKRAINE, TESTIFIED, BY THE TIME THAT SHOKIN WAS FINALLY REMOVED IN 2016, THERE WERE STRONG CONCERNS THAT SHOKIN HIMSELF WAS CORRUPT AND NOT INVESTIGATING POTENTIAL CORRUPTION IN THE COUNTRY.

IN FACT, PART OF THE CONCERN WAS THAT SHOKIN WAS NOT INVESTIGATING BURISMA.

UNDER SHOKIN, THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE OWNER OF BURISMA FOR EARL EARLIER CONDUCT HAD STALLED AND WAS DORMANT.

THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON WHY THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES WANTED TO REMOVE SHOKIN.

BECAUSE OF THIS, AND AS CONFIRMED BY WITNESS TESTIMONY, WE WILL HEAR SHORTLY, CALLING FOR SHOKIN'S REPLACEMENT WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE THE CHANCES THAT BURISMA WOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

IN OTHER WORDS, SHOKIN WAS CORRUPT.

IN NOT INVESTIGATING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BURISMA, SO WHEN VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS CALLING FOR SHOKIN'S REMOVAL AND ADVOCATING FOR HIS REPLACEMENT IT WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE CHANCES OF BURISMA'S INVESTIGATION.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH PLAYED THIS POINT DURING HER TESTIMONY.

LET'S LISTEN.

>> AND IN FACT IF HE HELPED TO REMOVE A CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR-GENERAL WHO WAS NOT PROSECUTING ENOUGH CORRUPTION, THAT WOULD INCREASE THE CHANCES THAT CORRUPT COMPANIES IN UKRAINE WOULD BE INVESTIGATED, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

>> ONE WOULD THINK SO.

>> AND THAT COULD INCLUDE BURISMA, RIGHT?

>> YES.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES HAVE TRIED TO JUSTIFY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WITHHOLDING A MILITARY AID AND A WHITE HOUSE MEETING UNLESS UKRAINE ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS HE WANTED.

BY SAYING IT'S THE SAME THING VICE PRESIDENT DID WHEN HE CALLED FOR UKRAINE TO REMOVE ITS CORRUPT PROSECUTOR, IT IS NOT THE SAME THING.

AS YOU'VE JUST HEARD, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOLLOWED OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

HE WENT THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS TO REMOVAL THE PROSECUTOR THAT WAS CORRUPT.

AND HE DID IT WITH THE SUPPORT OF OUR ALLIES.

THAT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID.

HE PUSHED UKRAINE FOR AN INVESTIGATION THAT HAS NO BASIS, THAT NO ONE AGREED WITH.

THAT WAS NOT AT ALL U.S. POLICY.

AND THAT ONLY BENEFITED HIM.

GEORGE KENT ADDRESSED THIS VERY POINT DURING HIS TESTIMONY.

LET'S LISTEN.

>> AND MR. KENT, AND MR. TAYLOR, THE DEFENDERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR HAVE MADE A BIG DEAL OUT OF THE FACT THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ENCOURAGED THE UKRAINIANS TO REMOVE A CORRUPT FORMER UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR, 2016, MR. SHOKIN.

AND IN FACT SENATOR RAND PAUL ON SUNDAY SAID AND I QUOTE HIM, THEY ARE IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT JOE BIDEN DID.

IS THAT CORRECT, IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT -- WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID IN HIS PHONE CALL, AND WHAT JOE BIDEN DID IN TERMS OF MR. SHOKIN, ARE THOSE EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS?

AND IF NOT HOW ARE THEY DIFFERENT?

>> I DO NOT THINK THEY ARE THE SAME THINGS.

WHAT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN REQUESTED OF FORMER PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE POROSHENKO WAS THE REMOVAL OF A CORRUPT PROSECUTOR-GENERAL VICTOR SHOKIN WHO HAD UNDERMINED A PROGRAM OF ASSISTANCE THAT WE HAD SPENT AGAIN U.S.

TAXPAYER MONEY TO TRY TO BUILD AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR UNIT TO GO AFTER CORRUPT PROSECUTORS.

THERE WAS A CASE CALLED THE DIAMOND PROSECUTOR CASE IN WHICH SHOKIN DESTROYED THE ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE.

THE INVESTIGATORS, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO HAD WARRANTS TO DO THE WIRETAPPING, EVERYBODY TO PROTECT HIS FORMER DRIVER WHO HE HAD MADE A PROSECUTOR.

THAT WAS WHAT JOE BIDEN WAS ASKING, TO REMOVE THE PROSECUTO- >> SO JOE BIDEN WAS ADDRESSING THE EFFORT TO ADDRESS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AS YOU LOOK AT THIS WHOLE MESS, RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP, WAS THIS A WHOLE IN GOVERNMENT TO END CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?

>> REFERRING TO THE REQUEST IN JULY, EXACTLY.

I WOULD NOT SAY SO, NO, SIR.

>> IN SHORT, THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ARE GROUNDLESS.

AND SO THERE IS NO COMPARISON, NONE AT ALL, BETWEEN WHAT HE DID AND THE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ABUSE OF POWER.

NOW, LET'S TURN TO THE THIRD POINT.

PART OF THE ALLEGATION AGAINST FORM HE VMENT BIDEN IS HE PUSHED FOR THE CRUMENT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR'S REMOVAL IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIS SON FROM THE INVESTIGATION.

IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT'S CLAIM ABOUT BEING CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION, UKRAINE HAS RECENTLY EMPHASIZED THIS COMPONENT OF THE THEORY.

THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE HUNTER BIDEN'S WORK ON THE BOARD OF BURISMA, NOT THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT.

THIS, TOO, IS FALSE.

SIMPLY FALSE.

YOU NEED LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE JULY 25 CALL, AND THE PRESIDENT'S OWN STATEMENTS, TO SEE THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED THE UKRAINIANS TO INVESTIGATE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

LET'S LOOK AGAIN AT WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S CALL SAID.

QUOTE: THE OTHER THING, THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT BIDEN SOUGHT THE PROSECUTION IN A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT, WHATEVER YOU CAN DO, WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.

BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, OSO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT, IT SOUNDS HORRIBLE THE ME.

THE PRESIDENT WAS CLEARLY ASKING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN.

AND WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT SAY ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN ON OCTOBER 3rd?

WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE UKRAINE SCHEME HE SAID, QUOTE, WELL, I THINK THEY SHOULD -- IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT, YOU SAW THE FILM YESTERDAY, THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.

HE SAID, THE BIDENS.

PLURAL.

NOT ONE BIDEN.

THE BIDENS.

IT'S CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED WHAT HE WANTED FROM UKRAINE.

AN INVESTIGATION TO SMEAR HIS POLITICAL RIVAL.

BUT EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT WANTED AN INVESTIGATION OF HUNTER BIDEN, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THAT EITHER.

NOW, HOW DO YOU KNOW?

WELL, UKRAINE'S FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERAL ADMITTHAT THE ALLEGATION AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIENTD'S SON WAS PLAINLY FALSE.

YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE SLIDE.

HIS OWN WORDS.

PLAINLY FALSE.

THEN UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL YURI LOZENSKO RECANTED HIS EARLIER ALLEGATIONS AND CONFIRMED, QUOTE, BIDEN WAS DEFINITELY NOT INVOLVED.

IN ANY WRONGDOING INVOLVING BURISMA.

SO EVEN UKRAINIANS BELIEVE THAT BIDEN'S SON DID NOTHING WRONG.

THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE INVESTIGATION THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS PURSUING.

PURSUING AND PUSHING.

NONE.

HE WAS DOING IT ONLY FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL BENEFIT.

BUT LET'S LOOK AT ONE MORE IMPORTANT REASON WHY IT'S CLEAR, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SIMPLY WANTED A POLITICAL BENEFIT FROM UKRAINE'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF THIS INVESTIGATION, AND DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE UNDERLYING CONDUCT.

THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WERE BASED ON EVENTS THAT OCCURRED IN LATE 2015, AND EARLY 2016.

THEY WERE ALL WELL PUBLICIZED AT THE TIME.

BUT AS SOON AS PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE, HE INCREASED MILITARY SUPPORT TO UKRAINE IN 2017, AND THE NEXT YEAR, 2018, BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL 2019 OVER THREE YEARS AFTER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN CALLED FOR SHOKIN'S REMOVAL, THREE YEARS AFTER, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP STARTED PUSHING UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE THAT CONDUCT.

SO WHAT CHANGED?

WHAT CHANGED?

WHY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT CARE AT ALL ABOUT BIDEN'S REQUEST ON THE REMOVAL OF SHOKIN THE YEAR AFTER IT HAPPENED IN 2017?

OR THE NEXT YEAR, IN 2018?

SENATORS, YOU KNOW WHAT CHANGED IN 2019.

WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SUDDENLY CARED, IT'S THAT BIDEN GOT IN THE RACE.

ON APRIL 25, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCED HE WOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020.

IF PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ALLEGED CORRUPTION, WHY DIDN'T HE PUSH UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE, WHEN HE ENTERED OFFICE IN 2017?

OR IN 2018?

AFTER BIDEN GAVE PUBLIC REMARKS ABOUT HOW HE PRESSURED UKRAINE TO REMOVAL SHOKIN?

WHY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP INSTEAD WAIT UNTIL FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS CAMPAIGNING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION?

SENATORS, IT'S OBVIOUS.

BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO HURT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S CANDIDACY AND HELP HIMSELF POLITICALLY.

HE PUSHED FOR AN INVESTIGATION IN 2019, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO HIM, PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE PUSHED FOR IT WHEN IT STARTED TO BECOME CLEAR THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN COULD BEAT HIM.

AND HE HAD GOOD REASON TO BE CONCERNED.

LET'S LOOK AT THE SLIDE ABOUT SOME POLLS.

THROUGHOUT THE SCHEME, POLLING HAD CONSISTENTLY SHOWN THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT HANDILY BEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP, BY SIGNIFICANT MARGINS, IN HEAD TO HEAD MATCHUPS.

THE CHART ON THE SCREEN SHOWS A FOX NEWS POLL EMPHASIZING THIS POINT.

THE CHART SHOWS THAT FROM MARCH THROUGH DECEMBER, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HAD CONSISTENTLY LED PRESIDENT TRUMP IN NATIONAL POLLS BY SIGNIFICANT MARGINS.

SO IN BEGINNING AROUND MARCH, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN IS BEATING THE PRESIDENT, IN POLLS.

EVEN ON FOX NEWS.

IN AN, BIDEN OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCES HIS CANDIDACY.

AND THEN -- THAT IS WHEN THE PRESIDENT GETS WORRIED.

IN MAY, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER TELLS THE PRESS THAT HE'S PLANNING TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE TO URGE NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CONDUCT THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS ONE INTO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE HAPPENED IN MAY?

A FOX NEWS POLL SHOWED BIDEN BEATING TRUMP BY 11 POINTS.

THIS CLEARLY DID NOT GO UNNOTICED.

ON MAY 9, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER MR. GIULIANI SAID IN AN INTERVIEW, AND THIS IS A QUOTE, I GUARANTEE YOU, JOE BIDEN WILL NOT GET TO ELECTION DAY WITHOUT THIS BEING INVESTIGATED.

AND BY JULY, RIGHT BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, WHERE HE ASKED INTO THE INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN, THE FOX NEWS POLL SHOWED BIDEN BEATING TRUMP BY TEN POINTS.

AND THEN ON JULY 25th, AFTER YEARS OF NOT CARING WHAT VICE PRESIDENT DID, DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK FOR AN INVESTIGATION IN HIS FORMIDABLE PRELIMINARY RIVAL IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

AS FAR AS LOOKING AT THIS TIME LINE OF EVENTS IT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY THE INVESTIGATION INTO BIDEN WOULD BE HELPFUL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE MERE ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUCH AN INVESTIGATION WOULD IMMEDIATELY TARNISH THE FORMER VICE PRESIDENT'S REPUTATION BY EMBROILING HIM AND HIS SON IN A FOREIGN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

EVEN IF THE CHARGES WERE NEVER PURSUED, JUST THE MERE ANNOUNCEMENT.

AND IF A FOREIGN COUNTRY ANNOUNCED A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO THOSE ALLEGATIONS, IT WOULD GIVE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE BIDENS AN AIR OF CREDIBILITY, AND COULD CARRY THROUGH THE ELECTION.

THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR.

EVERYONE KNEW, EVEN UKRAINE, THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT TO THE ALLEGATION THAT BIDEN CALLED FOR THE REMOVAL OF SHOKIN FOR ANY ILLEGITIMATE REASON.

BIDEN ASKED FOR IT BECAUSE IT WAS CONSISTENT, CONSISTENTLY WITH U.S. POLICY -- CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY BECAUSE SHOKIN WAS CORRUPT.

AND WITH THE BACKING OF OUR ALLIES.

EVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THIS INVESTIGATION.

THAT IS WHY FOR YEARS AFTER SHOKIN'S REMOVAL HE CONTINUED TO SUPPORT UKRAINE.

NEVER ONCE RAISED THE ISSUE.

IT WASN'T UNTIL BIDEN BEGAN BEATING HIM IN THE POLLS THAT HE CALLED FOR THE INVESTIGATION.

THE PRESIDENT ASKED UKRAINE FOR THIS INVESTIGATION FOR ONE REASON, AND ONE REASON ONLY, BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WOULD -- IT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO AN OPPONENT WHO WAS CONSISTENTLY BEATING HIM IN THE POLLS, AND THEREFORE, IT COULD HELP HIM GET REELECTED IN 2020.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD IF MOTIVE, HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, AND THE MEANS, TO COMMIT THIS ABUSE OF POWER.

NOW LET'S TURN TO THE SECOND INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.

WHAT HE WANTED IS A WIDELY DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE, RATHER THAN RUSSIA, INTERFERED IN THE 2016 YOU KNOW.

ELECTION TO BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OPPONENT.

AS WE WILL EXPLAIN, THE ALLEGATION THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION, JUST LIKE THE ALLEGATION THAT BIDEN IMPROPERLY REMOVED THE UKRAINE PROSECUTOR, HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN FACT.

IN FACT, THIS THEORY IGNORED THE UNANIMOUS CONCLUSIONS OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, THE CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES, AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, WHICH FOUND THAT RUSSIA, RUSSIA ATTACKED OUR ELECTIONS.

IT ALSO WENT AGAINST THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT, WHICH FOUND NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT UKRAINE ATTACKED OUR ELECTIONS.

NOR DID ANY WITNESS SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT UKRAINE ATTACKED OUR ELECTIONS.

INDEED, EVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN ADVISORS TOLD HIM THE CLAIM WAS FALSE.

IN FACT, THE ONE PERSON WHO TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP HIS THEORY IS TRUE, WHO WAS IT?

YOU KNOW IT WAS, OUR ADVERSARY, RUSSIA.

W.H.O.

HAD EVERYTHING -- WHO HAD EVERYTHING TO GAIN BY DEFLECTING THE BLAME FROM THEIR ATTACK ON UKRAINE.

LET'S LOOK AT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ACTUALLY SUGGESTING UKRAINE INVESTIGATE.

THE THEORY IS THIS: INSTEAD OF LISTENING TO OUR ENTIRE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THAT CONCLUDED THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN OUR 2016 ELECTION TO ASSIST DONALD TRUMP, THE NEW THEORY SAID IT WAS UKRAINE THAT INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION TO HELP HILLARY CLINTON AND HURT DONALD TRUMP.

ONE ASPECT OF THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY WAS THAT THE AMERICAN CYBER SECURITY FIRM CROWDSTRIKE WHICH HAD HELPED THE DNC TO TO RUSSIA'S CYBER ATTACK IN 2016, MOVED A DNC SERVER TO UKRAINE TO PREVENT THE FBI FROM EXAMINING IT.

HERE'S WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID ABOUT THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY DURING THE JULY 25 CALL.

QUOTE: WOULD I LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION WITH UKRAINE.

THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE, I GUESS YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR WEALTHY PEOPLE, THE SERVER, THEY SAY UKRAINE HAS IT.

ONCE AGAIN, IF THIS SOUNDS FAR FETCHED AND CRAZY, IT SHOULD BECAUSE IT IS.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY.

LET'S WALK TO THE CONCRETE REASONS WHY.

FIRST, AS I MENTIONED, OUR ENTIRE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEES ON INTELLIGENCE, AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, ALL UNANIMOUSLY FOUND THAT RUSSIA, NOT UKRAINE, INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS.

AND RUSSIA DID IT TO HELP DONALD TRUMP.

AND HURT HILLARY CLINTON.

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.

THIS IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT, ENTITLED, "ASSESSING RUSSIAN ACTIVITIES AND INTENTIONS IN RECENT U.S.

ELECTIONS. "

I'LL QUOTE A PART AND YOU CAN FOLLOW ON IN THE SLIDE.

WE ASSESS RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN'S ORDER AND INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN IN 2016 AIMED AT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, RUSSIA'S GOALS WERE TO UNDERMINE PUBLIC FAITH IN THE U.S. DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, DENIGRATE SECRETARY CLINTON AND HARM HER ELECTABILITY AND POTENTIAL PRESIDENCY.

WE FURTHER ASSESS PUTIN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT DEVELOPED A CLEAR PREFERENCE FOR PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP.

WE HAVE HIGH CONFIDENCE IN THESE JUDGMENTS, END QUOTE.

CLEAR PREFERENCE FOR PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP.

AND HERE'S A CONCLUSION OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE.

QUOTE: THE COMMITTEE FOUND THAT IF RUSSIAN BASED INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY SOUGHT TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BY HARMING HILLARY CLINTON'S CHANCES OF SUCCESS, AND SUPPORTING DONALD TRUMP AT THE DIRECTION OF THE KREMLIN.

THE COMMITTEE FOUND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT TASKED AND SUPPORTED THE IRA'S INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION.

S. END QUOTE.

SUPPORTING DONALD TRUMP AT THE DIRECTION OF THE KREMLIN.

THAT'S WHAT IT SAID.

AND HERE'S THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S CONCLUSION.

MUELLER REPORT IN 2019.

QUOTE, AS SET FORTH AND DETAILED IN THIS REPORT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION ESTABLISHED THAT RUSSIA INTERFERING -- INTERFERED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, PRINCIPALLY THROUGH TWO OPERATIONS.

FIRST A RUSSIA ENTITY CARRIED OUT A SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN THAT FAVORED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DONALD J. TRUMP AND DISPAIRNLGD PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HILLARY CLINTON.

SECOND, A RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICE CONDUCTED COMPUTER INTRUSION OPERATIONS AGAINST ENTITIES, EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS WORKING ON THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THEN RELEASED STOLEN DOCUMENTS.

ON DECEMBER 9, 2019, EVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN FBI DIRECTOR, CHRISTOPHER WRAY, STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT UKRAINE INTERFEERTD IN OUR ELECTION IN 2016.

-- INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION IN 2016.

HERE IS THE VIDEO OF THAT INTERVIEW.

LET'S WATCH.

>> DID THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE DIRECTLY INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION ON THE SCALE THAT THE RUSSIANS DID?

>> WE HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT INDICATES THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

>> WHEN YOU SEE POLITICIAN HE PUSHING THIS NOTION ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF ITS IMPACT ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC?

>> WELL, LOOK.

THERE'S ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE SAYING ALL KINDS OF THINGS OUT THERE.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE THOUGHTFUL CONSUMERS OF INFORMATION.

AND TO THINK ABOUT THE SOURCES OF IT.

AND TO THINK ABOUT THE SUPPORT AND PREDICATION FOR WHAT THEY HEAR.

AND I THINK PART OF US, BEING WELT PROTECTED AGAINST MALIGNED FOREIGN INFLUENCE, IS TO BUILD TOGETHER AN AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT'S RESILIENT THAT HAS APPROPRIATE MEDIA LITERACY AND TAKES ITS INFORMATION WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.

>> AND PUTIN HAS BEEN PUSHING THIS THEORY.

AND YOUR MESSAGE TO HIM IN TERMS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC?

>> STOP TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH OUR ELECTIONS.

>> WE RECENTLY HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF THAT HE WANTED THE CROWDSTRIKE PORTION OF THIS WHOLE CONSPIRACY IN UKRAINE INVESTIGATED.

AND I'M HEARING YOU SAY THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW.

>> AS I SAID, WE HAVE NO -- WE AT THE FBI HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

>> SO THE PRESIDENT -- >> YOU HEARD HIM, NO INFORMATION WOULD INDICATE THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

SO TO BE REALLY, REALLY CLEAR, THERE IS NO REAL DISPUTE THAT RUSSIA, NOT UKRAINE, ATTACKED OUR ELECTIONS.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY.

IT'S MORE DANGEROUS THAN THAT.

BECAUSE WHERE DID THIS THEORY COME FROM?

YOU GUESSED IT.

THE RUSSIANS.

RUSSIA, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN AND RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, PERPETUATED THIS FALSE DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY.

NOW, REMEMBER THERE IS DPLO DISPUTE AMONG THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THAT RUSSIA ATTACKED OUR 2016 ELECTION.

THE SENATE'S OWN INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, PUBLISHED A REPORT TELLING US THAT AS WELL.

SO IT'S NO SURPRISE THAT RUSSIA WANTS TO BLAME SOMEBODY ELSE.

IN FACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP EVEN SAID THAT.

PRESIDENT PUTIN IS THE ONE WHO TOLD HIM IT WAS UKRAINE WHO INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION.

IN SHORT, THIS THEORY THAT THE RUSSIANS ARE PROMOTING TO INTERFERE YET AGAIN IN OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, AND DEFLECT BLAME FROM THEIR OWN ATTACKS AGAINST US, BUT WHAT IS SO DANGEROUS IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS HELPING THEM PERPETUATE THIS.

OUR OWN PRESIDENT IS HELPING OUR ADVERSARY ATTACK OUR PROCESSES, AND TO HELP HIS OWN REELECTION.

DR. HILL, AN EXPERT ON THESE MATTERS, EXPLAINS IT IN MORE DETAIL AS TO WHY THIS IS VERY CONCERNING.

LET'S WATCH.

>> THIS RELATES TO THE SECOND THING I WANT TO COMMUNICATE.

THERE IS SOME QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS I HAVE HEARD, SOME OF YOU ON THIS COMMITTEE APPEAR TO BELIEVE THAT RUSSIA AND ITS SECURITY SERVICES DID NOT CONDUCT A CAMPAIGN AGAINST OUR COUNTRY AND THAT PERHAPS SOMEHOW FOR SOME REASON UKRAINE DID.

THIS IS A FICTIONAL NARRATIVE THAT HAS BEEN PERPETRATED AND NAVIGATED BY THE RUSSIAN SECURITY SERVICES THEMSELVES.

THE UNFORTUNATE TRUTH WAS THAT RUSSIA WAS A FOREIGN POWER THAT SYSTEMATICALLY ATTACKED OUR DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS IN 2016.

THIS WAS CONFIRMED IN BIPARTISAN AND CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS.

IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE.

EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THE UNDERLYING DETAILS MUST REMAIN CLASSIFIED.

THE IMPACTS OF THE SUCCESSFUL 2016 RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN REMAINS EVIDENT TODAY.

OUR NATION IS BEING TOMORROW APART DUE TO QUESTIONS, OUR HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL AND EXPERT CAREER FOREIGN SERVICE IS BEING UNDERMINED.

CONTINUED TO FACE ARMED AGGRESSION IS BEING POLITICIZED, THE RUSSIAN GOAL IS TO WEAKEN OUR COUNTRY, TO DIMINISH OUR GLOBAL INFLUENCE.

>> THEIR GOAL IS TO WEAKEN OUR COUNTRY, TO DIMINISH AMERICA'S GLOBAL ROLE, AND TO NEUTRALIZE A PERSISTENT U.S. INTEREST.

THAT'S WHY IT'S SO DANGEROUS.

BECAUSE DESPITE THE LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY, UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, CONGRESS, SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, AND THE FBI TO THE CONTRARY, PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUED TO PROMOTE THIS FAKE CONSPIRACY THEORY, JUST BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL AND HLPFUL TO HIS OWN REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

EVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN SENIOR ADVISORS TOLD HIM, THIS ALLEGATIONS WERE FALSE.

TOM BOSERT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FORMER FOREIGN SECURITY ADVISOR, STATED THAT THE CROWDSTRIKE THEORY HAD BEEN DEBUNKED.

HERE IS THAT INTERVIEW, LET'S WATCH.

>> IT IS NOT JUST A CONSPIRACY THEORY, IT IS COMPLETELY DEBUNKED.

RETIRED FORMER SENATOR JED WROTE, THE THREE WAYS OR THE FIVE WAYS TO IMPEACH ONE SELF AND THE THIRD WAY WAS TO HIRE RUDY GIULIANI.

AT THIS POINT I'M DEEMLY FRUSTRATED WHAT HE AND THE LEGAL TEAM IS DOING IN REPEATING THE THEORY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IT STICKS IN HIS MIND WHEN HE HEARS IT AND FOR CLARITY GEORGE LET ME REPEAT THAT IT HAS NO VALIDITY.

THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT REACHED ITS CONCLUSION ON ATTRIBUTING TO RUSSIA THE DNC HACK IN 2016 BEFORE IT EVEN COMMUNICATED IT TO THE FBI, LONG BEFORE THE FBI EVER KNOCKED ON THE DOOR OF THE DNC.

SO A SERVER INSIDE THE DNC WAS NOT RELEVANT TO OUR DETERMINATION TO THE ATTRIBUTEION.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ATTRIBUTION OF THE DNC HACK.

>> THE THEORY HAS NO VALIDITY.

THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.

DR. HILL TOO, TESTIFIED THAT WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS INCLUDING MR. BUSSERT AND FORMER SECURITY ADVISORY H.R.

McMASTER SPENT A LOT OF TIME DEBUNKING THE CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

LET'S HEAR IT.

>> THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE AND THE 2016 ELECTION THAT YOU DISCUSSED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT TO CHAIRMAN SCHIFF?

>> THE REFERENCE TO CROWDSTRIKE YES THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THESE ALLEGATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOW, ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MOST SENIOR ADVISORS, HAD INFORMED HIM THAT THIS THEORY OF UKRAINE INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION WAS FALSE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHEN SHE WAS ASKED, IS IT FALSE, SHE SAID, THAT'S CORRECT.

IF VLADIMIR PUTIN'S GOALS AS DR. HILL TESTIFIED, WERE TO DEFLECT FROM RUSSIA'S SYSTEMATIC INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION AND TO DRIVE A WEDGE BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE, HE HAD SUCCEEDED BEYOND HIS WILDEST DREAMS.

THE ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE OF UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE ON THE 2016 ELECTION HAS NOW BEEN PICKED UP BY THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS AND THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA.

IT HAS MUDDLED THE WATERS REGARDING RUSSIA'S OWN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, EFFORTS THAT REMAIN ONGOING AS WE HAVE LEARNED LAST WEEK, THIS WEEK FROM REPORTING THAT RUSSIA HACKED BURISMA.

IF THERE WERE ANY DOUBT ABOUT HOW PRESIDENT PUTIN FEELS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT YOU NEED ONLY LOOK TO PUTIN'S OWN WORDS.

THE STATEMENT ON NOVEMBER 20 TELLS IT ALL.

QUOTE: THANK GOD, NOBODY IS ACCUSING US ANYMORE OF INTERFERING IN U.S.

ELECTIONS, NOW THEY'RE ACCUSING UKRAINE.

THAT'S A SHORT QUOTATION FROM PUTIN.

BUT IT SPEAKS VOLUMES.

EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW THAT THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THEORY, THAT IT WAS UKRAINE THAT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION, RATHER THAN RUSSIA, AND KNEW THAT RUSSIA WAS PERPETUATING THIS THEORY, HE STILL WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO PURSUE THE INVESTIGATION.

WHY?

BECAUSE WHILE PUTIN AND RUSSIA CLEARLY STOOD TO GAIN BY PROMOTING THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE, SO DID DONALD TRUMP.

HE KNEW HE WOULD BE POLITICALLY HELPFUL TO HIS 2010 -- 2020 ELECTION, IN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION BY UKRAINE, WOULD HAVE BREATHED NEW LIFE INTO A DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT UKRAINE ELECTION INTERFERENCE WAS THERE IN 2016, AND IT LENDED GREAT CREDIBILITY.

IT WOULD HAVE CAST DOUBT ON THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION TO HELP PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AND IT WOULD HAVE HELPED ELIMINATE A PERCEIVED THREAT TO LEGITIMACY OF DONALD TRUMP'S PRESIDENCY, THAT HE WAS ONLY ELECTED BECAUSE OF THE HELP HE RECEIVED FROM PRESIDENT PUTIN.

I NOW YIELD TO MR. SCHIFF.

>> THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> THAT WE TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK AT THIS POINT.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

SO ORDERED.

>> Woodruff: AND WITH THAT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS CALLED THE SENATE TO RECESS AT THE REQUEST OF THE MAJORITY LEADER.

WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO ALMOST TWO HOURS NOW OF TESTIMONY, STATEMENTS, BY THE DEMOCRATIC MANAGERS, FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAKING THE CASE TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE FOR WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

WE FIRST HEARD FROM JERRY NADLER, THE CONGRESSMAN FROM NEW YORK WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SPEAK GOING HOW THE FOUNDERS INTENDED THE RATION A.M. FOR THE REMOVAL OF -- RATIONALE FOR REMOVAL OF THE U.S. PRESIDENT.

FOR SEVEN MONTHS WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO MANAGER SYLVIA GARCIA OF TEXAS SPEAK WITH MORE DETAIL AND WITH MORE SPECIFICITY ABOUT WHY THE PRESIDENT MADE, APPEARED TO MAKE STATEMENTS AS HE DID ALONG THE WAY THAT HAD TO DO WITH JOE BIDEN'S DECISION TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

AND AS YOU'VE JUST BEEN LISTENING TO UKRAINE, TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ANY UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

WE ARE FOLLOWING THE HEARINGS, THE TRIAL, WE ARE JOINED BY OUR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT LISA DESJARDINS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT JALDZ JALDZ, AND HERE NEXT ME, MARTIN PAONE, 30 YEARS WORKING ON THE SENATE ON THE FLOOR AND DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

ELIZABETH CHRYST WAS MARTY PAONE'S COUNTERPART.

VICTORIA NOURSE WAS SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN THE EARLY '90s, SHE ALSO SPENT TIME AS AN AN APL AT LAWYER DURING THE GEORGE H.W.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

AND JOHN HART, WHROP WELCOME BACK TO ALL OF YOU.

LET'S QUICKLY TALK, ELIZABETH CHRYST, ABOUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE HOUSE MANAGERS, FIRST, WITH CONGRESSMAN NADLER MAKING THE CONNECTION.

HERE IS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE TRYING TO DO WHEN THEY PUT THE TERMS OF IMPEACHMENT REMOVAL FROM OFFICE IN THE CONSTITUTION.

HOW DOES THAT ARGUMENT COME ACROSS 250 YEARS LATER?

>> I THINK IT COMES ACROSS AS HISTORICAL AND IMPORTANT.

BUT I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE LOST SOME OF THE AUDIENCE WHEN HE ALMOST STARTED OUT BY SAYING THE PRESIDENT'S ASK, THE INITIAL ASK OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WAS AN ABUSE OF POWER.

I -- AND HE DIDN'T OBVIOUSLY MENTION THE ASK HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION OF THE 2016 ELECTION.

AND HE ALSO SAID, DELAYING THE ASSISTANCE IS UNPRECEDENTED, AND I WONDER IF THE SENATORS SITTING IN THE CHAMBER WHO KNOW ABOUT AGENCIES AND WHATNOT DELAYING MONEY OFTEN, KNOWS THAT THAT HAPPENS, IF THERE WASN'T A LITTLE BIT OF AN EYE ROLL.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE SORT OF LOST SOME OF THE SENATORS WITH SOME OF THE BEGINNING STATEMENTS LIKE THOSE.

>> Woodruff: WELL, LET'S TURN TO ONE OF THE SENATORS RIGHT NOW WHO HAS BEEN IN THE SENATE CHAMBER, THE UPPER CHAMBER LISTENING TO THESE ARGUMENTS OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS, SENATOR MICHAEL BENET, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

WHAT ARE YOU TAKING AWAY FROM TODAY'S PRESENTATION BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS?

>> IT WAS, THANK YOU JUDY VERY USEFUL TO HEAR THE PRESENTATION WHAT CONSTITUTES A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR BECAUSE IT DEBUNKS ONE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ARGUMENTS IF YOU ARE NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIME YOU CAN'T BE IMPEACHED.

TODAY WE HAVE GONE THROUGH HOUSE MANAGER'S DEBUNKING OF THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA THAT UKRAINIAN INTERFERED WITH OUR 2016 ELECTION, WHICH EVERY INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HAS FALSE, WHICH THE FBI DIRECTOR HAS SAID IS FALSE BUT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TRIED TO KEEP ALIVE FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL INFLUENCE.

I THINK THAT THE CASE THE PRT ABUSED HIS POWER THEN TRIED THE COVER IT UP HAS ENTERED INTO THE GREATEST COVERUP THAT WE HAVE SEEN BY A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE STONE WALLING THAT HAS GONE ON THAT PREVENTED THE HOUSE BEING ABLE TO GET DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES BEYOND THE ONES FROM THOSE BRAVE PEOPLE THAT WERE WILLING TO TESTIFY.

AND NOW A SENATE PROCEDURE THAT IS SET UP TO COVER UP WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.

AND THAT IS WHAT IS SO DISCOURAGING TO ME.

HERE WE HAVE A COUNTRY BASED ON LAWS NOT MEN, WE HAVE JOURNALISTS ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY AND POLITICIANS IN THIS CHAMBER THAT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS AND BE ABLE TO SEE THESE WITNESSES.

AND MITCH McCONNELL AND THE REPUBLICANS SO FAR HAVE PERPETRATED A RULE OF ENGAGEMENT HERE THAT'S NOT ALLOWING US TO SEE THESE DOCUMENTS UNTIL AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, IF EVER.

IT IS AN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY.

>> Woodruff: WELL SENATOR AS YOU KNOW TWO THINGS, NUMBER 1 THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING EVIDENCE, WITNESSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE HOUSE PROCESS.

THAT IT'S UP TO THE SENATE TO MAKE THE DECISION BASED ON WHAT THE HOUSE DISCOVERED IN ITS FINDINGS AND SECOND OF ALL -- WELL ANSWER THAT QUESTION FIRST.

>> I ANSWER THAT QUESTION BY SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UNCONSTITUTIONALLY PREVENTED THE HOWSSMENTS FROM GET -- THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM GETTING THOSE DOCUMENTS.

HE IS ENGAGED IN A COVERUP.

THAT IS WHY THE HOUSE DIDN'T HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THOSE WITNESSES.

AND EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT WAS ENGAGED IN AT A THAT COVERUP THEY HAVE MANAGED TO PUT TOGETHER A SET OF VERY DAMNING ALLEGATIONS, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSED TO ANSWER EXCEPT BY SAYING THINGS THAT ARE COMPLETELY FALSE.

LIKE YOU CAN'T BE IMPEACHED FOR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A CRIME.

OR, BY REPEATING AGAIN, PROPAGANDA THAT THE RUSSIANS ARE PERPETRATING TO TRY TO WEAKEN OUR DEMOCRACY.

AND NOW WE HAVE A CASE IN THE SENATE WHERE WE CAN'T EVEN -- WHEN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT WAS GOING ON WE HAD 90,000 DOCUMENTS AT THIS POINT FOR US TO CONSIDER AND FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.

>> Woodruff: RIGHT.

>> WE HAD WITNESSES FOR US TO CONSIDER AND FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.

NONE OF THAT HAPPENED HERE BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S COVERUP.

>> Woodruff: AND SENATOR THE OTHER PART OF WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU HAS TO DO FRANKLY WITH THE PRELIMINARY REALITY IN THE SENATE.

THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE ARE REPUBLICANS AND THE MAJORITY OF THEM BASED ON WHAT WE'RE HEARING ARE SAYING YES IT MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO ASK THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THE DO THIS BUT HE DIDN'T VIOLATE SOME -- HE DIDN'T VIOLATE HIS OATH.

IT WASN'T AN ABUSE OF POWER.

IT WAS -- IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DIRECTED AT WORRIES ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

THEY ARE SAYING THEY STILL DON'T SEE THE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO TURN RELATIONS WITH A FOREIGN POWER TO HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT.

>> WELL, I THINK ANYBODY WATCHING THIS TRIAL OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS -- TWO DAYS HAS SEEN CLEAR EVIDENCE.

AND THE FACT THAT THEY CAN'T SEE IT MUST BE A CASE OF WILLFUL BLINDNESS.

AND I THINK TWO THINGS BASED ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

I DON'T -- EVEN THOUGH, YOU KNOW, THIS ISSUE ABOUT THE HOUSE VERSUS THE SENATE ALL THAT MIGHT BE AN INTERESTING POLITICAL DODGE, THE REALITY IS THAT ANYBODY WITH ANY SELF RESPECT FOR OUR ROLE AS A CONGRESS, AND THE NEED FOR AMERICAN ADJOURNISTS, SHOULD BE MAKING SURE THAT WE OVERCOME THE AMERICAN PRESENCE CHEM A HISTORICAL INVOCATION OF A PRIVILEGE THAT NOBODY HAS EVER INVOKED IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.

WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

>> Woodruff: SENATOR, DO YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION THAT ANY OF THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE CLIERND TO SUPPORT WITNESSES, AND ULTIMATELY TO -- INCLINED TO SUPPORT WITNESSES AND ULTIMATELY TO CONSIDER VOTING FOR REMOVAL?

>> NOT YET.

BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE I AM TLLING YOU JUDY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THIS PRESIDENTIAL HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF IN THIS CRIME YET.

THEY HAVE NOT -- IT HAS NOT SUNK IN WITH THEM.

I DON'T THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW UNPRECEDENTED HIS STONE WALLING HAS BEEN AND I THINK WHEN THEY DO FIGURE THIS OUT BEFORE AND AFTER THIS TRIAL IS FINISHED, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A -- THEY ARE GOING TO -- THERE IS GOING TO BE A SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR PEOPLE WHO VOTED TO HELP THE PRESIDENT COVER UP HIS ABUSE OF POWER.

>> Woodruff: SENATOR MICHAEL BENNET OF COLORADO, AS WE SAID, A CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT.

THANK YOU.

>> I'M VERY SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT JIM LEHRER.

>> Woodruff: A HUGE LOSS FOR ALL OF US.

THANK YOU.

IN JUST A MOMENT WE WILL BE TALKING WITH REPUBLICAN SENATOR RICK SCOTT OF FLORIDA.

AND WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR HIM TO GET WIRED UP I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE TALKING TO US FROM THE SAME PLACE, JALDZ JALDZ, -- YAMICHE ALCINDOR, YAMICHE, WHAT ARE THEY TELLING YOU AT THIS POINT?

>> WAREHOUSE OFFICIALS ARE PUSHING BACK ON THE IDEA OF COURSE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID ANYTHING WRONG.

WHITE HOUSE AIDES HAVE BEEN OUT THIS MORNING TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS REALLY BRAGGING ABOUT THE FACT THAT ALL THE GOOD FACTS ARE ON THEIR SIDE BECAUSE HE GOT SOME PUSH BACK WHEN HE SAID THE WHITE HOUSE TEAM HAD ALL THE MATERIALS.

IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT JUST WALKED ACROSS THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN.

HE DIDN'T STOP TO TALK TO REPORTERS.

HE IS ON HIS WAY TO FLORIDA FOR A PRELIMINARY GATHERING.

HE SAID THE DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO WITNESS TRADE BECAUSE SHIFTY SCHIFF, THE SECOND WHISTLEBLOWER WHO VANISHED AFTER I RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPT AND THE SO-CALLED INFORMER WOULD BE A BIG PROBLEM FOR THEM.

AND THE PRESIDENT THERE IS TALKING ABOUT THIS IDEA THAT AT ONE POINT DEMOCRATS WERE AT LEAST FLOATING THE IDEA OF FORCING HUNTER BIDEN THE SON OF JOE BIDEN TO TESTIFY IN ORDER TO GET JOHN BOLTON THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORY, TO TESTIFY, THERE WAS SORT A TRADE THERE.

THE PRESIDENT IS CLAIMING BLAIPG IT OFTEN THE DEMOCRATS SAYING IT WAS THEIR BIG PROBLEM.

>> Woodruff: YAMICHE ALCINDOR, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU IN A MOMENT.

WE DO WANT TO TURN TO RICK SCOTT IN FLORIDA, 0 HAS BEEN IN THE CHAMBER ALONG WITH 99 OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, LISTENING TO THE CASE MADE BY THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC PLERGS.

SENATOR TELL US WHAT YOU'RE TAKING AWAY FROM THE PRESENTATION SO FAR THIS MORNING FROM CONGRESSMAN NADLER AND CONGRESSWOMAN GARCIA?

>> FIRST MY HEART GOES OUT TO JIM LEHRER'S FAMILY AND JUDY.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN.

THINK WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

THEY ARE SAYING THAT JOE BIDEN WHO HELPED SET U.S. POLICY WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT AND IT WAS OKAY THAT HE WENT AND GOT A PROSECUTOR FIRED THAT WAS POTENTIALLY INVESTIGATING A COMPANY HIS SON GOT A JOB WITH AND NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW HE GOT THE JOB.

BUT IF PRESIDENT TRUMP, LET'S SAY HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO, LET AN AMBASSADOR GO, THERE IS SOMETHING SINISTER THERE.

THAT'S SOMETHING PAINFUL THEY'RE TRYING TO DO TODAY.

>> Woodruff: IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ANYTHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON WITH THE PRESIDENT'S SON, I'M SORRY WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SON OR WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT'S ROLE IN TRYING TO GET THAT PROSECUTOR REMOVED.

AND THAT THE CONTRAST THE DEMOCRATS MADE, THAT IT WAS DIRECTLY TIED TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESIRE TO GET INFORMATION ON SOMEBODY WHO WHO WAS RUNNING AGAINST HIM FOR PRESIDENT.

THEY'RE SAYING THERE WAS A MOTIVE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD THAT IS JUST NOT PRESENT WITH THE BIDEN CASE.

>> JUDY, I MEAN HOW MANY OF US REALLY BELIEVE THAT A PRESIDENT'S SON SHOULD BE GETTING A JOB IN UKRAINE WITH NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER?

I MEAN IT'S JUST NOT LOGICAL.

OKAY?

AND SO, AND A PRESIDENT ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT TO CHANGE OUT AMBASSADORS FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WANT.

WHETHER OTHER PEOPLE LIKE IT OR NOT, THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT TO DO THAT ALL THE TIME.

THERE'S NOTHING -- THERE IS NOTHING SINISTER ABOUT DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT UNLESS THEY CAN FROF SOME BUT AGAIN -- PROVE SOMETHING.

BUT ALL THEY HAD WAS HEARSAY.

IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL, WE ARE ALL SITTING THERE LISTENING TO THIS, TODAY WATCHING THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS TRY TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN'S ACTION WAS PRETTY HILARIOUS WHEN YOU THINK OF WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO.

>> Woodruff: WHEN AMERICANS ASK THIS KIND OF A FAVOR OF A FOREIGN LEADER TO INVESTIGATE SOMEONE WHO WAS A POTENTIAL POLITICAL RIVAL?

>> WELL, LET'S REMEMBER, THERE ARE -- THE PRESIDENT, LOOK, I'M LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

I WANT TO LISTEN TO THE FACTS.

IF THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE FACTS AND THEY CAN SHOW THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT I WANT TO HEAR THAT.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'VE HEARD.

I'VE HEARD ABOUT HEARSAY, HEARD ABOUT INNUENDO, THIS THEY HAVE PROBABLY HAD THIS CONVERSATION.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD OF SO FAR.

I SAT THERE FOR TWO DAYS, WE HEARD ABOUT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AND FIONA HILL, THE SAME STUFF IT'S LIKE A REPEAT EVERY 90 MINUTES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

LOOK IF THEY HAVE EVIDENCE I WANT TO HEAR THEIR EVIDENCE.

BUT TODAY, TODAY THEIR JOB HAS BEEN TRYING TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN WHICH I THINK IS NOT DEFENSIBLE.

>> Woodruff: WE HAVE HEARD THE DEMOCRATS TO SAY, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THEY WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR UP, HEAR FROM WITNESSES BUT SO FAR THE WHITE HOUSE HAS EITHER REFUSED TO RELEASE THE EVIDENCE OR REFUSED TO ALLOW THE INDIVIDUAL TO COME INSTEAD OF.

SO -- >> JUDY BUT THE HOUSE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY LIKE THEY KEEP SAYING THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM JOHN BOLTON.

THEY DIDN'T EVEN SUBPOENA LIMB.

ALL RIGHT?

THERE IS A PROCESS.

I MEAN, THEY COULD HAVE GONE TO COURT AND THEY WOULD FIGURE OUT WHAT POWERS THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE.

BUT YOU HEARD THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS SAY OH YEAH WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT FOR THE COURT SYSTEM.

THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

AND THEN SAY OH NOW THAT YOU GET OVER TO THE SENATE WE WANT YOU TO GO TO THE JOB WE SHOULD HAVE DONE.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY THIS WORKS.

GO PROVE YOUR CASE.

THAT'S WHAT THEIR JOB IS.

>> Woodruff: WHAT ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS THEY DON'T WANT RELEASED?

THERE WAS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS RELEASED BUT IT WAS VERY HEAVILY REDACTED AND THERE IS A REAL QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE INFORMATION WAS CLASSIFIED OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED.

>> JUDY THEIR JOB WAS TO GO TO THE PROCESS, GO TO THE COURTS AND IF THEY BELIEVE THE WHITE HOUSE WASN'T DOING RIGHT THING THEY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO DO THEIR JOB.

THEY DECIDED TO RUSH THIS THROUGH AS YOU KNOW THEN THEY SAT ON IT FOR 33 DAYS.

I THINK THEY DID TO PUT THEIR STORY TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ONE AND NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO TELL US WE GOT TO DO THE HOUSE'S JOB.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> Woodruff: JUST ONE OTHER THING SENATOR.

WE HEARD MICHAEL BENNET SAY, THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVEN'T HAD THE TIME OR THE ABILITY TO STAY TO FOLLOW THE DETAILS OF THIS, AND THAT WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW IS AN IMPORTANT MOMENT.

BECAUSE IT'S AFTERNOON OPPORTUNITY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.

>> I AGREE.

I THINK AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL LEARN AS THEY LISTEN TO THIS WHOLE -- I HOPE THEY LISTEN TO ALL, EVERY DAY OF IT, AND SO AND THEY'RE GOING TO LEARN.

BUT HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR.

THE SENATE IS GOING TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL.

THE HOUSE HASN'T -- HASN'T PROVED THE CASE.

THEY'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP DOING SAME THING.

AND I THINK THE OTHER THING PEOPLE ARE SAYING TO ME, GET BACK TO WORK.

GO DO SOMETHING GOOD DRUG PRICES, GO SECURE THE BORDER.

BALANCE THE BUDGET.

YOU HAVE A TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.

THEY'RE NOT SAYING THEY'RE INTERESTED IN THIS.

>> Woodruff: ARE YOU OPEN SENATOR, HAVE YOU MADE UP YOUR MIND FINALLY ABOUT HOW YOU'LL VOTE?

>> WELL I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO THE WHOLE CASE.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU WHAT, IF THE VOTE WAS TODAY, I WOULD VOTE TO ACQUIT THE PRESIDENT.

THEY HAVEN'T -- THERE'S NO CASE SO FAR.

I MEAN IT'S ALL INNUENDO SO FAR.

>> Woodruff: DO YOU THINK THERE'S THE VOTES THERE TO SUPPORT THE IDEA OF ADMITTING WITNESSES OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE?

>> I THINK PEOPLE ARE LIKE I AM.

I MEAN, THEY EXPECT THE HOUSING, EXPECTED THE HOUSE TO PROVE THEIR CASE.

THEY SAID IT WAS OVERWHELMING.

IT CLEARLY HASN'T BEEN OVERWHELMING.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND LISTEN AND WE'LL MAKE A DECISION WHENEVER IT GETS TO US WHENEVER WE GET TO ASK QUESTIONS NEXT WEEK.

>> Woodruff: RICK SCOTT OF FLORIDA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK TO US.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

>> SORRY ABOUT JIM LEHRER.

>> Woodruff: THANK YOU.

WE'VE HEARD FROM RICK SCOTT, WE'VE HEART FROM SENATOR BENNET, A DEMOCRAT.

UNLIKE THE CLINTON TRIAL, WHICH YOU AND ELIZABETH WERE IN THE SENATE AS OFFICIALS WHEN THATCHED.

WE SEEM TO HAVE A MUCH MORE DIVIDED BODY, RIGHT ALONG PARTY LINES THAN WE DID 20 YEARS AGO.

>> OH, DEFINITE.

AND SENATOR SCOTT'S INTERVIEW JUST NOW IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF THAT.

I MEAN HE LIKE EVERY REPUBLICAN WHO'S ASKED THE QUESTION WHEN YOU ASKED HIM IF IT'S OKAY TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERFERE IN AN ELECTION DID NOT ANSWER IT.

THEY NEVER THAT QUESTION.

THEY GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE AND SAY I WANT TO LISTEN TO ALL THE EVIDENCE.

THEY REFUSE TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THAT'S WRONG.

AND THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE JUST SAID THAT HOLDING UP THE AID WAS ILLEGAL.

I MEAN AND SO, IT'S WHEREAS BACK IN 99 PEOPLE DID AGREE THAT YES THE PRESIDENT MADE MISTAKES, WE SHOULD HAVE SOME WITNESSES.

BUT WE DON'T THINK WHAT HE DID WAS -- THEN THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE AS TO WHETHER WHAT HE DID WAS IMPEACHABLE OR NOT.

NOW IT'S MUCH WORSE.

>> JOHN HART WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION FOR -- I MEAN I KNOW YOU'VE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS, YOU'VE WORKED FOR REPUBLICANS IN THE PAST.

WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION FOR ARGUING THAT -- TO ASK A FOREIGN LEADER TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL RIVAL IS JURISDICTION NORMAL PROCEDURE FOR A IF THE?

>> WELL, I WOULDN'T SAY I THINK IT'S NORMAL PROCEDURE.

I THINK MOST REPUBLICANS DO THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE, IN FACT MANY SAID IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO DO THAT.

IF THERE'S A LEGITIMATE REASON TO LOOK FOR CORRUPTION THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT MATTER.

ONE DEALT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF IMPEACHMENT.

I THINK THAT'S A LOSING ARGUMENT FOR THE TRUMP TEAM, THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN BE IMPEACHED EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME.

BUT FOCUSING ON THIS IDEA OF DEBUNKING TRUMP'S CONSPIRACY THEORY ON UKRAINE.

I AM SURE THAT ELICITED A LOT OF EYE ROLLS IN THE SENATE CHAMBER.

RON SCOTT SAID HE WASN'T IMPRESSED BY THAT ARGUMENT.

EVER SINCE 2016 DEMOCRATS WERE ARGUING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CLOOURDED WITH RUSSIA TO HELP HIM WIN THE ELECTION IN 2016.

THAT WASN'T TRUE.

>> Woodruff: ROBERT MUELLER THE SPECIAL COUNSEL CONCLUDED THAT IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN PROVEN.

>> IF HE COULD HAVE PROVEN IT HE WOULD HAVE PROVEN IT AND REPUBLICANS VIEW THIS AS THE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

SO HERE YOU HAVE A PARTY SPENT THREE YEARS INVESTING IN THE CONSPIRACY THEORY, NOW SAYING NOW WE'RE RIGHT ON THIS ONE.

AND THAT REALLY RUSHES REPUBLICANS THE WRONG WAY.

>> Woodruff: WHAT, BEEN, WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE ARGUMENT WHAT WE JUST SAW THE FBI DIRECTOR WRAY SAYS THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT UKRAINE WAS INTERFERING IN THE ELECTION AND THIS IS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT -- >> YES, THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT AND WE HAVEN'T DEALT WITH THIS ENOUGH IN THIS DISCUSSION.

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT AIDES AND ADVISORS SAY AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT THINKS.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BASED ON A MOTIVE THAT WAS CORRUPT.

THERE ARE MANY, MANY EXAMPLES THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THINGS THAT HIS ADVISORS THINK ARE OUTRAGEOUS THAT ARE UNTRUE, THE ROLE OF NATO, HIFLT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S VOTE IS FOR A VERY DISRUPTIVE UNORTHODOX SPEAKER.

THEY DON'T FIND IT APPALLING OR SINISTER WHEN TRUMP MAY HAVE GENUINELY BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS A ROLE THAT UKRAINE HAD IN THIS EVEN THOUGH HIS ADVISORS CLEARLY GO ON RECORD TO SAY THAT'S NOT TRUE, THAT DOES NOT RISE TO A LEVEL OF IMPEACHABLE DEFENSE.

>> Woodruff: WHAT ABOUT THAT VICTORIA?

>> THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS USING HIS OFFICE TO TRY TO CHEAT THE ELECTIONS, BY HAVING AN INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.

NOW, IT'S ONE THING, EVERYONE IS SAYING OH THAT'S JUST NORMAL AND WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THAT BEFORE.

WELL NO, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT ASKING THE CIA OR THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE SOMEONE RIGHT EVEN FOR SOMETHING PETTY.

BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND ASKING THEM TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

THAT WAS THE CHARGE IN THE NIXON CASE AND THAT IS THE GRAVAMEN OF THE COMPLAINT HERE.

I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY THEY KEEP SWITCHING THE CONVERSATION.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF DANCES HERE YOU KNOW.

>> Woodruff: WHAT ABOUT THE JOHN HARKTD POINT THAT YES, A LOT OF PEOPLE MIGHT THINK IT'S WRONG BUT THEY DON'T THINK IT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

>> LOOK AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AS WE KNOW NOW, EVERYONE SEEMS TO CORN SEED ALLEN DERSHOWITZ THEORY WAS GONE.

THE THEME WAS GONE, GAVE US THE ABC'S OF IMPEACHMENT.

AND THERE'S A THEME TO BRIBERY TREACHERY HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND IT'S PUTTING YOUR PERSONAL INTEREST ABOVE THE COUNTRY'S.

THERE WAS A THREEM OF PATRIOTISM THAT WENT THROUGH THE EARLY PART OF THE DAY WITH NADLER AND BUILDING OFF OF LAST NIGHT FROM SCHIFF, ABOUT PUTTING COUNTRY ABOVE PARTY.

AND I THINK THAT THEME RESONATES WITH WHAT PEOPLE THINKS OF THE COMMON SENSE OF IMPEACHMENT, WHERE SOMEONE SELLS OUT THE COUNTRY FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT, USING THE OFFICE.

>> Woodruff: ELIZABETH CHRYST, BASED ON AGAIN YOU WERE THERE FOR THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

WE CAN ONLY GO SO FAR WITH THESE PARALLELS BETWEEN THESE TWO SITUATIONS.

>> EXACTLY.

>> Woodruff: BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO FIGURING OUT WHAT QUALIFIES AS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, HOW CLEAR -- I SHOULD SAY HOW CLOSE ARE WE GETTING TO A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT?

>> I DON'T THINK WE ARE CLOSE AT ALL.

I THINK WE'RE SORT OF MUDDLED IN, WAS HE TALKING ABOUT THE LERKS COMING UP, WAS HE TALKING ABOUT 2016, IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LOOTING OF THE CORRUPTION IN 2016, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED FOR AFIGHTER.

THEY VOTED FOR SOMEONE TO COME TO WASHINGTON AND CLEAN THE SWAMP OR ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

IF YOU THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT CALL WAS ABOUT, IF YOU THINK THAT'S WHAT THE ASK WAS ABOUT, I THINK AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD REALLY NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

SO THAT'S PART OF THE MOTIVE.

ARE THEY GETTING ANY CLOSER TO A CLEARER PICTURE, I THINK QUESTION-AND-ANSWER PERIOD AND AGAIN I GO BACK TO THERE WAS 150 QUESTIONS WHEN THEY GOT TO THAT PERIOD.

>> Woodruff: UNDER CLINTON?

>> UNDER CLINTON.

I THINK IT WILL BE CLEARER AS TO WHO'S GOT SOME BLINDERS ON OR WHO'S GOT A LITTLE QUESTION.

WHEN THOSE QUESTIONS START COMING UP, I THINK THAT WILL BE A REAL CLEAR PICTURE AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY REPUBLICANS THAT MIGHT BE WILLING TO CONSIDER ACTUALLY VOTING AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

>> Woodruff: MARTIN PAONE, WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS THAT THERE IS STILL SUCH A DIVIDE OVER INTERPRETING WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WHEN HE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OF UKRAINE?

BECAUSE HE CLEARLY WAS ASKING, HE WAS ASKING FOR AN INVESTIGATION.

HE WAS ASKING HIS AIDES AFTER THE PHONE CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND YET THE PUSH BACK CONTINUES TO BE BUT HE WAS REALLY ASKING FOR THEM TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION BROADLY.

>> WELL, AS CONGRESSWOMAN GARCIA WAS NOTING IN THE TIME LINE, YOU KNOW, HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO ASK ABOUT CORRUPTION BEFORE BUT SOMEHOW IT WASN'T OF AN INTEREST UNTIL BIDEN STARTED GETTING INTO THE RACE AND THE POLLING NUMBERS WERE LOOKING GOOD FOR BIDEN.

>> Woodruff: SHE HAD A TIME LINE ON THAT.

>> THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN HE STARTED -- AND MEANWHILE AS GIULIANI KEPT FEEDING HIM THIS CROWDSTRIKE 2016 LINE, ALL THAT WAS SAID WAS ABSOLUTELY BALONEY, ANY TIME ANYBODY TRUMPETS THAT IT'S A VICTORY FOR VLADIMIR PUTIN.

AS THE AIDE AND TESTIMONY IN CONGRESS SAID, THAT'S JUST RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.

>> Woodruff: LISA DESJARDINS JOINING US FROM THE CAPITAL.

YOU HAVE TALKED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS HOW THE SENATORS WERE RESPONDING AS THE VIDEOS GO UP ON IF SCREEN.

YOU GOOD HEAR TOM BOSSERT, COMPLAIN IT IS SIMPLY WRONG THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED.

>> I'M SEAT 95 OVER THE SENATE CHAMBER.

WE ARE LOOKING OVER THE REPUBLICAN SECTION I HAVE A VERY CLOSE TO THE REPUBLICANS IN THE CHAMBER.

AND BRCHG THEM AS WE HEARD REPRESENTATIVE GARCIA GO THROUGH THE LONG DEFENSE OF BIDENS, AND THE BURISMA QUESTION, I SAW SEVERAL REPUBLICANS SMILING, LAUGHING IN A DISMISSIVE WAY, NOT LAUGHING LOUDLY BUT LAUGHING AMONGST THEMSELVES, SHRUGGING THEIR SHOULDERS DISMISSIVELY.

SPECIFICALLY SENATOR TOM COTTON WHO IS KNOWN TO BE AN ALLY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, SENATOR JOANIE ERNST WHO SITS NEXT TO HIM, SOME OF THEM DISMISSIVE AND LAUGHING AMONGST THEMSELVES JUST FOR A FEW SECONDS AT A LOT OF THAT VIDEO.

BUT OTHER REPUBLICAN SENATORS WERE STONE FACED.

ONE WHO TURNED HIS BACK TO THAT VIDEO WAS SENATOR LIND SAIR GRAHAM.

I SAW HIM TURN AWAY -- >> Woodruff: HE WAS IN ONE OF THE VIDEOS, AN OLD VIDEO OF LINDSAY GRAHAM.

>> THIS IS INTERESTING.

AT THAT POINT DANIEL BUSH ONE OF OUR OTHER REPORTERS HERE WAS IN THE CHAMBER AND HE TELLS US AS IT HAPPENED LINDSAY GRAHAM WAS OUT OF THE CHAMBER DURING THAT MOMENT.

HE HAD STEPP OUT AND HE COULDN'T HAVE HAD NOTICE THAT THIS WAS ABOUT TO PLAY, WE DON'T THINK BUT HE WAS NOT IN THE CHAMBER WHEN THEY PLAYED THE VIDEO OF HIS OWN WORDS FROM 1999 AND THE POINT FROM THE DEMOCRATS THAT THOSE CONFLICT WITH HIS ARGUMENT NOW.

HE WASN'T IN THE CHAMBER.

BUT WHEN HE WAS IN THE CHAMBER ABOUT THE ARGUMENT OF JOE BIDEN, THE DEFENSE OF JOE BIDEN, HE WAS LISTENING NOT STONE FACED BUT HE DID TURN HIS BACK TO THE VIDEO.

THEY ARE ALL TAKING DIFFERENT POSITIONS.

THE CHAMBER IS TAKING ITS PACING, THEY DON'T LOOK AS TIRED, ABLE TO HANDLE THE LENGTHY DAYS NOW.

>> Woodruff: LISA DESJARDINS.

THIS IS THE LEAD MANAGER, CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF OF CALIFORNIA.

>> SENATORS, I'M GOING TO PICK UP WHERE MY COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS LEFT OFF.

BUT I WANTED TO BEGIN BY UNDERSCORING A FEW OF THE POINTS THAT SHE MADE, IN LISTENING TO HER PRESENTATION, THAT REALLY LEAPT OUT AT ME IN A WAY THAT HADN'T LEAPT OUT AT ME BEFORE.

BUT FIRST, I WANTED TO ADDRESS MY COLLEAGUES SHARED A NUMBER OF SLIDES SHOWING THE POLLING STRENGTH OF JOE BIDEN VIS-A-VIS THE PRESIDENT AS A DEMONSTRATION OF HIS MOTIVE, THE FACT THAT HE WENT AFTER THESE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS TO UNDERMINE SOMEONE WOULD HE WAS DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT.

THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE POINT FOR ME TO MAKE A DISCLAIMER, THE HOUSE MANAGERS MAKE NO POSITION ON THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR PRESIDENT.

BUT THOSE POLLS DO SHOW A POWERFUL MOTIVE THAT DONALD TRUMP HAD.

A MOTIVE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE YEAR BEFORE.

OR THE YEAR BEFORE THAT.

A MOAFN MOTIVE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE WHEN HE ALLOWED THE AID TO GO TO UKRAINE WITHOUT COMPLAINT OR ISSUE IN 2017 OR 2018.

IT WAS ONLY WHEN HE HAD A GROWING CONCERN WITH JOE BIDEN'S CANDIDACY, THAT HE TOOK A SUDDEN INTEREST IN UKRAINE AND UKRAINE FUNDING AND THE WITHHOLDING OF THAT AID.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO UNDERSCORE WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IN THAT JULY 25th CALL.

WHEN MY COLLEAGUE SHOWED YOU AGAIN THAT TRANSCRIPT FROM JULY 25th, WHERE THE PRESIDENT SAYS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS OVERWHELM SITUATION WITH UKRAINE, THEY SAY CROWDSTRIKE.

NOW MY COLLEAGUES HAVE EXPLAINED WHAT THAT THEORY WAS ABOUT THAT SERVER, THAT CROWDSTRIKE SERVER.

THE CRAZY THEORY THAT IT WAS UKRAINE THAT HACKED THE DEMOCRATIC SERVER AND THAT SERVER WAS WHISKED AWAY TO UKRAINE AND HIDDEN THERE SO THE INVESTIGATORS, THE FBI COULDN'T LOOK AT THIS SERVER, OKAY?

THAT'S WHAT DONALD TRUMP WAS RAISING IN THAT CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

NOW, I BRING THIS UP, THIS POINT UP AGAIN, BECAUSE YOU MAY HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS, AS WE HEARD DURING THE TESTIMONY IN THE HOUSE, THAT THE CONCERN WAS OVER UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION, AND WHY ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT BOTH RUSSIA AND UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION?

WELL NEVER MIND THAT'S CONTRARY TO ALL THE EVIDENCE.

BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT HERE THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT GENERIC INTERFERENCE.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AS WE HEARD FROM SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, IN THE HOUSE, A TWEET FROM A UKRAINIAN HERE OR AN OP ED WRITTEN FROM SOMEBODY THERE AND EQUATING IT WITH SOME KIND OF SYSTEMATIC INTERFERENCE WITH THE RUSSIANS.

WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A VERY SPECIFIC CONSPIRACY THEORY GOING TO THE SEVER ITSELF.

IT WAS UKRAINE THAT HACKED THE SEVER AND NOT THE RUSSIANS.

THIS THEORY WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE KREMLIN.

THIS IS WHAT DONALD TRUMP WANTED TO INVESTIGATION.

THIS COMPLETELY BOGUS KREMLIN PUSHED THEORY.

I WAS ALSO STRUCK BY THE VIDEO YOU SAW OF TOM, THE FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR OF THE PRESIDENT.

HE SPOKE ABOUT HOW CRAZY THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY IS.

THE THREE TO FIVE WAYS TO IMPEACH ONESSELF.

AFTER WATCHING THAT CLIP AGAIN IT'S IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIS THAT RUDOLPH GIULIANI WASN'T IN CONTROL.

HE HAD THE PRESIDENT IN HIS GRIP.

THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND EVERYONE ELSE TOLD THE PRESIDENT THIS IS NONSENSE.

THE RUSSIANS INTERFERED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT LEAD BY RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

IF HE IS WILLING TO LISTEN TO HIS PERSONAL LAWYER OVER HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND ADVISERS YOU CAN IMAGE WHAT A DANGER THAT PERMITS TO THE COUNTRY.

MY COLLEAGUE ALSO PLAYED FOR YOU THAT INTERFEW WITH DIRECTER WRAY AND I WAS STRUCK A KNEW BY THE INTERVIEW.

THE DIRECTOR SAID WE HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT THEY INTERFERED WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THAT'S DONALD TRUMP'S DIRECTOR OF THE FBI.

WE HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT INDICATES UKRAINE INTERFERED WITH THE ELECTION.

YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

THE DIRECTOR SAID THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE SAYING ALL KINDS OF THINGS OUT THERE.

YES, THERE ARE.

THIS PERSON WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

WHEN HE SAID THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE SAYING ALL KINDS OF THINGS WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IT'S ONE THING IF SOMEONE OFF THE STREET SAYS IT BUT WHEN IT COMES FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES YOU CAN SEE WHAT A DANGER IT IS IF IT'S FALSE AND PROMULGATED BY THE RUSSIANS.

AGAIN, THE REPORTER SAID, WE HEARD FROM THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HE WANTED THE CROWD STRIKE PORTION OF THE CONSPIRACY INVESTIGATED.

WRAY SAID WE AT THE FBI HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT WOULD KIND KATE THE UKRAINE TRIED TO INTEGER IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

SO, YOU CAN IMAGE THE VIEW FROM THE KREMLIN.

YOU CAN IMAGE PUTIN IN THE KREMLIN WITH HIS AIDS.

ONE ONE OF THE AIDS COMES IN THE OFFICE AND SAYS VLADIMIR, YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE THIS.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS PUSHING OUR CROWD STRIKE THEORY.

YOU CAN ALMOST IMAGE IT.

HIS OWN PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE IT.

NOBODY BELIEVES THIS.

IT WOULD BE BAD ENOUGH, OF COURSE, IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BELIEVES THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE ADVISE OF ADVICE OF AS ADVISERS.

IT'S WORE THAN THAT.

ON THE BASES OF THE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA HE WOULD HOLD 400 MILLION WORTH OF MILITARY AID AGAINST OUR ALLY.

WHEN WE ASK ABOUT, OKAY, WHAT'S THE NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATION OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.

HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR CAN IT BE.

HE'S PUSHING RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA AND MISLEADING AMERICANS ABOUT WHO INTERFERED IN THE LAST INVESTIGATION.

HE'S NOT ONLY DOING THE KREMLIN A FAVOR BUT WITHHOLDING AID FROM A NATION AT WAR.

THE RUSSIANS NOT ONLY GOT HIM TO DEFLECT BLAME FROM THEIR INTERFERENCE IN OUR DEMOCRACY BUT THEY GOT HIM TO WITHHOLD MILITARY AID.

OF COURSE THERE WAS THE CONVERGENCE OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE KREMLIN AND PRESIDENT.

THE PRESIDENT WASN'T PUSHING KREMLIN TALKING POINTS TO DO PUTIN A FAVOR.

HE WAS DOING IT BECAUSE IT HELPED HIM.

IT COULD GET THESE TALKING POINTS FOR HIM IN HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN.

FOR THAT, HE WOULD SACRIFICE OUR ALLY AND OWN SECURITY.

NOTHING STRUCK ME MORE FROM REPRESENTATIVE GARCIA'S PRESENTATION THAN THE QUOTE FROM VLADIMIR PUTIN FROM NOVEMBER OF THIS PAST YEAR.

JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO.

THANK GOD NO ONE IS ACCUSING US OF INTERFERING IN THE ELECTION NOW THEY ARE BECAMING THE UKRAINE.

THANK GOD.

YOU HAVE TO GIVE DONALD TRUMP CREDIT FOR THIS.

HE MADE A RELIGIOUS MAN OUT OF VLADIMIR PUTIN.

I DON'T THINK WE REALLY WANT VLADIMIR PUTIN TO BE THANKING GOD FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THEY DON'T WISH US WELL.

THEY DON'T WISH US WELL.

THEY ARE A WOUNDED ANIMAL.

THEY ARE A DECLINING POWER.

THEY ARE A DANGEROUS ANIMAL.

THEIR WORLD VIEW IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM OURS.

THEY DON'T WANT THEM THANKING GOD FOR OUR PRESIDENT AND WHAT HE'S PUSHING OUT.

WE DON'T WANT THEM THANKING GOD FOR HOLDING MONEY FROM OUR ALLY.

WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY MAY.

TO ME, THAT'S WHAT STUCK OUT FROM THAT PRESENTATION.

NOW, WE'VE WALKED THROUGH THE FIST PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

GETTING UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE WHAT WOULD BENEFIT HIS REELECTION.

JUST LOOKING AT HOW BASELESS THE ALLEGATIONS WERE BEHIND THEM.

IT'S BEEN A CORRUPT MOTIVE.

IN ADDITION TO THE EVIDENCE THERE ARE TEN OTHER REASONS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED HIS SCHEME.

THERE WERE TEN OTHER REASONS.

WE KNOW THERE WAS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

FIRST HE WAS THE ONLY ONE ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY AND NOT CONDUCTED.

SECOND THE PRESIDENT'S ONLY INTEREST IN THE UKRAINE WITH THE BIG STUFF.

THIRD THE PRESIDENT PAST HIS PERSONAL LAWYER RUDOLPH GIULIANI TO PURSUE THESE INVESTIGATIONS ON HIS BEHALF AND NOT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

FOURTH, AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL THIS WAS NEVER PART OF THE FOREIGN POLICY.

THIS IS TO MAKE CLEAR THIS IS NOT ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY.

OTHER WITNESSES CONFIRMED AND DIVERGED FROM U.S. OFFICIAL POLICY.

FIFTH THE INVESTIGATION WAS TAKEN OUTSIDE OF NORMAL CHANNELS.

SIXTH.

UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS SAID THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE PURELY POLITICAL IN NATURE.

SEVEN, MULTIPLE OFFICIALS REPORTED THE PRESIDENT'S JULY 2h CALL.

EIGHTH THE WHITE HOUSE BURIED THE CALL.

NINTH, THE PRESIDENT CONFIRMED HE WANTED THE UKRAINE TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS IN HIS OWN WORDS AND FINALLY PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT CARE ABOUT ANTI-CORRUPTS EFFORTS IN THE UKRAINE.

LET'S GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE.

FIRST, THE SIMPLIST WAY THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE THESE INVESTIGATIONS DONE SOLELY TO HELP POLITICAL ISSUES.

HE WANTED A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT AND NOT AN ASSURANCE THEY WOULD BE DONE.

IF THE DESIRE WAS TRULY TO ASSIST UKRAINE'S EFFORTS OR WORRIED ABOUT THE LARGER EFFORTS OR SOMEONE INVESTIGATING THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE INVESTIGATION.

HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS OR ISSUES.

THIS IS THE PUCK LICK C ANNOUNCEMENTS.

THERE IS POLITICAL STANDINGS.

THE AMBASSADOR MADE THIS QUIET CLEAR IN THE TESTIMONY.

>> NOW, FROM MR. GIULIANI YOU UNDERSTOOD TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING YOU WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO HAVE AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED TO HAVE THEY WOULD HAVE TO INVESTIGATE THEM.

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THEM.

GIULIANI AND THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T CARE IF THEY DID THEM?

>> I NEVER HEARD MR. GOLDMAN OR ANY ONE SAY THE INVESTIGATIONS HAD TO START OR BE COMPLETED.

THE ONLY THING I HEARD FROM MR. GIULIANI OR OTHERWISE THEY HAD TO BE ANNOUNCED IN SOME FORM AND KEPT CHANGING.

>> IT WAS ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY?

ANNOUNCED PUBLICLY.

S IT WAS GATHERED BY THE HOUSE.

THEY RECEIVED DOCUMENTS FROM AN ASSOCIATE OF RUDOLPH GIULIANI AND NOW INDICTED.

HE WAS INDICTED BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT FOR CRIMES INCLUDING ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS.

AS PART OF THE DOCUMENTS TURNED OVER WE OBTAINED HANDWRITTEN NOTES THAT HE TOOK SOMETIME IN 2019.

ONE OF THOSE NOTES PLAYS OUT THE SCHEME VERY CLEARLY.

IT'S NOT EVERYDAY YOU GET A DOCUMENT LIKE THIS.

WHAT APPEARS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CONSPIRACY WRITING DOWN THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY.

THAT'S WHAT WE SEE HERE.

THE SCHEME THAT US WAS DIRECTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS.

I REPEAT, TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS, NOT INVENEZUELA INVESTIT CONDUCT.

THE ONLINE THING WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

GET ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE THE BIDEN CASE WILL BE INVESTIGATED.

IN EARLY SEPTEMBER THEY FAILED TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE THIS.

HE EXPLAINED THAT HE WANTED ZELENSKY IN A BOX.

HE AGREED TO DO ON CNN.

THIS IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY ON THIS.

>> EVEN THOUGH PRESIDENT WAS SAYING REPEATEDLY THERE IS NO QUID PRO QUO, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELAYED THE FACTS OF THE MATTER THE WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS AND SECURITY WERE BASED ON THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

YOU REFERENCE A TELEVISION INTERVIEW AND DESIRE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PUT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX, WHICH YOU ALSO HAVE IN QUOTES.

WAS THAT IN YOUR NOTES?

>> IT WAS IN MY NOTES.

WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TO MEAN?

>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN THAT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP THROUGH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS ASKING ZELENSKY TO COMMIT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

IT WASN'T SUFFICIENT TO DO THIS IN PRIVATE.

THIS NEEDED TO BE A VERY PUBLIC STATEMENT.

THE FACT HE ONLY WANTED A BUCK LICK ANNOUNCEMENT SHOWED THAT THIS WAS TO BOOST HIS REELECTION EFFORTS.

PRESIDENT'S AGENTS CONFIRMED HIS DESIRE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS WAS FOR HIS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BENEFIT.

AS WE WILL EXPLAIN IN MORE DETAILS IN A FEW MINUTES.

ANY INTEREST IN THE ANTICORRUPTION POLICY TOWARDS THE UKRAINE.

NOR DID HE CARE ABOUT THE WAR AGAINST RUSSIA.

HE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN ONE THING.

INVESTIGATING HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT.

THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID HOLMES.

THE DAY AFTER THE JULY 25th h CALL HOLMES OVERHEARD A CONVERSATION.

THE ONLY TOPIC DISCUSSED WAS THE INVESTIGATIONS.

THIS IS HIS TESTIMONY.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND PLACED A CALL.

HE WAS BEING TRANSFERRED THROUGH SEVERAL LAYERS OF SWITCHBOARDS.

HIS DEMEANOR CHANGED.

HE HAD BEEN CONNECTED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S PHONE WASN'T ON SPEAKER PHONE BUT I COULD HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S VOICE THROUGH THE EARPIECE.

IT WAS LOUD AND RECOGNIZABLE.

THE AMBASSADOR HELD THE PHONE A WAY FROM HIS EAR BECAUSE OF THE LOUD VOLUME.

I HEARD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND GREET THE PRESIDENT.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID YES, HE WAS IN UKRAINE AND STATED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY LOVES YOUR ASS.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID HE WOULD DO IT.

HE ADDED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO ANYTHING YOU WANT HIM TO DO.

>> HE CONFIRMED THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE THE PRESIDENT'S SOUL INTEREST WITH THE UKRAINE BECAUSE, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT THEY BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT.

>> AFTER THE CALL ENDED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS IN A BAD MOOD.

HE SAID THIS WAS OFTEN THE CASE.

I ASKED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ON UKRAINE.

I HEARD HE DIDN'T GIVE AN EXPLETIVE ABOUT UKRAINE AND HE AGREED.

HE SAID THE PRESIDENT ONLY CARES ABOUT BIG STUFF.

I SAID THERE WAS BIG STUFF GOING ON WITH UKRAINE LIKE A WAR WITH RUSSIA.

HE MEANT BIG STUFF THAT BENEFITS THE PRESIDENT LIKE THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS PUSHING.

THIS CONVERSATION MOVED ONTO OTHER TOPICS.

>> THIS UNDERSTANDING BY AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WAS CONFIRMED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

DURING HIS TWO TELEPHONE CALLS FIRST ON APRIL 21st AND JULY 25.

HE DIDN'T REFER TO ANY ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS OR WAR AGAINST RUSSIA.

HE NEVER UTTERED THE WORD RUSSIAN.

HE SPOKE ABOUT HIS POLITICAL COMPONENTS.

ON OCTOBER 3 WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE UKRAINE SCHEME HE SAID, WELL, I WOULD THINK IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.

THIS IS THE CONFERENCE.

>> I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT.

THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.

>> WE KNOW FROM WITNESSES THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AGENT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

THE ONLY THING THE PRESIDENT CARED ABOUT WAS HIS INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT HIMSELF.

TO SEE THIS MORE STARKLY IT'S HELPFUL TO REMEMBER WHAT PRESIDENTIAL HEAD OF STATE CALLS ARE NORMALLY USED FOR.

TALK TO ANY FORMER OKAY OCCUPANT OF THE OVAL OFFICE THEY WOULD SAY THIS COMMUNICATION IS VAST.

YOU SHOULD FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OUST OF OFFICE.

U.S. PRESIDENTS HAVE MADE USA USE OF THE DISPARITY AND POWER OF THEIR TELEPHONE CALLS WITH PHONE LEADERS.

THEY BOOSTERRED AMERICAN SECURITY.

PRESIDENT REAGAN USED HIS CALLS TO EUROPEAN ALLIES TO RALLY THE WORLD AGAINST THE SOVIET THREAT.

HIS CALLS LAID THE FOUNDATION FOR LANDMARK NONPROLIVATION AGREEMENTS.

IT WAS DURING A PHONE CALL ON CHRISTMAS DAY 19 THE 91 THAT GEORGE H.W.

BUSH LEARNED THAT SOVIET LEADER WAS RETIRING AND THAT WOULD MARK THE END.

THEY BROUGHT APIECEFUL END - A PEACEFUL END TO THE COLD WAR.

GEORGE W. BUSH USED HIS PHONE TO CALL FOR GLOBAL SUPPORT TO DEFEAT AL QAEDA AND COMBAT TERRORISM.

PRESIDENT OBAMA USED HIS CALL TO MAINTAIN THE FALLOUT FROM THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS.

TO FIGHT THE ISLAMIC STATE AND RALLY SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE FOLLOWING RUSSIA'S INVASION.

NO MATTER THE POLICIESLECY -- POLICY USED BY THE PRIOR PRESIDENT.

THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAPPENS DURING PRESIDENTIAL PHONE CALLS.

THERE IS NO DOUBT WHEN YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CALL A FOREIGN LEADER YOU ARE ON THE CLOCK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF HIS OR HER OWN OFFICE.

YOU SHOULD GET FOREIGN LEADERS TO DO WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED ON JULY 25th.

CONCRETE AREA THAT DAY HE USED A PHONE CALL TO HELP HIMSELF.

THIS WAS TO HELP HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN HE ABUSED HIS AUTHORITY TO BENEFIT HIMSELF.

HE BETRAYED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN HE DID SO.

LET'S GO TO THE THIRD REASON.

WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT PUT HIS INTEREST FIRST.

THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

RUDOLPH GIULIANI HAS NEVER HAD A OFFICIAL ROLE IN THIS GOVERNMENT BUT REPRESENTED THE PRESIDENT IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY.

THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS.

MR. GIULIANI MADE THIS POINT CLEAR IN HIS MAY 10 LETTER HIMSELF.

HE WROTE WROTE PRESIDENT ELECTION ZELENSKY I'M PRIVATE COUNCIL TO PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.

I REPRESENT HIM AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN AND NOT AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THIS IS QUIET COMMON BECAUSE THE DUTIES ARE NOT THE SAME.

SEPARATE REPRESENTATION IS A USUAL PROCESS.

MR. GIULIANI REPEATED THIS PUBLICLY.

HE CONFIRMED THIS ON MAY 9th IN THE U.S. TIMES.

HE SAID, WELL, MANY THINGS.

HE SAID WE ARE MEDDLING IN AN ELECTION, WE ARE MEDDLING IN AN INVESTIGATION.

SOMEONE CAN SAY THIS IS IMPROPER AND NOT FOREIGN POLICY.

HE WENT ONTO SAY, REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT, HE BASICALLY KNOWS WHAT I'M DOING.

SURE, I'M HIS LAWYER.

MY ONLY CLIENT IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE'S THE ONE I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO AND TELL HIM WHAT HAPPENED.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

HE'S USING HIS PERSONAL LAWYER TO ASK UKRAINE FOR PERSONAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE NOT FOREIGN POLICY BUT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL TO THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY.

NOT OFTEN YOU GET IT SO GRAPHICALLY AS WE DO HERE.

LET'S GO TO THE FOURTH REASON THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NEVER PART OF U.S. POLICIES.

IT WAS BE WASN'T JUST THT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS JUST USING HIS LAWYER BUT NOT PART OF THE U.S. POLICY.

THE INVESTIGATIONS WEREN'T IN HIS OFFICIAL PREPARED TALKING POINTS OR BRIEFING MATERIALS.

THEY WENT AGAINST OFFICIAL POLICY AND DIVERGED FROM OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.

ALL THREE WITNESSES, TIM MORRISON AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

VINDMAN, JENNIFER WILLIAMS WHO LISTENED TO THE JULY 25th CALL.

TESTIFIED THAT WHEN PRESIDENT DEMANNED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS HE DEPARTED FROM THE TALKING POINTS THEY PRTPARED FROM HIM.

BEFORE I GET TO THE CLIP I WOULD LIKE TO UNDER SCORE THIS.

HE'S NOT OBLIGATED TO USE HIS TALKING POINTS.

HE'S NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW WHAT HIS STAFF SAID.

THIS WASN'T U.S. POLICY.

IF IT WAS U.S. POLICY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE TALKING POINTS.

IT WAS NOT.

>> WERE THESE REFERENCES TO CROWD STRIKE, THE SEVER IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AN HIS SON.

WERE THEY INCLUDED IN THE TALKING POINTS?

>> THEY WERE NOT.

WERE YOU PREPARED FOR THE TALKING POINT OF THE PRESIDENT'S CALL.

>> I PREPARED THEM.

YOU PREPARED THEM AND THEY WERE REVIEWED AND EDITED WILLIAMS MULTIPLE SENIOR OFFICERS BY THE NSC AND WHITE HOUSE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

DID THE TALKING POINTS CONTAIN ANY POINTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE ELECTION, BIDENS OR BURISMA?

>> THEY DID NOT.

ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY WRITTEN PRODUCT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE 2016 ELECTION, THE BIDENS OR BURISMA ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES?

>> NO, I'M NOT.

DOCTOR HILL ALSO ELABORATED ON THIS POINT.

>> MY POINT IS WE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WEREN'T TOLD THROUGH AMBASSADOR BOLLTON BOLTT WE BE FOCUSED ON THESE ISSUES.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT UKRAINE IN 2016 I NEVER HEARD HIM SAY ANYTHING ABOUT 2016 AND UKRAINE.

I HAVE SEEN THINGS PUBLICLY.

I WASN'T GIVEN A DIRECTIVE.

I WASGIEN WAS GIVEN A DIRECTIVE TO STAY OUT OF DOMESTIC POLITICS.

>> TO BE CLEAR, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS HE WASN'T ASKING FOR THEM BASED ON THE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

HIS TOP OFFICIAL ADVISORS WEREN'T TOLD ABOUT THESE.

THEY WERE TOLD TO STAY OUT OF U.S.

POLITICS.

IT GETS WORSE.

IT WASN'T THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IGNORED OFFICIAL POLICY AND TALKING POINTS HE WAS GIVEN.

WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS WITHHOLDING SUPPORT FROM UKRAINE AND WAS CONTRARY TO U.S. POLICY.

THERE IS CLEAR AND UNDISPUTED SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

THEY ARE OUR ALLY.

OUR GOALS SHOULD BE HELPING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANTICORRUPTION REFORMS AND HELPING UKRAINE FIGHT IT'S T ADD VERSARY.

CONSISTENT WITH THAT STRATEGY WE HAVE 68,000 TROOPS OVER SEAS.

THEY ARE IN COUNTRIES LIKE POLAND, HUNGRY, AND LITH LITHUANIA.

THE AUTHOR OF THAT STRATEGY, FORMER U.S. SECURITY ADVISER McMASTER ISSUED THIS WARNING ABOUT RUSSIA'S AGGRESSION.

FOR TO LONG NATIONS HAVE LOOKED THE OTHER WAY IN THE FACE OF THE THREATS.

RUSSIA DENIES IT'S ACTION AND WE HAVE FAILED TO IMPOSE SUFFICIENT COSTS.

THE KREMLINS CONFIDENCE IS GROWING.

WHAT GENERAL McMASTERS SAYS MAKES SENSE.

RUSSIAS CONFIDENCE IS GROWING.

WE NEED TO STAND-UP TO THEM.

THAT'S WHY WE SUPPORT UKRAINE TO DEFEAT RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

ON JULY 25, WHEN THE PRESIDENT SPOKE WITH ZELENSKY THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE HOPING TO DISCUSS OR HOPING HE WOULD DISCUSS.

HOW WE COULD SUPPORT UKRAINE IN HIS FIGHT AGAINST A HUGEVERS.

THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WORRIED ABOUT WHEN HE GOT ON THE LINE WITH THE PRESIDENT ON JULY 25th.

WHETHER UKRAINE COULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN U.S. SUPPORT.

NEARLY 70% OF -- I'M SORRY.

NEARLY 7% OF THE UKRAINE TERRY TERRITORY HAS BEEN ANNEXED.

WHEN HE SPOKE ABOUT THE AID NEEDED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOTHING TO REASSURE THE UKRAINIAN LEADER OF OUR STEADY FAST SUPPORT FOR THEIR SOVEREIGNTY.

HE MADE PERSONAL DEMANDS.

IT'S FOR THESE REASONS IT WENT AGAINST THE POLICY.

WITNESSES CONFIRMED THE REQUESTS DIVERGED NOT JUST FROM OUR POLICY BUT OWN NATIONAL SECURITY.

AS DR. HILL TESTIFIED THE AMBASSADOR IN CARRYING OUT THE SCHEME WAS BEING INVOLVED IN A POLITICAL POLITICAL L ERRAND.

THIS FOR NO GOOD NATIONAL SECURITY REASON IS WRONG.

AS THESE OFFICIALS OBSERVED THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL ERRANDS DIVERGED.

HE DID THIS FOR REELECTION AND NOT ADVANCE HIS GOALSMENT HE DID IT FOR NO GOOD REASON BUT THE POLITICAL ONE.

IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

IT'S MORE THAN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

WE AS A COUNTRY ARE MEANT TO EMBODY THE SOLUTION TO CORRUPTION.

IT'S BASED ON PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW.

THE PRESIDENT DID ATTACK ANOTHER OF THE UNITED STATES' STRAIGHTS.

THIS IS OF OUR IDEALS AND VALUES.

PART OF THAT IS ENTREPRENEUR OCCURRING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.

IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL VALUE WE DON'T USE OFFICIAL POWERS TO ASK FOR INVESTIGATIONS OF OUR POLITICAL OPPONENTS TO GAIN ADVANTAGE.

WHEN PRESIDENT ASKED THE FOREIGN LEADER HE ABUSED THE BODE BROAD AUTHORITY.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S ADVISER JENNIFER WILLIAMS WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WAS DOMESTIC ISSUES.

THE PRESIDENT ISN'T SUPPOSE TO USE THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT FOR POLITICAL ERRANDS.

SHE DEEMED IT AS A DOMESTIC POLITICAL MANNER.

DURING MY CLOSED DOOR MEETING THEY ASKED IF I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE JULY 25th CALL.

I FOUND THE JULY 25, PHONE CALL UNUSUAL.

IN CONTRAST TO OTHER CALLS I HAD OBSERVED IT INVOLVED DISCUSSIONS OF A DOMESTIC POLITICAL MATTER.

>> VINDMAN ALSO THOUGHT THE CALL WAS IMPROPER.

>> IT'S IMPROPER FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEMAND ANOTHER COUNTY TO INVESTIGATE A POLITICAL OPPONENT.

I WAS CLEAR IF UKRAINE PURSUED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ELECTIONS THE BIDENS AND BURISMA THEN HE WOULD RECEIVE AID.

>> VINDMAN IS A PURPLE HEART VETERAN.

HE SAID WHAT WE ALL KNOW CLEARLY.

IT'S IMPROPER FOR A PRESIDENT TO ASK A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

VINDMAN WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT RUDOLPH GIULIANI WAS SAYING ON THE NEWS.

HE WARNED THE UKRAINIAN LEADER TO STAY OUT OF U.S.

POLITICS.

THAT'S OUR POLICY.

>> DURING A BILATERAL MEETING I OFFERED TWO PIECES OF ADVISE TO BE CAUTIOUS WITH REGARDS TO UKRAINE.

BE CAUTIOUS WITH REGARDS TO RUSSIA.

ALSO IT'S DESIRE TO PROVOKE UKRAINE AND STAY OUT OF U.S.

DOMESTIC POLICY.

>> YOU MEAN POLITICS.

POLITICS, CORRECT.

WHY DID YOU FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY TO ADVISE ZELENSKY TO STAY OUT OF U.S. POT POLITICS?

>> IT BECAME CLEAR THERE WERE ACTORS IN THE U.S. -- PUBLIC ACTORS THAT WERE PROMOTING THE IDEA OF INVESTIGATIONS.

AND 2016 UKRAINE INTERFERENCE.

IT WAS CONSISTENT TO ADVISE ANY COUNTRY.

ALL OF THE COUNTRIES IN MY PORTFOLIO TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN U.S.

DOMESTIC POLITICS.

I WAS PASSING THE SAME ADVISE CONSISTENT WITH U.S. POLICY.

>> IT WAS CONSISTENT TO ADVISE ANY COUNTRY.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECTARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS IN YOU CREPE.

THEY HAVE CONSISTENCY FOCUSED ON INSTITUTIONS AND NEVER SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS.

IF WE DO ASK THEM TO DO OUR POLITICAL ARREST RANDS THIS DEMEANEDS OUR CREDIBILITY.

>> YOU ALSO TESTIFIED ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL REFORMS TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND TRANSFORM THE COUNTRY.

YOU SITED THE IMPORTANCE OF REFORMING CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS NOTARY THE SECURITY SERVICE IN THE PROSECUTOR GENERALS OFFICE.

WAS INVENEZUELA GATING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OPPONENTS PART OF THOSE NECESSARY REFORMS.

WAS IT ON THAT LIST OF YOURS?

>> NO, THEY WEREN'T.

IN FACT, HISTORICALLY, IS IT NOT TRUE A MAJOR PROBLEM HAS BEEN THE MISUSE OF PROSECUTORS PRECISELY TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL OPPONENTS.

THAT'S A LEGACY I SUGGEST FROM THE SOVIET ERA.

PROSECUTORS LIKE THE KGB WERE INSTRUMENTS OF OPPRESSION.

>> S I SAID THAT AND I BELIEVE IT'S TRUE.

>> FINALLY, MR. KENT, FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER U.S. FOREIGN POLICY HAS BEEN PREDICATED ON ADVANCING PRINCIPAL INTEREST IN DEMOCRATIC VALUES.

WHEN THEY ASK THEM TO INVENEZUELA GATE DOESN'T IT MAKE IT HARDER TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THOSE VALUES?

>> IT MAKES IT HARD FOR THEM TO CARRY OUT THE GOALS, YES.

>> HOW IS THAT, SIR?

THERE IS AN ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY.

THEY HEAR DIPLOMATS SAYING ONE THING AND OTHER U.S.

LEADERS SAYING SOMETHING ELSE.

>> THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS, WHAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST WAS TO HELP UKRAINE AND GIVE THEM THE MILITARY AID TO FIGHT ONE OF OUR GREATEST ADVERSARIES.

THIS WAS TO HELP INSURE THE ELECTION.

WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY AND WHAT WAS BEST FOR DONALD TRUMP DIVERGED PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIMSELF ABOVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY.

LET'S GO TO THE FIFTH REASON YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT PUT HIMSELF FIRST.

THE FIFTH REASON IS THE REQUEST FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS DEPARTED NOT JUST FROM U.S. POLICY BUT U.S. GOVERNMENT CHANNELS.

ON THE JULY 25th CALL THE PRESIDENT TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE SHOULD SPEAK TO RUDOLPH GIULIANI, AND ATTORNEY BARR.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DISCLAIMED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATEMENT FROM THE DAY THE JULY 25th CALL WAS RELEASED SAYS THIS.

THIS WAS FROM SEPTEMBER 25th.

THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT SPOKEN WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT HAVING UKRAINE INVESTIGATE IN GENERAL RELATING TO FORMER HAVE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OR HIS SON.

THEY HAVEN'T ASKED THEM TO CONTRACT UKRAINE ON THIS OR ANY OTHER MATTER.

THEY HAVE NOT COMMUNICATED WITH UKRAINE ON THIS OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT.

NOR HAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DISCUSSED THE MATTER OR ANYTHING RELATING TO UKRAINE WITH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

THIS IS PRETTY EXTRA ORDINARY.

YOU CAN SAY A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

YOU CANNOT SAY HE HAS EVER LOOKED TO PURSUE SOMETHING NOT IN THE PRESIDENT'S INTEREST.

THIS IS PRETTY EXTRA ORDINARY.

HE'S SAYING THE MOMENT THE TRANSPORTATION IS PUBLICLY RELEASED I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY BROUGHT ME UP IN THE CALL.

HE DIDN'T ASK ME TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS BUSINESS.

I SUSPECT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD RECOGNIZE A DRUG DEAL WHEN HE SEES IT TOO.

THEY WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

IF THIS WAS A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION YOU WOULD THINK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WOULD HAVE A ROLE.

THIS IS HOW AN INVESTIGATION WOULD WORK.

THIS WASN'T THE CASE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

IF THESE WERE REAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST WHY WAS BILL BARR'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SO QUICK TO DIVORCE THEMSELVES FROM IT?

THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT AS WE SEE SO CLEARLY THEY WERE AGAINST U.S. OFFICIAL POLICY AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

BY ASKING THE PRESIDENT WAS ABUSING HIS POWER.

IT WASN'T THAT WHAT THE WITNESSES TOLD US ABOUT THIS BEING WRONG.

THEY REPORTED THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT IN REALTIME.

IT'S NOT JUST THAT THEY CAME FORWARD LATER BUT IN REALTIME TO REPORT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT.

YOU HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS HOW MANY TIMES PEOPLE WERE TOLD TO GO TALK TO THE LAWYERS.

TIM MORRISON, THE FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL STAFFER AND KERNEL VINDMAN WERE CONCERNED BY WHAT THEY HEARD THE PRESIDENT SOLICIT ON THE JULY 25th CALL AND THEY WENT TO SPEAK TO THE LAWYERS.

THE NSC LEGAL ADVISER.

>> MR. MORRISON, SHORTLY AFTER YOU HEARD THE JULY 25 CALL YOU TESTIFIED YOU ALERTED THE NSC LEAL ADVISER JOHN RIGHT AWAY, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

YOU INDICATED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, AT LEAST FROM YOUR DEPOSITION, ABOUT THE CONCERN AND POLITICAL FALLOUT IF THE RECORD BECAME PUBLIC AND NOT IN IT WAS LEGAL.

>> CORRECT.

YOU WOULD AGREE, RIGHT, ASKING A FOREIGN GO AUTOBUSMENT GOVEO INVESTIGATE IS ILLEGAL?

>> IT'S NOT WHAT WE RECOMMEND THE PRESIDENT DISCUSS.

>> THAT'S A PROFOUND UNDERSTATEMENT.

MR. MORRISON CLEARLY RECOGNIZED THE REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE BIDEN AND BURISMA WASN'T U.S. POLICY.

THEY REPORTED THE CONCERNS TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL.

>> YOU ALSO REPORTED THIS INCIDENT TO THE NSC LAWYERS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE?

JOHN SAID HE TOOK NOTES WHILE I WAS TALKING AND HE SAID HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT.

>> WHY DID YOU REPORT THIS MEETING AND CONVERSATION TO THE NSC LAWYERS?

>> BECAUSE IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND FOLLOWING THE MEETING I HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR -- CORRECTION DR. HILL AND NEEDING TO REPORT THIS.

>> IN FACT HE REPORTED THINGS TWICE.

THEY WEREN'T THE ONLY ONES.

DR. HILL REPORTED HER CONCERNS TO THE LEGAL ADVISERS.

THEY REPORTED THIS TO HOUSE DOCUMENT REQUESTS.

THE LAWYERS WERE BUSY.

WHY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN OFFICIALS NOT SO-CALLED NEVER TRUMPERS REAORTIC THE CONDUCT IN REALTIME?

BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS WRONG.

DR. HILL SAID IT WAS IMPROPER AND INAPPROPRIATE.

WE SAID THAT IN THE TIME AND IN REALTIME.

THE JULY 25 CALL US WITH WRONG.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID SECURITY ASSISTANT HAD NO GOOD POLICY REASON.

THERE WITH NO NATIONAL SECURITY REASON.

HE ADMITTED HE REPORTED THE JULY 25 CALL PRETTY MUCH RIGHT AWAY.

HE RECOMMENDED WE RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE PACKAGE.

MS. WILLIAMS SAID THE CALL STRUCK ME AS MORE POLITICAL IN NATURE.

THE CONSENSUS IS CLEAR.

THE PRESIDENT'S DEMAND FOR POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS WAS IMPROPER, INAPPROPRIATE, AND WRONG AND CONFIRMS THE REQUESTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT DONALD TRUMP'S POLITICAL GAIN.

LET'S GO TO THE SEVENTH REASON WHY YOU KNOW PRESIDENT TRUMP PUT HIMSELF FIRST.

AMERICAN OFFICIALS WEREN'T THE ONLY ONES THAT RECOGNIZE THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THE REQUESTS.

UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS TOO.

THEY DRUG THEM INTO U.S.

DOMESTIC POLITICS.

TAYLOR EXPLAINED THE REELECTION ANTICIPATES OF U.S.

POLITICS.

GORDON, WE TALKED ABOUT IT YESTERDAY.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE ABOUT IT TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

HERE YOU HAVE SOSHA.

THEY WANT BE TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.

IT'S EXTRAORDINARY WHEN A FOREIGN LEADER IS ASKED TO COMMUNICATE.

THIS ISN'T A PAWN FOR POLITICAL REASONS.

FOR MILITARY AN DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT.

THEY HAVE TO SAY PLEASE TAKE US SERIOUSLY.

THIS IS WHAT THE UKRAINIANS ARE SAYING.

THEY UNDERSTOOD THIS WASN'T AMERICAN POLICY.

AS MUCH AS WE DID.

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE USED AS A UPON.

AS A PAWN.

THE WHOLE THRUST OF THIS IRREGULAR CHANNEL WAS TO GET INVESTIGATIONS WERE THEY WERE RECYING BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE SCENE TO BE INTEGERRING BUT ALSO TO BE A PAWN.

SO, THIS IS AN IMPORT TAN POINT TOO.

IT WASSEN WASN'T THAT THY DIDN'T WANT TO BE SCENE AND GETTING INVOLVED WITH DONALD TRUMP.

IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE GETTING INVOLVED ON THE OTHER SIDE.

IT WASN'T JUST -- IT WAS NO BENEFIT TO THE UKRAINE TO BE DRAGGED INTO THIS.

THERE WAS NO BENEFIT OF THE UKRAINE BY THIS.

THEY ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO BE VIEWED AS A PAWN.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS HIS OWN ELECTORATE.

HE'S A NEW LEADER AND FORMER COMEDIAN AND WOULD LIKE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

IF THE U.S. WON'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY PUTIN WON'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY.

THE PRECEPTIAL, NOT THAT THERE IS A RIFT OR CAN'T GET MILITARY AID.

THE IMPRESSION THAT HE'S NOTHING MORE THAN A PAWN, YOU COULD SEE HOW PROBLEMATIC THAT WAS FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

OFFICIALS FLOOD JUST AS OUR OFFICIALS UNDERSTOOD, JUST AS ALL OF THOSE FOLKS YOU JUST SAW MORRISON AND INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUALMAN UNDERSTOOD, THIS IS JUST WRONG.

MORRISON GOES ONTO SAY HE'S NO LEGAL EXPECT AND CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE LEGALLALITY OF THE CALL.

THEY ALL KNEW IT WAS WRONG.

THEY KNEW IT WAS DAMAGING TO BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

THEY KNEW IT WAS DAMAGING TO NATIONAL SECURITY.

HERE WE SEE IT WASN'T JUST OUR PEOPLE BUT UKRAINIANS THAT UNDERSTOOD THIS WAS A POOR POLITICAL THEY WERE ASK TO DO.

IT WASN'T JUST THE TESTIMONY OF U.S. OFFICIALS ON THIS.

THIS IS ZELENSKY SAYING I DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED.

HE SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTIONS.

THAT'S NOT HIS JOB.

THE WORLD'S OLYMPICKEST DEMOCRACY HAS TO BE TOLD THIS ISN'T WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT'S WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE.

GO TO THE 8TH REASON YOU CAN KNOW PRESIDENT PUT HIMSELF FIRST.

THAT'S THERE IS NO SERIOUS DISPUTE THE WHITE HOUSE TRIED TO BURY THE CALL RECORD.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY INSISTED HIS CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS PERFECT.

THE WHITE HOUSE APPARENTLY BELIEVED OTHERWISE.

THEIR LAWYERS BELIEVED OTHERWISE.

THEY USUALLY ISSUE A TRANSPORTATION TO LOCK IN ANY PROMISES MADE.

HOWEVER, NO PUBLIC READ OUT WAS POSTED ON THE WHITE HOUSE'S WEBSITE AFTER THE JULY h CALL.

THEY PROVIDED REPORTERS WITH A INCOMPLETE SUMMERY THAT OMITTED THE MAYOR ELEMENTS OF THE CONVERSATION.

THE SUMMERY SAID TODAY, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SPOKE WITH ZELENSKY TO CONGRATULATE HIM ON HERE US RESENT RE- HIS RESENT ELECTION.

THEY DISCUSSED ENERGY AND ECONOMIC COOPERATION.

THEY LOOK FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET.

THAT WAS IT.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE AN ACCURATE SUMMERY OF THE CALL.

IT DIDN'T MENTION HIS DEBUNKED CONSPIRACY THEORY.

THE SUMMERY DIDN'T MENTION PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMAND THAT UKRAINE ANNOUNCE AN INVESTIGATION INTO LIST DOMESTIC AND POLITICAL RIVAL.

THE SUMMERY DIDN'T MENTION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED A CORRUPTION UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR THAT CONTINUES TO FEED FALSE CLAIMS THROUGH RUDOLPH GIULIANI.

IF THE CALL WAS PERFECT, IF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE LEGITIMATE, IF THE WHITE HOUSE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE THEN ASK YOURSELVES WHY DID THE WHITE HOUSE READ OUT OMIT ANY MENTION OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

WHY NOT CONFIRM THAT UKRAINE HAD BEEN ASKED TO PURSUE THEM?

WHY?

BECAUSE IT WOULD EXPOSE THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPTION.

SANITIZING THE CALL READ OUT WASN'T THE ONLY STEP TAKEN TO COVER UP THE PRESIDENT'S WRONGDOING.

THE WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL'S OFFICE ALSO TOOK EFFORTS TO HIDE THE CALL RECORD AWAY.

THE SEVER WAS USED TO STORE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WHO YOU SAW VIDEO CLIPS OF HAD ACCESS OF THE CALL RECORD BE RESTRICTED SO IT COULDN'T LEAK.

MR. MORRISON SAID THE CALL RECORD DIDN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE PLACED ON THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM AND AND THEY CLAIMED IT WAS ON THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SYSTEM BY MISTAKE.

SURE, IT WAS A VERY INNOCENT MISTAKE.

MISTAKE OR NO MISTAKE IT REMAINED ON THE SYSTEM UNTIL AT LEAST THE THIRD WEEK OF SUPERINTENDENT 2019.

THAT CONTINUED FROM JULY THROUGH SEPTEMBER.

WHY WERE THEY TRYING TO HIDE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID?

THIS WAS U.S. POLICY AND THEY WERE PROUD OF IT AND REALLY INTERESTED IN CORRUPTION, IF THIS WAS ABOUT CORRUPTION IT HAD NOTHING TO DO ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN.

IT'S AN INTERESTING COINCIDENCE WHY BURY THE RECORD.

WHY DID THEY HIDE THE RECORD?

WHY DID THEY PUT THE RECORD ON A SYSTEM MEANT FOR HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION THAT THE FOLKS IN HERE ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CAN TELL YOU IS USUALLY USED FOR THINGS LIKE COVERT ACTIONS.

THIS WAS A VERY SENSITIVE POLITICAL SECRET.

THIS WAS A COVERT ACTION OF A DIFFERENT KIND AND CHARACTER.

THIS WAS A CORRUPTION ACTION.

IT WAS HIDDEN AND THEY KNEW IT WAS WRONG AND THAT'S WHY THEY HID IT.

INNOCENT PEOPLE DON'T BEHAVE THAT WAY.

THIS IS THE CLEAREST REASON.

WE CAN TELL THAT ALL PRESIDENT TRUMP CARED ABOUT IS THAT PRESIDENT CONFIRMED HIS DESIRE FOR THESE INVESTIGATIONS APPEARED WHEN THE SCHEME WAS DISCOVERED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLEMENT THE VERDE AFTER HE SO SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE HE SPOKE WITH GORE DAN WHO WAS IN UKRAINE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ONLY ONE QUESTION FROM AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

HE'S GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION.

>> THE AMBASSADOR SAID HE WOULD DO IT HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE USED AS A ABANDON R DRAWN IN BUT FEELS HE HAS NO CHOSE.

HE TELLS DAVID HOLMES HE WILL DO IT BUT THE ONLY PRESIDENT ASKED ABOUT IN THE CALL.

HE SAID HE WOULD DOING ADDING THAT ZELENSKY WILL DO ANYTHING YOU ASK HIM TO DO.

THIS INCLUDES APPARENTLY BE HIS PAWN.

ALTHOUGH HE DIDN'T REMEMBER THE DETAILS HE DIDN'T DISPUTE THE RECOLLECTION OF IT.

HE HAD AN INTERESTING TAKE ON IT WHICH YOU SHOULD HEAR.

>> I WOULD HAVE BEENSURPRISED IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HADN'T MENTIONED INVESTIGATION, PARTICULARLY GIVEN WHAT WE WERE HEARING FROM MR. GIULIANI ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CONCERNS.

>> THAT'S PRETTY TELLING.

THE MISSED CALL THE DAY AFTER.

THEY FINALLY HAD THE CALL BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND IS A MAJOR SUPPORTER OF THE PRESIDENT SAID I'D BE MORE SURPRISED IF HE DIDN'T BRING IT UP.

THEY DON'T BRING UP THE WAR WITH RUSSIA IF NOT ANYTHING ELSE.

HE BRINGS THIS UP AND SONDLAND CONFIRMS THIS BECAUSE WE ARE ALL IN THE LOOP HERE.

APPARENTLY THEY UNDERSTOOD HOW LONG IT WAS.

SEPTEMBER 2019 HE LEARNED THEY WERE IN DANGER OF BEING PUBLICLY CONFIRMED.

HE EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS OF JOE BIDEN AND THE INTERFERENCE.

ACCORDING TO THREE WITNESSES PRESIDENT TRUMP EMPHASIZED THE CALL ON SEPTEMBER 27th.

YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS ON OCTOBER 3.

>> I WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY WERE HONEST ABOUT IT THEY WOULD START A MAJOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE BIDENS.

IT'S A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.

HE WAS ENBOLDENNED BY THE USE OF RUSSIAN HACK MATERIALS IN THE LAST ELECTION.

UNDER ARTICLE TWO HE FEELS HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS THAT INCLUDES GETTING A COUNTRY TO INTEGER.

>> ALONG WITH JUDY WE WILL FOCUS ON TONIGHT'S BROADCAST.

OUR COVERAGE WILL CONTINUE HERE ON-LINE AND ON OUR YOUTUBE AND OTHER SOCIAL PAGES.

WE HAVE HEARD FROM MANY OF YOU SHARING KIND WORDS ABOUT JIM.

WE ARE TRULY GRATEFUL.

WE WILL HAVE MUCH MORE TO SAY ABOUT JIM'S LIFE AND LEGACY TONIGHT ON THE NEWS HOUR.

FOR NOW WE RETURN YOU TO THE LIVE PROCEEDINGS ON CAPITOL HILL.

>> THIS WASN'T BELIEVABLE.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CARED ABOUT ANTICORRUPTION EFFORTS AT ALL.

THAT'S THE TENTH REASON WE KNOW THIS IS POLITICAL FIST THE EVIDENCE THAT MAKE CLEAR WHEN THE PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT CORRUPTION IN THE UKRAINE HE'S ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE LITTLE SLIVER OF ALLEGED CORRUPTION THAT WAS EFFECTED BY HIS OWN POLITICAL INTEREST.

FOR EXAMPLE ON SEPTEMBER 25th , THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THE MAN WHO DOESN'T WANT TO BE A PAWN AT THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY SPOKE ABOUT THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION.

>> NOW WHEN BIDEN'S SON WALKS A WAY WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT'S CORRUPTION.

>> YOU CAN IMAGE HOW PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FEELS SITTING THERE AND HEARING THERE.

THE MAN WHO DOESN'T WANT TO BE A PAWN.

HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE PULLED INTO AMERICAN POLITICS.

THERE IS THE PRESIDENT AT IT AGAIN.

TRYING TO DRAW HIS NATION IN WHILE THEY HAVE A WAR TO FIGHT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP STATED.

>> THE NEW PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE RAIN ON THE BASES OF NO CORRUPTION.

THAT'S HOW HE GOT ELECTED.

I BELIEVE HE MEANS IT.

THERE WAS A LOT OF CORRUPTION DEALING WITH THE 20126 ELECTION AGAINST US.

WE WOULD LIKE TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO.

>> THIS IS HIM BREAKING UP THE CROWD STRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

HE'S NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ACTUAL CORRUPTION CASES BUT MATTERS THAT EFFECT HIM PERSONALLY TWO DAYS LATER HE CONNECTED IT WITH THE BIDEN INVESTIGATION.

>> THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ACTUAL CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

IT WAS PERFECT.

WE ARE LOOKING AT CONGRATULATIONS AND DOING THINGS TOGETHER.

I BELIEVE IN 1999 THERE WAS A CORRUPTION BILL PASSED BETWEEN BOTH COUNTRIES.

I HAVE A DUTY TO REPORT CORRUPTION.

LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, BIDEN'S SON IS CORRUPT AND BIDEN IS CORRUPT.

>> JUST TWO DAYS AFTER THAT THE PRESIDENT AGAIN EQUATED CORRUPTION WITH ACTIONS BY OTHERS TO HURT HIM POLITICALLY.

>> IF WE FEEL THIS CORRUPTION LIKE I FEEL THERE WAS IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN THERE WAS TREMENDOUS CORRUPTION AGAINST ME.

IF WE FEEL THERE IS CORRUPTION WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

>> HERE, AGAIN, THE PRESIDENT IS PUSHING OUT THE KREMLIN TALKING POINT.

AGAIN, WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT CORRUPTION HE'S TALKING ABOUT PRESERVED EFFORTS ABOUT PAWNS TO HURT HIM.

IT'S PERSONAL AND POLITICAL BUT NOT ANTICORRUPTION POLICY.

THE AMBASSADOR CONFIRMED THIS FACT FIGHTING CORRUPTION IN THEKRAINE WHEN USED BY PRESIDENT TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDEN'S IN 2016.

>> I NOW UNDERSTAND OTHERS SAW THE IDEA OF INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION INVOLVING THE COMPANY BURISMA.

>> ALTHOUGH THEY USED THE GENERAL TERM CORRUPTION TO DESCRIBE WHAT THEY WANT TO INVESTIGATE, IT WASN'T ABOUT ANYTHING RELATED TO CORRUPTION.

THE EVIDENCE INCLUDING TEHERAN STATEMENTS MADE IT CLEAR.

THIS IS CODE FOR THE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED THE UKRAINE TO PURSUE.

SECOND IS WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE PRESIDENT'S TIMING OF HIS PROPORTED CONCERNS.

BEFORE VICE PRESIDENT'S CANDICY BROKE THE PRESIDENT SHOWED NO INTEREST IN UKRAINE.

HE GAVE THEM HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE OF MOUNTING CONCERNS ABOUT CORRUPTION.

HERE WE ARE, THE PRESIDENT IN THE PRIOR YEARS GIVING MONEY TO A GOVERNMENT THAT IS VIEWED AS CORRUPT AND ZELENSKY COMES AND RUNS AGAINST HIM.

AN UNDERDOG CAMPAIGN.

UNDERDOG CAMPAIGN OF ZELENSKY ASSIST HIS OPPONENT.

WHAT IS THE HEART.

THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT.

HE'S READY TO CLEAN IT UP.

HE'S THE REFORMER.

IT SUCCEEDS BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO CLEANUP THEIR GOVERNMENT.

WE SEE THIS REFORM ERWIN.

HE CARRIES THE HOPES OF THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD NO PROBLEM GIVING MONEY APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS TO UKRAINE UNDER THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT.

A REFORMER GETS ELECTED, DEVOTED TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION AND THERE IS A PROBLEM.

THERE WAS A REASON TO GIVE MORE SUPPORT TO UKRAINE.

PEOPLE PLACED THEIR HOPES IN HIM.

YOU CAN SEE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TRYING TO FLATTER THE PRESIDENT.

I'M UP FOR DRAINING THE SWAMP TOO.

HE RAIN ON A CAMPAIGN OF REFORM.

NO PROBLEM GIVING MONEY TO THE PRIOR REGIME.

YOU GET A REFORMER IN OFFICE AND NOW THERE IS A PROBLEM?

YOU KNOW WHAT CHANGED THE EMERGENCE OF JOE BIDEN AS A CANDIDATE.

BEFORE THAT DID THERE WAS NO PROBLEM.

THE REFORMER COMES INTO AUTOS ABDOMEN THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

YOU LOOK TO THE CALL AND NO ONE DISPUTES THAT MARIE YOVANOVITCH WAS A FIGHTER OF CORRUPT.

THE PRESIDENT IS BAD-MOUTHING A PERSON FIGHTING CORRUPTION.

HE'S PRAISING THE FORMER PROSECUTOR THAT WAS CORRUPT.

DO WE BELIEVE THIS IS ABOUT FIGHTING CORRUPTION.

THE PROBLEMS SUPPORTING A REFORMER TRYING TO CLEAN IT UP.

NO PROBLEMS WITH A CORRUPT FORMER PROSECUTOR.

A GOOD MAN.

PROBLEMS WITH A U.S.

AMBASSADOR DEVOTING HER LIFE TO THE COUNTRY.

IT WASN'T UNTIL 2019 WHEN BIDEN EMERGED AS A CONSIDERABLE OPPONENT.

MUELLER CONFIRMED THAT PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN WELCOMED RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE IN 2016 WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WE ARE TO BELIEVE DEVELOPED AN INTEREST.

NEVER MIND THEY WERE MEETING ALL OF THE BENCHMARKS.

THE REFORMER IS DOING WHAT WE WANTED.

NEVER MIND THAT.

NOW THAT BIDEN IS IN THE PICTURE WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

THIRD, WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF CORRUPTION WITH UKRAINE THE PRESIDENT NEVER DID.

DESPITE THE REQUEST OF HIS STAFF THE WORD CORRUPTION NEVER CROSSED HIS LIPS.

JUST THE BIDENS AND CROWD STRIKE.

THE PRESIDENT FIRST SPOKE ON APRIL 21st HE WAS SUPPOSED TO AND ASKED TO BY HIS STAFF BRING UP CORRUPTION.

I THINK, I GO BACK AND CHECK THE READ OUT OF THAT CALL, THAT CONGRATULATE CALL SAID HE BROUGHT UP CORRUPTION.

LOOK, AM I RIGHT, MY STAFF SAID I'M RIGHT.

APRIL 21st HE'S ASKED TO BRING UP CORRUPTION.

HE'S A GREAT REFORMER.

HE DOESN'T BRING IT UP.

THE READ OUT SAID WHAT HE DID.

IT WAS LIKE THE READ OUT-OF-THE JULY 25th CALL.

IT'S MISLEADING.

OF COURSE THE READ OUT WAS FAR MORE MISLEADING.

WE ARE TO BELIEVE APART FROM THE BIDENS THIS IS WHAT OUR PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT.

THIS IS LIEUTENANT CORONAL VINDMAN.

>> IF I COULD TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE APRIL 21st CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DID YOU PREPARE A TALKING POINT FOR THE PRESIDENT TO USE DURINGAT C?

>> YES, I DID.

>> DID THOSE TALKING POINTSÑi INVOLVE ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE?

>> YES.

>> THAT WAS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WAS SUPPOSED TO RAISE IN THE CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

>> THOSE WERE THE RECOMMENDED TALKING POINTS THAT WERE CLEARED THROUGH THE NSC STAFF OR THE PRESIDENT, YES.

>> DID YOU LISTEN IN ON THAT CALL?

>> YES, I DID.

>> THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOW RELEASED THE RECORD OF THAT CALL.

DID PRESIDENT TRUMP EVER MENTION CORRUPTION IN THE APRIL 21ST CALL?

>> TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, HE DID NOT.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSg PR" NOT MENTION THE WORD CORRUPTION ON THE JULY 25TH CALL.

HERE IS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN CONFIRMING THAT AS WELL.

ACTUALLY THAT SLIDE WAS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO EARLIER WITH THE GOOD WORK OF MY STAFF.

THIS IS THE READOUT OF THE APRIL 21ST CALL WHICH ENDS BY SAYING, WELL IT SAYS PRESIDENT TRUMP SPOKE TODAY WITH PRESIDENT VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY.

THE PRESIDENT WISHED HIM SUCCESS AND CALLED THE ELECTION AN IMPORTANT MOMENT IN UKRAINE'S HISTORY NOTING THE PEACEFUL AND DEMOCRATIC MANNER OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP UNDERSCORED THE UNWAIVERRING SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE UKRAINE'S SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY WITHIN THE RECOGNIZED BORDERS AND EXPRESSED HIS COMMITMENT TO WORK TOGETHER WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE TO IMPLEMENT YEW FORMS THAT STRENGTHEN DEMOCRACY, INCREASE PROSPERITY AND ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.

EXCEPT THAT HE DIDN'T.

LET'S HEAR COLONEL VINDMAN.ñr NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

OKAY, LET'S NOT HEAR COLONEL VINDMAN.

WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH FROM COLONEL VINDMAN.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD THE EAR OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DURING THE APRIL 21ST AND JULY 25TH CALLS HE DID NOT RAISE THAT ISSUE, THE WORD CORRUPTION A SINGLE TIME.

THERE'S AMPLE OTHER EVIDENCE AS WELL.

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS MADE CLEAR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ANTI-CORRUPTION.

THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD HELP HIM FIGHT CORRUPTION.

THE PRESIDENT'S AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS SUPPORTED THIS TOO.

THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND STATE DEPARTMENT CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE SATISFIED ALL ANTI-CORRUPTION BENCHMARKS BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP FROZE THE AID.

THE POINT IS THIS.

THE EVIDENCE IS CONSISTENT, IT ESTABLISHES CLEARLY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT CARE ABOUTÑi CORRUPTION.

TO THE CONTRARY, HE WAS PURSUING A CORRUPT AIM.

HE WANT UKRAINE TO DO THE EXACT THING THAT AMERICAN POLICY OFFICIALS HAVE TRIED FOR YEARS TO STOP FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS FROM DOING, CORRUPT INVESTIGATIONS OF POLITICAL RIVALS.

THE EVIDENCE IS UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR.

ON JULY 25TH WHILE ACTING AS OUR NATION'S CHIEF DIPLOMAT AND SPEAKING TO THE LEADER OF UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP SOLICITED FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE U.S. ELECTION FOR ONE PARTICULAR OBJECTIVE, TO BENEFIT HIS OWN RE-ELECTION, TO SEEK HELP IN CHEATING IN A U.S. ELECTION.

HE REQUESTED EFFECTIVELY DEMANDED A PERSONAL POLITICAL FAVOR.

UKRAINEÑINVESTIGATIONS THAT WERF VALUE TO HIMSELF.

THIS WAS NOT ABOUTñr FOREIGN POLICY.

IN FACT IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH AND DIVERGED FROM AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY AND AME(!CAN VALUES.

HIS OWN OFFICIALS KNEW THIS AND THEYñr REPORTED IT.

UKRAINE KNEW THIS AND HIS OWN WHITE HOUSE AWE TE ATTEMPTED TOY THE CALL.

THE PRESIDENT CONFIRMED WHAT HE WANT IN HIS OWN WORDS.

HE HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT CORRUp(5JONLY ABOUT .

NOW IT IS UP TO US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

TO MAKE SURE THAT A PRESIDENT, THAT THIS PRESIDENT, CANNOT PURSUE AN OBJECTIVE THAT PLACES HIMSELF ABOVE OUR COUNTRY.Ñi >> WELL, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE OBJECT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME, GETTING UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THAT INVESTIGATIONS WOULD BE HELD, THAT WOULD HELP HIM CHEAT ANDçó GAIN AN ADVANTAE IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

THOSE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS WERE TO ADVANCE HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS, NOT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF AMERICA.

LET'S DRILL DOWN ONñr HOW.

HOW THE PRESIDENT ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE AND EXECUTED HIS CORRUPT SCHEME.

AS NOTED EARLIER, THE PRESIDENT EXECUTED HIS SCHEME THROUGH THREE OFFICIAL ACTIONS.

FIRST, BY SOLICITING FOREIGNÑi ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

SECOND, BY CONDITIONING AN OFFICIAL OVAL OFFICE MEETING ON UKRAINE DOING OR AT LEAST ANNOUNCING THE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

AND THIRD, BY WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THOSE INVESTIGATIONS.

ALL THREE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OFFICIAL ACTIONS WERE AN ABUSE OF HIS POWER AS PRESIDENT.

AND DONE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

THE ORIGINAL ABUSE WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SOLICITATION OF ELECTION INTERFERENCE FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY, UKRAINE.

HE TRIED TO GET AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS DESIGNED TO HELP HIM IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, SO LET'S START THERE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT DEMANDS OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE JULY 25TH PHONE CALL WERE NOT JUST A SPONTANEOUS OUTBURST.

THEY WERE A DRAMATIC CRESCENDO IN A MONTH-LONG SCHEME TO EXTORT UKRAINE INTO ASSISTING HISñr 200 RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

AS WAS SHOWN, THERE'S EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF DEMANDING THAT UKRAINE CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATIONS.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO DELEGATED HIS AUTHORITY TO HISñr POLITICAL AGENT RUDY GIULIANI, TO OVERSEE AND DIRECT THIS SCHEME.

THAT WAS BEGINNING IN LATE 2018 AND EARLY 2019, AND HERE'S HOW THAT SCHEME WORKED.

FIRST, IN JANUARY OF 2019, MR. GIULIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES DISCUSSED THE INVESTIGATIONS WITH THE THEN CURRENT AND FORMER PROSECUTOR GENERALS OF UKRAINE.

AS WE DISCUSSED, BOTH WERE CORRUPT.

THEN IN LATE APRIL 2019, THE SCHEME HIT A ROAD BLOCK.

THE REFORM CANDIDATE ZELENSKY,!.

THE FEAR WAS THAT PRESIDENT-ELECT ZELENSKY WOULD REPLACE THEÑi CORRUPTÑi UKRAINIK PROSECUTOR GIUL DEALING WITH.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REMOVED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH BECAUSE HIS AGENTS, INCLUDING GIULIANI BELIEVED SHE WAS ANOTHER ROAD BLOCK TO THE CORRUPT SCHEME THEi WERE UNDERTAKING INñr HISçó BEH.

IN HER PLACE, PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE DIRECTEDçó Açó TEAM OF HAND-PICKED POLITICAL APPOINTEES.

U.S. OFFICIALS WHO AREÑi SUPPOSD TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTS, TO INSTEAD WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI TO ADVANCE THE PRESIDENT'SÑi PERSONAL INTEREST.

THOSE WERE THE THREE AMIGOS.

AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, THOSE U.S. OFFICIALS, QUOTE, FOLLOWED THE PRESIDENT 'Sçó ORDERS.

BUT EVEN WITH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH GONE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKYñr STILL RESISTED MR. GIULIANI'S OVERTURES.

GIULIANI, AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION THROUGHOUT MAY AND JUNE, HE RAN RATCHETED UP PUBLIC PRESSURE ON UKRAINE ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIONS.

IT WAS ONLY THEN WHEN MR. GIULIANI COULD NOT GET THE DEAL DONE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TURNED TO THE SECOND OFFICIAL ACTION USING THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING TO PRESSURE UKRAINE.

BEFORE WE TURN TO THE SCHEME FOR SOLICITING FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW MR. GIULIANI, THr PRESIDENT'S PRIVATE AGENT, ASSUMED A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN THIS SCHEME THAT APPLIED ESCALATING PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TOÑi ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS HELPFUL TO THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL INTERESTS.

WHY IS THATçó SO IMPORTANT INçó FIRST,ÑHMR.

GIULIANI IS PRESIDET TRUMP'S PERSONAL LAWYER.

HE REPRESENTED PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS MR. GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE IN CONSTANT CONTACT IN THIS TIME PERIOD.

BOTH U.S.Ñi AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW ABOUTñr GIULIANI WAS THE KEY TO UKRAINE.

LET'SÑi REVIEW THEÑi PRESIDENT'E OF MR. GIULIANI TO ADVANCE HIS SCHEME.

FIRST, NO ONE DISPUTES THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS AND IS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONALñr LAWYER.ñr PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID THIS, MR. GIULIANI SAYS IT.

WE ALL KNOW IT'S TRUE.çó SECOND, PRESIDENT TRUMP AT ALL TIMES DIRECTED AND NEW ABOUTçó MR. GIULIANI'S ACTIONS.

HOW DO WE KNOWñr THIS?

LET'S START WITH THE LETTERñr SIGNED BY GIULIANIñr TO PRESIDET ZELENSKY, AND HERE IS THAT LETTERON MAY 10, 2019, MR. GIULI WROTE TO A FOREIGN LEADER, PRESIDENT ELECT ZELENSKY.

THE LETTER READS, AND I QUOTE, IN MY CAPACITY ASç"A PERSONAL COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 4XWITH HISÑiñr KNOWLEDGE ANDçPJT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SPECIFIC REQUEST AND HE MAKE IT CLEAR IT WAS IN HIS ROLE AS THE PRESIDENT'S CONOW, MR. GIULIANIT TELL THE FOREIGN LEADER THAT, HE ALSO TOLD THE PRESS.

THE DAY BEFORE MR. GIULIANI'S LETTER TO ZELENSKY, THE "NEW YORK TIMES" PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE ABOUT MR. GIULIANI'S UPCOMING TRIP TO UKRAINE.

AND HERE IS THE SLIDE ABOUT THAT ARTICLE.

IT SAID, ANDÑi IÑi QUOTE, RUDY GIULIANI PLANS UKRAINE TRIP TOñr PUSH FOR INQUIRIES THAT COULD HELP TRUMP.

MR. GIULIANI SAID HIS TRIP WAS TO PRESS UKRAINE TO INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS INTO FALSEÑi ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE BIDENS AND THE 2016 ELECTION.

AND THAT IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT.

HE STATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND I QUOTE BASICALLY KNOWS WHAT I'M DOING, SURE, AS HIS LAWYER.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY ADMITTED KNOWLEDGE OF MR. GIULIANI'S ACTIVITIES AND TO COORDINATING WITH HIM ABOUT THE UKRAINIAN ACTIVITIES.

POLITICO REPORTED ON MAY 11, 2019, AND I QUOTE, IN A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH POLITICO ON FRIDAY, TRUMP SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT GIULIANIED PLANNED TRIP TO UKRAINE BUT WANT TO SPEAK WITH HIM ABOUT IT.

THIS IS A QUOTE OF THE PRESIDENT, I'VE NOT SPOKEN TO HIM IN ANY GREAT LENGTH BUT I WILL, TRUMP SAID IN THE INTERVIEW.

I WILL SPEAK TO HIM ABOUT IT BEFORE HE LEAVES.

PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW AND DIRECTED MR. GIULIANI'S ACTIVITIES IN MAY 2019 WHEN HAD MR. GIULIANI WAS PLANNING HIS VISIT TO KYIV AND THAT REMAINS TRUE TODAY.

THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" REPORTED THAT WHEN RUDY GIULIANI RETURNED FROM A TRIP TO KYIV JUST LAST MONTH, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM AS THE PLANE WAS STILL TAXIING DOWN THE RUNWAY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED HIS LAWYER, QUOTE, WHAT DID YOU GET.

GIULIANI ANSWERED MORE THAN YOU CAN IMAGINE.

EVENÑiçó AS PRESIDENT TRUMP FACD IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HE WASÑiÑi COORDINATING WITH HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY ON THE UKRAINE SCHEME.

THE PRESIDENT ASKED RUDY, WHAT DID YOU GET.

THE EVIDENCE ALSO SHOWS MR. GIULIANI AND THE PRESIDENTÑi WERE IN FREQUENT CONTACT.

DURING THE INVESTIGATION AND IN RESPONSE TO Açó LAWFUL SU!THE Hó THEY SHOW CONTACTS NOT CONTENT BETWEEN GIULIANI, THE WHITE HOUSE AND OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

FOR EXAMPLE, ON APRIL 23RD, RUDY GIULIANI LEARNED PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DECIDED TO FIREçóÑi AMBASSAR YOVANOVITCH.

ON THAT DAY, ACCORDING TO PHONE RECORDS, GIULIANI HAD AN EIGHT MINUTE AND 28 SECOND CALL WITH A WHITE HOUSE NUMBER.

LET'S LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED THE NEXT DAY ON APRIL 24 HATH.

GGIULIANI WAS AGAIN IN REPEATED CONTACT WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

FOR EXAMPLE HE HAD ONE EIGHT MILLION AND 42 SECOND CALL.

AN HOUR LATER HE HAD ANOTHER CALL WHICH LASTED THREE MINUTES 15 SECONDS WITH THE WHITE HOUSE.

WHEN A REPORTER RECENTLY ASKED WHO HE CALLED AT THE WHITE HOUSE,Ñi MR. GIULIANI SAID THIS.

I TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT MOSTLY.

RUDY GIULIANI REMAINED IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER THE DISCLOSURE OF HIS PLANNED TRIP TO UKRAINE IN MID 2019.

NOW RUDY IS THE KEY TO UKRAINE.

WE KNOW FROMçó MR. GIULIANI AND THE PRESIDENT'S OWN STATEMENTS ABOUT HIS ROLE AS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL AGENT ADVANCING THE UKRAINE SCHEME.

WE KNOW FROM THEIR COMMENTS AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE FREQUENCY OF THEIR CONTACT.

BUT IT WSsL'T JUST THE FREQUENCY OF MR. GIULIANI'S CONTACT THAT'S SIGNIFICANT, HERE'Sçó WHAT MATTERS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED U.S. OFFICIALS TO WORK WITH HIS PERSONAL AGENT WHO WAS PURSUING INVESTIGATIONS NOT AT ALL RELATED TO FOREIGN POLICY.

U.S. OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT'S OWN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR KNEW THERE WAS NO GETTING AROUND RUDY GIULIANI WHEN IT CAME TOñr UKRAINE.

WITNESSES REPEATEDLY TESTIFIED TO THE CONSTANT PRESENCE OF RUDY GIULIANI ON TELEVISION AND IN THE NEWSPAPERS.

A STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL, CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON SAID THAT JOHN BOLTON QUOTE, JOKED ABOUT EVERY TIME UKRAINE IS MENTIONED, GIULIANI POPS UP.

AFTER AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S DISMISSAL, AMBASSADOR BOLTON TOLDÑi DR. HILL THAT RUDY GIULII WAS A, QUOTE, HAND GRENADE THAT'S GOING TO BLOW EVERYBODY UP.

DR. HILL TESTIFIED THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON ISSUED GUIDANCE FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF TO NOT ENGAGE WITH RUDY GIULIANI.

THAT MADE SENSE.Ñi WHY?

BECAUSE MR. GIULIANI WAS NOT CONDUCTING OFFICIAL U.S. FOREIGN POLICY.

HE WAS DOING A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

NOW, THESEçó PHONE RECORDS AS I SAY LAWFULLY OBTAINED, REVEAL POTENTIAL CONTACT BETWEEN AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND RUDY GIULIANI ON MAY 9TH.

THEçó DAY THE "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED HIS TRIP TO KYIV.

RUDY GIULIANI'S ROLE IN UKRAINE POLICY IS YET ANOTHER TOPIC THAT AMBASSADOR BOLTON COULD SPEAK TO.

YOU SHOULD CALL HIM AND HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.

EVEN WITHOUT AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S TESTIMONY, MULTIPLE OTHER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS CONFIRMEDçó MR. GIULIANI'S CENTL ROLE.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, QUOTE, IT WAS APPARENT TO EVERYONE THAT THE KEY TO CHANGING THE PRESIDENT'S MIND ON UKRAINE WAS GIULIANI.

DAVID HOLMES THE U.S.

POLITICAL COUNSELOR IN KYIV SAID GIULIANI, A PRIVATE LAWYER WAS TAKING A DIRECT ROLE IN UKRAINIAN DIPLOMACY.

BAD ENOUGH THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED U.S. DIPLOMATS TO, QUOTE, TALK TO RUDY ABOUT UKRAINE.

THE SCHEME GOT WORSE.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT UKRAINE OFFICIALS ALSO CAME TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF MR. GIULIANI.

ON JULY 10TH, 2019, ANDREW, ANDRE YERMAK THE TOP AIDE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SENT A TEXT TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER ABOUT RUDY GIULIANI.

IN THAT TEXT THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL SAID, QUOTE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR MEETING AND YOUR VERY CLEAR AND LOGICAL POSITION.

IT WILL BE GREAT TO MEET WITH YOU BEFORE MY DEPARTURE AND DISCUSS.

I FEEL THAT THE KEY FOR MANY THINGS IS RUDY AND I READY TO TALK WEB HIM -- TALK WITH HIM AY TIME.

LET ME REREAD THAT.

THE KEY FOR MANY THING IS RUDY.

SO THE PRESIDENT USED HIS PERSONAL AGENTçóÑi TO CONDUCT TS SCHEME.

THEY WERE IN FREQUENT CONTACT, EVERYONE, WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS AND UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DEAL WITH GIULIANI.

WHAT WAS MR. GIULIANI DOING THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO UKRAINE?

AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR, MR. GIULIANI'S FOCUS WAS TO GET INVESTIGATIONS INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL RIVAL TO HELP THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION.

WE WALKED THROUGH SOME OF THE TIME LINE OF MR. GIULIANI'S ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS ABOUT UKRAINE.

BUT LET'S JUSTñr WIND THEM UP BRIEFLY BECAUSE ITñr MAKES THE STORY SOÑi CLEAR.ñr APRIL 2019, VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED HIS CAMPAIGN TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.

AND A REMINDER AT THE TIME OFÑy& IáMONTHSçó AFTER, PUBLIC POLLING INCLUDING FROM FOX NEWS SHOWED THAT BYIEN WOULD BEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE FOX NEWS POLLING DATA IS UP ON THE CHART.

RIGHT AFTER PRESIDENT BIDEN ANNOUNCEDAND WHILE -- DAND DE SD WHILE BIDEN WAS BEATING PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ThMR.

GIULIAC INTERVIEW WITH THE NOBODY TIMES THAT HE WAS TRAVELING TO UKRAINE TO PURSUE INVESTIGATIONS.

HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT QUOTE, BIDEN WILL NOT GET TO ELECTION DAY WITHOUT BEING INVESTIGATED.

THE SCHEME WAS ALL ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION.

THIS CONTINUED IN JUNE.

MR. GIULIANI TWEETED ON JUNE 21ST AND URGED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO PURSUE THE INVESTIGATION.

THE SCHEME CONTINUES EVEN NOW.

MR. GIULIANI HAS TWEETED ABOUT JOE BIDEN OVER 5 TIMES SINCE SEPTEMBER.

-- 6 5 TIMES SINCE SEPTEMBER.

AND PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD YOU HIMSELF.

HE ADMITTED ON OCTOBER 2ND, QUOTE, WE'VE BEEN INVESTIGATING ON A PERSONAL BASIS THROUGH RUDY AND OTHERS, LAWYERS' CORRUPTION IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

AGAIN TO REVIEW.

PRESIDENT TRUMP USED HIS PERSONAL AGENT FOR UKRAINE.

HE'S MADE THIS CLEAR TO U.S. OFFICIALS AND TO THE UKRAINIANS.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND RUDY GIULIANI WERE IN CONSTANT CONTACT DURING THIS PERIOD.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED HIM TO PURSUE INVESTIGATIONS.

HE TOLD U.S. OFFICIALS TO WORK WITH RUDIE.

HE TOLD UKRAINIANS TO WORK WITH RUDY.

RUDY AND HIS ASSOCIATES PRESSED UKRAINE FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL RIVAL.

GIULIANI SAID QUOTE, BIDEN WILL NOT GET TO ELECTION DAY WITHOUT THIS BEING INVESTIGATED.

KEEPING ALL THIS IN MIND, LET'S TURN TO THE PRESIDENT'S FIRST OFFICIAL ACT, SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE.

AS WE MENTIONED, IN LATE 2018 AND EARLY 201LIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES LEV PARNAS AND IGORñr FRUMAN WERE BUSY SOLICITING INFORMATION FROM CORRUPT UKRAINIANS TO HELP PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THEY PURSUED A MONTH-LONG CAMPAIGN TO DIG UP DIRT ON BIDEN.

IN LATE 2018 AND EARLY 2019,Ñiçó PARNAS, F FRUMAN AND GIULIANIÑiT EXTENSIVELY WITH TWO CORRUPT PROCESS UNIVERSITY.

LENS LESKOçó AND -- AS YOU CAN L SHOKIN WAS CORRUPT.

HE WAS A QUOTE TYPICAL UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WHO LIVE AÑi LIFE-STE FAR IN EXCESS OF HIS GOVERNMENT MONEY ANDÑi NEVER PROSECUTED ANYBODY KNOWN TO HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME AND COVERED UP CRIMES KNOWN TO BE COMMITTED.

AND REMEMBER BECAUSE SHOKIN WAS CORRUPT BIDEN URGED HIS REMOVAL.

THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY.

HE BLAISMED BIDEN FOR HIS DISMISSAL.

HE WANT TO REVIVE HIS POLITICAL FORTUNE INxD UKRAINE BY ASSISTIG WITH GIULIANI'S EFFORT.

AT THE END OF JANUARY, GIULIANIó PARNAS AND TRUE NON-PARTICIPATED -- FRUMAN PARSE PAITD IN A CONFERENCE CALL WITH SHOKIN.

SHOKIN FALSELY CLACmDD THAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH HAD IMPROPERLY DENIED HIM A U.S. VISA AND THAT SHE WAS CLOSE TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

ALSO IN JANUARY, GIULIANI, PARNAS AND FRUMANÑi MET WITH LUTSENKO IN NEW YORK AND DISCUSSED INFORMATION ABOUT BURISMA AND THE BIDENS AND WHETHERÑi AMBASSADORñr YOVANOVIH WAS QUOTE LOYAL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.Ñi LUTSENKO HELD A GRUDGE AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH BECAUSE SHE AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT WERE CRITICAL OF LUTSENKO'S FAILURE, THEY WERE CRITICAL FOR HIS FAILURE TO PROSECUTE CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

THIS WAS THE MOTIVATION FOR LUTSENKO TO GIVE GIULIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES FALSE INFORMATION ON BIDEN AND BURISMA.Ñi AND HERE'S THE POINT.

LUTSENKO ANDÑi SHOKIN HADÑi GRUS AGAINST BIDEN AND AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

WHY?

BECAUSE THEY WERE IMPLEMENTING U.S. POLICY TO FIGHT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

NOW YOU'LL JOHNNY AND HISÑi ASSOCIATES -- GIULIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES HAD MOTIVE TO HARM BIDEN, TO HELP GET PRESIDENT TRUMP REARE ELECTED.

THEY HAD MOTIVE TO REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH OR ANYONE ELSE WHO GOT IN THEIR WAY OF THEIR EFFORTS TO SMEAR BIDEN.

GIULIANI ADMITTED THIS.

HE TOLD THE "NEW YORK TIMES" THAT HE SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT HOW AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH FRUSTRATED EFFORTS THAT COULD BE POLITICALLY HELPFUL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

GIULIANI ADMITTED THIS WAS ALL TO BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

DOCUMENTS GIVE US EVIDENCE OF THISñr SCHEME.

WHAT'S APP EXCHANGES THAT PARNAS RECENTLY GAVE TO CONGRESS MAKE CLEAR THAT IN EXCHANGE FOR DERROGATORY INFORMATION ABOUT BIDEN, LUTSENKO WANT YOVANOVITCH REMOVED FROM HER POST IN KYIV.

HERE'S THAT WHAT'S APP REPORT.

FR EXAMPLE ON MARCH 22ND, LUTSENKO WROTE, QUOTE, IT'S JUST THAT IF YOU DON'T MAKE A DECISION ABOUT MADAM, YOU ARE BRINGING INTO QUESTION ALL MY ALLEGATIONS.

INCLUDING ABOUT B.

NOW HERE B COULD EITHER BE BIDEN OR BURISMA OR BOTH, BUT M, MADAM IS AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

IN THE MARCH 22 TEXT, LUTSENKO IMPLIED THAT IF PARNAS WANT DIRT ON BIDEN, BURISMA, HE NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

DAYS LATER, ON MARCH 28, PARNAS ASSURED LUTSENKO THAT HIS EFFORTS WERE BEING RECOGNIZED IN THE UNITED STATES AND THAT HE WOULD BE REWARDED.

PARNAS WROTE, QUOTE, I WAS ASKED PERSONALLY TO CONVEY TO YOU THAT AMERICA SUPPORTS YOU AND WILL NOT LET YOU BE HARMED NO MATTER HOW THINGS LOOK NOW.

SOON EVERYTHING WILL TURN AROUND AND WE'LL BE ON THE RIGHT COURSE JUST SO YOU KNOW.

HERE PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU AS A TRUE UKRAINIANçó HERO.

LUTSENKO RESPONDED WITH THE DIRT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANT.

HE WROTE QUOTE I HAVE COPIES OF PAYMENTS FROM BURISMA TO SENECA MINUTES AFTER BEING ASSURED, REASSURED THAT AMERICA SUPPORTS YOU AND ILL WITH NOT LET YOU BE -- AND WILL NOT LET YOU BE HARMED.

HE CLAIMED HE HAD RECORDS OF PAYMENTS FROM BURISMA TO ROSE MAWNLT SENECA PARTNERS A FIRM FOUNDED BY HUNTER BIDEN.

THIS TEXT MESSAGE ALONG WITH OTHERS SHOW THAT LIEU ISN'T CO-WAS PROVIDE -- LUTSENKO WAS PROVIDING DERROGATORY INFORMATION ON THE BIDENS IN EXCHANGE FOR PARNAS PUSHING FOR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S REMOVAL.

NOW IN LATE MARCH AND THROUGHOUT APRIL 2019, THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE BIDENS AND AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH ENTERED A MORE PUBLIC PHASE THROUGH A SERIES OF OPINION PIECES PUBLISHED IN THE HILL.

THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THESE ALLEGATIONS WAS ORCHESTRATED, ORCHESTRATED BY GIULIANI, PARNAS AND LUTSENKO.

WE KNOW FROM RECORDS PRODUCED BY PARNAS THAT HE PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN HAD GETTING DERROGATORY INFORMATION FROM LUTSENKO AND HIS DEPUTY TO JOHN SOLOMON WHO WROTE THE OPINION PIECES IN THE HILL.

ACCORDING TO THE HILL ARTICLES, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS FALSELY CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING ABOUT THE FOLLOWING.

EFFORTS IN 2015 TO REMOVE SHOKIN TO HUNTERçó BIDEN'S ROLE AS A BRIBURISMA BOARD MEMBER.

THREE, UKRAINIAN'S INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION IN FAVOR OF HILLARY CLINTON.

FOUR, THE MISS APPROPRIATION AND TRANSFER OF UKRAINIAN FUNDS ABROAD.

THIS IS WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANT FROM THEÑi UKRAINIANS.

THE SAME INFORMATION MR. GIULIANI AND HIS AGENTS WERE SCHEMING UP WITH UKRAINE TO HURT BIDEN AND IN EXCHANGE TO HAVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH REMOVED.

NOW, MR. GIULIANI WAS VERY OPEN ABOUT THIS AND HERE IS THE CLIP WORTH WATCHING.

>> LET ME TELL YOU MY INTEREST IN THAT.

I GOT INFORMATION ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AGO THAT A LOT OF THE EXPLANATIONS FOR HOW THIS WHOLE PHONY IVESTIGATION STARTED WILL BE INñr THE UKRAIN.

THAT THERE WERE A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE UKRAINE WHO WERE WORKING TO HELP HILLARY CLINTON AND WERE COLLUDING REALLY WITH THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND IT EXTENDS AROUND THE AMBASSADOR AND EMBASSY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

I HAD PEOPLE CONNING FORWARD AND TELLING ME ABOUT THAT.

THEN THEY REVEALED THIS STORY ABOUT BURISMA AND BIDEN'S SON ON BOARD.

>> WELL, MR. GIULIANI GOT LAUGHED AT ON FOXñr NEWS FOR ADVANCING THE CROWD SOURCE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

BUT THE CLIP SHOWS THAT HE HAD BEEN MAKING AN EFFORT TO GET DERROGATORY INFORMATION FROM THE UKRAINIANS ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP.

MY COLLEAGUE MS. DEMING WILL NOW FURTHER DETAIL HOW THE SCHEME EVOLVED.Ñi >> MINORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> LET ME SUGGEST THAT I UNDERSTAND THE PRESENTATIONS WILL CONTINUE FOR A WHILE AND I WOULD SUGGEST A DINNER BREAK AT 6:30 FOR 30 MINUTES.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE SENATORS AND OF COURSE THE COUNSEL FOR THPRESIDENT.

AT THIS POINT, EVERYTHING WAS GOING TO PLAN.

MR. GIULIANI WAS SCHEMING WITH THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WHO WERE OFFERING DIRT ON BINDEN THAT WOULD HELPÑi PRESIDENT TRUP GET RE-ELECTED.

THEY WERE PRESSURING, THEY WERE PRESSING PRESIDENT TRUMP TO REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, INCLUDING PUBLICLY TARNISHING HER REPUTATION THROUGH FALSE AND BASELESS CLAIMS.

BUT THEN THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME HIT A ROAD BLOCK.

ON APRIL 21ST, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THEN THE ANTI-CORRUPTION CANDIDATE WON A LANDSLIDE VICTORY IN UKRAINE'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

U.S. OFFICIALS UNANIMOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S MANDATE TO PURSUE REFORM WOULD BE GOOD FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

HOWEVER IT WAS POTENTIALLY BAD NEWS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME.

MR. GIULIANI DID NOT HAVE AÑi RELATIONSHIP WITH ZELENSKY.

AS A REF REFORMER HE WOULD BE LS AMENABLE TO ANNOUNCING THE SHAM INVESTIGATION.

ZELENSKY WOULD NOT WANT TO GET DRAGGED INTO U.S.

DOMESTIC POLITICS.Ñi ADDITIONALLY, THE ELECTION OF A 4NNCONCERNS THAT LUTSENKO, WITH WHOM MR. GIULIANI HAD BEEN PLOTTING WOULD BE REPLACED BY A NEW UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL.

A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERALIST SPECIALLY ONE APPOINTED BY AN ANTI-CORRUPTION REGIME WOULD LIKELY BE LESS WILLING TO CONDUCT SHAM INVESTIGATIONS TO PLEASE AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

MR. GIULIANI DECIDED TO ATTACK THE ISSUE FROM BOTH SIDES.

HE PRESSED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WHICH WOULD KEEP L LUTSENKO HAP.

HE CONTINUED TO WORK HARD TO GET DIRT ON BIDEN AND HE TRIED TO GET A MEETING WITH ZELENSKY TO SECURE THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADER'S COMMITMENT TO PRESS THE INVESTIGATION.

THIS STRATEGY PLAYED OUT ON APRIL 23RD AND 24TH.

FIRST, ON APRIL 23RD, PARNAS AND FRUMAN WERE IN ISRAEL TRYING TO ARRANGE A MEETING BETWEEN GIULIANI AND THE NEWLY MINTED UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

ON APRIL 23RD, GIULIANI LEFT A VOICVOICE MESSAGE FOR PARNAS.

LET'S PLAY THAT VOICEMAIL.

I WAS GOING TO SAY IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO HEAR BUT I'M SURE YOU CANNOT HEAR IT AT ALL.

BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IT SAYS.

HE SAYS IT'S RUDY.

WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE, GIVE ME A CALL AND BRING ME UP TO DATE, OKAY.

I GOT A COUPLE THINGS TO TELL YOU TOO.

PARNAS AND GIULIANI EVENTUALLY SPOKE ON THAT SAME DAY.

WE HAVE THE PHONE RECORDS THAT PROVE THAT.

ACCORDING TO PHONE RECORDS, PARNAS AND GIULIANI HAD A ONE MINUTE 50 SECOND CALL.

15 MINUTES AFTER THEY HUNG UP, THE RECORDS ALSO SHOW THAT MR. GIULIANI PLAYED THREE SHORT PHONE CALLS TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE WHITE HOUSE CALLED GIULIANI BACK.

GIULIANI SPOKE WITH SOMEONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOR EIGHT MINUTES AND 28 SECONDS.

I WILL JUST QUICKLY NOTE THAT AT THE TIME THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ISSUED ITS REPORT IN MID DECEMBER, WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THAT EIGHT MINUTE 28 SECOND CALL WAS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

WE HAVE SINCE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A TELECON COMPANY THAT IT WAS INDEED THE WHITE HOUSE.

NOW WE DON'T HAVE A RECORDING OF THAT CALL, NEITHER THE WHITE HOUSE NOR GIULIANI PRODUCED ANY INFORMATION TO CONGRESS ABOUT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED.

OF COURSE THE WHITE HOUSE HAD REFUSED, AS YOU ALREADY KNOW, TO COOPERATE IN ANY WAY.

BUT EVEN WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE IS HIDING, WITH THE EVIDENCE WE DO HAVE, THESE PHONE RECORDS PROVEçó THAT MR. GIULIANI WAS KEEPING PRESIDENT TRUMP INFORMED ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO MEET úRZELENSKY AND GO COMMIT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

NOW LET'S LOOK AT PRESIDENTÑi TRUMP'S DECISION TO REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

FOLLOWING THE CALL BETWEEN MR. GIULIANI AND THE WHITE HOUSE ON APRIL 23RD, PARNAS ASKED GIULIANI FOR AN UPDATE.

AND PARNAS TEXT AND I QUOTE, GOING TO SLEEP MY BROTHER.

PLEASE TEXT ME OR CALL ME IF YOU HAVE ANY NEWS.

GIULIANI RESPONDED.

HE FIRED HER AGAIN.

THAT WAS OF COURSE IN REFERENCE TO AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

HER REMOVAL WOULD NO DOUBT PLEASE THE CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR LUTSENKO WHO OFFERED DERROGATORY INFORMATION ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN.

IT ALSO ELIMINATED A POTENTIAL OBSTACLE IDENTIFIED BY GIULIANI.

PARNAS RESPONDED, AND I QUOTE, I PRAY IT HAPPENS THIS TIME.

I'LL CALL YOU TOMORROW, MY BROTHER.

AND IT DID.

BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE VERY NEXTçó DAY ON APRIL 24TH AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH RECEIVED TWO FRANTIC PHONE CALLS FROM AMBASSADOR CAROL PEREZ AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

THE SECOND CALL CAME AT 1:00 A.M.

ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SLIDE ON THE SCREEN, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE TOLD HER, AND I QUOTE, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN FOR ME BUT I NEEDED TO BE ON THE NEXT PLANE TOÑiÑi WASHINGTON.

YOVANOVITCH RECALLED, AND I WAS LIKE WHAT, WHAT HAPPENED.

AND PEREZ SAID I DON'T KNOW BUT THIS IS ABOUT YOUR SECURITY.

YOU NEED TO COME HOME IMMEDIATELY.

YOU NEED TO COME HOME ON THE NEXT PLANE.

YOVANOVITCH ASKED WHAT PEREZ MEANT BY, QUOTE, PHYSICAL SECURITY.

PEREZ DIDN'T GET THAT IMPRESSION BUT REPEATED THAT YOVANOVITCH NEEDED, AND I QUOTE, TO COME BACK IMMEDIATELY.

THIS WAS NO COINCIDENCE.

MR. GIULIANI AND HIS AGENTS CONSPIRED TO MEET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

THEY CONSPIRED FOR AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH TO BE REMOVED.

AND WITHIN HOURS OF MR. GIULIANI SAYING HE PRAYED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WOULD GET FIRED.

AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH GOT A FRANTIC PHONE CALL TO GET ON THE NEXT PLANE.

AND THAT SAME DAY ON APRIL 24TH, GIULIANI APPEARED ON FOX AND FRIENDS AND PROMOTED THE FALSE CONSPIRACY THEORIESñr ABOUT UKRAINE AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN THAT WERE ALL PART OF HIS AGREEMENT.

LET'S LOOK AND LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID.

>> I ASKED YOU TO KEEP YOUR EYE ON UKRAINE BECAUSE IN UKRAINE, A LOT OF THE DIRTY WORK WAS DONE DIGGING UP THE INFORMATION.

AMERICAN OFFICIALS LEADERS, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS WERE USED, THAT'S LIKE COLLUSION WITH THE UKRAINIANS.

AND ACTUALLY IN THIS CASE CONSPIRACY WITH THE UKRAINIANS.

I THINK IT GETS INTERESTING CONVERSATION ABOUT JOE BIDEN FROM UKRAINE ABOUT HIS SON HUNTER BIDEN, ABOUT A COMPANY HE WAS ON THE BOARD OF YEARS WHICH MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPANIES IN UKRAINE.

UKRAINIAN RUSSIAN COMPANY.

NOT A UKRAINIAN, BIG DIFFERENCE THERE.

THE GUY THEY PASSED OUT AND MANAFORT GOT IN TROUBLE WITH, THE GUY WHO OWNS IT WORKED FOR YANOKOVICH.

WAS A FUGITIVE WHEN BIDEN'S KID FIRST WENT TO WORK THERE.

AND BIDEN BRAGGED ABOUT THE FACT HE GOT THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL FIRED.

PROSECUTOR GENERAL WASñr INVESTIGATING HIS SON AND THEN THE INVESTIGATION WENT SOUTH.

>> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS NEVER PROVIDED JUSTIFICATION FOR HER REMOVAL.

SHE WAS AN ANTI-CORRUPTION CRUSADER.

A HIGHLY RESPECTED DIPLOMAT.

AND SHE HAD BEEN RECENTLY ASKED TO EXTEND HER STAY IN UKRAINE.

WHILE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR SEVEN AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT -- SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT.

I AM SURE YOU WOULD ALL AGREE THAT THE MANNER AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE BY'S RE-- THE AMBASSADOR'S REMOVAL WAS UNUSUAL AND RAISED QUESTIONS OF MOTIVE.

EVERY WITNESS WHO TESTIFIED CONFIRMED THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS TO THE ACCUSATIONS LUTSENKO LODGED AGAINST AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH.

UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE DAVID HAIL, THE MOST SENIOR CAREER DIPLOMAT AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TESTIFIED THAT M MARIE YOVANOVIH WAS AN OUTSTANDING AMBASSADOR AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO REMAIN IN KYIV.

EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT, SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DECISION TO REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH UNDER CUT U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES.

IN UKRAINE, DURING A CRITICAL TIME.

DR. HILL, FOR EXAMPLE EXPLAINED THAT MANY OF THE KEY U.S. POLICIES TOWARDS UKRAINE WERE BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KYIV.

AND THEN SU SUDDENLY QUOTE WE HD JUST BEEN LOST THE LEADERSHIP.

THIS IS WHAT HILL LABELED AND I QUOTE A PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WAS GOING TO EXECUTE U.S. POLICY.

GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT THE OUTSER OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, QUOTE, HAMPERED U.S. EFFORTS TOÑi ESTABLISH REPR WITH THE NEW -- RAPPORT WITH THE NEW ZELENSKY ADMINISTRATION IN UKRAINE.

NOW WHY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP REMOVE A DISTINGUISHED CAREER PUBLIC SERVANT.

AN ANTI-CORRUPTION CRUSADER AND A TOP DIPLOMAT IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

WE KNOW WHY.

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REMOVED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH BECAUSE SHE WAS IN THE WAY.

SHE WAS IN THE WAY OF THE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE SO DESPERATELY WANTED.

INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD HURT FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND UNDERMIND THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION INTOçó RUSSIA ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

VELOCITIES THAT WOULD HELP HIM CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTIONS.

RUDY GIULIANI ADMITTED THAT HE PERSONALLY TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT HIS CONCERN THAT AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH WAS AN OBSTACLE TO SECURING UKRAINIAN COOPERATION ON THE TWO BOGUS INVESTIGATIONS THEY SOLICITED FROM UKRAINE.

RUDY GIULIANI CONFIRMED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DECIDED TO REMOVE AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH BASED ON THE BOGUS CLAIM THAT SHE WAS OBSTRUCTING HIS SCHEME TO SECURE UKRAINE COOPERATION.

INDEED, MR. GIULIANI WAS EXPLICIT ABOUT THIS WHEN HE TOLD THE NEW YORKER LAST MONTH.

HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, I BELIEVE THAT I NEEDED YOVANOVITCH OUT OF THE WAY.

SHE WAS GOING TO MAKE THE INVESTIGATIONS DIFFICULT FOR EVERYBODY.

SO LET'S RECAP.

MR. GIULIANI AND HIS AGENTS ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT WORKED WITH CORRUPT UKRAINIANS TO GET DIRT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL OPPONENT.

MR. GIULIANI SAID THIS IN PRESS INTERVIEWS.

HE TEXT ABOUT IT WITH HIS AGENT ANDñr HE REPEATEDLY CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE.

FOLLOWING THE ELECTION OF A NEW UKRAINIAN LEADER COMMITTED TO FIGHTING, FIGHTING CORRUPTION, PRESIDENT TRUMP REMOVED AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, AN ANTI-CORRUPTION CRUSADER.

AND MR. GIULIANI TOLD US WHY, TO GET HER OUT OF THE WAY FOR THE INVESTIGATION TO MOVE FORWARD.

THAT'S HOW FAR PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS WILLING TO GO TO GET HIS INVESTIGATIONS.

TO SMEAR A HIGHLY RESPECTED DEDICATED FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER WHO HAD SERVED THIS COUNTRY UNSELFISHLY FOR HIS OWN SELFISH POLITICAL INTERESTS AND I THINK THAT'S DISGRACEFUL.

EVEN WITH THE REMOVAL OF AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S ELECTION VICTORY THREW A WRENCH INTO THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

THAT'S BECAUSE LUTSENKO WAS REPORTEDLY GOING TO BE REPLACED.

AFTER MR. GIULIANI TOLD THE "NEW YORK TIMES" ON MAY 9TH HE INTENDED TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ORDER TO, AND I QUOTE, MEDDLE IN AN INVESTIGATION, UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PUBLICLY PUSHED BACK.

NOW PLEASE HEAR WHAT I SAID.

UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS PUBLICLY PUSHED BACK ON THE SUGGESTIONS ON OF CORRUPTIONS PROPOSED BY MR. GIULIANI WHO WAS WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. PRESIDENT.

WELL MR. GIULIANI CANCELED HIS TRIP ON MAY 10TH AND CLAIM ON FOX NEWS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS SURROUNDED BY, AND I QUOTE, ENEMIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

LET'S LISTEN.

>>çó I'VE DECIDED, SHARON, I'M T GOING TO GO TO THE UKRAINE.

>> YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GO.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO GO BECAUSE I THINK I'M WALKING INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ENEMIES OF THE PRESIDENT.

>> IT APPEARS GIULIANI'S STATEMENT INFLUENCED PRESIDENT.

TRUMP'S VIEW OF UKRAINEÑiçó AS L AND AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING, AT AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING ON MAY 23RD, U.S. OFFICIALS LEARNED OF GIULIANI'S INFLUENCE.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP, VOTE, DIDN'T BELIEVE THE POSITIVE ASSESSMENT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS GAVE THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

INSTEAD, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD THEMÑi THAT GIULIANI QUOTE KNOWS ALL OF THESE THINGS AND SAIDÑi THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD SOME f--BAD PEOPLE AROUND HIM.AT THID STALLED.

MR. GIULIANI AND THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TROUBLEçó WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FULFILLING HIS CORRUPT DEMANDS FOR INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

THAT BRINGS US TO THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS SCHEME.

ALTHOUGH HIS CORRUPT SCHEME WAS IN TROUBLE, DUE TO THE RESULT, THE UNEXPECTED RESULT OF THE UKRAINIAN ELECTION.

THE ELECTION WHICH YIELDED AN ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMER, PRESIDENT TRUMP DOUBLED DOWN ON HIS SCHEME TO SOLICIT INVESTIGATIONS FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT.

ON MAY 19TH, IN MAY OF 2019, WITH A GAP IN AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN UKRAINE EVER AFTER AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCHçó WAS REMOVED, PRESIDENT TRUMP ENLISTED U.S. OFFICIALS TO HELP TO DO HISÑi POLITICAL WORK.

THIS GREW FROM FALSE ALLEGATIONS BY DISGRUNTLED CORRUPT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS TO A PLOT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO EXTORT THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT INTO ANNOUNCING HIS POLITICALÑi INVESTIGATIONS.

1 DURING THE MAY 23RD OVAL OFFICE MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND SECRETARY PERRY TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI ON UKRAINE.

GIULIANI HAD MADE CLEAR HE WAS PURSUING INVESTIGATIONS FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP INÑi A PERSONAL CAPACITY.

HE SAID THAT PUBLICLY ON NUMEROUS INSTANCES.

AND HE WAS ONLY WORKING FOR THE PRESIDENT IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY AND NOT ON FOREIGN POLICY.

YET, PRESIDENT TRUMP STILL TOLD WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS THAT THEY HAD TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI TO GET ANYWHERE ON UKRAINE.

WE HEARD SIGNIFICANT TESTIMONY ON THIS POINT.

FOR EXAMPLE, AMBASSADOR VOLKER RECALLED THAT AT THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING ON MAY 23RD, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THE U.S. OFFICIALS TO TALK TO RUDY.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED THEM TO TALK TO RUDY.

AND THAT, IN THAT MOMENT THE U.S.

DIPLOMAT SAW THE WRITING ON THE WALL AND CONCLUDED, QUOTE, THAT IF WE DID NOT TALK TO THE RUDY, NOTHING WOULD MOVE FORWARD.

NOTHING WOULD MOVE FORWARD ON UKRAINE.

PAY ATTENTION TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY.

>> IN RESPONSE TO OUR PERSISTENT EFFORTS IN THAT MEETING THAT CHANGED HIS VIEWS, PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED US TO QUOTE TALK WITH RUDY.

WE UNDERSTOOD THAT TALK WITH RUDY MEANT TALK WITH RUDY GIULIANI, THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER.

LET ME SAY AGAIN, WE WEREN'T HAPPY WITH THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE TO TALK WITH RUDY.

WE DID NOT WANT TO INVOLVE MR. GIULIANI.

I BELIEVE THEN AS I DO NOW THAT THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT, NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR UKRAINE MATTERS.

NONETHELESS, BASED ON THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION WE ARE FACED WITH A CHOICE.

WE COULD ABANDON THE EFFORTS TO SCHEDULE THE WHITE HOUSE PHONE CALL AND A WHITE HOUSE VISIT BETWEEN PRESIDENTS TRUMP AND ZELENSKY WHICH WAS UNQUESTIONABLY IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY INTEREST OR WE COULD DO AS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DIRECTED AND TALKED WITH RUDY.

WE CHOSE THE LATTER COURSE NOT BECAUSE WE LIKED IT BUT BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY CONSTRUCTIVE PATH OPEN TO US.

>> AND JUST LIKE THAT, U.S. OFFICIALSÑi CHARGED WITH ADVANCG U.S.ñr FOREIGN POLICY, U.S. OFFICIALS WHO WERE SUPPOSED TO ACT ON OUR COUNTRY'S INTEREST WERE DIRECTED TO INSTEAD ADVANCE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PERSONAL INTEREST.

IN THAT POINT ON, THEY WORKED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL AGENT ON POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION.

THERE WERE ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BEHALF JUST A LIST OF FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS CONTINUES THROUGHOUT ALL OF JUNE.

FOR INSTANCE, ON JUNE 21ST, MR. GIULIANI TWEETED THAT HAD NOT YET PUBLICLY COMMITTED ON TWO POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS DESIGNED TO BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WHEN MR. GIULIANI'S PUBLIC EFFORTS AND HIS TWEETS DIDN'T MOVE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS, HE USED U.S.

DIPLOMAT AS DIRECTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

AFTER GIULIANI CANCELED HIS TRIP TO UKRAINE IN MAY AND COMMENTED THAT PRESIDENT ELECT ZELENSKY HAD ENEMIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AROUND HIM, GIULIANI HAD MINIMAL ACCESS TO THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADER'S INNER CIRCLE.

HIS PRIMARY UKRAINE CONNECTION WITH PROSECUTOR GENERAL LUTSENKO AND HE HAD ALREADY BEEN INFORMED THAT HE WOULD BE REMOVED AS SOON AS THE NEW PARLIAMENT CONVENED.

SO PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE HIM U.S.

DIPLOMAT AND DIRECTED THEM TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI ON HIS SCHEME.

AS YOU HEARD, PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER TO TALK WITH RUDY AND WORK WITH RUDY ON UKRAINE.

AND WHAT DID THAT MEAN?

WELL MR. GIULIANI TRIED TO USE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER TO GAIN ACCESS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS INNER CIRCLE THROUGH THEIR OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT CHANNELS AND MAKE CLEAR TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT HE HAD TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

ON JUNE 27TH, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BROUGHT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR UP TO SPEED ONçó UKRAINE.

SAID AMBASSADOR TAYLOR HAD JUST ARRIVED IN THE COUNTRY A FEW WEEKS BEFOREHAND.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EXPLAINED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEDED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT HE HAD NOT, THAT HE WAS NOT ESTA STANDING IE WAY OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANT.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT STANDING IN THE WAY OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HERE IS HIS TESTIMONY.

>> JUNE 27TH AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD ME DURING A PHONE CONVERSATION THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO MAKE CLEAR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS NOT STANDING IN THE WAY OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RELAYED THIS TO U.S.

DIPLOMAT DAVID HOLMES WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE INVESTIGATIONS TO MEAN THE BURISMA BIDEN INVESTIGATIONS THAT MR. GIULIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES HAD BEEN SPEAKING BEFORE PUBLICLY.

LET'S LISTEN TO MR. HOLMES.

>> ON JUNE 27TH, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN A PHONE CONVERSATION THE GIST OF WHAT AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SHARED WITH ME AT THE TIME THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO MAKE CLEAR TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS NOT STANDING IN THE WAY OF QUOTE INVESTIGATIONS.

I UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS MEANT THE BIDEN BURISMA INVESTIGATIONS THAT MR. GIULIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES HAD BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT IN THE MEDIA SINCE MARCH.

>> EVEN WITH THE ADDITION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PLIGHT CAN CULL APPOINTEES TO AID MR. GIULIANI'S EFFORTS PRESIDENT ZLENSKY DID NOT ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS.

ASçó MR. GIULIANI'S JUNE 21ST TWEET SHOWS THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT WAS RESISTING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESSURE.

SO WHAT HAPPENED?

WELL THAT BRINGS US TO THE PRESIDENT'S NEXT OFFICIAL ACT.

TURNING UP THE PRESSURE.

BY CONDITIONING AN OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE MEETING ONçó UKRAINE ANNOUNCING HIS POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

SENATORS, I KNOW WE HAVE COVERED A LOT OF GROUND.

BUT AS WE HAVE SHOWN, THERE IS OVERWHELMING AND UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THIS YEAR'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

NOW LET ME SAY THIS ALSO.

EACH TIME THAT WE REMIND THIS BODY OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME TO CHEAT TO WIN, SOME OF HIS DEFENDERS SAY THAT WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT WINNING THE NEXT ELECTION.

THAT DEMOCRATS ARE ONLY DOING THIS TO WIN THE NEXT ELECTION.

BUT YOU KNOW BETTER BECAUSE THIS TRIAL IS MUCH BIGGER THAN ANY ONE ELECTION AND IT'S MUCH BIGGER THAN ANY ONE PRESIDENT.

THIS MOMENT IS ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THIS MOMENT IS ABOUT ENSURING THAT EVERY VOTER, WHETHER A MAID OR A JANITOR, WHETHER A NURSE, A TEACHER OR A TRUCK DRIVER, WHETHER A DOCTOR OR A MECHANIC, THAT THEIR VOTE MATTERS AND THAT AMERICAN ELECTIONS ARE DECIDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ACTED CORRUPTLY.

HE ABUSED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE BY ORDERING U.S. DIPLOMATS TO WORK WITH HIS POLITICAL AGENT TO SOLICIT TWO POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS BY UKRAINE.

THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE DESIGNED SOLELY TO HELP HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS NOT OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS.

NEITHER INVESTIGATIONS SOLICITED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH PROMOTING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.

INDEED AS WE WILL DISCUSS LATER, BOTH INVESTIGATIONS AND THE PRESIDENT'S BROADER SCHEME TO SECURE UKRAINE'S INTERFERENCE WAS A THREAT.

IT WAS A THREAT.

IT WAS A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

THE ONLY PERSON WHO STOOD TO BENEFIT FROM THE ABUSE OF OFFICE AND SOLICITATION OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS DONALD TRUMP, THE 45TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

A VIOLATION OF PUBLIC TRUST, A FAILURE TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.

BUT IT CAME, WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO CHOOSING BETWEEN THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY AND HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS, I RE-ELECTION, PRESIDENT RULE TRUP CHOSE HIMSELF.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, TO THE DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT, ALL THOSE WHO ARE AWESOMABLED HERE TODAY.

EARLIER THIS MORNING, I WAS ON MY WAY TO THE OFFICE AND I RAN INTO A FELLOW NEW YORKER WHO JUST HAPPENS TO WORK HERE IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND HE SAID TO ME CONGRESSMAN, HAVE YOU HEARD THEÑi LATEST OUTRAGE.

AND I WASN'T REALLY SURE WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT SO TO BEçó HONEST, I THOUGHT TO MYSELF WELL THE PRESIDENT IS NOW BACK IN TOWN.

WHAT HAS DONALD TRUMP DONE NOW.

SO I SAID TO HIM, WHAT OUTRAGE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

AND HE PAUSED FOR A MOMENT AND THEN HE SAID TO ME SOMEONE VOTED AGAINST DEREK JETER ON HIS HALL OF FAMEñr BALLOT.

LIFE IS ALL ABOUT PERSPECTIVE.1Y WE HOPE, WE CAN SUBPOENA JOHN BOLTON, SUBPOENA MICK MULVANEY.

PERHAPS WE CAN ALL AGREE TO SUBPOENA THE BASEBALL HALL OF FAME.

TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO OUT OF 397 INDIVIDUALS, ONE PERSON VOTED AGAINST DEREK JETER.

I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT AS I PREPARED TO RISE 20E6D BECAUSE E TODAY BECAUSE WHAT MORE AMERICAN THAN BASEBALL AND APPLE PIE.

WHAT'S MORE AMERICAN THAN BASEBALL AND APPLE PIE.

PERHAPS THE ONE THING THAT FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY IS THE SANCTITY AND CONTINUITY OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

HOUSE MANAGERS, WE'RE HERE IN THIS BODY WAS WE BELIEVE IT'S NECESSARY TO DE FEND OUR DEMOCRACY.

SOMEÑi OFV+THE END OF THE DAY AS MOST LIKELY WILL NOT BUT WE DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CURRENT SEE AND FOR YOUR PATIENTS -- COURTESY AND FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN EXTENDING TO OUST THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR CASE WITH DIGNITY TO YOU AND TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DURING THIS SOLEMN CONSTITUTIONAL MOMENT.

I WANT TO SPEAK FOR JUST SOME TIME ON THE SECOND OFFICIAL ACT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP USED TO CORRUPTLY ABUSE HIS POWER WHICH WAS THE WITHHOLDING OF AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

AS DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, QUID PRO QUO IS A LATIN TERM THIS FOR THAT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO SCHEDULE THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING UNTIL UKRAINIAN LEADERÑi ANNOUNCED THE PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE DEMANDED ON JULY.

HE KNEW PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED THE MEETING TO BOLSTER HIS STANDING.

HE KNEW THAT UKRAINE IS A FRAGILE DEMOCRACY.

HE KNEW THAT MR. ZELENSKY NEEDED THE MEETING TO SHOW VLADIMIR PUTIN THAT HE HAD THE SUPPORT OF DONALD TRUD.

BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPLOITED THAT DESPERATION FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL BENEFIT.

THIS FOR THAT.

DID A QUID PRO QUO EXIST?

THE ANSWER IS YES.

LET'S LISTEN TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ON THIS POINT.

>> I KNOW THAT MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE FREQUENTLY FRAMED THESE CCOMPLICATED ISSUES TO A E QUESTION IS THERE A QUID PRO QUO.

AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUS IN REGARD TO THE WHITE HOUSE CALL AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING, THE ANSWER IS YES.

>> DID PRESIDENT TRUMP ABUSE HIS POWER AND COMMIT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

THE ANSWER IS YES.

THE PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED FROM UKRAINE WERE PART OF A SCHEME TO SABOTAGE A POLITICAL RIVAL, JOE BIDEN AND CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

NO NATIONAL INTERESTS WAS SERVED.

THE PRESIDENT USED HIS AWESOME POWER TO HELP HIMSELF AND NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

HE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENDERS MAY ARGUE AS MICK MULVANEY TRIED TO DO, THAT QUID PRO QUO ARRANGEMENTS WERE COMMON ASPECTS OF U.S.Ñi FOREIGN POLICY NONSEN.

THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE OFFICIAL UNITED STATES ACTS LIKE HEAD OF STATE MEETINGS OR THE PROVISION OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ARE USED TO ADVANCE THE NATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

HERE PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT TO ADVANCE HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL INTEREST FACILITATED BY RUDOLPH GIULIANI, THE HUMAN HAND GRENADE.

LET'S LOOK AT THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD AN OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT WAS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO UKRAINE AS PART OF A CORRUPT SCHEME TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE TWO PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

FIRST, THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING PRESIDENT TRUMP CORRUPTLY WITHHELD CONSTITUTES AN OFFICIAL ACT.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CHOSE TO WITHHOLD THIS MEETING FOR A REASON.

IT WAS NOT SOME RUN OF THE MILL MEETING.

IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL TOOLS HE COULD WIELD.

IN HIS ROLE AS A LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD.

IT WOULD HAVE DEMONSTRATED U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE'S NEWLY ELECTED LEADER AT A CRITICAL TIME.

UKRAINE IS UNDER RELENTLESS ATTACK BY RUSSIAN-BACKED SEPARATISTS IN CRIMEA AND IN THE EAST.

UKRAINE DESPERATELY NEEDED AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING AND PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW IT.

SECOND, PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING TO INCREASE PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO ASSIST HIS RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN BY ANNOUNCING TWO PHONY INVESTIGATIONS.

AS MY COLLEAGUES HAVE DETAILED EXTENSIVELY THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

THIS IS A CLASSIC QUID PRO QUO.

THIRD, MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT'S OWN HANDPICKED SUPPORTERS AND APPOINTEES CONFIRMED THAT A CORRUPT EXCHANGE WAS BEING SOUGHT.

FINALLY CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENTATION MAKES CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT CORRUPTLY ABUSED HIS POWER TO ADVANCE THIS SCHEME TO TRY AND CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

THIS FOR THAT.

WHETHER THE GRANTING OR DENIAL OF AN OFFICIAL OVAL OFFICE MEETING CONSTITUTES AN OFFICIAL ACT.

AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER TODAY AN ABUSE OF POWER OCCURS WHEN THE PRESIDENT EXERCISES HIS OFFICIAL POWER TO OBTAIN A CORRUPT PERSONAL BENEFIT WHILE IGNORING OR INJURING THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.

PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND MORE THAN 200 YEARS OF TRADITION.

AS PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP IS AMERICA'S HEAD OF STATE AND CHIEF DIPLOMAT.

ARTICLE 2 GRANTS THE PRESIDENT WIDE LATITUDE TO CONDUCT DIPLOMACY AND SPECIFICALLY RECEIVE AMBASSADOR AND OTHER PUBLIC MINISTERS.

THE PRESIDENT DECIDES WHICH HEAD OF STATE MEETINGS BEST ADVANCE THE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND WHICH FOREIGN LEADERS ARE DE SERVING OF AN OFFICIAL RECEPTION IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

PERHAPS ONE OFçó MOST PRESTIGES NON-RELIGIOUS VENUES IN THE WORLD.

IN DIPLOMACY PERCEPTION MEETINGS.

BETWEEN HEAD OF STATES ARE MAKE OR BREAK MOMENTS THAT CAN DETERMINE THE TRAJECTORY OF GLOBAL EVENTS AND A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITEDñr STATES IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS UNQUESTIONABLY MONUMENTAL, PARTICULARLY FOR A FRAGILE DEMOCRACY LIKE UKRAINE.

THE OVAL OFFICE IS WHERE FOREIGN LEADERS FACING CHALLENGES AT HOME LIKE A WAR WITH RUSSIA.

GO IN PURSUIT OF A STRONG AND PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION OF AMERICAN SUPPORT.

THAT IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

THE DECISION TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH REQUEST PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ZELENSKY -- WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD PROFOUND CONSEQUENCES FOR BOTH UKRAINE AND THE UNITED STATES.

TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL CONTEXT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT DEMANDS TO THE UKRAINIAN LEADER, IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE GEO POLITICAL CONTEXT THAT ALL OF YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH CONFRONTING THE AMERICAN UKRAINIAN PEOPLE.

UKRAINE IS AT WAR WITH RUSSIA.

IN 2014, RUSSIA ANNEXED CRIMEA BY FORCE.

THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES RALLIED TO UKRAINE'S DEFENSE PROVIDING ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE, DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT AND LATER WITH STRONG ADVOCACY FROM THIS BODY LETHAL AID.

THIS SUPPORT MEANT RUSSIA FACED CONSEQUENCES FOR ITS AGGRESSION.

HERE IS AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH'S TESTIMONY EXPLAINING JUST HOW IMPORTANT THE UNITED STATES IS TO UKRAINE.

>> THE U.S.

RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP.

AND SO I THINK THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, ANY PRESIDENT WOULD DO WHAT THEY COULD TO LIEN IN ON A REQUEST.

I'M NOT SAYING YES, I'M SAYING THEY WOULD TRY TO LEAN IN AND SEE WHAT THEYçó COULD DO.

>> THAT PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE SO DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES WOULD DO JUST ABOUT ANYTHING WITHIN HIS POWER TO PLEASE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IF HE COULD.

>> YOU KNOW, IF HE COULD.

I'M SURE THERE ARE LIMITS AND I UNDERSTAND THERE WERE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS IN THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ABOUT ALL OF THIS.

BUT, AN IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIP ON A SECURITY SIDE AND ON THE POLITICAL SIDE.

AND SO THE PRESIDENT F UKRAINE, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS THAT INDIVIDUAL HAS IS TO MAKE SURE THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE U.S. IS ROCK SOLID.

>> BUT IT ISN'T JUST THE RELATIONSHIP ITSELF.

IT WAS A PUBLIC MEETING IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT WOULD SHOW U.S. SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE OVAL OFFICE IS ONE OF THE MOST FORCEFUL DIPLOMATIC SIGNALS OF SUPPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES CAN SEND.

BETTER VETERAN DIPLOMAT GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED TO THIS.

>> NEW LEADERS, PARTICULARLY COUNTRIES THAT ARE TRYING TO HAVE GOOD FOOTING IN THE NATIONAL ARENA SEE A MEETING WITH THE U.S. PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AS THE ULTIMATE SIGN OF ENDORSEMENT AND SUPPORT FROM THE UNITED STATES.

>> PRESIDENT ZEL ENSKY WAS A NEWLY ELECTED LEADER.

HE WAS SWEPT INTO OFFICE ON A PLEDGE TO END PERVASIVE CORRUPTION, HE ALSO HAD A MANDATE TO NEGOTIATE AN END TO THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.

TO ACHIEVE BOTH GOALS, HE NEEDED STRONG U.S. SUPPORT.

PARTICULARLY FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WHICH ZELENSKY SOUGHT IN THE FORM OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

DAVID HOLMES, POLITICAL COUNSELOR TO THE EMBASSY IN KIEV DESCRIBED THE PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE OF A WHITE HOUSE VISIT TO UKRAINE IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS WAR WITH RUSSIA.

>> IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT A WHITE HOUSE VISIT WAS CRITICAL TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDED TO SHOW U.S. SUPPORT AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE TO RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN THAT HE HAD U.S.

BACKING AS WELL AS TO ADVANCE HIS AMBITIOUS ANTICORRUPTION REFORM AGENDA AT HOME.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, UKRAINE KNEW THAT RUSSIA WAS WATCHING CAREFULLY.

THAT WAS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE SPRING OF TO 19 BE WHEN DONALD TRUMP LAUNCHED THE SCHEME AT THE CENTER OF THE ABUSE OF POWER CHARGE.

DURING THIS TIME PERIOD VLADIMIR PUTIN WAS PREPARING FOR PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADER.

PUTIN COULD CHOOSE TO ESCALATE OR HE COULD CHOOSE TO DE-ESCALATE RUSSIAN AGGRESSION.

AND INFLUENCING HIS DISCUSSION WAS AN ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD YOU CRANE'S BACK.

>> THE RUSSIANS AS I SAID AT MY DEPOSITION WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE HUMILIATION OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT THE HANDS OF THE AMERICANS.

>> AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WOULD HAVE SENT A STRONG SIGNAL OF SUPPORT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD YOU CRANE'S BACK.

THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A MEETING COULD BE DEVASTATING.

INDEED, UKRAINE MADE VERY CLEAR TO THE UNITED STATES JUST HOW IMPORTANT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO HEADS OF STAIFT WAS FOR ITS FRAGILE DEMOCRACY.

AT THE DEPOSITION AS THE ONE ON THE SCREEN REVEALS OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINEDMAN, THE DIRECTOR OF UKRAINE ON A NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL, HE RECALLED THIS FOLLOWING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HE'S INAUGURATION AT EVERY SINGLE MEETING WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, THEY ASKED THEIR AMERICAN COUNTERPARTS ABOUT THE STATUS OF AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS.

INITIALLY THE UKRAINIANS HAD REASON TO BE OPTIMISTIC THAT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WOULD BE PROMPTLY SCHEDULED.

ON APRIL 21S, DURING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S FIRST CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADER ASKED ABOUT A WHITE HOUSE VISIT THREE TIMES AS PART OF THAT BRIEF CONGRATULATORY CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF DID EXTEND AN INVITATION.

UKRAINE'S DEPENDENCE ON THE UNITED STATES AND ITS DESPERATE NEED FOR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING CREATED AN INEQUAL POWER DYNAMIC BETWEEN THE TWO PRESIDENTS.

AS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED, IT IS THAT UNEQUAL POWER DYNAMIC THAT TURNED ANY SUBSEQUENT REQUEST FOR A FAVOR FROM THE PRESIDENT INTO A DEMAND >> NOW COLONEL, YOU DESCRIBED THIS AS A DEMAND, THIS FAVOR THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED.

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE THAT LEADS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKED A FAVOR LIKE, THIS IT IS REALLY A DEMAND?

>> CHAIRMAN, THE CULTURE I COME FROM, THE MILITARY CULTURE, WHEN A SENIOR ASKS YOU TO DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT IS POLITE AND PLEASANT, IT'S NOT-- IT'S NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A REQUEST, IT IS TO BE TAKEN AS AN ORDER.

AND IN THIS CASE THE POWER DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO LEADERS, MY IMPRESSION IS THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

>> AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND, TRUMP APPOINTEE, ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THE IMPORTANCE OF OF THIS POWER DISPARITY.

AND HOW IT MADE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EAGER TO SATISFY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WISHES.

>> HOLMES THEN SAID THAT HE HEARD PRESIDENT TRUMP ASK, QUOTE, IS HE, MEANING ZELENSKY, GOING TO DO THE INVESTIGATION.

TO WHICH YOU REPLIED, HE'S GOING TO DO IT.

AND THEN YOU ADDED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WILL DO ANYTHING THAT YOU, MEANING PRESIDENT TRUMP, ASKED HIM TO.

DO YOU RECALL THAT?

>> I PROBABLY SAID SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT BECAUSE I REMEMBER THE MEETING OF THE PRESIDENT-- OR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS VERY SOLICITOUS IS NOT A GOOD WORD, HE WAS JUST VERY WILLING TO WORK WITH THE UNITED STATES AND WAS BEING VERY AMICABLE.

AND SO PUTTING IT IN TRUMP-SPEAK BY SAYING HE LOVED YOUR ASS, HE'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, MEANT THAT HE WOULD REALLY WORK WITH US ON A WHOLE HOST OF ISSUES.

>> HE WAS NOT ONLY WILLING, HE WAS VERY EAGER, RIGHT?

>> THAT IS FAIR.

>> BECAUSE UKRAINE DEPENDS ON THE UNITED STATES AS ITS MOST SIGNIFICANT NLLY, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

>> ONCE OF ITS MOST, ABSOLUTELY.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, ANY REQUEST PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE TO UKRAINE WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO REFUSE.

SO WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN AS WELL AS THE WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT THE 2016 ELECTION, THOSE WERE ABSOLUTELY INTERPRETED BY PRESIDENT ZEL ENSKY AND HIS STAFF AS A DEMAND.

AND THAT IS WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING ENTERS INTO THE EQUATION.

WHEN UKRAINE DID NOT IMMEDIATELY CAVE TO RUDY GIULIANI IN THE SPRING AND ANNOUNCE THE PHONEY INVESTIGATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP RATCHETED UP THE PRESSURE, AS LEVERAGE.

HE CHOSE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING HE DANGLED DURING HIS APRIL 21S CALL, PRECISELY BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW HOW IMPORTANT THE MEETING WAS TO UKRAINE.

FOLLOWING THEIR VISIT THE TO KEY EVE TO THE NEW TO KIEV TO THE NEW UKRAINE YN PRESIDENT INAUGURATION, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, VOLKER AND SECRETARY KERRY MET WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND EACH OF THEM ENCOURAGED THE PRESIDENT TO SCHEDULE THE MEETING.

HERE IS WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HAD TO SAY.

>> WE ADVISED THE PRESIDENT OF THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF UKRAINE AND THE VALUE OF STRENGTHENING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

TO SUPPORT THIS REFORMER WE ASKED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR TWO THINGS.

FIRST A WORKING PHONE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT'S TRUMP AND ZELENSKY AND SECOND, A WORKING OVAL OFFICE VISIT.

IN OUR VIEW, BOTH WERE VITAL TO CEMENTING THE U.S.-UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP.

DEMONSTRATING SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN THE FACE OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND ADVANCING BROADER U.S. FOREIGN POLICY INTERESTS.

>> SO EVEN THOUGH THIS MEETING WAS CRITICAL TO BOTH UKRAINE AND AMERICA, PRESIDENT TRUMP IGNORED ALL OF HIS POLICY ADVISORS AND EXPRESSED RELUCTANCE TO MEET WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT.

HE REFUSED TO SCHEDULE AN ACTUAL DATE.

HE CLAIMED THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO TAKE ME DOWN IN 2016.

AND DIRECTED THAT THE THREE U.S. OFFICIALS QUOTE TALK TO RUDY.

AN EVEN THOUGH ON MAY 29th THE PRESIDENT SIGNED A LETTER REITERATING HIS EARLIER INVITATION FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO VISIT THE WHITE HOUSE, HE STILL DID NOT SPECIFY A DATE.

BUT THEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WENT FURTHER.

HE MET WITH UKRAINE'S ADVERSARY.

UKRAINE'S ENEMY, OUR ENEMY, PRESIDENT TRUMP MET WITH RUSSIA.

THIS DIDN'T GO UNNOTICED.

UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS BECAME CONCERNED WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP SCHEDULED THAT FACE TO FACE MEETING WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN AT THE G20 SUMMIT IN JAPAN ON JUNE 28th.

MR. HOLMES TESTIFIED ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT, AND THE TROUBLING SIGNAL THAT MEETING SENT TO OUR FRIEND, TO OUR ALLY, UKRAINE.

>> ALSO ON JUNE 28th WHILE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS STILL NOT MOVING FORWARD ON A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WE MET-- HE MET WITH RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN AT THE G20 SUMMIT IN OSAKA, JAPAN, SENDING A FURTHER SIGNAL OF LACK OF SUPPORT TO UKRAINE.

>> NOW LET'S DISCUSS HOW EXACTLY PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE WITH WILL HOLDING OF THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING TO PRESSURE UKRAINE FOR HIS PHONEY INVESTIGATON.

HIS QUID PRO QUO SCHEME.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRESSURE EXERTED ON UKRAINE BY DELAYING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING DIDN'T JUST OCCUR RIGHT BEFORE THE JULY 25th CALL.

THAT PRESSURE EXISTED DURING THE ENTIRE SCHEME.

AND IT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.

WE KNOW THIS FROM THE EFFORTS OF ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TO SECURE THE MEETING AND FROM THE UKRAINIANS CONTINUOUSLY TRYING TO LOCK DOWN A DATE.

FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP EXPRESSED RELUCTANCE ABOUT UKRAINE ON MAY 2rd-- MAY 23RD, HIS ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS CONTINUED WORKING TO SCUR A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

ON JULY 10th, FOR INSTANCE, THEY RAISED IT AGAIN WITH MR. YERMAK AND THEY MET WITH JOHN BOLTON AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

>> AND THEN WE KNEW THAT THE UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE ON THEIR AGENDA INEVITABLY THE QUESTION ABOUT A MEETING.

AND SO AS WE GET THROUGH THE MAIN DISCUSSION WE'RE GOING INTO THAT WRAP UP PHASE, THE UKRAINIANS, MR.-- STARTS TO ASK ABOUT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING AN AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS TRYING TO-- BANG.

>> YOU SEE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DIDN'T JUST RAISE THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING, ON HIS APRIL 21S CALL.

HE RAISED THE MEETING ON JULY 21S, THE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, AGAIN, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID ON JULY 25th CALL, I ALSO WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVITATION TO VISIT THE UNITED STATES.

SPECIFICALLY WASHINGTON D.C. AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL THE UKRAINIANS CONTINUED TO PRESS FOR THE MEETING.

BUT THAT MEETING NEVER HAPPENED.

ONLY ON SEPTEMBER 25th AFTER THE HOUSE ANNOUNCED ITS INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT'S MISCONDUCTS AS IT RELATES TO UKRAINE, AND THE EXISTENCE OF A WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT BECAME PUBLIC, DID PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MEET FACE TO FACE FOR THE FIRST TIME.

THAT MEETING WAS ON THE SIDELINES OF THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

IN NEW YORK.

IT WAS DOMINATED BY PUBLIC RELEASE OF THE JULY 25th CALL RECORD THAT HAD OCCURRED THE DI BEFORE.

IT WAS A FAR CRY FROM THE STRONG DEMONSTRATION OF SUPPORT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED BY AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING.

EVEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RECOGNIZED THAT A FACE TO FACE TALK ON THE SIDELINES OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY WAS NOT THE SAME AS AN OFFICIAL VAL OFFICE MEETING.

SITTING NEXT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP IN NEW YORK HE BEGAN RAISED A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

HERE IS WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID.

>> AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION TO WASHINGTON.

YOU INVITED ME.

BUT I THINK, I'M SORRY, YOU BUT I THINK YOU FORGOT TO TELL ME THE DATE.

(LAUGHTER) BUT I THINK.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT JUST WITHHOLDING A SMALL THING.

THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WAS A BIG DEAL.

UKRAINE REMAINS AT WAR WITH RUSSIA.

IT DESPERATELY NEEDS OUR SUPPORT.

AND AS A RESULT, THE PRESSURE ON UKRAINE NOT TO UPSET PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO STILL REFUSES TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN THE OVAL OFFICE TO THIS DAY, CONTINUES.

DAVID HOLMES TESTIFIED THAT THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WANTS AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING EVEN AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

AND THAT OUR OWN UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES WOULD ALSO BENEFIT FROM SUCH A MEETINGNESS ALTHOUGH THE HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE MAY HAVE BEEN LIFTED, THERE ARE STILL THINGS THEY WANTED THEY WEREN'T GETTING INCLUDING A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

WHETHER THE HOLD, THE SECURITY SYSTEM HOLD CONTINUED OR NOT, UKRAINIANS UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT WANTED AND THEY STILL WANTED IMPORTANT THINGS FROM THE PRESIDENT.

SO I THINK THAT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.

I THINK THEY'RE BEING VERY CAREFUL.

THEY STILL KNEELED US NOW GOING FORWARD IN FACT, RIGHT NOW PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS TRYING TO ARRANGE A SUMMIT MEETING WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN IN THE COMING WEEKS, HIS FIRST FACE TO FACE MEETING WITH HIM TO TRY TO ADVANCE THE PEACE PROCESS.

HE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT.

HE NEEDS-- HE NEEDS PRESIDENT PUTIN TO UNDERSTAND THAT AMERICA SUPPORTS ZELENSKY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.

SO THIS IS-- THIS IS-- THIS DOESN'T END WITH THE LIFTING OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD.

UKRAINE STILL NEEDS US AND AS I SAID IS STILL FIGHTING THIS WAR THIS VERY DAY.

>> NOW LET'S EVALUATE HOW EXACTLY PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE CLEAR TO UKRAINE THAT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS CONTINUED ON UKRAINE ANNOUNCING TWO PHONEY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WHAT HELP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION IN 2020.

HELP HIM CHEAT AND CORRUPT OUR DEMOCRACY.

BY THE END OF MAY, IT WAS YEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN TO SOLICITY FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE WASN'T WORKING.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD BEEN SELECTED.

AND WAS REBUFFING MR. GIULIANI'S OVERTURES.

EVEN WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED HIS OFFICIAL STAFF TO WORK WITH MR. GIULIANI, IN AN EFFORT TO GET PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE THE TWO FONNEE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS, THAT DIDN'T WORK.

SO PRESIDENT TRUMP APPARENTLY REALIZED THAT HE HAD TO INCREASE THE PRESSURE.

THAT'S WHEN HE EXPLICITLY MADE CLEAR TO UKRAINE THAT IT WAS NOT GET THE DESPERATELY SOUGHT AFTER OVAL OFFICE MEETING UNLESS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THE PHONEY INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT.

ON JULY 2nd, TO 19, AMBASSADOR VOLKER PERSONALLY COMMUNICATED THE NEED FOR INVESTIGATION DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DURING A MEETING IN TORONTO.

>> AFTER WEEKS OF REASSURING THE UKRAINIANS THAT IT WAS JUST A SCHEDULING ISSUE, I DECIDED TO TELL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE INFORMATION REACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM MAYOR GIULIANI.

I DID SO IN A BILATERAL MEETING AT A CONFERENCE ON UKRAINIAN ECONOMIC REFORM IN TORONTO ON JULY 2nd, 2019, WHERE I LEAD THE U.S. DELEGATION.

I SUGGESTED THAT HE CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY IN ORDER TO RENEW-- RENEW THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP AND TO ASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS COMMITTED TO INVESTIGATING AND FIGHTING CORRUPTION, THINGS ON WHICH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD BASED ITS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

I WAS CONVINCED THAT ET GOING THE TWO PRESIDENTS TO TALK WITH EACH OTHER WOULD OVERCOME THE NECK TIFF PER ACCEPTING OF UKRAINE THAT-- NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF UKRAINE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP STILL HARBORED.

>> AFTER AMBASSADOR VOLKER INSTRUCTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN TORONTO ON WHAT TO DO, HE UPDATED AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ON HIS ACTIONS.

HE TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT HE HAD COUNSELED THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ON HOW TO QUOTE PREPARE FOR THE PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HE ALSO TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THAT HE ADVISED ZELENSKY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION.

IN ADDITION TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S DIRECT OUTREACH, TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CONTINUED TO APPLY PRESSURE AS WELL.

DURING TWO WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS THAT TOOK PLACE ON JULY 10th, WITH UKRAINIAN OBSERVATIONS.

THE FIRST MEETING INCLUDED NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR JOHN BOLTON, DR. FIONA HILL, LIEUTENANT CORN ALD V, ND MND, SECRETARY RICK PERRY, AMBASSADOR VOLKER, AS WELL AS THE UKRAINIAN COUNTERPART AND UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTAL AIDEE ANDRIY YERMAK.

AFTER A DISCUSSION ON UKRAINE A NATIONAL SECURITY REFORM PLAN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BROACHED THE SUBJECT OF THE PHONEY POLITICAL INVESTIGATION.

FIONA HILL WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING RECALLED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND BLURTED OUT THE FOLLOWING IN THAT MEETING WITH THE UKRAINIAN.

WELL, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WTH THE CHIEF OF STAFF FOR A MEETING OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS IN THE ENERGY SECRETARIER STAR THAT IS CODE FOR BURISMA.

WHICH IS CODE FOR THE BIDENS.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER ALSO RECALLED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE 2016 ELECTION AND BURISMA INVESTIGATION.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER FOUND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S COMMENTS IN THAT MEETING TO BE INAPPROPRIATE.

>> I PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY 10th MEETING BETWEEN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON AND THEN UKRAINIAN CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENSE COUNCIL ALEX-- AS I REMEMBER THE MEET WAG OVER WHEN THE AMBASSADOR NAID A COMMENT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS, I THINK ALL OF US THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

>> THE EXCHANGE UNDERSCORES THAT BY EARLY JULY PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEMANDS FOR INVESTIGATIONS HAD COME TO TOTALLY DOMINATE ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD UKRAINE, SECURING A UKRAINIAN COMMITMENT TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS WAS A MAJOR PRIORITY, A SENIOR U.S. DIPLOMATS AS DIRECTED BY PRESIDENT DONE ALL JOHN TRUMP.

THE JULY 109 MEETINGS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE SCHEME TO PRESSURE UKRAINE INTO OPENING INVESTIGATIONS WAS NOT A ROGUE OPERATION, BUT ONE BLESSED BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.

AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND INVESTED, EVERY ONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

MR.

MAJORITY LEADER, BASED ON THE STATEMENT THAT WE SHOULD BREAK AT AROUND 6:30, I ASK YOUR INDULGENCE, THIS MAY BE A NATURAL BREAKING POINT IN CONNECTION WITH MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU.

WRNG MR.

MAJORITY LEADER.

>> I ASK CONSENT THAT WE HAVE A BREAK FOR 30 MINUTES.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED .

IMLOOD EVENING, I'M JIM LEHRER, ON THE NEWS HOUR THIS WEDNESDAY.

>> IT WAS ANOTHER HEAVY DAY OF NEWS ON THE MIDDLE EAST.

>> JIM ALWAYS TOLD THOSE OF US PRIVILEGED TO WORK WITH HIM IT'S NOT ABOUT US.

>> BUT NIGHT AFTER NIGHT JIM SHOWED BY EXAMPLE THAT BEING YOURSELF, JOURNALIST, WRITER, FAMILYMAN, CITIZEN CAN BE A HIGH CALLING INDEED.

>> IN 36 YEARS AS AN ANCHOR OF THE NEWSHOUR JIM REPORTED THE NEWS.

>> PEOPLE OFTEN ASK ME IF THERE ARE GUIDE LINES IN OUR PRACTICE OF WHAT I LIKE TO CALL McNEIL LEHRER JOURNALISM, WELL, YES, THERE ARE.

>> HE DID IT WITH A CLEAR SENSE OF PURPOSE, EVEN AS THE WORLD OF MEDIA CHANGED AROUND HIM.

>> DO NOTHING, I CANNOT DEFEND, COVER RIGHT AND PRESENT EVERY STORY WITH A CARE I WOULD WANT IF THE STORY WERE ABOUT ME.

>> ASSUME THERE IS AT LEAST ONE OTHER SIDE OR VERSION TO EVERY STORY, ASSUME THE VIEWER IS AS SMART AND AS CARING AND AS GOOD A PERSON AS I AM, ASSUME THE SAME ABOUT ALL PEOPLE ON WHOM I REPORT.

ASSUME PERSONAL LIVES ARE A PRIVATE MATTER UNTIL A LEGITIMATE TURN IN THE STORY ABSOLUTELY MANDATES OTHERWISE.

CAREFULLY SEPARATE OPINION AND ANALYSIS FROM STRAIGHT NEWS STORIES AN CLEARLY LABEL EVERYTHING.

DO NOT USE ANONYMOUS SOURCES OR BLIND QUOTES EXCEPT ON RARE AND MONUMENTAL OCCASIONS.

NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO ATTACK ANOTHER ANONYMOUSLY.

>> AND FINALLY, I AM NOT IN THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS.

>> JIM LEHRER WAS BORN IN 1934 IN WICHITA TAN KANSAS, THE SON OF LOIS A BANK CLERK AND HARRY A BUS STATION MANAGER.

HE ATTENDED VICTORIA COLLEGE IN TEXAS AND THEN STUDIED JOURNALISM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI.

HIS FATHER AND BROTHER BEFORE HIM ENLISTED IN THE MARINES AND JIM SERVED THREE YEARS AS AN INFANTRY OFFICER IN THE LATE 50S INCLUDING TIME IN THE PAS SIRVEG.

>> HE SAW NO COMBAT BUT SPOKE OFTEN OF HOW THE EXPERIENCE SHAPED HIM, INCLUDING AT A 2010 PARADE THE CORE PUT ON IN HIS HONOR.

>> SELDOM A DAY GOES BY THAT I DON'T KNOW THIS I AM DOING SOMETHING BECAUSE OF SOMETHING I LEARNED IN THE MARINE CORPS.

>> I ONLY HAVE ONE FAVOR TO ASK OF ALL OF YOU TONIGHT, PARTICULARLY ALL OF YOU MARINES, FORGET ALL THAT CIVIL YN STUFF FOR THE NEXT HOUR OR TWO, AND DO YOUR BEST TO THINK OF ME ONLY, NOT AS AN OLD MAN IN A DARK BLUE SUIT WITH A RED TIE, BUT THINK OF ME AS LEHRER, JAMES C, FIRST LIEUTENANT, US M.C., SERIAL NUMBER 071278MOS O 3, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BRAVO COMPANY FIRST BATTALION NINTH MARINE, THIRD MA RECENT DIVISION, THANK YOU AND SEMPER FIDELIS.

>> IN 1960, JIM MARRIED HIS LIFE LONG PARTNER AND LOVE KATE STAPLES.

HE ALSO BEGAN HIS JOURNALISM CAREER IN EARNEST JOINING THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS AN THEN THE DALLAS TIMES HERALD REPORTING ON LOCAL POLITICS AND SERVING AS CITY EDITOR.

HE COVERED HIS FIRST HISTORY-MAKING STORE HEES, THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY IF DALLAS IN 1963.

JIM AND ROBERT McNEIL WHO COVERED THE ASSASSINATION FOR NBC NEWS SPOKE OF IT ON THE NEWSHOUR IN 2014.

>> AND IT WAS JUST, IT WAS DISBELIEF, WHAT I TOOK AWAY AND HAVE TAKEN AWAY AND STILL OVERRIDES EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE DONE IN JOURNALISM SINCE.

WHAT THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION DID FOR ME WAS FOREVER KEEP ME AWARE OF THE FRAGILITY OF EVERYTHING.

THAT AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN, I MEAN MY GOD, IF THEY COULD SHOOT THE PRESIDENT, AND WHEN I LATER BECAME CITY EDITOR OF THAT SAME NEWSPAPER, I HAD A RULE THAT EVERY PHONE THAT RANG IN THAT NEWSROOM GOT ANSWERED CUZ YOU NEVER KNEW WHO WAS ON THE OTHER LINE.

>> EITHER ONE OF YOU SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT RECOMMENDATION?

>> JIM'S TELEVISION CAREER WAS ALSO LAUNCHED IN DALLAS AT PUBLIC STATION K ERA.

>> I'M JIM LEHRER AND THIS IS NEWSROOM, A PROGRAM OF LOCAL NEWS, ANALYSIS AND OPINION.

>> HIS MOVE TO THE NATIONAL STAGE WITH PBS CAME AS A CORRESPONDENT FOR WHAT WAS THEN CALLED THE NATIONAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS CENTER FOR TELEVISION OR IMPACT.

IT WAS THERE HE FIRST JOINED McNEIL TO COVER FLOAR WATERSHED MOMENT.

>> FROM WASHINGTON, IMPACT BRINGS YOU GAFFE EL TO GAFFE EL VIDEOTAPE COVERAGE OF TODAY'S HEARINGS.

>> IN 1973, THE NEW McNEIL LEHRER TEAM BROADCAST THE SENATE WATERGATE HEARINGS LIVE.

AND THEN PRESENTED A REBROADCAST WITH ANALYSIS LATE INTO THE NIGHT.

SOME 250 HOURS IN ALL.

>> SO UNLESS THOSE TAPES ARE MADE PUBLIC OR SOME OTHER REVELATION COMES OUR WAY, THE SENATES AS WELL AS THE REST OF US WHO ARE INTERESTED MAY HAVE TO EVENTUALLY MAKE AN ULTIMATE CHOICE BETWEEN BELIEVING JOHN DEAN OR BOB HALTIMAN, THAT IS THE WAY IT LOOKS TO ME, AT LEAST, AT 3:00 OR SO IN THE MORNING.

FEEL FREE TO DISAGREE.

>> JIM AND.

>> REMEMBER WE BROADCAST IT LIVE DURING THE DAYTIME AS IT HAPPENED AND THEN WE COMPLETELY REPEATED IT, GAFER EL TO GAFFE EL.

SO IT WAS A DOUBLE HIT THERE.

AND THAT WAS A HUGE COMMITMENT FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING TO MAKE.

AND THE REASON THEY MADE IT WAS BECAUSE THIS PREMISE THAT THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS AT STAKE.

>> SOME 70,000 LETTERS POURED IN PRAIZING THE TEAM AND ITS WORK.

JIM IN HIS OWN WORDS PICKS UP THE STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED NEXT.

>> WE BEGAN LIFE IN OCTOBER 1975 AS THE ROBERT McNEIL REPORTS.

>> GOOD EVENING, NEW YORK'S GOVERNOR HUGH CARRY SAID TODAY.

>> AND MONTHS LATER BECAME THE McNEIL LEHRER REPORT.

>> JIM?

>> IT USED TO BE JUST TWO BASIC WAYS TO BUY A HOUSE.

>> IN THOSE DAYS WE DEALT WITH ONE-STORY FOR HALF AN HOUR.

>> EXPENDED FROM THE PRESENT HALF HOUR TO COMPREHENSIVE ONE HOUR PROGRAM.

>> THAT TRANSITION TO THE McNEIL LEHRER NEWS HOUR HAPPENED IN 1983.

>> GOOD EVENING, YES, SAID THE SOVIET UNION, WE SHOT DOWN THAT KOREAN AIRLINER BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A CIVILIAN PLANE AND IT WAS COMPETELY JUSTIFIED.

>> 12 YEARS LATER ROCK INMcNEIL RETIRED AND WE BECAME THE NEWSHOUR WITH JIM LEHRER.

>> OVER THE YEARS JIM INTERVIEWED NUMEROUS LEADING FIGURES ON THE WORLD STAGE INCLUDING MARGARET THACHER AND YASER ARAFAT IN THE 19 '80S, SOUTH KOREAN PRESIDENT KIM DE JUNG AND CHINESE LEADER IN THE '90S, JORDAN KING ABDULLAH AND PRESIDENT KARS AYE INTO THE 2,000.

>> ON THE NEWS HOUR THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL STORMS.

>> HE DAILY EXAMINED MAJOR TURNING POINTS IN THE NATION'S LIGHT.

>> HE PRESSED EXPERTS FROM THE BUSINESS WORLD.

>> IS THIS A PROPAGANDA MOVE.

>> THE MILITARY BRASS.

>> RECENT OPINION POLLS RANK THE TOMATO AMONG THE LEAST LOVED OF ALL VEGETABLES.

>> ON OCCASION HE TURNED TO THE UNCONVENTIONAL TO EXPLAIN ISSUES.

>> MOST NOTABLY HE INTERVIEWED AMERICAN POLITICAL FIGURES.

>> THE NEWS OF THIS DAY IS THAT KEN STAR, INDEPENDENT COUNCIL IS VECTING ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU SUBORN PERJURY BY ENCOURAGING A 24 YEAR OLD FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN TO LIE UNDER OATH IN A CIVIL DEPOSITION ABOUT HER HABITAT HER HAVING HAD AN AFFAIR WITH YOU.

MR. PRESIDENT, IS THAT TRUE?

>> THAT IS NOT TRUE.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

I DID NOT ASK ANYONE TO TELL ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE TRUTH.

THERE IS NO IMPROPER RELATIONSHIP, AND I INTEND TO COOPERATE WITH THIS INQUIRY.

BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE.

>> ANOTHER DAY OF INFAMY FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

>> HE WAS CALM AND CAREFUL IN MOMENTS OF KRIESES IS.

>> PRESIDENT BUSH ISSUED AN ULTIMATUM TO PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSEIN OF IRAQ TONIGHT, LEAVE POWER AND YOUR COUNTRY IN 48 HOURS OR FACE MILITARY ACTION.

>> ROBIN McNEIL SAID THIS OF HIS LONG TIME FRIEND AND PARTNER.

>> JIM'S INTELLIGENCE IS SO LASER LIKE, NO MATTER WHAT HE IS APPLYING IT TO.

>> IN THE INTERYOU HAVING I LEARNED A LOT FROM HIM BECAUSE I HAD SORT OF COME OUT OF THE SCHOOL OF AN INTERVIEWER CARRYING ON LIKE THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN WAVING WELL, MR. SECRETARY, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE SITUATION WITH THE RUSSIANS HAS BEEN INTOLERABLE FOR A LONG TIME AND U.S. POLICY HAS BEEN EVER SINCE SENATE RESOLUTION 304 THAT WE SHOULD DO LaLaLa, SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT.

OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND JIM ALWAYS CUT THREW ALL THAT CRAP AM AND SAYS WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS, OR WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, OR I DON'T UNDERSTAND, EXPLAIN TO ME.

AND I LEARNED A LOT FROM HIS MANNER OF VERY DIRECT INTERVIEWING.

AND NOT BEING AFRAID TO SAY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND OR YOU DON'T KNOW.

>> PERHAPS NOWHERE WAS THIS SEEN BETTER THAN ON THE LARGEST STAGE OF ALL, WITH UPAWARDS OF 60 MILLION VIEWERS, AS MODERATOR OF 12 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, MORE THAN ANY OTHER PERSON IN U.S. HISTORY.

HIS FIRST IN 1988, HIS LAST 2012.

AND IN 1996, IN 2 THOUSAND, HE MODERATED ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, FIRST TO DO THAT.

>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE UP IN TERMS OF THE PRIORITIES THAT YOU WOULD BRING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> FOR AMERICANS, JIM WOULD SAY THE DEBATES ARE THE ONE CHANCE TO MAKE THE MEASURE OF CANDIDATES SIDE-BY-SIDE.

AND THE STAKES ARE INCREDIBLY HIGH.

>> NONE OF US HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT JIM LEHRER INTENDS TO ASK.

>> ONE PERSON WHO USUALLY DID KNOW WHAT LEHRER WOULD ASK WAS HIS WIFE KATE WHO SERVED AS HIS MAIN DEBATE PREPARATION SOUNDING BOARD.

IN 2012 SHE SHARED WHAT THAT WAS LIKE.

>> AS SOON AS THE PROCESS REALLY GETS UNDER WAY, IT IS SLIDING TOO I'M ALICE IN WONDERLAND GOING INTO A RABBIT HOLE, PRAYING TO COME OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE.

>> IT IS SAFE TO SAY THIS IS PRETTY NERVE-RACKING.

>> IT VERY NERVE-RACKING T IS JUST FAIRLY SURREAL.

>> THE DEBATE IN 2004.

>> THE OCCASION FOR OUR TALK WAS SWRIM'S BOOK TENSION CITY, A REFLECTION ON HIS ROLE IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.

WHAT HE CALLS WALKING DOWN THE BLADE OF A KNIFE.

>> IT IS NOT A LOT OF FUN, BUT IF YOU GET TO THE OTHER END, IT IS REALLY EXCITING.

>> YOU MADE IT.

>> YOU MADE IT.

>> THANK YOU SENATORS, BOTH.

>> WHEN THE DEBATE IS OVER THAT I MODERATE, I WANT EVERYBODY TO SAY OKAY, HERE YOU HAVE SEEN AND HEARD THE CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE SAME STAGE AT THE SAME TIME TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THINGS AND YOU CAN JUDGE THEM.

I MEAN DO YOU LIKE THIS GUY.

IS THIS PERSON REALLY-- YOU KNOW, IS HE TELLING THE TRUTH, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

YOU CAN'T AND YOU SEE THEM RIGHT THERE TOGETHER, ST A HUGE TEST.

>> CAST IRON TOYS SO MY COLLECTING KSH.

>> BUT IT WASN'T ALL TENSION AND WORLDLY AFFAIRS.

ONE GREAT PASSION ON DISPLAY IN HIS BASEMENT AT HOME AND HIS OFFICE AT WORK, INNER CITY BUS MEMORABILIA JIM COLLECTED OVER THE YEARS, A REMINDER OF HIS FATHER'S CAREER AND HIS OWN EARLY KANSAS CHILDHOOD.

>> AS MY BROTHER SAYS WE KIND OF HAVE DIESEL SMOKE IN US.

>> OVER THE YEARS JIM WOULD DE LIGHT MANY THE WITH HIS BUS CALL.

>> MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION THRNTION IS THE LAST CALL FOR CONTINENTAL TRAIL WAYS 810 P.M., TO HOUSTON.

>> THERE WAS ALSO SWRIM LEHRER THE PROLIFIC WRITER, AUTHOR OF SOME 20 NOVELS, DRAWING ON HIS LIFE AS A NEWSMAN, HIS INTEREST IN HISTORY, 20 PICK-- POLITICS AND YES, BUSES.

HE ALSO WROTE PLAYS AN THREE MEMOIRS.

>> I WRITE A LITTLE BIT ON MY FICTIONEV REE DAY, IT IS JUST WHAT I DO.

YES, HAVE I MY DAY JOB, I DO THAT TOO, BUT I DO BOTH THINGS EVERY DAY.

>> JIM LEHRER.

>> JIM EARNED DOZENS OF JOURNALISM AWARDS AND HONORARY DEGREES.

>> JIM LEHRER IS A MODERN MAN OF LETTERS.

WHO HAS LEFT US A GIFT OF PROFESSIONALISM AND CIVILITY.

>> HE WAS GIVEN THE NATIONAL HUMANITIES MEDAL BY PRESIDENT CLINTON, ELECTED AS A FELLOW OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, AND WITH ROBERT McNEIL INDUCKED INTO THE TELEVISION HALL OF FAME.

ALTHOUGH HE INSISTED ON NOT BEING THE CENTER OF ATTENTION WHEN REPORTING THE NEWS, AT ONE IMPORTANT JUNCTURE IN HIS LIFE JIM DID TELL A DEEPLY PERSONAL STORY, OF THE MAJOR HEART ATTACK THAT ALMOST KILLED HIM IN 1983.

>> MR. LEHRER, YOU JUST HAD A HEART ATTACK.

>> THE DOCUMENTARY, MY HEART YOUR HEART, CAPTURED HOW THE SCARE LEAD TO A CHANGE IN DIET AND LIFESTYLE.

AMONG OTHER THINGS, HE WOULD BECOME A COMMITTED AFTERNOON NAPPER.

THERE WAS NO DISTURBING JIM BETWEEN 1 AND 2:00.

>> ONE PRIORITY NEVER CHANGED, HIS FAMILY.

JIM AND KATE ARE HERSELF THE AUTHOR OF THREE NOVELS HAD THREE DAUGHTERS, JAMIE, LUCY AND AMANDA AND SIX GRANDCHILDREN.

JIM LEHRER STEPPED DOWN AS FULL TIME ANCHOR OF THE NEWSHOUR IN 2011.

LATE IN HIS TENURE HE CLOSED A SPEECH TO PBS STATION MANAGERS THIS WAY.

>> WE REALLY ARE THE FORTUNATE ONES IN THE CURRENT TUMULTUOUS WORLD OF JOURNALISM RIGHT NOW.

WHEN WE WAKE UP IN THE MORNING WE ONLY HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT THE NEWS IS AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO COVER IT.

WE NEVER HAVE TO DECIDE WHO WE ARE AND WHY WHY WE ARE THERE.

THAT IS THE WAY IT HAS BEEN FOR THESE NEARLY 35 YEARS AND THAT IS THE WAY IT WILL BE FOREVER.

>> AND FOR THE NEWSHOUR, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A ANOTHER EVER.

>> I'M JIM LEHRER, THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT.

>> WHAT I SAID, IS HE WELL-SPOKEN, DID A GOOD JOB OF CREATING A TAPESTRY, TAKING BITS AND PIECES OF EVIDENCE, AND EMAILS AND GIVING A RHETORICAL FLOURISH, MICKING THE EMAIL COME ALIVE, SOMETIMES EFFECTIVELY, SOMETIMES A LITTLE OVER THE TOP BUT QUITE FRANKLY, I THOUGHT THEY DID A GOOD JOB OF TAKING BITS AND PIECES OF THE EVIDENCE AND CREATEK A QUILT OUT OF IT.

SO WHAT I WILL TELL MY COLLEAGUES IS THE OTHER SIDE GETS TO TALK AND SEE IF THEY CAN PULL A THREAD HERE AND PULL A THREAD THERE AND SEE IF IT HOLDS UP.

BUT THE THING THAT I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT WAS THE BIDEN COMMISSION, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES IT WAS SAID BY THE MANAGERS THAT THE BIDEN CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGATION HAS BEEN DE BUNKED AND HAS BEEN-- THERE'S NO SCINT ILA OF EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND POTENTIAL WRONGDOING.

I KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE TRUMP FAMILY.

AND THEIR DEALINGS IN RUSSIA.

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE BIDEN CONNECTION TO THE UKRAINE.

SO WHEN THE MANAGERS TELL ME THIS HAS BEEN LOOKED AT AND DE BUNKED, BY WHO.

SO THAT IS BECOMING RELEVANT BECAUSE HE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT ALMOST 50 TIMES THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING IMPROPER OCCURRED IN THE UKRAINE WITH THE BIDENS.

AND HE WAS JUST OUT TO CREATE A POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.

THE QUESTION IS WILL THAT WITHSTAND SCRUTINY.

THE POINT OF FACT IS THAT NOBODY, PARTICULARLY IN YOUR BUSINESS, HAS DONE MUCH LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE UKRAINE WITH HUNTER BIDEN.

ARE YOU GOING TO HEAR POR ABOUT THAT AND I WILL TELL YOU MORE TOMORROW.

SO I SUPPORTED MUELLER'S ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN AND PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING TRUMP BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE UP TO.

AND IF THEY DID HAVE ANY CONNECTIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS, TWO YEARS LATER, MI GOOD TO GO.

SOMEBODY OTHER THAN ME LOOKED AT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

NOBODY HAS LOOKED AT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE UKRAINE.

SO IN 2014 JOE BIDEN HAS GIVEN THE UKRAINE PORTFOLIO BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IT IS A NOTORIOUSLY CORRUPT PLACE.

WITHIN A MONTH OF BEING GIVEN THE ARE UKRAINIAN PORTFOLIO, THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SON IS HIRED BY BURISMA, ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT COMPANIES IN THE UKRAINE AT A FAIRLY EXORBITANT SALARY.

THEY ALSO BURISMA HIRES JOHN KERRY'S STEPSON AND ON AND ON AND ON.

THE POINT IS THAT THE PROSECUTOR WHO I THINK WAS CORRUPT, OPENED UP A CASE IN MAY OF 2014 AGAINST BURISMA, RAIDED THE PRESIDENT'S HOME, BURISMA'S PRESIDENT'S HOME IN FEBRUARY OF 216 AND SIX WEEKS LATER, SEVEN WEEKS LATER WAS FIRED.

IN 2015, THE PRESIDENT OF BURISMA, WAS NAMED BY OUR AMBASSADOR AS SOMEBODY UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS SHOULD LOOK AT FOR CORRUPTION.

THE PERSON WHO FOLLOWED THE FIRED PROSECUTOR DROPPED THE CASE AGAINST BURISMA.

I DONE KNOW.

DOESN'T PASS THE SMELL TEST TO ME.

WHY ARE YOU PAYING HUNTER BIED HEEN.

YOU CAN SAY THEY ARE CORRUPT, BUT THEY'RE NOT STUPID, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO HIRE THE SON OF THE GUY IN CHARGE OF THE PORTFOLIO FOR THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.

AND FROM THE TIME THEY RAIDED THE PRESIDENT'S HOME, JOE BIDEN CALLED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE FOUR TIMES, GOT ON A PLANE, AND SAID IF YOU DON'T FIRE THIS GUY YOU DON'T GET THE BILLION DOLLARS.

I LOVE JOE BIDEN BUT I CAN TELL YOU, IF THE NAME WAS TRUMP, THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ASKED.

SO WHAT I WANT OUT OF THIS, I WANT THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CLAIMS THAT THEY MAKING THAT THERE IS NO THERE THERE IN BIDEN, KNOB HAS LOOKED, SOMEBODY SHOULD, AND I HAVE LOOKED.

AND I'VE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

WERE THEY BUYING INSURANCE?

BY HIRING HUNDREDER BIDEN BECAUSE THEY SURE AS HELL WEREN'T BUYING EXPERTISE.

>> CHUCK SCHUMER TODAY SAID IT MAY HAVE PLANTED THE FIRST SEED IN THEIR MINES THAT PRANCE THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING VERY ON YEAR HERE, WAS THAT SEED PLANTED IN YOUR MIND OR NIBBLES' MIND.

>> LET'S HEAR FROM WHAT THE OTHER SIDE SAID DID THEY SELECTIVELY TAKE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES TO TELL A STORY WHICH I THOUGHT WAS WELL TOLD, WILL IT STAND UP.

SO THEY GOT CAUGHT, THAT'S WHY THEY RELEASED THE FUNDS.

THE PROBLEM WITH CASES LIKE THIS, BECAUSE ALL OF US ARE INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE.

SO WHEN THEY FROZE FUNLDS TO THE UKRAINE, I WAS CONVINCED BY PEOPLE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANT TO TAKE A TIME OUT IS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT I WAS TOLD THAT BY DOD.

NOW AS YOU FAST FORWARD THEY ARE MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT DONE ALL TRUMP'S TEMPORARY FREEZE OF FUNDS CALLED THE YOU RAINIAN ARMY TO COLLAPSE AND PEOPLE DIED.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

THEY GOT MORE AID FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT PEOPLE WERE TAYING-- SAYING ON THE GROUND, THEY HAD CAPABILITY THEY NEVER HAD BEFORE.

SO ON SEPTEMBER 10th OR 11th, I CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE AND SAID I'M OKAY WITH THIS GUY.

I'M GOING TO SLOAT WITH DURBIN AT THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO MAKE SURE THE AID FLOWS THROUGH THE REST OF 2019, ROB PORTMAN CALLED THE SAME DAY, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT WHEN ROB CALLED AND I CALLED AND I WAS GOING TO JOIN FORCES WITH DURBIN, THEY WERE GOING TO LOSE THE VOTE.

NOW THAT IS A THEORY OF WHY THE AID WAS RELEASED THAT I KNOW B BUT YOU DIDN'T HEAR.

SO THE POINT IS, LET'S SEE WHAT THE OTHER SIDE SAYS.

THEN WE'LL MAKE OUR DECISION ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DID OR DIDN'T DO.

YOU ASKED ME ABOUT WHY I LEFT.

YOU KNOW, WHEN THE PRESIDENT-- ON THE VIDEO, IF HE THOUGHT HE WAS DOING SOMETHING WRONG, HE WOULD PROBABLY SHUT UP ABOUT IT, IN OCTOBER HE IS SAYING SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE LOOKING AT THE BIDENS.

HE TOLD ME THAT YESTERDAY.

THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT WHAT THE BIED-- WHAT HAPPENED IN THE UKRAINE WITH THE BIDENS WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

NOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT WILL WITHSTAND KREUT KNEE, I DON'T KNOW.

THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT THE UKRAINE INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION.

I CAN TELL YOU WITHOUT ANY DOUBT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS WHO HACKED INTO THE DNC.

IT WAS NOT THE UKRAINIANS.

I CANNOT SAY THAT THERE WAS NOBODY IN THE UKRAINE THAT HAD WORKED WITH MANAFORT, THAT DID A NUMBER ON HIM, I DON'T KNOW.

ALL I CAN DO TELL ASK YOU THAT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S POINT OF VIEW, DID HE NOTHING WRONG IN HIS MIND AND END WITH THIS THOUGHT.

IF YOU ARE IN A PRIOR ADMINISTRATION DOES THAT MEAN NO ONE CAN EVER LOOK AT YOU, IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE A POTENTIAL OPPONENT, DOES THAT MEAN YOUR FAMILY CAN DO ANYTHING?

I DON'T BUY THAT AS A CONSTRUCT.

>> DO YOU WANT TO HEAR HUNTER BIDEN?

>> HERE IS WHAT I WANTK I WILL MAKE MY VOTE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ASSEMBLED.

I ARE HAVE SAID CONSISTENTLY I'M NOT GOING TO GRANT WITNESS REQUESTS BY THE DEFENSE.

THEY COULD HAVE CALLED ALL THESE PEOPLE IF THEY WANTED THEM IN THE HOUSE.

THEY DENIED THE PRESIDENT HIS DAY IN COURT AND I'M NOT GOING TO LEGITIMATIZE THAT.

THERE ARE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ON MY SIDE WANT TO CALL JOE BIDEN AND HUNTER BIDEN.

I WANT TO END THIS THING SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

I DON'T WANT TO TURN IT INTO A CIRCUS.

I THINK SCHUMER SAID YESTERDAY WE'RE NOT WILLING TO TRADE JOE BIDEN FOR ANYBODY.

I THINK I KNOW WHY.

I WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO PICK THE NEXT PRESIDENT, NOT ME AND SO WHAT I THINK IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN IS TO HAVE OVERSIGHT OF UKRAINIAN POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT AND MOVE ON TO THE ELECTION.

I AM NOT GOING TO USE MY VOTE TO EXTEND THE TRIAL.

>> REPUBLICANS SAY THEY HEARD NOTHING NEW, REPUBLICANS SAID THEY HEARD NOTHING NEW IN THE OPENING ARGUMENT.

>> WHY NOT ALLOW FOR NEW INFORMATION, NEW WITNESSES.

>> I THINK THEY SAY THEY'VE GOT FLUFF TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

SO HEARING FROM JOHN BOLTON, THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO THE PRESIDENT, THEY CHOSE NOT TO SEEK HIM.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF I WERE PRESIDENT AND YOU WANTED TO CALL MY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, I WOULD BE PROBABLY INVOKE PRIVILEGE.

BUT THE ONE THING I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO START A PROCESS WHERE YOU CAN DO IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE IN 48 DAYS, AN FILL OUT THE COURT.

I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

>> THERE WILL BE PRESIDENTS AFTER TRUMP, AND I DID SUPPORT A TWO-YEAR INQUIRY INTO THE PRESIDENT.

HE TURNED OVER A MILLION DOCUMENTS TO THE MUELLER FOLKS.

AND HIS LAWYER TESTIFIED.

I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I THOUGHTS THAT WOULD BE THE END OF THIS.

BUT WHAT THEY DID IN THE HOUSE HAS BEEN PARTISAN FROM DAY ONE.

48 DAYS.

NO ABILITY TO HAVE A LAWYER.

MOST OF THE EVIDENCE IS HERE SAI.

NO ABILITY TO CALL WITNESSES AND NOW YOU WANT ME TO NATION BY DESTROYING PRIVILEGE.

I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

AND REPUBLICANS NOW ARE ON A PRETTY HARD PUSH TO CALL SCHIFF BECAUSE THESE STORIES ABOUT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER, THAT SOMEBODY ON HIS STAFF ACTUALLY COACHED THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.

NOT GOING TO DO THAT HERE.

THE COUNTRY NEEDS A BREAK FROM THIS.

WE'RE GOING TO LISTEN TO THE CASE, SEE WHAT THE OTHER SIDE SAYS ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID YESTERDAY.

THEN I'M GOING TO VOTE.

THAT'S WHAT I AM GOING TO DO WITH MY VOTE.

IF YOU THINK THERE IS A WHISTLE-BLOWER PROBLEM, WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT OUTSIDE IMPEACHMENT.

>> DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE HELD UP AID IF JOE BIDEN WASN'T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?

>> I THINK THE PRESIDENT WOULD HELD UP AIDE IF ROB PORTMAN AND I HAD NOT-- I THINK HE WOULD HOLD UP AID TO MUELLER TO ALMOST ANYWHERE.

HAD YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING TO THIS PRESIDENT, HE CUT FOREIGN AID BY 21%.

HE WANTS TO WITHDRAW ALL OF OUR FORCES FROM AFRICA.

HE WANTS SOUTH KOREA TO TRIPLE WHAT THEY ARE PAYING.

HE HAS A WORLDVIEW THAT WE'RE BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF IN THE PHONE CALL HE SAYS CONGRATULATIONS, THE FRENCH AND THE GERMANS ARE NOT DOING A DISAM THING.

WELL, I THINK THEY ARE.

I HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH HIM WHEN I CALLED HIM TO TELL HIM I WAS GOING TO VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATS.

HE DIDN'T MENTION BIDEN.

I THINKS WE'RE CHUMPS AN BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE AND THAT UKRAINE IS SORT OF A HOPELESS ENDEAVOR.

I DON'T.

NOW THAT IS JUST A WORLDVIEW THAT IS INCONSISTENT.

>> SENATOR, DOES IT GIVE YOU PAUSE THAT FIONA HILL NATIONAL FORMER SECURITY OFFICIAL HAD BRIEFLY TESTIFIED THAT HIS UKRAINE MEDDLING THEORY YOU ARE A EXPLORING IS ESSENTIALLY RUSSIAN.

>> SO ABOUT THE RUSSIAN MISINFORMATION THARK IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD ALL BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

WHEN RUDY IS RUNNING AROUND IN THE UKRAINE AND PEOPLE ARE PROVIDING HEY, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THEY DID, EVERYTHING SHOULD GO THROUGH THE INTEL COMMITTEE BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS ARE TRYING TO BLAME THE UKRAINIANS AND EVERYBODY ELSE.

I GET THAT.

THIS IDEA THAT THE SERVERS IN THE UKRAINE, I DON'T BUY THAT FOR A BIT.

CROWD STRIKE, THAT HAS INTERNET, IT WAS THE RUSSIANS WHO HACKED INTO THE DNC.

AS FOR MAN A THE TO, THERE IS STUFF COMING OUT OF THE UKRAINE ABOUT HIS BUSINESS DEALINGS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE SETTING HIM UP.

BUT AS TO THE BIDENS, I CAN PROBLEM YOU NO ONE HAS LOOKED AT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND NO ONE HAS TAKEN THE TIME TO EXPLAIN HOW HUNTER BIDEN GOT RICH IN THE UKRAINE AND HIS FATHER DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

NOBODY HAS LOOKED AT WHETHER OR NOT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED, THE NEXT PROSECUTOR DROPPED THE CASE ON BURISMA.

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT AS MUCH AS I LIKE JOE BIDEN, IF IT WERE LINDSEY GRAHAM OR MIKE PENCE OR DONALD TRUMP, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING.

>> IS JOE BIDEN COR-- CORRUPT.

>> NO, I DON'T THINK JOE BIDEN IS CORRUPT BUT I DON'T THINK HE'S BEYOND BEING LOOKED AT.

HERE IS WHAT I WOULD SAY.

HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE BODY'S CHILDREN ARE ON FOREIGN BOARDS RECEIVING THIS KIND OF MONEY?

I MEAN IF YOU LOOK AT THE MONEY THEY TOOK FROM BURISMA, KERRY'S STEPSON, HUNTER BIDEN, THEY GAVE DONATIONS TO A FUND IN DELAWARE ON BEHAVE-- BEHALF OF BOTH.

I LOVE JOE BIDEN.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU I'M NOT GOING TO SIT ON THE SIDELINES AND JUST WATCH THE TRUMPS BE LOOKED AT.

I DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT JOE BIDEN IS ONE OF THE FINEST MEN I KNOW.

BUT HE'S GOT TO EXPLAIN THIS.

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THIS.

HOW DID HUNTER BIDEN GET A BILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS TO INVEST WHEN HE HAD BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 60 DAYS FROM CHINA?

>> IS THIS WHAT TRUMP'S DEFENSE TEAM IS GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN.

>> HERE IS WHAT I THINK HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REPEATED ASSERTIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE, THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE, SOMETHING WRONG HAPPENED IN THE UKRAINE.

IF-- HAVE I FIVE SENATORS ON MY SIDE, ARE THEY TRYING TO GET US TO CALL JOE BIDEN?

I SAID NO, I DONE THINK SO.

I THINK THEY'RE SAYING THINGS ABOUT THE HUNTER BIDEN CONNECTION THAT WILL NOT HOLD SCRUTINY.

I DON'T KNOW THEY KEEP SAYING OVER AN OVER IT'S BEEN DE BUNKED.

JUST SHOW ME WHERE IT HAS.

THERE'S NO THERE THERE.

EXPLAIN ALL OF THIS, THAT I JUST TOLD YOU.

THESE ARE FACTS.

I'M NOT MAKING IT UP.

>> I USE THE TERM WHY.

>> .

>> I JUST WANT TO, YOU WAB TO START?

>> I WOULD JUST START BY SAYING THAT WHAT WE'RE HEARING THE SENATE REPUBLICANS SAY IS THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

THERE'S NOTHING NEW HERE.

THAT'S AFTER A DAY OF TESTIMONY BEN WE HEARD ABOUT THE MOST PRONOWND ABUSE OF POWER ALLEGED IN OUR LIFETIME BY A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

THIS' IN A CONTEXT WHERE WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO HAS CLAIMED AN IMMUNITY THAT NO OTHER PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY HAS CLAIMED, WHEN ALL OF YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED THE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES YOU IMMEDIATE TO BE ABLE TO DO YOUR JOB AS JOURNALISTS IN THIS COUNTRY.

AND WE CANNOT STAND FOR IT.

OUR DEMOCRACY IS UNDER SERIOUS RISK AT THE MOMENT.

AND WHEN YOU LISTEN TO HAKEEM JEFFREYS YESTERDAY TAKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT DESCRIBED AS THAT PERFECT LETTER AND DISMANTLE IT TO SHOW THE ABUSE OF POWER THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE, IN ONE OF THE FEW DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CALL, IT IS A REMINDER TO ALL OF US OF HOW MUCH WORK THERE IS LEFT TO DO.

THEY HAVE MADE A VERY GOOD CASE.

THEY HAVE MADE A PRONOWND CASE YESTERDAY ABOUT THE ABUSES OF POWER OF THIS PRESIDENT.

AN IF WE KEEP GOING WITH THE RULES THAT WE HAVE, WE WILL HAVE ALLOWED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO STONEWALL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ANG THEN COME OVER HERE TO THE SENATE AND ALLOW A COVERUP OF BEHAVIOR THAT WE SHOULDN'T ACCEPT FROM ANY PRESIDENT WHETHER YOU ARE WILLING TO CONVICT HIM IN THE END OR WHETHER YOU ARE NOT.

>> I FOUND THE MOST COMPELK MOMENT YESTERDAY WHEN WE WERE REMINDED THAT THE ONLY REASON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WAS ABLE TO DEVELOP AND PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID YESTERDAY, THE TESTIMONY, THE DOCUMENTS WAS BECAUSE OF VERY BRAVE INDIVIDUALS WHO WORKED IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHO WERE ORDERED NOT TO TESTIFY.

AND WHO CAME AND TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE INEL AGAINST COMMITTEE DESPITE IN MANY CASES THEIR BOSSES REFUSING TO TESTIFY AND TELLING THEM NOT TO TESTIFY.

SO AT GREAT RISK TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR CAREERS, WE GOT TO SEE AND HEAR SNIP ETS OF POWERFUL TESTIMONY FROM FOR EXAMPLE LIEU DANT CORN ENVI IN, DRKSZMAN, TAYLOR, OR AIDES TO THE PRESIDENT OR ADVICE PRESIDENT, AS PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A SHERT IS AR ASSERTING AN ABILITY TO BLOCK ALL DOCUMENTS AN WITNESS.

PRESIDENT CLINTON, EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON DIRECTED HIS SENIOR ADVISORS AND CABINET OFFICIALS TO COOPERATE WITH AN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION.

AND IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF LAWSUITS AND WHISTLE-BLOWERS THAT WE GOT THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE GOT AND THAT WE KNOW THAT THIS HAPPENED.

SO FRANKLY THE PRESS OUGHT TO BE UPSET ABOUT BEING CABINED AND CORDONED OFF.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OUGHT BE TO BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WAYS IN WHICH WHAT IS UNFOLDING HERE IS A COMPELLING SET OF FACTS AND WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO LOOK AT HERE TO CARRY THE DAY.

>> FIGURELY BECAUSE-- PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE WITH THESE SHREDS OF EVIDENCE, WITH NO COOPERATION AT ALL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE CREATES A COMPELLING CASE.

THIS IS NOT-- WHEN THESE GUYS GO ON TV AND SAY THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE, THEY ARE SAYING THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT YOU TO LOOK.

AND IT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS NOT A COMPELLING CASE AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WOULD ALSO NOT BE VALUABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ALL OF YOU THAT ARE TRYING TO DO YOUR JOB TO HAVE THESE DOCUMENTS AND TO HAVE THESE WITNESSES.

ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THINK THE PEOPLE THAT WERE WILLING TO TESTIFY WERE WILLING TO TESTIFY, IS A LOT OF THEM WERE EXPERTS ON WHAT HAPPENS TO A SOCIETY WHEN THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.

AND THEY HAD ENOUGH CONFIDENCE IN OUR RULE OF LAW THAT THEY WOULD COME HERE AND TESTIFY BELIEVING THAT IF THESE FACTS CAME TO LIGHT, THAT THE REST OF US, ALL OF US WHETHER JOURNALISTS OR POLITICIANS WOULD DO OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE THE TRUTH COMES OUT.

AND YOU CANNOT DO THAT WHEN YOU'VE GOT A SET OF RULES THAT SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE WITNESSES UNTIL AFTER THE SENATORS ASK THEIR QUESTIONS.

WE'VE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE DOCUMENTS UNTIL THE SENATORS ASK THEIR QUESTIONS.

>> SENATOR, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT.

>> HERE'S WHAT I THINK.

I THINK THIS EVERY SENATOR UP THERE THAT IS REVMENTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT DONALD TRUMP BUT REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE MAKING SURE THAT THERE ARE MORE WITNESSES, NOT FEWER, WE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT TWO FOR TWO.

WE SHOULD BE ASKING WHAT WITNESSES ARE NEEDED AS A RESULT OF THE PRESENTATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE.

AND BY THE WAY, I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED TO LISTEN TO EXCULPATORY WITNESSES THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN FRONT OF THE SENATE.

I THINK THAT HE WAS WRONG NOT TO MAKE A CASE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

>> IF THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO BE EXONERATED HE HAS TO PUT ON A DEFENSE.

THERE WAS SOME VERY TROUBLING, VERY CONCERNING WITNESSES AN DOCUMENTS PUT IN FRONT OF US YESTERDAY.

AND WHAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT'S ADVOCATES IS YOU CAN'T IMPEACH SOMEONE FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

WE OUGHT TO BE HEARING DIRECTLY FROM FOLKS LIKE AMBASSADOR BOLTON WHO WERE IN THE ROOM, WHO CAN TESTIFY TO WHAT WAS OR WASN'T SAID BY THE PRESIDENT, ON THE PHONE WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO HEAR FROM THE FOLKS WHO KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

PRESIDENT CLINTON, EVEN PRESIDENT NIXON DIRECTED HIS CLOSEST ADVISORS TO COOPERATE IN HOPES OF CLEARING THEMSELVES.

IF IT THE PRESIDENT ISN'T WILLING TO MAKE A DEFENSE, HE CAN'T CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN EXONERATED.

>> TO SAY NOTHING OF THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION THAT WERE NAMED YESTERDAY, THAT MAY HAVE ENABLED THE ABUSE OF POWER PA HAS HAPPENED HERE.

THEY'RE TREATING THIS LIKE THIS IS ALL OVERWITH.

AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS OR IT SHOULD BE JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS.

>> THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH YOU CAN DO IN THE SENATE TO CONVINCE REPUBLICANS TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS AND THESE WITNESSES.

SHOULD THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW BE SUBPOENAING THESE WITNESSES AND THESE DOCUMENTS TO EXPEDITE THAT PROCESS.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS IS THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAS COME FORWARD, FOR EXAMPLE SOMEONE I NEVER HEARD OF, UNTIL THE LAST FEW DAYS HAS PRODUCED FAIRLY RIVETTING TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS BUT NOT SWORN, NOT IN THE RIGHT SETTING.

SO I DO THINK THERE IS MORE DETAIL THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED BY THE HOUSE.

PRANKLY, ONE OF THE HE CAN QUESTIONS I'VE GOT IS WHY ON OUR VERY FIRST NIGHT THE LAST VOTE WE TOOK WAS TO EMPOWER THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO MAKE THE JUDGEMENT CALMS ABOUT WHICH DOCUMENTS AND WHICH WITNESSES ARE RELEVANT.

THAT WAS THE ONE I REALLY THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE BIPARTISAN BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HAVING ME ARGUE IN FRONT EVER A CAMERA ABOUT WHETHER THIS WITNESS OR THAT WITNESS IS RELEVANT.

THAT ENTRUSTING THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES TO DO THAT.

THAT FAILED ON A PARTY LINE VOTE.

I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE JUST ISN'T ENOUGH INTEREST AMONG THE MAJORITY CAW CAUSE IN HEARING ANY MORE EVIDENCE, THAT THEY WANT TO GET THROUGH AS FAST AS THEY CAN AND GET ON WITH WHATEVER ELSE IT IS WE'RE DOING.

>> AND WHAT IS AMAZING TO ME ABOUT THAT WHAT CRIST JUST SAID, IS I DON'T KNOW HOW WE EVER EXPECTED CONGRESS TO DO ITS JOB AGAIN ON ANYTHING IF WE ARE ACCEPTING A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE LIKE THIS WHERE THE PRESIDENT HASN'T TURNED OVER A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR A SINGLE WITNESS.

NO MAYOR IN AMERICA COULD GET AWAY WITH THIS, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE MAYOR IN AMERICA, AND DONE ALL TRUMP HAS NO MORE PRIVILEGE THAN ANY SINGLE MAYOR, TO COVER UP WRONGDOING THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED.

AND IF HE IS SAYING WELL, NO WRONGDOING HAPPENED, THEN MAKE THE CASE.

COME TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND MAKE THE CASE.

>> SENATOR, LINDSEY GRAHAM CAME TO THIS MICROPHONE AND SAID JOE BIDEN, I DON'T THINK HE IS CORRUPT BUT HE IS NOT ABOVE BEING LOOKED AT, THE PRESIDENT'S BIGGEST ALLY HERE ON CAPITOL HILL.

THEY CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE THAT JOE BIDEN NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT EFFORT?

>> I FRANKLY THINK THAT IF THEY WANT TO CALL A BROAD RANGE OF WITNESSES AND LET THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAKE THE JUDGMENT WHICH ARE RELEVANT, THAN WE OUGHT TO PROCEED WITH THAT.

IF HE THINKS JOE BIDEN OUGHT TO BE LOOKED AT, HE OUGHT TO BE WILLING TO CAST A VOTE TO OPEN UP THIS PROCESS AND BRING IN MORE WITNESSES AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.

>> FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN SO FAR, DO YOU THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD.

>> I THINK FROM WHAT WE HAVE SEEN THUS FAR WE HAVE SEEN A VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF POWER.

AND WE HAVE SEEN A COVERUP IN THIS CONTEXT THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND WE SHOULD BE DOING OUR JOB UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO REACH A CONCLUSION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THE HOSS MADE A VERY STRONG CASE.

THE PRESIDENT OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT-- .

>> .

>> WELL, ADAM SCHIFF CAN TALK FOR FOUR HOURSK DEMOCRATS CAN TALK FOR EIGHT HOURS, FOR 24 HOURS TRK IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FACTS.

WE HAVE SAID IT PROBABLY A MILLION TIMES.

BUT THAT IS THE THING ABOUT FACTS IS THEY NEVER CHANGE.

FACTS WILL NOT CHANGE, HAVE NOT CHANGED, WILL NEVER CHANGE.

THE CALL TRANSCRIPT SHOWS NO QUID PRO QUO.

WE'VE ALL SEEN IT SEE IT NOW FOR MONTHS.

THE TWO INDIVIDUALS ON THE CALL, PRESIDENT TRURCH AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THERE WAS NO PRESSURE, NO PUSHING, NO LINKAGE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN INVESTIGATION.

THERE COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY PRESSURE BECAUSE PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANT THE UKRAINIANS DIDN'T KNOW AID WAS WITHHELD AT THE TIME OF THE CALL.

THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT IS THEY TOOK NO ACTION.

THEY NEVER STARTED AN INVESTIGATION.

THEY NEVER PROMISED AN INVESTIGATION.

THEY NEVER ANNOUNCED THEY WERE EVEN THINKING ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION.

AND THEY GOT THE MEETING, THEY GOT THE MONEY, AND THEY GOT THE PHONE CALL FROM THE PRESIDENT.

SO THEY CAN TALK ALL THEY WANT.

BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THOSE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS.

AND I'M SURE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DEFENSE TEAM WILL POINT THAT OUT IN A CLEAR FASHION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

>> AS WE SAW YESTERDAY, THIS IS THE WEAKEST CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.

WE CONTINUE TO SEE HOW FLIMSY THIS CASE IS, BY IS WHY THERE WAS BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION IN THE HOUSE.

THERE WAS BIPARTISAN NO VOTES WHEN IT COMES TO IMPEACHMENT.

I ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAIR LIVES AND HALF TRUTHS FROM ADAM SCHIFF TODAY.

HE ALSO DOESN'T INCLUDE IMPORTANT TESTIMONY THAT EVERY SINGLE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT HE OR SHE HAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE OF IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES, HIGH-CRIMES, MISDEMEANORS TREASON OR BRIBERY, SO ADAM SCHIFF AND HIS TEAM CAN CONTINUE TO SPEAK FOR HOURS TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, CERTAINLY IN MY DISTRICT THEY ARE TUNING THIS OUT.

THEY WANT US TO GET BACK ON BEHALF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND GET BACK TO WORK AND WORK THIS OUT IN THE ELECTION.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VEY RIGHT TO DECIDE AT THE BALLOT BOX.

OVER TO YOU, MIKE.

>> I WOULD JUST SAY ONE COMMENT ABOUT WHAT THE CHAIRMAN OF HOUSE JUDICIARY MANAGER NADLER SAID ON THE FLOOR YESTERDAY, IT WAS OUTRAGEOUS, IT WAS OFFENSIVE TO US.

HE EFFECTIVELY ACCUSED THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS OF BEING ENGAGED IN SOME SORT OF COVERUP.

IT REALLY WAS ASTONISHING FOR HIM TO SAY THAT ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.

I THINK THAT'S WHY QUHEEF JUSTICE SPOKE UP.

HE'S NORNLALLY VERY STOIC, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND HE STEPPED IN AND DIRECT CORRECTED THAT AND REMINDED THEM OF THE DECORUM NECESSARY AN LEVEL OF RESPECT NECESSARY.

I THINK THAT WANT THE WRONG WAY AN FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, AS LONG AS THESE MANAGERS CONTINUE TO PUT ON THIS CASE, I THINK IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

I THINK THEY ARE LOSING SUPPORT RATHER THAN GAINING IT.

AND WE'RE GLAD THAT THIS WILL WRAP UP TODAY SO THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN FINALLY PUT ON HIS CASE, THIS HAS NOT BEEN A FAIR FIGHT UNTIL RIGHT NOW.

AND THE PRESIDENT, THE WHITE HOUSE, ALL OF US ARE ANXIOUS FOR THOSE FACTS TO BE OUT OUT THERE.

'S GLAD FOR THOSE DIS TO GO FORWARD.

WE'LL TAKE SOME QUESTIONS.

>> SCHUMER AT A PRESS CONCERNS CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE UNPREPARED, CONFUSED AND TRENDING TOWARDS CONSPIRACY THEORY.

>> I MEAN, YOU JUST WANT TO LAUGH.

>> I CAN COMMENT ON THAT.

CHUCK SCHUMER IS THE ONE THAT IS UNPREPARED TO ACTUALLY COME DOWN HERE AND MAKE THAT KIND OF ASSESSMENT, I CAN TELL YOU THEY SPENT HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS.

AND TO SUGGEST WHEN YOUR TEAM GETS TO GO WITHOUT A REBUTTAL THAT THE OTHER TEAM IS UNPREPARED.

THEY HAVEN'T EVEN TAKEN THE FEW YET.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND ONLY HALF THE STORY IS BEING TOLD.

AND CAN I TELL YOU IT IS THE FALSE HALF OF THE STORY THAT IS GOING TOLD.

SO FOR CHUCK SCHUMER TO COME OUT AND DO THAT, HE IS TRYING TO SPIN A THAR TIFF TO ALL OF YOU THAT COVER THIS IN THE HOUSE.

YOU KNOW, YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT THERE IS ANOTHER SIDE OF THE STORY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VERY SOON WILL KNOW THAT AS WELL.

AND SO TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS SOME LACK OF CREDIBILIT FOR THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE TEAM IS IGNORING WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ROOM.

YOU CAN READ THE BODY LANGUAGE OF THE SENATORS AND DID CHUCK SCHUMER COME OUT AND APPLAUD CHAIRMAN NADLER FOR HIS COMMENTS?

DID HE REBUKE CHAIRMAN NADLER, WELL, HE SHOULD HAVE.

>> AS DEMOCRATS HAVE POINTED OUT, THE AMBASSADOR-- DOES THAT-- I BEGUN THINK A BOOK DEAL SHOULD INFLUENCE WHO TESTIFIES AND WHO DOESN'T TESTIFY AT AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING.

THEY HAD A CHANCE TO CALL THEIR WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE.

REMEMBER THEY CALLED ALL THE WITNESSES, WE DIDN'T GET TO CALL ANY.

WE HAD NO SUBPOENA AUTHORITY AND THE WITNESSES WE ASKED TO COME WERE ADAM SCHIFF'S WITNESSES THAT ACTUALLY WE THOUGHT WERE SOME WHAT HELPFUL TO US.

WE DIDN'T GET TO CALL OUR WITNESSES, THEY HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT THEN, THEY DIDN'T PURSUE IT, WHETHER WITNESSES NEXT WEEK OR NOT, THAT IS UP TO THE SENATE.

>> HOW CONCERNED IS THE PRESIDENT, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A RARE TIME WHERE HE SEES THE SPOT CREEDS THE SPOTLIGHT FOR 72 HOURS TO THE LAWYERS, THE PROSECUTOR, WE SAW JAY SEKULOW COME OUT, YOU HAVE COME OUT TO MAKE YOUR CASE AS WELL.

HOW CONCERNED IS THE PRESIDENT THAT IN THIS ABSENCE OF HIS TEAM, A MESSAGE NEEDS TO GET ACROSS TO THE AMERICA.

>> WELL, THE FACTS ARE, THE FACTS ARE ALL ON THE PRESIDENT, WHEN YOU HAVE THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE, YOU ARE PRETTY DARN CONFIDENT.

>> 140 PLUS TIMES YESTERDAY.

>> AND TALKING ABOUT THE FACTS BEING ON HIS SIDE, THE PRESIDENT LIKES TO TWEET, HE LIKES TO COMMUNICATE, THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LIKE HIM AND SUPPORT HIM AND HE HAS DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB AS PRESIDENT.

BUT THE FACTS ARE ON HIS SIDE.

I COME BLOOK THE BASIC, THIS STARTED WHICH A PHONE CALL, THE NEXT DAY, THE VERY NEXT DAY, JULY 26th PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS A MEETING WITH AMBASSADOR VOLKER, SONDLAND AND TAYLOR, GUESS WHAT HE SAID, THE CALL WAS FINE, THE CALL WAS GREAT, BUT YET ADAM SCHIFF WANTS TO SPIN THIS, THAT IS HOW RIDICULOUS THIS WHOLE PROCESS HAS BEEN.

>> ARE YOU CONCERN #K-D THE HELP CAN-- REPUBLICANS STARTING ON SAY SATURDAY WHERE PEOPLE WILL BE WATCHING.

>> I THINK ALREADY FEWER PEOPLE ARE WATCHING BECAUSE YOU KNOW, ADAM SCHIFF TALKING FOR A FULL HOUR, THAT, MOST OF US A LOFT THE NETWORKS WENT AWAY TO OTHER PROGRAMMING, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS A CONCERN.

AGAIN, I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE IT FOR WHAT ST, WHETHER ST SATURDAY, WHETHER IT IS SUNDAY, WHETHER ST MIDNIGHT THE FACTS DON'T CLANG.

>> YOU SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T ANNOUNCE-- ANNOUNCE THIS INVESTIGATION.

ARE YOU IMPLYING IF THEY HAD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INAPPROPRIATE?

>> NO, I'M VUS SAYING THAT HAS BEEN THE DEMOCRAT'S CASE.

THEY SAID THERE HAD TO SHALL AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO GET A PHONE CALL, TO GET A MEETING AND TO GET THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE DOLLARS RELEASED.

>> GUESS WHAT THEY GOAT THE PHONE CALL, 20th, THEY GOT THE MONEY-- THES NEVER GOT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

>> I THINK IT WAS.

>> I THINK IT WAS DR. HILL WHO SAID THEY WANTED A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT.

WHERE ST AT IS NOT THAT BIG A DEAL, SEPTEMBER 11th THEY GOT THE MONEY AND THERE WAS NEVER AN ANNOUNCEMENT.

NEVER ANY QUID PRO QUO.

>> MANY OF US WERE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS IN THE WHITE HOUSE HAVING EITHER SAT IN MOST OF THE DEPOSITIONS WHICH ALMOST EVERY INDIVIDUAL DID SIT IN THOSE.

OR PARTICIPATING IN THE WHITE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OR HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

SO HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING OF PROCESS AND HOW UNFAIR ADAM SCHIFF RAN THIS PROCESS, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THE HYPOCRISY OF HIS WITNESS CLAIMS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN REPUBLICANS WERE NOT ABLE TO CALL A SINGLE REPUBLICAN WITNESS, ONLY WITNESSES THAT THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO CALL, HOW RUSHED THIS WAS IN THE HOUSE AND ALSO READING EVERY WORD OF THE DEPOSITION, EVERY SINGLE SHRED OF WITNESS TESTIMONY, ALL OF US HAVE READ.

WE'RE DEEPLY FAMILIAR AND IF WE CAN BE HELPFUL TO MAKE SURE THE COUNCIL OFFICE KNOWS THAT, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR.

>> WEREN'T MORE I SONS, HEAL AND VOLKER WERE REPUBLICAN WITNESSES WERE THEY NOT.

>> THEY WERE CALLED BY DEMOCRATS, WE DID NORMAL REQUESTS OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND NOT ONE OF THOSE WITNESSES WAS CALLED.

THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAD ALREADY BEEN DE POSED AND HAD ALREADY DONE A DEPOSITION.

>> SENATE REPUBLICANS SAID THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE WORK THAT THEY NEEDED TO SPP THESE GUYS, WOULD YOU WELCOME THE HOWTS BEGINNING THE SPP PROCESS ADAM SCHIFF HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, THIS SON AN ARBITRARY DEADLINE.

THEY WANTED THIS DONE BEFORE THE LOLL DAY BUS THEY ARE ON AN ASH RATHER DEAD-LINE, I'M NOT SORRY THEIR CASE IS SO FLIMS SEE BUT IT VERY IT IS, AND THEY DIDN'T COME WITH A STRONG CASE.

>> I THINK THE KOJ WOMAN MAKES A KEY POINT.

YOU CALL YOUR WITNESSES, YOU SPP YOUR WITNESSES, BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

YOU KNOW, NOW TO COME BACK AND SAY ALL ALL OF A SUDDEN OUR CASE IS WEEK WHICH THEY'RE NOT SAYING THAT, I'M SAYING THEIR CASE IS WEEK, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SEEING THAT THEIR CASE IS WEEK.

BUT TO SUGGEST NOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE ADDITIONAL WINGTSES WHEN THEY WENT TO SUBPOENA THE WITNESSES, WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THAT SUBPOENA?

THEY WITHDRAW WITHDREW THEM, WHY?

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TRUST THE JUDICIARY TO SIDE WITH THEM.

SO NOW WE HAVE THE DEMOCRATS SAYING THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH UNDER DONALD TRUMP IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

AND ALSO THE JUDICIARY IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

I CAN TELL YOU, WHO SHOULDN'T BE TRUSTED IS ADAM SCHRIFF AND THE HOUSE MANAGERS THAT ARE TRYING TO PERPETRATE THIS LIE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

>> YOU HAVE TO SMEEK TO THE PRESIDENT ON A NEAR DAILY BASIS WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S MOOD RIGHT NOW?

>> LISTEN, THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT HIS DEFENSE TEAM HAS DONE A GOOD JOB.

THEY'VE DONE THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF ENERGY.

THEY HAVE NOT WORN OUT THEIR WELCOME LIKE ADAM SCHIFF HAS WORN OUT HIS WELCOME BEFORE MY SENATE COLLEAGUES AM CAN I TELL YOU, IF YOU ARE IN THERE, NOT ONLY DO YOU WANT TO TAKE NO DOAZ BUT I WANT AN ASPIRIN TO GET RID OF THE HEADACHE FROM THE REPETITIVE ARGUMENTS THAT CONTINUE TO BE MADE, SO THE PRESIDENT IS FEELING GOOD NOT ONLY ABOUT THE DEFENSE TEAM'S PREPARATION AND EXECUTION BUT THE FACT THATS ARE ON HIS SIDE AND SO IT IS A GOOD DAY.

>> DO YOU EXPECT THE WHITE HOUSE TO US THE FULL 24 GO WITH THEIR ARGUMENT.

I CAN TELL YOU YOU DON'T NEED THE FULL 24 HOURS TO REBUT THE FALSE NARRATIVE THAT'S BEING PUT FORTH WITH ADAM SCHIFF.

AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE A GAME DAY.

>> [ INAUDIBLE ] >> MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED.

>> CONSULTED WITH CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF AND LOOKS LIKE ROUGHLY 10:30 TONIGHT, WE MAY NEED A SHORT BREAK SOMEWHERE BETWEEN NOW AND 10:30.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT, MY COLLEAGUES, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

SECOND OFFICIAL ACT THAT TRUMP USED TO CORRUPTLY ABUSE HIS POWER WAS THE WITHHOLDING OF AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

BEFORE WE TOOK THE BREAK, WE STARTED WALKING THROUGH THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THIS OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT WAS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO UKRAINE AS PART OF A CORRUPT SCHEME TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO ANNOUNCE TWO PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO ANY OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

AND SOLELY BENEFITED PRESIDENT TRUMP.

WE TALKED ABOUT WHY WITHHOLDING THE MEETING WAS SO I GO TO -- SIGNIFICANT TO OUR ALLY, UKRAINE.

UKRAINE IS A FRAGILE DEMOCRACY UNDER RUSSIAN SEPARATISTS IN THE EAST.

U.S. SUPPORT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO UKRAINE IN THAT WAR.

THEY DESPERATELY NEED OUR SUPPORT.

THEY DESPERATELY NEED OUR ASSISTANCE.

BECAUSE IT IS -- TRUMP HAD IMMENSE POWER OVER UKRAINE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP KNEW IT.

SO WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR A FAVOR ON A JULY 5th CALL, HE KNEW THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD FEEL INCREDIBLE PRESSURE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP USED HIS AGENTS, BOTH HIS ADMINISTRATION APPOINTEE AND HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDOLPH GUILIANI TO MAKE CLEAR TO UKRAINE, EVEN IN EARLY JULY, THAT MUCH-NEEDED WHITE HOUSE MEETING THAT THEY REQUESTED WOULD ONLY OCCUR IF THEY ANNOUNCED THE PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATION.

NOW TO BE CLEAR, AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

THAT INCLUDES ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF, MICK MULVANEY, SECRETARY OF STATE, MIKE POMPEO AND SECRETARY OF ENERGY, RICK PERRY.

EVEN AHEAD OF JULY 25th CALL AM BASS SORE SONDLAND WAS IN CLOSE REPEATED CONTACT WITH THESE OFFICIALS.

HIS MISSION, SCHEDULE A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION DURING WHICH THE NEW UKRAINIAN LEADER WOULD PERSONALLY COMMIT TO DO THE PHONY INVESTIGATION SOUGHT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ORDER TO UNLOCK A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

THIS FOR THAT.

A QUID PRO QUO.

NOW THIS ISN'T JUST BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, IT IS CORROBORATED BY TEXTS AND E-MAILS AS WELL.

LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE NOW.

ON JULY 13th, FOR EXAMPLE, AM BASS SORE SONDLAND E-MAILED TIMOTHY MORRISON MADE THE CASE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP TO CALL THE UKRAINIAN LEADER PRIOR TO THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION SCHEDULED FOR JULY 21st.

IN THAT E-MAIL AS THE HIGHLIGHTED TEXT SHOWS, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE CALL WAS TO ASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT INVESTIGATIONS WILL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD.

IN OTHER WORDS, TO GET THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AS PART OF THE SCHEME TO CHEAT IN THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

THIS FOR THAT.

ON JULY 19th, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, HE SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

TO PREPARE HIM FOR A TALK WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND COACHED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO USE KEY PHRASES AND REASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP OF UKRAINE'S INTENTION TO BEND TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WILL WITH RESPECT TO THE PHONY INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD KURT VOLKER THAT HE GAVE THE UKRAINIAN LEADER A FULL BRIEFING, HE'S GOT IT, THAT'S WHAT SONDLAND TOLD VOLKER.

IN RESPONSE, VOLKER TEXTED MOST IMPORTANT, THIS WAS ZELENSKY TO SAY THAT HE WILL HELP WITH THE INVESTIGATION.

THAT SAME DAY AM BASS SORE SONDLAND E-MAILED TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS INCLUDING ACKNOWLEDGE CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY, SECRETARY POMPEO AND SECRETARY PERRY TO SUMMARIZE HIS CONVERSATION WITH ZELENSKY.

IN THAT E-MAIL, AM BASS SORE SONDLAND SAID ZELENSKY STREET, QUOTE, PREPARED TO RECEIVE POTUS' CALL.

WILL ASSURE HIM, MEANING POTUS, THAT HE INTENDS TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND WILL TURN OVER EVERY STONE.

BOTH ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MULVANEY AND MULVANEY RESPONDED TO THE E-MAIL NOTING THAT THE MEETING WOULD BE SCHEDULED.

SECRETARY PERRY, MICK JUST CONFIRMED THE CALL BEING SET UP BY NSC, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

MULVANEY ASKED, I ASKED NSC TO SET IT UP FOR TOMORROW.

NEITHER MULL RAIN KNEE NOR SECRETARY PERRY TOOK ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT SONDLAND COACHED ZELENSKY.

TO YIELD TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRESSURE CAMPAIGN.

BUT INSTEAD THEY TOOK STEPS TO CONNECT THE TWO LEADERS, EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

THEY WERE AWARE THAT DURING JULY 20th CALL, PRESIDENT TRUMP INTENDED TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION, IMPRESS THE UKRAINIAN LEADER TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

THERE WAS NO FOCUS ON ADVANCING AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY OR NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES.

THE ONLY PRIORITY WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP CORRUPT DEMAND FOR PHONY INVESTIGATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING.

THIS FOR THAT.

EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

IT WAS NO SECRET, EVERYONE WAS INFORMED VIA E-MAIL ON JULY 19th DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL CALL.

I COMMUNICATED TO THE TEAM, I TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN ADVANCE THAT ASSURANCES TO RUN A FULLY TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION AND TURN OVER EVERY STONE WERE NECESSARY FOR HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IN HIS CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> NOW WE COME TO JULY 25th, THE MORNING OF THE INFAMOUS PHONE CALL.

THE CULMINATION OF A MONTH-LONG CAMPAIGN TO ENGINEER A CORRUPT QUID PRO QUO.

THAT MORNING BEFORE THE CALL TOOK PLACE, PRESIDENT TRUMP PROVIDED GUIDANCE TO SONDLAND, ON THE ORANGE OF JULY 5th, HE TOLD THEM THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

OF A IS HE SONDLAND'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE MORNING OF JULY 25th, SONDLAND URGENTLY TRIED TO REACH KURT VOLKER.

WHEN HE COULD NOT REACH AMBASSADOR VOLKER BY PHONE, HE SENT A TEXT THAT SAID, CALL ASAP.

AND HE LEFT A MESSAGE.

VOLKER TESTIFIED THAT HE INDEED RECEIVED THAT MESSAGE WHICH INVOLVED THE FOLLOWING CONTENT.

QUOTE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD BE CLEAR, CONVINCING, FORTHRIGHT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

ABOUT HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHTING CORRUPTION.

INVESTIGATING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

THAT REFERS TO THE RUSSIAN INSPIRED FAKE, PHONY AND FALSE CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN INTERFERING IN OUR 2016 ELECTION.

AND IF HE DOES THAT, PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS PREPARED TO BE REASSURED THAT HE WOULD SAY YES, COME ON, LET'S GET THIS DATE FOR THIS VISIT SCHEDULED.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER THEN CONVEYED THAT MESSAGE, APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE TRU TRUMP-ZELENSKY CALL TO ZELENSKY'S TOP AIDE, ANDRIY YERMAK.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE, AMBASSADOR VOLKER TEXTED YERMAK, ZELENSKY'S GUY, SAYS ASSUMING PRESIDENT Z CONVINCES TRUMP HE WILL INVESTIGATE, SLASH, GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WILL GET SCHEDULED.

THIS FOR THAT.

SONDLAND TALKED TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

VOLKER TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S AIDE, YERMAK, THEN THE JULY 25th CALL OCCURS.

WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED, HE AGREED WITH THIS SEQUENCE INDICATING IT CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE.

HERE IS WHAT SONDLAND HAD TO SAY.

>> THE SEQUENCE CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE, RIGHT?

>> YEAH, IT DOES.

>> TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

TOLD KURT VOLKER TO CALL YOU.

YOU LEFT A MESSAGE FOR KURT VOLKER.

KURT VOLKER SENT THIS MESSAGE TO YERMAK TO PREPARE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY THEN PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A PHONE CALL WHERE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SPOKE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS IN THE TEXT MESSAGE, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT.

>> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE MESSAGE IN THIS -- THAT IS EXPRESSED HERE IS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NEEDS TO CONVINCE TRUMP THAT HE DO THE INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO NAIL DOWN THE DATE FOR A VISIT TO WASHINGTON, D.C., IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> INDEED.

ON JULY 25th CALL, WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED FOR A FAVOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS READY WITH THE MAGIC WORDS.

HE SAID, I ALSO WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVITATION TO VISIT THE UNITED STATES, SPECIFICALLY WASHINGTON, D.C. ON THE OTHER HAND, I WANT TO ENSURE YOU THAT WE WILL BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE AND WILL WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION.

THIS FOR THAT.

READ THE TRANSCRIPT, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS.

WE HAVE READ THE TRANSCRIPT AND IT IS DAMNING EVIDENCE OF A CORRUPT QUID PRO QUO.

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP IS HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT.

DURING OUR PRESENTATION, WE WALKED THROUGH THE SERIOUS ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE PLAIN READING OF THE JULY 25th CALL, BUT NOW YOU CAN SEE THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF HOW THIS CORRUPT PARADE OF HORRIBLES UNFOLDED.

QUID PRO QUO WAS DISCUSSED IN TEXT MESSAGES, E-MAILS, VOICEMAIL, CALLS AND MEETINGS AMONGST TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS AND TOP UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

INDEED PRESIDENT TRUMP MESSAGE WAS DELIVERED TO EITHER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OR HIS TOP AIDE ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS IN THE MONTH OF JULY.

FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.

ON JULY 2nd, IN TORONTO.

ON JULY 10th, AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

ON JULY 19th, DURING A CALL BETWEEN ZELENSKY AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND.

THEN ON JULY 25th, BEFORE THE CALL WITH THE TWO LEADERS.

BEFORE THAT FAITHFUL CALL ON JULY 25th, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.

A QUID PRO QUO.

THE EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S GRAVE MISCONDUCT DOES NOT END WITH THAT JULY 25th CALL.

FROM THAT POINT ON PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ON NOTICE THAT IT WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF WHO DEMANDED THOSE TWO PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

AFTER THE JULY 25th CALL, UKRAINIANS FOLLOWED UP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTION.

AND BEGAN TO COORDINATE WITH RUDOLPH GUILIANI.

THE PRESIDENT'S POLITICAL BAG MAN.

ACTING ON THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS, U.S. DIPLOMATS INCLUDING AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND AMBASSADOR VOLKER, WORK WITH MR. GUILIANI TO CONTINUE PRESSURING UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE PHONY INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SOUGHT IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING.

THIS IS CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF POWER AND IT'S WRONG.

OVER THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, MR. GUILIANI DIRECTED AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER TO NEGOTIATE A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CORRUPTLY DEMANDED.

HERE IS HOW AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DESCRIBED THIS AUGUST TIMEFRAME.

>> MR. GUILIANI, AMBASSADOR VOLKER AND OTHERS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED A PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM PRESIDENT ZELENSKY COMMITTING TO INVESTIGATIONS OF DRISS MA AND THE 2016 ELECTIONS.

MR. GUILIANI EXPRESSED THOUGH REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO THE UKRAINIANS AND MR. GUILIANI ALSO EXPRESSED THOSE REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO US.

WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THAT THESE PREREQUISITES FOR THE WHITE HOUSE CALL AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING REFLECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DESIRES AND REQUIREMENTS.

>> DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE KENT.

DESCRIBE THE PURSUIT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT DEMANDS AS, QUOTE, INFECTING U.S.

ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINE.

HERE IS HIS FULL TESTIMONY.

>> IN MID AUGUST, BECAME CLEAR TO ME THAT GUILIANI EFFORT TO GIN P INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOW INFECTING U.S.

ENGAGEMENT WITH UKRAINE.

LEVERAGING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S DESIRE FOR A WHITE HOUSE M MEETING.

>> IN SHORT, U.S. DIPLOMATS RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE POLICY UNDERSTOOD THAT GUILIANI HAD DE FACTO CONTROL OVER WHETHER THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WOULD BE SCHEDULED AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES.

MR. GUILIANI HAD BEEN GIVEN THAT LEVEL OF 'AUTHORITY BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AND IT WAS INFECTING OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY TOWARDS UKRAINE.

TO SHAKE LOOSE THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, TOP UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS KNEW THAT THEY HAD TO MEET WITH MR. GUILIANI.

JOHN BOLTON DESCRIBED AS A HUMAN HAND GRENADE.

WHO WAS GOING TO BLOW EVERYBODY UP.

SO ON AUGUST 2nd, GUILIANI MET WITH MR. YERMAK IN MADRID.

GUILIANI IN MADRID MEETING WITH ZELENSKY'S TOP AIDE ON AUGUST 2nd.

MR. GUILIANI MADE CLEAR IN THAT MEETING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP NEEDED MORE PRIVATE ASSURANCES THAT UKRAINE WOULD PURSUE THE INVESTIGATION.

MR. GUILIANI MADE CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP NEEDED A PUBLIC STATEMENT.

ACCORDING TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT REQUIRE THAT UKRAINE ACTUALLY CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO SECURE THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT ONLY NEEDED TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THEY WERE PHONY AND THEY WERE SIMPLY DESIGNED TO CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTION, SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE AND CORRUPT OUR DEMOCRACY FOR THE BENEFIT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THE GOAL WAS THE CORRUPT POLITICAL BENEFIT THAT PRESIDENT SOUGHT HE'D RECEIVE AS A RESULT OF THESE ANNOUNCEMENTS.

HE ALSO WANTED TO SHAKE THIS RUSSIA THING AND INSTEAD BLAME UKRAINE WITH THE FAIRY TALE THAT UKRAINE INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

THE FACTS DIDN'T MATTER, TO PRESIDENT TRUMP HE ONLY CARED ABOUT THE PERSONAL POLITICAL BENEFIT OF THE SOUGHT-AFTER INVESTIGATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS.

OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER WORKED WITH MR. YERMAK TO DRAFT A PUBLIC STATEMENT FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS ALSO IN FREQUENT CONTACT WITH RUDY GUILIANI REGARDING THE CONTENT OF THAT STATEMENT.

NOW RUDY GUILIANI, OF COURSE, IS NOT A SECRETARY OF STATE, HE'S NOT AN AMBASSADOR, HE'S NOT A MEMBER OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS HE WAS WORKING IN THE POLITICAL PERSONAL INTERESTS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP INTERACTING WITH UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS.

ON AUGUST 9th, AMBASSADOR VOLKER TEXTED MR. GUILIANI AND REQUESTED A CALL TO UPDATE HIM ON THE PROGRESS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE STATEMENT.

AND DISCUSSED THE CONTENT OF WHAT IT SHOULD INCLUDE.

VOLKER SAYS THAT YERMAK HAD, QUOTE, MENTIONED Z.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY MAKING A STATEMENT.

HE SUGGESTED THAT HE AND MR. GUILIANI GET ON THE PHONE TO MAKE SURE I ADVISE ZELENSKY CORRECTLY AS TO WHAT HE SHOULD BE SAYING.

LATER THAT AFTERNOON, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SUGGESTED TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER THAT THEY OBTAIN A DRAFT STATEMENT FROM THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDING OR IN OTHER WORDS MAKE SURE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLITICAL OBJECTIVES WERE MET.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO REITERATED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD NOT BE SATISFIED BY A VAGUE STATEMENT.

UKRAINIAN LEADER NEEDED TO COMMIT TO THE PHONY INVESTIGATION IN EXPLICIT TERMS IN ORDER TO SECURE THE SOUGHT AFTER OVAL OFFICE MEETING, THIS FOR THAT.

CALL RECORDS SUBPOENAED BY THE HOUSE SHOW MULTIPLE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND MR. GUILIANI.

ON THE ONE HAND.

AND NUMBERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AND THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE OTHER.

ON AUGUST 8th, AROUND THE TIME OF DIRECT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MR. GUILIANI AND MR. YERMAK, MR. GUILIANI COMMUNICATED REPEATEDLY WITH THE WHITE HOUSE SENDING OR RECEIVING SIX TEXT MESSAGE AND COMPLETING SEVERAL CALLS.

MOST NOTABLY LATE IN THE EVENING ON AUGUST 8th, MR. GUILIANI CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE IN A HIGHLY DISTINCTIVE PATTERN.

AT 8:53 P.M., GUILIANI TEXTED A WHITE HOUSE NUMBER.

AT 10:09 A NUMBER IDENTIFIED ONLY AS DASH ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE CALL RECORD CALLED MR. GUILIANI FIVE TIMES IN RAPID SUCCESSION.

TWO MINUTES LATER, MR. GUILIANI ATTEMPTED TO RETURN THE CALL TRYING AN OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET NUMBER, THEN THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM, THEN THE WHITE HOUSE SWITCH BOARD.

AT 10:28, 16 MINUTES AFTER MR. GUILIANI FRIED TO CALL THE WHITE HOUSE BACK FRANTICALLY, SITUATION ROOM, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, SWITCH BOARD, 16 MINUTES AFTER MR. GUILIANI TRIED TO CALL THE WHITE HOUSE BACK, GUILIANI AND THE DASH ONE NUMBER CONNECTED FOR 4:06.

WE SHOULD BE CLEAR.

WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT GUILIANI SAID OR EVEN WHO HE TALKED TO.

WE DO NOT KNOW WHO WAS ON THE OTHER END OF THAT MYSTERIOUS CALL WITH THE DASH ONE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND ORDER KEY WITNESSES NOT TO TESTIFY, HIDING PART OF THE TRUTH FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

HE OBSTRUCTED OUR CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION BUT WE DO KNOW THAT RUDOLPH GUILIANI FRANTICALLY CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE LATE INTO THE NIGHT.

WE DO KNOW THAT HE TALKED TO SOMEONE AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.

AND WE KNOW THAT MR. GUILIANI LIKELY TALKED ABOUT THE DRUG DEAL THAT JOHN BOLTON CHARACTERIZED.

OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S AIDE, MR. YERMAK, DRAFT OF THE PUBLIC STATEMENT WITH AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND WHO CONSULTED ON THESE DRAFTS WITH MR. GUILIANI.

THE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS APPEARED TO FINALLY RELENT, THEY AGREED TO MR. GUILIANI SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT THE PHONY POLITICAL INVESTIGATION IN EXCHANGE FOR THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING.

ON AUGUST 10th, YERMAK TEXTED VOLKER THAT THE UKRAINIANS WERE WILLING TO MAKE THE REQUESTED STATEMENT BUT ONLY IF THEY RECEIVED A DATE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING FIRST.

MR. YERMAK TEXTED, QUOTE, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO MAKE THIS DECLARATION AND MENTION ALL THESE THINGS.

YERMAK AGAIN.

ZELENSKY'S TOP GUY.

HE LATER WROTE THE STATEMENT WOULD COME OUT, AFTER WE RECEIVE A CONFIRMATION OF A DATE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE VISIT.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER COUNTER PROPOSED THEY WOULD IRON OUT THE STATEMENT IN PRIVATE, USE THAT TO GET THE DATE FOR THE MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND THEN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD MAKE THE PUBLIC STATEMENT.

THIS FOR THAT.

MR. YERMAK COUNTERED, ONCE WE HAVE A DATE WE WILL CALL FOR A PRESS BRIEFING ANNOUNCING UPCOMING VISIT AND OUTLINING U.S.-UKRAINE RELATIONSHIP.

INCLUDING AMONG OTHER THINGS, BURISMA AND ELECTION MEDDLING AND INVESTIGATION.

THAT WAS THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CORRUPT DEMANDS.

TWO DAYS LATER, MR. YERMAK SENT THE DRAFT STATEMENT, BUT THE STATEMENT DID NOT REFERENCE BURISMA OR THE 2016 ELECTION.

AS SOON AS MR. YERMAK SENT THE STATEMENT, WHAT DID AMBASSADORS SONDLAND AND VOLKER DO?

THEY SOUGHT A CALL WITH RUDOLPH GUILIANI.

TO SEE IF THE STATEMENT WOULD SUFFICE.

THEY NEEDED TO CHECK IN WITH MR. GUILIANI, WHO WAS LEADING THE CHARGE TO LOCKDOWN THE CORRUPT QUID PRO QUO.

LET'S LISTEN TO AMBASSADOR VOLKER.

>> THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT OF THAT FROM MR. YERMAK AFTER THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD.

>> IT DOES NOT MENTION BURISMA OR THE 016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE, CORRECT?

>> IT DOES NOT.

>> YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU AND THE AMBASSADOR AND MAYOR GUILIANI HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS DRAFT AFTER YOU RECEIVED IT, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND MR. GUILIANI SAID THAT IF THE STATEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE BURISMA AND 2016 ELECTION, IT WOULD NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> MR. GUILIANI ACTING ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE CLEAR THAT THE STATEMENT FROM UKRAINIANS HAD TO TARGET VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.

FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED EARLIER TODAY AND IT HAD TO MENTION THE CONSPIRACY THEORY ABOUT UKRAINE'S INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

AFTER CONVEYED THIS ON THE TELEPHONE CALL, AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND TEXTED MR. YERMAK AND REQUESTED A CALL TO CONVEY THAT MESSAGE.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER SAYS, HEY, ANDRE, WE SPOKE WITH RUDY.

WHEN IS GOOD TO CALL YOU?

AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MAKES CLEAR THE URGENCY THE IMPORTANCE THAT YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

AMBASSADOR VOLKER MADE CLEAR, STATEMENT NEEDED, TWO KEY ITEMS, MR. GUILIANI REQUIRED FOR THE PRESIDENT.

HERE'S AMBASSADOR VOLKER'S TESTIMONY TO THAT AFFECT.

>> HI, ANDRE, GOOD TALKING, FOLLOWING A TEXT WITH INSERT AT THE END FOR THE TWO KEY ITEMS WE WILL WORK ON OFFICIAL REQUEST.

>> THEN YOU'LL SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION OF THE NEXT TEXT, THE OTHER IS IDENTICAL TO YOUR PREVIOUS ONE THEN JUST HAS -- INCLUDING THESE INVOLVING BURISMA AND 2016 ELECTIONS, IS THAT RIGHT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THAT'S WHAT MR. GUILIANI INSISTING ON ADDING TO THE STATEMENT.

>> AFTER HE SAID IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THAT TO BE CREDIBLE.

>> AND UKRAINIANS ULTIMATELY DID NOT ISSUE THE STATEMENT IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> EMPTY ZELENSKY DID NOT GET THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING, DID HE?

>> NOT YET.

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS STILL WAITING FOR THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING.

RONALD REAGAN IN A SPEECH THAT HE DELIVERED IN 1987, AT THE FOOT OF THE BERLIN WALL IN THE MIDST OF THE COLD WAR, SAID TO THE WORLD, EAST AND WEST DO NOT MISTRUST EACH OTHER BECAUSE WE ARE ARMED, WE ARE ARMED BECAUSE WE MISTRUST EACH OTHER.

AND OUR DIFFERENCES ARE NOT ABOUT WEAPONS BUT ABOUT LIBERTY.

TRUMP UKRAINE SCANDAL IS CERTAINLY ABOUT WEAPONS, IT'S ABOUT UNLAWFUL WITHHOLDING OF $391 MILLION IN SECURITY AID.

IT'S ABOUT A WITHHELD SOUGHT AFTER OVAL OFFICE MEETING.

IT'S ABOUT TRYING TO CHEAT IN THE 2020 ELECTION.

IT'S ABOUT CORRUPTING OUR DEMOCRACY.

IT'S ABOUT UNDERMINING AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY.

IT'S ABOUT A STUNNING ABUSE OF POWER.

IT'S ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

IT'S ABOUT THE NEED FOR US HERE IN THIS GREAT CHAMBER TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WITH WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.

IT'S ABOUT A CORRUPT QUID PRO QUO.

BUT PERHAPS ABOVE ALL ELSE, IT'S ABOUT LIBERTY.

BECAUSE IN AMERICA, FOR ALL OF US, WHAT KEEPS US FREE FROM TYRANNY.

IS THE SACRED PRINCIPLE THAT IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, SENATORS, PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, WE REVIEWED THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT PRESIDENT'S OFFICIAL ACT, THE CORRUPT BARGAIN OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING IN EXCHANGE FOR UKRAINE ANNOUNCING SHAM POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

YOU HEARD FROM EACH RELEVANT WITNESS WITH FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME, SONDLAND, TAYLOR, VOL VOLKER, HILL AND VINDMAN.

THAT THERE WAS A CORRUPT DEAL, AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING FOR INVESTIGATION, QUID PRO QUO.

THIS FOR THAT.

ALSO SAW PROOF THAT CLEARLY PROVED A CORRUPT QUID PRO QUO.

THE ED EVIDENCE IS CONSISTENT, CORROBORATED, IT COMES FROM MANY FORMS.

FROM MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LIFE LONG PUBLIC SERVANTS WITH NO MOTIVATION TO LIE.

IN SHORT, THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING.

GIVEN HOW MUCH WE HAVE GONE THROUGH, LET'S REVIEW SOME OF THOSE CAREER PUBLIC SERVANTS' 278 WHO STATE CLEARLY THAT THEY, TOO, BELIEVE IT WAS A QUID PRO QUO.

A THIS FOR THAT.

BECAUSE IT IS REALLY POWERFUL TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THEM.

SO LET'S WATCH AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

>> BY MID JULY IT WAS BECOMING CLEAR TO ME THAT THE PRESIDENT MEETING THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTED WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS OF BURISMA AND ALLEGED UKRAINIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S.

ELECTIONS.

IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT THIS CONDITION WAS DRIVEN BY THE IRREGULAR POLICY CHANNEL I HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND WAS GUIDED BY MR. GUILIANI.

>> IT WAS CLEAR, DRIVEN BY IRREGULAR POLICY.

AND WE KNOW THIS, TOO, BECAUSE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID SO AT THE JULY 10 MEETING.

DR. FIONA HILL DESCRIBED THE SCENE IN AMBASSADOR BOLTON'S OFFICE WITH A QUID PRO QUO WAS MADE CLEAR.

LET'S WATCH.

>> UKRAINIAN WAS ASKED ABOUT A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, AMBASSADOR BOLTON WAS TRYING TO TAKE US BACK, THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR HE'S NOT IN CHARGE OF SCHEDULING THE MEETING.

WE HAVE INPUT RECOMMENDING THE MEETING THIS GOES THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS.

IT'S NOT AMBASSADOR BOWL TONIGHT'S ROLE TO START PULLING OUT THE SCHEDULE AND SAY FLACK THIS TUESDAY IS GOING TO WORK.

HE DOES NOT LIKE TO DISCUSS THE DETAILS OF THESE MEETINGS, HE ACTUALLY LEAVES THEM TO THE APPROPRIATE STAFF FOR THIS.

THIS IS ALREADY GOING TO BE UNCOMFORTABLE ISSUE.

AS BAM DOOR BOWL TONE WAS TRYING TO MOVE THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION AWAY I THINK GOING TO DEFLECT TO ANOTHER TOPIC, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND LEANED IN, BASICALLY TO SAY, WELL WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT THERE WILL BE A MEETING.

SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS ARE PUT UNDERWAY AND THAT'S WHEN I SAW AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFEN, I WAS SITTING BEHIND HIM, I SAW HIM SIT BACK SLIGHTLY LIKE THIS, MORE MOVING FORWARD LIKE I AM AT THE TABLE.

TO ME THAT WAS UNMISTAKABLE BODY LANGUAGE AND QUALITY MY ATTENTION.

HE LOOKED UP TO THE CLOCK AND AT HIS WATCH, HIS WRIST IN ANY CASE, I WAS SITTING BEHIND HIM BASICALLY SAID, GREAT TO SEE YOU, I'M AFRAID I HAVE ANOTHER MEETING.

>> AMBASSADOR BOLTON STIFFENED, QUITE A DESCRIPTION.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN IS SIMILAR.

IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE DEAL FOR THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS INVESTIGATION.

LET'S WATCH LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN.

>> I WANT TO MOVE NOW TO THAT JULY 10th MEETING THAT YOU REFERENCED COLONEL VINDMAN, WHAT EXACTLY DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY WHEN UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS RAISED THE IDEA OF A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

>> AS I RECALL HE REFERRED TO SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS THAT UKRAINIANS WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER IN ORDER TO GET THESE MEETINGS.

>> LIEUTENANT VINDMAN, FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER IN ORDER TO GET THESE MEETINGS.

IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT THIS WASN'T ABOUT GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS ABOUT CORRUPTION, THIS WAS ABOUT CORRUPTION -- IT WASN'T ABOUT CORRUPTION AT ALL.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DIRECTED EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE IRANIAN OFFICIALS TO RECONVENE IN THE WAR ROOM WHERE HE DISCUSSED THE ARRANGEMENT IN MORE DETAIL.

HE MADE CLEAR THAT IT WAS ABOUT SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY.

HERE IS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFYING WHERE HE EXPLAINED THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REFERRED TO THE BIDEN, BUSINESS THAT, 2016 ELECTION WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

LET'S WATCH.

>> WHERE THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REFERENCED IN THE LARGER MEETING ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE WARD ROOM MEETING?

>> THEY WERE.

>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAY?

>> AMBASSADOR REFERRED TO INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE BIDENS, BURISMA AND 2016.

>> HOW DID YOU RESPOND, IF AT ALL?

>> I STATED THAT THESE REQUESTS TO CONDUCT THESE MEETINGS WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

>> NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

THAT'S ABOUT SUMS IT UP, DOESN'T IT.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME WAS FOR HIS PERSONAL INTEREST, NOT NATIONAL SECURITY.

AND HIS TESTIMONY ONCE AGAIN IS CORROBORATED.

DR. HILL JOINED THE WARD ROOM CONVERSATION LATER.

AND ALSO RECALLED A DISCUSSION OF INVESTIGATIONS AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN SAID, QUOTE, THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE, WE'RE THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WE CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS.

HERE IS HER TESTIMONY.

>> SO WHEN I CAME IN, GORDON SONDLAND WAS SAYING LOOK, WE HAVE A DEAL HERE THAT 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 IN TO 2016 AND BURISMA.

I STOPPED IMMEDIATELY THERE.

BY THIS POINT HAVING HEARD MR. GUILIANI OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON THE TELEVISION AND ALL OF THE ISUES THAT HE WAS ASSERTING, I JUST POINT IT WAS CLEAR THAT BURISMA WAS CODE FOR THE BIDENS, GUILIANI WAS PLAYING IT OUT THERE I COULD SEE WHY COLONEL VINDMAN WAS ALARMED, HE SAID THIS IS APPROPRIATE, THIS IS NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WE CAN'T BE INVOLVED WITH THIS.

>> WHAT IS MORE AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TOLD US EVERYONE WAS IN THE LOOP.

MEETING HAD BECAME CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS DIRECTING THIS.

DR. HILL, WHO HAD ONE POINT CONFRONTED GORDON SONDLAND OVER THIS ARRANGEMENT, FURTHER RECHED THE CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS ACTING ON THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS AND COORDINATING WITH OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS.

HE MADE THIS CLEAR, HE WAS BRIEFING THE PRESIDENT ON ALL THIS.

HERE IS DR. HILL'S TESTIMONY, LET'S WATCH.

>> I WAS UPSET WITH HIM THAT HE WASN'T PULLING TELLING US ABOUT ALL OF THE MEETINGS THAT HE WAS HAVING.

HE SAID TO ME, THAT I'M BRIEFING THE PRESIDENT, I'M BRIEFING CHIEF OF STAFF MULL VEIN KNOW, AND SECRETARY POMPEO, WHO ELSE DO I HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

AND THE POINT WE HAVE A ROBUST INTERAGENCY PROCESS THAT DEALS WITH UKRAINE INCLUDE, MR. HOLMES, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, THE CHAR SAY, WHOLE LOAD OF OTHER PEOPLE BUT STRUCK ME YESTERDAY WHEN YOU PUT UP ON THE SCREEN, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND'S E-MAIL AND HE WAS ON THESE E-MAILS HE SAID THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO KNOW THAT HE WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

BECAUSE HE WAS BEING INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC POLITICAL ERRAND.

WE WERE BEING INVOLVED IN NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN POLICY AND THOSE TWO THINGS HAD JUST DIVERGED.

>> SO THE EVIDENCE IS VERY CLEAR.

THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WOULD ONLY BE SCHEDULED IF UKRAINE ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATION THAT EVERYONE INCLUDING UKRAINIANS UNDERSTOOD TO BE PURELY POLITICAL EFFORTS TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT.

THE ONLY WAY TO COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION IS TO IGNORE THE EVIDENCE.

ONE ADDITIONAL WAY YOU CAN TELL THAT THIS CONDUCT IS TRULY CORRUPT AND NOT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AS USUAL, THAT S THAT THESE OFFICIALS, THESE LIFETIMEA REAR PUBLIC SERVANTS, DIDN'T JUST TESTIFY ABOUT THIS IN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

THEY CONTEMPORANEOUSLY REPORTED THIS CONDUCT IN REALTIME.

THEIR REACTIONS THAT THIS WAS NOT THE KIND OF THING THAT BOTH PARTIES DO WHEN THEY HAVE THE WHITE HOUSE.

THIS WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, SOMETHING CORRUPT.

SOMETHING INSIDIOUS TO USE AMBASSADOR'S CHARACTERIZATION IN LATER TESTIMONY, THE OFFICIALS WHO INSTINCTIVELY RECOIL FROM THE CORRUPT DEAL THAT SONDLAND BLURTED OUT WERE DISTINGUISHED, PATRIOTIC PUBLIC SERVANTS.

LET'S GO THROUGH SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF THAT EVIDENCE.

AS OF THE JULY 10 MEETING, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND MADE CLEAR THE AGREEMENT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MEETINGS WERE CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATION, DR. HILL CONSULTED WITH AMBASSADOR BOLTON AND TOLD HIM, WHICH HE HAD HEARD.

AMBASSADOR BOLTON GAVE HER AS SHE PUT IT, VERY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS.

TO REPORT THIS CONDUCT IN REALTIME AND SHE DID.

HEAR IS HER TESTIMONY, LET'S WATCH.

>> SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION WAS THAT -- >> THIS PROGRAM WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND BY CONTRIBUTION TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> I'M NICK SCHIFRIN WE'RE BACK WITH OUR COVERAGE OF THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP HIGH PRESSURE IS THE SECOND DAY FOR HOUSE DEMOCRATS TO LAYOUT THEIR CASE CHARGING THE PRESIDENT WITH ABUSE OF POWER, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS.

JURORS ARE THE HUNDRED SENATORS WHO ACCORDING TO THE IMPEACHMENT RULES CANNOT COMMENT OR ASK QUESTIONS.

DEMOCRATS ARE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE THEIR ARGUMENT TONIGHT AND TOMORROW AND WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEYS WILL BEGIN THEIR OPENING ARGUMENTS ON SATURDAY.

WATCHING IT ALL WITH ME ARELY SPA DESJARDINS ON CAPITOL HILL AND YAMISH AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND OUR LEGAL PANEL HERE WITH ME AT THE TABLE.

WE WILL HEAR FROM ALL OF THEM SHORTLY BUT NOW LET'S GO BACK TO LISTENING TO THE DEMOCRATS ARGUMENT FOR PEACHING THE PRESIDENT, THIS IS CONGRESSWOMAN SYLVIA GARCIA OF TEXAS.

>> HE ACTED OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY AS A PURPLE HEART VETERAN, WITH CONFIDENCE IN AMERICA, HE WOULD BE PROTECTED FOR DOING THIS RIGHT THING.

EVEN IF IT ANGERED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HIS FATHER WORKS FLED THE SOVIET UNION TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY, WORRIED ABOUT HIS SON FULFILLING THAT DUTY.

HERE IS COLONEL VINDMAN'S MESSAGE TO HIS FATHER, LET'S LISTEN.

>> DAD, MY SITTING HERE TODAY IN THE U.S. CAPITOL TALKING TO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IS PROOF THAT YOU MADE THE RIGHT DECISION 40 YEARS AGO TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION AND COME HERE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN SEARCH OF A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR FAMILY.

DO NOT WORRY, I'LL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.

>> YOU REALIZE WHEN YOU CAME FORWARD OUT OF SENSE OF DUTY THAT YOU WERE PUTTING YOURSELF IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD, DO YOU REALIZE THAT, SIR?

>> I KNEW I WAS ASSUMING A LOT OF RISK.

>> I'M STRUCK BY THE WORD, DON'.

YOU ADDRESS TO YOUR DAD.

WAS YOUR DAD A WARRIOR?

>> HE DID SERVE.

IT WAS A DIFFERENT MILITARY, THOUGH.

>> HE WOULD HAVE WORRIED IF YOU WERE PUTTING YOURSELF UP AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

>> HE DEEPLY WORRIED ABOUT IT BECAUSE IN HIS CONTEXT THERE WAS THE ULTIMATE RISK.

>> WHY DO YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN DO THAT AND TELL YOUR DAD NOT TO WORRY?

>> CONGRESSMAN, BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA.

THIS IS THE COUNTRY I'VE SERVED AND DEFENDED, THAT ALL MY BROTHERS HAVE SERVED AND HERE, RIGHT MATTERS.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> IMAGINE, HE HAD TO TELL HIS FATHER, DO NOT WORRY, I'LL BE FINE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH.

IT WAS HIS DUTY BECAUSE IN AMERICA, RIGHT MATTERS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SUGGESTED THAT ALL OTHER WITNESSES ARE NEVER TRUMPERS.

THAT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

AS WE JUST SAW, THIS U.S. OFFICIALS ARE BRAVE PUBLIC SERVANTS, IT IS WRONG, JUST FLAT WRONG, TO SUGGEST THAT WE'RE DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN TESTIFYING OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY AS LIEUTENANT COLONEL VINDMAN TESTIFIED.

BUT IT WASN'T JUST U.S. OFFICIALS, BECAUSE REACTIONS SHOW US THAT THIS WAS WRONG.

IT IS ALSO CLEAR HOW CORRUPT THIS SCHEME WAS BECAUSE UKRAINE RESISTED IT.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS ELECTED AS A REFORMER, HIS FIRST FEW MONTHS IN OFFICE, HE LIVED UP TO THIS PROMISE.

HERE IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFYING ON THIS POINT.

LET'S SEE IT.

>> ONCE I ARRIVED IN KIEV I DISCOVERED A WEIRD ENCOURAGING, CONFUSING, ULTIMATELY ALARMING CIRCUMSTANCES.

FIRST THE ENCOURAGING.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS REFORMING UKRAINE IN A HURRY.

HE APPOINTED REFORMIST MINISTERS AND SUPPORTED LONG STALLED AN ANTI-CORRUPTION LEGISLATION.

HE TOOK QUICK EXECUTIVE ACTION INCLUDING OPENING UKRAINE'S HIGH ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT.

WITH A NEW PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY CHANGED THE UKRAINIAN CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM DEPUTIES, SOURCE OF RAW CORRUPTION FOR TWO DECADES.

THE EXCITEMENT IN KIEV WAS PALPABLE, THIS TIME COULD BE DIFFERENT, A NEW UKRAINE FINALLY BREAKING FROM ITS CORRUPT MOST SOVIET PAST.

>> SO WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS A REFORMER, FIGHTING CORRUPTION, FIGHTING FOR REFORM AND HE GOT STARTED EARLY AS SOON AS HE WAS SWORN IN.

WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S IS HE GENERAL CAVS IN OUR U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS.

IN FACT, EVERY WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DESERVED AMERICA'S SUPPORT.

AND THAT THEY TOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT.

SO KEEPING THAT IN MIND, IT IS EXTREMELY TELLING WHAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS AIDES WERE SAYING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT BEING DRAGGED INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SCHEME.

THEY RECOGNIZED THE POLITICAL PERIL OF GOING ALONG WITH A PRESIDENT'S CORRUPT SCHEME.

WE KNOW THAT FROM THE CASE FOR MANY REASONS.

BUT LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT NOW.

FIRST, THE UKRAINIAN'S MAJOR CONCERNS CLEAR DIRECTLY TO U.S. OFFICIALS.

ON JULY 20, JUST DAYS AHEAD OF THE JULY 25 CALL, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SPOKE WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.

HE THEN CONVEYED TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AND VOLKER THEY WOULD TELL THE LEADER, QUOTE, DID NOT WANT TO BE USED AS A PAWN IN A U.S.

RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

HERE IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EXPLAINING WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT TO MEAN.

LET'S WATCH.

>> WHAT DID YOU UNDERSTAND IT TO MEAN WHEN ZELENSKY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT BEING AN INSTRUMENT IN WASHINGTON DOMESTIC REELECTION POLITICS?

>> HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS WERE PURSUANT TO MR. GUILIANI'S REQUEST TO DEVELOP INFORMATION, TO FIND INFORMATION ABOUT BURISMA AND THE BIDENS, THIS WAS VERY WELL-KNOWN IN PUBLIC, MR. GUILIANI MADE THIS POINT CLEAR IN SEVERAL INSTANCES IN THE BEGINNING, IN THE SPRINGTIME AND HE WAS AWARE THAT THAT WAS A PROBLEM.

>> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT BECAUSE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS WORRIED ABOUT THIS, THEY UNDERSTOOD AT LEAST THAT THERE WAS SOME PRESSURE FOR THEM TO PURSUE THESE INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT FAIR?

>> MR. DONALUK INDICATED THAT ZELENSKY CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD IT THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THESE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES.

>> AS THE SLIDE SHOWS, ON JULY 21, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR RELATED THE SAME MESSAGE AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND MAKING CLEAR, QUOTE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IS SENSITIVE ABOUT UKRAINE BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY, NOT MERELY AS AN INSTRUMENT IN WASHINGTON DOMESTIC POLITICS.

FOR THE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DID NOT BACK DOWN.

INSTEAD, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND REINFORCED THE IMPORTANCE THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY REASSURE PRESIDENT TRUMP OF HIS COMMITMENT TO THE INVESTIGATIONS.

HE SAID, QUOTE, THE RELATIONSHIP BANKRUPT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PRETEXT, I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE.

THE PRETEXT, THAT AM BASS SORE SONDLAND REFERRED TO WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REQUIREMENT THAT UKRAINE ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIM PERSONALLY AND POLITICALLY, HE WANTED HELP IN CHEATING.

IT WASN'T JUST AMBASSADOR TAYLOR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, GEORGE KENT, TOO, TESTIFIED THAT UKRAINE WAS, QUOTE, VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS WAS RAISED DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS OF THE STATEMENT IN AUGUST OF 2019, AS THE SLIDE SHOWS, MR. KENT SAID, QUOTE, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. TAYLOR WHICH HE INDICATED THAT SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE VOLKER HAD BEEN ENGAGING WITH ANDRIY YERMAK, THAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PRIVATE ATTORNEY, RUDY GUILIANI, WERE INTERESTED IN THE INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS AND THAT YERMAK WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN THIS WAS RAISED WITH HIM.

AND SUGGESTED THAT IF THAT WERE THE CASE, IF THAT WERE REALLY THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES, IT SHOULD BE DONE OFFICIALLY AND PUT IN WRITING.

AND I TOLD BILL TAYLOR, THAT'S WRONG, WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT AS A MATTER OF U.S. POLICY.

WHEN HE ASKED, WHAT DID HE SAY, HE SAID, HE AGREED WITH ME.

NOW, WHAT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THIS, WHY?

UKRAINE MADE THIS CLEAR.

IF THE U.S. WAS ASKING THEM FOR INVESTIGATION, ESPECIALLY INVESTIGATIONS THAT MADE THEM UNCOMFORTABLE THEY SHOULD BE DONE OFFICIALLY AND PUT IN WRITING.

MR. KENT'S TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT.

HE SAID, QUOTE, YERMAK WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN THIS WAS RAISED WITH HIM AND SUGGESTED IF THAT WERE THE CASEF THAT WERE REALLY THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES, IT SHOULD BE DONE OFFICIALLY AND PUT IN WRITING.

AND THIS WASN'T THE ONLY TIME.

ON AUGUST 13, MR. YERMAK ASKED AMBASSADOR VOLKER, QUOTE, ANY REQUEST EVER BEEN MADE BY THE UNITED STATES TO INVESTIGATE ELECTION INTERFERENCE IN 2016.

NOW THIS MAKES SENSE, NORMALLY IF SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY ABOUT OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY THE PRESIDENT WOULD GO THROUGH OFFICIAL U.S.

CHANNELS.

BUT IT WAS HERE HE DIDN'T.

HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY MADE THIS, THIS WASN'T ABOUT FOREIGN POL POLICY.

IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP PERSONALLY.

ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MADE THIS CLEAR, TOO, THERE WERE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY THAT THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT PART OF U.S. POLICY.

IN FACT, THEY DIVERGED WITH THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND OUR NATION'S VALUES.

AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS MADE THIS CRYSTAL CLEAR IN PUBLIC STATEMENTS.

THEY HAVE NEVER, NEVER BEEN ASKED OFFICIALLY TO DO ANY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

AND THAT'S HOW WE KNOW THIS IS SO VERY WRONG.

EVEN UKRAINE, A STRUGGLING NEW COUNTRY, KNEW THIS WAS WRONG AND THEY STOOD UP TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SAID SO.

YERMAK, REMEMBER HE WAS ZELENSKY'S CHIEF AIDE, WAS BASICALLY SAYING, YOU WANT AN INVESTIGATION, PLEASE SEND US A FORMAL REQUEST FROM DOJ.

SHOW US YOU'RE WILLING TO STAND BEHIND THE LEGITIMACY OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

BUT AMBASSADOR VOLKER WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.

AND THAT'S WHY, EVEN THOUGH THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS SO CRITICAL TO UKRAINE, EVEN THOUGH UKRAINE KNEW NEEDED IT SO DESPERATELY THEY STILL WOULDN'T MAKE THE STATEMENT WITH THE KEY ADDITIONS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP POLITICAL INVEST WERE SOLELY TO HELP HIS RE-ELECTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FOREIGN POLICY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TRIED DIFFERENT WAYS TO RESIST THE PRESSURE OF BECOMING A PAWN IN U.S.

POLITICS EVEN THOUGH THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WAS IMPORTANT, ZELENSKY REPEATEDLY TRIED TO FIND A WAY AROUND COMMITTING TO THE INVESTIGATION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DEMANDED.

OR AT THE VERY LEAST, SCHEDULE IT BEFORE TAKING ANY OFFICIAL ACTION.

THIS IS WHAT YOU SAW IN THE NEGOTIATION OVER THIS STATEMENT IN AUGUST.

AND THIS IS WHY EVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SECOND OFFICIAL ACT, WITHHOLDING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING WAS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE UKRAINE DO HIS DIRTY WORK.

SENATORS, WE'RE COMING TO THE END OF THIS SECTION OF THE PRESENTATION REGARDING THE WITHHOLDING.

WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

I WANT TO JUST QUICKLY REMIND US OF ONE LAST TIME ABOUT THE CENTRAL POINT THAT WE'VE COVERED.

PRESIDENT TRUMP EXERCISED HIS OFFICIAL POWER WHEN HE WITHHELD AN OVAL OFFICE MEETING THAT WAS CRITICAL TO UKRAINE.

AND HE DID THIS FOR ONLY ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP CONDITIONED THAT OVAL OFFICE MEETING ON UKRAINE, ANNOUNCING INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD HELP HIM POLITICALLY.

THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED U.S. OFFICIALS OR SUPPOSED TO WORK FR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

TO WORK INSTEAD WITH HIS PERSONAL AGENTS, RUDY GUILIANI.

AND FOCUS ONLY ON HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL INTERESTS.

ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT AND WITH THE PRESIDENT'S FULL KNOWLEDGE, MORE GUILIANI WORKED WITH THOSE U.S. OFFICIALS TO CARRY OUT THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEME.

THEY PRESSURED UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT TO ASK AS A PERSONAL OPPOSITION RESEARCH FORUM FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THEY TRIED TO USE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO DIG UP DIRT ON HIS CLIENT'S RIVAL, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

AND SO PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD WIN HIS ELECTION.

AND THEY MADE CLEAR THAT UKRAINE WOULD NOT GET THE OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT THAT IT SO DESPERATELY NEEDED.

SUPPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM CONVEYED WAS NECESSARY TO ADVANCE OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES UNLESS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ANNOUNCED THE SHAM INVESTIGATION.

REMEMBER, ABUSE OF POWER, CORRUPTLY EXERCISES OFFICIAL POWER TO OBTAIN A PERSONAL BENEFIT IN A WAY THAT IGNORES OR INJURIES THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

SENATORS, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

BY WITHHOLDING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING, PRESIDENT TRUMP USED OFFICIAL POWER TO CORRUPTLY PRESSURE UKRAINE.

INDEED THE ENTIRE QUID PRO QUO THE THIS FOR THAT, THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN TO USE THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING AS SOME KIND OF ASSET FOR THE PRESIDENT'S REELECTION CAMPAIGN WAS CORRUPT, OFFICIALS KNEW THIS, UKRAINE KNEW THIS TOO, I THINK DEEP DOWN WE ALL KNOW IT.

AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW IT.

SENATORS, I ASK YOU THIS ONE QUESTION, IS THAT NOT AN ABUSE OF POWER?

WAS IT OKAY?

IF IT'S NOT AN ABUSE OF POWER THEN WHAT IS?

IS IT OKAY TO WITHHOLD OFFICIAL ACTS FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY UNTIL THAT FOREIGN COUNTRY ASSISTS YOUR RE-ELECTION EFFORT?

IF ANY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIAL DID THAT, HE OR SHE WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

I KNOW THAT IF ONE OF US DID THAT, WE WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

THE ONLY WAY TO HOLD THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE IS RIGHT HERE IN THIS TRIAL.

OTHERWISE YOU WOULD BE TELLING UKRAINE AND THE WORLD THAT IT'S OKAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO USE OUR OVAL OFFICE AND THIS COUNTRY PRESTIGE AND POWER FOR HIMSELF INSTEAD OF FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

IF WE ALLOW THIS GROSS ABUSE OF POWER TO CONTINUE, THIS PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE FREE REIN -- FREE REIN TO ABUSE HIS CONTROL OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY FOR PERSONAL INTERESTS.

AND SO WITH ANY OTHER FUTURE PRESIDENT.

AND THEN, THIS PATH AND ALL PRESIDENTS BECOME ABOVE THE LAW.

A PRESIDENT COULD TAKE THE POWERS OF THE GREATEST OFFICE IN THIS LAND AND USE THOSE POWERS NOT FOR THE COUNTRY, NOT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUT FOR HIM OR HERSELF.

I ASK TO YOU MAKE SURE THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN, BECAUSE IN THIS COUNTRY, NO ONE -- NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

NOW I YIELD TO MS. DEMING.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HOUSE MANAGERS REQUESTED A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

>> SO ORDERED.

>> WE ARE ENTERING A RECESS THAT WAS JUST DESCRIBED AS FIVE MINUTES SO WE HAVE COUPLE OF MINUTES I GUESS TO INTRODUCE OUR PANEL AND TO SEE HOW THE LAST FEW HOURS OF THE DAY HAVE GONE.

MARTY PAONEE HE WAS A DEMOCRATIC SENATE SECRETARY FOR P 13 YEARS INCLUDING DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S IMPEACHMENT AND THE WHITE HOUSE SENATE LIAISON DURING LAST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

ELIZABETH CHRYST IS A VETERAN OF THE SENATE WHO WORKED ON THE STAFF, SHE WAS REPUBLICAN SENATE SECRETARY DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S TRIAL.

VICTORIA NOURSE WAS SPECIAL COUNSEL IN THE EARLY '90s, APPELLATE LAWYER IN THE JAWS 'TIS -- JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND JOE BIDEN'S CHIEF COUNSEL FROM 2015 TO 2016.

AND JOHN HART WORKED FOR OKLAHOMA REPUBLICAN TOM COBURN DURING THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT CLINTON, WELCOME BACK TO YOU ALL WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO SYLVIA GARCIA TO CONTINUE ABOUT ABUSE OF POWER DESCRIBING ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO RESISTED PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DESIRE TO CONTINUE CORRUPTION INVESTINVEST TO GET UKRAINE TO O INVESTIGATIONS INTO 2016 AND TO JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON ALSO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS HAVING SOME FEAR ABOUT THAT AS WELL BEING PART OF PAWNS AND DOMESTIC POLITICAL STUNT AS ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS PUT IT.

VICTORIA NOURSE FIRST OVER TO YOU, ARE WE SEEING THE DEMOCRATS FOCUSING LESSON WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID AND TRYING TO MAKE ARGUMENT FOR HOW HE ABUSED HIS POWER.

>> YES, I THINK ONE OF THE DEFENSE, THIS WAS JUST A NORMAL PHONE CALL, IT WAS A KIND OF NEGOTIATION THAT THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS DOES WITH FOREIGN LEADERS.

AND SO TO BUILD A LARGER CASE, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE KIND OF ROLLING NOTHING -- CHRONOLOGY THAT WE SAW FIRST PUT OUT BY MR. SCHIFF NOW PAINSTAKING DETAIL ABOUT THAT CHRONOLOGY TO SHOW THAT IT STARTED IN -- MONTHS BEFORE AND THAT THERE WAS A WELL THOUGHT OUT PROCESS OF STEPS BY WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS PUSHING FORWARD TO HAVE THE UKRAINIANS INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS.

>> JOHN HART, WE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE.

BUT IS THE ARGUMENT GAINING WATER?

IS THE ARGUMENT GAINING?

STEAM IF THEY'RE ABLE TO HAVE THIS TIME TODAY TO MAKE THESE ARGUMENTS, OR DO SENATOR THINK IT'S JUST THE SAME.

>> POLLS SUGGEST WE HAVE NOT SEEN MUCH MOVEMENT AMONG GENERAL PUBLIC OR SENATORS.

REMEMBER, THERE WERE 20 VOTES SHORT OF HAVING 67 VOTES.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE TEST VOTES AS INDICATION, TODAY A VERY STEEP HILL TO CLIMB TO PERSUADE REPUBLICAN SENATORS.

WE'RE AT THE POINT IN THE TRIAL WHERE WE'RE GETTING TO THE POINT A LOT OF REPETITION.

AND REPETITION IS APPROPRIATE SOME CONTEXT AND NOT OTHERS.

REPETITION SOUNDS A LOT LIKE POLITICAL AD.

>> A LOT OF REPUBLICANS THIS IS A TAXPAYER FUNDED POLITICAL AD FOR 2020.

>> SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

LET'S TO GO OUR REPORTERS ON THAT, LISA, I'M TOLD THAT WE HAVE YOU, ARE DEMOCRATS WORRIED ABOUT THAT, WHAT JOHN WAS JUST SAYING THAT THIS IS SOME KIND OF POLITICAL AD AND REPETITION MEANS THAT THEY'RE NOT MAKING THEIR CASE PERSUASIVELY.

>> IF DEMOCRATS ARE WORRIED ABOUT THAT THEY'RE NOT SAYING SO.

REPUBLICANS ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT QUITE A LOT.

DURING THE DINNER BREAK WE SPOKE TO A NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS, I HAD A LONG TALK WITH SENATOR MIKE ROUNDS, HE WENT INTO GREAT LENGTHS TO SAY THEIR COUNSELING THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT THE HOUSE MANAGERS SAY THE PHRASE "CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE" THEY ARE ACTUALLY TAKING NOTES ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE ON HOW OFTEN THOSE MANAGERS SAY THAT.

THAT'S FOR TWO REASONS, ONE GET ACROSS THE IDEA THAT THIS IS REPETITIVE AS YOU ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT.

BUT REPUBLICANS ARE INCREASINGLY MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT IF DEMOCRATS SAY THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY CLEAR AND CONVINCING, WHY DO THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM MORE WITNESSES.

THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION NOW TO THAT SHOULD YOU KNOW ABOUT THE IDEA OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

AND IF THE SENATE SHOULD DECIDE TO VOTE TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, INCREASINGLY, REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE THAT -- WOULD STILL ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE THERE WOULD BE COURT FIGHT REGARDLESS.

OVER MANY MONTHS.

SO THERE'S A DECISION POINT HERE AND REPUBLICANS ARE PUTTING PRESSURE ON THEIR MEMBERS TO SAY, IF WE CALL WITNESSES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COURT FIGHT.

DO YOU WANT A COURT FIGHT?

THEY'RE ADDING ANOTHER LAYER, A PROCESS DECISION TO A SUBSTANTIVE DECISION ABOUT WITNESSES.

>> YOU SAID OF COURSE, IF THEY CALL WITNESSES, WHAT SOME LATEST READ THERE HAVE BEEN ANYWHERE FROM TWO TO FOUR SENATE REPUBLICANS SUGGESTING THEY MIGHT BE WILLING TO CALL WITNESSES, THEY NEED FOUR, WHAT IS YOUR LATEST READ ON WHAT THAT NUMBER REALLY IS.

>> MY SENSE THERE'S NO MOVEMENT ON THAT QUESTION AND RIGHT NOW THERE IS PROBABLY ONE FIRM REPUBLICAN WHO WOULD VOTE I THINK FOR WITNESSES, THAT IS SUSAN COLLINS WHO SAID SHE WOULD LIKELY VOTE FOR WITNESSES.

I THINK THERE ARE TWO OTHERS THAT ARE PROBABLY COULD GO EITHER WAY, SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI AND MITT ROMNEY.

OTHER THAN THAT I DON'T SEE ANYONE LEANING TOWARD WITNESSES YET.

ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN.

>> THAT BRINGS US OVER TO THE WHITE HOUSE, WHERE IS THE PRESIDENT?

WHERE IS THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES YOU JUST HEARD LISA SUGGEST THAT AT LEAST TWO MAYBE THREE BUT WE'RE NOT SURE OF THE NUMBER, WHERE IS THE WOWS RIGHT NOW WHETHER THEY EVEN WANT WITNESSES?

>> HE WOULD LIKE LONG IMPEACHMENT TRIAL, YES, BRING MORE WITNESSES BUT THE OFFICIAL STANCE OF THE WHITE HOUSE LEGAL TEAM IS DIFFERENT, THEY'RE SAYING WHY DO YOU NEED MORE WITNESSES IF YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE AS LISA JUST SAID.

I'VE BEEN TALKING TO SOURCES CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM THEY SAY, DEMOCRATS HAVE REALLY PUT THEMSELVES IN A HARD PLACE HERE, THEY ARE BOTH ONE SAYING WE HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE BUT TO SHOW THAT THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION ALSO SAYING, NEED MORE DOCUMENTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE WE CAN PROOF OUR CASE EVEN MORE.

ALSO THE REASON WHY REPETITION BECAUSE DEMOCRATS THINK THAT AMERICANS ARE TUNING IN, TUNING OUT, GOING TO WORK, HE SAID WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS REPETITION BUT WE WANT THAT, MAYBE AGAIN AT 11:00, WE WANT THEM TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO HEAR THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE'RE MAKING.

DEMOCRATS UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE BEING REPETITIVE BUT THEY'RE SAYING THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE THAT POINT OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICANS ARE SEIZING ON TO THAT SAYING, ACTUALLY JUST WASTING OUR TIME BECAUSE YOU'RE REPEATING YOURSELF.

>> HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND TO LISA.

YOU HAVE SENATOR ROUNDS STANDING BY.

>> I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT HIM OF SENATOR ROUNDS OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS IDEA OF THE REPETITION THAT WE'RE HEARING, THAT'S COMMON IN TRIALS BUT HOW ARE YOU TAKING THAT, WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN GETTING IT.

>> WE'RE TAKING IT LIKE REPETITION.

WE'VE HEARD IT BEFORE, SECH OR EIGHT TIMES THROUGH IT NOW.

A LOT OF FOLKS AREe IT IN A LOT SHORTER TIME BUT THEY ARE DOING THIS PLAYING FOR CAMERAS AS WELL.

THE MESSAGE IS IF WE CAN GET INTO PRIME TIME WE CAN PLATE IT FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE.

>> ONE SHOULD THIS PRESIDENT BE REMOVED AND YOU'VE TOLD ME YOU DON'T SEE THAT EVIDENCE YET BUT TWO, WHAT HE DID WAS IT WRONG WAS IT A PROBLEM FOR A PRESIDENT TO USE HIS OFFICE THIS WAY TO GET INVESTIGATIONS HE WANTS?

>> REMEMBER YOU HAVE NOT HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE YET.

ALL YOU'VE HEARD NOW BOTH IN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE SO FAR HAVE BEEN THE ACCUSATIONS.

SO IT'S NOT FAIR TO START MAKING SUGGESTIONS THAT WE KNOW THE ANSWERS UNTIL WE HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE.

BUT YOU SHOULD ALSO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS NOT JUST IN THE SENATE, WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THE HOUSE DOING THE SAME THING WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE COMING BACK FROM THE PRESIDENT YET.

SO IT'S NOT FAIR TO SUGGEST THAT ANY DETERMINATION SHOULD BE MADE.

BUT I WOULD SUGGEST WUNG THING: THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO AMERICA THEIR CASE.

THEY ARE -- TO MAKE THEIR CASE.

THEY ARE CONTINUING TO TELL US EVERY CIVILIAN SPEAKER, THEY HAVE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

TIME AND AGAIN YOU WILL HEAR IT, CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

THE SUGGESTION WHEN IT'S ALL DONE IS NOW WE WANT TO CALL WITNESSES AND THEY WILL HAVE TO JUSTIFY WHY THEY NEED WITNESSES IF THEY HAVE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

>> AND QUICKLY.

YOU ALSO TOLD ME YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A COURT FIGHT IF THE SENATE DOES DECIDE TO CALL WITNESSES.

>> IF THE SENATE AND ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE NOT MADE UP OUR MINDS YET.

WE WON'T DO THAT UNTIL WE HEAR THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE, HE ABSOLUTELY HAS TO HAVE THAT.

ONCE THAT OCCURS, WE HAVE A OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE DEFENSE AND ALSO THE HOUSE MANAGERS.

WHEN THAT'S COMPLETE WE DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO CALL FOR DOCUMENTS OR WITNESSES.

IF WE CALL FOR WITNESSES THERE IS STILL THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD EASILY COME AND TESTIFY BECAUSE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT AND THE HOUSE HAS TRIED TO DOWN PLAY IT.

BUT IF THEY WANTED THESE WITNESSES THEY SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR THEM IN THE PORTION WHICH OCCURRED IN THE HOUSE, WHICH IS THE IMPEACHMENT ITSELF.

>> OKAY.

SENATOR MIKE ROUNDS, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

BACK TO YOU NICK.

>> THANK YOU LISA AND LET ME GO BACK TO THE TABLE.

WITH MARTIN PAONE, IS THE QUESTION OF WITNESSES A QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OR IS IT A QUESTION OF POLITICS WHETHER THOSE POLITICS ARE IN THE SENATE OR IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

>> IT DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM BUT MY OPINION IS THAT IT'S POLITICS.

AND THAT HAND IT TO SENATOR ROUNDS, HE GAVE A DIFFERENT SPIN ON NOT ANSWERING A QUESTION, IS IT OKAY TO ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INTERCEDE, BY SAYING WE HAVEN'T HEARD THE PRESIDENT'S DEFENSE YET.

THE SUMMARY IT WASN'T A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT PERFECT PHONE CALL WAS CLEAR THAT HE WAS ASKING THE GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE.

SO WE'LL SEE HOW THAT GOES.

AND AS FAR AS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, VICTORIA'S MORE AWARE OF THIS AND BEING A LEGAL EXPERT THAN I AM.

BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WITNESSES THAT WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION TOLD THEM NOT TO APPEAR AND THEY APPEARED ANYWAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE SAME COULD HAPPEN -- >> YOU WANT TO CHIME IN THERE?

>> SURE.

DURING THE NIXON TRIAL ALL OF HIS TOP AIDES TESTIFIED.

THE QUESTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE ONLY CAME UP WITH RESPECT TO PRESIDENT NIXON HIMSELF AND WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO HAVE TO REEVENTUALLY THE TAPES IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL.

THE TRUTH IS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS ASSERTING AN ABSOLUTELY IMMUNITY THAT THERE ARE ONLY WITH CASES THAT HAVE EVER BEEN DECIDED ON AND THEY PROJECTED IT.

THEY ARE LOWER COURT CASES AND THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN VERY AGGRESSIVE ABOUT PURSUING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THEY ARE SAYING THAT BECAUSE FROM A POLITICAL STANDPOINT, I CAN GET INTO THE LEGAL PIECES OF IT, IT WOULD CAUSE ANOTHER COURT FIGHT, SIMILAR COURT FIGHTS ARE ALREADY PERCOLATING UP, OTHER CASES ARE IN THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THEY CAME OUT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THE ARGUMENTS ARE REALLY, REALLY AGGRESSIVE.

OTHERS HAVE CHOSE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CONGRESS, NOT TO GO TO THE COURTS.

UNLESS YOU THINK SOMEBODY IS WAVERING ABOUT WITNESSES WHY WOULD YOU BRING THAT HAMMER OUT?

>> LET'S GO TO BE ELIZABETH CHRYST OUT.

WHAT IS YOUR SENSE ABOUT WAVERING ABOUT WITNESSES AND TO MARTY'S POINT TAKE US BACK TO THE CONTEXT, THE CORE OF THIS IS THE PRESIDENT ASKING THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, DO US A FAVOR AND THAT'S WHAT THE DEMOCRATS COME BACK TO.

>> I'D SAY WITH RESPECT TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND OBVIOUSLY WILL IT BE EXERCISED AND WILL THERE BE REPUBLICAN SENATORS WHO WILL VOTE FOR ADDITIONAL WITNESSES OR WITNESSES IN GENERAL IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYBODY IS WEAFERG RIGHT NOW.

AND -- WAVERING RIGHT NOW.

AS THEY CONTINUE TO GO OVER AND OVER THE SAME THINGS WHETHER THEY'RE PLAYING FOR THE CAMERA AS SENATOR ROUNDS SAID OR MAKE A PLAY FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN SITTING AT HOME, THAT WEARS ON THE SENATORS.

WHEN YOU GET IN THE SENATE AND THE HOWMPTS TOO -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ARE YOU OVERSATURATING TO WHERE YOU ARE LOSING YOUR POINT.

THERE IS SOME DANGER OF THAT.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND LEGAL SITUATIONS AND DRAGGING IT OUT I'M NOT SURE ANYBODY BY THE TIME OF NEXT WEDNESDAY WHEN THEY REALLY SERIOUSLY HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS WILL HAVE A LOT OF APPETITE FOR THAT.

SO IT COULD REALLY BE PLAYING TO THE CLOCK AND OVER SATURATING ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS AT THIS POINT.

>> LISA WE SHOULD PROBABLY GO TO YOU AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEMOCRATS ARGUMENT TODAY AS YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTING THIS DAY FROM THE DEMOCRATS PERSPECTIVE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE SHIFTING FROM WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID TO HOW THE PRESIDENT DID IT, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND I THINK THEY ALSO DID AN ORGANIZED JOB AT THE BEGINNING OF SAYING HERE IS WHY WE ARE -- HERE IS HOW WE ARE ADDRESSING THE PRESIDENT MOTIVE WHICH IS WHAT ALL YOUR GUESTS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS NOW, ADAM SCHIFF LATE OUT, TEN POINTS, HIS MOTIVE WAS SELF PRESERVATION AND SELF MOTIVATION AND CORRUPT ACTUALLY.

SCHIFF WENT NUMBER ONE NUMBER TWO NUMBER THREE NUMBER FOUR, HAVING TO DO WITH ESSENTIALLY WERE THERE OTHER INVESTIGATIONS IN THE PRESIDENT'S MIND, NO, TONAL BIDENS AND THE 2016 ELECTION.

WAS THIS FOREIGN POLICY UP TO THIS POINT, NO THE PRESIDENT WAS CHANGING FOREIGN POLICY.

HOW DID HE DO IT?

HE WENT TO SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE NORMAL PROCESS.

THEY LISTED ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WERE RED FLAGS THAT THEY SAY THAT INDICATED THE PRESIDENT WAS WORKING OUT OF PERSONAL MOTIVATION, TO BENEFIT FROM ALL OF THIS.

THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW THE PRESIDENT DID IT AND ESSENTIALLY THAT SECTION CAN BE SUMMED UP WITH TWO WORDS, RUDY GIULIANI.

WE HEARD HOURS AND HOURS OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AND THINGS THAT THE DEMOCRATS LEGISLATE WERE MISCONDUCT BY HIM.

THE MOST IMPORTANT LINE THERE NICK WAS ADAM SCHIFF SAID ONE THING WE KNOW BY PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE'S NOT GOING TO BE LED BY THE NOSE BY RUDY GIULIANI.

MANY REPUBLICANS SEE IT ANOTHER WAY AROUND, THAT THE PRESIDENT WASN'T DIRECTING HIM NECESSARILY.

>> THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT ONLY CONTINUED TO DEFEND GIULIANI BUT HE AND THE ADMINISTRATION AND HIS LAWYERS MAKE ALSO A FUNDAMENTAL POINT THAT REGARDLESS WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED FOR 55 DAYS, ULTIMATELY, UKRAINE GOT THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF MILITARY AID THAT IT WAS ASKING FOR.

>> WELL, THAT'S THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CHIEF DEFENSE IS THAT, ONE, THE MONEY WAS EVENTUALLY GIVEN TO UKRAINE.

BUT DEMOCRATS SAY THAT WAS BECAUSE, 1, UKRAINE FOUND OUT THERE WAS A HOLD ON THIS MILITARY AID PPED.

AND 2 CONGRESS STARTED LOOKING INTO THIS AND AS A RESULT THE ADMINISTRATION FELT PRESSURED SO THEY IN TO GIVE THAT.

THE ONE THING THE WHITE HOUSE OFTEN SAYS IS THEY ALSO GOT THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

IT IS TRUE THE PRESIDENT DID SIT DOWN WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN HAVING A WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

WHICH IS WHAT PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE ACTUALLY WANTED.

RUDY GIULIANI AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE STILL VERY MUCH CLOSE, VERY MUCH ON THE SAME PAGE.

I HAVE BEEN DEFINITELYING WITH RUDY GIULIANI ALL THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL AND HE SAYS THIS IS ALL MADE UP THIS IS UNFAIR.

BUT LEV PARNAS, EVIDENCE LEV PARNAS TURNED OVER TO THE HOUSE, HE'S BROKEN WITH GIULIANI.

AT ONE POINT LEV PARNAS NAMED RUDY GIULIANI TO BE THE GODFATHER OF HIS SON.

HE IS OFF THE TRAIN OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND RUDY GIULIANI.

THAT'S WHY DEMOCRATS WANT TO SEE LEV PARNAS POSSIBLY TESTIFY.

I HAVE TALKED TO THE LAWYER FOR LEV PARNAS WHO SAYS HIS CLIENT DOES WANT TO TESTIFY.

WE HAVE BEEN TOLD OVER AND OVER LEV PARNAS IS LYING.

WE HAVE RUDY GIULIANI VERSUS LEV PARNAS AND THE THE DEMOCRATS.

>> SAYING THAT HE IS BENEFITING ABOUT POLL NUMBERS AND HOW BOTH HE AND THE RENAL PARTY HAVE BEEN RAISING IN HIS WORDS BECAUSE OF THIS IMPEACHMENT LOOKS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, AND ONE RULE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS TALKED ABOUT, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT HIS ASSOCIATE ROGER STONE TALKED ABOUT ALL SORTS OF MEDIA COVERAGE IS GOOD COVERAGE EVEN IF IT'S IN THE NEGATIVE.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS THE PRESIDENT SAYING LOOK DEMOCRATS ARE HELPING ME GET REELECTED IN 2020, BECAUSE MY BASE IS MORE FIRED UP BECAUSE NOW THEY THINK THAT DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO NOT ONLY TAKE ME OUT OF OFFICE BUT ALLOW ME TO NOT BE ON THE BALLOT IN 2020.

THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SAYING HIS POLL NUMBERS LOOK GOOD, TWEETING OUT TODAY, POLL NUMBERS IN FLORIDA SHOWING HIM POSSIBLY BEATING JOE BIDEN IN THAT STATE.

DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T PICKED THEIR CANDIDATE YET BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE GOOD FOR HIM AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE RI RHODE ISLAND.

THEY ARE GETTING A LOT OF MONEY -- RELIED UP.

MORE THAN THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.

OF COURSE THERE ARE A BUNCH OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES AND REALLY ONE MAIN REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE.

THAT IS SOME WAY WHY YOU SEE THAT DISPARITY.

THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE CAMPAIGN RALLIES.

>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU.

JAMIROQUAI FORGIVE ME BUT WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE FLOOR.

BE MITCH McCONNELL.

>> SENATOR MEASUREY, THE LOCATION WILL BE E-MAILED TO YOUR OFFICE.

>> CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, AS FAR AS AND COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

WE HAVE NOW BEEN THROUGH THE FIRST TWO OFFICIAL ACTS BY THE PRESIDENT.

BUT NEITHER OF THOSE OFFICIAL ACTS GOT THE PRESIDENT WHAT HE WANTED, HELP IN HIS REELECTION CHAIN.

SO HE TURNED TO ANOTHER EXOICIAL E-OFFICIAL ACT, TO TURN UP THE PRESSURE EVEN MORE.

WITHHOLDING NEARLY $400 MILLION OF VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE INVESTIGATIONS.

WITHHOLDING MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE MAY BE ORIGINAL ABUSE OF POWER, SOLICITING FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS, THAT MUCH WORSE.

BUT IT WAS ALSO IN AND OF ITSELF AN ABUSE OF POWER.

AND NOT ONLY THAT: IT VIOLATED THE LAW.

IT WAS ILLEGAL.

THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, A NONPARTISAN, INDEPENDENT AGENCY CONCLUDED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S HOLD ON THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE CLEARLY VIOLATED THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT, A LAW THAT CONGRESS ENACTED, TO CURB PRESIDENT NIXON'S OWN ABUSE OF POWER.

NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY NOT LIKE IT.

BUT ONCE A LAW IS PASSED, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT CHANGE THAT LAW WITHOUT COMING BACK TO US, THE CONGRESS.

AND PROPRIETARY DID NOT -- AND PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT JUST BREAK THE LAW, HE JEOPARDIZED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

BECAUSE UKRAINE'S NATIONAL SECURITY IS OUR NATIONAL SECURED.

HOW?

BECAUSE A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC UKRAINE IS A SHIELD AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN EUROPE.

THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF AMERICA'S MOST IMPORTANT FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS SINCE WORLD WAR II.

FREEDOM, LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY, THOSE VALUES KEEP US SAFE.

LET US NOW EXPLAIN HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP'S IMPROPER WITHHOLDING OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE WAS CREERM DONE TO PRESSURE UKRAINE THE ANNOUNCE THE TWO BASELESS INVESTIGATIONS, A GROSS ABUSE OF POWER.

FIRST WE WILL BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW IMPORTANT THE MILITARY AID WAS TO UKRAINE'S DEFENSE AGAINST RUSSIAN AGGRESSION WHICH AFFECTS OUR SECURITY.

SECOND, WE WILL EXPLAIN HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO FREEZE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE IN A WAY MEANT TO CONCEAL IT FROM CONGRESS.

AND THIRD, WE WILL PRESENT THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED THE HOLD FOR A CORRUPT PURPOSE.

TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE TWO INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD PERSONALLY BENEFIT HIS OWN REELECTION EFFORTS.

LET US START WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AID TO OUR, THE UNITED STATES, NATIONAL SECURITY.

THE UNITED STATES HAS SUPPORTED UKRAINE SINCE IT SECURED INDEPENDENCE FROM THE SOVIET UNION IN 1991.

OUR SUPPORT WAS CRITICAL TO CONVINCE UKRAINE ITS PURSUIT OF A NUCLEAR ARSENAL IN 1994.

WE PROMISED THEM THAT WE WOULD DEFEND THEM IF NECESSARY.

BUT OUR SUPPORT BECAME TRULY VITAL IN 2014 WHEN UKRAINE REVOTED AGAINST THIS -- REVOLTED AGAINST THIS NEW PRESIDENT, VICTOR NINUVAKICH.

DEMANDINGS DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND AN END TO CORRUPTION.

THE PROTEST, RIGHTLY KNOWN AS THE REVOLUTION OF DIGNITY, REMOVED THE PRO-KREMLIN PRESIDENT.

RUSSIA RESPONDED BY USING ITS ONLY MILITARY FORCES AND PROXIES IN UKRAINE THE INVADE UKRAINE.

THIS WAS THE FIRST EFFORT TO REDRAW EUROPEAN BOUNDARIES BY MILITARY FORCE SINCE WORLD WAR II.

THE WAR WAS DEVASTATING TO UKRAINE AND REMAINS SO TODAY.

APPROXIMATELY 7% OF UKRAINE'S TERRITORY IS NOW OCCUPIED BY RUSSIA.

APPROXIMATELY 15,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED AS A RESULT OF THE CONFLICT, AND OVER 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DISPLACED.

IN RESPONSE TO RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE THE UNITED STATES AND OUR ALLIES, IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES AND AGREED TO PROVIDE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT UKRA UKRAINIAN SOVEREIG.

WE UNDERSTOOD IMMEDIATELY DEMOCRATS AND REGIONS OF REPUBLICANS ALIKE THAT UKRAINIAN SECURITY WAS DIRECTLY TIED TO OUR SAFETY AND SECURITY.

WITH THIS GOAL IN MIND, SINCE 2014, THE UNITED STATES HAS DELIVERED ROUGHLY $1.5 BILLION IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

AND ANOTHER $1.5 BILLION IN OTHER ASSISTANCE TO OUR ALLY, UKRAINE.

OUR ALLIES IN EUROPE HAVE PROVIDED APPROXIMATELY $18 BILLION IN LOANS AND GRANTS SINCE 2014.

AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED, THE U.S. ASSISTANCE COMES PARNLLY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHICH PROVIDES IMPORTANT MILITARY SUPPORT.

IT COMES PARTIALLY FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, WHICH HELPS UKRAINE PURCHASE MILITARY SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURED BY AMERICAN COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EXPLAINED HOW SECURITY ASSISTANCE COUNTERS RUSSIAN AGGRESSION AND CAN HELP SHORTEN THE WAR IN THE EAST.

HERE IS HIS TESTIMONY.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE TAKES MANY FORMS.

ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THAT -- THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE TAKES MANY FORMS.

ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THAT ASSISTANCE IS COUNTERBATTERY RADAR, ANOTHER COMPONENT ARE SNIPER WEAPONS.

THESE WOMEN'S, AND -- THESE WEAPONS AND THESE ASSISTANCE ALLOWS THE UKRAINIAN MILITARY TO DETER FURTHER INCURSIONS BY THE RUSSIANS AGAINST THEIR -- AGAINST UKRAINIAN TERRITORY.

IF THAT FURTHER INCURSION, FURTHER AGGRESSION, WERE TO TAKE PLACE, MORE UKRAINIANS WOULD DIE.

SO IT IS A DETERRENT EFFECT THAT THESE WEAPONS PROVIDE.

IT'S ALSO THE ABILITY, IT GIVES THE UKRAINIANS THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE FROM A POSITION OF A LITTLE MORE STRENGTH WHEN THEY NEGOTIATE AN END TO THE WAR IINDONBAS, NEGOTIATING WITH THE RUSSIANS.

THIS IS ALSO A WAY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UKRAINIANS WHO WOULD DIE.

>> CONGRESS IMPOSED CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON THE DOD ASSISTANCE.

THOSE CONDITIONS REQUIRE A DOD -- REQUIRE DOD TO HOLD HALF OF THE MONEY IN RESERVE.

IN COORDINATION WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, MUST CONDUCT A REVIEW, AND CERTIFY TO CONGRESS THAT UKRAINE HAS DONE ENOUGH TO FIGHT CORRUPTION.

NOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY ARGUE THAT THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY CONGRESS ARE SIMILAR TO THE HOLD HE PLACED ON AID TO UKRAINE.

AS MICK MULVANEY SAID, AND I QUOTE, "WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME."

BUT LET US BE VERY CLEAR.

THESE TYPES OF CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE OFTEN INCLUDED IN APPROPRIATION BILLS, ARE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY, NOT THE POLICY OF ONE INDIVIDUAL OR ONE PRESIDENT.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF PERMISSIBLE CONDITION ON AID THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS IMPLEMENTING WHEN HE REQUIRED THAT UKRAINE FIRE ITS CORRUPT PROSECUTOR-GENERAL BEFORE GETTING A LOAN GUARANTEE.

PRIOR TO 2019, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WITHOUT INCIDENT.

EVEN UNDER THE PREVIOUS UKRAINIAN ADMINISTRATION, OF PRESIDENT PETROPOROSHENKO, PRESIDENT TRUMP ALLOWED $510 MILLION IN 2017 AND 559 MILLION IN 2018.

TO FLOW UNIMPEDED TO UKRAINE.

BUT IN THE SUMMER OF 2019, WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP ABRUPTLY WITHHELD THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

SO WHAT HAD CHANGED BY JULY OF 2019?

CONGRESS HAD APPROPRIATED THE FUNDS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SIGNED IT INTO LAW.

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAD CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE WAS MEETING THE REQUIRED ANTICONSTRUCTION REFORMS.

IN FACT, DOD HAD BEGUN TO SPEND THE FUNDS.

SO WHAT HAPPENED?

WELL, IN APRIL, TWO CURRICULUM THINGS HAPPENED.

FIRST, JOE BIDEN PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED HIS CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT.

SECOND, THE MURAL INVESTIGATION CONCLUDED THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 U.S.

ELECTIONS, TO ASSIST THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD EXTENSIVE CONTACTS WITH RUSSIANS, AND EVEN TO ADVANTAGE OF SOME OF THE RUSSIAN EFFORTS.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE ONLY REASON THE ONLY LOIFNLG REASON AND WE DEAL WITH WHAT'S REASONABLE, PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHHELD THE AID, IT WAS TO UNDERMINE THESE THREATS TO HIS POLITICAL FUTURE.

AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE HAS BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS.

AS WELL AS EVERY AGENCY WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S OWN ADMINISTRATION.

AND LET US BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING.

THE MONEY MATTERED TO UKRAINE.

IT MATTERED TO UKRAINE, WITNESS TESTIMONY REVEALED THAT THIS MONEY WAS 10% OF UKRAINE'S DEFENSE BUDGET.

10%.

NOW IMAGINE IF PRESIDENT TRUMP JUST DECIDED WITHOUT CAUSE OR EXPLANATION TO HOLD 10% OF OUR OWN DEFENSE BUDGET.

THAT WOULD HAVE A DRAMATIC IMPACT ON OUR MILITARY.

AND IT CERTAINLY DID TO UKRAINE.

OUR ALLY.

KEEP IN MIND, TOO, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TO SIGN THE BILL INTO LAW, WHICH HE DID IN SEPTEMBER OF 2018.

AT NO TIME, AT NO TIME DURING THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE, OR FASTABLE OF THE BILL, DID THE WHITE HOUSE EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE FUNDING OF THE PROGRAM ITSELF.

I WANT YOU TO SEE THE SLIDE BEFORE US.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SIGNS BILL AUTHORIZING AID TO UKRAINE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019.

ON JUNE 18, PRESIDENT TRUMP OWN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE HAD MET ALL OF THE ANTICORRUPTION REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO RECEIVE AID.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT?

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANNOUNCED THAT THE MONEY WAS ON ITS WAY.

JUST AS WE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HAD PROMISED.

SENATORS, OUR WORD MUST CONTINUE TO MEAN SOMETHING.

OUR WORD MUST CONTINUE TO MEAN SOMETHING POWERFUL IN THE WORLD.

SO LET US MAKE CERTAIN THAT AMERICA CONTINUES TO LIVE UP TO ITS PROMISE.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENATORS, THANK YOU SO MUCH, FOR THE ATTENTION THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO OUR PRESENTATION THROUGHOUT THIS DAY.

IT'S A LONG DAY.

YOU'RE HERE WITHOUT YOUR CELL PHONES OR ANY ACCESS TO OTHER INFORMATION.

IT'S NOT EASY BUT YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION, AND THE COUNTRY AND THE MANAGERS THANK YOU FOR THAT.

NOW WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE THE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

AND THE CLEAR CONSENSUS AMONG CONGRESS, THE EXECUTIVE AND THE PRESIDENT'S AGENCIES AND ADVISORS, THAT THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED TO UKRAINE.

IN FACT BY JUNE 18th, AFTER HAVING CERTIFIED THAT UKRAINE HAD MET ALL THE ANTICORRUPTION REFORM REQUIREMENTS, TO RECEIVE THE AID, DOD ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTION TO PROVIDE THE $250 MILLION IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

THIS BRINGS US TO THE SECOND PART OF THIS SECTION OF OUR ARGUMENT.

SOON AFTER THAT JUNE 18th PRESS RELEASE, PRESIDENT TRUMP QUICKLY MOVED TO STOP THE FLOW OF THAT AID.

AFTER THE CLEAR ADVICE OF HIS AGENCIES AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST.

AND HE WAS SO CERMD TO DO IT IN ORDER TO PRESSURE UKRAINE THE DO HIS POLITICAL DIRTY WORK THAT HE WAS WILLING TO VIOLATE THE LAW.

SOMETHING HIS OWN OFFICIALS WERE WELL AWARE OF, AND WORRIED ABOUT.

HOW DO WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLDS?

FIRST THERE IS NO REAL DISPUTE THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD.

THE HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WAS A UNILATERAL OFFICIAL ACT BY THE PRESIDENT.

IMMEDIATELY, AFTER THE DOD'S JUNE 18th PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING THE $250 MILLION IN SECURITY ASSISTANCE OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD FOR UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS WITH THE FUNDING PROGRAMS.

LAURA COOPER FROM DOD AND MARK SANDY FROM OMB TESTIFIED ABOUT THIS SUDDEN INTEREST IN UKRAINE ASSISTANCE, SOMETHING COOPER CALLED UNUSUAL.

WE OF COURSE HAVE RECEIVED NO DOCUMENTS FROM OMB AND DOD BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION.

WHY DID THE PRESIDENT WANT TO HIDE THESE DOCUMENTS?

WE DON'T KNOW.

BUT THANKS TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWSUITS AND HARDWORKING REPORTERS, WE KNOW A LITTLE FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE DO HAVE.

FOR INSTANCE, WE KNOW THAT THE DAY AV THE DOD PRESS RELEASE, THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE UKRAINE AID.

ON JUNE 19th, MICHAEL DUFERY, THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AT OMB SENT AN E-MAIL TO ELAINE McCUSKER THE DOD CONTROLLER, WITH AN ARTICLE BY THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER REPORTING THAT, QUOTE, PENTAGON TO SEND $250 MILLION IN WEAPONS TO UKRAINE. "

AND IN DUFFY'S E-MAIL HE ASKED McCUSKER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL QUESTION, THE PRESIDENT HAS CD ABOUT THIS FUNDING RELEASE AND I HAVE BEEN TASKED TO FOLLOW UP WITH SOMEONE OVER THERE TO GET MORE DETAIL.

DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT ON THIS FUNDING?

IT SEEMS THAT ON JUNE 19, ROBERT BLAIR, MICK MULVANEY'S DEPUTY CALLED ACTING OMB DIRECTOR, HE TOLD HIM, WE NEED TO HOLD IT UP.

THAT'S RIGHT, THE HOLD WAS ACTUALLY DIRECTED IMPULSIVELY WITHOUT ANY POLICY OR AGENCY REVIEW, AS SOON AS THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP APPARENTLY LEARNED ABOUT IT FROM PRESSING REPORTS.

-- PRESS REPORTS.

AND WE KNOW WHAT WAS ON THE PRESIDENT'S MIND ABOUT UKRAINE THAT DAY BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP GAVE A PHONE INTERVIEW WITH SEAN HANNITY ON FOX NEWS.

DURING THE INTERVIEW, HE MENTIONED THE SO-CALLED CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY THAT BLAMES UKRAINE RATHER THAN RUSSIA FOR INTERFERING IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

REMEMBER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP RAISED THE CROWDSTRIKE THEORY A MONTH LATER DURING HIS JULY 25th CALL WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.

AND GOING AS HAS BEEN SAID MANY TIMES THAT THEORY HAS BEEN COMPLCOMPLETELILY REFUTED BY U.. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S OWN HAND-PICKED SENIOR ADVISORS.

THE NEW YORK TIMES ALSO REPORTED THAT ON JUNE 27th, MICK MULVANEY SENT ABOUT BLARE AN E-MAIL.

MULVANEY WROTE, I'M JUST TRYING TO TIE UP SOME LOOSE ENDS.

DID WE EVER FIND OUT ABOUT THE MONEY FOR UKRAINE AND WHETHER WE CAN HOLD IT BACK?

WHAT WAS BLAIR'S RESPONSE TO MULVANEY?

THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE TO HOLD THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE BUT BLAIR WARNED, EXPECT CONGRESS TO BECOME UNHINGED.

NOW, BL BLAIR WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED FOR CONGRESS KNEW THAT CONGRESS WOULD BE UNHINGED BECAUSE THERE WAS OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

CONGRESS HAD ALREADY AUTHORIZED THE RELEASE OF THE FUNDS.

DOD HAD ALREADY TOLD CONGRESS AND THE WORLD THAT IT WAS GOING TO SPEND THE $250 MILLION ON UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

AND IT HAD ALREADY STARTED TO DO SO.

MARK SANDY, THE SENIOR CAREER OFFICIAL AT OMB RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS TYPE OF AID COULDN'T RECALL ANY OTHER TIME IN HIS 12-YEAR CAREER AT OMB WHEN A HOLD HAD BEEN PLACED ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AFTER A CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION WAS MADE.

LATER, IF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL STARTS LISTING OTHER TIMES THAT AID HAS BEEN HELD, ASK YOURSELF THREE QUESTIONS.

ONE, HAD CONGRESS ALREADY CLEARED THE MONEY TO BE RELEASED?

TWO, WAS THERE A SIGNIFICANT GEOPOLITICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THAT COUNTRY?

AND THREE, DID THE GAMPLETO DETERMINE THAT THE HOLD WAS ILLEGAL IN PART BECAUSE CONGRESS WAS NOT NOTIFIED?

HERE, THE MONEY HAD BEEN CLEARED.

THERE WAS NOTHING NEW OR IMPORTANT IN UKRAINE TO DISRUPT THE AID.

JUST THAT A TRUE ANTICORRUPTION REFORMER WAS ELECTED.

THE HOLD WAS ILLEGAL.

FROM FREEDOM OF INFORMATION RELEASES AND PRESS REPORTS, WE KNOW ABOUT JUST A FEW OF THE MANY DOCUMENTS BEING HIDDEN FROM YOU ABOUT HOW THE HOLD BEGAN.

GIVEN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OBSTRUCTION WITH THE FACTS THAT HAVE COME TO LIGHT THROUGH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWSUITS AND NEWS REPORTING, YOU MAY ASSUME THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE BEING WITHHELD WOULD PROBABLY INCRIMINATE THE PRESIDENT.

OTHERWISE, WHY WOULDN'T HE HAVE PROVIDED THEM?

IF HE HAD A LEGITIMATE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CLAIM HE COULD FOLLOW THE RULES.

AND MAKE EACH CLAIM.

INSTEAD HE JUST SAID NO.

NO TO EVERYTHING.

BY MID JULY, THE PRESIDENT HAD PUT A HOLD ON ALL THE MONEY.

JENNIFER WILLIAMS, SPECIAL ADVISOR TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE FOR EUROPE, LEARNED ABOUT THE HOLD ON JULY 3.

SHE SAID IT CAME OUT OF THE BLUE.

AND HADN'T PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCUSSED BUSINESS OMB OR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

THE HOLD WAS NEVER DISCUSSED WITH ANY POLICY EXPERTS IN ANY OF THE RELEVANT AGENCIES.

NOW THAT'S REMARKABLE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED A HOLD ON CONGRESSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ANY INTERAGENCY DELIBERATION, CONSULTATION OR ADVICE.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD WAS AN IMPULSIVE DECISION UNRELATED TO ANY AMERICAN POLICY.

ON JULY 12th, ROBERT BLAIR, MULVANEY'S DEPUTY, E-MAILED DUFFY AT OMB.

HE SAID QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTING A HOLD ON MILITARY SUPPORT FUNDING FOR UKRAINE.

THIS IS ACCORDING TO SANDY, THE CAREER OFFICER AT OMB WHO GOT A COPY OF THE E-MAIL.

NOW, WE DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE E-MAIL BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION BUT HERE'S WHAT WE DO KNOW FROM MR. SANDY'S DESCRIPTION OF THE E-MAIL AS WELL AS TESTIMONY FROM OTHER WITNESSES.

THE HOLD WAS NOT PART OF A LARGER REVIEW OF FOREIGN AID.

WE DO KNOW IT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A POLICY DEBATE ABOUT WHAT WAS BEST FOR AMERICA.

IT CAME OUT OF THE BLUE.

WE NOW KNOW WHY IT WAS DONE.

TO TURN THE SCREWS ON UKRAINE TO PROVIDE POLITICAL HELP FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THE HOLD WAS IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF ITS TIMING.

DUFFY LATER ASKED BLAIR ABOUT THE REASONS FOR THE HOLD.

BLAIR GAVE NO EXPLANATION.

INSTEAD HE SAID, QUOTE, WE NEED TO LET THE HOLD TAKE PLACE.

AND THEN REVISIT THE ISSUE WITH THE PRESIDENT.

BLAIR EITHER DIDN'T KNOW THE REASON OR WOULDN'T SHARE THE REAL REASON BECAUSE IT WAS CORRUPT.

IT SURE WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW WHAT BLAIR KNEW ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE HOLD.

AND WHAT DUFFY KNEW.

WE COULD ASK THEM THE QUESTION, IF YOU AUTHORIZE A SUBPOENA.

NOW, WE HAD HOPED AS WE SAID THAT THE SENATE WOULD AUTHORIZE SUBPOENAS BEFORE OUR ARGUMENTS WERE MADE.

WE THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL.

BUT WE KNOW THAT YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO CALL WITNESSES, TO REQUIRE DOCUMENTS, AND WE HOPE THAT YOUR DECISION WILL BE INFORMED BY THE ARGUMENTS WE'RE MAKING TO YOU OVER THESE DAYS.

AND THAT YOU WILL IN FACT GET THE FULL STORY.

WELL, WE DO KNOW, ACTUALLY, THE REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT DID WHAT HE DID.

WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT HELD THE MONEY, WASN'T BECAUSE OF ANY POLICY REASON, TO BENEFIT AMERICA OR ANY CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

OR ANY DESIRE FOR MORE BURDEN-SHARING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES.

IT WAS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS UPSET THAT UKRAINE WAS NOT ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WANTED.

BECAUSE HE WANTED TO RAMP UP THE PRESSURE TO FORCE THEM TO DO IT.

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IT WAS CLEAR THE HOLD WAS NOT IN AMERICA'S NATIONAL INTEREST.

THOSE WITHIN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR UKRAINE'S SECURITY AND FOR SHAPING AND IMPLEMENTING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY WERE CAUGHT OFF GUARD BY THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION.

SUPPORT FOR THE AID AND AGAINST THE HOLD WAS UNANIMOUS, FORCEFUL AND UNWAVERING.

THE PRESIDENT CAN CALL UKRAINE POLICY EXPERTS UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS ALL HE WATTS.

BUT THOSE WERE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING HIS OFFICIAL POLICY, DEVELOPED BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, WHICH WAS ALSO A PRODUCT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.

ANYWAY, IT WASN'T JUST THE CAREER OFFICERS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S OWN POLITICALLY APPOINTED SENIOR OFFICIALS, HIS CABINET MEMBERS, ALSO OPPOSED THE HOLD.

WHY?

BECAUSE IT WAS AGAINST OUR NATIONAL INTEREST.

BUT THE PRESIDENT WASN'T PERSUADED ABOUT GOOUSSMENTS ABOUT NATIONAL INTEREST.

WHY?

BECAUSE THE HOLD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST.

IT HAD TO DO WITH THE INTERESTS OF JUST ONE PERSON.

DONALD J. TRUMP.

THE DEMAND FOR UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THESE INVESTIGATIONS WAS NOT A POLICY DECISION, BUT A PERSONAL DECISION BY THE PRESIDENT TO BENEFIT HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS.

AT AN NSC-LED MEETING ON JULY 8th, OMB ANNOUNCED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD DIRECTED A HOLD ON UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE NEWS SHOCKED MEETING PARTICIPANTS.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT HE AND OTHERS ON THE CALL SAT IN ASTONISHMENT WHEN THEY LEARNED ABOUT THE HOLD.

HE IMMEDIATELY REALIZED ONE OF THE KEY PILLARS OF OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE WAS THREATENED.

DAVID HOLMES, POLITICAL COUNSELOR AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IF KIEV WAS SHOCKED, THOUGHT THE HOLD WAS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT UNDERMINED WHAT HE UNDERSTOOD TO BE LONG STANDING POLICY IN UKRAINE.

AND KATHRYN CROFT, STATE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR UKRAINE TESTIFIED THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENT BLEW UP THE MEETING.

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT SAID THERE WAS A GREAT CONFUSION AMONG THE REST OF US BECAUSE WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT HAD LAND.

HE EXPLAINED SINCE THERE WAS UNANIMITY ABOUT THIS SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE THAT IT WAS IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST, IT JUST SURPRISED ALL OF US.

THE POLICY WAS CLEAR, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF OMB WHICH WAS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT EVERYONE SUPPORTED LIFTING THE HOLD.

ALL THE WAY UP TO NUMBER 2 OFFICIALS AT THE AGENCIES, THE POLITICAL APPOINTEES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.

THERE WAS UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT THAT THE HOLD WAS ILL ADVISED AND THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED.

TIM MORRISON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR TO JOHN BOLTON, UNDERSTOOD THAT THE MOST SENIOR APPOINTED OFFICIALS WERE ALL SUPPORTIVE OF THE CONTINUED DISBURSEMENT OF THE AID.

ON AWK 15th AT THE PRESIDENT'S GOLF CLUB IN BEDMINSTER NEW JERSEY, REPRESENTATIVES OF OF THE CABINET ALL REPRESENTED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON, ALL REPRESENTED THAT THEY WERE PREPARED TO ENDORSE THE SWIFT DISBURSEMENT OF THE FUNDING.

THE PRESIDENT JUDGE IGNORED, PROVIDED NO CREDIBLE REASON FOR ITS HOLD NOT FROM THE DAY IT WAS MADE UNTIL IT WAS LIFTED.

WITNESS AFTER WITNESS INCLUDING HALE, VINDMAN, COOPER, SANDY, TESTIFIED THEY WEREN'T GIVENFULLY REASON FOR THE HOLD WHILE IT WAS IN PLACE.

CROFT SAID THE ONLY REASON GIVEN WAS THAT THE ORDER CAME FROM THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT.

HAD HOLMES CONFIRMED THAT THE ORDER HAD COME FROM THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLANATION.

KENT TESTIFIED TOO.

I DON'T RECALL ANY COHERENT EXPLANATION, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND AGREED, I WAS NERCH E-NEVER GIVEN A STRAIGHT ANSWER AS TO WHY IT WAS PUT IN PLACE TO BEGIN WITH.

DR. HILL EXPLAINED, NO, THERE WAS NO REASON GIVEN.

EVEN SENATOR McCONNELL SAID, I WAS NOT GIVEN AN EXPLANATION FOR THE HOLD.

EVEN AS OMB WAS IMPLEMENTING THE HOLD, OFFICERS IN OMB WERE SAYING IT SHOULD BE LIFTED.

MR. SANDY TESTIFIED THAT HIS TEAM DRAFTED A MEMO ON AUGUST 7th TO OMB ACTING DIRECTOR RUSS VOUGHT.

THE DIRECTION WAS CONSISTENT TO A STABLE EASTERN URINE.

TWO, COUNTERCONGREGATION, THREE, THERE WAS -- COUNTERS AGGRESSION, APPROVED THE MEMORANDUM, HE AGREED WITH ITS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IT WASN'T JUST OMB.

SENIOR ADVISORS IN THE ADMINISTRATION TRIED OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO CONVINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TO LIFT THE HOLD OVER THE SUMMER.

SOMETIME PRIOR TO AUGUST 16th, AMBASSADOR BOLTON HAD A ONE ON ONE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ABOUT THE AID.

BUT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T BUDGE.

THEN, AT THE END OF AUGUST WHEN THE HOLD ON THE AID BECAME PUBLIC, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EXPRESSED TO MULTIPLE OFFICIALS HIS CONCERNS ABOUT WITHHOLDING THE AID FROM UKRAINE, AT A TIME WHEN IT WAS FIGHTING RUSSIA.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE HOLD NOT JUST AS A MESSAGE TO UKRAINE, BUT IMPORTANTLY, TO RUSSIA AS WELL.

WITHHOLDING THE AID OFTEN VITAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE, WHILE UKRAINE WAS IN THE MIDST OF A HOT WAR WITH RUSSIA, SENT A MESSAGE TO RUSSIA ABOUT U.S. SUPPORT OF UKRAINE.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR FELT SO STRONGLY ABOUT THE HARM WITHHOLDING THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER IN HIS DECADES OF SERVICE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, HE SENT A FIRST-PERSON CABLE WITH HIS CONCERNS TO SECRETARY POMPEO.

IN THE CABLE, HE DESCRIBED DIRECTLY, THE FOLLY THAT TAYLOR SAW IN WITHHOLDING THE AID.

HERE'S HIS TESTIMONY.

>> HAVE YOU EVER SENT A CABLE LIKE THAT?

HOW MANY TIMES IN YOUR CAREER OF 40, 50 YEARS HAVE YOU SENT A CABLE DIRECTLY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE?

>> ONCE.

>> THIS TIME?

>> YES, SIR.

>> IN 50 YEARS?

>> DON'T SEND CABLES BUT YES, SIR.

>> AMBASSADOR TAYLOR NEVER RECEIVED AN ANSWER TO THE CABLE BUT HE WAS TOLD THAT SECRETARY POMPEO CARRIED IT WITH HIM TO A WHITE HOUSE MEETING ABOUT SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.

IT SEEMED THIS MEETING ABOUT THE AID MAY HAVE OCCURRED ON AUGUST 30th.

THERE ARE PRESS REPORTS THAT SECRETARY POMPEO, SECRETARY ESPER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BOLTON, DISCUSSED THE HOLD WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP SHORTLY AFTER AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SENT HIS CABLE.

KEEP THIS IN MIND.

THIS WAS TWO DAYS AFTER THE HOLD WAS PUBLICLY REPORTED, AND AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS BRIEFED ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.

YET, EVEN THEN, PRESIDENT TRUMP REFUSED TO RELEASE THE AID.

ON AUGUST 30th, MICHAEL DUFFY SENT AN E-MAIL TO EAST ELAINE McCUSKER THE D.O.T.

COMPTROLLER.

IT SAID, CLEAR DIRECTION FROM POTUS COTO CONTINUE THE HOLD.

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REFUSED TO PRODUCE THIS OR ANY OTHER E-MAIL TO CONGRESS.

WHEN IT WAS FORCED TO PRODUCE, THIS AREA WAS BLACKED OUT.

WHAT'S THE REASON TO BLACK OUT THIS AREA, NO REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN TO US.

YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF THIS, WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT HIDING?

THE PRESIDENT FINALLY RELEASED THE HOLD ON SEPTEMBER 11th BUT AGAIN THERE WAS NO CREDIBLE REASON GIVEN FOR GIVEN FOR THE RELEASE.

MARK SANDY TESTIFIED THAT HE COULD NOT RECALL ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE WAS BEING HELD UP AND HE DIDN'T HAVE A RATIONALE FOR AS LONG AS I DIDN'T HAVE A RATIONALE ON THIS CASE.

ON THE DAY IT WAS RELEASED OMB STILL DIDN'T KNOW WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD ORDERED THE HOLD.

ON SEPTEMBER 11th, THE DAY THE PRESIDENT FINALLY RELEASED THE AID, McCUSKER AT DOD FINALLY SENT AN E-MAIL TO DUFF YEAH ASKING, WHAT HAPPENED, MICHAEL DUFFY ANSWERED, NOT CLEAR EXACTLY, WILL FILL YOU IN WHEN WE GET DETAILS.

SO LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK FOR A MINUTE.

WHY WAS NO REASON GIVEN TO ANYONE FOR THE PRESIDENT DECIDING TO HOLD UP HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO OUR ALLIES?

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORTABLE REASON FOR WITHHOLDING THE AID.

NO ONE AGREED WITH IT.

ACCORDING TO THE 17 WITNESSES IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, PRESIDENT TRUMP INSISTED ON HOLDING THE AID AND PROVIDED NO REASON DESPITE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR LIFTING THE HOLD THROUGHOUT HIS ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING HIS HAND PICKED TOP ADVISORS.

IT ALSO WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH AMERICAN POLICY.

THE AID HAD THE CLEAR SUPPORT OF CAREER OFFICERS, AND POLITICAL APPOINTEES, IN PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION, AS IMPORTANT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.

THERE WAS NO NATIONAL SECURITY OR FOREIGN POLICY REASON PROVIDED.

NO ONE COULD THINK OF ONE.

DOD HAD ALREADY CERTIFIED THE TO CONGRESS AS THE LAW REQUIRED THAT UKRAINE HAD MET THE ANTICORRUPTION CONDITIONS FOR THE AID AND THAT IT PLANNED TO BEGIN IMPLEMENTING THE EXPENDITURES.

SO WHY DID THE PRESIDENT DO THIS?

I THINK WE KNOW WHY.

THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE.

TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS, THAT WOULD PERSONALLY BENEFIT PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AND THAT BRINGS US TO A KEY POINT.

IT WASN'T JUST THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED A HOLD ON THE AID WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION.

AGAINST THE UNANIMOUS ADVICE OF HIS ADVISORS AND EVEN AFTER FOR WEEKS AS HIS ADMINISTRATION BOTH CAREER AND POLITICAL APPOINTEES CONTINUED TO TRY TO GET HIM TO RELEASE THE HOLD.

WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO HIDE WAS WORSE.

WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS NOT JUST WRONG, IT WAS ILLEGAL.

IN ORDERING THE HOLD, PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT ONLY TOOK A POSITION CONTRARY TO SENIOR ADVISORS, COUNTER TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND WORSE, CONTRARY TO NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST, HE ALSO VIOLATED THE LAW.

THIS ISSUE WAS NOT A SURPRISE.

FROM THE START OF THE HOLD IN JULY COMPLIANCE WITH THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT WAS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN FOR OMB AND DOD OFFICIALS.

MARK SANDERS RAISED THE ISSUE WITH MICHAEL DUFFY THAT THE HOLD MIGHT VIOLATE THE EMPOWERMENT ACT.

LAURA COOPER FROM DOD DESCRIBED THE DISCUSSION OF THE JULY 26th MEETING NUMBER 2 OFFICIALS STATING QUOTE, IMMEDIATELY, DEPUTIES BEGAN TO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS COULD BE DONE IN A LEGAL FASHION.

SHE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL MECHANISM TO USE, TO IMPLEMENT THE HOLD, AFTER CONGRESS HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE RELEASE OF THE FUNDING.

AT A JULY 31st MEETING WITH MORE JUNIOR OFFICIALS, LAURA COOPER PUT ALL ATTENDEES ON NOTICE INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WHITE HOUSE THAT BECAUSE, QUOTE, THERE WERE ONLY TWO LEGALLY AVAILABLE OPTIONS, AND WE DO NOT HAVE DIRECTION TO PURSUE EITHER, CLOSE QUOTE, DOD WOULD HAVE TO START SPENDING THE FUNDS ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 6th.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRESIDENT HAD A CHOICE.

HE COULD RELEASE THE AID, OR HE COULD BREAK THE LAW.

HE CHOSE TO BREAK THE LAW.

HE WAS SO DETERMINED TO TURN UP THE PRESSURE ON UKRAINE, THAT HE KEPT THE HOLD FOR NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, AND WITHOUT ANY CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION, FOR LONG ENOUGH TO VIOLATE THE LAW.

THE CONCERNS FROM OMB AND DOD WERE ULTIMATELY ACCURATE.

AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED JUST LAST WEEK, THE NONPARTISAN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE FOUND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP BROKE THE LAW BY IMPLEMENTING THE HOLD AND IN FAILING TO NOTIFY CONGRESS ABOUT IT.

BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S HOLD, DOD WAS MULTIUNABLE TO SPEND ALL THE $2 -- WAS UNABLE TO SPEND ALL THE $250 MILLION OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, AS CONGRESS, AS WE INTENDED.

AS GAO EXPLAINED THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS THE PRESIDENT NO UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD FUNDS FROM OBLIGATION.

AND THEY FURTHER EXPLAINED, FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THE PRESIDENT TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN POLICY PRIORITIES FOR THOSE THAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED INTO LAW.

OMB WITHHELD FUNDS FOR A POLICY REASON WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT, END QUOTE.

NOW BOTTOM LINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP FROZE THE AID TO INCREASE THE PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS HE WANTED.

HE VIOLATED THE LAW.

HE VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.

BUT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T JUST VIOLATE THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT WHILE PRESSURING UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE THE INVESTIGATIONS HE WANTED, HE WAS DISHONEST ABOUT IT IN THE PROCESS.

THIS IS REALLY TELLING BECAUSE HE IS STILL NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT IT EVEN NOW.

THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS HAD A IMPLEMENTED THE HOLD, UNTIL SEPTEMBER 11th, ASSERTED THAT IT WAS BEING IMPOSED TO, QUOTE, ALLOW FOR AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE BEST USE OF SUCH FUNDS.

BUT THAT WASN'T TRUE.

THERE WAS NO ONGOING INTERAGENCY PROCESS AFTER JULY 31st, AFTER IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE ENTIRE INTERAGENCY, INCLUDING CABINET OFFICERS, UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THE AID SHOULD BE RELEASED.

THE TRUTH IS THERE SIMPLY WAS NO DEBATE, OR REVIEW, IN THE INTERAGENCY REGARDING THE BEST USE OF SUCH FUNDS.

IS A THE REASON GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ONLY ILLEGAL, IT WAS FALSE, TOO.

THE DISHONEST I IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS WEREN'T THE ONLY STEPS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S MEN AT OMB TOOK TO COVER UP HIS MISCONDUCT AND ENABLE HIS SCHEME.

OMB WENT SO FAR AS TO REMOVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS FROM MARK SANDY A CAREER OFFICER AND GAVE IT TO MICHAEL DUFFY A POLITICAL APPOINTEE WITHOUT EXPERIENCE MANAGING SUCH DOCUMENTS.

THIS CHANGE WAS UNUSUAL.

IT OCCURRED LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER SANDY RAISED CONCERNS THAT THE HOLD VIOLATED THE LAW.

SANDY WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY PRIOR INSTANCE WHEN A POLITICAL APPOINTEE ASSUMED THIS KIND OF FUNDING APPROVAL AUTHORITY.

DUFFY'S EXPLANATION THAT HE SIMPLY WANTED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE ACCOUNTS, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO SANDY.

REALLY, THIS ODD CHANGE IN RESPONSIBILITY WAS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO KEEP THE PRESIDENT'S ILLEGAL HOLD WITHIN A TIGHT KNIT UNIT OF LOYAL SOLDIERS WITHIN THE OMB.

MICHAEL DUFFY DEFIGHT THE HOUSE'S SUBPOENA.

AT THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION HE REFUSED TO APPEAR.

NOW, THE HOUSE DID NOT ASSERT ANY PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES WHEN IT DIRECTED DUFFY TO DEFY CONGRESS'S SUBPOENA.

IT WASN'T A REAL EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

THEY TOLD HIM NOT TO APPEAR.

AND THEY HAD NO REASON WHY.

IF MR. DUFFY KNEW ABOUT ANY LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THE HOLD, I'LL BET HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BLOCKED FROM TESTIFYING.

THE FACT THAT HE WAS BLOCKED MIGHT LEAD YOU TO INFUR THAT HIS TESTIMONY WOULD BE DAMAGING TO THE PRESIDENT.

AND WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY OF THE OTHER WITNESSES, THAT THE HOLD WAS SOLELY USED TO RATCHET UP PRESSURE ON UKRAINE.

BUT THE WARNINGS FROM DOD WEREN'T JUST ABOUT HOW THE HOLD WAS ILLEGAL, THEY WERE ALSO PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES.

BY AUGUST 12th, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TOLD OMB IT COULD NO LONGER GUARANTEE IT WOULD BE ABLE TO SPEND ALL $250 MILLION THAT CONGRESS HAD DIRECTED BEFORE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

NOT LONG AFTER THIS AUGUST 12th E-MAIL, DOD DETERMINED THAT TIME HAD RUN OUT.

MS. COOPER TESTIFIED THAT DOD ESTIMATED THAT AS MUCH AS $100 MILLION OF AID MIGHT GO UNSPENT, EVEN IF THE HOLD WAS IMMEDIATELY LIFTED.

AS A RESULT, DOD REFUSED TO CERTIFY THAT IT WOULD BE ABLE TO SPEND THE FUNDS BY SEPTEMBER 30th.

ON AUGUST 20th, OMB ISSUED THE FIRST OF SIX BUDGETS DOCUMENTS AND REMOVED THE LANGUAGE PROVIDING LEGAL COVER FOR THE HOLD.

FROM THAT POINT ON, THE WHITE HOUSE KNEW THAT DOD WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEND ALL THE FUNDS WHICH WAS WHAT THE LAW REQUIRED, BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30th.

AND YET, EVEN THOUGH HE KNEW THE HOLD WOULD VIOLATE THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT, PRESIDENT TRUMP CONTINUED THE HOLD, FOR ANOTHER 23 DAYS, WITHOUT TELLING US, WITHOUT TELLING THE CONGRESS.

THIS HAD THE EXACT OUTCOME THAT DOD FEARED.

AFTER THE PRESIDENT LIFTED THE HOLD ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 11th, DOD HAD ONLY 18 DAYS TO SPEND THE REMAINING $223 MILLION.

WHICH IS ABOUT 89% OF THE TOTAL.

DOD SCRAMBLED AND THEY SPENT ALL BUT.

$35 MILLION.

ABOUT 14% OF THE APPROPRIATED FUNDS WERE LEFT.

THAT 35 MILLION WOULD HAVE EXPIRED, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN FOREVER LOST TO UKRAINE, HAD CONGRESS NOT STEPPED IN TO PASS A LAW TO ROLL THE MONEY OVER TO THE NEXT YEAR.

BUT EVEN AS OF TODAY, MORE THAN $18 MILLION OF THAT MONEY HAS NOT YET BEEN SPENT.

WHY?

YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK DOD.

THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN US A REASON.

OKAY, ALL OF THIS SHOWS CLEARLY THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOWINGLY, WILLFULLY, VIOLATED THE LAW, WHEN HE WITHHELD AID FROM UKRAINE.

BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT DO NOT CHARGE DONALD TRUMP WITH VIOLATING THE EMPOWERMENT CONTROL ACT.

WE'RE NOT ARGUING THAT.

BUT UNDERSTANDING THIS VIOLATION OF THE LAW IS IMPORTANT, TO UNDERSTAND THE BROADER SCHEME OF HIS ABUSE OF POWER.

IS SLOWS THE GREAT LENGTHS THE -- IT SHOWS THE GREAT LENGTHS THE PRESIDENT WAS WILLING TO GO TO, IN ORDER TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO DO HIS POLITICAL DIRTY WORK.

THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WASN'T SOMETHING THE LAW ALLOWED HIM TO GIVE OR TAKE AT HIS DISCRETION.

NO, HE WAS LEGALLY OBLIGED TO RELEASE THE MONEY.

BUT HE SIMPLY DIDN'T CARE.

WHY?

HE WAS SO DETERMINED TO GET THE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM UKRAINE TO SMEAR HIS ELECTION OPPONENT, THAT HOLDING THE AID TO FORCE UKRAINE TO DO THAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

HE DIDN'T CARE IF HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW.

URGS I'VE BEEN SIT -- YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND HONESTLY I DIDN'T WANT TO BE HERE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

BUT I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT NOVUS ODER SEQUORUM.

I DIDN'T STUDY LATIN BECAUSE I HAD TO LOOK IT UP, KEEPING THAT NEW ORDER, THE DEMOCRACY OR THE POWER IS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE, NOT IN THE HANDS OF AN UNACCOUNTABLE EXECUTIVE, IS WHAT WE IN THE CONGRESS, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, ARE CHARGED TO DO.

SENATOR BLUNT AND I ARE IN CHARGE OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.

AND EVERY YEAR, WE PRINT A NEW COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION.

AND THIS YEAR, IN THE BACK, WE PRINTED A QUOTE.

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WAS ASKED, WHAT HAVE YOU WROUGHT, AND HE ANSWERED, A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.

THAT IS THE CHALLENGE THAT ALL OF US FACE AND YOU SENATORS FACE.

I TURN NOW TO MR. CROW WHO WILL OUTLINE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S INTENTIONS.

>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, COUNSEL FOR THE PRESIDENT.

JUST BEAR WITH US A LITTLE WHILE LONGER.

I PROMISE BEE ARE ALMOST THERE.

YOU'VE HEARD A LOT THE LAST FEW DAYS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD, TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS, THAT WOULD HELP HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN?

IN OTHER WORDS, HOW DO WE KNOW WHY IT HAPPENED?

WE KNOW IT BECAUSE TO THIS DAY THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION.

WE KNOW IT BECAUSE SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT'S OWN SENIOR POLITICAL APPOINTEES HAVE CONFIRMED IT.

AND WE KNOW IT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT'S OWN CHIEF OF STAFF SAID IT AT A NATIONAL PRESS CONFERENCE.

AND WE KNOW IT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF DIRECTED IT.

HERE ARE THE FACTS.

ONE, THE PRESIDENT ASKED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY FOR A FAVOR ON JULY 25th.

AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT FAVOR WAS.

TWO, MULTIPLE U.S. OFFICIALS WITH FACT BASED KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCESS HAVE CONFIRMED IT.

THREE, PRESIDENT TRUMP LIFTED THE HOLD ONLY AFTER HIS SCHEME WAS EXPOSED.

FOUR, THERE WERE NO OTHER LEGITIMATE EXPLANATIONS FOR RELEASE OF THE HOLD.

IT WAS NOT BASED ON A LEGITIMATE REVIEW OF THE FOREIGN AID.

IT WAS NOT BASED ON CONCERNS OF CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE.

IT WAS NOT BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED COUNTRIES TO PAY MORE.

THERE ARE NO FACTS THAT SHOW THAT THE PRESIDENT CARED ABOUT ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

FIVE, AS WE KNOW, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY ADMITAT A PRESS CONFERENCE -- ADMIT AT A PRESS CONFERENCE THAT THE BOGUS 2016 ALLEGATIONS WERE, QUOTE, WHY WE HELD UP THE MONEY.

EVENTUALLY THE TRUTH COMES OUT.

THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE POLICY REASONS FOR HOLDING THE AID, SO THE TRUTH CAME OUT.

AS AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, THE PRESIDENT WAS A BUSINESSMAN WHO SAW CONGRESSLY APPROVED TAXPAYER FUNDED MILITARY AID FOR UKRAINE, OUR PARTNER AT WAR, AS JUST ANOTHER BUSINESS DEAL TO BE MADE.

MILITARY AID IN EXCHANGE FOR FABRICATED DIRT ON HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, DIRT FOR DOLLARS, THIS FOR THAT, A QUID PRO QUO.

LET'S START WITH THE PRESIDENT'S OWN WORDS TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY ON THE JULY 25th CALL.

WITH THE HOLD ON HIS MIND, AND ON PRESIDENT ZELENSKY'S MIND TOO, WE KNOW THAT, PRESIDENT TRUMP LINKED MILITARY AID TO HIS REQUEST FOR A FAVOR.

AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE CALL, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID, QUOTE, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE.

WE ARE READY TO CONTINUE TO COOPERATE TO THE NEXT STEPS, SPECIFICALLY WE ARE ALMOST READY TO BUY MORE JAVELINS FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES.

THE QUOTE, GREAT SUPPORT IN THE AREA OF DEFENSE INCLUDED OF COURSE THE $391 MILLION IN MILITARY AID.

BECAUSE REMEMBER JUST THE MONTH BEFORE, DOD HAD PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED ITS INTENT TO PROVIDE $250 MILLION OF THAT AID.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS SHOWING GRATITUDE TO THE PRESIDENT FOR THE AID THAT DOD HAD JUST ANNOUNCED WOULD BE ON ITS WAY.

BUT THE PRESIDENT HAD PUT A HOLD JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY BROUGHT UP THE U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT AND SAID THAT UKRAINE WAS ALMOST READY TO BUY MORE JAVELIN ANTITANK MIXES, PRESIDENT TRUMP PIVOTED TO WHAT HE WANTED IN RETURN.

HE TURNED FROM THE QUID TO THE QUO.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED, HE SAID QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO YOU DO US A FAVOR THOUGH, BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN THROUGH A LOT AND UKRAINE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT IT.

AND WHAT WAS THAT FAVOR?

WELL, WE ALL KNOW BY NOW, DON'T WE?

IT WASN'T TO FIGHT CORRUPTION.

IT WASN'T TO HELP THE UNITED STATES OR OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS, IT WAS THE TWO SPECIFIC POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT HE WANTED UKRAINE TO ANNOUNCE, TO HELP HIS OWN PERSONAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S QUICK PIVOT FROM THE CRITICAL MILITARY AID HE KNEW THAT UKRAINE DESPERATELY NEEDED, TO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIM PERSONALLY, SPEAKS VOLUMES.

BY BRINGING UP THE INVESTIGATIONS, IMMEDIATELY AFTER PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RAISED THE ISSUE OF MILITARY SUPPORT, HE LINKED THE TWO ISSUES.

AND U.S. OFFICIALS LISTENING TO THE CALL ALSO MADE THAT CONNECT.

HERE'S WHAT JENNIFER WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S AIDE, TESTIFIED.

>> BUT I WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING ELSE YOU SAID IN YOUR DEPOSITION YOU SAID IT SHED SOME LIGHT ON POSSIBLE OTHER MOTIVATIONS BEHIND THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I WAS ASKED DURING THE CLOSED DOOR TESTIMONY HOW I FELT ABOUT THE CALL.

AND IN REFLECTING ON WHAT I WAS THINKING IN THAT MOMENT, IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD INTERNALLY, THE PRESIDENT REFERENCE PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS THAT PREVIOUSLY I'D ONLY HEARD ABOUT THROUGH MR. GIULIANI'S PRESS INTERVIEWS AND PRESS REPORTING.

SO IN THAT MOMENT IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THERE WAS A DIRECT CONNECTION OR LINKAGE BETWEEN THE ONGOING HOLD ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHAT THE PRESIDENT MAY BE ASKING PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO UNDERTAKE IN REGARD TO INVESTIGATIONS.

SO IT WAS NOTEWORTHY IN THAT REGARD.

I DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DRAW ANY FIRM CONCLUSIONS.

>> BUT IT RAISED THE QUESTION IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHETHER THE TWO WERE REMITTED?

>> IT WAS THE FIRST I HAD HEARD OF ANY REQUESTS OF UKRAINE WHICH WERE THAT SPECIFIC IN NATURE.

SO IT WAS NOTEWORTHY TO ME IN THAT REGARD.

>> IN FACT, THE HOLD WAS FORMALLY IMPLEMENTED BY OMB THE VERY DAY OF THE CALL.

JUST HOURS AFTER THE CALL BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DUFFY SENT AN E-MAIL TO SENIOR DOD OFFICIALS INSTRUCTING THEM TO PUT A HOLD ON THE SECURITY AID.

HE SAID, HE UNDERSCORED, QUOTE, GIVEN THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THE REQUEST, I APPRECIATE YOUR KEEPING THAT INFORMATION CLOSELY HELD TO THOSE WHO NEED TO KNOW, TO EXECUTE THE DIRECTION.

IN OTHER WORDS, DON'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT IT.

IF THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE HOLD FOR A LEGITIMATE POLICY REASON, THEN WHY DID HE WANT TO HIDE IT FROM THE REST OF THE ADMINISTRATION?

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS OBSTRUCTED CONGRESS'S ABILITY TO GET THOSE ANSWERS.

WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK DUFFY, WHY THEY WANTED TO KEEP IT QUIET.

THERE'S MORE EVIDENCE OF COURSE, A LOT MORE.

IN FACT THERE IS SO MUCH EVIDENCE THAT ACCORDING TO WITNESSES, THE FACT THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS, BECAME AS CLEAR AS TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR.

EVERYONE KNEW IT.

INDEED WITH NO EXPLANATION FOR THE HOLD, UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR ITS RELEASE, ONGOING WITH INTO ANNOUNCING THE INVESTIGATIONS BY HOLDING UP THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING, IT BECAME OF CRYSTAL CLEAR, AS CONFIRMED BUSY PLUMMET WITNESSES, THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR THE HOLD WAS TO PUT ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON UKRAINE.

DAVID HOLMES, THE SENIOR OFFICIAL AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN KIEV, EXPLAINED.

>> MR. HOLMES, YOU HAVE TESTIFIED THAT BY LATE AUGUST, YOU HAD A CLEAR IMPRESSION THEAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE HOLD WAS SHOUSE CONNECTED TO THE INVESTIGATIONS, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED.

HOW DID YOU CONCLUDE THAT -- HOW DID YOU MAKE -- REACH THAT CLEAR CONCLUSION?

>> SIR, WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION SINCE MARCH.

MONTHS BEFORE.

AND WE'D BEEN, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD RECEIVED A LETTER, CONGRATULATORY LETTER FROM ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, IN MAY AND WE HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET THAT MEETING AND THEN THE SECURITY HOLD CAME UP.

WITH NO EXPLANATION, AND I'D BE SURPRISED IF ANY OF THE UKRAINE -- WE DISCUSS ID EARLIER, SOPHISTICATED PEOPLE, WHEN THEY RECEIVE NO EXPLANATION FOR WHY THAT HOLD WAS IN PLACE, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE DRAWN THAT CONCLUSION.

>> BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE STILL BEING PURSUED?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND THE HOLD WAS STILL WITHOUT EXPLANATION?

>> CORRECT.

>> THIS TO YOU WAS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION COULD YOU REACH?

>> CORRECT.

>> SORT OF LIKE TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR?

>> EXACTLY.

>> AND AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THE SAME THING.

>> THIS KIND OF A TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR CONCLUSION THAT YOU REACHED?

>> PRETTY MUCH.

>> IS THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO YOU THAT GIVEN ALL OF THESE FACTORS, THAT THE AID WAS ALSO A PART OF THIS QUID PRO QUO?

>> YEP.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND DIDN'T REACH THAT CONCLUSION BASED ONLY ON COMMON SENSE.

IT WAS CONFIRMED BY SECRETARY POMPEO INAND VICE PRESIDENT PENCE, TOO.

SO LET'S BEGIN WITH WHAT SECRETARY POMPEO KNEW ABOUT THE LINK BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE AID.

IN FRONT OF YOU, IS AN E-MAIL, AT THE END OF AUGUST BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP CANCELLED HIS TRIP TO WARSAW TO MEET WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, SONDLAND SENT AN E-MAIL TO SECRETARY POMPEO IN WHICH HE PROPOSED A PULL ASIDE BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AT THE MEETING IN WARSAW.

THREE MINUTES LATER, SECRETARY POMPEO REPLIED YES.

THAT'S IT.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND EXPLAINED THE E-MAIL IN HIS TESTIMONY.

>> LATER IN AUGUST YOU TOLD SECRETARY POMPEO THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WOULD BE PREPARED TO TELL PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HIS NEW JUSTICE OFFICIALS WOULD BE ABLE TO ANNOUNCE MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THE PRESIDENT WHICH COULD BREAK THE LOGJAM.

WHEN YOU SAY MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THE PRESIDENT YOU MEAN THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND THAT INVOLVED 2016, AND BURISMA OR THE BIDENS?

>> 2016 AND BURISMA.

>> AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE BREAKING THE LOGJAM YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LOGJAM OVER THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE CORRECT?

>> I WAS TALKING LOGJAM GENERICALLY BECAUSE NOTHING WAS MOVING.

>> BUT THAT INCLUDED THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE CORRECT?

>> CORRECT.

>> AND BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THAT E-MAIL THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD DISCUSSED THESE INVESTIGATIONS WITH SECRETARY POMPEO WAS IT?

>> NO.

>> HE WAS AWARE OF THE CONNECTIONS THAT YOU WERE MAKING BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE?

>> YES.

>> SO LET'S BREAK THAT DOWN FOR A MINUTE.

A MEETING BETWEEN TWO PRESIDENTS IS A BIG DEAL.

A PULL-ASIDE IS A BIG DEAL.

THESE ARE HIGHLY CHOREOGRAPHED EVENTS.

SECRETARY POMPEO DIDN'T ASK ANY QUESTIONS AND DIDN'T SHOW ANY SURPRISE OR CONFUSION IN RESPONSE TO THE E-MAIL.

INSTEAD HE IMMEDIATELY ENDORSED THE IDEA.

THIS SHOWS THAT SECRETARY POMPEO WHO ALSO LISTENED TO THE JULY 25th CALL AS WELL, UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATIONS.

BY THIS TIME, EVERYONE KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

A SIMPLE YES, BY SECRETARY POMPEO, WAS ENOUGH.

SECRETARY POMPEO WASN'T THE ONLY SENIOR OFFICIAL WHO KNEW.

VICE PRESIDENT PENCE KNEW AS WELL.

SONDLAND RAISED THE ISSUE TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE DURING A MEETING TO PREPARE FOR WARSAW TRIP.

AT SOME POINT LATE IN THE MEETING SONDLAND SAID QUOTE IT APPEARS EVERYTHING IS STALLED UNTIL THIS STATEMENT GETS MADE.

WHAT SONDLAND WAS REFERRING TO OF COURSE WAS THE MILITARY AID AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TESTIFIED ABOUT VICE PRESIDENT PENCE'S REACTION.

>> NOW, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH VICE PRESIDENT PENCE RIGHT BEFORE THAT MEETING IN WARSAW.

AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAID TO HIM, THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT THE DELAY IN THE AID WAS TIED TO THE ISSUE OF INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO HIM.

THIS WAS A BRIEFING ATTENDED BY MANY PEOPLE AND I WAS INVITED AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE.

I WASN'T SCHEDULED TO BE THERE.

BUT I THINK I SPOKE UP AT SOME POINT LATE IN THE MEETING AND SAID IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING IS BEING HELD UP UNTIL THESE STATEMENTS GET MADE.

AND THAT'S MY, YOU KNOW, PERSONAL BELIEF.

>> AND VICE PRESIDENT PENCE JUST NODDED HIS HEAD?

>> AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL ANY EXCHANGE WHERE HE ASKED ME ANY QUESTIONS, I THINK HE -- IT WAS SORT OF A DULY NOTED.

>> HE DIDN'T ASK GORDON, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

>> DID HE NOT.

>> HE SAID, WHAT INVESTIGATIONS?

>> HE DID NOT.

>> VICE PRESIDENT PENCE WASN'T SURPRISED NOR DID HE ASK WHAT SONDLAND MEANT BECAUSE THEY ALL KNEW.

THIS MEETING ALSO CONFIRMED THAT SONDLAND DID KNOW ABOUT THE MILITARY AID.

THIS WAS A COMMON SENSE CONCLUSION CONFIRMED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE VICE PRESIDENT.

WITH THAT CONFIRMATION IN MIND, SONDLAND PULLED ASIDE YERMAK THE TOP AID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PENCE ZELENSKY MEETING.

RECALL HE WAS THE ONE THAT PUBLICLY RESISTED THE STATEMENTS IN AUGUST.

THIS IS WHAT HE TOLD GLERM THAT SHORT MEETING.

>> BASED ON MY PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION WITH SECRETARY POMPEO I FELT COMFORTABLE SHARING MY CONCERNS WITH MR. YERMAK.

IT WAS A VERY, VERY BRIEF PULL-ASIDE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED WITHIN A FEW SECONDS.

I TOLD MR. YERMAK THAT I BELIEVED THAT THE RESUMPTION OF U.S. AID WOULD LIKELY NOT OCCUR UNTIL UKRAINE TOOK SOME KIND OF ACTION ON THE PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT WE HAD BEEN DISCUSSING FOR MANY WEEKS.

>> YOU SEE THIS JUST WASN'T AN INTERNAL SCHEME AMONG THE PRESIDENT'S TOP ADVISORS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP, THROUGH HIS AGENTS, COMD THE QUID PRO QUO CLEARLY TO UKRAINE.

-- MANY TOP AID ON SEPTEMBER 1st THAT UKRAINE WOULD NOT GET THE MILITARY AID UNLESS IT ANNOUNCED THE INVESTIGATIONS.

THIS, MY SENATE COLLEAGUES, IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A QUID PRO QUO.

BUT OTHER WITNESSES KNOW IT TOO.

MORRISON WATCHED SONDLAND'S CONVERSATION WITH YERMAK AND THEN RECEIVED AN IMMEDIATE READOUT FROM SONDLAND AFTER THAT MEETING.

MORRISON REPORTED TO AMBASSADOR BOLTON ON A SECURE PHONE CALL AND OF COURSE BOLTON TOLD HIM TO GO TELL THE NSC LAWYERS.

MORRISON DID AS HE WAS INSTRUCTED.

HE ALSO TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR THEN CONFRONTED SONDLAND, TAYLOR TEXTED, QUOTE ARE WE NOW SAYING THAT SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND WHITE HOUSE MEETING ARE CONDITIONED ON INVESTIGATIONS?

SONDLAND RESPONDED, CALL ME.

AND AS EVERYONE KNOWS WHEN SOMEONE SAYS CALL ME, IT SAYS, STOP PUTTING THIS IN WRITING.

DURING THEIR SUBSEQUENT PHONE CALL SONDLAND CONFIRMED TO TAYLOR THAT THE MILITARY AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS AND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN A, QUOTE, PUBLIC BOX.

HERE'S HOW TAYLOR WHO TOOK CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES OF THE CONVERSATION, EXPLAINED THAT CALL.

>> DURING THAT HE WANTS PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO STATE PUBLICLY THAT UKRAINE HAD MADE A MISTAKE.

BY EARLIER TELLING UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS THAT ONLY A WHITE HOUSE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WAS DEPENDENT ON A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION.

IN FACT, AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID, EVERYTHING WAS DEPENDENT ON SUCH AN ANNOUNCEMENT INCLUDING SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

HE SAID THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX BY MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ORDERING SUCH INVESTIGATIONS.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED PRESIDENT ZELENSKY IN A PUBLIC BOX.

A PRIVATE COMMITMENT WASN'T ENOUGH FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAUSE HE NEEDED THE POLITICAL BENEFIT.

HE COULD ONLY GET THE POLITICAL BENEFIT IF IT WAS PUBLIC.

WE ALL KNOW HOW THIS WORKS WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HOW HE WEAPONIZE INVESTIGATIONS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

AND THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.

THAT IS ACTUALLY THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS ARE CONDUCTED.

IF THEY'RE LEGITIMATE.

LAW ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD THEY'RE INVESTIGATING BEFORE ACTUALLY DOING IT.

THAT WOULD TIP OFF YOUR TARGET, IT WOULD LEAD TO WITNESS INTIMIDATION, DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE.

BUT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T ACTIVELY WANTED A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION.

HE ONLY WANTED THE ANNOUNCEMENT.

AT THE END OF THAT CONVERSATION BETWEEN TAYLOR AND SONDLAND ON SEPTEMBER 1, TAYLOR ASKED SONDLAND TO SPEAK TO THE PRESIDENT TO SEE IF HE COULD CHANGE HIS MIND.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SONDLAND DID.

ON SEPTEMBER 7th, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SONDLAND SPOKE.

YOU KNOW THE CALL WAS ON SEPTEMBER 7th FOR FOUR REA REASONS.

FIRST, MORRISON TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SONDLAND ON SEPTEMBER 7th ABOUT SONDLAND'S DISCUSSION WITH THE PRESIDENT.

SECOND, MORRISON TOLD TAYLOR ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 7th.

THIRD, SONDLAND AND TAYLOR HAD A CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 8th ABOUT THE CONVERSATION THAT SONDLAND HAD HAD THE DAY BEFORE.

AND FINALLY, SONDLAND TEXTED TAYLOR AND VOLKER ON SEPTEMBER 8th THAT HE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH QUOTE POTUS AND Z MEANING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PUTT ZELENSKY.

THE CONVERSATIONS MUST HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 8th WHEN THAT TEXT WAS SENT.

FOR HIS PART, SONDLAND WHO DOESN'T TAKE NOTES, ALSO RECALLED THAT ON THAT CALL HE SIMPLY ASKED PRESIDENT TRUMP AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HE WANTED FROM UKRAINE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED, I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO.

NOW LET'S STOP HERE FOR A SECOND.

BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS LATCHED ON TO THIS STATEMENT THAT HE SAID THAT.

AND BECAUSE HE SAID IT IT MUST BE TRUE, RIGHT?

SO WAIT JUST A MINUTE, REMEMBER WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE AT THE SAME TIME.

THE PRESIDENT HAD JUST LEARNED ABOUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT IN THE "WASHINGTON POST" EDITORIAL LINKING THE MILITARY AID TO THE INVESTIGATION JUST TWO DAYS BEFORE.

THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY BLURTED OUT SPEAKS VOLUMES.

NOW, I'M A PARENT, AND THERE'S A LOT OF PARENTS IN THIS ROOM AND I THINK MANY CAN RELATE TO THE SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE IN A ROOM AND YOU HEAR A LARGE CRASH IN THE NEXT ROOM AND YOU WALK IN AND YOUR KID IS SITTING THERE THE FIRST THING THAT HAPPENS IS, "I DIDN'T DO IT!"

BUT THERE'S MORE.

SONDLAND DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID HE WANTED ZELENSKY TO, QUOTE, CLEAR THINGS UP.

YOU WILL NO DOUBT HEAR A LOT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL THAT SONDLAND TESTIFIED NO ONE IN THE WORLD TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO INCLUDING PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AND OF COURSE THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE PEOPLE ENGAGING IN MISCONDUCT DON'T USUALLY ADMIT IT.

BUT WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD SONDLAND.

WE KNOW IT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF TIM MORRISON AND AMBASSADOR TAYLOR.

WE KNOW IT BECAUSE SONDLAND TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A QUID PRO QUO, WAS CONFIRMED BY A CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AND WE KNOW IT BECAUSE SONDLAND RELAYED THE EXACT MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RIGHT AFTER HE SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

NOW KEEP ENMIND THAT SONDLAND DOES NOT TAKE NOTES AND HE READILY ADMITTED THAT IF HE COULD HAVE PRIOR TO TESTIFYING HE WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED MORE.

BUT MORRISON AND TAYLOR TOOK EXTENSIVE NOTES.

AT THE TIME.

AND TESTIFIED BASED ON THOSE NOTES.

AND SONDLAND, THIS IS IMPORTANT, SONDLAND SAID HE DID NOT DISPUTE ANY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF MORRISON AND TAYLOR.

LET'S LOOK WHAT MORRISON AND TAYLOR SAID ABOUT THAT SEPTEMBER 7th PHONE CALL.

HERE IS TIM MORRISON'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE T TRUMP-SONDLAND CALL.

>> NOW IF FEW DAYS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 7th, YOU SPOKE WIN TO AMBASSADOR SONDLAND WHO TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD JUST GOTTEN OFF THE PHONE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, AM I RIGHT?

>> THAT SOUNDS CORRECT, YES.

>> WHAT DID AMBASSADOR SONDLAND TELL YOU THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO HIM.

>> IF I RECALL THE CONVERSATION CORRECTLY THIS WAS WHERE AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RELATED THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO BUT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD TO MAKE THE STATEMENT AND THAT HE HAD TO WANT TO DO IT.

>> BY THAT POINT DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATEMENT RELATED TO THE BIDEN AND 2016 INVESTIGATION?

>> I THINK I DID, YES.

>> AND THAT THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY A CONDITION FOR THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO BE RELEASED?

>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT IS WHAT AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID.

>> AFTER SPEAKING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> WHAT HE REPRESENTED.

>> HERE IS THE CONSISTENT RECOLLECTION OF HOW AMBASSADOR TAYLOR DESCRIBED HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE CALL.

FIRST, HERE IS WHAT WE HEARD FROM MR. MORRISON.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD AMBASSADOR SONDLAND HE WAS NOT ASKING FOR A QUID PRO QUO.

PRESIDENT TRUMP DID INSIST THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GO TO A MICROPHONE AND SAY HIS OPENING INVESTIGATIONS OF BIDEN AND 2016 ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

AND THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SHOULD WANT TO DO THIS HIMSELF.

>> HERE IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR EXPLAINING WHAT SONDLAND HIMSELF TOLD TAYLOR ABOUT WHAT TOOK PLACE ON THAT SONDLAND-TRUMP CALL A DAY LATER.

>> HE CONFIRMED HE HAD TALKED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, BUT THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ADAMANT THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HIMSELF CLEAR THINGS UP AND DO IT IN PUBLIC.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, IT WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO.

>> LIKE SONDLAND, BOTH TAYLOR AND MORRISON RECALLED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID, THAT HE DID NOT WANT A QUID PRO QUO BUT THEY BOTH TESTIFIED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP FOLLOWED THAT STATEMENT IMMEDIATELY BY DESCRIBING PERFECTLY IN EXCHANGE OF THIS FOR THAT.

OR IN OTHER WORDS, A QUID PRO QUO.

PRIOR TO HIS CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT, SONDLAND HAD REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AID WAS BEING HELD UNTIL THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION.

THAT CONCLUSION WAS CONFIRMED BY SECT POMPEO AND VICE PRESIDENT PENCE.

THEN SONDLAND RELAYED TO THE UKRAINIANS, AFTER THIS PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT CONCLUSION WAS CONFIRMED.

>> YOU WEREN'T -- BECAUSE YOU STILL THOUGHT THAT THE AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION AFTER SPEAKING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

>> BY SEPTEMBER 8th I WAS ABSOLUTELY CONVINCE IT IT WAS.

>> PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT DISSUADE YOU OF THAT IN THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU ACKNOWLEDGE YOU HAD WITH HIM?

>> I DON'T EVER RECALL -- BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED MY ENTIRE CALCULATION IF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TOLD ME -- >> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING.

YOU STILL BELIEVED THAT THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS CONDITIONED ON THE INVESTIGATION AFTER YOU SPOKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, YES OR NO?

>> FROM A TIMEFRAME STANDPOINT, YES.

>> HOW ELSE DO WE KNOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CONFIRMED TO SONDLAND THAT THE AID WAS CONCONDITIONED ON THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

SONDLAND RELAYED THE MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY RIGHT AFTER HIS CONVERSATION WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP.

HERE IS AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S RECOLLECTION OF WHAT SONDLAND TOLD ZELENSKY BASED ON HIS NOTES.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND ALSO SAID THAT HE TALKED TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND MR. YERMAK HAD TOLD THEM THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO, IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY DID NOT CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC, HE WOULD BE AT A STALEMATE.

>> I UNDERSTOOD A STALEMATE TO MEAN THAT UKRAINE WOULD NOT GET THE MUCH NEEDED ASSISTANCE.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS ACCURATE.

THERE WOULD BE A STALEMATE WITHOUT THE INVESTIGATION.

HERE IS HIS TESTIMONY.

>> THEN YOU ALSO TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR IN THAT SAME CONVERSATION THAT IF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, RATHER YOU TOLD PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND ANDRIY YERMAK THAT ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NOT A QUID PRO QUO AS THE PRESIDENT HAD VERY CLEARLY TOLD YOU, IT WAS, HOWEVER, REQUIRED FOR PRESIDENT ZELENSKY TO CLEAR THINGS UP IN PUBLIC OR THERE WOULD BE A STALEMATE.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE AMBASSADOR TAYLOR'S RECOLLECTION OF THAT CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, DO YOU?

>> NO.

>> YOU UNDERSTOOD THE STALEMATE REFERENCE THE AID, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> AT THAT POINT, YES.

>> A STALEMATE.

THE PRESIDENT HAD RECEIVED -- HAD NOT RECEIVED A QUID SO THERE WOULD BE NO QOU.

BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

HERE IS A RECAP OF HOW WE KNEW WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE CALL.

FIRST, SONDLAND TESTIFIED ABOUT THE CONVERSATION.

SECOND, MORRISON RECEIVED A READ OUT FROM SONDLAND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CALL AND TESTIFIED BASED ON HIS NOTES.

THIRD, TAYLOR TESTIFIED BASED ON HIS OWN NOTES.

AND FOURTH, SONDLAND AGREED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CONFIRMED THE QUID PRO QUO AND SONDLAND ACTUALLY RELAYED THE MESSAGE TO THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.

AND TOLD AMBASSADOR TAYLOR ABOUT IT.

PRESIDENT ZELENSKY GOT THE MESSAGE.

HE SUM COMED TO THE PRESSURE.

AT THE EBBED OF THE INFORMATION BETWEEN SONDLAND LAND PRESIDENT ZELENSKY, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD FINALLY RELENTED.

HIS COUNTRY NEEDED THE MILITARY AID.

DESPERATELY.

THEIR PEOPLE WERE DYING ON THE FRONT LINE ALL OF THE TIME.

THEY WERE TAKING CASUALTIES EVERY DAY.

HE AGREED TO MAKE THE STATEMENT.

>> AMBASSADOR SONDLAND SAID THAT THIS CONVERSATION CONCLUDED WITH THE PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AGREEING TO MAKE A PUBLIC STATEMENT IN AN INTERVIEW ON CNN.

>> PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAD RESISTED MAKING THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CORRUPT INVESTIGATIONS FOR MONTHS.

HE RESISTED WHEN GUILIANI AND OTHER AGENTS OF THE PRESIDENT MADE IT KNOWN THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REQUIRED IT.

HE RESISTED WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED DIRECTLY ON JULY 26th.

HE RESISTED WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING HE SO DESPERATELY DESIRED WAS CONDITIONED ON THAT ANNOUNCEMENT.

HE RESISTED AS VITAL MILITARY AID WAS ON HOLD.

BUT THE MONEY IS 10% OF HIS ENTIRE DEFENSE.

RUSSIA OCCUPIED EASTERN PART OF HIS COUNTRY.

HE COULD RESIST NO MORE.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR WAS WORRIED THAT EVEN IF THE UKRAINIAN LEADER DID AS PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED, PRESIDENT TRUMP MIGHT CONTINUE TO HOLD MILITARY AID.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TEXTED HIS CONCERN TO AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND STATING, QUOTE, THE NIGHTMARE AS THEY GIVE THE INTERVIEW AND DON'T GET THE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.

THE RUSSIANS LOVE IT.

AND I QUIT.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE NIGHTMARE THAT THEY MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T RELEASE THE AID.

THIS WOULD BE PERFECT FOR THE RUSSIANS.

RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA WOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE U.S. WOULD WITHDRAW SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.

ON SEPTEMBER 9th, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR REITERATE HIS CONCERN ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S QUID PRO QUO IN ANOTHER SERIES OF TEXT MESSAGES WITH AMBASSADORS VOLKER AND SONDLAND.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR SAID, QUOTE, THE MESSAGE TO THE UKRAINIANS AND RUSSIANS, WE SEND WITH THE DECISION ON SECURITY ASSISTANCE IS KEY.

WITH THE HOLD WE HAVE ALREADY SHAKEN THEIR FAITH IN US.

THUS MY NIGHTMARE SCENARIO.

THEN LATER HE TEXTED AGAIN, SAYING, QUOTE, COUNTING ON YOU TO BE RIGHT ABOUT THIS INTERVIEW, GORDON.

AMBASSADOR SONDLAND RESPONDED, QUOTE, I NEVER SAID I WAS RIGHT.

I SAID WE ARE WHERE WE ARE BELIEVE WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE BEST PATHWAY FORWARD, LET'S HOPE IT WORKS.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR REPLIED, QUOTE, AS I SAID ON THE PHONE I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

HERE IT IS.

ONCE AGAIN, IN CLEAR TEXT MESSAGE BETWEEN THREE U.S. OFFICIALS, IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

IF THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO THEN WHY DID EVERYBODY KNOW ABOUT IT.

WELL, AMBASSADOR TAYLOR TOLD US WHY, TOO.

HERE IS HIS TESTIMONY.

>> AS I SAID ON THE PHONE, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

>> WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT IT WAS CRAZY?

>> MR. COLEMAN, I MEANT THAT THE OF SECURITY ASSISTANCE THAT WE HAD JUST DESCRIBED, HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT THAT SECURITY WAS SO IMPORTANT FOR UKRAINE AS WELL AS OUR OWN NATIONAL INTERESTS TO WITHHOLD THAT ASSISTANCE FOR NO GOOD REASON OTHER THAN HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, MADE NO SENSE.

IT WAS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO ALL OF WHAT WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO DO.

IT WAS ILLOGICAL, COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED, IT WAS CRAZY.

>> WHEN YOU SAY ALL OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "WE."

>> I MEAN THE UNITED STATES WAS TRYING TO SUPPORT UKRAINE AS A FRONT LINE STATE AGAINST RUSSIAN ATTACK, AND AGAIN, THE WHOLE NOTION OF A RULES-BASED ORDER WAS BEING THREATENED BY THE RUSSIANS IN UKRAINE.

SO OUR SECURITY ASSISTANCE WAS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT UKRAINE, IT WAS NOT JUST UNITED STATES.

IT WAS ALL OF OUR ALLIES.

>> WHEN YOU REFERENCED HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN THE TEXT MESSAGE, WHAT DID YOU MEAN?

>> I MEANT THAT THE INVESTIGATION OF BURISMA AND THE BIDENS, WAS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY MR. GUILIANI IN PUBLIC FOR MONTHS AS A WAY TO GET INFORMATION ON THE TWO BIDENS.

>> NOW THAT TESTIMONY IS REALLY CLEAR, IT MAKES SENSE.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE YOU'VE SEEN HERE TODAY.

THAT'S A QUID PRO QUO AS CLEAR AS TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR.

AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT ALSO MAKES SENSE.

SONDLAND GOT SCARED.

TAYLOR WAS MAKING CLEAR THAT HE DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE SCHEME.

IN RESPONSE TO TAYLOR'S TEXT MESSAGE THAT IT WAS, QUOTE, CRAZY TO WITHHOLD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR HELP WITH A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, SONDLAND REPEATED AGAIN THE FALSE DENIAL OF A QUID PRO QUO AT 5:17 A.M. SONDLAND RESPONDED TO TAYLOR.

QUOTE, BILL, I BELIEVE YOU ARE INCORRECT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S INTENTIONS, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR, NO QUID PRO QUO OF ANY KIND.

THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO EVALUATE WHETHER UKRAINE IS TRULY GOING TO ADOPT THE TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS THAT PRESIDENT ZELENSKY PROMISED DURING HIS CAMPAIGN.

I SUGGEST WE STOP THE BACK AND FORTH BY TEXT.

IF YOU STILL HAVE CONCERNS, I RECOMMEND YOU GIVE LISA KENNA, OR -- A CALL TO DISCUSS THEM DIRECTLY.

THANKS.

NOW THAT TEXT MESSAGE SAYS VERY CLEARLY THAT THERE ARE NO QUID PRO QUOS OF ANY KIND.

END OF STORY, RIGHT?

CASE CLOSED.

BUT SONDLAND'S TESTIMONY REVEALED THIS TEXT AND THE PRESIDENT'S DENIALS WERE FALSE.

JUST LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN AMBASSADOR SONDLAND THOUGHT HE WAS GETTING CAUGHT HE GOT NERVOUS.

AND HE WANTED TO DENY IT IN WRITING TO COVER HIS TRACKS.

THAT'S WHY HE SUDDENLY SAYS, QUOTE, I SUGGEST WE STOP THE BACK AND FORTH BY TEXT.

AGAIN, QUIT PUTTING THIS IN WRITING.

WE KNOW THAT SONDLAND'S DENIAL WAS FALSE BECAUSE LATER WHEN HE WAS UNDER OATH, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, HE ACTUALLY SAID A QUID PRO QUO DID EXIST.

>> WAS THERE A QUID PRO QUO?

>> AS I TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY, WITH REGARD TO THE REQUESTED WHITE HOUSE CALL AND THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING THE ANSWER IS, YES.

>> THE ANSWER IS, YES.

IT'S CLEAR THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF CONFIRMED THAT THE AID WAS CONDITIONED ON THE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED.

TO GET UKRAINE TO HELP HIM WITH HIS REELECTION CAMPAIGN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIOLATED THE LAW BY WITHHOLDING NEARLY $400 MILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS INTENDED TO FIGHT RUSSIA.

HE PUT HIS OWN INTERESTS OVER THE COUNTRY'S.

AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF THE SENATE IN DEFERENCE TO OUR PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND LATE HOUR, I'M NOW GOING TO YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE, MR. SCHIFF TO, PROVIDE A BRIEF RECAP OF TODAY AND THEN WE WILL BEGIN AGAIN IN THE MORNING.

>> SENATORS, CHIEF JUSTICE, PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY AND WE START OUT THE DAY WITH THE CHAPLAIN ASKING FOR EMPATHETIC LISTENING.

I THINK THAT IS CERTAINLY WHAT YOU HAVE DELIVERED FOR US TODAY.

I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN BOMBARDED WITH INFORMATION ALL DAY AND WHEN YOU LEAVE THIS CHAMBER YOU ARE BOMBARDED AGAIN.

BY MEMBERS OF THE PRESS.

THERE IS NO REFUGE, I KNOW.

AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR KEEPING AN OPEN MIND ABOUT ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WE ARE PRESENTING.

AN OPEN MIND FOR US, AN OPEN MIND FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, THAT'S ALL THAT WE CAN ASK FOR.

AND HAVING WATCHED YOU NOW FOR THREE DAYS, WHETHER IT IS SOMEONE YOU'RE PREDISPOSED TO AGREE WITH OR PREDISPOSED NOT TO, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT YOU ARE LISTENING WITH AN OPEN MIND.

AND WE CAN'T ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT.

SO WE ARE GRATEFUL.

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT TWEETING.

NOW, TWEETED A LOT, BUT TWEETED A COMMON REFRAIN, READ THE TRANSCRIPTS.

SO I THOUGHT AT THE END OF THE EVENING I WOULD JOIN IN THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST TO REREAD THE TRANSCRIPT.

BECAUSE NOW THAT YOU KNOW A LOT MORE OF THE FACTS OF THIS SCHEME IT REVEALS A LOT MORE ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION.

LET ME JUST POINT OUT A FEW THINGS THAT MAY HAVE ESCAPED YOUR ATTENTION ABOUT THAT TRANSCRIPT, WHICH IS NOT REALLY A TRANSCRIPT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT COMPLETE.

LET ME JUST TELL YOU A FEW THINGS THAT MAY HAVE ESCAPED YOUR ATTENTION ABOUT THAT CALL RECORD.

WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, I WON'T GO INTO IT AGAIN, THE PIVOTAL SECTIONS WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT CROWDSTRIKE AND HE ASKS FOR THAT FAVOR HE WANTS INVESTIGATION OF THE BIDENS THERE IS A LOT MORE TO THAT CALL NOW THAT YOU KNOW SO MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT SCHEME.

LET ME JUST POINT OUT A FEW THINGS THAT REALLY STRUCK MY ATTENTION.

EARLY IN THE CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAID, WE BROUGHT IN MANY NEW PEOPLE, MANY, MANY NEW PEOPLE.

NOT THE OLD POLITICIANS, NOT THE TYPICAL POLITICIANS BECAUSE WE WANT TO HAVE A NEW FORMAT AND A NEW TYPE OF GOVERNMENT.

AGAIN THIS IS THE JULY 25th CALL, EARLY IN THE CALL PRESIDENT ZELENSKY WANTS TO IMPRESS UPON PRESIDENT TRUMP HE'S BROUGHT IN NEW PEOPLE.

THAT HE'S THE REFORMER.

THIS WAS HIS CAMPAIGN PLEDGE, HE'S A REFORMER, ABRIDGING NEW PEOPLE.

SO IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY CONCERN ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE HE'S BRINGING IN NEW PEOPLE, HE'S A REFORMER THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST MESSAGES THAT HE WANTS TO GET ACROSS.

AND YOU CAN BETTER WELL BELIEVE THAT HE IS PREPARED FOR THIS CALL.

BECAUSE HE NEEDS THAT WHITE HOUSE MEETING.

SO EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS PREPARED.

AND EARLY ON HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE HE LET'S THE PRESIDENT KNOW HE'S A REFORMER.

NOW THE PRESIDENT HAS HIS OWN AGENDA IN THIS CALL, AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT, THE NEXT EXCHANGE THE PRESIDENT MAKES THIS POINT.

UNITED STATES HAS BEEN VERY, VERY GOOD TO UKRAINE, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT'S RECIPROCAL NECESSARILY, BECAUSE THINGS ARE HAPPENING THAT ARE NOT GOOD BUT UNITED STATES HAS BEEN VERY, VERY GOOD TO UKRAINE.

THIS IS VERY INTERESTING, THAT HE BRINGS UP VERY EARLY IN THE CONVERSATION THIS RELATIONSHIP IS NOT RECIPROCAL.

WE'VE BEEN VERY, VERY GOOD TO UKRAINE, BUT, YOU KNOW, CAN'T SAY THERE'S MUCH COMING THE OTHER WAY.

NOW, YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT BILL TAYLOR HAD THIS REACTION TO TALKING TO GORDON SONDLAND WHEN SONDLAND SAYS, DONALD TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN BEFORE HE WRITES A CHECK, HE LIKES TO GET WHAT HE'S OWED.

AND TAYLOR'S REACTION IS, THAT MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE UKRAINE DOESN'T OWE US ANYTHING.

DONALD TRUMP IN THIS CALL, YOU CAN SEE HE DOES THINK HE'S OWED.

THIS IS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE SAYS THERE'S NOT MUCH RECIPROCITY HERE.

HE THINKS HE'S OWED SOMETHING.

YOU WANT TO GET THIS MILITARY, YOU WANT TO GET THIS MEETING, I DON'T SEE MUCH RECIPROCITY HERE.

HE THINKS HE'S OWED SOMETHING.

WHEN YOU READ THAT PASSAGE YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT, HE'S A BUSINESSMAN BEFORE HE SIGNS A CHECK, THAT TAKES ON NEW MEANING.

NOW, A LITTLE LATER IN THE CALL, ZELENSKY SAYS, I WILL PERSONALLY TELL YOU THAT ONE OF MY ASSOCIATES SPOKE WITH MR. GUILIANI JUST RECENTLY AND WE ARE HOPING VERY MUCH THAT MR. GUILIANI WILL BE ABLE TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE AND WE WILL MEET ONCE HE COMES TO UKRAINE.

NOW, YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY YOURSELF BUT THIS MAY BE THE FIRST MENTION OF GUILIANI.

AND ZELENSKY'S BRINGING HIM UP.

AND SAYING, I'D LIKE TO MEET WITH GUILIANI.

NOW, THIS IS JULY, WHAT DO WE KNOW NOW ABOUT THE MEETING BETWEEN GUILIANI AND ZELENSKY.

WE KNOW THAT GUILIANI IN MAY WANTED TO GO MEET WITH ZELENSKY.

WE SAW THAT LETTER FROM GUILIANI, I WANT TO GO MEET WITH ZELENSKY.

WE KNOW HE WAS REBUFFED OR SOMETHING HAPPENED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET THAT MEETING.

HE WAS ANGRY, HE WENT ON TV AND HE SAID, ZELENSKY IS SURROUNDED BY ENEMIES OF TRUMP, RIGHT?

ZELENSKY IS PREPARED FOR THIS CALL.

AND HE KNOWS IT'S GOING TO RESONATE WITH DONALD TRUMP IF HE SAYS I'D LIKE TO MEET RUDY GUILIANI.

IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT HE SAYS, WE ARE HOPING VERY MUCH THAT MR. GUILIANI WILL BE ABLE TO TRAVEL TO UKRAINE WE'LL MEET ONCE HE COMES TO UKRAINE.

IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, NEXT SENTENCE HE SAYS, I JUST WANTED TO ASSURE YOU ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE NOBODY BUT FRIENDS AROUND US.

NOW, WE COULD HAVE READ THIS TRANSCRIPT TO YOU EARLY ON, THAT WOULDN'T HAVE MEANT MUCH TO YOU.

BUT NOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT RUDY GUILIANI WAS OUT THERE ON TV SAYING ZELENSKY IS SURROUNDED BY ENEMIES OF TRUMP.

YOU CAN SEE WHY ZELENSKY SAYS, YOU GOT NOBODY BUT FRIENDS AROUND US.

HE GOES ON, I ALSO WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT WE ARE FRIENDS, HE BRINGS UP FRIENDSHIP AGAIN.

WE ARE GREAT FRIENDS, THAT'S THE THIRD TIME HE WANTS TO UNDERSCORE WHAT GREAT FRIENDS THEY ARE.

AND WHY, BECAUSE RUDY GUILIANI IS SAYING THEIR ENEMIES.

THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY, I ALSO PLAN TO SURROUND MYSELF WITH GREAT PEOPLE IN ADDITION TO THAT INVESTIGATION.

I GUARANTEE THE PRESIDENT OF SUE CRANE THAT ALL OF THE INVESTIGATIONS I WILL DONE OPENLY AND CANDIDLY THAT I CAN ASSURE YOU.

NEEDS TO ASSURE THE PRESIDENT HE'S GOING TO GET HIS DELIVERABLES.

IT'S BEEN MADE CLEAR BEFORE THIS CALL WHAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO HEAR MORE THAN THAT, WHAT THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO HEAR.

HE NEEDS TO HEAR, NO STONE UNTURNED IN THAT INVESTIGATION.

SO THE PRESIDENT IN THE NEXT RESPONSE SAYS, MR. GUILIANI IS A HIGHLY RESPECTED MAN.

HE WAS THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY, A GREAT MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE HIM TO CALL YOU.

THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR, DOESN'T IT?

CALL RUDY.

SAME THING HE TOLD THE THREE AMIGOS IN MAY, CALL RUDY.

NOW HE'S TELLING ZELENSKY, CALL RUDY THEN HE SAYS HE WILL ASK HIM TO CALL YOU ALONG WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

RUDY VERY MUCH KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING AND HE IS A VERY CAPABLE GUY, IF YOU WOULD SPEAK TO HIM THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

TALK TO RUDY.

LET'S PRETTY REMARKABLE, RIGHT.

HEAD TO HEAD, HEAD OF STATE TO HEAD OF STATE CALL.

IF NOT TALK TO MY SECRETARY OF STATE, NOT TALK TO MY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, TALK TO RUDY.

NOW, IT'S INTERESTING, TOO, IT'S NOT JUST RUDY, RIGHT?

I WILL ASK HIM TO CALL YOU ALONG WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

NOW THAT WAS QUITE A SHOCK WHEN THIS CALL RECORD WAS RELEASED, RIGHT, ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SHOWS UP IN THIS CALL RECORD, COUPLE OF TIMES IT SHOWS UP IN THIS CALL RECORD.

AND THAT'S WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IMMEDIATELY ISSUES A STATEMENT, WE'VE GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

THE INK IS FAIRLY DRY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT, WE DON'T KNOW A THING.

NOW, BEAR IN MIND COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU KNOW AT THIS POINT.

BEAR IN MIND THAT THERE WAS A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT BEFORE THIS CALL RECORD WAS RELEASED.

BEAR IN MIND THAT THE LAW THAT WE PASSED AND YOU PASSED REQUIRES THAT A WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THAT IS DESIGNATED TO GO TO CONGRESS MUST GO TO CONGRESS.

MUST GO TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, THAT IF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FINDS CREDIBLE AND URGENT IT HAS TO NOT ONLY GO TO CONGRESS, IT HAS TO GO TO CONGRESS SOON.

THERE'S A TIMETABLE.

AND BEAR IN MIND WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THAT COMPLAINT WAS FILED AND IN SPECTOR GENERAL SAYS, IT'S NOT ONLY CREDIBLE, IT'S URGENT.

IT'S URGENT.

WHAT HAPPENED.

ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, WHAT DOES HE DO, HE CONTACTS THE WHITE HOUSE.

AND HE CONTACTS BILL BARR'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

AND WHAT DOES BILL BARR'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DO IN CONSULTATION WITH THE WHITE HOUSE, THEY SAY, DON'T TURN IT OVER TO CONGRESS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TURN IT OVER TO CONGRESS.

I KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS AND SAYS YOU SHALL, DOESN'T SAY YOU MAY, DOESN'T SAY YOU MIGHT, DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN IF YOU LIKE TO, DOESN'T SAY IF THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T OBJECT IT SAYS "YOU SHALL" WE'RE TELLING YOU, DILL BARR'S DEPARTMENT IS TELLING YOU YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

HIGHEST OFFICE OF THE WALL IN THE LAND IS SAYING, IGNORE THE LAW.

WE ALL COME UP WITH SOME RATIONALIZATION.

WE'LL GET OUR GUYS AT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL TO WRITE SOMETHING, WE'LL FIND A WAY.

DO NOT TURN IT OVER, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

AND THEY DON'T.

INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO DESERVES A LOT OF CREDIT FOR GUTS, HE REPORTS TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES AND SAYS, THEY'RE VIOLATING THE LAW.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.

BUT I NEED TO TELL YOU, TO MEET MY OBLIGATION, THEY'RE NOT DOING WHAT THEY SHOULD.

AND SO WE SUBPOENA THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.

WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO COME BEFORE CONGRESS OPEN HEARING EXPLAIN WHY HE'S THE FIRST ACTING DIRECTOR TO REFUSE TO TURN THE COMPLAINTS OVER TO CONGRESS.

AND THE INVESTIGATIONS ARE OPEN.

AND RESULT IS, THEY'RE FORCED TO TURN OVER TO CONGRESS AND THEY'RE FORCED TO RELEASE THIS CALL RECORD.

BUT HERE YOU HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEIGHING IN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TURN IT OVER.

THE SAME CALL RECORD THAT MENTIONS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.

BUT IT FAILS.

THAT EFFORT TO COVER UP, TO CONCEAL THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT FAILS.

AND IT COMES OUT AND NO SOONER THAN IT DOES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS, WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

NOW OF COURSE IF THAT HAD NEVER BEEN RELEASED, WELL THEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S NAME WOULD HAVE NEVER COME UP, THERE WOULD BE NO RECORD FROM THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS.

NOW, IN THE NEXT EXCHANGE, PRESIDENT ZELENSKY SAYS, THAT HE WILL -- HE OR SHE IS GOING TO HAVE A NEW PROSECUTOR GENERAL AND HE OR SHE WILL LOOK INTO THE SITUATION SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMPANY THAT YOU MENTIONED IN THIS ISSUE.

THIS IS ALSO INTERESTING.

THE COMPANY THAT YOU MENTIONED IN THIS ISSUE, THERE'S NO COMPANY MENTIONED IN THIS ISSUE IN THE CALL RECORD.

BUT OF COURSE YOU HAVE SEEN TESTIMONY FROM TWO WITNESSES ON THAT CALL THAT BURISMA WAS MENTIONED.

SO WHY ISN'T BURISMA IN THE CALL RECORD?

WELL, CAN'T SAY THIS, THAT CALL RECORD WENT TO THAT HIGHLY CLASSIFIED SERVER AND THAT MENTION OF BURISMA DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THE CALL RECORD.

BUT ZELENSKY GOES ON TO SAY THE ISSUE OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE IS ACTUALLY THE ISSUE OF MAKING SURE TO RESTORE THE HONESTY, WE WILL TAKE CARE THAT HAVE AND WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE, TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME ZELENSKY FEELS THE NEED TO ASSURE THE PRESIDENT HE'S GOING TO DO THOSE POLITICAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTS.

NEXT AFTER ZELENSKY SAYS THIS, PESIDENT SAYS, I WILL HAVE MR. GUILIANI GIVE YOU A CALL AND I'M ALSO GOING TO HAVE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR CALL AND WE WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.

YOU CAN COUNT, TAKE MY WORD BUT I THINK THERE'S NO ONE COMES UP MORE IN THIS CALL RECORD THAN RUDY GUILIANI.

WHICH TELLS US SOMETHING, IN THE NEXT EXCHANGE ZELENSKY SAYS AMONG OTHERS THINGS I ALSO WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR INVITATION TO VISITED THE UNITED STATES SPECIFICALLY WASHINGTON, D.C. ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO WANT TO ASSURE YOU ENSURE YOU THAT WE WILL BE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THE CASE.

WE WILL WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION.

SO, HERE IN THE SAME WAY THAT EARLIER IN THE CONVERSATION ZELENSKY BRINGS UP THOSE WEAPONS, THOSE JAVELINS HE NEEDS AND PRESIDENT SAYS, I HAVE A FAVOR, MILITARY ASSISTANCE, I HAVE A FAVOR, HERE IS ZELENSKY SAYS, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVITATION TO COME VISIT.

I ALSO WANT TO ASSURE YOU WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT DOING THE INVESTIGATION.

CLEARLY HE IS LINKING THE TWO AND OF COURSE HE'S LINKING THE TWO BECAUSE HE'S TOLD THE TWO ARE LINKED BEFORE THE CALL.

AND HE'S CONVEYING TO THE PRESIDENT, I GOT THE MESSAGE.

NOW THE PRESIDENT IN THE NEXT EXCHANGE SAYS, I WILL TELL RUDY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR TO CALL.

AGAIN, MAKE SURE THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING HERE, I'M GOING TO HAVE THEM CALL.

I WANT YOU IN TOUCH WITH RUDY GUILIANI AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I WILL TELL RUDY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR TO CALL, THANK YOU, WHENEVER WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE FEEL FREE TO CALL.

I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU TALK TO RUDY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANY TIME YOU WANT TO COME TO THE WHITE HOUSE JUST CALL.

GIVE US A DATE WE'LL WORK THAT OUT I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU.

THEN ZELENSKY SAYS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO COME.

I LOOK FORWARD TO OUR MEETING, AGAIN AND AGAIN, ZELENSKY'S ASK WHEN HE GOES INTO THAT CALL WANTING IS A MEETING.

TO TELL WHAT HE WAS PREPARED FOR.

WAS PREPARED FOR THE REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION, HE KNEW WHAT HE HAD TO PROMISE AND HE KNEW WHAT HE WANTED TO OBTAIN AND THAT WAS THE VISIT.

NOW YOU ALSO SAW IN THAT VIDEO THAT RATHER SAD VIDEO, YES, SORT OF HUMOROUS BUT SAD, TOO, OF ZELENSKY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE U.N. WHERE HE'S SAYING, WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT MEETING.

AND I CAN TELL YOU SOMETHING, THIS IS WHAT IS SO FRIGHTENING ABOUT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

IF WE HADN'T DISCOVERED ALL THIS, HE WOULD LIKELY BE SAYING AT THAT U.N. MEETING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL WAITING ON THAT MILITARY AID.

YEAH, WE FORCED THE AID TO BE RELEASED BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT.

BUT EVEN NOW, OUR ALLY CAN'T GET HIS FOOT IN THE DOOR.

EVEN NOW OUR ALLY CAN'T GET HIS FOOT IN THE DOOR.

AND THIS BRINGS ME TO THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE TONIGHT.

WHICH IS, WHEN WE'RE DONE, WE BELIEVE THAT WE WILL HAVE MADE THE CASE OVERWHELMINGLY OF THE PRESIDENT'S GUILT.

THAT IS, HE HAS DONE WHAT HE'S CHARGED WITH.

HE WITHHELD THE MONEY, HE WITHHELD THE MEETING, HE USED IT TO COERCE UKRAINE, HE COVERED IT UP, HE OBSTRUCTED US, HE'S TRYING TO OBSTRUCT YOU.

AND HE'S VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION.

BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE OTHER THING TONIGHT.

OKAY, HE'S GUILTY.

OKAY, HE'S GUILTY.

DOES HE REALLY NEED TO BE REMOVED?

DOES HE REALLY NEED BE REMOVED?

WE HAVE AN ELECTION COMING UP, DOES HE REALLY NEED TO BE REMOVED?

HE'S GUILTY.

YOU KNOW, IS THERE REALLY ANY DOUBT ABOUT THIS?

DO WE REALLY HAVE ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE FACTS HERE?

DOES ANYBODY REALLY QUESTION WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS CAPABLE OF WHAT HE'S CHARGED WITH?

MAKING THE ARGUMENT, DONALD TRUMP WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING.

OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT HE WOULD AND OF COURSE WE KNOW THAT HE DID.

SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT QUESTION THOUGH TO ASK, OKAY, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHETHER WE CAN SAY IT PUBLICLY OR CAN'T SAY IT PUBLICLY WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE'RE DEALING HERE WITH THIS.

BUT DOES HE REALLY NEED TO BE REMOVED?

AND THIS IS WHY HE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

DONALD TRUMP CHOSE RUDY GUILIANI OVER HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE.

HE CHOSE RUDY GUILIANI OVER HIS OWN FBI DIRECTOR.

HE CHOSE RUDY GUILIANI OVER HIS OWN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.

WHEN ALL OF THEM WERE TELLING HIM THIS UKRAINE, 2016 STUFF IS COOKY CRAZY RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA HE CHOSE NOT TO BELIEVE THEM, HE CHOSE TO BELIEVE RUDY GUILIANI.

THAT MAKES HIM DANGEROUS.

TO US.

TO OUR COUNTRY.

THAT WAS DONALD TRUMP'S CHOICE.

NOW WHY WOULD DONALD TRUMP BELIEVE A MAN LIKE RUDY GUILIANI OVER A MAN LIKE CHRISTOPHER RAY.

WHY WOULD ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND BELIEVE RUDY GUILIANI OVER CHRISTOPHER RAY.

BECAUSE HE WANTED TO AND BECAUSE WHAT RUDY WAS OFFERING HIM WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP HIM PERSONALLY.

AND WHAT CHRISTOPHER RAY WAS OFFERING HIM WAS MERELY THE TRUTH.

WHAT CHRISTOPHER RAY WAS OFFERING HIM WAS MERELY THE INFORMATION HE NEEDED TO PROTECT HIS COUNTRY.

AND THE ELECTION.

BUT THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

WHAT IS IN IT FOR HIM?

WHAT IS IN IT FOR DONALD TRUMP?

THIS IS WHY HE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

NOW YOU MAY BE ASKING, HOW MUCH DAMAGE CAN HE REALLY DO IN THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS UNTIL THE ELECTION.

A LOT.

A LOT OF DAMAGE.

NOW WE JUST SAW LAST WEEK REPORT THAT RUSSIA TRIED TO HACK OR MAYBE DID HACK BURISMA.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GOT IN, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT, MY COLLEAGUES ON INTEL COMMITTEE IS TRYING TO FIND DID THE RUSSIANS GET IN, WHAT ARE THE RUSSIANS' PLANS AND INFECTIONS, LET'S SAY THEY GOT IN.

LEGALS SAY THEY START DUMPING DOCUMENTS TO INTERFERE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

LET'S SAY THEY STARTED DUMPING SOME REAL THINGS THEY HACKED FROM BURISMA, START FAKE THINGS THEY DIDN'T HACK FROM BURISMA BUT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THEY DID.

LET'S SAY THEY START BLATANTLY INTERFERING IN OUR ELECTION AGAIN, TO HELP DONALD TRUMP.

CAN YOU HAVE THE LEAST BIT OF CONFIDENCE THAT DONALD TRUMP WILL STAND UP TO THEM AND PROTECT OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS OVER HIS OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS.

YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T.

WHICH MAKES HIM DANGEROUS TO THIS COUNTRY.

YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T.

YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T COUNT ON HIM.

NONE OF US CAN.

NONE OF US CAN.

WHAT HAPPENS IF CHINA GOT THE MESSAGE, NOW YOU CAN SAY WELL HE'S JUST JOKING, OF COURSE HE DIDN'T REALLY MEAN CHINA SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS, YOU KNOW THAT'S NO JOKE.

NOW MAYBE YOU COULD HAVE ARGUED THREE YEARS AGO WHEN HE SAID, RUSSIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, HACK HILLARY'S E-MAILS, MAYBE YOU COULD GIVE HIM A FREEBIE AND SAY HE WAS JOKING.

BUT NOW WE KNOW BETTER.

HOURS AFTER HE DID THAT RUSSIA DID IN FACT TRITE TO HACK HILLARY'S E-MAILS.

THERE'S NO MULLIGAN HERE WHEN IT COMES TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

SO WHAT IF CHINA DOES.

OVERTLY OR COVERTLY START TO HELP THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

YOU THINK HE'S GOING TO CALL THEM OUT ON IT?

OR YOU THINK HE'S GOING TO GIVE THEM A BETTER TRADE DEAL ON IT?

CAN ANY OF US REALLY HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT DONALD TRUMP WILL PUT HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS AHEAD OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS?

IS THERE REALLY ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS PRESIDENCY THAT SHOULD GIVE US THE IRON CLAD CONFIDENCE THAT HE WOULD DO SO?

YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T COUNT ON HIM TO DO THAT.

THAT IS THE SAD TRUTH.

YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T COUNT ON HIM TO DO THAT.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A PRESIDENT THEY CAN COUNT ON TO PUT THEIR INTERESTS FIRST.

TO PUT THEIR INTERESTS FIRST.

COLONEL VINDMAN SAID, HERE RIGHT MATTERS.

LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.

IF RIGHT DOESN'T MATTER, IF RIGHT DOESN'T MATTER, IT DOESN'T HOW GOOD THE CONSTITUTION IS.

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW BRILLIANT THE FRAMERS WERE.

DOESN'T MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD OR ADVOCACY IN THIS TRIAL IS, DOESN'T MATTER HOW WELL WRITTEN THE OATH OF IMPARTIALITY IS, IF RIGHT DOESN'T MATTER, WE'RE LOST.

IF THE TRUTH DOESN'T MATTER, WE'RE LOST.

FRAMERS COULDN'T PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES IF RIGHT AND TRUTH DON'T MATTER.

AND YOU KNOW THAT WHAT HE DID WAS NOT RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO IN THE OLD COUNTRY, COLONEL VINDMAN'S FATHER CAME FROM OR THE OLD COUNTRY THAT MY GREAT GRANDFATHER CAME FROM.

OR THE OLD COUNTRIES THAT YOUR ANCESTORS CAME OR MAYBE YOU CAME FROM.

BUT HERE, RIGHT IS SUPPOSED TO MATTER.

IT'S WHAT MADE US THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH.

NO CONSTITUTION CAN PROTECT US, RIGHT DOESN'T MATTER ANY MORE.

AND YOU KNOW, CAN'T TRUST THIS PRESIDENT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY.

YOU CAN TRUST HE WILL DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR DONALD TRUMP.

HE'LL DO IT NOW, HE'S DONE IT BEFORE, HE'LL DO IT FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS, HE'LL DO IT IN THE ELECTION IF HE'S ALLOWED TO.

THIS IS WHY FIND HIM GUILTY, YOU MUST FIND THAT HE SHOULD BE REMOVED.

BECAUSE RIGHT MATTERS.

BECAUSE RIGHT MATTERS.

AND THE TRUTH MATTERS.

OTHERWISE WE ARE LOST.

>> MAJORITY LEAD SIR RECOGNIZED.

>> ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE TRIAL ADJOURN UNTIL JANUARY THE 24th THAT THIS ORDER ALSO CONSTITUTE ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE.

>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.

SENATE IS ADJOURNED.

>> Schifrin: THAT CONCLUDES DAY TWO OF THE DEMOCRAT CASE FOR CONVICTING PRESIDENT TRUMP ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT I'M JOINED BY LISA DEJAR THAN, WHERE PIECE ALCINDOR.

THE DEMOCRATIC SECRETARY SECRETARY FOR 13 YEARS.

ELIZABETH CHRYST IS ALSO A VETERAN OF THE SENATE REPUBLICAN SENATE SECRETARY DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S VILE.

VICTORIA NOURSE AND JOHN MART WORKED FOR OKLAHOMA CONGRESSMAN JOHN COBURN DURING IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON WELCOME BACK TO YOU ALL WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO THE LAST COUPLE OF HOURS OF DEMOCRATS MAKING THEIR CASE GOING THROUGH THREE MAJOR POINTS THAT UKRAINE IS IMPORTANT, ON THE FRONT LINES BETWEEN EUROPE AND RUSSIA.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICY WAS AGAINST WHAT THE U.S. OFFICIAL POLICY WAS OF ASSISTING UKRAINE THAT ZOE LOFGREN PUT A HOLD.

JASON CROW ARGUING THAT THAT WAS A QUID PRO QUO THAT THE PRESIDENT HID THAT DECISION FROM CONGRESS THEN WE HAD ADAM SCHIFF AT THE VERY END MAKE NEW ARGUMENT THAT WHY THE PRESIDENT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED, THAT HE'S QUOTE, DANGEROUS, ASKED HOW MUCH DAMAGE CAN HE DO BETWEEN NOW AND ELECTION, QUOTE, A LOT.

AND HE SAID, WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID WAS NOT RIGHT.

AND, QUOTEF RIGHT DOES NOT MATTER, THEN WE'RE LOST.

YAMICHEAL IS IN DOOR AT THE WHITE HOUSE, WHAT ADAM SCHIFF ENDED THIS LONG DAY WITH, WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED, WHAT HAS BEEN THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE OVERALL TO THE ARGUMENT THAT ADAM SCHIFF MADE AND WHAT WILL THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE BE YOU THINK TO THAT SPECIFIC ARGUMENT OF WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP MUST BE REMOVED.

>> I'VE BEEN E-MAILING WITH WHITE HOUSE AIDES THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING THE CASE THAT THEY'RE STRINGING THIS A LONG, WASTING A LOT OF TIME, REPEATING ARGUMENTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

WHAT WE SAW WITH ADAM SCHIFF JUST NOW HE WAS MAKING IMPASSED PRETTY CONCISE ABOUT 25 MINUTE ARGUMENT WHY DEMOCRATS BELIEVE TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

AS YOU NOTICED HE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP IS DANGEROUS.

THAT HE CHOSE PERSONAL ATTORNEY RUDY GUILIANI THAT HIS -- MORE THAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ADAM SCHIFF SAID, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S AN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE DOING THIS AND JUST LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.

BUT HE'S MAKING THE CASE, VOTERS SHOULDN'T DECIDE BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN STILL DO A LOT OF DAMAGE.

HE CAN STILL DO DAMAGE TO OUR INSTITUTION, THE WHITE HOUSE IS BASICALLY SAYING THAT IS WRONG.

THAT ADAM SCHIFF IS WRONG THAT?

VANE DATA AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP BECAUSE HE WON 2016 ELECTION.

>> Schifrin: HE'S CALLED ADAM SCHIFF, SHIFTY SCHIFF AS HE DOES.

BUT YOUR LAST POINT IS IMPORTANT, REPUBLICANS HAVE OFTEN ARGUED THAT THIS IS DEMOCRATS WANTING TO FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS OR WANTING TO NOW OVERTURN THE 2016 ELECTION.

I THINK OWE HEARD ARGUMENT DEMOCRATS WANTED TO OVERTURN THE 2020 ELECTION AS WELL.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

I'VE BEEN TALKING TO ALLIES OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, THEY HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS IS THE GHOST OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION THAT DEMOCRATS WERE ANGRY AT THE FACT THAT ROBERT MUELLER DID NOT COME UP WITH CHARGES, DID NOT SAY THAT DONALD TRUMP SHOULD BE REMOVED.

THEY PIVOTED TO A NEW ISSUE WE KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ON THE PHONE WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE JUST A DAY AFTER ROBERT MUELLER CAME TO THE HOUSE AND LARGELY DEMOCRATS WALKED AWAY FROM THAT HEARING THINKING, ROBERT MUELLER WILL NOT BE THE REASON WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP IS REMOVED.

DEMOCRATS MAKE THE CASE THAT HE FELT EMBOLDENED BY THAT HE WENT ON TO TRY TO PRESSURE UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE BIDEN.

THERE IS THIS SENSE AMONG PEOPLE CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE HAD IT OUT TO GET HIM FROM 2016 THIS IS VENDETTA.

PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT OVER AGAIN HE'S USED THAT ARGUMENT TO RALLY HIS BASE.

AS WE'VE NOTED, NUMBER OF CAMPAIGN RALLIES IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, HE'S GOING TO MAKE THAT POINT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.

>> Schifrin: LISA DESJARDINS IS AT CAPITAL.

LET'S DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.

GO BACK TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DEMOCRATS ARGUMENTS THEN TURN BACK TO WHAT ADAM SCHIFF JUST ARGUED.

REMIND US ABOUT THIS -- THESE STEPS OF VAL DEMINGS, THAT THEY TOOK US THROUGH THAT UKRAINE IS IMPORTANT, THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP POLICY ON UKRAINE WAS NOT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY ON UKRAINE.

AND THAT THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY PUT A HOLD ON ALL THIS MONEY GIVE US CONTEXT, REMIND US WHY THAT MONEY TO UKRAINE WAS IMPORTANT.

>> THEY ARE WEAVING A BLANKET ABOUT U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE WORLD.

VAL DEMINGS TALKING ABOUT THE WORD OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE WORDS THAT MEAN SOMETHING, OUR ALLIES MUST BE ABLE TO TRUST OUR WORDS AND SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CASE, UKRAINE.

DEPENDING ON US.

WE HEARD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CROW, IDEA OF HOW MUCH UKRAINE WAS DEPENDING ON THE U.S. AID.

HE SPOKE ABOUT THIS REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT THE LAST FEW DAYS AS WE HAVE NOTED.

LOFGREN DID A LOT OF THE HEAVY LIFTING OF PIECING EVERYTHING TOGETHER TALKING ABOUT THE WITHHOLDING OF AID, WHAT WE KNEW ABOUT IT, WHAT WE KNEW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVES FROM THE DEMOCRATS' POINT OF VIEW.

WHAT THEY CALLED A BRIEF RECAP, WHICH I SURE EVERY SENATOR WAS THINKING TO THEMSELVES, WAS NOT VERY BRIEF.

ADAM SCHIFF PASSIONATELY TALKED ABOUT SORT OF THE HIGHER VISION FROM THE DEMOCRATS' POINT OF VIEW THIS IDEA THAT THEY SAY, WE KNOW HE'S GUILTY.

YOU KNOW HE'S GUILTY.

HE SAID TO SENATORS.

IF YOU KNOW THAT HE'S GUILTY, YOU NEED TO REMOVE HIM.

HE SAID, WELL, MAYBE -- RHETORICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION THAT WE KNOW REPUBLICANS ARE ASKING, WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL THE ELECTION, LET THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE.

ADAM SCHIFF PASSIONATELY THUNDERING AWAY SAYING, NO, THIO SUCH A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, TO OUR DEMOCRACY THAT YOU MUST REMOVE HIM NOW.

YOU SAW THE FACTS LAYERED UP THEN ADAM SCHIFF COME IN WITH THAT RECAP.

I WILL SAY ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, OUR PRODUCER WERE IN THE CHAMBER WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED THAT SCHIFF WAS GOING TO HAVE A BRIEF RECAP.

AND JEFFREY SAID IT WAS CLEAR FROM OUR PUBLIC INSIDE THERE WAS A BIT OF SORT OF, NOT AGAIN, WHY DO WE NEED A RECAP WE'LL HAVE MORE TOMORROW.

I WASN'T IN THE CHAMBER WHEN THEY HAD THAT SPEECH, BUT I DO THINK THAT FOR TODAY SENATORS WERE VERY ATTENTIVE BUT REPRESENTATIVE CROW FINISHED THEY WERE READY FOR THE END OF THE NIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF WAS OR NOT.

IT WAS POWERFUL BUT AT THAT POINT SENATORS' MINDS WERE MOVING ONGOING HOME, GETTING READY FOR THE NEXT DAY.

>> Schifrin: DID NOT JUST ONLY SUMMARIZE HIS THREE FELLOW HOUSE MANAGERS POINTS HE WANTED TO MAKE THIS NEW POINT ABOUT WHY THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE REMOVED.

BUT LISA REMINDER THAT IT'S NOT ONLY US WATCHING HERE, RIGHT, AS ADAM SCHIFF HE HAS TWO AUDIENCES, ONE IS US, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WATCHING, THE OTHER IS THE SENATORS IN THE ROOM.

IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT ANY OF THOSE SENATORS ARE, ONE, LISTENING CLOSELY TO THE DEMOCRATS' ARGUMENT?

>> SCHIFF WENT TO GREAT DEAL OF TROUBLE IN THOSE REMARKS WHICH WERE EXTEMPORANEOUS TO SAY I'VE BEEN WATCHING YOU, SENATORS, I BELIEVE YOU DO HAVE OPEN MINDS.

HARD TO SAY WHAT HE SAW THERE, THEY GAVE HIM THAT IDEA.

I DO THINK YOU CAN SEE THAT SENATORS ARE LISTENING CLOSELY MOST OF THEM ARE TAKING COPIOUS NOTES.

BUT I THINK THAT WAS PART ADAM SCHIFF SEEING SOMETHING AND PART ADAM SCHIFF WILLING SOMETHING TO BE, HOPING THAT HE IS GETTING OPEN-MINDED ESPECIALLY ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE.

LIKE ANY GOOD LAWYER, HE WANTS THE JUROR TO LIKE HIM.

HE KNOWS THAT NOT EVERY REPUBLICAN DOES LIKE HIM.

I THINK THAT WAS HIM SAYING, I HAVE A POWERFUL ARGUMENT, I KNOW YOU ARE MY AUDIENCE, AS YOU POINTED OUT, NICK, I AM GOING TO SAY SOMETHING KIND ABOUT YOU AND HOPE THAT YOU HAVE OPEN MINDS TO TELL YOU.

>> Schifrin: COME BACK TO THE TABLE TALK TO OUR TWO FORMER PARTY SENATE SECRETARIES.

REPUBLICAN PARTY SECRETARY, LET ME START WITH YOU, LISA'S POINT, ADAM SCHIFF HAS AN UPHILL CLIMB AND WANTS HIS JURY, THE HUNDRED SENATORS TO LIKE HIM BUT HOW UPHILL IS THAT?

>> IT'S AN UPHILL CLIMB I'M NOT SURE IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH LIKABILITY.

BUT CAN HE GET THE FACTS ACROSS.

CAN HE GIVE THEM SOMETHING NEW.

BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT PRIVATELY OFF CAMERA AND ON CAMERA.

IT'S A LOT OF REPETITION.

YOU GET TO A SATURATION POINT.

IS HE LOSING THEM BECAUSE IT'S OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

I'M NOT SURE THEY HAVE TO NECESSARILY LIKE HIM.

THEY HAVE GOT TO BE CONVINCED THAT HE'S GIVING THEM SOMETHING NEW TO MAKE THEM RETHINK AND I'M NOT SURE HE'S DOING THAT AT THIS POINT.

IT WAS AN IMPASSIONED SPEECH.

BUT IT CALLED INTO QUESTION A LITTLE BIT HOW DANGEROUS IS THE PRESIDENT, I'M NOT SURE THAT ANY OF THESE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO THIS POINT HAVE REALLY MADE IT TO THE LEVEL OF DANGEROUS.

HE KIND OF DID TOWARDS THE END.

>> Schifrin: HE DID USE THAT WORD, DANGEROUS, ABSOLUTELY.

GIVE US A SENSE, YOU WORKED OF COURSE ON THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT SO CLOSELY GIVE SENSE WHAT THE SENATORS ARE DOING BEHIND THE SCENES, ARE THEY CONSIDERING THESE ARGUMENTS AND ARE THEY PERSUADABLE AND WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES AS THEY PREPARE FOR SOME OF THE VOTES THEY WILL HAVE TO TAKE.

>> I BELIEVE THEY ARE CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS.

I'M GOING BACK TO MAKE ARGUMENT TOO MUCH, FALLS ON DEAF YEARS.

BUT AS LISA SAID THEY'RE TAKING COPIOUS NOTES, MANY OF THEM ARE OBVIOUSLY TAKING THIS VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.

WE NOTICE THAT SOME OF THE SENATORS MOVING AROUND DIFFERENT CHAIRS JUST TO GET A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE.

THEY WANT TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY, OR THEY ARE TAKING IT SERIOUSLY.

AGAIN GOES TO A LEVEL OF HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH.

24 HOURS IS A LOT OF STUFF TO LISTEN TO.

ESPECIALLY DPAA THERE ISN'T A LOT OF NEW INFORMATION.

>> TURN TO YOU, ADAM SCHIFF IS TRYING TO TAKE -- HOW ORGANIZED DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN WITH ALL THE POWER POINT SLIDES.

IS THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE MORE YOU SAY THESE THINGS, THE MORE YOU LAYOUT THIS ARGUMENT, THE MORE, ONE, WE'RE WATCHING AND COMMENTING ON THAT.

MAYBE IT WILL BE DRILLED INTO SENATORS' MINDS?

>> WHAT THE GOAL IS.

IT'S TWOFOLD.

THEY'RE HAMSTRUNG A BIT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT -- REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST ALL THE EFFORTS AGAINST NEW DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSEDNESSES YET SAME REPUBLICANS VOTED IT DOWN I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING NEW.

I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING NEW WON'T LET THEM BRING ANYTHING NEW FORWARD.

THE OTHER PART IS, HE KNOWS IT'S AN UPHILL BATTLE AS JOHN MENTIONED.

THEY ARE 20 VOTES SHORT THAT IS GOING TO BE -- VERY UPHILL BATTLE.

BUT HE'S ALSO APPEALING, HE'S GOT NOT JUST ONE AUDIENCE OF THE JURORS, HE'S GOT THE PUBLIC.

BECAUSE YOU GOT PEOPLE TUNING IN AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY AND SO IF YOU'RE DOING SOME REPETITION, GRANTED THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING THOSE FOUR SENATORS STUCK IN THE CHAMBER ARE WATCHING EVERY MINUTE, IT'S REPETITIVE TO THEM.

BUT MAY NOT BE REPETITIVE TO SOME PEOPLE WHO SAW SOME AT LIKE 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON THEN TUNED IN AGAIN AT THAT TIME 9:00 AS WE PUT THE KIDS TO BED.

SO, IF YOU GET ENOUGH PUBLIC OUTRAGE OR IF YOU ENOUGH PUBLIC PR, REACTION, THEN HOPE IS OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD CONTACT THEIR SENATORS.

>> THAT WORD, DANGEROUS, THAT I.

>> YES.

AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS A TES BBC THIS IS A TEST FOR BBC THIS IS A TEST FOR BBC THIS IS A TEST FOR BBC.

THIS IS A TEST FOR BBC.

PARTY TS PRESIDENT MIGHT BE IN THE POCKET OF VLADIMIR PUTIN.

>> Schifrin: THERE'S ZERO EVIDENCE OF THAT.

>> ZERO EVIDENCE, WE SHOULD SAY.

BUT THERE'S A FEAR BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A FRIEND.

THAT IS NOT A FRIENDLY COUNTRY TO AMERICA.

THEY DID INTERFERE IN THE LAST ELECTION, IT'S BEEN -- BEFORE THAT THEY HACKED THE WHITE HOUSE IT'S BEEN PUBLIC NEWS.

I THINK THAT THERE IS AN 'FELT TO APPEAL TO A BROADER CROSS SECTION BY NOTING THAT THIS ISN'T JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE DETAILS ABOUT UKRAINE.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE IMPOUNDMENT ACT.

WHETHER THE NEXT ELECTION IS GOING TO BE INFLUENCED WHETHER THIS PRESIDENT WILL FIGHT THAT INFLUENCE OR WHETHER HE'LL ENCOURAGE IT.

MOST DAMNING EVIDENCE IS THAT ONE DAY AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT, THEN HE TALKS TO UKRAINE.

>> YOU ARE CONTRASTING THAT TO SOME OF THE DETAILS THAT -- THAT DURING CLINTON IMPEACHMENT THERE WAS A TENDENCY TO GET INTO SOME MY NEW HAMPSHIRE A AND -- RUSSIA BEING PART OF IT, ELECTIONS, QUOTE, DANGEROUS.

>> PATRIOTISM.

COURAGE.

I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE IN MY LIFE AT VARIOUS HEARINGS.

THIS HAPPENED IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT IN MY UNDERSTANDING, IT ALSO HAPPENED IN ANDREW JOHNSON IF YOU READ, THERE IS A LOT OF LEGALISMS AND I'M A PLAYER I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT PRESENTATION DID NOT EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHY THE PRESIDENT HAD TO BE REMOVED NOW.

AS OPPOSED TO THE NEXT ELECTION.

WE'RE NOT TOO FAR OUT FROM THE ELECTION.

THE QUESTION AT THE END SCHIFF WAS POSING WAS, CAN WE TRUST THE NEXT ELECTION.

CAN WE TRUST THIS GUY.

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE NEXT ELECTION FRAUGHT WITH INTERFERENCE.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY AS FAR AS ARGUMENT THAT OVERTURNING THE 2016 ELECTION IF HE'S REMOVED, PENCE BECOMES PRESIDENT.

HE WAS ELECTED IN 2016.

DOESN'T ELIMINATE THE 2016 ELECTION.

>> Schifrin: LET ME TURN TO YOU, COUPLE OF POINTS, STAYING MACRO VERSUS SOME OF THE MIN NEW HAMPSHIRE SHA IS THAT A VALID STATEMENT THAT YOU SEE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO DO THIS AND SUCCESSFULLY DOING THAT?

>> NO.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK MACRO.

AND I WAS LOOKING FOR A MEMBER WHO I THINK VERY WISELY EVEN THOUGH ENDED UP -- HE CHALLENGED HIS OWN LEADERSHIP SAID, LOOK, WE HAVE AN AGENDA GOING INTO THE 1998 MID TERM ELECTIONS OTHER THAN IMPEACHING BILL CLINTON.

WELL, REPUBLICANS -- BILL CLINTON ENDED UP BEING MORE POPULAR IN PART BECAUSE PUBLIC FELT LIKE HE WAS VICTIMIZED BY IMPEACHMENT.

THERE ARE VERY IMPORTANT FACTUAL DIFFERENCES, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BETWEEN THE TWO CASES, VERY DIFFERENT CASES.

BUT WHAT PRECEDED BOTH WAS A MOVEMENT WITH ONE POLITICAL PARTY TO VIEW PRESIDENT AS ILLEGITIMATE.

IN THE '90s, REPUBLICANS WERE SHOCKED THAT BILL CLINTON, THIS SOUTHERN GOVERNMENT WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.

HOW DARE HE DERAIL THE REAGAN-BUSH ERA.

AND IT'S HARD TO PUT OURSELVES BACK IN THAT MOMENT BUT THERE REALLY WAS A MOVEMENT TO GET BILL CLINTON.

AND THAT WAS A VERY DESTRUCTIVE MOVEMENT THAT REPUBLICANS.

THERE WAS ENORMOUS OPPORTUNITY.

I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TODAY.

>> QUICKLY TAKE US INTO TODAY, YOU CONSULT WITH POLITICAL REPUBLICANS, POLITICIANS, HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT WATCHING THIS AND THEN -- BENEFIT FROM IT?

>> THERE'S TWO REALLY IMPORTANT POINTS.

NUMBER ONE IS THAT IT IS NOT A FRONT RUNNER ISSUE.

WHEN YOU THINK OF THE FACT THAT THE CANDIDATES I TALK TO, THEY -- PEOPLE ARE ASKING ABOUT HEALTH CARE.

THEY ARE NOT ASKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AND WHAT THAT SHOWS IS THAT THE HOUSE HAS DIMINISHED THE PEOPLE TOOL, IT'S BECOME WHAT PRESIDENT SCHUMER WARNED ABOUT, LET'S NOT USE THIS AS ROUTINE POLITICAL WEAPON.

THAT'S NOT LOWER THE BAR AND NOW THAT SCHUMER IS LEADING THIS, HE'S IGNORING HIS OWN ADVICE HE GAVE REPUBLICANS 20 YEARS AGO.

THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR BACKLASH WHERE VOTERS FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN MARGINALIZED, HOW DARE YOU TELL US THAT THE PERSON WE ELECTED PRESIDENT CANNOT CONTINUE.

AGAIN THE BAR HAS TO BE SET VERY, VERY HIGH FOR IMPEACHMENT OTHERWISE PARTIES PROSECUTING IT BASICALLY HAVE A RISK OF BACKLASH WHICH REPUBLICANS -- >> Schifrin: WE'VE ONLY GOT COUPLE MORE MINUTES,LY SPA, LET ME COME BACK TO YOU.

FEARS OF BACKLASH WE TALKED ABOUT THIS HOW DO DEMOCRATS RESPOND SOME.

>> I TELL YOU SOMETHING THAT I OBSERVED IN THE LAST 24 HOURS THAT WAS NEW.

DEMOCRATS WANT TO BE IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA.

THEY WANT TO BE ON MICROPHONE.

MYSELF AND OUR PRODUCERS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIELD AN AVALANCHE OF REQUESTS FROM DEMOCRATS TO COME SPEAK AS PART OF THIS SPECIAL PROGRAM.

AND IT'S CLEAR THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO EMBRACE THE PRESS AND GET IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE IN WAY DON'T SEE AS MUCH FROM REPUBLICANS.

REPUBLICANS WERE KIND OF -- WE HAVE TO WORK HARDER TO MAKE OUR CASE TO THEM TO COME SPEAK TO US.

I THINK THERE'S A REAL MESSAGING STRATEGY FOR DEMOCRATS, EVEN MODERATE DEMOCRATS LIKE JOHN TESTER WHO ARE GETTING IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE ON THIS.

ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO STRESS ABOUT OBSERVING TODAY, I GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON TWITTER, THERE WERE MANY MOMENTS WHEN THERE WAS UP TO A QUARTER OF THE SENATE OUT OF THE CHAMBER, MANY OF OUR VIEWERS OF COURSE THEY READ THE RULES, THEY KNOW THAT SENATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE STAY IN THE CHAMBER, HOW IS IT THAT THEY'RE LEAVING.

TRUTH IS JOHN ROB CERTIFICATES LOOKING THE OTHER WAY IN DULLING THE SENATORS BECAUSE I THINK HE REALIZES THE SITUATION THAT THEY ARE BEING SORT OF ATTESTED, THEIR ATTENTION SPANS ARE LIMITED AS WOULD ANYONE BE.

BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THERE ARE TWO SENATORS WHO I HAVE NOT SEEN LEAVE, I HAVE NOT SEEN STAND UP, I HAVE NOT SEEN FIDGET, SENATOR SUES ON COLLINS OF MAINE, SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI OF ALASKA SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER HAVE SORT OF FREAKISH ATTENTION ABILITY THEY ARE HONED IN, I HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM LEAVE THEIR DESKS DURING ALL OF THESE DAYS OF THE TRIAL.

>> THEY ARE TWO OF THE SWING REPUBLICANS WHO COULD VOTE.

QUICKLY, YAMICHE ONLY A LITTLE WHAT WILL BEMENT PRESIDENT'S MESSAGING.

>> AGGRESSIVELY DEFEND THE PRESIDENT AND SAY THAT DEMOCRATS ARE BEING HYPOCRITICAL GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT NANCY PELOSI HELD THESE ARTICLES OF PEOPLE BEFORE GIVING THEM TO THE SENATE THAT IN OF ITSELF SHOWS THAT THIS NOT URGENT INSTEAD THIS IS PARTISAN ATTACK WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE PRESIDENT GIVING SPEECHES TRYING TO ALSO LOOK VERY BUSY, GOING TO FOCUS ON OTHER THINGS INCLUDING TRADE.

WE DO KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT IS VERY HONED IN, RETWEETING ALL THE TIME, ON 6:00 P.M. SHOW RETWEETED UP AT "NEWSHOUR," RETWEETED OTHER REPORTERS EVEN AS PRESIDENT LOOKS BUSY HE'S ENTIRELY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A BIG PART OF HIS LEGACY NOW.

>> WE HAVE 45 SECONDS LEFT.

ONE THING WE HAVEN'T BROUGHT UP IS JOE BIDEN, DEMOCRATS FOCUS ON JOE BIDEN EARLIER TODAY FROM THE PRESIDENT'S POINT OF VIEW HE HAS BROUGHT UP INCLUDING WITH UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY NOT ONLY JOE BIDEN BUT HUNT SIR ON THE BOARD OF U CRANIAN ENERGY COMPANY WILL BE THERE FOCUS WHETHER THE FOCUS OR PUSH TO TALK MORE ABOUT HUNTER AND JOE BIDEN GOING FORWARD?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THERE'S GOING TO BE DEFINITELY PUSH TO TALK ABOUT HUNTER.

RUDY GUILIANI TODAY TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THIS WAS ALL UNFAIR THAT HE UNCOVERED WHAT HE SAID WAS FAMILY MAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER THEIR NAME.

AND HE THINKS THAT WAS CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE TALKING ABOUT THE BIDENS.

THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME SORT OF FOCUS ON THE BIDENS AND IDEA IS PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL MAKE CASE THAT HE WAS LOOKING INTO CORRUPTION THAT IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT JOE BIDEN AND HIS SON WERE THE PEOPLE THAT HE WAS LOOKING INTO.

THIS WAS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL OPPONENTS OR THE 2020 ELECTION WHICH OF COURSE DEMOCRATS VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH.

>> Schifrin: AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

LISA DESJARDINS AT THE CAPITOL HILL THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF YOU FOR EVERYONE HERE ON THE TABLE, THAT CONCLUDES OUR COVERAGE OF DAY THREE OF THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP WE'LL BE BACK TOMORROW AT 1:00 P.M. FOR NEXT PORTION OF THE DEMOCRATS ARGUMENTS FOR CONVICTING THE PRESIDENT ON IMPEACHMENT CHARGES.

I WANT TO THANK THE TEAM THAT'S BEEN WITH US TONIGHT, LISA ON THE CAPITAL AGAIN, YAMICHEAL IS IN DOOR AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND OUR EXPERTS HERE AT THE TABLE WITH ME, JOHN HART, MARTIN AND VICTORIA.

IF YOU MISSED ANY PORTION OF TODAY'S HEARING WANT TO CATCH UP, YOU CAN SEE IT ALL GAVEL TO GAVEL ON OUR WEBSITE, PBS PBS.ORG/NEWSHOUR OR YOUTUBE PAGES.

SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT ON THE PBS "NEWSHOUR" FOR ALL OF US, THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT.